Can a reprobate be a member of the New Covenant?

[Pilgrim]

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

To say that covenant children (as a whole) are necessarily a member of the covenant in anything other than an outward sense is to embrace the Federal Vision error, it seems to me.

 

[Scott Bushey]

To say that covenant children (as a whole) are necessarily a member of the covenant in anything other than an outward sense is to embrace the Federal Vision error, it seems to me.

Not if you qualify the statement with the internal/external distinction.

 

[Dachaser]

Please explain your reasoning.

The New Covenant is the relationship now established between God and the saved sinner, and whose sins have been fully atoned for in the Cross of Jesus, and who now has received the Promised Holy Spirit. No Holy Spirit indwelling the person, no part of the NC.

 

[Ben Zartman]

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.

An unbelieving minor child is still an unbeliever, regardless of parentage, and yet Presbyterians's routinely make them automatic members because they were born.

 

[Edward]

An unbelieving minor child is still an unbeliever, regardless of parentage, and yet Presbyterians's routinely make them automatic members because they were born.

They aren't admitted to the table:

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The PCA BCO: "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to
Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant.

 

[Ben Zartman]

They aren't admitted to the table:

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The PCA BCO: "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to
Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant.

Then they are either not members, or have some sort of provisional membership never mentioned in the NT, and one that will avail them nothing on Judgment Day.
But if the verse you cited is reason enough to include children in the covenant, then all that are afar off must be included too, since they are mentioned in the same breath.

 

[Dachaser]

To say that covenant children (as a whole) are necessarily a member of the covenant in anything other than an outward sense is to embrace the Federal Vision error, it seems to me.

The only persons i the NC though would have the Holy Spirit indwelling them upon conversation, as that links them to now being in Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

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.

He would be part of the church membership, but not a member of the true Church of Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

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.

The ones in the NC will be the ones getting glorified when Jesus has his Second Coming, as that will really show who was part of it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

He would be part of the church membership, but not a member of the true Church of Christ.

You still don't seem to be getting the distinction. No one said that the reprobate are part of the invisible church, but that they are part of the visible. The covenant has a internal (invisible) and external (visible) distinction. Both reprobate and elect have their part in covenant. The elect, it's blessings. In the reprobate, in it's condemnation.

 

[Edward]

and one that will avail them nothing on Judgment Day.

" Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit" who works when, and where, and how He pleases..." WCF 10.

 

[Dachaser]

You still don't seem to be getting the distinction. No one said that the reprobate are part of the invisible church, but that they are part of the visible. The covenant has a internal (invisible) and external (visible) distinction. Both reprobate and elect have their part in covenant. The elect, it's blessings. In the reprobate, in it's condemnation.

The New Covenant itself though only applies those who have been saved by Jesus Christ.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The New Covenant itself though only applies those who have been saved by Jesus Christ.

All covenants have internal and external distinctions. Consider Demas, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

The New Covenant itself though only applies those who have been saved by Jesus Christ.

Not for those of us who believe that the Westminster Standards properly set forth the teachings of God's Word, David.

The New Covenant is simply the administration of the one covenant of grace that was inaugurated in Eden (Gen. 3:15), focusing on Israel in its Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic development, and then the nations, as the gospel went global, at and after Pentecost. The New Covenant is, in fulfillment, everything that its older administration was in promise. What we believe on this is found at something often quoted around here: Westminster Confession of Faith, 7. 5-6.

The covenant of grace, in its New Covenant dispensation, as well as in its Old, contained a mixed multitude, those who were in the covenant only externally/outwardly (the reprobate) and those who were in it both outwardly and internally/inwardly (the elect).

Please don't reply to this, David, with some short assertion that contradicts this. Let's respect each other more than that. I believe what I've here affirmed with all my being and have sworn sacred oaths and vows both to uphold it and to teach it.

I understand what you believe and don't disrespect you, so that I imagine a brief retort will defend my view and convert you. What I have set forth herein among Westminsterians is not controversial.

Peace,
Alan

 

[timfost]

Then they are either not members, or have some sort of provisional membership never mentioned in the NT, and one that will avail them nothing on Judgment Day.
But if the verse you cited is reason enough to include children in the covenant, then all that are afar off must be included too, since they are mentioned in the same breath.

Ben,

Paul and Peter address the household in their Epistles. Specifically, they address husbands and wives, children, and servants. Does this list differ from the OT household? Should Paul have refrained from addressing them as the church?

 

[Herald]

If you are defining a reprobate as someone who has not been born again, then no, they cannot be part of the New Covenant. As I have read this thread it predictably comes down along Baptist and Presbyterian lines.

 

[Dachaser]

Not for those of us who believe that the Westminster Standards properly set forth the teachings of God's Word, David.

The New Covenant is simply the administration of the one covenant of grace that was inaugurated in Eden (Gen. 3:15), focusing on Israel in its Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic development, and then the nations, as the gospel went global, at and after Pentecost. The New Covenant is, in fulfillment, everything that its older administration was in promise. What we believe on this is found at something often quoted around here: Westminster Confession of Faith, 7. 5-6.

The covenant of grace, in its New Covenant dispensation, as well as in its Old, contained a mixed multitude, those who were in the covenant only externally/outwardly (the reprobate) and those who were in it both outwardly and internally/inwardly (the elect).

Please don't reply to this, David, with some short assertion that contradicts this. Let's respect each other more than that. I believe what I've here affirmed with all my being and have sworn sacred oaths and vows both to uphold it and to teach it.

I understand what you believe and don't disrespect you, so that I imagine a brief retort will defend my view and convert you. What I have set forth herein among Westminsterians is not controversial.

Peace,
Alan

I appreciate your tact and tone here.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben,

Paul and Peter address the household in their Epistles. Specifically, they address husbands and wives, children, and servants. Does this list differ from the OT household? Should Paul have refrained from addressing them as the church?

Sure they address everyone who would listen to the epistle being read--even children who might be unconverted, and therefore not members of the church, but still being taken by their parents. Whether children (or wives or servants, for that matter), are saved or not, they have duties which God requires of them, so the apostles would not want to miss an opportunity to instruct. But we cannot make everyone who attends to preaching a member! They must hear the word before (ordinarily) they are converted, and many hear the word and never get converted. But they are addressed by preachers, and in times past were addressed by apostles, by Our Lord Himself, by prophets, and by Jehovah thundering from Mt. Sinai.

 

[Ben Zartman]

" Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit" who works when, and where, and how He pleases..." WCF 10.

This thread is not speaking about elect infants who die--we agree on their destiny, if I may use such a word. But those same elect infants, if God regenerates them young, are not to be admitted into the church membership until they give the answer of a good confession. Being saved and kept from church membership for a time is far better than being unsaved but a full outward member of the assembly.

 

[Scott Bushey]

This thread is not speaking about elect infants who die--we agree on their destiny, if I may use such a word. But those same elect infants, if God regenerates them young, are not to be admitted into the church membership until they give the answer of a good confession. Being saved and kept from church membership for a time is far better than being unsaved but a full outward member of the assembly.

Is this confession, flawless? Judas confessed; as did Demas, Ananaias and his wife and Simon Magus. Coming out of the credo fold years ago, I will be the first to attest to the fact that I have seen many a member who had previously confessed, only to deny Christ in the long haul.

As well, our infants are non-communicant members in the local church. None of us would deny that they will, in the future need a confession of faith-that being, prior to their taking the Lord's Supper.

Since the whole of scripture shows that there have always been unfaithful covenant breakers, it is not at all strange to assume that the local expression has many in the wider path; this does not mean we wait to place the sign as the sign is commanded to be placed on all family members.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sure they address everyone who would listen to the epistle being read--even children who might be unconverted, and therefore not members of the church, but still being taken by their parents. Whether children (or wives or servants, for that matter), are saved or not, they have duties which God requires of them, so the apostles would not want to miss an opportunity to instruct. But we cannot make everyone who attends to preaching a member! They must hear the word before (ordinarily) they are converted, and many hear the word and never get converted. But they are addressed by preachers, and in times past were addressed by apostles, by Our Lord Himself, by prophets, and by Jehovah thundering from Mt. Sinai.

But then u have the warning passages in the book of Hebrews....

 

[Ben Zartman]

Is this confession, flawless? Judas confessed; as did Demas, Ananaias and his wife and Simon Magus. Coming out of the credo fold years ago, I will be the first to attest to the fact that I have seen many a member who had previously confessed, only to deny Christ in the long haul.

As well, our infants are non-communicant members in the local church. None of us would deny that they will, in the future need a confession of faith-that being, prior to their taking the Lord's Supper.

Since the whole of scripture shows that there have always been unfaithful covenant breakers, it is not at all strange to assume that the local expression has many in the wider path; this does not mean we wait to place the sign as the sign is commanded to be placed on all family members.

Allow me to wait until tomorrow to address this: it is now the Lord's Day, and though we may be in different places, we will still be worshipping God together as the universal church. I would not distract you or myself from that duty for the sake of an argument we'll probably never agree on.
Have a blessed Sabbath, and I'll get back to you later.

 

[beloved7]

If new covenant means election then the 1689 LBCF confirms this in chapter 10 on the scriptural ground of John 3:3-6, 8.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If new covenant means election then the 1689 LBCF confirms this in chapter 10 on the scriptural ground of John 3:3-6, 8.

The above does no damage to an internal/external distinction; all it is advocating for is that the elect are in the covenant. See ch7 of the LBC

 

[beloved7]

The above does no damage to an internal/external distinction; all it is advocating for is that the elect are in the covenant. See ch7 of the LBC

Yes, the chapter that addresses God's Covenant. Clearly it states it's for those who have faith, but I believe chapter 10 addresses certain infants etc who happen to be of the elect, we humans just don't know as they never had the opportunity to display their fruit.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

I think this Thread has served its purpose well. Could a moderator please close future submissions? Thanks.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Is this confession, flawless? Judas confessed; as did Demas, Ananaias and his wife and Simon Magus. Coming out of the credo fold years ago, I will be the first to attest to the fact that I have seen many a member who had previously confessed, only to deny Christ in the long haul.

As well, our infants are non-communicant members in the local church. None of us would deny that they will, in the future need a confession of faith-that being, prior to their taking the Lord's Supper.

Since the whole of scripture shows that there have always been unfaithful covenant breakers, it is not at all strange to assume that the local expression has many in the wider path; this does not mean we wait to place the sign as the sign is commanded to be placed on all family members.

Scott, given the OPs latest request, I'll have to answer this another time and place. Though I believe we've hashed this out on other threads, and I'm sure you and I understand each other perfectly, I'll look forward to that opportunity.