-
- Thread starter Joshua
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
Okeee dokeee
Now you have to vacation and come up here for a cigar, and imbibing. I will get out one of those nasty things you sent me and repent from pipe smoking for a day. Just kidding. I liked some of those expensive cigars. I actually like Astals.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Astral. yuk Yuk Yuk.
Ahem....you pipe-heads.
Ahem....you pipe-heads.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Chris,
"complication of the Gospel"
You are right on the money. It is not complicating it but growing richer and richer and richer in the depths of THE Gospel. When Paul said you should be off of the milk and on to the meat he did not mean some elusive "more spiritual" doctrine or even a more intellectual acumen. NO, but a richer and deeper and richer and deeper understanding and afresh refreshment of the Gospel, that is Good News of Christ crucified and risen.
E.g. it is one thing to know that Christ died for my sin. Deeper that all His righteousness is also imputed to me. Deeper still that this was set forth in eternity. Deeper still and specific that when Christ resisted the Devil's temptation in the wilderness that - THAT has been imputed to me and you and all of His...and so forth.
Ldh
"complication of the Gospel"
You are right on the money. It is not complicating it but growing richer and richer and richer in the depths of THE Gospel. When Paul said you should be off of the milk and on to the meat he did not mean some elusive "more spiritual" doctrine or even a more intellectual acumen. NO, but a richer and deeper and richer and deeper understanding and afresh refreshment of the Gospel, that is Good News of Christ crucified and risen.
E.g. it is one thing to know that Christ died for my sin. Deeper that all His righteousness is also imputed to me. Deeper still that this was set forth in eternity. Deeper still and specific that when Christ resisted the Devil's temptation in the wilderness that - THAT has been imputed to me and you and all of His...and so forth.
Ldh
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
What is the uncomplicated Gospel?
Remember -
The unity of the Biblical message is structural, historic, and personal. It has a certain archetypal, architectural plan. The two Testaments are built on the same general scheme. Each is in three parts: historic, didactic, prophetic; looking to the past, the present, and the future. Its organic unity demonstrates three things: first, that all parts are necessary to a complete whole; secondly, that all are necessary to complement each other; and thirdly, that all are pervaded by one life-principle.
Think about it -
The Biblical Message was written over a period of some 1500 years, has 66 Books, 40 Writers (of differing vocations, education, sophistication), was penned across 3 continents (Europe, Asia, Africa), it was written in 3 Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), and yet is in agreement about one central story line: The Glory of the Living God.
Its a bit more complicated that Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
[Edited on 9-8-2005 by webmaster]
Well, here I go again. I have to look up another word. Who says a vocabulary stops growing when you are younger.
E S O T E R I C.
es·o·ter·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-trk)
adj.
Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Greek esterikos, from ester, comparative of es, within. See en in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eso·teri·cal·ly adv.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Kevin. You wrote in answer to Randy:-
Well, it's your privilege in ths life not to accept it, but it is the clear and plain teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8, and I cited several supporting Scriptures. The difference between the First and New Covenants is that in the NC, everyone will know the Lord. They may not know all ABOUT Him, but they all know Him. The question is, are you and others prepared to follow the Scriptures wherever they lead you, or will you cling to your position because 'it's in the confession'?
Who says 'we may only interact experientially with the elect of God'? Read 1Cor 5:9ff. We interact all our lives with the non-elect, being, 'Children of God, without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life' (Phil 2:15-16 ).
You are quite right that there will be those who appear to be 'in like Flynn', but whom events will prove not to be in at all. These were never in covenant with the Lord. 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out THAT THEY MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST THAT NONE OF THEM WERE OF US' (1John 2:19 ). And the Lord will say to them on the Last Day, 'I NEVER knew you!' (Matt 7:23). Not when the Minister was splashing you with water; not while you were in Sunday School; not while you were listening to the service or taking the Lord's Supper. Not even while you were in Seminary. NEVER! Because you never saw yourself as a lost sinner so as to fly to Me for salvation.'
Those who are not trusting Christ for salvation have nother whatever to do with Him.
Martin
Well, it's your privilege in ths life not to accept it, but it is the clear and plain teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8, and I cited several supporting Scriptures. The difference between the First and New Covenants is that in the NC, everyone will know the Lord. They may not know all ABOUT Him, but they all know Him. The question is, are you and others prepared to follow the Scriptures wherever they lead you, or will you cling to your position because 'it's in the confession'?
Who says 'we may only interact experientially with the elect of God'? Read 1Cor 5:9ff. We interact all our lives with the non-elect, being, 'Children of God, without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life' (Phil 2:15-16 ).
You are quite right that there will be those who appear to be 'in like Flynn', but whom events will prove not to be in at all. These were never in covenant with the Lord. 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out THAT THEY MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST THAT NONE OF THEM WERE OF US' (1John 2:19 ). And the Lord will say to them on the Last Day, 'I NEVER knew you!' (Matt 7:23). Not when the Minister was splashing you with water; not while you were in Sunday School; not while you were listening to the service or taking the Lord's Supper. Not even while you were in Seminary. NEVER! Because you never saw yourself as a lost sinner so as to fly to Me for salvation.'
Those who are not trusting Christ for salvation have nother whatever to do with Him.
Martin
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Martin...
Actually the plain and clear teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8 is that the covenant will be made with the house of Israel and Judah. These are the ones who will know the Lord. These are also the same ones the old covenant was made with, except now, the house of Judah (because of the divided kingdom) is included separately. Shouldn't this tell you something? The old covenant was made with Israel (Judah included) the new covenant is made with Judah and Israel. Is God trying to be obtuse? You can't literalize one and not the other. Likewise you can't spiritualize both. You must gather from this, then, that the covenant is made with people who belong, but some only externally, and some really and truly.
My father knew the Lord. I know that He asked God to forgive his sins many times in his life. But I also know that my father will cry out "Lord, Lord," because his heart is not right and he will die in his sins with no hope of salvation. That is the way he's living now.
Look to Hebrews. My father was in seeming covenant with God many of his days, yet the warnings of Hebrews are true of him. He is apostate. He has tasted, yet not imbibed. He has seen the goodness of the Lord and yet walked away.
Where your belief is leading you is a place Scripture doesn't go because we do not know the soul-state of everyone we see. If you maintain that the new covenant is peopled with all the elect and none other, then you must believe that everyone you go to church with are elect. Everyone that you have seen baptized is elect. And that is simply not true. The visible/invisible church distinction must be upheld for our theories to become our practice. And that is largely what you espouse. If the new covenant is made up of only the elect, yours is a theoretical or academic theology. If you were to become a pastor, your work would be confounded by this.
The practical nature of the new covenant is that there are those members who to us seem to be in covenant with God and we have no right to exclude them from the Table or the community of faith, yet they are not known by Christ. This is the reality of the new covenant. It was the reality of the old covenant. There is no way of getting around this unless you know the mind of God in the salvation of every individual, which is not given you to know.
Of course we reject this notion that the new covenant is of two houses only, but we can spiritualize Israel. What do we do with Judah? Why is this covenant made with the house of Judah? Who is this historically? Who is it going forward in the new covenant?
If you can answer that from Scripture, you may begin to see that it can neither be spiritualized fully, nor can it be literalized fully. In that case we have to look at covenants historically and it turns us to the one covenant of grace that has internal and external members.
Questions like these really make us think so that we cannot practice vacuum theology. You're accusing me of parroting a confession. That's okay. I am. I depend upon someone elses interpretation of these verses because they are not so simple and plain.
Are the non-elect part of your covenant community? If you say yes, then you are not being consistent in your interpretation of Jer. 31 and Heb 8. If you say no, you must be able to see the invisible church.
I can take it from this that you would answer no to the above question. If they are in your new covenant community, then they are elect. So you must, of necessity, have been give the sight to see the invisible church.
BTW, I am not arguing, nor would I ever argue, that the external members (all in the visible church who are non-elect) are truly in covenant with God. They are, even though seeming members of the new covenant, relegated to the covenant of works through their unbelief. But again, are you (or your church) going to keep the Table from someone who comes, but who unbeknownst to you are not elect? Are you (or your church) not going to baptize someone unless you know for a fact they're elect? No. You wouldn't do this. So here is where your interpretation of these Scriptures breaks down. You can't have it both ways.
In Christ,
KC
Actually the plain and clear teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8 is that the covenant will be made with the house of Israel and Judah. These are the ones who will know the Lord. These are also the same ones the old covenant was made with, except now, the house of Judah (because of the divided kingdom) is included separately. Shouldn't this tell you something? The old covenant was made with Israel (Judah included) the new covenant is made with Judah and Israel. Is God trying to be obtuse? You can't literalize one and not the other. Likewise you can't spiritualize both. You must gather from this, then, that the covenant is made with people who belong, but some only externally, and some really and truly.
My father knew the Lord. I know that He asked God to forgive his sins many times in his life. But I also know that my father will cry out "Lord, Lord," because his heart is not right and he will die in his sins with no hope of salvation. That is the way he's living now.
Look to Hebrews. My father was in seeming covenant with God many of his days, yet the warnings of Hebrews are true of him. He is apostate. He has tasted, yet not imbibed. He has seen the goodness of the Lord and yet walked away.
Where your belief is leading you is a place Scripture doesn't go because we do not know the soul-state of everyone we see. If you maintain that the new covenant is peopled with all the elect and none other, then you must believe that everyone you go to church with are elect. Everyone that you have seen baptized is elect. And that is simply not true. The visible/invisible church distinction must be upheld for our theories to become our practice. And that is largely what you espouse. If the new covenant is made up of only the elect, yours is a theoretical or academic theology. If you were to become a pastor, your work would be confounded by this.
The practical nature of the new covenant is that there are those members who to us seem to be in covenant with God and we have no right to exclude them from the Table or the community of faith, yet they are not known by Christ. This is the reality of the new covenant. It was the reality of the old covenant. There is no way of getting around this unless you know the mind of God in the salvation of every individual, which is not given you to know.
Of course we reject this notion that the new covenant is of two houses only, but we can spiritualize Israel. What do we do with Judah? Why is this covenant made with the house of Judah? Who is this historically? Who is it going forward in the new covenant?
If you can answer that from Scripture, you may begin to see that it can neither be spiritualized fully, nor can it be literalized fully. In that case we have to look at covenants historically and it turns us to the one covenant of grace that has internal and external members.
Questions like these really make us think so that we cannot practice vacuum theology. You're accusing me of parroting a confession. That's okay. I am. I depend upon someone elses interpretation of these verses because they are not so simple and plain.
Are the non-elect part of your covenant community? If you say yes, then you are not being consistent in your interpretation of Jer. 31 and Heb 8. If you say no, you must be able to see the invisible church.
I can take it from this that you would answer no to the above question. If they are in your new covenant community, then they are elect. So you must, of necessity, have been give the sight to see the invisible church.
BTW, I am not arguing, nor would I ever argue, that the external members (all in the visible church who are non-elect) are truly in covenant with God. They are, even though seeming members of the new covenant, relegated to the covenant of works through their unbelief. But again, are you (or your church) going to keep the Table from someone who comes, but who unbeknownst to you are not elect? Are you (or your church) not going to baptize someone unless you know for a fact they're elect? No. You wouldn't do this. So here is where your interpretation of these Scriptures breaks down. You can't have it both ways.
In Christ,
KC
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Kevin,
You wrote:-
I think you are making too much of this, but I can tell you who Judah is in the New Covenant.
The Greek word for 'Judah' is 'Ioudas'. The word for an inhabitant of Judah is 'Ioudaios.' In Rom 2:28-29, we read:-
Such are the members of the New Covenant, and such therefore are the proper subjects for baptism. The fact that we cannot always distinguish them from false believers does not make this any less true, and is no excuse whatsoever for making void the word of God by admitting all and sundry into the Ekklesia of God by infant baptism.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
You wrote:-
I think you are making too much of this, but I can tell you who Judah is in the New Covenant.
The Greek word for 'Judah' is 'Ioudas'. The word for an inhabitant of Judah is 'Ioudaios.' In Rom 2:28-29, we read:-
Such are the members of the New Covenant, and such therefore are the proper subjects for baptism. The fact that we cannot always distinguish them from false believers does not make this any less true, and is no excuse whatsoever for making void the word of God by admitting all and sundry into the Ekklesia of God by infant baptism.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
So, the new covenant was made with inhabitants of Judah? How does house of Judah equivocate to inhabitant of Judah? The Romans occupied Judah, was the new covenant made with them?
As for making too much of this, the new covenant is made with an entity that is the house of Judah. We need to know what this means. You take it nowhere which is a mistake. God has certain people in mind when He talks about this house. In order for someone to be included in the covenant, they have to be connected to this house. So my question to you is, who is this talking about?
We make void the Word of God? Really? How? By our baptizing disciples? We are commanded to do so. We don't go out of our way to baptize any child. We are baptizing only those children whose parents are trusting in God for their child's salvation and who will be raised as disciples. How is that making the Word of God void?
In Christ,
KC
Kevin,
Is the New Covenant Church Isreal?
Is the New Covenant Church Isreal?
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Randy...
Yes, to the extent that Israel describes it. I think it would be better to use Paul's description of an olive tree in Romans 11. The root is holy. Some branches have been cut off, some have been grafted in. But in the final analysis, the whole olive tree contains branches that do belong and those that do not belong. God will prune all those who do not belong and continue to care for those who do. This shows that there is an internal and external aspect of those in the new covenant. All are included in the olive tree, but not all will be spared. Some have already been cut off, some have yet to be cut off.
But the whole olive tree is the church.
In Christ,
KC
Yes, to the extent that Israel describes it. I think it would be better to use Paul's description of an olive tree in Romans 11. The root is holy. Some branches have been cut off, some have been grafted in. But in the final analysis, the whole olive tree contains branches that do belong and those that do not belong. God will prune all those who do not belong and continue to care for those who do. This shows that there is an internal and external aspect of those in the new covenant. All are included in the olive tree, but not all will be spared. Some have already been cut off, some have yet to be cut off.
But the whole olive tree is the church.
In Christ,
KC
So does God graft in dead branches? That just doesn't seem correct by the passage.
[Edited on 9-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]
[Edited on 9-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]
I was infering that Christ only grafted in regenerate branches.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Kevin, this is talking about Christians, those who are Jews inwardly as Rom 2:28f shows. Listen to Paul again:-
'For we are the circumcision [ie. Jews] who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and place no confidence in the flesh' (Phil 3:3 ). John Brown of Edinburgh wrote:-
"Making the word of God of no effect (i.e. void) through your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:13 ). There is no command to baptize infants and the Bible does not say that the faith of the parents saves their children (Ezek 18:20 ). The OT texts that you and Paul are so fond of must be read in the light of Gal 3:7, 26-29.
Therefore, since you are not following the Bible, which commands only the baptism of disciples, you are following tradition and making void the word of God.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
If He only grafts in regenerate branches, how did some get cut off? How is it that there is a possibility that some will get cut off? The ingrafting of the gentiles is pretty broad, we can't think that this olive tree is only the invisible church. If that is so, then some, it would appear, can lose their salvation.
In Christ,
KC
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
I didn't quote this verse, you did. You made a clear inference that "spiritual Judah" is the Jew of these passages. I agree that not all who are Jews are Jews inwardly. This shows the visible/invisible church distinction.
I didn't say that the faith of the parent saves the child. I didn't even imply that. I said that we baptize those children whose parents are trusting in God for their child's salvation. That doesn't automatically mean that God will save them. He will save them if it is His will. But whether He does or not, we hope in Him for them. This hope doesn't save, nor is it effectual for them at all. I have faith that God will save you if it is His will to do so. How should that be any different than an infant? Because you have said so? Did you save yourself, or did God save you? If anyone is saved it is through faith in Christ. Not faith in a profession, or a baptism, or in the water, or in the minister. I have faith that God will save my children and my grandchildren's grandchildren (I hope). Why is that against Scripture? Abraham believed it and He is my father if I believe it.
The reason we baptize our children is because we have faith that God will save them if it is His will to do so. They are disciples. We are teaching them the things the Lord wants us to teach them. They are no less a disciple than anyone else.
God doesn't save them because of our faith. If He saves them it will be because He gave them faith to believe.
This is a fair warning, but the next time you accuse someone of making the Word of God void, especially any elders or pastors on this board, I will request the administrators to censure you. You have taken this verse out of context and it does not apply here. I don't mind honest debate, but in the 4 years I've been on this board, I have never been accused of this. I will not continue to discuss this with you if you accuse me of abusing Scripture.
In Christ,
KC
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Kevin,
First of all, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I should not have personalized my comments. However, let me say that I am not pursuing this question of baptism purely as an accademic exercise, or out of a love of controversy. I am doing it because I believe that infant baptism, and especially the doctrine of 'Presumptive Regeneration' is wrong and unscriptural and produces, as all wrong doctrine must, unhappy results.
You wrote;-
Grace & Peace,
Martin
First of all, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I should not have personalized my comments. However, let me say that I am not pursuing this question of baptism purely as an accademic exercise, or out of a love of controversy. I am doing it because I believe that infant baptism, and especially the doctrine of 'Presumptive Regeneration' is wrong and unscriptural and produces, as all wrong doctrine must, unhappy results.
You wrote;-
On the contrary, it is ONLY "spiritual Judah" who enter the New Covenant. That is the clear meaning of Jer 31 and Heb 8. Read Phil 3:3 again. The concept of a 'visible' or 'invisible' church is unhelpful.
I disagree. A 'disciple' in the NT is someone who is a follower of Christ. Not all were true disciples (John 8:31 ), but they had made their own, conscious decision to follow Him.
It is always good to be able to end on a point of agreement. To this I can say
Grace & Peace,
Martin
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure what kind of unhappy results you're referring to. Kids don't go awry because they're baptized at birth. In fact, when fathers have been faithful to bring up their children in the way they should go, there have been many happy results. Kids go awry because fathers fail to instill in their sons what the Lord requires or because sons reject the fear of the Lord because of their own sinfulness. Now you could claim that we've helped them to this, but what you're claiming is tantamount to saying that Calvinism causes Arminianism.
I am not conceding that you have proven that there is a spiritual Judah. If you're using the text you provided, it is most obscure.
I would encourage you to study Timothy as the 2nd generation Christian. Did he learn the things of God of his own volition?
It is always good to be able to end on a point of agreement. To this I can say
Grace & Peace,
Martin
Yeah, I'm glad we agree on this, but I wish we could follow the same stream to this lush oasis.
In Christ,
KC
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
And here is more great stuff from that same article:
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Joseph,
Most of what's in that article is common ground between us. The writer is correct when he says that there is but one Covenant of Grace.
When he finishes
I can go with him, but note that 'many ways' are not 'all ways.'
But when he says
He is begging several questions.
With whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made?
Which of its promises apply to Christians?
Who are/is Abraham's descendants/Seed?
Is circumcision the same as baptism?
Did Ishmael have the same promise as Isaac since they received the same sign?
Why is what we term the 'Old' Covenant actually termed the 'First' Covenant by the writer to the Hebrews? What implications are there in this to the Abrahamic Covenant?
What is the 'mystery' of Christ? Did Abraham know it?
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Most of what's in that article is common ground between us. The writer is correct when he says that there is but one Covenant of Grace.
When he finishes
I can go with him, but note that 'many ways' are not 'all ways.'
But when he says
He is begging several questions.
With whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made?
Which of its promises apply to Christians?
Who are/is Abraham's descendants/Seed?
Is circumcision the same as baptism?
Did Ishmael have the same promise as Isaac since they received the same sign?
Why is what we term the 'Old' Covenant actually termed the 'First' Covenant by the writer to the Hebrews? What implications are there in this to the Abrahamic Covenant?
What is the 'mystery' of Christ? Did Abraham know it?
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
- Status