# Question for Presbyterians



## panicbird (Jul 5, 2004)

I have a question for my paedobaptist brothers and sisters. Do you believe (and do Presbyterians teach) that all children of believers are without fail the elect of God? Or, is it simply that all children of believers are in covenant with God? If it is the latter, what is the difference between being in covenant with God and being elect? In what covenant are they?
Also, if all children of believers are elect, does that apply to grandchildren as well? Or, would it be that the elect children have elect children and so on? Is the chain ever broken?
I am just curious. I am not trying to start any static, as the kids say. Kids probably have not said that for many years now, but just go with it.

Lon

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by panicbird]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 5, 2004)

Lon, neither the historic Reformed faith, its confessions, or contemporary paedobaptists teach that all believers' children are definitely elect. As you rightly said, we simply believe and acknowledge that they are in covenant with God. When we say they are &quot;in covenant&quot; with God, that is referring to the [i:5c1e449d86]external[/i:5c1e449d86] covenant, or the [i:5c1e449d86]visible[/i:5c1e449d86] church, which parellels national, ethnic Israel under the Old Covenant. The difference between the external covenant and the elect (which is the internal covenant, or the invisible church) is that the former is God's primary revealed means of making and growing people in the latter, but it does not [i:5c1e449d86]ensure[/i:5c1e449d86] membership in the latter.

Similarly, an external profession of faith does not necessarily ensure that a person is elect (within the internal covenant), either. A seemingly credible profession of faith does not [i:5c1e449d86]definitely[/i:5c1e449d86] mean that its professor is elect. Nonetheless, it [i:5c1e449d86]does[/i:5c1e449d86] definitely mean that they are part of the external church, and is a biblical grounds on which to [i:5c1e449d86]presume[/i:5c1e449d86] that they are also part of the internal church. In the same way, God's general, universal promises to the children of believers (see Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14) do not [i:5c1e449d86]definitely[/i:5c1e449d86] mean that the children receiving the promises are elect. Nonetheless, they [i:5c1e449d86]do[/i:5c1e449d86] definitely mean that they are part of the external church, and are a biblical grounds on which to [i:5c1e449d86]presume[/i:5c1e449d86] that they are also part of the internal church.

As to your question of whether God's promises to the offspring of believers extend to their grandchildren, the answer is no. Say we have person A, who is the father of person B, who is the father of person C. A is believer who has professed faith, and treated B as a presumed covenant child throughout B's childhood. But when B was an adult, B rejected the Gospel and rebelled against Christianity, thus showing his presumed internal covenant status to be false, and showing himself to be apostate and outside the external covenant. Therefore, [b:5c1e449d86]B's child (C) does not have the promises God gave to the offspring of the righteous, since his father (B) can no longer be biblically presumed to be righteous.[/b:5c1e449d86] It's as simple as that. We presume Person X's children to be righteous and in the internal covenant based on X's presumed status in that same covenant (on the basis of X's professed of faith and changed life). So if X shows himself to actually be apostate, we no longer have any grounds on which to presume him righteous, and thus his children have no promise from God.

I hope this helps, Lon. Am I being clear?

In Christ,


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 6, 2004)

Chris answered very well. Your are a thinker brother. Continue to cultivate your gift and privilege.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jul 29, 2004)

Chris great answer. I enjoy being a Presbyterian!


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 4, 2004)

Best three paragraph summary I've ever read.

-dP


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 4, 2004)

Thanks, brother's!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2004)

Is it better for the Church to presume to include within it's membership non-professing Covenant partakers or professing Covenant partakers?

Which way would be more Biblical and why?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2004)

The Presbyterian church has professing and non professing members. The Credo church has professing members. The Presbyterian church is made up of elect and non elect individuals. Whether they want to admit it or not, the credo church is made up of elect and non elect individuals also. Both churches are made up of disciples. Disciples are not necessarily elect. 

I guess the short answer to your question is that we know in our church who ARE covenant members; we are the one's who have placed them there. Either by public confession of faith or transferrance of membership from another faithful body. Only God knows who His internal covenant members are. This is the more biblical position.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2004)

I would agree wholeheartedly that there are professing non-elect church members within a Baptist congregation that are partakers of the Covenant.

My question really is, would it not be more responsible of the Church to only admit as members those who are at least professing their faith in Christ alone for their salvation? If the Church, ultimately, is the place for the regenerate to be in fellowship and participate in corporate worship of their God, would it not be more Biblical to do whatever we can to at least increase the chances of such membership including only God's truly chosen people, and not apostates or non-converts?

I have been thinking that logically there is a greater risk of having many [b:4caabcbe8c]more[/b:4caabcbe8c] apostate/nonbelievers in your congregation if you admit non-professing members, as opposed to admitting only professing members (while it is still true that many may not be part of the invisible Church...).

Just some thoughts to chew on and work through. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:d7d3d58c09="WrittenFromUtopia"]I would agree wholeheartedly that there are professing non-elect church members within a Baptist congregation that are partakers of the Covenant.

My question really is, would it not be more responsible of the Church to only admit as members those who are at least professing their faith in Christ alone for their salvation? If the Church, ultimately, is the place for the regenerate to be in fellowship and participate in corporate worship of their God, would it not be more Biblical to do whatever we can to at least increase the chances of such membership including only God's truly chosen people, and not apostates or non-converts?

I have been thinking that logically there is a greater risk of having many [b:d7d3d58c09]more[/b:d7d3d58c09] apostate/nonbelievers in your congregation if you admit non-professing members, as opposed to admitting only professing members (while it is still true that many may not be part of the invisible Church...).

Just some thoughts to chew on and work through. Thanks for your help.[/quote:d7d3d58c09]

Hi Gabriel,
I would like to address a few things you write:
[quote:d7d3d58c09]I would agree wholeheartedly that there are professing non-elect church members within a Baptist congregation that are partakers of the Covenant. My question really is, would it not be more responsible of the Church to only admit as members those who are at least professing their faith in Christ alone for their salvation?[/quote:d7d3d58c09]

Gabriel,
It would not be more responsible as God has decreed the covenant to include elect and non elect members. I'm sure you agree, our responsibilty is to Gods command and the scriptures. [i:d7d3d58c09]Professing[/i:d7d3d58c09] does not an elect person there make, i.e. Demas, Simon, Ananias, Judas.

[quote:d7d3d58c09]If the Church, ultimately, is the place for the regenerate to be in fellowship......[/quote:d7d3d58c09]

Gabriel,
The church is not ultimately the place for (only) the regenerate. 

Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

[quote:d7d3d58c09]would it not be more Biblical to do whatever we can to at least increase the chances of such membership including only God's truly chosen people, and not apostates or non-converts?[/quote:d7d3d58c09]

It is not more biblical (see above). There is nothing we can do to increase the chances. God has indeed ordained it this way. We are warned to not try and pull up the tares, and as I have said, profession does not prove anything. Ask the apostles; prior to Judas high-tailing it eastward, they would never have thought him to be a turncoat.

Hope this helps some Gabe!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2004)

What was the point of the New Covenant, then, if it is (according to what you're saying here) not any different essentially than the Old?

In other words, where's the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ, and where is the efficiency of the New Covenants promises for salvation? I don't see any conditions to the Covenant in OT prophecy concerning the NC, or am I missing something totally here?

I think the wheat and tare passage is a very good point from what you're saying. However, I also see that as saying that the Church should be made up of professing members only, and that the unknown nature of apostasy in someone's life is for Christ to judge at the end of time. In other words, if someone professes to be part of the Church, we are not to judge whether or not they are elect - that is for God to know. Although, their true spiritual condition could easily be seen through the actions of Church discipline and their fruit, in my opinion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:8bd0b8c29e="WrittenFromUtopia"]What was the point of the New Covenant, then, if it is (according to what you're saying here) not any different essentially than the Old?

In other words, where's the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ, and where is the efficiency of the New Covenants promises for salvation? I don't see any conditions to the Covenant in OT prophecy concerning the NC, or am I missing something totally here?

I think the wheat and tare passage is a very good point from what you're saying. However, I also see that as saying that the Church should be made up of professing members only, and that the unknown nature of apostasy in someone's life is for Christ to judge at the end of time. In other words, if someone professes to be part of the Church, we are not to judge whether or not they are elect - that is for God to know. Although, their true spiritual condition could easily be seen through the actions of Church discipline and their fruit, in my opinion.[/quote:8bd0b8c29e]

Gabriel,
The [i:8bd0b8c29e]new[/i:8bd0b8c29e] covenant is not new in the way you are implying. God is indeed immutable-no? Here are His words:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an [b:8bd0b8c29e]everlasting covenant[/b:8bd0b8c29e], to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. ([i:8bd0b8c29e]my emphasis added[/i:8bd0b8c29e])


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2004)

Yes, you're correct in saying God is immutable.

However, in quoting:

[quote:de3decac2e]Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.[/quote:de3decac2e]

you err, because we are comparing the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, which is the Mosaic Covenant, [b:de3decac2e]not[/b:de3decac2e] the Abrahamic Covenant, which Genesis 17:7 is referring to.

Furthermore, you are somewhat "missing the mark" here by quoting Matthew 13:28-30 in our discussion, as this is not a text referring to Church membership, but rather the final judgment of mankind in which those who falsely professed faith in Christ will be gathered up and tossed into the Lake of Fire (apostates and unbelievers alike).

In no way does this imply or encourage having apostates or unbelievers in one's Church membership.

What it [b:de3decac2e]does[/b:de3decac2e] imply is that it is not our place, here on earth in our present temporal circumstances, to execute judgment or punishment against those who are our "enemies" (apostates and unbelievers), as they will be dealt with at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 10, 2004)

Gabriel:
Maybe the question to ask in return is whether or not it is Biblical to exclude those whom the Bible has included; or to exclude people from the Covenant who may be elect, as much elect as someone who has professed faith? There are many other questions which are possible which are an intergral part of the question you ask. The overwhelming problem is that if children are not included in the Covenant because we cannot accept their profession of faith as yet, then we have to regard them as outside of the Covenant. And that is what is unacceptable from a Biblical perspective. The Bible just does not do that. There are certain things that are demanded if we accept into membership only those whose election is assured, and the demands soon begin to outweigh the questions that we can answer. 

I do not see that the Credo practice is a viable answer to your question either, if it was your intent to show a weakness in the Paedo practice. All it does, in effect, is change the place of tension, but it doesn't relieve it at all. The problem has been moved to, or limited to, the adults of the congragation. But there is still no more certainty about it, except that the children have been excluded from consideration. The predicament is still the same, though.

But if we confine ourselves to accepting and believing those things which God has given us to know, which the Credo also advocates, then including children in the Covenant is no more difficult than having only professing adults as members. 

This was your question:
[quote:73683e9682]My question really is, would it not be more responsible of the Church to only admit as members those who are at least professing their faith in Christ alone for their salvation? If the Church, ultimately, is the place for the regenerate to be in fellowship and participate in corporate worship of their God, would it not be more Biblical to do whatever we can to at least increase the chances of such membership including only God's truly chosen people, and not apostates or non-converts? 

I have been thinking that logically there is a greater risk of having many more apostate/nonbelievers in your congregation if you admit non-professing members, as opposed to admitting only professing members (while it is still true that many may not be part of the invisible Church...). 
[/quote:73683e9682]
It is a question of which is the more responsible way. I think that the Paedo way is more responsible when I consider who to admit to the Covenant and who to exclude.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:8a8308a41f="JohnV"]I do not see that the Credo practice is a viable answer to your question either, if it was your intent to show a weakness in the Paedo practice. All it does, in effect, is change the place of tension, but it doesn't relieve it at all. The problem has been moved to, or limited to, the adults of the congragation. But there is still no more certainty about it, except that the children have been excluded from consideration. The predicament is still the same, though.[/quote:8a8308a41f]

[i:8a8308a41f]Excellent[/i:8a8308a41f] point here, John. Gabriel, I definitely see your point about trying to reduce as much as possible the [i:8a8308a41f]chances[/i:8a8308a41f] for reprobate church members, as it was one of the major questions I had when first studying paedobaptism. And I just want to re-emphasize the point John made above, as I think he has really nailed it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

John, your problem in relating to what I'm saying is the fact that you're not seeing what the New Covenant really is: unconditional. There is no way for someone to be "in" the New Covenant and then leave. There may be people professing to be part of it and then revealed to be apostates, but there is no conditions to the NC.

Please show me any verse in any of the OT prophecies concerning the NC that imply ANY sort of conditions. It is God's unconditional Covenant of Grace - the only conditional factor is God's choice of who will partake, not our choice to leave it.

[b:f1fdb7e7f3]31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (ESV)

19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Ezekiel 11:19-20 (ESV)[/b:f1fdb7e7f3]

Do you see any possibility of breaking this covenant? It all seems pretty absolute to me!

We are given a heart of flesh - we are His people and He is our God. Period. You take glory away from Christ's work on the cross when you make His Covenant conditional on our behalf.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 11, 2004)

Gabriel,

Even if we were to grant your claim that the New Covenant is solely an invisible covenant, consisting only of the elect, that still doesn't deal with John's points about the biblical reliability of different grounds on which to presume membership in that invisible covenant. Even if the external church is ideally for elect people alone, I believe John is saying that a profession of faith doesn't guarantee elect status any more than does a general promise from God, and thus that there is no profit to distinguishing between the two when presuming election status.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

Scripture grants such claims, I don't require the affirmation of anyone on here.

Even from a purely logical standpoint alone, it makes much more sense to assume that people who are [b:eeb98abd73]capable of actually professing faith with their mouths[/b:eeb98abd73] are [u:eeb98abd73]much[/u:eeb98abd73] more likely to actually be true converts that are trusting in the Lord for their Salvation over people who can't acknowledge little or anything of the world around them. We are given the rights of proper Church discipline and the witness of visible fruit in helping determine the regenerate status of a professing believer's heart, neither of which can apply to infants.

By the way, I'm still waiting for any replies to two of my posts above in regards to the unconditional nature of the NC and the incorrect citation of texts not relating to the Mosaic Covenant and Church membership.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:7f304a6468="ABondSlaveofChristJesus"]Presbyterians...

In baptizing infants, do you assume justification?[/quote:7f304a6468]

If they don't, then they [b:7f304a6468]can't[/b:7f304a6468] believe that the infants are part of the New Covenant without being terribly contradictory to the claims of Scripture.

The New Covenant has associated with it, in the OT prophecy texts concerning it, the following attributes:
- Knowing the Lord
- A regenerate heart of flesh
- [b:7f304a6468]Forgiven sins[/b:7f304a6468] / "Forgotten" sins
- Spirit of God within
- Following in the statutes of God

If you baptize infants into the New Covenant, they must have these things attributed to them. Therefore, those infants are not only regenerated at the time of baptism, but also justified and have had their sins forgiven [b:7f304a6468]without[/b:7f304a6468] any form of verbal repentance or faith in Christ as Lord.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:be83380756="WrittenFromUtopia"]Even from a purely logical standpoint alone, it makes much more sense to assume that people who are [b:be83380756]capable of actually professing faith with their mouths[/b:be83380756] are [u:be83380756]much[/u:be83380756] more likely to actually be true converts that are trusting in the Lord for their Salvation over people who can't acknowledge little or anything of the world around them. We are given the rights of proper Church discipline and the witness of visible fruit in helping determine the regenerate status of a professing believer's heart, neither of which can apply to infants.[/quote:be83380756]

Actually, I would probably grant that in a purely rationalistic way, it makes sense that people who can profess would have a higher chance of being elect than people who can't, even if the latter people have a general divine promise of benevolence. However, we should not be concerned with which practice we think best serves the situation as we see it, but only with which practice is biblical. So even if the "higher chance" concept is what makes sense to our minds with regard to professors versus infants, is such a distinction biblical?

[quote:be83380756="WrittenFromUtopia"]By the way, I'm still waiting for any replies to two of my posts above in regards to the unconditional nature of the NC and the incorrect citation of texts not relating to the Mosaic Covenant and Church membership.[/quote:be83380756]

As I explained in my previous post, whether or not the New Covenant is solely invisible in nature is irrelevant to the topic at hand; for even if it is, the issue is what grounds are biblical on which to presume election, and thus membership in that invisible covenant.

[quote:be83380756="ABondSlaveofChristJesus"]Presbyterians...

In baptizing infants, do you assume justification?[/quote:be83380756]

Not necessarily. We believe that an infant [i:be83380756]could[/i:be83380756] be justified when we are baptizing them, but they aren't necessarily. Depending on who you ask, we either assume regeneration, or just election.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:d2fb5ffcde="Me Died Blue"]Not necessarily. We believe that an infant [i:d2fb5ffcde]could[/i:d2fb5ffcde] be justified when we are baptizing them, but they aren't necessarily. Depending on who you ask, we either assume regeneration, or just election.[/quote:d2fb5ffcde]

:no:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2004)

Gabriel,
I was stirring in bed so I got up.....I have been restless for the last couple of nights. Keep me in prayer; I am a little stressed. My 18 year old just moved out. 

In regards to your comments about Gen 17: What does 'everlasting' mean? From what you say, it is not 'everlasting'. Much like Gods promise (Noahic) to NEVER flood the Earth again, his promise to the children of Abraham stands! Unless of course you want to say that God didn't really mean what he said in regards to the flood??? Can God [i:115532e6ab]break[/i:115532e6ab] His promises? 

You challenge my citation of the matthew verse: 

Who does the scriptures reference when the term 'kingdom of God' is mentioned? Where is the kingdom of God? Is it here? Is it now? Who is included in the kingdom of God?

When does the covenant of grace begin; get this one wrong and your theology fails; especially in regards to understanding covenant theology.

In regards to the Jeremiah passage: since when is it that we do not any longer need 'teachers'? Does not your pastor teach? Has that day come? 
The New Covenant will not be fully realized until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; all Israel is saved. The apostle Paul says that this is the fulfillment of Isaiah 59:20-21 which he faithfully describes in Romans 11:26-27. 

What do you do with all these warning passages?
Heb 10:29, Heb 6:4, John 15:2-6, Gal 5:4, 

What is your take on the olive tree? It does need pruning-no?


You ask in reference to Christ:
[quote:115532e6ab]where's the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ,...."[/quote:115532e6ab] 

Christ fulfilled the old covenant!

It seems as if your problem rests in how you understand the Covenant of Grace and where it begins.........

The Covenants of Works and Grace: 

What Is Covenant Theology? 

In the seventeenth century an outlook developed in Reformed theology that saw covenants between God and humanity as central to the teaching of Scripture. In older works this approach to the Bible was called Federalism. In our day, it is more common to speak of this perspective simply as Covenant Theology. 
In traditional Covenant Theology, the whole history of the Bible was divided into two major covenant relationships: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Neither of these expressions appears in the Bible, but the distinctions form helpful theological categories that reflect the underlying unity of Scripture, much as the term "Trinity" summarizes one essential aspect of the truth of Scripture about God. This dual covenant approach to Scripture finds a clear expression in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (WCF 7.1-5; 19.1,6; WLC 31-36,97). 
In Reformed theology the term covenant of works refers to the arrangement God made between himself and Adam before humanity's fall into sin. It does not refer to the covenant made with Moses at Sinai, as other Christian traditions tend to use the term. In the covenant of works with Adam, God promised blessings to Adam if he obeyed the command of God (Ge 1:28-30), but judgment if he disobeyed (Ge 2:15-17). The determining factor was Adam's works, thus the term covenant of works (cf. Hos 6:7). In recent years, the value of describing Adam's relationship with God as a covenant of works has been questioned; many prefer simply to speak of a pre-redemptive arrangement or probation before the fall into sin. In all events, the Scriptures indicate that Adam failed to keep God's command. So God made a second covenant arrangement, the covenant of grace in Christ. 

The terminology covenant of grace is used to describe God's relationship with his people throughout the rest of Scripture. Properly speaking, this covenant was ultimately made with Christ as the last Adam, the representative of redeemed humanity. It is designated a covenant of grace because it operates on the basis of divine grace offered through Christ's death and resurrection to all who believe in him. Some Reformed theologians have spoken of a heavenly, eternal covenant between the Father and the Son, which they have called the covenant of redemption (Jn 6:37). The covenant of grace is the historical expression of this eternal covenant. 
The covenant of grace began with the promise made after the fall that the seed of the woman would one day crush the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15). After this, the covenant of grace unfolded in five major stages of Biblical history. None of these covenant stages opposes any other. On the contrary, each subsequent stage builds upon the previous ones. 

1. After its initiation with God's grace offered to Adam (Ge 3:15), the covenant of grace developed through the covenant of nature's preservation given to Noah (Ge 6:18; 9:9-17). Noah's covenant focused on the stability of the present order of nature until the end of all things, thus providing a stable arena within which God's redemptive plan would unfold. 

2. Next, God's covenant with Abraham (Ge 15; 17) began several stages of covenants made with the nation of Israel as God's special chosen people. God promised that Abraham's descendants would receive great blessings and would be the instrument of blessing to the entire human race. 

3. Following this, the nation of Israel received Moses' covenant of law (Ex 19-24) during the exodus from Egypt, in order to guide the nation toward greater blessings in the land of promise. 

4. When David became king, God then made a royal covenant with him (2Sa 7; Pss 89; 132), in which he promised to bless David's faithful sons and never to take the throne of Israel away from David's family. 

5.Finally, the climax of the covenant of grace came through the new covenant established by Christ (Jer 31; Lk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; Heb 8:8-13). This covenant comes in three stages: the first coming of Christ, the history before his return and the consummation of his kingdom. As the covenant of grace unfolded in this manner, the various stages did not differ in substance but were "one and the same under various dispensations" (WCF 7.6). 
The stages of the covenant of grace manifested in God's Old Testament national covenants with Israel had the special role of preparing God's people for the coming of his Son, who would fulfill all of God's promises and give substance to the shadows cast by Old Testament types (Isa 40:10; Mal 3:1; Jn 1:14; Heb 7-10). In the new covenant the temporary arrangements for imparting those blessings are replaced by the realization of that which they anticipated, namely Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant, the Seed of Abraham and heir of his promises (Gal 3:16). Christ obeyed the law perfectly and offered himself as the true and final sacrifice for sin. As the royal son of David, he now reigns over the world as the inheritor of all the covenant blessings of pardon, peace, and fellowship with God in his renewed creation-blessings he now bestows upon believers (Ro 8:17). Christ's sending of the Spirit from the throne of his glory seals God's people as his own, even as he gives himself to them (2Co 1:22; Eph 1:13-14). 

As Heb 7-10 explains, the new covenant is the supreme expression of God's one eternal covenant of grace with sinners (Heb 13:20)-a better stage of the covenant than those of the Old Testament, with better promises (Heb 8:6), based on a better sacrifice (Heb 9:23), offered by a better high priest in a better sanctuary (Heb 7:26-8:13) and guaranteeing a better hope than the former versions of the covenant ever made explicit. The fulfillment of the old national covenants in Christ brings to fruition the promise that the door of faith would be open to large numbers of Gentiles. To extend the kingdom of God throughout the world (see theological article "Kingdom of God" at XXXX), Gentiles and Jews alike become Abraham's seed by faith in Christ (Gal 3:26-29), while Jews and Gentiles outside of Christ are also outside the covenant of grace (Ro 4:9-17; 11:13-24). 
Scripture describes the elements of God's covenants with his people in ways that parallel the international treaty arrangements of human emperors in the ancient Near East. Either explicitly or implicitly, four basic dynamics appear in each stage of the Biblical covenant: (1) God shows himself to be the benevolent King who initiates and sustains his chosen people throughout their covenant relationship with him. (2) God requires loyal gratitude from the people embraced by his covenants. (3) Judgments come against those who flagrantly violate his covenants. (4) Blessings come to those who are faithful to the covenants. 
As the divine King of the universe (see theological article "Kingdom of God" at XXXX), God's covenantal dealings guided the kingdom forward toward its ultimate end: the gathering of a redeemed people "from every nation, tribe, people and language" (Rev 7:9), who will inhabit a renewed world order (Rev 21:1-5). Here the covenant relationship will find its fullest expression: "They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God" (Rev 21:3). The kingdom of God still moves toward that goal in our day. 

The dual framework of the covenants of works and grace describes the whole of God's sovereign dealings with humanity. Salvation comes to us because Christ fulfilled the requirements of the covenant of works through his perfect obedience. As a result, our salvation is covenant salvation: Justification and adoption, regeneration and sanctification are covenant mercies; election was God's choice of the members of his final, purified covenant community, the invisible church (see theological article "The Church: Visible and Invisible" at XXXX); baptism and the Lord's Supper, corresponding to circumcision and Passover, are covenant ordinances; God's law is covenant law, and keeping it is the truest expression of gratitude and loyalty in response to the God's covenant grace. Renewing our covenant commitments to God in response to his faithfulness should be a regular devotional exercise for all believers, both in private and in public worship. An understanding of the covenant of grace guides us through and helps us to appreciate not only the diversity of Scripture, but its amazing unity as well. 

(From The Spirit Of The Reformation Study Bible)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:982527ae86="Scott Bushey"]Gabriel,
In regards to your comments about Gen 17: What does 'everlasting' mean? From what you say, it is not 'everlasting'. Much like Gods promise (Noahic) to NEVER flood the Earth again, his promise to the children of Abraham stands! Unless of course you want to say that God didn't really mean what he said in regards to the flood??? Can God [i:982527ae86]break[/i:982527ae86] His promises?[/quote:982527ae86]

Yes, the Covenant of Grace in the Abrahamic Covenant is everlasting, but it is not [i:982527ae86]directly[/i:982527ae86] related to our comparison of the Old Covenant (Mosaic) and the New Covenant here. 

[quote:982527ae86]When does the covenant of grace begin; get this one wrong and your theology fails; especially in regards to understanding covenant theology.[/quote:982527ae86]

My theology is not hinged on a man-made term. Yes, there is a unilateral Covenant of Grace, that transcends the Old and New Covenant. However, Israel broke the Old Covenant, and God has now made the greatest realized version of the New Covenant, that is [b:982527ae86]absolute[/b:982527ae86], with Christ's death and resurrection and fulfillment of the Law.

[quote:982527ae86]In regards to the Jeremiah passage: since when is it that we do not any longer need 'teachers'? Does not your pastor teach? Has that day come? 
The New Covenant will not be fully realized until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; all Israel is saved. The apostle Paul says that this is the fulfillment of Isaiah 59:20-21 which he faithfully describes in Romans 11:26-27.[/quote:982527ae86]

No one needs to be taught the "Law" that is part of the New Covenant, i.e. "Saved" because they have been given the Holy Spirit and the inclinations to be capable of following in God's ways and statutes, something that Israel could not do in the Old Covenant. We no longer have a heart of stone, but a regenerate heart of flesh in the NC.

[quote:982527ae86]What do you do with all these warning passages?
Heb 10:29, Heb 6:4, John 15:2-6, Gal 5:4, 

What is your take on the olive tree? It does need pruning-no?[/quote:982527ae86]

The warning passages are referring to church members that have a falsely professed faith in Christ and are not true members of the Church. In other words, they are members of the "visible" Church, have partaken in Covenant things that are not for them to partake in, but have left the fellowship of believers because of their false faith (they are not part of the "invisible Church"). By false faith, I mean that their faith is their own human attempt at faith, not a God-given faith that people who are truly elect and saved have. They cannot handle being part of the Church because they are not capable of "persevering" or "enduring till the end" like a regenerate person who is kept by the power of God through their God-given faith. An apostate, as someone who "falls away", is someone who has fallen away from the fellowship and ministry of the Church because they never had genuine faith, only an appearance or man-made attempt at such faith. This is why they fall away and "go out from us" as John describes in 1 John. They make their false faith known by leaving the fellowship of believers because they were never "one of us".

The New Covenant is [b:982527ae86]absolute[/b:982527ae86] and 100% effective, by God's choice of His people, and through His preserving power. You cannot participate in the NC without the implications of being forgiven of your sins and being regenerate. Even Jesus Himself says that His blood was shed for the New Covenant, "for the forgiveness of sins" of many. An apostate cannot ever really be part of the NC unless we are going to say that they also have forgiveness of sins at the very minimum.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:d11c7c0e47][quote="WrittenFromUtopia]
Yes, the Covenant of Grace in the Abrahamic Covenant is everlasting, but it is not [i:d11c7c0e47]directly[/i:d11c7c0e47] related to our comparison of the Old Covenant (Mosaic) and the New Covenant here.[/quote:d11c7c0e47]

What is everlasting that exists between the Old Covenant and the New? 

[quote:d11c7c0e47]My theology is not hinged on a man-made term. Yes, there is a unilateral Covenant of Grace, that transcends the Old and New Covenant. However, Israel broke the Old Covenant, and God has now made the greatest realized version of the New Covenant, that is [b:d11c7c0e47]absolute[/b:d11c7c0e47], with Christ's death and resurrection and fulfillment of the Law[/quote:d11c7c0e47]

The Covenant of Grace is the Old and New Covenants. The Israelites broke the OC, but where does God say that the NC can't be broken? The benefits of Christ's death extended to both covenants. The difference between the two being described in these prophetic passages isn't regeneration or adoption itself. It is the consumation of the hope, the death of Christ being actually accomplished, though it had long since been applied to the ot believers. The types were consequently done away with, the veiled glory penetrated the minds and hearts of every member from the least to the greatest. The extent ot regeneration is much greater in this dispensation, but it is not universal. The language used in prophecy is both figurative and hyperbolic. 

[quote:d11c7c0e47]No one needs to be taught the "Law" that is part of the New Covenant, i.e. "Saved" because they have been given the Holy Spirit and the inclinations to be capable of following in God's ways and statutes, something that Israel could not do in the Old Covenant. We no longer have a heart of stone, but a regenerate heart of flesh in the NC.[/quote:d11c7c0e47]

Well truth is we do need to be taught the "law", and knowledge of God is not equal with salvation (2 Peter 2:20).

[quote:d11c7c0e47]
The warning passages are referring to church members that have a falsely professed faith in Christ and are not true members of the Church. [/quote:d11c7c0e47]

So are they members or not? uzzled:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:db51dc041e="Ianterrell"]What is everlasting that exists between the Old Covenant and the New?[/quote:db51dc041e]

God's promise of the redemption of mankind by Christ's work, not our own. Grace.

[quote:db51dc041e]The Covenant of Grace is the Old and New Covenants. The Israelites broke the OC, but where does God say that the NC can't be broken? The benefits of Christ's death extended to both covenants. The difference between the two being described in these prophetic passages isn't regeneration or adoption itself. It is the consumation of the hope, the death of Christ being actually accomplished, though it had long since been applied to the ot believers. The types were consequently done away with, the veiled glory penetrated the minds and hearts of every member from the least to the greatest. The extent ot regeneration is much greater in this dispensation, but it is not universal. The language used in prophecy is both figurative and hyperbolic.[/quote:db51dc041e]

It is nowhere implied that the NC is conditional in any way. [b:db51dc041e]They will be My people and I will be their God[/b:db51dc041e]. Period.

[quote:db51dc041e]Well truth is we do need to be taught the "law", and knowledge of God is not equal with salvation (2 Peter 2:20).[/quote:db51dc041e]

First, yes, we should still teach the "law" and emphasize it, for it's purposes of our sanctification under the NC. However, as true believers and part of the NC, it is also written on our hearts, and we should, through the process of sanctification, "know" what the right thing to do in a situation is, should we not? Secondly, I never said that the knowledge of God that is equated with being part of the NC is equal to Salvation, [i:db51dc041e]by itself[/i:db51dc041e]. That is a straw-man argument, and has no purpose being in your post. I said it was one of the attributes of a person who is under the NC.

[quote:db51dc041e]So are they members or not? uzzled:[/quote:db51dc041e]

I thought I was clear on this? They are members of the "visible church" but not members of the "invisible Church" if they are, indeed, apostate/nonbelievers. No contradiction there, as they are two different terms. I guess I could've clarified better?


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:6e6cbfad1b="WrittenFromUtopia"][quote:6e6cbfad1b="Ianterrell"]
The Covenant of Grace is the Old and New Covenants. The Israelites broke the OC, but where does God say that the NC can't be broken? The benefits of Christ's death extended to both covenants. The difference between the two being described in these prophetic passages isn't regeneration or adoption itself. It is the consumation of the hope, the death of Christ being actually accomplished, though it had long since been applied to the ot believers. The types were consequently done away with, the veiled glory penetrated the minds and hearts of every member from the least to the greatest. The extent ot regeneration is much greater in this dispensation, but it is not universal. The language used in prophecy is both figurative and hyperbolic.[/quote:6e6cbfad1b]

It is nowhere implied that the NC is conditional in any way. [b:6e6cbfad1b]They will be My people and I will be their God[/b:6e6cbfad1b]. Period.[/quote:6e6cbfad1b]

I don't think the covenant of grace is conditional per se. But the New Covenant can be broken, and it is broken. [b:6e6cbfad1b]If we don't abide in Christ we will be cut off and burned [/b:6e6cbfad1b]. Apostraphe. The covenant is not only objective and certainly not absolute.


[quote:6e6cbfad1b] First, yes, we should still teach the "law" and emphasize it, for it's purposes of our sanctification under the NC. However, as true believers and part of the NC, it is also written on our hearts, and we should, through the process of sanctification, "know" what the right thing to do in a situation is, should we not? Secondly, I never said that the knowledge of God that is equated with being part of the NC is equal to Salvation, [i:6e6cbfad1b]by itself[/i:6e6cbfad1b]. That is a straw-man argument, and has no purpose being in your post. I said it was one of the attributes of a person who is under the NC.
[/quote:6e6cbfad1b]

To your first point: We still really and actually require instruction. Which is what you denied in the post I was addressing.
To your second point: The knowledge expressed here A) does not have to be interpreted as a epistemological knowing. B)Knowledge did increase with the exansion of the covenant scriptures. There was a wealth of scripture given to the church.
Lastly: You still have not dealt with the context of these passages as prophecies concerning national isreal (Jer 31:36). These prophecies are all about the restoration of Israel.

[quote:6e6cbfad1b]I thought I was clear on this? They are members of the "visible church" but not members of the "invisible Church" if they are, indeed, apostate/nonbelievers. No contradiction there, as they are two different terms. I guess I could've clarified better?[/quote:6e6cbfad1b]

The Church is the covenant community. They are God's people objectively. This community is mixed. There are those that will reap the benefits (faithful bridesmaids), and those who will not (unfaithful bridesmaids). The contradiction is in the terms themselves, what is a church! The name means called out people. This called out people, sanctified people (2 Peter 2:20) includes those who will not reap the true benefits of the fellowship.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 11, 2004)

Compare Jer 31:31-34 with Rom 11:26,27


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2004)

WFU,
We've run off track. Without having to explain covenant theology; the historic view, let's get back to your original question: [quote:b5426a36b2]...would it not be more responsible of the Church to only admit as members those who are at least professing their faith in Christ alone for their salvation?[/quote:b5426a36b2]

And here:
[quote:b5426a36b2]My question really is, would it not be more responsible of the Church to only admit as members those who are at least professing their faith in Christ alone for their salvation? If the Church, ultimately, is the place for the regenerate to be in fellowship and participate in corporate worship of their God, would it not be more Biblical to do whatever we can to at least increase the chances of such membership including only God's truly chosen people, and not apostates or non-converts?[/quote:b5426a36b2]

Who actualy admits members into the church?

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the [b:b5426a36b2]Lord added to the church[/b:b5426a36b2] daily such as should be saved. (my emphasis)

Does professing faith in Christ [i:b5426a36b2]prove[/i:b5426a36b2] one's position in the Lord? Does discipleship equate with regeneration?

Would you mind in keeping your answer oto a yes or no answer?.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:d03b570687="Scott Bushey"]WFU,
We've run off track. Without having to explain covenant theology; the historic view, let's get back to your original question:Who actualy admits members into the church?

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the [b:d03b570687]Lord added to the church[/b:d03b570687] daily such as should be saved. (my emphasis)

Does professing faith in Christ [i:d03b570687]prove[/i:d03b570687] one's position in the Lord? Does discipleship equate with regeneration?

Would you mind in keeping your answer to a yes or no answer?.[/quote:d03b570687]

Actually, [b:d03b570687]yes[/b:d03b570687] I would mind, because we have another incorrectly cited verse being used to further one's argument.

This verse tells us that the act of "bringing people to the Lord" is the work of God, not man. The power is God's, not ours. The gospel has the power, through the Holy Spirit, not the preacher's style or choice of words.

Furthermore, how do we know the Lord "added these souls" to the Church? Did they just assume?

[i:d03b570687]Well, Peter, that was a pretty good message.. I'd guess about, oh 3,000 of these people believed it and are now saved. Let's write that down, and don't forget to give credit to God![/i:d03b570687]

No, don't be rediculous.

They "repented, believed, and were baptized". In other words, there was a public [b:d03b570687]profession of faith[/b:d03b570687] that led Peter and the others to baptize these converts and bring them into the Church fellowship. There wasn't any presumtive regeneration going on here. There wasn't any guessing game as to who might or might not be "saved". It was concrete, based on their profession of faith alone. These people are to be admitted to the Church membership (visible church) for what they have boldly proclaimed here at Pentecost. If anything, this verse does more to support my position than any other verse in the entire Bible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2004)

Gabriel
Please answer the question; lts not difficult or even tricky.

Does professing faith in Christ prove one's position in the Lord? Does discipleship equate with regeneration?

Oh and by the way, the only reason I cited the verse in Acts was because you had previously mentioned that our intention should be to aquire professions of faith prior to placing someone into the church; my citing was to convey, that no matter how many men, men place into the church, God is the onee whom adds those whom are truly elect.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 11, 2004)

I'll answer for him so that we can speed up this discussion and avoid anymore of these little spars. Of course the answer for both of those questions in any situation possible is no.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:3341fdd3b8]Actually, yes I would mind, because we have another incorrectly cited verse being used to further one's argument.
[/quote:3341fdd3b8]

The point was that the Lord adds to the church, so it was not incorrectly cited. When speaking of this group particularly though, it is clear from the context that they did profess and were baptized into the visible church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2004)

Gabriel,
In regards to your charge that I have used the Matthew verse erroneously...you never answered this question in regards to this passage:

Here it is again:

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

The term "child" or children is the Greek paidiou. Here is Gerhardt Kittels definition:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/kittelpaedo.htm
You will see that Christ is saying that even those at the breast belong to the Kingsdom of God!

Who does the scriptures reference when the term 'kingdom of God' is mentioned? Where is the kingdom of God? Is it here? Is it now? Who is included in the kingdom of God?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 11, 2004)

Gabriel,

Were these who were converted leaders of their housholds?

Or, in other words, did Luke follow the same pattern of preciseness that the OT continues to follow in recording the heads of households?

Seems to me they were following Acts 2:38. God was blessing this, and they counted those heads. (To understand what I am getting at, check any of the OT geneological entries that have a census on the people. i.e. Joseph is counted, not Mary. Etc.) Did Luke understand this and continue, or did he count as Americans do?

I think Americans have a tendency to read the Bible in American rather than Jewishly.

Peter did speak to "men and brethren" correct?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 11, 2004)

Gabriel:
You don't really need me to add to what has been said so far. I just want you to know that in wrestiling with the same issues it is clear to me that the Credo view comes up worse in really answering those questions, as far as I can see. Which view is more sure to us? If we remember that a profession of faith is no more sure than a child's baptism, (I do [u:d164a157da]not[/u:d164a157da] grant that those who profess faith are more likely to be elect), for the simple reason that it is God who elects and not man that chooses, then all that is in our hands, as church, is to recognize those as Covenant members that the Word of God tells us to include. By making a mistake the church has not added to or diminished the number of the elect. But she has been obedient to God's directive as a ministry of His Word to His people; all of them, and not just the ones that we are willing to acknowledge.

The Credo view, with all due respect, just does not cut it in the very questions or objections they have concerning the Paedo view. It has a tendency to leave those things hanging. We just do not know, regardless of which baptism we practice, who is and who is not of the elect. Even of those long dead, whom we regard as pillars in the church, we only assume their election. There is no more certainty in the Credo view than in the Paedo view, except that the Paedo view is certain of children being included in the Covenant community. It just cannot be denied; exactly the same as it cannot be denied that those who sincerely profess their faith are included in the Covenant community. This we are certain of, though we cannot be certain of their election, as that is beyond our limited scope. And the sacrament is to be applied to all those within the Covenant community, [i:d164a157da]according to the matter signified and sealed by each.[/i:d164a157da]

Let's just remember that baptism signifies no assurance whatsoever where there is no sincere faith in the parents. But how we define sincere faith may not be how God defines it. God sees the heart, whereas we only see the outward display of the inward faith. It can very well be that what we regard as too little faith is seen by God as sufficient faith, or vice versa. The professions that fool the church are the ones that appear the most sincere at first. Yet all the same, the church is called upon to believe all professions of faith, all vows, and all promises, unless they are overtly insincere. The only ones that come in doubt are man's, and then only after the fact, but not God's promises.


----------



## just_grace (Dec 12, 2004)

You guy's really bash into it 

Jesus said "you must be born again"...also things like " all that You give Me will come to Me"...and... "I will lose nothing of what you have given Me" ( Judas excluded ...poor man ) ...thats it. We all know His words on those who think they are His and are not.

The Lord knows those who are His.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Some do well, others not quite so well and still others through the flames.

Sometimes I wonder why people make a meal out of basic Christian teaching.

Thats what I love about Paul, he is so positive...no doubts about anything. When I read the Church fathers stuff...its not quite the same.

As Christians, God wants us to be strong, not full of doubts but full of His Holy Spirit.
It's a New and Living Way. How New and Living is it to you or I and if not WHY?

David

quote]_Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
Gabriel
Please answer the question; lts not difficult or even tricky.

Does professing faith in Christ prove one's position in the Lord? Does discipleship equate with regeneration?

Oh and by the way, the only reason I cited the verse in Acts was because you had previously mentioned that our intention should be to aquire professions of faith prior to placing someone into the church; my citing was to convey, that no matter how many men, men place into the church, God is the onee whom adds those whom are truly elect. [/quote]


----------

