Ron: In what way is the reprobate "in" covenant with God?<br><br>Jason: I'll delay any attempt to answer this until the end, for two reasons. The first is that I don't have a well formulated answer for it. The second is that your other comments and questions guide the way into answering it.<br><br><br>Ron: Is the hypocrite who remains within the confines of the church dearer to God than the pagan who never darkens the church steps?<br><br>Jason: I would say "no".<br><br><br>Ron: Does God desire something more for the baptized reprobate than the run-of-the-mill heathen?<br><br>Jason: Again I would say "no"<br><br><br>Ron: Please explain why the question of whether the reprobate is in a covenant relationship with God would be a good debate.<br><br>Jason: Again, I defer to the end of the post. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br><br>Ron: We all agree that the reprobate tastes of the heavenly gift and gets glimpses of the world to come, but we also agree that he remains dead in his sin and cannot even understand the basic simplicity of the gospel. He is spiritually discerned, just the like the heathen who never heard of Christ. So how is he different?<br><br>Jason: The question would be as to whether or not there is absolutely no categorical distinction between the reprobate pagan and the reprobate member of the covenant community. There are many similarities for sure, but are they conceived identically in the eyes of God? I think that is a good question for discussion.<br><br><br>Ron: Nonetheless, Ishmael was to be treated as one who was in the covenant; so he was to receive the sign and seal of the covenant. The covenant was administered to him, though not established with him....The term [covenant breaker] simply accentuates the point that the reprobate is responsible for not receiving the promises of God by faith, and that he is in deep weeds to put it mildly.<br><br>Jason: This is where I think we get down most precisely to the question of interest to me. I think you would agree that the reprobate to whom the covenant is outwardly administered are those who can be "covenant breakers". The next question I ask myself is whether or not someone who merely hears the Word but has never been a part of God's covenant community (has never received the outward administration of the covenant) can also be a covenant breaker. For instance, I think we would agree that someone who professes faith, gets baptized, joins the church, and later apostatizes because he was "never of us", is a "covenant breaker". He received its outward administration and did not possess the inward reality. On the other hand, would you say the same thing of the person who comes to church, hears the message of the Gospel, and simply finds it foolish and never joins the church? Has this person counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing? It seems to me that we would not consider him a covenant breaker, for that person never received the outward administration. If one kind of reprobate person can be a covenant breaker and another is not considered as such, then it would indicate to me that the outward administration means something. It places a person into an objectively different category and implies that they are related to God in some legal fashion differently than the reprobate who is a stranger to the covenant community.<br><br>To wrap up my question simply, is it the "administration" of the covenant that creates the context in which someone can become a "covenant breaker", or is it merely the exposure to Gospel truths that creates the context?<br><br>If the outward administration of the covenant does in fact make a difference as to whether or not one may be constituted a covenant breaker, then it seems as though there is a sense (shall we call it, "formally", "externally", "fleshly"?) in which the reprobate are related to God differently and the difference had to do with receiving the external administration of the covenant (i.e. being part of the visible church).<br><br>This is of course a much different than what the Auburn men propose. They deal with the covenant exclusively as an external phenomenon and ignore the very important passages you have pointed out where the covenant is "established" only with the elect. I also affirm with you that the promises of the covenant are only for the elect (which is why the promise has not failed - Rom. 3:3-4 with Rom. 9:8). When John Barach was asked a question related to those texts his answer was basically, "I don't know" with some really bad attempts to provide theoretical possibilities. The problem is created by his absolutizing of the idea covenant in external terms to the exclusion of the texts dealing with a narrower idea. My other concern is swinging too far in the opposite direction (which is the very scenario that has prompted these men to propose a new paradigm) by denying that the external administration of the covenant means anything, and that the only two categories of any relevance to our discussion are elect and reprobate. It seems to me that the external administration of the covenant places a reprobate person in a different category before God than someone who may have even had the same "light" but was never incorporated into the covenant community. I don't know if it is appropriate to call this "in" covenant with God as you asked me, but it seems to me that we should identify this categorical distinction somehow. I think the way in which "covenant" itself is conceived or defined plays an important part in the answer. I look forward to your thoughts on this brother.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>