Federal Headship

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Hey guys. Pretty important question. Whose Headship do Presbyterians say non elect covenant members are under? How could they be under Christ and Adam at the same time? We are still engaging with our Baptist friend and this came up. He sent this video and honestly the concerns are pretty fair. It's only 12 minutes if you can watch it. Thanks!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The non-elect among the children of believers are not, properly speaking, in the covenant of grace, but belong to the external administration of the covenant (along with all unregenerate adults who belong to the visible church). Remember that according to the Westminster Standards, the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all the elect as his seed (Larger Catechism 31; Shorter Catechism 20).

So, to answer your question more directly, they are under Adam's federal headship.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

The non-elect among the children of believers are not, properly speaking, in the covenant of grace, but belong to the external administration of the covenant (along with all unregenerate adults who belong to the visible church). Remember that according to the Westminster Standards, the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all the elect as his seed (Larger Catechism 31; Shorter Catechism 20).

So, to answer your question more directly, they are under Adam's federal headship.

Agreed. I guess the question is though, aren't the non elect still in covenant with Christ through administration though?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is the kind of question that is interesting but irrelevant to how a Church can actually operate. We can never ask a question: "Is Bob elect? If I don't know, and he is baptized, how am I supposed to treat him?"

A person who is in Adam is in Adam. He is under the CoW. Baptism doesn't change that reality. The Spirit confers the grace of the thing signified to whom the graces of baptism belong - the elect.

That said, Christ as Mediator fulfills 3 offices: Prophet, Priest, and King.

The role of the Church is the visible ministry (not as mediator but as minister) of Christ's Mediatorial role. He has gifted the Church with offices that minister His mediatorial work in the Church, which is the visible Kingdom of God on earth.

When ministers proclaim the Word of God, they are ministering under the authority of Christ's role as Prophet. Consequently, whenever a person hears the Word of God preached, he is hearing from Christ's minister. He is in the presence of Christ's mediatorial work in the Church.

Christ's role as King is fulfilled, in part, by the binding and loosing of the elders of a Church. If a man is admitted to Church membership and admonished or disciplined then it is Christ's mediatorial work as King being ministered to the man by the elders.

I often see people miss this important distinction. Some mistakenly believe that the only way that Christ's mediatorial work is operative is whether His atonement is applied to the elect individual. This is certainly an aspect of Christ's mediatorial work but is not the whole. The elect enjoy the full benefits of Christ's good work toward them. Grace upon grace is meted out to them with Christ's work as Prophet, Priest, and King.

But the unregenerate Church member is also under the Mediatorial work of Christ as Prophet and King as described above. That they kick against the goads does not remove the reality that they have been visibly and locally been under the mediatorial work of Christ in the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of Church discipline.

It is this visible ministry that the Church is charged with. It is not up to us to speculate about who is elect but simply to be faithful to the ministry that were called unto.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Agreed. I guess the question is though, aren't the non elect still in covenant with Christ through administration though?

Properly speaking, no; only the elect are in the covenant. In an external sense, they belong to the outward administration of the covenant. So, improperly speaking, we may describe them as covenant-breakers, though they never really were in covenant with God in the first place.

It is important to recognise here the distinction between something in a proper and an improper sense. Owing to the restrictions of human language, it is necessary to use terms in an improper sense. For instance, while properly speaking the covenant of grace is unconditional, it is common for Reformed divines to speak of saving faith as the condition of the covenant. Is that a contradiction? No, because they are using "condition" in an improper sense as a means, not in a proper sense as a moving or meritorious cause.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Agreed. I guess the question is though, aren't the non elect still in covenant with Christ through administration though?

Did Esau belong to the church? It's not as easy as a yes or no answer, right? Yeah, he was part of the church, at least for a while, but he never truly belonged to Christ.

 

[Grant]

Who was the head of Judas the Betrayer? The question, in my opinion, can also be asked to a Baptist. So do not let him off the hook that easy. It is likely that Baptist and Presbyterian Churches have non-elect Baptized and even Communing members, because at the end of the day only the Lord knows who the elect are. So ask him for an answer to his own question as well. Further, how can a believers Child be called holy (as opposed to unclean) if there head is strictly and ONLY Adam as they seem to impose?

Guess who is also the Head of that Child.... his believing father..... guess who is the head of that believing father......Christ. We should be careful how we speak of the infants of believers.... because there is a headship connection if we follow the logical and biblical implications of headship.

Also keep in mind the 1689federalist (look at the charts on their website), do not see any of the Post-Fall OT covenants as being adaministrations of the CoG proper. Further their own charts show they have the most in common with New Covenant Theology. To be fair, their view is not the only Baptist confessional view of CT.

Now for a specific answer to your question, I think it has already been given above by others. Just keep in mind that Post-Fall Covenants need to be understood externally and internally. Both sides know and agree that those truly (internally in the CoG) are only the Elect. However the entire bible (cover to cover) is full of examples of those only Externally in the covenant who still reap partial benefits of those internally in the CoG (the Elect).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Much as I oppose anti-paedobaptism, I think we have to admit that our Particular Baptist brethren have done us some service in reminding us that, properly speaking, only the elect are in the covenant of grace. Well-meaning, but misguided attempts to argue that all the children of believers are in the covenant in order to safeguard infant baptism are highly problematic.

For one thing, how does one maintain limited atonement if the covenant of grace includes more than the elect? If the covenant of grace includes more than the elect, then, logically speaking, the blood of the everlasting covenant must also have been shed for more than the elect.

Also, if both the elect and non-elect seed of believers are really in the covenant of grace, then why is one saved and the other lost? For some, the obvious answer to that question is because the covenant is conditional. I would argue that it cannot be conditional in any proper sense, because, as the Westminster catechisms teach us, the covenant is made with Christ and all the elect as his seed. If election is unconditional, then so too must the covenant of grace be unconditional. A conditional covenant, however, chimes better with a conditional election.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

It is important to recognise here the distinction between something in a proper and an improper sense. Owing to the restrictions of human language, it is necessary to use terms in an improper sense. For instance, while properly speaking the covenant of grace is unconditional, it is common for Reformed divines to speak of saving faith as the condition of the covenant. Is that a contradiction? No, because they are using "condition" in an improper sense as a means, not in a proper sense as a moving or meritorious cause.

Thanks for the reply, brother. To be honest, though, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you please rephrase in the common man's thinking? Thanks!

 

[Scott Bushey]

The covenants external aspect is as important, in the scheme of things, as the internal aspect, when we consider predestination; one as a damning fire and the other as blessing. Both groups are held fast to their covenant responsibilities.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I understand what you are trying to express. However, the CoG does have a condition, which is repent, place your faith in Christ, and be baptized (spiritual rebirth) all of which are works wrought by God yes, but man is still held responsible. So there is still in a sense we can say that the CoG does has conditions.

I agree that the covenant of grace is conditional in an improper sense, as faith is the means by which we receive the Christ of the covenant. Many divines also spoke of repentance as a condition in this sense as well, though it is worth noting that the Larger Catechism only mentions saving faith as the condition.

To argue, however, that the covenant is properly speaking conditional, would mean that the conditions were moving or meritorious causes. Conditions in that sense are incongruous with the whole notion of a covenant of grace and effectively turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works wherein salvation is contingent upon what we do.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Thanks for the reply, brother. To be honest, though, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you please rephrase in the common man's thinking? Thanks!

Basically, it means that although we use the term "condition", faith is not really a condition. Hence, we are using the term condition improperly. To use an example, scripture speaks of the eyes and the arms of the Lord. But we know that God does not have eyes and arms. Consequently, the scripture is using these terms in an improper sense, not in the proper sense of physical characteristics.

 

[Afterthought]

Properly speaking, no; only the elect are in the covenant. In an external sense, they belong to the outward administration of the covenant. So, improperly speaking, we may describe them as covenant-breakers, though they never really were in covenant with God in the first place.

I agree that they are not in the covenant of grace, however, I would say that they are in covenant with God and do break it. They profess to be members of the covenant of grace (and are baptized) and thereby vow themselves to take up its responsibilities. It is a personal covenant: a covenant of commitment to the covenant of grace. However, since their profession is false, they have "sworn deceitfully," they are inwardly hypocrites, or they are still in the gall of bitterness and sin though they deceive themselves and sincerely take up their profession. So when they leave off the responsibilities and requirements the covenant of grace lays on them, they have broken covenant: they have broken their covenant (not the covenant of grace).

Likewise, I would say that those who really are in the covenant of grace also swear a commitment to the covenant of grace in their profession of faith/Baptism. Hence the Larger Catechism's language of renewing their covenant with God in the Lord's Supper.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I agree that they are not in the covenant of grace, however, I would say that they are in covenant with God and do break it. They profess to be members of the covenant of grace (and are baptized) and thereby vow themselves to take up its responsibilities. It is a personal covenant: a covenant of commitment to the covenant of grace. However, since their profession is false, they have "sworn deceitfully," they are inwardly hypocrites, or they are still in the gall of bitterness and sin though they deceive themselves and sincerely take up their profession. So when they leave off the responsibilities and requirements the covenant of grace lays on them, they have broken covenant: they have broken their covenant (not the covenant of grace).

Likewise, I would say that those who really are in the covenant of grace also swear a commitment to the covenant of grace in their profession of faith/Baptism. Hence the Larger Catechism's language of renewing their covenant with God in the Lord's Supper.

An infant can make no profession of faith or covenant of commitment when baptized; so if a baptized infant grows up and never makes a profession of faith, wouldn’t we use different language of their unfaithfulness to the covenant than we would of an adult professor? They never “swore deceitfully,” correct?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I agree that they are not in the covenant of grace, however, I would say that they are in covenant with God and do break it.

Are you making the distinction here between the covenant of grace and covenants of duty that you may find in the writings of men such as Alexander Moncrieff? I recently read his work on The Duty of National Covenanting Explained, which was useful on this point.

 

[De Jager]

Please correct me if I am wrong:

I understand it to be like this: as believers, we are united to Christ, and Christ is in covenant with the father. Therefore by being in Christ, we are in effect, in covenant with the father, but not directly. He is our intermediary - our representative - our leader. This covenant is the one covenant of grace, which depends wholly on the merits of Christ. No one who is truly united to Christ can ever fall away because it depends not on our obedience, but Christ's merits.

In this sense, it is impossible to "break" the covenant of grace - and it never has been possible.

In Jeremiah 31 for example, the new covenant is contrasted to the old covenant with the people broke - however, it is not contrasted to the Abrahamic covenant (COG), but rather with the Mosaic covenant.

What someone can do, is leave the covenant community - the visible congregation of God's people, and thus prove that they were never truly united to Christ to begin with (see 1 John).

While baptism signifies the washing of sins and union with Christ, we must remember that is is a sign, and not the thing signified. The validity and efficacy of the sign does not depend on the faithfulness of the subject to whom the sign is given.

For example, if I see a sign that says "Toronto, 50 km ahead", if I disbelieve, turn around and head in the other direction, that has absolutely no bearing on whether Toronto is 50 km ahead. Furthermore, if I'm in Toronto, the sign actually in a sense becomes less powerful because I'm already at the destination.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This quotation from Matthew Henry may be of some use on this issue.

 

[Afterthought]

Are you making the distinction here between the covenant of grace and covenants of duty that you may find in the writings of men such as Alexander Moncrieff? I recently read his work on The Duty of National Covenanting Explained, which was useful on this point.

Yes, that's the idea I have in mind: the covenant of duty they take is to the obligations of the covenant of grace. The non-elect in the external administration are breaking the obligations that the covenant of grace requires of them. The external administration of the covenant of grace requires a profession of faith and a taking upon oneself the obligations of the covenant of grace. Since the profession and taking on oneself the obligations are themselves done by way of covenant (since it is a solemn vow made by means of the sacraments of the covenant of grace being placed on them; and the vow is made to uphold the obligations of a covenant: the covenant of grace), I see them as really being covenant breakers.

An infant can make no profession of faith or covenant of commitment when baptized; so if a baptized infant grows up and never makes a profession of faith, wouldn’t we use different language of their unfaithfulness to the covenant than we would of an adult professor? They never “swore deceitfully,” correct?

Hmm. I suppose they have not (properly speaking) sworn deceitfully. However, baptism is a solemn engagement for them to be the Lord's, and it requires the answer of a good conscience. When they were not able to speak for themselves, the obligations of the covenant of grace are laid on them, and their parents have committed them to the covenant of grace. When they are able to speak for themselves, they are to embrace their privileges by committing themselves (by themselves) to the covenant of grace.

So I would seem them also as really covenant breakers if they do not embrace their privileges, since the obligations were laid on them by way of covenant and they refuse to take them up for themselves. I suppose the language to use here would be "heart full of bitterness and sin." They might also have deceived themselves and others: perhaps as a child/pre-teen they really believed they were devoted to the obligations laid on them but fall away during their teen or college-age years. Along those lines, it is also possible that they have committed themselves to make a profession of faith by means of taking the Lord's Supper (years before they are ready to do so) but fall away: those could be said to have sworn deceitfully.

Improperly speaking, I think they could be said to have sworn deceitfully since the parents spoke on the child's behalf when bringing forth the child to be baptized. The child not being of an age to speak for itself, the parents speak for it.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So in what way does the non elect covenant member belong to Christ?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This is the kind of question that is interesting but irrelevant to how a Church can actually operate. We can never ask a question: "Is Bob elect? If I don't know, and he is baptized, how am I supposed to treat him?"

A person who is in Adam is in Adam. He is under the CoW. Baptism doesn't change that reality. The Spirit confers the grace of the thing signified to whom the graces of baptism belong - the elect.

That said, Christ as Mediator fulfills 3 offices: Prophet, Priest, and King.

The role of the Church is the visible ministry (not as mediator but as minister) of Christ's Mediatorial role. He has gifted the Church with offices that minister His mediatorial work in the Church, which is the visible Kingdom of God on earth.

When ministers proclaim the Word of God, they are ministering under the authority of Christ's role as Prophet. Consequently, whenever a person hears the Word of God preached, he is hearing from Christ's minister. He is in the presence of Christ's mediatorial work in the Church.

Christ's role as King is fulfilled, in part, by the binding and loosing of the elders of a Church. If a man is admitted to Church membership and admonished or disciplined then it is Christ's mediatorial work as King being ministered to the man by the elders.

I often see people miss this important distinction. Some mistakenly believe that the only way that Christ's mediatorial work is operative is whether His atonement is applied to the elect individual. This is certainly an aspect of Christ's mediatorial work but is not the whole. The elect enjoy the full benefits of Christ's good work toward them. Grace upon grace is meted out to them with Christ's work as Prophet, Priest, and King.

But the unregenerate Church member is also under the Mediatorial work of Christ as Prophet and King as described above. That they kick against the goads does not remove the reality that they have been visibly and locally been under the mediatorial work of Christ in the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of Church discipline.

It is this visible ministry that the Church is charged with. It is not up to us to speculate about who is elect but simply to be faithful to the ministry that were called unto.

I thought this was good, but when I brought it up to Him, he said Christ then would be failing as a mediator, so therefore He isn't mediating in those other capacities. How would you respond?

 

[Taylor]

I think there is some confusion, or at least a lack of clarification, in this thread regarding the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. They are not the same thing, no? As @Reformed Covenanter rightly pointed out above, infants of believers are not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace, but they are, if baptized, indeed in the New Covenant, yes? Is the latter not an administration of the former?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I think there is some confusion, or at least a lack of clarification, in this thread regarding the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. They are not the same thing, no? As @Reformed Covenanter rightly pointed out above, infants of believers are not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace, but they are, if baptized, indeed in the New Covenant, yes? Is the latter not an administration of the former?

Right. So the question is, are they covenanted to Christ, and if so, how? If not in the CoG, are they still enemies of Christ? Thanks!

 

[Afterthought]

So in what way does the non elect covenant member belong to Christ?

By profession (they claim to be his), by obligation (they are obliged to be his by their baptism/Lord's supper participation), and by external recognition as Christ's people (Christ lumps them in with his people, and they have external benefits by such recognition, "common operations of the Spirit"), e.g., "denying the Lord that bought them" (they are considered to be "bought"), or all the times the Lord calls the OT church his people despite their false dealings with him, or how the churches are addressed as "saints" or the "elect" as a judgment of charity.

Right. So the question is, are they covenanted to Christ, and if so, how? In not in the CoG, are they still enemies of Christ? Thanks!

They are covenanted to Christ by their own personal covenant, i.e., they vow to belong to him, to take him to be theirs, and to take up the obligations of the covenant of grace. Maybe look into the book Daniel mentioned in his post. Or look into the meaning of "renewing their covenant" in the Larger Catechism on the Lord's supper. Or if you care to look through my pastor's recent Wednesday sermons on Nehemiah, he talks about personal and social covenanting in one of them.

They are enemies to Christ in the same way Judas was: externally they profess allegiance but inwardly their heart is at war Psalm 55:21. They are still in Adam, and they are not in Christ. Hypocrisy is a common complaint and sincerity (or truth within the inward parts) is a common desire throughout the Psalms (my pastor also had a recent sermon on hypocrisy versus sincerity, but in the context of worship.). While they are externally recognized by Christ to be his so long as they live and continue to profess to be his, they are in fact none of his. They will say "Lord, Lord" but he will say he never knew them and to depart from him.

 

[JM]

Hey guys. Pretty important question. Whose Headship do Presbyterians say non elect covenant members are under? How could they be under Christ and Adam at the same time? We are still engaging with our Baptist friend and this came up. He sent this video and honestly the concerns are pretty fair. It's only 12 minutes if you can watch it. Thanks!

It's a good question, an honest question, that anti-credobaptists must address. I find there is no really good answer theologically, it ends up being a practical answer, one based on "good and necessary consequence...."

I can live with that.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Whose Headship do Presbyterians say non elect covenant members are under?

This is no more a conundrum, Ryan, for the Presbyterian than it is for the Baptist. A Presbyterian should say that someone baptized yet non-elect remains under Adam's headship. A Baptist should say that someone baptized yet non-elect remains in Adam as well. This should be the clear focus. In neither case do we think that baptism removes a non-elect person from being in Adam. And in no case, none, is anyone qualified to say, nor dare they say, that any particular baptized person is not elect, whether baptized as an infant or upon a profession of faith.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Grant]

that anti-credobaptists must address.

Well then I guess it’s good that neither Presbyterians nor Baptist are anti-credo.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Ryan&Amber2013

Ryan:

Is it clear why this is a non-issue? Neither of us profess to know who is elect in any case, but we all are bound to exercise the judgment of charity. Presbyterians just extend that judgment a bit further than do our Baptist brethren (and withdraw it if one baptized never professes faith and is removed from the rolls of the church as a baptized, non-professing, member, even as the Baptist would one who is an excommunicant).

Do I presume that all within the visible church are elect? No. Do I presume that any particular persons that I could name are reprobate (even ex-communicants)? No. There is no warrant for such in Scripture (except where names are given: Esau and Judas certainly) and to do so is not historic Calvinism.

I repeat, whether we baptize upon a profession of faith or because one's parent(s) profess(es), those who receive such and are reprobate, remain in Adam, though, for the Presbyterian, as Daniel said, they are outwardly in the covenant, even as they are only outwardly in the church for the Baptist.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think there is some confusion, or at least a lack of clarification, in this thread regarding the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. They are not the same thing, no? As @Reformed Covenanter rightly pointed out above, infants of believers are not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace, but they are, if baptized, indeed in the New Covenant, yes? Is the latter not an administration of the former?

The new covenant is the administration of the covenant of grace under the gospel; the old covenant is the legal administration of the covenant of grace under the law. In both the old and new covenants, the non-elect seed of believers only belong to the covenant in an external sense.

 

[Taylor]

The new covenant is the administration of the covenant of grace under the gospel; the old covenant is the legal administration of the covenant of grace under the law. In both the old and new covenants, the non-elect seed of believers only belong to the covenant in an external sense.

Yes. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t identifying the NC with the CoG, which is essentially the 1689 Baptist position.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Yes. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t identifying the NC with the CoG, which is essentially the 1689 Baptist position.

Just to clarify, this is the 1689 Federalism position, but not all Reformed Baptists agree with 1689 Federalism