The Aaron Papers  www.the-aaron-papers.net 

 A STUDY IN COVENANT THEOLOGY

(RASV-1901)

ROMANS CHAPTER 3

  ONCE AGAIN: NOW IF THIS IS THE FACTUAL CASE CONCERNING GOD’S RECONCILIATION:
  1. An evident removal of visible Israel from their place of preeminence.
  2. The revelation of the invisible characteristics of God’s peoples.
  3. Comprehending that it is only the invisible Jews, the invisible Circumcision, and invisible Israel who are in fact identified as Jews, the Circumcision, and the Israel who make-up the invisible Elect Priesthood of God.
  4. That the visible peoples of God, Israel or the Christian Church, are not necessarily a part of the invisible peoples of God. That there are in fact two separate categories of people present in both of these institutions—the one categorically visible and the other categorically invisible.
  5. Recognizing that because of the revealed complex character of God’s peoples here in the book of Romans, some might have mistakenly concluded that visible Israel was altogether removed from God’s grace and mercy.
  Which is precisely the reason why Paul now goes on in chapter three to ask and answer some crucial questions concerning both his Jewish and Christian brethren:

  ROMANS 3:1, 2 "What advantage then has the Jew? Or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way: First of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God." Ref.Rom:9:1-5

  (aaron-The visible Jews and the visible circumcision were necessary examples of the relationship that the invisible Creator God desired to establish with His visible creation. And because physical Israel fulfilled this vital role in God’s redemptive plan, they do have an advantage even now.
Though many have determined that they are out of fellowship and removed far from God’s grace, that is not the case at all as we can plainly see here in Paul’s next question:)

  Romans 3:3, 4 "For what if some were without faith? Shall their lack of faith make the faithfulness of God of no effect? God forbid. Yes, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your words, and might prevail when you come into judgment."
  (aaron-With this last question and answer, we have now come to understand that it is only God’s boundless grace that matters in our relationship: a principal that the Christian Church has generally understood. So whether we believe or whether we lack belief matters not: It is only God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises that continues on to stand as that firm foundation for all of His peoples. Ref.Ps.51)

  Romans 3:5, 6 "But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visits with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) God forbid. For then how shall God judge the world?"

  Romans 3:7, 8 "But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose judgment is just."

  (aaron-Verses five through eight absolutely confirms the stated conclusions concerning verses three and four. The only things that the creature is capable of bringing into this relationship are "unrighteousness", "lies", "sin", and "evil". They are able to bring only their total and unmitigated depravity.)

  Romans 3:9 "What then? Are we better than they? No, in no way. For we before laid to the charge of both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;"

  (aaron-Verse nine again confirms for us, the total equality that is evident in the universal character of God’s program of reconciliation. It is because of our inherent total depravity that we all stand equally condemned in its completed form--for all are lost without God’s sovereign grace. We then see this same truth confirmed in these next nine verses that are being quoted from a number of Old Testament passages:)

  Romans 3:10-18 "as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understands, There is none that seeks after God. They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that does good, no, not so much as one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit; The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes."

  (aaron-These clear passages confirm the absolute depraved state of the whole human race and reflects their complete helplessness in that failed condition.)

  Romans 3:19, 20 "Now we know that what things soever the law says, it speaks to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be silenced, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."

  (aaron-These passages again show us the universal character of God’s justification and of God’s condemnation. Then this passage, in a sense, would appear to neutralize the law so as to manifest God’s boundless grace. That is, the law has become completely subordinate to God’s grace.
No matter how we stand before God, whether we are in the legal relationship37-1 or in the communion of life, our absolute need for His grace is being explained here in very clear terms:)

37-1 (aaron-I would like to make a brief diversion from our Romans study, so as to gather some needed background on how some Reformed theologians view and understand these complexity within God’s Covenant of Grace:)

Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology - Volume three
pp.513, 514

  (aaron-We can demonstrate some of the difficulties in the Reformed view, by simply observing Professor Hodge as he explains some of the great sacramental differences in the understandings between the Romanists and the Protestants. This whole argument basically surrounds the efficacy of the visible covenant symbols, and exposes some deficiencies on both sides. To begin, the Protestants believe that the Roman Church is much to liberal in matters concerning the sacrament of water baptism. Then moving a bit further, we begin to recognize that a large part of the problem lies within the interpretation of some common Christian terms: Terms like FAITH, REGENERATION, SAVING FAITH, SANCTIFYING INFLUENCE, PENITENTS, BAPTISM and BELIEVERS. The following comments are intended to show that these terms are frequently misappropriated in many commentaries. Then these comments also represent an attempt to more precisely define each of these important terms according to their most common Scriptural usage.)

  4. "Another argument is derived from the constant practice of the Romish Church. There is no pretence of her recognized ministers demanding the profession, or evidence of what Protestants understand by saving faith in order to the reception of the sacraments, or as the conditions of their sanctifying influence."

  (aaron-Here are the basic demands for some sort of visible evidence by the Protestants.
  1. They are requiring a profession of faith as the evidence of an individuals saving faith [which they would also interpret as a necessary part of their initial conversion].
  2. These are the conditions of the evident sanctifying influence that must be present before the person receives the sacrament of baptism. This process is more commonly known as the believer’s profession and conversion.
  These are the exact principles upon which adult baptism was, and still is, founded. It supposes that belief and repentance [confession] are necessary actions before any person can be baptized. Though this may be partially true so far as adult conversion is concerned, these early Protestants have gone one step further by excluding infants from this visible initiatory rite. They reject infant baptism on the basis that infants do not understand their own personal sin and their own personal need for a Saviour: Thereby, it would be impossible for infants to confess and repent of their sins. All of these demands that are put forward by the Protestants, seem to be deficient in the most important area of salvation. That deficient area that is being missed is that most important area that belongs totally to God. These Protestant demands tend to exclude God’s sovereign grace, and many of God’s covenant promises as well. By imposing these demands, they are taking personal control of determining who is included in God’s peoples and who is not. The clear result of that misappropriation is here: They insist on seeing some sort of visible evidence of a person’s conversion before determining that person’s salvation status.)

  "On the contrary, they [the Romanists] act on the principle, that the sacraments confer grace in the first instance."

  (aaron-With respect to Covenant Theology and the broad and narrow concepts that one might understand from the Gen.17 description of God’s establishment of His Covenant of Grace with Abraham, under the broad concept of the visible initiatory rites into the Covenant of Grace, this statement would definitely hold some truth with respect to God’s free and unmerited grace. The basic problem that some Protestants are having here, is in the fact that they do not understand nor accept any efficacy when receiving God’s visible initiatory rites.)

  "They baptize crowds of uninstructed heathen, without the slightest pretence that they are penitents or believers."

  (aaron-How does one actually determine whether another person is penitent or a believer? Since both of these are internal qualities, it is very doubtful that anyone really can. Why would any person be baptized if they did not believe? And if they did believe, they would surely be penitent. As a prerequisite to baptism, these early Protestants have mistakenly concluded a required level of individual understanding far beyond that of the Scriptures. These early Church fathers seem to insist on instructing them before they are baptized, but the great Scriptural commission would have us instruct them after they are baptized. Ref.Mat.28:18-20 Order: 1. Make disciples of all Nations. 2. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. 3. Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. Then Act.2:5-42 tells us about three thousand people, who, with a minimal amount of instruction; That is, one short sermon that was given by Peter, were all baptized at the same time. There is no reason to believe that each of these individuals was subjected to any additional instruction, or to a litany of questions, before their individual baptism. All appearances here would be that of baptizing a crowd of uninstructed heathen with absolutely no assurance that they were penitent or true believers.)

  "If faith be a fruit of regeneration,"

  (aaron-This is a very interesting statement, because it immediately represents a questionable connection of two very important terms. The faith spoken of here, is the same saving faith that was said to be evidenced by an individual’s profession. Now this stated principle, that faith is a fruit of regeneration, is derived from the assumption that the whole Church is made up of only the invisible elect: That the entire visible Church is born again; Born from above; Born of the Holy Spirit. There are some very important things for us to consider whenever we discuss either faith or regeneration. To begin, it is true that both faith and regeneration are gifts that come from God: Gifts that are received by us through the work of His Holy Spirit. But now can we say with any certainty that one of these gifts is a product of the other? To say that faith is a product of regeneration is to say that everyone who has faith is regenerated. The evident problem that we have here is in finding an adequate interpretation for regeneration. Tit.3:5 would define regeneration, as the born again experience. And according to Mat.19:28, the same word would be defined as the restoration of all things; Looking forward to the new heavens and the new earth. So then to state that faith is the product of regeneration, is to state a conclusion that is not fully supportable in the Scriptures. Though both faith and regeneration have the same origin in God’s heavenly realm, they have completely different offices within God’s redemptive plan. First, according to Eph.2:8, faith is a free and unmerited gift from God. Second, Heb.11:1 tells us that faith, within itself, is substantial and evidential; it is the proof of those things that cannot be seen. Third, according to Rom.12:3, faith is given to every believer by measure. Forth, 2Cor.10:15 plainly states that we can anticipate that our faith will increase as we grow in God’s grace. As a summary, faith is a living, moving, changing characteristic of every Christian’s life experience, which will ultimately culminate in their complete salvation. So faith then, must be seen as the vehicle upon which God’s grace is supplied to every believer. And regeneration, according to Tit.3:5, is simply the born again experience that every invisible elect saint must possess. Consequently, where regeneration is the established state of each and every elect priest, faith, on the other hand, is involved in, and continuously reflects, the changing conditions in the life experience of every believer.)

  "and if, as Romanists all teach, regeneration is effected in baptism, how can the presence of faith in the recipient be a condition of the efficacy of baptism."(?)

  (aaron-To say that "regeneration is effected in baptism" is a difficult statement to immediately address. For example, if we mean that a person must be baptized along with their regeneration, the statement would seem to be correct. But if our meaning is that every person that is baptized is regenerate, then that statement would not be correct. This is similar to the discussion in the previous comments, where we considered the difference between regeneration and faith. But here, we must now consider the difference between regeneration and baptism. Remember, regeneration, according to Tit.3:5, is simply the born again experience that every invisible elect saint must possess: Regeneration is an established state of all who are in the elect priestly line. Baptism then, according to the Covenant of Grace, and following the example that was set down by God for the initiation of believers and their families in Gen.17, is the visible initiatory rite for our covenant relationship with God. The visible Church, like visible Israel, is the visible institution through which peoples have access to their invisible Creator God. Then finally, the efficacy of baptism is not conditional, nor is it dependent on faith or regeneration: the efficacy of baptism, like circumcision, is dependent only upon God’s faithful covenant promise to father Abraham. That is, if you obediently participate in the God established visible initiatory rites, you are entitled to become a life member of the visible corporate peoples of God.)

pp.521, 522
  "2. This ritual system is utterly inconsistent with the whole genius of Christianity. God is a Spirit, and He requires those who worship Him, to worship Him in spirit and in truth."
"External rites are declared to be nothing."

  (aaron-This conclusion reached here is a continuation of the Reformed principles sighted by Professor Hodge on pages 516 and 517:)

"5. The Necessity of the Sacraments..."
  "The question between the Reformed on the one hand, and Lutherans and Romanists on the other, is in which of these senses are the sacraments necessary."

  [acr This statement expresses the basic proposition to be considered:]

  "According to the Reformed they have the necessity of precepts. The use of them is enjoined as a duty; but they are not necessary means of salvation. Men may be saved without them. The benefit which they signify and which they are the means of signifying, sealing, and applying to believers, are not so tied to their use that those benefits cannot be secured without them. Sins may be forgiven, and the soul regenerated and saved, though neither sacrament has ever been received."
  (aaron-We first understand from the Reformed position, that the sacraments [especially baptism] are necessary precepts. But as a matter of Scriptural fact, we understand that our use of the sacraments is actually commanded by God. Yet, the Reformed Church has essentially invalidated these sacraments simply because common sense tells us that the water and the bread and the wine are nothing more than water and bread and wine. This same Reformed principal is then confirmed by Professor Hodge on [p.518 "the Reformed Church teaches that the visible signs as such do not convey the invisible grace, and that the Christian can by faith receive the same divine benefits without the use of the sacraments, and consequently that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary, much less the middle point of the Christian plan of salvation."]
  This contrary position in which the Reformed Church has placed itself, has absolutely no direct support from the Scriptures. By taking this stand, that the Christian Church is made up of only the invisible elect, the Reformed Church has essentially chosen to depart from the clear teachings of Covenant Theology, and has chosen rather, to follow a similar road to that of the Baptist's New Covenant Theology doctrine.
  Now if the Reformed Church wholly believed in these statements that completely devalue the sacraments, they would have long ago ceased their practice of infant baptism. The ongoing struggle for the Reformed Church is evident right here at this apparent contradiction in their doctrine. If we accept their stated position in Lord’s Day 26 and Lord’s Day 27--Questions 69-74 of the Heidelbergh Catechism, we cannot believe that what we see there, is nothing more than the Reformed Church just going through the motions. The key element to resolving this apparent contradiction would be found in our thorough understanding and our holding fast to the principles of Abrahamic Covenant Theology.)

  "The Lutherans and Romanists, on the other hand, hold that the sacraments are necessary means of grace, in the sense that the grace which they signify is not received otherwise than in their use. There is no remission of sin or regeneration without baptism;.."

  (aaron-BAPTISM SCRIPTURES: Mk.1:4; Lu.1:77; 3:3; and Acts.2:38 confirm the remission of sins for their obedient participation in visible water baptism. This water baptism conveys the same efficacy that God conveyed to Israel through their obedient participation in the Old Testament initiatory rite of circumcision. Gen.17:1-27)

  (aaron-If we take the doctrine of Covenant Theology at its face value, this “Lutherans and Romanists” statement would essentially be correct. There is absolutely no doubt that the Covenant of Grace that we find established with father Abraham in Gen.17:1-27, has both a visible characteristic and an invisible characteristic in operation on an eternal basis. The visible characteristic of the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of the Flesh; Or, the Covenant of Bondage. The invisible characteristic of the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Promise; The Messianic Covenant.
  The apostle Paul tells us that the depiction we are given in Gal.4:21-31 is an allegory of the Covenant of Grace. Though it might seem to contain two covenants because of the wording in Gal.4:24, by returning to Gen.17:1-27 we can see that these two separate characteristics are actually the component parts to the one Covenant of Grace. Then Gal.4:25-26, in presenting the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem, also confirms the visible and the invisible characteristics of this same Covenant of Grace.)

  (aaron-Professor Hodge then presses on in his depreciation of the visible symbols: He begins with an excerpt from 1Cor.7:19)

  "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing."

  (aaron-Now this statement from 1Cor.7:19 has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of circumcision. It is not implying that circumcision has no value, but that the believer was to be content in whatever state they were called. These passages are essentially giving us insight into the universal character of God’s reconciliation. When God made the Covenant of Grace with father Abraham, that covenant was to ultimately reach into every Nation of the world. Then throughout the New Testament dispensation, we must closely follow the fulfillment of that promise to father Abraham:)

  Professor Hodge continues-"He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Rom.ii.28, 29.

  (aaron-Rom.2:28, 29 have a completely different instructive purpose in mind, yet the context is still directly associated with the universal character of God’s reconciliation: The manifestation of the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham--that he would be the father of many Nations. These passages are a detailed explanation of some of the difficult transitional aspects of God’s reconciliation. Again, to grasp the meaning of these two verses from Rom.2, we must first understand the purpose behind this tiny Nation called Israel: Which begins with the basic knowledge that Israel, the Circumcision, and the Jews were established as the peoples of God. Then understanding that 1Cor.10:1-11 more precisely establishes Israel as an example and a type of the relationship that God desired to have with the human population. From that perspective of Israel’s being an example and a type, as well as the visible peoples of God, one can plainly see the difficulties that are involved in explaining any transitional change.
  Because of our limitations when it comes to understanding and segregating those things associated with the Spiritual dimension, we might more easily maneuver through this complex set of circumstances by simply looking at these definitions before us as being both visible and invisible. These are the same visible and invisible principles that are already a part of our theological understanding and vocabulary. But now we must be able to see these terms in more of an absolute sense. It is obvious that this portion of Rom.2: has both the visible and the invisible in view. But the central teaching of this Scripture is expressed in this way: That just because you are a visible Jew or a part of the visible circumcision, does not mean that you are automatically an invisible Jew or a part of the invisible circumcision. These passages are essentially explaining the character of the invisible Messianic Covenant line and how we would identify those who are a part of the invisible Covenant of Promise. And to further help our understanding here, we must come to understand that the existence of one [visible or invisible] does not preclude the simultaneous existence of the other [visible or invisible]. This principle must be applied to all dispensations.)

  Hodge-"This is not merely a fact, but a principle."

  (aaron-Much of the confusion within today’s Church, is the result of giving general application to Scripture that is written very specifically. First Peter is written to the elect; to the invisible priesthood. Ref.1Pe.1:2; 2:5 and 9)

  "What St. Paul here says of circumcision and of Jews, MAY be said, and is substantially said by St. Peter in reference to baptism and Christianity. A man who is a Christian outwardly only, is not a Christian; and the baptism which saves, is not the washing of the body with water, but the conversion of the soul. 1Pe.iii.21."

  (aaron-This interpretation is viewing salvation through the narrow lens that recognizes only the elect Messianic line within the bounds of the Christian Church. It is a fact that God’s initiatory rites of baptism and circumcision has never saved anyone: Because all of God’s peoples [visible and invisible] [Old and New Testaments] are saved only by God’s free and unmerited grace through the propitiatory work of Christ Jesus. That is, the efficacy of the commanded visible initiatory rites of circumcision and baptism, to incorporate the recipient into the visible corporate peoples of God, freely flows through the finished work of Christ. We call this gift, God’s free and unmerited grace.)

  Charles Hodge-"The idea that a man’s state before God depends on anything external, on birth, on membership in any visible organization, or on any outward rite or ceremony, is utterly abhorrent to the religion of the Bible."

  (aaron-This statement would seem to openly contradict the Covenant of Grace that was made with father Abraham. Ref.Gen.17:1-27 The only requirement there for establishing a covenant relationship with the Creator God, was that all of the males of Abraham’s family was to be circumcised. And if any eight-day-old child was not circumcised, that soul was cut off from God’s people because he had broken God’s Covenant of Grace. Ref.Gen.17:14 This would represent the broad concept of the Covenant of Grace; The visible Covenant of the Flesh. Ref.Gen.17:13; the Covenant of Bondage Ref.Gal.4:21-31)

  Hodge capitulates just a little-"It did not belong to Judaism except in the corrupt form of Pharisaism.
It is true, that under the old dispensation a man could not be saved unless he belonged to the commonwealth of Israel, and was one of the children of Abraham."

  (aaron This is an example of abandoning Covenant Theology by discounting its real efficacy. First, Hodge admits that salvation was achieved through their association with the visible commonwealth of Israel. But then Professor Hodge makes a more refined definition by using passages that apply just to the invisible elect: Only to those who had membership in the Covenant of Promise; The Messianic line of which Isaac was the progenitor. Ref.Gal.4:28)

  Hodge-"But according to St. Paul [Rom.ix.8.; Gal.iii.7 and 29], this only meant that they must believe in Abraham’s God and the promise of redemption through his seed."

  (aaron-This is precisely what I have been saying all the time. God’s grace freely flows out through Christ’s finished propitiatory work upon the cross. Our participatory obedience in God’s commanded initiatory rites and sacraments simply demonstrates our belief in the God of Creation.)

  "If a man of heathen birth and culture came to the knowledge of the truth, believed the doctrines which God had revealed to his chosen people, relied on the promise of salvation through Christ, and purposed to obey the law of God, then he was a Jew inwardly and one of Abraham’s seed. His (Abraham’s) circumcision was only ‘a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised.’ Rom.iv.11."
  (aaron-Only the sign of the seal. The sign is visible, while the seal is invisible.)

  (aaron-Here again, this question must be asked: Does everyone who makes a profession of faith automatically become a part of the invisible elect? But this passage from Rom.4 is more specifically showing the intended universal character of God’s reconciliation. What it is actually showing, is that both the circumcision and the uncircumcision were to be included within God’s Covenant of Grace.)

  "The doctrine that such a man, notwithstanding this thorough change in his inward state in knowledge, conviction, and character, is under the wrath and curse of God, until a little piece of flesh is cut from his body, never was a part of the religion of God."

  (aaron-This statement would again remove the entire efficacy from the visible initiatory rites that were established by God Himself. Can we say that what God has commanded is not correct? Ref.Gen.17:13, 14 Can we be so bold as to say that God’s promise to Abraham was not sincere? Ref.Gen.17:1-27)

  "It is part and parcel of the religion of his great adversary. Any one, therefore, who teaches that no man can be saved without the rite of baptism, and that by receiving that rite he is made a child of God and heir of heaven, is ANTICHRIST, and ‘even now are there many antichrists.’ 1Jn.ii.18."

  (aaron-This statement is made with very little consideration for Covenant Theology in general, and the visible initiatory rites [specifically circumcision and baptism] that God has established in both the Old and the New Testaments. We have a tendency to see things only in a singular way--where we seem to end up with what is known as a one-track mind. So great care must be taken whenever we decide to devalue the visible initiatory rites that God has specifically put in place for the edification of His peoples.)

  "3. This ritualistic system, which makes the sacraments the only channels of grace, and consequently absolutely necessary to salvation, naturally leads to the divorce of religion and morality..."

  (aaron-If the visible initiatory rites are to be observed as our obedient participation in God’s Covenant of Grace, then that portion of the Covenant of Grace would be somewhat ritualistic. We must also believe that this participation in these visible rites would be predicated on faith. So why then do we have to make a complete separation between the sacraments and faith? Is it not conceivable that both faith and the sacraments are involved in these visible initiatory rites? This would be true, because of some Protestant stated understanding that both the sacrament and faith are clearly involved in their ritual of adult water baptism.)

  "The great question at issue in the controversy with ritualism is, Whether a man’s salvation depends on his inward state, or upon outward rites; or, as some would give it, Whether his state is determined by outward rites, or whether the rites depend for their value and efficacy on his inward state. In either form the question is, Are we saved by faith or by sacraments?"

  (aaron-Actually, both! This great controversy has arisen within the Church, because we Protestants have come to understand salvation in only a singular way. That is, in receiving and understanding the invisible characteristics of God’s dispositions through this New Covenant dispensation, we have determined that it is only God’s invisible dispositions that have the any real efficacy. We must understand that each and every attribute that God has distributed to His creation potentially has both a visible and an invisible characteristic: Elect; Israel, Circumcision, Jew, elect, and Baptism, to name just a few.)

  (aaron-To summarize these visible and invisible dispositions of God, we should now see that the dual character of the Covenant of Grace can also be seen in the progressive order that accompanies the visible believer into their relationship with the invisible Creator God. This order that is being presented is evident in the process of God’s actions as it is seen within the transitional terms- "called" and "chosen". First, the apostle Peter in Acts 2:39, is plainly speaking about the broad concept in the covenant connection between believers and their offspring: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." It is extremely important for us to understand that it is only our sovereign God who actually does the entire calling. But then here in this passage, we are also told that God’s covenant promise is extended to our children, and to our children’s children, and so on in their generations. It is because of God’s clear covenant promise, that we can anticipate that God will welcome our offspring into a covenant relationship as well. The calling that we have here must be seen as the inclusive call of all of those who have entered this legal covenant relationship through the God established visible institutions, having participated in the visible initiatory rites (circumcision and baptism) that have been established by the invisible Creator God. Remember, this is looking at just the broad concept of the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham and his offspring: Considering just the corporate peoples of God: Just the visible dispositions of God. This absolute need for these visible initiatory rites is best defined in Gen.17:1-27, where we are given our first real glimpse into both God’s visible dispositions (Gen.17:10-14) and God’s invisible dispositions (Gen.17:15-19). Though Isaac was to be the progenitor of the invisible mystical Messianic line that was to be determined by these invisible internal dispositions of God (the circumcised heart and the regenerated spirit)--That same line that would ultimately produce the Messiah, the visible initiatory rite of circumcision /or baptism was still required before one could fully participate in God’s Covenant of Grace. We can also notice from Lu.2:25-32 /Mat.3:13 that our Lord Jesus Himself participated in these same visible initiatory rites that were commanded by God. Now if Christ felt that these initiatory rites were important enough to personally participate in them, should we not do the same with respect to baptism? The Christian community seems to struggle so much with these visible and invisible concepts. But they are simply the obvious characteristics of God’s revealed dispositions. Their argument over the efficacy of God’s dispositions becomes mute, because both the visible characteristics and the invisible characteristics are indispensable parts of the one Covenant of Grace. And then they must also remember that all salvation, whether with respect to the visible characteristics or the invisible characteristics of God’s Covenant of Grace, is effected only by God’s free and unmerited grace through the propitiatory work of Christ Jesus.)

  (aaron-These next passages will more clearly define both the broad [visible] and the narrow [invisible] concepts of the Covenant of Grace:
Matthew 20:16-- "16So the last shall be first, and the first last. [For many are called but few are chosen.]" Ref.Mat.22:14
  This passage from Matthew is showing us two very important terms that have come to express these visible and invisible concepts of the Covenant of Grace, as well as expressing God’s absolute sovereignty in all of these matters concerning salvation. The first thing that we must see here is the evident order that is being established: "the last shall be first, and the first last".
  Then understanding this progressive order with respect to these terms--"called" and "chosen". The calling is the first order in God’s reconciliation and then to be chosen is the second order in God’s reconciliation. It is also a Scriptural fact that the chosen ones will be resurrected and gathered up before God first [Mat.24:30, 31; Mk.13:26, 27; 1Thes.4:13-17; 1Cor.15:23-26]. Then the called ones will be resurrected and gathered before God last [Jn.5:28, 29; Mat.25:31-46; Rev.20:11-15]. But unfortunately, the Christian Church has mistakenly come to the wrong conclusion that there is little or no real value in being called by God: That only the invisible elect ones are to be counted as true Church members. Notice should also be given to the ratio between the many who are called and the few who are chosen, with respect to our visible example [1Cor.10:1-11]--the peoples of Israel. From the many that were included in the twelve tribes that comprised the peoples of Israel, only the tribe of Levi was set apart to represent God’s priestly line. Understanding this proportional division between the eleven elect tribes and the one elect priestly tribe, should allow us to more clearly see Israel’s counterpart through these New Testament Church terms--the "called" visible elect and the "chosen" invisible elect.

  Then in 1 Peter 2:9 and 10: "9But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: 10who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." we are given definition for the narrow concept of the Covenant of Grace. These chosen ones (eklektos) are being identified as God’s elect priestly line. This is the invisible mystical line that was to flow out through the lineage of Isaac: Those elect ones who will ultimately become the component parts of the completed Kingdom [Rev.1:6; 5:10; 20:4-6]; A part of the Messianic Covenant; The invisible Covenant of Promise.
  These same visible and invisible concepts are also confirmed for us in this passage--Rev.17:14 "14These shall make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they that are with him, those who are called and chosen and faithful."
  What we see presented here, are these two important terms sequentially tied together in a prophetic description of the elect armies of heaven. Ref.Rev.19:11-16

  Then this sequence should also represent the mandated order for entrance into this elect group: They must first be called, and then they are chosen. Ref.Mat.20:16) Amen.)

  (aaron-Now to better understand the Reformed view of Covenant Theology, it will be very helpful if we continue on with this brief study from Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. It is here that we will discover that the Reformed Church has some historic understanding about the visible/external characteristic and the invisible/internal characteristic of God’s Covenant of Grace. So my question is this, do you fully understand these principals? Dr. Berkhof now presents a number of differing Reformed views on this very important subject:)
                          ----------------------------------------
See Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp.284-289

  In speaking of the contracting parties in the covenant of grace it was already intimated that the covenant may be considered from two different points of view.
  There are two different aspects of the covenant, and now the question has been answered in different ways.
  A. An External and an Internal Covenant.
... Thomas Blake... Mastricht
  B. The Essence and the Administration of the Covenant.

  (aaron-Define:
The Administration as the external /visible; The visible Church; The called.
The essence as the internal /invisible; The invisible Church; The chosen /or the elect.)

  Others, as for instance, Olevianus and Turretin, distinguish between the essence and the administration of the covenant. According to Turretin: the former (the essence) corresponds to the internal calling and the invisible Church formed by means of this calling; and the latter (the administration), to the external calling and the visible Church, as consisting of those who are called externally by the Word. The administration of the covenant consists only in the offer of salvation in the preaching of the Word, and in the other external privileges in which all share who have a place in the (visible) Church, including many non-elect.
  [aaron-Define the non-elect as the visible elect who have been called into covenant with God-yet they apparently were not yet chosen into the invisible priesthood. Ref. Rom.11:28-32; Acts.2:39]

  The essence of the covenant, however, also includes the spiritual reception of all the blessings of the covenant, the life in union with Christ, and therefore extends to the elect only.

  [aaron-The elect here represents only the invisible elect who have been chosen by God’s into His invisible priestly line. Ref. 1Pe.2:9-10]
  This distinction certainly contains an element of truth, but is not altogether logical and clear. While essence and form would constitute an antithesis, essence and administration do not. They may refer to the invisible and the visible Church, as Turretin seems to intend, or to the final end or realization and the announcement of the covenant, as Olevianus understands the distinction. But if the former is meant, it would be better to speak of essence and revelation; and if the latter is intended, it would be preferable to speak of the aim and the means of its realization. Here, too, the question remains unanswered, whether and in how far the non-elect are covenant children also in the sight of God.

  (aaron-Dr. Berkhof’s last statement "Here, too, the question remains unanswered, whether and in how far the non-elect are covenant children also in the sight of God." seems to have overlooked the clear statement made by Turretin concerning "many non-elect" within the visible Church. It would seem that Dr. Berkhof wants to establish an antithesis between the visible and the invisible. I believe this to be a huge mistake, because both of the visible dispositions and the invisible dispositions are integral parts of God’s one Covenant of Grace. It would seem that this fault lies in the fact that most Church scholars give no eternal efficacy for the visible initiatory rites into our covenant relationship with God. This is referring to the established initiatory rites of visible circumcision and visible baptism. Their basic problem lies in the fact that they have essentially lost sight of God’s wonderful grace. The very same grace by which all of God’s peoples are saved through Christ’s finished propitiatory work. Nevertheless, all of God’s peoples must eventually enter the Covenant of Grace through God’s established visible institutions--having participated in God’s established visible initiatory rites of circumcision or baptism. Ref. Gen.17:1-14; Mat.28:17-20)

  C. A Conditional and an Absolute Covenant.
Still others, as for instance, Koelman, speak of a conditional and an absolute covenant. Koelman emphasizes the fact that, when an external and an internal covenant are distinguished, only a single covenant is meant, and the terms "external" and "internal" simply serve to stress the fact that all are not in the covenant in exactly the same way...

  (aaron-I would wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions that are credited to Mister Koelman. If only more Church scholars had these important insights into the complex character of the covenant.)

  D. The Covenant as a Purely Legal Relationship and as a Communion of Life.
Reformed Theologians, such as Kuyper, Bavink, and Honig, speak of two sides of the covenant, the one external and the other internal. Dr. Vos uses terms that are more specific, when he distinguishes between the covenant as a purely legal relationship and the covenant as a communion of life. There is clearly a legal and a moral side to the covenant. The covenant may be regarded as an agreement between two parties, with mutual conditions and stipulations, and therefore as something in the legal sphere. The covenant in that sense may exist even when nothing is done to realize its purpose, namely the conditions to which it points and for which it calls as the real ideal. The parties that live under this agreement are in the covenant, since they are subject to the mutual stipulations agreed upon. In the legal sphere everything is considered and regulated in a purely objective way. The determining factor in that sphere is simply the relation which has been established, and not the attitude which one assumes to that relation. The relation exists independently of one’s inclination or disinclination, one’s likes and dislikes, in connection with it. It would seem to be in the light of this distinction that the question should be answered, Who are in the covenant of grace? If the question is asked with the legal relationship, and that only, in mind, and really amounts to the query, Who are in duty bound to live in the covenant, and of whom may it be expected that they will do this?--the answer is, believers and their children.

  (aaron-The answer to the above question is clear and very much to the point. That is, believers and their children, through their institutionally belonging, have full entitlement to participate in the Covenant of Grace. This above stated conclusion would require us to accept the complete efficacy for the visible initiatory rites [circumcision and baptism] that God has established at the entry point into the Covenant of Grace.
  What this actually means is that our obedience in performing God’s commanded initiatory rites brings us into good standing in God’s Covenant of Grace: Which is always facilitated only by the finished propitiatory work of Christ.)

  But if the question is asked with a view to the covenant as a communion of life, and assumes the quite different form, In whom does this legal relationship issue in a living communion with Christ? --the answer can only be, only the regenerate, who are endowed with the principle of faith, that is, in the elect...

  (aaron-This statement is true in every respect. When we recognize the visible Church as the present institutional access point for all peoples to come to God, we should then understand that all of those who are in the visible Church were called into this legal relationship with God. This group that remains within this legal relationship would constitute a very large portion of all those who have ever attended Church or Synagogue. Then it is from this large corporate body that was called into this legal relationship with God, that His high priestly line is chosen.)

  Now the question arises as to the relation between the sinner’s being under the "bonds of the covenant" as a legal relationship and his living in the communion of the covenant. The two cannot be conceived of as existing alongside of each other without some inner connection, but must be regarded as being most intimately related to each other, in order to avoid all dualism.

  (aaron-The intimacy between the visible and the invisible can be expressed in this way: The invisible is that fractional part that, through the process of regeneration, is chosen /or elected out from the visible-yet they remain an integral part of the whole. All of God’s called peoples enter into this legal relationship within the Covenant of Grace. But few are chosen out of all of these called out ones to become a part of His Royal Priesthood; To become a part of the invisible Messianic Covenant line; To become a part of the invisible Covenant of Promise.
  Keeping in mind that this is also likened to the nation of Israel as the Old Testament counterpart for peoples being called into this legal relationship with God. There, the priestly line that came through the tribe of Levi was a very small portion of the whole of Israel. Then understanding that even though they were the priestly line, they still continued on as an integral part of corporate Israel. The implication in the above statement is that there is no salvation for those who are within the Covenant of Grace on the basis of only a legal relationship. I believe this postulation to be incorrect.)

  When one takes the covenant relationship upon himself voluntarily, the two must naturally go together; if they do not, a false relation ensues.

  (aaron-This last conclusion seems to assume regeneration in the life of everyone who voluntarily comes into the covenant of grace. Since God Himself accomplishes regeneration, much more thought is required here in determining its distribution. This conclusion, like so many of the Protestant churches today, presumes that every person who is in covenant relationship with God is regenerate.)

  But in the case of those who are born in the covenant the question is more difficult. Is the one then possible without the other? Is the covenant in that case a bare legal relationship, in which that which ought to be--but is not--takes the place of the glorious realities for which the covenant stands? Is there any reasonable ground to expect that the covenant relation will issue in a living communion; that for the sinner, who is of himself unable to believe, the covenant will actually become a living reality? In answer to this question it may be said that God undoubtedly desires that the covenant relationship shall issue in a covenant life. And He Himself guarantees by His promises pertaining to the seed of believers that this will take place, not in the case of every individual, but in the seed of the covenant collectively. On the basis of the promise of God we may believe that, under a faithful administration of the covenant, the covenant relation will, as a rule, be fully realized in a covenant life.

  (aaron-This is the same as the earlier statement. According to many commentators, there is little or no covenantal efficacy to be found in the visible seed. There is something more required from them before they can enter into the covenant life: Indicating that there is no covenant life to be found in the legal relationship within the visible covenant. This is not the case at all.
  As we examine the institution of God’s Covenant of Grace in Gen.17:1-27, we must fully understand that both the visible side and the invisible side of this covenant was founded only on God’s free and unmerited gift of grace.)

  E. Membership in the Covenant as a Legal Relationship.
In discussing membership in the covenant as a legal relationship, it should be borne in mind that the covenant in this sense is not merely a system of demands and promises, demands that ought to be met, and promises that ought to be realized; but that it also includes a reasonable expectation that the external legal relationship will carry with it the glorious reality of a life in intimate communion with the covenant God. This is the only way in which the idea of the covenant is fully realized.

  (aaron-Many commentators have mistakenly come to this same conclusion, that true covenant standing is realized only in the invisible elect: Insisting that the whole covenant peoples of God are to be found only within the invisible Messianic Covenant line. But by simply observing God’s first peoples Israel as our visible and invisible example, one should quickly recognize the fallacy of that conclusion. Ref.Gen.17:1-27)

  1. Adults in the covenant. Adults can only enter this covenant voluntarily by faith and confession. From this it follows that in their case, unless their confession be false, entrance into the covenant as a legal relationship and into the covenant as a communion of life coincide.
  They not merely take upon themselves the performance of certain external duties; nor do they merely promise in addition to this, that they will exercise saving faith in the future; but they confess that they accept the covenant with a living faith, and that it is their desire and intention to continue in this faith. They enter upon the full covenant at once therefore, and this is the only way in which they can enter the covenant. This truth is implicitly or explicitly denied by all those who connect the confession of faith with a merely external covenant.

  (aaron-Once again, this interpretation essentially precludes God’s sovereignty in the application of His invisible dispositions. We cannot necessarily assume that something that comes only from God is accomplished when we voluntarily submit ourselves to a certain protocol. This careless assumption is the principal reason for much confusion within the mainline denominations. That is, many of today’s denominations, because they hold this restricted understanding of salvation, not only deny infant baptism but they deny God’s covenant for the Christian Church as well. They would mistakenly say that the Abrahamic Covenant belongs only to Israel.)

  2. Children of believers in the covenant. With respect to the children of believers, who enter the covenant by birth, the situation is, of course, somewhat different.
  Experience teaches that, though by birth they enter the covenant as a legal relationship, this does not necessarily mean that they are also at once in the covenant as a communion of life. It does not even mean that the covenant relation will ever come to its full realization in their lives. Yet even in their case there must be a reasonable assurance that the covenant is not or will not remain a mere legal relationship, with external duties and privileges, pointing to that which ought to be, but is also or will in time become a living reality.

  (aaron-The above statement reveals this exact problem that we are trying to expose. That these commentators give no appreciable value to the visible initiatory rites, so far as the eternal destiny of the young believer is concerned. They do go on to say that most of these [the seed of believers], because of God’s promises, will eventually come to a saving faith: Implying that there is no real saving faith received through their visible initiatory rites and their belonging to the visible institution. There seems to be no real benefit to be found for them in Gal 3:27--"27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.")

  This assurance is based on the promise of God, which is absolutely reliable, that He will work in the hearts of the covenant youth with His saving grace and transform them into living members of the covenant. The covenant is more than the mere offer of salvation, more even than the offer of salvation plus the promise to believe the gospel. It also carries with it the assurance, based on the promise of God, who works in the children of the covenant "when, where, and how He pleaseth," that saving faith will be wrought in their hearts. As long as the children of the covenant do not reveal the contrary, we shall have to proceed on the assumption that they are in possession of the covenant life. Naturally, the course of events may prove that this life is not yet present; it may even prove that it is never realized in their lives. The promises of God are given to the seed of believers collectively, and not individually.

  (aaron-I would inquire into the basis and the authority for this last statement "The promises of God are given to the seed of believers collectively, and not individually"?
This might be acceptable to those whose seed was determined to have made this transition, but certainly not to those whose seed was not included in this "collective".)

  God’s promise to continue His covenant and to bring it to full realization in the children of believers, does not mean that He will endow every last one of them with saving faith. And if some of them continue in unbelief, we shall have to bear in mind what Paul says in Rom. 9:6-8.
They are not all Israel who are of Israel: the children of believers are not all children of promise.

  (aaron-Clearly, Dr. Berkhof is unwittingly defining just the invisible elect here. This "saving faith" that some of the children have and some do not, seems to be much more than the simple faith that is required by the Scriptures for one to be saved. This is much more than "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" to be saved. All sorts of different measurements are being used here. Yet the largest problem continues to be the improper amalgamation of the visible characteristics and the invisible characteristics of the Covenant of Grace.)

  Hence it is necessary to remind even children of the covenant constantly of the necessity of regeneration and conversion. The mere fact that one is in the covenant does not carry with it the assurance of salvation. When the children of believers grow up and come to years of discretion, it is, of course, incumbent on them to accept their covenant responsibilities voluntarily by a true confession of faith. Failure to do this is, strictly speaking, a denial of their covenant relationship.

  (aaron-Sadly, the only covenantal efficacy that most of these commentators see, is within the invisible characteristics of God’s determinations. It excludes God’s free and unmerited saving grace that is so clearly presented for our understanding from the Gen.17:1-27 account. There, the only requirement set down by God for their belonging, was that of their obedient participation in His commanded visible initiatory rite of circumcision. That simple obedience brought them and their families into covenant communion with their Creator God.)

  It may be said therefore that the legal relationship in which the children of believers stand, precedes the covenant as a communion of life and is a means to its realization. But in emphasizing the significance of the covenant as a means to an end, we should not stress exclusively, nor even primarily, the demands of God and the resulting duty of man, but especially the promise of the effectual operation of the grace of God in the hearts of covenant children. If we stress the covenant responsibility only or exclusively, and fail to give due prominence to the fact that in the covenant God gives whatever He demands of us, in other words, that His promises cover all His requirements, we are in danger of falling into the snare of Arminianism.

  (aaron-Dr. Berkhof now comes back to the real issue that we have been following throughout this discussion. He does not quite say it in so many words, but it can be seen there between the lines. He recognizes that the whole process is in God’s hands: And that whatever we receive from God, is by grace, grace, wonderful grace. Yes, everyone’s salvation is facilitated by God’s grace alone! Then this above statement would seem, at least to me, to be a complete capitulation of a very large portion of his previous discussion and argument.)

  3. Unregenerate in the covenant. From the preceding it follows that even unregenerate and unconverted persons may be in the covenant. Ishmael and Esau were originally in the covenant, the wicked sons of Eli were covenant children, and the great majority of the Jews in the days of Jesus and the apostles belonged to the covenant people and shared in the covenant promises, though they did not follow the faith of their father Abraham. Hence the question arises, in what sense such persons may be regarded as being in the covenant. Dr. Kuyper says that they are not essential participants of the covenant, though they are really in it; and Dr. Bavinck says that they are (in the covenant), but not (of the covenant).

  The following may be said regarding their position in the covenant:
a. They are in the covenant as far as their responsibility is concerned. Because they stand in the legal covenant relationship to God, they are in duty bound to repent and believe. If they do not turn to God and accept Christ by faith, when they come to years of discretion, they will be judged as breakers of the covenant. The special relationship in which they are placed to God, therefore, means added responsibility.

  (aaron-If their own actions are the determining factor for their position in the covenant, then there is little or no room left for God’s grace. Then added to that, God never breaks one of His promises. I do not think that they would even be there in the first place, if they did not "believe".)

  b. They are in the covenant in the sense that they may lay claim to the promises which God gave when He established His covenant with believers and their seed. Paul even says of his wicked kinsmen, "whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises," Rom.9:4 As a rule God gathers the number of His elect out of those who stand in this covenant relationship.

  (aaron-This whole statement is precise in every detail! It shows God’s nature and all of the unchanging promises that are contained in His Everlasting Covenant of Grace. The specifics of Rom.9:4 is the clear conformation of the continuance of His promises and the eternal election of His first peoples--visible Israel. Dr. Berkhof then properly refers to the invisible elect as being gathered out from the visible corporate.)

  c. They are in the covenant in the sense that they are subject to the ministrations of the covenant. They are constantly admonished and exhorted to live according to the requirements of the covenant. The Church treats them as covenant children, offers them the seals of the covenant, and exhorts them to a proper use of these. They are the guests who are first called to the supper, the children of the kingdom, to whom the Word must be preached first of all, Mat.8:12; Lu.14:15-24; Acts.13:46.

  (aaron-I would generally agree with the above comments, but these underlined passages would represent the invisible elect and their Lu.21:25-28 experience--their coming out of the great tribulation in their pre-Armageddon resurrection. Then Mat.8:12 would represent the conditions for the rest of visible Israel /the visible Church as they must continue on through the great tribulation period.)

  d. They are in the covenant also as far as the common covenant blessings are concerned. Though they do not experience the regeneration influence of the Holy Spirit, yet they are subject to certain special operations and influences of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit strives with them in a special manner, convicts them of sin, enlightens them in a measure, and enriches them with the blessings of common grace, Gen.6:3; Mat.13:18-22; Heb.6:4-6.
It should be noted that, while the covenant is an eternal and inviolable covenant, which God never nullifies, it is possible for those who are in the covenant to break it. If one who stands in the legal covenant relationship does not enter upon the covenant life, he is nevertheless regarded as a member of the covenant. His failure to meet the requirements of the covenant involves guilt and constitutes him a covenant breaker, Jer.31:32; Ezek.44:7. This explains how there may be, not merely a temporary, but a final breaking of the covenant, though there is no falling away of the saints.

  (aaron-As the occasion presents itself, many times we loose sight of grace. The real hope for all of us here is in the fact that God never breaks His promises or His covenant.)

  (aaron-As a further demonstration of the complex character of God’s Covenant of Grace, I would also like to add these selected comments from John Calvin:)

Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis - Chap.17 - pp.449, 450 vv.7, 8
  "And that this is the case, is proved without difficulty; for the promise by which the Lord had adopted them all as children, was common to all: and in that promise, it cannot be denied, that eternal salvation was offered to all."

  (aaron-Three times in this comment, John Calvin rightly recognized that Israel’s adoption to eternal salvation was common to them all. But he also uses this troublesome catchword--"offered": as many Protestants now believe that Israel rejected God’s offer of salvation to them, thereby placing themselves on the outside.)

  "What, therefore, can be the meaning of Paul, when he denies that certain persons have any right to be reckoned among children, except that he is no longer reasoning about the externally offered grace, but about that of which only the elect effectually partake?"

  (aaron-There is no doubt that John Calvin is giving definition to both the visible and the invisible dispositions of God. The visible dispositions of God would be effectual in those who were positioned to receive "the externally offered grace". Then "only the elect effectually partake" of the invisible dispositions of God: The internal work of God’s Holy Spirit. But it is this amalgamation of the visible and the invisible Scriptural principles that greatly adds to this present confusion. Which is the same confusion that caused Calvin to ask this question: "What, therefore, can be the meaning of Paul, when he denies that certain persons have any right to be reckoned among children"?)

  "Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us, in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are, in this respect, accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none other are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith."

  (aaron-Again, within the visible Church, John Calvin defines the dual characteristics that are evident within the dispositions of God. He says that the whole body must pass through the visible institution called the Church. But he then goes on to define a very special group who would be eligible to pass into "the innermost sanctuary of God". This group would consist of only those in whom "the promise is ratified". This special group would include only those belonging to the invisible elect priests of God.)


  aaron-Now for us to move around this present confusion, we must try to determine exactly where the denominations have gone beyond the bounds of sound interpretation.

Unfortunately,
  1. The Roman Catholic Church has crossed this line in their doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
REASON: Baptismal regeneration supposes that through his or her obedience in receiving God’s visible initiatory rite of water baptism, each and every individual would simultaneously receive that Spiritual regeneration.

  First, regeneration must be defined as the special operation that only God uses for selectively choosing those who belong to His invisible priestly line; the invisible Messianic Covenant line; His invisible Covenant of Promise.
The specific condition of "regeneration"; the born again experience; born of the Spirit; born from above, originates and proceeds only from God and cannot indiscriminately flow from the willful act of man.

  Then under the Covenant of Grace we find that water baptism would validate God’s grace, as it is associated with His universal call for His corporate peoples. But the basic confusion that we have here concerns the distinctively different characteristics of God’s common grace with that of God’s regeneration.
  Though "grace" and "regeneration" both come forth from God, they are not of the exact same office.

  So then by saying that grace effects the calling of God, and regeneration effects the election of God would essentially summarize this proposition.

  Second, the Roman Catholic’s error here in baptismal regeneration, is similar to, if not exactly the same as, the error that exists within the Protestant Catholic’s understanding of adult baptism. These Protestant Catholics also suppose that regeneration always accompanies their willful act of adult water baptism. Again, the confusion here continues to be the result of the amalgamation of 1-justification, 2-sanctification, and regeneration. Now these dispositions of God are not intended to be the same, and the distinctiveness of each must always be considered. Though justification, sanctification, and regeneration are all God’s graces and are certainly interconnected, yet they must always be seen as functionally independent.

(Hodge’s Systematic Theology vol.ii, p.176
Doctrine of the Church of Rome.
  4. The Synod condemns all who teach that newborn children should not be baptized; or, that although baptized for the remission of sins, they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which needs to be expiated in the laver of regeneration in order to attain eternal life, so that baptism, in their case, would not be true but false...
  From this it appears that according to the Council of Trent there is sin in newborn infants, which needs to be remitted and washed away by regeneration.

  (aaron-Their sins are absolutely washed away by the visible water baptism of repentance unto the remission of their sins. Lu.1:76-79; Mk.1:4)

  5. The fifth canon asserts that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, and everything is removed which has the true and proper nature of sin... It is admitted that concupiscence remains in the baptized, against which believers are to contend...

  (aaron-We must be mindful that the first part of this canon is talking about just the soul, and the second part is talking about only the flesh. But now can we say with any certainty that "through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism" that our sins are remitted?
The answer to that question would be positively yes! Ref.Gal.3:27; Col.2:12 This fifth canon is on target!)

  In the sixth session when treating justification (i. e., regeneration and sanctification), the Council decides several points, which go to determine the view its members took of the nature of original sin. In the canons adopted in that session, it is among other things, declared:

  (1) That men cannot, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, by their own works, i.e., works performed in their own strength, be justified before God.

  (aaron-This article would be identical to St. Augustine.
This article also wholly precludes any sort of works doctrine in the Church of Rome.
But then for them to lump justification, sanctification, and regeneration all together is not Scripturally viable, as well as being one of the primary causes for much confusion within the whole of today’s Church. It is extremely important that we understand this stated fact: that each of these important terms has its own specific function and definition within God’s reconciliation.)

  (2) That grace is not given simply to render good works more easy.
(aaron-But it certainly does help.)

  [aaron-Define 1-JUSTIFICATION; 2-SANCTIFICATION; and also REGENERATION:]
  (3) That men cannot believe, hope, love, or repent so as to secure regenerating grace without the preventing grace of God.

  (aaron-Here we are given a dual definition for grace: 1-preventing grace. 2-regenerating grace. One might suggest that preventing grace [or justifying grace] is the initial work of God in the heart of the believer, and would be validated in the fount of water baptism. [Sanctifying grace helps the believer to grow in their faith.] And then regenerating grace [or to be born of the Spirit] must be understood as a second work of God’s Spirit, and would be received as the validation of God’s elective process. That is, God’s Spirit witnessing to our spirit that we are sons /or children of God. Ref.Rom.8:16
  Realizing that this understanding of a "second work of God’s Spirit" is difficult for the Reformed Church to receive. This is partly due to the Pentecostal’s use and interpretation of this vernacular and its association with their speaking in tongues. But the intent of the stated principle above is directed more to the conformation process of God’s elective activities.
  An example of this principal is found in John chapter three’s description of Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus. Nicodemus was very much a part of God’s corporate peoples and a believer, else he would not have been there, yet he was still not regenerated; not born again; not born of the Spirit; not born from above. Then in Jn.3:5, Jesus plainly tells Nicodemus that he must be born of (1) water and (2) the Spirit to come unto the kingdom. Jesus is introducing and explaining God’s invisible dispositions that will ultimately fulfill His ministry. And then Jesus also goes on to explains the evident difficulty that visible Israel has with understanding these invisible heavenly things.)

  2. The Protestant Catholic Church has also crossed this line in the very restricted way in which they improperly defined faith.
  REASON: They have mistakenly amalgamated the saving faith of 1-justifying grace with the abiding faith of 2-sanctifying grace. This confusion has essentially caused them to slip into a form of works doctrine, where some level of individual performance or participation is required before the one can be counted as a believer or be certain of their salvation. Yes, faith is an absolute necessity in the salvation process. But exactly whose faith are we defining here? Are we defining the monergistic 1-justifying faith that is wholly a gift from God? Or are we defining the synergistic 2-sanctifying faith, through which God aids all believers as they grow in His grace? The confusing difficulties here are self-evident.

  3. The Protestant Catholic Church has also crossed this line again in their failure to properly identify the peoples of God.
  REASON: They, because they have now come to understand the existence of the invisible dispositions of God, have attempted to force the whole of God’s peoples into this very select group. This is that very select group that represents only the invisible elect priests of God who collectively make up the body of Christ. The very same body that is also the Kingdom of God.) Amen

                               ----------------------------------

  (So now looking again in Romans three- no matter how we stand before God, whether we are in the legal relationship or in the communion of life, our absolute need for His grace is being explained here in very clear terms:)

  Romans 3:21-23 "But now apart from the law a righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ unto all them that believe. For there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;"

  (aaron-This reflects that pure grace that we all have come to cherish so much. Eph.2:8--"for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." It is also from the law and the prophets that this passage confirms the universal character of God’s reconciliation. It is most clearly explaining God’s wonderful grace toward all of His peoples-Old Testament and New Testament alike. This universal character of the Abrahamic Covenant is also seen in the fact that both the Jews and the Gentiles find themselves in exactly the same place and having exactly the same needs. This is evident in the fact that "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.")

  Romans 3:24-26 "being justified freely by his (God’s) grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. To show his (God’s) righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God. For the showing, I say, of his (God’s) righteousness at this present time: That he (God) might himself be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus."

  (aaron-The main ingredients that are involved in God’s reconciliation, are God’s grace that freely flows out through the redemption that is in the finished propitiatory work of Christ Jesus. Then we see God’s righteousness most clearly expressed in His gracious dealings with the sins of His creation. That is, excusing all of their sins--past, present, and future. It is only the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all sin: Which was the enabling act that allowed for the full distribution of God’s grace. You need only trust in that propitiation for complete absolution.)

  Romans 3:27, 28 "Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? Of works? No! But by a law of faith. We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."

  (aaron-Remember, God’s reconciliation mandates the total equality of all peoples when it comes to His justification. So it matters not whether we are considering the first covenant or the second covenant, because all are saved by His boundless grace because of Christ’s propitiatory work. The shedding of the Passover Lamb’s blood fully facilitates the complete remission of sin.)

  Romans 3:29, 30 "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also: If so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith."

  (aaron-These passages give us a summary statement for the universal character of God’s reconciliation. God is extending His love equally to both the Jews and the Gentiles: the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. We must also understand that there is a transitional process in God’s reconciliation that must also be gleaned from these important passages.)

  Romans 3:31 "Do we then make the law of no effect through faith? God forbid: No, we establish the law."

  (aaron-This brief statement that we have here in v.31, that GOD’S LAW and GOD’S GRACE are always coexistent within God’s reconciliation, is also clear and to the point.