Welcome to the first episode of MidAmerica Reform Seminary's podcast, Roundtable. I'm Jared Luchabor, Manager of Marketing and Digital Media Publications here at the seminary. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for taking the time to listen to the first ever podcast produced through MidAmerica. We're calling it Roundtable because it's a moment where our professors take time out of their busy schedules to discuss and engage amongst each other the theological issues of our day. For our listeners, I do hope this becomes a time for growing, not just in knowledge, but even in spiritual maturity as we learn to tackle a variety of theological matters that we face in the church. For our opening discussion, we're going to explore a slightly controversial topic. It's one which is referred to in Article 17 of the Canons of Dort's First Point of Doctrine, which addresses the salvation of the infants of believers. We certainly picked a deep one for our premiere, didn't we? The canons have this to say concerning this topic. Since we must make judgments about God's will from his word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy. Now, throughout the years in different church contexts and backgrounds, we'll hear either in Bible studies or lectures or other written pieces of material this language of the age of accountability. Now, one way that some think about young children who may have died before they did profession of faith goes something along the lines of, well, they were below the age of accountability. Therefore, we have confidence that they're with Jesus right now. But it seems like the canons of Dort are doing something different than this idea of an arbitrary age of children who have passed away. Well, what does this all mean? We're going to hear some insightful answers from Old Testament professors Rev. Mark Vander Hart and Rev. Andrew Compton, and doctrinal studies professors Drs. Cornelis Venema and Mark Beach. Let's hear from the professors now on the pastoral use of this article and how reformed churches turn to this in their ministry. I think one of the reasons this article was included was very pastoral, because the rate of infant mortality at that time was very high. And the Armenians were accusing the Reform Party of saying, well, you are thrusting vast numbers of innocent children into hell. And pastorally, that of course gave no comfort. And the response of the canons is to say, look, God in his covenant includes children of believers. And think of Genesis 17, for example, and elsewhere, that those promises are real. They are yes and amen. And we're not talking about all infants in general, in abstraction. It's particularly those infants that have been called out of this life. And what are parents to believe? They are to rest on the promises of God, which are sure, and not to doubt, but to embrace God's promise. That's very comforting. It is interesting, even mentioning Genesis 17, the various editions of this that have proof texts will often cite Genesis 17 on that very point, raising even also the point of infant mortality. Infants die even today, but how much more in the era the canons were written? So what's the controversy? What's the problem here? Why do we have Reformed people that object to 117? I mean, within the Dutch Reformed tradition, among those who subscribe to the Canons of Dort, they find themselves wanting to put a lot of guardrails and they're worried about, I guess you might call the salvific optimism of 117. What's wrong with having an optimism regarding the salvation of covenant infants who die at a tender age? What's wrong with that? I think the concern that some people have is born out of a Call it an abstract view of how we ascertain God's will, especially as it relates to the children of believing parents. It's very significant that the very first phrase in 117 is, since we make judgments about God's word according, or God's will according to his word, whatever we're going to say on this specific question, which was really raised by the remonstrant or Arminian party, namely what becomes of such children, children of believing parents whom God calls to himself in their infancy, they were thinking abstractly, and one of the burdens actually of Article 1, even in the context of 117, is that we not curiously and inappropriately inquire about God's will, but we take our cue, you might say, from what God declares concerning his will and his word, and the one thing that we know with certainty from his word is that he includes the children of believing parents, he did already under the Old Covenant, does so under the New, in the promise that he makes regarding their salvation in Christ Jesus. The assumption of the article is not that there's some innocency that distinguishes such children on account of which they are worthy to be saved, but rather God's grace and the embrace within his covenant through the promise also of the children. And so the only ground or basis we have for any kind of speaking to parents in this situation is to Look to the promise. Look to what God has spoken. And it's interesting to me that the article is put in a very pastoral way. It uses what is technically called litotes. It states in the negative, parents ought not to doubt. Now there are some who take from that, well they may have still some reservations. But it seems fairly clear to me that ought not to doubt means exactly that. They should be assured, positively speaking, they ought to have assurance and gain assurance from what they know concerning God's will. through the gospel promise. Yeah, what's really peculiar here is because if you're going to object to 117, ought not to doubt, then you're suggesting parents ought to doubt the salvation. They've received the covenant promise. Christ has said to such, the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. And you ought to doubt that it does. I mean, that's the implication. If you're objecting to ought not to doubt, well, then you ought to doubt. And then why are you presenting your children for baptism? Because it seems, though, it's odd. I find this very odd that those who object within the Reformed family, the Dutch Reformed family, to 117, they're actually siding more with the Armenians than they are with the Reformed forefathers. at least in the sense the way this is couched, because it's like, yes, your doctrine of election should make you doubt because it has reprobation there. So you ought to doubt that covenant children. come under the saving grace of the blood of Jesus Christ. Well, then don't present them for baptism, because that's the whole point of baptism, is trusting in a promise by which, by grace alone, you haven't done anything, and the mercy of God reaches to believers, reaches to their children, reaches before their discerning, before any of this, and having died, what should we conclude? That they're reprobate? based on the divine promise, which is a gift of salvation in toto, we ought to trust the promise, right? That's really, I mean, exactly what you're saying stood out to me when Mark was earlier just about the Armenians and how they were leveling this accusation, but it is ironic that anybody who would be disputing Article 17 is sort of collapsing this discussion into the decree. Whereas the article itself is working out of the Doctrine of the Covenants. I mean, it's explicitly so, and it's sort of a funny sighting. It really exposes that the debate here is about the interface of divine election and the Doctrine of the Covenant. And within the Reformed tradition, there's been a host of of divergent views. Within a broad consensus, there's a lot of intramural fighting in the nature of God's promise in the covenant of grace. And within the Dutch Reformed tradition, this is maybe a little harsh, but I think those who find themselves uncomfortable with Dort 117, probably aren't working with a thoroughbred consensus reform view of the doctrine of the covenant. That a kind of pietistic strain has infected their covenant doctrine, which then really puts a question mark over the promise itself. Yes, you're marked with the blood of Jesus, with the water of baptism. So yes, Jesus counts you as among those to which the kingdom of God belongs. Yes, but it's almost like, no, prevent them from coming because we don't know about, they might be reprobate, you know. But Jesus doesn't say that, does he? when he says, you know, the kingdom of God belongs to such as these, provided, provided, provisio here, they're elect. Otherwise, don't bring them. Or otherwise, we can do this, but you ought to doubt. It's a misappropriation of the doctrine of election relative to the doctrine of the covenant. And here's the thing about the covenant. The covenant's not there to make you doubt. God didn't God didn't say Here's a promise here signs and seals Guarantees of the promise and I'm giving these to you Because you're already doubters And this is to take away doubt that you can live by my word and trust in it So you ought not to doubt and oh look here's the water of baptism to help you not doubt. I which is why the article speaks at the end the way it does. Not to doubt the election salvation of their children, because what do we have to go on? It's as Mark said earlier, the specific focus of this article is infant children. who are called by God in their infancy out of this life. They've not received anything or we can say nothing about them other than what God has spoken concerning them and what he said about them is that the promise is for them. The texts that are cited most often by The delegates to the Senate, as they were considering this article, were precisely these covenant texts. Genesis 17, 7, the passage in 1 Corinthians 7, where the Apostle Paul speaks of the children of a believing parent as being children who are holy. Right, he makes the point that that's why he can explain this marriage question. It's because we assume. Exactly. So we know something about these children, and what we know about them is what God has spoken concerning them. And if you go outside of that, all you'll ever do is create a context within which all sorts of doubt will necessarily arise. The article was specifically limited to that pastoral question, but often in discussions of this particular paragraph, I've heard this said, well, wait a minute, Esau I have hated, Jacob I have loved. So within the same covenant family, you could have two members, both covenant members, but one is headed for hell, the other one is headed for salvation and redemption. The problem with that... is that now we're talking about people who have lived beyond their infancy. Neither of them passed away. And again, the pastoral focus upon Canons 117 is upon covenant children who die in infancy. That's the limit of it. And therefore, parents never have cardioanalytic ability. They can't see the heart of their children. And none of us have access to the decrees. We can't climb up in the mind of God and see. Yeah, if I may piggyback, God hasn't said about child Malcolm and child Percival. You know, Malcolm I have loved, Percival I have hated. So you don't get to. And it goes back to, if you're going to try to theologize out of election in whom God has elected and whom he hasn't, well then you ought to doubt your own salvation on that basis because even our ability to make judgments about God's will from his word concerning adult believers, covenant believers, finally one of charity. Yes, I see evidences of faith in you, but as I see in my own heart, I see inconsistencies in my faith. I see reasons to doubt. So I think we do better to rest on God's promises, what's revealed to us, find our solace there, and rest in what's strong and powerful, His word of promise. Yet again. May I make one point? The only other place explicitly in the canons where this accusation of the Armenians to which 117 is a response is mentioned is in the conclusion where you have rejection of false accusations, mostly accusations of the Armenians or the remonstrants. When it talks about this issue, it speaks of the accusation suggesting that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism, that is the baptism of the children of believing parents, nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them. And it just underscores the point about how we come to have confidence in terms of God's grace it's through the word that he's spoken and baptism is a visible confirmation signifying and sealing to us and to those baptized that the promise is for them. So if you open the door in the case of believing parents in the loss of such children to the possibility that they may doubt their salvation, you've radically compromised whatever confidence or assurance believers may have from the word God speaks, the promise, as well as the sacrament that he's given. Once again, this article in particular is just another piece of evidence of how concrete the confessions really are. These are not just debates to be thought through at the theoretical level, but they are a great comfort for the individual Christian in real issues that they face in this life and are also a great reminder of how relevant this doctrine of the covenant is. Once again, I thank you for taking the time to listen to MidAmerica Reform Seminary's first ever round table discussion today. I hope you'll join us next time.