For Paedo only; is CoG = Elect?

[RamistThomist]

I'm limiting it to paedobaptists so the thread doesn't get carried away. Is the Covenant of Grace identical to the elect? If it is, on what reason are non-presumed-elect (usually infants) allowed in the covenant?

Secondly, since they are allowed in the covenant, which "covenant" is that if the CoG is made with the elect?

 

[Scott Bushey]

The C of G has internal and external distinctions. The elect, prior to regeneration and conversion remain in the C of W's internal side until that time they are regenerated and then, placed into the internal side of the C of G.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The children of believers are to be baptized according to the command of God (see Gen 17); their position in the covenant is irrelevant to the command. We place the sign because God commands it; Sometimes, if God so wills, will regenerate children at the baptismal font. Both the regenerate children and unregenerate are 'holy' and separated for the purposes of the Lord-much like the holy utensils used in the temple worship.

So, in summary, some of these baptized children (elect vs reprobate) are in the external side of the C of G and others, in the internal; hence, as well, some are in the internal side of the C of W's and the external side of the C of G.

 

[Scott Bushey]

James Fisher in his catechism explains a few important distinctions between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace:

“Q. 23. If both covenants, of grace and works, were exhibited on Mount Sinai, were not the Israelites, in that case, under both these covenants at one and the same time?

A. They could not be under both covenants in the same respects, at the same time; and therefore they must be considered either as believers or unbelievers, both as to their outward church state and inward soul frame.

Q. 24. In what respects were the believing Israelites, in the Sinaitic transaction, under both covenants?

A. They were internally and really under the covenant of grace, as all believers are, Rom. 6:14, and only externally, under the above awful display of the covenant of works, as it was subordinate and subservient to that of grace, in pointing out the necessity of the Surety-righteousness, Gal. 3:24.

Q. 25. In what respects were unbelievers among them, under these two covenants of works and grace?

A. They were only externally, and by profession, in respect of their visible church state, under the covenant of grace, Rom. 9:4; but internally, and really, in respect of the state of their souls, before the Lord, they were under the covenant of works, chap. 4:14, 15.”

 

[RamistThomist]

So to summarize what you are saying:

non-elect children are in the external aspect of the CoG?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jacob,
The question of the children of believers is one of "not-inadvertently-excluding" rather than "inadvertently-including."

That is, in the economy of heaven (prior to the eschaton) it is more significant in this category (the children of believers) to err on the side of reasonable hope. It would be just the kind of false-assurance we rightly worry about, if the church simply baptized indiscriminately; that is, if it baptized the merely curious, literally anyone who dropped in, or who showed any meager commitment. But this was not the case beginning with Abraham; and it never has been the case (legitimately).

If a child is not-elect--if he is an Esau--how would we know? is the first admission we should make. And the answer to the question, "what covenant is he part of?" theologically is: he is engaged purely in the external administration of the CoG (in any era of RH), and does not possess (and never possesses because he is a reprobate) the substance of the covenant.

As those who baptize believers and their children, we believe there is an external administration to the New Covenant. Going back to some of my earliest conversations here on the P-B, my Baptist interlocutors (some of them, anyway) disputed that notion of a present-time NC administration that was not purely the provenance of the Spirit.

They did not agree that the NT church-institute has the visible administration. The church-visible is where the elect gather, in that perspective, and the congregation may inadvertently mark the wrong persons, or mark them in the wrong order (not post-genuine-profession). Baptism/marking in such a case is largely for being identified with and unto fellow believers; it is not a case of identifying the membership.

 

[Scott Bushey]

So to summarize what you are saying:

non-elect children are in the external aspect of the CoG?

I would amplify that a bit to include elect children that are yet to be regenerated. The scriptures tell us that outside of regeneration, we are at enmity (enemies) with God.

 

[Guido's Brother]

My view is that we do need to distinguish, but I prefer to frame the distinction slightly differently. Believers & their children are included in the covenant of grace. However, there are two ways of relating to God within the covenant: in the way of life (faith in Christ) or in the way of death. You could also distinguish it as vital vs. legal. Whatever the case may be and however we distinguish, we need to recognize that membership in the covenant of grace is broader than the elect.

 

[Joshua]

At first, I thought only infants were allowed to answer.

 

[JOwen]

In his book The Covenant of Life Opened (1654), Samuel Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term. After establishing this, Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in abstracto by visible profession, in which the covenant is “professed, visible, and conditional,” and then in concreto, where the covenant is, “internal, real, and absolute”.

Rutherford,

"It is no inconvenient [sic] that the reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God. (CoLO, p. 94)."
​

By in abstracto Rutherford means, "formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners" (94), in which contains only “the will of precept”. Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only. This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal.

Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,

The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)
​

In this way says Rutherford, “all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace” (94).

Blessings,

 

[RamistThomist]

Thank you. It was Rutherford's crucial distinctions between CoG and CoR that got me thinking along these lines.

In his book The Covenant of Life Opened (1654), Samuel Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term. After establishing this, Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in abstracto by visible profession, in which the covenant is “professed, visible, and conditional,” and then in concreto, where the covenant is, “internal, real, and absolute”.

Rutherford,

"It is no inconvenient [sic] that the reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God. (CoLO, p. 94)."
​

By in abstracto Rutherford means, "formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners" (94), in which contains only “the will of precept”. Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only. This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal.

Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,

The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)
​

In this way says Rutherford, “all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace” (94).

Blessings,

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

In his book The Covenant of Life Opened (1654), Samuel Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term. After establishing this, Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in abstracto by visible profession, in which the covenant is “professed, visible, and conditional,” and then in concreto, where the covenant is, “internal, real, and absolute”.

Rutherford,

"It is no inconvenient [sic] that the reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God. (CoLO, p. 94)."
​

By in abstracto Rutherford means, "formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners" (94), in which contains only “the will of precept”. Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only. This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal.

Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,

The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)
​

In this way says Rutherford, “all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace” (94).

Blessings,

This is what convinced me to be a Presbyterian. Great stuff!

 

[JTB.SDG]

Just to summarize a bit:

Q) Is the Covenant of Grace identical to the elect?

No, it's bigger than the elect. It includes both the visible and invisible church, professing believers and their seed, among which there will be both wheat and tares, good and bad fish, sheep and goats.

A) If it is, on what reason are non-presumed-elect (usually infants) allowed in the covenant?

It's not. That's why we have zero qualms with baptizing infants of believers. We indeed do so because of the command of God.

Vos notes that for ADULTS: there is (presumably) first the INTERNAL reality of the Covenant of Grace (faith in Christ), which is followed by the joining the covenant community EXTERNALLY; whereas for INFANTS, it is reversed: there is first the EXTERNAL joining of the covenant community (by birthright as the seed of believers), which, it is hoped for and prayed and expected, will be followed by the INTERNAL reality powerfully at work in that child in due time. But at the end of the day, we can't say for sure what will happen. Just as there was both Jacob's and Esau's in the OT church, so it is in the NT church. But we mark our children with the covenant sign for the exact same reason that they did; God commands it.

Q) Secondly, since they are allowed in the covenant, which "covenant" is that if the CoG is made with the elect?

They are received into the covenant community, the visible church. All children of believers are IN the covenant (externally), but that doesn't mean all of them are OF the covenant.

ONE FINAL CLARIFICATION

It may be that you are struggling with this particular question: If the covenant is about salvation in the fullest sense, and God is making that covenant, which is about salvation, not only with believers but also with their children, then why is it that not all children of believers are saved? I have wrestled with this. As I understand it, the Reformed tradition, offers this consideration: The promise is made to believers and their seed. This promise is indeed about salvation in the fullest sense. That's what the covenant, after all, is about. So if God is promising salvation to the seed of believers, why are not all covenant children saved? Because the seed to whom the promise is made isn't each and every single child; it's made to the elect seed running through our physical line. That's why Paul says what he says in Romans 9. Just as it was in the OT with Jacob and Esau, so it is today, not all physical children are spiritual children. God made that promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:7-8, "you and your seed", but later in the same chapter we come to learn that the "seed" to which the Lord was referring was not ALL Abraham's children, but was limited to Isaac (not Ishmael), even though Abraham was still commanded to mark all of them without distinction with the covenant sign. Same for us, and that's why we baptize all without distinction, even though there's no guarantee all will be elect. I also believe that since Scripture teaches that God's covenant is to a thousand generations, that God is not only promising salvation to the elect among our physical children, but that He is also promising to raise up an elect seed among our children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, to a thousand generations (IE, forever). It's a beautiful promise. My personal prayer is that my covenant line wouldn't just continue forever (that's promised), but that the Lord would cause His grace to run through every covenant branch.

 

[mgkortus]

In light of the WCF

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.

This cannot be true:

Q) Is the Covenant of Grace identical to the elect?

No, it's bigger than the elect. It includes both the visible and invisible church, professing believers and their seed, among which there will be both wheat and tares, good and bad fish, sheep and goats.

Covenant and election are synonymous. While I do not have the reference because I am in a foreign country, see Bavinck on this.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Matt,

The Covenant of Grace encompasses both the visible and the invisible church. It includes both the elect and non-elect in the visible church; only the elect in the invisible. This is Bavinck's view:

"It is self-evident, therefore, that the covenant of grace will temporarily--in its earthly administration and dispensation--also include those who remain inwardly unbelieving and do not share in the covenant's benefits. With a view to this reality, Reformed scholars made a distinction between an internal and an external covenant, or between 'covenant' and 'covenant administration,' or between an absolute and a conditional covenant. . .The covenant of grace is one, and the external and internal sides of it, though on earth they never fully coincide, may not be split apart and placed side by side. Certaintly, there are bad branches on the vine, and there is chaff among the wheat; and in a large house, there are vessels of gold as well as vessels of earthenware. But we do not have the right and the power to separate the two: in the day of the harvest, God himself will do this. As long as--in the judgment of love--they walk in the way of the covenant, they are to be regarded and treated as allies. Though not OF the covenant, they are IN the covenant and will someday be judged accordingly." (Bavinck, Volume 3, pp231-32).

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

In light of the WCF



This cannot be true:



Covenant and election are synonymous. While I do not have the reference because I am in a foreign country, see Bavinck on this.

Sorry, are you saying the WCF is wrong?

 

[Joseph Noah Gagliardi]

Citizenship in America is analogous to citizenship in Heaven. We who are born in America, are natural born citizens, and we seek the peace and prosperity of our land. However, there are those who do not, and who hate their land and their rulers, and renounce their citizenship. Also, there are those who, though citizens by birth, are no citizens as they carry secret malice towards their magistrates and fellow citizens, and may even perpetrate violence and rabble, yet they claim citizenship, and even make appeal to judge and jury for justice. No one would not say that the one who renounces their citizenship, nor the one who by his actions exhibits a lack of love for his country, by no means would we say them truly citizens in heart, though by birth they indeed are Americans. Such a one has equal protection under the laws of the land as the faithful citizen who seeks the peace of his land, that she should flourish. Herein lies the difference, when it comes that the heart of that wretched citizen is made manifest, as truly black and hateful, then those laws which should have protected life and prosperity, now are a sword and death unto him. Such is the covenant of grace. Judas Iscariot partook of the same Supper given by Christ, yet he was none of His. And so it has been in every age, consider Abraham and Ishmael, for Ishmael was under the Abrahamic covenant by reason of his father, but truly had no place with God's people, so Esau, the many Israelites who died in the wilderness, Nadab and Abihu, the Sons of Eli, Saul, and the many millions since who all were under the covenant, and rejected life. 1 Corinthians 10:4 "and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." We see even under the Old Covenant, the "covenant of works" that they partook of Christ, and so in our time, all hear Christ, but not all apprehend Him by faith. Those under the law are judged by the law, those under Christ, who forsake Him, He becomes their terrible judge. The Covenant of Grace is a two edged sword, cutting to the division of soul and flesh, to the saving there of, or as Samuel, who did hack Agag in pieces. We have the hope that our children are the elect, hence why we baptize them. Else, they should be counted as the under God's wrath, outside the only true safe space, the covenant God has made that He will indeed be our God, and we His people, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

 

[TylerRay]

My view is that the reprobate children of believers are not in the covenant of grace, properly considered (See WSC 31 in Post 12). Rather, they are in the external administration of the covenant of grace. This connection with the external administration of the covenant lays on them certain benefits and legal requirements, but they aren't in the CoG proper.

I don't like the language of "externally in the covenant" vs "internally in the covenant." It's vague, and I've found that a lot of people have a hard time explaining just what they mean when they use this language. Instead, I submit that the language of administration should be operative in our discussions of the status of the children of believers.

The reason that the covenant is administered along family lines is, first, because God ordinarily draws the lines of election down family lines, and, second, because it is in the context of families that he has ordained the primary spiritual nurture of his elect in their early years of life.

I don't see anything different in what I've posted from the position that Rev. Buchanan laid out in post 6.

 

[RamistThomist]

My view is that the reprobate children of believers are not in the covenant of grace, properly considered (See WSC 31 in Post 12). Rather, they are in the external administration of the covenant of grace. This connection with the external administration of the covenant lays on them certain benefits and legal requirements, but they aren't in the CoG proper.

I don't like the language of "externally in the covenant" vs "internally in the covenant." It's vague, and I've found that a lot of people have a hard time explaining just what they mean when they use this language. Instead, I submit that the language of administration should be operative in our discussions of the status of the children of believers.

The reason that the covenant is administered along family lines is, first, because God ordinarily draws the lines of election down family lines, and, second, because it is in the context of families that he has ordained the primary spiritual nurture of his elect in their early years of life.

I don't see anything different in what I've posted from the position that Rev. Buchanan laid out in post 6.

I get what you are saying, and I think I agree, but I don't see any material difference between the following two statements

Rather, they are in the external administration of the covenant of grace.

and

I don't like the language of "externally in the covenant" vs "internally in the covenant."

 

[mgkortus]

Matt,

The Covenant of Grace encompasses both the visible and the invisible church. It includes both the elect and non-elect in the visible church; only the elect in the invisible. This is Bavinck's view:

"It is self-evident, therefore, that the covenant of grace will temporarily--in its earthly administration and dispensation--also include those who remain inwardly unbelieving and do not share in the covenant's benefits. With a view to this reality, Reformed scholars made a distinction between an internal and an external covenant, or between 'covenant' and 'covenant administration,' or between an absolute and a conditional covenant. . .The covenant of grace is one, and the external and internal sides of it, though on earth they never fully coincide, may not be split apart and placed side by side. Certaintly, there are bad branches on the vine, and there is chaff among the wheat; and in a large house, there are vessels of gold as well as vessels of earthenware. But we do not have the right and the power to separate the two: in the day of the harvest, God himself will do this. As long as--in the judgment of love--they walk in the way of the covenant, they are to be regarded and treated as allies. Though not OF the covenant, they are IN the covenant and will someday be judged accordingly." (Bavinck, Volume 3, pp231-32).

Brother Jon,
Thank you for digging up the Bavinck quote. I readily affirm what Bavinck teaches when he says: "Though not OF the covenant, they are IN the covenant and will someday be judged accordingly." I see this statement as being drawn from Romans 9:6 which speaks of those who are Israel and those who are OF Israel.

I would also like to call attention to Bavinck's very careful qualification at the beginning of the quote you provided.
"It is self-evident, therefore, that the covenant of grace will temporarily--in its earthly administration and dispensation--also include those who remain inwardly unbelieving and do not share in the covenant's benefits."
My take on Bavinck is that he is as pains to make it clear that the covenant of grace, in its essence, is with the elect. It is only the earthly administration and dispensation that is with the non-elect. I understand Bavinck's view to be that election governs the covenant.
Support for this comes from other statements he makes. He writes:
"The covenant of grace is the channel by which the stream of election flows toward eternity" (3.229).
Also:
"Election only and without qualification states who are elect and will infallibly obtain salvation; the covenant of grace describes the road by which these elect people will attain their destiny" (3.229).

Sorry, are you saying the WCF is wrong?

Brother Ryan, certainly not! I affirm what the WLC teaches in QA31. I understand the article to teach that God's covenant of grace is with Christ and the elect who are united to Christ. Therefore, I believe the statement that the CoG includes the tares and the goats contradicts the teachings of WLC. For I understand the terms "tares" and "goats" to refer to the reprobate. However, God does not establish a bond of love and communion with a reprobate sinner.

Now, there is the whole issue of reprobate children of believers. I prefer to use the language that such individuals are in the sphere of the covenant, but they do not belong to the covenant of grace proper. I believe this is in harmony with Bavinck, who speaks of them being IN the covenant, but not OF the covenant. Or if you want to speak of the earthly administration of the covenant of grace, that too is fine. While I do not object in principle to the language of being internally and externally in the covenant, I find this language confusing and unhelpful.

Evidently, I am not the only one:

My view is that the reprobate children of believers are not in the covenant of grace, properly considered (See WSC 31 in Post 12). Rather, they are in the external administration of the covenant of grace. This connection with the external administration of the covenant lays on them certain benefits and legal requirements, but they aren't in the CoG proper.

I don't like the language of "externally in the covenant" vs "internally in the covenant." It's vague, and I've found that a lot of people have a hard time explaining just what they mean when they use this language. Instead, I submit that the language of administration should be operative in our discussions of the status of the children of believers.

 

[mgkortus]

Covenant and election are synonymous.

I will concede that this statement is unclear.

Better to say that election governs membership in the covenant of grace. And again, I am referring to the covenant of grace proper, that is, in its essence. This does not preclude the fact that the reprobate children of believers (Esaus) are in the sphere of the covenant for a time.

 

[TylerRay]

I get what you are saying, and I think I agree, but I don't see any material difference between the following two statements



and

It's just a matter of using more precise and less equivocal language, in my opinion. To say that they are not in the covenant, properly considered, but are externally in the covenant, is confusing. Are they externally in the covenant, properly considered?

It comes down to equivocating between the covenant itself and the administration of that covenant. There are, indeed, inward and outward, visible and invisible, administrations of the covenant, and they more or less correspond with one another. But the covenant itself is made with Christ, and with the elect in him as his seed. That cannot be affirmed while maintaining that the covenant itself, properly considered, includes the reprobate.

 

[RamistThomist]

found this today
http://truecovenanter.com/rutherford/rutherford_cddsth517_savingfaithrequiredofreprobates.html

 

[JTB.SDG]

Brother Jon,
Thank you for digging up the Bavinck quote. I readily affirm what Bavinck teaches when he says: "Though not OF the covenant, they are IN the covenant and will someday be judged accordingly." I see this statement as being drawn from Romans 9:6 which speaks of those who are Israel and those who are OF Israel.

I would also like to call attention to Bavinck's very careful qualification at the beginning of the quote you provided.
"It is self-evident, therefore, that the covenant of grace will temporarily--in its earthly administration and dispensation--also include those who remain inwardly unbelieving and do not share in the covenant's benefits."
My take on Bavinck is that he is as pains to make it clear that the covenant of grace, in its essence, is with the elect. It is only the earthly administration and dispensation that is with the non-elect. I understand Bavinck's view to be that election governs the covenant.
Support for this comes from other statements he makes. He writes:
"The covenant of grace is the channel by which the stream of election flows toward eternity" (3.229).
Also:
"Election only and without qualification states who are elect and will infallibly obtain salvation; the covenant of grace describes the road by which these elect people will attain their destiny" (3.229).
:

Matt, I think we're saying the same thing. The original question I think was about how we understand the Covenant of Grace in the here and now: how we understand children of believers as it relates to the covenant. Bavinck in the same quote is clear that we should NOT "split" these two aspects, but RATHER to clearly distinguish them. This is what I was trying to do, perhaps poorly. But having clearly distinguished the inward and outward components, Bavinck DOES ultimately understand both aspects as fitting under the general umbrella of the Covenant of Grace. Again: "The covenant of grace is one, and the external and internal sides of it, though on earth they never fully coincide, may not be split apart and placed side by side."

 

[BG]

Were the reprobate chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be a part of the covenant of grace?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Were the reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world to be a part of the covenant of grace?

Election is relevant to both those elect unto glory and elect unto damnation.

 

[mgkortus]

Matt, I think we're saying the same thing.

I think so, especially after rereading your "ONE FINAL CLARIFICATION." What you have written there is well-put. The difference is in semantics: I greatly prefer the language "in the sphere of the covenant," instead of the external/internal language.

Bavinck DOES ultimately understand both aspects as fitting under the general umbrella of the Covenant of Grace. Again: "The covenant of grace is one, and the external and internal sides of it, though on earth they never fully coincide, may not be split apart and placed side by side."

Good point. And admittedly, I prefer to emphasize the distinction between the two.

 

[BG]

Did Jesus die on the cross for all in the covenant of grace?

 

[BG]

Can something be "A" and not "A" at the same time?

Can the covenant of grace be with the elect only and not the Elect only at the same time?