Non-elect infants in the CoG - Christ as mediator

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daveb

Puritan Board Sophomore
This is probably a silly question that has been answered before (looked around, didn't see anything) but I thought I'd see if I could get rid of some of my confusion.

While trying to better understand covenant theology and infant baptism a question came to mind regarding Christ's role as mediator for those who are in covenant. There are infants who are baptized into the CoG who are ultimately not of the elect, but through baptism are put in covenant status. If Christ is the mediator of the CoG what does He mediate to these infants? Does He mediate anything at all?
 
No where in the Scriptures is Christ the Mediator of curses. He Mediates the New Covenant in His blood - if His blood was not shed for you then you are not in the New Covenant.

[b:51605c2f86]First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1646[/b:51605c2f86]

Jesus Christ is made the mediator of the new and everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, ever to be perfectly and fully the prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God for evermore.

1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15; John 14:6; Isaiah 9:6, 7.

Concerning His mediatorship, the Scripture holds forth Christ's call to His office; for none takes this honor upon Him, but He that is called of God as was Aaron, it being an action of God, whereby a special promise being made, He ordains His Son to this office; which promise is, that Christ should be made a sacrifice for sin; that He should see His seed, and prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; all of mere free and absolute grace towards God's elect, and without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.

Hebrews 5:4, 5, 6; Isaiah 53:10, 11; John 3:16; Romans 8:32.

This office to be mediator, that is, to be prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God, is so proper to Christ, that neither in whole or any part thereof, it cannot be transferred from Him to any other.

1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:24; Daniel 7:14; Acts 4:12; Luke 1:33; John 14:6.

[b:51605c2f86]Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689[/b:51605c2f86]

8. Christ the Mediator

8.1. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, in accordance with the covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man; to be Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and the Judge of all the world. To the Lord Jesus He gave, from all eternity, a people to be His seed. These, in time, would be redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified by the Lord Jesus.

8.2 The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being true and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of the same substance and equal with Him;

- Who made the world, and Who upholds and governs all things which He has made,

- did, when the fullness of time had come, take upon Himself man's nature, with all its essential properties and common infirmities, with the exception of sin.

- He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, so that He was born to a woman from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and David, in accordance with the Scriptures.

- Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion;

- So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

8.3. The Lord Jesus, His human nature thus united to the divine, once in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. It pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell in Him so that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety, a position and duty which He did not take upon Himself, but was called to perform by His Father. And the Father also put all power and judgment in His hand, and gave Him commandment to exercise the same.

8.4. This office and duty of Mediator and Surety the Lord Jesus undertook most willingly. To discharge it, He was made under the law, and perfectly fulfilled it, and He underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered. He was made sin and was made a curse for us; enduring the most grievous sorrows in His Soul with the most painful sufferings in His duty. He was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, but His body did not undergo any decomposition. On the third day He rose from the dead with the same body in which He had suffered, with which He also ascended into Heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.

8.5. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him.

8.6. Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit arising from His payment were communicated to the elect in all ages from the beginning of the world through those promises, types, and sacrifices in which He was revealed and signified as the seed which should bruise the serpent's head, and also the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, for He is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

8.7. Christ, in His work of Mediator, acts according to both natures, each nature doing that which is proper to itself. Yet, because of the unity of His person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

8.8. To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He certainly and effectually applies and communicates this redemption, making intercession for them, uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing to them in the Word and by the Word the mystery of salvation. He persuades them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit, and overcome all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom. This is achieved in such a manner and by such ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation, and it is all by free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.

8.9. This office of Mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, Who is the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church. Free Will of God, and this office may not be transferred from Him to any other, either in whole or in part.

8.10. This number and order of offices is essential. Because of our ignorance we need His prophetic office. Because of our alienation from God and the imperfection of the best of our service, we need His priestly office to reconcile us and present us to God as acceptable. Because of our aversion to, and utter inability to return to God, and for our rescue and keeping from spiritual enemies, we need His kingly office to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, and preserve us until we reach His heavenly kingdom.

Isaiah 42:1; 1 Peter 1:19, 20; Acts 3:22; Hebrews 5:5, 6; Psalms 2:6; Luke 1:33; Ephesians 1:22, 23; Hebrews 1:2; Acts 17:31; Isaiah 53:10; John 17:6; Romans 8:30; John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5; Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36; Psalms 40:7, 8; Hebrews 10:5-10; John 10:18; Gal 4:4; Matthew 3:15; Galatians 3:13; Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Matthew 26:37, 38; Luke 22:44; Matthew 27:46; Acts 13:37; 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4; John 20:25, 27; Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9-11; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 9:24; Acts 10:42; Romans 14:9, 10; Acts 1:11; 2 Peter 2:4; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:14; Romans 3:25, 26; John 17:2; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Corinthians 4:10; Hebrews 4:2; 1 Peter 1:10, 11; Revelation 13:8; Hebrews 13:8; John 3:13; Acts 20:28; John 6:37; John 10:15, 16; John 17:9; Romans 5:10; John 17:6; Ephesians 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Romans 8:9, 14; Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26; John 3:8; Ephesians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; John 1:18; Colossians 1:21; Galatians 5:17; John 16:8; Psalms 110:3; Luke 1:74, 75
 
[quote:48f63a4621="Paul manata"]what does Christ mediate for the unelect covenant members???

He mediates curses.[/quote:48f63a4621]

Thanks for your post Paul.

That's the conclusion that I thought it might be. I guess to me this seems a little strange since when I think of mediation I can only think of positives, I had never considered that Christ's mediation would be against a person.

[quote:48f63a4621]ANd Hebrews 10:29 says that people count as unholy the bllod of the covenant which sanctified them.[/quote:48f63a4621]

Ok, I see how this fits.
 
Phillip, thanks for your input.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm just wondering how you deal with the passages Ian and Paul reference (esp. Heb 10)?
 
One cannot be sanctified by the Blood of Christ and then go to hell. This denies limited atonement, persevereance of the saints, and presents a skewed view of sanctification. You cannot be sanctified without being first justified in Christ.

And we must ask, is this verse using sanctification is a salvific sense?

[b:cf3841e47a]Hebrews 10[/b:cf3841e47a]
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Who is the "he" that was sanctified in this verse? It cannot mean the man who is apostate. He was never sanctified, he was never known by Christ. You cannot lose your sanctification or any other part of your salvation for that matter. So who is the "he"?

It is Christ, the One whose blood was shed and whose blood the apostate counts as worthlesss. Christ prayed (John 17:19), "19And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." Christ was sanctified, [i:cf3841e47a]set apart[/i:cf3841e47a] unto God on behalf of the elect by the shedding of His blood. This shedding of blood ratified the new Covenant, and thus only those sharing in the benefit of the atonement (the elect, those for whom Christ shed His blood) are in the New Covenant in His blood.

Two others on this verse:

[b:cf3841e47a]Matthew Henry[/b:cf3841e47a]
They have counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; that is, the blood of Christ, with which the covenant was purchased and sealed, and wherewith Christ himself was consecrated, or wherewith the apostate was sanctified, that is, baptized, visibly initiated into the new covenant by baptism, and admitted to the Lord's supper.

[b:cf3841e47a]John Gill[/b:cf3841e47a]
"the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish.

The point being, this blood of the New Covenant was not shed for all but only for the elect. If there are those who would suggest that Jesus did shed His blood for the non-elect then they need to rework their understanding of the atonement.

What else does the Bible say about this New Covenant? That everyone in this covenant (by virtue of the shed blood of Jesus) have had their sins forgiven them! This is a recurring distinguishing mark of the New Covenant.

"Their sin I will remember no more" - Jeremiah 31:31-34

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." - Matthew 26:28

"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." - Hebrews 8:12

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." - Hebrews 9:15


Phillip
 
I agree with what he said here: "They have counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; that is, the blood of Christ, with which the covenant was purchased and sealed, and [b:7af40ee3b1]wherewith Christ himself was consecrated[/b:7af40ee3b1]".

I do not think it wise to use the term samctification to refer to anything but the process of being conformed to the image of Christ as part of our salvation. The blood of Christ sanctifies only the elect.

Phillip
 
Wow, thanks for your thoughts guys! Lots to go through. A few things come to mind:

1. Seems to go back to the issue as to whether or not non-elect are in the new covenant. I must admit I'd have a hard time understanding the Heb. 10 passage if I didn't believe non-elect were in the covenant via baptism. That seems to provide the only good answer to the passage (maybe I just don't know enough).

Phillip, your point about the atonement is a good one though.

2. I don't think sanctified in Heb. 10 is only applying to the elect. I think it might be used much in the same sense as in 1 Cor. 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." The unbelieving husband is sanctified, but not elect.

Perhaps those who enter the new covenant via baptism are "sanctified" in a similar fashion?
 
no one has addressed the idea that as you read the text it is logical and grammatically acceptable (preferred actually) to see that the person sanctified is the Son of God. He is being trampled underfoot and His greatest act of love for His elect is being spurned and referred to as common.

To whom much is given much is required, but that in no way means that the non-elect are members of the New Covenant. And what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that the sins of those in the covenant are forgotten and forgiven?

Phillip
 
[quote:c6a1332b7c="pastorway"]no one has addressed the idea that as you read the text it is logical and grammatically acceptable (preferred actually) to see that the person sanctified is the Son of God. He is being trampled underfoot and His greatest act of love for His elect is being spurned and referred to as common.

To whom much is given much is required, but that in no way means that the non-elect are members of the New Covenant. And what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that the sins of those in the covenant are forgotten and forgiven?

Phillip[/quote:c6a1332b7c]

First, your presuppositions determine which interpretation is the best understanding in this instance, since the text in itself can go either way. The real questions is, whose presuppositions are justified? Furthermore, even if I take your interpretation of who "he" is in Hebrews 10:29, that still doesn't change the meaning of the passage. Only someone who is purposely trying NOT to be Covenantal can read Hebrews 10 without seeing the parallels with the Old Covenant warnings against covenant breaking.

Second, what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that our children are included in it, just like every other covenant? (Jeremiah 30-34; Isaiah 59; Zechariah 10; Ezekiel 37)
 
Paul,
Could you please supply the reference for that alluded statement. Not an inference, but a clear command?
 
[quote:366abfd05a="pastorway"]no one has addressed the idea that as you read the text it is logical and grammatically acceptable (preferred actually) to see that the person sanctified is the Son of God. He is being trampled underfoot and His greatest act of love for His elect is being spurned and referred to as common.

To whom much is given much is required, but that in no way means that the non-elect are members of the New Covenant. And what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that the sins of those in the covenant are forgotten and forgiven?

Phillip[/quote:366abfd05a]

To take this positon, you must believe that the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace, and we already know you are wrong about that, Phillip. :D

So the answer to the question is that no infants (or adults for that matter)will in the Covenant of Grace, but they can be in the outward administration of it in its various forms, including the New Covenant.

Lawrence, Jesus has given a clear command in every passage that baptists refer to about baptism upon a profession of faith. Unless that is infallible, then we have instances of it.

And Phillip's dodge about not being [i:366abfd05a]real[/i:366abfd05a] baptism won't wash. It's really a word game. We could say the same about professions - no one has ever made a false profession, because if it was not a true reflection of their heart, it wasn't a [i:366abfd05a]real[/i:366abfd05a] profession, and so on for any number of things.
 
[quote:33e7ee5668="Paul manata"]what does Christ mediate for the unelect covenant members???

He mediates curses.[/quote:33e7ee5668]


Paul,

How do the "curses" for the non-elect who are members of the New Covenant differ from the punishment of the non-elect who are not members of the New Covenant?
 
In 2 Peter 2, the apostle tells us that it would have been better for the false teachers to have never known the gospel than to have once known it and to then fall away from it. If everyone in hell receives the same punishment, we can only wonder why it would have been better for them before than it is now.
 
I do not want to belittle what Paul or Craig has said.

However, the arguments for the Paedo camp here are basic and fundamental. Paul and Craig have basically said what Paedo always say.

It is an impossible position to determine who REALLY are the elect from a "professing baptistic position." I cannot recall Shireff, Howell, Welty, Gill, Bunyan, Malone, or any other Baptist realizing this conundrum.

After the arguments listed above, I find Baptistic attempts of explaining their position as befuddling.

Baptists never admit, though they know full well, that NOT knowing who is or is not a true believer is an absolute crushing blow to their CENTRAL theological supposition on HOW the Regulative Principle should be upheld.

Baptists never admit that there is NO evidence of ANY command or Scripture for their "professing believers are baptized alone".

They admit (if only in their own hearts, and not on paper) that if they were to give in on either of these points, in ANY way, their theological foundation for their entire system will crumble.

The ONLY person I ever heard or read that admitted anything even remotely close to this, was MacArthur. he said that if infants can be found to be included in the CoG, then Baptistic Theology is done - it is over. What he fails to realize is that because of his dispensationalism, he attempts not to go in that direction. His eschatological dispensationalism keeps him safe in his own mind, not realizing, all along, that his dispensationalism destroys his position all by itself.

Baptists are left with a conundrum that cannot repair itself on the practical level. They must admit that they have no positive Scriptural warrant for baptizing professing believers (and they do not - for there is no Scripture that says "When a man, woman or child professes faith in Christ, then, and only then, should they be baptized (or something like this as a positive command)") and that they have no idea who may be saved or lost and they baptized these people anyway, then they are practically destroying their theological view...

They also must admit that they have no idea whether someone really is elect or not. The very idea of attempting to create an inwardly regenerate church body, by administering an [b:dda2f624f5]outward sign [/b:dda2f624f5]on people they are unsure are even regenerate, is so theologically ridiculous that they either cannot see this simple problem, or they are afraid to admit it. Either way, they are in grave error, and their theological position, on that account alone, should be seen as erroneous.

Think through this - Baptists administer an outward sign of regeneration on people they "think" are regenerate in order to build a VISIBLE body of believers who INTERNALLY are suppose to be regenerate. This is an indefensible position.

[quote:dda2f624f5]No where in the Scriptures is Christ the Mediator of curses. [/quote:dda2f624f5]

Phillip, you are denying the basics of what a Mediator means.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 when the [b:dda2f624f5]Lord Jesus [/b:dda2f624f5]is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire [b:dda2f624f5]taking vengeance [/b:dda2f624f5]on those who do not know God, and on those who [b:dda2f624f5]do not obey the gospel [/b:dda2f624f5]of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will [b:dda2f624f5]he [/b:dda2f624f5]be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which [b:dda2f624f5]he[/b:dda2f624f5] was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

To say that the "he" is preferably Christ" is to not be familiar with historical theology. Owen and Pink, to my knowledge are the only ones who attempt hermeneutical and theological gymnastics (responsibly) in attempting that idea. The contrast is between the defiant rebellious sinner who is part of the covenant community in the OT with the defiant rebellious sinner who is defiant in the new covenatn community. BOTH were set apart and sanctified by theri respective covenants. BOTH are contrasted to those who count unholy thast which made them holy. The warning here, at this point, is the author's fourth warning to those apsotates. The gravity of defiance of the law of Moses under the old covenant throws into bold relief the far greater seriousness of apostasy under the new covenant. Since the blessings God has bestowed through Christ are greater than those provided through the old covenant, the rejection of those blessings entails a far more severe punishment. Contempt for a privileged relationship with God through Christ in the new covenant will involve retribution more terrible than the death penalty attached to violation of the law. There are three parallel participial clauses that articulate this. Three time: The apostate "has trampled upon the Son of God", the apostate "has treated the blood of the covenant, by which he was consecrated [to the service of God], as defiled," the apostate "has insulted the Spirit of grace."

The phrase "by means of which he was consecrated," resumes 10:10, 14, where the subjective blessing secured by Christ's sufficient sacrifice is defined as consecration to God (cf. 13:12). This phrase in v 29 corroborates that 10:26-31 is descriptive of the Christian who has experienced the action of Christ upon his life. With biting irony, the writer envisions such a person as regarding Christ's blood as [i:dda2f624f5]koinovn [/i:dda2f624f5]("defiled," "disqualified for sacrifice"). The juxtaposition of considering defiled blood which consecrates is rhetorically forceful. A deliberate rejection of the vital power of the blood of Christ to purge sins decisively is indicated (cf. Johnsson, "Defilement," 359-60).

Apostasy reaffirms the values of the world, which permit those who stand outside the community to regard Jesus Christ with contempt (cf. 6:6).
(Nolland, John, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 47b: Hebrews 9-13, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.)
 
Paul,
While I appreciate your response I believe you may have misunderstood my question. I was not addressing the issue of eternal indentification of the party being baptised. You made a rather simple statement referring to Christ's 'command' for us to baptise our children. I am totally unaware of any such command. I am all to aware of the various strains of sophistry and infernce that lead to that deduction. And that is all that it is, a deduction. It cannont unequivically be denoted as a commandment.
 
Paul,
Sorry for the confusion. I don't know how I misread that; but it still does not change my interpretation. In your argument you seem to stress that Baptists require that only elect are to be baptised. I agree with you that only the Lord knows who are the elect. The proper statment of the baptist position would be that only those who profess belief are to be baptised.

But then that horse has been ridden around here long before you signed on. Or for that matter before any of us were a twinkle in the eyes of our parents.

Have a great evening, brother.
 
I had a question somewhat similar to the mediation question. If Christ is the high priest of the New Covenant, and if the high priest offers atonement for the people of the covenant, then how could the New Covenant not consist solely of elect individuals?
 
Brett,
You are confusing the visible vs invisible church. I believe Matthew and Paul have answered this above.
 
Brett, you are redefining the idea of "covenant" in either the Covenant of Redmeption and the Covenant of Grace mistakingly.

Do you understand the difference between these two?
 
Here some help

I hold to a paedobaptist position but since baptists tend to be a little out numbered in these discussions, I'll go ahead and help out a bit.

Brett wrote:
"If Christ is the high priest of the New Covenant, and if the high priest offers atonement for the people of the covenant, then how could the New Covenant not consist solely of elect individuals?"

I hope nobody minds me jumping in but I like to play devil's advocate sometimes.

If I may add onto Brett's question, I think he has a really good point. In the Old Covenant, atonement was connected to the covenant. Atonement was made for all of Israel not just a portion of Israel. Well, Christ continuing along the same connection with the covenant would also make atonement for those in covenant only His atonement is effectual unto salvation; thus, everyone in covenant is salvifically atoned for. Otherwise, you would have major discontinuity relating the covenant with atonement. The paedobaptist position creates a dispensational discontinuity between the covenants. In the Old Testament, everyone in covenant recieved atonement but paedobaptists don't believe this principle applies anymore making atonement only for the elect within the New Covenant.

Brett, does this sound in line with your question? I hope this helps explain the dilemma.
 
An important distinction that you may be missing is distinguishing between essence and administration.

In its essence, the New Covenant is effectual to the elect alone. Eschatologically, when all those who are not truly His have been broken off from the covenant, all who are left will be the elect who have Christ as their mediator, the atonement being effectual to these alone.

In the here and now, we are only able to see the outward administration of the New Covenant. This outward administration of the New Covenant(which includes all those who profess faith in Christ along with their children) will include those who truly are of Christ mixed among those who are only visibly a part of the covenant, but are not actually converted.
 
[quote:2d271ebc70]In the here and now, we are only able to see the outward administration of the New Covenant. This outward administration of the New Covenant([color=red:2d271ebc70][b:2d271ebc70]which includes all those who profess faith in Christ along with their children)[/b:2d271ebc70][/color:2d271ebc70] will include those who truly are of Christ mixed among those who are only visibly a part of the covenant, but are not actually converted.[/quote:2d271ebc70]

Dan, have you made the switch? :detective:
 
Re: Here some help

[quote:70b948d82a="webmaster"]Brett, you are redefining the idea of "covenant" in either the Covenant of Redmeption and the Covenant of Grace mistakingly.

Do you understand the difference between these two?[/quote:70b948d82a]

Maybe I am failing to make a distinction. Can you please explain the distinction that you are referring to and where I have made an error in my question about Christ's priestly work in the New Covenant?


[quote:70b948d82a="Goosha"]Brett, does this sound in line with your question?[/quote:70b948d82a]

Yes, that was what I was getting at. The continuity of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant would seem to hold for the work of the high priest as well (Christ offering up His atonement once for all instead of year by year). As you said, the high priest of the Old Covenant offered atonement for [i:70b948d82a]everyone[/i:70b948d82a] who was a member of the Old Covenant. Similarly, Christ, as high priest of the New Covenant, would do the same by offering atonement for [i:70b948d82a]everyone[/i:70b948d82a] who is a member of the New Covenant.

[quote:70b948d82a="Dan...."]In its essence, the New Covenant is effectual to the elect alone. Eschatologically, when all those who are not truly His have been broken off from the covenant, all who are left will be the elect who have Christ as their mediator, the atonement being effectual to these alone. [/quote:70b948d82a]

Dan, it seems like what you are saying is that at the end of days, Christ will separate the non-elect members of the New Covenant from the elect members, remove the non-elect from the New Covenant leaving the people of the New Covenant as consisting solely of the elect, and these members of the New Covenant will receive the atonement offered up by the high priest of the New Covenant, i.e. Christ's effectual atonement. I am assuming you would say that the atonement has already been applied to the regenerate members of the New Covenant even here and now, but if that is the case, then the atonement offered for [i:70b948d82a]everyone[/i:70b948d82a] who is a member of the New Covenant is not something that is waiting to be applied at the end of days after the separation of the non-elect and the elect (otherwise, those who are converted here and now would still be awaiting atonement!)

If that is what you are saying (if not, please correct me), then it seems like you still have the dilemma Goosha pointed out:

EITHER
(1) Christ offered atonement in a non-effectual way for the non-elect in the New Covenant
OR
(2) There is discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in that, in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for [i:70b948d82a]every[/i:70b948d82a] member of the covenant, but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for [i:70b948d82a]some[/i:70b948d82a] members of the covenant.
 
Brett,

Before I answer the distinction question, clear this up:

Do you believe that every member of the OT covenant community was effectually saved based on the typological sacrificaial system and Yom Kippur (i.e. did the blood of bulls and goats save?).

If you do believe that, where in the OT do you find anything that says that Koarh, Dathan, Achan and others went to heaven? or that the the nature of the typological system was effectual for the entire encampment?

Did the generation in the wilderness go to heaven, or were they cutoff?

How do those concepts relate to the sacrificial system and the wrath of God.

(I think you are drawing too close a conclusion on the ceremonial system to the blood of Christ, for Christ alone saves, not the atonement given by a goat on behalf of the covenant community. There is a differecne between God's longsuffering and Christ's atonement).
 
[quote:cf39256e00="webmaster"]Brett,

Before I answer the distinction question, clear this up:

Do you believe that every member of the OT covenant community was effectually saved based on the typological sacrificaial system and Yom Kippur (i.e. did the blood of bulls and goats save?).[/quote:cf39256e00]

Absolutely not; it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). I"(tm)m curious how you got the impression from my previous post that I might actually believe that. . . . Anyway, that doesn"(tm)t address my question. My point is not that Christ"(tm)s work as high priest is similar in efficacy to the high priest of the old covenant. Rather, I"(tm)m asking about the similarity in the extent of the atonement (i.e. did the high priest offer atonement for the sins of some in the covenant community or everyone in the covenant community?)
 
Webmaster wrote:
"Do you believe that every member of the OT covenant community was effectually saved based on the typological sacrificaial system and Yom Kippur (i.e. did the blood of bulls and goats save?)."

Of course not. Those sacrifices are typological. But thats the whole point! If the typological sacrifices were for all of covenant Israel, why would anyone think that Christ's sacrifice (the fulfillment of the typological sacrice) not be for all of new covenant Israel?

Hee hee! This is fun playing devil's advocate:)

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins
 
[quote:f1771ee049="Scott Bushey"]I don't believe Monergism answered the webmasters question........[/quote:f1771ee049]

Humm, I thought webmaster's question was only if Monergism believed that the whole covenant community was effecutally saved based on the typological sacrificaial system.

Monergism said no he did not believe that (the rest of webmaster's question was based on if Monergism had said yes to the opening question).

Is there something else that he did not respond to?

CT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Romans922
  • Locked
Westminster Directory on Baptism: Infants as 'Christians'
Replies
6
Views
2K
au5t1n
A
A
  • Locked
How do the non-elect relate to the NC?
Replies
5
Views
2K
ReformedWretch
ReformedWretch
S
  • Locked
Christ and the Non-Elect in the New Covenant
Replies
12
Views
4K
Peairtach
Peairtach
C
  • Locked
Infants dying in infancy
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Cato
C
R
Status of Infants in Presbyterianism?
Replies
11
Views
469
cthorn14
C
Back
Top