In Adam or In Christ/Trying to Understand the Implications

Status
Not open for further replies.

HisRobes4Mine

Puritan Board Freshman
I am studying CT and have come across a passage and idea that now confuses me. John 15:1-2 state... "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?

This question arose out of me listening to a Reformed Baptist who was making this connection. If this is true, how does a Presbyterian or other paedo baptist understand the connection of infants being in the NC but not yet being saved?

Thanks for your help in advance.
Samuel
 
I am studying CT and have come across a passage and idea that now confuses me. John 15:1-2 state... "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?

This question arose out of me listening to a Reformed Baptist who was making this connection. If this is true, how does a Presbyterian or other paedo baptist understand the connection of infants being in the NC but not yet being saved?

Thanks for your help in advance.
Samuel
My understanding of that passage would be that it refers to the Father picking up and pruning the branch, so it would be Him making sure that we are bearing more fruit.
 
Samuel,
I second Patrick's shared link. In addition, unlike the confessional Baptist (as you noted), we WCF adherents believe the covenant of Grace (post Genesis 3) that runs through both the Old and New Testaments, included children. The N.C. (according to the paedo-baptist), is a further unfolding of the CoG and not something completely new at the unveiling of our Lord.
Two questions that may help get at the difference between the two views are:
1- who is a disciple
2- is the New Covenant entirely new?

These get at the covenatal differences between the Baptist confessionalist and the WCF confessionalist. There are myriads of threads dealing with these differences. What is different here than in other environments is that, even after a very heated disagreement, the respect for the other individual as a brother/sister in Christ is maintained, you rarely see any abusive attacks, and the issue is the issue, most generally. We have good folks here and excellent moderators coupled with the knowledge and wisdom of excellent church officers...

*Edit* The original was typed on my phone and I din't proof it. I apologize for any misrepresentation or misunderstanding that flowed from it.
 
Last edited:
Samuel,
I second Patrick's shared link. In addition, unlike the confessional Baptist (as you noted), we WCF adherents believe the covenant of Grace (post Genesis 3) included children. That covenant runs through the OT and NT and is only further unfolded and not something completely new at the unveiling of our Lord in the NT.
There seem to be two questions that really get at the difference between the two views:
1- who is a disciple
2- is the New Covenant entirely new?

These get at the crucial differences between the Baptist confessionalists and the WCF confessionalist. There are myriads of threads dealing with these differences. What is different here than in other environments is that most often, even after a very heated disagreement, the respect for the other individual as a Christian is upheld, you won't see name calling, and the issue is the issue, most generally. Having a forum like this with immature people could be disastrous, but we have good folk here, by and large.....

Is my question about being in Adam vs being in Christ an improper question then?
 
Is my question about being in Adam vs being in Christ an improper question then?

I don't think it is improper, but understanding covenantalism from a WCF perspective would be a great help to you. WCF folks can imagine non-converted folk in covenant. The Baptist cannot.
You are on the right track. The issues between the Reformed and the Baptist is NOT baptism, Per se, but how each one interprets the covenant (s)......:2cents:
 
I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?
While this isn't quite what you are asking, it is a related thought: It should be noted that, unless one maintains all infants who die in infancy are cursed (or are saved by the bare decree of God or are innocent in some manner), that some infants are in Christ. Or to put it another way (since infancy is a stage of growth), some people are placed in Christ from the womb. Psalm 22:9
 
"I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC."

How you deal with this presupposition will determine wheather or not you become Reformed or remain Baptist
 
Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible Church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible Church, by Christ, enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

John 17:21; Eph. 2:5-6; John 17:24.


Q.
66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

Eph. 1:22; Eph. 2:6-8; 1 Cor. 6:17; John 10:28; Eph. 5:23, 30; 1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Cor. 1:9.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Being in union with Christ is only something the invisible church enjoys. The typical distinction the Reformed make is between the visible and invisible church. The visible church "is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." (WLC 62)
 
I beieve the 1689 Baptist Confession ch 7 has a distinct advantage here. It goes back further in redemptive history than the WCF to Gen 3:15. Gen 3:15 makes a cotrast between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. In a nutshell, Gen 3:15 says one is either in Adam or in Christ. I realise my beloved paedobaptist brethren have a different slant than this, but I believe the 1689 Confession, using Gen 3:15, then using the term "by farther steps" (1689 Confession 7:3) is consistent theologically and anticipates the historic-redemptive theology of Vos and Beale.
 
I beieve the 1689 Baptist Confession ch 7 has a distinct advantage here. It goes back further in redemptive history than the WCF to Gen 3:15. Gen 3:15 makes a cotrast between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. In a nutshell, Gen 3:15 says one is either in Adam or in Christ. I realise my beloved paedobaptist brethren have a different slant than this, but I believe the 1689 Confession, using Gen 3:15, then using the term "by farther steps" (1689 Confession 7:3) is consistent theologically and anticipates the historic-redemptive theology of Vos and Beale.

I don't know any Presbyterians that deny the contrast that you speak of. It's basic to Paul's thought and the same contrast is found in the Catechisms. I also don't think that the Baptist truly does carry that contrast consistently all the way back to Gen 3:15 as you say they do given the distinctions that they make between the new covenant and the old covenant.
 
Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved?

No. Union with Christ, being "in Christ," means you are saved. Maybe you are referring to being in the church, "in Christ's church," or in the visible body of Christ, because you are asking about Covenant theology.
 
We are consistent because we say that Gen 3:15 is just the New Covenant in all its fullness.

I know what you say. But when you say "goes further back in redemptive history" what you really mean is "makes a parenthesis of 1500 years and most of the canonical record of redemptive history and God's dealings with his covenant people."
 
In John 15:1-2 Jesus speaks of those who are in him yet aren't really united to him, since they bear no fruit and end up withering away and being burned. So that passage is unique I think; all the other instances where the Bible speaks of being in Christ it does mean united to him. But I think those in the John 15 text are the same ones spoken of in Hebrews 6, which says "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

They were in Christ in the sense Jesus meant in John 15; joined to his visible church, and receiving the good covenant things and benefits of the Spirit there- but in the end, shown to be not united to Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I know what you say. But when you say "goes further back in redemptive history" what you really mean is "makes a parenthesis of 1500 years and most of the canonical record of redemptive history and God's dealings with his covenant people."
Gen 3:15 comes before Gen 17. :D
 
John 15:1-2 is a troubling passage that forced me into the Reformed camp. Jesus is the vine or tree there are branches that are really united to him and they are broken off. You must either believe that people can loose there salvation or the COG/NC is different than what baptists say that it is.

Rom ch 11 is talking about the same thing
 
Last edited:
I think verses 3, 7, and 10 are helpful. Here is the some of the passage (ESV)—

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

While it may be tempting to immediately jump to other (apparently) similar passages, I would hang out here for a minute and exposit the passage with care. Some things to note—

1. Our Lord is speaking to all of the faithful disciples (Judas has already left). This is also after the Lord's Supper has been instituted (ordinance of the New Covenant).

2. The context of the previous chapter is our Lord leaving the Earth to be exalted with the Father, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. In other words, he is now giving instructions on how they are to remain in him when he is no longer physically present. While of course our Lord is with them everywhere as God, and promises as much in Matt. 28:19-20, the way to be in the Lord expressed here is to follow his commands. To import some terminology from systematic theology, this is a 'visible' way of being in the Lord, not an 'invisible.'

3. The other upshot of this interpretation is it allows us to maintain a reformed ordo salutis in the Old Testament. Because the coming of the Holy Spirit referred to in this interpretative scheme is not some new salvific benefit reserved for the last days, but rather a change of 'executives' if you will, a change of visible headship. Prior to Christ's coming, the people of God was ruled by Moses, the kings, the prophets, the high priest, etc. When Christ comes, he becomes the head of God's visible people on earth. He is to be physically followed. With his exaltation, he now extends his visible rule on Earth through the Spirit, especially through the Spirit working in the Apostles to complete the canon. Take a look at the Holy Spirit passages in this segment of the gospel, and see if they have more to do with salvation, or with leadership (executive) of the visible people of God on earth (cf. John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). This passage has little to do with how the Holy Spirit operates in salvation. He has always operated the same way in that regards (John 3:10).

4. Another way in which this passage seems to be dealing with the visible 'heads' or 'presidents' of God's people is John 13:34-35— "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." This commandment is the one our Lord is expanding upon in the vine passage. I want to draw attention to the word 'new.' Obviously, this commandment in substance can be found in the Old Testament. But it is new in regards to its role and its giver. This commandment is being given by Christ as a mark of his church, in John 13:34-35; 15:10-12. It for substance has always been a command of God, and has indeed been part of how he set apart his people in the Old Covenant (Lev. 19:18), but it is now being used afresh for a similar function in the New Covenant.

5. This administrative change from Christ present in body to Christ leading the Church by his Holy Spirit is not actually completed until after his resurrection in John's gospel. See John 20:22-23— "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'" With these final administrative details handled, he then ascends.

6. Lastly, in regard to commands, notice John 15:3. See how the word creates the cleanness. Compare that to John 15:7. It appears that the cleanness, the sanctification here spoken of is a visible one related to the keeping of the commands of God.

Now, with all of that noted, the abiding in Christ discussed in the vine passage may be explained. I believe the quality of abiding marks those out who are united to Christ, and thus truly in the covenant of grace. However, abiding is not synonymous with being united to Christ. Rather it is a symptom of being united to Christ. Think of it this way, perseverance in faith is a symptom of being united to Christ, or a symptom of election, however, it is not election or unity with Christ per se. When I look at John 15:7; 15:10, it appears that abiding in Christ means obeying his words, or his commands. However, confusion results, because we usually think of 'bearing fruit' as bringing forth good works. I would like to contend that 'bearing fruit' in this passage, actually means something like 'make disciples, advance the kingdom' (cf. John 15:8), or perhaps more obviously in the context of a vine bearing fruit, 'reproduce and increase the kingdom of God.' Compare my definition to John 15:5. While it is true that we cannot keep the law of God but by the operation of the Spirit, and even then the flesh corrupts, if bearing fruit means good works, and abiding means keeping the commands of God, then this passage becomes quite circular. It would read something like, "He who does good works, will bring forth good works, because without me, you can't bring forth good works." However, if 'bear fruit' is to grow the kingdom, then Jesus is saying that those who would advance his kingdom without following his commands will fail. Here is proof text number 2, John 15:16. Jesus is sending forth the soon-to-be apostles to proclaim the Gospel. He is not sending them forth to do good works, though they certainly are to do that. Also, I might ask what it means for our fruit to 'abide', if fruit is 'good deeds.' Final proof text, at the very end Jesus explicitly prays for those who will believe through his disciples, John 17:20. While he does not use the word fruit, it makes it clear that in context he is commissioning his disciples to go and proclaim his message and make disciples.

So in context, John 15 seems to be teaching that abiding in Christ means obeying his commands. Jesus is teaching the necessity of this obedience for the furtherance of his kingdom. God's kingdom will not be advanced by sin. But if we ask according to his will, he will grant it. Thus we find in John 15 an extremely strong statement against antinomianism, and furthermore, perhaps an articulation of the regulative principle. It does not have election, or soteriology in view, but rather ecclesiology. Without faithfulness and obedience to the Gospel, and the commands of Christ, the church will wither. In this way, men can be branches of the visible kingdom of Christ on earth, and yet be broken away from that visible kingdom without ever being members of the covenant of grace. It is too much to say that all visible members of Christ are partakers of the covenant of grace. See WLC Q. 31. — "With whom was the covenant of grace made? A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." Contending everyone in the visible church is a member of the covenant of grace causes theological confusion. No one partakes of the covenant of grace but the elect. However, in his visible kingdom on Earth, which is marked out by profession and obedience to him, there are many hypocrites and professors. See WLC Q. 62. — "What is the visible church? A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." And even the elect may attempt to further the kingdom of Christ and make disciples in a way that is disobedient to Christ's ordinance. Such things will not prosper, and Christ may very well close down their church and take away their candlestick. Please see Rev. 2; 3:1ff. I hope I have provided a reasonable interpretation of the vine passage.

Now, some disclaimers. This is my very first post on Puritanboard. Hello all! I have only a BA in English from a state university. I do not know Greek or Hebrew, have no formal training, and so the interpretation given above could be wildly inaccurate. I would appreciate if some of our ordained friends would come along and check my interpretation. I have tried to avoid importing theological truths taught in other passages directly into this one, and to exposit it in context. However, I very well could have missed the mark. Lastly, some quotations, none of which take quite the same line as I do, but I have highlighted possible overlap and disagreement.

Calvin, Commentary on John 15

"If my words abide in you. He means that we take root in him by faith; for as soon as we have departed from the doctrine of the Gospel, we seek Christ separately from himself. When he promises that he will grant whatever we wish, he does not give us leave to form wishes according to our own fancy. God would do what was ill fitted to promote our welfare, if he were so indulgent and so ready to yield to us; for we know well that men often indulge in foolish and extravagant desires. But here he limits the wishes of his people to the rule of praying in a right manner, and that rule subjects, to the good pleasure of God, all our affections. This is confirmed by the connection in which the words stand; for he means that his people will or desire not riches, or honors, or any thing of that nature, which the flesh foolishly desires, but the vital sap of the Holy Spirit, Which enables them to bear fruit."

"And that your fruit may abide. A question now arises, why does Christ say that this fruit will be perpetual? As the doctrine of the Gospel obtains souls to Christ for eternal salvation, many think that this is the perpetuity of the fruit. But I extend the statement much farther, as meaning that the Church will last to the very end of the world; for the labor of the apostles yields fruit even in the present day, and our preaching is not for a single age only, but will enlarge the Church, so that new fruit will be seen to spring up after our death."

Matthew Henry, Commentary on John 15

"We must honour God, and do good, and exemplify the purity and power of the religion we profess; and this is bearing fruit. The disciples here must be fruitful, as Christians, in all the fruits of righteousness, and as apostles, in diffusing the savour of the knowledge of Christ."

John Gill, Commentary on John 15

"The same bringeth forth much fruit. In the exercise of grace, and performance of good works; and continues to do so as long as he lives, not by virtue of his own free will, power, and strength, but by grace continually received from Christ."

"For without me ye can do nothing. Nothing that is spiritually good; no, not anything at all, be it little or great, easy or difficult to be performed; cannot think a good thought, speak a good word, or do a good action; can neither begin one, nor, when it is begun, perfect it. Nothing is to be done "without Christ"; without his Spirit, grace, strength, and presence; or as "separate from" him. Were it possible for the branches that are truly in him, to be removed from him, they could bring forth no fruits of good works, any more than a branch separated from the vine can bring forth grapes; so that all the fruitfulness of a believer is to be ascribed to Christ, and his grace, and not to the free will and power of man."

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you. Abiding in Christ is here explained by his words or doctrines abiding in his disciples; by which are meant his Gospel, and the truths of it. This abides when it comes in power, and becomes the engrafted word; and may be said to do so, when such, in whose hearts it has a place, and has taken deep root, continue to have a relish and savour of it, a true and hearty affection for it, esteeming it above their necessary food; when they hold fast the profession of it, stand fast in it, steadfastly abide by it, and constantly attend on it; all which is a considerable evidence that they do, yea, there is a promise that they "shall continue in the Son and in the Father", (1 John 2:24)."

"If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love. Not that their continuance in the heart's love and affection of Christ depended upon their observation of his commands; for as the keeping of them is not the cause or reason of the saints having an interest in the love of Christ, so it is not the cause or reason of their abiding in it; but to such that observe the commandments of Christ he will continue to make further discoveries of his love, and let them see more clearly and largely what a value he has for them, and how much he loves them: or the sense is, that by keeping the commandments of Christ, his disciples and followers show that they love him, and continue in their affection to him."

D.A. Carson, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus (1988)—

"We also learn from this verse [John 15:16] something of the nature of the 'fruit' in this chapter. Some want it to be measured in terms of lives brought to Christ in evangelism; others prefer to think of the 'fruit of the Spirit' in Galatians 5. But if I understand the passage correctly, both interpretations are too narrow. The fruit is everything done in conformity to the will of Jesus Christ, not least praying and loving. Jesus does not become more specific than that; he does not need to. Loving one another because of Jesus is Christian fruit; praying in Jesus' name, 'according to his will,' as 1 John 5 puts it, is Christian fruit. Everything in our lives that brings glory to the Father (John 15:8) is Christian fruit. And the intimacy we enjoy with Jesus Christ, like the union of the branch with the vine, issues in such fruitfulness."

*I changed all quotations of scripture from KJV to ESV in a later edit.
 
Last edited:
Who are the branches that are in Him but the Father takes away (cuts off to use the OT term)?
 
Who are the branches that are in Him but the Father takes away (cuts off to use the OT term)?

I believe these are those who have been made clean by the word, John 15:3. In other words, by the proclamation of his Gospel and law they are sanctified and set apart for Christ in a visible way. However, those who do not continue in his word, in whom his word does not abide, will be cut off.

Are we able to look at Romans 11 to shed light on John 15?

I would resist the temptation. Not that they aren't similar at all. But Romans 11 is a highly contentious passage to exegete in the first place, and dealing with a ton of different theological issues. John 15 is smack in the center of Jesus' farewell discourse to his disciples which is one of the theologically densest points in the Bible. Both deserve careful exegesis in their immediate contexts before attempting to get them to interact. The immediate context of both passages is already thick enough to figure out without criss-crossing them prematurely. Not to mention the root of the olive tree in Romans 11 is the patriarchs, not Christ. As I tried to state in my first post, I think there is a real danger of turning to the analogy of Scripture prematurely and missing what is being said in John 15. I would resist the urge to turn to Romans 11 (which comes significantly later in redemptive history than Jesus' speech), until I had already done a thorough look through John 15 (really John 13-17). Jesus' words are not so unclear that they cannot be understood at all without looking at Romans 11. On the face of it, Romans 11 appears to be about a different phenomenon (calling of the Gentiles, rejection of the Jews from the Abrahamic promise) then John 15 (relationship of Christ and his commands to the Great Commission and the coming era of the Spirit).
 
Last edited:
I believe these are those who have been made clean by the word, John 15:3. In other words, by the proclamation of his Gospel and law they are sanctified and set apart for Christ in a visible way. However, those who do not continue in his word, in whom his word does not abide, will be cut off.

I would resist the temptation. Not that they aren't similar at all. But Romans 11 is a highly contentious passage to exegete in the first place, and dealing with a ton of different theological issues. John 15 is smack in the center of Jesus' farewell discourse to his disciples which is one of the theologically densest points in the Bible. Both deserve careful exegesis in their immediate contexts before attempting to get them to interact. The immediate context of both passages is already thick enough to figure out without criss-crossing them prematurely. Not to mention the root of the olive tree in Romans 11 is the patriarchs, not Christ. As I tried to state in my first post, I think there is a real danger of turning to the analogy of Scripture prematurely and missing what is being said in John 15. I would resist the urge to turn to Romans 11 (which comes significantly later in redemptive history than Jesus' speech), until I had already done a thorough look through John 15 (really John 13-17). Jesus' words are not so unclear that they cannot be understood at all without looking at Romans 11. On the face of it, Romans 11 appears to be about a different phenomena (calling of the Gentiles, rejection of the Jews from the Abrahamic promise) then John 15 (relationship of Christ and his commands to the Great Commission and the coming era of the Spirit).

Are you saying that people are grafted in to the patriarchs?
 
Are you saying that people are grafted in to the patriarchs?

Hey Bill, this is part of why I didn't want people to bring Romans 11 into a discussion of John 15. Confusion results. The Olive Tree in Romans 11 and the Vine in John 15 are different. They are not the same. Jesus is the true vine in John 15 (cf. John 15:1). Those who have been made clean by his word are the branches (cf. John 15:3). There is no mention of Abraham, or any other Old Testament figure in this passage. There is no language of grafting in John 15. There is language of choosing (John 15:16), in that Christ has chosen the disciples to bear fruit, i.e. make disciples. Look closely at John 15:14-15. One is a branch of the vine if Christ has revealed his will to them. Some however do not receive the word in their heart by faith, and so they don't abide in it, and they fall away.

In Romans 11, the root (Romans 11:18) is the patriarchs, or to be more specific, God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Olive tree in Romans 11 is called Jacob, see Romans 11:26-27— "And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'; 'and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.'" The tree that Gentiles are grafted into is not Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant, which includes a variety of promises— such as Christ turning away ungodliness from Jacob, and that Abraham and his seed would be heir of the world. Romans is in many ways a giant epistle about how the Gentiles are included in the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (see Romans 4:1-14).

So while I would say that Gentiles are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant according to Romans 11, we have gone off-topic. The thread is about John 15, which is not the same thing as Romans 11.

*I changed all quotations of scripture from KJV to ESV in a later edit.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get off topic or sound uncharitable but you might want to check the ESV translation in Romans 11 it might be helpful, much of what you're saying sounds very dispensational to me I'm sure you're not dispensational I'm just saying it sounds that way.
 
I don't want to get off topic or sound uncharitable but you might want to check the ESV translation in Romans 11 it might be helpful, much of what you're saying sounds very dispensational to me I'm sure you're not dispensational I'm just saying it sounds that way.

Dear Bill, with all due respect, and as a novice and student of reformation theology with much to learn, what is dispensational about asserting that Gentiles are partakers of the Abrahamic covenant? Please read Romans 4. Abraham is the father of us all, Romans 4:16. All believers have been blessed by the promises made to him, and while some were specific to him alone, such as the promise that the messiah would descend from him, we all will partake of many of the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant, such as being heirs of the world. I did check multiple translations. It makes no difference. The root of the Olive tree is not Christ. It is the covenant with the patriarchs. Here is Calvin on Romans 11:18, "But if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, etc. The Gentiles could not contend with the Jews respecting the excellency of their race without contending with Abraham himself; which would have been extremely unbecoming, since he was like a root by which they were borne and nourished.… And we know that after Christ by his coming has pulled down the partition-wall, the whole world partook of the favor which God had previously conferred on the chosen people. It hence follows, that the calling of the Gentiles was like an ingrafting, and that they did not otherwise grow up as God’s people than as they were grafted in the stock of Abraham." If what I am saying regarding being grafted into Abraham is dispensational, then I suppose Calvin was dispensational as well. If I may ask, please be careful how you use the label dispensational, and please attach evidence when you do. I appreciate your qualified and frank tone though. We have traveled quite a ways off-topic by now.
 
Last edited:
"I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC."

How you deal with this presupposition will determine wheather or not you become Reformed or remain Baptist
How so?
 
I am studying CT and have come across a passage and idea that now confuses me. John 15:1-2 state... "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

I had always made the connection that to be "in Christ" equated salvation and therefore being in the NC. Is it possible for one to be in Christ but not be saved? If this assumption is correct, then one who is not in Christ is in Adam still under the curse of the law correct?

This question arose out of me listening to a Reformed Baptist who was making this connection. If this is true, how does a Presbyterian or other paedo baptist understand the connection of infants being in the NC but not yet being saved?

Thanks for your help in advance.
Samuel
2 points concerning the text itself.

(1) It seems like you are making the metaphor walk on all 4s. Thus you are forcing the language of "branch in me" to equate to union language as we normally see (esp. in Paul). I think it is just a metaphor for fruit bearing. No fruit? Not a disciple. Cut off!

(2) Union language in Johannine literature is not so much "in me" or "in Christ" by itself as in Pauline style but usually "remain/abide in me" (μενω + "in me" or some such) or similar language.
 
2 points concerning the text itself.

(1) It seems like you are making the metaphor walk on all 4s. Thus you are forcing the language of "branch in me" to equate to union language as we normally see (esp. in Paul). I think it is just a metaphor for fruit bearing. No fruit? Not a disciple. Cut off!

(2) Union language in Johannine literature is not so much "in me" or "in Christ" by itself as in Pauline style but usually "remain/abide in me" (μενω + "in me" or some such) or similar language.
Paul seems to be placing his emphasis on us being justified before God due to God now seeing Jesus as providing atonement for all of our sins, while John seems to be emphasizing that now we ought to keep on staying in communion with Jesus, to keep on living in Him and For him.
 
I'd say, David, that John's emphasis is on not falling away- i.e. remaining, continuing in him. The Greek word translated "abide" in John 15 is also used in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued (meno) with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

In John 15, Christ is telling his disciples to continue in him, to not fall away, and so bear fruit as true disciples, in contrast to the ones in 1 John who didn't continue and fell away, abandoning the apostles' teaching.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'd say, David, that John's emphasis is on not falling away- i.e. remaining, continuing in him. The Greek word translated "abide" in John 15 is also used in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued (meno) with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

In John 15, Christ is telling his disciples to continue in him, to not fall away, and so bear fruit as true disciples, in contrast to the ones in 1 John who didn't continue and fell away, abandoning the apostles' teaching.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which would seem to be his way of safeguarding the biblical truth that all who really in Christ will stay abiding in Him, as they are indeed rooted into eternal life, and will not be the ones that went out from among them and shown their false roots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top