# Can a reprobate be a member of the New Covenant?



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

Please explain your reasoning.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 7, 2018)

The New Covenant is a Covenant in Christs blood. So if a reprobate be a member of the New Covenant this undermines Limited Atonement.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 7, 2018)

All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## earl40 (Feb 7, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.



Yes. The categories of the visible and invisible should be kept in mind.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.





earl40 said:


> Yes. The categories of the visible and invisible should be kept in mind.


 Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.


----------



## timfost (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.



Does he receive the promises of the covenant? The covenant promises are only embraced by faith, so an unbeliever cannot by definition receive these promises. He has tasted of them (Heb. 10), he is regarded as one under the covenant in the external administration, but not truly a member of the covenant.

Without more qualification, it's difficult to take the poll...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant?



Yes. The covenant has a two-fold result; on the elect's side, blessings and on the rebellious, damning and condemnation.



> Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.



Being part of the covenant community is akin to being in covenant. Both reprobate and elect are 'in' covenant-one is rebellious to that covenant and the other, not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 7, 2018)

timfost said:


> but not truly a member of the covenant.



Tim,
I believe this is splitting hairs. Ishmael was in covenant, just rebellious to it. If one has the sign of covenant placed on their flesh, they are in covenant. The distinction between internal or external matters not.


14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:14.


----------



## timfost (Feb 7, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Tim,
> I believe this is splitting hairs. Ishmael was in covenant, just rebellious to it. If one has the sign of covenant placed on their flesh, they are in covenant. The distinction between internal or external matters not.
> 
> 
> ...



I hear what you're saying. It's a fair point. Since the poll deals with not only an unbeliever but a reprobate, the question, in my thinking, goes beyond what is visible and enters into God's decree which is unknowable from our perspective. In other words, the question as it concerns reprobates has to be seen (insofar as we can) through God's perspective. Not all Israel is Israel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Please explain your reasoning.


The baptized reprobate, as it were, is not in the covenant insomuch as he doesn't have any participation in the mediation of Christ. However, he is under the outward administration of the covenant. By way of metonymy, then, the benefits proper to the covenant can be attributed to him; but note that this is only figurative and improper language.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The baptized reprobate, as it were, is not in the covenant insomuch as he doesn't have any participation in the mediation of Christ. However, he is under the outward administration of the covenant. By way of metonymy, then, the benefits proper to the covenant can be attributed to him; but note that this is only figurative and improper language.



Was the circumcised reprobate a true member of the Mosaic Covenant?


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Was the circumcised reprobate a true member of the Mosaic Covenant?


Insofar as the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, I'd say the same thing as I said before. However, outward participation in the Mosaic Covenant included being part of a certain people group and body politic. The reprobate Jew really was a Jew, but he only had a participation in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Insofar as the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, I'd say the same thing as I said before. However, outward participation in the Mosaic Covenant included being part of a certain people group and body politic. The reprobate Jew really was a Jew, but he only had a participation in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.


So would you be distinguishing between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace? If so, could we then make the same distinction for the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace?


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> So would you be distinguishing between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace? If so, could we then make the same distinction for the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace?


I wouldn't strictly distinguish between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace. I would distinguish between the temporal elements of the Mosaic Covenant and the function of the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Nate (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Please explain your reasoning.



I chose "Yes" based upon the same reasons others have given RE internal/external, vivible/invisible. Even Herman Hoeksema (who was an outspoken opponent of categorizing the reprobate as true members this covenant) said that reprobate who live in the "sphere" of the covenant of grace exist in living connection to Christ as they exist in this sphere, but don’t bring forth fruits of faith and conversion. They taste of God's electing grace as they live in this covenantal sphere, but never fully receive it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

For those who voted no please elaborate and explain.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 7, 2018)

It all boils down to a distinction between being *in* the covenant and being *of* the covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Feb 7, 2018)

I would suggest that the reprobate fall under Chapter 10, Paragraph 4 of the WCF, and those of the New Covenant under Chapter 10, Paragraph 1. See also WLC 28.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2018)

The children of believers may be "under" the external blessing of the Covenant, but only those who are in Christ are in the covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 8, 2018)

Sorry for the delay; had to vote and run.
The New Covenant is for believers only. It is entered by the new birth, at the time of regeneration. It is entirely a work of God, and since it is sealed by the Holy Spirit Himself, it cannot be broken or ultimately fallen away from. The reprobate may join the assembly of those in the New Covenant, deceiving them into thinking he is regenerate, but he has not the root of the matter in him, and will be exposed--in this life or in the judgment, it matters not--and shown to be the unrepentant sinner that he is.
Union with Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, is the key: are you united to Christ? Are you one of those whom the Father gave to Him, and will surely come to Him? Those are they for whom He died, for whom His blood--the blood of the New Covenant--was shed abroad for the remission of sins. If the blood of the covenant is not effectual to you, because you are a reprobate, then you cannot be in the Covenant.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 8, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> It all boils down to a distinction between being *in* the covenant and being *of* the covenant.


Jake, can you cite scriptures that talk about "in" and "of"? Curious where this idea comes from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 8, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Sorry for the delay; had to vote and run.
> The New Covenant is for believers only. It is entered by the new birth, at the time of regeneration. It is entirely a work of God, and since it is sealed by the Holy Spirit Himself, it cannot be broken or ultimately fallen away from. The reprobate may join the assembly of those in the New Covenant, deceiving them into thinking he is regenerate, but he has not the root of the matter in him, and will be exposed--in this life or in the judgment, it matters not--and shown to be the unrepentant sinner that he is.
> Union with Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, is the key: are you united to Christ? Are you one of those whom the Father gave to Him, and will surely come to Him? Those are they for whom He died, for whom His blood--the blood of the New Covenant--was shed abroad for the remission of sins. If the blood of the covenant is not effectual to you, because you are a reprobate, then you cannot be in the Covenant.



What then do you do with Hebrews 10:26-31 

"26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of *how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,* an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." And again, "*The Lord shall judge his people.*" 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (KJV)

When it says that the apostate is in some sense God's people? How can he have been sanctified then trodden underfoot the blood of the Covenant if he was never apart of that covenant in some sense?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 8, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> What then do you do with Hebrews 10:26-31
> 
> "26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of *how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,* an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." And again, "*The Lord shall judge his people.*" 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (KJV)
> 
> When it says that the apostate is in some sense God's people? How can he have been sanctified then trodden underfoot the blood of the Covenant if he was never apart of that covenant in some sense?


This can only mean, from the context, a false professor--one who knows the truth having heard it expounded from the pulpit, one who "received the word with joy," perhaps, but had no root. He externally joined himself to the covenant people, partook of the Supper (the blood of the covenant, which should have been the means for his sanctification, if only he'd not been unregenerate), and then despised all those things.
People seem to view this as its being normative and hunky-dory to have false professors among God's people, and even call them 'Covenant members' in some sense when they are reprobates who are to be warned, pitied, disciplined, and lastly excommunicated if they remain unrepentant. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, but you guys act as though the leaven is perfectly acceptable, festering among God's people.
Who is and who is not a member of God's New Covenant people is not determined by man, but by God himself. The language in Hebrews is intended as a strong warning to those who claim the name of Christ to not neglect the means of grace and other duties; it is not to throw open the door of covenant inclusion to all and sundry whether they have on wedding garments or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Five Solas (Feb 8, 2018)

In short, no. The WCF chapter 7 starts off "*The distance between God and the creature is so great*, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of his as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."

Then chapter 8 goes on to discuss Christ the Mediator. 

In the true sense of the covenant, we must have Christ to mediate between God and man. Therefore it is an oxymoron to suggest an unbeliever can be part of the new covenant as Christ is not mediating for that person.

Of course you can have covenant children who are not actually saved, but that wasn't the question.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 8, 2018)

Five Solas said:


> In short, no. The WCF chapter 7 starts off "*The distance between God and the creature is so great*, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of his as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."
> 
> Then chapter 8 goes on to discuss Christ the Mediator.
> 
> ...



So would you consider the covenant children to be members of the covenant?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Feb 8, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> you guys act as though the leaven is perfectly acceptable


Not sure who "you guys" refers to (though you infer, generally, "people" who think such is "normative and hunky-dory"), but I would caution against employing a broad brushstroke here. While Presbyterians may admit to such characters within the external fold, it is typically considered a grievous matter, and hardly "perfectly acceptable" and "hunky-dory."

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Five Solas (Feb 9, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> So would you consider the covenant children to be members of the covenant?



In terms of the Covenant of Grace? There's no way of knowing if a child of a believer is guaranteed salvation, so I trust God's covenantal promise of being a God unto my children and my children's children and treat them as part of the church. I'm a paedobaptist, but don't attribute and salvific component to baptism.

I pray daily, often multiple times a day, that God would remember His covenantal promise towards my children, irrespective of my failures as a father. I trust Him, recognise there is nothing I can do to save my children. I give them knowledge and then pray for them. Do I trust God in this? Yes.

That said, I'm also fully aware that just because a baby is born into a truly Christian household does not guarantee they will be chosen by God. He works in mysterious ways. 

That's a long answer for "I don't know". But children can't partake of the Lord's Supper until they make a credible profession of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 9, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> Not sure who "you guys" refers to (though you infer, generally, "people" who think such is "normative and hunky-dory"), but I would caution against employing a broad brushstroke here. While Presbyterians may admit to such characters within the external fold, it is typically considered a grievous matter, and hardly "perfectly acceptable" and "hunky-dory."


Thanks for admitting that false professors are irregular within the fold. I meant to cast my net wide with that statement, because in all these discussions about covenant inclusion I get the impression (and perhaps I get it wrongly, as you point out), that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation because there were unregenerates among the hosts of Israel. "You guys," know who you are...


----------



## Edward (Feb 9, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation



I've never seen anyone this side of the PCUSA would would be OK with having non-believers as members of the congregation. I'll call you out on this one. I don't think you can support your proposition, and suggest you retract it.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Thanks for admitting that false professors are irregular within the fold. I meant to cast my net wide with that statement, because in all these discussions about covenant inclusion I get the impression (and perhaps I get it wrongly, as you point out), that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation because there were unregenerates among the hosts of Israel. "You guys," know who you are...



It is true that Presbyterians aren't "hunky dory" with unbelievers in the churches. But with their use (or misuse, from a baptistic perspective) of the parable of the wheat and tares, one could be forgiven otherwise if he wasn't intimately familiar with Reformed pedobaptist teaching.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> So would you consider the covenant children to be members of the covenant?



To say that covenant children (as a whole) are necessarily a member of the covenant in anything other than an outward sense is to embrace the Federal Vision error, it seems to me.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> To say that covenant children (as a whole) are necessarily a member of the covenant in anything other than an outward sense is to embrace the Federal Vision error, it seems to me.



Not if you qualify the statement with the internal/external distinction.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 9, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Please explain your reasoning.


The New Covenant is the relationship now established between God and the saved sinner, and whose sins have been fully atoned for in the Cross of Jesus, and who now has received the Promised Holy Spirit. No Holy Spirit indwelling the person, no part of the NC.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 9, 2018)

Edward said:


> I've never seen anyone this side of the PCUSA would would be OK with having non-believers as members of the congregation. I'll call you out on this one. I don't think you can support your proposition, and suggest you retract it.


An unbelieving minor child is still an unbeliever, regardless of parentage, and yet Presbyterians's routinely make them automatic members because they were born.


----------



## Edward (Feb 9, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> An unbelieving minor child is still an unbeliever, regardless of parentage, and yet Presbyterians's routinely make them automatic members because they were born.



They aren't admitted to the table:

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The PCA BCO: "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to
Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 10, 2018)

Edward said:


> They aren't admitted to the table:
> 
> "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
> 
> ...


Then they are either not members, or have some sort of provisional membership never mentioned in the NT, and one that will avail them nothing on Judgment Day.
But if the verse you cited is reason enough to include children in the covenant, then all that are afar off must be included too, since they are mentioned in the same breath.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> To say that covenant children (as a whole) are necessarily a member of the covenant in anything other than an outward sense is to embrace the Federal Vision error, it seems to me.


The only persons i the NC though would have the Holy Spirit indwelling them upon conversation, as that links them to now being in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.


He would be part of the church membership, but not a member of the true Church of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> It is true that Presbyterians aren't "hunky dory" with unbelievers in the churches. But with their use (or misuse, from a baptistic perspective) of the parable of the wheat and tares, one could be forgiven otherwise if he wasn't intimately familiar with Reformed pedobaptist teaching.


The ones in the NC will be the ones getting glorified when Jesus has his Second Coming, as that will really show who was part of it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He would be part of the church membership, but not a member of the true Church of Christ.



You still don't seem to be getting the distinction. No one said that the reprobate are part of the invisible church, but that they are part of the visible. The covenant has a internal (invisible) and external (visible) distinction. Both reprobate and elect have their part in covenant. The elect, it's blessings. In the reprobate, in it's condemnation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Feb 10, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> and one that will avail them nothing on Judgment Day.



" Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit" who works when, and where, and how He pleases..." WCF 10.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> You still don't seem to be getting the distinction. No one said that the reprobate are part of the invisible church, but that they are part of the visible. The covenant has a internal (invisible) and external (visible) distinction. Both reprobate and elect have their part in covenant. The elect, it's blessings. In the reprobate, in it's condemnation.


The New Covenant itself though only applies those who have been saved by Jesus Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The New Covenant itself though only applies those who have been saved by Jesus Christ.



All covenants have internal and external distinctions. Consider Demas, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The New Covenant itself though only applies those who have been saved by Jesus Christ.



Not for those of us who believe that the Westminster Standards properly set forth the teachings of God's Word, David.

The New Covenant is simply the administration of the one covenant of grace that was inaugurated in Eden (Gen. 3:15), focusing on Israel in its Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic development, and then the nations, as the gospel went global, at and after Pentecost. The New Covenant is, in fulfillment, everything that its older administration was in promise. What we believe on this is found at something often quoted around here: Westminster Confession of Faith, 7. 5-6.

The covenant of grace, in its New Covenant dispensation, as well as in its Old, contained a mixed multitude, those who were in the covenant only externally/outwardly (the reprobate) and those who were in it both outwardly and internally/inwardly (the elect).

Please don't reply to this, David, with some short assertion that contradicts this. Let's respect each other more than that. I believe what I've here affirmed with all my being and have sworn sacred oaths and vows both to uphold it and to teach it.

I understand what you believe and don't disrespect you, so that I imagine a brief retort will defend my view and convert you. What I have set forth herein among Westminsterians is not controversial.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## timfost (Feb 10, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Then they are either not members, or have some sort of provisional membership never mentioned in the NT, and one that will avail them nothing on Judgment Day.
> But if the verse you cited is reason enough to include children in the covenant, then all that are afar off must be included too, since they are mentioned in the same breath.



Ben,

Paul and Peter address the household in their Epistles. Specifically, they address husbands and wives, *children, *and servants. Does this list differ from the OT household? Should Paul have refrained from addressing them as the church?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Feb 10, 2018)

If you are defining a reprobate as someone who has not been born again, then no, they cannot be part of the New Covenant. As I have read this thread it predictably comes down along Baptist and Presbyterian lines.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Not for those of us who believe that the Westminster Standards properly set forth the teachings of God's Word, David.
> 
> The New Covenant is simply the administration of the one covenant of grace that was inaugurated in Eden (Gen. 3:15), focusing on Israel in its Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic development, and then the nations, as the gospel went global, at and after Pentecost. The New Covenant is, in fulfillment, everything that its older administration was in promise. What we believe on this is found at something often quoted around here: Westminster Confession of Faith, 7. 5-6.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your tact and tone here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 10, 2018)

timfost said:


> Ben,
> 
> Paul and Peter address the household in their Epistles. Specifically, they address husbands and wives, *children, *and servants. Does this list differ from the OT household? Should Paul have refrained from addressing them as the church?


Sure they address everyone who would listen to the epistle being read--even children who might be unconverted, and therefore not members of the church, but still being taken by their parents. Whether children (or wives or servants, for that matter), are saved or not, they have duties which God requires of them, so the apostles would not want to miss an opportunity to instruct. But we cannot make everyone who attends to preaching a member! They must hear the word before (ordinarily) they are converted, and many hear the word and never get converted. But they are addressed by preachers, and in times past were addressed by apostles, by Our Lord Himself, by prophets, and by Jehovah thundering from Mt. Sinai.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 10, 2018)

Edward said:


> " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit" who works when, and where, and how He pleases..." WCF 10.


This thread is not speaking about elect infants who die--we agree on their destiny, if I may use such a word. But those same elect infants, if God regenerates them young, are not to be admitted into the church membership until they give the answer of a good confession. Being saved and kept from church membership for a time is far better than being unsaved but a full outward member of the assembly.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> This thread is not speaking about elect infants who die--we agree on their destiny, if I may use such a word. But those same elect infants, if God regenerates them young, are not to be admitted into the church membership until they give the answer of a good confession. Being saved and kept from church membership for a time is far better than being unsaved but a full outward member of the assembly.



Is this confession, flawless? Judas confessed; as did Demas, Ananaias and his wife and Simon Magus. Coming out of the credo fold years ago, I will be the first to attest to the fact that I have seen many a member who had previously confessed, only to deny Christ in the long haul.

As well, our infants are non-communicant members in the local church. None of us would deny that they will, in the future need a confession of faith-that being, prior to their taking the Lord's Supper.

Since the whole of scripture shows that there have always been unfaithful covenant breakers, it is not at all strange to assume that the local expression has many in the wider path; this does not mean we wait to place the sign as the sign is commanded to be placed on all family members.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Sure they address everyone who would listen to the epistle being read--even children who might be unconverted, and therefore not members of the church, but still being taken by their parents. Whether children (or wives or servants, for that matter), are saved or not, they have duties which God requires of them, so the apostles would not want to miss an opportunity to instruct. But we cannot make everyone who attends to preaching a member! They must hear the word before (ordinarily) they are converted, and many hear the word and never get converted. But they are addressed by preachers, and in times past were addressed by apostles, by Our Lord Himself, by prophets, and by Jehovah thundering from Mt. Sinai.



But then u have the warning passages in the book of Hebrews....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 11, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Is this confession, flawless? Judas confessed; as did Demas, Ananaias and his wife and Simon Magus. Coming out of the credo fold years ago, I will be the first to attest to the fact that I have seen many a member who had previously confessed, only to deny Christ in the long haul.
> 
> As well, our infants are non-communicant members in the local church. None of us would deny that they will, in the future need a confession of faith-that being, prior to their taking the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Since the whole of scripture shows that there have always been unfaithful covenant breakers, it is not at all strange to assume that the local expression has many in the wider path; this does not mean we wait to place the sign as the sign is commanded to be placed on all family members.


Allow me to wait until tomorrow to address this: it is now the Lord's Day, and though we may be in different places, we will still be worshipping God together as the universal church. I would not distract you or myself from that duty for the sake of an argument we'll probably never agree on.
Have a blessed Sabbath, and I'll get back to you later.


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 12, 2018)

If new covenant means election then the 1689 LBCF confirms this in chapter 10 on the scriptural ground of John 3:3-6, 8.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 12, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> If new covenant means election then the 1689 LBCF confirms this in chapter 10 on the scriptural ground of John 3:3-6, 8.



The above does no damage to an internal/external distinction; all it is advocating for is that the elect are in the covenant. See ch7 of the LBC


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 12, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> The above does no damage to an internal/external distinction; all it is advocating for is that the elect are in the covenant. See ch7 of the LBC



Yes, the chapter that addresses God's Covenant. Clearly it states it's for those who have faith, but I believe chapter 10 addresses certain infants etc who happen to be of the elect, we humans just don't know as they never had the opportunity to display their fruit.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 12, 2018)

I think this Thread has served its purpose well. Could a moderator please close future submissions? Thanks.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Feb 13, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Is this confession, flawless? Judas confessed; as did Demas, Ananaias and his wife and Simon Magus. Coming out of the credo fold years ago, I will be the first to attest to the fact that I have seen many a member who had previously confessed, only to deny Christ in the long haul.
> 
> As well, our infants are non-communicant members in the local church. None of us would deny that they will, in the future need a confession of faith-that being, prior to their taking the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Since the whole of scripture shows that there have always been unfaithful covenant breakers, it is not at all strange to assume that the local expression has many in the wider path; this does not mean we wait to place the sign as the sign is commanded to be placed on all family members.


Scott, given the OPs latest request, I'll have to answer this another time and place. Though I believe we've hashed this out on other threads, and I'm sure you and I understand each other perfectly, I'll look forward to that opportunity.


----------

