The "Promise" to the Children of Believers
A while ago, a discussion evolved on the listserv of the RCUS that ended up talking about the meaning of the promise given to children of believers. I am by no means a theologian, but a mere lay member in a Reformed (RCUS) church, and I know relatively little about theology. However, I know something about this topic as I have encountered this discussion before when I was a member in the Reformed Churches (Liberated) in Holland. I fear that too many members of that denomination are living under the delusion that the church teaches automatic salvation for the children of believers (the learned men of that church most certainly do not!) and it is a misconception that has bred distrust and confusion among other Reformed churches in the Netherlands.
Being a linguist, one of the first things that struck me as going wrong in the discussion was the correct understanding of the word “promise” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 74, and more broadly in Acts 2:39. Someone said, “You seem to be telling me that I can be in the covenant (visible church), and have the promise of salvation, but in the end, not have the actual salvation and be lost.” I can come to no other conclusion myself than that this is what the Bible teaches. It comes down to understanding what “promise” really means.
A very narrow, literal reading would be to understand “promise” to mean something like “a sacred oath” on God’s part to give salvation at some future point. After all, a “promise” is like an IOU: nothing is given yet, but it will be given later. On Scriptural grounds, this is an impossible interpretation. Since God has elected those whom He will save from before the beginning of time, it would be silly to posit the giving of a promise of salvation but not actual salvation at that same moment in linear, human time. As if there can be a period of time between the giving of the promise and the time actual salvation rendered to the elect person in question, during which this person is unsaved and not only remains in his sins, but does not benefit from the privileges of God’s covenant through Jesus Christ. What would be the point of making such a promise, if it has no benefits?
Clearly, this is not what is meant with the word “promise.” It always struck me that the use of “promise” in Acts 2:39, which I believe to be one of the foundational texts for this discussion, is not a very precise word in the sense that all those present at Peter’s sermon and all their children and all people who are afar off without exception were saved that moment or were going to be saved in the future. After all, the verse has a subclause: “as many as the Lord our God will call.” This applies to all three categories of people: the hearers, their children, and those who are afar off. The word “promise” is a very general statement that God will save some of the people in each of the three categories, but not all. It seems to me—and I know no Greek, though I can use handbooks—that the word epaggelia (which renders “promise” in Acts 2:39) implies more of an announcement by God than a vow. It is a general statement of actions God will surely perform but in what way and when remains part of His secret will.
In announcing the “promise,” both in Acts 2:39 and in HC Q&A 74, something concrete is rendered at the time of the announcement that is not identical with actual salvation. This concrete thing is certainly the inclusion in the covenant or visible church. This has real benefits because it provides the means of grace, that is to say, it brings the Kingdom of God near through the preaching of Jesus Christ, the only Name under heaven by which we must be saved. It also brings an obligation, because ultimate unbelief on the part of the person to whom this “promise” was offered implies the rejection of God’s grace and salvation. Theirs is the greater offense than that of the unbelievers to whom the offer was not made.
Now, it is true that we humans cannot distinguish between those who have received only the outward benefits of this covenant through God’s promise and those who are elect in God’s forejudgment. It is therefore prudent and right that we should treat all who have received this covenant promise—adults as well as children, that is to say, communicant members and baptized members—the same way, because they have this in common: they have all received the covenant promise, and by extension, the God-ordained privileges of the visible church. Thus, by this promise, and by the sacrament of baptism which is a sign and seal of that promise, the children of believers are distinguished from the children of unbelievers. One might even argue, distinguished from adult unbelievers as well, but this is a moot point.
Thus we must accept the children of believers as part of the covenant, and assume them to be saved, until and unless it becomes clear that they are not. The latter is not a statement of fact but an assumption. This distinction is vital; confusion on this point can lead to terrible consequences, as I have sadly witnessed in the Liberated Churches. The misunderstanding of this difference between inward and outward privileges, of visible and invisible church, of the meaning of this promise to the children of believers, has led to a terrible presumption on the part of children of believers, especially those in the rebellious years. After all, if you are taught the wrong doctrine—“You are a child of the covenant, so you are saved.”—you may easily fall into the trap of Romans 6:1: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” I have seen it and it festered to an alarming extent in the Liberated Churches when I was a member there. It teaches children a false sense of invulnerability and presumption.
In short, when the Bible and the Heidelberg Catechism speak of the “promise,” they do not mean “sacred oath” sworn by God that He will give salvation, or that it has already been given, to all children of believers. It is a statement of eligibility for salvation, as it were, by being brought into the hearing of the gospel. It does not imply effectual calling, just as I cannot promise my unbelieving neighbor salvation when I evangelize him, though I might say to him, “I can promise you eternal life” (or, more properly, “God promises you eternal life”). The moment of announcement, of stating the promise, is not the moment of salvation.
Being a linguist, one of the first things that struck me as going wrong in the discussion was the correct understanding of the word “promise” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 74, and more broadly in Acts 2:39. Someone said, “You seem to be telling me that I can be in the covenant (visible church), and have the promise of salvation, but in the end, not have the actual salvation and be lost.” I can come to no other conclusion myself than that this is what the Bible teaches. It comes down to understanding what “promise” really means.
A very narrow, literal reading would be to understand “promise” to mean something like “a sacred oath” on God’s part to give salvation at some future point. After all, a “promise” is like an IOU: nothing is given yet, but it will be given later. On Scriptural grounds, this is an impossible interpretation. Since God has elected those whom He will save from before the beginning of time, it would be silly to posit the giving of a promise of salvation but not actual salvation at that same moment in linear, human time. As if there can be a period of time between the giving of the promise and the time actual salvation rendered to the elect person in question, during which this person is unsaved and not only remains in his sins, but does not benefit from the privileges of God’s covenant through Jesus Christ. What would be the point of making such a promise, if it has no benefits?
Clearly, this is not what is meant with the word “promise.” It always struck me that the use of “promise” in Acts 2:39, which I believe to be one of the foundational texts for this discussion, is not a very precise word in the sense that all those present at Peter’s sermon and all their children and all people who are afar off without exception were saved that moment or were going to be saved in the future. After all, the verse has a subclause: “as many as the Lord our God will call.” This applies to all three categories of people: the hearers, their children, and those who are afar off. The word “promise” is a very general statement that God will save some of the people in each of the three categories, but not all. It seems to me—and I know no Greek, though I can use handbooks—that the word epaggelia (which renders “promise” in Acts 2:39) implies more of an announcement by God than a vow. It is a general statement of actions God will surely perform but in what way and when remains part of His secret will.
In announcing the “promise,” both in Acts 2:39 and in HC Q&A 74, something concrete is rendered at the time of the announcement that is not identical with actual salvation. This concrete thing is certainly the inclusion in the covenant or visible church. This has real benefits because it provides the means of grace, that is to say, it brings the Kingdom of God near through the preaching of Jesus Christ, the only Name under heaven by which we must be saved. It also brings an obligation, because ultimate unbelief on the part of the person to whom this “promise” was offered implies the rejection of God’s grace and salvation. Theirs is the greater offense than that of the unbelievers to whom the offer was not made.
Now, it is true that we humans cannot distinguish between those who have received only the outward benefits of this covenant through God’s promise and those who are elect in God’s forejudgment. It is therefore prudent and right that we should treat all who have received this covenant promise—adults as well as children, that is to say, communicant members and baptized members—the same way, because they have this in common: they have all received the covenant promise, and by extension, the God-ordained privileges of the visible church. Thus, by this promise, and by the sacrament of baptism which is a sign and seal of that promise, the children of believers are distinguished from the children of unbelievers. One might even argue, distinguished from adult unbelievers as well, but this is a moot point.
Thus we must accept the children of believers as part of the covenant, and assume them to be saved, until and unless it becomes clear that they are not. The latter is not a statement of fact but an assumption. This distinction is vital; confusion on this point can lead to terrible consequences, as I have sadly witnessed in the Liberated Churches. The misunderstanding of this difference between inward and outward privileges, of visible and invisible church, of the meaning of this promise to the children of believers, has led to a terrible presumption on the part of children of believers, especially those in the rebellious years. After all, if you are taught the wrong doctrine—“You are a child of the covenant, so you are saved.”—you may easily fall into the trap of Romans 6:1: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” I have seen it and it festered to an alarming extent in the Liberated Churches when I was a member there. It teaches children a false sense of invulnerability and presumption.
In short, when the Bible and the Heidelberg Catechism speak of the “promise,” they do not mean “sacred oath” sworn by God that He will give salvation, or that it has already been given, to all children of believers. It is a statement of eligibility for salvation, as it were, by being brought into the hearing of the gospel. It does not imply effectual calling, just as I cannot promise my unbelieving neighbor salvation when I evangelize him, though I might say to him, “I can promise you eternal life” (or, more properly, “God promises you eternal life”). The moment of announcement, of stating the promise, is not the moment of salvation.
posted by Unknown at 8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home