If the children of believers are considered presumptively regenerate where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

They are?

__________________
~Gloria G.~
Bride of Warren G.
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church, PCA, Southeast Georgia

"Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways." Psalm 119:37

That's what Aaron is presuming!

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

I was asking for a view from someone who believed in presumptive regeneration or how someone would answer that hypothetically I wasn't stating definitively that the children of believers where presumptively regenerate..

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

O.k for argument's sake let's say the children of believers are presuemd regenerate answer my question then what about Esau was he part of The Covenant?

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

Although I don't like to get involved in these debates, I suppose I owe you an answer, since I made the joke.

In my opinion, the question to ask is not "Was Esau part of The Covenant?" but rather, "Which Covenant was Esau a part of?" Was he a member of the elect? I do not believe so. Does this mean Isaac was wrong to circumcise him? No.

I'll leave any further discussion to those who are more learned than myself.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

Yes, he was externally in covenant, and even received divine blessings in consequence thereof; but that inclusion in and of itself doesn't require the reader to presume anything concerning his inward or eternal state.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Esau was part of the covenant community. Is he not a descendant of Abraham and Isaac?

But he obviously did not receive the promises of the covenant because he did not receive it in faith (Rom. 9 is the easiest to understand).

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

But he was if he was in the covenant and didn't receive the blessings is that not contradictory? Or is it like a church has members but not all the members are not the elect of God or something to that effect? Excuse my ignorance I have never studied Covenant Theolgy my Pastor who was formally a Dispensationalist then a Covenant proponent and is now New Covenant Theolgy. Views CT as an ossified relic so I am not upon the concepts does anybody have any suggestions for good Starter materials on Covenant Theolgy? because I need to study more and I don't really know a whole lot all I know about Covenant Theolgy is Sabitarianism but this is I just dont really know anything I was a Dispensationalist and know I am just kind of in Intellectual free fall because I have no real trust of NCT

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

He had no part in the Eternal Covenant as Ishmael didn't have any part of it as revealed in Genesis 17. He did have part in the Abrahamic Covenant as it pertained to Abraham's posterity.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Aaron,
You will get two different answers here--from the Reformed side, and the Reformed Baptist side.

The Ref. Bapt. (if I may speak for some of them) will often say that Abraham actually has two covenants--one a gracious covenant, made only with him, taken up again in the New Covenant (Eternal Cov), the other a wholly secular set of promises tied to the promised land and the genetic stock of Messiah. They argue for all-and-nothing: that Esau is only a party to a set of secular promises, of which circumcision is a covenant-sign.

Traditional Reformed theology makes no such distinction in the covenant itself. The distinction we make is "internal-external" to one covenant. Hence, a person (whether OT or NT Israel, that is the church under either age) is brought visibly into the "outward administration" of the covenant of grace. "In this respect," as the West. Conf. puts it, he is IN the covenant--whether by faith or not. However, those who have no faith exercised in the covenant are not participators in the substance of that covenant--which has all to do with Christ, and the benefits of his salvation. The typical (visible) elements are designed to point to internal truths--which, nevertheless, fail to manifest in those who are not elect.

This is what we (T-R) find in the case of Esau, as with so many other faithless Israelites in Scripture, as well as seen in our own experience. Church members, who none-the-less depart from us. Why? Because they never were truly of us, they did not have the grace of regeneration, they did not have Faith in God.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Well that is not exactly correct. I hope someday you would read Nehemiah Coxe.

The Eternal Covenant doesn't just jump from Abraham to the New Covenant. It is also the Covenant of Grace which is made up for the Elect. It is present in other Covenants also. Only the Elect are members of the Covenant of Grace. And yes I do know some Presby's who do believe this also.

I don't understand your all-and-nothing position that you seem to be describing. I really do urge you to pick up Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ so you can see what a framer of the 2nd LBCF did believe. I am not so sure you do understand the Reformed Baptist (Particular Baptist) position Bruce. We hold more to an understanding of John Owen's understanding of the Covenants of Grace and Works. Read the reviews to the link I give below.

Read the book is a good challenging read. Also if any of you are interested read the reviews.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Well is the faith given by God are these unbelievers just passive in a covenant there in but wont accept anyway. Also how does one "participate" in the covenant? I m sure this is all pretty basic but I don't know really anything about Covenant Theolgy.

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

Randy,
Did Esau receive the sign of the covenant of grace, i.e. circumcision? If no, then here is the "all or nothing" you seem to insist upon. You do not say Esau had any part of the administration of the CoG.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do not think you agree that he did, as our side confesses. Do you not adhere, then, to two covenants made with Abraham? Have you not said here in this forum that Esau was a full party to the "land covenant", a kind of symbolical national-identity compact that served as a kind of "message-to-the-world" regarding the coming Messiah?

I, along with mainstream CTs, do not agree with that bifurcation of covenant intent. We agree that the CoG was made "with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed" (WLC 31). Which CoG is trans-temporal, trans-covenantal with respect to the "differently administered" eras of that covenant, externally speaking. So, even Moses is but one administration of the one CoG, though it may have accidents that echo the first Works Covenant administration.

I have read a more-or-less sympathetic review of Cox' work in the BoT magazine, when the book was first republished

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

The only faith that matters is saving faith, not a temporary faith, and it must be given from God.

Unbelievers are within, but not by faith, and so only inside in an outward, ultimately worthless sense--worthless except for the incurrence of greater condemnation, for having neglected so great salvation, so abundant evidences of God's saving mercy put on display before them. The book Hebrews is replete with warnings to such as come this close, only to turn back.

The Israelites entered covenant at Sinai, and having sworn on their life, immediately broke the covenant at the base of the Mount, with their calf. They were participating in covenant outwardly, yes even actively, and yet not inwardly. Their judgment was all the more richly deserved for having been mere lip-service.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Bruce,

What do you mean when you say "accidents?" Do you see the Mosaic administration the same way as Horton writes about in God of Promise?

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton

What is the sign of the Covenant of Grace? I am not sure you can say that the Covenant of Circumcision (and that is what Stephen calls it) is the sign of the Covenant of Grace. There were clearly men who were members of the Covenant of Grace who were not a member of Abrahams family. And they didn't receive the sign.

Do me a favor Bruce... To understand our position a little better pick up the book. I am still working this out. But I do believe the administering (and that is my word) Covenants administer more than just one. You can call them accidents if you want. That would be the way your system handles it.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I have not read Horton's book. I can only go from what I have heard.

I don't think he would see his position (which relies much on Meredith Kline's researches) as coming apart from the historic CT position, but rather building upon it. However, he has been criticized by our own Matthew Winzer as driving too-great a wedge between Sinai and the CoG.

If one makes too much of these "comparative" distinctions between secular covenant arrangements, identifying Moses' as the suzerain type over against the gracious royal grant type, using this distinction to "drive the train" so to speak, then this new Klinean version of CT will, ultimately separate from standard CT.

Better, I say, to understand Moses' first of all as another CoG administration, extension of the "royal grant" (to use Kline's language), having an "overlay" of the legal promise-curse, CoW flavor. After all, MOST of that covenant has to do not with land and civil justice, but with the religion of atonement and grace under types and shadows.

Make too much of the CoW-suzerain aspect, and you will end up making those things substantive, instead of accidental to the core reality.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Is not the Mosaic called a minstry of death and condemnation in 2 Corinthians 3.

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them