,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Sinclair Ferguson: if the children of believers aren't included in the new covenant promise, it doesn't even qualify as a covenant. Why not? My summary of his argument: (Thread) 
God created mankind with particular blessing on marriage and children. This blessing is included in the covenant he made with Adam in Eden.
The satanic attack on man and his sinful response issued in the covenant curses of Eden, which particularly applied to these two blessings: the marriage relationship, and the bearing of children.
God's gracious response is in the covenant of grace: in which the original blessings of the covenant are restated to Adam and his seed, to be won for them by the coming seed of the woman who will crush the seed of the serpent.
All of God's covenants, without exception, include blessing to the seed because this is the restoration of the original creation blessing on mankind.
So much so that 'the believer in biblical times would have regarded the inclusion of the coming generations in the promise as belonging to the nature of a covenant; without this, it would not qualify as a covenant'.
Thus the view that children were included in the Old Covenant because it was old is entirely mistaken. They were not included because it was old, but because it was a covenant; not because it is outdated, but simply because was gracious.
For grace is about the restoration of nature. Bavinck: grace runs in the dried-up riverbeds of nature. So the natural blessing on children is and must be restored for grace to be grace.
Thus for the new covenant in Christ even to qualify as a covenant it must include the children of those included in it. This is embedded in Peter's sermon at Pentecost, as much as it was in the new covenant chapters Jeremiah 31-32
The practice of infant baptism is therefore rooted in the very nature of covenant, and of grace, as the whole Bible envisions it. /End
