In the July, 1996 issue of this magazine, the Rev. Cecil W. Tuininga, Reformed minister in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, defended the doctrine of a conditional covenant with the children of believers. This doctrine teaches that God on His part makes His covenant with all the children of believing parents alike. At, baptism, He promises every child that He will be the child’s God and that the child will be God’s child. Since the covenant provides salvation, God promises every child that He will save him. But the covenant is conditional. Made by God with every physical child of believing parents, the covenant depends for its maintenance and continuance with the individual child upon the child’s faith. If the child will later fulfill the condition of faith, the covenant will continue with him. If the child refuses to believe, the covenant that God made with him is broken.

The promise of salvation made by God to every child alike at baptism is conditional. The condition is the child’s act of believing. If the child will fulfill the condition of believing, God’s promise to him will be realized in his salvation. But if the child refuses to believe, God’s promise to him will fail of realization. The child will perish, despite the fact that God once promised him eternal life in Jesus Christ, just as He promised eternal life to the children who are saved.

In the same issue of the Standard Bearer, I responded briefly to Rev. Tuininga. In order to clarify the issue and make some progress in the debate, I asked that, if Rev. Tuininga wrote again, he would answer specific questions that I put to him. These questions take us to the heart of the issue in the controversy between defenders of a conditional covenant and those who teach that God’s covenant with believers and their children is unconditional. These were the questions:

1) Does the promise that, according to Rev. Tuininga, is made by God to every child of believing parents express God’s covenantal love for every child? 

2) Does this promise indicate that God sincerely desires to save every child of believing parents?

3) Does this promise rest upon and flow from Jesus Christ’s death for every child of believing

parents? Did Jesus Christ shed His blood for every baptized child of believing parents? 

4) Among the benefits included in the promise to every child, is faith included? Does God at baptism promise to give every child faith? 

5) With regard to the second principal part of the doctrine of holy baptism in the Reformed “Form for the Administration of Baptism” that Rev. Tuininga uses, is it Rev. Tuininga’s understanding: 

a) that God the Father witnesses and seals to every baptized child that He makes an eternal covenant of grace with the child and adopts him or her for His child and heir, on the condition that the child will believe; 

b) that God the Son seals to every baptized child that He washes the child in His blood from all his or her sins, incorporating the child into the fellowship of His death and resurrection, on the condition that the child will believe; 

c) and that God the Holy Ghost assures every baptized child that He will dwell in the child and sanctify the child to be a member of Christ, applying unto the child that which he or she has in Christ, on the condition that the child will believe?

Rev. Tuininga has indeed written again on the subject of the covenant of God with the children of believers. He has answered the questions that I had proposed. His letter follows, in its entirety.

This letter is in response to your comments on my letter in the Standard Bearer of July 1996. Before I answer your questions I wish to point out, as I read this response, that you are putting words into my answer that are not there. With Dr. Hendriksen I made very clear that the condition of faith cannot be fulfilled by man. That is God’s work. But the condition is so clearly stated in Romans 11 that I fail to see how anyone can deny it. That man is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) does, not remove the condition that in order to be saved he must believe. God never removed from fallen man his responsibility to love God and serve Him, which he can do only by faith, a faith that he can exercise only by God’s grace. I want to repeat that I have never stated anywhere that the condition of faith can be fulfilled by man. But that this is a condition that God demands cannot be denied (see Heb. 2:4; Rom. 1:16, 17; 10:6; Gal. 3:14, 24; etc.) 

To answer your questions: 

1. Yes, God does express His love for every covenant child.

2. Yes, God does desire to save every covenant child. 

3. No, Jesus shed His blood only for those given Him by the Father. 

4. No, faith is a condition that a covenant child must fulfill but can only fulfill by God’s grace (Eph. 2:8). If they do not fulfill this condition they are cut off the covenant tree (Rom. 11:22).

5. a. Yes, God makes an eternal covenant with all who are born into that covenant. To every covenant child God says: You are my child. Yes, the covenant child can break that covenant and be cut off from the covenant family. Many covenant children do indeed so break covenant and are indeed cut off (Rom. 11:22).

b. and c. We must say, yes indeed, these rich and beautiful assurances are given to every covenant child. But the child can reject them and sad to say, many do; and Hebrews 6 does indeed teach this. In stubborn unbelief they reject God and His rich promises. Covenant breakers will indeed receive the greater punishment. 

Now allow me a few questions: 

1. Is every baptized child, according to your position, elect and hence saved? How then answer for those who reject the covenant promises? Do they not break covenant with God? 

2. Does God not love and desire the salvation of all those within the covenant? If not, why did Jesus weep over the covenant breaking Jerusalem with the words, “How often I wanted to gather your children, … but you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37)? How else can we understand Romans 10:21? 

3. And in this connection, does God not desire the salvation of all men? If not, how do you interpret I Timothy 2:3, 4? Shall we do a little revising and say that by “all” God meant the elect? But then the Word of God would have said so! Shall we say that it means “all different kinds of people”? If that was the intention of the Holy Spirit, it would have been clearly stated. If this is not the clear message of Scripture, that God desires all men to be saved, then what does it say? For a good Reformed answer to this question read Calvin on 2 Peter 3:9 and Dr. Herman Ridderbos in Padus, (p. 393). But the Canons of Dordt are also very clear when they state: “As many as are called by the Gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come to Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe” (chap. III-IV, Article 8). 

The fault with Arminians is that they apply human logic to God’s Word and conclude that if God calls men to faith and repentance it must mean that man can come of his own free will and that Christ died for all men. Hyper- Calvinists, in applying logic to Scripture, come to exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that since God from all eternity has elected some to salvation and bypassed “the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22), it must follow that God cannot seek these non-elect vessels of wrath with an honest .and earnest call of Gospel. And so we proceed to reject clear teachings of Scripture. I would be very happy to see our Protestant Reformed brothers come to recognize and correct their hyper-Calvinism and become truly Reformed. 

Sincerely in the Lord, 

Cecil W. Tuininga

The answers of Rev. Tuininga to my questions are remarkable for their candor. This is how theological debate, like all discussion among Christians, should always be carried on. But such is by no means the case. Such is not always the case in doctrinal discussion. Such is certainly not the case in the controversy with those who defend a conditional covenant. It has proved difficult to get defenders of a conditional covenant to acknowledge their position and its implications with the frankness of Rev. Cecil Tuininga. One can read extensively in their literature without finding the unambiguous statement, “God loves every child of believing parents with His covenantal love.” One can press them vigorously without ever getting them to admit in so many words that baptism represents God’s sincere desire to save every child of believers. One cannot escape the impression that they deliberately avoid clarity and frankness at the crucial points because they themselves hesitate to own up to the implications of their doctrine.

Whatever the explanation, this lack of candor obscures the real issues for many. The result is that the controversy between defenders of a conditional covenant and those who hold that God’s covenant is unconditional never makes progress toward a clear resolution in Reformed circles.

What invariably happens is that the defender of a conditional covenant refuses to state that his doctrine comes down to this, that God has a universal covenant love for all boys and girls born to believing parents, which universal love depends for its efficacy upon the human condition of faith. The defender of a conditional covenant refuses to state this, even though this is obviously the necessary implication of the position that he argues. Since the defender of a conditional covenant will not state this himself, the advocate of an unconditional covenant charges this against the doctrine of a conditional covenant. At the same time, he points out that this was essentially the heresy that the Reformed churches condemned at Dordt. Whereupon the defender of a conditional covenant cries, “Foul!” complaining that the advocate of an unconditional covenant is putting words in his mouth and is accusing him of teaching an error to which, in fact, he is opposed.

In refreshing contrast to the typical ambiguity of a defense of a conditional covenant, Rev. Tuininga makes a candid confession of the character of a conditional covenant. This is to his credit. This can only serve the cause of truth.

The significance of his candid confession is that it makes plain to everyone what is, in fact, the real character of the doctrine of a conditional covenant, wherever and by whomever it is taught. And it is taught widely in Reformed and Presbyterian churches today. No doubt, it is the majority opinion. Very few stand with the Protestant Reformed Churches in confessing an unconditional covenant.

In order that the real character of the doctrine of a conditional covenant may be clearly seen, let us place each of Rev. Tuininga’s frank answers immediately after the question to which it is the answer. In what follows, my questions appear in italics; Rev. Tuininga’s answers are in regular type.

1) Does the promise that, according to Rev. Tuininga, is made by God to every child of believing parents express God’s covenantal love for every child?

Answer: Yes, God does express His love for every covenant child.

2) Does this promise indicate that God sincerely desires to save every child of believing parents?

Answer: Yes, God does desire to save every covenant child.

3) Does this promise rest upon and flow from Jesus Christ’s death for every child of believing parents? Did Jesus Christ shed His blood for every baptized child of believing parents?

Answer: No, Jesus shed His blood only for those given Him by the Father.

4) Among the benefits included in the promise to every child, is faith included? Does God at baptism promise to give every child faith?

Answer: No, faith is a condition that a covenant child must fulfill but can only fulfill by God’s grace (Eph. 2:8). If they do not fulfill this condition they are cut off the covenant tree (Rom. 11:22).

5) With regard to the second principal part of the doctrine of holy baptism in the Reformed “Form for the Administration of Baptism” that Rev. Tuininga uses, is it Rev. Tuininga’s understanding:

a) that God the Father witnesses and seals to every baptized child that He makes an eternal covenant of grace with the child and adopts him or her for His child and heir, on the condition that the child will believe?

Answer: Yes, God makes an eternal covenant with all who are born into that covenant. To every covenant child God says: You are my child. Yes, the covenant child can break that covenant and be cut off from the covenant family. Many covenant children do indeed so break covenant and are indeed cut off (Rom. 11:22).

b) that God the Son seals to every baptized child that He washes the child in His blood from all his or her sins, incorporating the child into the fellowship of His death and resurrection, on the condition that the child will believe; 

c) and that God the Holy Ghost assures every baptized child that He will dwell in the child and sanctify the child to be a member of Christ, applying unto the child that which he or she has in Christ, on the condition that the child will believe?

Answer: We must say, yes indeed, these rich and beautiful assurances are given to every covenant child. But the child can reject them and sad to say, many do; and Hebrews 6 does indeed teach this. In stubborn unbelief they reject God and His rich promises. Covenant breakers will indeed receive the greater punishment.

Surely, the candid answers to these questions alert every professing Calvinist to the fact that at stake in the controversy over a conditional covenant is the gravest issue. At stake is the issue that lies at the heart of the Reformed faith, the gospel revealed in Holy Scripture and defended in the Canons of Dordt. This issue is the sovereignty of the grace of God in the head and mediator of the new covenant. Nothing less.

-DJE

(to be cont.)