Questions about "regenerate church membership"

[dudley]

Regenerate church membership has less to do with the ability of man to discern as it does with the ability of God to save. Baptists believe that God saves all those who turn to Christ in repentance and faith. This is no different than how Presbyterians view an adult convert. The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists is how view the New Covenant. Baptists understand the New Covenant includes only those who believe by faith in Christ. We don't presume to know, we assume that a credible proffession is real. Again, Presbyterians believe the same thing about adult converts. Therefore, you can't suggest Baptists practice presumptive regeneration without impugning Presbyterians.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

I say Amen to Bill and agree, I am an adult convert to Presbyterianism. God saves all those who turn to Christ in repentance and faith. I place my self In Jesus hands and believe He is my Savior and Redeemer. I believe in Justification by Faith alone in Jesus alone .

 

[Peairtach]

How can Matthew 21:43 be using "kingdom of God" to refer to "God's OT people and nation,"

Hi Daniel,

I was not employing 'nation' in the geographic or political sense, but simply as a (perhaps unnecessary) repetition of 'people' in the biblical vein of Deuteronomy 7:6 and Exodus 19:6 - sorry for the confusion. My point was that Christ is dealing, by way of parable in Matthew 21, with what he would deal with maledictorily in Matthew 23, and prophetically in Matthew 24 - the covenantal cutting-off of apostate Jerusalem and that it is an injudicious employment of the text to use it with reference to the NT church (specifically, marshaling the text in support of your Covenantal Armininism [that NC members can apostatize]).

The theocracy continues in a different - anti-typical - form in the New Covenant in the form of the Visible international Church. E.g. it is governed by "elders" - which were civil officers in OT Israel; Christ is King in His Church; spiritual sanctions replace e.g. sometimes excommunication by death; etc. The Visible Church is the fulfilment of OT Israel, whatever other lessons may be learned from OT Israel for modern Gentile states.

Covenantal Armininism [that NC members can apostatize]).

So we had "Covenantal Armnianism" all through the Old Covenant, but it has been eliminated in the New Covenant because - presumably - no-one apostasises from the New Covenant or New Covenant Visible Church?

It may be eliminated by a fiction in Baptist churches that someone who is baptised and yet is unsaved is not in any sense in a covenantal relationship with God, even of a negative character.

Like a properly married couple who don't love one another, presumably aren't in a covenantal relatiionship according to the Baptist view of covenantal relationships?

 

[Poimen]

men may have the kingdom of God taken away from them (Matthew 21:43 cf. Matthew 8:12 where the sons of the kingdom will be judged)

Daniel,

I would question the exegetical propriety of employing this text in support of the paedobaptistic approach to New Covenant membership - that is, using it in some broad or "second sense" where it pertains to "men" generally. The texts cited pertain exclusively to the Jewish state, God's OT people and nation, which was within a generation to see the kingdom taken from it and "given to a nation bearing the fruits of it". These things were spoken with in the contextual vicinity of the prophetic warnings pertaining to the A.D. 70 judgment - and subsequent covenantal transfer - and were directed towards the commonwealth of Israel, apostate Jerusalem. These texts cannot be extended, or 'also applied', to the new covenant church or employed with any legitimacy for the sake of arguing against regenerate exclusivity in NC membership.

So the covenant was given to the Gentiles but it does not retain the aspect of covenant membership previously held? What warrant do we have to assume that others who are grafted in later cannot fall away? Even granting your argument concerning the covenant judgment on Israel, this does not negate the principle of visible/invisible membership in the church or kingdom. Romans 11:20-22 makes that abundantly clear.

marshaling the text in support of your Covenantal Armininism [that NC members can apostatize]

I hold to the theology of my Reformed forefathers, who formulated the Canons of Dordrecht. In fact I have subscribed to those confessions so to insist that I or others who hold to a position of apostasy in the covenant of grace are Arminians or hold to Arminian theology is a grave miscalculation. I do not teach or believe that the elect can fall away; I do not teach of believe that the regenerate can fall away. But those who are members of the church can fall away from God's covenant promises. These are not elect, regenerate or justified, but members of the covenant of grace all the same. You will find this doctrine in Calvin, Ursinus, Olevianus, Dathenus & Teelink to name a few Reformed worthies. So I sincerely hope you retract your accusation of 'Covenantal Arminianism.'

 

[Porter]

to insist that I or others who hold to a position of apostasy in the covenant of grace are Arminians or hold to Arminian theology is a grave miscalculation.

Daniel,

I am not saying that you, or others in your tradition, are Arminian or hold to Arminian theology. I qualified the designation "Covenantal Arminianism" with the definition: "NC members can apostatize". I am simply applying this term to the paedobaptistic view of NC membership, not to your understanding of the doctrine of salvation - but I will further qualify. I recognize that you, and those in your tradition, reject Arminian theology and affirm Calvinistic Soteriology with great apologetic vigor. I was employing the term within the realm of Covenant Theology. Just as Arminianism - in the realm of soteriology - does violence to the perfection of the work of Christ in rejecting limited atonement, your paedobaptistic tradition - in the realm of covenant theology - does violence to limited atonement (see Fred Malone quote below, as I am borrowing his language) in denying that the blood of the Covenant Surety is effectual to perfect all those in the new covenant. The Arminian, in the realm of soteriology, affirms that those for whom Christ shed his blood can apostatize - those in your tradition, in the realm of covenant theology, affirm that members in the New Covenant (ratified by the precious blood of Christ) can apostatize.

"if an infant is said to be "in" the New Covenant administration of the one covenant of grace and "in" the church without effectual mediation, severe violence is done to the biblical truth that "Christ loved the church and give Himself up for her." (Fred Malone, A String of Pearls Unstrung)

 

[Kaalvenist]

How can Matthew 21:43 be using "kingdom of God" to refer to "God's OT people and nation,"

Hi Daniel,

I was not employing 'nation' in the geographic or political sense, but simply as a (perhaps unnecessary) repetition of 'people' in the biblical vein of Deuteronomy 7:6 and Exodus 19:6 - sorry for the confusion. My point was that Christ is dealing, by way of parable in Matthew 21, with what he would deal with maledictorily in Matthew 23, and prophetically in Matthew 24 - the covenantal cutting-off of apostate Jerusalem and that it is an injudicious employment of the text to use it with reference to the NT church (specifically, marshaling the text in support of your Covenantal Armininism [that NC members can apostatize]).

Cameron,

1. My name is not Daniel.

2. I am not attempting to advocate or attack "Covenantal Arminianism." I raised the question concerning Matthew 21:43 because I'm in the final stages of writing a paper defending infant baptism, and that was one of the texts I examined with regard to the continuity of the church from Old to New Testament. The "kingdom of God" taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles could not have been the nation or political entity, since that was not given to the Gentiles. Neither could it have been some amalgamated church-nation ("theocracy" is the term I hear bandied about quite often), for the same reason. It could only have been the church, as distinct from the nation (which has obvious bearing on the paedo/credo debate).

 

[Peairtach]

So the Reformed Baptists believe that only those in the Covenant of Redemption (Pactum salutis) are in the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant period, whereas in the Old Covenant period the membership of the Covenant of Grace was broader than in the New Covenant?

The Presbyterians can agree that only the elect are in the Covenant of Redemption, but do not agree that only the elect are in the Covenant of Grace.

The administration of the Covenant of Redemption in history, the Covenant of Grace, ineveitably involves those who are not elect, because the elect haven't been identified by God to those who administer the keys of the kingdom, church officers.

Quote from Sean

The "kingdom of God" taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles could not have been the nation or political entity,

The Church is a nation, though. It is the international nation, known as the Church or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16)

The Church - although it is not a political entity in the sense of the Gentile nation states e.g. Great Britain, USA, etc, does have a King as its head - Who is in the line of Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, the Lord's Anointed; has officers called elders - in the line of the elders of OT Israel; has laws - e.g. the Ten Commandments, which were part of the civil law as well as the spiritual law of Israel; has sanctions - e.g. temporary or permanent excommunication for various gross, presumptious, flagrant offences against the 10C, which was also true in OT Israel, exceot that sometimes in OT Israel, the elders and the congregation would sometimes stone the offender to death.

All true believers in Christ are also spiritually prophets, priests and kings as He is their Prophet like unto Moses except greater, Great High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, King like unto David except greater.

It is clear from the language of the New Testament that the New Covenant Church or Israel of God (visibly being Jews and Gentiles who profess faith in Christ and their children) is the heir of Old Covenant Israel in both the ecclesiastical and political sense.

Which is why we should be careful what we learn from the civil law of Moses respecting how we organise wider Christian society and the modern nation-state.