Can a reprobate be a member of the New Covenant?

[Doulos McKenzie]

Please explain your reasoning.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The New Covenant is a Covenant in Christs blood. So if a reprobate be a member of the New Covenant this undermines Limited Atonement.

 

[Scott Bushey]

All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.

 

[earl40]

All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.

Yes. The categories of the visible and invisible should be kept in mind.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

All covenants have internal and external distinctions.Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Demas, were all covenant members-just externally placed.

Yes. The categories of the visible and invisible should be kept in mind.

Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.

 

[timfost]

Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant? Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.

Does he receive the promises of the covenant? The covenant promises are only embraced by faith, so an unbeliever cannot by definition receive these promises. He has tasted of them (Heb. 10), he is regarded as one under the covenant in the external administration, but not truly a member of the covenant.

Without more qualification, it's difficult to take the poll...

 

[Scott Bushey]

Right, but is a reprobate actually apart of the covenant?

Yes. The covenant has a two-fold result; on the elect's side, blessings and on the rebellious, damning and condemnation.

Or is he just part of the covenant community? Does being a member of the Covenant Community make one a member of the Covenant? Of the Covenant but not in the covenant.

Being part of the covenant community is akin to being in covenant. Both reprobate and elect are 'in' covenant-one is rebellious to that covenant and the other, not.

 

[Scott Bushey]

but not truly a member of the covenant.

Tim,
I believe this is splitting hairs. Ishmael was in covenant, just rebellious to it. If one has the sign of covenant placed on their flesh, they are in covenant. The distinction between internal or external matters not.


14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:14.

 

[timfost]

Tim,
I believe this is splitting hairs. Ishmael was in covenant, just rebellious to it. If one has the sign of covenant placed on their flesh, they are in covenant. The distinction between internal or external matters not.


14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:14.

I hear what you're saying. It's a fair point. Since the poll deals with not only an unbeliever but a reprobate, the question, in my thinking, goes beyond what is visible and enters into God's decree which is unknowable from our perspective. In other words, the question as it concerns reprobates has to be seen (insofar as we can) through God's perspective. Not all Israel is Israel.

 

[TylerRay]

Please explain your reasoning.

The baptized reprobate, as it were, is not in the covenant insomuch as he doesn't have any participation in the mediation of Christ. However, he is under the outward administration of the covenant. By way of metonymy, then, the benefits proper to the covenant can be attributed to him; but note that this is only figurative and improper language.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

The baptized reprobate, as it were, is not in the covenant insomuch as he doesn't have any participation in the mediation of Christ. However, he is under the outward administration of the covenant. By way of metonymy, then, the benefits proper to the covenant can be attributed to him; but note that this is only figurative and improper language.

Was the circumcised reprobate a true member of the Mosaic Covenant?

 

[TylerRay]

Was the circumcised reprobate a true member of the Mosaic Covenant?

Insofar as the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, I'd say the same thing as I said before. However, outward participation in the Mosaic Covenant included being part of a certain people group and body politic. The reprobate Jew really was a Jew, but he only had a participation in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

Insofar as the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, I'd say the same thing as I said before. However, outward participation in the Mosaic Covenant included being part of a certain people group and body politic. The reprobate Jew really was a Jew, but he only had a participation in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.

So would you be distinguishing between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace? If so, could we then make the same distinction for the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace?

 

[TylerRay]

So would you be distinguishing between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace? If so, could we then make the same distinction for the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace?

I wouldn't strictly distinguish between being a member of the Mosaic Covenant and being a member of the Covenant of Grace. I would distinguish between the temporal elements of the Mosaic Covenant and the function of the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

 

[Nate]

Please explain your reasoning.

I chose "Yes" based upon the same reasons others have given RE internal/external, vivible/invisible. Even Herman Hoeksema (who was an outspoken opponent of categorizing the reprobate as true members this covenant) said that reprobate who live in the "sphere" of the covenant of grace exist in living connection to Christ as they exist in this sphere, but don’t bring forth fruits of faith and conversion. They taste of God's electing grace as they live in this covenantal sphere, but never fully receive it.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

For those who voted no please elaborate and explain.

 

[JTB.SDG]

It all boils down to a distinction between being *in* the covenant and being *of* the covenant.

 

[Edward]

I would suggest that the reprobate fall under Chapter 10, Paragraph 4 of the WCF, and those of the New Covenant under Chapter 10, Paragraph 1. See also WLC 28.

 

[Pergamum]

The children of believers may be "under" the external blessing of the Covenant, but only those who are in Christ are in the covenant.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Sorry for the delay; had to vote and run.
The New Covenant is for believers only. It is entered by the new birth, at the time of regeneration. It is entirely a work of God, and since it is sealed by the Holy Spirit Himself, it cannot be broken or ultimately fallen away from. The reprobate may join the assembly of those in the New Covenant, deceiving them into thinking he is regenerate, but he has not the root of the matter in him, and will be exposed--in this life or in the judgment, it matters not--and shown to be the unrepentant sinner that he is.
Union with Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, is the key: are you united to Christ? Are you one of those whom the Father gave to Him, and will surely come to Him? Those are they for whom He died, for whom His blood--the blood of the New Covenant--was shed abroad for the remission of sins. If the blood of the covenant is not effectual to you, because you are a reprobate, then you cannot be in the Covenant.

 

[Ben Zartman]

It all boils down to a distinction between being *in* the covenant and being *of* the covenant.

Jake, can you cite scriptures that talk about "in" and "of"? Curious where this idea comes from.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

Sorry for the delay; had to vote and run.
The New Covenant is for believers only. It is entered by the new birth, at the time of regeneration. It is entirely a work of God, and since it is sealed by the Holy Spirit Himself, it cannot be broken or ultimately fallen away from. The reprobate may join the assembly of those in the New Covenant, deceiving them into thinking he is regenerate, but he has not the root of the matter in him, and will be exposed--in this life or in the judgment, it matters not--and shown to be the unrepentant sinner that he is.
Union with Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, is the key: are you united to Christ? Are you one of those whom the Father gave to Him, and will surely come to Him? Those are they for whom He died, for whom His blood--the blood of the New Covenant--was shed abroad for the remission of sins. If the blood of the covenant is not effectual to you, because you are a reprobate, then you cannot be in the Covenant.

What then do you do with Hebrews 10:26-31

"26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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? 30 For we know him that hath said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." And again, "The Lord shall judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (KJV)

When it says that the apostate is in some sense God's people? How can he have been sanctified then trodden underfoot the blood of the Covenant if he was never apart of that covenant in some sense?

 

[Ben Zartman]

What then do you do with Hebrews 10:26-31

"26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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? 30 For we know him that hath said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." And again, "The Lord shall judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (KJV)

When it says that the apostate is in some sense God's people? How can he have been sanctified then trodden underfoot the blood of the Covenant if he was never apart of that covenant in some sense?

This can only mean, from the context, a false professor--one who knows the truth having heard it expounded from the pulpit, one who "received the word with joy," perhaps, but had no root. He externally joined himself to the covenant people, partook of the Supper (the blood of the covenant, which should have been the means for his sanctification, if only he'd not been unregenerate), and then despised all those things.
People seem to view this as its being normative and hunky-dory to have false professors among God's people, and even call them 'Covenant members' in some sense when they are reprobates who are to be warned, pitied, disciplined, and lastly excommunicated if they remain unrepentant. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, but you guys act as though the leaven is perfectly acceptable, festering among God's people.
Who is and who is not a member of God's New Covenant people is not determined by man, but by God himself. The language in Hebrews is intended as a strong warning to those who claim the name of Christ to not neglect the means of grace and other duties; it is not to throw open the door of covenant inclusion to all and sundry whether they have on wedding garments or not.

 

[Five Solas]

In short, no. The WCF chapter 7 starts off "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of his as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."

Then chapter 8 goes on to discuss Christ the Mediator.

In the true sense of the covenant, we must have Christ to mediate between God and man. Therefore it is an oxymoron to suggest an unbeliever can be part of the new covenant as Christ is not mediating for that person.

Of course you can have covenant children who are not actually saved, but that wasn't the question.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

In short, no. The WCF chapter 7 starts off "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of his as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."

Then chapter 8 goes on to discuss Christ the Mediator.

In the true sense of the covenant, we must have Christ to mediate between God and man. Therefore it is an oxymoron to suggest an unbeliever can be part of the new covenant as Christ is not mediating for that person.

Of course you can have covenant children who are not actually saved, but that wasn't the question.

So would you consider the covenant children to be members of the covenant?

 

[Steve Curtis]

you guys act as though the leaven is perfectly acceptable

Not sure who "you guys" refers to (though you infer, generally, "people" who think such is "normative and hunky-dory"), but I would caution against employing a broad brushstroke here. While Presbyterians may admit to such characters within the external fold, it is typically considered a grievous matter, and hardly "perfectly acceptable" and "hunky-dory."

 

[Five Solas]

So would you consider the covenant children to be members of the covenant?

In terms of the Covenant of Grace? There's no way of knowing if a child of a believer is guaranteed salvation, so I trust God's covenantal promise of being a God unto my children and my children's children and treat them as part of the church. I'm a paedobaptist, but don't attribute and salvific component to baptism.

I pray daily, often multiple times a day, that God would remember His covenantal promise towards my children, irrespective of my failures as a father. I trust Him, recognise there is nothing I can do to save my children. I give them knowledge and then pray for them. Do I trust God in this? Yes.

That said, I'm also fully aware that just because a baby is born into a truly Christian household does not guarantee they will be chosen by God. He works in mysterious ways.

That's a long answer for "I don't know". But children can't partake of the Lord's Supper until they make a credible profession of faith.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Not sure who "you guys" refers to (though you infer, generally, "people" who think such is "normative and hunky-dory"), but I would caution against employing a broad brushstroke here. While Presbyterians may admit to such characters within the external fold, it is typically considered a grievous matter, and hardly "perfectly acceptable" and "hunky-dory."

Thanks for admitting that false professors are irregular within the fold. I meant to cast my net wide with that statement, because in all these discussions about covenant inclusion I get the impression (and perhaps I get it wrongly, as you point out), that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation because there were unregenerates among the hosts of Israel. "You guys," know who you are...

 

[Edward]

that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation

I've never seen anyone this side of the PCUSA would would be OK with having non-believers as members of the congregation. I'll call you out on this one. I don't think you can support your proposition, and suggest you retract it.

 

[Pilgrim]

Thanks for admitting that false professors are irregular within the fold. I meant to cast my net wide with that statement, because in all these discussions about covenant inclusion I get the impression (and perhaps I get it wrongly, as you point out), that many Presbyterian's find it perfectly acceptable to have unbelievers in the congregation because there were unregenerates among the hosts of Israel. "You guys," know who you are...

It is true that Presbyterians aren't "hunky dory" with unbelievers in the churches. But with their use (or misuse, from a baptistic perspective) of the parable of the wheat and tares, one could be forgiven otherwise if he wasn't intimately familiar with Reformed pedobaptist teaching.