# The warning passages



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

The warning passages; who is this call to? The elect? The reprobate? It is a general call to the church; internal and external. The internal are the elect, correct? The external are the non elect; the reprobate. 

In regards to the elect: They cannot fall away; they are sealed-right? How then can this call be to them?

In regards to the non elect: They have never been elect. Never been able to maintain themselves either way salvifically. They will always, ultimately fall away- right?

Who are the warning passages directed at and why?


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

I would assume that the passage is intended for the elect. My reasons would be:
1. The intended audience. 1 Peter's prologue says it is to the chosen, and I would assume the same group is implied with this letter.
2. The inability of the reprobate to understand Scripture. Without the Spirit, what good would it do to have specific Scriptures written for your warning, because you couldn't even understand those correctly.
3. They are called 'beloved'

Of course, the letter could be written for the elect to understand the warnings of the reprobate, but that seems to take the verse out of context from the passage. I think it has to be toward the elect.

With that said, I do not believe that the passage is salvific in nature. I think the purpose is to warn the church against false teachers who may lead them astray doctrinally. This particular warning seems to be falling away from steadfastness, and not salvation. If the goal is to grow in grace and knowledge as verse 18 states, then the believer must be assured of God's perseverance (i.e. verse 9), that he will be patient with them, desiring for them to become mature in their faith.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 3, 2004)

Scott,
I think this passage is primarily directed to the elect. I don't think its a warning about falling away from the faith, as losing one's salvation. I think its more of a warning for us to be careful not to be led away from sound doctrine by every wind of doctrine:

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Its such a practical warning because it is so easy for us to be led astray from the stability of the scriptures by programs or trends in Christianity. Its so easy to go along with the crowd when it comes to evangelism methods, worship innovations, seeker sensitive hogwash, etc.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

Bob,Ranger,
I removed the passage. My desire was not to exegete the passage but address the warning passages in general. Would you go back and readdreas the query again?


----------



## blhowes (Aug 3, 2004)

Scott,
Without focusing on particular passages, I may run the risk of giving a general answer that's way off base. But generally, I think the warning passages are directed at both the saved and the unsaved. For the saved, the warning brings us into self-examination and we are encouraged when when we see our lives are aligned with God's word. For the unsaved, the warning may be used by the Holy Spirit to make them realize they aren't right with God.

I think also the warning passages keep us from being complacent in our walk with the Lord and helps keep our Christianity as a present reality, rather than something we did in the past. So many people think that since they made a 'decision for Christ' umpteen years ago, that they're OK and they're on their way to heaven - making a decision is kind of like taking out fire insurance. You did it once, and now you've got nothing to worry about. I think the warning passages help us put our faith more in Jesus and what he did for us, instead of trusting in a decision that was made years ago.

Just some thoughts. What do you think about the warning passages? Are there certain warning passages that have caught your attention that prompted your question?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

The intended audience is the visible church. That is why they make sense. To see them as applying to the elect either brings about the error of the Federal Vision theology or makes them useless.

This is yet another reason why the visible/invisible church distinction is crucial.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

I'm sorry for exegeting the previously posted passage, but I'm with Bob on this and am vary wary of giving a general response towards warning passages since I am not sure which ones in particular you are aiming at. Some warn against false doctrines, some warn against falling back to the law, some warn against associating with idolaters, etc. Each should be carefully exegeted separately. But, generally I can say this:

1. All Scripture has the aim and intent of being heard and proclaimed by the elect. As you and I well know, the casual reader can look at Scripture and have it mean nothing without the Spirit of God in him. Therefore, the purpose of the passages must be for the elect.

2. The Scriptures could be used towards the reprobate for two primary reasons though. They could be part of the external call to the world, which some would argue 2 Peter 3:9 pictures. Or they could be used for the knowledge of the elect pertaining to those 'friends' they may have who are apparently reprobate.

Please correct me if I am still in error, but is this the type of response you are seeking?


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

Fred,
Could you please explain Federal Vision theology or post a link to somewhere that does, because I am completely unaware of what it means. Thanks!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

Bob,
Reread my initial post, it clearly dilliniates my thoughts. The implication of the warning passages are specific; avoid this or that. Do this or that, lest you fall away, lest ye perish like the others.....See what I opened the thread with again. See if that clearifies where I am dropping my line and hook.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:b2b7785bcc="Ranger"]Fred,
Could you please explain Federal Vision theology or post a link to somewhere that does, because I am completely unaware of what it means. Thanks![/quote:b2b7785bcc]

Kyle,

By federal vision theology I mean that position adopted by the "Auburn Four" (Doug Wilson, John Barach, Steve Wilkins and Steve Schlissel). They have basically done away with the visible/invisible church distinction.

A good place to start is on monergism.com, specifically on the New Perspective page:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/new_perspective.html

The Federal Vision is NOT the New Perspective, but they share some sympathies. The page I have given you has links regarding[color=darkblue:b2b7785bcc] Auburn Avenue Theology[/color:b2b7785bcc] that is another name for the Federal Vision.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

Okay, thanks Fred, I think I understand what you are talking about now but will continue to research it. The argument is that our justification is through union (edited to not say "unity") with Christ and not substitutionally on each of our behalfs? Or is that more of the new perspective?

I have a professor who argues against Limited Atonement along these same lines of reasoning. He argues that Christ atoned for the sins of the world, but that only those who are united in Him partake of this atonement which was intended for the world. Another professor argues along the same lines in terms of predestination stating that Christ was predestined and our unity with him through latter faith, brings us into that predestination.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:ee1f95f623="Scott Bushey"]Bob,
Reread my initial post, it clearly dilliniates my thoughts. The implication of the warning passages are specific; avoid this or that. Do this or that, lest you fall away, lest ye perish like the others.....See what I opened the thread with again. See if that clearifies where I am dropping my line and hook.[/quote:ee1f95f623]

Ok, don't reel your line in yet until I finish nibbling at the bait.

Its still difficult to comment about the 'falling away' passages in general, since I don't think all warnings imply perishing. For example, Gill comments on the falling away mentioned in the passage you originally posted (2 Peter 3:17):

[quote:ee1f95f623]
[b:ee1f95f623]fall from your own steadfastness[/b:ee1f95f623]; which was proper to them, and which, by the grace of God, they had, and retained, both in the faith of Christ and doctrine of the Gospel; for though the saints can never finally and totally fall into sin, or from the truth, yet they may fall from their steadfastness, both as to the exercise of the grace of faith, and as to their profession of the doctrine of faith; and to be fluctuating, hesitating, and doubting in either respect, must be very uncomfortable and dishonourable.[/quote:ee1f95f623]

Are you thinking more along the lines of the Romans 11 passage?


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:bea6aee449="fredtgreco"]The intended audience is the visible church. That is why they make sense. To see them as applying to the elect either brings about the error of the Federal Vision theology or makes them useless.

This is yet another reason why the visible/invisible church distinction is crucial.[/quote:bea6aee449]

 and  

Ranger,

How do you define "unity with Christ"?


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

Those were the views of my profs, not me. They would identify union with Christ as our being completely united to Him where the Father does not even see us, but only sees Him. Our justification, atonement, etc. would all be only through what the Father sees in Him. Ultimately, the grace of God is reduced to the possibility of all of these things coming upon us if we, through faith, believe and are united to Christ.

Therefore, the cross in effect did very llittle. Christ's death was not substitutionary, but for Himself and we through union can partake. Christ saved nobody through the cross, but only made salvation possible if we are willing to have faith. Blah, blah, blah.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

Kyle,

I think you mean "union with Chrict" not "unity." The latter would be some sort of Buddhism.  Not being critical, just anticipating some help for others.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

Yep, that's what I meant fred. Thanks!


----------



## Scott (Aug 3, 2004)

I think Fred is right - the audience is the visible church. I think it is also helpful to remember that the visible church contains people who have genuine saving faith, the elect, as well as people with "termporal faith" or what our confession calls "common operations of the Spirit" or something like that. Everyone in the visible church should take heed of the warnings, lest his faith not persevere and be found out to be mere temporal faith. God does not come down and tell the elect "you are part of my secret elect." We know our election through things like the promises of God, the fruit of the Spirit, and the like. The warning passages have this perspective, as should we.

Calvin describes this class of people in his comments on Hebrews 6 (a difficult warning passage):


[quote:585c5254dd]But here arises a new question, how can it be that he who has once made such a progress should afterwards fall away? For God, it may be said, calls none effectually but the elect, and Paul testifies that they are really his sons who are led by his Spirit, (Romans 8:14 and he teaches us, that it is a sure pledge of adoption when Christ makes us partakers of his Spirit. The elect are also beyond the danger of finally falling away; for the Father who gave them to be preserved by Christ his Son is greater than all, and Christ promises to watch over them all so that none may perish. To all this I answer, That God indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the [b:585c5254dd]temporal faith[/b:585c5254dd] mentioned by Mark 4:17? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up. [/quote:585c5254dd]

You might want to check out his complete comments on Hebrews 6 and the other warning passages, especially Mark 4. 

Scott Roberts


----------



## blhowes (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:bc1a2802e9="fredtgreco"]This is yet another reason why the visible/invisible church distinction is crucial.[/quote:bc1a2802e9]

Can you give an example of a warning passage that you think best illustrates this point?


----------



## Ranger (Aug 3, 2004)

I guess the visible church takes heed of the warnings as part of an external calling to repentance? But ultimately only through the Spirit can the elect understand the warnings? Is that what is being said?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

Fred,
Assuredly, the writers of the new testament were familiar with the elective decree. They had to be; you make mention that the warning passages are intended for the visible church, i.e the non elect. Being well aware of Gods decree's and the doctrine of election, if you were one of the writers of the bible, why would you make this call? Doesn't it contradict your theology?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:ccad9767e6="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
Assuredly, the writers of the new testament were familiar with the elective decree. They had to be; you make mention that the warning passages are intended for the visible church, i.e the non elect. Being well aware of Gods decree's and the doctrine of election, if you were one of the writers of the bible, why would you make this call? Doesn't it contradict your theology?[/quote:ccad9767e6]

Scott,

No. You misunderstand me. I say the [u:ccad9767e6]visible[/u:ccad9767e6] church. To quote the Confession:

[i:ccad9767e6]The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25.2)[/i:ccad9767e6]

The visible church consists of both the elect and non-elect. That is why the warnings are addressed to the visible church. The warnings are there to warn church members not to rely on membership alone for salvation. There will be some who fall away from the visible church, because they were false professors. How do we know that we are not false professors? We heed the warning passages and by the grace of God show fruit.

So the warning is addressed to both elect and non-elect without distinction. In the same way, the external call of the gospel is addressed to both. Would we say that we should not issue the external (general) call because the non-elect will not heed it and because the elect always will have the internal efficacious call? No, of course not. Because the external call is the [b:ccad9767e6]divine, appointed means[/b:ccad9767e6] of effecting the internal call. So it is with the warning passages. They are the appointed means of God for separating the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:ea90dc1ee6="blhowes"][quote:ea90dc1ee6="fredtgreco"]This is yet another reason why the visible/invisible church distinction is crucial.[/quote:ea90dc1ee6]

Can you give an example of a warning passage that you think best illustrates this point?[/quote:ea90dc1ee6]

Here are two:

[quote:ea90dc1ee6]For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrew 6:4-6)[/quote:ea90dc1ee6]

[quote:ea90dc1ee6]Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 Jn. 2:18-23) [/quote:ea90dc1ee6]

Notice how in the first passage, there are those who "taste," who experience the common operations of the Spirit (the Word, etc). Notice how in the second proof of the truth of the warning is seen in the inevitable results.

If we do not have a distinction between the visible and invisible church, these passages are nonsense. Do the elect fall away? Of course not. But then why the warning if none fall away? But if we see these passages addressed to a "mixed multitude" they make sense. The elect are being told, in essence, be on your guard, do not be proud, lest you fall. The non-elect are basically being told what will happen to them. Neither is given infallible assurance of which group they are in.


----------



## Philip A (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:d94e83dbb4="fredtgreco"]
So the warning is addressed to both elect and non-elect without distinction. In the same way, the external call of the gospel is addressed to both. Would we say that we should not issue the external (general) call because the non-elect will not heed it and because the elect always will have the internal efficacious call? No, of course not. Because the external call is the [b:d94e83dbb4]divine, appointed means[/b:d94e83dbb4] of effecting the internal call. So it is with the warning passages. They are the appointed means of God for separating the wheat from the chaff.[/quote:d94e83dbb4]

Fred,

I agree completely with you point about the visible/invisible distinction. Certainly the warning passages are intended to separate wheat from chaff. But could there be a function for the for the elect themselves at the same time?

By the reasoning you have cited above regarding the external call, could we not say, by this same logic, that the warning passages are also the [b:d94e83dbb4]divine, appointed means[/b:d94e83dbb4] of effecting the perseverance of the saints? In other words, could we not also say that the warning of the Lord to persevere in the faith, or else be cut off, is the means by which he causes us to actually persevere in the faith? Need we necessarily take an incompatabilist view of the warning passages?


----------



## Scott (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:c65a784481]Neither is given infallible assurance of which group they are in.[/quote:c65a784481]

This is an important point. God's decrees of election are known with certainty only to Him. We can be assured of our election through the promises of God, the fruits of the Spirit, and the like. The warnings should stir us up to ensure that we do not have merely the common operations or the Spirit or mere Temporal Faith, which while it has some benefits, does not produce the real thing. 

Scott


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 3, 2004)

May I just say I LOVE this post! It's stuff like this that makes me love being here!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

I don't believe this was answered:

In regards to the elect: They cannot fall away; they are sealed-right? How then can this call be to them? 

In regards to the non elect: They have never been elect. Never been able to maintain themselves either way salvifically. They will always, ultimately fall away- right? How can this call then be to them?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 3, 2004)

I assume the elect can be in error and waste precious years...I suppose that's not a FULL answer but again, I assume that's part of it?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:0b909bd53c="Scott Bushey"]I don't believe this was answered:

In regards to the elect: They cannot fall away; they are sealed-right? How then can this call be to them? 

In regards to the non elect: They have never been elect. Never been able to maintain themselves either way salvifically. They will always, ultimately fall away- right? How can this call then be to them?[/quote:0b909bd53c]

In the same way that the call of the gospel applies to the elect and non-elect, even though in that case also there is no doubt as to the outcome.

For the non-elect, inability to keep from falling away does not elminate the responsibility not to fall away. Just like God commands [b:0b909bd53c]all men[/b:0b909bd53c] to repent, even though not all [i:0b909bd53c]can[/i:0b909bd53c]. For the elect, the warnings are a means used by God to effect the perseverance of the saints.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:82ab7a7786]For the elect, the warnings are a means used by God to effect the perseverance of the saints.[/quote:82ab7a7786]

That's a very intresting take!

So God's word is used to keep us from falling away in some ways? And since the elect will delight in His word....

Very intresting!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:c3abc724ee]

In the same way that the call of the gospel applies to the elect and non-elect, even though in that case also there is no doubt as to the outcome.[/quote:c3abc724ee]

Fred,
But the call is an effectual element to the monergism of God. Men cannot be saved unless the call goes out..........In this case, the subject matter is ~falling away~. Someone is being warned of [i:c3abc724ee]falling away[/i:c3abc724ee]. The elect cannot surely fall away. The reprobate were never there; how can they fall away from someplace they have never truly aquired?

[quote:c3abc724ee]For the non-elect, inability to keep from falling away does not elminate the responsibility not to fall away. Just like God commands [b:c3abc724ee]all men[/b:c3abc724ee] to repent, even though not all [i:c3abc724ee]can[/i:c3abc724ee]. For the elect, the warnings are a means used by God to effect the perseverance of the saints.[/quote:c3abc724ee]

Hmmmmmm


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:433891171a="Scott Bushey"][quote:433891171a]

In the same way that the call of the gospel applies to the elect and non-elect, even though in that case also there is no doubt as to the outcome.[/quote:433891171a]

Fred,
But the call is an effectual element to the monergism of God. Men cannot be saved unless the call goes out..........In this case, the subject matter is ~falling away~. Someone is being warned of [i:433891171a]falling away[/i:433891171a]. The elect cannot surely fall away. The reprobate were never there; how can they fall away from someplace they have never truly aquired?

[quote:433891171a]For the non-elect, inability to keep from falling away does not elminate the responsibility not to fall away. Just like God commands [b:433891171a]all men[/b:433891171a] to repent, even though not all [i:433891171a]can[/i:433891171a]. For the elect, the warnings are a means used by God to effect the perseverance of the saints.[/quote:433891171a]

Hmmmmmm[/quote:433891171a]

The non-elect can fall away. This is referring not to falling away from election, or even salvation, but rather the covenant.

And the call of salvation goes out indiscriminately. So with the warnings.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

So Fred, in essence, the warning is not really a warning at all.....I have to be honest with you. I don't buy that. The scriptures are very clear. It is not ambiguous or implying. They are in the emphatic. 

Thinking............


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

The covenant only............okay let me ponder this. I will look at the passages and see if I get that from them.

let you know buddy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:9ba5b4f6c9="Scott Bushey"]So Fred, in essence, the warning is not really a warning at all.....I have to be honest with you. I don't buy that. The scriptures are very clear. It is not ambiguous or implying. They are in the emphatic. 

Thinking............[/quote:9ba5b4f6c9]

But Scott, what you have just said is EXACTLY what Erasmus said to Luther about the [b:9ba5b4f6c9]command[/b:9ba5b4f6c9] of God to repent and believe. Ability or inability has no bearing on a promise/command/warning.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 3, 2004)

How can we know when somebody has fallen away in fulfillment of Hebrews 6? What actions or attitudes would characterize this kind of falling away? 

If a covenant child rejects the beliefs of his parents (covenant teachings) and grows up and lives in rebellion, has he fallen away? If so, can he then repent?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:fc4662243e="fredtgreco"][quote:fc4662243e="Scott Bushey"]So Fred, in essence, the warning is not really a warning at all.....I have to be honest with you. I don't buy that. The scriptures are very clear. It is not ambiguous or implying. They are in the emphatic. 

Thinking............[/quote:fc4662243e]

But Scott, what you have just said is EXACTLY what Erasmus said to Luther about the [b:fc4662243e]command[/b:fc4662243e] of God to repent and believe. Ability or inability has no bearing on a promise/command/warning.[/quote:fc4662243e]

Fred,
I agree; ability or inability has no bearing. However, I believe this idea is only detouring that which I am pressing. I need to look at the scriptures again.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

Sorry if I am not keeping up with you fell'as, but I am enjoyuing this thread.

So, may I ask...

Aren't there MANY who have intellectually accepted Christ but have not committed their hearts/lives to Him and that is who the warnings speak to? Especially those in Hebrews?


----------



## blhowes (Aug 4, 2004)

While we're thinking about the Hebrews 6 passage, I was wondering if anybody has any strong inclinations about who Paul (or whoever) is writing to? I've read of two possibilities:

1. He's writing to Jewish Christians to combat the teachings of the Judaizers. Some of these Jewish Christians were desiring to go back to the animal sacrifice system.

2. During the early church, persecution was great and many martyrs went faithfully to their death. Some, who lacked such faith, denied the Lord to save their lives. The church had to address the issue of what to do with these 'deserters' who wanted to rejoin the church.

Hopefully this won't sidetrack the intent of Scott's thread, but may provide extra information that may be helpful in understanding the passage.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 4, 2004)

As a parent, I realize that a warning with no teeth is no warning at all. If I threaten the rod, I better be certain that I will apply the rod if the condition exists.

Are we saying that God threatens with a false threatening? Does not the Bible show that where God threatens, He does the very thing He threatened?

Surely the people addressed in Hebrews 6:4-6 are the very ones from Matthew 7. Aren't these the people who are being addressed?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Aug 4, 2004)

I believe the author is writing to hebrew Christians.

However not all hebrew Christians, or any other Christians for that matter are elect.

All biblical writers adress the congregation as they appear, ie. the confessing Church.

Many who confess are impostors of course. He is a sense is preaching to both the sheep in wolves clothing and the wolves in sheeps clothing.

One is to be warned unto repentance, the other warned unto further damnation.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:10f9015d65="Saiph"]I believe the author is writing to hebrew Christians.

However not all hebrew Christians, or any other Christians for that matter are elect.

All biblical writers adress the congregation as they appear, ie. the confessing Church.

Many who confess are impostors of course. He is a sense is preaching to both the sheep in wolves clothing and the wolves in sheeps clothing.

One is to be warned unto repentance, the other warned unto further damnation.[/quote:10f9015d65]

Well said!


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

Mark,

So I assume you are using Christian in the sense of "member of the visible church" ? I ask because many use it in the sense of "member of the invisible church" and might be confused by your remark.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

lol...I am confused by the entire visable/invisable church altogether!


----------



## Saiph (Aug 4, 2004)

In my book Christian always means "Professing" follower/disciple of Christ.

Never "elect". Since, none of us can know that anyway.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:39cb2bf906="houseparent"]lol...I am confused by the entire visable/invisable church altogether![/quote:39cb2bf906]

Adam,

It's not that complex really.

Visible church = all [i:39cb2bf906]professing[/i:39cb2bf906] believers and their children.

Invisible church = all [i:39cb2bf906]actual[/i:39cb2bf906] and true believers, that is, the elect.

The visible church is that which we can see; hence the name. It is composed of wheat and chaff.

The invisible church is only known by God now. That is why it is "invisible."

But you can obviously see the importance of the distinction. If we didn't have it, we would be faced either with assuming everyone that makes a profession is saved, and that Christians can lose their salvation.

Does that make sense?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

Sure does Fred! (or do you prefer Fredrick?)

You all have to understand that while I am THRILLED to have found this board and believers who profess what I have always FELT, I have to unlearn a lot of things.

[quote:ce72cf83e7]If we didn't have it, we would be faced either with assuming everyone that makes a profession is saved, and that Christians can lose their salvation.[/quote:ce72cf83e7]

That's pretty much what I am used to people professing! I always disagreed, but was painted as a judgmental Pharisee. As you can see, I am so relieved to be here!


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

Adam,

I am very glad to be able to help in any way I can. In fact, that is probably the best thing about the board for me - to be able to teach others more from the Word.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

Great!

So if I may side track this just a little?

It seems obvious then that NO church is full of the elect? All churches consist of the elect and the non-elect. But, what seems to be the issue with all the churches I have attended is that they refuse to accept that not all professing believers are believers just because of their profession.

Frustrating.

Is this an issue with anyone here and their church?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:b9f16dd150="houseparent"]Great!

So if I may side track this just a little?

It seems obvious then that NO church is full of the elect? All churches consist of the elect and the non-elect. But, what seems to be the issue with all the churches I have attended is that they refuse to accept that not all professing believers are believers just because of their profession.

Frustrating.

Is this an issue with anyone here and their church?[/quote:b9f16dd150]

Adam,

This does relate to the warning passages. Many churches "refuse to accept that not all professing believers are believers just because of their profession" (as you have insightfully pointed out) because they do not believe that ANY believers are elect that cannot fall away.

In short, most of American Christianity is Arminian. If you believe (as they do) that believers can believe, be saved, then disbelieve, be lost again, then believe again, and be saved again, etc. then you have no problem saying that everyone in the church is saved. If they do something or deny something, they "lose their salvation."

It is not Biblical, but that is what is out there.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

Well, I have encountered MANY who believe we cannot lose our salvation. But, they then act as if our attitudes, behavior, and actions have NOTHING to do with our salvation.

This is why I have been called a Pahrisee! I insist that a follower of Christ should at least WANT to follow Him. I have lost many friends over this attitude.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:3e9655af18="fredtgreco"]The intended audience is the visible church. That is why they make sense. To see them as applying to the elect either brings about the error of the Federal Vision theology or makes them useless. This is yet another reason why the visible/invisible church distinction is crucial.[/quote:3e9655af18]

So far, nobody on the board has said that they believe that the Hebrews 6 passage applies to the elect. Is this just something that Arminians and the like would believe, or are there people on this board or in other reformed circles who would hold this view?

Its a difficult passage and its interesting to see how different groups handle it. I read one person online, an Arminian, who believed these people were Christians and it was a warning that they could lose their salvation. I read another, who is a dispensationalist, who thought they were tribulation saints - because all the things mentioned in the opening verses of the chapter were "OT language", and not for the church age.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 4, 2004)

Re-reading Hebrews 6 just now it seems to say this to me;

-Many have learned all that they can learn of Christ and his atoning work on the cross. They have experienced conviction from the Holy Spirit, fellowship of believers, etc. 


-Knowing all that they rejected repentance. (re-crucifing Christ/treating Him contemptously).

-Those who have done this stand NO CHANCE at salvation. They have rejected Him with FULL knowledge and experience they rejected Christ. With full revelation they still rejected.

To me, these people are the swine we are not to cast our pearls before.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 4, 2004)

As Fred has said, the warning passages are for the visible church, ie; all professing believers and their children. Whether elect or not all those in the Church need to be reminded to 'walk worthy of the calling with which you were called" (Eph 4:1). Paul's admonition is for everyone, but for the elect, consider WCF Chapt 18. 4 on Assurance:

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light:[15] yet are they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived;[16] and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.[17]

And Chapt 17. 3 on Perseverance of the Saints:

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

And always remembering what Paul said to the Corinthians - "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified." (2 Cor 13:5)


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:72e9e38ac4="houseparent"]Re-reading Hebrews 6 just now it seems to say this to me;

-Many have learned all that they can learn of Christ and his atoning work on the cross. They have experienced conviction from the Holy Spirit, fellowship of believers, etc. 


-Knowing all that they rejected repentance. (re-crucifing Christ/treating Him contemptously).

-Those who have done this stand NO CHANCE at salvation. They have rejected Him with FULL knowledge and experience they rejected Christ. With full revelation they still rejected.

To me, these people are the swine we are not to cast our pearls before.[/quote:72e9e38ac4] :thumbup:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Wayne writes:
[quote:8b2e7045f3]As Fred has said, the warning passages are for the visible church, ie; all professing believers and their children. Whether elect or not all those in the Church need to be reminded to 'walk worthy of the calling with which you were called" (Eph 4:1). Paul's admonition is for everyone, but for the elect, consider WCF Chapt 18. 4 on Assurance: 
[/quote:8b2e7045f3]

Wayne,
is this 'falling away' a falling away from salvation?


----------



## Ranger (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:fd8eff2f3a]-Knowing all that they rejected repentance. (re-crucifing Christ/treating Him contemptously).
[/quote:fd8eff2f3a]

Hebrews 6:4b "and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit."

I'm assuming this means that they were believers since we know that unbelievers cannot partake of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2), and we also know that the Holy Spirit seals us. This must refer to the elect. I don't understand how it cannot.[/quote]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 5, 2004)

Normally partaking of the Holy Spirit would point to believers, but in this instance the context of the passage must take presedence!

The context of vs 4-6 seems to exclude a refrence to believers.

Look for example to those who followed Christ and partook of His miracles yet still rejected Him in the end? Or how about Judas? He certainly wasn't in the elect, but who would have known this besides Christ? Apparently the other 11 thought he was fine as none of them knew who the betrayer would be.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 5, 2004)

Only the elect can be enlightened - 2 Cor. 4:4-6, Hebrews 10:32
Only the elect can know the gift of God - Eph. 2:8

Admittedly an unbeliever can skim the word of God and receive nothing from it, or taste the powers of the age to come without being elect, but considering the three strong phrases in the previous verse about the Holy Spirit, enlightenment and the gift of God, the context clearly implies that these are further traits of a believer.

I think there has to be another explanation then assuming these are not elect simply because we know that the elect will persevere.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:edcd02f3ca="Ranger"]
I think there has to be another explanation then assuming these are not elect simply because we know that the elect will persevere.[/quote:edcd02f3ca]

What a whimp I am at times for not speaking up, but I must say that I agree with what you say. I don't know what the correct explanation is, but when I read this warning passage in context to see how it fits into the flow of the rest of the book, a warning to external covenant members falling away (ie., being damned without hope of repentance) seems not to fit with the flow.

After showing the superiority of Christ to the angels and to the house of Moses, the case is developed that Christ is our great high priest, after the order of Melchisedec. The author (I'll assume Paul) starts to build his case in Hebrews 5 that Jesus was called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec (verse 11). He continues the train of thought again after the warning passage, at the end of chapter 6. In chapter 5, just after he starts talking about Melchisedec, he stops the flow and admonishes the Hebrew Christians who, though by this time should have been teachers, they were in need of hearing again the first principles of the oracles of God. These aren't unsaved people, just people who should have been farther along in their walk then they were.

Hebrews 6 opens by giving those first principles that the Hebrew Christians needed to be reminded of, with the goal that they could leave (build upon) these principles and move on to perfection (maturity). Immediately after this admonition for these saints to mature, verse 4 says, 'For it is impossible...'.

The word [b:edcd02f3ca]For[/b:edcd02f3ca] provides a transition between the thoughts that went before to what follows. To me, saying that the warning passage is referring to unsaved members of a covenant community who fall away doesn't seem to do justice to the transition. 

I agree with what's been said about God being able to use this warning passage to speak to the elect as well as the non-elect for different purposes. But I think that is the general nature of the scriptures and could be said about any verse in the Bible.

Someone might ask, 'Alright, hot shot, if you don't think it means this, then what do you think it means?', to which I'd respond while scratching my head, "Beats me". This may be one of those passages that Peter spoke of,

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood...

one of those passages whose meaning doesn't just jump right out in an obvious manner. Since its not an easy passage to understand, I'm more comfortable just living with the uncertainty of its meaning than to accept an interpretation that resolves the tension, but doesn't seem to fit the flow of the book (as I understand it).

About all I can do is brainstorm and continue to compare the passage with other passages. One thought I've had is with regard to Hebrews 6:7,8.

Heb 6:7,8 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. 

Whenever I read of something being rejected and cast into a fire, my first thought is a reference to something like the lake of fire where the multitudes of unbelievers will be cast. That's a valid thought and may very well be the intent of the passage. Verses 9 and 10 make me think there could be another possible interpretation.

Heb 6:9,10 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Here, Paul makes mention of their works and their labor of love. With these works in mind, I don't think its too much of a jump to consider verses 7 and 8, where it talks about some plants thriving and other plants being burnt, in the same way as the passage in 1 Corinthians 3

1Co 3:11-15 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 

In both cases, its possible, some of the works remain and some burnt up, but the person still is saved. 

This is just one brainstorming possibility that I've been considering. Does this raise difficulties? Sure, like what has that got to do with the impossibility of repentance mentioned in verse 4? I don't know. Another brainstorming idea is that the passage was directed at Hebrew Christians who believed the elementary principles, but wanted to follow the advice of the Judaizers and go back to the Jewish system of animal sacrifices. This may be the way the believers in Hebrews 5 had fallen behind where they should have been in their understanding and/or practices. The warning passage may be Paul's way of teaching the absurdity of doing such a thing.

Well, I'm glad I got that off my chest. Now at least its out in the open for others to tear apart.

Bob

PS. Sorry about the rant. I'll go back to my 'one-liner' mode now.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:a830f675a7="Scott Bushey"]Wayne writes:
[quote:a830f675a7]As Fred has said, the warning passages are for the visible church, ie; all professing believers and their children. Whether elect or not all those in the Church need to be reminded to 'walk worthy of the calling with which you were called" (Eph 4:1). Paul's admonition is for everyone, but for the elect, consider WCF Chapt 18. 4 on Assurance: 
[/quote:a830f675a7]

Wayne,
is this 'falling away' a falling away from salvation?[/quote:a830f675a7]

Scott,

I think we can all agree that ultimately the elect can not "fall away" though as the WCF notes they can and probably will go through a number of trials and tribulations, but they will ultimately not fall away. Consider Peter's situation denying Christ but then repenting. I think we cannot discount the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers and His ability to turn the heart back to God. For the reprobate, they were never saved to begin with.

To me this is why the WCF's distinction within the Church is important. When we consider that those in the visible church are those who make a profession and their children, election is not the immediate issue.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 5, 2004)

Bob,
I just did a youth bible study on that passage in 1 Corinthians 3 last night and was considering the very same thing. The trial by fire may burn up all of the works, but as long as the foundation of Christ remains they will be saved, yet only through the flames. Maybe that's what this is talking about. I don't know.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:da952b9a7e="Ranger"]Bob,
I just did a youth bible study on that passage in 1 Corinthians 3 last night and was considering the very same thing. The trial by fire may burn up all of the works, but as long as the foundation of Christ remains they will be saved, yet only through the flames. Maybe that's what this is talking about. I don't know.[/quote:da952b9a7e]
Yeah, I think its a possibility that's worth considering anyway.


----------

