# Apostasy



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2007)

Mod Note:
!hr!
This is split off from another thread on the New Covenant and Jer. 31:31-34. It took a turn into another discussion that should probably be pursued separately. 

Paul set up a situation where he asked this question during the debate with Gene Cook. I thought it was hypothetical and so I start off defending my reasons. 



> Suppose you met someone on a bus who happened to be a backsliding New Covenant Member. From your conversation with him he appears to you to be an unbeliever. He says he doesn’t like Christianity. He doesn’t believe in it. And he is living with his girl friend.




Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the gospel. There is a level of sin that a justified believer will not enter into. It is the sin unto death. We are not to even pray for this according to John. Even an excommunicated person may be in sin but he will not totally reject the truth if he is a New Covenant member. He may not comply with it but he will not deny the truth of Christ. If a person does this and totally does not believe the Gospel no more I would consider that they never knew the LORD. They deny the LORD and He will deny them. And this is the kind of person you described. An excommunicated member or one struggling with a sin may struggle with assurance but they will not deny that the LORD has paid for the sin of His people. I can't say that I have ever told another believer to become a rebeliever again. BTW, rebeliever is a new word I just thought up. Do you like it? To have someone become an unbeliever in the Gospel and deny Jesus is Jehovah is beyond a believers reach. Because the seed in him is not corruptible.

(1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
!hr!



Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I gave you a response and you just don't seem to like my responses. Your arugement that I don't have a response is fallacious and negates what I have said or asked.
> ...



I am not so sure my responses are irrelevant. And you don't seem to answer my questions?


Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Does this part of the passage only apply to some of those or all of those whom God is speaking about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Are some of the sins covered for all men in the New Covenant, or are all of the sins of some men covered, or are all the sins of all men covered for those in the New covenant. I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently and I believe the text has also. Everyone whom God makes this New Covenant with has their INIQUITIES FORGIVEN and their SINS ARE REMEMBERED NO MORE.
> ...




I am not so sure Jeremiah is only speaking of all classes. I think he is speaking of all classes and all of the people here. And I think this is defined in Jeremiah 42 also. Jeremiah is writing about a group of people who are left and spoken of as a remnant. They are all wanting Jeremiah to petition the Lord on their behalf. I don't get why you are having a hard time with this. 



> (Jer 42:1) Then all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest, came near,
> 
> (Jer 42:2) And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD thy God, even for all this remnant; (for we are left but a few of many, as thine eyes do behold us



Here is Keil and Delitzsch


> Jer 42:1-6 -
> "And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer_42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer_42:3. That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz., Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer_42:1., insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer_40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer_43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer_42:1 of this chapter. Hitzig, Ewald, etc., are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer_43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer_40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer_42:1 and Jer_40:8) is highly improbable. *They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer_41:16). תּפּל־נא as in Jer_37:20; see on Jer_36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish;* - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce," since it is quite plain from Jer_43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet. But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer_42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God. We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord's reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.



I do believe Jeremiah is being petitioned by all of the people who are included in this remnant to intercede for them. They are not the wholel of Isreal. This is obvious by the text. They are not all of the Covenant Community. They are a remnant and it is defined as such. The text defines who these people are. I also believe the text in Jeremiah 31 defines everyone in the New Covenant to be those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are remembered no more. It isn't that hard to understand. 





Tom Bombadil said:


> Where does it say "need" in the passage? Is your exegsis of the verse this: "No longer will a man [need to] tell his neighbor and brother to knwo the Lord?" Why do you get to just magically insert phrases in Scripture??? That's an odd method of biblical scholarship.
> 
> And, furthermore, I will not do anything Scripture says I will not do. If Scripture says that I will not do X, I will not do X. Scripture says I will not sin in heaven, I will not sin. Scripture says in the new heavens and earth, "no longer" will there be any curse. That means, no curse. What don't you get here, Randy?



I am not a Hebrew Scholar Paul and I am not capable of discerning whether hyperbole is spoken here. Calvin believes hyperbole is spoken here. Just check it out. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> In the OC people actually took their physical mouths, and formed their physical lips and vibrated their physical vocal cords to get the soud waves to come out , and then the waves vibrated off ear drums and sent signals to the brain, Israelites interpreted those waves as "Hey neighbor, you need to know the Lord." That is because they thought they did not know the Lord. but, now in the NC, you say it is all (at least Jer. 31) fulfilled now. it says, "no loger will the above happen." I have shown that it does happen. Out of the millions (or billions) of regenerate NC members who have existed, surely hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) have fallen into sin, acted as an unregenerate unbeliever, maybe even got excommunicated. Randy's hypothesis is that no other NC member ever told any of these NC members to "know the Lord." If even one NC member has told another NC member to "know the Lord," then your theory is debunked. Simply announcing that you have answered it, isn't an answer.



First off let me say that I have answered your situation and that you just don't like my answer. Your proclamation that I have no answer is not true. Does everlasting always mean everlasting in the scriptures. I know Reformed theologians who do not think so. I think you need to read things in context. The New Covenant is a reality. The New Covenant is in Christ now. His work is complete and the New Covenant is in His blood. Everyone who is a member in the New Covenant, in Christ, is assured of eternity with Christ based solely upon His work. Their union with Christ assures them of eternal life. They can not apostatize. That is one of the identifiers of someone who is a New Covenant member. Or let me ask you. Can a person who has his iniquities forgiven and his sin remembered no more apostatize? Maybe you believe they can. 

In the Old Covenant, not all of them shared in the Everlasting Covenant that Isaac shared in. So the encouragement to know the LORD with those who didn't Know God in a saving way should have been proclaimed. The same is true today. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> > So do we need to evangelize a backslidden Christian? Can't this be a general statement where the LORD is simply making a statement that everyone who is in the New Covenant already knows the LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> It says, "no one will tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." No you say that this is not what the text means! But, they did do this in the OC. So, how is the NC different???? How is the claim about what will happen in the NC different from the OC? In the OC people actually told other people to "know the Lord." (Read the Bible, the prophets say this frequently!!) So, this "no longer" refers to something that will "cease." We know that people actually used their mouths to say "know the Lord." but Randy rips all that out of context just to "save" his theory.



In the New Covenant Community this is true because the text says the reason why this is true is because they will all know Him. As I pointed out before Jesus said knowing God was eternal life. So If someone has received Christ and is justified, their sins are remembered no more, and their iniquity is forgiven do you need to tell them to know the LORD so they can have their sins forgiven and their sins remembered no more again? I believe these are the people considered to be in the New Covenant. 

Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the gospel. There is a level of sin that a justified believer will not enter into. It is the sin unto death. We are not to even pray for this according to John. Even an excommunicated person may be in sin but he will not totally reject the truth if he is a New Covenant member. He may not comply with it but he will not deny the truth of Christ. If a person does this and totally does not believe the Gospel no more I would consider that they never knew the LORD. They deny the LORD and He will deny them. And this is the kind of person you described. An excommunicated member or one struggling with a sin may struggle with assurance but they will not deny that the LORD has paid for the sin of His people. I can't say that I have ever told another believer to become a rebeliever again. BTW, rebeliever is a new word I just thought up. Do you like it? To have someone become an unbeliever in the Gospel and deny Jesus is Jehovah is beyond a believers reach. Because the seed in him is not corruptible.

(1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Paul, I believe the New Covenant member is in union with Christ. Their iniquities are forgiven and God will remember their sins no more. I believe this is the doctrine of the New Testament also. You obviously do not. I also believe that believers baptism is what happened in the Early Church. This passage is not the stand all to defend or refute believers baptism. But that is another discussion.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

All that work, gladd it is so simple to respond to:

1) Infats were in the community of people Jer. was referring to. The exiles had infants, Randy. The response is to all the exiles, Randy. Not "some" of them. But, the "all/least to greatest" was not all the people. Your commentary does not refute my understanding

2) Hyperbole in one place, but not in another??/ Sounds arbitrary, Randy.

3)


> Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the gospel. There is a level of sin that a justified believer will not enter into.



I said he *said* he no longer believed the gospel. Anyway, here's a refutation:



> Luke 22:
> 
> 54Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. 55But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. 56A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him."
> 57But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said.
> ...




Many regenerate Christians can outwardly deny that they trust in Christ. This does not change the fact that if they really believed, God justified them. 

You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> All that work, gladd it is so simple to respond to:
> 
> 
> I said he *said* he no longer believed the gospel. Anyway, here's a refutation:
> ...



This is before Peter was Converted.



> (Luk 22:31) And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
> 
> (Luk 22:32) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
> 
> ...



Your refutation is mistaken. After Christ rose from the dead, and Peter was Converted, and filled with the Spirit, he never denied Christ again because he was converted and received power for his conversion. 






Tom Bombadil said:


> You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.



And you have no answer for the truth that New Covenant Members sins are remembered no more by God and that their iniquities are forgiven. I'll end my side from here as you are.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.



Tom, although I have been learning a lot from these various threads, I really am starting to dislike them because we tend to be rude in our comments to one another (and I mean all of us from the least to the greatest )

But, I have a question regarding your understanding of this "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." Aren't there a few senses in which the phrase "know the Lord" is used in the Scripture? I can think of two at the very least:

One would involve salvation (eternal life) in general:



> John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.



And another would involve an increasing knowledge of God for those who already have eternal life:



> Ephesians 4:11-13 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;



The first is true of the New Covenant people in the here and now (from a Baptist perspective) in that all members of the New Covenant "know the Lord" because they all have eternal life. The second is increasing and won't be fulfilled until the consummation (which is the "not yet") since we don't know him as we are known.

So, whereas we don't have to preach the gospel to members of the New Covenant in order to "get them saved" (I hate that phrase), we do continue to preach the gospel to them as a means of continued discipleship.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

I came back to add one more thing to my above post, but let me briefly address the below:



> This is before Peter was Converted.



ROTFL!  This is ripe. Let's look a couple verses earlier:



> 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your *faith* may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."



So unconverted men have faith!!

How about:



> Matthew 16:16
> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."



Or,



> Luke 5:8
> When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"



Unconverted, children of the flesh can admit those things???

I take it that I have now fully refuted Randy's view of Jer. 31. My "hypothetical" counter argument works. It has sustained all of Randy's counter arguments. he has been forced to grasp at straws, make rather ridiculous claims, just to save his theory. 



> And you have no answer for the truth that New Covenant Members sins are remembered no more by God and that their iniquities are forgiven. I'll end my side from here.



I believe NC members sins are rememered no more. This will fully be realized in heaven, not now when the historical administration is attached to it.

Anyway, regarding Jer 42. The remnant is the remnantleft at Judah and Mitzpah. We know that there were children included in this remnant:

Jer. 40:7 When all the army officers and their men who were still in the open country heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam as governor over the land and had put him in charge of the men, women and *children* who were the poorest in the land and who had not been carried into exile to Babylon

But in Jer. 42 all this remnant, from least to greatest it says, did this: "42:1 the least to the greatest approached 2 Jeremiah the prophet and said to him, "Please hear our petition and pray to the LORD your God for this entire remnant. For as you now see, though we were once many, now only a few are left. 3 Pray that the LORD your God will tell us where we should go and what we should do."

Surely there were young children, even infants included in this large remnant. Does the baptist belieev that young children, even infants, did the above? Those pagan sons of Adam. Those God haters. They weren't "mature" yet. 

Okay, now I really am done.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
> ...



I gave a long and detailed argument above. Consult it first before responding. You can see the argument developed, and how your response is irrelevant, in this thread. People in the OC actually told people to "know the Lord." it said this would stop. No longer will it be done. I gave real world examples where it does indeed happen.

Don't cionfuse my curtness with rudeness. I don't have time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > This is before Peter was Converted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every man has some kind of faith. A Chrisitian's faith is made alive and right by the Spirit of God by grace.


I have seen many men who acknowledge Jesus is Lord but they want nothing to do with Him. 

And yes, I do believe unconverted men can see the Holy and cower. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> I take it that I have now fully refuted Randy's view of Jer. 31.
> Okay, now I really am done.





Thanks for the time Paul. 
Be Encouraged brother.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 9, 2007)

If you say so, brother.



> 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."



Wouldn't he already be sifted? Satan shouldn't worry about those who are currently his!

What did he "turn back" to? His previous unconverted position???!


How about Matt 16?



> 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
> 
> 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
> 
> 17Jesus replied, "*Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven*. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.



How about:



> John6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
> 
> 67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
> 
> ...



Why wasn't unconverted Simon grouped in here too? 

And how about this:



> John 13:6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
> 
> 7 Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
> 
> ...



I'm astonished, frankly. It appears that you will never let anyone critique your baptist belief. It seems that there is no point to engage in objective argumentation with you, then. it seems there is a "save the theory at all cost!" attitude. A, don;t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up attitude.

if you want to believe Peter was unconverted, not much I can do about that. A dead sinner, God-hater, man at enmity would not say those things from the heart. There is zero indication that he was lying, or the the Bible is misleading us. Interesting that Judas is not spoken of like this!

Anyway, have a good night, brother.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 9, 2007)

Whenever scripture says, 'all', how often does it mean 'every single one without exception'? Not very often. 

This is the trouble Arminians run into with John 3:16. 'God so loved the world' must mean that He, 
loved everything about the world, 
loved everything in the world, and 
loved everyone in the world. 

The Bible often does not speak in absolute terms.
We would agree that one must be baptized in order to be saved. But we don't see that as an absolute. 
He is the 'Saviour of all men' but he is not the Saviour of absolutely every man. 

We are to pray for kings and all who are in authority, 'from the least to the greatest'. Does that mean He absolutely desires the salvation of absolutely everyone?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 9, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> If you say so, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is why Peter was not grouped with or acted like Judas.



> (Joh 17:12) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.



The LORD had kept him. I am not saying Peter is lost and outside of Christ as you seem to be putting words in my mouth. Christ had him. He was a member of the flock of Christ's sheep. I am just saying something was different with him before Christ rose from the dead, and after He rose, and after the LORD filled the disciples with the Spirit. There is a marked difference. There was some conversion that fixed Peter solely upon Christ that he didn't have before. But to make my point that a man who is lost can do God's bidding and bless the LORD and His people lets look at Balaam. He could only speak what the LORD would have him speak and he had to bless Isreal instead of curse them. 

I am not saying I fully understand this. I have thought about this for many years. And the answers are not as clear for me as they seem to be for you. But then again you are more gifted than I am. Some of us just have to work on things a little longer before we fully understand. I am glad you have it all figured out. Some people do believe in preveniant grace. Others don't. If I am not mistaken Augustine did. I am not sure if I do. I do believe in Common grace and imagine there are different levels of God's influencing grace upon people. 

In conclusion I do not believe a New Covenant Christian will ever do what you suggested in your statement with Gene. And the 1689 doesn't suggest that a backslider would either as I stated above. 

*This is off topic a bit so if you want to carry on with this make a new thread and we can split this.

*


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 9, 2007)

> In conclusion I do not believe a New Covenant Christian will ever do what you suggested in your statement with Gene.



Yes, Peter did. When Jesus said he would "turn back" what was he talking about? Peter would "turn back" to his unconverted self??? Why did Jesus *commend* Peter's faith? Why would Jesus commend a "kinda sorta" pagan faith? (And, btw, should Peter have been rebaptized! Or did his baptism point AHEAD to future realites? Peter is an instance of paedobaptism on your terms  )

Anyway, you're saying a NC believer will never *say* that he doesn't believe in Christianity???? How would you prove that? Offer an argument.

But, my argument doesn't need it. Here's the argument:

1) All those who have been excommuicated are to be treated as if they were unbelievers.
2) All those who are treated as if they are unbelievers should be told to know the Lord.
3) All those who have been excommunicated should be told to know the Lord.
4) Some NC members can be excommunicated.
5) Some NC memebrs should be told to know the Lord.

Let's look at I Cor.5



> 1 Corinthians 5
> Expel the Immoral Brother!
> 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.



If that person is unrepentant, and continuing to live like the above, he needs to be told to know the Lord. Instances like this happen a lot. That can happen to NC members too. Your confession agrees

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, *fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein*, whereby they incur God's displeasure and *grieve his Holy Spirit*, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, *have their hearts hardened*, and their consciences wounded, *hurt and scandalize others*, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end. 

!!!!!!

If a meet someone who is currently exhibiting the above, showing no signs of repentance, I will tell them that they need to know the Lord. They are, seemingly, headed to hell and they need a savior. Your theology here, randy, is actually dangerous. That you wouldn't tell the above type person to "know the Lord" is rather scary.

Is Randy saying that it is impossible that a NC member could fall into grevious sin, and leave his family for another woman, stopping to provide for them? I don't see why this is impossible. Randy's confession seems to allow for it. Let's see how this person is described:



> 1 Timothy 5:8
> If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.



So can a NC member not do this for a time? Is this impossible? Sure, they would eventually repent, and turn back, but what is the argument that NC members could not fall into this sin? If we think we are above these sins, BEWARE. I actually think Randy is offering dangerous teachings all in the name of saving his credobaptism!

Now, if the above *can* be said to be true of a NC member, then you should tell them to "know the Lord." Here's the argument:

1. All who have denied the faith and are worse off than unbelievers should be told to know the Lord.
2. Those who falter in a 1 Timothy 5:8 kind of way have denied the faith and are worse off than an unbeliever.
3. Therefore Those who falter in a 1 Timothy 5:8 kind of way should be told to know the Lord.

Now, can a NC member do this:



> Matt 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, *treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector*.



Certainly this is possible for a NC member to do. Right/ or is this another sin that NC members cannot commit per Randy's dangerous theory? If an NC member can do the above, he should be, per Jesus' teachings, be treated as a pagan or a tax collector. So, we can offer this argument:

1. All those who are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors should be told to know the Lord.
2. Some NC members are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors.
3. Some NC members should be told to know the Lord.

So, on the one hand you have my arguments, on the other you have wild and ad hoc theories offered up by Randy. Randy has not addressed my arguments, and his position leads to dangerous theological implications. All positions which lead to dangerous theological implications should be rejected. Randy's theories should be rejected. 

My conclusion has been shown to follow. Randy's only counter - the Peter was not converted counter - has been disproven and shown to have wild implications (e.g., Jesus commending false faith, Jesus saying that he would "turn back" to his unconverted self, etc.,). Not only that, I have shown that my conclusion follows even without the Peter argument.

I take it that, therefore, I have proven that in the here and now, this side of the Jordan, the prophecy in Jeremiah is not completely fulfilled. This will only and finally happen in the glorious new heavens and earth. There, every NC member will have his sins forgiven, all will know the Lord and no one will tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord. During its historical outworking, we will have those who are in the covenant legally. They are mixed in among us. On the last day they will be judged. The Lord will judge his people (Heb. 10:30).


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 9, 2007)

Let's also note that Randy has given no scriptural argument for his claim that a backslidding Christian cannot *say* that he doesn't believe Christianity is true.

What verses would support this?

I never said the guy *apostatized,* a final and complete falling away.

All we have so far is Randy's mere extra-scriptural assertion that "A NC member would not do that."

So, besides my positive case that they would, and there are times we would tell them to know the Lord regardless of the denal thing, Randy must also make a positive case for his assertion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 9, 2007)

This is split off from another thread on the New Covenant and Jer. 31:31-34. It took a turn into another discussion that should probably be pursued separately. 

Paul set up a situation where he asked this question during the debate with Gene Cook. I thought it was hypothetical and so I start off defending my reasons. 



> Suppose you met someone on a bus who happened to be a backsliding New Covenant Member. From your conversation with him he appears to you to be an unbeliever. He says he doesn’t like Christianity. He doesn’t believe in it. And he is living with his girl friend.


Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the gospel. There is a level of sin that a justified believer will not enter into. It is the sin unto death. We are not to even pray for this according to John. Even an excommunicated person may be in sin but he will not totally reject the truth if he is a New Covenant member. He may not comply with it but he will not deny the truth of Christ. If a person does this and totally does not believe the Gospel no more I would consider that they never knew the LORD. They deny the LORD and He will deny them. And this is the kind of person you described. An excommunicated member or one struggling with a sin may struggle with assurance but they will not deny that the LORD has paid for the sin of His people. I can't say that I have ever told another believer to become a rebeliever again. BTW, rebeliever is a new word I just thought up. Do you like it? To have someone become an unbeliever in the Gospel and deny Jesus is Jehovah is beyond a believers reach. Because the seed in him is not corruptible.

(1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 12, 2007)

I haven't abandoned the discussion. I had an argument set all up for Paul but my computer and television which operate through a provider died on my last Tuesday in the early hours of the morning. It was just restored tonight around 7:00 PM. So I will pick up on this Monday. Sorry if it looked like I bailed. I didn't.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 13, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Don't cionfuse my curtness with rudeness. I don't have time.


A time of prayer might be in order. I've just read some incredibly condescending discussion that was, in fact, very rude. 

Randy makes a good point here, but I think he isn't quite grasping the significance. I disagree that Peter wasn't converted yet (ironically, I find that thought too dispensational ). I think it's clear that he was converted. How else could he make such insightful (inspired) statements about Jesus? This part of the discussion hinges on the fact that Peter denied he knew Christ. Put the point is, he did not deny the Gospel. He did not say that God's Word is not true. The person in the hypothetical discussion did. There is a vast difference. Hebrews 6 would appear to clearly apply to this former professing believer. Hebrews 12 would appear to clearly apply to Peter. The man who has walked away from the truth has blasphemed the Holy Spirit by calling Him a liar after having the truth revealed and partaking of the benefits of the body of Christ. Peter did not do the same thing.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

Randy, let's also make sure we head off any straw men. You wrote:



> RANDY: Paul set up a situation where he asked this question during the debate with Gene Cook. I thought it was hypothetical and so I start off defending my reasons.
> 
> Paul HAD SAID: Suppose you met someone on a bus who happened to be a backsliding New Covenant Member. From your conversation with him he appears to you to be an unbeliever. He says he doesn’t like Christianity. He doesn’t believe in it. And he is living with his girl friend.
> 
> RANDY REPLY: Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the *gospel*.



Let's note some things:

1) The word "Gosepl" isn't in what you quote from me.

2) I said he *SAID* that he "doesn't like and believe in Christianity."

3) To say "he doesn't believe the Gospel" could mean "he has rejected Jesus and his life and death in sich a way that he is no longer saved." That's not what I said, or implied.

4) To say, "he doesn't believe the Gospel" could mean "he outwardly professes unbelief." That is my sense. Now, just like a *profession* does not make someone elect, a *professed rejection* of Jesus does not make one an apostate. Apostacy is a life long thing. A willful and perpetual, and final turning away. No regenerate person can apostatize, but regenerate members may outwardly reject Jesus, as was proved with Peter above.

5) In some sense, we all reject the Gospel on a daily basis. I need to hear it every day. Every hour. Every minute. I frequently try to acheive right standing by my works. That is a denial of the Gospel. I am a sinner, and it is only a dishonest person who says otherwise.

6) Let's note that, unfortunately, Randy's answer to the claim that we might deny Jesus is the same as the prideful and flesh-trusting answer Peter gave:

Matt 26:33 But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away because of You, *I will never fall away*."

Tread lightly!

7) Let's note that Peter "fell away" by "denying Jesus." Allegedly, new covenant members, saved men and women, cannot "fall away" for a time. This gives us the absurd conclusion that not only was Peter allegedly "unconverted," *so was every other disciple*, including John, the one Jesus loved most. We thus read:

Matt. 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, "*You will all fall away* because of Me this night, for it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.'

Unless Jesus was, per impossible, lying, then we have not only Peter, bet every disicple either (a) doing what Randy says they cannot do, (b) or being unconverted. Which is more probably, (a) or (b)?

8) Make note that Randy had to take out the better translation I used, and swap it with the KJV. Here the greek word is epistrepho, and its meaning is to "turn again, revert, return about, come again." He is unfairly biasing the debate by using a translation that uses the *word* he's after. He thus commits an exegetical fallacy.

9) Anyway, as I've said above, I think my positive arguments are insurmountable. Not only that, Randy has failed (up to this point) to offer a positive exegetical case for his reading. He's using "I don't take it that way" hermeneutics. To argue that Peter was unconverted does severe dammage to the rest of Scripture. Randy's reading thus violates the _analogia fidei_. It furthermore promotes and promulgates dangerous practical theology. For me this has moved beyind a mere academic discussion. I want to make sure other people, especially younger guys, don't buy into this, for lack of a better phrase, Petrine Swagger.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Don't cionfuse my curtness with rudeness. I don't have time.
> ...



I apologize for the rudeness. This has a larger context based on public misrepresentations of my position.

ANyway, Joe, I don't think you read the discussion as you say you have. Where did I say that anyone "denied the gospel," and, what is meant by that phrase. Tell me that you are not putting words, and approving of words being put into, my mouth. Prayer should be sought for slander as well.

I never argued that a believer could *actually* apostatize.

Anyway, where do you get the idea that someone could not *say* that God's word is not true? Where do you get that from?

And, where do you get the idea that someone could not believe (have a positive cognitive attitude toward the proposition) it for a time? Reject it for a time.

Where do you get the idea that a sinner, running from God, could not *tell* another person that he doesn't believe Christianity anymore? Perhaps he doesn't want to be confronted with his sin. Perhaps he doesn't want the guy prying into his former life.

I'm honestly scratching my head at how you can believe that no nregenerate perosn could ever, for a time, say he doesn't believe in Christianity anymore.

Are we above that sin? And, note, *that sin* is *not* apostacy. It is not "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" - the life long rejection, denial, and final abandonement of a profession of faith.

I don't think "Peter did the same thing" s the "Hebrews apostate." I never said he did. I never said any regenerate person did. Randy (and you) have had to make a straw man out of my argument in order to knock it down. That, in and of itself, is very telling.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

Matt 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, *treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.* 

Certainly this is possible for a NC member to do, right? Or, is this _yet another_ sin that NC members cannot commit? If an NC member can do the above, he should be, _per Jesus' teachings_, be treated as a pagan or a tax collector. So, we can offer this argument:

1. All those who are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors should be told to know the Lord.
2. Some NC members are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors.
3. Some NC members should be told to know the Lord.

Which premise do you disagree with? if you deny (1), you deny that all *pagans* should be told to "know the Lord." If you deny (2), you deny that a NC member can be excommunicated, which is false. If you cannot deny (1) or (2), then (3) necessarily follows. QED.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

1 Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, *he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever*." 

So can a NC member not do this for a time? Is this impossible? Sure, they would eventually repent, and turn back, but what is the argument that NC members could not fall into this sin? If we think we are above these sins, BEWARE. 

Now, if the above *can* be said to be true of a NC member, then you should tell them to "know the Lord." Here's the argument:

1. All who have denied the faith and are worse off than unbelievers should be told to know the Lord.
2. Those who falter in a 1 Timothy 5:8 kind of way have denied the faith and are worse off than an unbeliever.
3. Therefore those who falter in a 1 Timothy 5:8 kind of way should be told to know the Lord.
4. It is possible that a regenerate NC member falters in a 1 Tim. 5:8 kind of way.
5. Therefore, it is possible that we should tell some regenerate NC member to know the Lord.

Which premise is denied? Is this _yet another_ sin that a regenerate NC member cannot commit? If the premises cannot be denied, the conclusion stands.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> This part of the discussion hinges on the fact that Peter denied he knew Christ.



Not anything to take lightly

Matt 10: 32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Now, it's not a one time thing. We can be forgive, It's a willful denial, a life-long denail, embarrassment of, and rejection of Jesus that gets one denied in heaven.

At any rate, regenerate people can do things which, if the continued in that vein, would get them denied in heaven!

At the time, though, we go off what we see, what we know, what we are told.

1. If someone looks as if s/he will possibly be denied in heaven, then s/he needs to be told to know the Lord.
2. From our vantage point, some people (who are regenerate NC members) look as if s/he will possibly be denied in heaven.
3. Therefore, some people (who are regenerate NC members) need to be told to know the Lord.

Again, which premise is denied? If none, then since P2 is true, the conclusion follows.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 13, 2007)

Paul,

Rather than trying to prove me wrong, Please try to see what I'm saying.


CredoCovenanter said:


> > Suppose you met someone on a bus who happened to be a backsliding New Covenant Member. From your conversation with him he appears to you to be an unbeliever. He says he doesn’t like Christianity. He doesn’t believe in it. And he is living with his girl friend.


I was simply going along with this hypothetical situation. If the above man indeed "doesn't believe in it" then he has apostasized and Hebrews 6 applies. I know that many Christians have cracked under pressure and denied their faith, only to later be restored. I suppose part of the challenge is in the above quote - did he _say_ he didn't believe in it, or did he truly not believe in it? Since it is a distinct sentence from the previous I understood it to mean he was in fact no longer believing. This was what I meant by "denying the Gospel." (This was a poor choiice of words on my part.)
I never said you "argued that a believer could *actually* apostatize." Obviously someone can _not_ believe for a time and then believe. That's conversion. But to embrace the truth and then cease believing is apostacy, as spelled out in Heb. 6. 


> I don't think "Peter did the same thing" s the "Hebrews apostate." I never said he did. I never said any regenerate person did. Randy (and you) have had to make a straw man out of my argument in order to knock it down. That, in and of itself, is very telling.


I hope I clarified. Obviously I never made any such insinuation.


> Prayer should be sought for slander as well.


You really need to be careful not to accuse someone of "slander" simply because of a possible misunderstanding. You're jumping to conclusions brother. 

From all I can tell your last three posts are valid.


I'm not pursuing any other part of the discussion at this time. It just seemed that this part of it could be graciously clarified. Perhaps my meddling was unhelpful though.


Blessings,


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

As is my SOP, I try to use baptists when I dialogue with baptists, thus Grudem:

"It is very hard to tell from the pages of the Old Testament whether Saul, throughout his life, was (a) an unregenerate man who had leadership capabilities and was used by God as a demonstration of the fact that someone worthy to be king in the eyes of the world was not thereby suited to be king over the Lord's people, or (b) a regenerate man with a poor understanding and a life that increasingly strayed from the Lord" Grudem, ST, p.803. 

"Of course, both the Calvinist and the Arminain would allow for the possibility that the 'backslidden' person is truly born again and had just fallen into sin and doubt. But both would agree that it is pastorally wise to assume that the person is not a Christian until some evidence of faith is forthcoming ... The council is the same: You do not appear to be a Christian now, youm must repent of your sins and trust in Christ for your salvation!" - Gruden, ST, p. 806 and p.806 n.29.

This is standard fair. Examples could be multiplied (and can be if we need to!). Grudem just admitted that it is no hypothetical that regenerate NC members are told to "know the Lord." I'm just putting the pieces together. Drawing the appropriate inferences. Don't shoot the messenger!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> Paul,
> 
> Rather than trying to prove me wrong,



Rather that try to prove me wrong, please try to understand me. After all, it is MY quote we're talking about. Hermeneutical principles demand I have interpretive priority. 

You take my claim:



> Suppose you met someone on a bus who happened to be a backsliding New Covenant Member. From your conversation with him he appears to you to be an unbeliever. He says he doesn’t like Christianity. He doesn’t believe in it. And he is living with his girl friend.



And reply:



> I was simply going along with this hypothetical situation. If the above man indeed "doesn't believe in it" then he has apostasized and Hebrews 6 applies.



Then you'd be equivocating on how I meant "doesn't believe it." Maybe it was poor writing on my end. It came right after I said that he "SAID..." I intended that sentence to go along with the former. Furthermore, he may stop giving outward assent for a time. This does not change the fact that if he really believed at a time, then he was justified at a time. This justification does not leave, no matter how weak he is in the flesh at a time. 



> I know that many Christians have cracked under pressure and denied their faith, only to later be restored. I suppose part of the challenge is in the above quote - did he _say_ he didn't believe in it, or did he truly not believe in it?



It's no challenge, it was my quote. Further, we're even equivocating on "belief." I'm using it in a technical, philosophical sense - a positive cognitive attitude toward a proposition. You seem to be using it in the sense of "saving faith." That he could "lose his salvation." I never meant, or implied that. Indeed, my initial argument made claims to the contrary.



> Since it is a distinct sentence from the previous I understood it to mean he was in fact no longer believing. This was what I meant by "denying the Gospel." (This was a poor choiice of words on my part.)
> I never said you "argued that a believer could *actually* apostatize." Obviously someone can _not_ believe for a time and then believe. That's conversion. But to embrace the truth and then cease believing is apostacy, as spelled out in Heb. 6.



Right. Good. I hear what you're saying. But this is not a reason to heap laudatory comments on Randy's argumentation. The above debate is based soley on Randy attributing a straw mman argument to my position. If the entire debate is read, one can easily discern that I never intimated that someone could actually apostatize. The above is due to Randy saving face on his "review." He said he "had an answer" to my cross exam question, yet we see that he only answered a straw man. I don't intend to be rude here, that's just the way it is.



> From all I can tell your last three posts are valid.



Why thank you, my brother form another mother.




> I'm not pursuing any other part of the discussion at this time. It just seemed that this part of it could be graciously clarified. Perhaps my meddling was unhelpful though.



If you clarified that point for Randy, I am grateful. 

Thanks.

P.S. Love the new avatar


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 13, 2007)

Are we on the same page???? Your post seems to refute me at the beginning only to come to an agreement at the end. And, for clarity, I didn't laud Randy's position. If you read my post again you'll see that I said he "had a point," but that I thought he wasn't quite "grasping the significance." I could be wrong, but that was my perception.


Tom Bombadil said:


> P.S. Love the new avatar


Thanks. I couldn't believe I got this shot. It's Mufassa over at the Wild Animal Park. He's on top of a Range Rover and I had to reach out and stick my camera out around a bush to get the shot. He looked right into the lense.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

I refute the laud.  He only "has a point" based on a misunderstanding of my position. He has a point, but for purposes of the discussion, it's irrelevant. No one was discussing or arguing that. So, we're on the same page that you undestamd what is being said. Not on the same page that Randy "Randy makes a good point here, but I think he isn't quite grasping the significance." In the context of the debate, the point is a straw man, and the significance is irrelevant. Now, it is a good point, and a relevant one, in *other* contexts, but not here because I never disputed that s saved person could truly apostatize.

I live right down the street from the WIld Animal Park, should've dropped me a line.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 13, 2007)

Okay. It'll be interesting to see how Randy sorts it out when he returns... 


Well, we won't be back at the Wild Animal Park anytime soon. $$$$$$$$$ But it was a blast. I got some great pix while we were there, SD Zoo and Sea World. I got to preach down in SD for a few weeks this tummer, so we stayed near the Wild Animal Park and made a vacation out of it. Here are some of the pix (it's a picture dump, so not all of them are very good. Picasa Web Albums - Jared - San Diego Tri...

Isn't ETS going to be in SD soon? I'm thinking about going. Good time to hook up?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 13, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> Isn't ETS going to be in SD soon? I'm thinking about going. Good time to hook up?



Yeah, November. Drop me a message when it gets closer, and if you're coming, we can hook up.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 15, 2007)

First off thanks for your patience guys. I lost my internet and television service from very early last Tuesday Morning till Friday evening, so I couldn't respond. And I don't get on the PB much during the weekends. My brain needs all the rest it can get. Especially dealing with you very smart people.



Tom Bombadil said:


> > In conclusion I do not believe a New Covenant Christian will ever do what you suggested in your statement with Gene.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Peter did. When Jesus said he would "turn back" what was he talking about? Peter would "turn back" to his unconverted self??? Why did Jesus *commend* Peter's faith? Why would Jesus commend a "kinda sorta" pagan faith?



I am not sure I understand what your question is. "Peter would turn back to his unconverted self?" I am sure he needed to turn back from something or Jesus wouldn't have said it. Most likely it was unbelief. And no, I don't think Peter had a "kinda sorta" pagan faith. Those are your words. Unbelief is not necessarily paganism. Unless you also want to make Judaism a pagan religion. He was an Israelite. If he even returned to Judaism he wouldn't be considered a Pagan would he? Are Jews considered Pagans? How about unpracticing Jews?

I am not sure Peter's present faith was commended by Jesus. Or was it? I am having to rethink a lot since we started discussing this. If Jesus was I am surprised since he specifically called Peter Satan. And I am taking Peter's Confession that Jesus was the Son of God into consideration also. Even the demons confess that. I am not putting Peter on the level of demons or Satan even though you could make that conclusion by my statements. Peter was kept by Jesus. If Jesus was praying for Peter's faith before his death, burial, and resurrection it sure wasn't set solidly as it was after Jesus rose from the dead and gave them the Spirit by breathing on them. When did Jesus' prayer become effectual and for what faith? Peter's faith before the finished work or after? Did Peter understand Christ's mission so he could have faith in it before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? I am not so sure that that conclusion can be arrived at.

Just when did Peter's faith become unfailing? Before the death, burial, and resurrection or after? I would believe that Jesus prayer was answered and that Peter's faith after the resurrection was what Jesus was praying for. 

In light of this I would say that the faith that Peter possessed before the resurrection failed because it was incomplete and we know that Jesus' prayers are not ineffectual. So the faith that Jesus was praying for was a faith Peter possessed after the resurrection. Maybe that is ad hoc to you but this is what I have understood for many years. 

And also in light of this I would say that Peter's denial of Christ is not the same as someone who had a resurrected Christ presented to them. He didn't have what a supposed New Covenant Member would have. A resurrected Christ to place your faith in. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> (And, btw, should Peter have been rebaptized! Or did his baptism point AHEAD to future realites? Peter is an instance of paedobaptism on your terms  )



I know I will probably say somethng here to make you laugh out loud so just go ahead and get it out of the way.

So let me just help you get it out of the way right here.



BTW, Peter would not have been an instance of paedobaptism in my terms. He would have been credo. He did have a profession of faith. It was cognitive. I am just sure it wasn't complete before Christ rose from the dead.

This is off the top of my head here because I don't know if anyone actually knows anything solidly about this. I have asked about this question before in other places and no one seems to have the answers. Jesus evidently did teach them about the New Covenant in his blood and did set a commission upon the original Apostles. And New Covenant Baptism is not the same thing as being baptised by John the Baptist. Did Andrew need to be rebaptised? 



> (Act 19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
> 
> (Act 19:2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
> 
> ...



Since the Apostles were commissioned with the charge to Baptise did they need to be baptised? When where they baptised? Who baptised them? I am not sure anyone knows these questions. Paul was Baptised. I think he is the only account we have of an Apostles baptism. And he was the one who rebaptised the disciples he met in Ephesus.


I will answer the rest of your posts later. 

BTW, Would you be offended if I asked some of the guys on the rblist about these things. I usually don't carry conversations from one place over to another. But I obviously need some clarifications and get some input from them.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 15, 2007)

Randy,

I've made my arguments, said my peace, I'll let you continue on this journey without me. Thanks for your time and response. Have a good one.

~Paul


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 15, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Randy,
> 
> I've made my arguments, said my peace, I'll let you continue on this journey without me. Thanks for your time and response. Have a good one.
> 
> ~Paul



Well now, don't that just beat all. 

BTW, I acknowledge that you didn't say that the guy apostatized. I never said you did. That is your putting words in my mouth again. But by the words in your illustration the *supposed* NC member sure made the confession of an an apostate. And I said I didn't think that it was possible for a New Covenant member to say he didn't believe the gospel. BTW, Christianity is based upon the gospel so to deny Christianity is to deny the Gospel. You said your belief that this was possible was based upon Peter. I don't think you can make your conclusion based upon Peter's denial as I make my point in the prior post. I don't think you can base your conclusion on Peter. 

My point wasn't to say that you were claiming the man in your illustration was an apostate. My point was that I just don't think that a New Covenant Member could say he didn't believe in Christianity. That was my inference. And I admit I haven't made a very good case except that none of the Apostles fell away after the resurrection. I admit they fell away before but their faith was not based upon a New Covenant Resurrected Christ. They had not been turned or converted unto that yet. 

I will address your 'treat them as unbelievers later'. BTW, they were treated worse for the purpose of repentance if I am not mistaken. Not for the purpose of evangelizing them again.

I am sure you won't be able to stay away from this. You have a fighting bone in you. LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2007)

Here is the scriptural reference that tells me that the excommunicate Christian is treated worse than just an unbeliever. Here is the specific way we are to treat unrepentant fornicators, greedy persons, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, and swindlers who are excommunicated. And I don't see any command to evangelize them. 


> (1Co 5:1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
> 
> (1Co 5:2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
> 
> ...



In this passage we are told not to even eat with the brother. Note he is called a brother. Do we need to evangelize our brothers. I don't think so. But in another place Paul speaks about eating meat in an idols temple. Plus chapter 5 verse 10 excludes our non participation with those outside of the faith but are of the world in my understanding. 



> (1Co 8:10) *For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?*



So to treat a brother as an unbeliever means to treat him as though he is outside of the church and outside of the Covenant Community so that they may be ashamed and repent.



> (2Th 3:14) * If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.*
> 
> (2Th 3:15) *Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.*



There is a purpose for treating them as unbelievers and it is to make them ashamed but we are not to regard them as an enemy but we are to warn him as a brother and seek his repentance. So that is why I disagree with Paul's understanding concerning re-evangelizing an excommunicated brother.


----------



## 44jason (Oct 17, 2007)

So a presbyterian man loses his family in a terrible car crash, and falls into deep depression. He quits going to church, quits his job, and leaves his home. He moves across the country as far away from his memories as he can get. Flying on a plane one day he is reading From Grief to Glory. A presbyterian man happens to be seated next to him who asks, "Are you a believer." The grieving man says, "No, I don't even think there is a God." The presbyterian man begins to share the gospel with the him and he begins to weep and shares his grief. He repents and starts going back to church the very next Sunday. Today the man is serving God.

Was it wrong for the man on the plane to share the gospel with this man evangelistically? No. I don't see how Jeremiah 31 negatively effects this scenario at all.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2007)

I don't see how Jeremiah 31 effects the story at all either. Just because a man attends a Presbyterian Church doesn't make him a New Covenant member either. I must admit in my 26 years in the faith I have never met up with this scenario where a guy who was converted denounced Christ. I have seen a few fall away but not denounce him. Maybe my view of perseverance is a little tighter than most others. I have seen many who Matthew Mead declares are the Almost Christian discovered.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 17, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is a purpose for treating them as unbelievers and it is to make them ashamed but we are not to regard them as an enemy but we are to warn him as a brother and seek his repentance. So that is why I disagree with Paul's understanding concerning re-evangelizing an excommunicated brother.



Randy, is this the crux of the discussion? I dont enjoy being a Monday morning quarterback, so could you or Paul or both give the cliff note version of this discussion? I am getting lost in the repetition of hypothetical's, sarcasm, and many scriptures being used to uphold each understanding you have.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2007)

No we were discussing if a New Covenant Member could denounce Christianity and Christ. And he based his opinion on Peter's denial and the fact that an excommunicated member should be treated as an unbeliever and evangelized, which I didn't think was applicable to the situation. This discussion started in the Jeremiah 31 thread and the Paul Manata Gene Cook debate.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 17, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> No we were discussing if a New Covenant Member could denounce Christianity and Christ. And he based his opinion on Peter's denial and the fact that an excommunicated member should be treated as an unbeliever and evangelized, which I didn't think was applicable to the situation. This discussion started in the Jeremiah 31 thread and the Paul Manata Gene Cook debate.



If I had to be reevangelized every time I have denounced Christ by my words and actions, I would need a team of evangelists 24/7. 

If you please, may I ask a couple questions?

1) How are we defining a NC member?

2) How are we defining evangelize?

Thank You in advance Randy...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2007)

I guess I am saying that I believe 1Jn 2:19 shows me that a true believer will not denounce Christ and walk away from the faith. You really need to read through the thread before you jump in probably. 



(1Jn 2:19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 


(1Jn 5:9) If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

(1Jn 5:10) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 17, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I guess I am saying that I believe 1Jn 2:19 shows me that a true believer will not denounce Christ and walk away from the faith. You really need to read through the thread before you jump in probably.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have tried, that is why i was hoping for the cliff note version. A true NC member(Elect) will fall but never fall away for good. Because God is faithful. The man may be drowning in depression and doubt, yet will pray, "I believe, yet help mine unbelief"..And God will do whatever He has to for the person to come back to the fold. A perfect example is the parable of the lost sheep..

"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, *and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. *And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance


Perhaps I am making a distinction between reevangelize and calling to repentance. I affirm the later but deny the former..


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2007)

We discuss backsliding and that is not what I am referring to. That is where Paul and I part ways. He seems to believe that denouncing Christianity and saying you do not believe in it is only backsliding. I don't think a true believer will do this. That is why I discuss Peter's faith before and after the resurrection about 11 posts above. In post 28 I am responding to post 11. I lost my internet for a few days and fell out of the discussion.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 17, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> We discuss backsliding and that is not what I am referring to. That is where Paul and I part ways. He seems to believe that denouncing Christianity and saying you do not believe in it is only backsliding. I don't think a true believer will do this. That is why I discuss Peter's faith before and after the resurrection about 11 posts above. In post 28 I am responding to post 11. I lost my internet for a few days and fell out of the discussion.



I have read the post, and I am having trouble understanding your connection with pre vs post resurrection faith. If we follow this line of reasoning, then wouldnt all the OT saints have an incomplete faith and yet Hebrews 11 commends them all and they didnt even see Christ. I agree conversion is a proces, yet to call Peter unconverted prior to the resurrection is not warranted. I believe the power came at pentecost where they were filled with the Holy Spirit in full force. Ill read more Randy, these are my premature observations, thank you for your patience and understanding..


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 17, 2007)

There is a difference between grieving and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Unless I missed something, I think that's the fulcrum of the discussion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> There is a difference between grieving and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Unless I missed something, I think that's the fulcrum of the discussion.




My point exactly.....


(1Jn 2:19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


(1Jn 5:9) If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

(1Jn 5:10) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 17, 2007)

Believers can grieve the Holy Spirit through their resistance and disobedience. 
Isaiah 63:10
Ephesians 4:30

But true believers cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Only the lost can blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
2 Kings 19:22
Isaiah 37:23
Mark 3:29
Luke 12:10




Question: Did Anananias and Sapphira grieve or blaspheme the Holy Spirit? (Acts 5)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 18, 2007)

I guess my conviction may also involve more than blaspheme though. Can a true convert renounce his faith and walk away from it and still be elect? That to me is apostasy and I do not believe a true regenerate convert who is justified by Christ and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit can do this.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 18, 2007)

Randy,

Perhaps it would help clarify if you defined, as well as you can, the line between backsliding and falling away (in the sense of Heb 6).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 18, 2007)

Well, backsliding and falling away may just entail living in debauchery. Apostasy is announcing that you don't believe in Chrisitanity or the Gospel after one has had a taste of it. 

(1Jn 2:19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

If one were to do that then I would say that is apostasy and they were never truly Born Again, justified, believers.


----------

