# Did Christ "buy" false prophets? 2Pe. 2:1



## cupotea (Apr 19, 2004)

Okay, guys. I think that for me, this is the most challenging verse that I have encountered in the New Testament. It's found in 2 Peter 2:1. In the NASB it reads:

&quot;But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.&quot;

Sometimes when discussing Calvinism, an Armenian will bring up verses like 1 John 2:2, but this verse is tough. I need some help with understanding this. Thanks, everyone!

This verse seems, prima facie to be saying that Christ bought the false prophets, does it not? HELP!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:efe655d620][i:efe655d620]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:efe655d620]
I know that there are many who disagree with me on this (Webmaster, Sola Scripture)...
[/quote:efe655d620]

Hey, Paul... It's Sola Scriptur[i:efe655d620]a[/i:efe655d620].
:gangster:
hey, what happened to the cool smilies?

JesusFan- I absolutely refuse to debate this again. I can't remember the thread... but you should look there. And reference Matt's exegetical work on the passage. And then ask yourself &quot;If this conclusion is possible here, then what keeps it from being true of [i:efe655d620]any[/i:efe655d620] of these apostasy type of passages?

But I won't post on this again. You can read the old thread.

[Edited on 4-27-2004 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 19, 2004)

I think the answer lies in the Greek text, here is my take:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/McMahon2Peter2_1.htm

Its not long, but concise.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:43c3f4510e]
This verse seems, prima facie to be saying that Christ bought the false prophets, does it not? HELP!
[/quote:43c3f4510e]

Many will say &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; but Christ will say to them, &quot;I never knew you&quot;. Were they truely redeemed by Christ? No. Not all Israel is Israel. There were and are those who will make a profession but just as is noted in the parable of the sower, unless the seed is sown in good ground, they will ultimately fall away. There have been false teachers in the Church which is pointed out in the first part of the verse. Consider Duet. 13 and the fact that God used these false prophets to test the church. Peter is making the point that what happened in the church in the past is happening now and will continue in the future.

Here is Calvin's commentary on this verse which may be of help.

&quot;1. But there were. As weak consciences are usually very grievously and dangerously shaken, when false teachers arise, who either corrupt or mutilate the doctrine of faith, it was necessary for the Apostle, while seeking to encourage the faithful to persevere, to remove out of the way an offense of this kind. He, moreover, comforted those to whom he was writing, and confirmed them by this argument, that God has always tried and proved his Church by such a temptation as this, in order that novelty might not disturb their hearts. &quot;Not different,&quot; he says, &quot;will be the condition of the Church under the gospel, from what it was formerly under the law; false prophets disturbed the ancient Church; the same thing must also be expected by us.&quot;

It was necessary expressly to shew this, because many imagined that the Church would enjoy tranquillity under the rein of Christ; for as the prophets had promised that at his coming there would be real peace, the highest degree of heavenly wisdom, and the full restoration of all things, they thought that the Church would be no more exposed to any contests. Let us then remember that the Spirit of God hath once for all declared, that the Church shall never be free from this intestine evil; and let this likeness be always borne in mind, that the trial of our faith is to be similar to that of the fathers, and for the same reason -- that in this way it may be made evident, whether we really love God, as we find it written in Deuteronomy 13:3.

But it is not necessary here to refer to every example of this kind; it is enough, in short, to know that, like the fathers, we must contend against false doctrines, that our faith ought by no means to be shaken on account of discords and sects, because the truth of God shall remain unshaken notwithstanding the violent agitations by which Satan strives often to upset all things.

Observe also, that no one time in particular is mentioned by Peter, when he says there shall be false teachers, but that all ages are included; for he makes here a comparison between Christians and the ancient people. We ought, then, to apply this truth to our own time, lest, when we see false teachers rising up to oppose the truth of God, this trial should break us down. But the Spirit reminds us, in order that we may take the more heed; and to the same purpose is the whole description which follows.

He does not, indeed, paint each sect in its own colors, but particularly refers to profane men who manifested contempt towards God. The ,advice, indeed, is general, that we ought to beware of false teachers; but, at the same time, he selected one kind of such from whom the greater danger arose. What is said here will hereafter become more evident from the words of Jude, who treats exactly of the same subject.

Who privily shall bring in. By these words he points out the craftiness of Satan, and of all the ungodly who militate under his banner, that they would creep in by oblique turnings, as through burrows under ground. The more watchful, then, ought the godly to be, so that they may escape their hidden frauds: for however they may insinuate themselves, they cannot circumvent those who are carefully vigilant.

He calls them opinions of perdition, or destructive opinions, that every one, solicitous for his salvation, might dread such opinions as the most noxious pests. As to the word opinions or heresies, it has not, without reason, been always deemed infamous and hateful by the children of God; for the bond of holy unity is the simple truth. As soon as we depart from that, nothing remains but dreadful discord.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them.&quot;


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:7e77ed13c0]
So you would say that they were covenant members...correct? But they will receive the curses....right??? 
[/quote:7e77ed13c0]

Of course.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 19, 2004)

No, that would be reading too much into the text on those words. Make your argument on the phrase &quot;false teachers among you&quot; not &quot;even denying the Lord who bought them.&quot; 

Also, I would argue what you are arguing from verse 21.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 19, 2004)

Clarification: Yes, the [i:1366e1015b]verse[/i:1366e1015b] teaches that non-elect people can be in covenant with God. They [i:1366e1015b]think[/i:1366e1015b] they are members, but deny the Lord in thier actions and lifestyle.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Apr 19, 2004)

Deuteronomy 32:6 sounds a lot like 2 Peter 2:1.

&quot;Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father who [i:38ed9e617a]bought[/i:38ed9e617a] you? Has he not made you and established you?&quot;

Just throwing that out there.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:dba595edc1]thanks...one more question, if you don't mind. 

you said they think that they are covenant members but don't you believe that non-elect covenant members are true covenant members? That is, they are really covenant members, not just in their own heads. This is because God will judge them as breakers of the covenant and one cannot break a covenant that he is not in. I mean, God forbid that one of our children is not saved, but you would still say he should have been baptized because, for one, he was truley a covenant member...e.g., Ishmael was a true member of the covenant. 

Do you agree? [/quote:dba595edc1]


Yes, but be more precise - 

These &quot;false teachers&quot; are in covenant with God. They believe themselves to be partakers of the realties of the Covenant of Grace in terms of positive benefit (i.e. Christ's blood applied to them). this is not the reality. They are saying they receive positive benefits, but in fact will receive the curses of the covenant because God will avenge His people against all who teach falsely.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:b0010c0263]
so, since they believe they were bought (since they do that means they probably professed and were baptized) that puts them into the covenant but they will receive the curses....right? 
[/quote:b0010c0263]

Just to be contrary...... 

They were in the visible church but were never federally represented by the Covenant Head (Christ), therefore they are under the curse of the Covenant of Works.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:f7f9aec108]
why does Heb 10 say, &quot;How much more will those be punished who....&quot; Seems to imply a different curse than what your average joe sinner will receive..... 
[/quote:f7f9aec108]

That would apply to anyone who recieved &quot;the knowledge of the truth&quot;, ie; the Gospel message, whether they were a baptized member of the visible church or not.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:fbe77ad230]
so when someone receives the gospel message...e.g., you tell your neighbor that Jesus came to pay our debt and live the life we couldn't and if he beleives that Jesus is savior and Lord he can have eternal life... that person has &quot;counted as unholy the blood of the covenant that sanctified him???&quot; 
[/quote:fbe77ad230]

Point taken. I didn't read far enough down. The passage is describing someone in the visible church: &quot;tares among the wheat&quot;. But the elect cannot &quot;count as unholy the blood of the Covenant (Christ) that sanctified him.&quot; Only the reprobate who is under the curse of the Covenant of Works. 


[quote:fbe77ad230]
Or, take Icor 5. In the OT someone was purgedfrom the covenat people of God...not the covenant of works and God said &quot;purge the evil from among YOU.&quot; Now, I Cor 5 says the exact same thing. So, shouldn't we assume that they are being purged from the covenant that the others are in??? If not, then are beleivers in the covenant of works???
[/quote:fbe77ad230]

When the &quot;evil&quot; is purged from the Church that person shows that they are an unbeliever, therefore reprobate and were actually still under the curse of the Covenant of Works and could not claim Christ as their Covenant head. Also consider 1 Jn 2:19.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 20, 2004)

[quote:c0e52e8868]
yes, of course the elect cannot. but the whole point is whether there can be non-elect in the same covenant as the believers are. 

now you went back in a circle, I said it says &quot;how much more...&quot; implying that they are receiving curses of a &quot;better covenant&quot;...better covenant, better curses, if you will. I know only reprobate can do this but i don't see how you are proving that they are in the CoW??? Basically, what covenant is being referred to when they are said to have broken off from it. That is, what covenant is &quot;The blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified?&quot; That imoplies that they were &quot;set apart&quot; into a covenant. Now, does the CoW have &quot;the blood of it.&quot; No, we are told earlier that a covenant starts when someone dies and the whole context is the new covenant. Why switch meaning mid book without any warning or explanation?
[/quote:c0e52e8868]

The visible church is a covenantal organism only in the sense that the Covenant of Grace defines the stipulations for entrance into the Kingdom of Christ. The CoG can never be effectual for the non-elect because Christ did not die for the non-elect/reprobate. Therefore, the reprobate is still under the CoW but can be in the visible church. The fact that those who answer the General Call give lip service to the stipulations of the CoG and are "sanctified by the blood of the Covenant", ie; the means of grace received in the word and sacraments, does not make the CoG effectual for them. I will not argue that those who fall away will end up in a hotter part of hell because of the knowledge they acquired being part of the visible church, but this does not mean that they were ever "in" the CoG.


[quote:c0e52e8868]
exactly what are they being purged from now? Think of the concept of purge. Something must be in something to be purged from it. I agree that they are reprobate, but when this passage is used in the OT it never meant anything other than the covenant the rest of the people of Israel were in.
[/quote:c0e52e8868]

They are being purged from the visible church. The nation of Israel is the visible church. When in the OT God calls Israel His Covenant people, the term is synonymous with the visible church (all those who make a profession and their children).

The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to argue inclusion in the CoG from the perspective of the Eternal Decrees of election and reprobation. From this perspective, the CoG can only be effectual for the elect. If you were going to include the reprobate in the CoG you would have to argue for the concept of the "Corporate Election". This is where Wilson and Barach had to go because that was the only way they could get around the idea that when Scripture addressed the Church it was addressing the elect. Therefore, all in the church had to be considered elect. But the problem is how to deal with the apostasy passages. They then assume that there are two types of election, corporate and individual. You can loose your corporate election but not your individual election. And all this does is create all kinds of problems for virtually all of the Reformed doctrines since we no longer have a clear definition of election.

Regarding 1 John 2:19, I don't see how a preterist interpretation can be applied. Consider Calvin's comments on this passage:

&quot;19. They went out from us. He anticipates another objection, that the Church seemed to have produced these pests, and to have cherished them for a time in its bosom. For certainly it serves more to disturb the weak, when any one among us, professing the true faith, falls away, than when a thousand aliens conspire against us. He then confesses that they had gone out from the bosom of the Church; but he denies that they were ever of the Church. But the way of removing this objection is, to say, that the Church is always exposed to this evil, so that it is constrained to bear with many hypocrites who know not Christ, really, however much they may by the mouth profess his name.
By saying, They went out from us, he means that they had previously occupied a place in the Church, and were counted among the number of the godly. He, however, denies that they were of them, though they had assumed the name of believers, as chaff though mixed with wheat on the same floor cannot yet be deemed wheat.
For if they had been of us. He plainly declares that those who fell away had never been members of the Church. And doubtless the seal of God, under which he keeps his own, remains sure, as Paul says, (2 Timothy 2:19.) But here arises a difficulty, for it happens that many who seemed to have embraced Christ, often fall away. To this I answer, that there are three sorts of those who profess the Gospel; there are those who feign piety, while a bad conscience reproves them within; the hypocrisy of others is more deceptive, who not only seek to disguise themselves before men, but also dazzle their own eyes, so that they seem to themselves to worship God aright; the third are those who have the living root of faith, and carry a testimony of their own adoption firmly fixed in their hearts. The two first have no stability; of the last John speaks, when he says, that it is impossible that they should be separated from the Church, for the seal which God's Spirit engraves on their hearts cannot be obliterated; the incorruptible seed, which has struck roots, cannot be pulled up or destroyed.
He does not speak here of the constancy of men, but of God, whose election must be ratified. He does not then, without reason declare, that where the calling of God is effectual, perseverance would be certain. He, in short, means that they who fall away had never been thoroughly imbued with the knowledge of Christ, but had only a light and a transient taste of it.
That they might be made manifest. He shews that trial is useful and necessary for the Church. It hence follows, on the other hand, that there is no just cause for perturbation. Since the Church is like a threshing-floor, the chaff must be blown away that the pure wheat may remain. This is what God does, when he casts out hypocrites from the Church, for he then cleanses it from refuse and filth.&quot;

Does this not go on in the Church today?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 20, 2004)

Paul, listen to what Wayne said here:

&quot;The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to argue inclusion in the CoG from the perspective of the Eternal Decrees of election and reprobation. From this perspective, the CoG can only be effectual for the elect. If you were going to include the reprobate in the CoG you would have to argue for the concept of the "Corporate Election". This is where Wilson and Barach had to go because that was the only way they could get around the idea that when Scripture addressed the Church it was addressing the elect. Therefore, all in the church had to be considered elect. But the problem is how to deal with the apostasy passages. They then assume that there are two types of election, corporate and individual. You can loose your corporate election but not your individual election. And all this does is create all kinds of problems for virtually all of the Reformed doctrines since we no longer have a clear definition of election.&quot;

This is important. You cannot say that the reprobate are postiviely affected in any way by the Covenant of Grace. You can say that they partake of the outward blessings of the CoG and are in covenant, but negatively in that it seals their reprobation.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 20, 2004)

[quote:3d0376e473]
quote where I have ever said they were positively affected. All I did was quote what the Bible says...if you guys read into that, then.... I say what the confessions says: &quot;common workings of the spirit.&quot; 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

Could you provide the section of the Confession for this statement so I can get some context? Thanks


[quote:3d0376e473]
I thought wayne was arguing from a credo perspective??? 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

FYI, I am not a Baptist. Never have been and don't plan to be. My position is based on the Westminster Standards, which I fully subscribe to. The more babies baptized the better!!


[quote:3d0376e473]
I think you guys don't like the word covenant and had to say &quot;visable church&quot; 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

I have no problem with the word "Covenant" and I don't have to say "visible Church". I prefer to use the language of the Standards. The Standards do not use the term Covenant as synonymous with the visible church. In the Westminster Forum, I asked a very simple question; How do you define a Covenant and how does that definition work itself out considering the CoW and CoG. How we define Covenant is key. Look at the way Shepherd defines covenant. His definition flattens out all the covenants and the CoW does not fit in his definition.


[quote:3d0376e473]
Are they or are they not in the covenant???
[/quote:3d0376e473]

Everyone from the standpoint of the Decrees is "in the covenant". The question is which one. From the standpoint of the Call of the Gospel, those who agree to the stipulations of the Covenant (answer the call to repent and believe, whether effectually called or generally called) are in the visible church.


[quote:3d0376e473]
I know some just like to use the phrase invisible and visible church, that's fine...I use both. 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

But are they synonymous (visible/invisible = Covenant)?


[quote:3d0376e473]
Bottom line is that when we baptize our children we say it is because they are in the covenant. 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

We baptize them based on the command of God and His promise plus that one of the parents is a professing Christian. They are born in the commonwealth of the Church, therefore should be treated as such.


[quote:3d0376e473]
Baptists say that unbelievers cannot be in the covenant. 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

From the standpoint of the Decrees, Christ did not die for the reprobate. Therefore, the blood of the covenant does not cover them.


[quote:3d0376e473]
I show verses saying that unbelievers can be in the covenant. 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

Unbelievers can be in the visible church and can agree to the stipulations of the covenant. But the CoG is not for them.


[quote:3d0376e473]
Maybe you guys could explain what you saw wrong with what I said....were you misinterpreting my words? 
[/quote:3d0376e473]

Possibly. But I thought you were rather clear.


[quote:3d0376e473]
p.s. Wayne, many have taken a preterist understanding to 1Jn. Mathew Henry, John Owen, Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, Ken Gentry..... to say &quot;I don't know how you could come up with a preterist understanding of this text&quot; implies what you don't know about preterism. The text has a time text...&quot;last hour&quot; implying short period of time. Furthermore, I can incorporate an idealist interpretation, as you did, but idealism is not really interesting and ignores first century reality of fulfillment. As far as my saying &quot;us&quot; was not talking about the elect&quot; I just quoted henry. So, I am not bringing novel things to the table.
[/quote:3d0376e473]

I am very familiar with preterism. I have read enough preterist writers like Gentry to choke a horse. I don't buy into the time limit set by preterists based on every word that can possibly be construed as setting some kind of time frame to the 1st century or 70 AD. It is way to restrictive. The issue surrounding 1 John is not one of fulfillment but application to the Church today. Certainly you would not say that Calvin's comments (Calvin an Idealist? Hmmm....) on this verse are not applicable for today's church?


[quote:3d0376e473]
o.k. so it's just a definitial disagreement. Seriously, I am re-reading the posts and cannot see how you came up with the observations you did. I cannot see where I even implied that the CoG was eggectual for them, or gave them beneifits of more than a general kind.
[/quote:3d0376e473]

My observations are based on your using the words "elect" and "non-elect". These words refer to God's Decrees.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 20, 2004)

Wayne,

Here would be my clarification that I think you depart from - 

along with Witsius, the Puritans wrote extensively on the idea of &quot;covenant.&quot; When they wrote the WCF, they did not take an elenctic approach (as Turretin and Calvin did) in writing their systematics. Rather, they positively assert certain concepts without explaining all the details.

In looking at the idea of the visible/invisible = covenant, I would agree that both do, but in different senses. i would agree with Paul that they are in covenant with God, breaking both the CoW (as in Adam) and the CoG (as with profaning the blood of Christ which sanctified them). (This is where we disagree.)

If you make the CoG coextensive with salvation alone (something that many misinterpret, I think, the Confession to say) then you are going to run into Baptist problems with how covenant actually works out in time. If, on t he other hand, you supply the Covenant of Redemption with that coextensive nature (which is why Book 2 of Witsius describes the Covenant of Redemption and everything Christ did in dying on the Cross) which is what the WCF titles in section 3 &quot;Of God's Decree&quot; and labels all predestination and salvation under that aspect of things, not the covenant of Grace, then that would be consistent with t he confession. When we say that the CoG is &quot;only&quot; &quot;made with the elect, something the WCF does not say, rather, it says &quot;with the elect&quot; which is true, but not completely, then we have to see what else they said in terms of understanding these concepts. (This is actually what i am going to be writing on in my next doctoral class for the Westminster Confession - I want to reconcile the Baptistic argument that the Confession is &quot;inconsistent&quot; because they &quot;say&quot; that the covenant is &quot;made with the elect&quot; but them they go and baptize children who are not &quot;in covenant&quot; with God, but just &quot;in the visible church&quot; - which is just semantics.) If we understand what the Puritans actually thought when they wrote what they wrote, this discussion would not be taking place. We would actually be having more Presbyterians departing from the WCF because of their stance on the conditions of the CoG, something that the seem mess up in modern Presbyterianism since Thornwell (but that is expected as a result of that theological stance.)

So, (breathe), I would say that the framers meant that those in covenant with God are in the New Covenant, thought hey are not partakers of the positive blessings, rather, the covenant curses. The covenant curses of the CoG would mean nothing if they were not in it. They could not profane that covenant if they were not par t of the visible church - which is the CoG. The invisible church is both the CoG and the CoR but more particular , in terms of predestination, the CoR. All election is bound there.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 20, 2004)

Matt,

I understand what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree. My responses to Paul are partially motivated by the &quot;Amill=Agnostic&quot; comment. I thought I would &quot;bust his chops&quot; for a while.


[quote:62c4b9a1d1]
When we say that the CoG is &quot;only&quot; &quot;made with the elect, something the WCF does not say, rather, it says &quot;with the elect&quot; which is true, but not completely, then we have to see what else they said in terms of understanding these concepts. 
[/quote:62c4b9a1d1]

I would be interested to see how you handle WLC 31 - With Whom Was The Covenant of Grace Made? The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

The way this is phrased it appears that the CoG could only apply to those for whom Christ died. It would appear that the problem might be &quot;why did the Divines not specifically address to CoR as a separate covenant vs burying it in the Decrees?&quot;. Also compare the language of the CoG to the definition of the Effectual Calling.


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 20, 2004)

Pastor Wayne, Matthew, Pastor Fred, Kevin (KC), Paul and LOTW:

(I am only including these, as they have spent the most time discussing the issue among Paedo-Baptists on the forum).

I'm not seeking to debate, rather I am only wanting to know if I have correctly understood your positions concerning the COG.

It appears that there are at least three different understandings that each of you take

My question is: Have I properly understood each of you?

Position 1 (Fred Greco) : Each of the historic covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic and New) are outward administrations of the covenant of grace (but should not be confused as themselves being the covenant of grace). Each of the historic covenants had both elect and non-elect members. The covenant of grace of which the historic covenants are outward administrations, includes the elect alone. 

Position 2 (Wayne Wylie) : Each of the covenants of promise (including the Abrahimic and Mosaic) were outward administrations of the covenant of grace. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. The former covenants, as administrations of the COG, included both elect and non-elect, though the covenant of grace itself is with the elect alone. The New Covenant (the fulfillment of the COG) includes the elect alone. The New Covenant is administered through the visible church and the sacraments.

Position 3 (Matthew McMahon, Paul, and LOTW) : Do not clearly distinguish between the Covenant of Grace and the historic covenants. Historically, both the historic covenants and the COG include both elect and non-elect. Eschatologically, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect alone.

I think KC is more in line with Fred Greco, but I'm not so sure.

Am I understanding each of you correctly???



The other shoe isn't going to drop: I just want to make sure I'm not off my rocker in understanding each of you.

Thanks.


----------



## Saiph (Apr 20, 2004)

Wintermute's view:

All members of the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant are partaking of inherent blessings but not necessarily the ultimate blessing of salvation.

ALL COVENANTS ARE CONDITIONAL.

The distinction of COG and New Covenant is just that, a perspective of distinction, NOT a seperation.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 20, 2004)

Wayne - Ok - bust away! 

Dan - 

I am not sure you have Fred pegged.

As for me - 

[quote:a22756dc4e]&quot;Position 3 (Matthew McMahon, Paul, and LOTW) : Do not clearly distinguish between the Covenant of Grace and the historic covenants.&quot;[/quote:a22756dc4e]

There is not &quot;clear&quot; distinction to actually make. The CoG is one covenant with various progressive stages which build upon one another.

[quote:a22756dc4e]&quot;Historically, both the historic covenants and the COG include both elect and non-elect.&quot;[/quote:a22756dc4e]

We would say it this way: the CoG in its various progressive stages include both elect and non-elect, whether for blessing of for cursing.

[quote:a22756dc4e]&quot;Eschatologically, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect alone. &quot;[/quote:a22756dc4e]

Eschatologically? do you positively as in the telios of the positive sanction or the curses? Eschatologically the consummation of the ages will take place, and dependent upon either blessing or cursing the end will come for all men.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Apr 20, 2004)

Dan,

[quote:fc45efdc2a]Do not clearly distinguish between the Covenant of Grace and the historic covenants. Historically, both the historic covenants and the COG include both elect and non-elect. Eschatologically, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect alone.[/quote:fc45efdc2a]

I agree with Matthew's comment about making a &quot;distinction&quot; here.

And I also believe it is improper to equate covenant membership with eternal salvation, so I affirm that the CoG can and does contain both elect and non-elect persons, receiving the blessings and curses of the covenant respectively. The CoG is also conditional in this sense that covenant faithfulness (i.e. faith and repentance, not salvation bv works) reaps blessings and covenant disobedience reaps curses.

As to your comment about being the covenant &quot;eschatologically&quot;, I assume you are referring to the final judgment of all people. At the judgment seat of Christ, only the elect will stand justified and glorified. The non-elect will be purged away and the bride of Christ will be without blemish. The olive tree will be pruned with no dead branches remaining. The times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled and all Israel will be saved. Thus the not yet of the New Covenant will be fulfilled and all shall know Him from the least of them to the greatest. I suppose you could speak of this as being in the covenant &quot;eschatologically&quot;, which of course would include only the elect since only they enjoy eternal bliss with Christ. But since the idea of the covenant concerns much more than just this, it may be a bit simplistic to speak of the covenant in only this way.


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 20, 2004)

Thanks Matthew, Craig and Paul.

Y'all phrased it better than I did. What y'all said is what I was meaning.

[quote:7e696021c0]
Matthew said:

I am not sure you have Fred pegged. 
[/quote:7e696021c0]

I am not sure that I have mis-catagorized Pastor Fred. Possibly my definition of his position may be somewhat lacking in-depth. (I'm sure that he will let us know). Here is a quote from where I am basing this on:

[quote:7e696021c0]
fredtgreco said:

That is why I think that the new covenant cannot be the covenant of grace. One can be the subject of covenant curses of the new covenant (just as one could be of the Abrahamic - Ishmael/Esau, and the Old - the generation in the wilderness), but only the elect are in the covenant of grace. 

[/quote:7e696021c0]

Of course, if you read the whole thread it will be even clearer:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3469

However, I am sure that Pastor Fred will make it clearer if I've mis-labeled him.

Pastor Fred and Pastor Wayne may be on the same page (their differences may be a matter of semantics), but it seems that they are both definately coming from a different direction than Paul, Matthew and Craig. Both of them deny that there be non-elect in the covenant of grace.



[Edited on 4-20-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## Saiph (Apr 20, 2004)

I would say only the Elect can keep the covenant of grace, because Christ has kept it for them.
There are members in the Covenant of grace that Christ did not die for.

Am I wrong here ? ?



[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 21, 2004)

Dan,

Overall, I would agree with how you have described my position. I would tweak it alittle for clarifcation sake but overall I can live with it.

I think the key to the issue is based on Matt's previous post concerning the Covenant of Redemption. Reading the Westminster Standards as is, I would be hard pressed to say that the CoR is anywhere in the Standards. A plain reading shows only two covenants and considering WLC Q31 and WSC Q20, it appears on the face of it, the Divines did not consider a Covenant of Redemption but only the Covenant of Grace and possibly considered the CoR implicit in the CoG. I also went back and read both Hodge and Shaw's commentaries on Chapter 7 and both came to the same conclusion regarding the CoR. I am going to look at some other commentaries and see what they say about the issue.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 21, 2004)

Wayne, just as a side note:

I have been thinking about a paper to write for a class on CT. I have decided to go with Turretin's concepts around the CoG. Turretin does not use the term &quot;CoR&quot; in the same way that the WCF does not use the &quot;CoR as a term. However, I think that Turretin will help clarify what is going on above, because is very precise in terming the CoG conditional, yet, at the same time make the CoR implicit inside the CoG. I think this will be very helpful in clarifying what the WCF is saying, and I think they followed this line of thought. Both chapter 3 of the WCF and of Turretin's first volume are identical in the way they set up the CoG and predestination. Some of the Puritan framers of the Confession, after the penning of the WCF, wrote voluminously on the covenants. Many of them follow Witsius' term, some of them do not, and follow Turretin's divisions. In either case, whether one uses the phrase CoR or not, the end result is still the same based on the preciseness of the concepts implied. Turretin will help here.

I am working on that paper right now and it should be finished in a few days.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:d33ec1bca9]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you define a Covenant and how does that definition work itself out considering the CoW and CoG. How we define Covenant is key. Look at the way Shepherd defines covenant. His definition flattens out all the covenants and the CoW does not fit in his definition 

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



I like childrens answers. &quot;An agreement between two or more persons. 


[/quote:d33ec1bca9]

Is the agreement between equals? Can one of the parties decline to be apart of the agreement?


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:80584c1c68][i:80584c1c68]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:80584c1c68]
[quote:80584c1c68][i:80584c1c68]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:80584c1c68]
[quote:80584c1c68]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you define a Covenant and how does that definition work itself out considering the CoW and CoG. How we define Covenant is key. Look at the way Shepherd defines covenant. His definition flattens out all the covenants and the CoW does not fit in his definition 

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



I like childrens answers. &quot;An agreement between two or more persons. 


[/quote:80584c1c68]

Is the agreement between equals? Can one of the parties decline to be apart of the agreement? [/quote:80584c1c68]

(1) No

(2) depend WHO you are talking about. [/quote:80584c1c68]

(1) Why not?

(2) Would it make a difference?

Let's take it a step further. Obviously God and man are not equals and man cannot decline being apart of a covenant with God. But how about the Covenant of Redemption between God the Father and God the Son? Is this an exception to the definition of a covenant not being between equals?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 22, 2004)

You guys are throwing me off on the &quot;equals&quot; idea. What exactly do you mean that a covenant has to be between equals? If that would be the case, then the CoG is impossible - we are not equal. Nor could the CoR be equal because Christ's humanity, the prophet, priest and King of the covenant, is not equal in certain ways, to the Father. (finite humanity vs infinite Trinity).

What exactly are you trying to work out there? uzzled:


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:9d37d082ca][i:9d37d082ca]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:9d37d082ca]
You guys are throwing me off on the &quot;equals&quot; idea. What exactly do you mean that a covenant has to be between equals? If that would be the case, then the CoG is impossible - we are not equal. Nor could the CoR be equal because Christ's humanity, the prophet, priest and King of the covenant, is not equal in certain ways, to the Father. (finite humanity vs infinite Trinity).

What exactly are you trying to work out there? uzzled: [/quote:9d37d082ca]

I was just fleshing out Paul's definition, which was a tad simplistic for a guy who can explain TAG in such exacting detail (very impressive I might add). I was expecting so much more.

Just a thought regarding the CoR, since this covenant is considered the &quot;eternal&quot; covenant between God the Father and God the Son, how would one avoid the charge of subordinationism within the trinity if God the Father and God the Son were not co-equal?


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:26e87ce3ff][i:26e87ce3ff]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:26e87ce3ff]
Just a thought regarding the CoR, since this covenant is considered the &quot;eternal&quot; covenant between God the Father and God the Son, how would one avoid the charge of subordinationism within the trinity if God the Father and God the Son were not co-equal? [/quote:26e87ce3ff]


Very interesting question???


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and man are not equals and man cannot decline being apart of a covenant with God. 

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



What do you mean? Irresistably, no. But non-elect have an option. If I give someone the gospel call and he says, &quot;no thanks&quot; then didn't he decline to be in covenant with God??? 



The reprobate is in Covenant with God. Though the reprobate says &quot;no thanks&quot; they are still in their sin under the Covenant of Works. Everyone is federally represented in the Covenant with Adam or Christ, the Second Adam.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:2c9e722081]
Sorry, was assuming that you knew these things enough that I didn't have to explain it like I would do a Dispensational. And, you asked simple questions, i can only give you simple answers. But, again, sorry to disapoint you. 

Ontological, yes. Economical no. Was that to simplistic? 

[/quote:2c9e722081]

No problem. Not disappointed. Should have made myself more clear. Different definitions of the covenant can provide different views of how they work. This is the problem with Shepherd.

Can the economical contradict the ontological? If they are co-equal in the ontological (essense) how can they not be in the economical? The economic only provides the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, otherwise this is subordinationism.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

From my understanding of the Covenant of Redemption, this covenant is an &quot;eternal&quot; covenant between God the Father and God the Son. The key is that it is an eternal covenant (whatever that may mean). Now if you were to argue a subordination based on the office of Redeemer, which it appears Sproul is arguing based on Christ's humiliation, I think that would fit better in the Covenant of Grace, assuming the CoG to be the working out of the CoR.

I have read Call to Grace three or four times know and Shepherd turns out to be a heretic everytime. Enjoy the book.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 22, 2004)

what do you think this means: 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.&quot; His meat and his drink were to do the will of the father. he was commissioned by the father to come into the world for the work of redemption in the Godhead itself, one sends the other, and the one who sends is said to be greater that the one who is sent in terms of economic distinctions and the structure by which the Godhead works. 

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

The statement relates to Christ's humiliation and His office as Redeemer. There is no question regarding this point. The question is does this relate to the CoR or the CoG? Plus, though Christ &quot;voluntarily&quot; subordinated Himself to the will of the Father, is God the Son inherently subordinate to God the Father in the economic Trinity in order to meet the definition of a Covenant (in particular the CoR), in that the parties are not equal.


[quote:a81dfd623b]
re: shepard: good, then I will be expecting your responses. I want to post (very) small chapter summary in another forum and see how people interact. I only read the intro and he says that (paraphrase): Tulip is important and is true, but the most important thing of reformed theology is CT. 

I would assume that you would agree with Luther. But would Shepards view on this be &quot;heretical?&quot; 

And, can you help me? Tell me in advance exactly what is heretical from your impression of the book. 
[/quote:a81dfd623b]

Our Justification is based on an &quot;active, obedient&quot; faith.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:82717311c9]
But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in &quot;modes of subsistence,&quot; as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence.
[/quote:82717311c9]

This quote is a good one. It brings focus to the two Covenants; CoR and CoG. Since the CoR is a Covenant made in eternity between the Godhead then you can not say that a Covenant can't be between equals. Since the CoG is that working out of the CoR in history, a voluntary subordinationism based on modes of operation, can be argued in the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2004)

[quote:c59a72950a]
From my understanding of the Covenant of Redemption, this covenant is an &quot;eternal&quot; covenant between God the Father and God the Son. The key is that it is an eternal covenant (whatever that may mean).
[/quote:c59a72950a]

Wayne I know you like to take the WCF at face value on understanding these terms. Here is what they said in the Standards on the CoR and CoG to maybe clarify, because I think you may need to add this into your conceptions of the church visible:

Sum of Saving Knowledge: (Head 2, paragraphs 1-3)

The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of grace. Hos. xiii. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. 

I. Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, to wit, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the [b:c59a72950a]covenant of redemption[/b:c59a72950a], made and agreed upon, between God the Father and God the Son, in the counsel of the Trinity, before the world began. 

II. The sum of the [b:c59a72950a]covenant of redemption[/b:c59a72950a], is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to t he law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross : But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings. 

III. For the accomplishment of this [b:c59a72950a]covenant of redemption[/b:c59a72950a], and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the [i:c59a72950a]covenant of grace[/i:c59a72950a], Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to interceed continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies. 


(Make sure that we are on the same page - the WCF does in fact talk about both the CoG and the CoR.) I thought this may help clarify in the discussion....


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 26, 2004)

[quote:00acdef5b3]
Now, I believe that some foreign divines, and some in England, carried out this covenant form of theology in detail in a manner that might be called anthropomorphic. Yet it is evident that if God's dealings with man are ethical, if in their essential nature the system of redemption grew out of the relations of persons, and if the process consisted in the way of teaching, of commandments, of promises, of threatenings, of the presence of motives addressed to the will, and of determinate actions of form and character, then, in its last analysis, all the dealings of God must necessarily come back to this form of a covenant. [b:00acdef5b3]What is the essence of a covenant between equals except a mutual understanding and the agreement of two wills ? What is the essential nature of a covenant formed between a superior and inferior but this--a conditional promise?[/b:00acdef5b3] The promise is a reward on the condition of obedience, associated with threatening of punishment on the condition of disobedience. It follows from this, necessarily, that if you begin with an eternity, an eternal plan of God must be a mutual one in which the three Persons come to an understanding and knowledge of that common purpose in which they distribute among themselves reciprocally their several functions. Then when God comes to deal with any intelligent creature, whether it be an angel or a man, under any circumstances, if he commands or promises, or if he threatens, you have there all the elements of a covenant, because a, covenant is simply a mutual understanding, and the covenant imposed by a superior upon an inferior is simply a conditional promise. Hence we have the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace. 

A.A. Hodge
[/quote:00acdef5b3]

This may help in explaining the CoR being between equals.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 8, 2004)

2 Peter 2:1

2 Peter 2
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

As I study this I wonder if this speaks &quot;clearly&quot; to Lordship salvation? Meaning that a false teacher is one who may &quot;claim&quot; Christ but deny Him as Lord of their life?

The Greek word used for Lord here is only used 10 times in the NT and each time it is used it always means &quot;one who has supreme authority&quot;.

Alos &quot;who bought them&quot; translates like &quot;a slave master who is OWED submission&quot; from those he has purchased.

I can only find four other possible ways to see this text.

1) They are saved but have lost their salvation (something I believe the scriptures teach does NOT happen.)

2) The Lord created them but they are not saved. (This takes away from the word &quot;bought&quot; which translates &quot;redeemed&quot;.

3) They just &quot;claimed&quot; to be saved. (Requires you to read into the text).

4) They were redeemed by Christ's death but chose NOT to accept it. (This is armenian, which I am not).

So am I correct in thinking this verse tells us that there are MANY false teachers who will discuss Jesus and &quot;His ways&quot; but do not feel a need to submit their lives to Him totally and completely? And if so, they are clearly NOT Christians?


----------

