Clarifying questions about the nature of the New Covenant

[MarieP]

If Christ prayed for the non-elect "Father forgive them" on the Cross and He did not mean the Elect only by this petition, then we have Christ making a petition to the Father on behalf of the Non-Elect.

I know you said that you believe Christ only prayed for the elect here, but I have a question about that- could it be argued that this is not relevant to the discussion because the New Covenant had not yet been initiated by Christ's death?

His intercession in heaven is seen as the cause of the saving His saints to the uttermost. If Christ interceded for the non-elect then, by definition, they would not be non-elect because they would be saved to the uttermost. As atonement is necessary for salvation it goes without saying that His sacrifice is not for the non-elect either.

If the New Covenant is a covenant in Christ's blood, then how are there any in this covenant for whom this blood does not atone? I assume all would agree that the priests in the Old Covenant made atonement for all the people, no? Why, then, not in the New, which is based upon better promises and a perfect sacrifice?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the paedo position would speak of the "betterness" of the NC not one of quality (all on the NC are heirs of the Kingdom, and none will forfeit this as Israel did) but one of quantity (we have the full light of the revelation of God, not just shadows and types, and the people of God is not just one ethnic people but people from every tongue, tribe, and nation). Not that credos deny it is better in quantity as well...

If the Apostle thought there was great benefit to being brought up in a Jewish family, I'm sure a fortiori he would have thought more so of being brought up in a Christian family. Some were only ever "Jews" ( they weren't Israelites indeed in whom there is no guile, like Nathanael ) and some today are only ever "Christians"

No one would dispute that growing up in a godly home has benefits (and dangers as well). But didn't Jesus and Paul spend a good deal of time dismantling the Jews boasting in their ethnic heritage by pointing them to the fact that the true sons of Abraham are those who have faith in Christ?

As Matthew Henry commented on Luke 3:8

If we be not really holy, both in heart and life, our profession of religion and relation to God and his church will stand us in no stead at all: Begin not now to frame excuses from this great duty of repentance, by saying within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father. What will it avail us to be the children of godly parents if we be not godly, to be within the pale of the Church if we be not brought into the bond of the covenant?

And Ridderbos:

Here, in the first place, the concept “children of Abraham” has been further defined. It does not mean all who have been born of Abraham, but the real children of Abraham, the children “to whom the promises were made,” as Paul says in Galatians 3:16. Here it is thus seen that the promise is fulfilled and the people of God is formed in spite of Israel’s disbelief and aversion. Here also appears the real constitutive factor of the seed of Abraham and the real ground of belonging to it. It is found neither in biological descent, nor in human activity, but in the vivifying power of God (egeirai). All carnal reliance on descent from Abraham is rejected, but the redemptive-historical significance and determination of the idea of God’s people (the promise to Abraham!) is not given up. On the contrary, it is revealed in its proper and most profound sense, as it is entirely returned to God’s free-recreating grace.

 

[Peairtach]

Marie P

Quote Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
If Christ prayed for the non-elect "Father forgive them" on the Cross and He did not mean the Elect only by this petition, then we have Christ making a petition to the Father on behalf of the Non-Elect.
I know you said that you believe Christ only prayed for the elect here, but I have a question about that- could it be argued that this is not relevant to the discussion because the New Covenant had not yet been initiated by Christ's death?

There's no problem with our elder brother Jesus of Nazareth praying for the non-elect like we do. He was/is a human being; and human beings are not omniscient. Christ isn't omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent in His humanity. In His exalted humanity He will have access to knowledge which He did not have in His state of humiliation.

Quote Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis View Post
His intercession in heaven is seen as the cause of the saving His saints to the uttermost. If Christ interceded for the non-elect then, by definition, they would not be non-elect because they would be saved to the uttermost. As atonement is necessary for salvation it goes without saying that His sacrifice is not for the non-elect either.
If the New Covenant is a covenant in Christ's blood, then how are there any in this covenant for whom this blood does not atone? I assume all would agree that the priests in the Old Covenant made atonement for all the people, no? Why, then, not in the New, which is based upon better promises and a perfect sacrifice?

The Old Covenant system was typological and partook of the shadowy imperfections of that. There were some sins that were not to be atoned by typological sacrifice but were to be punished by excommunication by execution (see e.g. Numbers 15). Other sins were to be dealt with by God Himself promising to cut-off i.e. excommunicate the offender by death.

There was adequate shadowy representation in the Old Covenant economy to show forth the fact that everyone born in the Covenant was not right with God, and that just because you were born into the Old Covenant that did not mean that you died right with God i.e. justified.

Of course the system was shadowy and typological and so the fact that someone was excommunicated by execution for particular sin-crimes, or excommunicated by God bringing judgemental death on them, did not mean that they themselves lacked faith.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If the New Covenant is a covenant in Christ's blood, then how are there any in this covenant for whom this blood does not atone? I assume all would agree that the priests in the Old Covenant made atonement for all the people, no?

No, we would not agree. In fact, very plainly, God says repeatedly that He rejects the sacrifice of the man who does not approach Him in faith. Sacrifice was not a "lucky charm" in the OT. One could say that the sacrifice that the priests made were sacraments that pointed to the antitype but the worshiper had to believe and be humble and contrite. It was the height of Jewish hypocrisy when they simply uttered: "This is the Temple of the Lord, This is the Temple of the Lord, This is the Temple of the Lord" as if God's presence and blessing were actuated just like any other pagan Deity.

Why, then, not in the New, which is based upon better promises and a perfect sacrifice?

Having already noted that sacrifices were no more talismans for those who drew near in an unworthy manner than they are in the New Covenant, I'll point out what the WCF says about the Covenant of Grace:

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

The Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and the Elect. It always has been so (and even the LBCF notes this). Note, however, that there are sacraments, which are administered as visible boundary markers to the world as to where the Covenant people are. The visible Kingdom of God is the Church and it consists of an admixture of those who are elect and non-elect. The non-elect are marked out from the world just as the elect are. They are called, visibly and audibly to faith, just as the elect are. They participate in all the visible benefits of that community of faith. They may be said to be visible members of the Covenant. In this visible Covenant, God: "...freely offered unto sinners life and salvation, requiring faith in him, that they may be saved...."

This is no less true in the Old Covenant than in the New. The problem of "Covenant membership", in other words, is no less pressing a concern in the Old Covenant than it is in the New because both are administrations of the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Grace, in its substance, brings salvation and grace only to the elect.

Thus the question is really not: "How can someone who is not elect be in the New Covenant for whom Christ's blood did not atone?" Rather, the question is, more broadly, "How can someone be in the Covenant of Grace who is not elect?" That problem existed for the Old Covenant as well as the New. The answer, as I have noted, is that they were not "in" the Covenant of Grace with respect to being in union with Christ but they were visible members of the external administration of the Covenant of Grace. This administration called them unto repentance and faith and, when they refused, God swore, in His wrath, "they shall not enter my rest."

Likewise, in the New Covenant, founded on better promises, where the types of things have been replaced with the perfect antitype, those that draw near must not shrink back from these promises. They must not shrink back from the repentance and faith that they visibly participate in. If they do, greater judgment awaits those non-elect visible participants in the CoG than those who only saw from afar. This is the message of the Book of Hebrews.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Note: Marie, I changed the title of the thread to make it stand-alone with respect to a title and make it more descriptive.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from MarieP

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
If the Apostle thought there was great benefit to being brought up in a Jewish family, I'm sure a fortiori he would have thought more so of being brought up in a Christian family. Some were only ever "Jews" ( they weren't Israelites indeed in whom there is no guile, like Nathanael ) and some today are only ever "Christians"
No one would dispute that growing up in a godly home has benefits (and dangers as well). But didn't Jesus and Paul spend a good deal of time dismantling the Jews boasting in their ethnic heritage by pointing them to the fact that the true sons of Abraham are those who have faith in Christ?

Yes they did and this is a task that should be carried out by today's preachers also in Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches.

But never once did our Lord or our Apostle suggest that the solution to such pride was to exclude children of professing adults from the sacraments of circumcision or baptism and by implication exclude them from the administration of the Covenant of Grace and its promises, privileges and responsibilities.

Quite a number of Scriptural promises regarding children fall to the ground along with infant baptism in the Baptist approach.

 

[MW]

It is found neither in biological descent, nor in human activity, but in the vivifying power of God (egeirai).

Baptism, like circumcision, is an human activity. It is clear therefore that statements like the above, while true, are to to be confined to what might be called the spiritual characteristic of the people of God, that is, to the way they really are in relation to God. So far as external characteristics are concerned, baptism is a necessary sign and seal for identifying the people of God in visible communion on earth. Likewise, "biological descent" still plays a part in the communal life of the covenant people, as is clear from apostolic instructions relative to children and parents in the Lord. The "spiritual" continues to operate within and through the "natural." Not all children know "the vivifying power of God," but that is true of adult professors as well. As Calvinists we place emphasis upon a gracious, inward, and effectual call of God's Spirit -- "the vivifying power of God." Because of this emphasis it is necessary to state something relative to those who are only outwardly called and receive only common operations of the Spirit. Both the WCF and LBCF commit themselves to the same position concerning temporary (or temporal) participants in the covenant life of the church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is found neither in biological descent, nor in human activity, but in the vivifying power of God (egeirai).

Baptism, like circumcision, is an human activity. It is clear therefore that statements like the above, while true, are to to be confined to what might be called the spiritual characteristic of the people of God, that is, to the way they really are in relation to God. So far as external characteristics are concerned, baptism is a necessary sign and seal for identifying the people of God in visible communion on earth. Likewise, "biological descent" still plays a part in the communal life of the covenant people, as is clear from apostolic instructions relative to children and parents in the Lord. The "spiritual" continues to operate within and through the "natural." Not all children know "the vivifying power of God," but that is true of adult professors as well. As Calvinists we place emphasis upon a gracious, inward, and effectual call of God's Spirit -- "the vivifying power of God." Because of this emphasis it is necessary to state something relative to those who are only outwardly called and receive only common operations of the Spirit. Both the WCF and LBCF commit themselves to the same position concerning temporary (or temporal) participants in the covenant life of the church.

Great post. It occurs to me that there were certainly those that over-emphasized biological descent as a guarantor of God's blessing in the OC. You can see evidences throughout the Scriptures of the OT and Rabbinical writings. Some Rabbinical writings are so crude so as to make salvation certain for those that lived in Palestine.

The point is that there has always been confusion among some in every administration about the relationship between sign and substance. That said, the solution to the problem of the Jew who over-emphasized what circumcision guaranteed his kid was not to get rid of infant circumcision but instruction.

Many stumble over the category you underlined: either biology means everything or it means nothing. This was a problem no less true for children under the CoG in the OC administration than it is today. The key is to live by faith and let God be God. Believers ought to thank God that their children have been elected to be a member of a believing household and have no "choice" whether they will learn the grammar of faith nor will they be able to escape the great responsibility this incurs upon them. Believing parents, likewise, must trust God and His inscrutable ways. Even as their earnest prayers, instruction, and discipline are means that God may use in the salvation of their children, there is no guarantee grounded in familial relation or instruction.

 

[MW]

Believing parents, likewise, must trust God and His inscrutable ways. Even as their earnest prayers, instruction, and discipline are means that God may use in the salvation of their children, there is no guarantee grounded in familial relation or instruction.

So true! We find various degrees of connection with the kingdom of God in the New Testament. The idea of being within or outside the kingdom is obviously present, and ultimately there are only these two groups. Historically, however, there are degrees of being near or far from the kingdom of God. Further, there is participation in its outward manifestation. It is hard for me to fathom the mentality of some Christians who think it is better for those who are not decided believers to be the farthest away from the kingdom of God as possible. Means of grace are so precious and powerful that we should desire all to come under them and benefit by them, notwithstanding the fact that God has a different purpose for each one.

 

[Pergamum]

I heard one OPC minister speak of children of believers being "under" the covenant, meaning "under the outward administration of the covenant of grace" and I like this better than stating that any but the Elect are "in the covenant" for to be in the covenant is to be in Christ and for Christ to intercede perfectly on your behalf.

 

[Peairtach]

Pergy

I heard one OPC minister speak of children of believers being "under" the covenant, meaning "under the outward administration of the covenant of grace" and I like this better than stating that any but the Elect are "in the covenant" for to be in the covenant is to be in Christ and for Christ to intercede perfectly on your behalf.

Well Reformed theologians do do this, although the same terminology isn't always used:

Louis Berkhof has a chapter in his Systematic Theology on the duality of the CoG ( "The Dual Aspect of the Covenant" p.284-289)

Some of the ways of looking at this that he considers are:

A. An external and an internal Covenant.
B. The essence and administration of the Covenant.
C. A conditional and an absolute Covenant.
D. The Covenant as a purely legal relationship and as a communion of life.

The expression "in the covenant but not of the covenant" was used by Dr Bavinck for unconverted people in the administration of the CoG.

If we believe that there are any peculiar promises respecting the children of believers in Scripture, then these must be by definition covenantal. That means that the children of believers are in some sense in or under the covenant administration.

Quote from MarieP

If the New Covenant is a covenant in Christ's blood, then how are there any in this covenant for whom this blood does not atone? I assume all would agree that the priests in the Old Covenant made atonement for all the people, no? Why, then, not in the New, which is based upon better promises and a perfect sacrifice?

I should have also said that the duality of the CoG may also be typified in the Old Covenant by the fact that only the firstborn males were redeemed from death in the Passover, and that the Levites were dedicated in unto God in the place of the firstborn males.

So there are a number of ways in which the Mosaic economy typologicallly reflects the duality that there has always been in the CoG. There may be others.