Covenant Children and Church Discipline

THE promises made in the Old Testament concerning the new covenant with regards to children of believers are plentiful. For example:

“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.”-Isaiah 59:21

A verse like this is entirely consistent with passages in the New Testament:, i.e. Peter's sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2, Lydia's household being baptized, and Philippian jailer's household being baptized.

It's very important we understand the Bible as it was written within an historical context where people understood the concept of federal/covenant headship as it relates to head of households. An example of this kind of error happening would be someone in our day reading the passage about Abraham being called out from Ur in the book of Genesis and assume it was just he and Sarah who made that long journey. Not so. We're told Abraham brought along an entourage of over 300! They were all, in one sense (objectively) a part of Abraham's family of which he was the head, (so much for an ethically pure bloodline of Hebrews!). So, all the men, including the servants, would have been circumcised.

Just as there are two ways to be a part of Israel, (Rom. 9:6) there are two ways to be a "Christian," i.e. outward/visible member of a local church, and inwardly/invisibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In a perfect world we would know who all the regenerate are. Sadly, we do not. Jesus told us there are tares amongst the wheat. The church, generally speaking is a wheat field, not a tare field. Therefore, we ought to treat those within the church, including the children the Lord gives us as if they are wheat. This is why church discipline is so very important.

The Law is Good News!

Most Evangelicals agree; Scripture teaches we are justified by grace, through faith in Christ alone. So what about after one believes the Gospel? No doubt, we want to keep believing what God did for us 2000 years ago in the person and work of Christ, and on this basis we are justified: past, present and future. But does one have to be obedient to the law in order to keep being saved? Is sanctification now up to us? How do we explain Christians who leave the faith?

Keeping the law, although not the basis of our justification, is not an option for Christians. We're justified by faith alone, yes. However the kind of faith that saves is also the kind of faith that loves God's law. The law itself is good news, the Gospel is law (it must be believed!).

God's law tells us how to be happy as God's people. Away with such sharp extra-biblical distinctions of Law & Gospel so prevalent amongst some Evangelicals today! God is kind to His people and gives them everything necessary to keep and maintain healthy relationship; that goes not only for our relationship with Him, but with one another as well. The giving of the law is gracious. God expects His covenant people to be obedient because He knows what is best for them. He saved His people from under the brutal yoke of Pharaoh and then gave them His law! He expected them to obey it and judged them when they did not! God's yoke is easy and His burden is light.

So no, I don't support works-righteousness in order to stay saved, I only agree with the Bible when it says "apostasy happens." How else to you explain passages such as Hebrew 6:4-8?

Infant Baptism: A Fruit of the Gospel

A distinction must be made between defining what the Gospel "is," vs. the "fruit" of the Gospel.

The Gospel is the proclamation of the historical fact that the second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh, (born of a virgin) approx. 2000 years ago. He lived a sinless life, was crucified at the hands of evil men and died a substitutionary death for the sins of His people. He was raised on the third day, ascended to the right hand of the His Father where he rules and reigns as both King of kings, and Lord of lords. This is the good news! Christ is the risen Lord! And it has happened outside of myself.

The fruit of the Gospel pertains to things like believing it and being sanctified by it. The fruit of the Gospel and the Gospel are very much related to one another, yet they are NOT the same thing.

Let's take the covenant sign of baptism as an example of a fruit of the Gospel. Parents have the responsibility and joy of having their children baptized into the triune name of God because Christ has come. Some believe the covenant practice of paedobaptism, or "infant-baptism" distorts the Gospel and gives parents false assurance of a child's regeneration. But is that true? Does the Reformed teaching of baptism give parents confidence that their children will grow up to be believers in Jesus? Yes and no.

It is helpful to understand the difference between the Historic, or "visible" church vs. the Eschatological or "invisible" church. Paedobaptism is the covenant sign that children of believers are part of the Historical Church. Just because a child has received the covenant sign and seal of baptism does not guarantee the will grow up and believe the Gospel. However, a parent can have good reason to hope if they are faithful parents, their children will grow up to possess saving faith. So receiving the sign of the covenant, (think Historical Church) and being regenerate, (think Eschatological Church) is not the same thing.

Wouldn't it be easier if we only knew who the regenerate were? But we do not and God has a good reason for it. Every denomination has both"wheat and the tares." Spurgeon said if he knew God had put a yellow stripe up the back of all the elect, he would go around lifting coat-tails. That's not the case, so rather, he shared the Gospel with everyone! The Bible tells us in very plain language, there are tares amongst the wheat.

God had no problem giving the covenant sign of circumcision to infants in the Old Covenant. It did not guarantee they would be one of the regenerate. But it did mark them out as a child of the covenant, (notice I did not say it automaticlally regenerated them).

So why do some struggle with the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism? Partly because they believe it gives parents unfounded confidence in their child's salvation. The Reformed doctrine of Baptism does not teach that water baptism alone saves our children. That is a false teaching and would contradict the message of the Cross and the cardinal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation: Justification by Faith Alone. It is important to know the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches "the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time wherein it is administered."

When it comes to the idea of covenant, God always deals with families. Just as Noah entered the ark with his family, the Israelites went into the Promised Land together as families and as God's covenant people. Peter only repeated that pattern in Acts 2 when he said, "this promise is for you and your children.."

But why do we see mostly adults getting baptized in the New Testament? As the Old Covenant gave way to the new there was a great influx of Gentiles (ie. Ethiopian eunuch, Philippian Jailer, Lydia, etc.) into the commonwealth of Israel.

I conclude with this: For all practical purposes, if you are teaching your children to call on God "as Father" prior to knowing whether they are regenerate or not, you are in principle doing the same thing as infant baptism. If you are reading to them from the Bible before they can understand English you are in a sense doing the same thing as infant baptism.

So, baptizing our children, partaking of the Lord's Supper, teaching our children to pray to God as Father, even believing the Gospel are all fruits of the Gospel, but they are not the Gospel. The person and work of Christ is the Gospel.