Green Baggins is nearing the end of his chapter by chapter review of “Reformed” Is Not Enough, and thus far I think it is fair to say that he has not found anything that would place me outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy as he defines it. He has found multiple places where he think I am ambiguous, but I have sought to clear up those ambiguities in these exchanges. I am very grateful to Lane for taking the time to do this, and for seeking to hear me state what I believe in my own words. He has managed to do this without having had his orthodoxy called into question, and I am thankful for that as well.
In this response, Lane begins by saying that he thinks that the FV controversy is about a nexus of issues, the status of children being an important one of them. He was responding to my statement, “In a very real way, this debate is a debate over the theology of children.” I was speaking generally, and of course I agree with Lane’s qualification.
Here Lane clearly states that “children can have faith from the womb.” He then goes on to add what he believes to be the important qualification that such faith will not fail. “Where I would probably differ from the FV is that I would say that such a seed of faith, if it exists, will infallibly produce complete salvation over the course of one’s life, with apostasy not being a possibility. And I do not believe that every child of the covenant possesses it.”
But of course, I agree with this completely. If we are talking about God-given faith, evangelical faith, the kind of faith that God grants to those whom He has determined to save, then I agree with this entirely. Reprobate covenant members don’t have this kind of faith, ever. Those who have this kind of faith have it because they are elect. If an elect individual is regenerated and has faith, then that individual will be infallibly saved, whether he came to faith when he was two or twenty-two. And it is also undeniable that many covenant members from infancy do not have this kind of saving faith.
But the one additional comment that should be made is that infant covenant members can have a kind of faith, just as adult covenant members who are reprobate can. Before the Lord tells certain individuals to depart because He never knew them, they said something that indicated that they thought they had faith. “Lord, Lord . . .” They were mistaken because historical faith is not saving faith. There are many reprobate covenant members who have had historical faith only, and they have had it their entire lives. They believe that Jesus is Lord for the same reason they believe that George Washington was the first president — nobody ever told them different. I have no reason for supposing that this qualification would alter Lane’s agreement with me here, so we can just move on.
Next, Lane had some trouble because my references to the Southern Presbyterians were taken from Schenck’s book, and not directly from Thornwell or Dabney. There are two responses here. The first is that Lane’s counter that Dabney held that infants are capable of redemption. I grant that, but the issue is how children who are being brought up in the covenant are to be treated. We are not talking about whether an infant (who dies in infancy, say) can be saved. I wasn’t accusing the Southern Presbyterians of being baby-damners. We are talking about the children who live, and what is assumed about them and required of them before they are brought to the Table. The issue is not, can little children be saved? The issue is how do we treat baptized children, growing up in the church? Where is the burden of proof? Do they still, at some future date, have to produce some other evidence (other than their baptism and covenant status) in order to be accepted into the Church? The Southern Presbyterians said yes, and we say no.
Lane ended by saying that he could not find the Thornwell quote in his copy of Thornwell’s works. I am not sure what quotation he is referring to, but here is a relevant citation from Thornwell’s Works (IV, p. 341). How are we to treat those children who have been brought up in the realm of the church?
“They are born unto her as children, and as children, the great duty she owes to them is to educate them. But in heart and spirit they are of the world. In this aspect, how is she to treat them? Precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men — she is to exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of the saints. She is to debar them from all the privileges of the inner sanctuary. She is to exclude them from their inheritance until they show themselves meet to possess it.”
The emphasis added is mine. This is certainly a recognizable form of the “vipers in diapers” doctrine, and while I honor Thornwell as a great man in the history of the church, and I follow him on many other issues (along with Dabney) this particular understanding of his is one that I reject with whole-hearted detestation. This rejection really is a central player in the FV controversy. And I think it is worth noting that on this point at least, Lane is closer to where I am than to where Thornwell was.