Missouri Presbytery on FV
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
It somewhat irritates me to read things like that, knowing that what they actually put in print in thier works is a horse of a different color.
I have huge problems with it from the start, however, here are a couple detailed concerns:
"In light of our common commitment to "sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," we have aimed to let the definitions assumed in the Westminster Standards govern our usage."
This is simply a lie. Read any FV book. Thier purpose is to redefine, not futher define, the WCF idea surrounding these issues. For numerous examples, see:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonEvangelicalPostmodernDiversification.htm
"In a similar manner, it is clear that there is a great deal of confusion concerning to what the Westminster Standards might commit us when it comes to understanding "œcovenant."
Its thier confusion, not confusion overall, that sparks thie controversy. The Westminster Divines were quite precise (known as precisionists) as to how this fundamental concept is laid out, and they consistently use it through the confession.
"As a result, we affirm as well the variety of interpretation of the Westminster Standards when it comes to the nature of the covenant. On the issue of the "œcovenant of works," for example, we believe that those who read the Standards as emphasizing an adamic meritocracy and those who read them as emphasizing the gracious foundation of all God's covenant dealings with humanity can both claim confessional integrity and historical precedent in the Westminster tradition. Neither of these views does violence to the Standards given their lack of precision regarding."
This is hogwash. The FV redefine thier idea of covenant, and even in the paragraph, attribute the "Covenant of Works" as a "gracious covenant" whihc the Assembly was careful not to do. The CoW / CoL (Law) is much different than the CoG, or God's gracious actions. FV theology stands on one covenant that is consistently gracious while at the same time providing an Arminian/Romanized covenantal faithfulness. Thus they say, "We affirm that by an act of gracious condescension, God bound Himself to His creation, and through His covenant representative bound Himself to His creation by way of covenant." Yada Yada, redefining historical doctrine all the way.
"Another contested word in these discussions is the word "œelection.""
No its not. Its redefined by the FV advocate. Its not contested by the Reformed Camp.
The rest is simply a snowballed affect of some of thier ideas. The will refer to things as "the covenants" and not differentiate.
On Justification, they go right to Dunn, Sanders, and Wright in summary -
This doctrine has been one of the hallmarks of the Reformation and of the reformed tradition; and it is a key to any right system of faith. At the same time, we recognize that the Greek (and Hebrew) terminology which can be translated "œjustify" has a semantic range in the Old and New Testaments broader than the specific idea of God´s pardoning sinners by the imputation of Christ´s righteousness. Words from the biblical dikaio- group can be used in human interactions describing both judicial and non-judicial actions and declarations; and they can even have a negative connotation, expressing attempts at self-vindication."
And
God´s declaration of righteousness, even a corporate declaration, cannot rightly occur without a basis in God´s reckoning of Christ´s righteousness to the account of individual sinners (Philippians 3:9).
I'll stop here. Its just more of the same.
I have huge problems with it from the start, however, here are a couple detailed concerns:
"In light of our common commitment to "sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," we have aimed to let the definitions assumed in the Westminster Standards govern our usage."
This is simply a lie. Read any FV book. Thier purpose is to redefine, not futher define, the WCF idea surrounding these issues. For numerous examples, see:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonEvangelicalPostmodernDiversification.htm
"In a similar manner, it is clear that there is a great deal of confusion concerning to what the Westminster Standards might commit us when it comes to understanding "œcovenant."
Its thier confusion, not confusion overall, that sparks thie controversy. The Westminster Divines were quite precise (known as precisionists) as to how this fundamental concept is laid out, and they consistently use it through the confession.
"As a result, we affirm as well the variety of interpretation of the Westminster Standards when it comes to the nature of the covenant. On the issue of the "œcovenant of works," for example, we believe that those who read the Standards as emphasizing an adamic meritocracy and those who read them as emphasizing the gracious foundation of all God's covenant dealings with humanity can both claim confessional integrity and historical precedent in the Westminster tradition. Neither of these views does violence to the Standards given their lack of precision regarding."
This is hogwash. The FV redefine thier idea of covenant, and even in the paragraph, attribute the "Covenant of Works" as a "gracious covenant" whihc the Assembly was careful not to do. The CoW / CoL (Law) is much different than the CoG, or God's gracious actions. FV theology stands on one covenant that is consistently gracious while at the same time providing an Arminian/Romanized covenantal faithfulness. Thus they say, "We affirm that by an act of gracious condescension, God bound Himself to His creation, and through His covenant representative bound Himself to His creation by way of covenant." Yada Yada, redefining historical doctrine all the way.
"Another contested word in these discussions is the word "œelection.""
No its not. Its redefined by the FV advocate. Its not contested by the Reformed Camp.The rest is simply a snowballed affect of some of thier ideas. The will refer to things as "the covenants" and not differentiate.
On Justification, they go right to Dunn, Sanders, and Wright in summary -
This doctrine has been one of the hallmarks of the Reformation and of the reformed tradition; and it is a key to any right system of faith. At the same time, we recognize that the Greek (and Hebrew) terminology which can be translated "œjustify" has a semantic range in the Old and New Testaments broader than the specific idea of God´s pardoning sinners by the imputation of Christ´s righteousness. Words from the biblical dikaio- group can be used in human interactions describing both judicial and non-judicial actions and declarations; and they can even have a negative connotation, expressing attempts at self-vindication."
And
God´s declaration of righteousness, even a corporate declaration, cannot rightly occur without a basis in God´s reckoning of Christ´s righteousness to the account of individual sinners (Philippians 3:9).
I'll stop here. Its just more of the same.
<--Me doing Hebrew homework!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This isn't another concoction from FV "internet theologians." This is a PCA Presbytery Report. It is real. If this gets approved at GA, what will be the implications for the PCA?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I'm just making small talk.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
This report seems to be quite in line with the spirit of the "Good Faith" subscription debate from several GAs ago, and the redefintion of "six days" to include things like the framework theory without the need for stating an exception.
This report seems to be much more conciliatory than the one from Mississippi Valley presbytery.
I think the chickens are just coming home to roost.
This report seems to be much more conciliatory than the one from Mississippi Valley presbytery.
I think the chickens are just coming home to roost.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
The MVP report was sent to GA and was not approved as a resolution. If this one is sent up as a resolution, I doubt it would pass. If it did, it would probably pass as being for "informational purposes" with no binding effect.
For what it's worth, there is a lot of fence stratling in this paper.
For what it's worth, there is a lot of fence stratling in this paper.
There is at least one section of the report that is contrary to the Good Faith subscription:
In one fell swoop, Missouri has just declared that the Lord's Supper is not a fundamental article of the Standards.
Now the curious thing will be (as I predicted several years ago) what happens when another Presbytery declares that it most certainly IS a fundamental article. Then the case will (Eventually) go to GA, and there will be two choices: (1) resolve it and correct one of the Presbyteries, (2) declare definitely that the PCA is not Presbyterian (i.e. the GA has no authority at all).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
But would some--I am not in the PCA and I don't know the specifics--say that the overall "tenor" of the PCA would be more conciliatory towards MO Presbytery than MVP?
Fred, I understand you concern about paedocommunion, but if you look just at the reports affirmations and denials, I think it comes out pretty good.
Shepherd's faith = faithfulness is rejected, so is future and eternal justification, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is affirmed. The unqualified union with Christ language that FV writers often use is also rejected (along with the idea of a baptismal union.) The visible and invisible church distinction seems to me to be well set out. Profession of faith is affirmed and I think the assurance section, with its emphasis upon faith, good works and inward graces in addition to baptism appears to strike the right balance. Baptism based upon presumptive regeneration is also rejected.
So other then the conciliatory language in the introduction and conclusion, I don't think a Federal Vision advocate would find much to cheer about in the actual "meat" of the report. I wonder if perhaps the Mississippi and Missouri reports will ultimately serve to compliment each other?
Shepherd's faith = faithfulness is rejected, so is future and eternal justification, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is affirmed. The unqualified union with Christ language that FV writers often use is also rejected (along with the idea of a baptismal union.) The visible and invisible church distinction seems to me to be well set out. Profession of faith is affirmed and I think the assurance section, with its emphasis upon faith, good works and inward graces in addition to baptism appears to strike the right balance. Baptism based upon presumptive regeneration is also rejected.
So other then the conciliatory language in the introduction and conclusion, I don't think a Federal Vision advocate would find much to cheer about in the actual "meat" of the report. I wonder if perhaps the Mississippi and Missouri reports will ultimately serve to compliment each other?
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
For what it's worth, the Asst. Pastor at my church gave me a copy of the MOP statement last week and I really tried to read it in the best light. At the very least, I thought it was perhaps a step in the right direction. While there are a number of problems with it (some have already been mentioned above), I just focused on the one and sent my thoughts to my pastor and to one of the members of the MOP committee that drafted the statement. Unbeknownst to me the person I sent it to is one of the chief proponents of FV in the PCA. Silly me. While it´s a little long, some might be interested so here's what transpired:
Dear ___
Concerning the covenant, while the report recognizes different interpretation of the Standards, it defines covenant as; "a committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation." They state things like:
"We affirm that while God takes the initiative in all His covenant dealings with human beings, He also grants grace for the required human responses of faith and obedience, to those whom He has chosen to save."
"We deny that those who are true participants in this second covenant by means of justifying faith, who are called and who have received the promised inheritance, can break this covenant (Heb. 9:15)."
"We affirm that all those baptized into the covenant community receive certain covenant blessings, whether elect or not, and that these blessings include the regular preaching of God´s Word; the watchful care, pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the Church; the nurture of believing parents; and the regular call to place their faith in Christ (WLC 63; WLC 166; BCO 56-1). Believing that one is inseparably united to Christ by his/her faith alone, we deny that the ritual act of baptism apart from faith unites us to Christ. Further, since God alone sees what is invisible to us, we deny that the whole visible church is united to Christ by virtue of the ritual act of baptism (WLC 61)."
All of the above is excellent and it establishes, in what I would think would be no uncertain terms, that the covenant, specifically the covenant of grace, is with believers, the elect alone, and their spiritual seed. After all, God through Abraham establishes His covenant not with Ishmael (as Abraham wrongly presumed), but rather with Isaac (Gen. 17:18,19).
Notice, "œGod takes the initiative in ALL (and not just some) His covenant dealings" and by grace grants all that is required "œto those whom He has chosen to save." Yet, under their statements under "œUnion with Christ" they state:
"œWe affirm that all members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ and thereby participate in the privileges and responsibilities of that relationship . . . ."
Now, if we agree that God takes the initiative in *all* his covenant dealings with men and by His grace grants all that is required of them in this relationship, then I would think it would incorrect to say that "œall members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ." From what I can tell this is a major weakness in their statement and, in my understanding, perpetuates the confusion that the FV´s have been able capitalize on with considerable success. I would think MOP statement would at least need to clearly define the sense in which all members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ (something they do not do) or simply remove the above portion in order to avoid a glaring contradiction in their statement.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Sean Gerety
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
To: [email protected]
Sean,
We composed this carefully. We came to the conclusion as a committee that there had to be some sense in which all members of the church are in covenant with Christ. This is pretty standard in Reformed theology. Yes, members of the visible church are in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. All of them. It's not just baptism alone accomplishes this, but it does seal it. Members of the church are united with Christ and in covenant with him. This is true for elect and non-elect. 1 Cor. 12 makes it pretty clear that the baptized members of the body of Christ are united with their head and with the other members of the body. Paul is talking about the tangible, visible church not the invisible elect. If it was the later, the chapter's exhortations would make no sense.
This covenantal union, of course, does not guarantee everyone's salvation, however. But it is nonetheless a gracious gift of God.
There's no contradiction. One can be in covenant with God without being elect. One can receive grace without responding in faith. And God's grace can be spurned with the result that those in the church who do not respond in faith will be punished more severely in the end. There covenantal relation to Christ insures their greater condemnation.
Make sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To:
From: Sean [email protected]
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
At 05:24 PM 1/25/2006, you wrote:
Thank you for getting back to me and I can tell the composition of the document was careful. Also, it may be true that there is some sense in which all members of the church, elect and reprobate alike, are in covenant with Christ, and it may even be standard in Reformed theology, but this doesn't answer my objection.
Now, maybe the sense of the word covenant which you have in mind is common knowledge, but the point is it is nowhere defined in the document, in your reply, or, I dare say, inferred from anything I could find in 1Cor. 12 as you suggest. For what it's worth I have no idea what sense you mean, although I admit I have heard it asserted that all members of the visible church are members of the covenant. However, if there is sense of the word covenant which applies to both reprobate and elect members which is common and even standard, I would think a clear and unequivocal definition would be easily incorporated into your otherwise excellent document.
As I'm sure you realize, this is no small aside. After all, one of the central objections of those pushing the false gospel of the FV is that the invisible/visible distinction is a "Greek" construct which is foreign to the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. They are very clear what they mean by covenant, covenant membership and how one enters and remains in covenant with Christ. They don't equivocate at all nor do they leave the sense in which we are to understand God's covenant in question. The problem is their definitions are completely without warrant in Scripture or the Confessions.
Then, with all due respect, you make my point. The MOP statement asserts those with whom God covenants "He also grants grace for the required human responses of faith and obedience, to those whom He has chosen to save." It is certainly far from standard Reformed theology to say that God has chosen to save the reprobate, even those who are members of the visible church. So without a clear definition as to the sense you are using the word "covenant" above the contradiction remains.
Take a look again at the statement under the heading "Union with Christ" where the follow is asserted:
" . . . we deny that it is prudent to use the terminology of "union with Christ" to describe the relationship of all those in the covenant community (elect and non-elect alike) without carefully clarifying the difference between the specific sense the terms have come to have in our theological tradition, and the other senses they may have in the Bible."
OK, you say baptism plays a role in uniting the elect and non-elect alike with Christ, even seals that unity. But, the statement says; "we deny that persons are united to Christ before the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to them." So, if there is a sense which a person can be both united with Christ and not united with Christ at the same time, I would be very curious to know what that is? Or, are you saying that the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to non-elect members of the visible church? If so, when does this happen? Again, the Federal Visionists are unequivocal and explicit in their affirmation that all are united with Christ in baptism, only that some of those united in this covenant bond end up in Hell.
1 Cor. 12 makes it pretty clear that the baptized members of the body of Christ are united with their head and with the other members of the body. Paul is talking about the tangible, visible church not the invisible elect. If it was the later, the chapter's exhortations would make no sense. This covenantal union, of course, does not guarantee everyone's salvation, however. But it is nonetheless a gracious gift of God.
I confess, I have never heard anyone argue that 1 Cor 12 supports the idea that all members of the church, elect and non-elect alike, are united with Christ and in covenant with Him. That doesn't mean that what you say is not found in 1 Cor. 12, just that I couldn't find it. For what it's worth I consulted commentaries by Gordon Clark, John Calvin and John Gill and could find nothing to even remotely support your contention. Quite the contrary. Here's Calvin:
"[Paul] speaks, however, of the baptism of believers, which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit, for, in the case of many, baptism is merely in the letter ? the symbol without the reality; but believers, along with the sacrament, receive the reality."
And Gill:
". . . not that the special grace of the Spirit is given to every individual man in the world, nor to every member of a visible church, for some are sensual, not having the Spirit; but as the same graces of the Spirit are given to every regenerate man, for all receive the same spirit of faith, so the gifts of the Spirit, more or less, either ordinary or extraordinary, are given to all such persons . . . Besides, all that are baptized in water, are not baptized in or by the Spirit, as the case of Simon Magus, and that of others, show; nor does water baptism incorporate persons into the church of Christ; neither into the invisible church, which is the body of Christ, and here meant; nor into a visible Gospel church state; they being indeed true believers, and baptized, are proper persons to be received into a church; but baptism itself does not put them into it, or make them members of it: persons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church."
Not really. Since I have no idea what sense of the word covenant applies to the non-elect, I have no idea how someone can be said to be in covenant with God without being elect? Just saying there is a sense in which God covenants with elect and non-elect members of the visible church doesn't make it so. Similarly, just because some in Reformed theology have asserted such a covenant doesn't make it biblical either.
Look at it this way, if I'm debating a Roman Catholic over the word to justify in both James (Js 2:24) and Paul (Rom 3:28), it is easily demonstrated that if both are using the word in the same sense then the Scriptures contradict themselves and one side of any contradiction must be, not may be, false. The question is, which one? Therefore, I must clearly demonstrate and define the sense in which the word "to justify" is being used in each case. I think the situation here is similar and my example is more than fitting since the Federal Visionists are nothing more than warmed over Romanists.
Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. I hope and pray the MOP statement is widely read and well received and is used by God to drive out the defenders of the FV from the PCA wing of the visible church.
God bless,
Sean Gerety
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
To: Sean [email protected]
Sean,
You make all sorts of assertions and assumptions here that our committee rejected. Not the least of which is that the FV guys teach or preach "a false gospel" and that they need to be "driven out" of the PCA. In our long investigation we did not come to that conclusion. Most of our affirmations and denials have to do with real distortions of the Gospel, some are caricatures of FV positions and others just deal with common misunderstandings.
Our committee, for example, came to the unanimous decision that the way FV guys described the covenant was not a problem, and therefore certainly not heresy. There as an entire committee devoted to that early on, but then they concluded that the way those identified as FV guys defined the covenant was not heterodox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
I apologize. I completely misunderstood the intent and purpose of the document, but as far as FV not being a heterodox denial of the Gospel of Christ you're either greatly mistaken or seriously deceived. For what it's worth I came across this from Calvin Beisner posted on a blog (I've included the link so you can verify the source). I think his change of heart on the question of the Federal Visionists, which previously was tepid at best, is revealing if not more than a bit too late. Also, I would strongly recommend you read Paul Elliot's book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism. I'm confident that the PCA will go the way of the OPC and I guess I wrongly held out some hope for the MOP document might be used as a possible antidote.
Calvin Beisner | 12.22.05 | 5:29 pm
http://www.upsaid.com/scarecrow/index.php?action=viewcom&id=548
Sean Gerety
Dear ___
Concerning the covenant, while the report recognizes different interpretation of the Standards, it defines covenant as; "a committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation." They state things like:
"We affirm that while God takes the initiative in all His covenant dealings with human beings, He also grants grace for the required human responses of faith and obedience, to those whom He has chosen to save."
"We deny that those who are true participants in this second covenant by means of justifying faith, who are called and who have received the promised inheritance, can break this covenant (Heb. 9:15)."
"We affirm that all those baptized into the covenant community receive certain covenant blessings, whether elect or not, and that these blessings include the regular preaching of God´s Word; the watchful care, pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the Church; the nurture of believing parents; and the regular call to place their faith in Christ (WLC 63; WLC 166; BCO 56-1). Believing that one is inseparably united to Christ by his/her faith alone, we deny that the ritual act of baptism apart from faith unites us to Christ. Further, since God alone sees what is invisible to us, we deny that the whole visible church is united to Christ by virtue of the ritual act of baptism (WLC 61)."
All of the above is excellent and it establishes, in what I would think would be no uncertain terms, that the covenant, specifically the covenant of grace, is with believers, the elect alone, and their spiritual seed. After all, God through Abraham establishes His covenant not with Ishmael (as Abraham wrongly presumed), but rather with Isaac (Gen. 17:18,19).
Notice, "œGod takes the initiative in ALL (and not just some) His covenant dealings" and by grace grants all that is required "œto those whom He has chosen to save." Yet, under their statements under "œUnion with Christ" they state:
"œWe affirm that all members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ and thereby participate in the privileges and responsibilities of that relationship . . . ."
Now, if we agree that God takes the initiative in *all* his covenant dealings with men and by His grace grants all that is required of them in this relationship, then I would think it would incorrect to say that "œall members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ." From what I can tell this is a major weakness in their statement and, in my understanding, perpetuates the confusion that the FV´s have been able capitalize on with considerable success. I would think MOP statement would at least need to clearly define the sense in which all members of the visible church are in covenant relationship to Jesus Christ (something they do not do) or simply remove the above portion in order to avoid a glaring contradiction in their statement.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Sean Gerety
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
To: [email protected]
Sean,
We composed this carefully. We came to the conclusion as a committee that there had to be some sense in which all members of the church are in covenant with Christ. This is pretty standard in Reformed theology. Yes, members of the visible church are in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. All of them. It's not just baptism alone accomplishes this, but it does seal it. Members of the church are united with Christ and in covenant with him. This is true for elect and non-elect. 1 Cor. 12 makes it pretty clear that the baptized members of the body of Christ are united with their head and with the other members of the body. Paul is talking about the tangible, visible church not the invisible elect. If it was the later, the chapter's exhortations would make no sense.
This covenantal union, of course, does not guarantee everyone's salvation, however. But it is nonetheless a gracious gift of God.
There's no contradiction. One can be in covenant with God without being elect. One can receive grace without responding in faith. And God's grace can be spurned with the result that those in the church who do not respond in faith will be punished more severely in the end. There covenantal relation to Christ insures their greater condemnation.
Make sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To:
From: Sean [email protected]
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
At 05:24 PM 1/25/2006, you wrote:
Thank you for getting back to me and I can tell the composition of the document was careful. Also, it may be true that there is some sense in which all members of the church, elect and reprobate alike, are in covenant with Christ, and it may even be standard in Reformed theology, but this doesn't answer my objection.
Now, maybe the sense of the word covenant which you have in mind is common knowledge, but the point is it is nowhere defined in the document, in your reply, or, I dare say, inferred from anything I could find in 1Cor. 12 as you suggest. For what it's worth I have no idea what sense you mean, although I admit I have heard it asserted that all members of the visible church are members of the covenant. However, if there is sense of the word covenant which applies to both reprobate and elect members which is common and even standard, I would think a clear and unequivocal definition would be easily incorporated into your otherwise excellent document.
As I'm sure you realize, this is no small aside. After all, one of the central objections of those pushing the false gospel of the FV is that the invisible/visible distinction is a "Greek" construct which is foreign to the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. They are very clear what they mean by covenant, covenant membership and how one enters and remains in covenant with Christ. They don't equivocate at all nor do they leave the sense in which we are to understand God's covenant in question. The problem is their definitions are completely without warrant in Scripture or the Confessions.
Then, with all due respect, you make my point. The MOP statement asserts those with whom God covenants "He also grants grace for the required human responses of faith and obedience, to those whom He has chosen to save." It is certainly far from standard Reformed theology to say that God has chosen to save the reprobate, even those who are members of the visible church. So without a clear definition as to the sense you are using the word "covenant" above the contradiction remains.
Take a look again at the statement under the heading "Union with Christ" where the follow is asserted:
" . . . we deny that it is prudent to use the terminology of "union with Christ" to describe the relationship of all those in the covenant community (elect and non-elect alike) without carefully clarifying the difference between the specific sense the terms have come to have in our theological tradition, and the other senses they may have in the Bible."
OK, you say baptism plays a role in uniting the elect and non-elect alike with Christ, even seals that unity. But, the statement says; "we deny that persons are united to Christ before the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to them." So, if there is a sense which a person can be both united with Christ and not united with Christ at the same time, I would be very curious to know what that is? Or, are you saying that the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to non-elect members of the visible church? If so, when does this happen? Again, the Federal Visionists are unequivocal and explicit in their affirmation that all are united with Christ in baptism, only that some of those united in this covenant bond end up in Hell.
1 Cor. 12 makes it pretty clear that the baptized members of the body of Christ are united with their head and with the other members of the body. Paul is talking about the tangible, visible church not the invisible elect. If it was the later, the chapter's exhortations would make no sense. This covenantal union, of course, does not guarantee everyone's salvation, however. But it is nonetheless a gracious gift of God.
I confess, I have never heard anyone argue that 1 Cor 12 supports the idea that all members of the church, elect and non-elect alike, are united with Christ and in covenant with Him. That doesn't mean that what you say is not found in 1 Cor. 12, just that I couldn't find it. For what it's worth I consulted commentaries by Gordon Clark, John Calvin and John Gill and could find nothing to even remotely support your contention. Quite the contrary. Here's Calvin:
"[Paul] speaks, however, of the baptism of believers, which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit, for, in the case of many, baptism is merely in the letter ? the symbol without the reality; but believers, along with the sacrament, receive the reality."
And Gill:
". . . not that the special grace of the Spirit is given to every individual man in the world, nor to every member of a visible church, for some are sensual, not having the Spirit; but as the same graces of the Spirit are given to every regenerate man, for all receive the same spirit of faith, so the gifts of the Spirit, more or less, either ordinary or extraordinary, are given to all such persons . . . Besides, all that are baptized in water, are not baptized in or by the Spirit, as the case of Simon Magus, and that of others, show; nor does water baptism incorporate persons into the church of Christ; neither into the invisible church, which is the body of Christ, and here meant; nor into a visible Gospel church state; they being indeed true believers, and baptized, are proper persons to be received into a church; but baptism itself does not put them into it, or make them members of it: persons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church."
Not really. Since I have no idea what sense of the word covenant applies to the non-elect, I have no idea how someone can be said to be in covenant with God without being elect? Just saying there is a sense in which God covenants with elect and non-elect members of the visible church doesn't make it so. Similarly, just because some in Reformed theology have asserted such a covenant doesn't make it biblical either.
Look at it this way, if I'm debating a Roman Catholic over the word to justify in both James (Js 2:24) and Paul (Rom 3:28), it is easily demonstrated that if both are using the word in the same sense then the Scriptures contradict themselves and one side of any contradiction must be, not may be, false. The question is, which one? Therefore, I must clearly demonstrate and define the sense in which the word "to justify" is being used in each case. I think the situation here is similar and my example is more than fitting since the Federal Visionists are nothing more than warmed over Romanists.
Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. I hope and pray the MOP statement is widely read and well received and is used by God to drive out the defenders of the FV from the PCA wing of the visible church.
God bless,
Sean Gerety
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
To: Sean [email protected]
Sean,
You make all sorts of assertions and assumptions here that our committee rejected. Not the least of which is that the FV guys teach or preach "a false gospel" and that they need to be "driven out" of the PCA. In our long investigation we did not come to that conclusion. Most of our affirmations and denials have to do with real distortions of the Gospel, some are caricatures of FV positions and others just deal with common misunderstandings.
Our committee, for example, came to the unanimous decision that the way FV guys described the covenant was not a problem, and therefore certainly not heresy. There as an entire committee devoted to that early on, but then they concluded that the way those identified as FV guys defined the covenant was not heterodox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To:
Subject: Re: MOP on FV
I apologize. I completely misunderstood the intent and purpose of the document, but as far as FV not being a heterodox denial of the Gospel of Christ you're either greatly mistaken or seriously deceived. For what it's worth I came across this from Calvin Beisner posted on a blog (I've included the link so you can verify the source). I think his change of heart on the question of the Federal Visionists, which previously was tepid at best, is revealing if not more than a bit too late. Also, I would strongly recommend you read Paul Elliot's book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism. I'm confident that the PCA will go the way of the OPC and I guess I wrongly held out some hope for the MOP document might be used as a possible antidote.
Calvin Beisner | 12.22.05 | 5:29 pm
http://www.upsaid.com/scarecrow/index.php?action=viewcom&id=548
Sean Gerety
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Sean,
Forget about the FV stuff for a minute. Let's just focus on covenant theology itself.
I have a major problem with a LOT of what you said above.
MOST of the people on this board, including me, would agree that ALL members of the church are in covenant with God, whether they are elect or non-elect. This is just standard, classic, covenant theology. All members of the visible church are in covenant with God. The elect will prove to be covenant keepers, and the non-elect will prove to be covenant breakers.
Just read Romans 11. All the "branches" are covenant members. But the non-elect branches break the covenant, and are ultimately broken off the tree.
Read Hebrews 6 and 10. These texts remind us again that people can be in covenant with God, but still prove themselves to be covenant breakers, and be cursed.
If you believe that ONLY the elect are in covenant with God, then you are in agreement with the Reformed Baptists on this board, but you are not in agreement with the vast majority of covenant theologians, either today or throughout history.
Sean, maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote above. But it sounded to me like you are lumping the vast majority of covenant theologians into the FV camp, just because we believe that both the elect and non-elect are in covenant with God. So are you accusing Witsius, Edwards, Sproul, McMahon, me, etc. of being FV? Or am I just misunderstanding your view?
[Edited on 2-1-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Forget about the FV stuff for a minute. Let's just focus on covenant theology itself.
I have a major problem with a LOT of what you said above.
MOST of the people on this board, including me, would agree that ALL members of the church are in covenant with God, whether they are elect or non-elect. This is just standard, classic, covenant theology. All members of the visible church are in covenant with God. The elect will prove to be covenant keepers, and the non-elect will prove to be covenant breakers.
Just read Romans 11. All the "branches" are covenant members. But the non-elect branches break the covenant, and are ultimately broken off the tree.
Read Hebrews 6 and 10. These texts remind us again that people can be in covenant with God, but still prove themselves to be covenant breakers, and be cursed.
If you believe that ONLY the elect are in covenant with God, then you are in agreement with the Reformed Baptists on this board, but you are not in agreement with the vast majority of covenant theologians, either today or throughout history.
Sean, maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote above. But it sounded to me like you are lumping the vast majority of covenant theologians into the FV camp, just because we believe that both the elect and non-elect are in covenant with God. So are you accusing Witsius, Edwards, Sproul, McMahon, me, etc. of being FV? Or am I just misunderstanding your view?
[Edited on 2-1-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joseph M. Gleason writes:
Then why don´t we stay on the FV stuff before moving on to your objections for a minute if you don´t mind? If the covenant is defined per the MOP statement as "a committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation" where "œGod takes the initiative in ALL [and not just some of] His covenant dealings" and by grace grants all that is required "œto those whom He has chosen to save," then will you agree that if there are non-elect members in the covenant then the word covenant must have a different meaning? If you agree, then I would like to know in what sense you are using the word "œcovenant"? Please provide the definition for the sense in which both elect and non-elect members are included in God´s covenant?
For myself, I would say that non-elect members of the visible church are the recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; are under the preaching the gospel, receive the sacraments, pray (the non-elect do pray after all), however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God, but the FV folks go too far and include the non-elect as covenant members. You seem to agree, therefore I think you (just like the folks who wrote the MOP statement) need to then clearly define the sense in which you mean that non-elect members of the visible church are "œin covenant" with Christ. For a more complete discussion of my understanding of the covenant please see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/208a-TheBiblicalConvenantGrace.pdf .
Then perhaps the vast majority of covenant theologians can provide you with a cogent definition of covenant as it applies to the elect and non-elect members of the visible church. I don´t care that they (whoever "œthey" are) think this, but rather can they define the sense in which they mean to use the word "œcovenant"? If it´s so common and so widely known, why don´t you just tell me what it is? I asked one of the MOP report drafters above and he couldn´t tell me, hopefully you won´t let me down.
I don´t know that you´ve misunderstood me, but have rather read into what I said. I haven´t said anything to suggest that any of the above men or even you are Fed Visionists. OTOH I think there has been considerable confusion over the nature of the covenant and I think the FV folks have had tremendous success capitalizing on confused and contradictory notions of the covenant. They´ve also made considerable strides through the confused and contradictory notions people have concerning the nature of faith that I mentioned on another thread (which I think got shutdown as soon as I posted).
I think the FV folks have provided a great service to the church by forcing at least some of us to go back and check some of our premises and not to rely so heavily on our Reformed tradition which hasn´t always been as clear as it arguably should have been -- at least in some areas that is.
Then why don´t we stay on the FV stuff before moving on to your objections for a minute if you don´t mind? If the covenant is defined per the MOP statement as "a committed relationship typified by mutual loyalty and obligation" where "œGod takes the initiative in ALL [and not just some of] His covenant dealings" and by grace grants all that is required "œto those whom He has chosen to save," then will you agree that if there are non-elect members in the covenant then the word covenant must have a different meaning? If you agree, then I would like to know in what sense you are using the word "œcovenant"? Please provide the definition for the sense in which both elect and non-elect members are included in God´s covenant?
For myself, I would say that non-elect members of the visible church are the recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; are under the preaching the gospel, receive the sacraments, pray (the non-elect do pray after all), however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God, but the FV folks go too far and include the non-elect as covenant members. You seem to agree, therefore I think you (just like the folks who wrote the MOP statement) need to then clearly define the sense in which you mean that non-elect members of the visible church are "œin covenant" with Christ. For a more complete discussion of my understanding of the covenant please see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/208a-TheBiblicalConvenantGrace.pdf .
Then perhaps the vast majority of covenant theologians can provide you with a cogent definition of covenant as it applies to the elect and non-elect members of the visible church. I don´t care that they (whoever "œthey" are) think this, but rather can they define the sense in which they mean to use the word "œcovenant"? If it´s so common and so widely known, why don´t you just tell me what it is? I asked one of the MOP report drafters above and he couldn´t tell me, hopefully you won´t let me down.
I don´t know that you´ve misunderstood me, but have rather read into what I said. I haven´t said anything to suggest that any of the above men or even you are Fed Visionists. OTOH I think there has been considerable confusion over the nature of the covenant and I think the FV folks have had tremendous success capitalizing on confused and contradictory notions of the covenant. They´ve also made considerable strides through the confused and contradictory notions people have concerning the nature of faith that I mentioned on another thread (which I think got shutdown as soon as I posted).
I think the FV folks have provided a great service to the church by forcing at least some of us to go back and check some of our premises and not to rely so heavily on our Reformed tradition which hasn´t always been as clear as it arguably should have been -- at least in some areas that is.
Joseph, you bring up a very good point. I think much depends on how we define the term "in covenant". If "in covenant" refers to the historical administration of the covenant (visible church), then I would say that yes, both the elect and non-elect are "in covenant". However, if we define the term "in covenant" to refer to those who are conformed to the requirement of the covenant, which is faith, then agreeing with WLC Q31, I think it is true that in that sense, the covenant is made only with the elect. It really is just the visible - invisible church distinction, expressed in terms of the covenant.
in my opinion, behind all of this is an approach on the part of some FV advocates to eliminate (or practically eliminate) that dual aspect of the covenant. It appears to me that in order to combat what they think is harmful introspection, they (FV) propose a flat view of covenant membership that makes almost no distinction between the status (or benefits accorded to) of the elect and non-elect.
in my opinion, behind all of this is an approach on the part of some FV advocates to eliminate (or practically eliminate) that dual aspect of the covenant. It appears to me that in order to combat what they think is harmful introspection, they (FV) propose a flat view of covenant membership that makes almost no distinction between the status (or benefits accorded to) of the elect and non-elect.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I'll give the same definition that Herman Witsius gave. God's covenant with man may be defined as the following:
"A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God and man, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a threatening of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished."
The covenant-keepers inherit eternal life.
The covenant-breakers earn eternal destruction.
But all are equally members of the covenant. The distinction comes in their covenant keeping or breaking, not in their membership.
I would also like to remind you of what the WCF says:
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
Again:
Baptism is not only for a person's admission unto the visible church, but is also a sign and seal of membership in the Covenant of Grace. And since all infant children of Christians are to be baptized, it follows that there are a number of unregenerate people who are members of the Covenant of Grace, according to the confession. --- And of course the WCF was agreed upon by a huge number of top-notch Covenant Theologians.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joseph writes:
Oh, I agree the writers of the WCF were all top notch, but they weren´t as contradictory or as ambiguous as some of their modern interpreters seem to be.
Consider this from WLC 31:
With whom was the covenant of grace made?
The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
. . . and Answer WLC 32:
How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provides and offers to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promises and gives 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 has appointed them to salvation.
Further, in my opinion we need to understand WCF 28 in light of the covenant as already defined in VII:3 under The Covenant of Grace and not change the definition later on. This is something the FV folks do with considerable skill and they seem to have bamboozled a number of folks and perhaps even you as well. With all due respect, the Confession writers didn't commit the fallacy of equivocation, at least you haven't demonstrated that they have.
WCF VII:3 outlines the Covenant of Grace as follows:
"œMan by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was please to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."
Since those things required of those in the covenant, i.e., faith, is promised and is given to all those ordained to life it would follow that all those not so ordained are not in the covenant. Otherwise, the definition of the covenant per the WCF needs to be ammended, since, if you are correct, then some members of the covenant of grace clearly end up in hell and God's covenant and the promises contained therein are ineffectual in the case of at least some of its members. I don´t see this as being the intent of the Confession writers, but maybe you can convince me of my error?
It looks to me like you confuse the thing signified in baptism with the thing itself and confuse the nature of the covenant along the way. Remember, all Israel are not Israel and all baptized members of the visible church are not in the covenant of grace either. If you get the chance, please read the piece I co-authored above. Hopefully it will clarify things.
Oh, I agree the writers of the WCF were all top notch, but they weren´t as contradictory or as ambiguous as some of their modern interpreters seem to be.
Consider this from WLC 31:
With whom was the covenant of grace made?
The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
. . . and Answer WLC 32:
How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provides and offers to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promises and gives 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 has appointed them to salvation.
Further, in my opinion we need to understand WCF 28 in light of the covenant as already defined in VII:3 under The Covenant of Grace and not change the definition later on. This is something the FV folks do with considerable skill and they seem to have bamboozled a number of folks and perhaps even you as well. With all due respect, the Confession writers didn't commit the fallacy of equivocation, at least you haven't demonstrated that they have.
WCF VII:3 outlines the Covenant of Grace as follows:
"œMan by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was please to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."
Since those things required of those in the covenant, i.e., faith, is promised and is given to all those ordained to life it would follow that all those not so ordained are not in the covenant. Otherwise, the definition of the covenant per the WCF needs to be ammended, since, if you are correct, then some members of the covenant of grace clearly end up in hell and God's covenant and the promises contained therein are ineffectual in the case of at least some of its members. I don´t see this as being the intent of the Confession writers, but maybe you can convince me of my error?
It looks to me like you confuse the thing signified in baptism with the thing itself and confuse the nature of the covenant along the way. Remember, all Israel are not Israel and all baptized members of the visible church are not in the covenant of grace either. If you get the chance, please read the piece I co-authored above. Hopefully it will clarify things.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Sean, do you understand the difference between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace? It looks to me like you are confusing the two.
The CoR was made between the Father and the Son, and only has the elect in view.
The CoG was made between God and man, and includes both the elect and non-elect.
Are you familiar with the Westminster documents, other than the WCF? I would highly recommend that you take a look at the Sum of Saving Knowledge. Consider these quotes --
The CoR only has the elect in mind:
The CoG is with both the elect and non-elect:
Note that the Mosaic Covenant is one administration of the Covenant of Grace. And we all know that the Mosaic Covenant included both covenant keepers and covenant breakers. And the SoSK makes it clear that the CoG is one and the same in both the OT and the NT. The administration has just changed, but not the substance. The covenant still contains both the elect and non-elect.
Note that the "covenanters" (i.e. covenant members) include both true AND counterfeit believers, both elect and non-elect.
Sean, I would like to hear you reconcile your view with Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. The olive tree is definitely a covenantal tree, and includes both covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Covenant keepers are the elect who have faith. But the tree also contains unbelievers who get cut off the tree.
I highly recommend you read A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon. He makes it very clear that every covenant God has ever made with man has included both elect and non-elect people. The Covenant of Works fits this description, the Covenant of Grace fits this description, and so does every covenant within the CoG (i.e. the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, & New Covenants). Every covenant between God and man has always included covenant breakers.
[Edited on 2-2-2006 by biblelighthouse]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Wayne, the founders of the Westminster Standards clearly understood the distinction between the CoR and the CoG. Please see my post above concerning The Sum of Saving Knowledge.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, I think I do, however I do not agree that the CoG includes the non-elect. C. Hodge said; "œthe one [Covenant of Redemption] between God and Christ, the other between God and his people [Covenant of Grace] . . . The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties." Now, unless I'm missing something, "his people" are not the reprobate, even reprobate members of the visible church. More importantly, Hodge asserts:
Therefore, at least according to Hodge, drawing the distinction between the CoR and CoG has no effect on the doctrine taught in the Confession, which is that the CoG is with the elect alone.
Similarly, John Murray writes:
For Turrentine the CoG is between God and man on the condition of faith. Where there is no faith there is no covenant. For Witsius, and in seeming opposition to what you infer from the other quote you provided by him, the CoG is with an agreement between "œGod and the elect sinner." No mention whatsoever of God covenanting with non-elect members of the visible church on the basis of baptism or anything else for that matter. In both faith is given to the elect alone, therefore since the non-elect are not given the gift of faith there is no covenant with the non-elect. To suggest otherwise is to make the same error the Jews made which Paul discusses at length in Romans. Paul teaches that the CoG, is made exclusively with Christ and the elect, to whom alone the promises of life and salvation belong.
Sorry, the above says nothing about the non-elect. It does mention Christ´s "œown people" though.
I fail to see how the above differs from what I said earlier and non-elect members of the visible church are the recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; are under the preaching the gospel, receive the sacraments, pray, however these things are not grace to the non-elect. I think the above comports also with what Adam said above as well; "œIf "in covenant" refers to the historical administration of the covenant (visible church), then I would say that yes, both the elect and non-elect are "in covenant."" If that is the sense of the word convent you are employing when you speak of the non-elect are members of the covenant, then we would have no quarrel. But it´s clear to me, that is unless I´ve mistaken you, that is not at all what you mean. So I´ll ask you again to define the word covenant as to include non-elect members of the visible church? What do you mean that non-elect church members are in covenant with Christ and on what basis?
As for Jer 11 and Rom 11 we´ll have to discuss both later on, God willing, because I´m just responding to the above during a break at work. As for the McMahon piece, thanks I´ll read it too when I get the chance. I had written him awhile ago and was surprised by his response (which was basically, "œyes, God´s covenant is with the non-elect as well, so buy my book"
I just hope you´ll be a little more willing than you have been to a little more quid pro quo, or I´m quite sure we won´t get anywhere.
[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Magma2]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Bingo. Covenant membership is coextensive with the visible church. If a person is part of the visible church, then he is in covenant with God, a full-fledged member of the Covenant of Grace.
Please see Jeremiah 11 & Romans 11. Please see Hebrews 6 & 10, etc.
Also consider the Israelites in the wilderness. They were all in covenant with God; they were all His people. But most of them were not elect. And in 1 Cor. 10, Paul warns the NT Church with the SAME warnings. NT Church members are no less vulnerable to warnings than the OT Israelites were. They were the people of God, and we are the people of God. The elect keep covenant and receive blessings, while the non-elect break covenant and receive curses.
No he is not. This denies the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance. This is the sum of what John means when he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).
This is the central point of the Federal Vision error, saying that unbelievers and the non-elect are "full-fledged" members of the Covenant of Grace. That is one of the reasons why the Church does not allow those without any testimony of regeneration (a credible profession of faith) to partake of the Lord's Supper.
One of the key components of FV error is to obliterate the distinction between the invisible and visible Church, the form of the Covenant and its substance, the outward administration and inner reality.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Are we arguing with each other, or just debating semantics? Have you read Dr. McMahon's "Simple Overview"? Do you agree with it? I am just arguing for the same covenant membership McMahon argues for in his book. Most of what I have learned about Covenant Theology has come from Dr. McMahon and Dr. Witsius.
In McMahon's "Simple Overview", he clearly teaches that all of God's covenants include both believers and unbelievers.
I agree that the nonelect do not partake of the inward graces of the covenant, thus 1 John 2:19 and Matthew 7:23. The elect partake of the covenant inwardly in a way that nonelect covenant members do not.
But it is fallacious to say that the nonelect weren't full-fledged covenant members. If you go that far, then you make a mockery of the very terms "covenant breaking", and "being cut off from the covenant".
Please tell me, how can a person be cut off from a covenant, if he was never a member of that covenant? How can a person be a covenant breaker, without first being a covenant member?
Also explain Jeremiah 11 & Romans 11 to me. Were the non-elect branches part of the covenant tree or not? They HAD to be, otherwise they couldn't have been "broken off", "cut off", etc.
Who are you arguing with? You obviously aren't talking to me, since I repeatedly affirm the distinction between the invisible church and the visible church. I fully agree that the invisible church only contains the elect, while the visible church contains a mixed crowd.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree with Fred. People are either legally or communally within the Covenant of Grace. Only those who are in communion with God - full fledged covenant members, i.e. the elect of God - receive all the benefits of Christ, including perseverance, justification, etc. You can be legally in the CoG and not be elect (i.e. false professors and baptized covenant children who have not, in time, repented and put faith in Christ alone). See Berkhof on the CoG for a very helpful overview of the legal/communal distinctions. I think the terms "inside" and "outside" the covenant, or any other terminology can be confusing.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I totally agree. I totally agree.And I see where the misunderstanding has occurred. For some odd reason, Fred made the assumption that, by the term "full fledged", I meant someone who "receives all the benefits of Christ, including perseverance, justification, etc." Well, if THAT is what "full fledged" means, then I RECANT, because the non-elect certainly DO NOT have that.
However, that is NOT what I meant by the term "full fledged". I just meant that the non-elect are in covenant with God. They are covenant breakers, to be sure, and will receive the covenant curses in full force. Thus, I equate "full fledged" with "legally". Non-elect people are legally in covenant with God.
But as covenant breakers, do they partake of the inward graces of the covenant? Certainly not! Thus Matthew 7:23 & 1 John 2:19.
So are we in agreement?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
