The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Covenant members and more

Who do you consider in the covenant now?

Nominal Christians?

Those attending church on a somewhat regular basis?

Children and spouses of believers?

All believers are in the covenant, but not all covenant members are believers - meaning believers, the Elect, are a subset within the covenant.

When referring to Christians in the NT, are the writers referring to covenant members or believers?

(for the sake of this thread, believers refers to the "truly, regenerate")

John,

As I have always believed the Scriptures to teach, there are those in the visible church who belong to two distinct groups: 1) Those that have a living relationship with God through true faith in the Lord Christ. They are also members of the invisible church and are true members of God's covenant of grace. 2) Those that are part of the visible church by virtue of their birth to a believing parent(s). They are privileged and "holy" (set apart from the world) to be exposed to the preaching and teaching of the church and their parents as well as observing their faith lived out from day to day in the home. They are not to be considered believers (regenerate), nor are they to be given the privileges of the covenant of grace, e.g., the Lord's Supper nor have any children born to them baptized UNTIL they make a veritable confession of faith.

In short, there are those who stand in an external relationship to the covenant and to God. And, there are those who stand in an internal relationship to the covenant and to God.

Obviously, my view stands in stark contrast and in opposition to those who hold to the view espoused by Drs. Matthew MacMahon and some on this Board. I stand with men such as Jonathan Edwards, Robert Dabney, et al. No doubt, this will open up the proverbial Pandora's Box again!!

In His Grace,

Pilgrim, <br><br>Thanks as always and I agree with you, Seems like I almost always do. Hopefully, this will not start a kerfluffle. It appears pretty straightforward. <br><br><br>Someone, who comes from the continental Reformed thought (I think), made the statement that the four times the word, Christian, is used in the NT that it referred to Christians in the covenant, not regenerate Christians. <br><br>At Antioch in Acts I think it refers to Christians in essence; however, their probably were some unregenerates there. Then, with King Agrippa. Sure, he might have converted to be a nominal Christian, but I think in both of these cases the writers were thinking of those being born again.

Does the N.T. anywhere teach a definition of "Christian" where the individual is unregenerate? That is an oxymoron, if there ever was one; far worse than the phrase: "honest politician"!

What is the Pauline teaching concerning one being "in Christ"? Is it possible for one to be unregenerate and yet be "in Christ"? united to Him other than by a living faith that is the fruit of regeneration? The majority of the Epistles of the N.T. are addressed to "the saints", which Paul clearly means those who by a living faith have been justified in Christ and who are destined to glory. That there are those who profess to be Christians but who are not united to Him, is certainly true. (cf. Matt 7:21-23; et al). But I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where such are considered to be Christians.

The Continental Reformed Churches on the whole do adhere to what I have often called, "hyper-Kuyperism" which is basically what MacMahon & co., Wilson, etc. are espousing. It can be clearly seen here: Form for the Baptism of Infants (emphasis within the document is mine).

In His grace,

Dear Pilgrim:

Thanks for the reference to the subject Form for the Baptism of Infants with highlighted sections. Indeed, this document reveals once again that "the devil is in the details."

In Him,

Gerry

Hi Pilgrim,
I was wondering what church uses this form for baptism?
Susan

Susan,

The "Form for the Baptism of Infants" is the official form used by nearly all of the Continental (Dutch) Reformed Churches. Perhaps there are some of our members who are members of Reformed churches of Dutch heritage can speak specifically about their own congregations? I would like to think that there are some who no longer use it.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
I notice that the Auburn 4 and the other hyper covenental folks are using the Romans 11 passage to justify their idea that unbelievers can be in the covenant. Would you please explain this passage? I do admit, I am very confused by it, but I do know that it cannot mean that we can lose our salvation once we are really "in Christ".

Romans 11 v.13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root [2] of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Susan

Susan,

While waiting for Pilgrim to answer you, here is a previous explanation on some of the passages in Romans 11 by Pilgrim that I found helpful: Romans11

Also, Calvin's commentary on the chapter is worth consulting: RomansCommentary

in Christ,

Carlos

Thanks Carlos.<br>Susan

Susan,

Did what I have written before to JoshT, an adamant semi-Pelagian, which Carlos gave you a link to, suffice to answer your question or would you need further input?

Again, the error of the Auburnites is that they equate one's standing in the covenant to be salvation, rather than accepting Paul's teaching that there are those who are externally related to the covenant and those who are internally (salvifically) related to it by being united to Christ by God's election of grace and faith.

Romans 9:6-8 (ASV) "But [it is] not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed."

Thus God's "promise" is salvific, immutable, efficacious and infallible.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

I suppose my question is how do we view the olive tree? Is it the outward covenant community, or is it just the elect? Would you say that the unbelievers can really be a part of the tree at all? I am supposing that the broken off branches must be those of the external covenant who have never "known" Christ, but who are connected to His people.

I heard an interpretation of this passage about the olive tree. Israel the olive tree was cut down because of unbelief. A branch sprouted (which is Christ) from the Jewish root, and we gentile believers and Jewish believers are being grafted into Christ by faith.

Susan

Susan,

Perhaps William Hendriksen's comments will help clarify things for you. The following is taken from his New Testament Commentary: Romans Chapters 9-16, Baker Book House, 1981.

Paul warns the Gentile that he should not gloat over the fact that, while some of the natural branches - unbelieving Jews - have been lopped off, he, this Gentile, has been grafted in among the remaining (Jewish) branches, with all this implies with reference to partaking of "the nourishing sap from the olive root," the blessings promised to the patriarchs and realized in their lives and in the lives of their God-fearing children.

The Gentile, inclined to look down with a degree of contempt on his fellow-members, the Jews, is warned not to deem himself better than they. Let him bear in mind that it is not he, this boastful Gentile, who supports the root. How would it even have been possible for him to contribute anything to the blessings flowing forth from God's eternal decree, and from the promises, and imparted to the patriarchs, the all-inclusive promise being, "I will be your ( or y o u r) God"? No, it was not the Gentile who supported the root, but the root that supported the Gentile.

The possible counter-remark made by the typical Gentile was, "Branches were lopped off so that I - with tremendous emphasis on this pronoun - might be grafted in" (verse 19). Paul answers, "True." Historically speaking as verse 11 has shown, that was indeed true. But there was another, even more important side to the answer. It was this: "it was for the lack of faith that they were lopped off, and it is by faith that you stand." This faith, by virtue of its very essence, excludes all boasting, all arrogance or self-esteem. It includes godly fear, the kind of fear that is wholesome. See Prov. 3:7; Phil 2:12, 13; Heb 4:1; 1 Peter 1:17. Such fear leans wholly on God and his sovereign grace, and claims no merit of its own. The conclusion follows very naturally, "For if God has not spared the natural branches - the Jews to whom the promise was first made but who in large numbers had turned away from God - neither will he spare you." . . .

[On vss. 22-24]
In reading what Paul says about the olive tree there is on very important point that must not be overlooked. The apostle recognizes only one (cultivated) olive tree! In other words, the church is one living organism. For Jew and Gentile salvation is the same. It is obtained on the basis of Christ's atonement, by grace, through faith. The notion according to which God recognizes two objects on which he bestows his everlasting, saving love, namely, the Jews and the church, is contrary to Scripture. Here in Romans Paul has expressed himself on this subject again and again (3:29, 30; 4:11, 16; 5:18, 19; 9:22 f., 10:12, 13). One olive tree represents all the saved, regardless of their origin. And, as the result of the operation of God's saving grace, all the reborn are headed for the same everlasting home. Remember: ONE OLIVE TREE.

In His Grace,

Dear Pilgrim,

That was just what I was looking for.

Susan