# From The Least To The Greatest



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.

My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people. 

So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, _and Jer. 31 alone_, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.
> 
> My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.
> 
> So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, _and Jer. 31 alone_, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.



1) I have never heard the argument that you are postulating.

2) The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.


----------



## CDM (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.
> ...



Do you have an answer?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.



Pastor Mixer,

Could you explain where you're coming from on this some more? I've been under the impression that credos at least partially rely on Jeremiah 31 for their belief in each and every person in the New Covenant being elect.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.
> 
> My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.
> 
> So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, _and Jer. 31 alone_, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.



Paul, I count only two: 42:1 and 42:8, which is the exact same context, so it may as well be one.

There are other places that use "least to the greatest," but not "all ... least to the greatest." These include 6:13, 8:10, and 44:12.

The reasons is based on exegetical context of that passage. If it were every class of person, and not every single person individually, who had the knowledge, then there would be no reason for teaching to cease (whatever you think it means -- what's your interpretation?) because not all had knowledge.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.
> ...



My point was not that we rely on Jeremiah 31 to state that every individual in the New Covenant is elect. My point was that we don't necessarily need to rely on this particular phrase "all...from the least to the greatest". We can rely just as easily on the other descriptions of the members of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31:

1) vs. 33 - They are of the house of Israel (interpreted for us by Paul in the New Testament as being of the faith of Abraham)

2) vs. 33 - They will have the law of God put in their minds and written on their hearts. This would have been true of an Old Testament saint as well who was a member of the Old Covenant people. But it would not have been true of an Old Testament unregenerate Jew.

3) vs. 33 - God will be their God and they will be his people. While this was true of physical Israel under the Old Covenant, the prophets are clear (as is the New Testament) that _lo ammi_ (not my people) will be called _ammi_ my people. This can only be true, from the New Testament perspective, of regenerate people.

4) vs. 34 - No one will have to teach their neighbor about God because they will all know the Lord. This does not find complete fulfillment until the eternal state, since, obviously, we still need teachers. Although, 1 John 2:27 would be a good cross-reference for at least a partial present fulfillment.

5) vs. 34 - I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more. This obviously has a present fulfillment and a future fulfillment at the final judgment. But the present fulfillment cannot be said of the unregenerate. It is only true of the regenerate.

Now, as to the argument of whether this covenant is just made with a group of people or with individuals, I would say that the point is moot. Let's say, for sake of argument, that this NC is made with the covenant people as a whole in Jeremiah 31, with no reference to specific individuals. The points made above about the description of the covenant people still hold true. They (the people as a whole) would still have the law written on their hearts, God as their God, knowledge of God, and forgiveness of sins.

I'm not really sure how you could apply any of these to a group without considering the individuals in that group. If you had just *one* individual in the group of covenant people of whom these descriptions aren't true, then the entire group is tainted. Israel, under Joshua, was judged as a nation for the sin of Achan. The nation was unclean because one member was unclean. The same would be true of this group. The group would fail the test of the descriptions if just one of them failed the test.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

BTW, Romans 9 references Hosea 1, where "not my people" are then called "my people." In Romans 9, the discussion is on individual election to include us Gentiles, not corporate election. Unless of course you want to join the Arminians.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 22, 2007)

Hey, That was the best simplest run down of the already/ not yet fullfillment of Jeremiah 31.... thank you very much Pastor... I am going to print that out and save it....... That will be handy in the future.......

Michael




Calvibaptist said:


> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.
> ...



Unless is corporate.

Indeed, I proved that the "teaching regenerate to know the Lord," still happens.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Unless is corporate.
> 
> Indeed, I proved that the "teaching regenerate to know the Lord," still happens.



Which doesn't in any way defeat the Baptist point, since we believe in an already/not-yet fulfillment of prophecy, as do most Presbyterians, if I recall.

AND, the corporate is made up of individuals. You really can't get around that one.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Unless is corporate.
> ...



Which does defeat some baptists who have used that argument. That you think their argument isn't good, is fine by me.

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is ferring to every single person individually.


And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.
> 
> 
> And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.



You are good, Paul! You almost had me making the argument that I said didn't matter!

My earlier point stands that if the covenant people as a whole are referred to by the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, which the Old Covenant people as a whole were never referred to, there is a categorical difference (a progression, if you will). That categorical difference, or progression is in the people (not by their own merit, but by grace). God makes the people different.

Let's just take one description of the corporate group, ok? Are you suggesting that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is made with the physical house of Israel and Judah, in other words, physical Jews? If not, who is it made with?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.
> ...



As I argued in an earlier thread, the NC prophecies started coming about soon after Jer. said them.

The "house of Israel" is "the people of God." It was never "only physical Jews." So, proselytes were included. Therefore your counter argument is too imprecise to be dealt with.

The NC was wehat God was going to do for those people who professed the true religion, but, due to historical contingencies, the prophecies and fulfillments are pushed back to the consumation, ultimately.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



So, if you are arguing that the prophecies have started being fulfilled and Baptists have argued that the prophecies have started being fulfilled, where's the disagreement? If the "people of God" are those who "profess the true religion" isn't that the same argument that Baptists make?

Or are you suggesting that there is a parenthesis in God's plan? Like I said earlier, you are using the same argumentation that Dispensationalists use. I know, I went to their flagship seminary. You now have two peoples of God. Those who professed true religion in Jeremiah's time and began receiving the New Covenant blessings and those today who won't get any of the New Covenant blessings until the consumation. This is a troubling view...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Doug,

There is no disagreement as long as you don;t think you can prove that Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 teach that "every single NC member is presently regenerate in this period of redemptive history."

There are those back then that started seeing the fulfillment, and there are many today who see broader fulfillment as well. This will grow until we reach heaven, then the visible will match the invisible. Not until then. The "those" are part of the "one olive tree" and thus I'm not dispie.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.
> ...



I'm not quite following here. The Old Covenant people as a whole were referred to in Jer. 31. When it says, "they broke my cov." Not every individual did. There is a contrast being made. If the former was not every individual, then on what basis is the latter every individual?

CT


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Doug,
> 
> There is no disagreement as long as you don;t think you can prove that Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 teach that "every single NC member is presently regenerate in this period of redemptive history."
> 
> There are those back then that started seeing the fulfillment, and there are many today who see broader fulfillment as well. This will grow until we reach heaven, then the visible will match the invisible. Not until then. The "those" are part of the "one olive tree" and thus I'm not dispie.



But I do believe that every single NC member is regenerate. The promise of the difference between the OC and the NC is that every member is regenerate. I do not in any way believe that every single member of a visible church is regenerate. Baptists try to have regenerate church membership by only allowing professors to be members. But, as Rich so aptly points out, no one can tell who is really regenerate.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



Read my descriptions earlier in this thread of those who are in the covenant. Does this describe unregenerate people (either corporately or individually)? Of course not. Honestly, if you take the New Testament development of the New Covenant and the New Testament descriptions of the New Covenant, they are clearly regenerate.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Aug 22, 2007)

What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"

My problem with the already not yet position is that it requires "existential exegesis" - the Hebrews text (chapters 8/10) do not follow the normal pattern of fulfillment citation in the letter. Could it be that it is being used as an illustration of/to the current community being in the same state as the community (part of which was in exile and part awaiting it) to which it was addressed. It appears to me that when we go with a, dare I say, partial fulfillment, our exegesis become rather subjective.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



I think that we are talking past each other to an extent. If not everyone is regenerate in the NT (like the OT) then I have no problem saying that the descriptions describe the regenerate members of the covenant.

Consider this hypothetical and see if it does not fit the data: In the OT, the people/covenant members as a whole did not keep the covenant. That is why you see the general statement "they did not keep my covenant". However the NC will switch from generally ineffectiveness to general effectiveness. Therefore, you can say, "they will keep my covenant". Nothing is being said about each individual in the covenant.

An Old testament comparison is that people are referred to as being blameless before God or even perfect. This is not a claim for saying that the people being referred to never sinned, but instead a general statement.

CT


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> But I do believe that every single NC member is regenerate. The promise of the difference between the OC and the NC is that every member is regenerate. I do not in any way believe that every single member of a visible church is regenerate. Baptists try to have regenerate church membership by only allowing professors to be members. But, as Rich so aptly points out, no one can tell who is really regenerate.




I know you believe that; the trouble comes when you try to prove it. There is not one text that says that in this historical period of the NC, each and every member of the NC, head for head and in ever sense, is 'regenerate.'

And, as one of the latest SB journals have indicated, the church is a miserbale failure in trying to acheive a "regenerate" church membership. Excommunication and nominalism is at an all time high.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"
> 
> My problem with the already not yet position is that it requires "existential exegesis" - the Hebrews text (chapters 8/10) do not follow the normal pattern of fulfillment citation in the letter. Could it be that it is being used as an illustration of/to the current community being in the same state as the community (part of which was in exile and part awaiting it) to which it was addressed. It appears to me that when we go with a, dare I say, partial fulfillment, our exegesis become rather subjective.



Cf. the other thread where I proved that NC members are still telling NC members to "know the Lord."


----------



## elnwood (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



You didn't answer the question -- what does it mean for the ceasing to teach? This is where you flubbed in the debate. You insisted that "least to the greatest" was not every person, yet you insisted that the ceasing to teach happens in the eternal state.

So out of one side of your mouth, you say "the least and the greatest" is not every single person, but then it's fulfilled in the eternal state where -- guess what? -- every person is regenerated.

Gene pointed this out to you in the debate, and you didn't give an answer. Care to give one now?

I'm told you left a few voice messages on Gene's phone regarding the "least to the greatest" points, but then you said you didn't want those messages played back on the radio show, which is a customary. Is there a reason why?


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"
> 
> My problem with the already not yet position is that it requires "existential exegesis" - the Hebrews text (chapters 8/10) do not follow the normal pattern of fulfillment citation in the letter. Could it be that it is being used as an illustration of/to the current community being in the same state as the community (part of which was in exile and part awaiting it) to which it was addressed. It appears to me that when we go with a, dare I say, partial fulfillment, our exegesis become rather subjective.



John - the partial fulfillment aspect of the NC is not supported in the Jeremiah passage. I argued that the Jeremiah passage is futuristic: *SEE HERE (post #2).*

To address your question there are other texts that would bear out the present aspect of the NC. They are best discussed in the thread I just linked since it deals specifically with that issue.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianTrader said:
> ...



Actually, and I was thinking about this last night, *every individual* in the Old Testament broke the Old Covenant. That is the whole point. It was broken by every single person.



> Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."



I know this passage is more specifically dealing with justification by faith, but the point Paul is making here is that you have to keep absolutely every law or you are a law breaker. Break any point of the law and you break the covenant.



> James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.



So, if you break one point, you are guilty of all. So, when Jeremiah 31 (and Hebrews 8) say that "they" broke the Old Covenant, it absolutely is talking about every individual. They all broke at least one law, which means they broke the covenant.

What's different about the New Covenant is that Christ is the law keeper for *all* of His people, so that it is not possible for the New Covenant to be broken by anyone. Christ is also considered the law keeper for those true believers under the Old Covenant, but there were unbelievers that broke the law. Not so in the New Covenant.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

elnwood said:


> You didn't answer the question -- what does it mean for the ceasing to teach? This is where you flubbed in the debate. You insisted that "least to the greatest" was not every person, yet you insisted that the ceasing to teach happens in the eternal state.



This is where you're listening to Gene's show and agreeing with him where I "flubbed," after the fact. The bottom line is, in the debate, without going back and hemming and hawing over it, I got Gene to flat-out contradict himself. Gene "flubbed." Don, the real test is in the pudding. Paedos say I won the debate. Credos say Gene won. This is to be expected. But, the real evidence of who won is how many of the oppositie side say that the other guy won. To date, no paedos say that, I have over 8 reformed baptists who have said it. There are two or three who said it on Gene's own site. Some have emailed me. Some are pastors at reformed baptist churches, and have double masters degrees. So, I know you weren't convinced, that's fine. Didn't expect it. But talking like you do makes you look like you have severe bias and are judging debates on personal likes of the debaters, and how many times your debator simply *asserted* somehting your *already* agred with.

And, it is no "flub" to say that "least to the greatest" is not "every single person," even though "every single person will know the Lord and evangelize in heaven." That's because I hold the latter view on DIFFERENT GROUNDS. Now, what you're unaware of, is that I've already corrected Gene and Jonathon on this, and hopefully they'll make the correction on the show. Indeed, if you paid attention to my answer, I said, "Well, as I demonstrated in my cross, this is referring to the eternal state." You'll note that "in my cross" I made the argument that "no man teach his neighbor" couldn't be fully realized here and now, *even accepting Gene's assumptions of the text." So, I'm saying that given YOUR understanding of the text (which Gene was caght in a fatal flaw), this cannot be realized right now. Now, Don, if you remember, and try to be honest about the debate, you'll recall that I LATER stareted to exlplain Heb. 8 and how I took that. You'll also note that when I started to engage in the exegesis of Hebrews 8, by going to the broader context of chps. 7-10, Gene said I HAD TO STICK TO CH. 8! So, thew above is only a "flub" based on your misunderstanding of my position, my answer, and Gene's not allowing me to explain how the covenant was better. In fact, what you also dont know is that when Gene said in his close that I used "least to greatest" to mean "every single person" I told him up there, "No I don't."



> So out of one side of your mouth, you say "the least and the greatest" is not every single person, but then it's fulfilled in the eternal state where -- guess what? -- every person is regenerated.



Yeah, I agree that every person in heaven is regenerate. But your little quandry is based on false assumptions. I'd appreciate a retraction.



> Gene pointed this out to you in the debate, and you didn't give an answer. Care to give one now?



Yeah, Don, you'll note that I said in my rebuttal that I wasn't allowed to exegete Hebrews 8.

And, I gave my answer in the debate, Don. I said it meant "all classes" of people. I'm on the exegetical high ground here because that's how Jeremiah uses the phrase EVERY SINGLE TIME! So, that you missed my answer shows just how hard you were listening. What, did you stick your fingers in your ears when I spoke, and then listened intently when gene spoke? Furthermore, Gene had previously to,d me that "every time someone said "all...lest to greates" it means "every single person individually." He is now backtracking. Based on what he told me, I nailed him. But, sdhifting the goal posts is always a good debate maneuver.

And, if we want to play this game: did Gene have an answer to my typology counter-argument other than calling it "absurd." Did Gene have an answer to my I Cor. 5 argument other than saying "The word New Covenant isn't in the text"? Did Gene have an answer to my question about how the prophets could have prophesied that believers and all their children were in the NC? Did Gene ever answer my argument from covenant curses? Did Gene ever answer my argument from the benefits of the New Covenant being something that made the children "not forgotten" whereas old covenant children were "forgotten?" Did Gene ever answer my rebuttal to his "children of Abraham are of faith" argument? No. Listen to the debate slowly, Elnwood. I don't care if you're credo, I just care if you're honest.



> I'm told you left a few voice messages on Gene's phone regarding the "least to the greatest" points, but then you said you didn't want those messages played back on the radio show, which is a customary. Is there a reason why?



No, I didn't. I left three in regards to the "know the Lord." So, again, your information is off. And, I'm starting to get a bit concerned with your repeated behavior here. If you don't like me so much, stop interacting with me. 

Now, didn't your pastor say that he didn't think I said anything to be worried about? he didn't take offense to them, so why are you intimating that there was something wrong? Are you believeing the worst about your brothers?

But, if you must know, I was at magick mountain with my son, walking around in over 100 degree temperature, breathing hard, and yelling because I was close to the "Superman" ride. So, I probably sounded like a raving mad man.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Actually, and I was thinking about this last night, *every individual* in the Old Testament broke the Old Covenant. That is the whole point. It was broken by every single person.



That's not what is meant by Jeremiah. And, what you say isn't true.

Deut:134 When the LORD heard what you said, he was angry and solemnly swore: 35 "Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your forefathers, 36 *except Caleb* son of Jephunneh. He will see it, and I will give him and his descendants the land he set his feet on, because he followed the LORD wholeheartedly."

That "generation" was the "forefathers" in the wilderness. Jeremiah says that it was those "in the wilderness" who broke the covenant.

It was the "corporate forefathers" who broke it:

Numbers 14:33
Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, *suffering for your unfaithfulness*, until the last of your bodies lies in the desert.

Deut. 1:39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.

These children were not included with "the forefathers." 

The children and Caleb were going to get to "enter the rest," but Hebrews tells us that God said to "them" (the them who broke the covenant) "you will not enter my rest." So, it is obviously a corporate "they" involved in the first "they" in Jeremiah's prophecy.

So, the "they" in "they broke my covenant" is not "universal" and if it were universal in the way you mean it, then they broke the covenant upon birth. No, the covenant you're referring to, as almost every scholar agrees, did not require sinless perfection. And, I fear you may be mixing up your categories. Not all sins were civil crimes.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, and I was thinking about this last night, *every individual* in the Old Testament broke the Old Covenant. That is the whole point. It was broken by every single person.
> ...



We are talking about the Old Covenant, which was given by Moses, aren't we? Every person that was under that covenant broke it at some point. If they did not, they would have been perfect. Paul belabors that point often in his epistles and Jesus emphasized that point to the Pharisees. NO ONE could keep the law perfectly, therefore, no one kept the covenant. Everyone broke it.

Whether you think Jeremiah is talking corporately or individually is really irrelevant since the New Testament (especially Hebrews 8) interprets it individually. Hebrews 9 goes into detail about Christ being the High Priest of the New Covenant who offered Himself as a sacrifice to obtain eternal redemption and "cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Verse 15 says he is the mediator of a New Covenant "that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

This sounds very individual and very regenerative.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

No, Doug, we're talking about "they who were in the wilderness." Almost every scholar agarees with this. And, almost everyone agrees that the laws to be kept in order to stay in the land did not need to be followed *perfectly.* 

Anyway, Hebrews never says that Jesus is the high priest for "everyone in the covenant."

He says that he's the high priest "for those who draw near." As you point out, he is the high prest "for those who are called." Now, you must prove that "all in the covenant are called." See, Hebrews qualifies Jesus mediatorial role in every verse it mentiones it. "For those who draw near." "For those who are called." "For those who stand firm."

In fact, Hebrews 10:30 says that not everyone in the covenant will be saved. Let's look at two baptists and one paedobaptist:

Hebrews 10:30



> “‘The Lord shall judge His people.’ A most important example is here given as a guide to teach us how Scripture is to be applied. The reference is to what is recorded in Deut. 32:36, but there is is God’s care exercised on behalf of His people, while here it is vengeance upon their enemies. Some have caviled at the appositeness of the apostle’s quotation. Yet they should not. Each particular Scripture has a general application, and is not to be limited unto those first addressed. If God undertakes to protect His people, He will certainly exercise judgment on those who apostatize. He did so in the past (I Cor. 10:5); He will do so in the future” 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. The rule which is established by this quotation from Deuteronomy is, that all Scripture is equally applicable unto all cases of the like nature. What God says concerning those who are the enemies of His people, becomes applicable to His people should they break and reject His covenant.” - *A. W. Pink, 623*
> 
> “God’s own people are not exempt from this law that men and women reap what they sow. And this is confirmed in the next verse of the Song, ‘Yahweh will judge His people.’ This certainly means that he will execute judgment on their behalf, vindicating their cause against their enemies, but it carries with it the corollary that, on the same principles of impartial righteousness, he will execute judgment against them when they forsake his covenant. These privileges which Israel enjoyed as God’s covenant people meant that their responsibilities were the greater and that retribution would be the most severe in their case if they gave themselves up to unrighteousness: ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). What was true then remains true for God’s dealing with his people now.” - *F.F. Bruce, 265.*
> 
> “The Lord shall judge his people. Here another and a greater difficulty arises; for the meaning of Moses seems not to agree with what here intended. The Apostle seems to have quoted this passage as though Moses had used the word punish, and not judge; but as it immediately follows by way of explanation, “He will be merciful to his saints,” it appears evident that to judge here is to act as a governor, according to its frequent meaning in the Hebrew; but this seems to have little to do with the present subject. Nevertheless he who weighs well all things will find that this passage is fitly and suitably adduced here; for God cannot govern the Church without purifying it, and without restoring to order the confusion that may be in it. Therefore this governing ought justly to be dreaded by hypocrites, who will then be punished for usurping a place among the faithful, and for perfidiously using the sacred name of God, when the master of the family undertakes himself the care of setting in order his own house. It is in this sense that God is said to arise to judge his people, that is, when he separates the truly godly from hypocrites, (Psalm 1:4 and in Psalm 125:5, The original text referred to Ps 125:3, which seems to be directed more at the fact that the wicked will not persevere over the righteous, whereas Ps 125:5 refers to the wicked joining the “workers of iniquity,” and that “peace will be upon Israel”; neither are quite as explicit as the commentary in terms of the final destruction of the wicked, but in my humble opinion, verse 5 has more relevance. where the Prophet speaks of exterminating hypocrites, that they might no more dare to boast that they were of the Church, because God bore with them; he promises peace to Israel after having executed his judgment. It was not then unreasonably that the apostle reminded them that God presided over his Church and omitted nothing necessary for its rightful government, in order that they might all learn carefully to keep themselves under his power, and remember that they had to render an account to their judge.” *- John Calvin*


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Matthew Henry says that Jeremiah 31 as interpreted by Hebrews 8 is for individual believers, not with believers and unbelievers:



> The people of God shall become numerous and prosperous. *In hebrews 8:8,9, this place is quoted as the sum of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ.* Not, I will give them a new law; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; but the law shall be written in their hearts by the finger of the Spirit, as formerly written in the tables of stone. The Lord will, by his grace, make his people willing people in the day of his power. All shall know the Lord; all shall be welcome to the knowledge of God, and shall have the means of that knowledge. There shall be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, at the time the gospel is published. No man shall finally perish, but for his own sins; none, who is willing to accept of Christ's salvation.



The Geneva Study Bible interprets Jeremiah 31 as having an already/not yet fulfillment for individuals:



> Under the kingdom of Christ there will be *no one* blinded with ignorance, but I will give them faith, and acknowledge God for remission of their sins and daily increase the same: so that it will not seem to come so much by the preaching of my ministers as by the instruction of my Holy Spirit, (Isaiah 54:13) but the full accomplishing of it is referred to the kingdom of Christ, when we will be joined with our head.



John Gill sees the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 as being made with the elect individuals:



> The persons with whom this covenant is said to be made are "the house of Israel and of Judah"; which was literally true of them in the first times of the Gospel, to whom the Gospel was first preached, and many of them were called by grace, and had an application of covenant blessings made to them; and is mystically to be understood of God's elect, whether Jews or Gentiles; the Israel after the spirit; Israelites indeed, Jews inwardly, even all that are fellow citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, the middle wall of partition being broken down: and this "making" of a covenant with them intends no other than a making it known unto them; showing it to them, and their interest in it; in God, as their covenant God; and in Christ, as the Mediator of it; and an application of the blessings and promises of it to them.



And here is part of Calvin's commentary on the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:



> The new covenant then was made when Christ appeared with water and blood, and really fulfilled what God had exhibited under types, so that the faithful might have some taste of salvation. But the coming of Christ would not have been sufficient, had not regeneration by the Holy Spirit been added. It was, then, in some respects, a new thing, that God regenerated the faithful by his Spirit, so that it became not only a doctrine as to the letter, but also efficacious, which not only strikes the ear, but penetrates into the heart, and really forms us for the service of God.



It seems that "most scholars" do not seem to agree with any point you have been making. These are not Baptist scholars, but solidly covenantal scholars.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Doug,

And the answer to your question, which escapes you due to unfamiliarity with our position, and the answer which I fully agree with, is that there is the "decree" and the "administration" of the covenant.

So, I'd agree with my forebearers, and stand in the long tradition of, the disticntion between election and covenant.

At any rate, you've not dealt with my objection in which i proved that there are non-elect covenant members.

1) If Jehovah refers to a group of people as His People, then he views them as being in covenant with him.

2) Jehovah refers to the Heb. 10:30 group as His People.

3) Therefore Jehovah views them as being in covenant with him.



> It seems that "most scholars" do not seem to agree with any point you have been making. These are not Baptist scholars, but solidly covenantal scholars.



Gill is "Baptist," btw.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > It seems that "most scholars" do not seem to agree with any point you have been making. These are not Baptist scholars, but solidly covenantal scholars.
> 
> 
> 
> Gill is "Baptist," btw.



Yeah, my bad!


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Doug,
> 
> And the answer to your question, which escapes you due to unfamiliarity with our position, and the answer which I fully agree with, is that there is the "decree" and the "administration" of the covenant.
> 
> So, I'd agree with my forebearers, and stand in the long tradition of, the disticntion between election and covenant.



But, Mr. Bombadil (I still think he's an odd character!), you have argued at length that the "administration" of the covenant began as soon as Jeremiah "decreed" it. You have stated that the Jews of Jeremiah's day began experiencing some of the blessings and then forfeited them due to disobedience. Then you said that because of that the blessings were set aside for a future "administration" in the eternal state.

This was the argument that I accused of sounding Dispensational. It smacks of Charles Ryrie. He would say the New Covenant offered in Jeremiah 31 was officially offered to the Jews when Christ was on the earth. Because of their disobedience, they forfeited the blessings of the covenant, which were set aside until, in his case, the Millennial Kingdom.

How is your argument any different from his?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Doug,
> 
> At any rate, you've not dealt with my objection in which i proved that there are non-elect covenant members.
> 
> ...



I admit that this is a very good question. I will have to study it a little more before I try to come up with a hasty answer.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Doug,
> ...



Doug,

You're simply taking my words too far. All I said was that elements of the NC prophecies started finding partial fulfillment right after Jer. prophecied. I did not say that the "administration" had began. Adminstrations include the ordinances &c. They were still under the *administration* of the OC untill baptism, the lord's supper, &c. were instituted, and until Christ did away with the forms.

WCF VII: V-VI

V. *This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel*:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]

I never said the belssings were "set aside" for a fute state, I said that "historical contingencies" have "pushed back" the full realization of all the NC prophecies. I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.

If you'd like to know some of where I'm coming from, you can read this paper by Pratt.


----------



## CDM (Aug 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Doug,
> ...



Very refreshing, my Baptist brother.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Doug,
> 
> At any rate, you've not dealt with my objection in which i proved that there are non-elect covenant members.
> 
> ...



Just an initial observation by John Calvin on this phrase:



> Here another and a greater difficulty arises; for the meaning of Moses seems not to agree with what here intended. The Apostle seems to have quoted this passage as though Moses had used the word punish, and not judge; but as it immediately follows by way of explanation, "He will be merciful to his saints," it appears evident that to judge here is to act as a governor, according to its frequent meaning in the Hebrew; but this seems to have little to do with the present subject. Nevertheless he who weighs well all things will find that this passage is fitly and suitably adduced here; for God cannot govern the Church without purifying it, and without restoring to order the confusion that may be in it. Therefore this governing ought justly to be dreaded by hypocrites, who will then be punished for usurping a place among the faithful, and for perfidiously using the sacred name of God, when the master of the family undertakes himself the care of setting in order his own house. It is in this sense that God is said to arise to judge his people, that is, when he separates the truly godly from hypocrites, (Psalm 1:4 and in Psalm 125:5,7 where the Prophet speaks of exterminating hypocrites, *that they might no more dare to boast that they were of the Church,* because God bore with them; he promises peace to Israel after having executed his judgment.



Now, being unfamiliar with your terminology, when you baptize infants, you say they are now covenant members of the church, correct? Then, if they eventually repent and believe, they receive the blessings of the New Covenant. But Calvin points out that they were never members of the church to begin with. They were hypocrites, pretenders to be in the Church. But they were not really. This is exactly what Baptists say this verse means - that God will judge his people (the true Church) in order to remove the pretenders, those that are not really in the covenant people.

So, in answer to your questions:

1) Yes, his people, as referenced in Hebrews 10, are in covenant with him.

2) Jehovah never refers to the hypocrites as being His people, only the true Church (according to Calvin, not me).

3) Jehovah does not view the unbelieving hypocrites as being in covenant with him.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Doug,

Calvin et al calls the _hypocrite_s "His people." The reason the apostates should be "afraid" is because "The Lord will Judge His People, it is a terrible thinjg to fall into the hands of the living God." The context in Hebrews is final judgment, the firery judgment. This is the judgment the apostates face. True believers do not face hell. We have "therefore now no condemnation."

So, calvin doesn't think the "His People" are "true believers." He said, "the Prophet speaks of _exterminating_ hypocrites." How will he do so? "He will judge His people."

Jehovah called all OT Jews "His people," and so it's false to say that "he NEVER calls hypocrites His People." Thus your premise two is false and therefore your conclusion does not follow. That is, your argument is unsound.

The "Church" calvin speaks of is the *invisible* church (note the capitalization). I don't believe that they were ever members of the "invisible church." And no paedobaptist does. Strike that last sentence, no _orthodox_ paedobaptist does! ;-)


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Doug,
> 
> Calvin et al calls the _hypocrite_s "His people." The reason the apostates should be "afraid" is because "The Lord will Judge His People, it is a terrible thinjg to fall into the hands of the living God." The context in Hebrews is final judgment, the firery judgment. This is the judgment the apostates face. True believers do not face hell. We have "therefore now no condemnation."
> 
> ...



So, God, in the final judgment is going to judge the elect as well as the non-elect? That's ludicrous. This is why Calvin struggles with this passage, as he admits. Calvin does what any good Baptist would do with this passage and says that the judgment separates those who are truly "God's people" from those who are not.

Sure, God in the OT called believers and unbelievers "His people." So, I should probably change premise number 2 to say, "Jehovah is not calling hypocrites "his people" in Hebrews 10."

Look, no Baptist would deny that the letters in the New Testament are written to "churches" which would be equivalent with "the people of God" and that in the midst of those who claim membership in those churches are many who are hypocrites. But, while they pretend to be of us, they prove the falseness of their claim and are judged. I have no problem with you saying that Hebrews 10 uses the phrase "God judges his people" to say that he is judging a group that is a mixed bag. Because the purpose of the judgment, as even Calvin admits, is to separate who are really God's people from those who only pretend to be God's people.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Doug,

In the context of ch. 10 God is going to judge *apostates.* They are a *subset* of his visible people. So, he's judging the *non-elect* who hje calls, again, "His people."

You can change P.2 to whatever you like. The problem for you is the Heb. says that he calls the apostates "His people." The "His people" are "judged." With what kind of judgment?

10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a *fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire* that will consume the enemies of God. 

29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be _punished _who has trampled the Son of God under foot...

30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 

See 30? The apostates will be juded? How do we know? "For we know Him who said....the Lord will judge His People."

"Well, sir," you ask, "what kind of judgment is being spoken of?"

"Well, it's the one I _just mentioned_ back in v.26. A firey judgment."

Indeed, Doug, since this is another one of the "warning passages," and all the lesser to greater arguments contrasting OT apostates with NT ones, then why would this be the only place he's not referring to the apostates? In all the other warning passages the ones judged are apostates. The ones on the other end of all the qal wahomer passages are those who apostatized, why wouldn't that be the case here?

And, please quit using Calvin, he's not saying what you're wanting him to say. You're arguing based off baptist prejudices and imposing your unfamiliarity with paedobaptist lingo onto this subject.

The bottom line is that the apostates, the ones judged, are called "His people." My syllogism above refutesd your "elect only view." I do not think you've overturnned my argument and exegesis.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

> I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.



Paul - in your responses to Doug _prior_ to the post I just quoted, where did you refer him to Pratt?


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Sydnorphyn said:
> 
> 
> > What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"
> ...



Proved??? Suggested is probably better.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Sydnorphyn said:
> ...



Yes, proved. Given the *particular* baptist approach and understanding of the text that I was addressing, there's no way around it. You flat out heard Gene say that it means "no evangelizing," but then he admitted he would "evangelize" a NC member.

Now, if you want to disagree with with his or malone's understanding of the text, that route is open.

Btw, I'm not using "proof" in a narrow and Cartesian or Scripturalist way.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul - in your responses to Doug _prior_ to the post I just quoted, where did you refer him to Pratt?



it's hyperlinked in the red word.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > > I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.
> ...



No, that is the post in which you said you had told him about Pratt previously. I didn't see you mention of Pratt previous to that thread. Not that it matters anway. Doug and yourself got into it pretty good. I felt like I was at Shea watching a Met game and had the best seats in the house! Althought there were no peanuts or crackerjacks.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Bill, got my Baptists mixed up.

I mentioned it in this post

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=297901&postcount=3

to Don.

But, Doug responded to what I said in that post, right after I posted it. So, I was assuming he had read where I referred Don to Pratt.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

Ruben100 said:


> Where do the children go who die in infancy if you are a baptist and Jeremiah 31 only speaks of regenerate individuals who Know The Lord in the NC
> In the canons of the synod of dort article 17 Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
> Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy.
> Strict Baptist I assume would reject this article.
> ...



Ruben - two things:

1. The eternal destination of children who die in infancy is not germane to Jeremiah 31, although it is a worthy question to stand on its own merits.

2. 2 Samuel 12:23 records the words of David, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." I am resistant in using this text as a proof-text that children will go to heaven if they die in infancy. Paul may be speaking of physical death; that he will, like his infant son, die and join him in the grave.

If you want to discuss this particular topic let me know and I will start a new thread with your post.


----------

