are all in the new covenant saved?

[CarsonLAllen]

A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.

Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?

 

[Herald]

Well Carson, if you ask a Baptist the answer is, "yes." If you ask a Presbyterian the answer is, "no."

 

[Hippo]

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.

 

[Herald]

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.

Are we insinuating something?

 

[Hippo]

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.

Are we insinuating something?

No, are you?

This is a classic text that highlights the destruction of those who Christ "bought".

 

[Herald]

The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?

 

[Hippo]

The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?

Exactly.

 

[Herald]

The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?

Exactly.

Ah. Hence my questioning about whether you were insinuating something. That's why I responded in my first post "Baptists "yes" and Presbyterians "no."" The NC has a visible sign (baptism) that signifies an invisible inclusion (regeneration). But we're acquainted with this debate already, aren't we?

 

[Hippo]

The destruction of those who Christ bought? I suppose you're alluding to believers and unbelievers in the NC, and the one's destroyed are those who prove themselves to be reprobate?

Exactly.

Ah. Hence my questioning about whether you were insinuating something. That's why I responded in my first post "Baptists "yes" and Presbyterians "no."" The NC has a visible sign (baptism) that signifies an invisible inclusion (regeneration). But we're acquainted with this debate already, aren't we?

It is interesting that Peter specificaly states that the reprobate have been "bought" by Christ which suggests that the reprobate are not external to everything that Christ has secured.

I do not think that it necessarily follows that Baptists and non baptists have to differ on this point, especially if Baptists adopt elements of Covenenant theology as most Baptists on this boards will have done.

 

[CarsonLAllen]

Hippo

Are you saying that the verce in Peter is talking about reprobated being purchased by the blood of Christ?

 

[TimV]

It probably should be noted that the word for Lord is despotes, which I understand is typically used of the Father rather than the Son. So one could read it "Those Jews who claim Christ is not God deny He who redeemed them from Egypt".

 

[Herald]

I suppose it depends on how you view what Peter meant when he said, "Master who bought them." I concur with Gill that these where not bought in the sense of ownership by the one buying, but as in their claim to have been bought (Jude 4; 1 John 2:19). They where members of the NC only in their own minds. It could only be this way because the blood of Christ is effectual towards those to whom it is applied.

 

[moral necessity]

Exactly.

Ah. Hence my questioning about whether you were insinuating something. That's why I responded in my first post "Baptists "yes" and Presbyterians "no."" The NC has a visible sign (baptism) that signifies an invisible inclusion (regeneration). But we're acquainted with this debate already, aren't we?

It is interesting that Peter specificaly states that the reprobate have been "bought" by Christ which suggests that the reprobate are not external to everything that Christ has secured.

I do not think that it necessarily follows that Baptists and non baptists have to differ on this point, especially if Baptists adopt elements of Covenenant theology as most Baptists on this boards will have done.

John Owen refers to this passage (II Pet. 2:1-2) in his work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" in Vol. 10: pages 362-364, as it is used by many to prove universal redemption (not that you or anyone here is advocating this). If you have the isolated copy of this work, instead of the actual volume from which it is taken, it can be found in Book IV, Chapter 5, Point #3. This scripture and several others are used by many who hold to universal redemption to show that, if Christ shed his blood for some who became reprobates, then limited atonement is not so limited only to the elect. He makes some good arguments against this interpretation.

Blessings!

 

[Wannabee]

Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect). Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved? [/B]

Yes.

 

[Iconoclast]

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will osecretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

2 Pe 2:1-2 suggests not.

4Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

All the earth is mine, by virtue of creation ,
yet he elects who he will.
At the cross he is given power or authority over All flesh

2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

The efficacy of the purchase of redemption is only on the behalf of those the Father has given to Him, yet as he has been given authority over all flesh. He will be your Saviour, or your judge.
Like in timothy where it says he is the saviour of all men especially thoe who believe, there is no other.

10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

 

[Herald]

Well I'm certainly not advocating a universal view of the atonement. To be fair to Mike (Hippo), he probably isn't doing that either. I suspect he would make an internal/external argument for the NC which would fit perfectly into the paedo view of Covenant Theology.

For the RB the NC is invisible (internal); which is not much different than the OC. Circumcision never saved. It simply identified a male with God's covenant people externally. Salvation has always been by faith, "And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to Him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3) This is why the charge levied against RB's about our only baptizing the elect falls short. We don't claim to baptize only the elect, just as circumcision was not administered to the elect, or baptism to infants who are elect. We baptize those who profess to be part of an invisible covenant. Presbyterians baptize infants who they claim are part of the external covenant with no guarantee that they will ever be part of the internal covenant. They claim covenant blessings, but in essence they cannot claim what they don't own (Eph. 1:3) because the true riches of the covenant are for those who believe. The same goes for RB's who baptize a professor who is not a possessor. We are not able to discern with certainty the condition of the heart. We observe the evidence of faith and make our conclusion accordingly. This is what the Presbyterian must do as their child grows in age. Does their behavior defend or accuse them before God? In that sense we are all in the same boat.

 

[Grymir]

John 10:28 - "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

John 6:37 - "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out"

Rom 8:30 - "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Hi Carson. Yes, it does give evidence. The only ones truly in the New Covenant are the justified (regenerated or saved if you will).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.

Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?

The question has always been, since God initiated his covenant with Abraham: is a covenant-person IN covenant with God merely outwardly and formally, or does he also possess true faith within?

There was the "blood of the Old Covenant" too; you can read about it in Hebrews 9:18ff, and Exodus 24. Were all of those folks saved? No, not all were, though formally they were all within Abraham's covenant. Because so many of them had nothing of the substance.

So, regarding the New Covenant: there are people who don't think there is any "formal" or outward aspect to the NC, hence there can't be any participation in it in any sense by people who aren't saved. They will answer your question positively.

And there are people (on my side) who believe there continues to be external and internal qualities to Abraham's covenant, as expressed in the New Covenant. All those who participate inwardly and spiritually in the NC are saved.

But, I would argue, there are false professors, baptized people who even partake of the Lord's Supper--drink the cup of the New Covenant, eat and drink condemnation to themselves--they have all these outward marks, and none of the reality. For our part, we would consider this verse to be speaking of such a person:

Heb. 10:29 "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

That's where we attribute the internal/external distinction. This person had only the outward marks of the New Covenant, like the apostates of the Old Covenant--false professors, each and every one.

 

[Kevin]

A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.

Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?

NO, & YES.

No, not all of those in the "NC" are part of the Bride of Christ.

Yes, they are still part of the "covenant", in that they are part of *something* that they can be cut off from.

This is ( as was pointed out above) part of the dividing line between Baptists & Presbyterians.

 

[Herald]

A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.

Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?

The question has always been, since God initiated his covenant with Abraham: is a covenant-person IN covenant with God merely outwardly and formally, or does he also possess true faith within?

There was the "blood of the Old Covenant" too; you can read about it in Hebrews 9:18ff, and Exodus 24. Were all of those folks saved? No, not all were, though formally they were all within Abraham's covenant. Because so many of them had nothing of the substance.

So, regarding the New Covenant: there are people who don't think there is any "formal" or outward aspect to the NC, hence there can't be any participation in it in any sense by people who aren't saved. They will answer your question positively.

And there are people (on my side) who believe there continues to be external and internal qualities to Abraham's covenant, as expressed in the New Covenant. All those who participate inwardly and spiritually in the NC are saved.

But, I would argue, there are false professors, baptized people who even partake of the Lord's Supper--drink the cup of the New Covenant, eat and drink condemnation to themselves--they have all these outward marks, and none of the reality. For our part, we would consider this verse to be speaking of such a person:

Heb. 10:29 "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

That's where we attribute the internal/external distinction. This person had only the outward marks of the New Covenant, like the apostates of the Old Covenant--false professors, each and every one.

As usual, "da wabbit" says things in such a manner, that even in my disagreement I must doff my cap.

Bruce for diplomat!

 

[PresbyDane]

this is a great thread.

 

[CarsonLAllen]

I don't like yes & no answers. I like yes or no. I know that may seam like I am being a simpleton, but either presbyterians are right and r.b's are wrong or vise versa.

I used to be an r.b., and after reading Rev.McMahon's refutation of his own credo stance I became a convinced presbyterian.

So, I just keep telling my friend that when we baptize an infant we are admiting them into the VISABLE church as a non-communicant member. However, we view are children as church members, I don't see how a R.B. can. I could go on further, but I better end it at that.

 

[Matthew1034]

These verses from Psalm 89 have always assured me that those who the Lord covenants with will remain so due to God's faithfulness, not theirs:

19 Then You spoke in a vision to Your holy one,
And said: "I have given help to one who is mighty;
I have exalted one chosen from the people.
20 I have found My servant David;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,
21 With whom My hand shall be established;
Also My arm shall strengthen him.
22 The enemy shall not outwit him,
Nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 I will beat down his foes before his face,
And plague those who hate him.
24 "But My faithfulness and My mercy shall be with him,
And in My name his horn shall be exalted.
25 Also I will set his hand over the sea,
And his right hand over the rivers.
26 He shall cry to Me, 'You are my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
27 Also I will make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.
28 My mercy I will keep for him forever,
And My covenant shall stand firm with him.
29 His seed also I will make to endure forever,
And his throne as the days of heaven.
30 "If his sons forsake My law
And do not walk in My judgments,
31 If they break My statutes
And do not keep My commandments,
32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod,
And their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless My lovingkindness I will not utterly take from him,
Nor allow My faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.
35 Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David:
36 His seed shall endure forever,
And his throne as the sun before Me;
37 It shall be established forever like the moon,
Even like the faithful witness in the sky."

Not everyone who goes to church or is baptized is in covenant with God.

 

[Iconoclast]

Matthew, it is here also;2sam7

8Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:

9And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.

10Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,

11And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.

12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

15But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

17According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

 

[Pergamum]

A good friend of mine asked me this question. I would like some of you to help me answer it.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (E.S.V.). Some translations say “This is my blood of the new covenant.

Question: Since the new covenant is his blood, which is poured out for many (elect) .Does this give evidence that all those in the new covenant are saved?

The question has always been, since God initiated his covenant with Abraham: is a covenant-person IN covenant with God merely outwardly and formally, or does he also possess true faith within?

There was the "blood of the Old Covenant" too; you can read about it in Hebrews 9:18ff, and Exodus 24. Were all of those folks saved? No, not all were, though formally they were all within Abraham's covenant. Because so many of them had nothing of the substance.

So, regarding the New Covenant: there are people who don't think there is any "formal" or outward aspect to the NC, hence there can't be any participation in it in any sense by people who aren't saved. They will answer your question positively.

And there are people (on my side) who believe there continues to be external and internal qualities to Abraham's covenant, as expressed in the New Covenant. All those who participate inwardly and spiritually in the NC are saved.

But, I would argue, there are false professors, baptized people who even partake of the Lord's Supper--drink the cup of the New Covenant, eat and drink condemnation to themselves--they have all these outward marks, and none of the reality. For our part, we would consider this verse to be speaking of such a person:

Heb. 10:29 "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

That's where we attribute the internal/external distinction. This person had only the outward marks of the New Covenant, like the apostates of the Old Covenant--false professors, each and every one.

I would argue for a semantic change. There are unbeleivers who are "under" the covenant - i.e., under the external benefits of the covenant but yet are never "in" the Covenant, because to be in the covenant is to be in Christ.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Were those members of the congregation, described in Heb 6 and 10, who apostatized, "in" the covenant?

Heb 6:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 10:

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The covenantal language of Hebrews 6 is made explicit by Heb 10. How does one profane the covenant without being "in" it? Esau was "in" the covenant. Ishmael was "in" the covenant. They were "in" the covenant externally. They were not united to Christ. That's the function of the "internal/external" distinction.

Just as it was under Abraham when all those who were circumcised were in the covenant, so too in the New Covenant, which is nothing more than a renewal of the covenant of grace, all those who are members of the visible church are in the covenant. They are participants in the administration of the covenant of grace.

The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10) but it is substantially the same as the Abrahamic covenant and it has always had a mixed membership. Hence Paul's teaching in Rom 2:28.

 

[Herald]

However, we view are children as church members, I don't see how a R.B. can.

Carlos, we don't. I mean, in a large scope way they are part of the church in that they come with their parents on the Lord's Day and partake of pot luck dinners and different events; but until they profess faith in Christ, they are not members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is entered into by faith, not by an external sign.

Presbyterians object to the RB view of New Covenant membership in the belief that it somehow impoverishes children of believers. RB's are accused of considering their children as wicked pagans, while Presbyterians claim their children are holy, only until and unless they prove by their behavior that they are reprobate. This is both unnecessary hyperbole and a failure to remember the spiritual state of all those who have not been regenerated.

Why unnecessary hyperbole? Because while all children are born at enmity with God (Psa. 51:5), they are still a gift from the LORD (Psa. 127:3). The word for gift in Psa. 127:3 can also be used as inheritance. We are to view our children as gifts from God, and raise them with the expectation that they will become partakers of the divine inheritance which is Christ. To describe our children as wicked little pagans may be accurate forensically, but it does nothing to reflect the great love and care that RB parents take in raising their children by the truth of God's Word, looking forward to the time when the external (the Word) will be met with the internal (faith).

Why failure to remember the spiritual state of those who are not regenerate? Presbyterians point to the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant as warrant for baptizing their children. It is the nature of this covenant that becomes central to the discussion. If the covenant sign can be traced back to Abraham, what is it that we need to know about him? First and foremost, Abraham was a believer (Gal. 3:9). Which is greater, becoming a physical child of Abraham or a spiritual child of Abraham?

Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

So, how are the blessings of the covenant passed down? By faith.

Galatians 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Brother Carlos, that's not the whole argument, but an important part of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Were those members of the congregation, described in Heb 6 and 10, who apostatized, "in" the covenant?

Heb 6:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 10:

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The covenantal language of Hebrews 6 is made explicit by Heb 10. How does one profane the covenant without being "in" it? Esau was "in" the covenant. Ishmael was "in" the covenant. They were "in" the covenant externally. They were not united to Christ. That's the function of the "internal/external" distinction.

Just as it was under Abraham when all those who were circumcised were in the covenant, so too in the New Covenant, which is nothing more than a renewal of the covenant of grace, all those who are members of the visible church are in the covenant. They are participants in the administration of the covenant of grace.

The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10) but it is substantially the same as the Abrahamic covenant and it has always had a mixed membership. Hence Paul's teaching in Rom 2:28.

And furthermore, as Hebrews makes explicit, it wasn't that the generation in the desert simply rejected Moses (as if it lets dispensational thinking off the hook because it uses the language of Moses or Law) but they are said to reject the Gospel itself. It's why the generation in the desert is utilized as a picture of faithlessness throughout the OT and NT and they are skipped over in Hebrews 11.

It's only when we turn our attention away from the force of the text in Hebrews, for theological reasons, that we miss the obvious point that the author is making: don't neglect this great salvation just like the generation in the desert. If you think it was bad for them then you ain't seen nothing yet if you neglect the fullness of what they rejected!

It occurred to me the other day more forcefully that what some argue for is really a form of dispensationalism even as they claim to believe in Covenant Theology. Either you believe the CoW covers up to the Fall and then various administrations of the CoG thereafter or you believe there are various CoG's throughout.

Christ has always been the object that the administrations pointed to. He's always been the substance. Union with Christ by faith has always been the way of salvation. To try to imply that the NC is better than the OC because it is unbreakable seems to some as if they are improving something but what is really happening is that salvation is cheapened in the OC. What our spiritual fathers were really about is cheapened and their faith is denegrated into externalism. God has always regenerated and preserved His own and, when we get that, we understand the expansion of the Covenant but don't throw our forebears under the bus simply because they walked with less light than we enjoy.

 

[refbaptdude]

are all in the new covenant saved?

Yes

 

[Wannabee]

are all in the new covenant saved?

Yes

Steve doesn't say much. But when he does it's usually spot on.