Who is in the covenant, the whole family or only the elected

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reena Wilms

Puritan Board Freshman
So is there a two-fold explanation of the question : who is in the covenant of God ? When a child is born in a christian family we give him baptism to show that he/she is in the covenant of God, and baptism is the seal of this. But on the way we say that only the elected are in the covenant of God. Not every child who is baptised is elected, but still we give him him the covenant sigh ? I ask this because lastw eek i hath a discussion with an elder from the church, and i told him that i turned from credo to paedo baptism, and i explanted him that from the scripture i believe that my the family/childeren are included in the covenant with the believing parents, but this elder was not agree with it, because he said, that only those who are saved are in the covenant. Or can you say that there is like a two fold meaning of covenant like an : outward form of covenant (sigh/seal and being born in a christian home) and inwardly (being born again and saved) ?

Who can help me with this ?

Thanks,

Ralph
 
[b:afb735190e]Ralph wrote:[/b:afb735190e]
Or can you say that there is like a two fold meaning of covenant like an : outward form of covenant (sigh/seal and being born in a christian home) and inwardly (being born again and saved)

Isn't that what CT refers to as internal and external covenant members? All family members are in the external covenant, but only the elect are included in the internal covenant.

From the baptist perspective, on the other hand, ...
 
Here is my suggestion for those who do hold to CT. I think we should drop the language of "internal members" and "external members". What in the world does that mean, anyway? It makes it sound like the "internal members" are part of the inner circle of a business secretly specializing in organized crime, while the "external members" are those that still think the business is really about textile manufacturing.

There is no caste system in the covenant. Covenant members are covenant members, whether they are elect or not. Distinctions like "internal" and "external" are unnecessary and only cloud the issue. Sure, there are those who partake of the blessings of the covenant, and there are those who partake of the curses. But they are all of the same status as covenant members.

My :wr50:

[Edited on 3-28-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
I guess I would just say that it's a category confusion. The question of whether or not a person is elect or non-elect (or wheat and tares) is a different question from that of one's covenant status. Election takes place in the mind of God, an area that we cannot see into. Covenant membership is something historically verifiable and tangible through our baptism.

Does that help?
 
[quote:bafcc0f316]Would you disagree with the WCF, for example, that only the elect are in CoG? [/quote:bafcc0f316]

Well, I guess it just depends on what is meant by that. I certainly believe that the elect are the only ones that God has determined will receive the blessings of the covenant. I could probably put my view into words that would be compatible with the WCF (which is what I'll have to do if I want to be ordained in the PCA, because once you're standing before the session it no longer matters what the Bible says, but what the WCF says. :saint: ). But if the Westminster divines believed that the CoG could not include potentially include non-elect persons in its historical administration, then I would have to say that I disagree with them.

[quote:bafcc0f316]And, your statements sound very Wilsonesk (have you been reading him?).[/quote:bafcc0f316]

It's no secret that I read Wilson, but I hate to say it for fear that I'll be given a derogatory label (i.e., Auburnite, Shepherdite, "New Perspective"-ite, Romanist, Arminian, etc).
 
[quote:0c87eacf40][i:0c87eacf40]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:0c87eacf40]
I guess I would just say that it's a category confusion. The question of whether or not a person is elect or non-elect (or wheat and tares) is a different question from that of one's covenant status. Election takes place in the mind of God, an area that we cannot see into. Covenant membership is something historically verifiable and tangible through our baptism.
[/quote:0c87eacf40]
Craig, can you know you are elect?
 
[quote:9cf7f7608b]
I guess I would just say that it's a category confusion.
[/quote:9cf7f7608b]

That's EXACTLY what it is.

Against my better judgment, but forced nonetheless, I am reading "God's Everlasting Covenant of Grace" by Hanko. Talk about an absolutely mixed up guy. Not only does he depart from the historical and exegetical meaning behind "covenant" but he makes the classic blunder:

The Covenant of Grace = the Covenant of Redemption.

I'll let Fred beat the drum, but I will continually blow my horn:

If you mess that distinction up, you will forever get CT wrong.

Even in dealing with Witsius, who begins his long disseration on this with the Covenant of Works, book 2 deals at length with the differecne between the CoR and the CoG. He spends an inordiantely (but helpful) amount of time on the CoR.

Make sure to get this straight -
The CoR is election. (i.e. Romans 9, Ephesians 1) The CoG is a covenant shell in which the CoR takes place in time. The CoG includes both elect and non elect. People are either in or out of the covenant - as Criag said - let's get that straight. The WCF uses the term "in the church". You are either in or out. Your not in some "limbus infantum" of covenant stage.

In the CoR you are in and elect. You are the product or fruit of the work of the Son, in which he will recieve the travail of his soul. He led captivity captive and gave gifts to men.

If we straighten that out, or have that straight, and the differences, then that will help us to see how the CoG works as a vehicle for delivering the election obtained in the CoR to men.

To say, then, "who is in covenant with God" is miss the idea that the Federal head of the family has an important part in covenanting with God in the CoG, from Genesis 3:15 onward.

Otherwise, we just do this: :banghead:

Or, if the Baptist sector keeps juxtaposing these ideas, and continues ot confuse others, we have to do this: :rack: or this :smash:

:D

[Edited on 3-29-2004 by webmaster]
 
Patrick,

That's a question I've struggled with and I'm not sure I have an answer to it. I do believe that we are responsible for crying out to the Lord in faith on a daily basis, trusting only in Christ and his perfect obedience as our way of redemption. We must believe the promises of God laid before us in the preaching of the Word, the celebration of the Lord's supper, and in our baptisms.

But at the same time, I also believe that introspection is needed and is not necessarily "morbid" as the Federal Visionists would have us believe. A person who is baptized and receives the sacrament on a weekly basis but who sleeps with prostitutes every weekend should not be given any assurance of salvation.

I believe we need a balance between introspection and faith in God's objective promises.
 
I'm BAAAA-AAAACCKKKK:p In spite of Scott's confusing attempts to change my name. I still don't know how I got in, and may never do so again. So I gotta make hay while the sun shines. I have a stupid question.

We're differentiating between the CoG and the CoR. Those in the CoG are not necessarily in the CoR. Only the elect are in the CoR. However, are some in the CoR (the elect) lifelong strangers to the CoG, ie never baptized and never had a believing relative, but nevertheless they are regenerated/hear & believe the gospel? As I've said before, God doesn't tattoo His elect with a big red E on their foreheads. So anyway, if that is the case, is the CoG really that meaningful or important, except in earthly blessings? Can somebody do without it and still be saved? Does it boil down to a work that we perform, and expect God to honor us(and our children) for our belief and obedience and rituals? Hmmm.

In the slain and risen Lamb,
Melissa
 
[quote:8c30a9c43f][i:8c30a9c43f]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:8c30a9c43f]
Here is my suggestion for those who do hold to CT. I think we should drop the language of "internal members" and "external members". What in the world does that mean, anyway? It makes it sound like the "internal members" are part of the inner circle of a business secretly specializing in organized crime, while the "external members" are those that still think the business is really about textile manufacturing.

There is no caste system in the covenant. Covenant members are covenant members, whether they are elect or not. Distinctions like "internal" and "external" are unnecessary and only cloud the issue. Sure, there are those who partake of the blessings of the covenant, and there are those who partake of the curses. But they are all of the same status as covenant members.

My :wr50:

[Edited on 3-28-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:8c30a9c43f]

YEA AND AMEN!!!!!:bouncy:

LOTW, once you substitute the Doctrine of the "invisible", "visible" Church for the "external covenant", "internal covenant", Q. 31 of the WLC will then make sense. This is the problem with Wilson's ecclisiology. He has a redifined ecclisiology which is inconsistent with the Westminster Standards.
 
I like when we agree on stuff, Wayne. :)

I think the terms "visible" and "invisible" church are good for distinguishing the difference between those in the covenant who are elect and those who are not. I do, however, share Doug Wilson's concern that when we do that, it almost makes it sound like there are two churches and we spend all of our time trying to figure out which church is the "true" church. If I'm not mistaken, I think this was also one point that caused John Murray to have struggles with the visible/invisible distinction.

I'll just take a risk here and be completely honest. I actually like Wilson's historical/eschatological church distinction. I think this distinction allows us to just have one church: a church today that is growing and still being made pure (the olive tree of Romans 11), while also affirming a church without blemish on the Day of Judgment, where only the elect remain, with all the non-elect being cut off finally.

Now, I DON'T think that affirming the historical/eschatological church distinction means that we necessarily have to throw out the visible/invisible church distinction. I know it is added terminology, but I think we can more properly explain the teachings of Scripture concerning the church and eschatology if we at least affirm both distinctions.
 
[quote:e84b991198][i:e84b991198]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:e84b991198]
Patrick,

That's a question I've struggled with and I'm not sure I have an answer to it. I do believe that we are responsible for crying out to the Lord in faith on a daily basis, trusting only in Christ and his perfect obedience as our way of redemption. We must believe the promises of God laid before us in the preaching of the Word, the celebration of the Lord's supper, and in our baptisms.

But at the same time, I also believe that introspection is needed and is not necessarily "morbid" as the Federal Visionists would have us believe. A person who is baptized and receives the sacrament on a weekly basis but who sleeps with prostitutes every weekend should not be given any assurance of salvation.

I believe we need a balance between introspection and faith in God's objective promises. [/quote:e84b991198]
This is good that you see the dilemma (because the federal vision doesn't seem to). This is why we need the invisible/visible church distinction. It is perfectly possible for one to outwardly partake of all the beneifts of the covenant and yet never be elect or have true faith. To our eyes he would look fine. Such were the Pharisees.

If you remove this distinction from the covenant scheme, there is no need for self-examination or introsepction. As long as you outwardly are doing what you are suppose to do and are not under church discipline, you have no reason to fear. But then how do you know you are a Pharisee or not?

That is why all the means of grace require introspection to some degree. We are commanded to make our calling and election sure. We can't do this without introspection. We must examine our hearts, our motives, and our works to see if the real fruit is there. There are certain aspects of faith which are entirely subjective and require introspection, such as the witness of the Spirit by which we cry out "abba father," the sealing of the Spirit, communion with God, partaking of Christ through the Lord's Supper, applying the preached Word to our hearts, and finally assurance.

The is no danger in introspection if it is done biblically. There are those, even in the Reformed camp, the do use introspection unbiblical, for instance to see if they are elect before they have come to faith. But that is not the fault of introspection but the fault of one using it incorrectly. This is one criticism I have of Wilson. He uses these extreme examples of people using introspection incorrectly, and portrays it as the traditional reformed view to provide justifiction for his new ideas in rejecting introspection. It is not enough to be part of the visible church. You must examine yourself to know you are part of the invisible church. That is not as complex as Wilson characterizes the idea. Simply put, are you trusting in Christ alone? Are their fruits of the Spirit growing? What is your attitude toward sin and the law? When you find sin in your heart or life, what do you do with it? If you are clinging to Christ, then you can be pretty sure that you are part of the visible church. Such is the complex practice of instrospection or self examination.

This is why I think the visible/invisible distinction must be maintained.
 
I have a question regarding Hebrews 10:29-30. If that passage does state that there are non-elect participants in the CoG, then why does it say, "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the [b:bff5992111]blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified[/b:bff5992111]..."? Does that not imply (in this passage) that all those in the CoG have been sanctified, and thus are all elect? Am I misunderstanding the word "sanctify"? Not that I hold that view, just a question on that passage.
 
Patrick,

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that Wilson and the Federal Visionists deny the following:

[quote:697d9e52ca][i:697d9e52ca]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:697d9e52ca]

It is perfectly possible for one to outwardly partake of all the beneifts of the covenant and yet never be elect or have true faith. To our eyes he would look fine. Such were the Pharisees.
[/quote:697d9e52ca]

I have been reading a lot of Doug Wilson as of late, and particularly his [u:697d9e52ca]"Reformed" Is Not Enough[/u:697d9e52ca], where he expounds much of the Federal Vision. I also recently purchased the tapes from the original AAPC and have listened to them. There is nothing that was said during that entire conference or in Wilson's book that denied what you have said above. I am quite disappointed in many of my Reformed brethren that have slandered these men saying they deny the sovereignty of God's grace and unconditional election. Whatever faults these men may have, that's not one of them.

[quote:697d9e52ca]If you remove this distinction from the covenant scheme, there is no need for self-examination or introsepction. As long as you outwardly are doing what you are suppose to do and are not under church discipline, you have no reason to fear. But then how do you know you are a Pharisee or not?[/quote:697d9e52ca]

What this terminology has intended to do historically is show the difference between those who are eternally elect and those who are covenant members. Election is rightly termed as "invisible" because we cannot see who is and is not elect. The covenant is rightly called "visible" because it contains all the things we can see: baptism, the Lord's table, and the communion we have with one another.

But to say that the need for introspection hinges on the invisible/visible church distinction is a bit of an overstatement, I think. The truth of unconditional election still stands, whether you call the elect and the covenant community the "invisible" and "visible" churches respectively. Certainly these terms can be used to describe these things, but they certainly are not necessary to affirm the realities they describe. It is the reality the terms describe that make introspection necessary, not the terminology.


[quote:697d9e52ca]There is no danger in introspection if it is done biblically. There are those, even in the Reformed camp, the do use introspection unbiblical, for instance to see if they are elect before they have come to faith. But that is not the fault of introspection but the fault of one using it incorrectly. This is one criticism I have of Wilson. He uses these extreme examples of people using introspection incorrectly, and portrays it as the traditional reformed view to provide justifiction for his new ideas in rejecting introspection. It is not enough to be part of the visible church. You must examine yourself to know you are part of the invisible church. That is not as complex as Wilson characterizes the idea. Simply put, are you trusting in Christ alone? Are their fruits of the Spirit growing? What is your attitude toward sin and the law? When you find sin in your heart or life, what do you do with it? If you are clinging to Christ, then you can be pretty sure that you are part of the visible church. Such is the complex practice of instrospection or self examination.[/quote:697d9e52ca]

Wilson is not only referring to the introspection of some to see if they are elect before they come to faith. Introspection can often times be a dangerous thing. When you are constantly looking at yourself to see if you are showing enough fruits of the Spirit, this is practically no different than relying upon your own works for your assurance. And how many good works are enough for you to safely conclude that you are among the elect? Also, given the fact that there are many who cling to Christ, but who only do so temporarily, maybe for a few months or years, but not forever, how can you be sure that you yourself will not be one of the ones that fall away eventually? You may even be bearing fruit for a while. You might be casting out demons or prophesying in the name of Christ. But what if in a few years you experience a crisis in your life and you abandon the faith?You have no way of knowing what will happen. That's one of the reasons I struggle with the idea of having certainty that we are elect, because none of us know where we will be in 10 or 20 years.

This is why I say that we need a balance between the two perspectives. God has made promises to those of us in covenant with him. We should believe those promises as they are layed out before us. But this is not an excuse to float through life carelessly thinking that simply because you've been sprinkled or because you eat and drink the elements that you're automatically safe. So I am not against introspection in our assurance of salvation, but I am against it being done exclusively apart from faith in God's promises.

But as for the invisible/visible church distinction, I just don't believe it is necessary for introspection. What IS necessary is affirming the reality of unconditional election. And you can refer to the elect without calling them the "invisible church".
 
[quote:af71ec119e][i:af71ec119e]Originally posted by KenKienow[/i:af71ec119e]
I have a question regarding Hebrews 10:29-30. If that passage does state that there are non-elect participants in the CoG, then why does it say, "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the [b:af71ec119e]blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified[/b:af71ec119e]..."? Does that not imply (in this passage) that all those in the CoG have been sanctified, and thus are all elect? Am I misunderstanding the word "sanctify"? Not that I hold that view, just a question on that passage. [/quote:af71ec119e]

What's up Ken!

As a way of introduction to everyone, Ken works with me in Pismo Beach.

Yes you are misunderstanding the word santify. You are equivocating santified with being saved. This is not ALWAYS the case. Just look at 1 Cor. 7:14.

It does mean that they were 'set apart' or 'santified', i.e. in convenant with God. However they would be covenant breakers not keepers. If we were to follow the logic that your question implies, that all those in the CoG are santified and thus elect AND are breaking covenant, then you would have a big problem in explaining how the 'elect' could loose their 'elect' status and thus be lost.

Hope that helps buddy, you can call me if it doesn't.

Brian
 
[quote:9ea43ce8c6][i:9ea43ce8c6]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:9ea43ce8c6]
But as for the invisible/visible church distinction, I just don't believe it is necessary for introspection. What IS necessary is affirming the reality of unconditional election. And you can refer to the elect without calling them the "invisible church". [/quote:9ea43ce8c6]
We are not far apart brother. I agree, the "terms" are not needed but the principle certainly is. The problem is that the Federal Vision, despite some of the attempts of Wilson to the contrary, are confusing this doctrine of election. Have you seen the book Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons? It was printed a couple months ago. Wilson does admirably try to affirm unconditional election, and he is by far the clearest. But others are not so clear. Barach's chapter on "covenant and election" and his Auburn Conference 2002 lecture by the same name deliberately try to avoid this question of unconditional election. He basically says, we can't know this, so why try? He instead argues for "covenant election," that those in the church have been elected to the covenant and that this election is not certain. Some one can be elect to the covenant yet not be one of [i:9ea43ce8c6]the elect[/i:9ea43ce8c6]. This leads to confusion over what election really is. And really it can lead to the same dilemma. The beleiver may say, "I know I'm elected to the covenant but am I one of the [i:9ea43ce8c6]elect[/i:9ea43ce8c6] elect?" Our traditional way of stating these things in the Confessions deals I think adequately with these concern already. If it ain't broke don't fix it :wr50:
 
Yeah Brian! Thanks for the clarification, that does help a little. I have another question though: how can a non-elect unbeliever be declared holy (as it says in my ESV bible, 1 Cor. 7:14), or sanctified?

By the way, I am so stoked on Trinity Presbyterian SLO. I stayed and talked with Pastor Brian and his wife afterwards for like forty minutes sunday, it was so awesome to hear pastoral answers to the some of the questions that I had accumulated in my 20 + years of attending Calvary Chapels. Talk to you saturday ( I think that's when I work next) or I'll call, of course, if I have any theological questions between now and then.
 
Ken,

Check out the link below by Bahnsen that discusses some of the meanings of holiness and address 1 Cor. 7:14 and its relation.

1 Cor 7:14

Hope that helps.

Brian

P.S. If you are back from your trip and would like to work, let me know when and I will try and schedule you. Also I need your next quarter availablity soon.
 
[quote:32b3a77ea9][i:32b3a77ea9]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:32b3a77ea9]

We are not far apart brother. I agree, the "terms" are not needed but the principle certainly is. The problem is that the Federal Vision, despite some of the attempts of Wilson to the contrary, are confusing this doctrine of election. Have you seen the book Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons? It was printed a couple months ago. Wilson does admirably try to affirm unconditional election, and he is by far the clearest. But others are not so clear. Barach's chapter on "covenant and election" and his Auburn Conference 2002 lecture by the same name deliberately try to avoid this question of unconditional election. He basically says, we can't know this, so why try? He instead argues for "covenant election," that those in the church have been elected to the covenant and that this election is not certain. Some one can be elect to the covenant yet not be one of [i:32b3a77ea9]the elect[/i:32b3a77ea9]. This leads to confusion over what election really is. And really it can lead to the same dilemma. The beleiver may say, "I know I'm elected to the covenant but am I one of the [i:32b3a77ea9]elect[/i:32b3a77ea9] elect?" Our traditional way of stating these things in the Confessions deals I think adequately with these concern already. If it ain't broke don't fix it :wr50: [/quote:32b3a77ea9]

I understand the concern, and I'm certainly as committed for the doctrines of grace as anybody. But in the case of the FVs, I just think it is wrong to conclude that because they put forth a corporate view of election that this also means they deny unconditional election, since you can clearly affirm both. In the OT, the nation of Israel was corporately elect, but there was also a remnant, chosen by grace, who were faithful to the covenant and to their God. This can be said in the NT as well. The church is corporately elect in Christ, but there is a remnant in the church as well. So I don't think its necessarily being fair to the FVs to say they deny unconditional election as many Reformed folks have done simply because they don't qualify all of their statements with, "but of course, we still believe in the historic 5 points of Calvinism". This much should be assumed by our brethren in Reformed circles.

Now, as to Barach's lecture on Covenant and Election at the AAPC 2002, I have both positive and negative thoughts about it. I do believe there is merit to a corporate view of election in the NT. But Barach attempts to use Ephesians 1 to show this, saying that this passage is really speaking of corporate election rather than individual election. The problem as I see it, however, is that if you say Ephesians 1 is talking about the church corporate, then you must also say Ephesians 2 is speaking of the church corporate. And I know I'm certainly not willing to say that every person in the church was once dead in their trespasses and sins, but has been made alive in Christ. It is because this is NOT true that people fall away and break the covenant. So I would just say that if Barach is going to defend his view of corporate election, he needs to find a different passage.
 
[quote:456c9caa8a]
I think the terms "visible" and "invisible" church are good for distinguishing the difference between those in the covenant who are elect and those who are not. I do, however, share Doug Wilson's concern that when we do that, it almost makes it sound like there are two churches and we spend all of our time trying to figure out which church is the "true" church. If I'm not mistaken, I think this was also one point that caused John Murray to have struggles with the visible/invisible distinction.
[/quote:456c9caa8a]

Craig,

I think Wilson's concerns are a bit of a red herring. Wilson may believe it sounds this way but there is no evidence to support this assertion. The Church is the Church and is made up of those who have made a profession and their children. This is why the definition of the visible church is so important and why Hodge could make the argument he did regarding the visible church vs the "true" church in his debate with Thornwell. The distinction made in the WCF simply states the reality of Scripture in regards to the call of the Gospel, ie; general vs effectual.

Regarding the position of the Federal Visionists, the problem is that it is far from monolithic. Based on the Knox collaquy, each advocate brings their own perspective to the table. Though I disagree with much of what Wilson advocated in the Colloquy, he appears not to be as far out as some of the others. Though I could be wrong since he wishes to distinguish terms between biblical and theological, which makes it difficult to get a true handle on what he means. But regarding election, I have no doubt after reading all the various arguments made in the Colloquy by the Federal Visionists and sitting through the AAPC 2002 in Monroe, they have re-defined election, and this includes Wilson, which has serious implications regarding ones Salvation.
 
Wayne,

[quote:d7fc7f4fec]Regarding the position of the Federal Visionists, the problem is that it is far from monolithic. Based on the Knox collaquy, each advocate brings their own perspective to the table. Though I disagree with much of what Wilson advocated in the Colloquy, he appears not to be as far out as some of the others. Though I could be wrong since he wishes to distinguish terms between biblical and theological, which makes it difficult to get a true handle on what he means. But regarding election, I have no doubt after reading all the various arguments made in the Colloquy by the Federal Visionists and sitting through the AAPC 2002 in Monroe, they have re-defined election, and this includes Wilson, which has serious implications regarding ones Salvation.[/quote:d7fc7f4fec]

I have not yet received my copy of the Knox Colloquy, though I have ordered it, so I am not sure what criticisms have been raised and what the FVs have said to these critics. I would like to continue this discussion with you, though. If its not too much to ask, do you think it is possible that you could provide some quotations from the colloquy that you believe show that the FVs are, in fact, denying the historic Reformed position on election? I am particularly interested in statements you could provide from Wilson because I have some statements from him that I would like to compare with. I can say at this point, having listened to the AAPC mp3's and read various material on the subject, that I do not believe the FVs are denying historic Calvinism, but perhaps you can give me some evidence to the contrary.

I should also say, in case anyone is wondering, that based upon my study so far, I do not believe the FVs to be too far off the mark, Biblically, concerning issues of covenant membership, apostasy, and the nature of the church. Now, my big rub with the FVs is their view of the sacraments. After reading what they say about baptism and the Lord's table, I can understand why they are accused of Romanism, although I really believe they are convinced that their view is different than Rome's. So even though I think the FVs are quite helpful in many areas, I just simply cannot buy what they say about the sacraments. I am just too concerned for Biblical and Reformed orthodoxy to do something so ridiculous as to tell somebody that baptism saves them.
 
[quote:7b9226c896][i:7b9226c896]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:7b9226c896]
Wayne,

[quote:7b9226c896]Regarding the position of the Federal Visionists, the problem is that it is far from monolithic. Based on the Knox collaquy, each advocate brings their own perspective to the table. Though I disagree with much of what Wilson advocated in the Colloquy, he appears not to be as far out as some of the others. Though I could be wrong since he wishes to distinguish terms between biblical and theological, which makes it difficult to get a true handle on what he means. But regarding election, I have no doubt after reading all the various arguments made in the Colloquy by the Federal Visionists and sitting through the AAPC 2002 in Monroe, they have re-defined election, and this includes Wilson, which has serious implications regarding ones Salvation.[/quote:7b9226c896]

I have not yet received my copy of the Knox Colloquy, though I have ordered it, so I am not sure what criticisms have been raised and what the FVs have said to these critics. I would like to continue this discussion with you, though. If its not too much to ask, do you think it is possible that you could provide some quotations from the colloquy that you believe show that the FVs are, in fact, denying the historic Reformed position on election? I am particularly interested in statements you could provide from Wilson because I have some statements from him that I would like to compare with. I can say at this point, having listened to the AAPC mp3's and read various material on the subject, that I do not believe the FVs are denying historic Calvinism, but perhaps you can give me some evidence to the contrary.

I should also say, in case anyone is wondering, that based upon my study so far, I do not believe the FVs to be too far off the mark, Biblically, concerning issues of covenant membership, apostasy, and the nature of the church. Now, my big rub with the FVs is their view of the sacraments. After reading what they say about baptism and the Lord's table, I can understand why they are accused of Romanism, although I really believe they are convinced that their view is different than Rome's. So even though I think the FVs are quite helpful in many areas, I just simply cannot buy what they say about the sacraments. I am just too concerned for Biblical and Reformed orthodoxy to do something so ridiculous as to tell somebody that baptism saves them. [/quote:7b9226c896]

No problem. I printed it all out while it was still on the Knox website. I think you will find it very interesting, especially Joe Pipa 's response to Steve Wilkins and Beisner's conclusions.

When I get home tonite, I'll look up the info on election, especially Wilson.

You are right about the Rome comments and the sacraments. Pipa called their views Lutheran!
 
Craig,

Regarding Wilson's comments on election, they are in Chapter 16 in his "Response to Covenant and Apostasy". Actually Wilson attempts to have it both ways. He first does not deny individual election and that the individual elect will persevere but expands it to a corporate election that includes all those in the New Testament Church and some of those whom he would consider corporately elect can fall away. Here Wilson goes into defining terms as "biblical" (the corporate elect) and "theological" (individual election). Wilson considers both of these views as being within the Reformed tradition. This corporate election goes along the lines that Barach articulated in his chapter (Chapter 11) on Covenant and Election, ie; all those in Covenant are in Christ, which is signified by their baptism. And that although they are elect they can apostatize and lose their salvation. Carl Robbins in his response to Barach points out that Barach is following the theology of Schilder and notes that this view was and still is very controversial within the Dutch Reformed Churches and is not the consensus opinion by any stretch of the imagination. Needless to say, both Wilson's and Barach's view of corporate election creates all kinds of problems for the Doctrines of irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints, just to name a few.

This idea of election appears to be a common theme with most of the FV's as they look at the Covenant "objectively". But as I noted previously, the views of all the proponents of FV are varied and not all agree with each other on every point. For instance, Schlissel is not a peadocommunionist.

I would suggest that when you get the book, you read it very carefully. Some of the proponents are obviously out in left field (Lusk) and other are out in the parking lot (Shlissel). But overall I think that Beisner's conclusions regarding the FV are correct and these guys need to think long and hard about what they are advocating.
 
Thanks for the comments, Wayne.

I've been thinking quite a bit about the ideas of individual election and corporate election. As I've already stated, I believe there is some merit in advocating a corporate election as long as one is careful to distinguish it from individual election. The word "election" is a Reformed buzzword that has had a common historical meaning. It has historically referred to God's choice of individual persons for salvation, so this is naturally what any good Reformed theologian is going to immediately think of when they hear this word being used. That's why I believe that if we are going to argue for corporate election, we must of necessity make the qualifications and distinctions that the FVs don't seem to realize need to be made. If I say to you, "You can be elect, and fall away from the covenant", you SHOULD rebuke me for that because I am being careless in my words to the point that I sound like an Arminian. But if I say, "You can be corporately elect and fall away, but NOT individually elect and fall away", this would be more acceptable.

I think the proper way to look at the doctrine of election in Scripture is to see individual election and corporate election as two DISTINCT and seperate doctrines, rather than corporate election as being an "expansion" of individual election.

Now, there are some obvious problems in an affirmation of corporate election. One of the difficulties is trying to determine when the Bible is speaking of a corporate election and when it is speaking of individual election. Barach seems to believe that Ephesians 1 is talking about corporate election, when traditionally it has been viewed as speaking of individual election. I don't know what Barach believes about Romans 9, but I wouldn't be surprised if he holds this same view here as well, though I can't really see how one can deny individual election in this passage. At best, it is speaking about both corporate and individual election. But let's just say that Barach is correct and these passages are, in fact, speaking of corporate election rather than individual election. We are left wondering exactly which passages of Scripture DO teach individual election. This is the same problem that advocates of the New Perspective on Paul suffer from. N. T. Wright has said that he doesn't see why a person needs to abandon forensic justification to embrace his view of justification. Now, in theory, this may be true. But unfortunately, what Wright has done is rob us of all the passages of Scripture that teach forensic justification. So, if we grant Wright's view of justification, what EXEGETICAL grounds do we have for believing in forensic justification by faith? And likewise, if all the passages of Scripture that speak of election are speaking of corporate election, what EXEGETICAL basis do we have for believing in individual election? This is why I say that although I can see some merit in a corporate view of election, we have to be very careful in how we formulate it. We can't ride a theological hobby horse on this matter so that we see corporate election EVERYWHERE, particularly when it is NOT there.

Now concerning Ephesians 1, as I said, believe we must say it is speaking of individual election simply because if it is speaking of corporate election, then Ephesians 2 must also be read corporately. Can you say hello, Arminianism? Also, Romans 9 seems to also be teaching individual election because of the reference to God's mercy to individuals, not based on their running or willing, the hardening of an individual's heart (Pharaoh), and also the Potter's forming of pots, some for the purpose of salvation, and some for damnation. The pots are not in limbo, but their destinies have been determined beforehand by the one who formed them.

These are my thoughts. What say ye?
 
Craig,

As Carl Robbins points out in his response to Barach, corporate election creates more problems than it solves. We would have to redefine particular redemption and perseverance of the saints and probably jettison the doctrine of reprobation or at least consider the Lutheran viewpoint. One of the things I find interesting about the FV argument is that in their striving to look at the covenant objectively, in that we should look at a person's life as well as their profession and whether they are baptized or not to determine whether they are "in covenant" or not, why even bring up the issue of election. Why delve into the secret decrees of God? They continually make the point that we can not know who the elect are and should not attempt to do so, which goes to your point regarding Wilson's view of the Church. But it seems they can't get away from this doctrine. So they either redefine election to make all who are baptized elect (Barach) or as Wilson has done, they play Solomon and split election in two and give half the term to "biblical" language and the other half to "theological" language.

But rather than try and redefine election and mess with the various doctrines of Reformed Theology, why not use the language of Reformed Theology. Why not separate the decrees of God (eternal) from that which takes place in the here and now (the Call of the Gospel)? Rather than viewing the Church in terms of the decree of election and reprobation why not consider the doctrine of the Calling? The visible church is made up of those who have made a profession of faith and there children. These have answered the call of the Gospel. They would then not have to deal directly with the issue of election and the Church, but how one who answers the call responds to the Gospel message. Whether the call is effectual or not cannot be determined by the Church especially since many who are only generally called will be the ones at the last judgment saying "Lord, Lord". This way the blessing/cursing scheme of the covenant still works without applying cursings to the elect, which the FV's say can and does happen via apostisizing.

What do you think of that?
 
Craig and Wayne, some excellent insights. I think it is also important to point out this essential difference in the FV. They have redefined the meaning of [i:fc57743d9d]covenant[/i:fc57743d9d]. Read Leithart's article in Chapter 5 of the Knox Colloquium. He basically rejects the traditional understanding of the covenant being and agreement between two parties with conditions, promises, and curses. He instead bases this new definition on his speculations of the eternal "covenant" in the Trinity. Along with this, he denies a covenant of works with Adam, and instead turns that covenant into part of the covenant of grace.

He then basically ties our covenant membership as partaking of and remaining faithful to this Trinitarian covenant relationship through union with Christ, and this union is not permanent but contingent on our own covenant faithfulness.

So when you hear the FV talking about "covenant," they are not saying the same thing as the traditional reformed understanding, at least if they agree with Leithart.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by puritansailor]
 
Patrick,

I remember reading Leithart's chapter and scratching my head about the "trinitarian" covenant. Have you read anything on this? Sounds like speculative theology run amuck!

What did you thinks of Rich Lusk's response to Morton Smith? I wonder if Dr. Smith knows he is a Lutheran!
 
[quote:9c3916c306][i:9c3916c306]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:9c3916c306]
Patrick,

I remember reading Leithart's chapter and scratching my head about the "trinitarian" covenant. Have you read anything on this? Sounds like speculative theology run amuck!

What did you thinks of Rich Lusk's response to Morton Smith? I wonder if Dr. Smith knows he is a Lutheran! [/quote:9c3916c306]
You know, until I had heard of Leithart and Lusk, the only ones to ever argue for such a scheme that I knew of was Herman Hoeksema and his followers in the PRC (There is some similarity to the CanRC and Schilder too). But the PRC didn't take it to the extreme that these guys did, mostly because I think they clung to supralapsarianism and divine soveriegnty. But you are right, Leitharts arguments are pure speculation.
As to Lusk, he is practically the same in regards to his views on the Trinity. This was addressed at the Greenville Conference a little. You can find Lusk's other articles at http//:hornes.org/theologia/

I do not doubt many of their assertions. There have been theologians in the past who held to some of there distinctions. Hoeksema had a trinitarian framework. He and Schilder denied a covenant of works. There have been several reformed theologians like Calvin, Luther, and Romaine who denied a "cov. of works" yet when they teach about the Law, they ascribe to it the same merit and promise framework as others do about the cov. of works, namely, eternal life could have been earned by Adam and his posterity if he had remained faithful to the law. The FV guys do not keep this distinction when they abolish the covenant of works. Hoeksema, though doing away with the cov of works, as well keeps the law, but his justification for getting rid of the covenant of works was that God never intended Adam to merit eternal life for his posterity but intended Christ to do that for the elect (obviously tied to his supralapsarianism).
Schilder and Hoeksema both held to a form of presumptive regeneration, that children a presumed regenerate until they show otherwise. But they didn't tie this to the sacraments, as the FV seems to have done, but to the promises in covenant of grace.

The FV is right when they maintain that many of their views were held by men in the reformed faith, but these men whom they quote never denied other key doctrines in doing so, mainly individual election, justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ including the complete obediance (passive and active) of Christ.

Perhaps it is too soon to render this judgment, but it seems to me so far the FV is uniting all the weird "quirks" of our reformed heritage in to a new theology (or old Roman theology in disquise).
 
[quote:df3f5bc6f8][i:df3f5bc6f8]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:df3f5bc6f8]
Craig,

As Carl Robbins points out in his response to Barach, corporate election creates more problems than it solves. We would have to redefine particular redemption and perseverance of the saints and probably jettison the doctrine of reprobation or at least consider the Lutheran viewpoint. One of the things I find interesting about the FV argument is that in their striving to look at the covenant objectively, in that we should look at a person's life as well as their profession and whether they are baptized or not to determine whether they are "in covenant" or not, why even bring up the issue of election. Why delve into the secret decrees of God? They continually make the point that we can not know who the elect are and should not attempt to do so, which goes to your point regarding Wilson's view of the Church. But it seems they can't get away from this doctrine. So they either redefine election to make all who are baptized elect (Barach) or as Wilson has done, they play Solomon and split election in two and give half the term to "biblical" language and the other half to "theological" language.

But rather than try and redefine election and mess with the various doctrines of Reformed Theology, why not use the language of Reformed Theology. Why not separate the decrees of God (eternal) from that which takes place in the here and now (the Call of the Gospel)? Rather than viewing the Church in terms of the decree of election and reprobation why not consider the doctrine of the Calling? The visible church is made up of those who have made a profession of faith and there children. These have answered the call of the Gospel. They would then not have to deal directly with the issue of election and the Church, but how one who answers the call responds to the Gospel message. Whether the call is effectual or not cannot be determined by the Church especially since many who are only generally called will be the ones at the last judgment saying "Lord, Lord". This way the blessing/cursing scheme of the covenant still works without applying cursings to the elect, which the FV's say can and does happen via apostisizing.

What do you think of that? [/quote:df3f5bc6f8]

Wayne,

I'm not so sure we'd have to redefine particular redemption and perseverance if we embrace a corporate election if we are sure to make the proper distinctions. Of course, since we don't deny individual election, what we believe about the atonement and perseverance would not change at all. But concerning corporate election, we would just have to figure out what ways the doctrines of atonement and perseverance apply to the church corporate. I believe we could say that the atonement of Christ sanctifies the members of the covenant, whether individually elect or not, in the sense that they are set apart covenantally to the Lord from the rest of the world by the blood that ratified the covenant. This is what I believe the author of Hebrews means in Heb 10:29. But this is not to say that Christ actually bore the sins of every person in the covenant. This he did for the individually elect only. And it is because of this atonement that the individually elect members of the covenant will not fall away but will persevere to the end, while those who are only corporately elect because of their inclusion in the church will finally be cut off, receiving the curses of the covenant.

It certainly complicates things more, but I don't believe that complication is necessarily an indication of error.

And concerning your second paragraph, I like what you had today, and particularly your distinction between the decree of God (eternal) and the here and now (the call of the Gospel). This corresponds nicely with my dual-perspectival interpretive schema I follow when interpreting the Bible (the transcendent and the historical perspectives), which I have built upon the foundation of Cornelius Van Til's Creator/creature distinction. Though I might word things a little different, I think what you said there reflects my own understanding of things, unless I have misunderstood you.
 
Aren't believers only in the New Covenant? Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that the people in the New Covenant will know the Lord and will have their sins forgiven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Matthew1344
  • Locked
Question for the Baptist: Is the C.O.G. only the New Covenant?
Replies
11
Views
2K
brandonadams
brandonadams
hammondjones
  • Locked
The Saints Who are in Ephesus; Or, Who is a Christian?
Replies
6
Views
1K
hammondjones
hammondjones
P
  • Locked
Is the New Covenant new or renewed?
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
10K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
P
  • Locked
Is the Covenant of Grace conditional or unconditional?
Replies
13
Views
9K
Peairtach
Peairtach
DonP
  • Locked
What benefit is there for the Jew or covenant child
Replies
21
Views
5K
chbrooking
chbrooking
Back
Top