# The Saints Who are in Ephesus; Or, Who is a Christian?



## hammondjones (Feb 19, 2017)

I follow a few ministers of the Gospel on Twitter, and this past week there was some amount of discussion about what one of them said regarding warnings to "Christians" that they bear fruit or be cut off, and regarding "Covenantal Justification" (that he loved it). And the there was some name calling and insinuation regarding orthodoxy, etc., mostly by proxy, and I'm not particularly interested in getting into all of that. 

But, as I was thinking it over, it brought to my mind "Whom is Paul addressing in Ephesus?" (or substitute Corinth). He doesn't know, does he, that all of them are individually regenerated, right? Nor does "who are faithful in Christ Jesus" act as a qualifier, does it?

Then, is it permissible to speak of belonging to the visible Church as a sort of covenantal justification? it is helpful/wise?

I address my baptized children as Christians. I tell them that they belong to the Lord. I also tell them that they must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. Should I change how I talk to them?

Would admonitions against falling away be better directed at "Professors", as opposed to "Christians"?


Hopefully I'm making myself clear, I'm trying to tie all these strands in my mind together. I'm particularly interested in answers which do not assume regenerate church membership. Thanks.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 19, 2017)

hammondjones said:


> I'm particularly interested in answers which do not assume regenerate church membership.



It may be this statement of yours that is making some slow to reply to you. There is I suppose a dozen or more places where the saints are addressed in this or that church, and the presumption is always that the members of the visible church are true saints. The only exception I could think of is the churches that are addressed by Him who knows the secrets of the hearts of all men. Jesus Christ.

Revelation 3:4
Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.


----------



## MW (Feb 19, 2017)

hammondjones said:


> Then, is it permissible to speak of belonging to the visible Church as a sort of covenantal justification? it is helpful/wise?



This looks like that "covenant with death" which is devised by sinful men and disannulled by the Lord in Isaiah 28. See especially verses 14-17, and note the contrast with the covenant of life and the call to faith: "Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it."

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 19, 2017)

When we address another congregation or members of one, we are affirming the cathlicity of the church. In no case do we have the assurance that everyone we address in such a gathering is a believer. But we would write or speak to the people with am assurance that these are the ones that will recognize Jesus' voice. With my children, I tell them they have no choice but to believe. If the ask about how sure they can be of their current estate, I tell them today is the day of salvation, call upon the name of the Lord and trust Him alone.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Feb 20, 2017)

What is 'covenantal justification?'


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 20, 2017)

hammondjones said:


> I follow a few ministers of the Gospel on Twitter, and this past week there was some amount of discussion about what one of them said regarding warnings to "Christians" that they bear fruit or be cut off, and regarding "Covenantal Justification" (that he loved it). And the there was some name calling and insinuation regarding orthodoxy, etc., mostly by proxy, and I'm not particularly interested in getting into all of that.
> 
> But, as I was thinking it over, it brought to my mind "Whom is Paul addressing in Ephesus?" (or substitute Corinth). He doesn't know, does he, that all of them are individually regenerated, right? Nor does "who are faithful in Christ Jesus" act as a qualifier, does it?
> 
> ...


I'd be wary of Pastors who are using terms like "Covenantal Justification". It sounds like someone who buys into some form of New Perspectives on Paul or Federal Vision theology.

One of the things that some pointed out when FV was at its apex, was that many FV advocates are crypto Baptists in the sense that they conflate sign with the thing signified. 

It's helpful, when thinking about theology, to distinguish between God's knowledge and our own and how the Church acts accordingly as ministers of the Covenant of Grace and not as those who _confer_ it.

Reformed Baptists err in assuming that, because the CoG is made with the elect, that baptism should only be conferred on those who are elect. Consequently, the most consistent will admit that baptism makes one a member of the local Church but nobody can say, with complete confidence, that a person has been baptized into the Covenant because they reserve any kind of talk of Covenant membership to those who are elect and reject a visible membership in the CoG. They see the Old Covenant as one with a mixed administration but, given the perfection of the NC, there is to be no mixed administration. They admit they can err in baptizing the non-elect but (in their thinking) Presbyterians just outright baptize the non-elect on purpose.

So, with a Baptist, if you get the sign (baptism) it is because the Church has deemed that you {most probably} possess that which baptism signified - union with Christ.

The Federal Vision is sort of a version of this except they don't err in waiting until a person is {most probably} elect but assume that, because a child (or adult) is baptized that the baptized individual is now elect (in a certain sense). The minister, to their thinking, confers union with Christ by baptism. Thus, they'll read Ephesians and say: "See! Paul is talking to them as Saints and Paul means by this that all are elect in some sense or he would never talk like that...."

I think both represent the same problem - the notion that if someone possesses the sign (baptism) that they {most probably} possess the reality or possess the reality {in some sense}.

Neither the Reformed confessions nor the Scriptures teach this.

We need not assume that all the baptized members of our family or Church are elect nor must we assume that they are not.

We have no warrant, as creatures, to meddle in what the hidden counsel of God is on these things. It's presumptuous and dangerous.

The pattern of the Scriptures is to baptize those who will be taught everything the Lord commands (Matthew 28:18-20). That is what a disciple is - someone set apart from the world as a visible member of the Kingdom of God. Baptism sets one apart visibly from the world but the minister does not confer union with Christ. That is up to the Spirit. It's God's work and not our own.

Yet, baptism is also not merely a sign but the Spirit works with the sign to actually confer what is signified by baptism so that a person who receives life by the Spirit's work can trust what was sensible (water) and connect himself historically with the saving work of God.

Everything we do in the Chuch is ministerial. There is only One Mediator and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Word and Sacraments are administered under His authority and the Spirit works with these to convert Whom He wills and pass over whom He wills.

There is only one ground for our justification and that is union with Christ. There is only One Mediator and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. To be justified in the CoG is to be in union with Christ and to be justified is to be given by the Father to the Son and nobody shall snatch them out of His hand and He will raise them up on the Last Day. To blur this important truth by speaking of a visible administration of the CoG as some sort of "Covenantal Justification" is just plain wrong and dangerous. 

Should you call upon your Covenant children to repent.

Yes! A thousand times, yes!

When you pray with them after dinner, pray in their hearing that the Lord would be pleased to convert them and that they would see their need for Christ. Their baptism is not a guarantee that the Holy Spirit has sealed them but they are members of the visible Kingdom and it is your responsibility to say: "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts". Call them to repentance and faith. If the Spirit converts them then what was signified by their baptism is sealed by the Spirit and He will have used the means of a faithful Church and the prayers and instruction of parents toward holy ends.

Don't worry so much about categories of whether you know whether your children (or other adult professors) are elect. Let God be God. He'll save His own. He'll use the threatenings and promises of the CoG to nudge and comfort the elect and to confirm the rebellious in their deceit. As far as we are concerned, however, we encourage all men and women and children in the Church to press in and not shrink back. The rest is up to God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## hammondjones (Feb 22, 2017)

Thanks all. Reading through the Directory for Public Worship has helped me to put my thoughts to words a little better, and I think it addresses some of what I was thinking:



> That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: *That they are Christians*, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized


----------

