So I have not posted in awhile. I have had a bunch to say, but I haven’t had the heart to say it. The over-hyped and highly propagandized coronavirus issue, along with the massive government overreach into our lives has overshadowed much of my thoughts and fears lately. However, I did run across a very interesting blurb on the Twitster
My initial reaction was that something is wrong with the conclusion given. That assertion can be interpreted two ways:
- This is not a promise at all.
- This is a promise, but not for you and your children.
The rest of the statements are
- God saves his own by grace alone
- God saves through faith alone
- God saves for his glory alone
- Our parental ‘works’ have no causal relation to the above 3 points.
Let me start with the very first 2 premises before dealing with the following ones. The verse should be interpreted simply as a proposition. In fact, it is very similar to several propositions in scripture. The one that comes to mind primarily is:
2 Chronicle 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
This is an “If/Then” statement. Like Proverbs 22:6, it states that ‘If you do X, then you will get Y.” In it’s simplest form, this is a proposition. Since it is a proposition, it must be either true or false. This means that, in order to argue, as the tweet above argues, then one must take either the position that it is always false or that it is sometimes false. If it isn’t a promise, then it must sometimes be false.
Now, this leads me to one of the primary issues I see with the tweet as written. It pre-supposes that there can be a time or situation where the antecedent can be true and the consequent can be false. So in other words, it is possible for someone to raise up their child in the way they should go, yet that child will depart from it when they are old. If this is the case, then the proposition cannot ever be construed as true, unless there is another condition met.
This exposes the author’s error in two ways. First, the author has assumed that it is possible to raise a child up in the way they should go without pointing that child directly to Christ. In other words, the author supposes that you can legalistically raise a child up in the way they should go and yet God will not save that child so that they continue on in the faith.
Secondly, it reveals a weak understanding of God’s sovereignty in election. If God saved me, and God gave me the wisdom to follow his word and raise my child up properly, then it is God’s sovereign will that my child will fulfill this promise. Consider the following example. If you were to be able to live up to the standards of the law, in all ways, you would be saved. The promise of salvation through works is attainable, just not for fallen men who cannot attain the standard of keeping God first in all things. The promise is not invalidated because we cannot achieve it.
In a similar fashion, the promise above is not invalidated because we cannot achieve it. I know, as a father, that I have failed and will fail again when raising my children. However, because God has convicted mine and my wife’s hearts and has regenerated us, we can raise our children up and point them to God through Christ. In this way, I can have confidence that God will keep them, not because I am faithful, but because He is. So yes, Proverbs 22:6 is a promise, and yes, it is a sure one.
Chairistotle 