# Matt 13



## Scott Bushey

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Mat 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I am interested in how the credo-Baptist interprets this passage. I never noticed this as clearly as I do now? Comments?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Surely someone must have a comment about this passage?


----------



## Wannabee

I think the parable of the tares explains this pretty well. 

Be carefull here. The Kingdom is like a net, not like what the net catches.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:6314d1fa2a="Wannabee"]I think the parable of the tares explains this pretty well. 

Be carefull here. The Kingdom is like a net, not like what the net catches.[/quote:6314d1fa2a]

Hi Joe,

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew Henry writes:

"First, A strange sentence passed; The children of the kingdom shall be cast out; the Jews that persist in unbelief, though they were by birth children of the kingdom, yet shall be cut off from being members of the visible church: the kingdom of God, of which they boasted that they were the children, shall be taken from them, and they shall become not a people, not obtaining mercy, Rom. xi. 20; ix. 31. In the great day it will not avail men to have been children of the kingdom, either as Jews or as Christians; for men will then be judged, not by what they were called, but by what they were. If children indeed, then heirs; but many are children in profession, in the family, but not of it, that will come short of the inheritance. Being born of professing parents denominates us children of the kingdom; but if we rest in that, and have nothing else to show for heaven but that, we shall be cast out."


The kingdom is likened to a net. Nets catch things. You cannot explain this any other way. In the net (kingdom) are good and bad (fish). So, In the kingdom are good and bad people; believers and unbelievers. At the end of the age, Christ and His angels will sift through the items in the net. Same thing with the tares, Let them grow together..........


----------



## Wannabee

Hi back Scott, :bs2: 

I see what you're saying. Can we really say that those born of the sons of the kingdom are actually in the kingdom though? For instance look at Matt. 7:21-23.

[i:fe3ccf857f]Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My father in heaven.[/i:fe3ccf857f]

Seems pretty clear to me. 

[i:fe3ccf857f]Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?[/i:fe3ccf857f]

Perhaps born of the kingdom, professing to be of the kingdom, but not necessarily of/in the kingdom. The Jews were a typical example of this. They "sat down with Abraham," they claimed the kingdom, but were not truly of/in the kingdom.

[i:fe3ccf857f]And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"[/i:fe3ccf857f]

Even Matthew Henry says that, "though they were by birth children OF the kingdom, yet shall be cut off from being members of the visible church." 

I would make a distinction between being children of the kingdom and being of/in the kingdom. To claim otherwise one really has to deal with Matt 7:21. One can claim Jesus. One can know of and about Jesus. One can even proclaim Jesus. But, that doesn't mean that one knows Jesus. Only those who are in Him and He in them truly have a place IN the kingdom of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Yes Joseph, that distinction is called the internal and external church.

Uhh don't forget this verse:

John 15:2 Every branch [b:b85fe03ff9]in me[/b:b85fe03ff9] that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.


----------



## Wannabee

The parable of the vine has been beaten to death lately. Those that grow out of the vine are not necessarily of the vine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't that been established clearly? One is either in or out, regardless of their claims.

Am I missing your point?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:eaee854150="Scott Bushey"]Yes Joseph, that distinction is called the internal and external church.

Uhh don't forget this verse:

John 15:2 Every branch [b:eaee854150]in me[/b:eaee854150] that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.[/quote:eaee854150]

Actually, for precision's sake, the distinction is called the visible and invisible church. This parable is an excellent example of the necessity of that distinction.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Thanks Fred. Where did I get that from??? 

Joe,
Actually, this has not been [i:5728839bb5]beaten to death[/i:5728839bb5]; It is a passage that has been avoided. No one on your side of the issue has adequately dealt with the passage. Alot of chasing one's tail, in my opinion. 

Notice that the paasage say's, 'Every branch [b:5728839bb5]in me[/b:5728839bb5] that beareth not fruit he taketh away'. IN ME! How can someone be in Christ at one moment and at another, not in Him? This can only be reconciled from a covenantal perspective.

'He taketh away...'. How do you reconcile this? In this case, unless one accepts the visible/invisible precept, you would by default assault the doctrine of perseverance and Christs claim of 'losing none...'.

You mentioned Henry's quote. 
"though they were by birth children of the kingdom, yet shall be cut off from being members of the visible church: the kingdom of God,"

He admits that the Pharisee's were 'children of the kingdom' by birth; a part of the visible church, ultimately, not the invisible; they were, as the passage shows, in him, eventually to be pruned and burned.


----------



## Wannabee

You're getting a bit agressive there brother.

As for "your side" and "my side," it's a fuzzy distinction. If we're both truly "IN HIM," then I'd prefer to say we're in the same camp.

As far as the visible and invisible church goes, I don't have any problem with putting it that way. I think we might just have a different picture of what that means. It's not a clear biblical concept though. Would a simple definition be that the visible church are those who "profess" Christ, and the visible church consists of those "truly in" Christ?

What do you want from John 15? Those cut away are not saved. It's as simple as that. To claim otherwise to to claim that one can lose their salvation. They are false professors, wolves, tares, bad fish, fruitless branches. No one who is truly born again is allowed to fall away. If one is truly born again he will bear fruit.

[i:3a05387007]He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1Jo 2:4)[/i:3a05387007]

Just because you don't agree with the conclusions some have made on John 15 doesn't mean it hasn't been treated well. Do you want a complete exegesis from someone who is not covenantal in their theology? Be specific, what exactly are you looking for? Make specific comments as to what you think so we something to work from.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:8b19a7a3d3="Wannabee"]You're getting a bit agressive there brother.

As for "your side" and "my side," it's a fuzzy distinction. If we're both truly "IN HIM," then I'd prefer to say we're in the same camp.

As far as the visible and invisible church goes, I don't have any problem with putting it that way. I think we might just have a different picture of what that means. It's not a clear biblical concept though. Would a simple definition be that the visible church are those who "profess" Christ, and the visible church consists of those "truly in" Christ?

What do you want from John 15? Those cut away are not saved. It's as simple as that. To claim otherwise to to claim that one can lose their salvation. They are false professors, wolves, tares, bad fish, fruitless branches. No one who is truly born again is allowed to fall away. If one is truly born again he will bear fruit.

[i:8b19a7a3d3]He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1Jo 2:4)[/i:8b19a7a3d3]

Just because you don't agree with the conclusions some have made on John 15 doesn't mean it hasn't been treated well. Do you want a complete exegesis from someone who is not covenantal in their theology? Be specific, what exactly are you looking for? Make specific comments as to what you think so we something to work from.[/quote:8b19a7a3d3]

Joe, 
There's a big difference between vigor and aggression. I am being vigorous with you.........

[quote:8b19a7a3d3]As for "your side" and "my side," it's a fuzzy distinction. If we're both truly "IN HIM," then I'd prefer to say we're in the same camp.[/quote:8b19a7a3d3]

This is true in that regard; however, that is not what we're discussing. 

[quote:8b19a7a3d3]As far as the visible and invisible church goes, I don't have any problem with putting it that way. I think we might just have a different picture of what that means. It's not a clear biblical concept though. Would a simple definition be that the visible church are those who "profess" Christ, and the visible church consists of those "truly in" Christ?[/quote:8b19a7a3d3]

Joe,
It is a clear biblical concept. This passage proves it. Do a word study on the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Heaven and you will see. So you agree that there are unbelievers in the church? Making a profession does not make one a believer- right?

[quote:8b19a7a3d3]What do you want from John 15? Those cut away are not saved. It's as simple as that. [/quote:8b19a7a3d3]

Joe, but the pasasage says that these branches are [i:8b19a7a3d3]in Him[/i:8b19a7a3d3]; how can that be? Are you saying that there are people in the vine which are not believers?

As far as what I am looking for, respectfully, I am looking for the credo camp to sufficiently deal with this passage. I have had to deal with it in the past myself. keep in mind Joe, and no disrespect meant, but you were not forced to entertain me with your participation; you willfully joined the discussion right? Don't get offended, please. Lets just deal with the text.


----------



## Wannabee

That's good Scott. I apologize for not understanding your "vigor."  

I'm not offended. There was some discussion on the thread before the forum went down the other day that was lost. I had piped in, so I thought I'd make a comment again. :bs2: 

I'm having some difficulty because you're refuting me without clearly making a statement. That's why I asked for specifics. What exactly do you want? What is your position? You've refuted some of my statements, but not in a way that makes your intention clear. What exactly do we disagree on?

So. Let's get the things we agree on out of the way. There are non believers in the "visible" church, right? Man cannot lose his salvation, right? You have not agreed that the saint's persevere. Can one be truly saved and lose their salvation? You seem to be claiming that they can. 

I know this is somewhat of a shotgun approach. Please read through and steer this conversation in the direction you're looking for.

The symbolism of the vine is known to be Israel (Ps. 80; Is. 5, 27; Jer. 2; Ez. 15, 17 19; Hos. 10; Joel 2; Zech. 8; Mal. 3).

[i:4ca431cebe]Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you shall know them. (Mat 7:15-20)[/i:4ca431cebe]

The branches that are not fruitful represent the unregenerate. [i:4ca431cebe]For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)[/i:4ca431cebe]

[i:4ca431cebe]Then Jesus said to the Jews who believed on Him, If you continue in My Word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered Him, We are Abraham's seed and were never in bondage to anyone. How do you say, You will be made free? Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Whoever practices sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not abide in the house forever, but the Son abides forever. Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's seed, but you seek to kill Me because My Word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you, then, do what you have seen with your father. They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus answered them, If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth which I have heard beside God; this Abraham did not do. You do the deeds of your father. Then they said to Him, We are not born of fornication; we have one father, even God. Jesus said to them, If God were your father, you would love Me, for I went forth and came from God; for I did not come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not know My speech? Because you cannot hear My Word. You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God's Words. Therefore you do not hear them because you are not of God. (Joh 8:31-47)[/i:4ca431cebe]

His sheep hear His voice and follow. They bear fruit. [i:4ca431cebe]Jesus answered them, I told you and you did not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you did not believe because you are not of My sheep. As I said to you, My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand. My Father who gave them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand. (Joh 10:25-29)[/i:4ca431cebe]

Hendriksen Commentary pp 295-96 "In no sense whatever do such passages as 15:2 and 15:6 suggest that there is a falling away from Grace, as if those who were once actually saved finally perish. [i:4ca431cebe]This allegory plainly teaches that the branches which are taken away and burned represent people who never once bore fruit, not even when they were "in" Christ.[/i:4ca431cebe] Hence, they never were true believers; and for them the in-the-vine relationship, though close, was merely outward... The true believers of chapter 15 are represented by those branches which, abiding forever in the vine, bear fruit, more fruit, much fruit. [i:4ca431cebe]These never perish![/i:4ca431cebe]

The branches that bore no fruit did not abide. They were "faithless." 

It must also be kept in mind that this was just after Judas recently left them, a clear example of a fruitless branch. 

Wow, I'm really droning on now. And we were talking about Matthew 13, weren't we?[quote:4ca431cebe]I am interested in how the credo-Baptist interprets this passage. I never noticed this as clearly as I do now? [/quote:4ca431cebe]To go much further than this seems like it will get repetitive and perhaps mundane. Again Scott, I really can't quite tell what you're after. I think that being in the vine means that they are of Israel. I hope you're not climbing on board with Wilkinson on this one (just kidding). :smug_b:


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
[quote:2652c853ed]So. Let's get the things we agree on out of the way. There are non believers in the "visible" church, right? Man cannot lose his salvation, right? You have not agreed that the saint's persevere. Can one be truly saved and lose their salvation? You seem to be claiming that they can.[/quote:2652c853ed]

I trust in the doctrine of 'perseverance', Joe. 

You previously have stated: [i:2652c853ed]There are non believers in the "visible" church, right?[/i:2652c853ed]
So for the record; are their unbelievers in the kingdom? Are there unbelievers in the new covenant? The church is made up of believers and non-believers?


----------



## Wannabee

[quote:84d6883f77="Scott Bushey"]You previously have stated: [i:84d6883f77]There are non believers in the "visible" church, right?[/i:84d6883f77]
So for the record; are their unbelievers in the kingdom? Are there unbelievers in the new covenant? The church is made up of believers and non-believers?[/quote:84d6883f77]In the Kingdom? I honestly don't know. It's obvious that there will not be, but I have not put enough time into studying the "Kingdom" to say whether or not there are unbelievers in the Kingdom today (although I'm inclined to think not). 

In the New Covenant? Absolutely not! 
[i:84d6883f77]Jer. 31:31-33; Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 2Cor. 3:6; Heb 9:15 And for this cause He is the Mediator of the new covenant, so that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.[/i:84d6883f77]

The "local" church is made up of both saved and unregenerate members.
The "true" church consists only of those who are truly saved.

I know you're going to come back with some more questions in order to steer the conversation. I look forward to it. It really would help if you'd make a clear statement of your position on these issues though.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:4df4a6173b="Wannabee"]What do you want from John 15? Those cut away are not saved. It's as simple as that. To claim otherwise to to claim that one can lose their salvation. They are false professors, wolves, tares, bad fish, fruitless branches. No one who is truly born again is allowed to fall away. If one is truly born again he will bear fruit.
[/quote:4df4a6173b] 

If I may interject for a second, I think I agree with your conclusion. But I would like to know what you mean by those "cut away." As a Baptist, what were they "cut away" from if they were never truly part of it? And to tie it into the parable, what were the bad fish/unbelievers "cast" out of if they were never really in the net/kingdom in the first place? I think this is what Scott is getting at.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Patrick,

Your question is fair, and I'll respond. I do request that this doesn't become a tag team though, with you guys coming at me from different angles. First, I'm a little slow  . Second, I just can't invest the time to try to address several different issues. :book: 

In the case of the vine, I think the parallel with the nation of Israel explains that those who were born Jewish are not necessarily children of God. They, although the covenant people, were not truly elect and are therefore cut away for destruction. The context seems to lend itself to this interpretation, as well as the symbolism of the vine representing Israel (as I mentioned above, with references).

The tares were sown by the Devil, Jesus makes that clear. They were not truly part of the elect, as I know you'll agree. They were planted among the elect in order to contaminate them. They are in the field, but not from the field.

With the fish it seems that the kingdom gathers the fish in order to sort them. To use this verse to claim that unbelievers are in the kingdom seems to me to be quite shakey. I don't know if I'd rule it out, but I'd need much more to go on that what is available in this passage.

As an analogy consider this; you know that there are armed criminals in a certain group of people. They are the enemies. The unarmed people are of your nation. You gather all of them and imprison them within your country's prison. Does that make them all of your country? You don't need to hack away at the illustration, it's got lots of shortfalls. Just the basic thought has some merit though. Just because the kingdom gathers the elect as well as regenerate does not make the regenerate part of the kingdom.

I'm a bit puzzled. How can one claim that they are part of God's kingdom and yet not saved? I might claim to be an American. I might have the I.D. to prove it. However, if I am not truly born in America I am not American (ignoring all the technicalities). I cannot be born into God's kingdom of myself. It's by Him "begetting" me that I am born into His kingdom. Any profession of citizenship is a lie. 

Likewise, any who claim to be in the New Covenant that are not truly born again are liars, and the truth is not in them. The verses I quoted earlier show clealry that those in the New Covenant have God's Word written on their hearts, only those who are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance. They are redeemed. I can't see how we could possibly get away with claiming that anyone in the New Covenant could fall/be cut/be cast away without claiming that one could lose their salvation.

From this thinking I would have to conclude that anyone who "claims" to be in covenant with God and is not actually elect is fooling themselves. Only the elect can truly be in covenant with God because it is a One sided covenant. We can't even begin to obey His commandments unless He regenerates our hearts. 

Well, I said more than I meant to. Perhaps we can take it one step at a time.

Thanks


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
I apologize if I have been cryptic. It was not my intention to literally lay a snare; My thinking is systematic because of where I have theologically come from. This thread is not intended to stress anyone out. I considered leaving things lie after your last post. You can choose whether or not you want to continue friend. I'll try and be more to the point.

You previously wrote:

[quote:d2d3421c49] In the case of the vine, I think the parallel with the nation of Israel explains that those who were born Jewish are not necessarily children of God. They, although the covenant people, were not truly elect and are therefore cut away for destruction. [/quote:d2d3421c49]

Can you reiterate? Acknowledging that Jesus was not speaking in past tenses are those in the vine in the covenant or not? 

Thanks Joe.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Scott. I appreciate your sensitivity. I really am enjoying this, but want to be careful that it isn't an "us vs. them" sort of discussion. I've always enjoyed our debates (although there was a bit of polarity and tension after you fell :smug_b: off the fence :bs2: ) I'm capable of systematic thinking, and find it stimulating and necessary, but unlike you have not delved into the study of the systems very deeply. I may be wrong, but I think that, while this gives you many advantages as we work through this, it may leave me with greater freedom because my preconceptions are less likely to be under labels.

By the way, I'm not stressed. It's just difficult to know how to proceed when I'm not sure where you're trying to go or what you're trying to say. uzzled: Patrick helped a little, I think.
[quote:95325e52ae]Can you reiterate? Acknowledging that Jesus was not speaking in past tenses are those in the vine in the covenant or not?[/quote:95325e52ae]
I think I see where this is headed, and I don't see any way around it. Not that I necessarily wanted to avoid it, but it may lead to an impasse (sp?).

Is this question a substantial part of what you were after in the first place? 

It depends what covenant you are talking about. 
Abrahamic? No! Unconditional, God elect.
Mosaic? Yes! Although it had already been broken (Jer. 31). Conditional. God promised blessings based on obedience. They failed to obey and were disciplined. Revealed the hardness of man and his utter inability to obey unless regenerated by God. Those who obeyed were elect, those who disobeyed were unregenerate. Obedience to the law was not salvific, but rather a result of salvation, just as in the NC.
New? Of course not. Unconditional, God elect.

Just for the record. I refuse to place myself into a system. I have found that I cannot label myself dispensational, although much of my theology is. If I do then assumptions are made that are false. I am obviously not covenantal, although I lean that way more so than many who hold to similar beliefs. Progressive Dispensationalism and NCT have many fine attributes, but again I cannot box myself in. I only say this so that you do not jump to conclusions based on my responses. Please find out where I am based on what I say rather than labeling me based on what others say.

And, again Scott, you have not made a statement, but rather asked another question. I can keep on answering them, but I keep on having to make general answers because I'm just not certain exactly what your point is. Don't worry, I'm not frustrated or defensive. You are keeping me at a disadvantage and in a somewhat defensive posture though, without giving me a clear target.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
For the record, this subject of our discussion is the [i:5954da0a83]covenant[/i:5954da0a83] and whether the new is really new or just 'refreshed'; and whether the unregenerate are included in that covenant. Hope this clears the fog....

Now, you didn't answer my last question;You previously stated:

"In the case of the vine, I think the parallel with the nation of Israel explains that those who were born Jewish are not necessarily children of God. They, although the covenant people, were not truly elect and are therefore cut away for destruction."

Joe, in regards to the passage where Jesus spoke of the vine, was Jesus speaking in the present tense or was He referring to something that was to pass away?


----------



## pastorway

John 15 is fulfilled in Romans 9-11. The [i:77e1c2dc83]parable[/i:77e1c2dc83] finds those members of the nation of Israel, who are not at the same time spiritual Israelites, being cut away from the Olive tree and replaced by the Gentile believers that are grafted in.

There are none in Him who are not saved, for those told to depart are told that He NEVER knew them.

Let's not rely on parables to support a systematic at all costs! 

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
But the parable says "In Him".

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Every branch [i:776de55b4d]in me[/i:776de55b4d].......

And the net? "good and bad".


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Phillip. 

And you too Scott. 

I think Jesus is referring to the same thing Phillip pointed out. The NC had not yet been manifested though. It was effectual, but not "finished." The Jews were born into the vine. They were not necessarily elect in a salvific sense. Those who bore not fruit, i.e. were not elect, were cut away. I would conclude that Jesus was speaking of the present. All those who claimed to be of God, and/or claimed to be followers of Christ, but were not truly elect would be cut away unto eternal punishment.

I hope that was clear.

As for the NC, it is a partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Thanks again Scott. Although still a tad hazy, the fog has lifted. You're still answering me with questions though.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:d60cebfde3="Wannabee"]Thanks Patrick,

Your question is fair, and I'll respond. I do request that this doesn't become a tag team though, with you guys coming at me from different angles. First, I'm a little slow  . Second, I just can't invest the time to try to address several different issues. :book: [/quote:d60cebfde3]
Hey, that's ok. I don't want to double team you. But you and Pastor Way are the only Baptists who responded so you get to take the brunt of the questions :bs2: 
[quote:d60cebfde3]
In the case of the vine, I think the parallel with the nation of Israel explains that those who were born Jewish are not necessarily children of God. They, although the covenant people, were not truly elect and are therefore cut away for destruction. The context seems to lend itself to this interpretation, as well as the symbolism of the vine representing Israel (as I mentioned above, with references).

The tares were sown by the Devil, Jesus makes that clear. They were not truly part of the elect, as I know you'll agree. They were planted among the elect in order to contaminate them. They are in the field, but not from the field.

With the fish it seems that the kingdom gathers the fish in order to sort them. To use this verse to claim that unbelievers are in the kingdom seems to me to be quite shakey. I don't know if I'd rule it out, but I'd need much more to go on that what is available in this passage.
[/quote:d60cebfde3]
But if we consider another possibility, then these passages may make sense. Perhaps if we look at these picutres of the kingdom as a covenantal sense instead of whether or not they are elect or not, the meaning will be fuller. It is possible to be in a relationship to God, enjoying many benefits, and yet not be in a saving relationship to God. Consider the benefits listed in Roms 3 and 9 of those unebleiving Jews within the people of God. They are raised and fed under the Word and in some ways, though not completely, they are protected from some of the vices in the rest of the world. So if we look at the kingdom and covenant not in the sense of election, but in the sense of the public or visible people of God then it does make sense that some will be cast out even though they may have even served God in the visible church (i.e. Matt 7:23). 

[quote:d60cebfde3]
As an analogy consider this; you know that there are armed criminals in a certain group of people. They are the enemies. The unarmed people are of your nation. You gather all of them and imprison them within your country's prison. Does that make them all of your country? You don't need to hack away at the illustration, it's got lots of shortfalls. Just the basic thought has some merit though. Just because the kingdom gathers the elect as well as regenerate does not make the regenerate part of the kingdom. [/quote:d60cebfde3]
Yet the enemies will still be tried under the same laws as the citizens. Which ties in above. Those members of the visible church will be held accountable to the God they claim if they should prove to be fruitless in the end (i.e. not elect).


[quote:d60cebfde3] Likewise, any who claim to be in the New Covenant that are not truly born again are liars, and the truth is not in them. The verses I quoted earlier show clealry that those in the New Covenant have God's Word written on their hearts, only those who are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance. They are redeemed. I can't see how we could possibly get away with claiming that anyone in the New Covenant could fall/be cut/be cast away without claiming that one could lose their salvation. [/quote:d60cebfde3]
Though I agree that none of the elect will lose their salvation, the issue comes down to what we as a visible body must do. We can't see the elect. We can only have a good idea who they are. That's one of the reasons why these parable are so important. They force us to examine ourselves, to make sure we are not the false professor, and therefore subject to the judgments beginning first with the house of God. Certainly, the kingdom, at the last day will only contain the elect, but that is because of the purging process within the kingdom that the parables speak about. Until then, there appear to be both good and bad within, both being accountable to the God they claim/profess as their own. Just some thoughts. 

If you are feeling double teamed, then I'll drop out and watch. This thread just caught my interest.


----------



## Wannabee

You're fine Patrick. I appreciate your graciousness. Besides, it's only fair since Phillip joined in. One of the things I was concerned about is happening though. I wasn't sure how to answer Scott so I threw out a bunch of information, hoping to hit the target. You've commented on a bunch of it, which makes it hard to hone in. 

I know that this is all closely related. But in order to make this easier and less time consuming, can we just take one issue at a time? I don't have all the answers, as you can see, and I just can't give so many angles the time they deserve. 

Briefly, in your response to my comment about the fish - as I understand it, according to what you've laid out everyone is in the covenant. Everyone receives a measure of grace from God. God reveals Himself to all people. All are without excuse. Unless I missed something, your definition includes all humanity in the kingdom of God. If not, then how can you draw a line? As far as I can tell, any line you draw is based on speculation, with no clear biblical warrant.

I know I'm sounding critical. I really don't want to, but I think your comment to my analogy is erred. The enemies are not tried under the same laws as the citizens. Citizens have rights granted them by their Sovereign. Enemies have no rights whatsoever. 

I'm glad we agree on the importance of the parables. It gives us good common ground in our indeavor to become more Christ-like. It also unites us beyond our theological differences. 

Your comments regarding the kingdom are plausible, but I find them suspect. My concern here is in the lack of proof. If I'm missing the proof, show it to me. If not, then we can both entertain the possibility, but make no claims based on these considerations. Furthermore, we cannot build our theology on plausibilities, only on what we can know for certain. As I've said, I fail to see the kingdom as consisting of the unregenerate. Gathering is not necessarily grounds for claiming membership.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe writes:
[quote:1b09b3b001]Briefly, in your response to my comment about the fish - as I understand it, according to what you've laid out everyone is in the covenant. Everyone receives a measure of grace from God. God reveals Himself to all people.[/quote:1b09b3b001]

The 'net' is the gospel and the outward call; those whom respond to the call are true believers (the invisible church) and false believers (the visible church). These are those taken up into the net.

[quote:1b09b3b001]As far as I can tell, any line you draw is based on speculation, with no clear biblical warrant.[/quote:1b09b3b001]

Joe, The vine and the net lean into that which you say we speculate. The vine has branches that are 'in Him' yet, not true believers; these are those whom have made professions, but are unfruitful, later to be burned. They are in the visible church, [i:1b09b3b001] In Him [/i:1b09b3b001].

The net, as described above; the outward call and those whom answer.

Again, was Jesus speaking in the past tense or present? Why would he mention this to the apostles if in fact soon, it would be an obsolete rationale?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:f8989b6430="Wannabee"]
Briefly, in your response to my comment about the fish - as I understand it, according to what you've laid out everyone is in the covenant. Everyone receives a measure of grace from God. God reveals Himself to all people. All are without excuse. Unless I missed something, your definition includes all humanity in the kingdom of God. If not, then how can you draw a line? As far as I can tell, any line you draw is based on speculation, with no clear biblical warrant.
[/quote:f8989b6430]

Sorry about the commentless quote. I had a browser/board flop. 

Anyway, I'm not saying all men everywhere are in the kingdom. It refers to the visible church, where both elect and the false professor claim allegiance to Christ as King. Both are subject to His rule and judged by Him accordingly. The false professor then will be cast out in the end for his failure to bear fruit. The kingdom for now is mixed, but through the purging process at the end will be made pure. And regarding your comment about God giving grace to everyone, first it's not the same measure, second, it's not the same type. The fact that all men know God through natural revelation, is not the same as hearing the gospel and visibly (though maybe not in true faith) responding to it.


----------



## Wannabee

Hey Patrick. That's a great quote, but I missed the comment. :bs2: 


Howdy Scott. 

The verse says that the kingdom is like a net. You say that the net is the gospel. Are you saying that the kingdom is the Gospel and outward call?

As for the vine, do they have to have made professions? This could be anyone that has infiltrated the church, either in ignorance of what the gospel truly means or they think they know, or they could be subverting the work of Christ on purpose.

As Patrick noted, this parable is intended to make us examine our hearts. We must be careful not to take the meaning too far. Since Jesus is addressing Jews, His message addresses them in a way that would have more meaning to them. The illustation of the vine could not be lost on them. This truth transcends time. The illustration is valid for todays Jews as well. The principle is valid for all men. Yes, presently as well.

If my comment regarding the line of speculation is erred, show me. I'm not attacking what you believe, simply addressing my understanding of God's Word.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
Look again at what I wrote. The net is the gospel; The call goes out, people answer. Not everyone whom answers are elect. 

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not,


This is what the net drags in. All kinds, good and bad (fish). The contents of the net is the kingdom, validated in the fact that in the end, God will sift through the kingdom and remove all that does not belong there. This goes as well for the wheat and tares parable.....

Question Joe, Was Judas an apostle? Did he heal in the name of Christ? Perform miracles in the name of Christ? Did he not sit at the table? Did Jesus wash his feet? How can this be??? I'll tell you how, discipleship does not equate with regeneration; Just ask Demas!

John 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
John 12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?


Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
Mat 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Judas even baptized........

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)


[quote:725780ad30]As Patrick noted, this parable is intended to make us examine our hearts. We must be careful not to take the meaning too far.[/quote:725780ad30]

I can promise you, that is not what Pat meant........

[quote:725780ad30]As for the vine, do they have to have made professions? This could be anyone that has infiltrated the church, either in ignorance of what the gospel truly means or they think they know, or they could be subverting the work of Christ on purpose. [/quote:725780ad30]

Joe,
Does a profession prove one's validity? Infiltrated or not, subversion or not, they are part of the visible church. You yourself have said this.....look above. [i:725780ad30] This could be anyone that has infiltrated the church,....[/i:725780ad30]

Look: 
John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
John 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Disciples that [i:725780ad30]believe not[/i:725780ad30]; none the less, disciples!

Tape stuck on repeat:
Again, was Jesus speaking in the past tense or present? Why would he mention this to the apostles if in fact soon, it would be an obsolete rationale?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:e6d318d632="Wannabee"]
As Patrick noted, this parable is intended to make us examine our hearts. We must be careful not to take the meaning too far. Since Jesus is addressing Jews, His message addresses them in a way that would have more meaning to them. The illustation of the vine could not be lost on them. This truth transcends time. The illustration is valid for todays Jews as well. The principle is valid for all men. Yes, presently as well.
[/quote:e6d318d632]

Just to briefly clarify what I meant, I don't think the parable was "intended" for self-examination. I believe it is teaching us what the kingdom is like until the end. Jesus is teaching that it is mixed until the bad are thrown out at his return. But I do believe that self-examination is a practical application of this text, to challenge people to examine their hearts to see what kind of kingdom member they are, good or bad, that is truly believing or just falsely professing.


----------



## Philip A

[quote:9b449a80c0="Wannabee"]There was some discussion on the thread before the forum went down the other day that was lost.[/quote:9b449a80c0]
No, brother, all is not lost :bs2: I type out my longer responses before I post them. I still have the bulk of my part of the discussion saved. Let me repeat it:



To take "In me" in the absolute sense is to fail to deal adequately, or even systematically, with the whole of scripture. There are other places where the state of being "in Christ" is discussed. In particular, we have these three:

[b:9b449a80c0]Romans 8:1[/b:9b449a80c0]
[i:9b449a80c0]There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.[/i:9b449a80c0] 
[b:9b449a80c0]1 Cor 15:22[/b:9b449a80c0]
[i:9b449a80c0]For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. [/i:9b449a80c0]
[b:9b449a80c0]2 Cor 5:17[/b:9b449a80c0]
[i:9b449a80c0]Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. [/i:9b449a80c0]

So, from Paul's letters, we can make the following observations about what it means to be "in Christ":

1. He will not be condemned (not cast into the fire), but "shall be made alive".
2. He walks according to the Spirit, not the flesh (abides in Christ).
3. He is a new creation.

Yet, in John 15 Jesus says that some of those who are "in me" will be cut off. So does this mean that a person could be "in Christ", regenerated (a new creation), justified (no condemnation), walking according to the Spirit, and ultimately apostasize, fail to abide in Christ, and then finally be cast into the fire, rather than "be made alive"?

If both are taken in the true, absolute sense, then we have what seems to be a contradiction. [i:9b449a80c0]This is something that both the paedos and credos have to deal with.[/i:9b449a80c0]

How then shall we deal with it? The law of non-contradiction tells us that A can not be non-A at the same time and in the same sense. Because we all believe in the inerrancy of scripture both paedo and credo have only two choices: John 15 and the pauline passages I cited can either be:

1. Not concurrent, or
2. Not meant in the same sense.

The latter is what I am arguing for. The pauline passages are meant in the true, absolute sense, in that they speak of things as the actually are. In the passage from John, Christ is speaking of things in the apparent sense, in that he speaks of things as they appear to be. This is the only proper way to interpret them. One passage is didactic epistle, the other is analogy. To argue the absolute sense from the analogical over and against the didactic is terrible hermeneutics. It is the halmark of bad theology. This is how our Charismatic bretheren attempt to support their doctrines. They start in Acts first, where the literary style of historical record, taken in isolation, gives them more wiggle room to eisogete their doctrines. From there they go to the didactic portions of scripture and interpret them based on what they have already concluded from their reading of Acts. We cannot do the same thing. We cannot start with the anological ("the kingdom of heaven is [i:9b449a80c0]like[/i:9b449a80c0]", "I am the vine") and press it to the most literal and absolute sense, and force a contradiction with the clearer didactic passages of Paul's epistles.

If this sounds novel to you, listen to Owen in Book IV, Chapter V of Death of Death, where he responds to the Amyraldian/Arminian argument from 1 Cor 8:11 :
[quote:9b449a80c0]...he that is said to perish is called a brother,--that is, a believer; we are brethren only by faith, whereby we come to have one Father. As he is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die for him. That a true believer cannot finally perish may easily be proved; therefore, he who doth perish is manifestly declared never to have been any: "They went out from us, because they were not of us." If any perish, then, he was never a true believer. [i:9b449a80c0]How, then, is he said to be a brother? Because he is so in profession, so in our judgment and persuasion; it being meet for us to think so of them all. As he is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die for him, even in that judgment which the Scripture allows to us of men. [/i:9b449a80c0]We cannot count a man a brother, and not esteem that Christ died for him; we have no brotherhood with reprobates. Christ died for all believers, John 17. So we esteem all men walking in the due profession of the gospel, not manifesting the contrary; yet of these, that many may perish none ever denied.... [i:9b449a80c0]We do not deny but that some may perish, and that eternally, concerning whom we ought to judge that Christ died for them, whilst they live and converse with us according to the rule of the gospel[/i:9b449a80c0].[/quote:9b449a80c0]
Later, in reply to claims made from 2 Pe 2:1, he says this:
[quote:9b449a80c0]Thirdly, Neither is it more certain that the apostle speaketh of the purchase of the wolves and hypocrites,[i:9b449a80c0] in respect of the reality of the purchase, and not rather in respect of that estimation which others had of them[/i:9b449a80c0],--and, by reason of their outward seeming profession, ought to have had,--and of the profession that themselves made to be purchased by him whom they pretended to preach to others; as the Scripture saith [of Abaz], "The gods of Damascus smote him," because he himself so imagined and professed, 2 Chron. 28:23. The latter hath this also to render it probable,--namely, that [i:9b449a80c0]it is the perpetual course of the Scripture, to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the fellowship of the church which are proper to them only who are true spiritual members of the same;[/i:9b449a80c0] as to be saints, elect, redeemed, etc. Now, the truth is, from this their profession, that they were bought by Christ, might the apostle justly, and that according to the opinion of our adversaries, press these false teachers, by the way of aggravating their sin. For the thing itself, their being bought, it could be no more urged to them than to heathens and infidels that never heard of the name of the Lord Jesus.[/quote:9b449a80c0] 
And then he defends against the claims made using Hebrews 10:29 in this way:
[quote:9b449a80c0]That it was the manner of the saints, and the apostles themselves, to esteem of all baptized, initiated persons, ingrafted into the church, as sanctified persons; so that, speaking of backsliders, he could not make mention of them any otherwise than as they were commonly esteemed to be, and at that time, in the judgment of charity, were to be considered. Whether they were true believers or no, but only temporary, to whom this argument against apostasy is proposed, according to the usual manner of speech used by the Holy Ghost, they could not be otherwise described.[/quote:9b449a80c0]
So, to summarize, Owen says that:
1. Professors are to be considered bretheren based on profession, and if they prove to be reprobates, then it is manifest that they never had been true believers.
2. "...it is the perpetual course of the Scripture, to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the fellowship of the church which are proper to them only who are true spiritual members of the same..."
3. The only proper way to address apostates was "as they were commonly esteemed to be", and that this manner of speaking is "the usual manner of speech used by the Holy Ghost".

Confessional Reformed Baptists believe that only the elect are truly in the new covenant. Thus, as a Reformed Baptist, it is consistent with my theology to restate the above observations from Owen in this manner:
1. Professors are to be considered as being in the covenant based on profession, and if they prove to be reprobates, then it is manifest that they never had been true covenant members.
2. It is the perpetual course of the Scripture, to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the external fellowship of the covenant which are proper to them only who are true spiritual members of the same..."
3. The only proper way to address apostates was "as they were commonly esteemed to be" (in the covenant), and that this manner of speaking is "the usual manner of speech used by the Holy Ghost".

We can now apply this to John 15 and Matthew 13. Let me briefly summarize a confessional Reformed Baptist interpretation of these passages.

First, Matthew 13:
The Kingdom is like, but not identical to, the gathering of fish. Professors are brought into the fellowship of the covenant community. Some are truly members of it, some are only false professors, but all are "commonly esteemed to be" truly in the covenant kingdom. At the final judgment, those false professors will be sifted out, and Christ will say to them, "though you professed to know me, and though by charity and according to the example of scripture you were considered to be in me, truly I tell you, I never knew you, and you were never truly a part of the covenant."

John 15 is much the same:
"Every branch that associates itself with me, but is nevertheless not truly a part of me, and therefore does not bear fruit, He takes away... If anyone does not abide in Me, and thereby confirms that he never was truly in me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."


----------



## Wannabee

I'm not ignoring you. Just going camping. I'll get back on later this weekend.

Don't have too much fun without me.


----------



## Wannabee

WOW! I've never seen such big trees. We went to the siquoias. General Sherman is the largest living thing on earth. Amazing! It's base is 36 feet in diameter and it's over 2000 years old.

Okay, back to the topic at hand.

Scott, I hope none of my comments seemed agressive. As I refreshed myself on this thread I could see where they might be taken that way. I am not an authority on this issue, nor do I claim to be. I'm trying to work through this WITH you, from a perspective I have not tried before. 

You and Patrick have been very gracious and patient. Thank you. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it's been very rewarding for me.

We have discussed the intention of this parable. Patrick makes reference to looking "at these pictures of the kingdom as a convenantal sense instead of whether they are elect or not" making the meaning fuller. While this may be true, my concern is that in doing this we are treating the text in an eisegetical way and reading more into the passage than can be safely concluded. Rather than looking at it from a covenantal perspective, we need to simply compare Scripture to Scripture. How can this claim be backed up biblically? [quote:572121f0fa]The 'net' is the gospel and the outward call;[/quote:572121f0fa]On what is this claim based Scott? The kingdom is LIKE a net, but the Gospel is not represented in any way that I can discern. Earlier there is reference to the Word of the kingdom, but this verse is not a clear reference of that one. 
However, even if we conclude that it is the Gospel, we still can't say that the bad fish were attracted by the Gospel. It could be that they were cursed by it. I just can't see how we can conclude that they reacted in a positive way to the Gospel.
Furthermore, the word used for net here is not used anywhere else in the NT (sagenei). This is not the typcal cast net. This is a drag net. It gathers everything in its path, regardless. It gathers the good, bad and ugly. It gathers the lowest reprobate and the godliest saint. Also, "sea" is a common Jewish reference to all the people of the earth. [quote:572121f0fa]Just to briefly clarify what I meant, I don't think the parable was "intended" for self-examination. I believe it is teaching us what the kingdom is like until the end. Jesus is teaching that it is mixed until the bad are thrown out at his return. But I do believe that self-examination is a practical application of this text, to challenge people to examine their hearts to see what kind of kingdom member they are, good or bad, that is truly believing or just falsely professing.[/quote:572121f0fa]I apologize Patrick. I misunderstood your intention. Other than the statement, [i:572121f0fa]"It is teaching us what the kingdom is like until the end,"[/i:572121f0fa] I'm in total agreement with you on the purpose of this parable. Perhaps I oversimplified it, if that's possible. I would like to point out that you yourself refer to two kingdoms here.[quote:572121f0fa]Was Judas an apostle?[/quote:572121f0fa]As for Judas, I'm not sure we can make any definite conclusions regarding him. Did he perform miracles? It seems so, but we can't be positive. Did he baptize? Perhaps, but inconclusive. Was he a true Apostle? I think that it is evident that he was not by his treachery. Furthermore, Apostles witnessed the risen Savior. Judas does not qualify on two counts. It is also possible, that as a child of Satan, he was given the ability to disguise himself as an angel of light. Did not Pharaoh's magicians duplicate Moses' staff turning into a snake? Why couldn't Judas have been given abilities to help him blend? Now, I'm not claiming that he was, I just think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions that are not clear in the text.

Thanks for your input Phillip. I think this part especially is appiclable to where this discussion has gone.[quote:572121f0fa]This is the only proper way to interpret them. One passage is didactic epistle, the other is analogy. To argue the absolute sense from the analogical over and against the didactic is terrible hermeneutics.[/quote:572121f0fa]Romans 8:1 is a great reminder of the truth of the need of salvation for one to truly be "IN" Christ.
Other verses to consider
1 Timothy 3:13 - [i:572121f0fa]For they having served well gain a good grade for themselves, and much boldness in the faith, those in Christ Jesus.[/i:572121f0fa]
1 Thessalonians 4:16 - [i:572121f0fa]For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first.[/i:572121f0fa]
Eph 2:10 [i:572121f0fa]For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.[/i:572121f0fa] 
Eph 2:4-7 - [i:572121f0fa]But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), and has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. [/i:572121f0fa]
Gal 5:6 - [i:572121f0fa]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but faith working through love. [/i:572121f0fa]
Gal 6:15 - [i:572121f0fa]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.[/i:572121f0fa]
Gal 3:26-29 - [i:572121f0fa]For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.[/i:572121f0fa] 
2Co 5:17 - [i:572121f0fa]So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.[/i:572121f0fa]

Unless I missed something, every one of these passages (and many more) makes it clear that being IN Christ is equal to being saved. Ephesians 2:11-13 is a great reminder of this truth as well, as it points out that [i:572121f0fa]those who were once affar aff are made near [b:572121f0fa]by the blood of Christ.[/b:572121f0fa][/i:572121f0fa]
[i:572121f0fa]Therefore remember that you, the nations, in time past were in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; and that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once afar off are made near by the blood of Christ.[/i:572121f0fa] 

These examples are are taken from epistles, the backbone of our doctrine. In order to claim that Jesus' reference to the bad branches being "in Him" as a doctrinal theme one has to deal with all of the above, and more. As many have pointed out, including PastorWay, Phillip A and Ryle (see below), we cannot claim clear analogies as a foundation for our doctrinal positions.[quote:572121f0fa]These verses, we must carefully remember, contain a parable. In interpreting it we must not forget the great rule which applies to all Christ's parables. The general lesson of each parable is the main thing to be noticed. The minor details must not be tortured, strained and pressed to excess, in order to extract a meaning from them. The mistakes into which Christians have fallen by neglecting this rule are neither few nor small.
(Ryle - Expository Thoughts on John)[/quote:572121f0fa]I'm no expert brothers, but it seems to me that to make the claim that this parable's reference to those "in Christ" is an absolute not only takes us into a dead end doctrinally as we encounter the above verses, I think it also opens a can of worms that we cannot possibly get a lid on. Where will this end? I find it strange that I, one who holds to a strict literal interpretation of Scripture, feels the need to expound on the need to keep parables in their proper perspective. But if we continue to hold this pattern then our Savior is litterally a lion, a lamb, a door, a star etc. Of course this is nonsense, but I ask you to show me how you determine where to draw this distinction in dealing with parables.

Finally, even if this parable says exactly what you think it does, what are the implications? Either way we still have unbelievers confessing salvation and in our "churches?"

Again, I don't claim to have the last word here. I've tried to think through this the way you've presented it, but can't get around the road blocks I've encountered (all of the above).

I'm still hoping we can narrow this down.  :bs2:


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe writes:
[quote:64c4ab5d3e]As for Judas, I'm not sure we can make any definite conclusions regarding him.[/quote:64c4ab5d3e]

Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him [b:64c4ab5d3e]his twelve disciples[/b:64c4ab5d3e], he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of [b:64c4ab5d3e]the twelve apostles[/b:64c4ab5d3e] are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and [b:64c4ab5d3e]Judas Iscariot[/b:64c4ab5d3e], who also betrayed him.
Mat 10:5 [b:64c4ab5d3e]These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them[/b:64c4ab5d3e], saying.........


Mat 26:14 Then [b:64c4ab5d3e]one of the twelve[/b:64c4ab5d3e], called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,


Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake,[b:64c4ab5d3e]lo, Judas, one of the twelve[/b:64c4ab5d3e], came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.


Mark 6:7 And he called unto him [b:64c4ab5d3e]the twelve[/b:64c4ab5d3e], and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Mark 6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
Mark 6:10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Mark 6:13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.


Luke 6:13 And when it was day,[b:64c4ab5d3e] he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;[/b:64c4ab5d3e]
Luke 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

John 3:22 [b:64c4ab5d3e]After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.[/b:64c4ab5d3e]

Joe,
I believe that the above passages support the idea that Judas was 'one of the twelve'. The 12 [i:64c4ab5d3e]were[/i:64c4ab5d3e] apostles; the 12 (including Judas Iscariot) performed miracles, healed diseases, raised people from the dead, sat at the table and even baptised.

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

We then can conclude, based upon sola scriptura that Judas was a disciple, an apostle, healed sickness, performed various miracles, rAised people from the dead, and even baptized.

Do you agree; or will you challenge over 2 thousand years of theology proper?

Joe adds:
[quote:64c4ab5d3e]On what is this claim based Scott? The kingdom is LIKE a net, but the Gospel is not represented in any way that I can discern. Earlier there is reference to the Word of the kingdom, but this verse is not a clear reference of that one. 
However, even if we conclude that it is the Gospel, we still can't say that the bad fish were attracted by the Gospel. It could be that they were cursed by it. I just can't see how we can conclude that they reacted in a positive way to the Gospel. 
Furthermore, the word used for net here is not used anywhere else in the NT (sagenei). This is not the typcal cast net. This is a drag net. It gathers everything in its path, regardless. It gathers the good, bad and ugly. It gathers the lowest reprobate and the godliest saint. Also, "sea" is a common Jewish reference to all the people of the earth. [/quote:64c4ab5d3e]

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
Mat 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
Mat 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, [b:64c4ab5d3e]both bad and good[/b:64c4ab5d3e]: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
Mat 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
Mat 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 [b:64c4ab5d3e]For many are called, but few are chosen.[/b:64c4ab5d3e]


This parable as well as the wedding parable means something. It is a description of the kingdom; good and bad are in it. The net is the outward call; those whom respond (even today) are mixed. "Many are called, but few are they You have obviusly agreed with this notion. Your treatment of Judas as an apostle, as a disciple will assuredly frustrate your present position; it must. The conclusion will support the idea that unbelievers are included in the covenant, that disciples are baptized, that disciples do not necessarily have to be regenerate or converted and that it is quite possible that Judas ate the meal; hence concluding that there are unbelievers sitting at our tables.

Please see commentary from: Poole, Henry, JFB, and Gill. They all agree that this net is likened to the outward call; the gospel.


----------



## pastorway

Great post Philip A.

As for the discussion, pardon my tiredness, but I think I got lost.....

what is the point?

If it is to say that there are people in our churches that are reprobates (and therefore not members of the invisible church) then yes, we all agree. 

If it is to say that the Bible is teaching that the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, is comprised of both the saved and lost then I believe that the point of the parable has been missed. 

These parables cannot be taken to say as a matter of doctrinal fact that there are lost people who are subjects and citizens of the kingdom of God or Members of His Bride. He never [i:4469f33aca]knew[/i:4469f33aca] them no matter what affiliation they may invalidly claim. 

Phillip


----------



## Wannabee

Hi PastorWay.

Brother Scott, I mean no disrespect, but it seems that you're straining gnats my friend. I honestly don't care how we define Judas. He was a disciple, or at least an avowed disciple.

This does not make or break your claim though. It simply doesn't matter. And just as a side note, this is not "theology proper" (the study of God).

I've read Gill, JFB and Henry and others regarding this passage (I missed Poole). My position on Judas has no effect on my understanding of this parable, at least as far as I can tell. Of course there are unbelievers amongst us. The point is that they are not in the kingdom. The disciples who forsook Jesus simply were not true disciples. 

Scott, you have so many didactic passages to confront in order to prove your claim, yet you are hanging on an analogous interpretation of an analogy, if I can say it that way. We have to use Scripture to bolster our claims. Commentaries are a good check, but if our conclusions contradict Scripture then we must rethink our position.

We can stop here if you'd like. I just can't see us getting any further. From my perspective your claims regarding the kingdom stretch the meaning too far for my comfort. It's merely plausible, but not proveable. I've shown from didactic passages that being "in Christ" is synonymous with being saved. Yet you have not dealt with these passages and continue to lean on a parable for your doctrinal position. 

I can't see how it could be possible that unbelievers could be in the New Covenant. Jesus calls His own and they recognize Him. The kingdom gathers all people, however this does not mean that all people are in the kingdom. They are gathered for judgment. 

If more than believers are in the NC, then where can you draw the line? Is it simply those who respond favorably to the Gospel? On what do you base this line? What Scripture do you use to support where the cuttoff is between those who are bad fish and those who were never in the net? I'm all ears if it's there. But I just can't make that connection.[quote:4f1c888c51]I am interested in how the credo-Baptist interprets this passage. I never noticed this as clearly as I do now?[/quote:4f1c888c51]Please show me the clarity.

Your Brother,
Joe


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:8f547cd238]I honestly don't care how we define Judas. He was a disciple.....

I am interested in how the credo-Baptist interprets this passage. I never noticed this as clearly as I do now?

Please show me the clarity. [/quote:8f547cd238]

So, discipleship does not equal regeneration? Looks like you are seeing much clearer now!

Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him [b:8f547cd238]his twelve disciples[/b:8f547cd238], he [i:8f547cd238]gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease[/i:8f547cd238]. 


You cannot deny it, the scriptures show that an unregenerate was a disciple, a apostle and that the miracles performed were under the power given them by Christ, not satan.


----------



## Philip A

[quote:bd784868dd="Scott Bushey"]It is a description of the kingdom; good and bad are in it.[/quote:bd784868dd]

In what sense are they in it, Scott? It seems as though you have ignored my post on the sense intended by the passage. It hardly seems credible to state that this passage "has been avoided", that no one on "your side of the issue" has "adequately dealt" with it, and then turn around and ignore the actual explanation of the passage that you yourself solicited.

[quote:bd784868dd]Your treatment of Judas as an apostle, as a disciple will assuredly frustrate your present position; it must.[/quote:bd784868dd]

Why must it? Not merely by the force of your assertion. It must in order for your own presuppositions to stand.

[quote:bd784868dd]The conclusion will support the idea that unbelievers are included in the covenant[/quote:bd784868dd]

Another [i:bd784868dd]non sequitur[/i:bd784868dd]. Sorry, but I just don't see a bridge from here to there, and your bare assertion doesn't build it for me. Why must this necessarily follow?

[quote:bd784868dd]You cannot deny it, the scriptures show that an unregenerate was a disciple, a apostle and that the miracles performed were under the power given them by Christ, not satan.[/quote:bd784868dd]

I wouldn't deny it for a moment, but what does it prove, and how?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
If you wouldn't deny it for a moment, you tell me; what does it imply, that there is no consistancy in what I pose. I get it, it's just a strawman i've constructed.


----------



## Philip A

Scott,

I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, pardon me if it came across that way.

I merely meant to point out that you've not provided any of us with a bridge to get from Judas being an apostle to unbeleivers being in the covenant. I'm pretty sure I know how you yourself get there, but it would be best for me not to assume that in this discussion.

Whether or not your statements are consistent with one another within the sphere of your presuppositional framework is not what I'm addressing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Sorry Phillip,
What is it you need in that regard?


----------



## Philip A

How does the fact that Judas was a disciple, an Apostle, and one by whom the Spirit worked miracles, prove that there are unregenerate in the covenant, thereby frustrating the baptist position?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Every covenant of the bible had unregenerates; in covenant with God.
Why are there warning passages in the NT unless the covenant can't be broken. What covenant was Judas in?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just as a note on "covenant" with Judas.

We know he was not part of the OT adminsitration - that ended with John the Baptist.

We know that Christ's commission in the NT, under the continuace of the Covenant of Grace was to make "disciples."

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make [b:b900764096]disciples [/b:b900764096]of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. 

We know Judas was a disciple/apostle.

Matthew 10:4 "and [b:b900764096]Judas Iscariot[/b:b900764096], who also betrayed Him. "

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the [b:b900764096]disciples [/b:b900764096]and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

So, I think we can easily say that the covenatn by which Judas was a disciple (even a professing "beleiver" at that! - for a time) was the Covenant under Christ's fulfillment.

The moment of the incarnation marks the inauguration of the COvenant Fulfillment of the Abrhamic Covenant and promise in Christ:

In Mary's song of praise to God for the Messiah coming she says, Luke 1:55 As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his seed forever."

Zechariah also says, "Luke 1:73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham."

Even Christ equated the works of Abraham to works done before Him, John 8:39 "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham."

And we certainly know that Melchizedek's priesthood, which is Christ's, is highlighted all through Hebrews as Christ's fulifllment as Priest.

So I think it is rather easy to show that Judas was under the New Covenant, but a covenant breaker (Hebrews 6:1-6; 10:29; 1 Tim 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 4:10; 1 Tim. 5:15) In fact, the Son of Perdition, that the Scriptures would be fulfilled.

[/b]


----------



## Wannabee

Howdy Matthew!

Can either you or Scott give us a short and precise definition of what it means to be in the New Covenenant?

Thanks
Joe


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
Here is Z. Ursinus' interpretation:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/UrsinusCovenant.htm


----------



## Wannabee

Thank you Scott.

I enjoyed reading through it. Here's a sample:[quote:101a2eb4ec]Question 37 

Q: Does the Gospel then teach that all are in the Covenant of Grace?
A: It certainly calls all to this covenant, but no one becomes a member of it except those who accept and keep it, that is, those who by true faith receive Christ, who has been offered to them, and his blessings.[/quote:101a2eb4ec]Do you realize that all of the answers to the questions in this describe someone who is genuinely saved?

I agree with the definition stated whole heartedly.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
You state:

[quote:fdbb67601c]Do you realize that all of the answers to the questions in this describe someone who is genuinely saved?[/quote:fdbb67601c]

Yes. Ursinus is describing the elect and the covenant of redemption. What I have been fighting for is the covenant of grace; which includes the elect and unregenerate. 

Was Esau in the covenant? Was Ishmael? Was Judas? Yes, the covenant of grace.

The warning passages are in scripture because people do fall away from the covenant of Grace; Not from the C.O.R. (we know they can't). 

I will quote Matt:
" people cannot fall away, but they can break the covenant and show themselves to be Apostate like Esau. They can transgress and break the covenant, and then the curses follow. They can break the Covenant of Grace, but never the Covenant of Redemption. "

Joe,
Here's a thread on the C.O.G............

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3049&highlight=covenant+grace


----------



## Philip A

Scott,

Before we go down this rabbit trail and depart entirely from the original topic of this thread, could you deal with the answer that you explicitly asked for? Until you do so, none of your arguments and objections based on these passages can stand. Let me repeat myself:

"It seems as though you have ignored my post on the sense intended by the passage. It hardly seems credible to state that this passage "has been avoided", that no one on "your side of the issue" has "adequately dealt" with it, and then turn around and ignore the actual explanation of the passage that you yourself solicited."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Philip,
Just for the record, after re-reading your earlier post [where you quote Owen], I have no qualms with that which you pose. I don't see any conflict with what the paedo ascibes to and that which you have stated. However, are you not technically misusing Owens quote in that the 'sense' he is utilizing this rationale is based upon that which you and I are struggling; that being those whom are in the covenant of grace; the non-elect, and the elect who are in the covenant of redemption? So, along with Owen, it is in this [i:02650118b6]sense[/i:02650118b6] that I understand these passages. But truthfully, you cannot say that this is the 'sense' that you agree. In the sense you have utilized Owen (including Pastorway (in his agreeing with your post) and Wanaabee, quoting another reformed person in Hendriksen), have you not made Owen a credo Baptist in his theology or in the least, misunderstood his position, because obviously, his position in diametrically different.

Based upon Owens theology, I still stand upon my proposition that the net is the gospel, the fish in the net are the members of the covenant of grace, and the final cleaning out of the bad fish are those removed from the final covenant of redemption, i.e. the elect. In regards to Matt 15 and the vine; the vine is the gospel/ the word, the branches are the members of the C.O.G and those cut away in the end are those whom are not members of the C.O.R.


If you are referring to the 'frustration' I spoke of, I intend to direct that frustration towards the fact that the credo believes that the new covenant is made up of the elect only and that discipleship equates with regeneration. Is this clearer? Uh, it's not a rabbit trail by the way....


----------



## Philip A

[quote:3ac340080e="Scott Bushey"]
Just for the record, after re-reading your earlier post [where you quote Owen], I have no qualms with that which you pose.[/quote:3ac340080e]
So you agree that the passages cited deal with persons appearing to be in the kingdom and in Christ, who are not truly so? That was the main point that I was making.
[quote:3ac340080e]I don't see any conflict with what the paedo ascibes to and that which you have stated.[/quote:3ac340080e]
That is entirely true. My interpretation is no threat to the paedobaptist, because it is transparent to views of both baptism and covenant inclusion. All it does is take away from the paedobaptist the ability to argue for non-elect in the CoG from these particular passages. It takes them "out of play" so to speak. It requires that you make your point on other grounds.
[quote:3ac340080e]However, are you not technically misusing Owens quote in that the 'sense' he is utilizing this rationale is based upon that which you and I are struggling; that being those whom are in the covenant of grace; the non-elect and the elect who are in the covenant of redemption?[/quote:3ac340080e]
Owen is arguing that the scripture speaks of those who appear to have been bought by Christ, but are not truly so. I was making a parallel observation that the scripture also speaks of those who appear to be "in the kingdom" and "in Christ", but they are not truly so. I certainly was not claiming Owen in my camp, just using his example to prove that scripture does actually speak in different senses other than the true and absolute sense.
[quote:3ac340080e]I intend to direct that frustration towards the fact that the credo believes that the new covenant is made up of the elect only.... Is this clearer?[/quote:3ac340080e]
Absolutely. My point was that you cannot do so from these passages. As I said above, you must prove your argument on different grounds.
[quote:3ac340080e]and that discipleship equates with regeneration[/quote:3ac340080e]
Who would ever say such a thing? I don't know of any confessional Reformed Baptists who would say actually agree to this. Perhaps it could be attributed to sloppy writing, but no cRB in his right mind would intentionally make such a statement.
[quote:3ac340080e]it's not a rabbit trail by the way[/quote:3ac340080e]
It is a natural progression along the lines of your arguments, but not particularly applicable to the passage we are discussing, if my points above are correct.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:c6a06a5d52]
So you agree that the passages cited deal with persons appearing to be in the kingdom and in Christ, who are not truly so? [/quote:c6a06a5d52]

No, I along with Owen et. al. acknowledge that these people are covenant people and in covenant with God. Just because ultimately, during the final judgment they are shown to be not in the C. O. R., does
not make them any less in covenant with God. Also, Just because Owen doesn't qualify his every statement along the lines of the C. O. G. doesn't mean he has abandoned the doctrine when he speaks along the lines you are referencing. As I have stated, these people are in covenant with God, externally. Nonetheless, in covenant and as I mentioned in my last post, 'in the kingdom'.

[quote:c6a06a5d52]That is entirely true. My interpretation is no threat to the paedobaptist, because it is transparent to views of both baptism and covenant inclusion.[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

That is incorrect; it is not transparent. The defining of this passage must be interpretted through the lens of CT, else you end up with the idea that the C.O.G. has no meaning; it dismantles the covenant under that guise that the external members of the covenant are no more in covenant with God than the heathen, and this is just not the case. So, for you to interpret it this way shows one of two things. Either you do not understand the true nature of the covenant or you are redefining it.

[quote:c6a06a5d52]All it does is take away from the paedobaptist the ability to argue for non-elect in the CoG from these particular passages. It takes them "out of play" so to speak.[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

Again, Baptistic thinking and your musunderstanding of the covenant. Owen is describing the C. O. R.


[quote:c6a06a5d52]
Owen is arguing that the scripture speaks of those who appear to have been bought by Christ, but are not truly so. I was making a parallel observation that the scripture also speaks of those who appear to be "in the kingdom" and "in Christ", but they are not truly so. [/quote:c6a06a5d52]

Philip,
Your interpretation, which is not in harmony with the thinking of CT. Keep in mind, these passages are describing end time events, i.e. the seperating of the bad from the good. Prior to this event, the C. O.G and the C. O. R. co-exist; both are in covenant with God, i.e Noah's son Ham.

[quote:c6a06a5d52]I certainly was not claiming Owen in my camp, just using his example to prove that scripture does actually speak in different senses other than the true and absolute sense.
[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

Again, true or absolute, without utilizing Owen's quote in the same respect Owen intends is taking him out of context. Foundated in this statement are the truths of the C. O. G. 

[quote:c6a06a5d52]
Who would ever say such a thing (that discipleship equates with regeneration)? I don't know of any confessional Reformed Baptists who would say actually agree to this. Perhaps it could be attributed to sloppy writing, but no cRB in his right mind would intentionally make such a statement.
[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

Most credo respondees to this question say that regeneration and discipleship go hand in hand.

[quote:c6a06a5d52]
It is a natural progression along the lines of your arguments, but not particularly applicable to the passage we are discussing, if my points above are correct.[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

Based upon the fact that you have removed the C.O. G from the scope of this passage, a covenant Jesus Himself embraced, your points are incorrect.


----------



## Wannabee

Disciple simply means to student or follower. It does not denote any sense of salvation. This really proves nothing.

This thread is getting more convoluted. Simple question asked[quote:6d7e628d28]Can either you (Matthew) or Scott give us a short and precise definition of what it means to be in the New Covenenant?[/quote:6d7e628d28]Was replied to with a link describing true believers. 

Your reply to this observation seems somewhat evasive Scott. I'm sure you meant well, but if you don't want to use the link you first gave, please give me the definition I've asked for. Your other link involves hours of work to get through. Just a clear, concise definition if you can, please.

Thank you
Joe


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
It's your right if you want to discontinue. No one is hog tying you to this discussion.  I've asked plenty of questions of you and you have not answered any of them? For instance: 5 posts back I asked you, "Was Esau, Ishmael, Judas in a covenant? You never answered. 10 posts back I asked you, "Every covenant of the bible had unregenerates; in covenant with God. Why are there warning passages in the NT unless the covenant can't be broken. What covenant was Judas in?" No answer! You asked me for a simple explanation of the New Covenant; I provided Ursinus' rendering and an additional link Matt wrote. Matt piped in; Did you read what He he posted Joe?
Who said I didn't want to use the link I provided? Ursinus is an excellent example. However, the problem you face is that [b:d88d30c3a7]if[/b:d88d30c3a7] you understood covenant theology, you would know what exactly Ursinus was referring; which is the covenant of redemption; which is made up of the elect only. I will repeat this: The covenant of grace (a real covenant, instituted by God, sealed in blood), which co-exists alongside the covenant of redemption, has the elect and non elect in it. So, you see, the fish, the wedding participants, the branches which are cut off, they are all in the covenant and are receiving covenant blessings, blessings that the Egyptians (heathens) do not receive. This rendering reconsiles all the mentionings of 'good and bad' people, fish, branches.

The whole point of this thread was to exegete the parables accurately which comfortably reflects this fact. I've addressed every piece of scripture. I've given analogy that fits. [i:d88d30c3a7]Your[/i:d88d30c3a7] charge of evasion and convolution is in fact ad hom and also evasive. I have adequately proven that the covenant has non believers in it as well as proven that you and Philip have used Owen and Hendriksen erroneously and out of context by quoting him and using his quote in a baptistic fashion. You know it (now) and so does everyone else who has been following this thread. You have nothing left to add because there is nothing left to add. I suggest you re-read the thread, especially my last couple of posts. 

Let me ask you finally, was the ark a type of Christ? Was Ham in the Ark? Was Ham elect? What did the covenant provide Ham? How about this; it saved his life. The common grace of the external covenant saved the unregenerate, non elect Ham's life, for Gods glory.


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

I think you mis-spoke. The covenant of grace does not have any non-elect in it. The external aspect of the covenant of grace - including the new covenant, do.

Not Ursinus' comment from your link:

[quote:f89e56b6b4]Question 37

Q: Does the Gospel then teach that all are in the Covenant of Grace?
A: It certainly calls all to this covenant, but [b:f89e56b6b4]no one becomes a member of it except those who accept and keep it, that is, those who by true faith receive Christ[/b:f89e56b6b4], who has been offered to them, and his blessings.[/quote:f89e56b6b4]

This does not affect the new covenant, but it does bear on the covenant of grace


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
What then is the difference between the COG and the COR? Are you making a conscious decision to follow the WCF as they are following Turretin? Have you read Matt's paper on the COG and how Turretin divides it?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred,

Scott is right in asking this question above.

Are you talking about the CoG in terms of Predestination, or the Cog in terms of the visible external covenant community in that SAME covenant?

Remember, Westminster followed Turretin, and Ursinus gives the same information as Turretin does. They divided the CoG into two sections:

1) The Cog as it related to Christ's service (i.e. presdestination based on the work of Christ - i.e. Chapter 3 in the WCF) and...

2) The CoG as it appears in time with men (i.e. WCF chapter 7.) The covenant community of "believers" rounding up both beleivers, and thier children, and the covenant beleiver, or Gospel Hypocrite.

The Reformation, during that time, made this distiction across the board. Today it is not "distinguished" in this way and results in confusion.

Teh Sum of Saving Knowledge (of the Westminster Standards) bears this out quite nicely in applying practically the WCF. it explains both the CoR there AND the CoG and how they work together. In other words, they followed Turretin's outline and distinction for the WCF (which is why there is a chapter 3 and a seperate chapter7), and then followed the same teachings of Cocceius (who taught Witsius, who would publish his works later).


----------



## Scott Bushey

I'll quote you Matt:

"The Covenant of Redemption is a pact or agreement between the Father and Son. The Covenant of Grace is the outworking of the fruit of the Covenant of Redemption in time by the application of the Holy Spirit on the church. The Covenant of Grace is not coextensive with salvation necessarily. The elect in that covenant are certainly saved, however, the external administration of the Covenant of Grace allows for the gospel hypocrite to seal the maledictions of the covenant to himself since he openly professes Christ, and covenants with God, but is devoid of saving grace."


Taken from: Francis Turretin"(tm)s View Of The Covenant Of Grace And Its Distinctions, With Critical Notes Following 

By C. Matthew McMahon 


http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm


----------



## Philip A

[quote:e31317c5e0="Scott Bushey"]

The defining of this passage must be interpretted through the lens of CT....

Again, Baptistic thinking....

Your interpretation, which is not in harmony with the thinking of CT....[/quote:e31317c5e0]
Since all of your arguments simply reduce to silliness, i.e. "you're a baptist, so you're just wrong", I'll take that as a sign that you don't have any arguments of substance left. The only way for me to see things you're way is to take on you're presuppositions, but the problem is that you've given me nothing but circular reasoning; you've failed to provide me any kind of entry point into your presuppositional construct.
[quote:e31317c5e0]Most credo respondees to this question say that regeneration and discipleship go hand in hand.[/quote:e31317c5e0]
I'll leave you alone with your straw men then, and take this opportunity to get off the circle.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:fcdf63ab5c="Philip A"][quote:fcdf63ab5c="Scott Bushey"]

The defining of this passage must be interpretted through the lens of CT....

Again, Baptistic thinking....

Your interpretation, which is not in harmony with the thinking of CT....[/quote:fcdf63ab5c]
Since all of your arguments simply reduce to silliness, i.e. "you're a baptist, so you're just wrong", I'll take that as a sign that you don't have any arguments of substance left. The only way for me to see things you're way is to take on you're presuppositions, but the problem is that you've given me nothing but circular reasoning; you've failed to provide me any kind of entry point into your presuppositional construct.
[quote:fcdf63ab5c]Most credo respondees to this question say that regeneration and discipleship go hand in hand.[/quote:fcdf63ab5c]
I'll leave you alone with your straw men then, and take this opportunity to get off the circle.[/quote:fcdf63ab5c]

These passages are examples of the COR and COG. If the new covenant cannot be broken Philip, please explain to me why there are warning passages in the new testament? 

You say my arguments are silly; I'll take that as a compliment because I am in good company as the historical orthodox, i.e the WCF and most all of the reformers agree with me. 

I never said that you are wrong [i:fcdf63ab5c]because[/i:fcdf63ab5c] you are a credo, I did however point to your misunderstanding of CT as a disadvantage in fully understanding this passage in the light it was intended. As far as [i:fcdf63ab5c]substance[/i:fcdf63ab5c] is concerned, it can be found above in my previous posts. 

Presuppositions? Everyone has presuppositions. If you are implying that my theology is based uopon presuppositions alone, I disagree. Was Owen's theology based upon presuppositions? Turretin? Calvin?

Entry point? The Covenant! God is a covenant keeping God. There have been unregenerates in every covenant in the bible. Here's youre starting point. These passages must be seen along these lines. If they are not seen through the God of the covenants, disharmony is the result. 

Straw man? Strike a match, I promise, it will not burn!


----------



## VanVos

Personally, as credo-baptist, I would interpret alot of these parables preteristically (in the partial sense of course). This could be speaking of the transition period of the passing away of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 Matt 24:1-36 Heb 8:13, Matt 21:43, Matt 8:11-12 etc. These verses are in reference to the judgment that came upon the Old Covenant community. There are plenty of verses that speak of the final judgment at the end of world Rev 20:7-12, John 5:28-30, 1 Cor 15:23-28 etc But I don't think that what we have here. To me, this is best way explain these verses, although I am open to correction here, by both credo and paedo baptist alike.

VanVos


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Phillip A.

What do you think is circular reasoning according to the distinction Scott has been pressing between the CoR and the CoG and the misunderstandings surrounding them?

I am not following you in quoting Scott's "Your thinking Baptistically" with "here is what the CoR and CoG mean." 

Is there something in the LBC that "unconfuses the issue" and makes it more plain from a Baptistic standpoint? I think what Scott is driving at is that as the LBC creates a "presupposition" that is exegetically impossible to hold (i.e. the CoG IS Presdestination/Salvation - they are coexstensive) that this is what he means when he says "thinking Baptistically." No Reformer, no early Father, no Puritan (other than what was started witht he Anabaptists) held that position at all. They always made a distinction between how the CoG works, especially if they did not use the terminology of the CoR. 

Personally, in my wanderings through Baptist history, from Tomes to Howell to Shireff to Gill, etc., I do not see them offering explicit exegetical arguments that COULD deliver them from their presuppositions on this issue - it is simply not dealt with at all. 

Is there something else that you think they (or anyone has) say, for instacne, on the distinction or dealing with the CoR and CoG? I'm simply unaware of anything remotely intelligable on this (including attempts by Welty, Malone, etc...) that have even closely dealt with the issue. Usually they are simply trying to prove that the CoG is a regenerate membership, and they make a kind of leap to MEAN the "New" covenant. (How they make that leap is also interesting).


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:aefbb98ae5="webmaster"]Fred,

Scott is right in asking this question above.

Are you talking about the CoG in terms of Predestination, or the Cog in terms of the visible external covenant community in that SAME covenant?

Remember, Westminster followed Turretin, and Ursinus gives the same information as Turretin does. They divided the CoG into two sections:

1) The Cog as it related to Christ's service (i.e. presdestination based on the work of Christ - i.e. Chapter 3 in the WCF) and...

2) The CoG as it appears in time with men (i.e. WCF chapter 7.) The covenant community of "believers" rounding up both beleivers, and thier children, and the covenant believer, or Gospel Hypocrite.

The Reformation, during that time, made this distiction across the board. Today it is not "distinguished" in this way and results in confusion.

the Sum of Saving Knowledge (of the Westminster Standards) bears this out quite nicely in applying practically the WCF. it explains both the CoR there AND the CoG and how they work together. In other words, they followed Turretin's outline and distinction for the WCF (which is why there is a chapter 3 and a seperate chapter7), and then followed the same teachings of Cocceius (who taught Witsius, who would publish his works later).[/quote:aefbb98ae5]

Matt,

I need help here. I have to confess that I do not understand your point here. I acknowledge that there is an eternal (CoR) and temporal aspect to God salvific covenant (CoG). But what I don't understand is why we would desire to bring the non-elect into the Covenant of Grace.

If Westminster was following Turretin in teaching that the Covenant of Grace was made with the covenant community (both non-elect and elect) they did not do a very good job of following:

[quote:aefbb98ae5="WLC 31"]Q31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him [b:aefbb98ae5]with all the elect[/b:aefbb98ae5] as his seed[/quote:aefbb98ae5]

[quote:aefbb98ae5="WLC 30"]Q30: Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A30: God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works; but of his mere love and mercy [b:aefbb98ae5]delivereth his elect out of it[/b:aefbb98ae5], and bringeth them into an estate of salvation [b:aefbb98ae5]by the second covenant[/b:aefbb98ae5], commonly called the [b:aefbb98ae5]Covenant of Grace[/b:aefbb98ae5][/quote:aefbb98ae5]

I do not deny at all the substance of what both you and Scott are putting forth. In fact I affirm it: God is in covenant with both the elect and non-elect. It has always been so, in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and now New Covenants. I argued this quite vigorously with Dan in a thread some time ago. I just think it is a mistake to style this the Covenant of Grace. I must admit that I am partial to the CoR/CoG framework of terminology (which I think Westminster allows, but is not clear on). I also agree that the Covenant of Grace has an outward administration that is not infallible (i.e. professors in the Church). But it appears that to not have an infallible Covenant in time (as opposed to just in eternity) causes problems with the invisible church.

Again, I wonder if we are very far apart - when I read Matt's article, it did not appear so to me, and in fact it did not appear to me to be advocating a Covenant of Grace that can be broken by anyone. That is my chief concern (as you could see by my interaction with both Dan and Phillip on this issue) - the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken, but man can break covenant with God.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
Hopefully, this will not sound stupid.....
What covenant are those in whom can break covenant with God? If God is the covenanter, and man the covenantee, assuredly this covenant must be considered [i:6bc516c19b]devine[/i:6bc516c19b] and along the same lines as all the other biblical covenants. False professors in the external church are in what covenant? Also, these whom break covenant are seen as 'apostates'. The term implies that they had hold of something which they ultimately reject (possibly only for a season).


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

It does not sound stupid at all. I would say that they are in (depending on the time) an external administration of the covenant of grace, which has manifested itself in the various Biblical covenants. So right now, the answer would be the new covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
Possibly I was not clear enough. You previously wrote:
' God is in covenant with both the elect and non-elect. It has always been so, in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and now New Covenants. I argued this quite vigorously with Dan in a thread some time ago. I just think it is a mistake to style this the Covenant of Grace.'

You state that God is [i:dfa0244b36] in covenant [/i:dfa0244b36] with the elect and non elect. Just to clearify, what covenant are the elect in and what covenant are the non-elect in?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:6225d576ef="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
Possibly I was not clear enough. You previously wrote:
' God is in covenant with both the elect and non-elect. It has always been so, in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and now New Covenants. I argued this quite vigorously with Dan in a thread some time ago. I just think it is a mistake to style this the Covenant of Grace.'

You state that God is [i:6225d576ef] in covenant [/i:6225d576ef] with the elect and non elect. Just to clearify, what covenant are the elect in and what covenant are the non-elect in?[/quote:6225d576ef]

The elect are in BOTH the Covenant of Grace and its outward administrations. The very fact that the elect are able to [i:6225d576ef]keep covenant[/i:6225d576ef] with God (in Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc) points to their being sustained by God (in CoG). The non-elect are merely (but truly) in covenant with God in the external administrations of the CoG.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:bc91eb64d6]The elect are in BOTH the Covenant of Grace and its outward administrations. The very fact that the elect are able to keep covenant with God (in Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc) points to their being sustained by God (in CoG). The non-elect are merely (but truly) in covenant with God in the external administrations of the CoG.[/quote:bc91eb64d6]


Fred,
What are the differences/limitations between the CoG's "outward administration" and "external administrations"?

Do you still disagree with this statement?

The covenant of grace (a real covenant, instituted by God, sealed in blood), which co-exists alongside the covenant of redemption, has the elect and non elect in it. So, you see, the fish, the wedding participants, the branches which are cut off, they are all in the covenant and are receiving covenant blessings, blessings that the Egyptians (heathens) do not receive. This rendering reconsiles all the mentionings of 'good and bad' people, fish, branches.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred,

[quote:a77eb0153e]I need help here. I have to confess that I do not understand your point here. I acknowledge that there is an eternal (CoR) and temporal aspect to God salvific covenant (CoG). But what I don't understand is why we would desire to bring the non-elect into the Covenant of Grace. [/quote:a77eb0153e]

Where does Predestination, election, salvation, redemption take place as decree:

1) CoR?
2) CoG?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:5c3c51ba35="Scott Bushey"][quote:5c3c51ba35]The elect are in BOTH the Covenant of Grace and its outward administrations. The very fact that the elect are able to keep covenant with God (in Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc) points to their being sustained by God (in CoG). The non-elect are merely (but truly) in covenant with God in the external administrations of the CoG.[/quote:5c3c51ba35]


Fred,
What are the differences/limitations between the CoG's "outward administration" and "external administrations"?[/quote:5c3c51ba35]

Nothing in my mind. I was just typing quickly and used two synonymous terms.

[quote:5c3c51ba35="Scott Bushey"]Do you still disagree with this statement?

The covenant of grace (a real covenant, instituted by God, sealed in blood), which co-exists alongside the covenant of redemption, has the elect and non elect in it. So, you see, the fish, the wedding participants, the branches which are cut off, they are all in the covenant and are receiving covenant blessings, blessings that the Egyptians (heathens) do not receive. This rendering reconsiles all the mentionings of 'good and bad' people, fish, branches.[/quote:5c3c51ba35]

Yes, I think I would. I view the Covenant of Grace as unbreakable, kept by the power of God. I side with Westminster, which says (as I quoted above) that the Covenant of Grace was made with the elect. It never implies that it is made with the non-elect.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:a8874ac15d="webmaster"]Fred,

[quote:a8874ac15d]I need help here. I have to confess that I do not understand your point here. I acknowledge that there is an eternal (CoR) and temporal aspect to God salvific covenant (CoG). But what I don't understand is why we would desire to bring the non-elect into the Covenant of Grace. [/quote:a8874ac15d]

Where does Predestination, election, salvation, redemption take place as decree:

1) CoR?
2) CoG?[/quote:a8874ac15d]

As a decree, it takes place (technically) outside of both covenants, in the will of God. God executes that decree in an eternal sense in the Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption, and he executes it in time in the Covenant of Grace (starting in Gen. 3:15). In this sense it is similar to salvation - decreed and certain in eternity past, and yet executed really and truly in time by the application of the Holy Spirit to the elect:

[quote:a8874ac15d="WCF 11.4"]God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, (Gal. 3:8, 1 Pet. 1:2,19""20, Rom. 8:30) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise for their justification: (Gal. 4:4, 1 Tim. 2:6, Rom. 4:25) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them. (Col. 1:21""22, Gal. 2:16, Tit. 3:4""7).[/quote:a8874ac15d]

So:

[quote:a8874ac15d="Haldane on Romans"]The information which the Scriptures give us of the sin of the first man, show that it was a complete subversion of nature, and the establishment of the kingdom of Satan in the world; they also show us that the purpose of sending Jesus Christ into the world was to destroy the empire of Satan, sin, and death. "œï"¿We read,ï"¿" says Mr. Bell On the Covenants, "œï"¿of two Adams, ï"¿1 Corinthians 15:45""49ï"¿. As the one is called the first man, the other is called the second, even the Lord from heaven. Now, as there were innumerable multitudes of men between the first man and Him, it is plain that He is called the second man for some very peculiar reason. And what else can that be, but because He is the representative and father of all His spiritual seed, as the first man was of all his natural seed? The one is the head, the federal head of the earthly men, the other of the heavenly. Since the one is called the second man, not because He was the second in the order of creation, but because He was the second public head, it follows that the other is called the first man not because he was first created, or in opposition to his descendants, but because he was the first public head in opposition to Christ the second. [b:a8874ac15d]Thus the two Adams are the heads of the two covenants[/b:a8874ac15d]. The one the representative of all who are under the covenant of works, communicating his image unto them; [b:a8874ac15d]the other the representative of all who are under the covenant of grace[/b:a8874ac15d], and communicating His image unto them. By the one man"(tm)s disobedience many were made sinners, and by the obedience of the other many shall be made righteous. ([i:a8874ac15d]in loc[/i:a8874ac15d] Rom 5:1-21)[/quote:a8874ac15d]

[quote:a8874ac15d="Hodge on the Confession"]Our Standards say nothing of two covenants. They do not mention the covenant of redemption as distinct from the covenant of grace. But evidently the several passages which treat of this subject (Conf. Faith, ch. 7., s. 3; L. Cat., q. 31; S. Cat., q. 20) assume that there is but one covenant, contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity, and [b:a8874ac15d]administered by him to the elect[/b:a8874ac15d] in the offers and ordinances of the gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit. The Larger Catechism in the place referred to teaches how the covenant of grace was contracted with Christ for his people. The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people.[/quote:a8874ac15d]

[quote:a8874ac15d="Guthrie in [i:a8874ac15d]The Christian's Great Interest[/i:a8874ac15d]"]The Lord did most freely, from everlasting, purpose and intend to save men another way, namely, by Christ Jesus, and the covenant of grace, in which He intended reconciliation with the elect through Christ Jesus, God and man, born of a woman, in due time to make this agreement effectual. And this device of satisfying His own justice, and saving of the elect by Christ, He did at first intimate to our parents in paradise, saying, "˜ï"¿That the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent"(tm)s head.ï"¿"(tm) (ï"¿Gen. 3:15ï"¿.) And the Lord has in all generations made this known to His church.[/quote:a8874ac15d]

That is at least what I am thinking now. I need to go back and re-read Berkhof and Ward.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:a8b04eee14]As a decree, it takes place (technically) outside of both covenants[/quote:a8b04eee14]

As a decree, it [u:a8b04eee14][b:a8b04eee14]IS[/b:a8b04eee14][/u:a8b04eee14] the CoR. (I suppose in some ways your slant on lapsarianism would color this) but that's the Federal Position. Chapter 3 = the CoR and chapter 7 = the CoG in the WCF. That was their intent - that is why you see predestiantion in chapter 3 and NOT (hear that all Presbyterians!!) in chapter 7.

Hodge, in the above quotes, was in error, or better stated, did not consider everything needful to be considered here, because he did not take into consideration the WCF's following of Turretin and the division of the CoG. Did he mention the Sum of Saving Knowledge? I know he does not. His commentary is just dealing with the WCF alone (and people need to be careful in doing that - for - if they knew Westminster's Hisotry, then they would treat the WHOLE standards together. For example, where do we have the practical application of the WSC, WLC and WCF? IN THE SoSK!)

Here is THEIR application of the WCF - see if you can reconcile it with what has been said so far:

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

I. Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, to wit, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the [b:a8b04eee14]covenant of redemption[/b:a8b04eee14], made and agreed upon, between God the Father and God the Son, in the counsel of the Trinity, before the world began. 

II. The sum of the [b:a8b04eee14]covenant of redemption[/b:a8b04eee14], is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. [i:a8b04eee14]This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began[/i:a8b04eee14], and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to t he law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross : But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings. 

III. For the accomplishment of this [b:a8b04eee14]covenant of redemption[/b:a8b04eee14], and making the elect partakers of the [b:a8b04eee14]benefits thereof in the covenant of grace[/b:a8b04eee14], Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to interceed continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies. 

Then they describe how this CoG works (remember - this is NOT Predestination/salvation by decree - it is the practical outworking of the WCF's chapter 3 in chapter 7):

The [b:a8b04eee14]outward means [/b:a8b04eee14]appointed to make the elect partakers of this covenant, and all the rest that are called, to be inexcusable, Matt. xxii. 14. Many are called. 

I. The [b:a8b04eee14]outward means [/b:a8b04eee14]and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, [b:a8b04eee14]as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them[/b:a8b04eee14]; [b:a8b04eee14]and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled.[/b:a8b04eee14] The means are especially these four. [b:a8b04eee14]1. The Word of God. 2. The Sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. 4. Prayer.[/b:a8b04eee14] In the Word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the Sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By Kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by Prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and imployed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers. 

II. The [b:a8b04eee14]covenant of grace[/b:a8b04eee14], set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is one and the same in Substance, albeit different in outward administration: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the sacraments of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased thereby, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and sundry ceremonies; but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the sacraments of baptism and the ' supper, do clearly hold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people. 

Then they talk about the effectual application IN THE CoG to the ELECT:

The blessings which are [b:a8b04eee14]effectually conveyed by these means to the ' elect[/b:a8b04eee14], or chosen ones. Matt. xxii. 14. Many are called, but few are chosen. 

I. [b:a8b04eee14]By these outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable[/b:a8b04eee14], so, [b:a8b04eee14]by the power of his Spirit, he applies unto the elect[/b:a8b04eee14], effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the [b:a8b04eee14]covenant of redemption[/b:a8b04eee14], and maketh a change in their persons. In particular, 1. He doth convert or regenerate them, by giving spiritual life to them, in opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections, and faculties, for giving spiritual obedience to his commands. 2. He gives them saving faith, by making them, in the sense of deserved condemnation, to give their consent heartily to the covenant of grace, and to embrace Jesus Christ unfeignedly. 3. He gives them repentance, by making them, with godly sorrow, in the hatred of sin, and love of righteousness, turn from all iniquity to the service of God. And, 4. He sanctifies them, by making them go on and persevere in faith, and spiritual obedience to the law of God, manifested by fruitfulness in all duties, and doing good works, as God offereth occasion. 

II. Together with this inward change of their persons, God changes also their state: for, so soon as they are brought by faith [b:a8b04eee14]into the covenant of grace[/b:a8b04eee14], 1. He justifies them, by imputing unto them that perfect obedience which Christ gave to the law, and the satisfaction also which upon the cross Christ gave unto justice in their name. 2. He reconciles them, and makes them friends to God, who were before enemies to God. 3. He adopts them, that they shall be no more children of Satan, but children of God, enriched with all spiritual privileges of his sons. And last of all, after their warfare in this life is ended, he perfects the holiness and blessedness, first of their souls at their death, and then both of their souls and their bodies, being joyfully joined together again in the resurrection, at the day of his glorious coming to judgment, when all the wicked shall be sent away to hell, with Satan whom they have served: but Christ's own chosen and redeemed ones, true believers, students of holiness, shall remain with himself for ever, in the state of glorification. 


I say with them AMEN!!


----------



## fredtgreco

Matt,

I will look at this when I have some time in the next few days. I can't fin d my copy of Hetherington right now - can you confirm for me that the SoSK was ever adopted by the Assembly or the Scottish Kirk. As I recall, it wasn't. It was like the Commentaries on the Bible by Westminster Divines - helpful, but not authoritative in interpreting the Confession.

Also, I cited the WLC above on the covenant of grace being made with the elect. (the WSC has the same formularies) Do you think this helps us to interpret the WCF?

Also, why does WCF 7 also treat the Covenant of Works?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:a06a88c3ab]Also, I cited the WLC above on the covenant of grace being made with the elect. (the WSC has the same formularies) Do you think this helps us to interpret the WCF? [/quote:a06a88c3ab]


Of course. But remember - the Standards as a whole is a positive statement, not a polemical statement.

[quote:a06a88c3ab]Also, why does WCF 7 also treat the Covenant of Works?[/quote:a06a88c3ab]

CoR, chapter 3 - before time, decrees, etc.

CoW, CoG - Chapter 7 - in time, outplay of decrees.


[quote:a06a88c3ab]As I recall, it wasn't. It was like the Commentaries on the Bible by Westminster Divines - helpful, but not authoritative in interpreting the Confession. [/quote:a06a88c3ab]

Where are you [u:a06a88c3ab]recalling [/u:a06a88c3ab]this from?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> [quote:a06a88c3ab]Also, I cited the WLC above on the covenant of grace being made with the elect. (the WSC has the same formularies) Do you think this helps us to interpret the WCF? [/quote:a06a88c3ab]
> 
> 
> Of course. But remember - the Standards as a whole is a positive statement, not a polemical statement.
> 
> [quote:a06a88c3ab]Also, why does WCF 7 also treat the Covenant of Works?[/quote:a06a88c3ab]
> 
> CoR, chapter 3 - before time, decrees, etc.
> 
> CoW, CoG - Chapter 7 - in time, outplay of decrees.
> 
> 
> [quote:a06a88c3ab]As I recall, it wasn't. It was like the Commentaries on the Bible by Westminster Divines - helpful, but not authoritative in interpreting the Confession. [/quote:a06a88c3ab]
> 
> Where are you [u:a06a88c3ab]recalling [/u:a06a88c3ab]this from?



here is one source, but I recall it from Hetherington (which I can't find now - the book itself):



> Along with the Confession of Faith, and its Catechisms several attachments were drawn up to the Westminster Standards. Among them was The Sum of Saving Knowledge (available at www.girs.com). It is believed to have been authored by David Dickson with the cooperation of James Durham. *Though The Sum has often been printed with the standards, it was not formally adopted by the Westminster Assembly to become part of their official work*. This document shows how important and practical the law continued to be in the understanding of the scholars of Westminster.
> 
> The formal title is: The Sum of Saving Knowledge; or, A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine, contained in the Holy Scriptures, and holden forth in the foresaid confessions of faith and catechisms; together with The Practical Use Thereof.



and



> Similarly, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, *which the Scots appended to the standards*, indicates that this "sum" is the reformed faith (see Heads I-IV). Moreover, A Solemn Acknowledgement of Publick Sins and Breaches of the Covenant (1648) states that one of the Scottish Church's sins was a failure to uphold the true religion by suppressing various heresies, including Independency, Anabaptism, and Arminianism. One must conclude that the standards support the confessional membership position


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Right. The SoSK is the "commentary" of sorts on the biblical ideas conatined in the Confession. Its like Calvin's commentaries. He wrote them, we quote them all the time, but Calvin said that if we want to "know his mind" on a given idea in a more full manner, then we should consult the Institutes. The SoSK acts in the same way. it helps us to understand what they meant when they said what they said, but the Confession was the "official statement." So we don't throw away the SoSK but append it to the standards.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Right. The SoSK is the "commentary" of sorts on the biblical ideas conatined in the Confession. Its like Calvin's commentaries. He wrote them, we quote them all the time, but Calvin said that if we want to "know his mind" on a given idea in a more full manner, then we should consult the Institutes. The SoSK acts in the same way. it helps us to understand what they meant when they said what they said, but the Confession was the "official statement." So we don't throw away the SoSK but append it to the standards.



I'm not saying we "throw them away," but I think there is a large difference between saying that a document produced by a couple of men (were they even commissioners? I know Dickson wasn't) give us the "mind" of an Assembly that was 98% English, and which NEVER adopted or appended the document. It was the Scottish Kirk that did that.

Now, I am not demeaning the SoSK. I think it is valuable and good in the main. But you cannot draw the Calvin's commentary analogy. It would be like saying that we have a book by Farel or Bucer, and from that we know the mind of Calvin.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred, the most pursasive and exegetically astute thinkers in the assembly were the Scottish Commissioners. Every time you turn around youa re reading how Rutherford, Henderson, Gillespie et. al. burried the "ideas" of many of the Englsh Presbyterians. If we are talking about "Presbyterianism" and the doctrines that follow that theological trail, you don't trace it back to the English as a high point, but the Scots. 

Just a side note, Gillespie was chosen by the assembly to define God. He was the youngest in the whole assembly - they gave him the task. Before he began, he asked the assembly to pray - here is how he prayed: 

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

Sound familiar? 

So we want to place theological weight where it should go. The Scots, in mnay ways, instructed the English on many occasions, from the time the Sl&C was enacted (becausse of the Scots) right down tot he translation they voted on for John 3:16 - which was Rutherford's and Gillespie's work.

So we do not want to discount the smartest ones, and thier commentary, of the WA.

Everyone should own the whole set of standards adopted by the Scots, not just the pamphlet on the confession.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco

Matt,

I'm not tracing the high point to England. What I am saying, is that if you want to say something expresses the mind of a body - it SHOULD actually come FROM the body. This is a lawyer thing. How do we even know that Dickson et al expressed Rutherford's position? They were not there!

This is like saying that the commentaries on the Bible books written by assmebly members are authoritiative guides to the doctrines of the Assembly where they touch on texts the Assembly uses. This is authority 101.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred,

The assmebly voted to consitute the Sum of Saving Knowledge as a commentary on the Confession. It is in thier minutes. The SoSK did not "appear" out of some other venue.

Is that what you are asking?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred,
> 
> The assmebly voted to consitute the Sum of Saving Knowledge as a commentary on the Confession. It is in thier minutes. The SoSK did not "appear" out of some other venue.
> 
> Is that what you are asking?



That is at least in part what I am asking. Could you send me that section - I believe you, but would like it for my files for later. Thanks!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I'll gather it.


----------

