This is a very long comment I posted on a Facebook thread . I had to divide it in three parts because FB said it was longer than 8,000 characters LOL!
The comment had to do with a video that Rachel Jankovic, who I really like by the way, posted regarding Parenting. You may want to watch the video here so that you know what my comment was all about. I am just saving it for my own personal records, since Emerson jokes around saying I write Chapter Books instead of texts.
Somebody commented that my words had blessed her, and that meant a lot. My friend Katey from church also commented on it. You might think I’m just babbling, but the fact that women can actually interact with each other in conversations like this is proof that:
- Women are super smart. Not that I was doubting it, but many seem to assume we want to talk about our feelings all the time, having it all dumbed down, and therefore, many Women’s Ministries in the Church just exist to give us milk – or less than milk. We want meat. Although I can’t generalize, I can say that there are many women who want solid teaching – not weak sauce. Also, lest you misinterpret me, my smarts don’t give me the right to disobey the Lord, and therefore preach on Sunday morning or exercise authority over men. Let’s be perfectly clear about that.
- Women (and I will argue Moms) need theology. We need theology to raise our children. We need theology when our children get sick, when our children disobey for the hundredth time of the day, or when our husband dies. We need to constantly be looking to Jesus – the founder and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2).
I wish I can explain every single one of my points here, but I can’t. Also, if you happen to be reading and I sound like I am talking Chinese, take heart. This also would have sounded like Chinese to me five years ago. I just want to encourage you to know there are wonderful resources out there, and I hope I can link some of those at the end.
So watch the video first. And here we go:
I began reading about Covenant Theology because the Presbys (on a Presbyterian meme page) were always making fun of the Reformed Baptists saying we cannot be really Reformed. Which granted, being Reformed in your Soteriology (aka, you are Calvinist) doesn’t mean you’re thoroughly Reformed. Like say, John Piper is Calvinist, but he is not Reformed.
And I think Rachel is coming on this video with her understanding of Covenant Theology as a Presbyterian, and how their children are to be considered part of the Covenant. In my understanding, a truly converted Presbyterian couple is in the Covenant, right? Therefore, they baptize their babies assuming that their children are IN the Covenant, too. They do this just the way parents circumcised their children in the Old Testament. Parents in the OT assumed their children were part of the Covenant God made with Israel. Eventually, though, those parents had to recognize that a child of Israel may not be a true Israelite. This is exactly the point Paul is making in Romans 9 – that not all Israel is Israel. There was a true Israel within visible, ethnic Israel. I think that’s why Rachel says that eventually they would have to kick them out of fellowship if the children show no signs of true conversion. So I think that’s her presupposition to begin with since she’s Presbyterian.
So I got angry at the memes 😂😂 and I bought a book that’s published by Founders Ministries written from a Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology perspective. After reading that book, I understood my position even better. The book gave words to what I actually believe because I have seen it in the Scriptures. The way I see Covenant Theology as a Reformed Baptist is very different than Rachel’s, and there’s no way I can elaborate on the whole book, LOL!
But as I understand, the New Covenant was bought by Jesus’ blood. That means God made a Convent with His Son in eternity past (Covenant of Redemption) in which the Son would come to buy A people. Now, that developed in history in different dispensations, if you want to call them that, but the people is A people from every nation, and tongue, and there is no way that you know someone is IN the New Covenant unless that person repents and puts faith in Chrsit.
That CALLING happens in time, but it was PREDESTINED in eternity past. So if Chrsit bought you by His blood, you ARE in the New Covenant – you are CHOSEN (that’s precisely the L in TULIP), even though it takes time for you to realize that. So in that sense, I have always been a sheep. It’s not that I was a goat, and then I became a sheep. I have always been a sheep, but I had never HEARD Jesus’ voice calling me until I was 23 y.o. – that’s the language John uses in John 10.
So Chrsit did not die to make my salvation depending on my “free will” a mere possibility, but He actually bought my faith and my repentance at the cross, to make sure that I would eventually come (which is the I in TULIP). The father gave A people to the Son and those and only those will come. Those are the ELECT. That’s why Jesus said those who the Father gives to me will come to me… that’s why Jesus said to the Pharisees that they were not His sheep, and the reason they didn’t believe is not because they didn’t see, but because even though the saw everything he was doing, they were not of His sheep, and therefore didn’t believe.
That’s just the beginning of my argument LOL!
So THAT being said, I can’t assume my children are IN the Covenant. Given my understanding on Covenant Theology, and what the New Covenant represents, I can’t assume my children are IN that Covenant unless they profess faith in Chrsit. She seems to assume her children are IN the Covenant. So we have to disagree on that. Not on whether or not the children are ELECT (they might as well be), but whether or not we can assume they are.
But I do see her point, because when I realized TULIP was biblical, I was enraged. And for a long time I was in the cage stage, which happened at the same time that Enzo was at his worst, and so it was very tempting for me to say, “This child is a reprobate” LOL!
I was not saying, “This child is unregenerate.” I was given to despair and doubt and saying he was not of the elect since I didn’t see any fruit in him at all. Maybe, and I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt on that, that’s what she’s talking about. Maybe she’s talking about Baptist parents who see their children do not produce fruit right away, and they give up as in “You are not saved, you‘re never gonna be saved”.
I was always thinking, “Are they saved? They sinned again, even though the say they believe. Maybe they are not truly Christians, blah, blah…” And it was exhausting, because I was always crying. Maybe that’s what she is referring to.
Fast forward, God has worked in my heart to know that their ELECTION into the New Covenant is not my choice, nor their choice, but His choice. I’m sure Rachel will agree with that. I feel more comfortable teaching the children from the Scriptures all these realities and saying to them, “Look, God bought A people, and I pray and pray that you are part of those people. But the only thing I can do is share the gospel with you and call you to repentance. I can’t change your heart. I can’t give you light, I can’t open your eyes. When you sin, I can’t see whether o not the Holy Spirit is in you, but I’m calling you to examine yourselves.”
I am sure Rachel will also agree with that. I personally don’t think I am putting doubt in their minds. Yes, I was doubting as a parent, but not anymore. I know their salvation is not of me, and therefore I can’t assume it either just because I am raising them in a Christian household.
I am pregnant, right? As I see the Scriptures, this baby in my womb is an enemy of God. He is going to be born as a God-hater. He already is. Like, you don’t have to go far to know they will disobey, and they will rebel, right?
Libby was listening to pastor Bray like a month ago, and at the end of the sermon she broke down crying cause I think she put 2+2 together, and said, “What if Baby is not of the elect? It’s right there in the Scriptures, Mommy. It’s a true possibility.”
And Pastor John called her and said, “That’s is true. BUT I have a lot of hope for Baby Daniel because God works through means. He calls His people though the proclamation of the gospel, and I’m sure that Baby Daniel will hear the gospel since Day 1. He has already been hearing the gospel, and you are praying for him, too. Baby Daniel has already an advantage over many other children in the world, because he is born into a family who loves the Lord, a family who will read him the Bible, a family who will pray for his salvation. So while we don’t know for sure, we have many reasons to rejoice and hope that God will indeed save him.”
But that doesn’t mean I’m gonna baptize Daniel just on the assumption that God will CALL him, you know what I mean?
I agree with her in everything – almost. But I disagree with her first comment that I am teaching my children to doubt Chrsit. On the contrary, I think I am teaching my children to be realistic about their spiritual condition. I am teaching them to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith, and trust that if Chrsit is really IN them, then the Holy Spirit will testify TO THEM (not to me) that they are children of God.
If Chrsit is IN them, they will love Christ, they will experience conviction of sin, they will weep when their Lord is blasphemed, they will love God’s people. I have grown in this area, too. God has testified to MY Spirit that I am saved, that I am truly one of the Elect. You can know you are one of God’s chosen ones. People who misunderstand Calvinism always attack this issue. And I’m not saying this in pride, but you can actually know you are CHOSEN because the Scriptures teach us to see these beautiful realities. God did not reveal these doctrines so that we will be doubting, but so that we can be confident and be assured of our salvation, knowing that what He starts, He finishes (the P in TULIP).
I can say, “Well, Rachel, you are teaching your children to over confide in Chrsit because of their baptism.”
She seems to assume that 1 John, and walking in the light means salvation or fellowship with God. The child in my womb is in darkness, he is dead in sin and trespasses. Until God raises him from the death and grants him repentance and faith, he is blind, he is of the devil. He has a heart of stone, not a heart of flesh. Those are Scriptures terms, not mine. If you know your Bible, you know those verses.
Does Rachel mean I am still called to love that child dearly, and teach him the LAW so that they can say, “My family loves the Lord and they are teaching me how to obey the Lord.”?
If she means that by being in fellowship, then yes, I am raising my children that way. I am not only gonna teach my 2 year-old, that He is God’s enemy and that God hates evil doers, therefore God hates him – although that is true to some extent (Psalm 5, Romans 5). But I am also going to teach him that God died for His enemies, and for those who hated Him, that God is full of compassion.
So I have to preach the FULL gospel. Am I making sense? I am not going to wait until my child has a conversion experience to teach him Law and Gospel, or to teach him that breaking God’s Law will bring punishment. However, all the teaching, I will be doing it that under the assumption that all my toiling work is like planting seeds. I can’t assume God will bring the rain. But while I can’t have the assurance that the Lord will bring salvation, I can be faithful as a parent, and do MY part. I can preach the gospel, take the weeds out when I see them, pray for them, raise them in His ways, and then IF the Lord chooses to bring down the rain, everything is already in place. I toiled for it, and He gave me the perseverance in doing it, but bringing down the rain is still His choice.
I am not NOT going to do all these things just because I don’t know if the Lord WILL. My job as a mom is to do ALL those things, for His glory, even if HE does not save them. As painful as it might be, I know I will still hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant” because it is about MY faithfulness in doing what He required of me as a parent. My faithfulness has nothing to do with whether He saves them or not.
When she mentions Ephesians 6, I agree. I am training them in His ways, and I don’t even have to assume their salvation. I am training them, and I do it with joy. I am not gonna raise Daniel telling him he’s not chosen or that he might as well not even obey cause who knows if he is one of the elect. I will teach him to love the Lord, and to sing praises to Him. I’ll teach him that God is good, and compassionate, and kind and faithful, and mighty – and HOLY.
So who knows the kind of Baptists she is talking about. LOL!
Libby and Enzo will officially be recognized as part of the church if they get baptized and begin having the Lord’s Supper. We were doing Lord’s Supper with them until Pastor Bray told us that was not biblical since they had not been baptized. He also explained us why. Even if they are baptized, and they continue to live in sin, Pastor Bray will withhold the Lord’s Supper from them, and will start church discipline. So Baptists, we also remove people from fellowship. I am shepherding my children to be about Christ – their whole identity. But even though they are being raised as part of the visible church, I cannot assume they are or will be part of the actual Bride. Does that makes sense?
There’s a danger on her side, too. She can see her children sin, and assume they are believers because she’s training them that way, and they really aren’t, so she will have to remove them at some point. We, as Reformed Baptists, will remove them, too – even though they are baptized later. We will excommunicate them, until they repent, and then we vote to bring them according to Matthew 18. I mean, the process doesn’t have to go that far. It can stop short of removing them from the church if they repent.
Anyhow, that’s why I am in agreement that faithful parents, either Presbyterian or Baptist, can look very similar. I will say I am in that category in which both parents eventually will have to get them out of the church if they continue to walk in sin.
I am glad she mentioned the dangers of her position with parents who baptized them and never deal with the sin in their children, or Baptists who might assume a child cannot know the love of Christ. I would say, my children may not totally understand everything, but my job as a mom is to show them Christ in my parenting: grace, faithfulness, discipline, etc.
Maybe by KNOWING Christ, she means teaching them to love Christ?
Again, I don’t believe my baptized infant child knows Christ, because you actually KNOW Chrsit until you come to him in repentance and faith.
Also, sinning does not equate not knowing Christ, if it did, then I don’t know Christ because I sin everyday. So maybe she’s talking about the parent who’s obsessed with their child walking in obedience always. Like the parent that wants perfection in their children, and freaks out when they are not perfect, and therefore doubts their salvation?
I agree, I am a sheepdog, bringing them back. Spanking them is how I bring them back LOL! One of the many ways anyway… so I do see her point.
I do believe she may have painted with a broad brush putting all Baptists in her category of how Baptists raise their children. Maybe she should hang out with us, cause we are Reformed Baptists, who are also Covenantal, although the memes might disagree.
I’m gonna stop right there. It took me very long. Sorry about that! But this is a public forum, and I officially said I disagree with Rachel Jankovic… I needed to explain at least why.
I honestly like her a lot. I don’t think she meant wrong. I think she may have assumed many things about Baptists, in which case, she needs better Baptist friends, or actually, she needs Reformed Baptist friends, LOL!THE END
- Ligonier Ministries
- The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom, by Sam Renihan
- Everyone’s a Theologian: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, by R.C. Sproul
- Founders Ministries has great articles on Covenant Theology, and many other biblical topics.
Those are not all, but it is a good place to start 🙂
2 thoughts on “Rachel Jankovic, on Baptists”
Women (and I will argue Moms) need theology. — This statement makes it sound like if you are not a mother, you do not need theology. I would love to get a clarifcation on this.
Definitely not my intention. We all need sound doctrine.