# Missouri Presbytery on FV



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2006)

Some are suggesting that this report will eventually make it to GA and get adopted. What do you think of this report and the possbility it will be adpoted?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 19, 2006)

It somewhat irritates me to read things like that, knowing that what they actually put in print in thier works is a horse of a different color. 

I have huge problems with it from the start, however, here are a couple detailed concerns:

"In light of our common commitment to "sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," we have aimed to let the definitions assumed in the Westminster Standards govern our usage."

This is simply a lie. Read any FV book. Thier purpose is to redefine, not futher define, the WCF idea surrounding these issues. For numerous examples, see:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonEvangelicalPostmodernDiversification.htm

"In a similar manner, it is clear that there is a great deal of confusion concerning to what the Westminster Standards might commit us when it comes to understanding "œcovenant."

Its thier confusion, not confusion overall, that sparks thie controversy. The Westminster Divines were quite precise (known as precisionists) as to how this fundamental concept is laid out, and they consistently use it through the confession.

"As a result, we affirm as well the variety of interpretation of the Westminster Standards when it comes to the nature of the covenant. On the issue of the "œcovenant of works," for example, we believe that those who read the Standards as emphasizing an adamic meritocracy and those who read them as emphasizing the gracious foundation of all God's covenant dealings with humanity can both claim confessional integrity and historical precedent in the Westminster tradition. Neither of these views does violence to the Standards given their lack of precision regarding."

This is hogwash. The FV redefine thier idea of covenant, and even in the paragraph, attribute the "Covenant of Works" as a "gracious covenant" whihc the Assembly was careful not to do. The CoW / CoL (Law) is much different than the CoG, or God's gracious actions. FV theology stands on one covenant that is consistently gracious while at the same time providing an Arminian/Romanized covenantal faithfulness. Thus they say, "We affirm that by an act of gracious condescension, God bound Himself to His creation, and through His covenant representative bound Himself to His creation by way of covenant." Yada Yada, redefining historical doctrine all the way.

"Another contested word in these discussions is the word "œelection.""

 No its not. Its redefined by the FV advocate. Its not contested by the Reformed Camp.

The rest is simply a snowballed affect of some of thier ideas. The will refer to things as "the covenants" and not differentiate.

On Justification, they go right to Dunn, Sanders, and Wright in summary - 

This doctrine has been one of the hallmarks of the Reformation and of the reformed tradition; and it is a key to any right system of faith. At the same time, we recognize that the Greek (and Hebrew) terminology which can be translated "œjustify" _has a semantic range in the Old and New Testaments broader than the specific idea of God´s pardoning sinners by the imputation of Christ´s righteousness._ Words from the biblical dikaio- group can be used in human interactions describing both judicial and non-judicial actions and declarations; and they can even have a negative connotation, expressing attempts at self-vindication."

And

God´s declaration of righteousness, even a _corporate declaration_, cannot rightly occur without a basis in God´s reckoning of Christ´s righteousness to the account of individual sinners (Philippians 3:9).

I'll stop here. Its just more of the same.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 19, 2006)

Why do you care OPC man? <--Me doing Hebrew homework!

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by Romans922]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

This isn't another concoction from FV "internet theologians." This is a PCA Presbytery Report. It is real. If this gets approved at GA, what will be the implications for the PCA?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> This isn't another concoction from FV "internet theologians." This is a PCA Presbytery Report. It is real. If this gets approved at GA, what will be the implications for the PCA?



You didn't answer my question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I'm just making small talk.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 20, 2006)

Okle dokle. Note: I have already read it. 

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by Romans922]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 20, 2006)

This report seems to be quite in line with the spirit of the "Good Faith" subscription debate from several GAs ago, and the redefintion of "six days" to include things like the framework theory without the need for stating an exception.

This report seems to be much more conciliatory than the one from Mississippi Valley presbytery.

I think the chickens are just coming home to roost.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 20, 2006)

The MVP report was sent to GA and was not approved as a resolution. If this one is sent up as a resolution, I doubt it would pass. If it did, it would probably pass as being for "informational purposes" with no binding effect.

For what it's worth, there is a lot of fence stratling in this paper.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> This report seems to be quite in line with the spirit of the "Good Faith" subscription debate from several GAs ago, and the redefintion of "six days" to include things like the framework theory without the need for stating an exception.
> 
> This report seems to be much more conciliatory than the one from Mississippi Valley presbytery.
> ...



There is at least one section of the report that is contrary to the Good Faith subscription:



> We affirm that candidates who embrace paedocommunion and take exception to statements
> 10 in the Standards that are contrary to paedocommunion must nevertheless agree to submit to
> 11 the regulations regarding admission to the Table as outlined in the PCA Book of Church
> 12 Order (BCO) (particularly BCO 57 and 58). We deny that embracing paedocommunion is
> ...



In one fell swoop, Missouri has just declared that the Lord's Supper is not a fundamental article of the Standards.

Now the curious thing will be (as I predicted several years ago) what happens when another Presbytery declares that it most certainly IS a fundamental article. Then the case will (Eventually) go to GA, and there will be two choices: (1) resolve it and correct one of the Presbyteries, (2) declare definitely that the PCA is not Presbyterian (i.e. the GA has no authority at all).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The MVP report was sent to GA and was not approved as a resolution. If this one is sent up as a resolution, I doubt it would pass. If it did, it would probably pass as being for "informational purposes" with no binding effect.
> 
> For what it's worth, there is a lot of fence stratling in this paper.



But would some--I am not in the PCA and I don't know the specifics--say that the overall "tenor" of the PCA would be more conciliatory towards MO Presbytery than MVP?


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



I hate to be a cynic, but I think the PCA would just like to see this whole thing go away and the "some" that might be conciliatory would be too few to make a difference at GA.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The MVP report was sent to GA and was not approved as a resolution.



Isn't this because it was submitted in an improper way?


----------



## AdamM (Jan 24, 2006)

Fred, I understand you concern about paedocommunion, but if you look just at the reports affirmations and denials, I think it comes out pretty good. 

Shepherd's faith = faithfulness is rejected, so is future and eternal justification, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is affirmed. The unqualified union with Christ language that FV writers often use is also rejected (along with the idea of a baptismal union.) The visible and invisible church distinction seems to me to be well set out. Profession of faith is affirmed and I think the assurance section, with its emphasis upon faith, good works and inward graces in addition to baptism appears to strike the right balance. Baptism based upon presumptive regeneration is also rejected. 

So other then the conciliatory language in the introduction and conclusion, I don't think a Federal Vision advocate would find much to cheer about in the actual "meat" of the report. I wonder if perhaps the Mississippi and Missouri reports will ultimately serve to compliment each other?


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 1, 2006)

For what it's worth, the Asst. Pastor at my church gave me a copy of the MOP statement last week and I really tried to read it in the best light. At the very least, I thought it was perhaps a step in the right direction. While there are a number of problems with it (some have already been mentioned above), I just focused on the one and sent my thoughts to my pastor and to one of the members of the MOP committee that drafted the statement. Unbeknownst to me the person I sent it to is one of the chief proponents of FV in the PCA. Silly me. While it´s a little long, some might be interested so here's what transpired:

Dear ___

Concerning the covenant, while the report recognizes different interpretation of the Standards, it defines covenant as; "a committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation." They state things like:

"We affirm that while God takes the initiative in all His covenant dealings with human beings, He also grants grace for the required human responses of faith and obedience, to those whom He has chosen to save."

"We deny that those who are true participants in this second covenant by means of justifying faith, who are called and who have received the promised inheritance, can break this covenant (Heb. 9:15)."

"We affirm that all those baptized into the covenant community receive certain covenant blessings, whether elect or not, and that these blessings include the regular preaching of God´s Word; the watchful care, pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the Church; the nurture of believing parents; and the regular call to place their faith in Christ (WLC 63; WLC 166; BCO 56-1). Believing that one is inseparably united to Christ by his/her faith alone, we deny that the ritual act of baptism apart from faith unites us to Christ. Further, since God alone sees what is invisible to us, we deny that the whole visible church is united to Christ by virtue of the ritual act of baptism (WLC 61)."

All of the above is excellent and it establishes, in what I would think would be no uncertain terms, that the covenant, specifically the covenant of grace, is with believers, the elect alone, and their spiritual seed. After all, God through Abraham establishes His covenant not with Ishmael (as Abraham wrongly presumed), but rather with Isaac (Gen. 17:18,19).

Notice, "œGod takes the initiative in ALL (and not just some) His covenant dealings" and by grace grants all that is required "œto those whom He has chosen to save." Yet, under their statements under "œUnion with Christ" they state:

"œWe affirm that all members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ and thereby participate in the privileges and responsibilities of that relationship . . . ."

Now, if we agree that God takes the initiative in *all* his covenant dealings with men and by His grace grants all that is required of them in this relationship, then I would think it would incorrect to say that "œall members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ." From what I can tell this is a major weakness in their statement and, in my understanding, perpetuates the confusion that the FV´s have been able capitalize on with considerable success. I would think MOP statement would at least need to clearly define the sense in which all members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ (something they do not do) or simply remove the above portion in order to avoid a glaring contradiction in their statement.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Sean Gerety

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
To: [email protected]

Sean,

We composed this carefully. We came to the conclusion as a committee that there had to be some sense in which all members of the church are in covenant with Christ. This is pretty standard in Reformed theology. Yes, members of the visible church are in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. All of them. It's not just baptism alone accomplishes this, but it does seal it. Members of the church are united with Christ and in covenant with him. This is true for elect and non-elect. 1 Cor. 12 makes it pretty clear that the baptized members of the body of Christ are united with their head and with the other members of the body. Paul is talking about the tangible, visible church not the invisible elect. If it was the later, the chapter's exhortations would make no sense.

This covenantal union, of course, does not guarantee everyone's salvation, however. But it is nonetheless a gracious gift of God.

There's no contradiction. One can be in covenant with God without being elect. One can receive grace without responding in faith. And God's grace can be spurned with the result that those in the church who do not respond in faith will be punished more severely in the end. There covenantal relation to Christ insures their greater condemnation.

Make sense?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To:
From: Sean [email protected]
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
At 05:24 PM 1/25/2006, you wrote:



> We composed this carefully. We came to the conclusion as a committee that there had to be some sense in which all members of the church are in covenant with Christ. This is pretty standard in Reformed theology. Yes, members of the visible church are in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. All of them.




Thank you for getting back to me and I can tell the composition of the document was careful. Also, it may be true that there is some sense in which all members of the church, elect and reprobate alike, are in covenant with Christ, and it may even be standard in Reformed theology, but this doesn't answer my objection.

Now, maybe the sense of the word covenant which you have in mind is common knowledge, but the point is it is nowhere defined in the document, in your reply, or, I dare say, inferred from anything I could find in 1Cor. 12 as you suggest. For what it's worth I have no idea what sense you mean, although I admit I have heard it asserted that all members of the visible church are members of the covenant. However, if there is sense of the word covenant which applies to both reprobate and elect members which is common and even standard, I would think a clear and unequivocal definition would be easily incorporated into your otherwise excellent document.

As I'm sure you realize, this is no small aside. After all, one of the central objections of those pushing the false gospel of the FV is that the invisible/visible distinction is a "Greek" construct which is foreign to the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. They are very clear what they mean by covenant, covenant membership and how one enters and remains in covenant with Christ. They don't equivocate at all nor do they leave the sense in which we are to understand God's covenant in question. The problem is their definitions are completely without warrant in Scripture or the Confessions.



> It's not just baptism alone accomplishes this, but it does seal it. Members of the church are united with Christ and in covenant with him. This is true for elect and non-elect.



Then, with all due respect, you make my point. The MOP statement asserts those with whom God covenants "He also grants grace for the required human responses of faith and obedience, to those whom He has chosen to save." It is certainly far from standard Reformed theology to say that God has chosen to save the reprobate, even those who are members of the visible church. So without a clear definition as to the sense you are using the word "covenant" above the contradiction remains.

Take a look again at the statement under the heading "Union with Christ" where the follow is asserted:

" . . . we deny that it is prudent to use the terminology of "union with Christ" to describe the relationship of all those in the covenant community (elect and non-elect alike) without carefully clarifying the difference between the specific sense the terms have come to have in our theological tradition, and the other senses they may have in the Bible."

OK, you say baptism plays a role in uniting the elect and non-elect alike with Christ, even seals that unity. But, the statement says; "we deny that persons are united to Christ before the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to them." So, if there is a sense which a person can be both united with Christ and not united with Christ at the same time, I would be very curious to know what that is? Or, are you saying that the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to non-elect members of the visible church? If so, when does this happen? Again, the Federal Visionists are unequivocal and explicit in their affirmation that all are united with Christ in baptism, only that some of those united in this covenant bond end up in Hell.

1 Cor. 12 makes it pretty clear that the baptized members of the body of Christ are united with their head and with the other members of the body. Paul is talking about the tangible, visible church not the invisible elect. If it was the later, the chapter's exhortations would make no sense. This covenantal union, of course, does not guarantee everyone's salvation, however. But it is nonetheless a gracious gift of God.

I confess, I have never heard anyone argue that 1 Cor 12 supports the idea that all members of the church, elect and non-elect alike, are united with Christ and in covenant with Him. That doesn't mean that what you say is not found in 1 Cor. 12, just that I couldn't find it. For what it's worth I consulted commentaries by Gordon Clark, John Calvin and John Gill and could find nothing to even remotely support your contention. Quite the contrary. Here's Calvin:

"[Paul] speaks, however, of the baptism of believers, which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit, for, in the case of many, baptism is merely in the letter ? the symbol without the reality; but believers, along with the sacrament, receive the reality."

And Gill:

". . . not that the special grace of the Spirit is given to every individual man in the world, nor to every member of a visible church, for some are sensual, not having the Spirit; but as the same graces of the Spirit are given to every regenerate man, for all receive the same spirit of faith, so the gifts of the Spirit, more or less, either ordinary or extraordinary, are given to all such persons . . . Besides, all that are baptized in water, are not baptized in or by the Spirit, as the case of Simon Magus, and that of others, show; nor does water baptism incorporate persons into the church of Christ; neither into the invisible church, which is the body of Christ, and here meant; nor into a visible Gospel church state; they being indeed true believers, and baptized, are proper persons to be received into a church; but baptism itself does not put them into it, or make them members of it: persons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church."




> There's no contradiction. One can be in covenant with God without being elect. One can receive grace without responding in faith. And God's grace can be spurned with the result that those in the church who do not respond in faith will be punished more severely in the end. There covenantal relation to Christ insures their greater condemnation.
> 
> Make sense?



Not really. Since I have no idea what sense of the word covenant applies to the non-elect, I have no idea how someone can be said to be in covenant with God without being elect? Just saying there is a sense in which God covenants with elect and non-elect members of the visible church doesn't make it so. Similarly, just because some in Reformed theology have asserted such a covenant doesn't make it biblical either.

Look at it this way, if I'm debating a Roman Catholic over the word to justify in both James (Js 2:24) and Paul (Rom 3:28), it is easily demonstrated that if both are using the word in the same sense then the Scriptures contradict themselves and one side of any contradiction must be, not may be, false. The question is, which one? Therefore, I must clearly demonstrate and define the sense in which the word "to justify" is being used in each case. I think the situation here is similar and my example is more than fitting since the Federal Visionists are nothing more than warmed over Romanists.

Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. I hope and pray the MOP statement is widely read and well received and is used by God to drive out the defenders of the FV from the PCA wing of the visible church.

God bless,

Sean Gerety

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
To: Sean [email protected]

Sean,

You make all sorts of assertions and assumptions here that our committee rejected. Not the least of which is that the FV guys teach or preach "a false gospel" and that they need to be "driven out" of the PCA. In our long investigation we did not come to that conclusion. Most of our affirmations and denials have to do with real distortions of the Gospel, some are caricatures of FV positions and others just deal with common misunderstandings.

Our committee, for example, came to the unanimous decision that the way FV guys described the covenant was not a problem, and therefore certainly not heresy. There as an entire committee devoted to that early on, but then they concluded that the way those identified as FV guys defined the covenant was not heterodox.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV


I apologize. I completely misunderstood the intent and purpose of the document, but as far as FV not being a heterodox denial of the Gospel of Christ you're either greatly mistaken or seriously deceived. For what it's worth I came across this from Calvin Beisner posted on a blog (I've included the link so you can verify the source). I think his change of heart on the question of the Federal Visionists, which previously was tepid at best, is revealing if not more than a bit too late. Also, I would strongly recommend you read Paul Elliot's book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism. I'm confident that the PCA will go the way of the OPC and I guess I wrongly held out some hope for the MOP document might be used as a possible antidote.

Calvin Beisner | 12.22.05 | 5:29 pm



> I written my conclusion five months later than I did, it would have been much more decisively and comprehensively critical of the Federal Visionists than what was published. Over that period, thousands of e-mails among the contributors served to persuade me that the Federal Visionists really meant some of the worst things I´d feared, not what I´d hoped, by many of their ambiguous public statements. I became thoroughly convinced that what they are offering is a wholesale replacement of Westminsterian soteriology, ecclesiology, and sacramentology with a soteriology that is a hybrid of Amyraldianism and Roman Catholicism, an ecclesiology that leans heavily toward Roman Catholicism, and a sacramentology that also is far more Roman Catholic than Protestant. My reading of their statements in the time since then convinces me likewise even more strongly. One cannot consistently maintain the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and yet affirm some of the definitive elements of what has come to be known as the Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Theology. That some manage inconsistently to maintain both is a testimony to their intellectual inabilities, not to the orthodoxy of the FV/AAT.



http://www.upsaid.com/scarecrow/index.php?action=viewcom&id=548

Sean Gerety


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 1, 2006)

Sean,

Forget about the FV stuff for a minute. Let's just focus on covenant theology itself. 

I have a major problem with a LOT of what you said above.

MOST of the people on this board, including me, would agree that ALL members of the church are in covenant with God, whether they are elect or non-elect. This is just standard, classic, covenant theology. All members of the visible church are in covenant with God. The elect will prove to be covenant keepers, and the non-elect will prove to be covenant breakers.

Just read Romans 11. All the "branches" are covenant members. But the non-elect branches break the covenant, and are ultimately broken off the tree.

Read Hebrews 6 and 10. These texts remind us again that people can be in covenant with God, but still prove themselves to be covenant breakers, and be cursed.

If you believe that ONLY the elect are in covenant with God, then you are in agreement with the Reformed Baptists on this board, but you are not in agreement with the vast majority of covenant theologians, either today or throughout history.

Sean, maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote above. But it sounded to me like you are lumping the vast majority of covenant theologians into the FV camp, just because we believe that both the elect and non-elect are in covenant with God. So are you accusing Witsius, Edwards, Sproul, McMahon, me, etc. of being FV? Or am I just misunderstanding your view?





[Edited on 2-1-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 1, 2006)

Joseph M. Gleason writes:


> Forget about the FV stuff for a minute. Let's just focus on covenant theology itself.
> 
> I have a major problem with a LOT of what you said above.
> 
> MOST of the people on this board, including me, would agree that ALL members of the church are in covenant with God, whether they are elect or non-elect. This is just standard, classic, covenant theology. All members of the visible church are in covenant with God. The elect will prove to be covenant keepers, and the non-elect will prove to be covenant breakers.




Then why don´t we stay on the FV stuff before moving on to your objections for a minute if you don´t mind? If the covenant is defined per the MOP statement as "a committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation" where "œGod takes the initiative in ALL [and not just some of] His covenant dealings" and by grace grants all that is required "œto those whom He has chosen to save," then will you agree that *if* there are non-elect members in the covenant then the word covenant must have a different meaning? If you agree, then I would like to know in what sense you are using the word "œcovenant"? Please provide the definition for the sense in which both elect and non-elect members are included in God´s covenant?

For myself, I would say that non-elect members of the visible church are the recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; are under the preaching the gospel, receive the sacraments, pray (the non-elect do pray after all), however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God, but the FV folks go too far and include the non-elect as covenant members. You seem to agree, therefore I think you (just like the folks who wrote the MOP statement) need to then clearly define the sense in which you mean that non-elect members of the visible church are "œin covenant" with Christ. For a more complete discussion of my understanding of the covenant please see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/208a-TheBiblicalConvenantGrace.pdf .




> If you believe that ONLY the elect are in covenant with God, then you are in agreement with the Reformed Baptists on this board, but you are not in agreement with the vast majority of covenant theologians, either today or throughout history.



Then perhaps the vast majority of covenant theologians can provide you with a cogent definition of covenant as it applies to the elect and non-elect members of the visible church. I don´t care that they (whoever "œthey" are) think this, but rather can they define the sense in which they mean to use the word "œcovenant"? If it´s so common and so widely known, why don´t you just tell me what it is? I asked one of the MOP report drafters above and he couldn´t tell me, hopefully you won´t let me down.



> Sean, maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote above. But it sounded to me like you are lumping the vast majority of covenant theologians into the FV camp, just because we believe that both the elect and non-elect are in covenant with God. So are you accusing Witsius, Edwards, Sproul, McMahon, me, etc. of being FV? Or am I just misunderstanding your view?




I don´t know that you´ve misunderstood me, but have rather read into what I said. I haven´t said anything to suggest that any of the above men or even you are Fed Visionists. OTOH I think there has been considerable confusion over the nature of the covenant and I think the FV folks have had tremendous success capitalizing on confused and contradictory notions of the covenant. They´ve also made considerable strides through the confused and contradictory notions people have concerning the nature of faith that I mentioned on another thread (which I think got shutdown as soon as I posted). 

I think the FV folks have provided a great service to the church by forcing at least some of us to go back and check some of our premises and not to rely so heavily on our Reformed tradition which hasn´t always been as clear as it arguably should have been -- at least in some areas that is.


----------



## AdamM (Feb 1, 2006)

Joseph, you bring up a very good point. I think much depends on how we define the term "in covenant". If "in covenant" refers to the historical administration of the covenant (visible church), then I would say that yes, both the elect and non-elect are "in covenant". However, if we define the term "in covenant" to refer to those who are conformed to the requirement of the covenant, which is faith, then agreeing with WLC Q31, I think it is true that in that sense, the covenant is made only with the elect. It really is just the visible - invisible church distinction, expressed in terms of the covenant. 



> Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.



in my opinion, behind all of this is an approach on the part of some FV advocates to eliminate (or practically eliminate) that dual aspect of the covenant. It appears to me that in order to combat what they think is harmful introspection, they (FV) propose a flat view of covenant membership that makes almost no distinction between the status (or benefits accorded to) of the elect and non-elect.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll give the same definition that Herman Witsius gave. God's covenant with man may be defined as the following: 

*"A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God and man, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a threatening of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished."*

The covenant-keepers inherit eternal life.
The covenant-breakers earn eternal destruction.
But all are equally members of the covenant. The distinction comes in their covenant keeping or breaking, not in their membership.


I would also like to remind you of what the WCF says:

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. *Baptism is* a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, *but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace*, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.

IV. *Not only those that do actually profess faith* in and obedience unto Christ, *but also the infants* of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.


Again: 
Baptism is not only for a person's admission unto the visible church, but is also a sign and seal of membership in the Covenant of Grace. And since all infant children of Christians are to be baptized, it follows that there are a number of unregenerate people who are members of the Covenant of Grace, according to the confession. --- And of course the WCF was agreed upon by a huge number of top-notch Covenant Theologians.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 1, 2006)

One thing to remember about being "in covenant", especially regarding the WCF, is how the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace are not distinct covenants, but are combined, which causes a considerable amount of confusion.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 1, 2006)

Joseph writes:


> Again:
> Baptism is not only for a person's admission unto the visible church, but is also a sign and seal of membership in the Covenant of Grace. And since all infant children of Christians are to be baptized, it follows that there are a number of unregenerate people who are members of the Covenant of Grace, according to the confession. --- And of course the WCF was agreed upon by a huge number of top-notch Covenant Theologians.



Oh, I agree the writers of the WCF were all top notch, but they weren´t as contradictory or as ambiguous as some of their modern interpreters seem to be. 

Consider this from WLC 31:

With whom was the covenant of grace made?

*The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.*

. . . and Answer WLC 32:

How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?

The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provides and offers to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, *promises and gives his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces;* and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he has appointed them to salvation.

Further, in my opinion we need to understand WCF 28 in light of the covenant as already defined in VII:3 under The Covenant of Grace and not change the definition later on. This is something the FV folks do with considerable skill and they seem to have bamboozled a number of folks and perhaps even you as well. With all due respect, the Confession writers didn't commit the fallacy of equivocation, at least you haven't demonstrated that they have.

WCF VII:3 outlines the Covenant of Grace as follows:

"œMan by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was please to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;* and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."*

Since those things required of those in the covenant, i.e., faith, is promised and is given to all those ordained to life it would follow that all those not so ordained are not in the covenant. Otherwise, the definition of the covenant per the WCF needs to be ammended, since, if you are correct, then some members of the covenant of grace clearly end up in hell and God's covenant and the promises contained therein are ineffectual in the case of at least some of its members. I don´t see this as being the intent of the Confession writers, but maybe you can convince me of my error?

It looks to me like you confuse the thing signified in baptism with the thing itself and confuse the nature of the covenant along the way. Remember, all Israel are not Israel and all baptized members of the visible church are not in the covenant of grace either. If you get the chance, please read the piece I co-authored above. Hopefully it will clarify things.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> It looks to me like you confuse the thing signified in baptism with the thing itself and confuse the nature of the covenant along the way. Remember, all Israel are not Israel and all baptized members of the visible church are not in the covenant of grace either.




Sean, do you understand the difference between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace? It looks to me like you are confusing the two.

The CoR was made between the Father and the Son, and only has the elect in view.

The CoG was made between God and man, and includes both the elect and non-elect.


Are you familiar with the Westminster documents, other than the WCF? I would highly recommend that you take a look at the Sum of Saving Knowledge. Consider these quotes --


The CoR only has the elect in mind:


> The sum of the *covenant of redemption* is this: God having freely chosen unto life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them.



The CoG is with both the elect and non-elect:


> The *covenant of grace*, set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is *one and the same in substance, albeit different in outward administration*: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the sacraments of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased thereby, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and sundry ceremonies: but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, doth clearly hold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people.



Note that the Mosaic Covenant is one administration of the Covenant of Grace. And we all know that the Mosaic Covenant included both covenant keepers and covenant breakers. And the SoSK makes it clear that the CoG is one and the same in both the OT and the NT. The administration has just changed, but not the substance. The covenant still contains both the elect and non-elect.



> I. THE outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them; and the *reprobate*, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled: The means are especially these four. 1. The word of God. 2. The sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. 4. Prayer. In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the *covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers*.



Note that the "covenanters" (i.e. covenant members) include both true AND counterfeit believers, both elect and non-elect.


Sean, I would like to hear you reconcile your view with Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. The olive tree is definitely a covenantal tree, and includes both covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Covenant keepers are the elect who have faith. But the tree also contains unbelievers who get cut off the tree.


I highly recommend you read A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon. He makes it very clear that every covenant God has ever made with man has included both elect and non-elect people. The Covenant of Works fits this description, the Covenant of Grace fits this description, and so does every covenant within the CoG (i.e. the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, & New Covenants). Every covenant between God and man has always included covenant breakers.






[Edited on 2-2-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One thing to remember about being "in covenant", especially regarding the WCF, is how the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace are not distinct covenants, but are combined, which causes a considerable amount of confusion.



Wayne, the founders of the Westminster Standards clearly understood the distinction between the CoR and the CoG. Please see my post above concerning The Sum of Saving Knowledge.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 2, 2006)

> Sean, do you understand the difference between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace? It looks to me like you are confusing the two.



Yes, I think I do, however I do not agree that the CoG includes the non-elect. C. Hodge said; "œthe one [Covenant of Redemption] between God and Christ, the other between God and his people [Covenant of Grace] . . . The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties." Now, unless I'm missing something, "his people" are not the reprobate, even reprobate members of the visible church. More importantly, Hodge asserts:



> There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of his people, and those who distribute them under two. The Westminster standards seem to adopt sometimes the one and sometimes the other mode of representation.



Therefore, at least according to Hodge, drawing the distinction between the CoR and CoG has no effect on the doctrine taught in the Confession, which is that the CoG is with the elect alone.
Similarly, John Murray writes:



> Francis Turretine defines the covenant of grace as 'a gratuitous pact between God offended and man the offender, entered into in Christ, in which God promises to man freely on account of Christ remission of sins and salvation, and man relying on the same grace promises faith and obedience. Or it is a gratuitous agreement between God the offended one and man the offender concerning grace and glory in Christ to be conferred upon man the sinner on the condition of faith'.
> 
> . . . Herman Witsius, to take another example, says that 'the covenant of grace is an agreement between God and the elect sinner; God declaring his free goodwill concerning eternal salvation, and everything relative thereto, freely to be given to those in covenant by and for the sake of the Mediator Christ; and man consenting to that goodwill by a sincere faith'.



For Turrentine the CoG is between God and man on the condition of faith. Where there is no faith there is no covenant. For Witsius, and in seeming opposition to what you infer from the other quote you provided by him, the CoG is with an agreement between "œGod and the elect sinner." No mention whatsoever of God covenanting with non-elect members of the visible church on the basis of baptism or anything else for that matter. In both faith is given to the elect alone, therefore since the non-elect are not given the gift of faith there is no covenant with the non-elect. To suggest otherwise is to make the same error the Jews made which Paul discusses at length in Romans. Paul teaches that the CoG, is made exclusively with Christ and the elect, to whom alone the promises of life and salvation belong.




> Are you familiar with the Westminster documents, other than the WCF? I would highly recommend that you take a look at the Sum of Saving Knowledge. Consider these quotes . . .
> 
> The CoG is with both the elect and non-elect:
> Quote:
> ...




Sorry, the above says nothing about the non-elect. It does mention Christ´s "œown people" though.




> I. THE outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them; and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled: The means are especially these four. 1. The word of God. 2. The sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. 4. Prayer. In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers.




I fail to see how the above differs from what I said earlier and non-elect members of the visible church are the recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; are under the preaching the gospel, receive the sacraments, pray, however these things are not grace to the non-elect. I think the above comports also with what Adam said above as well; "œIf "in covenant" refers to the historical administration of the covenant (visible church), then I would say that yes, both the elect and non-elect are "in covenant."" If that is the sense of the word convent you are employing when you speak of the non-elect are members of the covenant, then we would have no quarrel. But it´s clear to me, that is unless I´ve mistaken you, that is not at all what you mean. So I´ll ask you again to define the word covenant as to include non-elect members of the visible church? What do you mean that non-elect church members are in covenant with Christ and on what basis?

As for Jer 11 and Rom 11 we´ll have to discuss both later on, God willing, because I´m just responding to the above during a break at work. As for the McMahon piece, thanks I´ll read it too when I get the chance. I had written him awhile ago and was surprised by his response (which was basically, "œyes, God´s covenant is with the non-elect as well, so buy my book"  

I just hope you´ll be a little more willing than you have been to a little more quid pro quo, or I´m quite sure we won´t get anywhere.

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> "If 'in covenant' refers to the historical administration of the covenant (visible church), then I would say that yes, both the elect and non-elect are 'in covenant.'" If that is the sense of the word convent you are employing when you speak of the non-elect are members of the covenant, then we would have no quarrel.



Bingo. Covenant membership is coextensive with the visible church. If a person is part of the visible church, then he is in covenant with God, a full-fledged member of the Covenant of Grace.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> What do you mean that non-elect church members are in covenant with Christ and on what basis?



Please see Jeremiah 11 & Romans 11. Please see Hebrews 6 & 10, etc.

Also consider the Israelites in the wilderness. They were all in covenant with God; they were all His people. But most of them were not elect. And in 1 Cor. 10, Paul warns the NT Church with the SAME warnings. NT Church members are no less vulnerable to warnings than the OT Israelites were. They were the people of God, and we are the people of God. The elect keep covenant and receive blessings, while the non-elect break covenant and receive curses.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...



No he is not. This denies the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance. This is the sum of what John means when he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

This is the central point of the Federal Vision error, saying that unbelievers and the non-elect are "full-fledged" members of the Covenant of Grace. That is one of the reasons why the Church does not allow those without any testimony of regeneration (a credible profession of faith) to partake of the Lord's Supper.

One of the key components of FV error is to obliterate the distinction between the invisible and visible Church, the form of the Covenant and its substance, the outward administration and inner reality.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Are we arguing with each other, or just debating semantics? Have you read Dr. McMahon's "Simple Overview"? Do you agree with it? I am just arguing for the same covenant membership McMahon argues for in his book. Most of what I have learned about Covenant Theology has come from Dr. McMahon and Dr. Witsius.

In McMahon's "Simple Overview", he clearly teaches that all of God's covenants include both believers and unbelievers.

I agree that the nonelect do not partake of the inward graces of the covenant, thus 1 John 2:19 and Matthew 7:23. The elect partake of the covenant inwardly in a way that nonelect covenant members do not.

But it is fallacious to say that the nonelect weren't full-fledged covenant members. If you go that far, then you make a mockery of the very terms "covenant breaking", and "being cut off from the covenant".

Please tell me, how can a person be cut off from a covenant, if he was never a member of that covenant? How can a person be a covenant breaker, without first being a covenant member?

Also explain Jeremiah 11 & Romans 11 to me. Were the non-elect branches part of the covenant tree or not? They HAD to be, otherwise they couldn't have been "broken off", "cut off", etc.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> One of the key components of FV error is to obliterate the distinction between the invisible and visible Church, the form of the Covenant and its substance, the outward administration and inner reality.



Who are you arguing with? You obviously aren't talking to me, since I repeatedly *affirm* the distinction between the invisible church and the visible church. I fully agree that the invisible church only contains the elect, while the visible church contains a mixed crowd.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2006)

> This denies the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 2, 2006)

I agree with Fred. People are either legally or communally within the Covenant of Grace. Only those who are in communion with God - full fledged covenant members, i.e. the elect of God - receive all the benefits of Christ, including perseverance, justification, etc. You can be legally in the CoG and not be elect (i.e. false professors and baptized covenant children who have not, in time, repented and put faith in Christ alone). See Berkhof on the CoG for a very helpful overview of the legal/communal distinctions. I think the terms "inside" and "outside" the covenant, or any other terminology can be confusing.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> You can be legally in the CoG and not be elect



 I totally agree.




> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Only those who are in communion with God - *full fledged covenant members*, i.e. the elect of God - receive all the benefits of Christ, including perseverance, justification, etc.



 I totally agree.


And I see where the misunderstanding has occurred. For some odd reason, Fred made the assumption that, by the term "full fledged", I meant someone who "receives all the benefits of Christ, including perseverance, justification, etc." Well, if THAT is what "full fledged" means, then I RECANT, because the non-elect certainly DO NOT have that.

However, that is NOT what I meant by the term "full fledged". I just meant that the non-elect are in covenant with God. They are covenant breakers, to be sure, and will receive the covenant curses in full force. Thus, I equate "full fledged" with "legally". Non-elect people are legally in covenant with God.

But as covenant breakers, do they partake of the inward graces of the covenant? Certainly not! Thus Matthew 7:23 & 1 John 2:19.


So are we in agreement?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 2, 2006)

Joseph,

Full-fledged does mean "partakes of all the benefits of." Otherwise what would you call the elect? Super-duper full fledged?

The point is that the non elect are not true full fledged members - even though they may think that they are. It is the difference between the Pharisees and the Chaldeans. The former receive greater judgment because of greater light.

The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 2, 2006)

Sounds like it. The important thing to understand is how covenants work. You can be 'in' a covenantal agreement and not receive the benefits of such an arrangement. Receiving those benefits requires fulfilling the obligations of the covenant, which Christ did for the elect in fulfilling the demands of the CoW, as no man could.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> Full-fledged does mean "partakes of all the benefits of."



Fred, I respectfully disagree with you.


full-fledged

adj 1: (of a bird) having reached full development with fully grown adult plumage; ready to fly [syn: fully fledged] 2: (of persons e.g.) *having gained full status*; "a full-fledged lawyer"; "by the age of seventeen I was a full-fledged atheist"; "sees itself as a fully fledged rival party" [syn: fully fledged]


"Full-fledged" means the same thing as having "full status". In other words, it means the same thing as "legally".

Notice that the definition of "Full-fledged" says nothing about "receiving all the benefits".

A covenant is double-edged. It is a legal contract. The one who keeps the contract gets the benefits. The one who defiles the contract gets the curses. A U.S. citizen who commits a felony is still _just as much a citizen_ as I am. But he does *not* get all the benefits that I do. He gets the curses that go along with being an evildoer in this country. He gets jailtime, and he cannot vote. However, that doesn't mean that he was/is a non-citizen. This is what I mean when I talk about a non-elect person being in covenant with God. He is just as legally a covenant member as I am. But he has a "felony" while I have a "clean record". He can't "vote", but I can. He is in "prison", while I am "free". He gets all the covenant curses, while I get all the covenant blessings. 

But it would make *no sense* for him to get the covenant curses, if he were not a member of the covenant at all. 

If a non-elect person could not be in the covenant, then why does Scripture bother offering any warnings? Why do we have Romans 11 and Hebrews 10 and 1 Cor. 10? As Gabe has said in the past, "Watch out for the cliff" signs don't make any sense in Kansas.




> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Otherwise what would you call the elect? Super-duper full fledged?



No, I would call them full-fledged covenant members who are *also* covenant keepers, and who take part in *all* the blessings of the covenant, *including* all the inward graces.

The covenant breakers do NOT take part in all the blessings of the covenant, and they do NOT take part in all the inward graces.




> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The point is that the non elect are not true full fledged members - even though they may think that they are. It is the difference between the Pharisees and the Chaldeans. The former receive greater judgment because of greater light.



I totally agree that there is a HUGE difference between the elect in the covenant and the non-elect in the covenant. I agree that the non-elect are deceived about their status. They THINK they partake of the inward graces, but are WRONG.

However, I don't understand what any of that has to do with their legal covenant membership status, which is the very thing which makes them worthy of receiving the covenant curses.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.



I don't quite follow you here. ALL people are in relationship with God in one way or another. A relationship of hatred and wrath is still a relationship. Would you agree with me that all of the people of Israel were in covenant with God? In Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11, God broke off a lot of unbelieving branches. And his explicit reason for doing so was their covenant *breaking*. So again I ask, how can you be broken off from a covenant, without first being a member of that covenant?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Sounds like it. The important thing to understand is how covenants work. You can be 'in' a covenantal agreement and not receive the benefits of such an arrangement. Receiving those benefits requires fulfilling the obligations of the covenant, which Christ did for the elect in fulfilling the demands of the CoW, as no man could.





I totally agree with everything you said here, Gabe.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 2, 2006)

> The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.



It should be clear that Joseph rejects the idea the sense of the word _covenant_ as it pertains to the non-elect is to be used in the sense of mere partakers of the outward administration of the covenant, but something significantly more. Not sure exactly what that is yet, but the implications of such a view are reason for concern. For example, since the covenant applies to both elect and non-elect church members, and both are "œfull-fledged" covenant members, what differentiates elect from non-elect church members? God choice in election alone cannot be the decisive factor since God covenants equally with both. So what´s left? It would seem the decisive factor in the covenant of grace are the members themselves. That´s why the FV has been consistent in proclaiming it is our own covenant keeping, our own faithfulness, which differentiates elect and non-elect covenant members. 

Joseph writes:



> A covenant is double-edged. It is a legal contract. The one who keeps the contract gets the benefits. The one who defiles the contract gets the curses.



What is forgotten is that what is required that makes the covenant binding is faith. Faith is a gift of God and without faith there is no contract. The entire Covenant of Grace is entirely and unilaterally administered. The analogy fails because while it may describe a legal contract that one might find among equals, God and man are not equals. 

You seem to agree with FV defenders in their denial of hypothetical warnings in Scripture, which is why you keep bringing up Rom and Jer 11 as if the members of the covenant can be cut off. For example, Doug Wilson adopting the analogy of marriage to explain the covenant of grace asserts; "No one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven." In Wilson's theology, and the hyper-covenatalism of the FV, some Christians will go to Hell. But why can't Wilson's analogy be just as easily replaced with your own?

Calvin here might be helpful in grasping the metaphors found in Jer and Rom that seem to be giving you trouble:



> 21. For if God has not spared the natural branches, etc. This is a most powerful reason to beat down all self-confidence: for the rejection of the Jews should never come across our minds without striking and shaking us with dread. For what ruined them, but that through supine dependence on the dignity which they had obtained, they despised what God had appointed? They were not spared, though they were natural branches; what then shall be done to us, who are the wild olive and aliens, if we become beyond measure arrogant? But this thought, as it leads us to distrust ourselves, so it tends to make us to cleave more firmly and steadfastly to the goodness of God.


 
Perhaps Joseph, God intends such warnings in Scripture for reasons other than you assume?

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> what differentiates elect from non-elect church members? God choice in election alone cannot be the decisive factor since God covenants equally with both.



Both are in the same covenant.

However, both do NOT have faith. The elect have faith. The non-elect do not have faith.

Those with faith are covenant keepers.

Those without faith are covenant breakers.

And God ultimately IS the decisive factor, because, as you pointed out, God is the only one who can give faith to a person. 

To the elect, and to the elect alone, God gives faith. And only those with this gift of faith are the covenant keepers.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> you keep bringing up Rom and Jer 11 as if the members of the covenant can be cut off.



Sean, please read Jeremiah 11. And then YOU tell me whether any Jews were cut off the covenant tree or not.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Perhaps Joseph, God intends such warnings in Scripture for reasons other than you assume?



Sean, again, YOU please read the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 10. Were the Israelites in the wilderness all elect, or not? I think it is clear that they were not. Well, Paul addresses the NT visible church, and flatly warns them not to do the same things the Israelites did, and come under the same judgment. If you cannot see that these warnings are real, then you need more help than I know how to give you.


The warnings are addressed to the visible church. Of course those of us in the invisible church CANNOT fall away and come under judgment. That is impossible. But the nonelect not only CAN, but they WILL eventually prove themselves apostate, and will most certainly come under judgment.



I repeat:

I AFFIRM the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church.

I AFFIRM that only God gives the gift of faith. He gives it to all of the elect, and He gives it to the elect alone.

The warnings are real. But they are addressed to the VISIBLE church, not the INVISIBLE church.

What part of that is difficult to understand?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 3, 2006)

Sean,

"Faith is a gift of God and without faith there is no _contract_."

Where do you find this in either the Hebrew concept or Greek concept of "covenant?"

That is certainly not a biblical idea.

Faith has nothing to do, generally speaking, with a _contract between two parties_, which is what a covenant is in any administration.

Don't confuse the Counsel of Peace (the CoR) with how the administration of that Covenant works out in time among men in the CoG and with apostasy FROM that covenant. 

This is the difference between the Reformed / Post Reformation and FV ideas. The Reformed / Post Reformation idea of the internal covenant of grace (benefited by grace) and the extral participation of the covenant by those in the visible church is well documented. Even the early father beleived this to a great extent and covenantal ideas (CT) can be found in this way in Iranaeus' and Augustine's theology.

Remember overall, the FV theology teaches that there is ONE covenant that includes everyone with all thebenefits while they are in the church and in covenant with God. This is a gross misrepresentation of "covenant" concepts in general.

Biblically, covenants can be of all sorts that require no faith at all. Such is the case with infants being in covenant with the external administration of the CoG in the visible church. ALL the benefits of thier baptism are summarized by the WCF:

"Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world...Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."

Also, they make this clear:

"Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, *if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders*."

This woudl be immaterial (apostasy would be immaterial) if one were not apostasized FROM something.

The FV advocates that this to an unnatural degree and confound not only the church, but the benefits of the covenant of grace to those they think are "fully" or completely" in reception of EVERYTHING that the CoG liberally blesses those who are only regenerated.

In what Joseph said here:



> I AFFIRM the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church.
> 
> I AFFIRM that only God gives the gift of faith. He gives it to all of the elect, and He gives it to the elect alone.
> 
> The warnings are real. But they are addressed to the VISIBLE church, not the INVISIBLE church.



There is nothing to take issue with. This is not only biblically consistent, but confessionally so.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank you, Dr. McMahon!


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



My point was that you do not see the CoR mentioned in a plain reading of the Standards. In my estimation, the standards are fairly clear in and of themselves, without reading SSK.

If one is going to argue the issue of covenant membership based on the language of the Standards, one should start with the Effectual Calling. In that chapter of the WCF is the clear delineation of who is in the visible church; the effectually called and the generally called. If one uses the Standards to interpret the standards there shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 3, 2006)

Sum of Saving Knowledge is a Scottish document written by David Dickson and James Durham, and scribed out by Patrick Simson, cousin to George Gillespie, who raised him. It was never official adopted by the Church of Scotland as a standard far as I know but became traditional to include it.
This long had a confused attribution. The first edition of the WCF/Catechisms to have the Sum was Lithgow's 1650, about which Warfield, relying on David Hay Fleming, writes:


> This copy contains the Confession and Catechisms provided with distinct titles, but paged continuously; and at the end, occupying the sixty-six unnumbered pages, the Sum of Christian Knowledge. This is the first appearance of the Sum; it afterwards became a well-nigh constant accompaniment of the Confession and Catechisms in Scotch editions. "¦ The title page of the Sum is already in this edition deformed by the error in punctuation which makes it appear a product of the Westminster Divines. That is to say, it runs: "A Brief Sum of | Christian Doctrine, | contained in | Holy Scripture, and holden | forth in the Confession | of Faith and Catechisms. | Agreed upon by the Assembly of Di-| vines at Westminster, and received | by the General Assembly of | the Kirk of Scotland."


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. McMahon writes:


> "œFaith is a gift of God and without faith there is no contract."
> 
> Where do you find this in either the Hebrew concept or Greek concept of "covenant?"
> 
> ...




Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:

VII:3. Covenant of Grace

Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was please to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, *requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.*

Notice above (and we´ll get to my presumed confusion between the CoG and the CoR below) that, per the covenant, God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made. However, per you and Joseph, God fails to give all he promises to at least some members of the covenant. 

Yet, per the WCF under the CoG God sets what is required and promises to give all those under the covenant exactly what is required. The covenant is completely unilateral and certainly one of the most graphic example in Scripture is found in Gen. 15 in God´s covenant with Abraham. The covenant was cut but only God, represented by a flaming torch, passed through the severed carcasses. Gen 15:17; "œAnd it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces." I think it significant that Abraham is completely passive in the establishment of the covenant.



> Don't confuse the Counsel of Peace (the CoR) with how the administration of that Covenant works out in time among men in the CoG and with apostasy FROM that covenant.



With all due respect, I don´t see that I am confusing the two. Perhaps you and Joseph are? Maybe it would be helpful for each of us to define the parties in each? For brevity I´ll use Hodge´s definition since I think it is clear and to the point:



> . . . confusion is avoided by distinguishing between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people. The latter supposes the former, and is founded upon it. The two, however, ought not to be confounded, as both are clearly revealed in Scripture, and moreover they differ as to the parties, as to the promises, and as to the conditions.



Now, I would hope we could agree that if the CoG is between God and His people, reprobate church members are not counted among "œHis people." I certainly can´t find anything in Hodge to suggest that God´s people are "œall Israel," i.e., all natural decedents from Abraham, or even all members of the visible church, but rather are his spiritual seed. More importantly, what does Scripture say? God tells Abraham; "œI will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you . . . ." Notice, it´s God who establishes His covenant. Is God the God of unbelievers? Those not chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ? Well, Abraham thought so, at least at first. Per Gen 17 and after the sign of the covenant is given and God tells him that Sarah "œshall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her," Abraham said; "Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!" Clearly Abraham confused the giving of the sign of the covenant, and with whom it was to be applied, with the covenant itself, but God corrects him and says; 

"No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him . . . My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Ishmael was in covenant with God, for God does not establish His covenant with him, but rather with a child yet to come as the result of a miraculous birth, clearly picturing Christ who was to come. However, the idea that reprobate members of the visible church, the chafe among the wheat, are "œfull-fledge"members and have "œfull status" in the Covenant of Grace is not supported by Scripture. 

Back to Hodge for a moment. I think it´s important to see exactly what confusion Hodge was trying to avoid and it´s not the confusion that divides you and me. Hodge writes:



> Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; *so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father.* This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Rom 5.12-21, and 1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 47-49. Still it does not remove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.



Hodge has no problem whatsoever with saying that the CoG "œwas formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father," i.e. the elect and the elect alone. However the reason for distinguishing the CoG from the CoR is to "œremove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant," not that reprobate members of the visible church are represented in one covenant and not in another. 




> Remember overall, the FV theology teaches that there is ONE covenant that includes everyone with all thebenefits while they are in the church and in covenant with God. This is a gross misrepresentation of "covenant" concepts in general.
> 
> Biblically, covenants can be of all sorts that require no faith at all. Such is the case with infants being in covenant with the external administration of the CoG in the visible church. ALL the benefits of thier baptism are summarized by the WCF:
> 
> "Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world...Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."



Let´s be clear, I´m not accusing you or Joseph of being supporters of the heresy of the FV, far from it, however I will say that the FV´s view of the covenant, which shares a number of your underlying premises, are a lot more consistent. Consequently, in my opinion that your take on the CoG is not only contrary to Scripture, the WCF, but also gives considerably aid and comfort to FV heretics (and they are heretics that need to be disciplined, but are not). 

Consider the above statement on baptism. Are unbelieving members of the church ingrafted into Christ? How about regenerated? Sins remitted? Given new life? Well, if they´re full-fledged members of the CoG and assuming full-fledged means anything then I guess so. This applies to infants as well as to those professing faith and are baptized. The problem as I see it is that neither the Confession nor do the Scriptures assert that all baptized infants of believers receive all the blessings pictured in baptism and outline above. I guess some here might be pained to consider it, but I think Gill was right when he said; "œpersons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church." This goes for infant children of believers as well.

In any case, this discussion so far has hopefully been helpful in highlighting some of the divisions and confusion that have plagued P&R circles and which has allowed the FV to take root. Paul did warn us that "œevil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." The FV is an area where such men have had considerable success and it should be clear, regardless of which side of this present debate you stand, exactly why this is happening.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:
> 
> ...



You aren't paying attention to simple grammar, Sean.

As you quoted above, the WCF says that God promises "unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe".

But then you turn right around and say that "God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made".


Your fallacy is in assuming that all covenant members are ordained unto life. But this is not true. The WCF is only addressing what God does for those ordained unto life, and is not addressing all of those with whom covenant is made.






[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:



Actually, no, I take the WCF in its overall context, and then the further writings of those divines in their various works. They are thoroughly biblical in teaching how the covenant of grace has an external and internal aspect to it. Otherwise, the Assembly's views concerning both Censure and "covenant concepts" would exclude their laborious debates around the constitution of how one is excommunicated and breaking covenant. Apostasy for them presupposes something to apostatize from, which does not simply revolve around the visible church, but the covenant they are vowed to.

This holds much thought in it in respect to what "covenant" means, "A vow is of the like nature with a _promissory oath_, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness."

They further make this point that "Faith" is not a component of a pact or agreement by stating, "A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth....An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation."

Take this to heart, a "Solemn League and Covenant" is made not on faith, necessarily, but on the definition and biblical sanction of how "covenant" works. They are essential one and the same.



> VII:3. Covenant of Grace
> 
> Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was please to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, *requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.*



Yes, requiring in that covenant faith TO BE SAVED. Correct. I agree with the Assembly.

Place that in context with the oath, and sacraments.

"Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace..."

They are exceedingly clear.

There is the internal aspect of the CoG which intersects the CoR (Chapter 3 under the Decrees of God and Predestination) and the external aspect of the visible church and the covenant of grace whereby those who are baptized (including infants) are made partakers of that covenant.



> Notice above (and we´ll get to my presumed confusion between the CoG and the CoR below) that, per the covenant, God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made.



That is not what it says, nor what the divines taught nor meant.



> However, per you and Joseph, God fails to give all he promises to at least some members of the covenant.



Not at all, unless you are unilaterally thinking that the CoG and "salvation" are coextensive. They are not. The divines did not teach this, Calvin did not teach this, Turretin did not teach this, the Puritans did not teach this, etc. You are being Baptist.



> Yet, per the WCF under the CoG God sets what is required and promises to give all those under the covenant exactly what is required. The covenant is completely unilateral and certainly one of the most graphic example in Scripture is found in Gen. 15 in God´s covenant with Abraham. The covenant was cut but only God, represented by a flaming torch, passed through the severed carcasses. Gen 15:17; "œAnd it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces." I think it significant that Abraham is completely passive in the establishment of the covenant.



It is significant. But did Abraham believe that Isaac was in covenant with God or not?



> Don't confuse the Counsel of Peace (the CoR) with how the administration of that Covenant works out in time among men in the CoG and with apostasy FROM that covenant.
> 
> With all due respect, I don´t see that I am confusing the two. Perhaps you and Joseph are?



Based on what you have written so far, it seems you are. You are thinking like a Baptist in respect to the CoG. 



> Maybe it would be helpful for each of us to define the parties in each? For brevity I´ll use Hodge´s definition since I think it is clear and to the point:
> 
> . . . confusion is avoided by distinguishing between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people. The latter supposes the former, and is founded upon it. The two, however, ought not to be confounded, as both are clearly revealed in Scripture, and moreover they differ as to the parties, as to the promises, and as to the conditions.
> 
> Now, I would hope we could agree that if the CoG is between God and His people, reprobate church members are not counted among "œHis people." I certainly can´t find anything in Hodge to suggest that God´s people are "œall Israel," i.e., all natural decedents from Abraham, or even all members of the visible church, but rather are his spiritual seed.



But Hodge is not talking about the reprobate here. You've mentioned the visible church. There is nothing in Hodge's quote here respecting that. And Hodge, mind you, follows Witsius quite closely on these matters. Hodge has a far different overall view of Covenant Theology than you do. For example, he says:

"Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)

"We have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches [the rejection of presumptive regeneration)." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)

Hodge's view is colored with the same internal/external aspect as the Reformers and Post-Reformation dogmatics, otherwise, PR would not be feasible for him, and he would be thinking Baptistically.





> More importantly, what does Scripture say? God tells Abraham; "œI will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you . . . ." Notice, it´s God who establishes His covenant. Is God the God of unbelievers? Those not chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ? Well, Abraham thought so, at least at first. Per Gen 17 and after the sign of the covenant is given and God tells him that Sarah "œshall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her," Abraham said; "Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!" Clearly Abraham confused the giving of the sign of the covenant, and with whom it was to be applied, with the covenant itself, but God corrects him and says."



Hmmm. If this is the case (i.e. that Abraham was "confused" (which I think is exegetically unattainable here) then both Paul and James were idiots for allowing the recently converted Pharisees who were "brothers" to continue to circumcise all their children as being IN covenant with God (much less mangling other OT and NT Scriptures that could be cited.)

Acts 21:20-21 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 "but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, *saying* that _they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs._"

This would be hard for a Jew to swallow - their children are not part of the covenant of grace and not have the sign of it? No way.

Acts 21:22-24 "What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 "Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 "Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 

I.e. - show them all, Paul, that they were wrong in thinking this, and you said no such thing. Children are still part of the covenant of grace.



> Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Ishmael was in covenant with God, for God does not establish His covenant with him, but rather with a child yet to come as the result of a miraculous birth, clearly picturing Christ who was to come. However, the idea that reprobate members of the visible church, the chafe among the wheat, are "œfull-fledge"members and have "œfull status" in the Covenant of Grace is not supported by Scripture.



The difference between Hodge, I, Calvin, Turretin, the Puritans, etc., and your view is that you are thinking like a Baptist. The CoR in your view is essentially the same as the CoG which has only three elements to it - The Father makes a pact with the Son to save His elect. That is what is "delivered" in your mind in the CoG, which then, blurs the CoR and the CoG in the same way the Baptist is confused.



> Back to Hodge for a moment. I think it´s important to see exactly what confusion Hodge was trying to avoid and it´s not the confusion that divides you and me. Hodge writes:
> 
> Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; *so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father.* This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Rom 5.12-21, and 1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 47-49. Still it does not remove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.
> 
> Hodge has no problem whatsoever with saying that the CoG "œwas formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father," i.e. the elect and the elect alone.



No, No, Hodge is saying only part of what you think he is saying in whole. See my earlier quotes on PR above BY Hodge.




> However the reason for distinguishing the CoG from the CoR is to "œremove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant," not that reprobate members of the visible church are represented in one covenant and not in another.



Understanding the very idea of the Confession's teaching on Sacraments is diametrically opposed this kind of thinking. For the seal of any sacrament is either a blessing or curse. This is the nature of every covenant, including the nature of the CoR. Blessing attends the one in covenant if all matters of the covenant are met. God supplies this for the elect. Cursing attends every covenant breaker that does not fulfill all the covenant stipulations. It is worse of Ishmael and Esau as covenant breakers than it is for those who are never in covenant with God. 



> Consequently, in my opinion that your take on the CoG is not only contrary to Scripture, the WCF, but also gives considerably aid and comfort to FV heretics (and they are heretics that need to be disciplined, but are not).



This is simply from ignorance of all the facts, humbly. The FV crowd distorts and twists the Scriptures. I'm sure you would say they are getting their information, at least in their mind, by using their Bible's, but that does not make the Bible wrong. 



> Are unbelieving members of the church ingrafted into Christ? How about regenerated? Sins remitted? Given new life? Well, if they´re full-fledged members of the CoG and assuming full-fledged means anything then I guess so.



Don't mistake what the Assembly taught, and did not do. 1) they taught that baptism WAS those things, and 2) they made NO DISTINCTION between infants being baptized THIS way and adults being baptized int he SAME way. The WCF makes no distinction between the two. They are teaching what a Covenant Sign entails. It applies this way to all those baptized. 



> This applies to infants as well as to those professing faith and are baptized. The problem as I see it is that neither the Confession nor do the Scriptures assert that all baptized infants of believers receive all the blessings pictured in baptism and outline above.



You would have to show how infants, then, are said to be excluded from these things when they are baptized, in the Confession. And that is nowhere to be found. So you are picking and choosing what you want to pick and choose to quote.



> I guess some here might be pained to consider it, but I think Gill was right when he said; "œpersons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church." This goes for infant children of believers as well.



Again, you are being Baptistic.



> In any case, this discussion so far has hopefully been helpful in highlighting some of the divisions and confusion that have plagued P&R circles and which has allowed the FV to take root.



Not really. You are confusing the issue all the more.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...



It is not a fallacy, it is a deduction from the text of the WCF. And that depends on what you think is meant by "willing". 



> VII:3. Covenant of Grace
> 
> Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was please to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.



If one is both willing and able, one does that thing. We do things that we _will_ to do. I think the key is understand what is meant by "willing". I think a modern understanding of "willing" is to mean "free to choose one way or the other" (i.e. "free will"). But I think in the WCF, it means to make them "want" to believe. And since the Holy Spirit makes the man both "want" to and to be "able" to believe, it follows that the man will in fact believe. Thus the man who God makes the covenant with is one who is called to believe, and can not reject God's calling.

Otherwise, we have to assert that the one who are placed under the covenant of grace, and who is required to have faith is free to reject this covenant. The freely offered covenant of grace is not free because one is "free" to reject it. We are in fact, "required" to have faith under the covenant of grace. The difference between a covenant and a contract, is a contract may be rejected by either party if either party does not adhere to the terms. A covenant is binding on both parties, and can not be nullified. 

So either the covenant is made with those who are "ordained for life" (the elect) or it is made to all men equally. But if it is to all men, then there is no difference between those who are members of the visible church or those who are not members. Therefore the covenant is to the every person in the world, or to those in the invisible church - the elect.

However, what benefit is there to those who are in the covenant if it applies to all men? And where does it imply that only those who are members of the visible church are under the covenant, and those outside of it are not. No, it make more sense if the covenant is with the elect.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> It is not a fallacy, it is a deduction from the text of the WCF. And that depends on what you think is meant by "willing".
> 
> If one is both willing and able, one does that thing. We do things that we _will_ to do. I think the key is understand what is meant by "willing". I think a modern understanding of "willing" is to mean "free to choose one way or the other" (i.e. "free will"). But I think in the WCF, it means to make them "want" to believe. And since the Holy Spirit makes the man both "want" to and to be "able" to believe, it follows that the man will in fact believe. Thus the man who God makes the covenant with is one who is called to believe, and can not reject God's calling.



I totally agree with you regarding the definition of the word "willing" in the WCF. So who are you arguing with?



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Otherwise, we have to assert that the one who are placed under the covenant of grace, and who is required to have faith is free to reject this covenant.



Correct. There are elect members of the CoG, whom God will make willing. AND there are non-elect members of the CoG who certainly DO reject this covenant, and apostatize from it.



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> So either the covenant is made with those who are "ordained for life" (the elect) or it is made to all men equally.



Wrong. You are very confused here. You need to go back and read Witsius and other good Covenant Theologians. You need to go up and read Dr. McMahon's most recent post in this thread.

The Covenant of Grace is not made with all men equally.

The Covenant of Grace is not made only with the elect.

Rather:

The Covenant of Grace is coextensive with the visible church. All members of the visible church are members of the Covenant of Grace. The elect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace both inwardly and outwardly, and receive ALL benefits of the covenant. Nonelect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace only outwardly, and receive SOME benefits of the covenant, and ultimately receive the covenant curses for apostasy.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> There is the internal aspect of the CoG which intersects the CoR (Chapter 3 under the Decrees of God and Predestination) and the external aspect of the visible church and the covenant of grace whereby those who are baptized (including infants) are made partakers of that covenant.
> 
> ...





 AMEN Dr. McMahon!!!


----------



## Civbert (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you regarding the definition of the word "willing" in the WCF. So who are you arguing with?
> ...



OK. Where does Scripture or WCF say that only the visible church is under the Covenant of Grace. After some thought, I think I'd say the Covenant of Grace must be made to all men (both Jews and Gentiles). It see no reason to make it exclusive to the visible church in any way. It is either with the elect, or with all men. It seems the error of FV is to say the CoG applies only the the visible church - which excludes those believers who are not members of a visible church.

WCF 7:6 seems to imply the church has a role in the dispensing of the CoG - it does not exclude those outside the Church. It is the preaching of the Word, to the whole world.


> 7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance (Gal_2:17), was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord´s Supper (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20; 1Co_11:23-25): which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy (Jer_31:33, Jer_31:34; Heb_12:22-28), to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations (Psa_32:1; Act_15:11; Rom_3:21-23; Rom_4:3, Rom_4:6, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17, Rom_4:23, Rom_4:24; Gal_3:14, Gal_3:16; Heb_13:8).



Note that the the church administer the sacraments, but these are just some of the blessings of the CoG. It does not imply that church membership defines those who are offered the Covenant. The Covenant is to all men. Now either all men is all who are elect, or all men. It can not be only the visible church because then only those in the visible church receive the promise of saving faith. And can not believe that is correct..


Perhaps you should define the "benefits" of the Covenant of Grace according to the WCF. But I think this is clear in WCF 7:3 - "commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved". That can not be true only for members of the visible church. That is true for ALL sinners. The benefit of the CoG is "salvation by Jesus Christ."

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Understanding the very idea of the Confession's teaching on Sacraments is diametrically opposed this kind of thinking. For the seal of any sacrament is either a blessing or curse. This is the nature of every covenant, including the nature of the CoR. Blessing attends the one in covenant if all matters of the covenant are met. God supplies this for the elect. Cursing attends every covenant breaker that does not fulfill all the covenant stipulations. It is worse of Ishmael and Esau as covenant breakers than it is for those who are never in covenant with God.



The requirement of the covenant of grace (the stipulation) is faith in Jesus. And the blessing is salvation. This offer is for all SINNERS. It is not limited to the "visible church". 

I repeat, the _only_ requirement of the covenant of grace is faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 4, 2006)

Joseph says:



> The Covenant of Grace is coextensive with the visible church. All members of the visible church are members of the Covenant of Grace. The elect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace both inwardly and outwardly, and receive ALL benefits of the covenant. Nonelect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace only outwardly, and receive SOME benefits of the covenant, and ultimately receive the covenant curses for apostasy.



Amen.

Fred said the same this way:



> This denies the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance. This is the sum of what John means when he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).




Those making the CoG coextensive only with elect members, are denying the foundation of all historic forms of biblical interpretation of how "covenant" works. Its not what the confession teaches, nor what Reformed Theology has ever taught. Those formulations are new, and Baptistic (no offense to my good baptist brothers at all, I'm simply pressing the very confused Presbyterians in this thread either become Presbyterian, or go Baptist.)

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 4, 2006)

It´s clear to me that we´re talking past each other and are not making any progress at all. I realize you have a lot more at stake here than I do, after all I don´t have a book to sell. However, in my opinion in light of the FV, this debate could be a classic example of divide and conquer, and, as previously mentioned, is a wonderful example of why the heresy of the FV and the NPP are winning in P&R circles. 



> But Hodge is not talking about the reprobate here. You've mentioned the visible church. There is nothing in Hodge's quote here respecting that.



I realize that and I´m glad we agree. Hodge is talking about the CoG and the CoR, neither of which have the reprobate in mind as either recipients or members. That is after all the point of the discussion and my citation of Hodge.



> And Hodge, mind you, follows Witsius quite closely on these matters. Hodge has a far different overall view of Covenant Theology than you do. For example, he says:
> 
> "Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)
> 
> "We have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches [the rejection of presumptive regeneration)." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)




This is what I mean by talking past each other. I do not deny presumptive regeneration or padeobaptism in the slightest, nor can such a denial be inferred from anything I have written.




> Hmmm. If this is the case (i.e. that Abraham was "confused" (which I think is exegetically unattainable here) then both Paul and James were idiots for allowing the recently converted Pharisees who were "brothers" to continue to circumcise all their children as being IN covenant with God (much less mangling other OT and NT Scriptures that could be cited.)



You may think Abraham´s presumption is exegetically unattainable, but that´s a far cry from demonstrating that it is. Abraham quite naturally presumed that the covenant would be established with Ismael, but God said "œNo." Abraham was in error and he presumed wrongly concerning the nature and scope of the covenant, much in the same way as you have. As to the question of the Apostolic toleration of circumcision to continue to be practiced among converted Jews is a completely irrelevant detour from the question of whether or not all circumcised Jews (all Israel) or all baptized persons, infants included, are true members of the CoG. 

Your whole objection seems to rest on the mistaken inference that an affirmation that the CoG is with God´s elect alone is somehow a rejection of infant baptism. This is false. A non-sequitur. There is nothing "œBaptistic" in the proposition that the CoG is with the elect alone and that Abraham is the "œfather of all who believe," both Jew and Gentile (Rom 4:11-12). It seems to me that it is your presumption that infants cannot so believe, but the idea of "presumptive regeneration" is unto belief or else what do you mean by regeneration? God can cause infants and imbeciles to believe the gospel, to know Christ, even infants the womb. After all, we do have the example of John who leapt in his mothers womb in the presence of the pre-born Christ. 



> Children are still part of the covenant of grace.



I´ve never said anything to suggest they aren´t. What do you think presumptive regeneration means? I think believers have every reason to _presume_ their natural children are also their spiritual heirs, but there is nothing in the CoG that guarantees parents that all their natural children are members of the covenant. God loved Jacob but hated Esua even before either of these twins were born, yet both received the sign of the covenant. 



> Those making the CoG coextensive only with elect members, are denying the foundation of all historic forms of biblical interpretation of how "covenant" works. Its not what the confession teaches, nor what Reformed Theology has ever taught. Those formulations are new, and Baptistic (no offense to my good baptist brothers at all, I'm simply pressing the very confused Presbyterians in this thread either become Presbyterian, or go Baptist.)



Well, then I´ll press back  Nowhere does the Confession assert the inclusion of non-elect members of the visible church as members of the covenant no matter how it is construed. We may agree that the Confession conflates both the CoG and the CoR, but nowhere can you validly infer (at least you haven´t so far) that the CoG is made with reprobate and elect members of the church, either in the OT or the New. If this is "œBaptistic" in your mind, then so be it. If that´s what you think then the Baptists were right and the Confession ironically affirms their position, not yours. Further, along with your charge that the CoG being coextensive with only the elect, consider the following from that wonderful Baptist theologian Robert Reymond:



> "œThat the Westminster divines had a real sensitivity to the Bible´s _Heilsgeschichtliche_ ("œhistory of salvation") character under the covenant of grace is evidence by their accompanying descriptions of the covenant of grace "œunder the law" and "œunder the gospel" . . . the one overarching "œcovenant of grace" was historically advanced and administered after Genesis 3:15 by God´s historical covenants with Noah . . . Abraham . . . Israel . . David . . .and finally through the administration of the New Covenant . . . , *Jesus Christ himself being the Mediator of the New Covenant between God and his elect (Heb. 9:15).*" [pg.405 NST]



Then after a couple of pages of citations Reymond concludes:



> "œThese passages of Scripture make it clear that the promises of God, covenantally given to Abraham, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his (spiritual) descendants after him forever (Gen. 17:7-8) extend temporally to the farthest reaches of the future and * include within their compass the entire community of the redeemed.* This is just to say that the Abrahamic covenant, in the specific prospect it holds forth of the salvation of the entire church of God, is identical [i.e., co-extensive - SG] with the soteric program of the covenant of grace, indeed, is identical with the covenant of grace itself." [517-18]



Or how about this from the Baptist Herman Hoeksema:



> That divine trinitarian life is the life of the covenant.
> 
> For in the eternal sphere of the divine Essence, the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity live in inseparable, most perfect, and eternally complete communion with one another. It is the life of eternal and perfect knowledge, of a perfect entering into one another´s life, of a perfect understanding of each other. . . However, as soon as we present the matter of the covenant in this wise, if the life of the covenant in God is such a life of most perfect friendship, of the most intimate communion, of the deepest knowledge and the most affectionate love, it follows, in the first place, that the idea of the covenant cannot be found in an agreement or pact. In perfect harmony and communion of life, in the perfect, eternal knowing of one another, and in the most perfect love and unity, the idea of an agreement, of the conclusion of a pact, does not fit. In such a relation everything is spirit and life. The covenant idea is given with the life of the Triune God in Himself. It rises in eternal spontaneity from the divine Essence and realizes itself with perfect divine consciousness in the Three Persons. God knows and wills Himself, loves and seeks Himself eternally as the covenant God. The covenant is the bond of God with Himself. It is the eternal life of perfect light.
> 
> But if this is so in God Himself, this must also be applicable to the covenant idea as a relation between God and man. For all things are only out of God, through Him, and unto Him. Also the covenant relation can never be anything else than an ectypical reflection of the covenant life in God Himself. If the essence of the covenant in God is the communion of friendship, this must also be the essence of the covenant between God and man. If this communion of friendship in God rests upon the perfect essential unity by personal distinction, then this must also be the case with the covenant between God and man: it also must be based upon a creaturely likeness of man to God by personal distinction. If this communion of friendship in the Trinity implies a perfect knowledge of one another, then also the covenant life of man must consist in this, that God reveals Himself to him, causes man to know Him, reveals His secrets to him, speaks to him as a Friend with His friend, walks with him, eats and drinks with him, lives with him under one roof. If the covenant life in God consists in this, that the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are united in the bond of perfect love, then also the covenant relation between God and man must originate in this, that God opens His heart for man. Then the life of the covenant is eternal life itself . . . The idea of the covenant is certainly not a pact or agreement, whether you conceive of such and agreement in the unilateral or bilateral sense. It is the relation of the most intimate communion of friendship in which God reflects His own covenant life in His relation to the creature, gives to that creature life, and causes him to taste and acknowledge the highest good and the overflowing fountain of all good. [Reformed Dogmatics, 321-22]





Finally, as to the insistence that one must be a full-fledged member of the CoG in order to apostatize from the covenant, what is missing from this is that all men are already and by nature covenant breakers. While I certainly would not recommend him as a guide in most things, I agree with that other Baptist Cornelius Van Til who wrote:



> There are two classes of men. There are those who worship and serve the creature and there are those who worship and serve the Creator. There are covenant breakers and there are covenant keepers.



One doesn´t have to be included in the Covenant of Grace in order to be a covenant breaker. "œThey went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us (1 John 2:19). "œ

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 4, 2006)

> One doesn´t have to be included in the Covenant of Grace in order to be a covenant breaker.



This is obviously where we disagree. Historically, this is where Presbyterians and Baptists draw thier lines. One cannot break what he is not part of or in.

I don't think quoting Reymond is helpful, because you are certainly not taking into consideration everything Reymond says. Knowing him personally, I know he does not share your evaluation.

Neither am I trying to sell books. (Was that really helpful?)

My desire is that those who profess to be Presbyterian, act like it in their Covenant Theology. Yours remains Baptistic in how you Construe the CoG. Take Joseph's advice, read Witsius. Its long, and laborious, but it is more helpful than simply going back and forth in short posts. Witsius follows Turretin, and Calvin. Turretin and Westminster construe the CoG in the same way, and divide it in the same way. Owen, if you have time, does as well. See these as helps:

John Owen and the Covenant of Redemption
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonJohnOwenRedemption.htm

Covenant Concepts in Dr. Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm

But in being honest with you, besides trying to sell book, I still believe you are thoroughly confused. You do, though, sit in good "confused company." Very godly and useful men like Spurgeon, Gill and Bunyan believed the same.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 4, 2006)

Sean,

Please take the time to read this book:


The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man


----------



## Myshkin (Feb 5, 2006)

Jacob,

Just curious, what do you think of the report?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Jacob,
> 
> Just curious, what do you think of the report?



I haven't read it in a week and didn't read it too thoroughly the first time I saw it. I just noticed it was a lot different than the MVP report. My initial thoughts: It is a compromise report. They put their foot down on Jordan's exegesis of Genesis 1-3 but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy. I am really interested to see how this plays out at GA.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 5, 2006)

> This is obviously where we disagree. Historically, this is where Presbyterians and Baptists draw thier lines. One cannot break what he is not part of or in.



Yes, we disagree. I also disagree that anything I´ve said can be construed as Baptistic. Historically the line that was drawn was because Baptists didn´t think non-elect members were members of the covenant _in any sense_. That is not my position and to characterize it a "œBaptistic" is a misrepresentation. I have said that non-elect members of the visible church are members of the covenant in the sense that they are recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God.

I agree with RE Fred Greco who wrote:



> The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.



I agree with RE Adam McMurry who also wrote:



> If "in covenant" refers to the historical administration of the covenant (visible church), then I would say that yes, both the elect and non-elect are "in covenant". However, if we define the term "in covenant" to refer to those who are conformed to the requirement of the covenant, which is faith, then agreeing with WLC Q31, I think it is true that in that sense, the covenant is made only with the elect. It really is just the visible - invisible church distinction, expressed in terms of the covenant.



I agree with Rev. Sherman Isbell who, writing on Samuel Rutherford said, said that for Rutherford, non-elect members of the visible church are in the covenant, but in the sense of its external or outward administration:



> Rutherford describes the visible church with its means of grace as the place where the covenant of grace is externally administered. There are more in covenant with God than only those he has chosen to salvation. *Those who make a visible profession in the church are externally and conditionally in covenant with God. But no one obtains the thing promised in the covenant, unless he fulfills the condition of the covenant, which is faith.* Rutherford points out that it is the Anabaptists who hold that "there can be none but real believers under the New Testament in covenant with God," for they make no proper distinction between the outward administration of the covenant in the gospel offers, and the internal appropriation of the thing promised. "The Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised, and covenant and benefits covenanted."
> 
> . . . But for all this privilege, many who are externally in covenant never possess the forgiveness and eternal life promised in the covenant, because they never respond with the condition required in the covenant, namely faith [i.e., never fulfill the terms of Joseph´s contract-SG]. The reason why they never believe is that God never gives them a new heart. There are conditional promises made in the external covenant, and the purpose of these is to direct us to Christ the object of faith, and to impress upon us our responsibility. But there are also promises in Scripture which are not conditional but absolute; the promise of a new heart is made only to the elect. "It is no inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible church be so under the covenant of grace as some promises are made to them and some mercies promised to them conditionally, and some reserved, special promises of a new heart and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way to the parties visibly and externally, and to the parties internally and personally in covenant with God. *So the Lord promiseth life and forgiveness shall be given to these who are externally in the covenant, providing they believe, to these that are only externally in covenant."*



Rutherford argues that non-elect members are in the CoG in the sense of its outward or external administration. That is all I have argued and yet you accuse me, along with Fred and Adam by extension, of being "œBaptisitic." 

Non-elect members of the visible church are nomianl Christians; Christians in name only. 

Your idea that the non-elect are full-fledged covenant members and possess full-status in the CoG is a gross distortion Covenant. Your suggestion that all the blessings of Christ´s cross work, which are pictured for us in baptism, are equally given to elect and non-elect members of the visible church smacks of the hyper-covenantalism that marks the FV heresy. It is precisely this kind of hyper-covenantalism that we find in men like Rich Lusk who wrote in his "œCovenant & Election Faqs":



> What is a non-elect covenant member?
> 
> God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in his decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, would be drawn to Christ and to his people for a time. These people, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ´s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament. (Reformed theologian John Murray makes it clear that whatever blessings reprobate experience in this life flow from Christ´s work and the Spirit´s work.) They may be said to be reconciled to God, adopted, granted new life, etc. But in the end, they fail to persevere, and because they fall away, they go to hell. Why would God do this? It´s a mystery! Why would God allow sin to enter his creation in the first place? Why did he allow Adam to fall? Perhaps God allows some in the covenant to fall away so that those who do persevere will know that they only did so by the grace of God. Whatever the case, the teaching of Scripture is clear: some whom he adopts into covenant relation, he later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/covenant_election_faqs.htm


 
The above is an accurate description, without ambiguity, of what it means to say non-elect baptized members of the visible church have full status in the covenant and are full fledged covenant members. Of course, Lusk´s position as stated above is heretical to the core, but at least he´s clear what he means. Anyway, thank you for your book recommendations. I haven´t read Witsius, but if Lusk´s covenant is any relation to Witsius´ I can see why P&R churches are in trouble.



> Neither am I trying to sell books. (Was that really helpful?)



That was uncalled for. I apologize. You and Joseph can have the last word.

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 5, 2006)

My opinion, it looks as if you are both talking past each other. " In covenant" means just that. The elect holding fast the faith, the non elect heaping up condemnation unto themselves. It is no less _covenant_. Obviously, the distinction is made for certain levels of conversation only. Christs visible church is in covenant with Him; this to include the elect and non elect.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 5, 2006)

> I have said that non-elect members of the visible church are *members of the covenant* in the sense that they are _recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace_; however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God.



If this is what you "meant" in your last two posts, why not have just said that? If this is what you mean, this is what I said as well. 

Could I have so grossly misunderstood you?

I would agree with Edwards:

I know the distinction made by some, between the internal and external covenant; but, I hope, the divines that make this distinction, would not be understood, that there are really and properly two covenants of grace; but only that those who profess the one only covenant of grace, are of two sorts. There are those who comply with it internally and really, and others who do so only externally, that is, in profession and visibility. But he that externally and visibly complies with the covenant of grace, appears and professes to do so really. "” There is also this distinction concerning the covenant of grace; it is exhibited two ways, the one externally, by the preaching of the word, the other internally and spiritually, by enlightening the mind rightly to understand the word. But it is with the covenant, as it is with the call of the gospel: he that really complies with the external call, has the internal call; so he that truly complies with the external proposal of God´s covenant, as visible Christians profess to do, does indeed perform the inward condition of it. But the New Testament affords no more foundation for supposing two real and properly distinct covenants of grace, than it does to suppose two sorts of real Christians.
When those persons who were baptized in infancy properly own their baptismal covenant, the meaning is, that they now, being capable to act for themselves, do professedly and explicitly make their parents´ act, in giving them up to God, their own, by expressly giving themselves up to God. But this no person can do, without either being deceived, or dissembling and professing what he himself supposes to be a falsehood, unless he supposes that in his heart he consents to be God´s. A child of christian parents never does that for himself which his parents did for him in infancy, till he gives himself wholly to God. But surely he does not do it, who not only keeps back a part, but the chief part, his heart and soul. He that keeps back his heart, does in effect keep back all; and therefore, if he be sensible of it, is guilty of solemn willful mockery, if at the same time he solemnly and publicly professes that he gives himself up to God. If there are any words used by such, which in their proper signification imply that they give themselves up to God; and if these words, as they intend them to be understood, and as they are understood by those that hear them, according to their established use and custom among that people, do not imply, that they do it really, but do truly reserve or keep back the chief part; it ceases to be a profession of giving themselves up to God, and so ceases to be a professed covenanting with God. The thing which they profess belongs to no existing covenant of God; for God has revealed no such covenant, in which our transacting of it is a giving up ourselves to him with reserve, or holding back our souls, our chief part, and in effect our all. And therefore, although such public and solemn professing may be a very unwarrantable and great abuse of words, and taking God´s name in vain, it is no professed covenanting with God.

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## AdamM (Feb 5, 2006)

> My initial thoughts: It is a compromise report. They put their foot down on Jordan's exegesis of Genesis 1-3 but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy.



Hi Jacob, 

I am curious where in the text of the report do you find the MOP saying that the Federal Vision as a whole is within the bounds of orthodoxy? I can't see where the MOP report says anything like that, so I wonder if perhaps that interpretation is coming from some source other then text of the report itself?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> I would agree with Edwards:
> 
> I know the distinction made by some, between the internal and external covenant; but, I hope, the divines that make this distinction, would not be understood, that there are really and properly two covenants of grace; but only that *those who profess the one only covenant of grace, are of two sorts*. There are those who comply with it internally and really, and others who do so only externally, that is, in profession and visibility.




  


Now THAT is a good way to word it!!




[Edited on 2-6-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 6, 2006)

Going through some of there to see if I could find an answer to a question I had. Let's say for the sake of argument, both elect and non-elect can be in the covenant of grace. There seems to be four states a person can be in. 

in the visible church and elect (under CoG)
in the visible church and non-elect (under COG)
outside the visible church and none-elect (not under CoG)
outside the visible church and elect (under CoG)
[/list=A]

If I understand what's been posted - those in B (in the visible church and non-elect) are sill under the CoG? And I assume those outside those believers outside the visible church are still under the covenant (I know this is a rare exception - covering someone who has believed the Gospel by is not yet a member of a visible church.

It seems to me that those who are members of the visible church, but are non-elect - are worse off than those outside the visible church - seen they have heard the Gospel and have rejected it.

What are the benefits of being under the CoG for the non-elect?


----------



## Myshkin (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> ... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...



Jacob-

For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> ... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
> 
> Jacob-
> 
> For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.



For what it's worth one of the drafters of the report was pretty explicit: 



> Our committee . . .came to the unanimous decision that the way FV guys described the covenant was not a problem, and therefore certainly not heresy. There as an entire committee devoted to that early on, but then they concluded that the way those identified as FV guys defined the covenant was not heterodox.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Well, Jeff Myers is on the committee, and he is an FV guy, so I figured he at least considered himself orthodox.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



 Apparently this report is something of a compromise between some that are more pro FV and others that are less so.


----------



## Myshkin (Feb 14, 2006)

Chris-

Would you mind demonstrating this compromise using the report itself? What statements explicitly support FV distinctives while at the same time deny non-FV teaching? Thanks.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 15, 2006)

I have neither the time or inclination to go through the report again. It is certainly more FV friendly than the MVP report. I don't think anyone said it endorsed all of the particulars of the FV. Others here are more knowledgeable and more qualified to analyze it, and I believe already have to some extent. 

My comment was based on a statement I'd seen on a blog (I think) by one of the participants stating that the language was a compromise in many cases, and that not all were happy with every portion of it. That's only natural. Any constitution, theological statement, confession or creed that is produced by a committee composed of individuals with different viewpoints, will generally have some element of compromise to it, and will often including room for differing views and interpretations, within reason.


----------

