# When we enter the covenant



## arapahoepark (Jan 20, 2016)

So I have been reflecting on this article by Dumbrell, who though sounds like the NPP, brings up interesting points abput regeneration. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/112-01_017.pdf


> Covenant entrance occurs by regeneration. Justification is the status...that we delcared to be covenant members


While the NPP says entrance is a moot point Dumbrell believes regeneration is when we enter the covenant. Putting aside baptist distinctives(while baptists can answer) on the covenant when does one enter? Justification?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2016)

My 2 cents, embryonically. 

The covenant has internal & external distinctions. All children of covenant families, based on decree, by default would fall into either one or the other side of the covenant. Consider Abraham was in covenant prior to having the sign placed on himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 21, 2016)

Scott is right. To add a bit more meat on the bone, infants of believing members of the church are born into the covenant administration. Baptism is the solemn sign of belonging to the covenant, not the time-point at which the infant enters the covenant. They are baptized because they are holy; they are not holy because they are baptized. So, baptism is tied to the visible church. One owns the substance of the covenant at regeneration, the time when the person is not only a part of the visible, but then also the invisible church. Faith-union, created by regeneration, is the time when ALL the benefits of the covenant accrue to a person.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 21, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> Baptism is the solemn sign of belonging to the covenant, not the time-point at which the infant enters the covenant.



I agree. This would seem to be reflected in God's command in places such as Gen 17:14 : not receiving the sign of the covenant is a violation of the covenant, yet it wouldn't be violating the covenant if they were not even in the covenant until they received the sign.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 21, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> One owns the substance of the covenant at regeneration, the time when the person is not only a part of the visible, but then also the invisible church. Faith-union, created by regeneration, is the time when ALL the benefits of the covenant accrue to a person.


I came across some of the most pertinent quotes from the article:



> ...in regard to justification, faith is the subjective evidence for the believer of covenant acceptance, ie justification."





> In any case, justification is not in itself covenant entrance but is the attestation of covenant entrance. Covenant entrance occurs by regeneration. Justification, as reformed theology has always believed, is the declaration of our (not
> just our initial but our continuing) status and I would add, as covenant members.





> Justification is the normal Biblical recognition of that activity[regeneration] having occurred in our own individual case...It is essentially a recognition that a not guilty verdict on the sinner has been passed.



And I found this quote by Robert Peterson:


> Adoption and regeneration are two ways of describing how we enter the family of God…. In regeneration, [God] begets his children, giving new life to those who were spiritual dead. In adoption, the Father places adult sons and daughters, former children of the devil, in his family. Adoption is a legal action, taking place outside of us, whereby God the Father gives us a new status in his family.


So then is Dumbrell basically correct about when the covenant entrance (invisible church wise) occurs in the ordo salutis but obviously wrong that justification is then the recognition of the not guilty verdict. Rather justification is the benefit of being in the covenant and itself IS the not guilty verdict?


----------



## MW (Jan 21, 2016)

Faith as evidence is basically the hyper-Calvinist view of faith as assurance, which denies the appropriating nature and necessity of faith. The old divines would say that we are instated in the covenant by faith. By the decree the elect are "virtually" in Christ and by this virtual relation Christ acted vicariously and meritoriously for them. But it is by faith that they are actually in Christ and thereby personally interested in the Saviour so that they become personal recipients of His benefits.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 21, 2016)

MW said:


> The old divines would say that we are instated in the covenant by faith.



Interesting. Which divines should one read?


----------



## MW (Jan 21, 2016)

arap said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > The old divines would say that we are instated in the covenant by faith.
> ...



For clarity, I recommend Thomas Boston's View of the Covenant of Grace, the section dealing with sinners being instated by faith.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 21, 2016)

arap said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > One owns the substance of the covenant at regeneration, the time when the person is not only a part of the visible, but then also the invisible church. Faith-union, created by regeneration, is the time when ALL the benefits of the covenant accrue to a person.
> ...



See also Berkof's "Systematic Theology" on the duality of the covenant for more clarity on this.

All the benefits of justification, adoption, definitive and progressive sanctification are the believer's when he is regenerated and exercises faith in Christ. If he has been brought up within the administration of the CoG, he now also enters into the true "life of the covenant".

Of course regeneration is something that happens instantly, so that one immediately passes from death to life, but for the one brought up within the CoG, who has not "consciously rebelled" against what he has learned since childhood, the subjective experience of conversion can appear very gradual and it can sometimes be difficult or impossible for him or her to know when he started to exercise saving faith.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 25, 2016)

So I have heard John Owen and John Murray say we are put in the covenant at the effectual call. What say you?


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 26, 2016)

If you're born into a Christian family you are in the administration of the Covenant of Grace from birth. 

When you are effectually called, whether in the womb, soon after birth, as a child, or later you are also in the saving life of the covenant. 

There are converted and unconverted, just and unjust - as the Psalms remind us - in the administration of the CoG and in the visible Church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 26, 2016)

arap said:


> So I have heard John Owen and John Murray say we are put in the covenant at the effectual call. What say you?



This is true; however, you have to make the distinction, in light of the biblical doctrine of which side of the covenant they refer.


----------



## VanGillMan (Jan 26, 2016)

*Baptist Take...*



greenbaggins said:


> Scott is right. To add a bit more meat on the bone, infants of believing members of the church are born into the covenant administration. Baptism is the solemn sign of belonging to the covenant, not the time-point at which the infant enters the covenant. They are baptized because they are holy; they are not holy because they are baptized. So, baptism is tied to the visible church. One owns the substance of the covenant at regeneration, the time when the person is not only a part of the visible, but then also the invisible church. Faith-union, created by regeneration, is the time when ALL the benefits of the covenant accrue to a person.




First post for me today other than introductions - I appreciate the opportunity to reply, sometimes putting your thoughts down on paper helps you to clarify your own beliefs. 

As a Baptist, I agree with nearly all of what you have said. Infants of believing members are born into the covenant administration amen. I would only differ to say that Baptism is the visible sign of the invisible reality, faith-union, not just a sign of the visible belonging to the covenant. We don't need a sign for that, it is obvious through the actions of the parents who disciple their children and initiate them into the life of the church. We trust by faith in God's promises that he will regenerate our children and unite them to himself, that is "the time when ALL the benefits of the covenant accrue" . 

Baptism is a sign of the new birth, we can already see the first birth, no sign required - or, if you will, it was received by the parents.

Blessings.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2016)

VanGillMan said:


> Infants of believing members are born into the covenant administration amen.



I think you will find much qualified opinion on this point among the Baptists, on the PB or elsewhere, as to whether or how the (New) covenant is frankly _visibly administered_ on the earth. Because that means, necessarily, an _*imperfect*_ earthly administration; and (from a certain Baptist standpoint) a door important to keep closed is thereby opened. 

And, welcome to the PB.


----------



## VanGillMan (Jan 26, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> VanGillMan said:
> 
> 
> > Infants of believing members are born into the covenant administration amen.
> ...




. I'm sure you are correct, I won't presume to speak for all Baptists, just myself.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 26, 2016)

VanGillMan said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Scott is right. To add a bit more meat on the bone, infants of believing members of the church are born into the covenant administration. Baptism is the solemn sign of belonging to the covenant, not the time-point at which the infant enters the covenant. They are baptized because they are holy; they are not holy because they are baptized. So, baptism is tied to the visible church. One owns the substance of the covenant at regeneration, the time when the person is not only a part of the visible, but then also the invisible church. Faith-union, created by regeneration, is the time when ALL the benefits of the covenant accrue to a person.
> ...



Andrew, I'm not sure I would locate the usual disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians here. Presbyterians also agree that baptism is a visible sign of faith-union, and of regeneration. Of course, on the internet, we always have the problem that we cannot say everything that is needed. The difference I would articulate between the two positions has more to do with whether the faith-union has to be already present for baptism to be valid. Baptists say yes, and Presbyterians say no. For Presbyterians, baptism (especially of infants) functions very much like an engagement ring. It points to a union that (in the case of infants) will, Lord-willing, happen later, or in some cases, could be present already (John the Baptist comes to mind as someone who was likely regenerated from the womb).


----------



## MW (Jan 26, 2016)

arap said:


> So I have heard John Owen and John Murray say we are put in the covenant at the effectual call. What say you?



It is difficult to respond without knowing the context in which it was said; but looking at the concept itself, effectual calling might be regarded as the occasion for personal instating in the covenant, and there could be no faith without effectual calling, but faith itself is the instrument as it looks away from self to Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 26, 2016)

There have been some excellent responses to being in the Covenant with respect to the Elect.

I do want to unpack (just a little) what being "in the Covenant" looks like from a visible administration. Christ is the Mediator of the COG and executes that Office as Prophet, Priest, and King. All evangelical graces are secured by His Work and applied by the Holy Spirit for those to whom the graces belong (the Elect). Yet, in the administration of the CoG, Christ's Mediatorship has a visible domain of operation. As Prophet, the preaching office of the Church operates ministerially to declare Christ and all that He has instructed. As King, the Lord gives elders to "bind and loose" people into and out of visible communion with the visible Kingdom (the Church). The Sacraments are also administered visibly as Christ and His benefits are sacramentally administered. There is a sense, then, that we need to consider the visible administration of the CoG occurring not as something detached from the CoG but part and parcel of Christ's Mediatorial work. It is right and good that we understand that the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit operates on the Elect to bring them into vital union with Christ but we also need to remember that this visible administration is under Christ's Lordship and not something "detached" from the Covenant.

I only note this because when it is asked whether children (or for that matter a baptized adult who may have a false profession) is "in the Covenant" we need to understand what we're asking. As far as we are all concerned who are in the Church, we are visibly participating in the operations of the visible Kingdom every week in the worship of God. It belongs to us, Today, to hear His voice and not speculate about whether one or another is truly "in" the CoG. As creatures, we are simply to hear, Today, and let the Holy Spirit be in charge of determining who really belongs to Christ.

I probably could have expressed that more eloquently but it needs to be noted because there are those who ask: what does Christ mediate to those who are not elect. The answer is that His Mediatorship includes preaching and rule in the visible Kingdom and so we need not think of Christ operating in some hidden realm accessible only to the Creator.


----------



## Justified (Jan 26, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> There have been some excellent responses to being in the Covenant with respect to the Elect.
> 
> I do want to unpack (just a little) what being "in the Covenant" looks like from a visible administration. Christ is the Mediator of the COG and executes that Office as Prophet, Priest, and King. All evangelical graces are secured by His Work and applied by the Holy Spirit for those to whom the graces belong (the Elect). Yet, in the administration of the CoG, Christ's Mediatorship has a visible domain of operation. As Prophet, the preaching office of the Church operates ministerially to declare Christ and all that He has instructed. As King, the Lord gives elders to "bind and loose" people into and out of visible communion with the visible Kingdom (the Church). The Sacraments are also administered visibly as Christ and His benefits are sacramentally administered. There is a sense, then, that we need to consider the visible administration of the CoG occurring not as something detached from the CoG but part and parcel of Christ's Mediatorial work. It is right and good that we understand that the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit operates on the Elect to bring them into vital union with Christ but we also need to remember that this visible administration is under Christ's Lordship and not something "detached" from the Covenant.
> 
> ...


Rich, thank you very much for that. I have been thinking for a long time about Christ as Mediator of the visible church for awhile, but could not find a good way to understand it until your post.


----------



## Justified (Jan 26, 2016)

Question, Rich: how does Christ's priesthood operate in the visible church?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 27, 2016)

Justified said:


> Question, Rich: how does Christ's priesthood operate in the visible church?



Interesting you should ask that. Aspects of His Office as King and Prophet in rule and preaching are more clearly visible in their administration. His Priestly Office is in His offering of Himself to be reconciliation for the sins of His people and making continual intercession fo us. I don't know if I would say that when, in corporate prayer, the minister prays for the people that he's acting in a priestly role in intercessory prayer. In the public Confession of Sin and Assurance of Pardon, these are aspects of the CoG which are visibly manifested and our ability to approach God and be assured of our pardon is on the basis of Christ's Priestly office.

I'd be interested in hearing from some others because I don't want to speak out of turn.


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2016)

The emphasis on "once" in the Epistle to the Hebrews should teach us to regard Christ's work as unique.

Christ served as minister and mediator. Ministers have a lively and perfect example in His ministry. He explicitly says that He has left us an example in the washing of feet. But there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. To fulfil this work He was invested with the offices of prophet, priest, and king. He has finished the work the Father gave Him to do. He has the fulness of the Spirit. He has the pre-eminence. He is the Lord of all. The ministry of the church is not mediatorial in any sense.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 27, 2016)

Matthew,

I'm thinking of the WLC:


> Q. 43. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in his revealing to the church,166 *in all ages*, by his Spirit and Word,167 in divers ways of administration,168 the whole will of God,169 in all things concerning their edification and salvation.170
> Q. 44. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God,171 to be reconciliation for the sins of his people;172 and *in making continual intercession for them.*173
> ...


Is this not speaking of an ongoing work?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 27, 2016)

Incidentally, I'm not saying that the Church is a mediator, what I stated is that the Church ministerially executes its duties under the auspices of Christ's offices as Mediator.


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Incidentally, I'm not saying that the Church is a mediator, what I stated is that the Church ministerially executes its duties under the auspices of Christ's offices as Mediator.



Rich, that is a fair qualification and it is an essential part of ministry to be bound to the sole headship of Christ and the imperative of His commission. I am sorry if I misunderstood.


----------



## brandonadams (Jan 31, 2016)

MW said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > So I have heard John Owen and John Murray say we are put in the covenant at the effectual call. What say you?
> ...



Here is the context New Covenant Union as Mystical Union in Owen


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 31, 2016)

brandonadams said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > arap said:
> ...



Again, as was already said, one needs to understand the distinction Owen makes in this statement, that being, the effectual call places one in the internal aspect of the C o G. The C o G has internal and external distinctions.

The other thing to consider is that on one hand the elect, prior to regeneration are enemies in the divided sense. In the compound, they are not. I assume Owen means this when he makes the statement.


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2016)

brandonadams said:


> Here is the context New Covenant Union as Mystical Union in Owen



It seems this article is looking at something else -- the role of calling within the new covenant. As noted, this would speak to the "occasion" of personal instating in the covenant but it does not touch on the instrumental means of it.


----------

