# How do the non-elect relate to the NC?



## austinbrown2 (Jul 25, 2006)

Given a Reformed understanding of the covenant, how do we describe their relationship to the NC? What kind of language should we utilize? 

Should we talk about their being in the covenant? Related to the covenant? Do they break the covenant and become cut off?

In what sense are the promises outlined in the NC (Jeremiah 31) true for the non-elect? How do those relate to him?

What actions will bring this non-elect individual into the covenant (or related too, or whatever nomenclature you deem best)?

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## MW (Jul 25, 2006)

Austin,

I will attempt a brief reply to your questions, and perhaps that could serve as a springboard for discussion.



> Given a Reformed understanding of the covenant, how do we describe their relationship to the NC? What kind of language should we utilize?
> 
> Should we talk about their being in the covenant? Related to the covenant? Do they break the covenant and become cut off?



Yes, we should speak of reprobates being in the covenant, understanding that we are only referring to the external, conditional administration of it, i.e., Word and sacraments. The internal benefits are unconditional and sure to the elect only. Note Rom. 9:4-6.

Yes, reprobates break the covenant and are cut off, which Israel is provided as an example of in Rom. 11.



> In what sense are the promises outlined in the NC (Jeremiah 31) true for the non-elect? How do those relate to him?



I follow Calvin in taking the Jeremiah/Hebrews reference to "new" covenant to refer only to the "form" of the covenant of grace. The law has always been written on the hearts of God's people, but under the New Testament this is more evident from the spiritual nature of the covenant's administration, i.e., not in types and shadows. The promises of the law written on the heart, i.e., conversion, are in no sense true of the reprobate. However, they do partake of the common operations of the Spirit, as described in Heb. 6:4-6, and 1 Cor. 10:1-4. See also Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 68.



> What actions will bring this non-elect individual into the covenant (or related too, or whatever nomenclature you deem best)?



The action is divine, else it would not be a covenant of "grace." It is the authoritative ministry of Word and sacraments, Matt. 28:19. There the terms of the covenant are stipulated to man. "Profession" is man's "restipulation," whereby he brings himself under the terms of the covenant.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 25, 2006)

As Pastor Winzer said, and just as a highlight, it bears repeating:



> we should speak of reprobates being in the covenant, understanding that we are only referring to the external, conditional administration of it, i.e., Word and sacraments. The internal benefits are unconditional and sure to the elect only.



Simply put, the mixed multitude participate in the adminstration of the covenant; the elect alone participate in the essence of the covenant.

This is a distinction we must keep in mind; especially since we cannot know who is elect and who is not. We cannot know who among us are and who are not particpating in the internal benefits of the covenant. But we do know that all among the visible saints do partake of the external, visible ordinances.

This distinction between the administration of the covenant and the essence of the covenant is the same as when we distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. That is, the visible church partakes of the outward ordinances and are thereby attached to the New Covenant. The invisible church partake of the internal benefits and are the true, eternal covenant people of God.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 26, 2006)

See this thread.

There are probably others.

rsc


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 26, 2006)

*I\'m a little occupied at the moment...*

But I should be able to attend to these posts shortly. The answers are lucid and helpful. I hope to ask a question or two soon.

Thank you,
Austin


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 26, 2006)

When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about something sinful the government of North Carolina was allowing.


----------

