In Adam or In Christ/Trying to Understand the Implications

[Jeri Tanner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 professed covenant status. We don't absolutely know the covenant status of other people.

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]

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]

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…

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]

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.

 

[Dachaser]

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]

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.


The Covenant of Grace though, as in the NC, would be only to those who are actually now found in Christ, as being the temples of the Holy Spirit and who have been born again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dachaser]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Dachaser]

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.

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]

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]

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)

1. Bearing fruit means doing good works.
2. Christ abiding in us means him dwelling in us by his Holy Spirit.

What I do not think is clear from this is—

(B)

1. What it means to abide in Christ.
2. 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.