The “Gospel” of legalism for children and antinomianism for adults?

I have been reminded of something I quoted from Heinrich Bullinger:

And indeed one may easily get in trouble here unless one proceeds on the royal highway. For those people who consider only the conditions of the covenant and in fact disregard the grace and promise of God exclude infants from the covenant. It is true that children not only do not observe the terms of the covenant but also do not even understand these terms. But those who view only the sacrament, ceremony, or sign of the covenant count some in the covenant who are really excluded. But if you consider each one separately, one at a time, not only according to the conditions of the covenant but also in terms of the promise or the mercy of God, and the age and reason of a person, then you will realize that all those who believe from among the Jews and the Gentiles are the descendants of Abraham with whom the Lord made the covenant. In the meantime, however, their offspring, that is, their children, have by no means been excluded from the covenant. They are excluded, however, if having reached the age of reason they neglect the conditions of the covenant.

In the same way, we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates. They are mistaken who boast about their prerogatives as sons of the family by virtue of birth. For he who violates the laws of piety toward parents is no different from a slave; indeed, he is lower than a slave, because even by the law of nature itself he owes more to his parents. Truly this debate about the seed of Abraham has been settled for us by the prophets and the apostles, specifically that not everyone who is born of Abraham is the seed of Abraham, but only he who is a son of the promise, that is, who is faithful, whether Jew or Gentile. For the Jews have already neglected the basic conditions of the covenant, while at the same time they glorified themselves as the people of God, relying on circumcision and the fact that they were born from the parent Abraham. Indeed, this error is denied and attacked not only by Christ along with the apostles but also by the entire body of the prophets (boldface added).

Thus wrote Heinrich Bullinger in The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant with God, which I found translated in Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker [Louisville, KY: W/JKP, 1991], 106).

To me, this makes perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is giving adults unconditional assurance but making children doubt God’s promises. Constantly I hear that it is dangerous to regard our young children as believers in open assault on their own profession of faith (which is simply dismissed on the ground of their age) and then told that the warnings in the Bible don’t really apply to believers (of whom only adults really qualify).

How did we get into this insane situation?

The answer, of course, is Revivalism, but that just moves the mystery one step further. What attracted people to revivalism?

In the Westminster Confession we read that the sacraments are to confirm faith. How can we claim to be Westminsterian and then attack ministers of the Gospel for encouraging children to believe God’s promises to them in his act of baptism and the Lord’s supper?

We also read that faith can involve fearing God’s threats and that assurance comes from a life of obedience?

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

In what world dow it make sense to downplay the promise for children but then downplay the role of obedience for adults? What is the attraction of revivalism?

It would be slightly more understandable if Jesus didn’t directly address the perversity of our adult hearts to lord it over our little ones and aggrandize ourselves by marginalizing them. But behold:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; 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.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on 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.”

So among all the issues the Gospels could have covered, this one gets addressed repeatedly.

Would anyone know this was such an issue in the Gospels from the behavior they could observe in Evangelical churches? In Evangelical households? Constantly we are told that these children are outside the kingdom–despite their prayers, songs of praise, and professions of faith–and that we must “evangelize” them. I submit we should consider the possibility that our “concern” actually masks self-aggrandizement and pharisaism.

We are told to gently restore adults caught in sin (Galatians 6.1ff). How do we get the right to exclude toddlers who have never (yet, perhaps) sinned so seriously, and then be so magnanimous as if we held the keys to the door?

Maybe they’re the ones with the keys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *