# In Adam or In Christ/Trying to Understand the Implications



## HisRobes4Mine (Sep 2, 2017)

I am studying CT and have come across a passage and idea that now confuses me. John 15:1-2 state... "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." 

I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?

This question arose out of me listening to a Reformed Baptist who was making this connection. If this is true, how does a Presbyterian or other paedo baptist understand the connection of infants being in the NC but not yet being saved?

Thanks for your help in advance. 
Samuel


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 2, 2017)

You may want to peruse this recent thread where the issue comes up often:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-new-covenant-new-or-renewed.93471/


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I am studying CT and have come across a passage and idea that now confuses me. John 15:1-2 state... "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."
> 
> I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?
> 
> ...


My understanding of that passage would be that it refers to the Father picking up and pruning the branch, so it would be Him making sure that we are bearing more fruit.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

Samuel,
I second Patrick's shared link. In addition, unlike the confessional Baptist (as you noted), we WCF adherents believe the covenant of Grace (post Genesis 3) that runs through both the Old and New Testaments, included children. The N.C. (according to the paedo-baptist), is a further unfolding of the CoG and not something completely new at the unveiling of our Lord.
Two questions that may help get at the difference between the two views are:
1- who is a disciple
2- is the New Covenant entirely new?

These get at the covenatal differences between the Baptist confessionalist and the WCF confessionalist. There are myriads of threads dealing with these differences. What is different here than in other environments is that, even after a very heated disagreement, the respect for the other individual as a brother/sister in Christ is maintained, you rarely see any abusive attacks, and the issue is the issue, most generally. We have good folks here and excellent moderators coupled with the knowledge and wisdom of excellent church officers...

*Edit* The original was typed on my phone and I din't proof it. I apologize for any misrepresentation or misunderstanding that flowed from it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Sep 2, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Samuel,
> I second Patrick's shared link. In addition, unlike the confessional Baptist (as you noted), we WCF adherents believe the covenant of Grace (post Genesis 3) included children. That covenant runs through the OT and NT and is only further unfolded and not something completely new at the unveiling of our Lord in the NT.
> There seem to be two questions that really get at the difference between the two views:
> 1- who is a disciple
> ...



Is my question about being in Adam vs being in Christ an improper question then?


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Is my question about being in Adam vs being in Christ an improper question then?



I don't think it is improper, but understanding covenantalism from a WCF perspective would be a great help to you. WCF folks can imagine non-converted folk in covenant. The Baptist cannot.
You are on the right track. The issues between the Reformed and the Baptist is NOT baptism, Per se, but how each one interprets the covenant (s)......

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 2, 2017)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?


While this isn't quite what you are asking, it is a related thought: It should be noted that, unless one maintains all infants who die in infancy are cursed (or are saved by the bare decree of God or are innocent in some manner), that some infants are in Christ. Or to put it another way (since infancy is a stage of growth), some people are placed in Christ from the womb. Psalm 22:9


----------



## BG (Sep 3, 2017)

"I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC."

How you deal with this presupposition will determine wheather or not you become Reformed or remain Baptist


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 3, 2017)

> *Q. *65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible Church enjoy by Christ?
> *A. *The members of the invisible Church, by Christ, enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.
> 
> John 17:21; Eph. 2:5-6; John 17:24.
> ...



Being in union with Christ is only something the invisible church enjoys. The typical distinction the Reformed make is between the visible and invisible church. The visible church "is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." (WLC 62)


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 3, 2017)

I beieve the 1689 Baptist Confession ch 7 has a distinct advantage here. It goes back further in redemptive history than the WCF to Gen 3:15. Gen 3:15 makes a cotrast between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. In a nutshell, Gen 3:15 says one is either in Adam or in Christ. I realise my beloved paedobaptist brethren have a different slant than this, but I believe the 1689 Confession, using Gen 3:15, then using the term "by farther steps" (1689 Confession 7:3) is consistent theologically and anticipates the historic-redemptive theology of Vos and Beale.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Sep 3, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I beieve the 1689 Baptist Confession ch 7 has a distinct advantage here. It goes back further in redemptive history than the WCF to Gen 3:15. Gen 3:15 makes a cotrast between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. In a nutshell, Gen 3:15 says one is either in Adam or in Christ. I realise my beloved paedobaptist brethren have a different slant than this, but I believe the 1689 Confession, using Gen 3:15, then using the term "by farther steps" (1689 Confession 7:3) is consistent theologically and anticipates the historic-redemptive theology of Vos and Beale.



I don't know any Presbyterians that deny the contrast that you speak of. It's basic to Paul's thought and the same contrast is found in the Catechisms. I also don't think that the Baptist truly does carry that contrast consistently all the way back to Gen 3:15 as you say they do given the distinctions that they make between the new covenant and the old covenant.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 3, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> I also don't think that the Baptist truly does carry that contrast consistently all the way back to Gen 3:15


We are consistent because we say that Gen 3:15 is just the New Covenant in all its fullness.


----------



## brendanchatt (Sep 3, 2017)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved?



No. Union with Christ, being "in Christ," means you are saved. Maybe you are referring to being in the church, "in Christ's church," or in the visible body of Christ, because you are asking about Covenant theology.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Sep 3, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> We are consistent because we say that Gen 3:15 is just the New Covenant in all its fullness.



I know what you say. But when you say "goes further back in redemptive history" what you really mean is "makes a parenthesis of 1500 years and most of the canonical record of redemptive history and God's dealings with his covenant people."


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 3, 2017)

In John 15:1-2 Jesus speaks of those who are in him yet aren't really united to him, since they bear no fruit and end up withering away and being burned. So that passage is unique I think; all the other instances where the Bible speaks of being in Christ it does mean united to him. But I think those in the John 15 text are the same ones spoken of in Hebrews 6, which says "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If 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."

They were in Christ in the sense Jesus meant in John 15; joined to his visible church, and receiving the good covenant things and benefits of the Spirit there- but in the end, shown to be not united to Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 4, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> I know what you say. But when you say "goes further back in redemptive history" what you really mean is "makes a parenthesis of 1500 years and most of the canonical record of redemptive history and God's dealings with his covenant people."


Gen 3:15 comes before Gen 17.


----------



## BG (Sep 4, 2017)

John 15:1-2 is a troubling passage that forced me into the Reformed camp. Jesus is the vine or tree there are branches that are really united to him and they are broken off. You must either believe that people can loose there salvation or the COG/NC is different than what baptists say that it is.

Rom ch 11 is talking about the same thing


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 4, 2017)

I think verses 3, 7, and 10 are helpful. Here is the some of the passage (ESV)—

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. _Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you._ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. _If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you._ By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. _If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love._ These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

While it may be tempting to immediately jump to other (apparently) similar passages, I would hang out here for a minute and exposit the passage with care. Some things to note—

1. Our Lord is speaking to all of the faithful disciples (Judas has already left). This is also after the Lord's Supper has been instituted (ordinance of the New Covenant).

2. The context of the previous chapter is our Lord leaving the Earth to be exalted with the Father, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. In other words, he is now giving instructions on how they are to remain in him when he is no longer physically present. While of course our Lord is with them everywhere as God, and promises as much in Matt. 28:19-20, the way to be in the Lord expressed here is to follow his commands. To import some terminology from systematic theology, this is a 'visible' way of being in the Lord, not an 'invisible.'

3. The other upshot of this interpretation is it allows us to maintain a reformed ordo salutis in the Old Testament. Because the coming of the Holy Spirit referred to in this interpretative scheme is not some new salvific benefit reserved for the last days, but rather a change of 'executives' if you will, a change of visible headship. Prior to Christ's coming, the people of God was ruled by Moses, the kings, the prophets, the high priest, etc. When Christ comes, he becomes the head of God's visible people on earth. He is to be physically followed. With his exaltation, he now extends his visible rule on Earth through the Spirit, especially through the Spirit working in the Apostles to complete the canon. Take a look at the Holy Spirit passages in this segment of the gospel, and see if they have more to do with salvation, or with leadership (executive) of the visible people of God on earth (cf. John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). This passage has little to do with how the Holy Spirit operates in salvation. He has always operated the same way in that regards (John 3:10).

4. Another way in which this passage seems to be dealing with the visible 'heads' or 'presidents' of God's people is John 13:34-35— "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." This commandment is the one our Lord is expanding upon in the vine passage. I want to draw attention to the word 'new.' Obviously, this commandment in substance can be found in the Old Testament. But it is new in regards to its role and its giver. This commandment is being given _by Christ_ as a mark of _his_ church, in John 13:34-35; 15:10-12. It for substance has always been a command of God, and has indeed been part of how he set apart his people in the Old Covenant (Lev. 19:18), but it is now being used afresh for a similar function in the New Covenant.

5. This administrative change from Christ present in body to Christ leading the Church by his Holy Spirit is not actually completed until after his resurrection in John's gospel. See John 20:22-23— "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'" With these final administrative details handled, he then ascends.

6. Lastly, in regard to commands, notice John 15:3. See how the word creates the cleanness. Compare that to John 15:7. It appears that the cleanness, the sanctification here spoken of is a visible one related to the keeping of the commands of God.

Now, with all of that noted, the abiding in Christ discussed in the vine passage may be explained. I believe the quality of abiding marks those out who are united to Christ, and thus truly in the covenant of grace. However, abiding is not synonymous with being united to Christ. Rather it is a symptom of being united to Christ. Think of it this way, perseverance in faith is a symptom of being united to Christ, or a symptom of election, however, it is not election or unity with Christ per se. When I look at John 15:7; 15:10, it appears that abiding in Christ means obeying his words, or his commands. However, confusion results, because we usually think of 'bearing fruit' as bringing forth good works. I would like to contend that 'bearing fruit' in this passage, actually means something like 'make disciples, advance the kingdom' (cf. John 15:8), or perhaps more obviously in the context of a vine bearing fruit, 'reproduce and increase the kingdom of God.' Compare my definition to John 15:5. While it is true that we cannot keep the law of God but by the operation of the Spirit, and even then the flesh corrupts, if bearing fruit means good works, and abiding means keeping the commands of God, then this passage becomes quite circular. It would read something like, "He who does good works, will bring forth good works, because without me, you can't bring forth good works." However, if 'bear fruit' is to grow the kingdom, then Jesus is saying that those who would advance his kingdom without following his commands will fail. Here is proof text number 2, John 15:16. Jesus is sending forth the soon-to-be apostles to proclaim the Gospel. He is not sending them forth to do good works, though they certainly are to do that. Also, I might ask what it means for our fruit to 'abide', if fruit is 'good deeds.' Final proof text, at the very end Jesus explicitly prays for those who will believe through his disciples, John 17:20. While he does not use the word fruit, it makes it clear that in context he is commissioning his disciples to go and proclaim his message and make disciples.

So in context, John 15 seems to be teaching that abiding in Christ means obeying his commands. Jesus is teaching the necessity of this obedience for the furtherance of his kingdom. God's kingdom will not be advanced by sin. But if we ask according to his will, he will grant it. Thus we find in John 15 an extremely strong statement against antinomianism, and furthermore, perhaps an articulation of the regulative principle. It does not have election, or soteriology in view, but rather ecclesiology. Without faithfulness and obedience to the Gospel, and the commands of Christ, the church will wither. In this way, men can be branches of the visible kingdom of Christ on earth, and yet be broken away from that visible kingdom without ever being members of the covenant of grace. It is too much to say that all visible members of Christ are partakers of the covenant of grace. See WLC Q. 31. — "With whom was the covenant of grace made? A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." Contending everyone in the visible church is a member of the covenant of grace causes theological confusion. No one partakes of the covenant of grace but the elect. However, in his visible kingdom on Earth, which is marked out by profession and obedience to him, there are many hypocrites and professors. See WLC Q. 62. — "What is the visible church? A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." And even the elect may attempt to further the kingdom of Christ and make disciples in a way that is disobedient to Christ's ordinance. Such things will not prosper, and Christ may very well close down their church and take away their candlestick. Please see Rev. 2; 3:1ff. I hope I have provided a reasonable interpretation of the vine passage.

Now, some disclaimers. This is my very first post on Puritanboard. Hello all! I have only a BA in English from a state university. I do not know Greek or Hebrew, have no formal training, and so the interpretation given above could be wildly inaccurate. I would appreciate if some of our ordained friends would come along and check my interpretation. I have tried to avoid importing theological truths taught in other passages directly into this one, and to exposit it in context. However, I very well could have missed the mark. Lastly, some quotations, none of which take quite the same line as I do, but I have highlighted possible overlap and disagreement.

Calvin, Commentary on John 15—

"If my words abide in you. He means that we take root in him by faith; for as soon as we have departed from the doctrine of the Gospel, we seek Christ separately from himself. When he promises that he will grant whatever we wish, he does not give us leave to form wishes according to our own fancy. God would do what was ill fitted to promote our welfare, if he were so indulgent and so ready to yield to us; for we know well that men often indulge in foolish and extravagant desires. But here he limits the wishes of his people to the rule of praying in a right manner, and that rule subjects, to the good pleasure of God, all our affections. This is confirmed by the connection in which the words stand; for he means that his people will or desire not riches, or honors, or any thing of that nature, which the flesh foolishly desires, but the vital sap of the Holy Spirit, Which enables them to bear fruit."

"And that your fruit may abide. A question now arises, why does Christ say that this fruit will be perpetual? As the doctrine of the Gospel obtains souls to Christ for eternal salvation, many think that this is the perpetuity of the fruit. But I extend the statement much farther, as meaning that the Church will last to the very end of the world; for the labor of the apostles yields fruit even in the present day, and our preaching is not for a single age only, but will enlarge the Church, so that new fruit will be seen to spring up after our death."

Matthew Henry, Commentary on John 15—

"We must honour God, and do good, and exemplify the purity and power of the religion we profess; and this is bearing fruit. The disciples here must be fruitful, as Christians, in all the fruits of righteousness, and as apostles, in diffusing the savour of the knowledge of Christ."

John Gill, Commentary on John 15—

"The same bringeth forth much fruit. In the exercise of grace, and performance of good works; and continues to do so as long as he lives, not by virtue of his own free will, power, and strength, but by grace continually received from Christ."

"For without me ye can do nothing. Nothing that is spiritually good; no, not anything at all, be it little or great, easy or difficult to be performed; cannot think a good thought, speak a good word, or do a good action; can neither begin one, nor, when it is begun, perfect it. Nothing is to be done "without Christ"; without his Spirit, grace, strength, and presence; or as "separate from" him. Were it possible for the branches that are truly in him, to be removed from him, they could bring forth no fruits of good works, any more than a branch separated from the vine can bring forth grapes; so that all the fruitfulness of a believer is to be ascribed to Christ, and his grace, and not to the free will and power of man."

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you. Abiding in Christ is here explained by his words or doctrines abiding in his disciples; by which are meant his Gospel, and the truths of it. This abides when it comes in power, and becomes the engrafted word; and may be said to do so, when such, in whose hearts it has a place, and has taken deep root, continue to have a relish and savour of it, a true and hearty affection for it, esteeming it above their necessary food; when they hold fast the profession of it, stand fast in it, steadfastly abide by it, and constantly attend on it; all which is a considerable evidence that they do, yea, there is a promise that they "shall continue in the Son and in the Father", (1 John 2:24)."

"If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love. Not that their continuance in the heart's love and affection of Christ depended upon their observation of his commands; for as the keeping of them is not the cause or reason of the saints having an interest in the love of Christ, so it is not the cause or reason of their abiding in it; but to such that observe the commandments of Christ he will continue to make further discoveries of his love, and let them see more clearly and largely what a value he has for them, and how much he loves them: or the sense is, that by keeping the commandments of Christ, his disciples and followers show that they love him, and continue in their affection to him."

D.A. Carson, _The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus_ (1988)—

"We also learn from this verse [John 15:16] something of the nature of the 'fruit' in this chapter. Some want it to be measured in terms of lives brought to Christ in evangelism; others prefer to think of the 'fruit of the Spirit' in Galatians 5. But if I understand the passage correctly, both interpretations are too narrow. The fruit is everything done in conformity to the will of Jesus Christ, not least praying and loving. Jesus does not become more specific than that; he does not need to. Loving one another because of Jesus is Christian fruit; praying in Jesus' name, 'according to his will,' as 1 John 5 puts it, is Christian fruit. Everything in our lives that brings glory to the Father (John 15:8) is Christian fruit. And the intimacy we enjoy with Jesus Christ, like the union of the branch with the vine, issues in such fruitfulness."

*I changed all quotations of scripture from KJV to ESV in a later edit.


----------



## BG (Sep 4, 2017)

Who are the branches that are in Him but the Father takes away (cuts off to use the OT term)?


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Sep 4, 2017)

Are we able to look at Romans 11 to shed light on John 15?


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 4, 2017)

BG said:


> Who are the branches that are in Him but the Father takes away (cuts off to use the OT term)?



I believe these are those who have been made clean by the word, John 15:3. In other words, by the proclamation of his Gospel and law they are sanctified and set apart for Christ in a visible way. However, those who do not continue in his word, in whom his word does not abide, will be cut off.



HisRobes4Mine said:


> Are we able to look at Romans 11 to shed light on John 15?



I would resist the temptation. Not that they aren't similar at all. But Romans 11 is a highly contentious passage to exegete in the first place, and dealing with a ton of _different_ theological issues. John 15 is smack in the center of Jesus' farewell discourse to his disciples which is one of the theologically densest points in the Bible. Both deserve careful exegesis in their immediate contexts before attempting to get them to interact. The immediate context of both passages is already thick enough to figure out without criss-crossing them prematurely. Not to mention the root of the olive tree in Romans 11 is the patriarchs, not Christ. As I tried to state in my first post, I think there is a real danger of turning to the _analogy of Scripture_ prematurely and missing what is being said in John 15. I would resist the urge to turn to Romans 11 (which comes significantly later in redemptive history than Jesus' speech), until I had already done a thorough look through John 15 (really John 13-17). Jesus' words are not so unclear that they cannot be understood at all without looking at Romans 11. On the face of it, Romans 11 appears to be about a different phenomenon (calling of the Gentiles, rejection of the Jews from the Abrahamic promise) then John 15 (relationship of Christ and his commands to the Great Commission and the coming era of the Spirit).


----------



## BG (Sep 4, 2017)

Panegyric said:


> I believe these are those who have been made clean by the word, John 15:3. In other words, by the proclamation of his Gospel and law they are sanctified and set apart for Christ in a visible way. However, those who do not continue in his word, in whom his word does not abide, will be cut off.
> 
> I would resist the temptation. Not that they aren't similar at all. But Romans 11 is a highly contentious passage to exegete in the first place, and dealing with a ton of _different_ theological issues. John 15 is smack in the center of Jesus' farewell discourse to his disciples which is one of the theologically densest points in the Bible. Both deserve careful exegesis in their immediate contexts before attempting to get them to interact. The immediate context of both passages is already thick enough to figure out without criss-crossing them prematurely. Not to mention the root of the olive tree in Romans 11 is the patriarchs, not Christ. As I tried to state in my first post, I think there is a real danger of turning to the _analogy of Scripture_ prematurely and missing what is being said in John 15. I would resist the urge to turn to Romans 11 (which comes significantly later in redemptive history than Jesus' speech), until I had already done a thorough look through John 15 (really John 13-17). Jesus' words are not so unclear that they cannot be understood at all without looking at Romans 11. On the face of it, Romans 11 appears to be about a different phenomena (calling of the Gentiles, rejection of the Jews from the Abrahamic promise) then John 15 (relationship of Christ and his commands to the Great Commission and the coming era of the Spirit).



Are you saying that people are grafted in to the patriarchs?


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 4, 2017)

BG said:


> Are you saying that people are grafted in to the patriarchs?



Hey Bill, this is part of why I didn't want people to bring Romans 11 into a discussion of John 15. Confusion results. The Olive Tree in Romans 11 and the Vine in John 15 are _different_. They are not the same. Jesus is the true vine in John 15 (cf. John 15:1). Those who have been made clean by his word are the branches (cf. John 15:3). There is no mention of Abraham, or any other Old Testament figure in this passage. There is no language of grafting in John 15. There is language of choosing (John 15:16), in that Christ has chosen the disciples to bear fruit, i.e. make disciples. Look closely at John 15:14-15. One is a branch of the vine if Christ has revealed his will to them. Some however do not receive the word in their heart by faith, and so they don't abide in it, and they fall away.

In Romans 11, the root (Romans 11:18) is the patriarchs, or to be more specific, God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Olive tree in Romans 11 is called Jacob, see Romans 11:26-27— "And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'; 'and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.'" The tree that Gentiles are grafted into is not Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant, which includes a variety of promises— such as Christ turning away ungodliness from Jacob, and that Abraham and his seed would be heir of the world. Romans is in many ways a giant epistle about how the Gentiles are included in the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (see Romans 4:1-14).

So while I would say that Gentiles are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant according to Romans 11, we have gone off-topic. The thread is about John 15, which is not the same thing as Romans 11.

*I changed all quotations of scripture from KJV to ESV in a later edit.


----------



## BG (Sep 4, 2017)

I don't want to get off topic or sound uncharitable but you might want to check the ESV translation in Romans 11 it might be helpful, much of what you're saying sounds very dispensational to me I'm sure you're not dispensational I'm just saying it sounds that way.


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 4, 2017)

BG said:


> I don't want to get off topic or sound uncharitable but you might want to check the ESV translation in Romans 11 it might be helpful, much of what you're saying sounds very dispensational to me I'm sure you're not dispensational I'm just saying it sounds that way.



Dear Bill, with all due respect, and as a novice and student of reformation theology with much to learn, what is dispensational about asserting that Gentiles are partakers of the Abrahamic covenant? Please read Romans 4. Abraham is the father of us all, Romans 4:16. All believers have been blessed by the promises made to him, and while some were specific to him alone, such as the promise that the messiah would descend from him, we all will partake of many of the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant, such as being heirs of the world. I did check multiple translations. It makes no difference. The root of the Olive tree is not Christ. It is the covenant with the patriarchs. Here is Calvin on Romans 11:18, "But if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, etc. The Gentiles could not contend with the Jews respecting the excellency of their race without contending with Abraham himself; which would have been extremely unbecoming, _since he was like a root by which they were borne and nourished_.… And we know that after Christ by his coming has pulled down the partition-wall, the whole world _partook of the favor which God had previously conferred on the chosen people_. It hence follows, that the calling of the Gentiles was like an ingrafting, and that they did not otherwise grow up as God’s people than _as they were grafted in the stock of Abraham_." If what I am saying regarding being grafted into Abraham is dispensational, then I suppose Calvin was dispensational as well. If I may ask, please be careful how you use the label dispensational, and please attach evidence when you do. I appreciate your qualified and frank tone though. We have traveled quite a ways off-topic by now.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

BG said:


> "I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC."
> 
> How you deal with this presupposition will determine wheather or not you become Reformed or remain Baptist


How so?


----------



## Timotheos (Sep 5, 2017)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I am studying CT and have come across a passage and idea that now confuses me. John 15:1-2 state... "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."
> 
> I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?
> 
> ...


2 points concerning the text itself.

(1) It seems like you are making the metaphor walk on all 4s. Thus you are forcing the language of "branch *in me*" to equate to union language as we normally see (esp. in Paul). I think it is just a metaphor for fruit bearing. No fruit? Not a disciple. Cut off!

(2) Union language in Johannine literature is not so much "in me" or "in Christ" by itself as in Pauline style but usually "remain/abide in me" (μενω + "in me" or some such) or similar language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 6, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> 2 points concerning the text itself.
> 
> (1) It seems like you are making the metaphor walk on all 4s. Thus you are forcing the language of "branch *in me*" to equate to union language as we normally see (esp. in Paul). I think it is just a metaphor for fruit bearing. No fruit? Not a disciple. Cut off!
> 
> (2) Union language in Johannine literature is not so much "in me" or "in Christ" by itself as in Pauline style but usually "remain/abide in me" (μενω + "in me" or some such) or similar language.


Paul seems to be placing his emphasis on us being justified before God due to God now seeing Jesus as providing atonement for all of our sins, while John seems to be emphasizing that now we ought to keep on staying in communion with Jesus, to keep on living in Him and For him.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 6, 2017)

I'd say, David, that John's emphasis is on not falling away- i.e. remaining, continuing in him. The Greek word translated "abide" in John 15 is also used in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued (meno) with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 

In John 15, Christ is telling his disciples to continue in him, to not fall away, and so bear fruit as true disciples, in contrast to the ones in 1 John who didn't continue and fell away, abandoning the apostles' teaching. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'd say, David, that John's emphasis is on not falling away- i.e. remaining, continuing in him. The Greek word translated "abide" in John 15 is also used in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued (meno) with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
> 
> In John 15, Christ is telling his disciples to continue in him, to not fall away, and so bear fruit as true disciples, in contrast to the ones in 1 John who didn't continue and fell away, abandoning the apostles' teaching.
> 
> ...


Which would seem to be his way of safeguarding the biblical truth that all who really in Christ will stay abiding in Him, as they are indeed rooted into eternal life, and will not be the ones that went out from among them and shown their false roots.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 7, 2017)

I think it is Christ's way, as seen throughout his word, of warning those who have entered into covenant relationship with him that they can fall away and warning them not to fall away. In John 15, he is exhorting and warning all those listening to him, including his closest disciples, to continue in the faith. 

Those biblical warnings and exhortations in both the OT and the NT are the means God uses to keep his elect, and cause them to persevere in the faith until the end. Christ really does say in John 15 that there are those in him who will be examined for fruit and found fruitless, and so will be cut off. This makes a good argument for the Presbyterian view of the new covenant, as has been discussed.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think it is Christ's way, as seen throughout his word, of warning those who have entered into covenant relationship with him that they can fall away and warning them not to fall away. In John 15, he is exhorting and warning all those listening to him, including his closest disciples, to continue in the faith.
> 
> Those biblical warnings and exhortations in both the OT and the NT are the means God uses to keep his elect, and cause them to persevere in the faith until the end. Christ really does say in John 15 that there are those in him who will be examined for fruit and found fruitless, and so will be cut off. This makes a good argument for the Presbyterian view of the new covenant, as has been discussed.


Also would fir the Baptist view also though.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Is my question about being in Adam vs being in Christ an improper question then?



It is certainly not improper, but it doesn't get to the heart of your confusion regarding this specific passage. God moved different writers to use similar, or exact, terms to reveal different theological aspects. The Adam-Christ headship issue is essential to grasping justification; it is a Pauline conception. John's style bears scant resemblance to Paul's. I think your confusion might be the result of using a Pauline conception to interpret this Johannine text. The two writers will never disagree because that would signify confusion in Holy Writ, which would signify imperfect revelation, which attacks the doctrine of inspiration. And divine inspiration is a necessary presupposition if we desire to come to a sufficient answer. 

John is likely referencing those who are in physically "in" the Visible Church, but are never "in" the Invisible Church. He isn't dealing with Federal Headship in any comparative way to Adam. It's nowhere in this specific text. If you do not ask the correct questions surrounding a text it's exceedingly difficult to gain a correct understanding of that text. So, if you were to ask, "Where is John dealing with a comparison between Adam and Christ in this text from John 15?" the answer is "Nowhere". Therefore, you can leave that element out of equation.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Also would fir the Baptist view also though.


Only if a Baptist can agree that someone can be in Christ, i.e. a covenant member, and not be elect.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

Now, once we ask the right exegetical questions of the text, and produce correct answers to those questions, we can move onto theological questions. We can easily relate the Pauline conception of Adam/Christ-Federal Headship to the Johannine conception of "vine and branches". But again--it begins with the question. So we might ask, "How does the meaning of this text from John 15 correlate to Paul's conception of Federal Headship in Romans 5?" We've already determined that John is dealing with Visible/Invisible Church conceptions. We've also determined that Paul is clearly asserting that every human being has one Federal Head and it's either Adam or Christ. So...

*All in the Visible Church but not in the Invisible Church* are _among_ _those whose Federal Head is Adam per Rom.5._

*All in the Visible Church but not in the Invisible Church *are those who will be taken away by The Father in Jn. 15. 

Therefore, those who will be taken away by The Father in Jn.15 are _among those whose Federal Head is Adam per Rom 5._

It's been a while since I last syllogized formally, but I think I got it right! Figure 3 AAI?

NB-- Some who have Adam as Federal Head are NOT branches via John 15---eg, lifelong Muslim.

Brother, persevere in study. These things take time to understand.


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 7, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Only if a Baptist can agree that someone can be in Christ, i.e. a covenant member, and not be elect.



Dear Jeri, without advocating for or against any particular view on baptism, I would like to point out that nowhere in John 15 is the word covenant used. Therefore, while we hopefully can all agree that some are falling away from Christ _in some sense_ in John 15, you will have to do some exegetical work to prove that the falling away referred to in John 15 is a breaking of a covenant. This has not been proven thus far in the thread. It has been asserted. We must be careful not to equivocate between 'abiding in Christ,' and 'being in the covenant of grace' unduly. As several different commentators have pointed out in this thread, abiding in Christ appears to have a meaning like, "maintain appearance of being Christ's friends & disciples through practicing his ordinances and obeying his commands." Of course, those who do not perform such good works through faith are bound to fall away. But all of this is merely to say that there are false professors who ultimately make a mockery of their profession. Baptists can agree to that, just as Presbyterians can. It says nothing about covenant membership, beyond the fact that some play with the ordinances who have no right to.

And if I may say so, as quoted earlier in the thread, unbelievers are not members of the covenant of grace according to the larger catechism Q. 31. It is not essential to Presbyterianism to view the non-elect as _members_ of the covenant of grace. It is enough to see them _in_ the historical administration, that is, caught up in the covenant's happenings and workings in time. Which is a proposition plenty of Baptists can assent to as well.

The real question is about the relationship of the Old & New Covenants to the Covenant of Grace. Are one or both administrations of the Covenant of Grace? If so, are they _the _covenant of grace, or subservient covenants, kind of like a book of church order meant to organize the people of the covenant of grace? Our confession at once asserts several things.

*That the covenant of grace is administered in sacraments.
*
*WCF Ch. 27*​
1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, _to represent Christ, and his benefits_; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

2. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, _between the sign and the thing signified_: whence it comes to pass, _that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other_.

3. The grace which is _exhibited in or by_ the sacraments rightly used, is _not_ conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, _a promise of benefit to worthy receivers_.

*Larger Catechism*

Q. 34. _How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?_
A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient _to build up the elect in faith in the promised messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation_.

Q. 35. _How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?_
A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be _administered_ in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.

*Shorter Catechism*

Q. 92. _What is a sacrament?_
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied _to believers_.​
I do not believe it can be proven from any of these quotations that the Covenant of Grace is actually made with a person merely by their partaking in a sacrament. Instead, it can be demonstrated that via the sacraments (as an instrument) benefits of the covenant of grace are made over to believers through faith. Though Christ calls the communion cup the New Covenant, according to WCF 27.2, the communion cup is not actually the New Covenant, but rather is merely an instrument through which the benefits of Christ's mediation are passed on to the elect through faith. The only way into the covenant of grace is faith—

Q. 32. _How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?_
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and _requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him_, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation. (WLC)​
There are no unbelievers in the covenant of grace. If you are in the covenant, you have Christ as your mediator and priest. Christ is a perfect priest. He will not lose his sheep. Everything I am saying is Presbyterian to the core. The Mosaic Covenant was a means of administering the covenant of grace to the elect through faith. Those in the _Mosaic_ covenant who were not of faith were not a part of the covenant of grace, even though they were in the Mosaic covenant. Think of the Mosaic Covenant as a giant church covenant and book of discipline. All visible professors signed the church covenant and book of discipline. They are all in the church covenant and book of discipline. However, not all visible professors are members of the covenant of grace. That was the Mosaic covenant's relation to the covenant of grace. It served to organize and structure the worship of the visible people of God, those who outwardly appeared to be in the covenant of grace. Our Lord likewise has instituted an order of worship in the visible people of God. However, participating in that outward order in no way makes someone a member of the covenant of grace. The difference on subjects of baptism is not because the Covenant of Grace is breakable. Sorry, that probably went semi-off-topic, but I've been brooding over these things for a while. Here's some John Owen to the (partial) effect of what I am saying—

18. THUS under the Old Testament, when God would take the posterity of Abraham into a new peculiar Church State, he did it by a Solemn Covenant. Herein, as he prescribed all the Duties of his Worship to them, and made them many blessed promises of his presence, with powers and privileges innumerable; so the people solemnly Covenanted and engaged with him, that they would do and observe all that he had Commanded them; whereby they coalesced into that Church State, which abode unto the time of Reformation. This Covenant is at large declared Exod. 24. For the Covenant which God made there with the people, and they with him, was not the Covenant of Grace under a legal dispensation; for that was established unto the Seed of Abraham Four Hundred years before in the Promise, with the Seal of Circumcision; nor was it the Covenant of Works under a Gospel dispensation; for God never renewed that Covenant under any consideration whatever: But it was a peculiar Covenant which God then made with them, and had not made it with their Fathers, Deut. 5:2-3 whereby they were raised and erected into a Church State, wherein they were entrusted with all the Privileges, and enjoined all the Duties which God had annexed thereunto. This Covenant was the sole Formal Cause of their Church State, which they are charged so often to have broken, and which they so often solemnly renewed unto God.​


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 7, 2017)

Panegyric said:


> We must be careful not to equivocate between 'abiding in Christ,' and 'being in the covenant of grace' unduly...And if I may say so, as quoted earlier in the thread, unbelievers are not members of the covenant of grace



Right, unbelievers are not in the covenant of grace (I didn't say they were, just to clarify). Those Christ defined as being in him but who don't bear fruit have been initiated into New Covenant membership, and have benefited from the good things of the covenant; but are not truly united to Christ in the covenant of grace.
​
​


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 7, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Right, unbelievers are not in the covenant of grace (I didn't say they were, just to clarify). Those Christ defined as being in him but who don't bear fruit have been initiated into New Covenant membership, and have benefited from the good things of the covenant; but are not truly united to Christ in the covenant of grace.



Jeri, this is helpful, as I think I understand what you are articulating better now. However, I still think you need to answer the challenge of showing that 'abiding in Christ' in John 15, or that being 'a branch of the vine' means being a member of _any_ covenant. I don't think the text supports this. For instance, the word covenant is not found in the entire upper room discourse, so I'm not sure it is at all intuitive that what is being discussed is covenant membership.

As to the New Covenant being a breakable subservient covenant administering the unbreakable covenant of grace, I will only note that this seems to place you in direct contradiction to Scripture (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-13; Heb. 12:18ff). It is the New Covenant that will stand forever, that includes promises of being unbreakable. Take a look at Hebrews 10:14-17—

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.​This is the New Covenant, not some other covenant of grace. Hebrews applies the prophecy of the _New Covenant_ from Jeremiah to the work of Jesus Christ as mediator. There is no other New Covenant then the one in the quote above. The New Covenant in the quote above is _the_ Covenant of Grace. It seems pretty strange to say an unbeliever can be in the _New Covenant_ of which Jesus Christ is the surety (Heb. 7:22), but not in the covenant of grace. I have to ask what New Covenant are you referring to Jeri? It can't be the one mentioned in the passages above. We are best sticking to what the confessions teach— that partaking in the sacraments does not make you a member of the New Covenant. I find it ironic that I am saying this to a Presbyterian, but the sacraments are administered to people on the basis of the judgment of charity in regards to someone's presumed covenant status.

Q. 162. _What is a sacrament?_
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ _in his church_, to signify, seal, and exhibit _unto those that are within the covenant of grace_, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and _to distinguish them from those that are without_.​The sacraments are for those that within the covenant of grace. They are not for those that are without, for if that were the case, they would not be effective at distinguishing them from those without.

Q. 166. _Unto whom is baptism to be administered?_
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are _out of the visible church_, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are _in that respect within the covenant_, and to be baptized.​
Nonetheless baptism is administered to those who are part of the _visible_ church, not the _invisible_. It is administered to those who _appear_ to be in covenant with God, not those who are actually in covenant with him. Baptism does not create covenant membership. It is given to those presumed to hold covenant membership.

Ishmael was circumcised, but the covenant of Abraham was not made with him, contrary to seemingly popular opinion. See Genesis 17:19-21 (cf. Gen. 17:7)—

God said, “_No_, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. _I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant_ for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. _But I will establish my covenant with Isaac_, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”​Abraham circumcised Ishmael because God commanded him to, not because Ishmael was actually in covenant with God. There is a way to break the Abrahamic covenant & be cut off from the promises to Abraham, but Ishmael did not transgress this command—

"Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:4).​

​


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 8, 2017)

Panegyric said:


> Jeri, this is helpful, as I think I understand what you are articulating better now. However, I still think you need to answer the challenge of showing that 'abiding in Christ' in John 15, or that being 'a branch of the vine' means being a member of _any_ covenant. I don't think the text supports this. For instance, the word covenant is not found in the entire upper room discourse, so I'm not sure it is at all intuitive that what is being discussed is covenant membership.
> 
> As to the New Covenant being a breakable subservient covenant administering the unbreakable covenant of grace, I will only note that this seems to place you in direct contradiction to Scripture (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-13; Heb. 12:18ff). It is the New Covenant that will stand forever, that includes promises of being unbreakable. Take a look at Hebrews 10:14-17—
> 
> ...



I spoke in an earlier post about abiding in Christ meaning to remain, to continue in him and not fall away. As I understand, word "covenant" doesn't have to be in John 15 to understand that Christ is speaking to and of those who have been partakers of covenant blessings (a la those in Hebrews 6:4-8). What is your view of what Christ means by "in me" when he says "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away"? 

In reply to the rest of your post beginning with "As to the New Covenant being a breakable subservient covenant administering the unbreakable covenant of grace"- I didn't say that either; not sure what it's implications are or where you're coming from. Sorry, otherwise I'd interact with it. All who have been initiated (by circumcision in the OT and baptism in the NT) into the church are under the New Covenant administration of the covenant of grace. Children of believers and professing adults are members of the visible New Covenant community. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 8, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I spoke in an earlier post about abiding in Christ meaning to remain, to continue in him and not fall away. As I understand, word "covenant" doesn't have to be in John 15 to understand that Christ is speaking to and of those who have been partakers of covenant blessings (a la those in Hebrews 6:4-8). What is your view of what Christ means by "in me" when he says "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away"?
> 
> In reply to the rest of your post beginning with "As to the New Covenant being a breakable subservient covenant administering the unbreakable covenant of grace"- I didn't say that either; not sure what it's implications are or where you're coming from. Sorry, otherwise I'd interact with it. All who have been initiated (by circumcision in the OT and baptism in the NT) into the church are under the New Covenant administration of the covenant of grace. Children of believers and professing adults are members of the visible New Covenant community.



Dear Jeri, to keep things incredibly brief—

1. Does being a member of the "New Covenant community" mean you are a member of the New Covenant?

2. Does being "initiated into the New Covenant" mean being made a member of the New Covenant?

The way you are using these terms is the source of my confusion…


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 8, 2017)

Panegyric said:


> Dear Jeri, to keep things incredibly brief—
> 
> 1. Does being a member of the "New Covenant community" mean you are a member of the New Covenant?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry! There have been many conversations on the PB, some lately, about the finer points of the external/internal distinctions of the NC and of the covenant of grace. My language may have been imprecise. I understand that in some sense, all professing adult believers and their children who have been initiated into and participate in the visible church are in (or you could say within, or under the administration of) the New Covenant. I believe there are differences in the language of inclusion among those who basically agree on the concepts. 

Being a member of the visible NC community doesn't make one a member of the internal aspects of the NC. I think we probably agree.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 8, 2017)

Two ways, two means, two aspects, two descriptions of being related to one covenant.

Externally/Internally.
Visible church/Holy Spirit.
Administration/Substance.
Superficial/Real.

If you have the first, and not the second, this is a real-enough relation to justify the language of wrath and condemnation. Picture someone "trampling the Son of God underfoot, counting the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulting the Spirit of grace" (Heb.10:29).

The fact that this assault is a _pantomime, _and a kind of bizarre voodoo in which the offender "acts out" his hostility to God, only makes the revolt more offensive. Think of a serf standing out front of a castle, beating a little rabbit to death, and screaming how he wants to do "this!" to the king sitting unruffled behind those walls upon his throne. Sure, you may imagine a MontyPython-esque scene of ridiculousness; but deep down, it isn't comic at all. But evil.

And there are not a few, who imagine themselves sufficiently committed to their sovereign, but whose inrooted spirits of rebellion only become exposed when their thoughts are laid bare in the Judgment. All their excuse-making for the little slights they made against the king during their lives, when they judged their own petty resentments minor, and suppressed their open hostility. Thus they felt entitled to come freely into the glories of heaven, having "met the minimum standard," acknowledged the right things, conformed...

The latter are those who will say, "*Lord*, *Lord*! Did we not...?" Listen to them. They plead their _membership, _their outward _devotion._ But God looks on the heart. They are no more kingdom citizens-to-the-bone than the bitter underling.

It is possible to have the second, and lack the first. This is not normal, this is not the way it ought to be. However, salvation is not suspended on full possession of outward benefits now; but these things may await the End for public vindication.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Only if a Baptist can agree that someone can be in Christ, i.e. a covenant member, and not be elect.


Only the saved/elect would be in the New Covenant, would be the typical Baptist position.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I spoke in an earlier post about abiding in Christ meaning to remain, to continue in him and not fall away. As I understand, word "covenant" doesn't have to be in John 15 to understand that Christ is speaking to and of those who have been partakers of covenant blessings (a la those in Hebrews 6:4-8). What is your view of what Christ means by "in me" when he says "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away"?
> 
> In reply to the rest of your post beginning with "As to the New Covenant being a breakable subservient covenant administering the unbreakable covenant of grace"- I didn't say that either; not sure what it's implications are or where you're coming from. Sorry, otherwise I'd interact with it. All who have been initiated (by circumcision in the OT and baptism in the NT) into the church are under the New Covenant administration of the covenant of grace. Children of believers and professing adults are members of the visible New Covenant community.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Two ways, two means, two aspects, two descriptions of being related to one covenant.
> 
> Externally/Internally.
> Visible church/Holy Spirit.
> ...


The ones who will come to Jesus and expect to get ushered into heaven by Him and say "Lord did we not."
Were never saved by Him, as he had no relationship with them ever established while in this life.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> he had no relationship with them ever established while in this life.


My response to this assertion is: the relationship reprobates sustain to God _via _the church is an actual relationship. The affiliation isn't a fiction. It isn't just a chimera. It is _serious_ and _meaningful_. It's just not a saving relationship. It is purely administrative, but it's still an established relationship.

Such discussions may end up sounding a lot like disputes over whether it is proper to encourage non-Christians to discover a "personal relationship with Jesus/God." The fact is: every man that's ever lived or will live has a _personal relationship_ with Jesus/God. The issue is not whether or not he is "Lord of your life;" he is Lord whether you want him so or not, Mt.28:18. The issue is whether he stands in personal relation to you as your Mediator or your Judge, Mt.25:31-46.

To relate it all back to the original question of vital union (deliberately borrowing here from the WhiteHorseInn): It is of little consequence whether or not you verbally or willingly "invited Jesus into your heart," whatever connection that act may have to expressing such faith as you have, and membership in his visible body. But it is of eternal consequence whether or not Jesus has invited YOU into HIS heart.

If he has, then you have vital union with the Head of the body. If he has not, then your relationship with him remains one of Judgment; and in falsely claiming rights of those truly united, your condemnation is increased.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> My response to this assertion is: the relationship reprobates sustain to God _via _the church is an actual relationship. The affiliation isn't a fiction. It isn't just a chimera. It is _serious_ and _meaningful_. It's just not a saving relationship. It is purely administrative, but it's still an established relationship.
> 
> Such discussions may end up sounding a lot like disputes over whether it is proper to encourage non-Christians to discover a "personal relationship with Jesus/God." The fact is: every man that's ever lived or will live has a _personal relationship_ with Jesus/God. The issue is not whether or not he is "Lord of your life;" he is Lord whether you want him so or not, Mt.28:18. The issue is whether he stands in personal relation to you as your Mediator or your Judge, Mt.25:31-46.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you have stated here, and would just say that the ones that are broken off from Jesus in the end really never rooted into Him and got saved, as they were just tares among the wheat for awhile.


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 8, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm sorry! There have been many conversations on the PB, some lately, about the finer points of the external/internal distinctions of the NC and of the covenant of grace. My language may have been imprecise. I understand that in some sense, all professing adult believers and their children who have been initiated into and participate in the visible church are in (or you could say within, or under the administration of) the New Covenant. I believe there are differences in the language of inclusion among those who basically agree on the concepts.
> 
> Being a member of the visible NC community doesn't make one a member of the internal aspects of the NC. I think we probably agree.



No worries Jeri. I agree that there is a lot of substantial agreement between us. Sorry for being so pedantic, I've had other things on my mind that probably have affected my tone. I do think the language matters, and so I use the language I do, as opposed to some of the other ways of talking about these issues. However, I'll give it a rest. Thanks for being patient with my inquiring.


----------



## Panegyric (Sep 9, 2017)

In contrast to my previous comments, I would like to take a look at how the Westminster Standards interpret _abiding in Christ_ and _bearing fruit_ in John 15. Here are the key texts (in my opinion)—

WCF 16.2. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, _and glorify God_, (i) whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

(h) John 15:8.​This seems to be the clearest exegesis of John 15 by the Confession to me. Bearing fruit here clearly is interpreted as bringing forth good works. But what does abiding in Christ (and being abided in by Christ) mean?

WCF 16.3. _Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ_. (m) And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

(m) John 15:4-5.​This seems to be relatively clear as well. Christ abides in us through the Holy Spirit, without which, we are incapable of bearing fruit, that is, performing good works.

The following confirm this interpretation negatively—

WCF 9.3. _Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation_: (d) so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

(d) John 15:5.

WLC Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?

A. _No man is able, either of himself,_ (h) or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.

(h) John 15:5.​So, here is what I think the confession teaches on John 15:4-5.

(A)

_Bearing fruit_ means doing good works.
Christ _abiding in us _means him dwelling in us by his Holy Spirit.
What I do not think is clear from this is—

(B)

What it means to _abide in Christ_.
Does failure to _abide in Christ_ presuppose that _Christ was abiding in that person_?
2. Given (A.2), (B.2) is logically impossible. If _Christ abiding_ in a person is done by the indwelling of the Spirit, then it cannot be said that those who fail to _abide in Christ_ had _Christ abiding in them_.

For this reason alone, I think it is fair to say that calling those who fail to abide in Christ covenant breakers is misguided. Given the divines' exegesis of _Christ abiding in us_, it cannot be said that any who did not abide in Christ ever had Christ abiding in them. It could be said that just as they _did not abide in Christ_, Christ _did not abide in them_. Their actions towards Christ are parallel to his towards them in this case. He is not theirs, and they are not his.

But what does it mean to _abide in Christ_, given the divines' exegesis of the other terms? If I may return to the thesis of my first post, I think it means to live in the Spirit, that is to trust and accept the word of Christ by faith. John 15:3 is really the stickler in this whole thing. Here's a few commentators—

Calvin

You are already clean, on account of the word. He reminds them that they have already experienced in themselves what he had said; that they have been planted in him, and have also been cleansed or pruned. He points out the means of pruning, namely, doctrine; and there can be no doubt that he speaks of outward preaching, for he expressly mentions the word, which they had heard from his mouth. Not that the word proceeding from the mouth of a man has so great efficacy, but, so far as Christ works in the heart by the Spirit, the word itself is the instrument of cleansing. Yet Christ does not mean that the apostles are pure from all sin, but he holds out to them their experience, that they may learn from it that the continuance of grace is absolutely necessary. Besides, he commends to them the doctrine of the gospel from the fruit which it produces, that they may be more powerfully excited to meditate on it continually, since it resembles the vine-dresser's knife to take away what is useless.​Matthew Henry

Their society was clean, now that Judas was expelled by that word of Christ, What thou doest, do quickly; and till they were got clear of him they were not all clean. The word of Christ is a distinguishing word, and separates between the precious and the vile; it will purify the church of the first-born in the great dividing day. They were each of them clean, that is, sanctified, by the truth of Christ (John 17:17); that faith by which they received the word of Christ purified their hearts, Acts 15:9. The Spirit of grace by the word refined them from the dross of the world and the flesh, and purged out of them the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, from which, when they saw their inveterate rage and enmity against their Master, they were now pretty well cleansed. Apply it to all believers. The word of Christ is spoken to them; there is a cleansing virtue in that word, as it works grace, and works out corruption. It cleanses as fire cleanses the gold from its dross, and as physic cleanses the body from its disease. We then evidence that we are cleansed by the word when we bring forth fruit unto holiness. Perhaps here is an allusion to the law concerning vineyards in Canaan; the fruit of them was as unclean, and uncircumcised, the first three years after it was planted, and the fourth year it was to be holiness of praise unto the Lord; and then it was clean, Lev. 19:23-24. The disciples had now been three years under Christ’s instruction; and now you are clean.​John Gill

These words being inserted in the discourse concerning the vine and branches, and the pruning and purging them to make them fruitful, are thought, by the learned Dr. Lightfoot, to be an allusion to the law in (Lev. 19:23) ; by which the fruit of trees, for the first three years, were accounted uncircumcised or unclean, and in the fourth year fit for use; concerning which the Talmudists have a whole tract, called (hlre), "Orla"; the apostles having enjoyed the ministry of Christ, and been his disciples about such a time. Though the "now" seems to refer to the removal and taking away of that withered and unfruitful branch, Judas. Christ, in (John 13:10), had told his disciples, that they "were clean, but not all", because the betrayer was among them; but he being discovered by Christ, and ordered by him to be gone, went out from among them about his wicked design; and now Christ could say of them all, that they were clean: which may be understood of their regeneration and sanctification, in which their hearts were sprinkled with clean water; were washed with the washing of regeneration; had their hearts purified by faith in the blood of Christ, and had pure principles of grace formed in their souls; of all which the Gospel of Christ was the instrumental means: or of their justification by the righteousness of Christ, by which they were justified from all sin; and were all fair, and without spot; which was through the Gospel of Christ revealing his righteousness to them, or through the sentence of justification he, by his Spirit, passed upon their consciences.​The word, or doctrine of Christ, makes his disciples clean by purging out the hypocrites who cannot and will not abide in it by faith, and purging the faithful from all worldliness that they may bear fruit. Therefore to abide in Christ, is to live in the Spirit, to live by faith, to trust in his sanctifying truth.


----------

