Is it deceptive to teach someone they are in the New Covenant?

Semper Fidelis · #1 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn't take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

This I found strange. Would you say that this is true, in general?

That is to say, if it is true for children who may not be in the New Covenant, is this true for adults who may not be in the New Covenant?

North Jersey Baptist · #2 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

That is to say, if it is true for children who may not be in the New Covenant, is this true for adults who may not be in the New Covenant?

Yes. If an adult is not born again then they would not be in the New Covenant. But this seems like a backdoor way of getting into a credo/paedo discussion, or was that the intent.

Semper Fidelis · #3 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 02:27 AM

It was a simple question.

Who is appropriate, then, to say to them that they are in the New Covenant without a danger of being deceptive? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?

North Jersey Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

It was a simple question.

Who is appropriate, then, to say of them that they are in the New Covenant without a danger of being deceptive? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?

Rich - first, who can say with certainty that anyone is saved (which I would consider to be synonymous with being in the New Covenant)? I know what the gospel says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." But I am constantly sobered by words such as Paul's when he says:

Quote:

2 Corinthians 13:5 5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?

Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless. Telling them that all those who have come to faith in Christ are in the New Covenant would be accurate in my book.

Rich - what do you think about telling someone they are saved? (Note that I did not say "New Covenant" because I understand paedo's believe the entire visible church is in the New Covenant) Do you feel comfortable taking that stand or do you fall back to a passage such as 2 Cor. 13:5?

Semper Fidelis · #5 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

It was a simple question.

Who is appropriate, then, to say of them that they are in the New Covenant? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?

Rich - first, who can say with certainty that anyone is saved (which I would consider to be synonymous with being in the New Covenant)? I know what the gospel says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." But I am constantly sobered by words such as Paul's when he says:

Quote:

2 Corinthians 13:5 5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?

Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless. Telling them that all those who have come to faith in Christ are in the New Covenant would be accurate in my book.

So then, do you think Randy should have wrote it this way:

Quote:

Modified version of Randy's concern:

In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach anyone they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

Do you think this is a good way of putting it?

Quote:

Rich - what do you think about telling someone they are saved? (Note that I did not say "New Covenant" because I understand paedo's believe the entire visible church is in the New Covenant) Do you feel comfortable taking that stand or do you fall back to a passage such as 2 Cor. 13:5?

I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church. I'm interesting in pursuing the above because I want to uncover something here. The purpose of this thread is going to remain very specific.

PuritanCovenanter · #6 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 02:48 AM

Rich since it is my quote let me respond tomorrow please. I am extremely tired right now and I am headed to bed. Let me say that I would encourage assurance of forgiveness of sin where St. John does and consider an unrepentant person who never has confessed Christ to be outside of the Covenant.

Goodnight brother.

Semper Fidelis · #7 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 02:53 AM

Goodnight Randy. I'll let you answer this question in the morning.

Would you consider a person who has confessed Christ and seems repentant to be inside the New Covenant?

North Jersey Baptist · #8 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Modified version of Randy's concern:

In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach anyone they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

Do you think this is a good way of putting it?

Depends. I want to be fair to Randy and not take his original quote out of context. If Randy used the world "child" it may have been appropriate given the discussion. But since we're addressing the disposition of individuals I defer back to my earlier comment. "Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless." We can tell an individual that all who are in Christ are saved, and thus in the New Covenant.

When I was good free-willy I would make sure I quoted 1 John 5:13 to each and every person I lead in the sinners prayer. I'd figuratively pat them on the fanny and send them on their way equipped with their assurance of salvation. I am ashamed of that now. Thank God that He forgives. I know this is not part of your question, but I now tell individuals what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life. That's a thread in itself.

Quote:

I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church.

Which is?

Quote:

I'm interesting in pursuing the above because I want to uncover something here. The purpose of this thread is going to remain very specific.

Care to share or are you going to reveal this in your good time?

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Quote:

Modified version of Randy's concern:

In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach anyone they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

Do you think this is a good way of putting it?

Depends. I want to be fair to Randy and not take his original quote out of context. If Randy used the world "child" it may have been appropriate given the discussion. But since we're addressing the disposition of individuals I defer back to my earlier comment. "Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless." We can tell an individual that all who are in Christ are saved, and thus in the New Covenant.

I know Randy's post is the impetus but I don't mind interacting with you. I think there is more being brought into the conversation at this point. The initial thread said that "..it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord...."

The question is whether it is deceptive, as a general rule, to tell someone they are in the New Covenant since:
a. They may be strangers to the covenant
b. it neglecets that the Covenant is based upon the forgiveness of sins and knowing the Lord

I would assume that children are not in a special class and it is only deceptive for them so I assume you are saying that it is deceptive to tell anybody they are in the New Covenant.

But, you see, there is a definitional problem here isn't there and you started to draw that out.

When Randy defined "New Covenant" he defined it as "Elect". Thus, he is importing what he views the sole defintion of the New Covenant and says, in essence:

"...it is rather deceptive to teach anyone they are ELECT when they may not be ELECT. It neglects the nature of what ELECTION is...."

It would seem then that the issue is whether we ever have warrant even hinting that a person might be Elect - infant or adult.

Quote:

When I was good free-willy I would make sure I quoted 1 John 5:13 to each and every person I lead in the sinners prayer. I'd figuratively pat them on the fanny and send them on their way equipped with their assurance of salvation. I am ashamed of that now. Thank God that He forgives. I know this is not part of your question, but I now tell individuals what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life. That's a thread in itself.

Yes, but let's stick with those who are in the visbile Church. Do you only tell individuals in the visible Church what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life? Is that how you exhort the Church?

Quote:

I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church.

Which is?

Well, Romans 5-8 is an example of a manner of address that looks very presumptuous if you ask me according to some of the things said so far.

It seems very deceptive of Paul, doesn't it, when he says this to the Roman Church:

Quote:

Romans 6
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

If it is deceptive to talk to people as if they possess benefits that they may not have then Paul is the chief deceiver!

Now, to anticipate an objection, I'm not arguing that this necessarily applies to all children. In fact I know it does not. It does not apply to all professors either. Yet, the point is that Paul addresses the entire Church with words that can only possibly apply to the Elect. Why is that?

Quote:

I'm interesting in pursuing the above because I want to uncover something here. The purpose of this thread is going to remain very specific.

Care to share or are you going to reveal this in your good time?

I'm doing a bit of it already. The whole prodding has as much to do with means of Grace in the visible Church as it does with Baptism incidentally.

CalvinandHodges · #10 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:47 AM

Hi:

Was not Esau Jacob's brother?

Grace,

-Ch

turmeric · #11 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 09:43 AM

I think what some may be forgetting - or maybe they have a different take on things - is the judgement of charity. This assumes that if someone has made a credible profession, i.e. his life is consistent with his words most of the time, we treat him as if he's elect. We have to do this with ourselves as well. I'm going out on a limb here, so feel free to moderate this post, Rich; there seems to be a slightly perfectionistic bent, or maybe it's an attempt at precision, among our Baptistic brethren that can make it hard for an individual believer to rest on Christ's merits instead of constantly examining himself for "signs of election." This can be found in some of the Puritan writings as well.

As for "easy-believism", I hope those who have repented of that error won't throw the baby of resting in Christ out with the bathwater. (That may have been an unfortunate metaphor!

)

christiana · #12 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 10:22 AM

I think it is deceptive to teach anyone at all that they are elect, or saved!
Scripture says there must be a new birth with evidence of such.
One could be told that though they cannot be assured by anyone else that they have been reborn, they will surely begin to see the fruit of the spirit in their life and experience changes over time if this is so! They will love the brethren, love God with their whole heart and display the love, joy, peace and longsuffering that is the evidence of having been reborn! The wheat and tares will grow together and only God knows which are which for sure until that day!
Just the 2c of a layman from scripture.

5solasmom · #13 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 11:03 AM

Rich, thank you for pointing out how Paul addresses the church.

I believe it is wholy biblical to consider those in the visible church the elect - those in Covenant with God. We assume elect unless the fruit shows otherwise.

North Jersey Baptist · #14 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 11:04 AM

Rich - either I haven't acquitted myself well in my first explanation or I have been misunderstood. I'm going to give this another stab.

"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless" does not prohibit me or any minister of the gospel from proclaiming Romans 6*. Romans 6 is addressed to believers. While I cannot guarantee that someone is saved, I do believe it is possible for an individual to know they are saved. Please understand the distinction. The paedo would seem to have less trouble with this distinction since they may not feel compelled to separate between the wheat and the chaff. All (believers and unbelievers) in the membership are part of the visible church. Granted. Baptists understand that unbelievers can slip by and enter into membership. But as has been discussed previously and elsewhere, we do not consider these false brethren to be members of Christ's church or part of the New Covenant.

Allow me the liberty to take this discussion into the pastoral realm with two examples. A brother may be struggling with assurance of his salvation and comes to me for counseling. Through discussion the brother is solid on his knowledge of the gospel and claims to have placed his faith solely on Christ, but is struggling in respects to sin (either general or specific). Other than his sin struggle I am not able to find evidence that his profession was false. He is desirous of true repentance and to live a sanctified life. I accept his profession on the basis of faith and would therefore proceed in counseling this brother on the problem(s) at hand.

A second individual within the church is also struggling with sin. Unlike the first person this one has to be confronted. Lip service is given to being a Christian but there is scant evidence to bolster his claim. There is no brokenness, repentance or desire for change. Instead of a war within his members there is harmony, if only with sin. Instead of counsel would come rebuke and a plea to be reconciled with Christ.

Rich - so you ask the question:

Quote:

It would seem then that the issue is whether we ever have warrant even hinting that a person might be Elect - infant or adult.

If a person claims to be elect and displays the evidence of faith, we must proceed believing that they are. That is the flip side of the question, "Is it possible to know whether someone is elect?" In answer to that question I must respond with, "I don't know." I don't see my response as a result of being credo or paedo. How can anyone know for certain that a person is elect? Some imposter's can be very, very good. But we must proceed believing that individuals are elect based on the qualifying information available. Discontinuity? No. Just a contrast between believing based on the information available and understanding our limitations in knowing the secret things.

Rich - you also asked:

Quote:

Do you only tell individuals in the visible Church what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life? Is that how you exhort the Church?

Yes. This is the gospel and it is to be part of all biblical preaching and admonition. It is the call to sanctified living. It is at the heart of 2 Cor. 13:5. Do I proclaim the gospel because I believe there may be unbelievers within the sheep fold? Yes, that is always a motivation. But as I just eluded to, the gospel is also a call for believers to be more like Christ.

Quote:

The whole prodding has as much to do with means of Grace in the visible Church as it does with Baptism incidentally.

We'll see where this goes.

* Incidentally, I am preaching on Romans 6 (in two parts) starting next week. This thread will be good fodder. Thanks for bringing it up.

5solasmom · #15 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiana

I think it is deceptive to teach anyone at all that they are elect, or saved!

I am curious then how you would view Paul and the passage Rich shared?

Or, would you say that addressing a church with these statements is fine, but telling each of those church members individually, one on one the same things is deceptive?

5solasmom · #16 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless" does not prohibit me or any minister of the gospel from proclaiming Romans 6*. Romans 6 is addressed to believers.

I'm confused by this point, and maybe it's just me. But I'm not sure how Paul can preach this to believers when he didn't know with certainty they were all true believers?

North Jersey Baptist · #17 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5solasmom

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless" does not prohibit me or any minister of the gospel from proclaiming Romans 6*. Romans 6 is addressed to believers.

I'm confused by this point, and maybe it's just me. But I'm not sure how Paul can preach this to believers when he didn't know with certainty they were all true believers?

Dawn - apostolic authority aside, how can anyone know for certain that a person is a believer? I suppose it can be argued that Paul could know because he was an Apostle and could be given this knowledge through special revelation. But Paul was also writing to a church. Paul would have known, as we do today, that there is usually wheat and chaff within the membership. His instructions are for believers for he must proceed with that intent in mind.