is it fair?

Since little children lack the mental capacity to come to God, is it fair that we keep them outside of the covenant of God?  After all, they cannot choose one way or the other, so why should we keep them outside of the covenant community? 

Most people would agree that when infants die, they go to heaven.  Why do we believe this?  Well, for one thing there are several passages of Scripture that seems to suggest that the kingdom and its blessings are open up to the infant (See Luke 18: 16).  I won’t go into the verses that seem to suggest this, but I want to focus more on the other reason why we think this.  First, it is just plain ole logic that would suggest that God would not send an infant to hell because they haven’t done anything good or bad yet (despite the fact, however, that they are still infected by Adam’s sin).  God is just, and part of His justice would demand that children who lack the capacity to choose him would not have to own up to the fact that they did not choose him.  I hope this makes sense. 

So, it seems to me that if we Protestants want to stay consistent, then why don’t we recognize the fact that little children (infants) are part of the covenant community of Christ?  If the kingdom truly belongs to “such as these,” then we need to take note. 

My point is to say that just like it doesn’t seem fair for God to keep an infant out of heaven because they lack the mental capacity to choose Him, then it should also seem unfair for us to not recognize them as covenantal members for the same reason.  After all, children cannot choose one way or the other to be either inside or outside of the covenant.  So, why do we Baptists automatically default them to being “outside” of the covenant?  Is this really fair to the infant? 

It seems like it would not be fair. 

I have to admit, I am leaning “dangerously” close to the covenantal worldview.  I say “dangerously” because this is a total reverse of my carefully-ingrafted dispensational days (thanks, Tim Lahaye). 

I don’t want to sound as if I am ready to renounce or recant my Baptist heritage.  I am very proud of it.  I have learned the vastness of the glory of God by one of my Baptist heroes, John Piper.  I am thankful for my Calvnistic upbringing (thanks, Billy and Scott!).  I have learned the majesty of the great God of the universe in the Baptist church.  My family currently worships at a God-centered, God-exalting Baptist church.  (There’s no place like home!)

Yet, despite all of these great things that come from my Baptist heritage, I can’t help but ask, “What if we are wrong on this one thing?”  Of course, infant baptism is the very thing that distinguishes us as Baptists. 

Part of me wants to embrace infant baptism, and yet there is a part of me that does not.  What to do!

Wherever I shall choose to hang my hat, I embrace the words of George Offor, the editor of Bunyan’s works:

“May the time soon arrive when water shall not quench love, but when all the churches militant shall form one army, with one object,–that of extending the Redeemer’s kingdom.”

This is not an issue to divide over.  For me and my family, this isn’t even an issue to change churches over.  May we all be unified in the knowledge of the great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, forever and ever.

Amen and soli Deo gloria.

Matthew Halsted

 

Credobaptism vs. Paedobaptism (part one)

Hello, all!  Okay, as my research continues, I am finding myself more confused.  Heck, I don’t know what to believe.  But, that will soon change!  I am trusting in the Lord to light up my path and make my ways straight. 

Someone has suggested that I do a side-by-side debate of infant baptism and believer’s baptism.  So, that is what I am going to do.  The best argument for believer’s baptism is given by John Piper.  You can find his argument here.  I will do my best to respond to it from all that I have learned about infant baptism.  

I find Piper’s argument to be quite convincing.  In fact, he is swaying back to the Baptist camp.  However, I am still not quite convinced all the way yet.  I will be posting more as I try to search the Scriptures for the answers. 

soli Deo gloria, everyone! 

Everything to Lose

Okay, I guess I need to say a few things before confusion abounds.  As some of you know, I am really struggling with the idea of infant baptism.  Yet, I don’t want any of you all thinking that I have made up my mind.  I know that from reading some of my posts, some of you will think that I have.  This is not true.  The truth of the matter is that while I am leaning towards paedobatpism, I have not made up my mind.  I simply do not know what the truth is concerning this subject. 

Also, even if I were to embrace infant baptism, I would not leave the Baptist church (that is, if they would still have me).  Fortunately, though, I do go to a grace-filled, Bible-saturated church.  My church family has laughed with me, cried with me, and cared for me in the darkest hours of my soul’s life.  I would never imagine leaving them.  Furthermore, I don’t see how this topic could be turned into an essential issue for the life of the Christian.  While it is important, it is not essential to the faith.  There is room for disagreement and, of course, always room for grace. 

With that said, I want to note that I have nothing to gain from embracing infant baptism.  Rather, I have everything to lose.  I mean, after all, I would have to throw out any idea of becoming a Baptist preacher.  I would have to face ridicule by some people, I’m sure.  It would be easier for me to do the political thing and throw out infant baptism just so I could ensure myself a spot as a Baptist preacher (which I long to become). But I can’t do that.  That would be wrong.  I just want the truth, even if it costs me what I truly want.  But we should all be after the truth and nothing but the truth.  And that is all I am after. 

So, please pray for me and my family as we search out the Scripture for the truth.  And please don’t think that I have made up my mind.  I haven’t.  I’m just laying out these arguments for all to see and evaluating them for myself. 

You have to understand that my hero does not embrace infant baptism.  In fact, he is dead-set against it.  His name?  John Piper.  I think Piper is absolutely wonderful.  His ministry has played a crucial part in my spiritual life.  Therefore, I am indebted to him.  But, I don’t believe a certain way just because he does.  I believe what I believe because of the testimony of Scripture.  What’s funny is that Piper’s hero, Jonathan Edwards, accepted infant baptism as true.  Yet, he didn’t believe in it because he does not think it to be Scriptural.  So, I will emulate that trait of my hero: have your conscience be captivated to the Word of God, amen?   

Thank you, church family, for all of your support and encouragement.  Billy, if you are reading this post, I want to say “thanks” for your help, too.  You are truly a man of God who has dedicated himself to sola scriptura and other reformation principles.  Every leader at our church is filled with grace and love.  And I thank you all for your support as I go through this. Thanks, guys. 

soli Deo gloria,

Matthew Halsted

of infants and baptism (part three)

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

                                                                                     Romans 4:11 (ESV)

Most people would agree that baptism is a sign and seal of the faith that we have in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  Yet, if this is so, then doesn’t that show that baptism and circumcision correspond at least on  somewhat of a peculiar level (I say this for my Baptist friends)?  What I mean is that baptism and circumcision are alike in many ways–that is, they represent each corresponding covenant.  Circumcision represents the Old Covenant, and Baptism represents the New Covenant.  It should be said, however, that these covenants are a different in essence when compared to each other.  Yet, each have their own sign and seal. 

The thing that I want to point out is that Abraham was commanded to circumcise his son, Isaac, on the eighth day.  But wait a second.  Why would God want an infant to receive a sign and seal of faith before they (the infant) could ever express true faith in Christ?  So, to say that Christian infants cannot receive the sign and seal of the New Covenant because they cannot express faith in Christ is just a bad argument on the part of Baptists.  (By the way, I am a Baptist.) 

 

“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

                                                                           Genesis 17:7-8 (ESV)

“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

                                                                            Acts 2:39 (ESV)

When Peter preached his sermon in Acts 2, we know that his Jewish audience would have remembered Yahweh’s words to Abraham in Genesis 17.  “For the promise is for you and for your children”  (emphasis added).

Peter’s Jewish audience would have, no doubt, known how to interpret this.  They would have interpreted it the same way a Jew would have because, after all, they were Jews!  That is, they would have known that their children were included in the New Covenant just like they were included in the Old Covenant. 

Let’s face it.  We live in and amongst rugged, American individualism.  While a personal relationship with Christ is proof of one’s conversion, we must not forget that God views the family as one unit.  He has always done this.  How many times in Scripture have we read that God’s promises not only extend to the one receiving it but also to their offspring?  There are, no doubt, many times. 

Yet, as Christians, we have lost our Hebraic mindset.  We have traded it in for Americanism (i.e., individualistic freedom and autonomy).  Yet, this has never been the historic Jewish, and for that matter Christian, worldview.  Christians have long held the family as one unit.  This is an adoption from Old Covenant.  With that said, we should note that God sees the Christian family the same way.  

As my faith grows, I am getting real close to a covenantal worldview.  I find it quite beautiful.  Jesus says in the synoptic Gospels that children (yes, Luke says even “infants”) belong to the kingdom of God.  Take a look at the following passage:

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:15-17, ESV).

Our Lord says the kingdom of God belongs to these infants.  If that is, and if Jesus is not a liar, then why shouldn’t the babies of Christian parents receive the sign and seal of the kingdom of God? 

This is the question that I am wrestling with.  I don’t claim to have all of the answers; however, I feel that I am getting close.

So, what do I do?  On one hand, the Baptist in me (which is deeply rooted, I might add) wants to shout and scream that there is not one instance of infant baptism in the New Testament.  Yet, the other side of me wants to say, “Yes, but there are also not any instances of a woman receiving the Lord’s Supper” (so say some theologians, that is).  So, should we not then permit women from partaking of the Lord’s Table?  I think not.

So, then, how are we to view infant baptism?  What should we tell the child as they grow up?

The following is an excerpt of a sermon from one minister (I think he puts it quite well):

         

“What about the MEANING OF BAPTISM? At the next service this morning, a couple is going to come and present their child for baptism and she will be baptized here. And I will tell them what I have told parents many times before: “As your child grows up to understand that she has been baptized, you should say this to her: ‘Before you were old enough to know God, God knew you. Before you were old enough to love God, God loved you. And He loved you in a very special sense because He put you in a Christian home where you would grow up hearing the Gospel. Before you knew God, God loved you and out of His love He made an offer to you: if you would receive His Son by faith. He would cleanse your heart from sin. And He not only made you this offer but sealed this offer with a sign of the offer in the waters of your baptism. As truly as water cleanses dirt from the body, so truly will God cleanse your heart from sin if you believe in Jesus.’ You are to explain this to your children. Tell them that they have been baptized with a sign of God’s offer, ask them to receive the promised Saviour.”

When they do receive the gift, they do not need to be rebaptized. They have not denied their original baptism but, to use the language of the Larger Catechism, they have “improved” their baptism. Until they believe, the baptism is a sign and seal of salvation offered and it is meaningful whether the child becomes a Christian or not. The offer is genuine whether or not the child believes. (God commanded the circumcision of Ishmael as well as of Isaac.) But when the child believes, then it becomes a sign not only of salvation offered, but of salvation offered, received, effectually given.”

-Donald A. Dunkerley

Mcllwain Presbyterian Church

Pensacola, Florida

                            [originally delivered on 26 November 1972, 8:30 A.M. Taken from: http://www.pcahistory.org/topicalresources/Dunkerley-Baptism.pdf]    

 

As our children are raised in Christian homes, should we keep them outside of the covenant?  If you say, “yes,” then you cannot, in all consistency, teach them to pray, “Our Father which art in heaven…”  You must not tell them that they belong to the Kingdom (this is contrary to what our Lord taught).  For us Baptists to stay consistent, we must not even dedicate them to Lord.  After all, the choice is theirs, no?  What good do our baby dedications do? They are nothing but empty dedications.  They mean nothing.  But to those who embrace covenantalism, they mean everything. 

No one dare dream tell their wonderful, God-given child that they cannot and should not pray to God as their Father.  The fact remains that the kingdom belongs to “such as these.”  And unless one receives the kingdom like them (helpless, unable, depraved even to the point of being unable to believe), then heaven is out of the question. 

See, I’m starting to see how paedobaptism is a beautiful picture of how Christ saves us when we can’t even do anything.  As Reformed believers, we agree with Scripture that man cannot come to God unless God first comes to him (John 6:44, 65).  Therefore, infant baptism is a beautiful picture of God coming to the infant when the infant cannot even come to Him.  It is a sign that God takes all the initiative.  He alone does the drawing.  He alone does the washing.  What a beautiful symbol!

Baptism is a beautiful symbol of Christ doing all the work of salvation.  Grant it, baptism doesn’t have the power to save any more than circumcision could (see Galatians).  Yet, Israelites were still commanded to circumcise their infants.  Likewise, we are still commanded to baptize “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (see Acts 2:38-39, ESV).  And who does he call?  Who is the promise of the New Covenant for?  “For the promise is for you and for your children” (see Acts 2:38, ESV).

Again, we see family solidarity at its finest.  Christianity is about one’s relationship with Christ.  That is true, but there is so much more to Christianity than that.  It is about Christ’s relationship with his people, His elect.  More so than that even, it is about God’s relationship with Christ.  The emphasis should not be on the former, but on the latter.  This is, sadly, a result of America’s rugged individualistic, autonomy-driven emphasis on the person.  This is not Christianity.  Christianity is about a love relationship between God and His Son, Jesus Christ.  We are called to be caught up in that holy union. 

If we can only get past our individualism, then we might, I pray, get to the point where we need to be.  See, when God makes a covenant, He makes it with not only the recipient but also with the recipient’s offspring.  Again, we have come full circle.  Do we include our helpless children in this covenant or not?  Is it really fair to leave an infant, who cannot make a choice either way, outside of the covenant?  How fair would that be?  I’m beginning to see how Christ has accepted our little ones into the kingdom (Luke 18:15-17) without them ever being able to choose.  After all, even baptists would say that when an infant dies they go to heaven.  So, we can see that they are included as members of the church even though they cannot believe yet. 

Yet, despite all these wonderful things about infant baptism, I’m still not sure what to think of it.  I mean, I don’t know how biblical it is.  As said before, I am faithfully commited to the Reformation call of “Scripture Alone.”  Hopefully one day I will find out what I believe about this subject.  Until then, however, God will be glorified in all things.  That’s the important thing, amen?  Let us approach the Scripture with joy, rightly dividing the Word of truth.  

Blessings and soli Deo gloria,

Matthew Halsted

of infants and baptism (part two)

“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

                                                                           Genesis 17:7-8 (ESV)

“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

                                                                            Acts 2:39 (ESV)

Are our children part of a covenant with God, or are they outside of the covenant? I will post more on this later!  Stay tuned!   

of infants and baptism (part one)

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

                                                                                -Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:14, ESV)

Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father – an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?

                                                                                                       -John Calvin

 

With the birth of my first-born son, the subject of infant baptism has been real hefty upon my soul.  I don’t want to deprive my young son of reaping the blessings of the faith of his mother and I; yet, I still don’t know if infant baptism is biblical. 

I’m a reformed Christian, dedicated to the five solas, especially sola scriptura.  Therefore, I will not permit my family to do anything that is not mandated or commanded in Scripture.  Yet, is infant baptism a biblical doctrine?  This is one of the things that I have been struggling with. 

I will be posting many things concerning infant baptism in the coming days.

May the Spirit of the Lord guide my family by His holy Word.

soli Deo gloria,

Matthew Halsted

“Do Not Hinder Them”

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:15-17, ESV).

 

I’m still trying to figure out what I believe about covenant theology.  Man, let me tell ya, it is stinkin’ cool; however, I just don’t know how biblical it is.  I am a man commited to sola scriptura; therefore, I recognize Scripture’s authority over all things.  It is the final court of arbitration, if you will. 

May we be ever commited to sola scriptura!

soli Deo gloria!

Blessings,

Matthew

Does God Choose Who Will Be Saved?

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of God; and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

This has been a question that I have traveled long and hard with. I am not aware of any other subject that is more controversial than this one. Yet, as controversial as it is, I submit that we should not shy away from it. We should dive into this subject head on. I write this post for many of you who have never heard anything of this sort before. What does it mean to “predestined”? The doctrine of predestination (or election, as it is sometimes called) has been summed up well by one theologian:

Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.” (1)

To some, this doesn’t sound like the Christianity that they know to be true. If any of you are like I was, then you will probably be tempted to call this doctrine a heresy. Yet, before one comes to such a conclusion, I pray that you will hear the claims first. My journey through this doctrine has been a hard one. There was a time when I was very much settled (nice and cozy, I might add) into a very flesh-pleasing doctrine of Free Will. I, too, once thought that man had a will that could choose God, unaided by the Holy Spirit. Yet, I had to ask myself, is this idea of man being able to choose God unaided by the Spirit true–That is, is it biblical? My conclusion came to be that it was not. I could go into the history of the great feud between St. Augustine and Pelagius, but I’d rather not. For one, I don’t know my church history enough to be commenting on it (though I am always studying it!). Secondly, it really doesn’t matter what man has to say about doctrine. It’s the Bible that matters. John Calvin could be wrong, but the Bible cannot. Martin Luther was fallible; the Bible is not. Therefore, it is becoming of us to dive into what the Bible says. Grant it, I do not have enough time (or space) to go into a deep, exegetical thesis of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, but I do think I have the patience to get into it somewhat without losing your attention. So–ready or not–here goes.

Does the Bible teach that God ordains some to eternal life? I maintain that it does. Let’s take a look at one verse in particular.

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of God; and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

The part of this passage that I want to hone in on is the second clause. “…and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Notice that it does not say, “And as many who believed were appointed to eternal life.” No, it says just the opposite. “As many as were appointed…believed.” Once can conclude, then, that before you can believe, you must have first been appointed, or ordained, to eternal life. So, then, who does the appointing (or ordaining, or predestining)?

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…” (Romans 8:29, NIV)

The answer is clear. God does the predestining, the appointing, the ordaining. Another passage that I want to take a look at is John 6:44:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44, NIV).

And again,

“…this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65).

It is obviously clear from these passages that sinful man cannot come to God unless the Father “draws” him. In fact, the scripture (John 6:65) goes so far as to say that man must be “enabled” to come. This implies, obviously, that he is “unable” to come before the Holy Spirit gets a hold of him. So I think it is quite clear that man is, indeed, unable to come to God apart from God’s drawing. Man is not “free,” if you will, to come to God unless he has first been given that freedom. Man, since the fall, has been enslaved in sin. And sin is all that he wants. There is not one good thing in man that causes him to seek or want God. That is why God must first give the desire to come to him. Why? Because man, on his own, does not have such a desire.

“…there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Romans 2: 11, NIV).

There is this lie that has been going around for sometime that says, “All men seek God.” Well, I’ve got news for people: No they don’t! Man, at least according to scripture, does not seek God. Oh, he may seek what God has to give, but not God for who He is. Of course, men want God to make them rich, give them blessings, etc. But God and God alone? Never. Man is at war with God. Man is at enmity with God. Therefore, it follows that God must first place a desire for Himself before man will ever get saved.

So, we’ve shown how God must call us to himself before we can ever be saved. When did He set us apart for salvation? That is, when did He choose for us to be saved? The Scripture says, that God “saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2 Timothy 1:9, ESV, emphasis added).

This passage makes it clear that God chose us to be saved even before we believed. He is the one that set us apart before we were even formed. Question. If God must be the one to determine who will be saved and who will not, then why doesn’t He just save everyone? After all, it’s not His will that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9).

First of all, I must say that I believe every Scripture that preaches that God wills that everyone be saved. I love passages like that. I will preach them until my dying day. However, we must draw a line in the sand when we talk about the wills and decress of God. First, I submit that God has two wills. Theologians sometimes call these the sovereign will and the moral will. For instance, the Scriptures say the God “does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and peoples of the earth” (Daniel 4:35). This makes it clear that God can do what He wants without having to answer to any man. What He sets forth to do, he does. No man can stop Him. This is called His Sovereign Will.

“But wait a second,” you say. “God’s will can’t always get done–after all, I went against His will this morning when I lied. It’s not God’s that anyone lie, but, yet, I lied. Doesn’t this make God’s will breakable?” Well, no. It doesn’t. When people break God’s will, they are not breaking His sovereign will, but his moral will. God’s moral will can be broken, but God’s sovereign will cannot. So, when God wills that only a few will be saved (“many called, few are chosen”), and then He says that it’s not His will that anyone perishes, He is speaking about two different wills. It may be God’s moral will that not everyone be lost, but it is His sovereign will to save only a few.

Yet, some will say, “That’s not fair!” I agree. It is not fair. What’s fair is that all go to hell. That’s fairness. It’s wonder He should save anyone. God can choose to show mercy to whomever He wants. He can also harden whomever He wants.

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Romans 9: 14, NIV).

Well, folks, I think this is enough for tonight. Let us be glad that God has saved us. Let’s not thank ourselves. We didn’t choose Christ because we were smart enough or wise enough. No, we chose Christ because He first chose us.

soli Deo gloria, Matthew Halsted

————

NOTES: 1. Grudem, Wayne Christian Beliefs. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan. pg.79

Christ, Covenant, and Children

By late July, my wife will have given birth to our first child.  As some of you know, we are expecting a healthy, vibrant young boy to enter the world on July 26 (so say the doctors).  It fills my heart with both excitement and awe as I ponder why in the world God would choose to bless me with such an awesome miracle.  My heart literally skips a beat everytime I think about it. 

As I pursue God, or, rather, as God pursues me, my thoughts have centered around a particular type of theology.  It is known as covenant theology.  To my Presbyterian brothers and sisters in Christ, this doctrine is of the utmost importance.  When a new-born infant comes before the people of God and is baptized as a sign of dedication to our Lord, the angelic world applauds.  To them, the child enters into a sacred covenant with the people of God.  It should be noted that Presbyterians, as well as other Reformed Christians, do not baptize their infants for salvatory purpose, but, rather, for a sign and seal of dedication unto the Lord.  To us Baptists, it is called a baby dedication. 

American Christianity has become so individualistic that I feel it has corrupted our Christianity.  Christianity has been reduced down to “my relationship with Jesus Christ,” or “my own personal testimony.”  Grant it, there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, Christianity is a deeply, personal religion.  It is centered around one’s profession of faith in Christ.  Yet, due to America’s intense focus upon the individual, I wonder if we have forgotten that we Christians are part of a greater community.  As said last night at church by one of our elders, everytime we take of the Lord’s communion, we are identifying with every saint, every martyr that has gone on before us.  The Lord’s supper is a holy tradition that has profound implications. 

We Americans have focused so much on ourselves that we have forgotten that we are part of a Body -  that is, of the Body of Christ.  Of course, we Christians realize that we are a part of a local congregation, but do we also realize that we take of the same cup as our fellow brothers and sisters in China?  Not only are we united with these fellow believers, but we are also united with those believers who have gone on before us.  I am speaking of those saints like Augustine, Aquinas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.  We are all of the same body.  And one day, we will all be physically resurrected unto new life with our Lord, the head of the Body.

What does this have to do with children and covenant theology?  It has everything to do with it.  When our children our born into Christian homes, they are entering into a special fellowship– a spiritual fellowship.  This does not mean that they are saved.  What this does mean, however, is that they are privileged, by God’s grace, to be part of a family that partakes of the covenant of Christ.  Of course, they will have to make a decision about Jesus Christ when the Holy Spirit reveals Himself to them, but until then, they are being nurtured and brought up into the ways of the Lord. 

In the old days, the Israelites would circumcise their infants at eight days old.  This was a sign and seal that this child would be brought up in the ways of the Lord.  This did not mean, however, that they would be saved.  It just meant that this child would be brought in the ways of Yahweh, to which he was to never depart.  Today, many Reformed Christians say that baptism has replaced circumcision.  This is why many Protestant Christians baptize their children.  Again, (and I say this for my Baptist friends, who are, I’m sure, feeling a bit uneasy by now) this infant baptism is not for salvation.  It is only for a sign and seal that the child is going to be brought up in the ways of Christ, after which he (the child) is to profess faith in at a later date. 

As a Christian who does not embrace infant baptism, I am still in awe of the covenant promises that my soon-to-be-born child will be apart of.  He will be a part of a family/community that fears the Lord and honors Him with all of their might.  He will be taught that belief in Christ alone will save Him from his sins.  He will be instructed that it is by God’s grace alone that is efficacious for his salvation.  Furthermore, he will be taught that the instrument by which God saves is solus Christus, or Christ alone.  (There is no other name given to man by which he can be saved.)  And, finally, he will be taught that salvation is for God’s glory alone (soli Deo gloria). 

So, yes, even for us Baptists, there is a covenant to be embraced.  Our children can and should be dedicated to the Lord before the people of God.  When we do dedicate our children to the Lord, we should recognize what it is that we are doing.  We are doing something sacred.  We are doing something spiritual.  It, in my opinion, should not be taken lightly.  For the child is being brought into a holy family, sanctified by the Lord himself.  The infant has been given grace in order to be used to be brought closer to the Lord’s salvation by faith alone. 

Therefore, I am in awe once again at my great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, for showing my child grace even before he is born.  That my son will be a part of a Christian covenant at his birth makes my heart leap for joy in God, my only Lord. 

As Reformed Christians, we know that salvation is all by God’s grace alone.  It is his prerogative as to who will be given grace, and it makes my heart sing praises of gratitude to God for showing my son grace even in the womb.

Amen.  And soli Deo gloria!

Matthew Halsted

The Dark Side of Papal History

Pope Stephen (VI) VII (896-7)

Date of birth unknown; died about August, 897. Stephen was a Roman, and the son of John, a priest. He had been consecrated Bishop of Anagni, possibly against his will, by Formosus, and became pope about May, 896. Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. The corpse was then stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of two fingers of its right hand, clad in the garb of a layman, and ultimately thrown into the Tiber. Fortunately it was not granted to Stephen to have time to do much else besides this atrocious deed. Before he was put to death by strangulation, he forced several of those who had been ordained by Formosus to resign their offices and he granted a few privileges to churches.

(Taken from http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11074 at 4:45pm on June 3, 2008 )