Do you think it would be beneficial, when speaking of the NC, to distinguish between the physical NC and the spiritual NC/CoG? This, I think, would clarify a lot of confusion as it has done for me. I see that people within the physical NC as being able to “fall away” or be “cut off.” This sounds like pretty clear covenantal language to me (i.e. John 15; Rom. 11; Gal. 5; Heb. 3,6,10).
I don't think that speaking
adjectivally (the
physical NC and the
spiritual NC) is the way to your desired end. You only sound like you now have two covenants.
The best way to speak of this is to distinguish between the two ways the one covenant is administered, inwardly and outwardly; Spiritually and ecclesiastically. Persons may be in the covenant either in one of the ways, or in both. Ideally, one is in covenant under both administrations: the Spirit ministers the realities to the invisible spirit, and the church administers the instruments to the corporeal person.
But it is possible to be in covenant outwardly, while participating in none of the Spirit ministered reality. We call these people hypocrites, or when they publicly abandon the Faith, we call them apostates and excommunicate them. Its also possible for a person to be united to Christ in the spirit, but be outwardly cut off from the covenant. But this external fact does not touch
the reality that he belongs to the CoG. Many faithful believers have been inadvertently separated from the church; and countless other have been persecuted BY some ecclesiastic body.
So this leads into my next question: Is a baptized infant, assuming it is unregenerate, conditionally in the NC? Here is what I mean: Is the infant’s duty, like those infants in the OT under circumcision, to believe in Christ (do this and you shall live) and thus fulfill their baptismal (gospel) call? (Of course I know that faith comes only by election). If so, I can see how they, like the OT Jews, are still under the CoW though have the means of grace (church, sacraments, etc.) available to them.
1) It looks (in the sentences above) like you are correlating (?) belief in Christ through obedience to the gospel call, and the law-principle of "do this and live." I suggest that since Paul tends to put these two principles in
tension with one another, that we seek other terminology to describe the nature of evangelical obedience.
2) It is everyone's duty to believe in Christ right now, today, whether old or young, new to the church or in it for a hundred years.
3) Everyone in the church is a disciple. That means he's under discipline 24/7 (just like my kids are under my house-discipline 24/7). Discipleship is a way of life, which in the case of some children is the only way of life they've known. We preach Christ crucified, and the indispensable requirement for faith in the promise, for the attainment of heaven; and we preach that fact to every member, every week. And we expect that drumbeat to re-form lives into Christ's image, because that's one of the Word's promises.
4) Using terms like "conditions" or "conditionally" tends to muddy the waters. We are only allowed to judge of the things that are accessible to the outward man, what we can see and hear, the "revealed things." Of course, we warn members most weeks as well, of the folly of rejecting the Word of Christ. But, we don't say to a fiancée, "Joe, you're only conditionally engaged." We don't say to a married man, "Joe, you're only conditionally wed." We don't suspend the legally recognized nature of his commitment on some future contingency.
Also, in light of this, is the physical NC church the same as physical Israel while the invisible NC church is the same as spiritual Israel? (Romans 9:6b)
Except for the inapt terminology (already discussed), the basic idea is correct. The church had a different way of manifesting itself under the theocracy, but the chosen-people in general formed the visible church.
Premise 1: Luke 22:20 says “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Premise 2: Heb. 7 indicates that Jesus is the mediator of a “better covenant.”
Conclusion 1: Therefore, only those under the blood of Christ (elect) are in the NC.
Conclusion 2: Consequently, to say that there are unbelievers in the NC is to say that Jesus is mediating (pleading his blood before the Father) on behalf of unbelievers in the NC which directly contradicts both premise 1 and 2.
Obviously, this can only be described as a general syllogistic-structured argument, and not a formal argument, because neither conclusion is strictly built on the premises offered. You can call it an enthymeme perhaps, but it hasn't got the formal structure of a formally valid syllogism.
So, I'm in danger of creating arguments for JW that he hasn't made (let the reader understand).
By P1, JW might be saying that Jesus NC blood is spilt for
all disciples, because Jesus states that it is spilt for the eleven Disciples (you) who are there. But this trades on the designation "disciple," and then applies what is indubitably meant explicitly for those participating, implicitly to all who are "qualified disciples."
In answer to this
supposed line of reasoning (which may not be accurate), I answer that a) Jesus' blood is certainly spilt and only spilt for the elect of the CoG; but 2) equating disciples (whom we can identify) and the elect (whose identity is unknown) is irresponsible in theory, and impossible in practice.
Therefore, Jesus' testimony P1 tells us is his blood ratifies the NC, as the offerings of Ex.24 ratified the MC; that those with whom he shares his Supper that evening were explicit beneficiaries (because he had infallible knowledge of their hearts); and we may justly infer that others who partake of the Supper in the like faith receive the same benefit.
P2 calls for an explication of how the NC is "better," AND (what is often left out in the discussion) what exactly it is better than. The NC is better than MC, and the Jer.31 passage explains this, in terms that relate to the MC context. But the MC is inferior as well to the AC, as Gal.3 makes plain. So, it is not plain at all that Jer or Heb would also affirm that the NC is "better" (using that same language) than the AC.
We will gladly affirm that the fulfillment of the promises makes our situation preferable (as Jesus says the least in the KoH is greater than JtB). But "preferable" isn't the sort of "better" (i.e "superior") that obtains when the NC is compared to the MC, and its not what Jer had in mind.
C1 responses--How does the elimination of earthly responsibility of administering Christ's covenant (his government) with his people make things "better?" And I know JW believes in church-government, but in his view it isn't a covenant-administration. So, its a conceptual division.
In terms of the conclusion, we (on earth) are supposed to be managing(?) the elect in our churches. We are even supposed to be preaching and teaching, for the work of perfecting saints. But (applying Jer.31 woodenly) none of us should be telling our elect brethren to "know the Lord," which is just a synonym for "have faith in Christ/God." Because the NC is just the elect, we're told. But, we can't tell who's elect, so we preach evangelistically anyway?
The NC isn't "better" because "it only has elect in it." If we use the same rule on all the covenants, then all of them "only had the elect in them," because only the elect were full participants in both an inward and an outward administration!
C2 responses--It only follows if you agreed with C1. Jesus is the savior of all the elect, of all time, as well those under previous covenant-arrangements as now under the NC. But he isn't the savior of any of those under the other arrangements who weren't inward participants. The whole thing only works once one dispenses with any present day, NC outward administration. He has to get rid of it somehow.
Jesus is the Mediator of the eternal covenant, Heb.13:20. This Covenant of Grace comes to man in a revelatory series of covenant arrangements, starting with Abraham. It culminates in the fullness of redemption, as Christ himself comes in to take up his Mediatorial tasks. We live in the NC age, which right now is the age of the already and the not yet. Heaven, and the NH&NE are going to finalize the new, permanent reality.
But we aren't in heaven yet. We are weak, needy people, who receive great blessing from Christ's condescension to our frailty, in giving us the incomparable blessing of his covenant, its government, its signs and seals, its counsels, its ministry; in short, everything the kingdom of God needs while it continues on its wilderness journey. In Mk.10:1-16, Jesus gives his re-formed people some insight as to the constituents his coming kingdom will contain: husbands, wives, and children, on this side of the eschaton.
Final thought.
No one--not Presbyterians, not Baptists--"intends" to incorporate non-elect persons in the visible church. But NO ONE can perfectly restrict that membership. Ages ago, God settled the question of how he would set the limits of his incorporation in an imperfect world. He would receive confessors and their children, and bring them under his discipline. He'd take all their children, immediately, for the sake of the elect found among them. This was mercy and grace, of course, for the undeserving, the most helpless. God did not inaugurate the NC era by casting these covenant members out.
I still have a few more questions if you don’t mind…
Thanks for your thoughtful insights 
