Doulos McKenzie
Puritan Board Freshman
Please explain your reasoning.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.
All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.
Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.Yes. The categories of the visible and invisible should be kept in mind.
Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.
Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant?
Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.
but not truly a member of the covenant.
Tim,
I believe this is splitting hairs. Ishmael was in covenant, just rebellious to it. If one has the sign of covenant placed on their flesh, they are in covenant. The distinction between internal or external matters not.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:14.
The baptized reprobate, as it were, is not in the covenant insomuch as he doesn't have any participation in the mediation of Christ. However, he is under the outward administration of the covenant. By way of metonymy, then, the benefits proper to the covenant can be attributed to him; but note that this is only figurative and improper language.Please explain your reasoning.
The baptized reprobate, as it were, is not in the covenant insomuch as he doesn't have any participation in the mediation of Christ. However, he is under the outward administration of the covenant. By way of metonymy, then, the benefits proper to the covenant can be attributed to him; but note that this is only figurative and improper language.
Insofar as the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, I'd say the same thing as I said before. However, outward participation in the Mosaic Covenant included being part of a certain people group and body politic. The reprobate Jew really was a Jew, but he only had a participation in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.Was the circumcised reprobate a true member of the Mosaic Covenant?
So would you be distinguishing between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace? If so, could we then make the same distinction for the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace?Insofar as the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, I'd say the same thing as I said before. However, outward participation in the Mosaic Covenant included being part of a certain people group and body politic. The reprobate Jew really was a Jew, but he only had a participation in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.
I wouldn't strictly distinguish between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace. I would distinguish between the temporal elements of the Mosaic Covenant and the function of the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.So would you be distinguishing between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace? If so, could we then make the same distinction for the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace?
Please explain your reasoning.
Jake, can you cite scriptures that talk about "in" and "of"? Curious where this idea comes from.It all boils down to a distinction between being *in* the covenant and being *of* the covenant.
Sorry for the delay; had to vote and run.
The New Covenant is for believers only. It is entered by the new birth, at the time of regeneration. It is entirely a work of God, and since it is sealed by the Holy Spirit Himself, it cannot be broken or ultimately fallen away from. The reprobate may join the assembly of those in the New Covenant, deceiving them into thinking he is regenerate, but he has not the root of the matter in him, and will be exposed--in this life or in the judgment, it matters not--and shown to be the unrepentant sinner that he is.
Union with Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, is the key: are you united to Christ? Are you one of those whom the Father gave to Him, and will surely come to Him? Those are they for whom He died, for whom His blood--the blood of the New Covenant--was shed abroad for the remission of sins. If the blood of the covenant is not effectual to you, because you are a reprobate, then you cannot be in the Covenant.
This can only mean, from the context, a false professor--one who knows the truth having heard it expounded from the pulpit, one who "received the word with joy," perhaps, but had no root. He externally joined himself to the covenant people, partook of the Supper (the blood of the covenant, which should have been the means for his sanctification, if only he'd not been unregenerate), and then despised all those things.What then do you do with Hebrews 10:26-31
"26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." And again, "The Lord shall judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (KJV)
When it says that the apostate is in some sense God's people? How can he have been sanctified then trodden underfoot the blood of the Covenant if he was never apart of that covenant in some sense?
In short, no. The WCF chapter 7 starts off "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of his as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."
Then chapter 8 goes on to discuss Christ the Mediator.
In the true sense of the covenant, we must have Christ to mediate between God and man. Therefore it is an oxymoron to suggest an unbeliever can be part of the new covenant as Christ is not mediating for that person.
Of course you can have covenant children who are not actually saved, but that wasn't the question.
Not sure who "you guys" refers to (though you infer, generally, "people" who think such is "normative and hunky-dory"), but I would caution against employing a broad brushstroke here. While Presbyterians may admit to such characters within the external fold, it is typically considered a grievous matter, and hardly "perfectly acceptable" and "hunky-dory."you guys act as though the leaven is perfectly acceptable
So would you consider the covenant children to be members of the covenant?
Thanks for admitting that false professors are irregular within the fold. I meant to cast my net wide with that statement, because in all these discussions about covenant inclusion I get the impression (and perhaps I get it wrongly, as you point out), that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation because there were unregenerates among the hosts of Israel. "You guys," know who you are...Not sure who "you guys" refers to (though you infer, generally, "people" who think such is "normative and hunky-dory"), but I would caution against employing a broad brushstroke here. While Presbyterians may admit to such characters within the external fold, it is typically considered a grievous matter, and hardly "perfectly acceptable" and "hunky-dory."
that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation
Thanks for admitting that false professors are irregular within the fold. I meant to cast my net wide with that statement, because in all these discussions about covenant inclusion I get the impression (and perhaps I get it wrongly, as you point out), that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation because there were unregenerates among the hosts of Israel. "You guys," know who you are...