Questions about "regenerate church membership"

[Ne Oublie]

I have been trying to find the argument to justify "regenerate church membership". As far as I know this a historical SBC principle.

What I am looking at is the apparent contradiction in this principle(regenerate church membership) and the principle that no one has the knowledge of who is actually elect.

Yes, I understand that there will be fruit in the life of a person that has been born again. Yes, I understand that we can take a confession/profession as that they say they believe in Christ. Yes, I understand that when one professes Christ as their savior that there should be a desire for holiness and godliness, to obey the commandments that have been given to us. I also understand how this would work in a church discipline scenario.

But what I do not understand is how the "regenerate church membership" is determined. If one professes Christ, and is baptized by immersion, and walks in the truth of scripture, then we can determine that he is "regenerate"?

Could someone (here in the board) help me understand how this principle does not equate to presumptive regeneration?

I ask with sincerity that I may understand.

 

[Andres]

Isn't this where the difference between the visible and invisible church comes in or am I misunderstanding your question?

See WCF 25.1,2

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

 

[Herald]

Regenerate church membership has less to do with the ability of man to discern as it does with the ability of God to save. Baptists believe that God saves all those who turn to Christ in repentance and faith. This is no different than how Presbyterians view an adult convert. The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists is how view the New Covenant. Baptists understand the New Covenant includes only those who believe by faith in Christ. We don't presume to know, we assume that a credible proffession is real. Again, Presbyterians believe the same thing about adult converts. Therefore, you can't suggest Baptists practice presumptive regeneration without impugning Presbyterians.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

 

[Ne Oublie]

We don't presume to know, we assume that a credible proffession is real.

Thank you, Bill.

Just for the record, I purposely left out words like "baptist" and "paedobaptist" for the fact
that although the principle has its implications, I am not focused on the difference of the two, but
on what the words mean in "regenerate" church membership.

With your statement above, which I somewhat understand, but I think it opposes what the term says.
How one can use the term and then to say that you assume is odd to me.

Regeneration implies election. So why is it that the term can say "Elect church membership" but then
everyone agrees that the only one that knows who is elect is God? To me the term says what it
says, and then it gets redefined by a determination of man. The concept of accepting a profession
of faith to be sincere and assuming that they are elect are similar but different things.

Not that I know or that I am sure but that I believe in God that when a man has a credible profession that he is elect is
a lot different than the term "regenerate church membership" implies. At least that is the way it seems to me..

 

[Herald]

Robert,

I injected "Baptist and Presbyterian" into the discussion because, obviously, they make up the opposing sides.

I don't see the term as odd at all. If someone places their faith in Christ, I assume that is exactly what they have done. As a child of God they are accepted into the visible community of saints; the church. "Assume" or "presume" simply acknowledge our limitation in seeing the hidden things of God. For the Baptist, we believe that only those who have been born again are in the New Covenant. So, I suppose, a more technically correct term would be, "only regenerate church membership." Personally I don't get hung up on the terminology. We all know what it means.

 

[KMK]

I am not SBC, but I have always understood the phrase, 'regenerate church membership', to refer the Baptist practice of refusing to baptize those who are not regenerated yet (infants). In other words,, the church is made up of those who have literally followed Peter's command to, "repent and be baptized." I don't think the phrase means that Baptists believe everyone in the visible church is regenerated.

 

[jason d]

I am part of the SBC and it simply is an ideal to have members who profess faith in Christ as opposed to those who don't. Same reasoning behind why we baptize those who profess faith in Christ.

That doesn't mean we claim to have knowledge of who will persevere, if you try to be consistent with that reasoning then how could one fulfill any of the "one another" commands if the person I am edifying (edify one another as just one example) may not ultimately be a CHristian... no we take that person at their word and you will know a tree by its fruit.

 

[Peairtach]

Presbyterians don't presume to know who among adult converts are regenerate. They are baptised on the basis of a credible profession of faith, not on the basis that the kirk session has infallible knowledge that they are regenerate.

We also don't claim that the kirk session infallibly knows if the children that are baptised are regenerate or not at the time they are baptised.

We believe that this is the way in which God wants His Covenant to be administered - having in His wisdom not given infallible knowledge of who the regenerate are.

Hypothetically speaking God could have given this knowledge to church officers, but He didn't.

I don't understand the Baptist position expressed here that those unregenerate who are baptised in water aren't in the Covenant in any sense. Do baptists believe that the unregenerate Jews in the Old Covenant weren't in the Covenant in any sense? Or that a couple that get married and don't love each other aren't married in any sense?

If baptists believe that those who have been baptised in baptist churches, and subsequently walk and talk like unregenerates, aren't in any sense in the Covenant, why do they then exercise church sanctions on them and temporarily or permanently exclude them from the visible Covenant administration by denying them access to the Lord's Table? If they're not in any sense in the Covenant, then nothing needs to be done.

Saying that the unregenerate who've been baptised and are entitiled to go to the Lord's Table aren't in any sense in the Covenant is co-ordinate to saying that the Visible Church doesn't really exist because the Invisible Church is the true and real Church.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I injected "Baptist and Presbyterian" into the discussion because, obviously, they make up the opposing sides.

Technically speaking, we could say that hard-line advocates of the Federal Vision also hold to a notion of "regenerate church membership." In their case, a person is regenerate because they are baptized into the church. From an Anabaptist perspective, a person is baptized into the church because they are regenerate.

I am not SBC, but I have always understood the phrase, 'regenerate church membership', to refer the Baptist practice of refusing to baptize those who are not regenerated yet (infants). In other words,, the church is made up of those who have literally followed Peter's command to, "repent and be baptized." I don't think the phrase means that Baptists believe everyone in the visible church is regenerated.

I don't mean to create too much of a rabbit trail here, but I think it is important to highlight your statement above. It illustrates an often-unnoticed difference in presuppositions between many Presbyterian/Reformed Christians and many Baptists. I find that many of my Southern Baptist friends assume that infants are automatically unregenerate and are somewhat flummoxed by the notion of "regenerate infants." Presbyterians, on the other hand, may differ on what we may presume about the regeneration of covenant children, but we don't generally associate regeneration exclusively with adulthood. This is where the Baptist charge that we knowingly allow unregenerate persons into our congregations falls flat. From a Presbyterian perspective, this is an unwarranted presumption about the spiritual state of the infant.

 

[Ne Oublie]

Robert,

I injected "Baptist and Presbyterian" into the discussion because, obviously, they make up the opposing sides.

I don't see the term as odd at all. If someone places their faith in Christ, I assume that is exactly what they have done. As a child of God they are accepted into the visible community of saints; the church. "Assume" or "presume" simply acknowledge our limitation in seeing the hidden things of God. For the Baptist, we believe that only those who have been born again are in the New Covenant. So, I suppose, a more technically correct term would be, "only regenerate church membership." Personally I don't get hung up on the terminology. We all know what it means.

Not that it is all on you, Bill, as I may be missing this, but this did not help me one bit. Actually it made it worse.

Terminology is very important as words have meaning. To say "Regenerate" and then to really mean "assumed regenerate" is misrepresenting the meaning of the word.

For instance, saying one is innocent until proven guilty, does not make them innocent nor guilty. It is an assumption. And that is clear in the statement.

"Regenerate church membership" should be made clear in the same manner as the above or it is a statement that declares that men are determining who is
regenerate and who is elect in the church and the new covenant for that matter. When speaking clearly no one would ever make that determination but God himself.

Another way to look at it. If one is concerned about being more precise as to who is a true member of the church, then I would think that one would also be precise in the words
and meaning of the terms that would describe or determine one as such.

"assumed regenerate church membership" is more of a true statement but as you know that would be redundant. Which leads me to ask, why have the term?

 

[rbcbob]

By commitment to “regenerate church membership” Baptists mean that elders make it their aim to admit to the membership of the flock committed to their care, as far as can be discerned, only those who have been savingly joined in union with Christ. These are those whom the Scriptures declare to be a new creation. That there are marks of such persons who have been thus joined to Christ is abundantly set forth in the Word of God.

The Baptist pastor endeavors to hear from the lips of the would-be member a confession of faith in Christ as well as a credible display of being such a new creature.

Even O. Palmer Robertson recognizes these realities. In his book THE ISRAEL OF GOD he states:

“Lack of circumcision likewise means absolutely nothing in terms of the identity of the people of God. The mark of identity that set God’s people apart through all the centuries of the old covenant now has no meaning in this regard. The only thing that can establish a person as one of God’s people is for him to experience a new creation by God’s grace.”

 

[Herald]

I didn't invent the term, however the term is accurate if describing who is a member of the New Covenant. Only the regenerate are in the New Covenant. Presbyterians disagree with this but I'm not concerned about that. That's why denominations exist. When regenerate church membership is mentioned by a Baptist it pertains to those who are born again. Our lack of perfect knowledge doesn't change the truth.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

 

[Herald]

If baptists believe that those who have been baptised in baptist churches, and subsequently walk and talk like unregenerates, aren't in any sense in the Covenant, why do they then exercise church sanctions on them and temporarily or permanently exclude them from the visible Covenant administration by denying them access to the Lord's Table? If they're not in any sense in the Covenant, then nothing needs to be done.

Richard, huh? I certainly hope you are unintentionally misrepresenting the Baptist position. If a baptized member is acting like an unregenerate person then their actions should be addressed. Church discipline exists for this reason. They are not considered to be outside of the New Covenant until they are ex-communicated from the church and pronounced to be unbelievers. While they are going through the process of church discipline we are to appeal to them as a brother. If they are denied access to the Lord's Supper it is a direct result of their unwillingness to repent. But I'm sure you know this already.

 

[Peairtach]

I hope I'm not misrepresenting you, Bill.

I thought your position was that someone who is unregenerate and is baptised was not in any sense in the New Covenant, and only regenerate people are in the New Covenant, whereas under the Abrahamic and Old Covenants both regenerate and unregenerate people could be in the Covenant.

I believe that there is a duality (or dual reality) to the New Covenant as with the Church (visible and invisible), and we have this throughout Scripture. E.g. Abraham was in a real sense in covenant with God before he was circumcised. When Ishmael was circumcised - if he was an unbeliever - in one sense he was in covenant with God and in another sense not.

 

[Herald]

Richard,

The Baptist position has always remained clear on the subject of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is made with, and only includes, the elect. Baptists believe this, not because there is no passage in scripture that abrogates the Abrahamic Covenant, but because of passages that affirm who is a member of the New Covenant. Of course Presbyterians and Baptists disagree on our respective conclusion. This thread wasn't intended as a debate between the two camps on the nature of the New Covenant, although it's hard not to go there.

The thing that frustrates me is that Presbyterians just don't seem to understand what Baptists are saying. I can handle the disagreement. That's fine. In fact, I welcome it. Unfortunately the Baptist position is usually made into a caricature of itself by those who disagree with it. I mean, how hard is it to understand the following:

Baptists believe the New Covenant consists of only those who are regenerate (i.e. the elect). Baptists do not see membership in the New Covenant as a now-and-then proposition. New Covenant membership is an eternal membership entered into by regeneration and faith in Christ alone. We base this belief on texts such as Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. Additionally we would cite passages that indicate the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, is to be applied only to those who believe. The fact that human ministers of the Gospel lack perfect knowledge in seeing the hidden things of the heart, or that men may be false professors and apostatize, does not negate the clear teaching of scripture on the construction of the New Covenant.

Richard, now, I don't expect a Presbyterian to agree with the above paragraph, but I would hope they would understand it. That's all I'm looking for.

 

[Iconoclast]

here is another view,from a Baptist Catechism with Commentary.....by WR.Downing....

Some hold to the concept of a “universal, invisible church” comprised of
all the elect of all ages, or at the least of all living believers world–wide at any
given time. This concept of the church confuses it with the kingdom of God.
287
Such an entity, of course, has never assembled, is not properly an assembly,
does not possess any of the attributes of a church, and thus cannot truly be
termed a “church” [ekklēsia, or gathered assembly]. It is rather a spiritual and
comprehensive concept of the mystical [spiritual] union of all true believers
with the Lord Jesus Christ, and finds no concrete expression ecclesiastically,
except in a local or gathered assembly (1 Cor. 12:27. The def. article “the”
before the word “body” is to be omitted). The idea of a “universal, invisible
church,” however, is wide–spread in Christian thought, and is axiomatic to
both Reformed and Dispensational thinking. The Sixteenth Century
Reformers, reacting against the Romish idea of a “universal visible church,”
establishing their own state churches with a similar pattern, and understanding
that not all who professed Christ were truly converted, developed the idea of
both a “visible” and an “invisible” church. The former was composed of
believers and unbelievers; the latter of only the true believers. Some hold that
this theory derived from Gnostic, Neoplatonic philosophy which saw the
visible world as the imperfect reflection of the perfect invisible world, i.e., the
world of the Platonic “ideas.”
But what of those passages where “the church” is referred to in an abstract
sense (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:32; Eph. 3:10–21; Col. 1:18)? Does this not refer to the
aggregate of all true believers who are in union with Christ as his “mystical
body”? “The One True Church”? We prefer another interpretation, which is
consonant with all the uses of the term “church” in the New Testament: first,
the local or concrete use of “church,” referring to any given assembly of
scripturally baptized believers. Second, the abstract, generic or institutional
use of the term. A common illustration is that of “the jury,” referring not to
any particular jury, but to the institution of this legal entity in the judicial
system. When such usage finds concrete expression, it is a local, visible jury.
This same principle would hold true for those statements which are often used
to refer to the “universal, invisible church.” We prefer to classify these as the
“institutional” use of the word “church,” which finds concrete expression in
the local assembly. Third, the eschatological use of the term “church,”
referring to “the general assembly [panēguris, the festal gathering of a whole
group, nation or country] and church [ekklēsia] of the firstborn” which is in
the process of being assembled in heaven. When all the elect are gathered
together from all ages, they will comprise the church [panēguris] in glory,
fully assembled for the first time (Eph. 5:27; Heb. 12:22–23; Rev. 21:2). This
three–fold usage coherently answers to every use of the term “church” in the
New Testament without violating either grammar or doctrine—or the
meaning and biblical usage of the Old Testament qahal and the New
Testament ekklēsia.
The meaning and history of the church are not self–interpreting. The New
Testament is the standard, and thus the meaning and history of the church are
to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.
288
Quest.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a little bit more on this;

Both Roman and Protestant theology confuse “the Church,” either visible
or invisible, with the “kingdom of God” or the “kingdom of heaven” and
“kingdom of Christ.” A thorough study will reveal that these final three are
ultimately synonymous terms. Romanism errs in viewing the church as a
universal, visible entity, co–extensive with the State and its spiritual
counterpart. If “the church” and “the kingdom” are synonymous and
coextensive, then if one is not in the “true church” he is excluded from the
kingdom and thus unsaved.
Protestantism errs in believing the church to be composed of both saved
and unsaved in its “visible” aspect, thus either identifying it with the parables
of the kingdom (which emphasize the mixed nature of the kingdom into the
good and the bad), or retreating to a “universal, invisible church” synonymous
with a spiritual kingdom composed only of the truly regenerate. The essence
of all such error is found in a radical departure from the New Testament usage
of the term “church” [ekklēsia]. See Question 146.
The New Testament church and the kingdom of God are closely related,
yet distinct. A thorough study will reveal that the kingdom of God is a
comprehensive term for the sovereign rule of God and the realm over which
this rule extends. Scripturally, the kingdom has past (prophetical), present
(historical) and future (eschatological) aspects. Thus, the kingdom of God is
universal and includes all believers. It also includes a realm in which the
power of Divine rule is experienced. These qualities have led some to confuse
the kingdom with the church.
The distinctions between the kingdom of God and the New Testament
church may be seen by contrast. Men “see” and “enter into” the kingdom of
291
God by regeneration. This is quite apart from any direct connection with a
church, but is concerned with the sovereign grace and power of God alone in
its realization (Jn. 3:3, 5). Entrance into a New Testament church is upon the
scriptural prerequisites of conversion, baptism and the vote of the church
(Acts 2:41). The kingdom is universal; the church is necessarily local [i.e., a
body, assembly, congregation. Such language would be utterly foreign in
reference to the kingdom of God]. The kingdom is a monarchy; the church is
a democracy under the headship of Jesus Christ and the rule of his Word.
There is a gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 9:35), but never a gospel of the
church. The kingdom is an indistinct, unobservable entity (Lk. 17:20–21); the
church is observable and quite distinct in all its characteristics (e.g.,
membership, leadership, ordinances, ministry, etc.). See Question 147.
The kingdom of God is the inclusive, comprehensive, sovereign and
redemptive work of God in the world; the church is an organism within this
kingdom, proclaiming its message and furthering its advancement as it has
been commissioned (Matt. 16:18–19; Acts 19:8; 20:24–25; 28:23, 31; Col.
4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:4–5). The kingdom of God will be
progressively manifest until it is entirely comprehensive in its revealed or
experimental scope, finding its ultimate conclusion in filling the world and in
the “new heavens and earth” (Dan. 7:13–14; 1 Cor. 15:24–28; 2 Pet. 3:13;
Rev. 11:15; 19:6; 21:1). The New Testament church as an institution will end
with this economy, finding its fulfillment in the church glorious (Eph. 3:20–
21; Heb. 12:22–23). Thus, the church is contained within the kingdom, but the
kingdom is neither contained within the church nor equivalent to it. Such
contrast manifestly distinguishes between the kingdom and the church, and
affords no adequate foundation for a “universal, invisible church” theory.

---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

Jl .Dagg would not completely agree with my last two posts. Nevertheless he offers another view on the OP. Here is a portion of some of his ideas.

Writers on theology have distinguished between the church visible, and the church invisible; but a church in this world to be invisible must consist, not of children of light, but of those whose light is darkness. Were we to use these designations according to their proper import, we might call the saints in heaven the invisible church, because they are removed beyond the reach of human sight; and the saints on earth, the visible church, because they still remain on earth to enlighten this dark world. But the saints above and the saints below, make only one communion, one church; and theologians, when they mean to distinguish these two parts of the one whole from each other, are accustomed to call them the church militant and the church triumphant. By the church invisible, they mean all true Christians; and by the church visible, all those who profess the true religion. The invisible consists wholly of those who are sons of light; and the visible includes sons of light and sons of darkness in one community. We have seen that Christ does not recognise mere professors as his disciples, and that he has taught us not so to recognise them. A universal church, therefore, which consists of all who profess the true religion, is a body which Christ does not own. To be visible saints, a holy life must be superadded to a profession of the true religion; and they who do not exhibit the light of a holy life, whatever their professions may be, have no scriptural claim to be considered members of Christ's church.



Membership in a local church, is not always coincident with membership in the church universal. This appears on the one hand, in the fact that the pure light of a holy life may sometimes be so successfully counterfeited, as to deceive mankind. Paul has taught us, that Satan may transform himself into an angel of light; and that it is no marvel, if his ministers do the same.(46) John says, "They went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us;"(47) and we hence infer, that they were not manifest before. But this passage teaches us, that their profession of religion, and their successful imitation of the Christian life, were not enough. It was still true, "they were not of us." Simon, the sorcerer, was thought for a time to be a convert; but when his true character was disclosed, Peter decided, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God."(48) If mere profession rendered him a member of the universal church, his membership in it was not affected by the discovery that his heart was not right, so long as his profession was not renounced. If membership in the local church at Samaria rendered him a member of the universal church, the local church had not disowned him. When Paul would have the incestuous person at Corinth excommunicated from that local church, he did not pronounce the sentence of excommunication by his apostolic authority; but left it with the church to perform the act.(49) So Peter did not use his apostolic authority, to exclude the sorcerer from the church at Samaria; but pronounced on his relation to the whole community of the saints. It is hence apparent that membership in a local church may be superadded to profession in those who have no part in the matter. They of whom John says "They were not of us," were for a time members of some local church; and so are many to whom the Saviour will say in the last day, "I never knew you."



On the other hand, men sometimes judge too unfavorably. The church at Jerusalem was unwilling, for a time, to receive the converted Saul as a true disciple; but the Lord Jesus had received him, and given him the place of an apostle in his universal church.



Notwithstanding the errors which human judgment may commit in individual cases, it still remains true, that the light of piety is visible. Time often corrects these errors. The sorcerer, and John's false professors, were made manifest; and the conversion of Saul to the faith which he once destroyed, became universally admitted. Doubtless there are cases which will not be understood till the last judgment; but it nevertheless remains a general truth: "By their fruits ye shall know them." Because some cases are doubtful, and some may be mistaken, it does not follow that sin and holiness are undistinguishable, or that the world and the church are undistinguishable.



The epithet "invisible" applied to the true church of Christ, is not only incorrect, but it has led into mistake. Men have spoken of this church as a mere mental conception; and they have asked, whether Saul persecuted an invisible church. They seek a church possessing more visibility than proceeds from Christian profession and a life of piety; and they find it, as they think, in some form of organization, which they deem necessary to constitute the church. Such an organized body, they call the visible church. But Saul did not inquire, whether those whom he persecuted, as professed followers of Christ, and devotedly attached to his cause and doctrine, were also members of some external organization. He persecuted them as Christian men and women. But the existence of such men and women, like the persecutions which they suffered, was something more than a mere mental conception. Organization is not necessary to visibility; much less is any particular species of it. Rocks and mountains are as visible as plants and animals.

 

[Ne Oublie]

Thanks, Anthony! Very good articles and they explain much.

Although this is all very interesting, it seems to be going no where from the original intent of the post though.

In the context of "regenerate church membership", regenerate really means assumed regenerate, but for some reason the SBC and those that follow don't seem to be as precise in words as they want to be in the church.

And, in the above reality, can anyone say as Joshua did "as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord"? because unless every person
in his household were to profess, this would not be true and not even assumed.

"As for me, I will serve the Lord!" Is this one would say in the New Covenant?

 

[Peairtach]

Richard,

The Baptist position has always remained clear on the subject of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is made with, and only includes, the elect. Baptists believe this, not because there is no passage in scripture that abrogates the Abrahamic Covenant, but because of passages that affirm who is a member of the New Covenant. Of course Presbyterians and Baptists disagree on our respective conclusion. This thread wasn't intended as a debate between the two camps on the nature of the New Covenant, although it's hard not to go there.

The thing that frustrates me is that Presbyterians just don't seem to understand what Baptists are saying. I can handle the disagreement. That's fine. In fact, I welcome it. Unfortunately the Baptist position is usually made into a caricature of itself by those who disagree with it. I mean, how hard is it to understand the following:

Baptists believe the New Covenant consists of only those who are regenerate (i.e. the elect). Baptists do not see membership in the New Covenant as a now-and-then proposition. New Covenant membership is an eternal membership entered into by regeneration and faith in Christ alone. We base this belief on texts such as Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. Additionally we would cite passages that indicate the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, is to be applied only to those who believe. The fact that human ministers of the Gospel lack perfect knowledge in seeing the hidden things of the heart, or that men may be false professors and apostatize, does not negate the clear teaching of scripture on the construction of the New Covenant.

Richard, now, I don't expect a Presbyterian to agree with the above paragraph, but I would hope they would understand it. That's all I'm looking for.

Well it seems that I do understand you correctly, Bill. Therefore according to baptists those who are unregenerate and are baptised - not only do not have the saving life of the Covenant in their souls but - are not even in the legal bond of the Covenant (e.g. Ezekiel 20:37)

Does their status change before God and Man? Surely baptists would hold that God is displeased with an adult getting baptised (and outwardly, legally and formally entering the Covenant ?) while not being regenerate and/or that such a person may come under influences of the Holy Spirit that those who do not take such a step are not exposed to (?)

I think we need to hold the outward, visible, legal, etc, aspects of the Covenant in tension with the inward, invisible, life and love aspects of the Covenant. Both are very real and very necessary.

To say that the baptism of an unregenerate person does not constitute them part of the New Covenant in any sense is to say that the baptism is meaningless and changes nothing. I would agree if you were to say that the baptism of an unregenerate person doesn't regenerate them, make them one of the elect, or make them part of the theological Covenant of Redemption - Pactum Salutis. But they're in the Bond of the New Covenant. They maybe aren't the people that should be in it, but they are in it, and their subsequent conversion or church sanctions will have to deal with their position.

In a Vine Tree or an Olive Tree you can have shoots that are dead and need to be pruned out.

Sometimes a branch will be engrafted by the gardener with all the little twigs attached to see if they will drink of the sap of the tree along with the main branch i.e. infant inclusion in the Covenant and Church.

 

[Porter]

To employ the confident declaration "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" judiciously does not require a paedobaptistic view of covenant and family, nor does it preclude the wholesome credobaptistic ownership and profession of this phrase, nor does it demand 100% household regeneracy.

("as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"): this was the resolution of Joshua, and so far as he knew the sense of his family, or had influence over it, could and did speak for them [John Gill]

By virtue of my biblical headship in the home and my influence as a Christian husband and father in service to the Triune God of Holy Writ - my family will not serve the gods of the Amorites, they will serve the LORD.

 

[Ne Oublie]

To employ the confident declaration "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" judiciously does not require a paedobaptistic view of covenant and family, nor does it preclude the wholesome credobaptistic ownership and profession of this phrase, nor does it demand 100% household regeneracy.

("as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"): this was the resolution of Joshua, and so far as he knew the sense of his family, or had influence over it, could and did speak for them [John Gill]

By virtue of my biblical headship in the home and my influence as a Christian husband and father in service to the Triune God of Holy Writ - my family will not serve the gods of the Amorites, they will serve the LORD.

Whole heartedly agree!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poimen]

The distinctions between the kingdom of God and the New Testament church may be seen by contrast. Men “see” and “enter into” the kingdom of God by regeneration. This is quite apart from any direct connection with a church, but is concerned with the sovereign grace and power of God alone in its realization (Jn. 3:3, 5).

Although I agree that 'church' and 'kingdom' are not entirely synonymous in scripture, men may have the kingdom of God taken away from them (Matthew 21:43 cf. Matthew 8:12 where the sons of the kingdom will be judged), just as they may lose their membership in the local, visible church. Thus being a member of the kingdom of God, like the church, is not equal to regeneration or election. Furthermore Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18-19 make the kingdom and the church much closer in relationship than you state in your post. There the keys of the kingdom are given at the establishment of Christ's church including church discipline which, effectively, puts one outside of the kingdom (of which previously they were members).

Also, it should not be overlooked that the conversation in John 3 is between those of Jewish descent. Jesus was not teaching anything new or anything that Nicodemus should not have understood (John 3:10). The blessing of regeneration occurs within the fabric and life of the church, not apart from it, as we see clearly from Pentecost. The outpouring of the Spirit was the fulfillment of Old Covenant promises to a people, and thus now regeneration occurs not apart from the preached word but through it as the means of opening and closing the kingdom of God - the very responsibility that the church has been given. One cannot see and enter in the kingdom of God unless he is born again, but one cannot also be born again without the church's proclamation of good news.

Thus Protestantism does not err in teaching that the church comprises the saved and unsaved in its visible aspect. The church has always existed in this fashion and will continue to be so until the day that the Lord returns in judgment.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks, Anthony! Very good articles and they explain much.

Although this is all very interesting, it seems to be going no where from the original intent of the post though.

In the context of "regenerate church membership", regenerate really means assumed regenerate, but for some reason the SBC and those that follow don't seem to be as precise in words as they want to be in the church.

And, in the above reality, can anyone say as Joshua did "as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord"? because unless every person
in his household were to profess, this would not be true and not even assumed.

"As for me, I will serve the Lord!" Is this one would say in the New Covenant?

Hello Robert,
I posted what I did because I believe it offers a more accurate paradigm then what are commonly used.For example you say this;

In the context of "regenerate church membership", regenerate really means assumed regenerate

I would say....no. Regenerate means regenerate. Yet the scripture also indicates that some who come in among the regenerate,are not.
God alone knows who is regenerate and he regenerates and calls them out of the world. Because some make a false profession,does not negate the work of God.
There are many desciptions given for false professors. They exist and must be discussed. I think it is error to say we cannot know if anyone is saved,so lets throw in the towel,,,,baptize everyone.. tell them they are in an external form of the covenant , then see if later on God actually deals with them. As if profession or confession does not matter at all,when the NT speaks of true and false professions,and confessions.
We listen to the actual person confess what God has done in their life. What you hope baptism points to.....we take as actual.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

Hello Daniel,
I think we are mostly in agreement. It is the last phrase that I call into question. Although that language has been accepted since the reformers,I am just not certain if it is the most biblically accurate. The teaching of invisible/visible church can be useful in getting at the idea of real and false professors of faith. I just question if it is the most biblically accurate teaching of what is the actual church.[invisible]. When you and others use that language and concept with a proper explanation,it does not differ as much as it seem to. Especially that some support can be brought forth from the OT.
If in the NT this continues,or The New Covenant is not like the Old in this way...is where we view it differently.
Matthew usually comes at me a bit showing verses that indicate a continuity. I just am unsettled with it,although I do understand we must all give account for false brethren,apostates,spots in our love feasts, reprobates. At this time i just think the Nt language allows ,or points too the view I posted.

 

[Peairtach]

The language of "the Kingdom of Heaven/God/Christ" also has reference to geography as well as population. I.e. Geographical extent as well as citizens.

Those Jews and Gentiles who truly accept Christ as King of Israel are of the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), although for God's administrative purposes, it will always include those that are not truly regenerate in this life. Israel has expanded in the New Covenant to include those who are not ethnic Jews. The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentile God-fearing people has been broken down.

The Land of Israel - the territory of God's Kingdom - has likewise expanded to include the whole Earth.

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (Rev 11:15)

This happened in principle when the Jewish Theocracy was destroyed in A.D. 70.

He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Ps. 72:8)

Satan's kingdom is basically squatting within Christ's Kingdom. I.e. Satan's minions- angelic and human - are in this world/on this Earth. I.e. Satan's minions are even in the Visible Church.

In type, the Canaanites and their kings were squatting in the Land God had given to Joshua and the Israelites.

 

[Porter]

men may have the kingdom of God taken away from them (Matthew 21:43 cf. Matthew 8:12 where the sons of the kingdom will be judged)

Daniel,

I would question the exegetical propriety of employing this text in support of the paedobaptistic approach to New Covenant membership - that is, using it in some broad or "second sense" where it pertains to "men" generally. The texts cited pertain exclusively to the Jewish state, God's OT people and nation, which was within a generation to see the kingdom taken from it and "given to a nation bearing the fruits of it". These things were spoken with in the contextual vicinity of the prophetic warnings pertaining to the A.D. 70 judgment - and subsequent covenantal transfer - and were directed towards the commonwealth of Israel, apostate Jerusalem. These texts cannot be extended, or 'also applied', to the new covenant church or employed with any legitimacy for the sake of arguing against regenerate exclusivity in NC membership.

 

[Iconoclast]

Daniel,
Would you say that someone "cannot"enter the kingdom outside of a local assembly?

12.____ As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.
( 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15 )

Do you think that person cannot be in the kingdom savingly,unless or until they are under over sight?

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

I believe normally God does place all members in the body......I amjust wondering when the
WCF says no ordinary possibility of salvation ,if that is the force of that wording?

 

[BertMulder]

Daniel,
Would you say that someone "cannot"enter the kingdom outside of a local assembly?

12.____ As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.
( 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15 )

Do you think that person cannot be in the kingdom savingly,unless or until they are under over sight?

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

I believe normally God does place all members in the body......I amjust wondering when the
WCF says no ordinary possibility of salvation ,if that is the force of that wording?

Read Calvin's third sermon on Psalm 27 on this question....

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you Pastor Mulder for the reference to Calvin on Psalm27

 

[Kaalvenist]

Some thoughts...

1. I think that most Paedobaptists have over the centuries (especially in non-Established churches) unconsciously moved toward regenerate church membership. The terminology may vary with that of our Baptist brethren, but we seem to have the same (or nearly the same) position. We tend to take professions of faith at face value (unless the individual is in unrepentant sin); and professions of faith in Presbyterian churches now ordinarily include, not merely an assent to certain propositions, but a declaration of trust (fiducia) in Christ for salvation -- something that you never see in professions of faith in previous centuries.

2. Even if we have not explicitly come to hold to regenerate church membership, it must be remembered that the debates on that subject which took place during the time of the Westminster Assembly were not between Paedobaptists and Anti-Paedobaptists, but between Presbyterians and Independents (Congregationalists). John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, and other Independent theologians explicitly maintained regenerate church membership, while also maintaining paedobaptism. In other words, regenerate church membership, or the exegesis of Hebrews 8, cannot serve as the lynch-pin for Anti-Paedobaptism (as many modern-day Reformed Baptists seem to regard it), because regenerate church membership has historically been maintained alongside paedobaptism.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

men may have the kingdom of God taken away from them (Matthew 21:43 cf. Matthew 8:12 where the sons of the kingdom will be judged)

Daniel,

I would question the exegetical propriety of employing this text in support of the paedobaptistic approach to New Covenant membership - that is, using it in some broad or "second sense" where it pertains to "men" generally. The texts cited pertain exclusively to the Jewish state, God's OT people and nation, which was within a generation to see the kingdom taken from it and "given to a nation bearing the fruits of it". These things were spoken with in the contextual vicinity of the prophetic warnings pertaining to the A.D. 70 judgment - and subsequent covenantal transfer - and were directed towards the commonwealth of Israel, apostate Jerusalem. These texts cannot be extended, or 'also applied', to the new covenant church or employed with any legitimacy for the sake of arguing against regenerate exclusivity in NC membership.

Cameron,

How can Matthew 21:43 be using "kingdom of God" to refer to "God's OT people and nation," since the "nation" was not bequeathed to the Gentiles? I would argue that it can refer only to the church under the Old Testament, which continues into the New -- that it previously was the (nearly) peculiar property of the Jews, but is now the (nearly) peculiar property of Gentiles.

 

[Porter]

How can Matthew 21:43 be using "kingdom of God" to refer to "God's OT people and nation,"

Hi Daniel,

I was not employing 'nation' in the geographic or political sense, but simply as a (perhaps unnecessary) repetition of 'people' in the biblical vein of Deuteronomy 7:6 and Exodus 19:6 - sorry for the confusion. My point was that Christ is dealing, by way of parable in Matthew 21, with what he would deal with maledictorily in Matthew 23, and prophetically in Matthew 24 - the covenantal cutting-off of apostate Jerusalem and that it is an injudicious employment of the text to use it with reference to the NT church (specifically, marshaling the text in support of your Covenantal Armininism [that NC members can apostatize]).