There is much of value in this book and it was written by a sincere and godly man, seeking to instruct Christian parents in their scriptural duties with respect to their children. There is a plethora of practical advice, supported by scripture, and seasoned with generous amounts of godly conviction. That in itself is worth the price of the book and can make its study time well spent. However, it is difficult to recommend this book because of several significant theological errors that it contains. These errors, zealously and persistently promoted throughout the book, and interspersed with so much scripture truth, can be very misleading. The errors can be categorized as follows…

1. The teaching that parents can be absolutely certain of the salvation of their children if they are faithful in the discharge of their scriptural duties as parents.

2. The teaching that elders in the church who have unconverted children are scripturally unfit to serve as elders and are therefore unqualified to hold that office.

3. The teaching that all infants or children who die before the age of accountability are saved.

I will seek to deal with each error in turn, starting with the first one which is the dominant theme of the book.

THE SALVATION OF THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVING PARENTS:
The book teaches that parents of covenant children have an absolute promise from God that all their children will be saved if they are faithful as parents. This is the dominant teaching of the book and the main issue with which we must wrestle. It is a very complex issue that involves issues of Calvinism and Arminianism, definitions of the will and the love of God, covenant theology, and issues of logic and reasoning.

Calvinism:
The issue before us involves soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, and therefore involves us in questions of Calvinism and Arminianism. Both sides are professed Calvinists and this profession is true and sincere. There is, however, a question if Pastor Gross is consistently Calvinistic in his exposition of this teaching.

Calvinism teaches that God has sovereignly, from before the foundation of the world, chosen some to salvation in Christ and others to face eternal condemnation for their sins. Arminians deny this. They say that God loves all men and that it is his will to save them all. They teach that God’s will and loving intentions are being frustrated by the free will decisions of his rebellious creatures. Calvinists affirm that in a sense God wills the salvation of all his creatures and in a sense he loves them all. Calvinism, however, makes distinctions in the will of God and in the love of God. These are important distinctions we must keep in mind as we examine what the scriptures teach about God’s love for the children of believers, and about his will with respect to them.

Calvinists distinguish between the revealed will and the secret will of God. The former is his will for his creatures and is summarized in the moral law. The latter is what God wills to do and consists of his plans, purposes, and eternal decrees. Traditionally, Calvinists have taught that it is the revealed will of God that all men repent, believe, and come to salvation in Christ. However, it is not his secret will to redeem all men, but only his elect. Pastor Gross acknowledges this distinction in the book and quotes the key proof text for this distinction, Deuteronomy 29:29 (p. 9). Unfortunately, in most subsequent statements regarding the "will" of God respecting covenant children pastor Gross is vague, and doesn’t maintain this crucial distinction. On the very next page (p. 10) he says that it is not God’s will that we have immoral children with no interest in spiritual things. He states that a family torn by spiritual strife is not God’s will (p. 14). He says that it was not God’s will that Lot’s children be lost (p. 33). He says that it is God’s will to save our children (p. 138). What is he trying to say? If he is referring to God’s revealed will we already know that and believe that. That is not the issue before us. If he is referring to God’s secret will then he needs to clearly state so, and then prove from scripture that it is so. He seems to be implying that it is God’s will and purpose to save all covenant children. Later on he argues that it is covenant unfaithfulness that is the cause of children of believers not being saved. If that is what he means, then that is essentially an Arminian position. God wants to (secret will) save our children, but our sinful failure to meet the covenant requirements is preventing his will from being done. He then makes a confused statement about God’s will. He says that it is God’s "revealed will" to save our families and that he "will bring it to pass" (P. 93). We all agree with the first proposition. But the latter involves God’s secret will, what he wills to bring to pass. He is arguing from God’s revealed will, that God will bring it to pass as his secret will, obliterating the distinction, and without any scriptural proof stating that the revealed will be brought to pass. If what he is saying is actually true, then all covenant children will be saved. But he himself has lamented the fact that that is not the case. This is awfully confusing to say the least.

Having established that it is God’s will (?) that all covenant children be saved Pastor Gross goes on to show that God loves all covenant children. If God wills (?) their salvation and loves them it is a good foundation on which to establish his thesis. I do not want to get into an extensive dissertation here on the love of God. Suffice to say that…

1. There is a sense in which it can be said that God loves all men.
2. God has a special love for his elect in Christ.
3. God has a special regard for his covenant children.

However, it is also true that in a real sense God hates the wicked. The scriptures say "…God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11) and "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity" (Psalm 5:5). And it is also true that in a sense God does not love all covenant children, but rather that he hates some of them. This is evidenced in God’s attitude towards the sons of Eli (1 Samuel 2:25) and in the classic case of Jacob and Esau, where the Lord declares, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Romans 9:13). The Arminian position is that God loves all men and wills (they make no distinction here) their salvation. He cannot, however, accomplish this because of the sinful reactions to his offer of salvation by men who resist his purpose to save them. Calvinists say that God cannot in a very real sense love all men because many of them he has foreordained to eternal perdition. He intends to place them in the lake of fire and torment them without ceasing for a future eternity. And that cannot be construed as exhibiting love towards them. The fact is that the scriptures teach that God does not love all covenant children. Many of them are lost and suffer eternal perdition under the wrath and vengeance, and not the love, of God. To state that God loves all covenant children and has purposed to save them if we will but do our part is again essentially an Arminian position.

The sea of Calvinist soteriology is bounded by two rocky shores. On the one hand lies the dangerous reefs of Arminianism and free will. On the other hand lies the jagged rocks of fatalism and despair. As a good Calvinist, Pastor Gross is well aware of this, and attempts to preserve the good ship "All Covenant Children of Faithful Parents Will be Saved" from either extreme. Having taught that God loves all covenant children (with the kind of love that wants to adopt them eternally as his children and purchase their redemption by the blood of his Son) and that God wants (he waffles an explicit definition of what this means) to save them, and that the great impediment to the fulfillment of all these good intentions is the proclivity of believing parents to be negligent in their duties as covenant parents, he realizes that he may be in some theological difficulty. After all, he has clearly taught that God has absolutely promised that all covenant children of faithful parents will be saved and made the salvation of these children somewhat contingent on the faithfulness of the parents. His ship is perilously close to running aground on the Arminian reefs. So he changes course and defines his position more explicitly. He states that God is sovereign and affirms the doctrine of election. We heartily concur. He then states that God is sovereign over the ends (who is saved) and over the means (how they are saved). Again we heartily concur. He then states that the means God has sovereignly chosen to bring covenant children to salvation is the instruction, discipline, witness, example, and prayers of faithful covenant parents. (We concur that this is frequently the case but deny that it is an absolute requirement, and the scriptures themselves give examples of faithless parents whose children were saved.) He then states that if the covenant children are elect, God will give the requisite grace to the parents to faithfully discharge their duties to their covenant children, and if they are not elect that he will withhold such grace. This does seem to have rescued him from the Arminian reef but at what price? I do not want to take time to discus to what extent this has compromised his original position, but it definitely does not seem to be fully consistent with it. At the very least it implies that God does not love all covenant children and really will their salvation, in the sense that pastor Gross is suggesting, since he deliberately withholds from the parents the requisite grace to bring about their salvation. And then what has happened to his absolute, but conditional promise, of the salvation of all covenant children, that laid the burden on the parents and implied that God is doing his part if we will just do ours?

And now he has another problem. He appears to be sailing directly into the rocky shores of fatalism. Again Pastor Gross seems to be well aware of this and addresses it in his chapter "Encouragement For Parents Who Fail". Desirous of extending hope and help to parents who have been deficient in their responsibilities and are already having problems with their children, he now attempts to deliver his position from inducing fatalism and despair. He restates that salvation is all of grace (p.128) and tells the parents they can claim the covenant promises for the salvation of their children based not on their own perfection but on Christ’s, not on their own faithfulness but on Christ’s. Parents need not grieve over the consequences of their failures with respect to their children. They can claim the covenant promises based on Christ having met all the requirements for them. In this way he declares that even for those who have personally failed Christ has opened the way for all parents to claim the covenant promises, including the one that promises them the salvation of all their children. Pastor Gross has truly annihilated fatalism and despair but again at what cost? This time definitely at the cost of annihilating his own position in entirety! And in the process he has committed a major theological blunder: he has confused justification and sanctification.

He has started off teaching that God loves and wants to save all covenant children.  However, the problem is the failure of believing parents to meet the requirements of the conditional promise that they faithfully instruct, discipline, and pray for their children. Now he says that all that doesn’t really matter it can all be based on Christ’s faithfulness, and the promise can be claimed based on Christ’s faithfulness. Now all believing parents are by definition justified by faith. Their sins are therefore forgiven and they are accounted righteous before God. They are clothed with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. They can then, based on these latest statements, claim the promise of salvation for their children. Their actual faithful performance of their duties as covenant parents is no longer the issue. Christ has done it for them. But for over 100 pages Pastor Gross has made their actual performance the issue. He has made their sanctification, their actual personal holiness, example, and zeal to serve God as parents the issue. Now he confuses justification with sanctification and tells us that being justified in Christ satisfies the requirements of leading a sanctified life as a Christian parent. His position is now in ruins and is mired in hopeless confusion. Will the real Pastor Gross please stand up and tell us what he really believes!!!

Covenant Theology:
To establish his premise that there is an absolute promise that God will save all the children of faithful, covenant keeping parents, Pastor Gross of necessity delves into covenant theology. It is his mishandling of the covenants, and his confused covenant theology, that contributes to his erroneous conclusions with respect to the covenant promises.

In Chapter 3, "You and Your Children", he quotes many covenant promises. This is eminently appropriate because it is God’s covenant with us and our seed after us that is at the very heart of God’s mercies and promises with respect to our children. He quotes the Abrahamic Covenant (p.25) and its promises to believers and their seed, and Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 (Peter is referencing the Abrahamic Covenant to his listeners). He also quotes the Sinaitic Covenant (pages 26-27). From this he concludes an absolute promise to save all the children of parents who in faith claim these covenant promises. He expands on this in Chapter 6, "The Instruction of Parents". There he takes these promises and treats them as a family covenant, as God’s contract with the family, as God’s promises to the family.

In doing this he commits a serious error. He has invented a new covenant of which the scriptures know nothing. He has taken the promises that were embedded in specific scriptural covenants and has ripped them out of their context and used them to fabricate a new covenant, a contract between God and families of believers. But all the while, as in Chapter 6 where he pronounces this covenant, he is referencing the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (pp. 56-57). We need to study these covenant promises in the context in which they were given. We need to study the actual covenants that they are part of to see what they really promise and how they pertain to our children.

This kind of covenant confusion is typical in the Reformed faith that follows the Westminster two covenant system. The American Presbyterian Church has sought to correct this and revised Chapter 7, "Of God’s Covenant", to reflect the actual covenants that are revealed in the scriptures, as opposed to the two covenant model that theologians have tried to fit them all into. I do not want to condemn Pastor Gross for falling into this typical pattern of covenant confusion, but only to point out its negative consequences.

For starters, it must be pointed out that the parties to the Davidic Covenant do not include either us or our children. It was between God and David and David’s seed. It does not even include all of David’s children, but only the male in each generation that inherited the birthright to sit on David’s throne. While this may teach us much with respect to how God views families and how God works through families and sets forth the scriptural principle of representation, the actual covenant and its promises cannot be applied to either us or our children. Similarly, although the Sinaitic Covenant can be instructive in many ways, it has been abrogated and set aside and replaced by the New Covenant, and its promises can not be applied to us or our children.

The Abrahamic Covenant, however, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3, applies to us. Its promises definitely pertain to us and our children, and as we have noted Pastor Gross quoted Peter in his Pentecost sermon applying it to the listeners of his day. That is a covenant that we definitely need to study. What does the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant that God "will be a God to us and our seed after us" mean? How are we to interpret this promise? Does it mean that all the children of faithful, covenant keeping parents will be saved? That is what we need to determine. We need to determine how the scriptures themselves interpret this promise and how God has fulfilled it in the sacred history. When we do that we will see that it cannot mean what pastor Gross declares it to mean.

Does the word "seed" mean all the descendants of believing families within the covenant? The scriptures clearly teach that it does not. I do not want to write a whole treatise on covenant theology here but this is manifestly evident from at least three arguments.

1. Paul explicitly tells us that all the children are not included in the seed. He states, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Romans 9:6-8. Paul is responding to exactly the same issue that Pastor Gross is raising in his book. If there is a covenant promise that God will be a God to us and our seed after us why are so many of them not saved? Paul’s answer is that all Abraham’s "seed", in the sense of descendants, are not counted by God as "children of the promise", that is as being children of the covenant. God chooses some and rejects others. He is sovereign. Salvation is of the Lord. He gives two examples from the very first two generations of the covenant. In the first generation he says Isaac was called or chosen of God and Ishmael by implication was rejected. In the next generation Jacob was elected and Esau was reprobated. Paul lays this squarely upon the results of divine election. Paul knows nothing of Pastor Gross’ theory that this is the result of parental unfaithfulness in the one case and not in the other. They were, after all, the same parents and Jacob and Esau were twins!

2. Secondly, the interpretation of this covenant defies such simplistic solutions as Pastor Gross’ theory that it must include all the children of faithful parents. Paul surprises us with an inspired interpretation of what "seed" means in Galatians 3. He notes that it is singular and has a special reference to a specific descendant of Abraham, that is Jesus Christ. Again Paul is teaching that it does not include all the physical descendants but only to Christ and to those who are united to him by faith.

3. Thirdly, the administration of this covenant by God as revealed in the sacred history demonstrates that it does not include all the children even of faithful believing parents. Abraham was a faithful believer. He is called the father of the faithful. He was a diligent father in ruling his family in a godly way. The scriptures say of him, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Genesis 18:19. He zealously prayed for Ishmael (Gen 17:18). Yet God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and commanded Abraham to send him away. This was tantamount to excommunication, as Abraham’s household was the only known company of visible believers and was the church of his day. Similarly, in the next generation God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. They had the same parents. They were born at the same time. In all likelihood they were the beneficiaries of the same upbringing, the same godly discipline of a believing household, and the same covenant prayers. Yet God called the one and not the other to eternal salvation in Christ. And so goes the record of the administration of this covenant by God, not only throughout the sacred history as revealed in the Old Testament, but right up to our day, where we see families of godly parents divided between believers and unbelievers.

There is simply no covenant or covenant promise that declares that all the children of faithful, covenant-keeping parents will be saved. And thanks to the sure purposes and irresistible grace of God, the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant are not conditional. The very heart of the covenant, the promise of justification by faith, is a reality. The promise that God will be a God to Abraham and his seed after him is a sure reality. We simply need to search the scriptures and learn what the term "seed" means, especially as Paul defines it in Galatians 3. There are many great and glorious promises here and they are not conditional. However, Pastor Gross’ conditional promise of the salvation of all one’s covenant children is not one of them.

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ELDERS:
The book teaches that elders must have believing children as a qualification for holding the office. It is a logical corollary of the teaching that parents can determine the salvation of their children by their faithfulness. This teaching respecting the eldership has not historically been the practice in Reformed churches. We are to follow scripture and not tradition, so this is not an insurmountable difficulty for this position, but it does definitely place the burden of proof on the author. What proof does Pastor Gross have to offer? Basically his proof boils down to a matter of Bible translation. He follows the more modern translations such as the New International Version, the New Revised Standard version, and the American Standard Version. These translate Titus 1:6 as requiring an elder to have believing children.

someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. Titus 1:6 New Revised Standard Version

if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. Titus 1:6 American Standard Version

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Titus 1:6 NIV

The American Presbyterian Church has followed the more traditional translations such as the King James Version and the New King James Version. These translate the text as requiring elders to have "faithful" children.

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. Titus 1:6 KJV

if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. Titus 1:6 NKJV

What does the word translated as "believing" or as "faithful" mean? Strong’s Lexicon defines it as follows… ðéóôüò  pistos  pis-tos' from G3982; objectively trustworthy; subjectively trustful.  Young’s Analytical Concordance defines it as "faithful, steady". He also gives "believing’ as another meaning. Thayer’s Lexicon gives as the first meaning "trusty, faithful; of persons who show themselves faithful in the transaction of business, the execution of commands, or the discharge of official duties" and as a second meaning, "easily persuaded; believing, confiding, trusting;…one who trusts in God’s promises…is convinced that Jesus has been raised from the dead…that Jesus is the Messiah and the author of salvation."
To resolve this we must compare scripture with scripture. When we do this I believe that the older translations will be vindicated. Comparing Titus 1:6 with other scriptures yields the following arguments in favor of the traditional rendering.

1. If we take the "faithful" translation then the remainder of the verse flows logically as a definition of what the Apostle meant by "faithful", that is he defined it as "children not accused of dissipation or insubordination" (NKJV).

2. This translation makes the passages that deal with the qualifications of elders and deacons all agree. These passages in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 are parallel passages that are basically in agreement with each other. The Titus 1 passage gives the qualifications for elders and the 1 Timothy 3 passage gives the qualifications for elders and deacons. The parallel verses in 1 Timothy 3 read as follows…One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3:4-5; Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12 (KJV). These parallel passages say nothing of requiring the elders’ children to be converted. They simply require that the children be in subjection to the father as the head of the home. It requires that the children be disciplined and orderly and not contentious and rebellious. It requires the prospective elder to be in control of his home, ruling it well. They do not make him responsible for a state of grace in the hearts of his children. The traditional translation preserves the unity of these passages as teaching the same doctrine. The newer translation destroys this unity and introduces a new requirement for the eldership. A requirement that the father can neither control nor can the church positively ascertain, as God alone can change hearts and discern their state.

3. This translation of the word as "faithful" in the sense of trustworthy, reliable, etc. is used throughout the New Testament. The following verses are only a few examples... And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Luke 12:42; He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? Luke 16:10-12; All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord. Colossians 4:7; This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 1 Timothy 1:15; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house…And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after. Hebrews 3:2,5; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Revelation 1:5; And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true. Revelation 22:6.

The Greek adjective in question, pistos, occurs 67 times in the New Testament. Of these it is translated in the Authorized Version 55 times as faithful, 9 times as beleiveing, twice as true and once as sure. Since true and sure are basically synonyms for faithful, this means that 87% of the time it is means faithful rather than believing. I do not believe that this crucial issue can be determined by merely quoting one of the newer translations, as Pastor Gross has attempted to do. That translation needs to be defended and the traditional one shown to be deficient. The book makes no attempt to deal with this although the burden of proof lies on Pastor Gross to do so.

A further difficulty with this teaching is that it appears to prove too much. We are not given any information about the children and families of the apostles and elders in the Apostolic church. However, we have a lot of information about the families of those who were "elders" in the Old Testament church. By the standard of this teaching Noah, Abraham, Aaron, Samuel, and David, just to name a few, may have been unfit to serve as elders and office bearers in the Old Testament church. (I know that Noah exercised his calling before God instituted the church, but he was a prophet and a preacher of righteousness to his generation.) Yet the scriptures set forth these men as faithful servants of the Lord, lawfully called to their office. It would seem that this would preclude the idea that one’s children must all be true believers to qualify as an office bearer in God’s church.

Additionally, this seems to contradict Pastor Gross’ own statements. He allows for the fact that even faithful parents may not always see the salvation of their children. They may not be converted until after adulthood or even after the parents have passed away. Are we then to understand that a faithful father who has diligently carried out the duties of a Christian parent and is fully qualified to be an elder in the church is to be barred from office because God has chosen to call even one of his children to salvation later in life?

On a practical level this also seems a difficult requirement for the church to enforce. Both the parents and the church can determine if the children are well mannered, disciplined, and subject to their parents in the Lord. They can see that they are being catechized, attend church regularly, and outwardly behave properly. Well behaved children of godly parents will generally conform to what is expected of them in the home and in the church. This does not, however, establish that they are converted. Many times when they reach maturity they will drift away from the church and the teachings of their parents. At that point, however, they are no longer children. They are adults and have a certain measure of independence and are no longer under the discipline and control of the parents. In the text in question the Greek word for children (ôÝêíïí teknon) means just that, children, the plural of child. However one interprets the remainder of the text, I do not believe that this text can ever be used to hold elders responsible for the conduct of adult children who are independent, and no longer under their discipline and control. The case of Eli is a good example. Why was he condemned of God? His sons were adults because they had to be 30 years of age to enter into their ministry as priests. Eli was condemned because his sons were under his authority. He was the High Priest. He had authority over all the priests, including his sons. Yet he failed to exercise church discipline and deal with his sons and allowed them to continue to profane God’s house. He may have grievously failed as a parent, but I believe that he was condemned for his failures as God’s High Priest. (This is also a possible explanation of why the above referenced men such as Noah, Samuel, David, etc. held office in the Old Testament Church, if the sins and rebelliousness of their children did not become manifest until adulthood).

THE SALVATION OF INFANTS:
At the end of the book Pastor Gross states that he believes that the scriptures teach that all children, even of unbelievers, of pagans, and of the wicked, if they die before reaching the age of accountability, will be saved. This is a pernicious and somewhat absurd doctrine that appears to be more wishful thinking than actually something that is taught in the scriptures. The arguments quoted by the authorities Pastor Gross references simply do not establish this doctrine. The texts he quotes are as follows…

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14

This text refers to covenant children, children of Jewish parents who were members of the Old Testament Jewish church. They were children of parents who believed in the God of Israel and were seeking that God’s blessing on their children. These were parents who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as being a prophet of the true God and probably accepted his claim to being the Messiah. How this verse can be used to teach that children of unbelievers are automatically saved if they die before the age of accountability escapes my logical processes.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:14

This text appears to teach the opposite doctrine of the one it was quoted in support of. It speaks of those who did not sin in a way similar to Adam’s sin. This is interpreted as to mean sinning with the "consent of the understanding and the will". Even if this interpretation is correct it does not establish the position. The Apostle says that even those who did not sin in that way, that death reigned over them as well. If he had said that they were exempted from death Pastor Gross’ quote from John Newton might have an argument (p. 166). But if all those who sinned, even if they sinned in a different manner than Adam’s sin, still share in the curse of the covenant of works that said, "In the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die", then it is impossible from this text to sustain the argument that all who die at an early age are automatically saved.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10

Children are sinful even from the womb. As scripture teaches,

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 14:4

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

Children can also be regenerated while still in the womb as the cases of Jeremiah and John the Baptist illustrate. And children certainly have bodies even while still in the womb. And they certainly sin, while in their bodies, long before reaching the age of accountability. It is incredibly specious to assert that children who die in infancy have not sinned "in the body" and therefore to conclude that all such children are saved.

And again the following text quoted (from Charles Hodge, p. 167) teaches not that they have a free pass to heaven, but as is common to all men they will be held accountable for their sins.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19

Again this text teaches the opposite doctrine that it is quoted in support of. The text teaches the doctrine of representation. It teaches that all in the first Adam, who were represented by him in the covenant of works, are subject to condemnation and death. Similarly, it teaches that all who are represented by Jesus of Nazareth, the Second Adam, are justified and delivered from death unto eternal life. Since this teaches that infants and children can be condemned not only on the basis of their own sin and sinfulness, but also on the basis of Adam’s sin who represented them, it again defies my sense of logic how this can be interpreted to mean that all children who die before a particular age or state of mental development will automatically be saved. Hodge, in his Postmillennial zeal, is grasping at straws, seeking to numerically enlarge the kingdom of God.

For himself, Pastor Gross asserts that David and Bathsheba’s first child is a case in point. He partially bases this on the fact that the child died before it could be circumcised on the eighth day. From that he infers that it was not "officially" a covenant child. I believe that to be an incorrect inference. That would almost assume a mechanical efficiency to the sacraments. This is certainly the Roman Catholic view, that the sacraments are indispensable to one’s salvation. In contrast, the case of the thief who repented on the cross is often quoted as a prime example of one who went to "paradise" without being baptized. As has been pointed out by the Christian medical community, one reason that circumcision was deferred to the eighth day was because it was a bloody sacrament and such surgery was not safe until then because the newborn does not have all the clotting factors, etc. that are requisite to control bleeding until about that time. This, however, should not cause us to regard the child as not having covenant status as the child of believing parents, even if the parents were grievously sinning at the time of conception. David we know had already repented by the time that the child was born. I firmly believe that David’s hope was based on God’s covenant and not on some unsubstantiated doctrine that all who die in infancy are saved. Pastor Gross has faithfully taught the special covenant status of children of believing parents in his book. It seems strange to have him now base David’s hope for his child on some other and far less scriptural basis.

The American Presbyterian Church came out of the Bible Presbyterian Church. The latter had a Declaratory Statement appended to their Confession of Faith which affirmed the doctrine in question. The APC rejected that doctrine and the Declaratory Statement. I will attempt to set forth below some of the reasons that this doctrine is deemed as unscriptural.

1. The scriptures consistently teach the special covenant status of the children of believing parents. This has traditionally been the basis for the hope of Christian parents that their children who die in infancy are saved. To extend this to include all children, even those of the ungodly and the heathen, seems to negate this distinction. If children of believing parents grow up to deny the faith we know that they will be lost. If they die before the age of accountability and are treated in the same way as the children of the ungodly then of what use is the covenant distinction that sets them apart as the Lord’s?

2. The scriptures repeatedly condemn the children of the ungodly and involve them in the judgments of God on their families. The cases of Achan, Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, etc. who perished with their entire families are only a few cases in point. Such judgments seem inconsistent with the notion that they are exempt from God’s other judgments with respect to the eternal state.

3. The scriptures often place a specific curse on the children of the ungodly. The imprecatory Psalms provide specific examples of this. Psalm 137 states, O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:8-9. The Psalmist states that blessed is the person that God raises up to avenge his people and who will destroy the babies of Babylon. Jesus is set forth in the scriptures as the ultimate avenger of God’s elect and the ultimate destroyer of the wicked. He will be most eminently blessed when he destroys the wicked root and branch. These curses are entirely inconsistent with the teaching that such children are special objects of God’s favor and will automatically go to heaven if they die as little children.

This doctrine is also logically absurd. It makes God’s curses on the wicked to be a blessing. Joshua was commanded to exterminate the Canaanites right down to the sucking child and the animals. This would then have been a blessing as their little children would have come to inherit the kingdom of God for all eternity. This would make the Great Flood in the days of Noah a blessing in bringing all the little children of that wicked generation into heaven. This would make all of God’s righteous judgments of flood and famine and fire and tempest, etc. today on nations involved in idolatry and wickedness as being a blessing. It would mean that the abortion holocaust that has swept America this last generation and has slaughtered over 30 million babies in the womb is actually a blessing that is bringing far more millions into the kingdom of God than all our evangelistic efforts. It would mean that Satan and the ungodly persons promoting the abortion industry are doing more good than all our missionaries. This doctrine is a logical absurdity!

CONCLUSION:
As was stated at the outset this book contains much good. There is much instruction and encouragement for Christian parents. In a sense one wishes that all Christian parents could read this book. However, it is difficult to recommend it because it must be read with much discernment to separate the wheat in its contents from the chaff. And there is a real danger that persons who are not theologically astute could be misled by its erroneous teachings. This is especially true because the book contains so much that is true and scriptural that one is inclined to have one’s guard down and not exercise one’s critical faculties in carefully examining some of its premises and conclusions.

Ultimately scripture must always be compared with scripture. Only scripture can inerrantly interpret scripture. When Roman Catholics, and even the great Martin Luther, mindlessly quote "this is my body" in defense of the doctrine of transubstantiation, etc. they are mishandling scriptures. Their very senses tell them that the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine. The scriptures teach that Christ is bodily in heaven seated at the right hand of God the Father. His human nature, unlike the divine, is not omnipresent. The Lord’s Supper is not an exercise in cannibalism and the elements are no more literally Christ’s body and blood than Christ literally is a wooden door, a vine, or a road. Similarly, the statements of the scriptures with respect to the salvation of the children of believers must be handled with great care, and interpreted in the light of other scriptures and of reality. Our very senses, as well as the sacred history, clearly teach that all the children of faithful covenant parents are not saved. The promises with respect to our children must be studied within the contexts of the covenants in which they were given, and only the scriptures themselves can give an inspired interpretation as to their precise meaning and application.

Let us in closing recapitulate Pastor Gross’ argument. At the beginning of Chapter 6, "The Instruction of Parents", (p. 56) he states that "having proven" his thesis, that God has promised to save all the children of faithful parents, he will now proceed to deal with the responsibilities of parents. Let us review what that proof has consisted of.

1. Chapters 1 and 2 are introductory. In Chapter 3 he begins to establish his case. In that chapter he argues chiefly from the covenants, particularly the Abrahamic Covenant (pp. 25-26). He quotes many of the proof texts for infant baptism based on that Covenant. But we have already shown that the inspired interpretation and application of that covenant does not sustain that view.

2. Chapter 4 is an excellent chapter. He clearly shows that God does work through families. He shows the general principle that God’s covenants include a representative person and his seed after him, particularly referencing the Noahic and Sinaitic Covenants. He shows that this principle of representation is a two edged sword that brings blessings to the families of the righteous, such as Lot, and judgments to the families of the wicked, such as Korah, Achan, and Gehazi. All of which is true, but the examples themselves do not prove that these blessings include the promise that all the children of faithful parents will be saved. This chapter contains a great deal of truth that more Christians ought to reflect on. It provides a sound basis for the doctrine of infant baptism. It shows what a great blessing it is to be born into a godly household and not into the families of the wicked. However, nowhere does he explicitly establish that these blessings include a conditional promise of salvation for all covenant children.

3. Chapter 5, "Only Believe" offers little in the way of additional proof. He argues that God "wants" to save the children of believing parents and quotes verses that God does not delight in the condemnation of the wicked but desires all to come to repentance. He avoids any discussion of whether this is the preceptive will or the secret will of God but exhorts parents to seize the promises for their children by faith and fervent prayer, since God stands ready and willing to save their children if they will only believe!

4. This brings us to Chapter 6 where he announces his thesis as proved. The crux of his entire argument has rested on his interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant. If that interpretation does not stand neither does his case. And I firmly believe that the Apostle Paul’s inspired interpretation of that Covenant effectively disproves Pastor Gross’ thesis respecting the salvation of covenant children.

Finally, in closing, I would like to say something of a more personal nature. Pastor Gross has made many personal statements, some of them which seemed rather self-serving. So I feel the door is open for at least one remark of a personal nature with respect to my experience. I have been blessed with a godly and faithful wife and this month we will be celebrating our 29^th wedding anniversary. My father-in-law has been an elder in the church for much of his adult life, in three separate churches. All these churches recognized his qualifications and saw in him a godly man of maturity, wisdom, and sound counsel. In each case he soon became the lead elder, shouldering much of the responsibility. He had six children and by the grace of God they have all professed the faith and given evidence in their lives of a true faith and a life lived for the Lord. However, he was probably in his sixties (he is now in his seventies and still serving as an elder) before the last of his children experienced conversion and made a credible profession of faith. Some of these children merely showed no interest in spiritual things for a significant portion of their early adult life. Others were converted earlier, but some went through difficult periods of resistance and opposition to their parents while in their teenage years. However, according to Pastor Gross’ teaching he has been unqualified to be an elder most of his life, and the churches should have been deprived of his services. If such men are disqualified there will soon be a dearth of godly elders in the churches.

Much more can be said but I decline to weary the reader with an excess of verbiage. The book contains other defects that I will not belabor. At times the author fails to be consistent and logical and engages in begging the question and circular reasoning. However I do not believe that is due to any intellectual dishonesty, but is a result of his zeal to establish his position. I pray that someday Pastor Gross will reflect on these issues and rewrite this book as a manual for godly parents without the theological problems that he has introduced into this version.