Q and A. What About Those Promises?

Opening Prayer and Review of Baptism's Significance

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on September 18th, 1983 at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey.

0:13 Our Father, as we come into your presence again this morning, again we come conscious of our dependence upon you, of our need for your grace, assistance, and help, and we pray, Father, that as we come again to consider the symbolism inherent in baptism, and how that symbolism impinges upon our hearts and lives, we pray that you would make our thinking to be clear, precise, and in accordance with your holy word. Help us also to deal graciously and honestly with those with whom we differ, that we may glorify you, have a good conscience

0:57 as we stand before you in that great day. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.

1:05 Now there were a flurry, or I should say perhaps there was a flurry of questions at the end of the class last time, and I don't know if you all remember what your questions were. Perhaps some of the difficult ones that I couldn't have answered will have been forgotten over the last week, and they won't face me this morning. Then on the other hand, perhaps you'll remember. Now, just in the event of the fact that, some of you need your memory refreshed as to where we were, and rather than simply saying, all right, now I'll take your questions,

1:48 I think it would be appropriate at the outset to give a word of review, to bring those who may be here for the first time, who weren't here last week, up to date, and also to refresh the rest of your minds, to perhaps bring you back where we were at the end of last week, and whether I get the worst of it or not, to jog your minds once again, and enable you to remember some of those questions that were evidently burning in some of your hearts at the end of our session last week. All right, now, just by way of review, we're considering the second major unit or dimension with respect to the subject of baptism, and that is the significance of baptism and infant baptism.

2:33 And in the first week of our considerations of the significance of baptism, we look together through those scriptural, the scriptural passages which clearly and explicitly teach what baptism is all about. And we saw that it has a dual significance, that it has both a symbolic significance on the one hand and a declaratory significance on the other, that something is being symbolized in baptism concerning the person who is being baptized. And furthermore, in the very event of baptism, the person who is being baptized is declaring something.

3:16 So you have both a declaration and a symbolism with respect to the party baptized. And we saw that the scripture was abundantly clear with respect to these two things, that what was being symbolized was the application of salvation, that the party baptized has had salvation, and that the person who is being baptized has had salvation, applied to him, both negatively with respect to washing from sin and positively with respect to union with Christ. And then with regard to the declaratory dimension that the party baptized is declaring.

3:58 Negatively, he's declaring his confession of sin, his repentance of sin. Positively, his determination to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be identified with Jesus and his people, positively, he's declaring his faith. He's openly, publicly declaring negatively his repentance and positively his faith. And then what we did last week is we began to consider the symbolic aspect of baptism's significance and its relationship to infant baptism.

The Incompatibility of Baptism's Symbolism with Infant Baptism

4:38 The symbolism of baptism and its relationship to baptism. And there were two points. First is that the clear biblical teaching concerning the symbolism of baptism is recognized by leading Pato-Baptist standards and authors. That the clear teaching of the scripture with regard to what baptism indeed does symbolize with respect to the party baptized is recognized and asserted by leading Pato-Baptist authors, and we looked together at the Westminster Confession, at John Calvin's statements in his Institutes, I mentioned Hodge and Berkhoff in their systematic theology,

5:22 and we looked at Marcel, the biblical doctrine of infant baptism. But then I began my second point, which is this. It is that this clear teaching in the Bible concerning the symbolism of baptism is incomprehensible. It is incompatible with the practice of infant baptism.

5:46 And so that our Pato-Baptist brethren are involved in attention. They recognize what baptism symbolizes, and yet I'm asserting that their practice of infant baptism is incompatible not only with scripture, but with their own statements concerning what baptism symbolizes. Either baptism, either infant baptism, has the same or it has a different significance. If it has the same significance, then it is an act of the most radical sort of presumption in which we are asserting

6:27 that this infant has been saved and symbolizing this reality. If it is different, then where do we get the idea that we have an ordinance called baptism, called infant, infant baptism, which has a fundamentally different significance than the biblical ordinance presented in scripture. And it is that tension which they must face. And we saw that there were very few who would actually come right out and say, yes, the symbolism is precisely that, and when an infant is baptized, we are declaring that that infant has been saved.

7:12 That's what it symbolizes. And that fewer still would take the other position and say yes, or say absolutely not, no. That there is no relationship, really fundamentally, between the significance of the two ordinances. The infant ordinance is simply a dedication in which the child is dedicated to the Lord, but has no significant salvific significance whatsoever.

7:40 It symbolizes absolutely nothing with respect to salvation, application, and that infant. There are some who take that position, but again, those are not the majority. And what we saw is that there is a hedged yes on the part of many paedobaptists, that they begin by telling us that baptism does not guarantee that the party baptized has been saved, and then they tell us that it symbolizes the application of redemption in prospect, even as disciple baptisms, symbolizes it in retrospect.

8:19 So here we have the event of baptism, and in disciple baptism, we're looking forward, backwards, and in infant baptism, we say it's the same significance, but instead looking forward. Looking backwards, you say that the party baptized has been saved, and this is occasioned upon a credible profession, and this is occasioned upon a divine promise.

8:58 Now, even as the credible profession of faith does not guarantee automatically that the party baptized has been saved, so also the divine promise does not guarantee that the party baptized will be saved.

9:34 That's what is said.

Addressing Questions on 'Federal Holiness' and Sanctification

9:38 Now, you had some questions about that. Yes? What is the divine promise? Excellent question.

9:49 Repeat the question. He said, what is the biblical basis for this divine promise? Excellent question. That's exactly the question I was hoping to go on to deal with.

10:01 I was hoping to deal with this morning.

10:03 Excellent. That's exactly the issue. So let me back up on that and just wait a second. And perhaps there are some other questions.

10:13 Yes, Mr. Van Dalen. I have a question. If you support your position there between the second sector plus faith,

10:24 then regarding to the foreign and the administration of baptism, which is in here, they're all similar in the white light. They're foreign faiths that are full of Christian faith, which is not, is not the same as the Catholic faith. Okay. And as members of the church, they are discussing that they are members of the church, so they are in the same state as the Archangel.

10:51 Well,

10:53 let me put it to you. They talk about a federal holiness, which is not necessarily a moral renewal. Okay? So they, some people would say, yes, there are, so that's a good point.

11:09 There are certain dimensions of those things mentioned in the confessions and in the forms for baptism, which are, which are already presently taking place and have already happened. They are already members of the church. They are already holy, but they would, at least many would say that that's not a literal, moral sanctification, but it's what's called a federal holiness. I'm not sure exactly what that means.

11:37 But that's what it's called. Okay?

11:42 Right. But what I'm getting at is that when they use the word holy, they don't mean by that morally renewed. Okay? At least Cunningham doesn't mean that when he uses that word.

11:58 He, in his historical theology, uses, speaks about this federal holiness. And there's a debate in the literature as to whether 1 Corinthians 7.14, which teaches that your children are holy, whether that refers to the fact that their hearts have actually been renewed. There are some who take that position, but as I said, they're generally in the minority.

12:19 But that most of them who say that that refers to a holiness which already exists, that that holiness is not moral renewal, but it's some type of a federal holiness or some other kind of positional statement with regard to the child's position rather than the child's moral condition. Okay? So that's a good point. There are some of those things which are mentioned there which they say have already taken place, but I think the majority of evangelical paedo-baptists would not define church membership and even holiness as something which indicates that the person has been saved.

12:59 Okay?

13:04 Yes.

13:11 Yes, it does.

13:14 It's correct. It does. At least I believe it does. But I think that's a little bit off the point.

13:19 No, it's not really off the point. It would be off the point to go into it further here. But to answer your question, yes. That the word to say that someone has been sanctified does not automatically mean that they have been saved in Scripture.

13:34 It even identifies it with the covenant and even identifies it with the blood of the covenant in Hebrews 10.29. But it speaks about those in Hebrews 10.29 who have counted the blood of the covenant with which they were sanctified and are saved.

13:51 It's a non-holy thing and have done despite to the spirit of grace. Okay? So to answer your question, yes. The word holiness and sanctification sometimes is used as something other than ethical moral renewal in the word of God.

14:09 So our paedo-baptist brethren are not necessarily in error or not in error in using the word holiness in a way that does not automatically imply moral renewal.

14:22 Although I should say that the overriding of the word holiness and the overriding of the word holiness the overriding way that it is used in the New Testament is to describe moral renewal in its noun form, not in its adjective form. The noun form holiness, it is mostly used to describe moral renewal, if not exclusively. In its adjective and verb form in the New Testament, it's used to describe other things besides moral renewal, which are identified with the general doctrine of the religious life. Okay?

14:55 Without getting into the whole matter of sanctification and the terminology that may confuse some of you, I'm sorry if that's the case, but I'm trying to just give him a straight answer to his question. Pastor Martin. Here we stand to sanctification in the first sermon and that would be that more linguistic thing to the dominant faith than anything else. Okay.

The Problem of the 'Divine Promise' and Parental Faithfulness

15:21 Other questions?

15:27 Yes. I have a question that's been on my mind for a few years. Does this have any implication for those of us who don't know something we need to either say that's not in the New Testament if faith must receive that? Well, it may.

15:45 And I would be reluctant to hand out general principles. What I would say is if you have some question about that, I think we'd rather deal with that on a private and individual basis with individuals who are concerned about it. So perhaps come see the elders and talk to them if you have some particular problem with that. Okay?

16:16 And other questions? Other questions?

16:21 Okay. Well, let me then get down to the issue which Mr. White raised.

16:28 What about this promise?

16:31 A divine promise which is not certain.

16:38 Now, that ought to put a question mark in your minds. A divine promise that our children will be saved but yet they're not necessarily all saved. Just like here we have a credible profession which does not automatically guarantee that the person's and who makes a credible profession has been saved. So also here you have a divine promise, a divine promise which does not necessarily guarantee that when God promises that your children will be saved, that they will be saved.

17:13 Now, on the very surface of things that seems to be casting aspersions at the veracity, fidelity, faithfulness, and integrity of God. And, of course, our Pado-Baptist brethren are loathe to do any such thing. They are loathe to cast aspersions upon the integrity, faithfulness, and veracity of God. So that often the route that has been taken to get around this difficulty and tension is to say that God's promise that your children will be saved is a conditional promise.

17:52 And what is the condition? The condition is that you, you train your children properly and biblically. If God's promise is not fulfilled, the reason for that is that you have failed as a parent in bringing the appropriate training which you ought to have brought to your children. So it's not God's fault if your children are not saved.

18:24 God's promise, if it fails, fails because of your sin and not because of God's failure to keep his word. God has indeed promised to save our children if we train them up in the way of righteousness and truth. And if your children are not saved, then the reason is that you have not trained them up in the way of righteousness and truth. And that is why God's promise has failed of fulfillment because God's promise is bound to your faith.

18:59 Your parental faithfulness. Now, is that the first time in your life that you've ever heard that?

19:06 No. That's right. But that's the way that often is taken in order to evade the pressure of the fact that, as Berkhoff sadly admits, experience teaches that all of our children are not saved. Now, Paul K. Jewett

19:39 in his book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace addresses this issue on pages 152 and following, 152 to 155 in his book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. And here he's quoting from Bushnell's book Christian Nurture.

20:19 He says this, he says for Bushnell with his enthusiasm for Christian nurture and enthusiasm Baptists would do well to emulate, the very suggestion that covenant children may fail of their inheritance even when parents are faithful is almost more than can be borne. It would threaten to unhinge his whole argument. It is my settled conviction, he declares, that no man ever objected to infant baptism who had not at the bottom of his objection a false view of Christian education.

21:03 He argues that some parents fail because of defective views in the way in which children should be taught for all their good intentions. They discourage piety in a child. Still others fail in the religious training of their children because the church counteracts their effort. The church makes a bad atmosphere about the house and the poison comes in the doors and windows.

21:29 It is rent by divisions, burnt up by fanaticism, frozen by the chill of a worldly spirit, petrified by a rigid and dead orthodoxy. You see, so it's the parents' fault and it's the church's fault because of all these things.

21:44 Since the person, and he goes on to say, since the person who will not provide for his own is worse than an infidel, we must acknowledge the justice with which Bushnell blasts and I put a word in that I drew and didn't use but that's what it means, with which Bushnell blasts parental negligence and the wisdom with which he pleads for parental faithfulness. We accept his complaint that some parents in rearing their children make mistakes which, if not cruelly intended, are yet cruelly felt. However, we are constrained to observe

22:27 that the theology which implies that if parents do their part, God will save the children is a theology which may be as cruel to the parents as bad nurture is to the children.

22:45 Though every lawful incentive should be employed to move parents to higher resolves of consecration in the parental office, this doctrine of you do your part and be a good parent and God will do his can become a counsel of despair, a millstone about the necks of conscientious parents. Bushnell goes on to say, show me the case where the whole conduct of the parent has been such as it should be to produce the best effects. And Jewett remarks, we venture

23:28 he never was shown such and never will be. And we venture to the point where we venture and never will be. And we venture and never will be. And we venture and never will be.

23:31 And we venture and never discovered one for himself. Show me the perfect parent. Must you be the perfect parent before you can say you've done your part and then God automatically will do his part and save your children. That's no encouraging doctrine for the parent.

23:48 What parent, after all, can begin to be all that he ought to be in training his children? What parent could claim that his whole conduct has been such as it should be? We heartily agree, and I stress this with Jewett, we heartily agree with our Pado-Baptist brethren in their stress on parental training. But when they try to make it a scapegoat for failures in their system, failures of which have a more profound theological roots, they simply drive themselves into a deeper morass of contradiction.

24:32 We should never use the truth that God honors parental fealty so as to abuse the truth. You see the point that Jewett's making? And Jewett, I believe, has hit the nail right square on the head.

24:53 There are no such absolute promises in the Bible. They do not exist. We do not have any such promises that if we are faithful as parents that God automatically will and must save our children. There are no such promises in the Bible.

25:32 And to claim that there are in order to establish this, in order to defend your system, is to come up with what Jewett accurately describes as a doctrine which can be and which eventually will be as cruel to the parents as parental neglect and mistreatment is to the children.

Critique of Acts 2:38-39 as a Basis for the Promise

26:04 Now certainly, there are some statements in the Word of God which lend a sound of credibility to the Pato-Baptist contention that there is a divine promise that if you are faithful as a parent, God promise you your children will be saved. What are some of the texts that are used to support their contention? Well, I'll read you some of them. First one, Acts chapter 2.

26:33 Of course, we looked at this text before.

26:43 Acts chapter 2,

26:52 verse 38 and 39.

26:57 Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins and the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promise is to you and to your children. So there they find a statement that if you are faithful in your parental training and guidance, the promise is to you. If you are in the way of grace, God will save your children.

27:31 Now first of all, with respect to this statement, it says absolutely nothing about parental faithfulness. Whatsoever.

27:40 Does it? Or does it say anything about parental faithfulness? Where do you find any condition that says the promise is to you and if you are faithful in raising your children as you should, then it's also to your children. Where do you find that in the text?

27:58 The text says no such thing. The text in no way conditions this promise to your children upon anything whatsoever that has to do with parental faithfulness in their training and molding of the children. That has to be imported into the text and is foreign to the context and to the passage. Furthermore, as we saw before, it's reading into the passage something which is foreign with respect to the very content of the promise.

28:29 Here's the promise.

28:31 The promise is you repent and you be baptized and the only condition that's in the text is repentance and baptism and if you repent and are baptized you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You are the one who was commanded to repent and be baptized and that which you are promised that you will receive is the gift of the Holy Spirit. So there's a condition indeed a condition but the condition is repent, be baptized and the content of the promise is that if you repent and you're baptized you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and that very same promise which was made by the way

29:15 to these unconverted Jews unconverted people were the recipients of this promise. This is a gospel promise. That very same promise is the promise that is made to their children. If their children repent they also will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

29:33 That's the content of the promise. That promise which is made to these unconverted Jews is the very same promise which is made to their children. So that the very same gospel which the apostle preaches to the unconverted Jews pertains to their children.

29:52 The very same promise which I proclaim in the gospel to you unconverted Jews that very same promise applies to your children. If you repent and are baptized you will receive the gift of the Spirit and the same applies to them. If they repent and are baptized they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore this promise is not restricted to the children.

30:20 Notice.

30:22 For the promise is to you and to your children not period and to all that are afar off.

30:35 To all the promise of forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit made through the gospel is not something which is especially restricted to covenant children. It is not something which is their distinctive privilege. It is given to the Jews unconverted. It is given to their children.

31:01 It is given to all that are afar off as well. The promise is to you. It is to your children and it is to all who are afar off. So if this is a promise that if you do your part as a parent your children will be saved.

31:24 It is also a promise that all that are afar off will be saved.

31:30 The same promise which is to your children is to all that are afar off. Now that is the language of the text. So a little examination of the text as to what it actually says and what it does not say right on the surface of the case indicates that this text does not teach that if you believe the gospel and are faithful in training your children that your children will automatically be saved. This text does not teach that.

32:01 How can that type of an idea be imported into the plain simple straightforward language of this text? Yet few texts are more oftenly quoted as though the whole case were ended by their mere mentioning as Acts 2.39.

Critique of Acts 16:30-31 and the Jailer's Household

32:19 But again another text Acts chapter 16.

32:26 Here another promise of Acts chapter 16 in verse 30.

32:40 And he brought them out and he said sirs what must I do to be saved?

32:48 And they said believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved you and your house.

32:56 You believe in Christ and you will be saved. If you believe in Christ not only will you be saved but your house will be saved. Now there is a promise worthy of a promise. If you believe if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ you will be saved and so will your house.

33:23 So in other words first of all not only will your let's assume that your children are part of your house but also your servants will be saved your maids will be saved. Anyone who comes within the oversight of your parental authority will be saved. Your entire household will be saved if you are saved. Now another thing that we need to know is that this text says again absolutely nothing about his faithfulness in training them in parental nurture.

33:59 Not a word about it. It says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. And nowhere nowhere does the text say believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and if you believe in Christ if you are faithful in your parental nurture then your whole house will be saved too. That's not what the text says.

34:24 What the text says is if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ only condition you will be saved and only condition if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ your whole house will be saved. So again there is no warrant whatsoever for reading into this text the additional condition that you must be completely faithful as a parent for your house to be saved. But someone says ah but faithfulness as a parent is the natural outgrowth and expression of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes that's true.

34:58 And it's a mark is it not with many other marks in the area of universal holiness that you do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's one of those fruits of grace. Yes that's right. So are you prepared to say then that if someone is not faithful as a parent are they not a Christian?

35:14 That would seem to be the implication. That if they're not faithful as a parent and perfect in every way so that God fulfills his promise then they're not Christians. But then that undermines the whole argument that they make. Because the whole argument is built upon the fact that people are Christians and yet are not faithful in this area and that's why Christians are not receiving the divine promise.

35:36 So you can't get around it that way.

35:41 Because if it's a necessary mark of faith then the people who are not faithful are not Christians.

35:50 Then you can't say that the reason that the children of Christians are not saved is because Christians were not faithful.

36:00 But notice the point. In the context the salvation of his household really has nothing to do with his exercise of his parental faithfulness as far as I can see. There's nothing about years of parental training and molding them and praying over them. All that he does is he brings them up into his house and they spoke the word verse 32 to everyone in the house and he took them the same hour of the night and he washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his immediately.

36:39 And there wasn't much time for him to exercise his many years of parental training and molding because that very night he and all of his house were saved and baptized. Oh, it's a little bit artificial to say that it was because of his parental faithfulness and bringing the apostles to the house and saying, all right, you're all going to come hear the word of God tonight that that's what it meant to be parentally faithful. Well, you could push the text that far if you have a mind to but that's a little bit artificial.

37:12 So the point is there's no way that this can be tied to parental faithfulness in the context without doing violence to the exegesis of the text. Then the other thing is all right, it's clear, is it not? God promised this jailer something through the apostles through the apostle Paul, an explicit word of promise given to that jailer that if he believed in the Lord Jesus Christ not only would he be saved but his entire household would be saved. Now the question that I have is this, where do we find warrant in the word of God for the assertion that what was promised to this particular jailer in which was fulfilled that very night

37:55 in a very remarkable way, where do we find warrant in the word of God that that promise applies to every single Christian? It doesn't apply to every single Christian. The fact that God gave a special promise upon one occasion to a specific individual for whatever purpose he had intended and in view and then fulfilled that promise in a remarkable way is no grounds or warrant for us to take that promise which was given to the jailer and say that it applies to every single Christian man or every single Christian woman. When we begin to reason that way from promises that are given at various places in the book of Acts that would lead us into Pentecostalism when you come to the experience that they had with respect to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

38:40 It is simply not appropriate to assume that because this particular promise was given to this particular man, I mean, I'm not about to deny that the apostle promised him that if he believed, both he and his house would be saved. That's obvious in the text. And it really happened. The text makes it very clear.

Biblical Contradiction: The Gospel Brings Division, Not Universal Salvation

38:57 But what I'm saying is that we have no warrant to conclude from that that that is a promise which is made to every single Christian. As a matter of fact, the word of God makes it clear that that is not what will be the experience by and large of every single Christian. There are some texts which abundantly, with great clarity, assert the opposite. For example, Matthew chapter 10 in verse 34.

39:45 Now he says, I don't want you to have the wrong idea about my mission and about the impact that believing the gospel will have on families and on family relations. Now that's the whole point.

39:59 And he says, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Do not think that I came to send peace on the earth. I did not come to send peace but a sword.

40:12 The prince of peace did not come to send peace. The prince of peace came to send a sword upon the earth. Now that's what he said. Because, well why is that so?

40:24 Because I came to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Now that's what he said will happen when the gospel is believed. Everyone's not going to have the wonderful experience of household conversion that the jailer was promised and knew.

41:03 But when the gospel is believed there are some dear faithful godly Christians who will know the pain of division in their households on account of believing the gospel.

41:21 And they'll be set at variance against their parents. And they'll be set at variance against their own children. Now that's what the text teaches.

41:32 The text does not teach that everyone in your household will be saved. All your children will be saved. If you believe the gospel.

41:42 He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And Jesus goes on to say this doesn't just apply to your parents that when you're saved in the household you see it doesn't automatically mean that your parents are saved but look at the next part. He that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And this sword of division which the Lord Jesus promises will come is not a sword of division which simply comes between a man and his parents or brothers and sisters or in-laws.

42:27 It's a sword of division which comes between a man and a woman and their own dear children. He that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. You see the point.

The Cruelty of the Doctrine and the Role of Job's Comforters

42:49 The Lord Jesus does not teach that if you are saved everyone in your household or even all of your children will be saved. And it is indeed as Jewett called it a cruel doctrine. It is a cruel doctrine no matter how well meaning it may be. It is a cruel doctrine to lay an unbiblical and an unworthy guilt on the people.

43:17 Upon the consciences of sincere and godly and heartbroken parents who are grieving over the lostness of their own dear children.

43:31 That is a cruel doctrine no matter how well intended it may be.

43:42 And our brethren become Job's comforters when they come to the people of God in the midst of their pain and their affliction over their lost children whom they've loved and loved and loved whom they've prayed over whom they've sought in all not perfectly none of us is perfect in the training of our children but whom they've sought to train with tears and with words and with discipline and yet God in his sovereignty has not saved them.

44:15 And to come to them and look at them with that knowing look that it's your fault isn't it? That's to be a Job's comforter and that's to add grief to their already broken hearts.

44:33 That's to pour salt of your own error and your own self-justification of your own system into the wounds of the people of God.

44:50 And rather admit rather admit that there's an inconsistency that can't be explained than to be so determined to hold on to your theology that you become a Job's comforter to God's people. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

Pastoral Implications and the Burden on Parents and Pastors

45:38 I can't answer this to what percentage fully understand it. I just don't believe I can answer that. I really don't know how many of them simply go through it there's something to do and how many really fully believe it understand it. I can't answer that.

45:57 Pastor Martin? I think it would be accurate to say that where there's vital godliness the practice of inter-baptism is generally attended with very strong exhortation to the parents with respect to their responsibilities and to their children. Where there's vital godliness that emphasis will attend where there isn't it'll just be an empty ritual. On the other hand I think it must be said that where the pastoral part will muck them out people to be Job's comforters as Pastor Nichols has said so many do then something worse is the only other alternative.

46:36 They have to tell the parents who says but did not I lay hold of the promise when I brought my child to the farm I will be of God to thee and to thy seed isn't that the promised preacher that you gave me to lay hold of? And the preacher says yes I did but that promise is not all it appears to be and then they begin to say well God really has not committed himself in palliative to save all of your children and then the other tack to get out is to undermine the very veracity of God so as not to pain the heart of God as a Christian well that's a terrible alternative either to lift the Christian or to lift God but it leaves no alternative

47:20 that's why we feel so weak about this matter this is a pastoral matter we've got a church full of young parents who long that every child be ultimately converted but we have no word of promise that they all are going to be though we'll go to our grave laboring and praying that they will be but to put us in a position as pastors where we either have to club the parents and say you failed or club God and say he didn't fulfill an unconditional promise unconditionally we will not accept either of those alternatives amen well there's I see some more hands but there's there's one more point I really should make

Old Testament Proverbs as General Observations, Not Covenantal Promises

48:03 and that has to do with some of the promises in the Old Testament that are referred to where you do find statements that bring together the Lord God the rod of correction and training and the spiritual well-being for example there are many such texts but I just take one Proverbs 22 15 which states foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it far from him now these texts and texts like them like the another one I'm not going to have

48:47 time to get into it the one that Pastor Martin quoted is the one is perhaps the granddaddy text I will be a God to you and to your seat I'll get into that hopefully when I deal with the matter of the covenant and etc where you have to deal with that in its proper place but that is that also belongs here and I thought of that too but these other texts in the Old Testament which seem to indicate that there is some connection between the use of the rod and the well-being of the child's heart foolishness is bound up in the heart of the child but the rod of correction will drive it far from him well this another text this is similar to such texts as say that health is identified with walking in the way of righteousness

49:31 and that prosperity or even riches is identified with being diligent in your own business so what these are are these are general observations about God's dealings with men in life and there are many such things found in the book of Proverbs but this is not the same a general observation with respect to God's ordinary providential dealings this is not the same as a covenantal promise that well-being spiritually will automatically come in conjunction with the use of the rod it is observed that the rod is a means but it is not the rod in and of itself nor is God so bound to the use

50:16 of the rod in his general and ordinary dealings with men in providence that God that he has covenantally bound himself to save the children of parents who are faithful in their dealings any more than he is automatically engaged and bound to make you wealthy if you're diligent or to keep you healthy if you're obedient in the way of righteousness and you see it's the same error if someone is having trouble financially then up comes the Job's comforter and says it's because my friend you were not diligent in your work in your work and the same thing happens with sickness if you're sick it's because you either did not have faith or because you

51:01 were doing some other thing and that's why the displeasure of God is upon you in sickness and the same spirit is applied to this issue if your children are not ultimately those who have the foolishness driven from their hearts in salvation then it's because you were not faithful in the application of the rod it's the same spirit and that's that is exactly the spirit of Job's friends they recognize these general principles of God's providential dealings with men that wealth and prosperity comes in the way of diligence and health in the way of obedience and the deliverance of children from foolishness in the way of discipline that is not the same as saying that God is automatically

The Spirit of Job's Friends and Concluding Prayer

51:44 committed to save every single child if the parents are faithful in discipline nor is it the same to say that God is absolutely committed to make everyone rich or prosperous who is diligent nor to keep everyone healthy who is holy and that error is at the root of the bad treatment that Job got at the hands of his friends now our time is gone so we need to commit these thoughts to the Lord in prayer our God as we come into your presence this morning we give you thanks for your holy word we bless you Lord for your

52:29 goodness in dealing with us and oh God we pray we pray for those parents who have sought to raise their children in the way of righteousness and holiness and though not perfectly have sought to be faithful to them and training them in the way that they should go often against great odds and against many pressures and now their hearts are grieving because they see lostness characteristic of their children oh be good oh be pleased Lord that you would be their comfort be pleased that we would not be Job's comforters to them that you would give us a sensitivity and a tenderness

53:13 and yet we also pray Lord that there would be always that humility of heart searching and a willingness to own our guilt and to own our sin and yet we pray Father that you would keep your people from an unnecessary and an unnatural and an unholy and an unholy guilt laid upon them by a misunderstanding of your holy word we pray these things in Jesus name Amen