If i missed it, could someone point me to it...
[Edited on 10-31-2005 by Peters]
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul manata
4. So, I ask you to be consistent. That is to say, since in Deuteronomy "the Lord will judge His people" did not have a bad judgment in mind (but rather vindication) then you say this is what it means in Hebrews 10. That is, if the same language is used in the OT then we interpret the NT as meaning what the OT means (a hermeneutical fallacy, btw, but I'll let it slide for my purposes, because it works in my favor).
I´ve already responded to this. It is not my hermeneutic.
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul manata
So, let's be consistent. In I Cor 5 we read about church discipline. The church is Israel! So, Paul is telling Israel how to discipline its members. What does he say? he says "exprell the wicked from among you." Now, in the OT that *ALWAYS* means to remove someone from the external covenant! So, if Monergism is to be consistent then he must agree that non-elect are in the covenant since people can be removed from it.
In 1 Cor 5, Paul didn´t "œtotally flip Moses´ words on their heads." Again, we look at both the OT context AND the NT context so as to determine how the HT writer utilizes the OT passage in his quotation. We do this passage by passage, context by context.
What, then, is the context of 1 Cor. 5? Paul is commanding the local church to engage in the practice of church discipline. That is, to remove the unrepentant sinner from the fellowship of the church. He is calling for holiness amongst the church community.
In support of his call for church purity, he quotes several OT passages: "œREMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." Each instance the quote appears in the OT, it does indeed refer to a command for Israel to remove sinful individuals from the covenant community. I´m happy to grant that, because that is the OT context. But where in 1 Cor. 5 does Paul draw the conclusion you draw? Where does Paul say anything about the New Covenant in 1 Cor 5? Where does Paul draw an analogy between expulsion from the old covenant and expulsion from the new coveant? His analogy goes, just as the wicked man was expelled from Israel, so also the wicked man is to be expelled from the local church. Indeed. Paul says, "œDo you not judge those who are within the church?" (1 Cor. 5:12). He is addressing the local church, not the New Covenant. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 5 that equates the local church with the New Covenant. This is something you have read into the text.
So, even here in 1 Cor. 5, Paul does indeed keep the context of the OT quote. He applies it analogously to the issue facing the church at Corinth. Just because he applies the principle found in the OT context to the local church doesn´t mean the OT context is "œflipped;" not at all. In fact, it would be your hermeneutic you apply to Heb. 10 that would create a train wreck of 1 Cor. 5. Let´s try taking the 180 degree opposite meaning of the OT context and apply it here in Paul´s exhortation. We would, then, NOT remove the wicked man from among ourselves. Obviously, this is not the case.
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul manata
Or, I guess you can hold to your ultimate authority by allowing the author of Hebrews to have to mean what Moses meant, but the author of the Corinthians didn't mean what Moses meant by using *the exact same language* for removal from the visable covenant.
Again, since it´s an unargued assumption that Paul is referring to the "œvisable covenant" in 1 Cor. 5, you´re objection has no foundation. You would have to prove that local church = New Covenant for the objectoin to carry weight. 1 Cor. 5 doesn´t argue or assume such.
I hope this demonstrates just how much you are assuming when you approach these apostate passages. Your presumption that the New Covenant contains non-elect is absolutely foundational to your interpretation of apostate passages. However, when it comes time for you to argue that the New Covenant contains non-elect, you appeal to your interpretation of the apostate passages. The circularity at this point should be obvious.
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul manata
But from my perspective I'll assume, based on my argument, that Judge is being used the same in that passage and it is you who has to render the passage unintelligible by switching what the author has been talking about the entire passage.
If my argument for the author´s flow of thought it unintelligible, then demonstrate it. Quote me and point out the unintelligibility of the author´s flow of thought according to my exegesis. Is it unintelligible, or is it simply contrary to what you think it should mean?
As far as my original argument, is Christ the High Priest for each and every member of the New Covenant or not? If so, on your account of things, why didn´t Christ make an offering for each member of His covenant?
[Edited on 10-31-2005 by Peters]