Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

we relate these two seemingly contradictory truths to each other so as to make edifying
sense to baptized folk?
The biblical answer to this question, which early Reformed theology saw sharply
and incorporated in its sacramentology, but has been frequently forgotten and intermittently
ignored is this: To give on God’s part is not necessarily to receive on the
Church’s part! Just as the amount of a check, while it constitutes this very amount on
the part of the issuer, does not come in the actual possession of the one in whose name
the check is issued, until it is cashed (More about this below)! As I have stated earlier,
a.o. in the context of James 1:25 in Topical Focus # 8: Symbols and Penology in the
Mosaic Law, and with reference to Joshua 1:3-4; Hebrews 4:1-2; and 2 Peter 1:3-4,
this principle applies to the promises of God. It equally applies to the sacraments that
are the promises of God made visible. God’s promises, whether in spoken or visible
form, will not be fulfilled apart from faith as the heartfelt surrender to, embrace of, and
self-abandonment to these promises, and any obedience that this entails (Compare
Abraham as the model of this triad, as presented in Gen. 13:8ff; 15:3ff; and 22:1ff).
Because these promises are promises of the Gospel, it follows by ironclad logic that
the Gospel must be preached to all baptized persons. After all, faith comes by the
hearing, and hearing by the preaching of the Gospel (Rom. 10:14).
All in all, the following propositions obtain. (1) Since baptism cannot be identified
with salvation, to affirm or presume that all baptized persons, children as well as
adults, are virtually saved by definition, goes against the grain of Scripture, which asserts
that the initiating sacrament, whether circumcision or baptism, means nothing
apart from its substance. (2) Since all persons, baptized or not, participated in Adam’s
original sin and therefore possess rebel hearts, guilty records and polluted lives from
the moment of their conception, no one has the right to designate them as saved until
they have Christ’s heart in regeneration, Christ’s righteousness in justification, and
Christ’s holiness in sanctification. (3) Since Scripture does not reveal, explicitly or implicitly,
whether baptized persons in their infancy possess Christ’s heart, righteousness
and holiness, it is pure speculation to assert that they do. (4) Since baptized persons
cannot be united to Christ apart from faith in the Gospel, it is (criminal?) presumption
to assert that they are united to him apart from the manifestation of such faith as the
entrance gate to, and evidence of, Christ’s heart, righteousness and holiness. (5) Since
persons, who as members of the covenant are eligible for the initiating sacrament,
whether circumcision or baptism, have been entrusted with the awesome privilege of
the “oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2), it is (criminal?) negligence not to preach all these
oracles, inclusive of the New Covenantal Gospel promises, to them with the summons
of repentance and faith. (6) Since parents recognize that their covenant children participated
in Adam’s original sin, and are dead in their sins from the moment of their
conception, they will refuse to be presumptuously speculative about their actual
standing before God, but consistently and humbly nurture them with the Gospel and its
promises, until they can rejoice in their fulfillment by the evidences of repentance and
faith. (7) Since parents of baptized infants have God’s promise that the godly instruction
of their children, inclusive of instruction in the New Covenant promises and the
necessity of repentance and faith, will ensure that they will not depart from it (Prov.
22:5), they may take heart in the faithfulness of God to honor this promise. (8) Since
no parents, however diligent in the discharge of their duties, will ever be able to in-
534