WHAT ABOUT MY CHILDREN?

A Calvinistic Baptist is heard saying: “I believe in sovereign predestination.Therefore I do not want my child to be baptised, since I don’t know if he is areprobate!” An Arminian Pedobaptist rejoins: “If the doctrine of election istrue, I can only have fifty percent assurance that my children will be savedregardless of what I do. Therefore I do not believe in the doctrine ofelection!” A Romish sacramentalist adds: “It does not really matter whether mychild is elect or not since God’s election is secret (suppose God does elect),but I want him to be baptised because I want him to go to heaven if he were todie before he professes faith!”

I am not sure if you identify with any of these three positions. But I wouldpropose to you that they all arise out of a faulty view of God’s covenant inrelation to children of believers. I believe a proper view of the covenant notonly ties in very beautifully with the doctrine of sovereign grace, but directsour lives along a biblical balance that is honouring to Christ our King.

In this short introductory study, we will obviously not be able to cover everyground and answer every objection. However, it is hoped that those who hold tothose fallacious positions will be made to rethink their objections tosovereign grace and covenant theology. At the same time, it is hoped that thosewho are already seeking to build up covenant homes will be strengthened intheir resolve, or admonished in regards to their complacency.

Covenant Children
in the Old Testament

Few, if any of us, reading the Old Testament objectively, will fail to see thefact that God relates to His people covenantally. Moreover, although thereappears to be numerous covenants mentioned in the Old Testament, it is notdifficult to see that these are all administrations or manifestations of thesame redemptive covenant which may be known as “the everlasting covenant”(Hebrews 13:20; see “Unity of the Divine Covenants” in PCC Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 25, dated 17 Dec2000). Furthermore, few, if any of us, who knows anything of the Old Testament,will not believe that the children of the Jews had a special place in God’sredemptive plan. Again, few, if any, who have read the Old Testamentobjectively, will fail to see that the relationship that God has with thechildren of believers (or, if you prefer, Jews) was also a covenantalrelationship.

God told Abraham:

And I will establish my covenantbetween me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for aneverlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.…This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed afterthee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised (Gen 17:7, 10; emphasismine).

It is clear that God is here promising to be a God to Abraham and his children.That is, the promise is not merely about the land of Canaan(Gen 15:18–21; 17:8), but about a relationship with God. What relationshipcould the Jews have with God? The writer of Hebrews, under inspiration, teachesus: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8), andthe Lord Himself testifies: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comethunto the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). Unless we do not believe these twostatements as being perpetual truths, we shall have to say that therelationship with God that the Jews were promised must have been in Christ!

That being the case, we know that circumcision, which is a token of thecovenant (Gen 17:11), is not merely a sign that the circumcised will inheritthe promised land, but that he will inherit eternal life. Circumcision is anoutward sign pointing to heart circumcision which is wrought by God. Mosesconfirms this doctrine when he says:

And the LORD thy God will bring theeinto the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and hewill do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And the LORDthy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love theLORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live(Deut 30:5–6; emphasis mine).

The land, in other words, is not the essence of the promise. Indeed, the landis but a shadowy type to instruct the Jews of old, of the reality of thespiritual inheritance that God is promising.

In the New Testament, Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, filled with theHoly Ghost, testified that the Messiah who would be born, was coming in fulfilmentof the covenant which God made with Abraham:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel;for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn ofsalvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth ofhis holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should besaved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform themercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oathwhich he sware to our father Abraham, That he would grant unto us, that webeing delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, Inholiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life (Lk 1:68–75).

Notice how he makes no reference to the land and also assumes that the promiseof redemption from the enemies’ hand (cf. Gen 15:13–14) is still to befulfilled? This is clearly indicative that the Egyptian captivity and thephysical land are but types pointing to spiritual realities. The writer ofHebrews confirms this doctrine by stating plainly that Abraham and his faithfulchildren were not desirous of an earthly plot of land, but “they desire[d] abetter country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be calledtheir God: for he hath prepared for them a city” (Heb 11:16; cf. vv. 9–10,13–15). The Apostle Paul, moreover, confirms this doctrine by telling us thatcircumcision is “a seal of the righteousness of [i.e., which is by] the faithwhich [Abraham] had” (Rom 4:11). God’s promise to the Jews and their seed, inother words, is not so much the land (which served as a type), but“righteousness” or heart circumcision. This was what outward circumcisionpoints to. And what is heart circumcision, but regeneration, and indwelling ofthe Holy Spirit and union with Christ.

That settled, we see that elsewhere in the Old Testament, the promise ofeternal life according to the covenant is repeated in various forms. At therisk of proving that which is obvious, let me quote some of these verses:

• “Knowtherefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepethcovenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to athousand generations” (Deut 7:9).

• “Beye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousandgenerations” (1 Chr 16:15).

• “Thecounsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to allgenerations [Heb.: to generation and generation]” (Ps 33:11).

• “Sowe thy people and sheep of thy pasture will give thee thanks for ever: we willshew forth thy praise to all generations [Heb.: to generation and generation]”(Ps 79:13).

• “Forthe LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth [i.e., faithfulness]endureth to all generations [Heb.: to generation and generation]” (Ps 100:5).

• “Butthe mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fearhim, and his righteousness unto children’s children; To such as keep hiscovenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them” (Ps103:17–18).

• “Hehath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to athousand generations” (Ps 105:8).

• “Asfor me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is uponthee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thymouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’sseed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever” (Isa 59:21).

• “Forthe moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them likewool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generationto generation” (Isa 51:8).

From these and many other verses, I believe it is impossible not to see thatGod has promised to be a God unto the Old Testament believer and his seed. Buthow do we reconcile the fact that many of the Jews died in unbelief? TheApostle Paul has an answer:

Not as though the word of God hathtaken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither,because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaacshall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh,these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are countedfor the seed (Rom 9:6–8).

That is to say: Though God’s covenant promise extends down the generations, itdoes not mean that every soul in any particular generation will be saved. Wecan assume that in every generation, there will be “children of the promise,”but it is not necessary that all the children of the flesh are children of thepromise. God does not promise: I will save all your children.He promises, I will save your children. This can mean some or all, but it needsnot mean all.

Why then were all the believers’ children (the males) to be circumcised?Because God has promised to be a God not only to the Jew but to his children aswell. The family, as an organic whole, therefore may be regarded as a Jewishfamily or God’s family though it is possible that there may be Esau’s andIshmael’s within.

God’s dealing with believers and their seed in the Old Testament can hardlyadmit any dispute. But that is in the Old Testament. What about the NewTestament?

Covenant Children
under the New Testament

We can be sure that God still relates to His people by way of the covenant, forthe writer of Hebrews, in his benediction, says:

Now the God of peace, that broughtagain from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, throughthe blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work todo his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, throughJesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (Heb 13:20–21).

But God’s covenant under the Old Testament embraces the children of believerstoo. Is this still true today? Did not the Apostle Paul says:

Now to Abraham and his seed were thepromises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And tothy seed, which is Christ.… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:16, 29).

Does this not mean that under the New Testament, only adult believers are to beregarded as the children of Abraham? Is not the Apostle telling us that theseed of Abraham is really only a type of Christ? Is he not saying that sinceChrist has come, we must no more read “seed” as referring to descendants, butto such as are vitally united to Christ? Does this not mean that the Abrahamiccovenant is relevant to the believer individually only and not to his children,since the word “seed” is no longer to be regarded as plural but only singular?

I am afraid not. The fact is that it is quite unreasonable to think of theApostle Paul assigning a new interpretation to the word “seed.” He does notsay: “We are no more to think of ‘seed’ as referring to descendants.” TheHebrew word “seed” (zera; and Greek sperma), when used inthe present context, has always have a plural as well as a singular aspect. Itis, we may say a singular only as a collective-singular (a rough equivalentbeing the English word “people”). Paul is saying that this singular aspectpoints to Christ. The fact is: the word “seed,” in the context of the Abrahamiccovenant, has always have a singular reference to Christ and acollective-singular reference to all who are united to Christ.

What about its plural meaning of “descendants,” which is the reason why all thephysical descendants of Abraham were circumcised (Gen 17:10)? Did Pauleradicate this meaning? No, we have no indication that he is doing so at all.As we mentioned earlier, only the elect amongst the children of the flesh arechildren of the promise. Circumcision was intended as a seal of righteousnessfor the children of the promise, but reprobate children, by virtue of theirorganic unity with their parents, were also circumcised. This is why Paulasserts:

For he is not a Jew, which is oneoutwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But heis a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in thespirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom2:28–29).

Let me put it this way: the Apostle Paul is highlighting the importance ofpersonal union with Christ: Only such as are in Christ are the true seed ofAbraham. But there is no reason to think that he is giving a new interpretationto the Abrahamic covenant so that it has no relevance to the children ofbelievers.

Our Baptist brethren do not at all have a case from Galatians 3:16 or 29 to saythat the Apostle Paul abrogated the reference to the children of believers inthe Abrahamic covenant!

With this Baptist blind spot eradicated, or at least weakened (for those whostill do not see), let us now consider how the New Testament actually affirmsour assertion that our children are included under God’s covenant promise.

First, a relatively minor point: Consider how the Apostle Paul teaches us tosing psalms (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; whatever we may think “songs” and “hymns”are). How can we sing those psalms (some of which are given above) that speakof God keeping His covenant through the generations if it is no longer true?

Secondly, consider how Mary, the earthly mother of the Lord Jesus, rejoicesthat the blessing of the covenant, which God made with Abraham and his seed,endures from generation to generation:

And his mercy is on them that fearhim from generation to generation.… As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, andto his seed for ever (Lk 1:50, 55).

Are we to believe that what was still true then would be destroyed with thecoming of the Messiah?

Thirdly, consider the words of the Apostle Peter, said to the crowd gathered atPentecost: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children…” (Acts 2:39a).Our Baptist brethren are quick to point out that Peter also says: “… and to allthat are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39).But this is missing the point altogether. Why did Peter mention “and to yourchildren” at all? And how would the Jewish hearers have heard Peter? Surely,they would have heard him reiterating the promise of the Abrahamic covenant:“And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after theein their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and tothy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). What about the reference to all who are afaroff? Did not God’s promise to Abraham include blessing upon “all families ofthe earth” (Gen 12:3)? This, of course, cannot refer to every single familyupon the earth, but every family of “strangers from the covenants of promise”(Eph 2:12), which the Lord shall call. Do you notice the reference to familiesand not just to individuals?

Our Baptist brethren again object: But the promise which Peter made is apromise of the Holy Ghost, it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant.Well, as we have already shown: the promise of the Abrahamic covenant is inessence a promise of the Holy Spirit. But to make it even clearer, consider thewords of Paul:

Christ hath redeemed us from thecurse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come onthe Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of theSpirit through faith (Gal 3:13–14; emphasis mine).

Our unconvinced brethren persist: But does not this very verse, which requiresthe reception of the promise of the Spirit “through faith” invalidate yourinsistence that the children of believers have a special place in the covenant?Well, our insistence is not ours, but the insistence of the Holy Spirit, for Hetells us through Genesis 17 that children are included, and He confirms throughPeter that children are included.

Fourthly, if the proofs given so far are still not sufficient, consider how theNew Testament speaks of household salvation (which is basically what the “andto thy seed” aspect of the covenant is about). Consider the words of the LordJesus concerning Zacchaeus: “This day is salvation come to this house,forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham” (Lk 19:9). Consider how it is said thatLydia believed, but she and her household were baptised (Acts 16:14–15).Consider how Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer when he asked: “Whatmust I do to be saved?”—“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt besaved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). Consider how Paul baptised the household ofStephanas (1 Cor 1:16). Our Baptist brethren object that these are all notconclusive that God’s covenant extends to the families. Well, if these areisolated historical records, which cannot be verified by comparing Scripturewith Scripture, then we will accede that they are not conclusive. Otherwise toclaim that they are not conclusive would be equivalent to a tourist standingbefore the Merlion and the statue of Raffles, refusing to believe he is in Singaporejust because he does not see any sign saying: “Welcome to Singapore.”

But, fifthly, to drive our point further, consider how Dr. Luke, the historian,tells us that some days after Pentecost “many of them which heard the wordbelieved; and the number of the men was about five thousand”(Acts 4:4; emphasis mine). The word “men” translates the Greek anêr,which literally means “man” or “husband,” and is never used in such a contextas Acts 4:4, except to refer to “male adults,” or “man… in contrast to woman”(see BAGD, s.v. “anêr”). Surely our Baptist brethren willnot insist that there were indeed only males added to the church! How thenshould we see Luke’s word, but that he is speaking about families being addedinto the church?

To confirm our thesis, we note that Dr. Luke uses the same word with precisionin Luke 9:14 in the context of the feeding of the five thousand: “For they wereabout five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down byfifties in a company.” Were there only men present? Luke assumes that when heuses the word anêr, he could not possibly be saying that only maleadults were present. Matthew fills in the missing details: “And they that hadeaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children” (Mt14:21; emphasis mine). Dr. Luke, we have no doubt, was counting families asrepresented by the heads of households in both accounts.

This fact stands in contrast with his reference that three thousand “souls”(Greek: psuchê) were baptised and added into the church atPentecost itself (Acts 2:41). Do we not have good reason to believe that these3,000 souls included women and children, whereas in the second survey (Acts4:4) only the men (anêr) were counted? Why does the inspired Scriptureaccount for the new additions into the church in this manner? Surely ourBaptist brethren will not say it is merely cultural, or charge Dr. Luke asbeing a sexist? The fact is that this, and all the other evidences we have laidout, point out uncontrovertibly that God does view His church in the NewTestament in terms of families. His covenant with believers is not only withthem but also with their seed.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We have show conclusively, I believe, that God’s promise of salvation is untous and to our children. This is the reason why we baptise our children andinclude them into the church with all its privileges (including worship,instruction, church discipline and, when they are capable of self-examination,the Lord’s Supper) and bring them up as Christians, or covenant children, justas the Old Testament saints circumcised their infants and included them intothe covenant community. We can do no other. In the Old Covenant, theuncircumcised child is excluded from the covenant (Gen 17:14). This neglect wasregarded to be so serious in the case of Moses, that God sought to slay him (orhis son) for his neglect (Ex 4:24). Under the New Covenant, God does notgenerally break out in wrath in quite the same way. But do we dare,presumptuously, to disbelieve His promise when there is such a weight ofscriptural testimony upon it? Should the fact that God does sovereignly electwhom He will cause us to doubt His promise? Or do we believe His promise, butdare not do what is right for the fear of offending God by baptising areprobate? Oh, how that speaks of our unbelief and our thinking ourselves to bewiser than God!

Yes, it is true that it is possible that ultimately one or more of our childrenmay be reprobate. But in the first place do we believe God’s promise? Should wenot believe as He has said that He would be a God to every of our childrenunless He should ultimately indicate otherwise? In the second place, do we notrealise that we are never to act according to God’s secret decree, butaccording to His revealed will? His revealed will is that we are to include ourchildren as members of the church and train them up as covenant children,believing that God is able to regenerate them early in their lives. In thethird place, do we not realise that although God sovereignly predestinates, Hehas placed the responsibility of bringing up our children upon our hands? TheLord says of Abraham:

For I know him, that he will commandhis children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of theLORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham thatwhich he hath spoken of him (Gen 18:19).

The scriptural instruction is clear. Though God sovereignly elects and thoughHe has promised to be a God to our children, parental upbringing is the chiefinstrument to fulfilling the promise. In so saying, we are also asserting that,in general, some form of parental neglect is imputable in most, if not all,cases where the children grow up in unbelief. This is a hard saying, as manyparents who have unbelieving grown-up children may perceived that they had donetheir best, or that they had neglected their children due to ignorance. But thefact remains that God held Eli responsible for the apostasy of Hophni andPhinehas (1 Sam 2:29–30). The fact also remains that David’s failure as afather had direct consequences, such as in the incestuous assault of Amnon (2Samuel 13, note how the account immediately follows the record of David’sadultery); the rebellion of Absalom (see 2 Samuel 13:21ff); and the uprising ofAdonijah (1 Kgs 1:5–6). The same may be said of Hezekiah whose apparentlycallous attitude towards his children (cf. 2 Kgs 20:19) was very probably themain cause of Manasseh’s wicked apostasy (though his later conversion speaks ofGod’s sovereign covenant grace, despite Hezekiah’s failures).

What about in the New Testament? Is not the Apostle Paul essentially assertingparental responsibility in the conversion of children when he intimates thatelders must have “faithful children” (Tit 1:6)? If parents cannot in any way beheld responsible for the faith of their children, how could Paul use it as aqualification for elders? Experience teaches us that there are often mitigatingcircumstances that require a church to judge on a case by case basis whether anexisting elder whose children turn apostate should be held responsible andasked to relinquish his eldership. However, the fact remains that the Scriptureplaces a strong emphasis upon parents for the spiritual upbringing of theirchildren. Concerning our duties, Solomon says: “Train up a child in the way heshould go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6). Thiscounsel must not be taken too lightly. No one who neglects his covenantresponsibility to bring up his children according to God’s Word can expect hischildren to grow up to be believers.

Conclusion

Is there anyone thinking that he can presume that God will save his childreneven though he disbelieves God’s promise that He will be a God to his children?Is there anyone thinking that if God has promised to save our children, he cansafely take a backseat and simply pray for their conversion? Is there anyone ofus thinking that it is never too late to start training his children, and so hecan delay to do so? Is there anyone of us treating our children like reprobateswhen God requires us to bring them up as His children? Is there anyone of ussetting such high standards upon our children, and such low esteem for God’spromise, that he refuses to believe that God has begun a work of grace in theirhearts? Is there anyone of us thinking that baptism ensures salvation andtherefore neglecting to call his children to faith and repentance? I beseechyou, in the light of the Scriptures, perish these false notions, and think anddo aright!

May the Lord grant us, that a right theology will renew our minds and transformour lives by causing us both to enjoy the comfort and assurance of God’scovenant blessing; as well as to lovingly build up our covenant homes accordingto our covenant responsibilities, to the praise and glory of Christ ourcovenant Lord. Amen.