Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_christian777  Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins Staying in the covenant is dependent on works. This goes back to their view of the covenant, which, properly speaking, is not made with the elect (acc. to the FV). Rather, covenant is, properly speaking, broader than election, including more people (acc to them). | I'm new here, but not to the FV. You dear Sir are mistaken. Do you believe the law of God to be gracious? do you believe that in the N.C. the law was written on our mind and placed in our hearts? Of course you do, we all do. So why would it be so completely foreign to expect God's people to follow God's law? It isn't. That is what we are supposed to do. God requires it of us. For it is the doers of the law who will be justified on the last day (Rom. 2:13).
So where then is the rub? It lies in your mistake. "Staying in the Covenant is dependant on works." What you mean, if I am correct, is works absent from faith. But a faith that is absent of works is no faith at all. So, a living active faith that naturally produces works of righteousness, love, joy peace, patience, kindness... etc. is what required of us as God's people who are in Covenant with Him. This is the greatness of the N.C., that God's law was written on our hearts and not on stone. Why? So we don't have to obey it? Nooooo. Becuase God is gracious and has given His law to His people for them to live righteous lives on this earth.
The basic structure of Covenant is Promise, obligation. Now our obedience to these obligations is not works, it is grace thru and thru, for it is God who enables us to what He requires. This is not new, but Augustine said it this way, "Command what thou will, grant what thou Commands."
You are also mistaken in saying that "covenant is, properly speaking, broader than election, including more people." What you mean again here is the decretally elect. God is only in Covenant with the decretally elect. But this is not so. For Israel was elect, but not all Israel was Israel (general elect, special decretally elect). There is an elect within the elect. Calvin taught this very same doctrine.
Besides, if God was only in Covenant with the decretally elect, then how is it that in Hebrews 10:26-30 ,that a person could “receive the knowledge of the truth”, and by their deliberate sinning, “profane the blood of the Covenant by which he was Sanctified“, and subsequently in verse 30 have the author say that this person who will be judged is to be considered “HIS (God’s) PEOPLE”?????
This person received the truth, was in covenant with God, was sancitified by the blood of the (new) covenant, was considered to be God’s people, and yet can still “spurn the son of God, and profane the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified, and could outrag the Spirit of Grace”? This person will subsequently be judged by a fury of fire that will consume God’s adversaries (which this person is). If the New Covenant is only made with those who are decretally elect then how could Hebrews 10:26-30 make any sense?????
This where the concept of the covenant is most important. The covenant is not some abstract theological concept that only pertains to "out there", but it is the very substance and fabric of our relationship with God. This has huge implications for infant baptism. The way that you seem to be explaining this concept is like a Baptist would, which is another discussion for another day, how American Presbyterianism has been overtaken by revivalistic, Baptistic theology.
Anyway, I thought that I would just cut my teeth here at Puritan board by answering you on some controversy. Have a good day & God bless. |
I do think you have misunderstood me. I am by no means saying that works are unnecessary. I am merely saying that they are unnecessary for staying in the covenant of grace. Otherwise, I think Galatians 3:1-6 makes no sense at all. We cannot begin by grace and finish by works. No, it is grace all the way through life. Now, that grace works in us to produce good fruit, which is the evidence of our justification. But we do not keep our justification by works, and even our sanctification is not based on our works (see the WCF on sanctification, which says that it is an act of God's grace). In other words, works, while
essential to the Christian life, are not part of justification in any sense, are not part of keeping justification in any sense, and are not the basis of sanctification, but the result of sanctification.
On the issue of covenant, the WLC says explicitly that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and with all the elect seed in him. If covenant is broader than election in its essence, then the WLC is wrong. I don't think you can accuse the WLC of being Baptistic. But I make a distinction here that Baptists do not typically make: there is a difference between the essence of the covenant (which is made with the elect) and its administration (which includes all children of believers). There is an inner and outer distinction, a visible/invisible distinction. On the basis of the covenantal administration Presbyterians baptize infants, and yet they do not partake of the substance of the covenant except by faith. This distinction makes perfectly good sense of the warning passages in Hebrews, since such persons partook of the covenantal administration, but did not partake of the essence of the covenant.
Indeed, these are the several positions on the covenant: 1. Baptists and Roman Catholics share one thing in common: the covenant is equal to the church. The difference is that for Roman Catholics the covenant is equal to the visible church, and for Baptists it is equal to the invisible church. That is a
big difference, by the way. And so, in terms of the difference, they are polar opposites: for Roman Catholics, the visible church equals salvation. For Baptists, the invisible church equals salvation. In this respect the Reformed and the Baptists have always been on the same side. However, the Reformed add an additional element to the discussion: a covenantal administration that is visible, corporate, and objective (while retaining the individual, subjective element of the essence of the covenant). The doctrine of apostasy and baptism are both dependent on the covenantal administration. Hope this is clear. The Reformed, Presbyterian position, in my mind, is the only position that does justice both to the passages that talk about the essence of the covenant being salvation, and yet also the passages that talk about baptism and apostasy.