Could you suggest some articles on this covenant you speak of? I do understand the difference between covenant and salvation. What I don't understand is how favor is obtained through a covenant when man sins in all his works.
Life itself is a gift. They have children--which is a gift, etc. There is a unsurmountable number of favors, common grace, that God exhibits toward the non-elect. It is not that God is looking upon them and saying the non-elect deserve or have earned this favor, it is that God is merciful and gracious and He gives grace and favor even when it is not deserved.
Could you suggest some articles on this covenant you speak of? I do understand the difference between covenant and salvation. What I don't understand is how favor is obtained through a covenant when man sins in all his works.
Life itself is a gift. They have children--which is a gift, etc. There is a unsurmountable number of favors, common grace, that God exhibits toward the non-elect. It is not that God is looking upon them and saying the non-elect deserve or have earned this favor, it is that God is merciful and gracious and He gives grace and favor even when it is not deserved.
Thanks for the reference but I had to stop reading that stuff as my head was starting to spin. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> Speratus's three line covenant of grace restored my equilibrium.
I suppose we could say the ministry of the Word sometimes benefits the non-elect because the terror of the law may restraint them committing gross crimes and thus avoid the hangman's noose. But, how does baptism benefit them? If baptism is but an empty sign of the covenant of grace, what is the mechanism for benefit to the non-elect?
If you base infant baptism on an infallible benefit of covenant relationship, you fall into a similar error as those who baptize infants based on an infallible baptismal regeneration. Both doctrines assume that man's works determine God's favor.
Speratus, Baptism is the sign and the seal of the Covenant. There are both temporay and eternal blessings and cursings associated with the covenant. In the OT those non-elect who were with the elect covenant members (Israel) were blessed and cursed as a nation.
Quote
If you base infant baptism on an infallible benefit of covenant relationship, you fall into a similar error as those who baptize infants based on an infallible baptismal regeneration. Both doctrines assume that man's works determine God's favor.
There is a difference in temporary favor and eternal favor, which you are assuming are one! Moreover, just because someone is in the Covenant does not necessarily mean they will be saved. Baptism is but the sign and seal of the covenant relation in which God's election, predestination, and sovereigniy still reign. See Covenant Diagram.
speratus said: I suppose we could say the ministry of the Word sometimes benefits the non-elect because the terror of the law may restraint them committing gross crimes and thus avoid the hangman's noose. But, how does baptism benefit them? If baptism is but an empty sign of the covenant of grace, what is the mechanism for benefit to the non-elect?
Let me add to what J_Edwards wrote in reply by quoting from the apostle Paul in this matter, who was far more knowledgeable on this subject in regard to what blessings the non-elect derive from receiving the sign of the covenant and being included in the "visible" covenant community:
Romans 3:1-4 (ASV) "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment."
Romans 9:3-5 (ASV) "For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
Those who belong to the covenant "externally", i.e., they are associated to the people of God in a physical way but have not faith (some of which may at the particular time may in fact be elect) are blessed with the means of grace by which God calls sinners to repentance and faith in Christ. Despite the fact that the reprobate will find that these blessings will be used against them due to their hardness of heart at the Judgment does not nullify nor diminish their temporal benefit to them.
I don't see how those verses can be interpreted as saying that unbelieving Jews profited from their circumcision. "Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law: but if thou break the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." Romans 2:25. "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe. . ." Romans 4:11. "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Romans 9:6. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Romans 9:15, 16.
speratus said: I don't see how those verses can be interpreted as saying that unbelieving Jews profited from their circumcision.
They don't need any "interpretation"! The INSPIRED text says that there was an advantage and profit in being a circumcised Jew over others. Now, if you want to argue about this, do it with Paul or with God Himself Who had it written. The texts are clear to those who have eyes to see and who have not prejudiced themselves against the Word of God by the writings of men.
Romans 3:1-4 (ASV) "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment."
Romans 9:3-5 (ASV) "For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
Those who are part of the overall covenant community, which circumcision/baptism signifies (among other things), have a great advantage over others because it is within the covenant community that the MEANS OF GRACE are to be found. And it is through these God-ordained means of grace that sinners are called and saved. What was true for the Jew, e.g., they had the oracles of God, the promises, etc. is likewise true for those living after the coming of Christ. They too have the "oracles of God", the Scriptures, the same promises, etc. Now go ahead and disagree if you like, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with you over matters where the Bible is so perspicuous that even a child can read it and understand its truth.
speratus said: I don't see how those verses can be interpreted as saying that unbelieving Jews profited from their circumcision.
They don't need any "interpretation"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> The INSPIRED text says that there was an advantage and profit in being a circumcised Jew over others. Now, if you want to argue about this, do it with Paul or with God Himself Who had it written. The texts are clear to those who have eyes to see and who have not prejudiced themselves against the Word of God by the writings of men. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
The text is clear to those who do not isolate a fragment of a verse and ignore the context. In Romans 2:25 through 3:4 and Gal. 5:1-6, Paul makes it clear that circumcision did not profit the unbelieving Jews who trusted in their own works in circumcision rather than Christ's atoning work (covenant of grace). Does their unbelief mean that God did not truly offer all the Jews saving grace through circumcision and the oracles of God? As Paul answers, the validity of the Old Testament circumcision and the oracles of God did not depend on the works of the Jews but God justified the believing Jews by faith alone according to His good pleasure.
Quote
Pilgrim said Those who are part of the overall covenant community, which circumcision/baptism signifies (among other things), have a great advantage over others because it is within the covenant community that the MEANS OF GRACE are to be found. And it is through these God-ordained means of grace that sinners are called and saved. What was true for the Jew, e.g., they had the oracles of God, the promises, etc. is likewise true for those living after the coming of Christ. They too have the "oracles of God", the Scriptures, the same promises, etc.
The unbelieving Jews were offered the adoption, the glory, etc. but they did not profit from these things. As Paul says, they were ignorant of God's righteousness and went about trying to establish their own righteouness. Romans 10:3. They were blinded and did not obtain the grace freely offered through circumcision and the oracles of God. Romans 11:7. We have a similar situation in the visible church today. The unbelieving members do not profit from the grace freely offered through baptism and the preached Word. They seek to be justified by their own righteousness rather than the righteousness of God in Christ alone.
speratus said: We have a similar situation in the visible church today. The unbelieving members do not profit from the grace freely offered through baptism and the preached Word. They seek to be justified by their own righteousness rather than the righteousness of God in Christ alone.
It's pitiful that you are unable to think outside your preconceived notions. The benefit which Paul says the Jews had and which pertains to the visible church today were the MEANS OF GRACE given to them. It isn't that circumcision or baptism, in and of themselves, are of any benefit to an unbeliever. It is the truth seen in them, the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. Without the means there is no hope of salvation for anyone. Why not simply accept the testimony of the inspired apostle? (Matt 15:19)
I am still waiting for WELS Q&A to answer my question on whether or not we Lutherans baptize solely upon command of God as Luther clearly taught in the Large Catechism. I will post their reply if and when I receive it.
The answer has been received:
Quote
Q: In the Large Catechism, Luther writes, "We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God." Is Luther right when he says that we should baptize our children, not based upon the efficacy of baptism, but solely upon the command of God?
A: To understand Luther's words in larger context begin at paragraph 52,53 in the Large Catechism: "Further, we say, we do not put the main emphasis on whether the person baptized believes or not, for in the latter case baptism does not become invalid. Everything depends upon the Word and commandment of God.... (Baptism) is not bound to our faith but to the Word." From there to the sentences you quote, Luther emphasizes in various ways that Baptism is not our work but God's, not dependent on us and our faith but on God's command and promise.
We do not know whether those who hear our preaching will believe or not. We preach because our Lord commanded it and promised his blessing. We do not know whether every communicant is truly penitent and trusting, but we do not doubt that the Lord's Supper is the Savior's Body and Blood and that it is a means of grace.
Likewise, we do not know what the result of a particular baptism (infant or adult) is or will be. We can't know. Nevertheless, we baptize, not on the basis of our intent and hope but on the basis of God's command. (In many other places Luther also adds the promises of God to the command of God in connection with Baptism).
Luther, incidentally, is not suggesting that some baptisms lack efficacy. The gospel in Word and Sacrament is always efficacious, but it can be resisted and rejected.
Luther, incidentally, is not suggesting that some baptisms lack efficacy. The gospel in Word and Sacrament is always efficacious, but it can be resisted and rejected.
How can the gospel in the Word and Sacrament always be efficacious but men can resist and reject it? In what way is the gospel "always efficacious"? Applying this to baptism, how is baptism "efficacious" to the one without faith?
The efficacy of the gospel in Word and Sacrament has nothing to do with the will, works, or faith of man but is established according to the command and institution of God (Is. 55:11). Through the gospel in Word and Sacrament, God offers salvation to all believers (Romans 10:8-9; Mark 16:16; Luke 22:19, 20). Natural man can and will resist and reject the salvation offered through the gospel(1 Cor. 2:14).
Specifically, with respect to the efficacy of baptism to the one without faith, so what if some do not believe? "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" Romans 3:3.
Could you PLEASE answer my question? "How can the gospel in the Word and Sacrament always be efficacious but men can resist and reject it?. What does this "efficaciousness" consist of, whether in regard to the Gospel or baptism?
The Bible and Calvinism assert that God is sovereign and consequently all things occur according to His eternal counsel. ALL that God wills (decreed) is "efficacious", i.e., it will accomplish that which He has purposed.
Secondly, you appear to have yet again contradicted yourself. For, in previous posts on the Board, you were adamant that unregenerate man has no choice in regard to sinning; men cannot choose to sin or to do good in their unregenerate state. Yet, here you say, "Natural man can and will resist and reject the salvation offered through the gospel." The rejection of the grace of God offered in the Gospel, i.e., a rejection of the Lord Christ is certainly a sinful act. So how is it that men CAN and WILL reject Him if they have no free ability/choice to sin?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
Methinks there is a strong odor of equivocation emanating from Speratus' usages of the term "efficacious".
While you and JE et al (had to use Joe's favorite phrase!) have clearly and consistently used efficacious solely in reference to the work of grace on the elect, as in "invariably, infallibly, without possibility of recall, effecting and securing the salvation of each of the elect"--which efficacy can in no way apply to the reprobate--your adversary Dr. S. has also been using the term in a broader sense in reference to the glory of God in all things, as in "Word and Sacrament, regardless of their effect on the individual, invariably bring glory to God as the gospel is preached through them".
By itself, that is a true enough statement. But his equivocation of the broader and narrower usages allows him to errantly argue that since:
1) all that God does is efficacious (broad) 2) Calvinists claim that grace is always efficacious for the elect and never for the reprobate (actually narrow, but he equivocates it as broad) Thererfore, Calvinists deny (1), which is universally affirmed, Consequently, (2) must be false.
This logical error--whatever its motivation--allows him to proceed along his thoroughly unbiblical lines in which man--just as in all other false gospels--can override the will of God.
Could you PLEASE answer my question? "How can the gospel in the Word and Sacrament always be efficacious but men can resist and reject it?. What does this "efficaciousness" consist of, whether in regard to the Gospel or baptism?
The "efficacy" of the gospel and of baptism means that they will accomplish exactly what God promises they will accomplish without regard to any work of man.
Quote
The Bible and Calvinism assert that God is sovereign and consequently all things occur according to His eternal counsel. ALL that God wills (decreed) is "efficacious", i.e., it will accomplish that which He has purposed.
By your definition of efficacy, I would agree that all events are efficacious since they all accomplish God's purpose or they would not occur. However, my definition is narrower than yours but not as narrow as the definition Paul S discusses. I may reply further after you respond to Paul S' comments.
Quote
Secondly, you appear to have yet again contradicted yourself. For, in previous posts on the Board, you were adamant that unregenerate man has no choice in regard to sinning; men cannot choose to sin or to do good in their unregenerate state. Yet, here you say, "Natural man can and will resist and reject the salvation offered through the gospel." The rejection of the grace of God offered in the Gospel, i.e., a rejection of the Lord Christ is certainly a sinful act. So how is it that men CAN and WILL reject Him if they have no free ability/choice to sin?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
There is no inconsistency here. As you note, I have stated there is no free ability to reject the grace offered through Word and Sacrament. That does not mean natural man does not resist and reject the grace offered. However, his sin of resisting and rejecting is not an attribute of liberty but of bondage.
Pilgrim said: Could you PLEASE answer my question? "How can the gospel in the Word and Sacrament always be efficacious but men can resist and reject it?. <span style="background-color:yellow">What does this "efficaciousness" consist of,</span> whether in regard to the Gospel or baptism?
The "efficacy" of the gospel and of baptism means that they will accomplish exactly what God promises they will accomplish without regard to any work of man.
I shall not judge the reason(s) behind your constant avoidance of answering direct questions, but I will choose to end wasting my time with you on this matter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
re: Paul's response, "equivocation" is an understatement and only scratches the surface in describing your polemic, if even using that term is justified to describe your so-called rebuttals. There is no further comment needed on my part.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
The INSPIRED text says that there was an advantage and profit in being a circumcised Jew over others. Now, if you want to argue about this, do it with Paul or with God Himself Who had it written. The texts are clear to those who have eyes to see and who have not prejudiced themselves against the Word of God by the writings of men. 
