Missouri Presbytery on FV

[fredtgreco]

Joseph,

Full-fledged does mean "partakes of all the benefits of." Otherwise what would you call the elect? Super-duper full fledged?

The point is that the non elect are not true full fledged members - even though they may think that they are. It is the difference between the Pharisees and the Chaldeans. The former receive greater judgment because of greater light.

The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Sounds like it. The important thing to understand is how covenants work. You can be 'in' a covenantal agreement and not receive the benefits of such an arrangement. Receiving those benefits requires fulfilling the obligations of the covenant, which Christ did for the elect in fulfilling the demands of the CoW, as no man could.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

Full-fledged does mean "partakes of all the benefits of."

Fred, I respectfully disagree with you.


full-fledged

adj 1: (of a bird) having reached full development with fully grown adult plumage; ready to fly [syn: fully fledged] 2: (of persons e.g.) having gained full status; "a full-fledged lawyer"; "by the age of seventeen I was a full-fledged atheist"; "sees itself as a fully fledged rival party" [syn: fully fledged]


"Full-fledged" means the same thing as having "full status". In other words, it means the same thing as "legally".

Notice that the definition of "Full-fledged" says nothing about "receiving all the benefits".

A covenant is double-edged. It is a legal contract. The one who keeps the contract gets the benefits. The one who defiles the contract gets the curses. A U.S. citizen who commits a felony is still just as much a citizen as I am. But he does not get all the benefits that I do. He gets the curses that go along with being an evildoer in this country. He gets jailtime, and he cannot vote. However, that doesn't mean that he was/is a non-citizen. This is what I mean when I talk about a non-elect person being in covenant with God. He is just as legally a covenant member as I am. But he has a "felony" while I have a "clean record". He can't "vote", but I can. He is in "prison", while I am "free". He gets all the covenant curses, while I get all the covenant blessings.

But it would make no sense for him to get the covenant curses, if he were not a member of the covenant at all.

If a non-elect person could not be in the covenant, then why does Scripture bother offering any warnings? Why do we have Romans 11 and Hebrews 10 and 1 Cor. 10? As Gabe has said in the past, "Watch out for the cliff" signs don't make any sense in Kansas.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Otherwise what would you call the elect? Super-duper full fledged?

No, I would call them full-fledged covenant members who are also covenant keepers, and who take part in all the blessings of the covenant, including all the inward graces.

The covenant breakers do NOT take part in all the blessings of the covenant, and they do NOT take part in all the inward graces.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The point is that the non elect are not true full fledged members - even though they may think that they are. It is the difference between the Pharisees and the Chaldeans. The former receive greater judgment because of greater light.

I totally agree that there is a HUGE difference between the elect in the covenant and the non-elect in the covenant. I agree that the non-elect are deceived about their status. They THINK they partake of the inward graces, but are WRONG.

However, I don't understand what any of that has to do with their legal covenant membership status, which is the very thing which makes them worthy of receiving the covenant curses.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.

I don't quite follow you here. ALL people are in relationship with God in one way or another. A relationship of hatred and wrath is still a relationship. Would you agree with me that all of the people of Israel were in covenant with God? In Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11, God broke off a lot of unbelieving branches. And his explicit reason for doing so was their covenant breaking. So again I ask, how can you be broken off from a covenant, without first being a member of that covenant?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Sounds like it. The important thing to understand is how covenants work. You can be 'in' a covenantal agreement and not receive the benefits of such an arrangement. Receiving those benefits requires fulfilling the obligations of the covenant, which Christ did for the elect in fulfilling the demands of the CoW, as no man could.

I totally agree with everything you said here, Gabe.

 

[Magma2]

The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.

It should be clear that Joseph rejects the idea the sense of the word covenant as it pertains to the non-elect is to be used in the sense of mere partakers of the outward administration of the covenant, but something significantly more. Not sure exactly what that is yet, but the implications of such a view are reason for concern. For example, since the covenant applies to both elect and non-elect church members, and both are "œfull-fledged" covenant members, what differentiates elect from non-elect church members? God choice in election alone cannot be the decisive factor since God covenants equally with both. So what´s left? It would seem the decisive factor in the covenant of grace are the members themselves. That´s why the FV has been consistent in proclaiming it is our own covenant keeping, our own faithfulness, which differentiates elect and non-elect covenant members.

Joseph writes:

A covenant is double-edged. It is a legal contract. The one who keeps the contract gets the benefits. The one who defiles the contract gets the curses.

What is forgotten is that what is required that makes the covenant binding is faith. Faith is a gift of God and without faith there is no contract. The entire Covenant of Grace is entirely and unilaterally administered. The analogy fails because while it may describe a legal contract that one might find among equals, God and man are not equals.

You seem to agree with FV defenders in their denial of hypothetical warnings in Scripture, which is why you keep bringing up Rom and Jer 11 as if the members of the covenant can be cut off. For example, Doug Wilson adopting the analogy of marriage to explain the covenant of grace asserts; "No one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven." In Wilson's theology, and the hyper-covenatalism of the FV, some Christians will go to Hell. But why can't Wilson's analogy be just as easily replaced with your own?

Calvin here might be helpful in grasping the metaphors found in Jer and Rom that seem to be giving you trouble:

21. For if God has not spared the natural branches, etc. This is a most powerful reason to beat down all self-confidence: for the rejection of the Jews should never come across our minds without striking and shaking us with dread. For what ruined them, but that through supine dependence on the dignity which they had obtained, they despised what God had appointed? They were not spared, though they were natural branches; what then shall be done to us, who are the wild olive and aliens, if we become beyond measure arrogant? But this thought, as it leads us to distrust ourselves, so it tends to make us to cleave more firmly and steadfastly to the goodness of God.

Perhaps Joseph, God intends such warnings in Scripture for reasons other than you assume?

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Magma2]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Magma2
what differentiates elect from non-elect church members? God choice in election alone cannot be the decisive factor since God covenants equally with both.

Both are in the same covenant.

However, both do NOT have faith. The elect have faith. The non-elect do not have faith.

Those with faith are covenant keepers.

Those without faith are covenant breakers.

And God ultimately IS the decisive factor, because, as you pointed out, God is the only one who can give faith to a person.

To the elect, and to the elect alone, God gives faith. And only those with this gift of faith are the covenant keepers.

Originally posted by Magma2

you keep bringing up Rom and Jer 11 as if the members of the covenant can be cut off.

Sean, please read Jeremiah 11. And then YOU tell me whether any Jews were cut off the covenant tree or not.

Originally posted by Magma2

Perhaps Joseph, God intends such warnings in Scripture for reasons other than you assume?

Sean, again, YOU please read the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 10. Were the Israelites in the wilderness all elect, or not? I think it is clear that they were not. Well, Paul addresses the NT visible church, and flatly warns them not to do the same things the Israelites did, and come under the same judgment. If you cannot see that these warnings are real, then you need more help than I know how to give you.


The warnings are addressed to the visible church. Of course those of us in the invisible church CANNOT fall away and come under judgment. That is impossible. But the nonelect not only CAN, but they WILL eventually prove themselves apostate, and will most certainly come under judgment.



I repeat:

I AFFIRM the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church.

I AFFIRM that only God gives the gift of faith. He gives it to all of the elect, and He gives it to the elect alone.

The warnings are real. But they are addressed to the VISIBLE church, not the INVISIBLE church.

What part of that is difficult to understand?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Sean,

"Faith is a gift of God and without faith there is no contract."

Where do you find this in either the Hebrew concept or Greek concept of "covenant?"

That is certainly not a biblical idea.

Faith has nothing to do, generally speaking, with a contract between two parties, which is what a covenant is in any administration.

Don't confuse the Counsel of Peace (the CoR) with how the administration of that Covenant works out in time among men in the CoG and with apostasy FROM that covenant.

This is the difference between the Reformed / Post Reformation and FV ideas. The Reformed / Post Reformation idea of the internal covenant of grace (benefited by grace) and the extral participation of the covenant by those in the visible church is well documented. Even the early father beleived this to a great extent and covenantal ideas (CT) can be found in this way in Iranaeus' and Augustine's theology.

Remember overall, the FV theology teaches that there is ONE covenant that includes everyone with all thebenefits while they are in the church and in covenant with God. This is a gross misrepresentation of "covenant" concepts in general.

Biblically, covenants can be of all sorts that require no faith at all. Such is the case with infants being in covenant with the external administration of the CoG in the visible church. ALL the benefits of thier baptism are summarized by the WCF:

"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, of 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 church until the end of the world...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."

Also, they make this clear:

"Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders."

This woudl be immaterial (apostasy would be immaterial) if one were not apostasized FROM something.

The FV advocates that this to an unnatural degree and confound not only the church, but the benefits of the covenant of grace to those they think are "fully" or completely" in reception of EVERYTHING that the CoG liberally blesses those who are only regenerated.

In what Joseph said here:

I AFFIRM the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church.

I AFFIRM that only God gives the gift of faith. He gives it to all of the elect, and He gives it to the elect alone.

The warnings are real. But they are addressed to the VISIBLE church, not the INVISIBLE church.

There is nothing to take issue with. This is not only biblically consistent, but confessionally so.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Thank you, Dr. McMahon!

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by wsw201
One thing to remember about being "in covenant", especially regarding the WCF, is how the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace are not distinct covenants, but are combined, which causes a considerable amount of confusion.

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.

My point was that you do not see the CoR mentioned in a plain reading of the Standards. In my estimation, the standards are fairly clear in and of themselves, without reading SSK.

If one is going to argue the issue of covenant membership based on the language of the Standards, one should start with the Effectual Calling. In that chapter of the WCF is the clear delineation of who is in the visible church; the effectually called and the generally called. If one uses the Standards to interpret the standards there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Sum of Saving Knowledge is a Scottish document written by David Dickson and James Durham, and scribed out by Patrick Simson, cousin to George Gillespie, who raised him. It was never official adopted by the Church of Scotland as a standard far as I know but became traditional to include it.
This long had a confused attribution. The first edition of the WCF/Catechisms to have the Sum was Lithgow's 1650, about which Warfield, relying on David Hay Fleming, writes:

This copy contains the Confession and Catechisms provided with distinct titles, but paged continuously; and at the end, occupying the sixty-six unnumbered pages, the Sum of Christian Knowledge. This is the first appearance of the Sum; it afterwards became a well-nigh constant accompaniment of the Confession and Catechisms in Scotch editions. "¦ The title page of the Sum is already in this edition deformed by the error in punctuation which makes it appear a product of the Westminster Divines. That is to say, it runs: "A Brief Sum of | Christian Doctrine, | contained in | Holy Scripture, and holden | forth in the Confession | of Faith and Catechisms. | Agreed upon by the Assembly of Di-| vines at Westminster, and received | by the General Assembly of | the Kirk of Scotland."

 

[Magma2]

Dr. McMahon writes:

"œFaith is a gift of God and without faith there is no contract."

Where do you find this in either the Hebrew concept or Greek concept of "covenant?"

That is certainly not a biblical idea.

Faith has nothing to do, generally speaking, with a contract between two parties, which is what a covenant is in any administration.

Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:

VII:3. Covenant of Grace

Man 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.

Notice above (and we´ll get to my presumed confusion between the CoG and the CoR below) that, per the covenant, God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made. However, per you and Joseph, God fails to give all he promises to at least some members of the covenant.

Yet, per the WCF under the CoG God sets what is required and promises to give all those under the covenant exactly what is required. The covenant is completely unilateral and certainly one of the most graphic example in Scripture is found in Gen. 15 in God´s covenant with Abraham. The covenant was cut but only God, represented by a flaming torch, passed through the severed carcasses. Gen 15:17; "œAnd it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces." I think it significant that Abraham is completely passive in the establishment of the covenant.

Don't confuse the Counsel of Peace (the CoR) with how the administration of that Covenant works out in time among men in the CoG and with apostasy FROM that covenant.

With all due respect, I don´t see that I am confusing the two. Perhaps you and Joseph are? Maybe it would be helpful for each of us to define the parties in each? For brevity I´ll use Hodge´s definition since I think it is clear and to the point:

. . . confusion is avoided by distinguishing between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people. The latter supposes the former, and is founded upon it. The two, however, ought not to be confounded, as both are clearly revealed in Scripture, and moreover they differ as to the parties, as to the promises, and as to the conditions.

Now, I would hope we could agree that if the CoG is between God and His people, reprobate church members are not counted among "œHis people." I certainly can´t find anything in Hodge to suggest that God´s people are "œall Israel," i.e., all natural decedents from Abraham, or even all members of the visible church, but rather are his spiritual seed. More importantly, what does Scripture say? God tells Abraham; "œI will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you . . . ." Notice, it´s God who establishes His covenant. Is God the God of unbelievers? Those not chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ? Well, Abraham thought so, at least at first. Per Gen 17 and after the sign of the covenant is given and God tells him that Sarah "œshall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her," Abraham said; "Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!" Clearly Abraham confused the giving of the sign of the covenant, and with whom it was to be applied, with the covenant itself, but God corrects him and says;

"No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him . . . My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Ishmael was in covenant with God, for God does not establish His covenant with him, but rather with a child yet to come as the result of a miraculous birth, clearly picturing Christ who was to come. However, the idea that reprobate members of the visible church, the chafe among the wheat, are "œfull-fledge"members and have "œfull status" in the Covenant of Grace is not supported by Scripture.

Back to Hodge for a moment. I think it´s important to see exactly what confusion Hodge was trying to avoid and it´s not the confusion that divides you and me. Hodge writes:

Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Rom 5.12-21, and 1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 47-49. Still it does not remove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. 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.

Hodge has no problem whatsoever with saying that the CoG "œwas formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father," i.e. the elect and the elect alone. However the reason for distinguishing the CoG from the CoR is to "œremove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant," not that reprobate members of the visible church are represented in one covenant and not in another.

Remember overall, the FV theology teaches that there is ONE covenant that includes everyone with all thebenefits while they are in the church and in covenant with God. This is a gross misrepresentation of "covenant" concepts in general.

Biblically, covenants can be of all sorts that require no faith at all. Such is the case with infants being in covenant with the external administration of the CoG in the visible church. ALL the benefits of thier baptism are summarized by the WCF:

"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, of 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 church until the end of the world...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."

Let´s be clear, I´m not accusing you or Joseph of being supporters of the heresy of the FV, far from it, however I will say that the FV´s view of the covenant, which shares a number of your underlying premises, are a lot more consistent. Consequently, in my opinion that your take on the CoG is not only contrary to Scripture, the WCF, but also gives considerably aid and comfort to FV heretics (and they are heretics that need to be disciplined, but are not).

Consider the above statement on baptism. Are unbelieving members of the church ingrafted into Christ? How about regenerated? Sins remitted? Given new life? Well, if they´re full-fledged members of the CoG and assuming full-fledged means anything then I guess so. This applies to infants as well as to those professing faith and are baptized. The problem as I see it is that neither the Confession nor do the Scriptures assert that all baptized infants of believers receive all the blessings pictured in baptism and outline above. I guess some here might be pained to consider it, but I think Gill was right when he said; "œpersons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church." This goes for infant children of believers as well.

In any case, this discussion so far has hopefully been helpful in highlighting some of the divisions and confusion that have plagued P&R circles and which has allowed the FV to take root. Paul did warn us that "œevil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." The FV is an area where such men have had considerable success and it should be clear, regardless of which side of this present debate you stand, exactly why this is happening.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Magma2

Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:

VII:3. Covenant of Grace

Man 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.

Notice above (and we´ll get to my presumed confusion between the CoG and the CoR below) that, per the covenant, God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made.

You aren't paying attention to simple grammar, Sean.

As you quoted above, the WCF says that God promises "unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe".

But then you turn right around and say that "God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made".


Your fallacy is in assuming that all covenant members are ordained unto life. But this is not true. The WCF is only addressing what God does for those ordained unto life, and is not addressing all of those with whom covenant is made.






[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Magma2
Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:

Actually, no, I take the WCF in its overall context, and then the further writings of those divines in their various works. They are thoroughly biblical in teaching how the covenant of grace has an external and internal aspect to it. Otherwise, the Assembly's views concerning both Censure and "covenant concepts" would exclude their laborious debates around the constitution of how one is excommunicated and breaking covenant. Apostasy for them presupposes something to apostatize from, which does not simply revolve around the visible church, but the covenant they are vowed to.

This holds much thought in it in respect to what "covenant" means, "A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness."

They further make this point that "Faith" is not a component of a pact or agreement by stating, "A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth....An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation."

Take this to heart, a "Solemn League and Covenant" is made not on faith, necessarily, but on the definition and biblical sanction of how "covenant" works. They are essential one and the same.

VII:3. Covenant of Grace

Man 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.

Yes, requiring in that covenant faith TO BE SAVED. Correct. I agree with the Assembly.

Place that in context with the oath, and sacraments.

"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..."

They are exceedingly clear.

There is the internal aspect of the CoG which intersects the CoR (Chapter 3 under the Decrees of God and Predestination) and the external aspect of the visible church and the covenant of grace whereby those who are baptized (including infants) are made partakers of that covenant.

Notice above (and we´ll get to my presumed confusion between the CoG and the CoR below) that, per the covenant, God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made.

That is not what it says, nor what the divines taught nor meant.

However, per you and Joseph, God fails to give all he promises to at least some members of the covenant.

Not at all, unless you are unilaterally thinking that the CoG and "salvation" are coextensive. They are not. The divines did not teach this, Calvin did not teach this, Turretin did not teach this, the Puritans did not teach this, etc. You are being Baptist.

Yet, per the WCF under the CoG God sets what is required and promises to give all those under the covenant exactly what is required. The covenant is completely unilateral and certainly one of the most graphic example in Scripture is found in Gen. 15 in God´s covenant with Abraham. The covenant was cut but only God, represented by a flaming torch, passed through the severed carcasses. Gen 15:17; "œAnd it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces." I think it significant that Abraham is completely passive in the establishment of the covenant.

It is significant. But did Abraham believe that Isaac was in covenant with God or not?

Don't confuse the Counsel of Peace (the CoR) with how the administration of that Covenant works out in time among men in the CoG and with apostasy FROM that covenant.

With all due respect, I don´t see that I am confusing the two. Perhaps you and Joseph are?

Based on what you have written so far, it seems you are. You are thinking like a Baptist in respect to the CoG.

Maybe it would be helpful for each of us to define the parties in each? For brevity I´ll use Hodge´s definition since I think it is clear and to the point:

. . . confusion is avoided by distinguishing between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people. The latter supposes the former, and is founded upon it. The two, however, ought not to be confounded, as both are clearly revealed in Scripture, and moreover they differ as to the parties, as to the promises, and as to the conditions.

Now, I would hope we could agree that if the CoG is between God and His people, reprobate church members are not counted among "œHis people." I certainly can´t find anything in Hodge to suggest that God´s people are "œall Israel," i.e., all natural decedents from Abraham, or even all members of the visible church, but rather are his spiritual seed.

But Hodge is not talking about the reprobate here. You've mentioned the visible church. There is nothing in Hodge's quote here respecting that. And Hodge, mind you, follows Witsius quite closely on these matters. Hodge has a far different overall view of Covenant Theology than you do. For example, he says:

"Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)

"We have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches [the rejection of presumptive regeneration)." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)

Hodge's view is colored with the same internal/external aspect as the Reformers and Post-Reformation dogmatics, otherwise, PR would not be feasible for him, and he would be thinking Baptistically.

More importantly, what does Scripture say? God tells Abraham; "œI will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you . . . ." Notice, it´s God who establishes His covenant. Is God the God of unbelievers? Those not chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ? Well, Abraham thought so, at least at first. Per Gen 17 and after the sign of the covenant is given and God tells him that Sarah "œshall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her," Abraham said; "Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!" Clearly Abraham confused the giving of the sign of the covenant, and with whom it was to be applied, with the covenant itself, but God corrects him and says."

Hmmm. If this is the case (i.e. that Abraham was "confused" (which I think is exegetically unattainable here) then both Paul and James were idiots for allowing the recently converted Pharisees who were "brothers" to continue to circumcise all their children as being IN covenant with God (much less mangling other OT and NT Scriptures that could be cited.)

Acts 21:20-21 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 "but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs."

This would be hard for a Jew to swallow - their children are not part of the covenant of grace and not have the sign of it? No way.

Acts 21:22-24 "What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 "Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 "Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

I.e. - show them all, Paul, that they were wrong in thinking this, and you said no such thing. Children are still part of the covenant of grace.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Ishmael was in covenant with God, for God does not establish His covenant with him, but rather with a child yet to come as the result of a miraculous birth, clearly picturing Christ who was to come. However, the idea that reprobate members of the visible church, the chafe among the wheat, are "œfull-fledge"members and have "œfull status" in the Covenant of Grace is not supported by Scripture.

The difference between Hodge, I, Calvin, Turretin, the Puritans, etc., and your view is that you are thinking like a Baptist. The CoR in your view is essentially the same as the CoG which has only three elements to it - The Father makes a pact with the Son to save His elect. That is what is "delivered" in your mind in the CoG, which then, blurs the CoR and the CoG in the same way the Baptist is confused.

Back to Hodge for a moment. I think it´s important to see exactly what confusion Hodge was trying to avoid and it´s not the confusion that divides you and me. Hodge writes:

Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Rom 5.12-21, and 1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 47-49. Still it does not remove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. 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.

Hodge has no problem whatsoever with saying that the CoG "œwas formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father," i.e. the elect and the elect alone.

No, No, Hodge is saying only part of what you think he is saying in whole. See my earlier quotes on PR above BY Hodge.

However the reason for distinguishing the CoG from the CoR is to "œremove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant," not that reprobate members of the visible church are represented in one covenant and not in another.

Understanding the very idea of the Confession's teaching on Sacraments is diametrically opposed this kind of thinking. For the seal of any sacrament is either a blessing or curse. This is the nature of every covenant, including the nature of the CoR. Blessing attends the one in covenant if all matters of the covenant are met. God supplies this for the elect. Cursing attends every covenant breaker that does not fulfill all the covenant stipulations. It is worse of Ishmael and Esau as covenant breakers than it is for those who are never in covenant with God.

Consequently, in my opinion that your take on the CoG is not only contrary to Scripture, the WCF, but also gives considerably aid and comfort to FV heretics (and they are heretics that need to be disciplined, but are not).

This is simply from ignorance of all the facts, humbly. The FV crowd distorts and twists the Scriptures. I'm sure you would say they are getting their information, at least in their mind, by using their Bible's, but that does not make the Bible wrong.

Are unbelieving members of the church ingrafted into Christ? How about regenerated? Sins remitted? Given new life? Well, if they´re full-fledged members of the CoG and assuming full-fledged means anything then I guess so.

Don't mistake what the Assembly taught, and did not do. 1) they taught that baptism WAS those things, and 2) they made NO DISTINCTION between infants being baptized THIS way and adults being baptized int he SAME way. The WCF makes no distinction between the two. They are teaching what a Covenant Sign entails. It applies this way to all those baptized.

This applies to infants as well as to those professing faith and are baptized. The problem as I see it is that neither the Confession nor do the Scriptures assert that all baptized infants of believers receive all the blessings pictured in baptism and outline above.

You would have to show how infants, then, are said to be excluded from these things when they are baptized, in the Confession. And that is nowhere to be found. So you are picking and choosing what you want to pick and choose to quote.

I guess some here might be pained to consider it, but I think Gill was right when he said; "œpersons may be baptized in water, and yet may never be joined to a church." This goes for infant children of believers as well.

Again, you are being Baptistic.

In any case, this discussion so far has hopefully been helpful in highlighting some of the divisions and confusion that have plagued P&R circles and which has allowed the FV to take root.

Not really. You are confusing the issue all the more.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Magma2

Then I have to assume you don´t think the WCF biblical, for it states:

VII:3. Covenant of Grace

Man 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.

Notice above (and we´ll get to my presumed confusion between the CoG and the CoR below) that, per the covenant, God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made.

You aren't paying attention to simple grammar, Sean.

As you quoted above, the WCF says that God promises "unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe".

But then you turn right around and say that "God promises to give faith to all of whom the covenant is made".


Your fallacy is in assuming that all covenant members are ordained unto life. But this is not true. The WCF is only addressing what God does for those ordained unto life, and is not addressing all of those with whom covenant is made.



[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

It is not a fallacy, it is a deduction from the text of the WCF. And that depends on what you think is meant by "willing".

VII:3. Covenant of Grace

Man 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.

If one is both willing and able, one does that thing. We do things that we will to do. I think the key is understand what is meant by "willing". I think a modern understanding of "willing" is to mean "free to choose one way or the other" (i.e. "free will"). But I think in the WCF, it means to make them "want" to believe. And since the Holy Spirit makes the man both "want" to and to be "able" to believe, it follows that the man will in fact believe. Thus the man who God makes the covenant with is one who is called to believe, and can not reject God's calling.

Otherwise, we have to assert that the one who are placed under the covenant of grace, and who is required to have faith is free to reject this covenant. The freely offered covenant of grace is not free because one is "free" to reject it. We are in fact, "required" to have faith under the covenant of grace. The difference between a covenant and a contract, is a contract may be rejected by either party if either party does not adhere to the terms. A covenant is binding on both parties, and can not be nullified.

So either the covenant is made with those who are "ordained for life" (the elect) or it is made to all men equally. But if it is to all men, then there is no difference between those who are members of the visible church or those who are not members. Therefore the covenant is to the every person in the world, or to those in the invisible church - the elect.

However, what benefit is there to those who are in the covenant if it applies to all men? And where does it imply that only those who are members of the visible church are under the covenant, and those outside of it are not. No, it make more sense if the covenant is with the elect.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Civbert]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Civbert

It is not a fallacy, it is a deduction from the text of the WCF. And that depends on what you think is meant by "willing".

If one is both willing and able, one does that thing. We do things that we will to do. I think the key is understand what is meant by "willing". I think a modern understanding of "willing" is to mean "free to choose one way or the other" (i.e. "free will"). But I think in the WCF, it means to make them "want" to believe. And since the Holy Spirit makes the man both "want" to and to be "able" to believe, it follows that the man will in fact believe. Thus the man who God makes the covenant with is one who is called to believe, and can not reject God's calling.

I totally agree with you regarding the definition of the word "willing" in the WCF. So who are you arguing with?

Originally posted by Civbert

Otherwise, we have to assert that the one who are placed under the covenant of grace, and who is required to have faith is free to reject this covenant.

Correct. There are elect members of the CoG, whom God will make willing. AND there are non-elect members of the CoG who certainly DO reject this covenant, and apostatize from it.

Originally posted by Civbert

So either the covenant is made with those who are "ordained for life" (the elect) or it is made to all men equally.

Wrong. You are very confused here. You need to go back and read Witsius and other good Covenant Theologians. You need to go up and read Dr. McMahon's most recent post in this thread.

The Covenant of Grace is not made with all men equally.

The Covenant of Grace is not made only with the elect.

Rather:

The Covenant of Grace is coextensive with the visible church. All members of the visible church are members of the Covenant of Grace. The elect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace both inwardly and outwardly, and receive ALL benefits of the covenant. Nonelect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace only outwardly, and receive SOME benefits of the covenant, and ultimately receive the covenant curses for apostasy.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

There is the internal aspect of the CoG which intersects the CoR (Chapter 3 under the Decrees of God and Predestination) and the external aspect of the visible church and the covenant of grace whereby those who are baptized (including infants) are made partakers of that covenant.

. . .


Not at all, unless you are unilaterally thinking that the CoG and "salvation" are coextensive. They are not. The divines did not teach this, Calvin did not teach this, Turretin did not teach this, the Puritans did not teach this, etc. You are being Baptist.

. . .

The difference between Hodge, I, Calvin, Turretin, the Puritans, etc., and your view is that you are thinking like a Baptist. The CoR in your view is essentially the same as the CoG which has only three elements to it - The Father makes a pact with the Son to save His elect. That is what is "delivered" in your mind in the CoG, which then, blurs the CoR and the CoG in the same way the Baptist is confused.

. . .

Understanding the very idea of the Confession's teaching on Sacraments is diametrically opposed this kind of thinking. For the seal of any sacrament is either a blessing or curse. This is the nature of every covenant, including the nature of the CoR. Blessing attends the one in covenant if all matters of the covenant are met. God supplies this for the elect. Cursing attends every covenant breaker that does not fulfill all the covenant stipulations. It is worse of Ishmael and Esau as covenant breakers than it is for those who are never in covenant with God.

. . .

Don't mistake what the Assembly taught, and did not do. 1) they taught that baptism WAS those things, and 2) they made NO DISTINCTION between infants being baptized THIS way and adults being baptized int he SAME way. The WCF makes no distinction between the two. They are teaching what a Covenant Sign entails. It applies this way to all those baptized.

AMEN Dr. McMahon!!!

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse


I totally agree with you regarding the definition of the word "willing" in the WCF. So who are you arguing with?

Originally posted by Civbert

Otherwise, we have to assert that the one who are placed under the covenant of grace, and who is required to have faith is free to reject this covenant.

Correct. There are elect members of the CoG, whom God will make willing. AND there are non-elect members of the CoG who certainly DO reject this covenant, and apostatize from it.

Originally posted by Civbert

So either the covenant is made with those who are "ordained for life" (the elect) or it is made to all men equally.

Wrong. You are very confused here. You need to go back and read Witsius and other good Covenant Theologians. You need to go up and read Dr. McMahon's most recent post in this thread.

The Covenant of Grace is not made with all men equally.

The Covenant of Grace is not made only with the elect.

Rather:

The Covenant of Grace is coextensive with the visible church. All members of the visible church are members of the Covenant of Grace. The elect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace both inwardly and outwardly, and receive ALL benefits of the covenant. Nonelect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace only outwardly, and receive SOME benefits of the covenant, and ultimately receive the covenant curses for apostasy.

OK. Where does Scripture or WCF say that only the visible church is under the Covenant of Grace. After some thought, I think I'd say the Covenant of Grace must be made to all men (both Jews and Gentiles). It see no reason to make it exclusive to the visible church in any way. It is either with the elect, or with all men. It seems the error of FV is to say the CoG applies only the the visible church - which excludes those believers who are not members of a visible church.

WCF 7:6 seems to imply the church has a role in the dispensing of the CoG - it does not exclude those outside the Church. It is the preaching of the Word, to the whole world.

7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance (Gal_2:17), was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord´s Supper (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20; 1Co_11:23-25): which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy (Jer_31:33, Jer_31:34; Heb_12:22-28), to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations (Psa_32:1; Act_15:11; Rom_3:21-23; Rom_4:3, Rom_4:6, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17, Rom_4:23, Rom_4:24; Gal_3:14, Gal_3:16; Heb_13:8).

Note that the the church administer the sacraments, but these are just some of the blessings of the CoG. It does not imply that church membership defines those who are offered the Covenant. The Covenant is to all men. Now either all men is all who are elect, or all men. It can not be only the visible church because then only those in the visible church receive the promise of saving faith. And can not believe that is correct..


Perhaps you should define the "benefits" of the Covenant of Grace according to the WCF. But I think this is clear in WCF 7:3 - "commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved". That can not be true only for members of the visible church. That is true for ALL sinners. The benefit of the CoG is "salvation by Jesus Christ."

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Understanding the very idea of the Confession's teaching on Sacraments is diametrically opposed this kind of thinking. For the seal of any sacrament is either a blessing or curse. This is the nature of every covenant, including the nature of the CoR. Blessing attends the one in covenant if all matters of the covenant are met. God supplies this for the elect. Cursing attends every covenant breaker that does not fulfill all the covenant stipulations. It is worse of Ishmael and Esau as covenant breakers than it is for those who are never in covenant with God.

The requirement of the covenant of grace (the stipulation) is faith in Jesus. And the blessing is salvation. This offer is for all SINNERS. It is not limited to the "visible church".

I repeat, the only requirement of the covenant of grace is faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Joseph says:

The Covenant of Grace is coextensive with the visible church. All members of the visible church are members of the Covenant of Grace. The elect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace both inwardly and outwardly, and receive ALL benefits of the covenant. Nonelect members of the visible church partake of the Covenant of Grace only outwardly, and receive SOME benefits of the covenant, and ultimately receive the covenant curses for apostasy.

Amen.

Fred said the same this way:

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).

Those making the CoG coextensive only with elect members, are denying the foundation of all historic forms of biblical interpretation of how "covenant" works. Its not what the confession teaches, nor what Reformed Theology has ever taught. Those formulations are new, and Baptistic (no offense to my good baptist brothers at all, I'm simply pressing the very confused Presbyterians in this thread either become Presbyterian, or go Baptist.)

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Magma2]

It´s clear to me that we´re talking past each other and are not making any progress at all. I realize you have a lot more at stake here than I do, after all I don´t have a book to sell. However, in my opinion in light of the FV, this debate could be a classic example of divide and conquer, and, as previously mentioned, is a wonderful example of why the heresy of the FV and the NPP are winning in P&R circles.

But Hodge is not talking about the reprobate here. You've mentioned the visible church. There is nothing in Hodge's quote here respecting that.

I realize that and I´m glad we agree. Hodge is talking about the CoG and the CoR, neither of which have the reprobate in mind as either recipients or members. That is after all the point of the discussion and my citation of Hodge.

And Hodge, mind you, follows Witsius quite closely on these matters. Hodge has a far different overall view of Covenant Theology than you do. For example, he says:

"Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)

"We have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches [the rejection of presumptive regeneration)." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)

This is what I mean by talking past each other. I do not deny presumptive regeneration or padeobaptism in the slightest, nor can such a denial be inferred from anything I have written.

Hmmm. If this is the case (i.e. that Abraham was "confused" (which I think is exegetically unattainable here) then both Paul and James were idiots for allowing the recently converted Pharisees who were "brothers" to continue to circumcise all their children as being IN covenant with God (much less mangling other OT and NT Scriptures that could be cited.)

You may think Abraham´s presumption is exegetically unattainable, but that´s a far cry from demonstrating that it is. Abraham quite naturally presumed that the covenant would be established with Ismael, but God said "œNo." Abraham was in error and he presumed wrongly concerning the nature and scope of the covenant, much in the same way as you have. As to the question of the Apostolic toleration of circumcision to continue to be practiced among converted Jews is a completely irrelevant detour from the question of whether or not all circumcised Jews (all Israel) or all baptized persons, infants included, are true members of the CoG.

Your whole objection seems to rest on the mistaken inference that an affirmation that the CoG is with God´s elect alone is somehow a rejection of infant baptism. This is false. A non-sequitur. There is nothing "œBaptistic" in the proposition that the CoG is with the elect alone and that Abraham is the "œfather of all who believe," both Jew and Gentile (Rom 4:11-12). It seems to me that it is your presumption that infants cannot so believe, but the idea of "presumptive regeneration" is unto belief or else what do you mean by regeneration? God can cause infants and imbeciles to believe the gospel, to know Christ, even infants the womb. After all, we do have the example of John who leapt in his mothers womb in the presence of the pre-born Christ.

Children are still part of the covenant of grace.

I´ve never said anything to suggest they aren´t. What do you think presumptive regeneration means? I think believers have every reason to presume their natural children are also their spiritual heirs, but there is nothing in the CoG that guarantees parents that all their natural children are members of the covenant. God loved Jacob but hated Esua even before either of these twins were born, yet both received the sign of the covenant.

Those making the CoG coextensive only with elect members, are denying the foundation of all historic forms of biblical interpretation of how "covenant" works. Its not what the confession teaches, nor what Reformed Theology has ever taught. Those formulations are new, and Baptistic (no offense to my good baptist brothers at all, I'm simply pressing the very confused Presbyterians in this thread either become Presbyterian, or go Baptist.)

Well, then I´ll press back Nowhere does the Confession assert the inclusion of non-elect members of the visible church as members of the covenant no matter how it is construed. We may agree that the Confession conflates both the CoG and the CoR, but nowhere can you validly infer (at least you haven´t so far) that the CoG is made with reprobate and elect members of the church, either in the OT or the New. If this is "œBaptistic" in your mind, then so be it. If that´s what you think then the Baptists were right and the Confession ironically affirms their position, not yours. Further, along with your charge that the CoG being coextensive with only the elect, consider the following from that wonderful Baptist theologian Robert Reymond:

"œThat the Westminster divines had a real sensitivity to the Bible´s Heilsgeschichtliche ("œhistory of salvation") character under the covenant of grace is evidence by their accompanying descriptions of the covenant of grace "œunder the law" and "œunder the gospel" . . . the one overarching "œcovenant of grace" was historically advanced and administered after Genesis 3:15 by God´s historical covenants with Noah . . . Abraham . . . Israel . . David . . .and finally through the administration of the New Covenant . . . , Jesus Christ himself being the Mediator of the New Covenant between God and his elect (Heb. 9:15)." [pg.405 NST]

Then after a couple of pages of citations Reymond concludes:

"œThese passages of Scripture make it clear that the promises of God, covenantally given to Abraham, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his (spiritual) descendants after him forever (Gen. 17:7-8) extend temporally to the farthest reaches of the future and include within their compass the entire community of the redeemed. This is just to say that the Abrahamic covenant, in the specific prospect it holds forth of the salvation of the entire church of God, is identical [i.e., co-extensive - SG] with the soteric program of the covenant of grace, indeed, is identical with the covenant of grace itself." [517-18]

Or how about this from the Baptist Herman Hoeksema:

That divine trinitarian life is the life of the covenant.

For in the eternal sphere of the divine Essence, the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity live in inseparable, most perfect, and eternally complete communion with one another. It is the life of eternal and perfect knowledge, of a perfect entering into one another´s life, of a perfect understanding of each other. . . However, as soon as we present the matter of the covenant in this wise, if the life of the covenant in God is such a life of most perfect friendship, of the most intimate communion, of the deepest knowledge and the most affectionate love, it follows, in the first place, that the idea of the covenant cannot be found in an agreement or pact. In perfect harmony and communion of life, in the perfect, eternal knowing of one another, and in the most perfect love and unity, the idea of an agreement, of the conclusion of a pact, does not fit. In such a relation everything is spirit and life. The covenant idea is given with the life of the Triune God in Himself. It rises in eternal spontaneity from the divine Essence and realizes itself with perfect divine consciousness in the Three Persons. God knows and wills Himself, loves and seeks Himself eternally as the covenant God. The covenant is the bond of God with Himself. It is the eternal life of perfect light.

But if this is so in God Himself, this must also be applicable to the covenant idea as a relation between God and man. For all things are only out of God, through Him, and unto Him. Also the covenant relation can never be anything else than an ectypical reflection of the covenant life in God Himself. If the essence of the covenant in God is the communion of friendship, this must also be the essence of the covenant between God and man. If this communion of friendship in God rests upon the perfect essential unity by personal distinction, then this must also be the case with the covenant between God and man: it also must be based upon a creaturely likeness of man to God by personal distinction. If this communion of friendship in the Trinity implies a perfect knowledge of one another, then also the covenant life of man must consist in this, that God reveals Himself to him, causes man to know Him, reveals His secrets to him, speaks to him as a Friend with His friend, walks with him, eats and drinks with him, lives with him under one roof. If the covenant life in God consists in this, that the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are united in the bond of perfect love, then also the covenant relation between God and man must originate in this, that God opens His heart for man. Then the life of the covenant is eternal life itself . . . The idea of the covenant is certainly not a pact or agreement, whether you conceive of such and agreement in the unilateral or bilateral sense. It is the relation of the most intimate communion of friendship in which God reflects His own covenant life in His relation to the creature, gives to that creature life, and causes him to taste and acknowledge the highest good and the overflowing fountain of all good. [Reformed Dogmatics, 321-22]

Finally, as to the insistence that one must be a full-fledged member of the CoG in order to apostatize from the covenant, what is missing from this is that all men are already and by nature covenant breakers. While I certainly would not recommend him as a guide in most things, I agree with that other Baptist Cornelius Van Til who wrote:

There are two classes of men. There are those who worship and serve the creature and there are those who worship and serve the Creator. There are covenant breakers and there are covenant keepers.

One doesn´t have to be included in the Covenant of Grace in order to be a covenant breaker. "œThey went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us (1 John 2:19). "œ

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Magma2]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

One doesn´t have to be included in the Covenant of Grace in order to be a covenant breaker.

This is obviously where we disagree. Historically, this is where Presbyterians and Baptists draw thier lines. One cannot break what he is not part of or in.

I don't think quoting Reymond is helpful, because you are certainly not taking into consideration everything Reymond says. Knowing him personally, I know he does not share your evaluation.

Neither am I trying to sell books. (Was that really helpful?)

My desire is that those who profess to be Presbyterian, act like it in their Covenant Theology. Yours remains Baptistic in how you Construe the CoG. Take Joseph's advice, read Witsius. Its long, and laborious, but it is more helpful than simply going back and forth in short posts. Witsius follows Turretin, and Calvin. Turretin and Westminster construe the CoG in the same way, and divide it in the same way. Owen, if you have time, does as well. See these as helps:

John Owen and the Covenant of Redemption
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonJohnOwenRedemption.htm

Covenant Concepts in Dr. Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm

But in being honest with you, besides trying to sell book, I still believe you are thoroughly confused. You do, though, sit in good "confused company." Very godly and useful men like Spurgeon, Gill and Bunyan believed the same.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Sean,

Please take the time to read this book:


The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man

 

[Myshkin]

Jacob,

Just curious, what do you think of the report?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by RAS
Jacob,

Just curious, what do you think of the report?

I haven't read it in a week and didn't read it too thoroughly the first time I saw it. I just noticed it was a lot different than the MVP report. My initial thoughts: It is a compromise report. They put their foot down on Jordan's exegesis of Genesis 1-3 but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy. I am really interested to see how this plays out at GA.

 

[Magma2]

This is obviously where we disagree. Historically, this is where Presbyterians and Baptists draw thier lines. One cannot break what he is not part of or in.

Yes, we disagree. I also disagree that anything I´ve said can be construed as Baptistic. Historically the line that was drawn was because Baptists didn´t think non-elect members were members of the covenant in any sense. That is not my position and to characterize it a "œBaptistic" is a misrepresentation. I have said that non-elect members of the visible church are members of the covenant in the sense that they are recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God.

I agree with RE Fred Greco who wrote:

The outward administration is not substantive - it is dross that burns away. The non-elect are like guests at the wedding feast who do not have wedding clothes, and that shows that they never belonged there in the first place. or like the thief who climbs over the wall instead of going through the gate. Just because one thinks that one is in relationship with God does not mean that he is.

I agree with RE Adam McMurry who also wrote:

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.

I agree with Rev. Sherman Isbell who, writing on Samuel Rutherford said, said that for Rutherford, non-elect members of the visible church are in the covenant, but in the sense of its external or outward administration:

Rutherford describes the visible church with its means of grace as the place where the covenant of grace is externally administered. There are more in covenant with God than only those he has chosen to salvation. Those who make a visible profession in the church are externally and conditionally in covenant with God. But no one obtains the thing promised in the covenant, unless he fulfills the condition of the covenant, which is faith. Rutherford points out that it is the Anabaptists who hold that "there can be none but real believers under the New Testament in covenant with God," for they make no proper distinction between the outward administration of the covenant in the gospel offers, and the internal appropriation of the thing promised. "The Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised, and covenant and benefits covenanted."

. . . But for all this privilege, many who are externally in covenant never possess the forgiveness and eternal life promised in the covenant, because they never respond with the condition required in the covenant, namely faith [i.e., never fulfill the terms of Joseph´s contract-SG]. The reason why they never believe is that God never gives them a new heart. There are conditional promises made in the external covenant, and the purpose of these is to direct us to Christ the object of faith, and to impress upon us our responsibility. But there are also promises in Scripture which are not conditional but absolute; the promise of a new heart is made only to the elect. "It is no inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible church be so under the covenant of grace as some promises are made to them and some mercies promised to them conditionally, and some reserved, special promises of a new heart and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way to the parties visibly and externally, and to the parties internally and personally in covenant with God. So the Lord promiseth life and forgiveness shall be given to these who are externally in the covenant, providing they believe, to these that are only externally in covenant."

Rutherford argues that non-elect members are in the CoG in the sense of its outward or external administration. That is all I have argued and yet you accuse me, along with Fred and Adam by extension, of being "œBaptisitic."

Non-elect members of the visible church are nomianl Christians; Christians in name only.

Your idea that the non-elect are full-fledged covenant members and possess full-status in the CoG is a gross distortion Covenant. Your suggestion that all the blessings of Christ´s cross work, which are pictured for us in baptism, are equally given to elect and non-elect members of the visible church smacks of the hyper-covenantalism that marks the FV heresy. It is precisely this kind of hyper-covenantalism that we find in men like Rich Lusk who wrote in his "œCovenant & Election Faqs":

What is a non-elect covenant member?

God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in his decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, would be drawn to Christ and to his people for a time. These people, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ´s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament. (Reformed theologian John Murray makes it clear that whatever blessings reprobate experience in this life flow from Christ´s work and the Spirit´s work.) They may be said to be reconciled to God, adopted, granted new life, etc. But in the end, they fail to persevere, and because they fall away, they go to hell. Why would God do this? It´s a mystery! Why would God allow sin to enter his creation in the first place? Why did he allow Adam to fall? Perhaps God allows some in the covenant to fall away so that those who do persevere will know that they only did so by the grace of God. Whatever the case, the teaching of Scripture is clear: some whom he adopts into covenant relation, he later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/covenant_election_faqs.htm

The above is an accurate description, without ambiguity, of what it means to say non-elect baptized members of the visible church have full status in the covenant and are full fledged covenant members. Of course, Lusk´s position as stated above is heretical to the core, but at least he´s clear what he means. Anyway, thank you for your book recommendations. I haven´t read Witsius, but if Lusk´s covenant is any relation to Witsius´ I can see why P&R churches are in trouble.

Neither am I trying to sell books. (Was that really helpful?)

That was uncalled for. I apologize. You and Joseph can have the last word.

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by Magma2]

 

[Scott Bushey]

My opinion, it looks as if you are both talking past each other. " In covenant" means just that. The elect holding fast the faith, the non elect heaping up condemnation unto themselves. It is no less covenant. Obviously, the distinction is made for certain levels of conversation only. Christs visible church is in covenant with Him; this to include the elect and non elect.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I have said that non-elect members of the visible church are members of the covenant in the sense that they are recipients of the outward administration of the covenant and partake in the means of grace; however these things are not grace to the non-elect. The non-elect merely "taste" the good things of God.

If this is what you "meant" in your last two posts, why not have just said that? If this is what you mean, this is what I said as well.

Could I have so grossly misunderstood you?

I would agree with Edwards:

I know the distinction made by some, between the internal and external covenant; but, I hope, the divines that make this distinction, would not be understood, that there are really and properly two covenants of grace; but only that those who profess the one only covenant of grace, are of two sorts. There are those who comply with it internally and really, and others who do so only externally, that is, in profession and visibility. But he that externally and visibly complies with the covenant of grace, appears and professes to do so really. "” There is also this distinction concerning the covenant of grace; it is exhibited two ways, the one externally, by the preaching of the word, the other internally and spiritually, by enlightening the mind rightly to understand the word. But it is with the covenant, as it is with the call of the gospel: he that really complies with the external call, has the internal call; so he that truly complies with the external proposal of God´s covenant, as visible Christians profess to do, does indeed perform the inward condition of it. But the New Testament affords no more foundation for supposing two real and properly distinct covenants of grace, than it does to suppose two sorts of real Christians.
When those persons who were baptized in infancy properly own their baptismal covenant, the meaning is, that they now, being capable to act for themselves, do professedly and explicitly make their parents´ act, in giving them up to God, their own, by expressly giving themselves up to God. But this no person can do, without either being deceived, or dissembling and professing what he himself supposes to be a falsehood, unless he supposes that in his heart he consents to be God´s. A child of christian parents never does that for himself which his parents did for him in infancy, till he gives himself wholly to God. But surely he does not do it, who not only keeps back a part, but the chief part, his heart and soul. He that keeps back his heart, does in effect keep back all; and therefore, if he be sensible of it, is guilty of solemn willful mockery, if at the same time he solemnly and publicly professes that he gives himself up to God. If there are any words used by such, which in their proper signification imply that they give themselves up to God; and if these words, as they intend them to be understood, and as they are understood by those that hear them, according to their established use and custom among that people, do not imply, that they do it really, but do truly reserve or keep back the chief part; it ceases to be a profession of giving themselves up to God, and so ceases to be a professed covenanting with God. The thing which they profess belongs to no existing covenant of God; for God has revealed no such covenant, in which our transacting of it is a giving up ourselves to him with reserve, or holding back our souls, our chief part, and in effect our all. And therefore, although such public and solemn professing may be a very unwarrantable and great abuse of words, and taking God´s name in vain, it is no professed covenanting with God.

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[AdamM]

My initial thoughts: It is a compromise report. They put their foot down on Jordan's exegesis of Genesis 1-3 but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy.

Hi Jacob,

I am curious where in the text of the report do you find the MOP saying that the Federal Vision as a whole is within the bounds of orthodoxy? I can't see where the MOP report says anything like that, so I wonder if perhaps that interpretation is coming from some source other then text of the report itself?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

I would agree with Edwards:

I know the distinction made by some, between the internal and external covenant; but, I hope, the divines that make this distinction, would not be understood, that there are really and properly two covenants of grace; but only that those who profess the one only covenant of grace, are of two sorts. There are those who comply with it internally and really, and others who do so only externally, that is, in profession and visibility.

Now THAT is a good way to word it!!




[Edited on 2-6-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Civbert]

Going through some of there to see if I could find an answer to a question I had. Let's say for the sake of argument, both elect and non-elect can be in the covenant of grace. There seems to be four states a person can be in.

• in the visible church and elect (under CoG)
• in the visible church and non-elect (under COG)
• outside the visible church and none-elect (not under CoG)
• outside the visible church and elect (under CoG)
  [/list=A]
  
  If I understand what's been posted - those in B (in the visible church and non-elect) are sill under the CoG? And I assume those outside those believers outside the visible church are still under the covenant (I know this is a rare exception - covering someone who has believed the Gospel by is not yet a member of a visible church.
  
  It seems to me that those who are members of the visible church, but are non-elect - are worse off than those outside the visible church - seen they have heard the Gospel and have rejected it.
  
  What are the benefits of being under the CoG for the non-elect?