Believers’ Children as Disciples: More Thoughts

posted by R. Fowler White

In a Facebook post on 06-20-2025, Lane Keister, aka “greenbaggins,” wrote:

The word “disciple” is not equal in meaning to “Christian” or “believer” in at least several places in the New Testament. Judas Iscariot was a disciple, but not a Christian. In the Great Commission, we are commanded to make disciples. We cannot make people Christians. Therefore the word “disciple” does not mean “believer” or “Christian” there either. Instead, it means “learner.” How do we make people into disciples, according to the Great Commission? Baptism and teaching. This makes the Great Commission a rather strong argument for infant baptism. Infants are phenomenal learners, and they learn about trust and relationships. Baptize them, therefore, and teach them in age-appropriate ways.

Since I agree substantially with Lane, I’d like to add to his line of thinking. I do so because, as I read his comments, I realized that I had reached similar conclusions while considering Paul’s instructions to parents and children in Eph 6 and Col 3. I’d submit that it’s best to interpret the apostle’s instruction in those and similar texts as applying the Great Commission to professing parents and their children. Details follow.

First, leaving aside the baptism question for the moment, I’ll focus on the duty of Christian parents (obviously, fathers in particular) in Eph 6:4; Col 3:21. No doubt, in light of his commission from Christ, the Apostle counts parents in those texts as disciples of Jesus, and he elaborates on their duty as disciples to their children, saying “raise them in the training and instruction of the Lord.” If those parents wondered about the content of that training and instruction, the context of Paul’s words tells them that the content included (broadly) all that pleases the Lord and (specifically, at least) the fifth of the Lord’s Ten Commandments. Comparing Paul’s directive to Christ’s Great Commission, it’s more than credible to say that the Apostle expected parents to teach their children to obey all that Jesus commanded, covering His law of love (even in its particulars) and His gospel of forgiveness (doubtless in His specific calls for repentance and faith). From these considerations, I have warrant to conclude that if children are to be trained and taught to obey the commands of Jesus, believing parents would be following the Apostle’s lead and viewing their children as disciples of Jesus.

Second, as we might anticipate from the preceding discussion, the Apostle’s instruction to children is in harmony with his instruction to parents. Paul obliges children to learn and keep “the first commandment with [its] promise” of well-being and longevity on the earth. Once again, seeing the shared terms and concepts in Paul’s instruction and in Christ’s Commission, I’m constrained to infer that the Apostle is applying Christ’s Commission to believing parents and their children and, by doing so, treating both as Christ’s disciples.

Third and last, it is helpful to coordinate the observations above with the words of Jesus concerning the actions of parents who brought their children to Him. Jesus emphatically endorsed the actions of parents who brought their children to Him that they might submit them to His ministry of prayer and blessing. I find myself pushed to ask this: if Jesus endorsed such actions when He ministered on earth, what should deter me from believing that He does the same now as He ministers from heaven? I notice too that when Jesus received children under His ministry while on earth, He reasserted both the promise and the warning of God’s covenant. He told hearers that the kingdom would be granted to those who received it like a child, but that it would be withheld from those who did not so receive it. Today, as He receives children under His ministry while in heaven, He continues to promise the kingdom to all who receive it by faith and to warn those who turn away of the wrath to come.

In light with Lane’s thoughts, then, when I understand the apostles’ instruction to parents and children in the light of the Great Commission, it is clearer to me how Paul’s teaching applies Christ’s Great Commission and, more specifically, His teaching on discipleship. The children of believers are, then, disciples of the Lord Jesus. Yes, some of His disciples, whether parents or children, may turn away and be disavowed (Matt 7:21-23). Even so, they are subject to His ministry of discipleship, learning the obedience God requires, the judgment He imposes for disobedience, and the grace He provides in His Son. As Lane argued, children of professing parents are properly called disciples and are, if we were to keep going, even subjects of covenant baptism.

Acts 24, Jerusalem, and Rome: Some Musings

posted by R. Fowler White

While studying Acts 24, a couple of musings crossed my mind, musings that might bear fruit somewhere down the line.

One of those thoughts concerns the partnership of Jerusalem’s leaders with Rome’s leaders in their lawfare against the Apostle Paul. In briefer terms, it’s “Jerusalem and Rome vs. Christ’s Apostle” in Acts 24. First musing: does their cooperation not bear some striking resemblances to the warfare of the Harlot (= Jerusalem?) and Babylon (= imperial Rome?) against the Lamb and His church in the book of Revelation?

Another thought sprang up when reading Paul’s portrayal of himself in his defense in Acts 24:14-16. He identifies himself as a follower of the Way (14a). That candid admission is not contested by his accusers: it seems to be taken as a simple fact to which both prosecution and defendant stipulated. That self-description becomes weightier, however, when Paul elaborates on it in 24:14b-16. He accentuates the God whom he serves (14b), the Scriptures (canon)—the Law and … the Prophets—on which he bases his beliefs and practices (14c), and the hope he has in God for a resurrection (15). He urges that each of these is drawn from the covenant heritage he shares with his Jewish accusers (in particular, his Pharisee accusers). Clearly, Paul sees his life of Christian discipleship as one that is both continuous and discontinuous with the Jewish covenantal heritage that he shares with his accusers.

This second train of thought seems to fit neatly with a hypothesis that the Apostles initially received their commission from Christ as two-dimensional: 1) as bringing gospel blessing (reformation, cf. Heb 9:10) to the Abrahamic covenant community that had degenerated in Israel (cf. WCF 25.5), and 2) as bringing gospel blessing to the Gentile nations and, with that blessing, expanding the Abrahamic covenant community to all families of the earth. Hence, a second musing: might observations of this sort contribute to a conclusion that the Apostles saw their commission first as reformers among the degenerated covenant nation of Israel and then as disciple-makers among the degenerated Gentile nations? In any case, the Apostles commission can be credibly understood as one of reformation, making them ancestors of reformers to come.

Granted, the preceding observations may be pretty old hat to students of NT history. Certainly, it is consistent with the to the Jew first and also to the Greek narrative in Acts and in Paul’s letters. It can also be seen, however, in the Gospels themselves, in Christs ministry as Malachis messianic Messenger of the Covenant among the synagogues of Israel, a ministry that persisted in Pauls ministry among the synagogues of the Diaspora and then expanded to sites beyond the synagogues.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started