# Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 question



## VaughanRSmith

I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." 
(Jeremiah 31:34)

Now, a question popped into my head. I'm not sure whether or not it is applicable to the debate at all, but here it is anyway.

Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?


----------



## non dignus

Exagorazo said:


> "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
> (Jeremiah 31:34)


I'm a little fuzzy on this but I don't want the thread to die so here goes:

I take this to be speaking of the church today. Membership requires holiness. Holiness today is by grace through one's own faith , or the faith of a parent. 

Membership in the old covenant was by association with the nation of Israel, also a covenant community set apart, and while some did not believe in God they were still members by virtue of that type of covenant. 



> Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant?



I don't see how, it's quite a reach.



> If they did, then how is it a better covenant?


It would be a worse covenant! Dividing the family covenant seems to work at cross purposes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Exagorazo said:


> I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:



What is narrow mind and who is Gene? Gene Bridges?


----------



## non dignus

Hey Randy!


Gene Cook.


----------



## Pilgrim

http://www.unchainedradio.com

I believe Gene Cook is a Baptist pastor in the San Diego area. He frequently has guests like Paul Manata and Jason and Scott from FIDE-O on his broadcasts.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

non dignus said:


> I'm a little fuzzy on this but I don't want the thread to die so here goes:
> 
> I take this to be speaking of the church today. Membership requires holiness. Holiness today is by grace through one's own faith , or the faith of a parent.
> 
> Membership in the old covenant was by association with the nation of Israel, also a covenant community set apart, and while some did not believe in God they were still members by virtue of that type of covenant.
> 
> I don't see how, it's quite a reach.
> 
> It would be a worse covenant! Dividing the family covenant seems to work at cross purposes.


My thoughts exactly. I don't really see how that passage can be used by Baptists to show any implied abrogation.


----------



## non dignus

Exagorazo said:


> My thoughts exactly. I don't really see how that passage can be used by Baptists to show any implied abrogation.



Easy! Just add this.

"And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' however because this is a better covenant you shall teach your children 'Know the LORD', for they shall all know me, from _the least of them _to the greatest, declares the LORD."


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> It would be a worse covenant! Dividing the family covenant seems to work at cross purposes.



And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]
> 
> So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!



Of course Elnwood just rips Jesus' claims out of context. Jesus is not talking about CT here. Jesus' text says *nothing* about those heads who are Christian not including their children in the covenant. 

Anyway, Jesus was speaking in hyperbole, but in Malachi, we find an actual factual prophetic statement of what the NC would bring:

Mal. 4:

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come. 

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.


----------



## notgollum

elnwood said:


> And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]
> 
> So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!



I believe James White used the same verse in the debate with Bill Shishko.
It seems to me a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
After the debate there was a buzz over White's using the verse to try to disprove covenant succession.
I would love to get both my credo and padeo brothers to chime in on this one.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

elnwood said:


> And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]
> 
> So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!


If we take that statement as a literal covenantal statement, then Jesus also does not bring peace in the new covenant.


----------



## elnwood

Exagorazo said:


> If we take that statement as a literal covenantal statement, then Jesus also does not bring peace in the new covenant.



No, there is peace in the New Covenant (invisible) because it consists of believers. But there is not peace within physical households. The New Covenant is spiritual, not physical.

Jesus' statement is that the gospel is going to divide families. It even uses the term "household" that paedobaptists use in the "oikos formula" argument. The idea that the gospel would divide households is contrary to the Old Covenant way of thinking.


----------



## Philip A

Exagorazo said:


> Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?



I would imagine that they would have interpreted it the same way they interpreted other passages of scripture that speak of the same thing, like, oh, I dunno, this:
[bible]Deuteronomy 30:6-8[/bible]
But then again, there are no New Covenant passages in scripture that explicitly _include_ children....


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]
> 
> So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!




Apparently, then, the purpose of marriage *is not* that God "desiresa godly seed," in New Covenant times.

Mal. 2:

13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? *And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring*. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Jesus' statement is that the gospel is going to divide families. It even uses the term "household" that paedobaptists use in the "oikos formula" argument. The idea that the gospel would divide households is contrary to the Old Covenant way of thinking.




Really, the gospel dividing households is contrary to the OC way of thinking?




> *Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose*
> 
> Romans 9:
> 
> 6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
> 
> 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”
> 
> 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
> 
> 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
> 
> 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac
> 
> 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
> 
> 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”
> 
> 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”




Seems pretty divisive to me.


----------



## panicbird

elnwood said:


> And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]
> 
> So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!



Is Jesus describing here the normal operation of the family? Is this a command as to how we run familial business? Or, is He describing the exceedingly difficult times that some believers have experienced, when their own family rejects them because of their belief?

The latter seems likely, since Jesus is in fact alluding to an Old Testament text in vv. 35-36 (Micah 7:6). Micah is describing a time of moral decay, when these things take place. It is not the normal operation of the household, but the product of sin and a lack of faithfulness. If Jesus is giving the normative operation of the family in the gospel age, then He seems to be taking the text right out of its context, since Micah is not describing how the family normally functions.

As it is, Jesus is describing what will happen when the gospel is preached: people will not believe and will persecute His followers. It will be so bad that families will be divided over it. How is this any different than the condition in which we find the Old Testament believers? Were families not divided because of the truth back then? Is division in the family part of the newness of the New Covenant?

Also, if Jesus is describing the operation of the family in the New Covenant, then we must consider it odd when children believe and follow in the faith of their parents.


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]
> 
> So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!



"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: 
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 
A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief, 
A false witness that uttereth lies, *And he that soweth discord among brethren. "*

Jesus came to sow discord? 
-or is this a result of the right preaching of the gospel.


----------



## elnwood

panicbird said:


> Is Jesus describing here the normal operation of the family? Is this a command as to how we run familial business? Or, is He describing the exceedingly difficult times that some believers have experienced, when their own family rejects them because of their belief?
> 
> The latter seems likely, since Jesus is in fact alluding to an Old Testament text in vv. 35-36 (Micah 7:6). Micah is describing a time of moral decay, when these things take place. It is not the normal operation of the household, but the product of sin and a lack of faithfulness. If Jesus is giving the normative operation of the family in the gospel age, then He seems to be taking the text right out of its context, since Micah is not describing how the family normally functions.
> 
> As it is, Jesus is describing what will happen when the gospel is preached: people will not believe and will persecute His followers. It will be so bad that families will be divided over it. How is this any different than the condition in which we find the Old Testament believers? Were families not divided because of the truth back then? Is division in the family part of the newness of the New Covenant?



That's interesting. I never made the connection between Micah and the Matthew passage.

I'm a little confused with your argumentation, though. In one sense you're saying the condition in Micah is not the normal operation, yet you also say that this condition of families dividing over truth to be the condition in the Old (as well as the new).

There is an emphasis on Gospel preaching in the New Testament to Jews and Gentiles that we see don't see on the Old Testament, outside of isolated examples like Jonah (which is the sign that Jesus gives the people questioning him).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a fuller revelation of truth which is much more divisive. Christ is a stumbling block to Jews. Obviously truth does divide families in the Old Testament, but not to the same degree that we would see in the New Covenant era.

In this sense, I see the gospel preached to the nations that is emphasized in the New Covenant as being more divisive, and that the gospel is spoken of dividing households is an indication that physical lineage means nothing as far as God's salvation (that you have to be a Jew inwardly, not outwardly) and, I would argue, means nothing in regards to church membership.



panicbird said:


> Also, if Jesus is describing the operation of the family in the New Covenant, then we must consider it odd when children believe and follow in the faith of their parents.



I'm not sure if "odd" is the right word. I believe that all children start off being sinful and need to hear and believe the gospel to be saved. Thus, just like everyone else, their default state is in rebellion against God, and they require a change of being.


----------



## smhbbag

> "There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
> Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
> A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
> A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. "
> 
> Jesus came to sow discord?
> -or is this a result of the right preaching of the gospel.



Both. Yes, it is a result of the right preaching of the gospel. Yes, Jesus came to sow discord. That's exactly what the scripture says: 
*For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.* (ESV)

He has come _to_ do these things. That's his purpose and intent. 

In rebuttal to Christ having an explicit purpose to turn families against each other, you quote Proverbs 6 as evidence.

Proverbs 6 would not be relevant to what Christ does in dividing families over the gospel. Why? Because he is not sowing discord among _brethren_. So there is no contradiction.

The people in these families have different fathers. One has God as his father, while the other has Satan. Thus, they cannot rightly be called "brothers" in the sense that Proverbs 6 uses.

Yet, this verse _does_ seem to be problematic for the paedo, who believes they are legitimately to be called "brothers," and that it is wrong to "sow discord among them." Yet, we have extremely explicit and clear statements from Christ that that is precisely what he meant to do.

How do you reconcile that? 

There is nothing to reconcile in these verses on the Baptist end. They are in agreement.


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> "There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
> Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
> A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
> A false witness that uttereth lies, *And he that soweth discord among brethren. "*
> 
> Jesus came to sow discord?
> -or is this a result of the right preaching of the gospel.



Both: Jesus came to sow discord, and this is the result of right preaching of the gospel. "Brethren" does not mean the same thing as "household." "Brethren" are brothers in Christ, or spiritual brothers. Those in the "household" means physical relatives.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Going back to the OP, the Baptists in this thread are yet to demonstrate a clear indication that the prophecy of the NC is specifically an abrogation of the household principle. This is why I originally asked.

If they cannot, then this thread should be closed.


----------



## satz

Not all those who reject paedobaptism believe the 'household' prinicple was necessarily 'abrogated' in the New Testament. (To be really precise I guess you would have to go back and define both those terms)

I believe the ordinance of circumcision was abrogated with the coming of the New Testament and the doing away of the specifically Jewish way of worship.

I believe the New Testament tells us of a new ordinance called baptism which requires a profession of faith since it is answering God with a conscience made good by the gospel (1 Pet 3:21).

I don't think the abrogation or non-abrogation of the household principle is necessarily the key to answering the question of baptism.


----------



## smhbbag

> Going back to the OP, the Baptists in this thread are yet to demonstrate a clear indication that the prophecy of the NC is specifically an abrogation of the household principle. This is why I originally asked.





> And *no longer* shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
> (Jeremiah 31:34)



"No longer" indicates a change from the way it was, to the way it will be.

What will they no longer do? Teach their fellow covenant members to "Know the Lord" because they all already know Him, and their sins are forgiven and remembered no more.

In the Old Covenant, not everyone knew Him and not everyone was forgiven. So there was evangelism within the covenant community. The prophecy says that will cease in the New Covenant.

And in the NT use of that text:



> 7*For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them*, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.



The first covenant had faults. So a new covenant was begun.

The fault with the Old Covenant was the _people_. They "continued not in His covenant."

So how does the New Covenant address this? The people are faithful - God puts his Law into their minds, writes it on their hearts, and He will be their everlasting God. They all know him, from the least to the greatest.

This is not an eschatological prediction of what the NC people will become, as some paedos say, but a definition of the New Covenant itself. If the people are unfaithful, then no, it is not a better covenant, and the central fault of the Old remains in place.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

satz said:


> Not all those who reject paedobaptism believe the 'household' prinicple was necessarily 'abrogated' in the New Testament. (To be really precise I guess you would have to go back and define both those terms)
> 
> I believe the ordinance of circumcision was abrogated with the coming of the New Testament and the doing away of the specifically Jewish way of worship.
> 
> I believe the New Testament tells us of a new ordinance called baptism which requires a profession of faith since it is answering God with a conscience made good by the gospel (1 Pet 3:21).
> 
> I don't think the abrogation or non-abrogation of the household principle is necessarily the key to answering the question of baptism.


However, the use of these passages, specifically Jer 31:34 and Heb 8:11, were used by Cook to show that the households of believers cannot be under the new covenant, which necessitates an abrogation on these passages' part. Hence, my original post.


----------



## smhbbag

So, to answer the questions in the OP in light of my last post:



> Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant?



Probably not. Just like they misunderstood a great deal of other prophecies.



> If they did, then how is it a better covenant?



This is a question I never understood. It is a better covenant because our High Priest is now the Son of God. Our sacrifice is holy blood. God's regenerative grace extends to each and every covenant member. No brother will be lost or turned away. Its people are finally faithful.

How in the world is it not a better covenant? Because we have doubt about whether a certain child is in it or not? Does that negate all I already said and make it worse?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Exagorazo said:


> I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:
> 
> And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
> (Jeremiah 31:34)
> 
> Now, a question popped into my head. I'm not sure whether or not it is applicable to the debate at all, but here it is anyway.
> 
> Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?



Well, it depends on your understanding of what the scriptures teach about baptism. For example, John the Baptist baptized them because of their repentance of sins: "they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins"(Matt 3:6). Yet, Paedo's believe the whole household should be baptized, and they use passages in Acts to support their claims. They also believe in the continuation of the OT and NT. Yet, Gene's argument is strong since Hebrews 9 tells us it is a New Covenant.

Or... am I not understanding the question? I'm kind of ..... not with it... sometimes.


----------



## Jim Johnston

smhbbag said:


> Yet, this verse _does_ seem to be problematic for the paedo, who believes they are legitimately to be called "brothers," and that it is wrong to "sow discord among them." Yet, we have extremely explicit and clear statements from Christ that that is precisely what he meant to do.
> 
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> There is nothing to reconcile in these verses on the Baptist end. They are in agreement.



Look. Why do the baptists refuse to show that Jesus' hyperbolic statement means: "Children of believers are no longer in the covenant?"

I pointed out that in the OT, Jehovah brought division, yet the children of professing believers were still in the covenant.

This point *alone* seeks to undermine your guys' case.

And, I also pointed out that one of the purposes of marriage is that "God seeks a godly seed."

When baptists have children, do they have a "godly seed?"

Or, is this not a purpose for marriage anymore?

I also pointed out that Malachi said that the NC would *restore* the relationship between father and children. 

So, there's *nothing* to reconcile.

Actually, the baptist has to do the reconciling.

I have shown that Jesus' statements do not mean "our children our no longer considered covenant members," and I have also shown that "one effect of the NC is the restoration of the parent-child relationship."


----------



## Poimen

This division that these texts speak of is really that of God's sovereign, covenant administration:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1

No one denies that the division exists, but what we disagree about is whether or not all of God's covenant people are elect. The Pharisees, clearly, rejected Christ and thus broke covenant with God (bringing division into Israel) but they were members of the covenant nonetheless.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Poimen said:


> This division that these texts speak of is really that of God's sovereign, covenant administration:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1
> 
> No one denies that the division exists, but what we disagree about is whether or not all of God's covenant people are elect. The Pharisees, clearly, rejected Christ and thus broke covenant with God (bringing division into Israel) but they were members of the covenant nonetheless.



So they were members of God's Promise? How so?


----------



## non dignus

Jeremy and Don,

Thanks for the discourse.

The same Hebrew word 'brethren' (Strong's 251) is used in the following:


Prov 17:2. _"A servant that dealeth wisely shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, And shall have part in the inheritance among the brethren."_

Prov 19:7. _ "All the brethren of the poor do hate him: How much more do his friends go far from him! He pursueth them with words, but they are gone. "_

Is 66:5 _"Hear the word of Jehovah, ye that tremble at his word: Your brethren that hate you, that cast you out for my name's sake, have said, Let Jehovah be glorified, that we may see your joy; but it is they that shall be put to shame." _

Jer 7:15 _"And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim."_

'Brethren' means both physical and spiritual family apparently.


----------



## Poimen

Andrew P.C. said:


> So they were members of God's Promise? How so?



Yes. Romans 9:4.


----------



## non dignus

When Christ spoke of dividing households, He wasn't commenting on 'the household principle' or, as Mr. Bombadil said, the covenantal status of children. 

He was giving clues as to Who He was, the Almighty:

Gen 3:15. _"...and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children...."_

..pain not only in bearing children but in raising them as well, with grandchildren.


----------



## B.J.

> 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (ESV)




One thing is for sure.......

If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the _author_ of disobedient children and family turmoil. 


He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion. How far do we really want to take this?


----------



## smhbbag

> One thing is for sure.......
> 
> If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the author of disobedient children and family turmoil.
> 
> 
> He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion. How far do we really want to take this?



This is openly Arminian logic.

Christ divides them by making some faithful and obedient to the gospel. The others he passes over and leaves in their sin, thus division.


----------



## B.J.

> This is openly Arminian logic.
> 
> Christ divides them by making some faithful and obedient to the gospel. The others he passes over and leaves in their sin, thus division.





Well, it must be that this is openly Baptist logic also. It was a Baptist that used it in a "literal" sense in a public debate, without qualification I might add.


----------



## smhbbag

> Well, it must be that this is openly Baptist logic also. It was a Baptist that used it in a "literal" sense in a public debate, without qualification I might add.



B.J. Are you a baptist? Because you were the one whose quote I commented on.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Exagorazo said:


> I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:
> 
> And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
> (Jeremiah 31:34)
> 
> Now, a question popped into my head. I'm not sure whether or not it is applicable to the debate at all, but here it is anyway.
> 
> Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?



Vaughn,

I think you've sensed the difficulty in interacting on this subject. Unless everybody is forced to stay on the original question then it's never really interacted with as has been the case in this thread.

Whether or not Jesus meant to communicate a doctrine of dividing families in His parabolic statements is a discussion in itself (in the same way He told us we had to _hate_ our families).

But it's not germane to what Gene was arguing.

He argued from Jeremiah 31 and stated that it teaches against paedobaptism due to its teaching on an unbreakable Covenant.

What I found ironic is that Gene accuses paedobaptists of not interacting with the passage but he doesn't interact with the idea that "...nobody will teach his neighbor...." What precisely is the role of a Pastor in such a scheme? I've been under the impression that Pastor Gene had a teaching ministry after all. Even he's going to have to interact with whether or not, prima facia, every aspect of that prophecy is true.

Further, I would add that it is typical of the strange method in which Baptists build a theology of the Covenant by working primarily from prophecy of the Old Testament and Historical Narrative. All other principle doctrines are developed from didactic passages.

Lastly, I am perfectly willing to grant what he wants us to grant for the sake of argument. Let me grant his point that the Covenant is perfect and consists only of the elect.

It still doesn't provide for a basis to refute infant baptism. It doesn't provide for a basis for any baptism.

Why?

Because the identity of those in the New Covenant is unknown to us in such a case.

Why?

Because the New Covenant consists of the Elect alone - the invisible Church.

An invisible thing is not seen or comprehended by us.

Which is why, in the final analysis, Baptists like to begin with this "perfect Covenant" paradigm and then pretend as if it's the basis for a believer's baptism. They believe they can move from claiming an elect membership to an actual act of baptism.

They cannot.

They move to profession at this point and then do a hand motion to distract us from the fact that _probability of election_ is not election. They acknowledge they baptize false professors. In fact, they even acknowledge that nearly 100% of the kids that grow up in their Church are baptized at some point.

So then they say: "Yeah but just because we baptized them didn't make them a part of the New Covenant. They're just a part of the Church, which is visible but does not correspond to the New Covenant."

Thus, they're arguing, using the New Covenant, to argue for a rite that does not join a person to the New Covenant.

So we see that New Covenant perfection does not form the basis for a single baptism and baptism does not join a person to the New Covenant.

And Pastor Gene wants us to explain how we can baptize infants in light of Jeremiah 31.

What? According to Baptist theology, what does baptism have to do with New Covenant membership?

{Incidentally, I don't really think how a Jew might have understood it is germane by the way.}


----------



## Answerman

Jeff Niell has a 3-part lecture series on this very issue. It has been a while since I have listened to them but I remember that he discusses many of the baptistic arguments using this passage. Therefore I recommend these for both paedo and credo baptists.

Here is a link to the lectures:

http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?speaker=Niell


----------



## smhbbag

> I think you've sensed the difficulty in interacting on this subject. Unless everybody is forced to stay on the original question then it's never really interacted with as has been the case in this thread.



Non Dignus made a direct reply to the OP from a Presbyterian standpoint. I did the same from my baptist view. The thread quickly devolved, but the OP has been addressed from both sides.



> What I found ironic is that Gene accuses paedobaptists of not interacting with the passage but he doesn't interact with the idea that "...nobody will teach his neighbor...." What precisely is the role of a Pastor in such a scheme? I've been under the impression that Pastor Gene had a teaching ministry after all. Even he's going to have to interact with whether or not, prima facia, every aspect of that prophecy is true.



It does not say that no one will teach his neighbor; it says no one will teach his neighbor to "Know the Lord." Gene does not teach his church members to know the Lord. He teaches them to know Him _better_.

Is there an example in an epistle where the author implores a member of the church to "know the Lord"? I cannot think of one. It simply is not the role of a church shepherd to do so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> Non Dignus made a direct reply to the OP from a Presbyterian standpoint. I did the same from my baptist view. The thread quickly devolved, but the OP has been addressed from both sides.


Yes you did. I re-read his OP. I believe you haven't done any better than Gene did in establishing it as an argument for believer's only baptism as I indicate above.



> It does not say that no one will teach his neighbor; it says no one will teach his neighbor to "Know the Lord." Gene does not teach his church members to know the Lord. He teaches them to know Him _better_.
> 
> Is there an example in an epistle where the author implores a member of the church to "know the Lord"? I cannot think of one. It simply is not the role of a church shepherd to do so.



As opposed to those pesky Old Covenant days when people who knew the Lord knew who didn't know the Lord and knew to tell them to "know the Lord!" Now we know who knows the Lord and who doesn't know so we don't have to tell our neighbors to know. You know?

So, based on the above assertion, how do you know who knows the Lord and who doesn't? Does the Pastor not teach anyone to know the Lord in the Church because he knows they already know the Lord? Is your conclusion, then, that all members of the Church are elect? 

If not, then who, by name, in your Church does the passage above apply to? Who does it not? I really need some names for your conclusion to follow.

Finally, you did not interact with the remainder of my charge that you cannot move from an elect NC membership to a baptism that does not join a person to the New Covenant.


----------



## smhbbag

> Finally, you did not interact with the remainder of my charge that you cannot move from an elect NC membership to a baptism that has does not join a person to the New Covenant.



That is way too much to chew alongside this other stuff. In another thread while there aren't already 5 topics on the table, I'd be glad to do so.



> As opposed to those pesky Old Covenant days when people had to teach their neighbors to know the Lord because the people didn't know the Lord.



Yes, as opposed to those days, when visible covenant membership did not automatically mean treating one's neighbor as elect. Which is exactly what the text says..."*No longer* will a man teach his neighbor...."



> So, based on the above assertion, how do you know who knows the Lord and who doesn't?



I don't.



> Does the Pastor not teach anyone to know the Lord in the Church because he knows they already know the Lord?



Right conclusion, different reasoning. No, he doesn't teach anyone in the visible church to know the Lord. But not because he knows they already know him...but because their presence in the visible church implies they have already professed saving knowledge of the Lord. He then treats these people as elect, addressing them as saints and holy ones. And as such, not telling them to "repent and believe."



> Is your conclusion, then, that all members of the Church are elect?



No, but all members of the visible church are treated as if they are.



> Who, by name, in your Church does the passage above apply to? Who does it not? I really need some names for your conclusion to follow.



I confess I don't understand this question. The passage describes all of us, not just pastors. No one in the visible Church implores another to Know the Lord - it's not just a restriction on shepherds. We all treat each other as regenerates.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> Right conclusion, different reasoning. No, he doesn't teach anyone in the visible church to know the Lord. But not because he knows they already know him...but because their presence in the visible church implies they have already professed saving knowledge of the Lord. He then treats these people as elect, addressing them as saints and holy ones. And as such, not telling them to "repent and believe."


But that's not what is argued for by Baptists. You're not claiming simply a visible membership but an elect membership in the New Covenant.

Are you telling me that your Pastor never preaches the Gospel? Do the words "...know the Lord..." have to be uttered for this to apply? This is an awfully wooden application to a piece of prophecy that you're using to assume that a man knows the Lord. What is the Gospel call other than a plea to "...know the Lord..."?



> No, but they are treated as if they are.


Presumptive election, eh? You and Don really need to talk.



> I confess I don't understand this question. The passage describes all of us, not just pastors. No one in the visible Church implores another to Know the Lord - it's not just a restriction on shepherds. We all treat each other as regenerates.


Except your children right? Let me get this straight so I'm understanding you correctly: you don't believe the Gospel call is appropriate for Baptized members anymore because you have to treat them as if they "know the Lord". Do I have this correct?


----------



## CDM

> Right conclusion, different reasoning. No, he doesn't teach anyone in the visible church to know the Lord. But not because he knows they already know him...but because their presence in the visible church implies they have already professed saving knowledge of the Lord. He then treats these people as elect, *addressing them as saints and holy ones.* And as such, not telling them to "repent and believe."



1 Corinthians 7:14


----------



## smhbbag

> Are you telling me that your Pastor never preaches the Gospel?



Not to people who are already professed believers. Do you send a missionary with gospel tracts to a ministers' conference? (ok, for some denominations that may be appropriate). In discipleship with my future wife, should I implore her to confess Christ as Lord, in the same way I would an unbeliever?



> Do the words "...know the Lord..." have to be uttered for this to apply?



Definitely not...any communication with the intent - "This is what you must do to be saved" would qualify.



> What is the Gospel call other than a plea to "...know the Lord..."?



That's exactly what it is.



> Presumptive election, eh? You and Don really need to talk.



This is not presumptive election. It is not doubting a person's profession until I have specific, actionable reason to doubt it. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the point you were trying to make with Don in another thread.



> You don't believe the Gospel call is appropriate for Baptized members anymore because you have to treat them as if they "know the Lord". Do I have this correct?



Yes. I don't "preach the gospel" to professed believers, whose confession I have no reason to doubt.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy,

I don't know if you realize this but you had to accept paedobaptist premises to make the argument that you made. I'll leave aside the discussion of whether the Gospel is not for believers (Wow! I hope the rest of you are as concerned as I am about that).

How have you accepted paedobaptist premises?

Because you claim that Jeremiah 31 is describing the visible Church and not the Elect alone.

The Baptist position is that it is describing the elect alone. The passage does not describe a possible or presumed election (according to your premises) but an actual election.

I'll interact with a Baptist on this but not a Baptist borrowing capital from my worldview to avoid the problems of concluding that Jeremiah 31 _only applies to the elect_.

If you want to argue like a Baptist again then please interact with the questions on Baptistic and not Paedobaptist premises.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> This is not presumptive election. It is not doubting a person's profession until I have specific, actionable reason to doubt it. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the point you were trying to make with Don in another thread.



Incidentally.

Presumptive election=not doubting a person's profession until I have specific, actionable reason to doubt it.

You just said:

This is not presumptive election. It is presumptive election.

It is what I was telling Don, which is why I'm glad you pointed it out.


----------



## smhbbag

> I don't know if you realize this but you had to accept paedobaptist premises to make the argument that you made. I'll leave aside the discussion of whether the Gospel is not for believers (Wow! I hope the rest of you are as concerned as I am about that).



Why is this such a problem? Plenty of "gasp! did he just say that?" But not a reason so far. When was the last time _anyone_ on this board implored another member to "Confess Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of your sins"? Of course no one does that, everyone here treats each other as if they are regenerate. And that is entirely appropriate.



> Because you claim that Jeremiah 31 is describing the visible Church and not the Elect alone.



I believe you are conflating two different questions. 1) Why don't NC members preach the gospel to one another, in my view? and 2) Why don't visible church members do that, in my view? Two very different questions.

This passage is describing the elect alone, New Covenant members, and invisible Church members - all of which are synonymous. 

So, when the passage says no new covenant members will teach each other to "Know the Lord" - I take that at face value. 

Why don't NC members preach the gospel to one another? Because they are all saved. That is answered in this text, and I don't borrow any premises in reaching that conclusion.

But, on the different question that brings us outside of this text, is why, in the visible church, I say members have no reason to preach the gospel to one another. 

It is a vastly different question, and I don't go to this text for my answer. My answer on this question lies in the fact that I don't doubt someone's professed salvation until I have valid reason. For that reason alone, I will never doubt a Church member's salvation - and thus never preach the gospel to him. He has made profession.



> Presumptive election=not doubting a person's profession until I have specific, actionable reason to doubt it.



I apologize for my imprecision. I have only heard PE referred to in the context of the salvation of infants who die in infancy, so I assumed when you said "PE" - you meant the whole ball of wax. I only apply that PE principle to those who have professed. So, yes, I should have been more clear in adding that part - I presume election after confession. TOr equivalently, I presume professions are credible.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Jeremy,
> 
> I don't know if you realize this but you had to accept paedobaptist premises to make the argument that you made. I'll leave aside the discussion of whether the Gospel is not for believers (Wow! I hope the rest of you are as concerned as I am about that).
> 
> How have you accepted paedobaptist premises?
> 
> Because you claim that Jeremiah 31 is describing the visible Church and not the Elect alone.
> 
> The Baptist position is that it is describing the elect alone. The passage does not describe a possible or presumed election (according to your premises) but an actual election.
> 
> I'll interact with a Baptist on this but not a Baptist borrowing capital from my worldview to avoid the problems of concluding that Jeremiah 31 _only applies to the elect_.
> 
> If you want to argue like a Baptist again then please interact with the questions on Baptistic and not Paedobaptist premises.



Rich, I would have to say anyone who puts Jer 31 as the visible church is really not understanding the text. 

10"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 
12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." 

So, everyone born into a family with believing parents will recieve this covenant? We know that not to be true, since there are some who, what you would call, "Apostate". Every child you baptise, you are declaring, "God will save you to the uttermost -- obey His Word." Yet, how can an unregenerate person obey God's Word? You are presupposing they are regenerate. Paul even tells us: "14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." So, you would have to change this to, "Anyone who is not born into a family of believing parents are the natural man."

Also, we know that there are many people in the visible church that are unbelievers. So, according to Heb 9:15 Christ "is the mediator of a new covenant." Are you saying that Christ is the mediator for these people as well? Christ told His apostles, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." So, was the blood that Christ shed for the visible church?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> Why is this such a problem? Plenty of "gasp! did he just say that?" But not a reason so far. When was the last time _anyone_ on this board implored another member to "Confess Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of your sins"? Of course no one does that, everyone here treats each other as if they are regenerate. And that is entirely appropriate.


You can make light of this all you want Jeremy. You stated that the Gospel is not for presentation to those who already expressed faith in Christ but only for those who haven't expressed it. This is not Reformed. _I_ need to hear the Gospel all the time.



> I believe you are conflating two different questions. 1) Why don't NC members preach the gospel to one another, in my view? and 2) Why don't visible church members do that, in my view? Two very different questions.
> 
> This passage is describing the elect alone, New Covenant members, and invisible Church members - all of which are synonymous.
> 
> So, when the passage says no new covenant members will teach each other to "Know the Lord" - I take that at face value.
> 
> Why don't NC members preach the gospel to one another? Because they are all saved. That is answered in this text, and I don't conflate any premises in reaching that conclusion.
> 
> But, on the different question that brings us outside of this text, is why, in the visible church, I say members have no reason to preach the gospel to one another.
> 
> It is a vastly different question, and I don't go to this text for my answer. My answer on this question lies in the fact that I don't doubt someone's professed salvation until I have valid reason. For that reason alone, I will never doubt a Church member's salvation - and thus never preach the gospel to him. He has made profession.



I have to hit the rack so I'll let other's pick up your glaring inconsistency here.

If Jeremiah 31 only applies to the elect and not to false professors in the visible Church then it follows necessarily that it does not apply broadly to the visible Church when it suits an argument. I'm confusing nothing. I'm comfortable with applying the passage to the visible Church because I believe there is a visible and invisible administration of the New Covenant. Baptists do not. Gene even labored to point this out to Mark on the Narrow Mind. He precluded that this passage could apply to the visible Church but that it applies to the New Covenant alone. That's because Gene is consistent in his Baptistic Covenant Theology.

If the population of Jeremiah 31 is restricted to the elect then you cannot, for convenience or arguments sake, say: "Well I'll apply a passage that I believe doesn't apply to the visible Church to the visible Church because I'm supposed to treat other members of my Church with the judgment of charity."

You have one of two options here:
1. Embrace the truth that the New Covenant includes a visible administration.
2. Retrace your steps and try to argue as a consistent Reformed Baptist.

Your third option of dancing between positions doesn't cut it. I'm not continue to engage an eclectic Baptistic/Paedobaptistic understanding of Jer 31.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Rich, I would have to say anyone who puts Jer 31 as the visible church is really not understanding the text.



Andrew,

Spoken like a true Baptist. You need to keep Jeremy in line.

OK, I've granted this earlier for the sake of argument (internal critique). Read what I challenge you with after that and let's see how you handle moving from the above premises to baptism.

Good night. Happy posting!


----------



## smhbbag

> Spoken like a true Baptist. You need to keep Jeremy in line.





> Rich, I would have to say anyone who puts Jer 31 as the visible church is really not understanding the text.



Allow myself to quote.....myself:



> *This passage is describing the elect alone, New Covenant members, and invisible Church members - all of which are synonymous.*



And then it happened again:



> If the population of Jeremiah 31 is restricted to the elect then you cannot, for convenience or arguments sake, say: "Well I'll apply a passage that I believe doesn't apply to the visible Church to the visible Church because I'm supposed to treat other members of my Church with the judgment of charity."



And I'll quote myself again:



> I don't go to this text for my answer



Can someone please read me accurately for once? Or maybe I should just settle for reading?


----------



## B.J.

Let me back track to the first page and respond to Jeremy. Jeremy and I were discussing the literal reading of this text:




> 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (ESV)




I said:



> One thing is for sure.......
> 
> If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the author of disobedient children and family turmoil.
> 
> 
> He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion. How far do we really want to take this?





Jermey responded by saying:




> This is openly Arminian logic.
> 
> Christ divides them by making some faithful and obedient to the gospel. The others he passes over and leaves in their sin, thus division.




Then I said:



> Well, it must be that this is openly Baptist logic also. It was a Baptist that used it in a "literal" sense in a public debate, without qualification I might add.



To which Jeremy said:



> B.J. Are you a baptist? Because you were the one whose quote I commented on.




Then I went to bed. 

Picking up:

Jeremy, good morning. 

No, I am not a Baptist anymore. I am being reprogramed as we speak. I know you qouted me, but I was citing James White who used the "literal" interpretation in his debate with Shishko that other Baptist have been using on this thread.

All I was trying to point out was that if one uses a "literal" interpretation of this text than this is the result:

1) If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the author of disobedient children and family turmoil. 


2) He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion. 


This is another problem for Baptist, who quite frankly, use this text against Paedo's?!? I was not sure if you wanted to go that far just to argue "literally" against Paedo's.


----------



## non dignus

Let's talk about 'absolutism'. For example, the NT teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation. True. But at the same time the NT teaches that Baptism is not _absolutely_ necessary for salvation. It takes into account an imperfect administration in an imperfect world.

I think it is the same with membership. The Baptists take 'All will know the Lord' as an absolute. Taken as a regular rule, not as an absolute, Jeremiah 31 describes a covenant community administered in a fallen world. Just as Christ subjected Himself to the curse, the NC is subject.

Unlike the OC, those that show unbelief are excluded in the NC.


----------



## B.J.

As for Jeremiah 31.....


Why would the writer of Hebrews say this:


Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. *And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. *


This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?


----------



## CDM

B.J. said:


> As for Jeremiah 31.....
> 
> Why would the writer of Hebrews say this:
> 
> Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. *And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. *
> 
> This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?



Me too.


----------



## smhbbag

Mangum and BJ, thank you guys for hanging on in this thread. 

About the Hebrews passage that has brought so many credo's to the dark-side......




> Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
> 
> 
> This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?



I love this text! 

V. 30 is huge - and obviously comes from quotes out of the OT, specifically Deut. 32:35-36.

What is Deut. 32 about? It is about the Lord pouring wrath on the enemies of his covenant people, and protecting those he loves from the wicked.

So why would Paul (eh em, *cough*, I mean "the author of Hebrews") use a passage about protecting the covenant people from evil as a warning to the covenant people? 

If the author is indeed saying that some of the NC people will be the objects of God's wrath, then the author turns the meaning of Deut. 32 not into something different, but entirely opposite of what it originally meant! A passage that originally promised hope and protection for covenant people, now is quoted to threaten wrath on them?

____________________________________________________________

Read Deut. 32.

Here's 35 and 36 in the NIV:


> 35 *It is mine to avenge; I will repay*.
> In due time their foot will slip;
> their day of disaster is near
> and their doom rushes upon them."
> 
> 36 *The LORD will judge his people *
> and have compassion on his servants
> when he sees their strength is gone
> and no one is left, slave or free.



Here's 35 and 36 in the NASB: 


> 35'*Vengeance is Mine, and retribution*,
> In due time their foot will slip;
> For the day of their calamity is near,
> And the impending things are hastening upon them.'
> 36"*For the LORD will vindicate His people,*
> And will have compassion on His servants,
> When He sees that their strength is gone,
> And there is none remaining, bond or free.



Quite a difference!

Now which makes more sense in the context of the chapter? All of Deut. 32 is about God's protection of Israel, and wrath on enemies. To me, it is clear that in 35, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" - this is a promise to destroy enemies. The objects of wrath are non-covenant members.

In v.36, how much sense does it make that in a text all about hopeful promises to His people, God would promise judgment on them? And then follow that "I will judge (you)...and have compassion on my servants?" In context, there's not place for that rendering. The NASB gets it right. God promises wrath for enemies of the covenant in 35, and compassion and vindication for the covenant people in 36.

I believe the author of Hebrews uses these two verses exactly the same way - that is, true to their original meaning. He declares God's wrath on the enemies of the covenant who "sneak in" to the community of believers as wolves, and trample under foot the Son of God. They are equivalent to the covenant people's enemies in Deut. 32. God will show them no mercy and extra wrath.

But he then quotes v.36 to comfort the true covenant people - in the proper rendering of the NAS - that He will vindicate them from this threat from within. They will not be overrun with such apostates, and God will uphold His church. He will, just as in Deuteronomy, defend His covenant people from invaders. 

I believe this passage is very strongly in favor of an entirely-regenerate NC community, not opposed. And, I believe this understanding is far more consistent with the quotation of Deutoronomy, and just plain makes more sense.

*Oh, and I'll respond later on the subject of divided households. I just love talking about this passage and used up the time I had. Sorry!


----------



## B.J.

Jeremy, 
Thanks for your expostion. I did'nt really see anything that addesses the issue of the text. The issue is _Covenant memebers _that are under judgment. God's judgment unto death. Yes, God will purify His people from invaders, but are you suggesting that He does that fully this side of eternity?



> But he then quotes v.36 to comfort the true covenant people - in the proper rendering of the NAS - that He will vindicate them from this threat from within. They will not be overrun with such apostates, and God will uphold His church. He will, just as in Deuteronomy, defend His covenant people from invaders.





When is this vindication? Now, or later? Will he not seperate the sheeps from goats on the last day? Remember it is the goats who cry out that they did so many great things, and God tells them to depart for He never knew them. And yes, for the time being I view that passage as a judgment of God's NC people. I cant imagine an atheist, or Muslim saying those things at their judgment.





> I believe this passage is very strongly in favor of an entirely-regenerate NC community, not opposed. And, I believe this understanding is far more consistent with the quotation of Deutoronomy, and just plain makes more sense.




The passage in question is_ warning_ people who are _viewed _as Covenant members. I dont see why I have to disagree with your comparision of the Deutoronomy text. Your position does not seem to undermine my view of an internal/external NC people. It strenghthens it. Even if the text are parellel to one another all you have shown is that the enemies of God (in Hebrews) can be likened to the enemies in Duetoronomy. Unlike the enemies of God in Duetoronomy the ones in Hebrews are warned specifically. Your assesment seems to indicate that God went "door-to-door" warning people that if they mess with Israel He would lay the smack down on them. Which is not in the text. Contrary to the warning in Duetoronomy, God does go "door-to-door" in His warning in the book of Hebrews. Why? Because they were considered NC members and could not be distinguished from the true believers.


----------



## smhbbag

> *The issue is Covenant memebers that are under judgment.* God's judgment unto death. Yes, God will purify His people from invaders, but are you suggesting that He does that fully this side of eternity?



Not to ignore the rest of your post, but for the sake of actually moving on one portion of the topic, I'll just address this.

The bolded part is the contradiction. In Deuteronomy 32, *no* covenant members were under judgment, but explicitly protected. Yet, if we say in Hebrews 10 there are any covenant members at all that are under judgment, is this not a troubling contradiction?

No, God does not do that fully this side of eternity. Chiefly, it is a promise that, even on this side of heaven, the Church will not be conquered and will flourish.

We both acknowledge that everyone spoken of in Heb. 10, externally, appears as a covenant member. The debate is over whether they really are.


----------



## Answerman

Wow! this thread is on fire.

Earlier I posted a link to three lectures on exactly this subject and I think the lecture does an excellent job at exegeting these two passages. But since not everyone has time to listen to them, I would like to provide a breif summary.

1. The question should be asked what did the phrase "know the LORD" mean to the Israelites in Jeremiah's day?

2. It was understood that the priest's in Israel "knew the LORD" in a special sense, when only they were allowed to perform their ceremonial function. All other Israelites were considered strangers to this function. Num 18:22-23, Deut. 33:10, Exodus 29:33, Exodus 30:29-33

3. The context of Hebrews, especially in Chapters 5-10, is dealing with how Christ's work fulfills the external aspects of the Old Covenant.

4. When you get to Hebrews chapter 8 the subject being specifically dealt with is the Priestly service.

5. Therefore it can now be said that the covenant members in the New Covenant can be said to "know the LORD" in the same special sense that only the priesthood was previledged to enjoy in the Old Covenant.

The beauty of this view is how perfectly it fits with the immediate and overall context of Hebrews.

This is a very brief summary of these lectures, many other passages and Biblical arguments were given, so if this tweaked you interest, you can get the lectures and hear the full presentation of this view. He also quotes from Arthur Pink and John Calvin on these passages to support his case.


----------



## B.J.

> The bolded part is the contradiction. In Deuteronomy 32, no covenant members were under judgment, but explicitly protected. Yet, if we say in Hebrews 10 there are any covenant members at all that are under judgment, is this not a troubling contradiction?





In your mind it seems. We didnt say anything, the writer of Hebrews did. Furthermore, I cut you some slack and let you have your Deutonronomy/Hebrews analogy. The bottom line is that their is no reason to have to reconcile the two, In my humble opinion. I fill I did that even though I didnt have to.







> We both acknowledge that everyone spoken of in Heb. 10, externally, appears as a covenant member. The debate is over whether they really are.




Jeremy, again, why are *Covenant* members being warned?


----------



## panicbird

Jeremy,

The Hebrews text (10:30) does indeed quote the LXX of Deuteronomy 32:36, which translates the Hebrew _din_ as _krino_, which means "judge." There are two points you need to consider, however:

1. The primary meaning of _din_ is "judge" so the NIV is perfectly legitimate. In fact, according to BDB "vindicate" is a third-level possibility for translating _din_. It is a possibility (I do not deny that), but not a primary one.
2. The author of the letter to the Hebrews saw fit to use the word _krino_ here, not _dikaioo_ (to make/declare righteous, or vindicate), which would be closer to what you presume the verse means. You must deal with the Hebrews text _as is_, which the language used _there_. Even if your exegesis of Deuteronomy 32:36 is granted (which is a sizable "if" - yes, God is speaking of His enemies here, but note the use of the pronoun "you" in v. 38 - He is including His people in the judgment), you must still deal with the fact that Hebrews 10:30 says, very plainly, "The Lord will judge [not vindicate] His people." "Vindicate" there would make little sense, in light of the fact that the context is threatening judgment (not comforting the regenerates there, as you said).


----------



## smhbbag

> In your mind it seems. We didnt say anything, the writer of Hebrews did. Furthermore, I cut you some slack and let you have your Deutonronomy/Hebrews analogy.



It is not an analogy. I am merely saying that a promise of hope for covenant people cannot be quoted and used as a threat on Covenant people. 

Yet, if you believe that true Covenant members are threatened in Heb. 10, then that is what the author of Hebrews has done. And that *does* have to be reconciled.



> Jeremy, again, why are Covenant members being warned?



Covenant members are not being warned. It does not good to ask a question presupposing something the answerer does not assent to. So I can't answer "why" covenant members are warned. No threat is laid to covenant members (regenerates), in my view. Only in yours.


----------



## smhbbag

> "Vindicate" there would make little sense, in light of the fact that the context is threatening judgment (not comforting the regenerates there, as you said).



The context is threatening judgment on wolves among sheep - and they are plenty threatened by the quotation of 32:35 - "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay." It makes perfect sense that after threatening the wolves, you assure the sheep.


----------



## B.J.

> Covenant members are not being warned.




Ok...hold that thought.


> It does not good to ask a question presupposing something the answerer does not assent to. So I can't answer "why" covenant members are warned. No threat is laid to covenant members (regenerates), in my view. Only in yours.




So no threat is laid? How, if you were a member of that Church, could you distinguish who God was warning? Do regenates have a yellow stripe on their back?

Jeremy, I find it interesting that earlier you said:



> They will not be overrun with such apostates, and God will uphold His church. He will, just as in Deuteronomy, defend His covenant people from invaders.



What were aposates once viewed as?


----------



## ChristianTrader

smhbbag said:


> About the Hebrews passage that has brought so many credo's to the dark-side......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?
> 
> 
> I love this text!
> 
> V. 30 is huge - and obviously comes from quotes out of the OT, specifically Deut. 32:35-36.
> 
> What is Deut. 32 about? It is about the Lord pouring wrath on the enemies of his covenant people, and protecting those he loves from the wicked.
> 
> So why would Paul (eh em, *cough*, I mean "the author of Hebrews") use a passage about protecting the covenant people from evil as a warning to the covenant people?
> 
> If the author is indeed saying that some of the NC people will be the objects of God's wrath, then the author turns the meaning of Deut. 32 not into something different, but entirely opposite of what it originally meant! A passage that originally promised hope and protection for covenant people, now is quoted to threaten wrath on them?
Click to expand...


Wow.

First thing to note: Everyone here agrees that the Old Covenant could be broken and that those in the Covenant could become covenant breakers and be subject to God wrath, right? If this is correct then whatever we make of Deut. 32, we cannot see it as saying that everyone in the covenant is safe, right? The whole Old Covenant basically stresses the message, "When God's covenant is broken, He does not suffer, the covenant breaker does."

Deut. 32 looks to be a two sided promise: "My people will be protected while My enemies will be destroyed". Now if one takes the passage in the context of the whole OT and Old Covenant, then a person can go from the "My People side of the promise to My Enemy side". So if the author of Hebrews talks about covenantal judgment, then there should no damage done to Deut. 32 at all, but instead there is just a pulling out of that which is clearly implicitly there.

CT


----------



## panicbird

smhbbag said:


> The context is threatening judgment on wolves among sheep - and they are plenty threatened by the quotation of 32:35 - "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay." It makes perfect sense that after threatening the wolves, you assure the sheep.



You still need to prove that _krino_ means "vindicate" here. Here are the options provided by BDAG:
1. to make a selection, _select_, _prefer_
2. to pass judgment upon (and thereby seek to influence) the lives and actions of other people - a) _judge, pass judgment upon, express an opinion about_
b) _pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with, condemn_
3. to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, _judge, think, consider, look upon_
4. to come to a conclusion after a cognitive process, _reach a decision, decide, propose, intend_
5. to engage in a judicial process, _judge, decide, hale before a court, condemn, hand over for judicial punishment_ - a) of a human court; b) of the divine tribunal
6. to ensure justice for someone, _see to it that justice is done_

Those are your options. And just in case you want to latch onto the last one, please note that that particular meaning of _krino_ is _never_ used in the New Testament. The noun is used _once_ in the LXX with that meaning (Isaiah 1:17 - and you will note that that context there has nothing to do with what you are arguing for Hebrews 10:30). It is the least attested meaning and to introduce it into Hebrews 10:30 would go against just about all of NT scholarship. In other words, if you want to use that meaning (which it seems you do), the burden of proof is on you to prove it. That is a tall order, which will take more than an appeal to Deuteronomy 32:36 to accomplish.


----------



## ChristianTrader

B.J. said:


> What were aposates once viewed as?



COVENANT MEMBERS


----------



## smhbbag

> So no threat is laid? How, if you were a member of that Church, could you distinguish who God was warning? Do regenates have a yellow stripe on their back?



Yes, a threat is laid. Not to covenant members, but to unregenerates within the community. How would I distinguish? I would not even try to...for anybody else. As said before, I don't doubt anyone's profession until I have actionable reason. The only one I try to distinguish is whether this threat is on me...am I secure in my salvation? Do I know I am in the faith? If not, then this threat is for me, and that should bring me to repentance. 



> What were aposates once viewed as?



I guess I'll go ahead and echo Hermonta's capital letters. COVENANT MEMBERS.



> First thing to note: Everyone here agrees that the Old Covenant could be broken and that those in the Covenant could become covenant breakers and be subject to God wrath, right? If this is correct then whatever we make of Deut. 32, we cannot see it as saying that everyone in the covenant is safe, right? The whole Old Covenant basically stresses the message, "When God's covenant is broken, He does not suffer, the covenant breaker does."



Yes, the old covenant could be broken, and yes, covenant breakers were subject to God's wrath. But this threat was not for them - because the promise for security held for the entire covenant people. 

Even though few may be faithful - God still destroys their enemies. Covenant breakers, insofar as unbelief at least, still often enjoyed the benefits of association with the community - including national security. When God provided it, they were given protection from invaders right alongside those who were faithful. God protected the covenant people as a whole in this passage, not some. That is what is relevant. In other situations, yes, some/many covenant people were subject to wrath. But not here, and this is the only one that matters because it is what is cited by the author as an example.



> Deut. 32 looks to be a two sided promise: "My people will be protected while My enemies will be destroyed". Now if one takes the passage in the context of the whole OT and Old Covenant, then a person can go from the "My People side of the promise to My Enemy side". So if the author of Hebrews talks about covenantal judgment, then there should no damage done to Deut. 32 at all, but instead there is just a pulling out of that which is clearly implicitly there.



People can go from "My People" side "My Enemy" side, with certain disobedience. But again, here's where the rubber meets the road: Were the unfaithful within Israel protected in Deut. 32, along with the faithful, simply by virtue of covenant membership? My answer is yes. The entire covenant was protected. And the same holds in Hebrews 10.

Panicbird - I'm looking into it.

But unfortunately, this will be my last post at least until tomorrow. 

Blessings, everyone.


----------



## B.J.

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by B.J.
> 
> What were apostates once viewed as?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVENANT MEMBERS
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Agreed. Now the question is does Hebrews 10 refer to apostates, or better, future apostates? If so than at the time of this writing said apostate is being viewed as a Covenant member. Which Jeremy will not allow for.

Jeremy said:



> Covenant members are not being warned. It does not good to ask a question presupposing something the answerer does not assent to. So I can't answer "why" covenant members are warned. No threat is laid to covenant members (regenerates), in my view. Only in yours.






> Hebrews 10:26 For if* we* go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the *one* who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant *by which he was sanctified*, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.





A couple of things:

1) "We" is referring to NC members, right? Everyone in agreement?

2) The "one" is referring to someone who was sanctified, right? This could be called our future, or present apostate. Or is the "one" referring to a particular individual in the writers time? It seems reasonable to conclude that it is referring to a general group who are viewed as NC members and are being warned about apostasy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> Rich, I would have to say anyone who puts Jer 31 as the visible church is really not understanding the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow myself to quote.....myself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This passage is describing the elect alone, New Covenant members, and invisible Church members - all of which are synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then it happened again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted by SemperFideles
> If the population of Jeremiah 31 is restricted to the elect then you cannot, for convenience or arguments sake, say: "Well I'll apply a passage that I believe doesn't apply to the visible Church to the visible Church because I'm supposed to treat other members of my Church with the judgment of charity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'll quote myself again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to this text for my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I awake this fine Saturday AM and I can't _believe_ you guys didn't press Jeremy more on the above statement.

OK, Jeremy, you acknowledge that I represent your position on who Jeremiah 31 refers to: the Elect _alone_.

You then say you don't go to that text for your answer on who you apply it to?

What text do you go to Jeremy? What text informs you that "not teaching the elect" really means "not teaching the visible Church" (which is not all elect)? What text teaches you that Pastors are not to preach the Gospel to members of your Church?

You simply make a leap from the text (which is the topic of discussion) that you say _applies only to the Elect_ and then I assume you must mean that you utilize a gut feeling to tell you that Church members are not supposed to be told to believe the Gospel.

Here's the thing as well, Jeremiah 31 is the text in question. Gene said he's never heard any compelling arguments from paedobaptists on that text. You aren't even providing any positive arguments for how I'm supposed to apply that text - _from the text itself_. Are you admitting that the text is incaple of providing the support that Gene wants to grant it?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Poimen said:


> Yes. Romans 9:4.



You're missing the point in verse 6.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 

With your comment on verse 4, you are saying that national Israel is part of the covenant. What does covenant mean? A promise. What kind of promise does God make to the unregenerate, other then divine wrath?


----------



## Poimen

Andrew P.C. said:


> You're missing the point in verse 6.
> 
> 6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
> 
> With your comment on verse 4, you are saying that national Israel is part of the covenant. What does covenant mean? A promise. What kind of promise does God make to the unregenerate, other then divine wrath?



Andrew:

I apologize for not replying for the last several days... busy with other things. 

I am not missing the point about verse 6 because I am not (at this point) talking about verse six. Yes the larger context of one verse is important but so is the immediate context. Paul begins in verse 3 by saying that he wished he could be accursed from Christ for the sake of his brethren, NOT spiritual Israel (to which you are rushing ahead), but his countrymen _according to the flesh_ (vs. 3). To these, as I pointed out, the promises are given among all the other blessings God has (had) bestowed upon natural Israel. Indeed there is no mistaking to or of whom he speaks here because he repeats his qualification in verse 5 concerning 'the fathers according to the flesh.' Only then in verse 6 does he make a distinction between natural Israel and spiritual Israel.

Please note that Paul makes a similar point in Romans 2:28-3:3. For there he speaks of an outward Jew vs. an spiritual Jew but then qualifies this statement that there is an advantage to being circumcised according to God's administration. 

Secondly, I am saying that Israel in the flesh (or the Old Covenant people of God) had the covenant administered to them and thus Paul naturally says that they also had the promises delivered to them as well as signed and sealed in circumcision. What kind of promise? Read Genesis 17:1ff. All were circumcised (including Ishmael, Esau etc) thus they received in their flesh, as it were, the promises of God concerning His faithfulness, His blessing unto the generations, nations, kings etc. but not all appropriated the essence of the covenant through faith (which Paul points out in Romans 9 is because of God's sovereign, covenant choice!).


----------

