# Elect, Non-Elect, or Covenanted Non-Elect?



## Zenas (Dec 25, 2007)

I wanted to throw this out and see what people thought. This isn't my own idea but I can see the posibility for it within Scripture, so I'm going to throw it out and see what those wiser than I have to say on the subject.

We know that there are at least two categories of people within Scripture, the elect, and the non-elect. However, it might be apparent that there is a third class of people, those who have taken the physical sign of the covenant but are not elect.

We know that not all of the Jews were literally God's people, but there were those who took the sign of the covenant although they weren't elect. Also, we know that not all Christians are saved, even though they profess faith in Christ and have taken on the sign of the new covenant, that of Baptism. Could we then say there is a third category of human beings, those who have placed themselves as covenanted with God, but whom God has not Himself covenanted with? 

What are your thoughts? Please give it your best shot pro or con.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 25, 2007)

Is this really a "class" of people, on par with "elect" and "non-elect"? I don't think so. Certainly we have to acknowledge that there is a "subclass" of the non-elect who seek identification for one reason or another with the covenant of grace. But they still belong to the covenant of works. We say, with respect to the covenant of grace, that they participate in the _administration_ only, and not in the _substance_ of it. Such men do not "float", as it were, between the two covenants, or occupy a strange "twilight zone" or that "gray area" in an overlap of Venn diagrams (i.e. unique in that they are in both covenants at once).

The two basic categories of men are based in the covenants. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Rom. 5:18). Either one has this representative, or that. There is no third covenant or head, nor "self-representation".


----------



## BJClark (Dec 25, 2007)

Zenas;



> We know that not all of the Jews were literally God's people, but there were those who took the sign of the covenant although they weren't elect. Also, we know that not all Christians are saved, even though they profess faith in Christ and have taken on the sign of the new covenant, that of Baptism. Could we then say there is a third category of human beings, those who have placed themselves as covenanted with God, but whom God has not Himself covenanted with?



All Christians are saved..however, not all who claim to be Christians are saved..even if they took the covenant sign..

Nobody can place *themselves* in a covenant with God...God makes the covenant..not us..so they are not in a third category...they are still children of the devil..

Just because one 'says' they have done so, doesn't change the truth..


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 25, 2007)

Hi Andrew,

I think I deal with this in two places:

1). In this booklet.

2) In this article.

There's no need to think of three classes of people but it is helpful and biblical to think of different ways of relating to the one covenant of grace. Some are in the visible covenant community and believe (from which we know that they are elect).

Some are in covenant of grace outwardly but do not believe (and let us suppose that they will never believe). These are hypocrites and reprobate but they do participate in the administration o the covenant of grace. They are not united to Christ (contra the FV) but they, like Esau Ishmael, have received the signs and seals of the covenant of grace. They do "taste of the powers of the age to come" but since those signs/seals are not mixed with faith (because they are not elect; Rom 9) the signs/seals ultimate testify to their destruction (though we cannot necessarily know that at the time).

Then there is a class of folk who have no relation to the covenant of grace at all. They are outside its administration and its substance altogether. These, like those who are involved in the administration but who have not yet believed, are the proper objects of evangelism -- though we are all the proper objects of evangelism in some sense. As White Horse Inn guys always remind us, the gospel is for Christians too.

So, better than speaking of three classes, why not speak of three ways of relating to the one covenant of grace? By recognizing that non-elect folk are actually, really, involved in the _administration_ of the covenant of grace we avoid the Baptist error of excluding all but the elect from the covenant of grace altogether and we avoid the FV error of conflating the _administration_ of the covenant with its substance, i.e. of confusing administration and decree (thus setting up their temporary, conditional union, election, justification, adoption etc.

Merry Christmas,

rsc





Zenas said:


> I wanted to throw this out and see what people thought. This isn't my own idea but I can see the posibility for it within Scripture, so I'm going to throw it out and see what those wiser than I have to say on the subject.
> 
> We know that there are at least two categories of people within Scripture, the elect, and the non-elect. However, it might be apparent that there is a third class of people, those who have taken the physical sign of the covenant but are not elect.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2007)

I believe Calvin's discuss in _Institutes_ 3.21.7 is helpful as well:

"It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end. Rather, the outward change, without the working of inner grace, which might have availed to keep them, is intermediate between the rejection of mankind and the election of a meager number of the godly. The whole people of Israel has been called “the inheritance of God” [Deuteronomy 32:9; 1 Kings 8:51; Psalm 28:9; 33:12; etc.], yet many of them were foreigners. But because God has not pointlessly covenanted that he would become their Father and Redeemer, he sees to his freely given favor rather than to the many who treacherously desert him. Even through them his truth was not set aside, for where he preserved some remnant for himself, it appeared that his calling was “without repentance” [Romans 11:29]. For the fact that God was continually gathering his church from Abraham’s children rather than from profane nations had its reason in his covenant, which, when violated by that multitude, he confined to a few that it might not utterly cease. In short, that adoption of Abraham’s seed in common was a visible image of the greater benefit that God bestowed on some out of the many. This is why Paul so carefully distinguishes the children of Abraham according to the flesh from the spiritual children who have been called after the example of Isaac [Galatians 4:28]. Not that it was a vain and unprofitable thing simply to be a child of Abraham; such could not be said without dishonoring the covenant! No, God’s unchangeable plan, by which he predestined for himself those whom he willed, was in fact intrinsically effectual unto salvation for these spiritual offspring alone."


----------



## GenRev1611 (Dec 25, 2007)

*Covenant People of God and differing Reformed Views*

I'm trying to figure out myself how a Reformed Baptist views the NT covenant people as compared to Presbyterians. It's still a foggy deal with me. Can anyone send me links?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 25, 2007)

They tend to identify the New Covenant/Testament entirely with the elect. They tend not to distinguish between the two (or three) ways of relating to the one covenant of grace. Like the FV (though unintentionally) they tend to conflate the decree of election with its administration. 

This how they distinguish between Abraham and Moses (whom they lump together, even though Paul distinguishes them) on the one hand and the New Testament on the other. They assign the time for administering the covenant of grace to children to Abraham/Moses and the NT is so spiritual that it can be only for the elect. Thus, they restrict baptism to believers so as to keep from administering baptism to any Esaus or Ishmaels whereas Presbyterians see a greater continuity between Abraham and Christ. Just as there was, under Abraham both an administration of the covenant of grace AND a substance (Rom 2:28) so under Christ there remains both administration AND substance.

No one ordinarily participates in the substance without participating in the administration but participation in the administration doesn't guarantee participation in the substance. Only election determines whether one who participates in the administration (via baptism) also participates in the substance of the covenant of grace.

rsc



GenRev1611 said:


> I'm trying to figure out myself how a Reformed Baptist views the NT covenant people as compared to Presbyterians. It's still a foggy deal with me. Can anyone send me links?


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 26, 2007)

GenRev1611 said:


> I'm trying to figure out myself how a Reformed Baptist views the NT covenant people as compared to Presbyterians. It's still a foggy deal with me. Can anyone send me links?



I would not attempt to speak for all reformed baptists,but where there is a difference is primarily in the idea of who is in the covenant.
We do not make a distinction between the "administation" and the "substance" as Bruce had posted in post number 2. 
The teaching would deal more with individual election unto salvation,that is all whom the Lord calls and regenerates- or in Presbyterian terms those who have the substance. Sometimes referred to as the invisible church.
We do not believe you can be in the covenant in any sense and then be out of the covenant later on. If you are in the covenant you are placed there by a work of the Spirit of God.
So you will see a different approach taken on many of the warning passages,in Hebrews for example.
On sermonaudio Hal Brunson has a message entitled covenant children in which he deals some with this topic. [ the covenant children spoken of in Hebrews 2].
The teaching concerning Union with Christ [Rom6:1-6] by Spirit baptism is central to this issue. The description given of those believer's can only be true of someone vitally united to Christ, really,and actually. It is not merely potential,or promised, but actual.
It is at this point that we are told that we are "conflating" the sign and seal, with the thing "signified". Or that we are not understanding various aspects of the Abrahamic covenant. We understand it differently. 
As was stated earlier, we ;



> They tend to identify the New Covenant/Testament entirely with the elect.


 Yes. We see it as you would explain election to an arminian [Jn 6;37-44]
In the NT. in particular [ in all the scripture as a whole]
We all agree on the 5 points. In the OT.there was always the elect remnant. These were the "true believer's" among the whole physical nation who had received the sign of circumcision. It is here where the Pres/brethren say look- all were given the sign,outward and physical. But not all actually had faith. Not all Israel was of Israel.
In the NT. there is no outward physical nation. There is however a spiritual nation 1Pet 2;


> 9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;


 You *only* enter this nation by new birth.

We are grafted into the root promises because of the fall and unbelief of some of the physical descendants of Abraham. But this grafting is always the work of God,giving a new heart. Always.
Are there false brethren, tares among the wheat,hypocrites, spots in our love feasts, yes. They however are not actually in UNion with Christ, or His church in any real sense.



> 13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.


.

We do not think that we have to go back and follow the pattern of what took place before the cross, since we are told in the Nt. in many places where after the cross, if a jewish person wanted to express faithfulness to God and His covenant, he had to move on, or move forward with the Nt church.


> 1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
> 
> 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
> 
> 3And this will we do, if God permit





> 9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
> 
> 10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
> 
> ...


 and again;


> 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.





> 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
> 
> 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
> 
> ...



The Hebrews were warned during this transitional time, not to forsake the real sacrifice,[ in contrast to that which was a copy-Hebrews 9:23] 


> 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
> 
> 29Of 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?


.

The elect always believe to the saving of their soul,


> 36For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
> 
> 37For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
> 
> ...


 The reason you do not see this expressed much in some of the commentaries is that many of the commentaters are looking through the Presbyterian model,and confessions. Most of the books on my shelf do not consider it any other way. If you were raised up as a "covenant child" with the 1644 confession, how would you come up with any other view,and stay consistent with the confessional standard? The commenataters read each other and say ,yes, I agree. What part of your confession do you not agree with?
It seems like many in baptist history[ after the early church] were more arminian and non-covenantal which did not help at all. This I believe is what causes much of the confusion you mentioned.
I am not that strong in my understanding of the History of these things,as I have not been able to read enough of some of the various groups, like donatists,waldensians, etc. I am working on this.
This explains why Reformed Baptists see much of the same truths that the reformers saw. The founder of this web-site used an analogy of Chess,saying that you would not be playing chess unless you had all the pieces. You cannot be said to be reformed,unless you hold all the "truths of the reformer's". We just want to make sure the reformers had "all' the right pieces.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

