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

[Semper Fidelis]

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?

 

[Herald]

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]

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?

 

[Herald]

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:

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]

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:

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:

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?

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]

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]

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?

 

[Herald]

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.

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

Which is?

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]

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.

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?

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:

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?

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]

Hi:

Was not Esau Jacob's brother?

Grace,

-Ch

 

[turmeric]

I think what some may be forgetting - or maybe they have a different take on things - is the judgment 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]

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]

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.

 

[Herald]

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:

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:

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.

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]

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]

"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?

 

[Herald]

"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.

 

[satz]

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

Rich, I am not sure of what importance this question is to your primary inquiry, but I believe that at least for believers capable of a profession of faith ie young children and upwards, you can with reasonable (not complete) certainty say a person is elect.

While some may disagree, I believe faith + works is the evidence of salvation as we mature in our christian lives. And a life of faith in Christ combined with good works and fruit can even give one confidence to say someone is indeed elect.

So yes, I would say it is possible to tell someone they are elect, in certain conditions.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

1 Thessalonians 1:3-4 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

 

[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?

I was thinking of new 'converts' and would be guiding them to read 1 John to be certain that they had truly been born again and to not assume they were because they might have signed a card, walked an aisle, or whatever but in fact had truly experienced regeneration by the Holy Spirit in their life.

I'm not a minister and my thoughts are, of course when addressing a congregation that the minister does so with scripture that validates what occurs in the life of believers. That still does not serve to offer false hope to 'professors' but encourages all to 'make their calling and election sure'. The tests given in 1 John clearly tell how one can be sure if they are in fact regenerate!

 

[Calvibaptist]

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

Paul addressed the church (visible) at Rome with 11 chapters of the content of the gospel. Then he exhorted them through specifics to live it. So, he had no problem preaching the gospel to the visible church.

The Epistle writers make general statements to the visible church as if they were all believers, with many warnings to those who are just pretenders. This is how you should address the church.

 

[Calvibaptist]

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

Paul does not suggest to people that they can assume they are in! He often, as do the other writers, warns those who are part of the visible church and have made a claim to be in Christ to be careful lest they come up short in the end. What does this prove, that their are unbelievers that have infiltrated the visible church? So what? We all recognize that this is not only possible, but definite.

 

[Calvibaptist]

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

Paul does not suggest to people that they can assume they are in! He often, as do the other writers, warns those who are part of the visible church and have made a claim to be in Christ to be careful lest they come up short in the end. What does this prove, that their are unbelievers that have infiltrated the visible church? So what? We all recognize that this is not only possible, but definite.

Rich, I apologize if I sounded too antagonistic in my response. I know I could have edited it out, but then I would have nothing to apologize for and that would not do me any good in the area of humility (which I obviously need sometimes).

I do believe you are asking a very valid question and I know that when this plays out, you are going to give us your point. I'm just trying to figure out what it is beforehand.

 

[5solasmom]

"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?

His instructions are for believers for he must proceed with that intent in mind.

I agree. That was why I asked.

The issue is that he is addressing the church corporate. He is speaking to the church corporate as as a body of believers (who, in a baptist view, are also in the NC because believers=NC).

Then this is the problem....since we cannot know for sure all in the corporate church ARE believers, and Paul here is addressing them as though they ARE...and it's deceptive to assume or give anyone assurance that they ARE in the NC/are believers (in a baptist view)...then Paul is being deceptive.

So I'm still confused...

 

[Calvibaptist]

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?

His instructions are for believers for he must proceed with that intent in mind.

I agree. That was why I asked.

The issue is that he is addressing the church corporate. He is speaking to the church corporate as as a body of believers (who, in a baptist view, are also in the NC because believers=NC).

Then this is the problem....since we cannot know for sure all in the corporate church ARE believers, and Paul here is addressing them as though they ARE...and it's deceptive to assume or give anyone assurance that they ARE in the NC/are believers (in a baptist view)...then Paul is being deceptive.

So I'm still confused...

But Paul doesn't just write Romans 6 to these people (the church corporate). He had already written Romans 4:23-25, which indicates who can count the promises of Romans as theirs.

Romans 4:23-25 - Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Romans 6:2 talks of those who have died to sin. Certainly Paul is not suggesting that any unbelievers among them have died to sin, is he? No, Paul is talking about those who are in Christ, which he described in Romans 5:16-17.

Romans 5:16-17 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Notice that there is justification, receiving abundance of grace, and receiving the gift of righteousness. This could hardly described unbelieving members of a covenant community.

How is Romans 6:17-18 true of unbelievers?

Romans 6:17-18 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 8 begins to get into a slight warning to those who make a claim of being in covenant with God, but do not walk according to the Spirit, but according to the flesh.

Romans 8:3-4 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Notice, Paul is making a distinction here between two parties: those according to the flesh and those according to the Spirit. There is a tone of warning here to those who claim to be in the covenant but walk according to the flesh.

Romans 8:5-9 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Here is a major warning to those who make a false claim. They cannot please God. They are his enemies (not his covenant people!). The do not have the Spirit of God and, therefore, do not belong to Christ. (far from being in covenant with God, don't you think?)

The point of the letters to the churches is not that the writers are assuming that the unbelieving members of the covenant community can be spoken to as Christians. The point is that everyone who is being written to as a member of the covenant community has made a claim of Christianity. Therefore, they can be expected to live like it. If they do not, they betray that they are really not in covenant with God, no matter what they claim. They can expect a fiery judgment. The letters to the churches contain both wonderful promises to believers and scary warnings to pretenders.

 

[Calvibaptist]

In short, if I stood in front of the church I served and only offered them the benefits of the union with God in my sermons and never gave them stern warnings to make their election and calling sure (as did Paul and Peter and John), then I would be doing a disservice to them and failing my calling.

Does this prove that I should baptize children? I don't see how.

 

[Calvibaptist]

In addition, the letter to the Romans was written to saints, not a mixed bag of believers and unbelievers:

Romans 1:5-7 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Were there unbelievers in this group? Paul obviously in the bulk of the letter assumed the possibility. But he was writing to all those who claimed to be united to Christ.

 

[5solasmom]

I'm not arguing that everyone in the NC (not the same as "covenant community" in your view...at least I'm thinking this so please correct me if I'm wrong) is saved. I'm saying that we address/treat visible/joined members of the church as believers, not that we don't warn them of the danger of apostacy or not encourage them to make their calling and election sure etc. There is definately a balance here.

I believe that it's most consistent with scripture to address the church corporate as a believing body (of which baptists would say believer=NC member). We see this with Romans and in Paul's benediction in several other epistles (including one where the children are addressed as church members).

The original issue was whether it was deceptive to address anyone as a believer/NC member unless we know for certain. Some have said yes. From what I can tell of scripture, we address church members as believers and it is not deceptive to do so. So my answer would be no.


I'm no where near as adept at this as others here, but as best as I can explain, this is my understanding.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I'm not arguing that everyone in the NC (not the same as "covenant community" in your view...at least I'm thinking this so please correct me if I'm wrong) is saved. I'm saying that we address/treat visible/joined members of the church as believers, not that we don't warn them of the danger of apostacy or not encourage them to make their calling and election sure etc. There is definately a balance here.

I believe that it's most consistent with scripture to address the church corporate as a believing body (of which baptists would say believer=NC member). We see this with Romans and in Paul's benediction in several other epistles (including one where the children are addressed as church members).

The original issue was whether it was deceptive to address anyone as a believer/NC member unless we know for certain. Some have said yes. From what I can tell of scripture, we address church members as believers and it is not deceptive to do so. So my answer would be no.


I'm no where near as adept at this as others here, but as best as I can explain, this is my understanding.

We are in agreement! Although there may be unbelievers in the community (which I believe = New Covenant) due to their hypocrisy, I believe we, until they prove themselves apostate, address them as believers.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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?

Welll, my head is a little clearer now.

Rich, the quote you took off on was truly in reference to infant baptism. I don't believe an infant can respond to the gospel. The first thing a child does is become cognisant of their surroundings and then they become self aware. I think the doctrine of presumptive regeneration is kind of telling oneself to deceptively, most likely deceive oneself and the deception can spill over into the childs life. The truth is what sets us free. I do believe one needs to respond to the gospel in order to be a member of the New Covenant for the reasons I have stated elsewhere. Sins are forgiven if an individual is a New covenant Memeber.

Hope that is clear as mud.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The Reformed answer to this is not to distinguish between the "New" Covenant and the "old" in the way presupposed by the question.

The Reformed answer is to say, with the Synod of Dort (CD 1.17)

Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended...

Belgic Conf. Art 34:

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.

And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Heidelberg Catechism Q 74:

74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.

You will notice in these passages, the Reformed acknowledge a change in administration between the Old and New Covenants, but we do not make the New Covenant substantially different such that children are excluded from the administration.

The premise that only believers are "in" the New Covenant at all is the very thing to which the FV folks are responding.

As I argued just today on the HB, there's no need either to follow the FV confusion of the administration with the decree or the Baptist confusion of decree and administration.

rsc