# Expel the Wicked from Among You!



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2007)

elnwood said:


> One of the disagreements between Gene and Paul Manata was the nature of church discipline. Paul sees NT church discipline as a covenantal removal whereas Gene sees this as a safeguard against false professors of faith.
> 
> There seems to be a discontinuity in how church discipline is conducted. It is true that the passages in the NT uses OT covenantal language (Deut 17:7) to describe the removal of people, but the application is much different.
> 
> ...


 
Paul Manata responds:


> But of course. But, I actually *argued* for my position via an exegetical argument from Scripture. Gene simply *asserted* that the *word* "New Covenant" wasn't in the passage. That's not a refutation of my argument. Does Elnwood believe that simply asserting that a word isn't use in a passage stands as a refutation against my exegetical argument? I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But the point is, no one bothered to *show* it.
> 
> I', forwarding what I have written so far. It';s a rough draft and I'm adding much more. Maybe you;d like to post some of it, though?


 
I would Mr. Manata:

*Expel the Wicked From Among You!: *
_The Exclusion Principle and its Bearing on a Continued Internal and External Aspect to the New Covenant as an Historical Administration of the Covenant of Grace_ 

*Introduction* ​Brian Rosner concludes his discussion on exclusionin the _New Dictionary of Biblical Theology_ by recognizing that, 

“Few topics do more to emphasize the corporate dimension of the Christian faith, the seriousness and consequences of sin and the holiness of God, than exclusion. In the Bible serious offenders are excluded from the community because of its solidarity, in order to maintain its holiness, because of breach of covenant, [and] in hope of their restoration… [Exclusion] reminds us that … certain standards of conduct cannot be continually transgressed with impunity. The gift of being included in God’s people demands appropriate behavior. In the present evil age, in anticipation of the age to come, God uses various means to call out and purify a people for himself, one of which, ironic as it seems, is exclusion. He deals with this people, not only as individuals, but also primarily as groups. Exclusion is a powerful reminder that such groups, or churches, are responsible to one another as well as to God. Their behavior, whether doing good or committing sin, affects the community’s well being; exclusion undermines the profound interrelation and interdependence of believers in the body of Christ.” 
​It is my contention that in the biblical notion of the “Exclusion Principle”” (EP, hereafter) we have, as it is found in the NT, provides good warrant to conclude that there is still an external/internal aspect to the covenant and, therefore, people can break the covenant. As this is understood by the Calvinist, these covenant breakers were never saved in the first place, they were merely, to use Bavinck’s terminology, “in but not _of_ the covenant.”” Without getting into a discussion about the various arguments and details regarding what is sometimes referred to as “Covenant Theology,” we should be able to agree that we NT Christians are in New Covenant times; and thus, if a professing Christian can be said to have “violated (broken, transgressed, not continued in, etc.,) the covenant,” where this covenant is not the covenant of works, then said professing Christian has violated the New Covenant (as opposed to the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.,). I will attempt to argue that the EP provides warrant for the belief that there is a basic continuity between the older covenants and the New Covenant; namely that, at this current state in redemptive history, the covenant is still a “mixed community.”” A “mixed community” is, as Steven Wellum says 

“_n a Baptist view of the church, what is unique about the nature of the new covenant community is that it comprises a regenerate, believing people, not a mixed people like Israel of old. Therefore, Baptists only view as true members of the new covenant community those who have actually entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith and as such are partakers of all the benefits and blessings of the new covenant age.”__ 

_​_For our purposes we will not take our time to analyze Dr. Wellum’s claim, nor the rest of his paper critiquing infant baptism. The purpose of this argument is not to establish infant baptism, but simply to establish the existence of a ““mixed community,” which, as you can see in the above quote, simply means a covenant community that includes both the regenerate, as well as the unregenerate, as its members. So, though we could quibble over claims like: “Baptists only view as true members of the new covenant community those who have actually entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith,” by inquiring into the meaning of the phrase, “true members of the new covenant,” as somehow inconsistent with what paedobaptist teach when, depending on how terms are defined and fleshed out, I should think the vast majority of reformed paedobaptist would agree that only the elect are “true” members of the new covenant; it would be beyond the scope of this paper to quibble over such claims.  

Furthermore, it is not my contention that if one substantiates the idea of a New Covenant ““mixed community,” one has automatically substantiated the claim that “the children of professing Christian parent(s) are in said covenantal community.” (To clear away any ambiguities, I will henceforth substitute “infant” for “child” of professing Christian parent(s). To the best of my knowledge, many Baptists do baptize their children when their children are able to make a credible profession of faith and so, technically, the Baptist can believe that (some) children of professing Christian parent(s) are proper subjects of Christian baptism.) I recognize full well that substantiating the one does not automatically substantiate the other; they are logically distinct. This concession of mine is also pointed out by many reformed Baptists, of whom Fred Malone is representative. Says Malone, “Even if it were true that [the apostates mentioned in the book of Hebrews] were considered in the New Covenant by their profession, they were not infants” (p. 102). But if this is granted, then the “mixed community” is granted, and Malone would be at odds with fellow reformed Baptists like Dr. Wellum.  

Nevertheless, I have always understood the use of these passages to function as defeater-defeaters to the Baptist’s original defeater of the belief that the infants of professing Christian parent(s) are still considered to be in covenant with God. It has been the Baptist who has argues that since the new covenant consists of only the elect (or, regenerate, there is no universal agreement here), and since a sincere profession of faith is the best evidence-indicator that God has given us to discern the elect or regenerate (or, covenantal) status of a professing Christian, then baptism, the sign of the New Covenant, should only be given to those who profess faith. Therefore, the Baptist has used the idea of a completely elect or regenerate covenant community (pure, not mixed, that is) to undercut the paedobaptist position that the infants of professing Christian parent(s) ought to be assumed to still have covenantal status when there is no evidence-indicator of said infant’s elect or regenerate status; thus providing no warrant for the Church to assume that said child is in the covenant.  

It is in the context of that positive argument the Baptist has used that the argument for New Covenant breakers arises. If successful, this argument defeats the original argument, and therefore the Baptist may not use it as an objection against infant baptism. I do not use it as a positive argument to establish the covenantal status of infants. (At best, the principle of a continued mixed covenant community is used to explain how there could be non-elect (or, non-regenerate) in the New Covenant community.) If the Baptist promises to never object to infant baptism on the grounds that we are epistemologically hindered from discerning the covenantal status of our infants (as best we can, using the evidence-indicators God has given us) because we have no idea as to whether they are elect or regenerate, then I promise not to bring up arguments for a continued mixed covenant community. I doubt this will happen, though, especially considering that it is the theological bread and butter of many Reformed Baptist polemics. 

Thus, without overstating my case, I will attempt to show that the New Covenant is a ““mixed community” while agreeing that this does not prove that infants are members of the New Covenant. That argument is made elsewhere. However, if I can establish this point, I will have put a dent in one of, if not the, main argument(s) Reformed Baptists use in their case against infant baptism. Therefore, Baptists will not be able to use the “pure” nature of the New Covenant as a reason to reject infant baptism. They will need to look elsewhere for those arguments. I will make my main case from I Corinthians 5:1-13. I will then briefly look at some other passages which seem to imply a “mixed community.” I will then follow up with a response to some anticipated objections. 

*The Argument Stated* ​In his excellent book “Paul, Scripture, & Ethics”, Brian Rosner offers an exegetical case for the function the Old Testament scriptures played in forming the theological presuppositions which under gird and inform Paul’s approach to the scandal the Corinthian church was going through in the “ongoing sexual relationship of a member of their congregation with his unbelieving stepmother” (Rosner, p.61). Paul’s response is that the Corinthians should, “Purge the evil person from among you” (I Cor. 5:13). Why does Paul say this? How does he view the Corinthian church in relation to the Old Testament church? Why does Paul’s comment echo the expulsion formula found in the Old Testament? Is this all Paul links to from the Old Testament? 

There are at least three features in I Corinthians 5:1-13 which, taken together, ““suggest a link between 1 Corinthians 5 and Pentateuchal teaching on community exclusion” (Rosner, p. 64). Pentateuchal teaching on community exclusion was nothing other than covenant exclusion. The three features Rosner mentions are (1) the handing of the man over to Satan for his destruction, (2) the verbal form of the Greek word for “destruction” (also in 5:5), and (3) the quotation of Deuteronomy in 5:13. Rosner notes that in (1) we have a ““devotion” comparable to the Old Testament curses (Deut 7:26; 13:14-18; Ex. 22:19; Josh. 6:18; 7:12; Is. 43:28; Jer. 25:9; Zech. 14:11; Mal. 3:24). Contact with the “devoted things” would spread throughout the community. In (2) the verbal form of ολεθροϚ(“destruction“) is used four times in the Septuagint to translate “cut;”” which is a “prominent term in the teachings of the Scriptures on community exclusion.” And (3) is a direct quote from Deuteronomy 17:7. 
Anthony Thiselton therefore notes that Paul’s “final appeal to Deut. 17:7 (LXX) corroborates Rosner’s detailed work on the Deuteronomic background to this chapter. Thiselton goes on to quote Richard B. Hays’ comments about Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 17:7. For Paul 


“[T]here always has been and will be only one Israel. Into that one Israel the Gentile Christians such as the Corinthians have now been absorbed. For that reason Paul can deploy the words of Deut. 17:7 (LXX) as a direct word of exhortation to the Corinthians to guard the purity of their community….No introductory formula intrudes between Moses and the Corinthians, no conjunction weakens the command to a simile. Paul could have written, ‘Just as Moses commanded Israel to drive out the evil person, so you….’ But…the Scriptural command is treated as a self-evidently valid word addressed immediately to these Gentiles … [a] daring hermeneutical posture: they are to stand with Israel and join in the covenant confession….Only for readers who stand within this covenant community does the immediacy of Paul’s appeal to Deut. 17:7 make sense” 
​“The OT background brings particular coherence and force to 5:1-13. As with the expulsion of Achan, of ‘infamous’ sins it is said, ‘such a thing is not done in Israel’ (Gen. 34:7; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 20:6, 10; 2 Sam. 13:12; Jer. 29:23). The principle expressed in Deut. 17:7 reapers in Deut. 13:5; 19:19; and 22:22, 24. Furthermore, whether the accusation and expulsion are valid or otherwise in a specific case exclusion, Wolff comments, leaves the person who is expelled lonely (yachid) to endure ‘the misery of segregation and isolation, which imply wretchedness and affliction.’ This … is what Paul hopes will lead to the turning and salvation of the offender, and still more urgently to setting things right for the corporate identity and holiness of the congregation, as the people of the New covenant.,” says Thiselton.  

Thus, for the above stated reasons, the reference to Deuteronomy 17:7 in I Corinthians 5:13 is at least a prima facie reference, in Paul’s mind, to removing someone from the covenant community. At this time there are only two covenants men are said to be in. The (granting certain Reformed assumptions) Covenant of Works, and the New Covenant (this could get more detailed depending on how one understand the Covenant of Grace and its relationship to the New Covenant, but for my purposes this discussion does not affect my argument). Since Paul is not talking about removing the Corinthian from the Covenant of Works(!), he must therefore be referring to a removal from the New Covenant. Since I Corinthians 5:1-13 presents the Church with general instructions for excommunication, then anyone excommunicated can be said to be removed from the New Covenant. Since Paul (and the rest of Scripture) would not allow that someone who has Jesus Christ as their high priest could be removed from the New Covenant, we must view this removal to be removal from a visible or external aspect of the New Covenant. If the one excommunicated is regenerate (this is rare, but it can happen for myriad reasons), he is only removed from the external aspect of the New Covenant. If the one excommunicated is removed (while, for sake of simplicity, he doesn’t ever return), he is only removed from the external aspect of the New Covenant; but he was never in the internal aspect of the New Covenant (where the benefits of Christ’s death are given). Since excommunication is an undeniable fact, then one cannot argue that this is merely a “hypothetical warning, intended to keep the elect in the covenant.”  

Furthermore, given the reliance Paul has on the Old Testament covenant exclusion principle, it is extremely unlikely that he operates with a modern bifurcation of “visible church” and “external covenant.” Indeed, it appears that Paul is affirming the Reformed paedobaptist idea that the visible church is the visible covenant community. Just like it was in OT Israel. My guess is that if you responded to Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 5:1-13 by asking: “You mean we’re are expelled from the visible church, not a visible covenant, right?”, he would have looked at you with a perplexed look on his face and respond, “What do you mean? There’s a difference?” Therefore, since the Baptist must admit that people are actually excommunicated, and since Paul says that this is removal from the covenant, and since the only covenant operating right now is the New Covenant, then the Baptist must admit that people are actually removed from the New Covenant. Since some people that have been removed from the New Covenant are not regenerate, then the New Covenant is still a “mixed community.” 

*The Argument Developed* 
​Above I made mention to three features in I Corinthians 5:1-13 which, taken together, “suggest a link between 1 Corinthians 5 and Pentateuchal teaching on community exclusion.” Why do these three features suggest a link between the teaching on community exclusion found in I Corinthians 5 and the Pentateuchal teachings? We will answer this by looking at three reasons someone would be excluded from the Old Testament community. Together these three reasons (or, “motifs,”” cf. Rosner) are reasons for the Israelites to “exclude the wicked from among them.” This is known as the Exclusion Principle (EP, hereafter). 

The reasons or motives for exclusion in the Old Testament are categorized by Rosner as being three motifs: (1) the covenant motif, (2) the corporate responsibility motif, and (3) the holiness motif (Rosner, 65). We will look at them in order. 

[1] The Covenant Motif 

The EP in Deuteronomy involving the Hebrew verb translated “utterly remove”” is “consistently associated with the covenant motif” (Rosner, 65). Paul uses the LXX translation of that verb in first Corinthians 5:13. According to Deuteronomy, people are “utterly removed” “because of breach of covenant” (Rosner, 65). Deuteronomy chapter 17 evidences this. In verse 2 the expulsion takes place because a man or woman has “transgressed the covenant.” Looking at Joshua two and the sin of Achan, we can again see that the EP is enforced because Achan “has violated the covenant of the Lord.” The EP and its connection between a violation of the covenant can also be seen in Deuteronomy 19:13, 19; 21:9, 21; 22:22, 24; 24:7; Joshua 23:16, etc.  

Furthermore, since it has been proven that the EP finds a basis in covenantal transgression, we can cite “another reason for expulsion … is the deterrence of further breach of covenant in the community” (Rosner, 65). In Deuteronomy 19:19-20 we read that the covenant breaker must be “purged from among them” so that the evil will never be done again in the community. If the evil was “done again,” then there would be more people ““purged,” and this because they too “transgressed the covenant.” Thus the EP is enforced “to maintain Israel’s obedience to the demands of the covenant” (Rosner, 65).  

[2] The Corporate Responsibility Motif  

Also associated with the EP is the idea that the covenant breaching sin of the transgressor affects the entire assembly of God’s people. In Deuteronomy 19:13 the EP is stated thus: “You shall purge the evil from Israel, so that it may go well with all of you.” Rosner notes that here we have “introduc[ed] the motif of corporate responsibility, in which the community is held responsible for the sin of an individual” (Rosner, 66).  

That the EP is so connected with the corporate responsibility motif is made evidence from more than a few texts. “In the following prominent examples the entire nation suffers, or is threatened with, some degree of divine displeasure on account of a gravely sinning member” (Rosner, 66). Rosner offers 9 such examples. I will mention just a few. (a) In Exodus 16:27-28 it was some people breaking the Sabbath which in turn caused God to respond: “How long will you [i.e., the nation] refuse to keep my commandments?” (b) In Joshua 7:1 Achan’s sin is treated as the sin of all Israel: “But the Israelites acted ungratefully in regard to the devoted things.” The ESV says that all “Israel acted unfaithfully” due to the sin of a few. © When some of the entire congregation built their own alter by the Jordan they were told: “16"Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this breach of faith that you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD….if you too rebel against the LORD today then tomorrow he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel.” (d) Nehemiah tells Sabbath breakers, “Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel.” 

Thus the EP was enforced to keep the entire covenant community safe from God’s displeasure with one or more covenant breakers. “While such persons remained, the nation was implicated in their sin and, it seems, impending punishment.””  

[3] The Holiness Motif 

The Holiness motif was connected with I Corinthians 5:5 above. The point was made that the word used by Paul in I Corinthians 5:5 translated “destruction” has reference to Pentateuchal community exclusion practice. The Hebrew word is “associated with holy war and is a curse directed against people and objects which must be excluded because of contacts with foreign gods” (Rosner, 67). These offenses are marked out as ritual offenses (Ge. 17:14; Exod 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31”14; Lev. 7:20, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 14; 19:8; 22:3; 23:29; Num. 4:18; 9:13; 19:13, 20; I Sam. 2:33) (Rosner, 68, n.33). Offenders are excluded from the community because of their contradiction to the holiness f God, and the requirement that Israel be holy also. A person who “takes possession of a devoted thing must himself be devoted, along with his house and even his town. In the holiness motif, a person or thing must be removed from the covenant people of God because of the holiness of God who has set apart the community. All members of the visible church have been “set apart” in at least an external sense. This is why the London Baptist Confession of Faith says that non-elect/regenerate professing Christians may rightly “be called visible saints”” (LBC, XXVI: II). 

Therefore we can see that in these three motifs we have three major reasons for exclusion from the community. In the Old Testament, a person (or persons) was “purged from the people” for [1] breach of covenant, [2] guilt by association, and [3] the call to remain holy. This EP had further effects in that the EP was to be a deterrent for future covenant breaking, future judgment on the people, and the contamination of the people contra their holiness. These further effects “are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Rather they form a package of three perspectives [what John Frame would call a triad!] on the identity of Israel. People are excluded because Israel is the sanctified (holiness motif), covenant (covenant motif) community (corporate responsibility motif) of the Lord, the holy God” (Rosner, 69). 


*The Argument Applied* ​Does Paul apply the three exclusion motifs discussed in [1] → [3] above to the Corinthian Church? I think he does; and we will see that the Pentateuchal teaching on exclusion under girds, informs, and propels Paul’s statements. Not only do the broad motifs about exclusion in the Old Testament inform Paul’s thoughts in chapter 5, but every verse (1 → 13) is riddled with a plethora of Old Testament concepts either explicitly or implicitly, while non-coincidentally, taught in myriad Old Testament verses.  

Following the above pattern, how does the teaching in I Corinthians 5 employ the norm of the EP to the situation at the church in Corinth? The first thing to note is that the Corinthians must exclude the immoral person because of breach of covenant, and to halt further breach of covenant. Above it was shown that the reason the wicked were to be “purged from the community” was because of breach of covenantal obligations. “The representative list of sinners which the church is to judge (5:12b) is in one sense a list of covenantal norms which, when broken, automatically exclude the offender” (Rosner, 68-69). Notice that the specific incident being spoken of is immorality, but there are five other vices Paul lists which, if practiced without repentance, call for the exclusion of the violator. From does this list derive? Does Paul reach into a hat and pick at random from a couple hundred vices? Rosner cites David Prior’s insight “that the sins to which the formula ‘drive out the wicked from among you’ is connected in Deuteronomy form a ‘remarkable parallel to the particular sins mentioned in I Corinthians 5:11.’” How remarkable? The sexually promiscuous in Deuteronomy 22:21 can be linked to Paul’s “fornicator;” idolatry in 17:3, 7 hooks up with Paul’s “idolater;” malicious false testimony in 19:18-19 is linked with Paul’s “reviler;” the drunkard in 21:20-21 with Paul’s “drunkard;” and theft in 24:7 with Paul’s “thief.”  

With all these direct links we must agree with Rosner that the “five correspondences are difficult to pass off as coincidental” (Rosner, 69). In every one of the Deuteronomic verses the phrase “you must purge the evil from among you” is found. Notice too that the idea of covenant breaching is involved. For example, the idolater in Deuteronomy 17 is said to have “transgress[ed] the covenant” (v.2), and so must be “purged from amongst [their] midst” (v.7). Not only is the idea of covenant breaching involved, the corollary of the covenant motif is found. As argued above, a person was expelled from the community so that further breach of covenant was halted. We notice here the idea of corporate solidarity in the supposedly more individualist New Covenant age. The sinner is to be expelled so his sin doesn’t infect the entire community. Paul tells the Corinthians in 5:6 that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.”_


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Aug 21, 2007)

Do ypu have a Cliff Notes version for this post?


----------



## elnwood (Aug 21, 2007)

Paul doesn't even address my point, namely the discrepancy of how church discipline is implemented in the Old Testament and the church. If there is continuity, why did they not stone the person in the sin in 1 Cor. 5? Why do they confront and to try to restore the brother?

Then he does a guilt by association argument: your pastor argued such-and-such (in a debate exchange in which Gene didn't have time to elaborate, and an exchange in which Paul constantly interrupted Gene, no less), therefore you must also argue the same way, and that must be your only argument. Again, it's a great technique to look superior in a debate, but it's poor argumentation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2007)

Don,

I'm sorry but is this really your objection? It is really quite facile.

Nobody has argued a one-for-one correlation. I even told Paul that your objection wasn't quite worth devoting that particular refutation to because the idea that the only way that a continuation of principle can continue is if we're still stoning people is simply ludicrous.

The continuity is even found in the "unequally yoked" passages as well as the concern that believers have in being married to the "unclean". There is a greater freedom in the NC and Christ is able to bring those ceremonially unclean back into the midst of God's people but the principle of being set apart (ekklesia) is intact.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 21, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Paul doesn't even address my point, namely the discrepancy of how church discipline is implemented in the Old Testament and the church. If there is continuity, why did they not stone the person in the sin in 1 Cor. 5? Why do they confront and to try to restore the brother?



Stoning was not the only form of discipline in the OT. I suggest you read through Leviticus again. There were several different kinds from simple fines, to being put outside the camp until ritual cleansing could be performed. Even then, the whole point was restoration. Only the most heinous acts were punished by capital punishment. And the Church is not given the sword to do that anymore. We have a greater sword than that, the keys of the kingdom.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 21, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Paul doesn't even address my point, namely the discrepancy of how church discipline is implemented in the Old Testament and the church. If there is continuity, why did they not stone the person in the sin in 1 Cor. 5? Why do they confront and to try to restore the brother?
> ...



Yes, there were other punishments, but those punishments were in connection with removal from the covenant like Deuteronomy 17:7 is, and capital punishment has no restoration.

The point is simple. A paedobaptist insists that the covenant membership is the same in the Old and the New. The difference in the exercise of church discipline in the NT and covenant removal in the OT clearly shows that this is not the case -- the repentant murderer is removed in the OT and restored in the NT. The unrepentant thief has to pay restitution in the OT but is not removed, but the same person will be removed in the NT for being unrepentant.

Yet Manata cries "covenant language" and uses that to say that the covenant membership has always been the same, whether for infants or for discipline, and it's simply not the case.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2007)

This is nonsensical. The principle of continuity does not demand that there is a one-to-one correspondence between every item in the OT chest, to a discrete NT analogue. Who argues this way?!? So to demand that there be a graded system of "fines" "penalties" and "punishments" under the notion of "covenant community" in order for there to be such today is sheer nonsense.

It is sufficient to point out that "the OT covenant community had disciplinary provisions" and we can also find "provision" for discipline in a New Covenant community. So what if there are fewer of them? So what if all the civil administration has been done away with? How does that impact the argument?

Israel had "excommunication" as well. This measure was *beside* measures that included physical execution. For example: Ex. 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38. Notice, that in 31:14, the penalty of DEATH is distinguished from that of excommunication. There, we have an extreme case of Sabbath-profanation (which case is enforced against a man in Numbers 15). The person is liable to the death penalty, "for" in his act he has been "cut off" from among the people.

This teaches that fundamentally, excommunication is synonymous with covenant rejection _in the heart_ and the behavior that flows from it. The same thing is true of someone who murders--first in the heart, then in the act, *and only afterward, according to the judgment of the officer.* And it is apparent from the number of times "cut off" is used alone, that not every case of "cutting off" meant the automatic institution of the death penalty. That is a gratuitous assumption, precisely the point in quesition.

Further, note Lev. 20:3. There, it is the Lord who "cuts off" no matter if the people have done as they ought in a case (one of the worst cases) of idolatry. That he clearly does not mean "I will kill him" is evident from the results of the Lord's act, v.5. Note also the progression in the passage regarding the severity of the penalties. At verse 17, the "surely put to death" drops out (not picked up again until the violation of v.27, a kind of final exclamation point).

See also Num. 19:13, etc. Not everyone who is "cut off" is executed. But covenantally, the effect is the same. Hence, the plain conection to excommunication. So, when the NT comes around, and there is no more civil administration of covenant, what disappears? Bodily penalty, civil penalty.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 21, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> This is nonsensical. The principle of continuity does not demand that there is a one-to-one correspondence between every item in the OT chest, to a discrete NT analogue. Who argues this way?!? So to demand that there be a graded system of "fines" "penalties" and "punishments" under the notion of "covenant community" in order for there to be such today is sheer nonsense.
> 
> It is sufficient to point out that "the OT covenant community had disciplinary provisions" and we can also find "provision" for discipline in a New Covenant community. So what if there are fewer of them? So what if all the civil administration has been done away with? How does that impact the argument?
> 
> ...



Bruce, my point does not hinge on whether a person is executed. The point is that they are cut off regardless of whether the person repents in all of the cases cited above. Numbers 19:13 says, "If a person touches a dead person, cut him off," but it does not say "but if he repents, receive him like a brother."

You may say "excommunication is rejection of the heart," but the Old Covenant excommunication is based on physical obedience. There is no provision for restoration even if there is a repentance of the heart!

The point is not that there needs to be a continuity of punishment. The point is that the paedobaptist appeals to infant inclusion based on the fact that the covenant community remains unchanged. The discontinuity in the application of discipline shows that this is not the case.

To simplify things ...
Old Covenant: physical lineage gets you in, physical disobedience puts you out. New Testament community: spiritual lineage gets you in, spiritual disobedience puts you out.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2007)

So, there was no such thing as restoration in the Old Covenant? What exactly was the sacrificial system all about? I guess I must have missed something...

So what was there provision for the reception of leprous back into the community?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 21, 2007)

Hi Don,

As noted above, the discontinuity you're bringing up doesn't really address my argument. I hope neither I, nor other paedobaptist, have given the impression that we only see continuity, and everything is the same, right down to the numbers. If so, I apologize. But, having cleared this up, I'll expect that we won't have any more comments on your end saying that there's a discontinuity over _here_, and so it is not continuous over _there_. So, I'd actually say you're committing a fallacy. That is, you're confusing parts and whole. Just because X is different with respects to Xa does not imply that X is different with respects to Xb.

Now, some comments:



> Paul doesn't even address my point, namely the discrepancy of how church discipline is implemented in the Old Testament and the church. If there is continuity, why did they not stone the person in the sin in 1 Cor. 5? Why do they confront and to try to restore the brother?



I wasn't writing this to "address you." It's actually something I started working on a couple weeks ago. I do plan on addressing that point, but its actually meaningless. That is, it has no bearing on the argument. You're confusing accidents and essentials, Don. There is continuity w/respects to salvation, right? But why don't we go to a temple and offer sacrifices? That I don't have to make a trek to Jerusalem on the day of atonement doesn't mean "salvation," _as such_, is different. Likewise, because punishment (in some cases) isn't by banishment or stoning, that doesn't imply that the covenant motif, _as such_, is done away with too. That's a _non-sequitur_.



> Then he does a guilt by association argument: your pastor argued such-and-such (in a debate exchange in which Gene didn't have time to elaborate, and an exchange in which Paul constantly interrupted Gene, no less), therefore you must also argue the same way, and that must be your only argument. Again, it's a great technique to look superior in a debate, but it's poor argumentation.



Don, what I said wasn't an argument. I didn't say you must argue in the same way. In fact, I noted that surely you *didn't* think the response offered to me constituted a good rebuttal. (Furthermore, I offered my exegesis of I Cor. 5 during my rebuttal time. There was no interruption since I was the only one speaking. You're probably referring to the cross period, but since you're confusing segments then I won't go into what happened during the cross. Anyway, Gene did have a full 10 minutes where he could have responded to my argument from 1 Cor. 5. Anyway, I'd rather not get into an emotion-driven discussion of the debate, especially with someone who wasn't up there doing the debating.)



> The point is simple. A paedobaptist insists that the covenant membership is the same in the Old and the New. The difference in the exercise of church discipline in the NT and covenant removal in the OT clearly shows that this is not the case -- the repentant murderer is removed in the OT and restored in the NT.



Externally or internally? See, you're already begging the question. 

At any rate, there are some who do not repent. Some who do not get taken back. But, even those who are excommunicated are removed from the *visible administration* of the covenant. My argument from I Cor. 5 attempts to prove this by showing that the phrase "expel the wicked" is because the wicked has "transgressed the covenant." Paul didn't just base almost every jot and title of I Cor. 5:1-13 on the OT but then didn't also mean to imply one of the most important features of the presupposition of the expulsion formula didn't carry over. Why would Paul have even used minute and detailed OT principles of exclusion while not using one of the most major ones? My paper seeks to argue that Paul could not have failed to view the person as a "transgressor of the covenant." In fact, my guess is that if you would have asked Paul, "Now Paul, your argument was dripping with the OT. But, when you say "expel them" you mean from the visible church, not the visible administration of the covenant, right?" He would have looked at you with a confused look and said, "What do you mean, there's a difference."

In fact, Don, let's note that Jesus himself said that the apostles and our modern day preachers hold the _keys_ to the kingdom! As almost every Baptist scholar argues, this includes the idea of allowing or disallowing entrance to the kingdom. In fact, so much so that _whatever_ they bind or loose will have been bound or loosed in heaven. Therefore, it has become inconceivable to me that there is not a continued mixed congregation of those in the kingdom, during this stage of redemptive history. Note that, if your pastor allows someone access into the kingdom of heaven, they will be allowed in and viewed as in by God. So much so that if we discipline them on earth, God will discipline them from his kingdom perspective too. You cannot get around this. Since the Bible teaches that officers of the church allow people in the kingdom, and since heaven backs up their judgments, and since they allow some unregenerate into the kingdom, then therefore the messianic kingdom of Christ, at this state in history, is mixed.



> The point is not that there needs to be a continuity of punishment. The point is that the paedobaptist appeals to infant inclusion based on the fact that the covenant community remains unchanged. The discontinuity in the application of discipline shows that this is not the case.



But Don, it now appears that you haven't read what I wrote; yet you're commenting on it. You see, I specifically said above that:



> Furthermore, *it is not my contention that if one substantiates the idea of a New Covenant “mixed community,” one has automatically substantiated the claim that “the children of professing Christian parent(s) are in said covenantal community*.” I recognize full well that substantiating the one does not automatically substantiate the other; they are logically distinct. This concession of mine is also pointed out by many reformed Baptists, of whom Fred Malone is representative. Says Malone, “Even if it were true that [the apostates mentioned in the book of Hebrews] were considered in the New Covenant by their profession, they were not infants” (p. 102). But if this is granted, then the “mixed community” is granted, and Malone would be at odds with fellow reformed Baptists like Dr. Wellum.



Therefore it is not the case that I am using this argument to prove that infants are in the covenant. My argument is, as I said, 



> Nevertheless, I have always understood the use of these passages to function as defeater-defeaters to the Baptist’s original defeater of the belief that the infants of professing Christian parent(s) are still considered to be in covenant with God. It has been the Baptist who has argues that since the new covenant consists of only the elect (or, regenerate, there is no universal agreement here), and since a sincere profession of faith is the best evidence-indicator that God has given us to discern the elect or regenerate (or, covenantal) status of a professing Christian, then baptism, the sign of the New Covenant, should only be given to those who profess faith. Therefore, the Baptist has used the idea of a completely elect or regenerate covenant community (pure, not mixed, that is) to undercut the paedobaptist position that the infants of professing Christian parent(s) ought to be assumed to still have covenantal status when there is no evidence-indicator of said infant’s elect or regenerate status; thus providing no warrant for the Church to assume that said child is in the covenant.



And so your comments are going beyond what I stated I could prove by this argument.



> To simplify things ...
> Old Covenant: physical lineage gets you in, physical disobedience puts you out. New Testament community: spiritual lineage gets you in, spiritual disobedience puts you out.



To simple. Proselytes and their infant children came into the OT. they only came in by faith. They were down payments on the NT proselytes. They didn't "get in" because of "physical lineage." In fact, no proselyte EVER got in because of physical lineage. NT gentiles were proselytes into the "one tree." So, of course adults entered by faith.... just like they always have. And, they brought their children in with them.... yes, even though there was no physical link. In fact, the messiah would even come from their bloodline, so there was no typological role for them either. Yet they still came in... with their children.

Sincerely,

PM


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 21, 2007)

elnwood said:


> You may say "excommunication is rejection of the heart," but the Old Covenant excommunication is based on physical obedience. There is no provision for restoration even if there is a repentance of the heart!


Actually there are plenty of provisions for restoration. It was only the most heinous crimes which cut them off by execution. If you repented, you paid whatever fines or ritual cleansings or sacrifices were required and then you were restored back into the covenant community. 


> The point is not that there needs to be a continuity of punishment. The point is that the paedobaptist appeals to infant inclusion based on the fact that the covenant community remains unchanged. The discontinuity in the application of discipline shows that this is not the case.
> 
> To simplify things ...
> Old Covenant: physical lineage gets you in, physical disobedience puts you out. New Testament community: spiritual lineage gets you in, spiritual disobedience puts you out.


Actually physical lineage did not really matter either. A Gentile could join the covenant people of God whenever he wanted in the OT. He would just have to be circumcized. And what do you mean by "physical" vs. "spiritual" disobedience? There is no such dichotomy in Israel or in the NT. Physical disobedience is spiritual disobedience. In both there are covenant provisions for discipline of the people of God. The only difference is the outward administration. I think you misunderstand what we mean by covenant continuity regarding infant baptism or discipline.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 21, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > You may say "excommunication is rejection of the heart," but the Old Covenant excommunication is based on physical obedience. There is no provision for restoration even if there is a repentance of the heart!
> ...



Repentance and paying a fine are not the same thing. The provisions in the OT law are fines. If I get a parking ticket, I can pay the fine yet still not be repentant. The law says nothing about repentance.

As far as restoration, there is nothing in the OT about restoration for people cut off in Lev. 20:3 and other verses that Bruce pointed out that were not execution.



> The point is not that there needs to be a continuity of punishment. The point is that the paedobaptist appeals to infant inclusion based on the fact that the covenant community remains unchanged. The discontinuity in the application of discipline shows that this is not the case.
> 
> To simplify things ...
> Old Covenant: physical lineage gets you in, physical disobedience puts you out. New Testament community: spiritual lineage gets you in, spiritual disobedience puts you out.


Actually physical lineage did not really matter either. A Gentile could join the covenant people of God whenever he wanted in the OT. He would just have to be circumcized. And what do you mean by "physical" vs. "spiritual" disobedience? There is no such dichotomy in Israel or in the NT. Physical disobedience is spiritual disobedience. In both there are covenant provisions for discipline of the people of God. The only difference is the outward administration. I think you misunderstand what we mean by covenant continuity regarding infant baptism or discipline. [/QUOTE]

Yes, people could get in by circumcision in the OT, but this is the rare exception, and as such is a type of the things to come. Jews did not seek converts to bring into the community. For example, Nebuchadnezzar confessed the true God, and so did the Ninevites, but they were not circumcised and brought into the covenant.

What I mean by physical disobedience in the OT is that external non-conformation to the law is what gets you excluded from the covenant community, and repentance does not play into it. What I mean by spiritual disobedience in the NT is that, no matter how heinous the external non-conformation of the law, if there is repentance, there is restoration.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 21, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > elnwood said:
> ...


Then you need to reread your OT. Ocne restitution or sacrifice was done, you were back in the covenant commmunity, thus restored. 


> > > The point is not that there needs to be a continuity of punishment. The point is that the paedobaptist appeals to infant inclusion based on the fact that the covenant community remains unchanged. The discontinuity in the application of discipline shows that this is not the case.
> > >
> > > To simplify things ...
> > > Old Covenant: physical lineage gets you in, physical disobedience puts you out. New Testament community: spiritual lineage gets you in, spiritual disobedience puts you out.
> ...


Actually it was not as rare as you suppose. Read the end of Esther. There was a mass conversion to Judaism then just as one example. Some of David's mighty men were Gentiles, just another example. 



> What I mean by physical disobedience in the OT is that external non-conformation to the law is what gets you excluded from the covenant community, and repentance does not play into it. What I mean by spiritual disobedience in the NT is that, no matter how heinous the external non-conformation of the law, if there is repentance, there is restoration.



When you read the prophets, mere formalism is condemned. It was not enough to just go through the motions. That is why the covenant curses came upon Isreal despite their outward obedience. God demanded whole hearted spiritual obedience even in the OT.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 21, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Repentance and paying a fine are not the same thing. The provisions in the OT law are fines. If I get a parking ticket, I can pay the fine yet still not be repentant. The law says nothing about repentance.
> ...



You need to show me an example of someone put out of the covenant, restitution or sacrifice made, and subsequent restoration. The people who made restoration were never described as being put out of the covenant or cut off from Israel. Or do you have a Scripture citation?

Look at the verses Bruce cited: Ex. 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38, Numbers 19:13. These people were cut off from Israel. There are no provisions for restoration.



> > Yes, people could get in by circumcision in the OT, but this is the rare exception, and as such is a type of the things to come. Jews did not seek converts to bring into the community. For example, Nebuchadnezzar confessed the true God, and so did the Ninevites, but they were not circumcised and brought into the covenant.
> 
> 
> Actually it was not as rare as you suppose. Read the end of Esther. There was a mass conversion to Judaism then just as one example. Some of David's mighty men were Gentiles, just another example.



Fair enough. However, it is still rare compared to the missionary nature of the NT. The Nebuchadnezzar and Ninevite omissions of circumcision and covenant inclusion are enough to show discontinuity though. If you went and evangelized one of the largest cities in the world, and the ruler and everyone repented ... would you not baptize them? And yet, the paedobaptist would have to say that Jonah did the equivalent of this. Either that or there is a discontinuity in the application of the sign, which I think is more consistent.



> > What I mean by physical disobedience in the OT is that external non-conformation to the law is what gets you excluded from the covenant community, and repentance does not play into it. What I mean by spiritual disobedience in the NT is that, no matter how heinous the external non-conformation of the law, if there is repentance, there is restoration.
> 
> 
> 
> When you read the prophets, mere formalism is condemned. It was not enough to just go through the motions. That is why the covenant curses came upon Isreal despite their outward obedience. God demanded whole hearted spiritual obedience even in the OT.



Of course. But the point is they were cursed, but not cut off, until the New Covenant.


----------

