# are all in the new covenant saved?



## CarsonLAllen (Dec 27, 2008)

*A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.

Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved? *


----------



## Herald (Dec 27, 2008)

Well Carson, if you ask a Baptist the answer is, "yes." If you ask a Presbyterian the answer is, "no."


----------



## Hippo (Dec 27, 2008)

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." 

2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.


----------



## Herald (Dec 27, 2008)

Hippo said:


> "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
> 
> 2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.



Are we insinuating something?


----------



## Hippo (Dec 27, 2008)

Herald said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
> ...



No, are you?

This is a classic text that highlights the destruction of those who Christ "bought".


----------



## Herald (Dec 27, 2008)

The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?


----------



## Hippo (Dec 27, 2008)

Herald said:


> The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?



Exactly.


----------



## Herald (Dec 27, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?
> ...



Ah. Hence my questioning about whether you were insinuating something. That's why I responded in my first post "Baptists "yes" and Presbyterians "no."" The NC has a visible sign (baptism) that signifies an invisible inclusion (regeneration). But we're acquainted with this debate already, aren't we?


----------



## Hippo (Dec 27, 2008)

Herald said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



It is interesting that Peter specificaly states that the reprobate have been "bought" by Christ which suggests that the reprobate are not external to everything that Christ has secured.

I do not think that it necessarily follows that Baptists and non baptists have to differ on this point, especially if Baptists adopt elements of Covenenant theology as most Baptists on this boards will have done.


----------



## CarsonLAllen (Dec 27, 2008)

*Hippo 

Are you saying that the verce in Peter is talking about reprobated being purchased by the blood of Christ?*


----------



## TimV (Dec 27, 2008)

It probably should be noted that the word for Lord is despotes, which I understand is typically used of the Father rather than the Son. So one could read it "Those Jews who claim Christ is not God deny He who redeemed them from Egypt".


----------



## Herald (Dec 27, 2008)

I suppose it depends on how you view what Peter meant when he said, "Master who bought them." I concur with Gill that these where not bought in the sense of ownership by the one buying, but as in their _claim _to have been bought (Jude 4; 1 John 2:19). They where members of the NC only in their own minds. It could only be this way because the blood of Christ is effectual towards those to whom it is applied.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 27, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



John Owen refers to this passage (II Pet. 2:1-2) in his work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" in Vol. 10: pages 362-364, as it is used by many to prove universal redemption (not that you or anyone here is advocating this). If you have the isolated copy of this work, instead of the actual volume from which it is taken, it can be found in Book IV, Chapter 5, Point #3. This scripture and several others are used by many who hold to universal redemption to show that, if Christ shed his blood for some who became reprobates, then limited atonement is not so limited only to the elect. He makes some good arguments against this interpretation.

Blessings!


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 27, 2008)

CarsonLAllen said:


> Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect). Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved? [/B]




Yes.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 27, 2008)

Hippo said:


> "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
> 
> 2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.





> 4Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
> 
> 5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
> 
> 6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


All the earth is mine, by virtue of creation ,
yet he elects who he will.
At the cross he is given power or authority over All flesh


> 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.


 The efficacy of the purchase of redemption is only on the behalf of those the Father has given to Him, yet as he has been given authority over all flesh. He will be your Saviour, or your judge. 
Like in timothy where it says he is the saviour of all men especially thoe who believe, there is no other.


> 10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.


----------



## Herald (Dec 27, 2008)

Well I'm certainly not advocating a universal view of the atonement. To be fair to Mike (Hippo), he probably isn't doing that either. I suspect he would make an internal/external argument for the NC which would fit perfectly into the paedo view of Covenant Theology. 

For the RB the NC is invisible (internal); which is not much different than the OC. Circumcision never saved. It simply identified a male with God's covenant people externally. Salvation has always been by faith, "And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to Him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3) This is why the charge levied against RB's about our only baptizing the elect falls short. We don't claim to baptize _only _the elect, just as circumcision was not administered to the elect, or baptism to infants who are elect. We baptize those who profess to be part of an invisible covenant. Presbyterians baptize infants who they claim are part of the external covenant with no guarantee that they will ever be part of the internal covenant. They claim covenant blessings, but in essence they cannot claim what they don't own (Eph. 1:3) because the true riches of the covenant are for those who believe. The same goes for RB's who baptize a professor who is not a possessor. We are not able to discern with certainty the condition of the heart. We observe the evidence of faith and make our conclusion accordingly. This is what the Presbyterian must do as their child grows in age. Does their behavior defend or accuse them before God? In that sense we are all in the same boat.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 27, 2008)

John 10:28 - "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

John 6:37 - "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out"

Rom 8:30 - "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Hi Carson. Yes, it does give evidence. The only ones truly in the New Covenant are the justified (regenerated or saved if you will).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2008)

CarsonLAllen said:


> A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.
> 
> Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.
> 
> Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?


The question has always been, since God initiated his covenant with Abraham: _is a covenant-person IN covenant with God merely outwardly and formally, or does he also possess true faith within_?

There was the "blood of the Old Covenant" too; you can read about it in Hebrews 9:18ff, and Exodus 24. Were all of those folks saved? No, not all were, though formally they were all within Abraham's covenant. Because so many of them had nothing of the substance.

So, regarding the New Covenant: there are people who don't think there is any "formal" or outward aspect to the NC, hence there can't be any participation in it _in any sense_ by people who aren't saved. They will answer your question positively.

And there are people (on my side) who believe there *continues to be* external and internal qualities to Abraham's covenant, as expressed in the New Covenant. All those who participate inwardly and spiritually in the NC are saved.

But, I would argue, there are false professors, baptized people who even partake of the Lord's Supper--drink the cup of the New Covenant, eat and drink condemnation to themselves--they have all these outward marks, and none of the reality. For our part, we would consider this verse to be speaking of such a person:


> Heb. 10:29 "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?"


That's where we attribute the internal/external distinction. This person had only the outward marks of the New Covenant, like the apostates of the Old Covenant--false professors, each and every one.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 28, 2008)

CarsonLAllen said:


> *A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.
> 
> Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.
> 
> Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved? *



NO, & YES.

No, not all of those in the "NC" are part of the Bride of Christ. 

Yes, they are still part of the "covenant", in that they are part of *something* that they can be cut off from.

This is ( as was pointed out above) part of the dividing line between Baptists & Presbyterians.


----------



## Herald (Dec 28, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> CarsonLAllen said:
> 
> 
> > A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.
> ...



As usual, "da wabbit" says things in such a manner, that even in my disagreement I must doff my cap. 

Bruce for diplomat!


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 28, 2008)

this is a great thread.


----------



## CarsonLAllen (Dec 29, 2008)

I don't like yes & no answers. I like yes or no. I know that may seam like I am being a simpleton, but either presbyterians are right and r.b's are wrong or vise versa.

I used to be an r.b., and after reading Rev.McMahon's refutation of his own credo stance I became a convinced presbyterian.

So, I just keep telling my friend that when we baptize an infant we are admiting them into the VISABLE church as a non-communicant member. However, we view are children as church members, I don't see how a R.B. can. I could go on further, but I better end it at that.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 29, 2008)

These verses from Psalm 89 have always assured me that those who the Lord covenants with will remain so due to God's faithfulness, not theirs:



> 19 Then You spoke in a vision to Your holy one,
> And said: "I have given help to one who is mighty;
> I have exalted one chosen from the people.
> 20	I have found My servant David;
> ...



Not everyone who goes to church or is baptized is in covenant with God.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 29, 2008)

Matthew, it is here also;2sam7


> 8Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
> 
> 9And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 29, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> CarsonLAllen said:
> 
> 
> > A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.
> ...



I would argue for a semantic change. There are unbeleivers who are "under" the covenant - i.e., under the external benefits of the covenant but yet are never "in" the Covenant, because to be in the covenant is to be in Christ.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 29, 2008)

Were those members of the congregation, described in Heb 6 and 10, who apostatized, "in" the covenant? 



> Heb 6:
> 
> For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
> 
> ...



The covenantal language of Hebrews 6 is made explicit by Heb 10. How does one profane the covenant without being "in" it? Esau was "in" the covenant. Ishmael was "in" the covenant. They were "in" the covenant externally. They were not united to Christ. That's the function of the "internal/external" distinction. 

Just as it was under Abraham when all those who were circumcised were in the covenant, so too in the New Covenant, which is nothing more than a renewal of the covenant of grace, all those who are members of the visible church are in the covenant. They are participants in the administration of the covenant of grace. 

The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10) but it is substantially the same as the Abrahamic covenant and it has always had a mixed membership. Hence Paul's teaching in Rom 2:28.


----------



## Herald (Dec 29, 2008)

CarsonLAllen said:


> However, we view are children as church members, I don't see how a R.B. can.



Carlos, we don't. I mean, in a large scope way they are _part _of the church in that they come with their parents on the Lord's Day and partake of pot luck dinners and different events; but until they profess faith in Christ, they are not members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is entered into by faith, not by an external sign. 

Presbyterians object to the RB view of New Covenant membership in the belief that it somehow impoverishes children of believers. RB's are accused of considering their children as wicked pagans, while Presbyterians claim their children are holy, only until and unless they prove by their behavior that they are reprobate. This is both unnecessary hyperbole and a failure to remember the spiritual state of all those who have not been regenerated. 

Why unnecessary hyperbole? Because while _all_ children are born at enmity with God (Psa. 51:5), they are still a gift from the LORD (Psa. 127:3). The word for gift in Psa. 127:3 can also be used as inheritance. We are to view our children as gifts from God, and raise them with the expectation that they will become partakers of the divine inheritance which is Christ. To describe our children as wicked little pagans may be accurate forensically, but it does nothing to reflect the great love and care that RB parents take in raising their children by the truth of God's Word, looking forward to the time when the external (the Word) will be met with the internal (faith).

Why failure to remember the spiritual state of those who are not regenerate? Presbyterians point to the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant as warrant for baptizing their children. It is the nature of this covenant that becomes central to the discussion. If the covenant sign can be traced back to Abraham, what is it that we need to know about him? First and foremost, Abraham was a believer (Gal. 3:9). Which is greater, becoming a physical child of Abraham or a spiritual child of Abraham? 

Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

So, how are the blessings of the covenant passed down? By faith.

Galatians 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. 

Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. 

Brother Carlos, that's not the whole argument, but an important part of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 29, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Were those members of the congregation, described in Heb 6 and 10, who apostatized, "in" the covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





And furthermore, as Hebrews makes explicit, it wasn't that the generation in the desert simply rejected Moses (as if it lets dispensational thinking off the hook because it uses the language of Moses or Law) but they are said to reject the Gospel itself. It's why the generation in the desert is utilized as a picture of faithlessness throughout the OT and NT and they are skipped over in Hebrews 11. 

It's only when we turn our attention away from the force of the text in Hebrews, for theological reasons, that we miss the obvious point that the author is making: don't neglect this great salvation just like the generation in the desert. If you think it was bad for them then you ain't seen nothing yet if you neglect the fullness of what they rejected!

It occurred to me the other day more forcefully that what some argue for is really a form of dispensationalism even as they claim to believe in Covenant Theology. Either you believe the CoW covers up to the Fall and then various administrations of the CoG thereafter or you believe there are various CoG's throughout. 

Christ has always been the object that the administrations pointed to. He's always been the substance. Union with Christ by faith has always been the way of salvation. To try to imply that the NC is better than the OC because it is unbreakable seems to some as if they are improving something but what is really happening is that salvation is cheapened in the OC. What our spiritual fathers were really about is cheapened and their faith is denegrated into externalism. God has always regenerated and preserved His own and, when we get that, we understand the expansion of the Covenant but don't throw our forebears under the bus simply because they walked with less light than we enjoy.


----------



## refbaptdude (Dec 29, 2008)

> are all in the new covenant saved?



Yes


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 29, 2008)

refbaptdude said:


> > are all in the new covenant saved?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes



Steve doesn't say much. But when he does it's usually spot on.


----------



## refbaptdude (Dec 29, 2008)

Carson,

What are the blessings of the New Covenant according to the texts below?

Hebrews 8:7-13 (NKJV)
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Matthew 26:28 (NKJV)
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.​
Blessings of the New Covenant:
1.	*Spiritual Regeneration* – the Law is written on the minds and hearts of the covenant members
2.	*Personal Knowledge* – “for all shall know Me” 
3.	*Forgiveness of Sins* – “and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more”. Matthew 26:28 – “for the remission of sins”




> Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?



You tell me


----------



## skala (Feb 18, 2009)

John Gill ('s commentary) has pointed out that in 2 Pet 2:1-2 Peter is borrowing a phrase from Deut 32:6:

Deu 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? 

Therefore I believe that 2 Pet 2:1-2 is not talking about the atoning work of Christ at all, but rather, that false teachers will deny the Lord in the same way that the foolish people in Deu 32:6 did.

"The Lord who bought them" is not referring to Christ's work on the cross to purchase a people for God.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2009)

Do all who are in the covenant of marriage love their spouses? Some have even gone through with the covenantal ceremony/signs and seals of marriage while knowing they didn't have the internal reality.

A similar thing happens with marriage to Christ. Many children are betrothed to God by being placed in Christian families; some of these receive the sign and ceremony of betrothal - infant baptism. Some of these children fall in love with the Lord and enter a permanent covenant relationship with Him by taking the Lord's Supper, the sacrament of covenant renewal. Others do not.

Some/many adults are betrothed and married to Christ in baptism and the Lord's Supper, but do not have the internal reality of love to Christ. They are in the New Covenant but not of it. What difference does it make? More trouble for them and the church if they don't repent. More dead wood in the Vine (see John's Gospel for the analogy of Christ as a vine). 

Re the Baptist (and Presbyterian) world, adults who have been baptised and who subsequently apostasise and reveal themselves to be unbelievers have broken covenant with God and revealed themselves to be unsaved ones who are/were in the New Covenant. 

The children of baptist believers are betrothed by God to Himself by the love that he has shown to them by placing them in Christian families. God wants the relationship to be permanent. So although these children do not receive the mark and ceremony of betrothal, if they do not come to love the God that gave them Christian parents, they have also broken covenant with God.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 20, 2009)

Hippo said:


> "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
> 
> 2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.



Following your line of thought, you are suggesting that particular redemption is false. I would like for you to explain your understanding of this verse, and your view of the perfect atonement of our Lord. Unless you did not mean to word it this way. Can you restate this proposition in a way that you believe is consistent with any of the confessions?
Then re apply your explanation to your understanding of the NC.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 10:00:33 EST-----
Rich Tallach,
This quote almost sounds like romanism. I sure you do not mean it this way.
I think you are trying to give a helpful example, but I am not sure this is it.


> A similar thing happens with marriage to Christ. Many children are betrothed to God by being placed in Christian families; some of these receive the sign and ceremony of betrothal - infant baptism. Some of these children fall in love with the Lord and enter a permanent covenant relationship with Him by taking the Lord's Supper, the sacrament of covenant renewal. Others do not.


 When I ask you who maketh thee to differ, I am sure you would give the correct answer. This however does not seem to be it.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 21, 2009)

It's not Romanism. I'm just recognising that when people are baptised or take the Lord's Supper,they are genuinely covenanting with God, whether or not they have the internal reality of regeneration and feeding on Christ that are represented by the sacraments.

I don't believe that the sacraments can save without the blessing of them and the Word by the Holy Spirit, or that they automatically confer saving grace without faith.

This covenanting with God won't save them, just as many of the Jews or "Jews" in the Old Covenant weren't saved just because they were in the covenant but not of it. They were still unbelieving Jews in some sense, and they were still in covenant with God in some sense.

Christians or "Christians" who are in the new covenant of baptism and the Lord's Supper but not of it are in a worse position than pagans if they do not repent. But they are still unbelieving Christians in some sense, and they are still in covenant with God in some sense. 

They should be suspended from the Lord's Supper if they show certain marks of unbelief/disobedience and counselled to repent. If they do not repent they should be permanently excluded until they do. Obviously the process of accepting people for baptism and the Lord's Supper and the process of church discipline is less than perfect. There will always be some people in covenant with God, who are not of the covenant.

If the visible church was run everywhere on biblical principles there would be a much smaller percentage of dead wood than there often was in Old Covenant Israel.


----------



## Herald (Apr 21, 2009)

> I don't believe that the sacraments can save without the blessing of them and the Word by the Holy Spirit, or that they automatically confer saving grace without faith.


The sacraments do not save at all, neither automatically or even if met with faith. The sacraments are signs. There is no salvific benefit conferred to the individual. 



> Christians or "Christians" who are in the new covenant of baptism and the Lord's Supper but not of it are in a worse position than pagans if they do not repent. But they are still unbelieving Christians in some sense, and they are still in covenant with God in some sense.


One is either a believer or not a believer. There is no middle ground. How could a believer be in a worse position than a pagan? A pagan is lost. A believer is bound to Christ. There is no comparison. "Unbelieving Christians" is an oxymoron. 

Also, where do you get this "new covenant of baptism"? Credos and paedos alike agree that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. We disagree on whether infants are proper recipients of the sign. The New Covenant is not about baptism. The New Covenant is all about peace with God, through Christ.


----------



## CDM (Apr 21, 2009)

No.

Heb. 6:4-6


> 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
> 
> 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.



Who are the "they" and "those" the Holy Spirit is referring to in Heb. 6?

If these are not in covenant with God (in some sense) then the threats are vain.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 21, 2009)

CDM said:


> No.
> 
> Heb. 6:4-6
> 
> ...



Chris,
The thorns and briers mentioned in the next couple of verses clearly speak of apostates it is a metaphor used often in ezk,and isa. several times.
vs 6 speaks of those if having fallen away.
When written their were Hebrews who before the cross looked forward to the reality of the promises, who were alive during this transition period who were being urged to move forward , to enter in to the fullness of the promise in Christ. Verse 9 gives the contrast, we are persuaded better things of you ,things that accompany salvation.
Today it would be those who are among God's people, who have the chance to hear the gospel spelled out with all it's promises who draw back unto perdition. 1Jn 2:19.


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 21, 2009)

Who keeps the covenant made with the elect? Gen 15. 

Does he ever fail in his keeping covenants?

Is it possible for anyone or anything to separate us from Christ?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 21, 2009)

Herald said:


> > I don't believe that the sacraments can save without the blessing of them and the Word by the Holy Spirit, or that they automatically confer saving grace without faith.
> 
> 
> The sacraments do not save at all, neither automatically or even if met with faith. The sacraments are signs. There is no salvific benefit conferred to the individual.
> ...



Richard,

I believe it is confusing at best (and harmful at worst) to speak of those who have not professed faith and shown fruit of salvation as "Christians." I know that there is one catechism question from Calvin that implies we can do that, but I think it is so far out of our context, that Calvin would be horrified how it has been used lately (by FV advocates to propose a "temporary salvation").

Bill,

It certainly is possible for a *false* professor to be in a worse position than a pagan - he has trampled the blood of the covenant, knowingly rejected grace, and "tasted" (to use Biblical language) all the benefits of the Word, prayer and God's people while not partaking of the reality. That is why the Lord more harshly judges Israel than Babylon, for example.



Herald said:


> Also, where do you get this "new covenant of baptism"? Credos and paedos alike agree that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. We disagree on whether infants are proper recipients of the sign. The New Covenant is not about baptism. The New Covenant is all about peace with God, through Christ.



Unless a baptist is willing to say that baptism is NOT a sign of the New Covenant, he must admit that there is an external (and could be therefore false) aspect to the Covenant and an internal aspect. This has _nothing_ to do with children or paedobaptism. As soon as a baptist (or Presbyterian for that matter) admits that not every professor has the reality of what he professes, we must admit an external and internal aspect.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 21, 2009)

Herald said:


> > I don't believe that the sacraments can save without the blessing of them and the Word by the Holy Spirit, or that they automatically confer saving grace without faith.
> 
> 
> The sacraments do not save at all, neither automatically or even if met with faith. The sacraments are signs. There is no salvific benefit conferred to the individual.
> ...



Can the Holy Spirit not bless the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper - accompanied by the Word - to the saving of people's souls, both those partaking and those observing? Obviously people can be saved by the Word unaccompanied by the sacraments also. The sacraments - once explained - are a visible Word.

I agree there is no middle ground between believers and unbelievers, but some unbelievers have entered covenant with God by baptism and the Lord's Supper. This puts them in a more responsible position than those who do not profess to be Christians i.e. pagans. In the same way the Jews of the Old Testament who didn't believe were in a more responsible position before God than pagans. Unbelievers in the visible church are also lost sheep of the House of Israel, but if they die in their sins they will be in a worse state than pagans who did not have access to the priviledges of being in the bond of God's covenant and yet never having entered into the life of the covenant. 

Water baptism is the sign of formally and legally entering the New covenant as circumcision was in the Old. It is not enough to have the sign without the reality of regeneration/Spirit baptism/washing away of sins. But the sign - accompanied by God's Word - can be blessed by the Holy Spirit to infants growing up in the New Covenant to their salvation. The adult who is wrongly baptised as an unbeliever, if he contemplates the meaning of his baptism in the light of the Word, may also come to faith. The contemplation of our baptism can also strengthen our faith.

The sacraments are visible words from God that need some explanation from the written Word, and can be used by God the Holy Spirit to engender and strengthen faith. But they should only be administered to believers and their children - granting that elders and ministers are fallible in this regard.


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 21, 2009)

> I agree there is no middle ground between believers and unbelievers, but some unbelievers have entered covenant with God by baptism and the Lord's Supper.



What? I'm really trying to understand where you are getting this from Scripture. God is the one who made the covenant, puts people in covenant, and keeps them in covenant. No physical instrument does that.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 21, 2009)

Fred, 
I don't subscribe to the FV or any notion of temporary salvation. My point is that there are many unbelievers who have entered into covenant with God by baptism and the Lord's Supper and yet do not have the inner reality of love to God. They are in the bond of the covenant but do not have the life of the covenant.

In a similar way sometimes people enter the covenant of marriage who have no love for each other. We do not say they are not married until they get a divorce or annulment. Until then we maybe say that it isn't a real marriage or that their marriage is a sham. 

In the same way unbelievers who covenant with God by baptism and the Lord's Supper are not true Christians or are nominal Christians or mere professors, but in some sense they have transacted with God, and being part of the visible church - even though they shouldn't be - are in some sense Christians. I agree that we should use the term Christian carefully in case we give the impression to those that we believe are not born-again Christians, that we believe that they are.


----------



## ewenlin (May 7, 2009)

Am I correct to say that,

it is possible for a person to profess Christ and proceed to be baptized and receive the Lord's supper (thereby counted in as one under the New Covenant), to actually be an unelect and reprobate (thereby counted as NOT one in the New Covenant)?


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Fred,
> My point is that there are many unbelievers who have entered into covenant with God by baptism and the Lord's Supper and yet do not have the inner reality of love to God. They are in the bond of the covenant but do not have the life of the covenant.



Richard, the only way we enter into covenant with God, is through the new birth. We can covenant with God, but that is a different issue. This thread is about the New Covenant, and in keeping with that topic there is no way to enter into the New Covenant apart from the new birth.


----------



## jogri17 (May 7, 2009)

Define New covenant please for me?


----------



## Mayflower (May 7, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> > I agree there is no middle ground between believers and unbelievers, but some unbelievers have entered covenant with God by baptism and the Lord's Supper.
> 
> 
> 
> What? I'm really trying to understand where you are getting this from Scripture.



Not from scripture but maybe from Roman Catholic docrtine ????


----------



## Peairtach (May 7, 2009)

Herald said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Fred,
> ...



Dear Herald,

There are two aspects to the covenant, 

(a) An inner life-giving relationship with God that is established at the new birth and in which saving faith is excercised. e.g. Abraham had this long before he was circumcised.

(b) An outer visible, formal and legal commitment by which we signify and seal our commitment to God. e.g. Circumcision is called "the covenant of circumcision."

The inner reality of cleansing from sin, new birth and baptism in the Spirit corresponds to the outer sign and seal of water baptism. The inner reality of feeding upon Christ by faith corresponds to the outer sign and seal of the Lord's Supper.

A born again person will not be lost if he/she does not partake of the sacraments or enter the bond of the covenant with God by them, but he/she will regret such disobedience.

Think of the covenant of betrothal/engagement and marriage. Those who have fallen in love with Christ have entered into a covenant with Him, in one sense and they are going to Heaven; but until they are baptised and take the Lord's Supper, according to His command, in another important sense they have not covenanted with Him.


----------

