# Church:Visible New Covenant Administration?



## Mocha (Nov 30, 2006)

Contra Mundum said:

"My baptist friends, is the church the visible New Covenant administration?"

If I'm not mistaken, James White said "NO" to that question in his baptism debate with William Shishko.

I would be interested in knowing how James White came to this conclusion. Can any of you Baptists shed some light on this? I'm having difficulty with this whole concept.


----------



## VanVos (Nov 30, 2006)

Most baptist hold to the visible - invisible church distinction. We just argue that the visible church is non-covenantal. So the visible church has administrations, but that does mean that it puts everyone under those administrations in the covenant. 

Hope that helps


----------



## Mocha (Nov 30, 2006)

I went through the debate again, between James White and William Shishko, and I was able to find their discussion about whether the external church is the administration of the New Covenant. Here it is:

William Shishko:
Can the New Covenant be broken in terms of it's administration in the church?

James White:
I don't...the question denies the position that I just announced. The question assumes that the external church is the administration of the New Covenant which I would not say is an accurate statement. I do not see any evidence.

William Shishko:
You would not say that the external church is the administration of the New Covenant?

James White:
No, I would say that the New Covenant is with the elect. The external church, very clearly, as I just mentioned, has those that make false professions of faith...

(See Part 1 32:04)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 30, 2006)

Here's the way I've heard it expressed and explained to me by a baptist friend:

With Abraham you actually have two covenants.


> From Dec. 06 Banner of Truth magazine book review, p.27:
> Noting that not all the physical decendants of Abraham are in the Covenant of Grace, and not all in the Covenant of Grace are the physical descendants of Abraham, [Nehemiah] Coxe contends that there must be a definte distinction, to the point of contrast, between the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8) and the eternal covenant of grace, which ensures the salvation of all who are in it, and none other.
> 
> Many Paedobaptist and Baptist scholars have felt it better to speak of 'spheres' of the Covenant (inner and outer) or 'aspects' of the Covenant (temporal and eternal).


The point is that within the baptist mindset, there are two significantly divided portions which are often and practically, if not actually, contrasted to one another, rather than complementing (which is a typical CT-and-paedobaptist view.)

PB:
1 Covenant, regarding spiritual realities, but with a visible administration regarding temporal aspects

CB:
1 Covenant w/ two sides, largely separate
or
1st Covenant, temporal in nature, with temporal promises and a physical sign--circumcision
2nd Covenant, spiritual in nature, with eternal promises and a spiritual sign--heart circumcision

With the PB, regeneration is part of the promises of the Covenant, the reality.
With the CB, regeneration is the covenant "sign" of being in the the spiritual covenant.

For the CB, the NT means the total abandonment of the temporal covenant. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "_visible administration_ of the Covenant of Grace." Sure, the church needs administration, but that's not the Covenant of Grace because it's purely spiritual.

Let me try to lay out a practical example. The church needs elders.
The PB would say that the elders in Israel were God ordained for the administration of the church under the Mosaic economy. And that the elders of the church today are doing the same thing: _administering the visible church, the kingdom, the visible covenant._ They are *the exact same elders*.

The CB says differently: the church's elders are *not the same elders*. They are correlative with the elders of Israel of old. True, they may be similar, but that is more coincidental than religious. Prescriptive, yes, but for the sake of divine orderliness, not because God set up a permanent order of maintenance for his church called the eldership. And the reason is: because the New Covenant doesn't NEED maintenance. It is entirely immediate.


Now, if I've misrepresented even one baptist's view here, PLEASE understand I mean no disrespect, not to mention that this IS in fact the view of not a small number of baptists, even reformed men. Not that I mind corrections, but please offer to clarify and expand the discussion. And JW does seem to have affirmed some version of the above presentation.


----------



## Mocha (Nov 30, 2006)

VanVos said:


> Most baptist hold to the visible - invisible church distinction. We just argue that the visible church is non-covenantal. So the visible church has administrations, but that does mean that it puts everyone under those administrations in the covenant.
> 
> Hope that helps



I wonder, instead of saying that the visible church is "non-covenantal", maybe it would be better to say that the visible church may include those who are not in the New Covenant. Whereas the invisible church only includes those who are in the New Covenant. In this way, there remains a distinction between the visible (external) church and the New Covenant people. 

I'm still thinking this one through!


----------



## Mocha (Nov 30, 2006)

Mocha said:


> I went through the debate again, between James White and William Shishko, and I was able to find their discussion about whether the external church is the administration of the New Covenant. Here it is:
> 
> William Shishko:
> Can the New Covenant be broken in terms of it's administration in the church?
> ...





Contra_Mundum said:


> Here's the way I've heard it expressed and explained to me by a baptist friend:
> 
> With Abraham you actually have two covenants.The point is that within the baptist mindset, there are two significantly divided portions which are often and practically, if not actually, contrasted to one another, rather than complementing (which is a typical CT-and-paedobaptist view.)
> 
> ...



Good Post!

I'm trying to think through your following statement:

"For the CB, the NT means the abandonment of the temporal covenant. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'visible administration of the Covenant of Grace.' Sure, the church needs administration, but that's not the Covenant of Grace because it's purely spiritual."

So, you're saying that the CB believes that the church administration does not equal Covenant administration. Right? Is there any Scriptural evidence (that you know of) to prove or disprove this?


----------



## VanVos (Nov 30, 2006)

That’s a fair description of many baptist on this issue. The only thing I would add is that the Covenant is Grace can be administrated to non-elect in the New Testament church i.e. baptism, partaking of the Lord supper, but that does not necessarily put one in the C of G in its final adminstration, (as it exists in its full maturity in the church age. i.e. co-equal number of elect and regenerate.) 
Also I’m not too sure about the term “the covenant with two sides”. The C of G in the Old Testament promised the New Covenant, and therefore came with certain temporalities in order to preserve the covenant line of the Messiah.

VanVos


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 30, 2006)

Thank you, Pastor Jonathan, for that addition.
And furthermore, over against the CB, we PB deny that the unregenerate had even a dram of the substance under the Old. Becuase we deny two separate covenants (or contrasting parts), spiritual/temporal, we deny that the unregenerate were fully enmeshed in any aspect of the Old. They attempted to claim the outward by works or by theft or by assumption or by ignorance, but all they received was judgment for partaking apart from faith.


----------

