# Was this post responded to (Paul & Brett)?



## Peters (Oct 31, 2005)

If i missed it, could someone point me to it...



> *Quote:
> Originally posted by Paul manata
> 4. So, I ask you to be consistent. That is to say, since in Deuteronomy "the Lord will judge His people" did not have a bad judgment in mind (but rather vindication) then you say this is what it means in Hebrews 10. That is, if the same language is used in the OT then we interpret the NT as meaning what the OT means (a hermeneutical fallacy, btw, but I'll let it slide for my purposes, because it works in my favor).*
> 
> ...



[Edited on 10-31-2005 by Peters]


----------



## Peters (Nov 7, 2005)

*bump*


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 7, 2005)

This thread seems to be what some folk call "trolling," but I'll take the bait.



> ...But where in 1 Cor. 5 does Paul draw the conclusion you draw? Where does Paul say anything about the New Covenant in 1 Cor 5? Where does Paul draw an analogy between expulsion from the old covenant and expulsion from the new coveant? [sic]



I'm not sure who is speaking in this quotation, but I should like to know just how one would ever see an analogy between the Old and New Covenants in Paul if not here? To the same church(es) he wrote in 2 Cor 3 that he was a minister not of the Old (Mosaic) but New covenant. He ministered the New Covenant to a visible covenant community. He treated them as if they were the New Covenant Israel. This is the function of the quotation from Moses.

In the visible covenant community there are two kind of folk (as in Heb 6 and 10 and elsewhere). Some are united to Christ and believing and others are unbelieving, unregenerate, and not united to Christ. Nevertheless, because the visible covenant community has always been mixed, they remain in the visible church because they make profession of faith and have given no reason for discipline. That is why they are described in Reformed literature as hypocrites. They make an outward profession, they live decent lives right up to the point they leave the church (1 John 2:19) or die. 

If you're arguing that there can be no analogy between the new and old covenant communities unless it is stated explicitly (presumably because there can be no unregenerate people in "the new covenant") how do you deal with the apparently covenantal language where no clear distinction is made between elect and reprobate in Acts 20:28?



> Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.



Paul says that the elders are to care for the "flock," which I take as a synonym for visible church. How would they care for an invisible church? It is this same visible assembly Christ is said to have "obtained."

This does not mean that Christ has died as substitute for every person in the visible assembly, but it does suggest the way we are to think of the visible, institutional church, as the locus where Christ's saving work is applied. 

Doesn't Paul speak to the Ephesian elders as if they were elders among the New Covenant people? If one, however, has decided _a priori_ that it is impossible for the new and old covenant communities to be so continuous then that is another matter.

rsc

[Edited on 11-8-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 7, 2005)

I really can't add anything to what Dr. Clark has already addressed. I figured out which thread this post came from originally, and read the excerpt in context, to try and familiarize myself with the original debate. While I was doing that, he posted the only response so far, and I'm just tagging on. The purpose would be to try to help answer this question (kind of a broad request, yes?), but I was not a part of that whole exchange, did not follow it, and am poor help now.

The present question (as I understand it) boils down to whether the New Covenant administration has an outward as well as an inward aspect. Historic Covenant Theology affirms it, as _all_ the covenants are constituent elements of the Covenant of Grace. The church, which received the Lord's Supper as a sign of the New Covenant (Lk. 22:19-20), is the external administration of the New Covenant.

If I understand the "baptist" side in the debate, the point to be won is that there are no non-believing members of the New Covenant. Thus, membership is solely by profession of faith and adult/professor baptism. As I think Dr. Clark's post points out, such a practice is no guarantee of keeping the exernal "face" of the New Covenant free from blemish. Hypocrisy is still with us. So, the goal of a visibly pure Church before the consumation is a wish, a dream. If it were ever achieved, we could safely forget church discipline, instead of exercising it constantly and perpetually. But we are never encouraged thus in Scripture.


----------



## Peters (Nov 9, 2005)

> In the visible covenant community there are two kind of folk (as in Heb 6 and 10 and elsewhere). Some are united to Christ and believing and others are unbelieving, unregenerate, and not united to Christ


.

Isn´t it true that the falling away of Hebrews 6:4-8 actually hasn´t happened? Hebrews 6:6 says, "œif they then fall away", then in v. 9, "œyet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things." No one, therefore, in the epistle to the Hebrews can actually be accused of the kind of falling away that v. 4-8 speak of. 

Is this not also the case in Hebrews 10? Hebrews 10:26 says, "œif we go on sinning"¦", but this warning passage concludes with v.39: "œBut we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls." 

Isn´t it possible that you´re reading a pre-theological-commitment into these passages?

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Peters]

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Peters]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > In the visible covenant community there are two kind of folk (as in Heb 6 and 10 and elsewhere). Some are united to Christ and believing and others are unbelieving, unregenerate, and not united to Christ
> ...



Well, it is certainly possible that I or any reader of any text am guilty of reading into the text preconceptions. It is almost certain that every reader of every text does this to some degree or other. The day is gone where one can credibly say that one can come to a text _tabula rasa_.

So the question is not whether I or anyone has presuppositions but whether and to what degree those presuppositions are warranted by the text and to what degree they are acknowledged and to what degree they control the reading of a given text.

Among my many preconceptions before reading Hebrews is that the same Holy Spirit who inspired Moses and the prophets to record redemptive history before and during Israel's history is the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Apostles and company to write the New Testament (1 Pet 1:10-12; 2 Pet 1:20-1). 

With the earliest church fathers, the mainstream of the medieval theologians and commentators and the Reformation and post-Reformation theologians, I come to any biblical text with a commitment to assumption of the unity covenant of grace, that the triune God who revealed himself savingly in Christ is the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Rom 3-4; Gal 3-4).

I see general continuity of the substance of the covenant of grace, recognizing the inferiority of the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10) and unless given explicit revelation to think otherwise, at least an analogy between Moses and Christ (as symbols of the Old and New Covenants) in the administration of the covenant of grace. 

Thus, when I come to Heb 6 I read it in the light of redemptive history. I see patterns established over several thousands of years wherein the visible Christ-confessing covenant community (anticipating Christ before the incarnation) is composed of elect and reprobate, believers and unbelievers. 

I read Heb 6 in the light of the promises of Jer 31, that the New Covenant will not be like Moses (which is how Paul uses the phrase "Old Covenant" in 2 Cor 3). Okay, so the New Covenant will not be like Moses when Christ took us by the hand, as it were, and led us out of Egypt. The New Covenant is not a temporary (Gal 3:15ff), typological administration of the covenant of grace and temporary, typological republication of the covenant of works relative to the land promises and national covenant. 

I also read Heb 6 in the light of Heb 10 which says in part:



> 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (ESV).



So, yes, it is true that the people who were hearing the minister read this sermon/letter (from Apollos? Acts 18:24 - his background would explain not onl the Greek of Hebrews but also the covenant theology) had not apostatized, but it is also evident from ch. 10 that some had apostatized from the visible covenant community. The same phenomenon is evident in Jude 11 where some apostatized from the covenant community. According to Heb 6 these folk had been baptized ("enlightened") and communed ("tasted of the powers of the age to come"). 

Otherwise the discourse and stern warnings of ch. 10 (above) make no sense. There are some who have "spurned the Son of God" and "profaned the blood of the covenant." This language is right out of Moses. They had, as it were, "walked between the pieces" of the covenant cut in the body of Christ on the cross, they had sworn oaths at the Lord's Table. They had heard the gospel of sacrifice and resurrection of the lamb of God, and now their blood is on their own heads. These were "sanctified" (on analogy with 1 Cor 7), i.e., ritually set apart from the world. 

This is real apostasy, not from election or union with Christ (contra the FV) but from the covenant of grace into which they had been admitted outwardly. Hence they are effectively placed under the curse of due covenant breakers (10:31).

rsc


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 9, 2005)

Hello Dr Clark,
You wrote:-


> This is real apostasy, not from election or union with Christ (contra the FV) but from the covenant of grace into which they had been admitted outwardly.



W.C.F. Larger Catechism.
Q.31: _With whom was the covenant of grace made?_
A. _The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed. _

If only Christ and the elect are in the covenant of grace, how is it possible for someone to apostacize from it?

Just wondering.

Martin


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Dr Clark,
> You wrote:-
> 
> ...



Good question.

WCF 7.3 says: 



> Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to
> believe. /quote]
> 
> and 13.1 says:
> ...


----------



## Peters (Nov 9, 2005)

> Well, it is certainly possible that I or any reader of any text am guilty of reading into the text preconceptions. It is almost certain that every reader of every text does this to some degree or other. The day is gone where one can credibly say that one can come to a text tabula rasa.
> 
> So the question is not whether I or anyone has presuppositions but whether and to what degree those presuppositions are warranted by the text and to what degree they are acknowledged and to what degree they control the reading of a given text.



Indeed. Needless to say, this was the point. 



> Among my many preconceptions before reading Hebrews is that the same Holy Spirit who inspired Moses and the prophets to record redemptive history before and during the New Testament (1 Pet 1:10-12; 2 Pet 1:20-1).



I agree. All of Holy Scripture was inspired by the third person of the Trinity. 



> With the earliest church fathers, the mainstream of the medieval theologians and commentators and the Reformation and post-Reformation theologians, I come to any biblical text with a commitment to assumption of the unity covenant of grace, that the triune God who revealed himself savingly in Christ is the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Rom 3-4; Gal 3-4).



I understand.



> I see general continuity of the substance of the covenant of grace, recognizing the inferiority of the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10) and unless given explicit revelation to think otherwise, at least an analogy between Moses and Christ (as symbols of the Old and New Covenants) in the administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Do you hold that reprobates can be in the Covenant of Grace? I can understand them being in the New Covenant *outwardly*, but I don´t understand how they can be in the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Is this not also the case in Hebrews 10? Hebrews 10:26 says, "œif we go on sinning"¦", but this warning passage concludes with v.39: "œBut we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls."


I can only applaud what the others have said in regard to other parts. I would just add a bit of practical theology to the answer to this particular question.

The author is exhorting the Church with an obvious mix of sheep and goats. Warnings are valid for both sheep and goats. They are a means of grace to keep us faithful with "fear and trembling" at times. They are not disingenous warnings to the goats however.

Would you rather the author to have said something expressing no confidence in the salvation of the visible Church. What kind of pastor turns to his congregation who has been baptized into Christ and says "I know some of you are devils and won't heed this!" Why shouldn't the author express confidence in their salvation? Should he instead cause them self-doubt, sheep included, for the sake of a "tight" theological presentation with his warning?

Sometimes we spin ourselves into such theological speculation that we forget the very practical pastoral implications of a manner of speaking and thinking. The theologies of grace become cold if divorced from the covenant life of the body of Christ.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 10, 2005)

> If by this you are referring to the "œsome" who have made it a "œhabit" of "œneglecting to meet together", then that seems to be a bit of a stretch. Is this the apostasy you have in mind?



No, the "neglecters" if you will, are in serious danger. There were some, evidently, who had already "trampled under foot the blood of the covenant." That is the apostasy in view. 



> This section in Jude is very interesting. Do you understand the perverts of v.4 to have "œcrept in unnoticed" through a baptism into the Covenant?



Yes, folks came into the congregation, made profession of faith, were received as members but showed themselves to be the moral/spiritual equivalent to Korah. Like Korah and co (Nu 16:1) they were in the visible covenant community and apostatized. 

Yes, these people were, on some level (outwardly) "in" the covenant of grace. They were in the sphere of the administration of God's saving grace. 

No, they were not elect. No, they did not believe. No, they were never united to Christ, but yes, they were "in" the covenant of grace. This is the function of the internal/external distinction.

I think we're obligated to read ch 6 in the light of ch 10. You disagree with the traditional Reformed reading. Okay. How do you read the language of ch 10? 

As I mentioned before, the language is that of covenant breaking. It's right out of the Hebrew scriptures. It's the sort of language Jeremiah uses the imagery of Genesis 15:17-21 and Jeremiah 34.18-19. See: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Ecclesiology.htm



> > According to Heb 6 these folk had been baptized ("enlightened") and communed ("tasted of the powers of the age to come").





> Where did you get baptism and communion from in Hebrews 6?



This is the prevailing patristic and Reformation interpretation of this passage. Otherwise the Arminian interpretation is just around the corner! Then it would be: "This lot was conditionally elect and regenerate but they didn't cooperate sufficiently with grace and fell away." Yikes! 

Given the external/internal distinction the Arminian reading is not necessary. 

rsc


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 10, 2005)

Dr Clark wrote


> Yes, these people were, on some level (outwardly) "in" the covenant of grace. They were in the sphere of the administration of God's saving grace.
> 
> No, they were not elect. No, they did not believe. No, they were never united to Christ, but yes, they were "in" the covenant of grace. This is the function of the internal/external distinction.



I'm sorry, but I don't buy this for two simple reasons (I'm a simple chap!):-

1. If people are 'in' the covenant of grace and yet lost, then grace is no more grace.
2. Men are either saved or they're lost. There is no 'third realm'. The man who was *'not far from the Kingdom of God'* (Mark 12:34 ) was outside it, and he who was 'almost persuaded' to become a Christian (Acts 26:28 ) was, in fact, not persuaded. Those who go through their lives, as I nearly did, trusting in their baptism, their nationality or their parents' piety, will hear the Lord say to them, *"I never knew you!" * Not, "I knew you a bit" or "I knew you and then forgot you," but _never!_. Those who thought they were Abraham's children were, in fact, children of the devil.

Dr Clark continued (referring to Heb 6 & 10 ):-


> As I mentioned before, the language is that of covenant breaking.



But that is to contradict Heb 8:8-11 which tells us that the difference between the 'First' and New Covenants is that the New Covenant will not be broken.


> This is the prevailing patristic and Reformation interpretation of this passage. Otherwise the Arminian interpretation is just around the corner! Then it would be: "This lot was conditionally elect and regenerate but they didn't cooperate sufficiently with grace and fell away." Yikes!



Well what are the Paedo-baptists saying? 'This lot was 'on some level' in the covenant of grace, but they didn't cooperate sufficiently with grace and fell away.' It seems hardly better to me.

The Reformed baptist understanding also has considerable antiquity and says that 'this lot was never in any covenant, but believed for a while and fell away.' In other words, they were the seed that fell upon the stony places (Matt 13:5-6, 20-21 ).


> Given the external/internal distinction the Arminian reading is not necessary.



It is not necessary anyway.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Peters (Nov 10, 2005)

> There were some, evidently, who had already "trampled under foot the blood of the covenant." That is the apostasy in view.



Like is said, I don´t see this at all. In order for this to be the case you would have to make the "œif they then fall away" of v.6 *mean*: "œbecause they have fallen away". It makes perfect sense when the passage is read as a warning, as opposed to something that has actually happened. No one according to this passage *has* experienced those blessings and then fallen away. The author is saying "œif".



> No, they were not elect. No, they did not believe. No, they were never united to Christ, but yes, they were "in" the covenant of grace. This is the function of the internal/external distinction.



Do you understand the COG to be the eternal covenant? Wouldn´t it be biblical to say that they were in the temporal *administration* outwardly and that to be in the administration inwardly is to be in the COG? I just cannot see, Scripturally, how you can have unbelievers in the COG at all. 



> I think we're obligated to read ch 6 in the light of ch 10. You disagree with the traditional Reformed reading. Okay. How do you read the language of ch 10?



I read it as a warning, not as something that has ever happened (see v. 39.) 



> This is the prevailing patristic and Reformation interpretation of this passage. Otherwise the Arminian interpretation is just around the corner!



This does not necessarily follow.



> Then it would be: "This lot was conditionally elect and regenerate but they didn't cooperate sufficiently with grace and fell away." Yikes!



No, it could be the falling away of the unbeliever from *outward* membership of the temporal administration, not a falling away from the COG itself, since to be in the COG is to be in the temporal administration *inwardly*.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 10, 2005)

I guess we're down to definitions. Traditionally the covenant of grace has been defined both broadly and narrowly. Broadly it is inclusive of the visible church. Narrowly it includes only the elect. You seem to be saying that we can only use it in the narrow sense. 

Given your definition, fine, only the elect are in the COG, but to insist on ONLY the narrow definition is, historically considered, idiosyncratic.

As to whether there ever was apostasy in the congregation to which Hebrews was written, I guess I can only appeal to the grammar of ch. 10. I concede that he is warning the current hearers/readers of the epistle. Presumably they are in the congregation to which he is writing or else they can't be warned. 

So, the question is whether, in ch. 10, the writer is saying that some had left the church (we'll leave the definition of COG aside for the moment). 

As I read Hebrews, there is a danger of apostasy. I suppose the question you're raising is whether it was ever actualized or whether it is purely hypothetical. One could read ch. 10 that way, but it seems strained to me. Why would the author write so forcefully about apostasy and about Judaizing and the other dangers (going back to Moses!) if there were none who had done it and none about to do it and none being seriously tempted? 

Why not write a chapter on any number of purely hypothetical temptations? Why an entire book on this one temptation if no one was doing it and trying to take anyone with them? Does anyone else read Hebrews this way? Owen? Calvin? Lane? I don't think so.

If the threat is purely hypothetical, I can see a chapter on it, but he says that he wanted originally to write to them about other things but given their circumstances was morally constrained to write them about this threat. 

It isn't clear at all that it's purely hypothetical to the writer to the Hebrews. So, in the first 14 vss he appeals to Christ and the greater than Moses, as the realization of the new covenant. In vv-22 he intensifies his argument for the superiority of the New Covenant by appealing to the provisional nature of the Mosaic epoch and the eschatological character of the New Covenant. 

In v. 23, however, he exhorts them to hold fast etc. Why v. 25 makes things clearer. Some are neglecting the assembly. Now they couldn't neglect the assembly unless they were already in the assembly. 

V. 26 defines this neglect as "sinning," which, if it continues is judged to be deliberate and potentially placing the sinner outside the sacrifice of Christ. By this I take him to be saying that such a one shows himself to be reprobate. 

Thus the sin in view is most serious. For this reason in v. 27 he turns to the matter of judgment. In v. 28 he contrasts the new and old covenants. If the old covenant was holy and had sanctions, how much more holy is the new covenant? This is a rhetorical question. v. 29 makes clear that these folk in view either have or may "outrage the Spirit of grace." 

I submit that this is the language of covenantal administration of grace. Folk are in the covenant of grace, in the sphere of the administration of salvation, exposed to, in proximity to, in some relation to the Spirit of grace such that it is possible for them or their actions to "outrage" the same. 

V. 30 says that these folk are in danger of divine vengeance. These folk are, at least, in danger of profaning the blood of the covenant (v.29). In danger of falling "into the hands of the living God" (v.31).

The same, in v. 32, is not true of the folks present. Evidently they have no profaned the covenant etc. He's writing to urge them not to so fall. 

These are evidently members of the visible covenant community. They've been "enlightened." (this is the 2nd such usage in Hebrews). 

Still, they need to be careful not to "throw away" their confidence (v. 35). 

It seems to me, relative to the broader point, whether there are actually any who've apostatized or whether it is a very real possibility (any reading would have to grant this or risk simply ignoring the chapter altogether) and even if we don't call this the covenant of grace, it remains true that there are members of the visible church who come into contact with genuine spiritual realities such that they are now in a special jeopardy should they walk away.

Traditionally, Reformed theology has identified this sphere broadly as the covenant of grace, but at least we can see that the visible church is mixed so that it cannot be said to be composed only of the elect.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 10, 2005)

> > Then it would be: "This lot was conditionally elect and regenerate but they didn't cooperate sufficiently with grace and fell away." Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> No, it could be the falling away of the unbeliever from *outward* membership of the temporal administration, not a falling away from the COG itself, since to be in the COG is to be in the temporal administration *inwardly*.



Is it your impression that I am saying that, according to Hebrews, one could be a member of the GoG inwardly and fall away? 

I've tried to be as clear that this is not possible. It is possible, however, to be an outward member of the CoG and fall away from that. 

On this I think we agree.

rsc


----------



## Peters (Nov 10, 2005)

> Is it your impression that I am saying that, according to Hebrews, one could be a member of the GoG inwardly and fall away?
> 
> I've tried to be as clear that this is not possible. It is possible, however, to be an outward member of the CoG and fall away from that.
> 
> On this I think we agree.



The moment you say one can be a member of the COG outwardly and equate that with outward temporal administration membership (is this your position?), the covenants have undergone a conflation. If we say this:

COG = reprobates outwardly & elect sinners inwardly

Temporal administration (NC) = reprobates outwardly & elect sinners inwardly

What is the real difference between the covenant of grace and its temporal administration if this is the case? This is why i think it's biblical to speak about falling away from outward membership of the administration, not outward membership of the COG.

I will respond to your other post tomorrow. It´s 1:30am here and some of us still have greek to learn! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Peters]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 10, 2005)

> The moment you say one can be a member of the COG outwardly and equate that with outward temporal administration membership (is this your position?), the covenants have undergone a conflation.



I'm not sure to what covenants you refer. I know of a covenant of works before the fall, a covenant of grace after the fall, and the pre-temporal covenant of redemption underlying both.

If by "covenants" you mean "Moses" and "Christ," in that case I mean to say that Moses (I think I said this already) was partly an administration of the covenant of grace and partly an adminstration of the covenant of works inasmuch as it was a republication of the covenant of works regarding the land and national status of Israel.

So yes, the covenant of grace has multiple administrations, of which Moses was one. Thus "conflation" is not accurate since it's one covenant and it can't be conflated with anything.



> If we say this:
> 
> COG = reprobates outwardly & elect sinners inwardly



Yes, both have a part in the administration of the covenant of grace.



> Temporal administration (NC) = reprobates outwardly & elect sinners inwardly


 
Yes, I agree.



> What is the real difference between the covenant of grace and its temporal administration if this is the case?



The difference is not in the covenant of grace per se, but in one's relation to it. One either has the substance of the covenant sola gratia, sola fide or one does not. The covenant of grace, being a divine promise of salvation to all who believe, is objective, it is what it is. It has an outward administration (broad) and an inward substance (narrow).



> This is why i think it's biblical to speak about falling away from outward membership of the administration.



Okay, but, For what it's worth, having checked Owen, I see that this not the way he speaks. See Works 22:538-549. See also Calvin's lectures/comments on Hebrews ch's 6 and 10 where he takes essentially the same general view that a genuine apostasy is in view, not that one can be elect and then fall, but that these folk were in contact with spiritual realities and apostatized.

grace and peace,

rsc


----------



## Peters (Nov 11, 2005)

> I'm not sure to what covenants you refer. I know of a covenant of works before the fall, a covenant of grace after the fall, and the pre-temporal covenant of redemption underlying both.
> 
> If by "covenants" you mean "Moses" and "Christ," in that case I mean to say that Moses (I think I said this already) was partly an administration of the covenant of grace and partly an administration of the covenant of works inasmuch as it was a republication of the covenant of works regarding the land and national status of Israel.



Sorry for being unclear. I´m actually talking about the New Covenant as a temporal administration of the Covenant of Grace. I agree with this take on the Mosaic Covenant.



> So yes, the covenant of grace has multiple administrations, of which Moses was one. Thus "conflation" is not accurate since it's one covenant and it can't be conflated with anything.



This means that any one temporal administration *is* the Covenant of Grace, doesn´t it? But how can any one temporal administration *be* the Covenant of Grace if it is an administration *of* the Covenant of Grace? There must be something to distinguish them, because they´re not precisely the same (identity). Can we not distinguish between them by understanding who (whom) the Covenant of Grace is made with? That is:

Covenant of Grace = Christ/Elect sinners in Him

New Covenant (or any other temporary administration) = Elect sinners & reprobates



> The difference is not in the covenant of grace per se, but in one's relation to it. One either has the substance of the covenant sola gratia, sola fide or one does not. The covenant of grace, being a divine promise of salvation to all who believe, is objective, it is what it is. It has an outward administration (broad) and an inward substance (narrow).



If the difference is in our "œrelation" to the COG, and it is through the administration that we relate to the COG, does it not follow that COG membership depends on *how* one is in the administration? 



> Okay, but, For what it's worth, having checked Owen, I see that this not the way he speaks. See Works 22:538-549. See also Calvin's lectures/comments on Hebrews ch's 6 and 10 where he takes essentially the same general view that a genuine apostasy is in view, not that one can be elect and then fall, but that these folk were in contact with spiritual realities and apostatized.



I would agree that a genuine apostasy is possible, but only from the administration. 



> I guess we're down to definitions. Traditionally the covenant of grace has been defined both broadly and narrowly. Broadly it is inclusive of the visible church. Narrowly it includes only the elect. You seem to be saying that we can only use it in the narrow sense.
> 
> Given your definition, fine, only the elect are in the COG, but to insist on ONLY the narrow definition is, historically considered, idiosyncratic.



Which tradition? 

"œMoreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." (7:1, 1689 BCF)

"œThis covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency." (7:3, 1689 BCF) 



> I guess I can only appeal to the grammar of ch. 10. I concede that he is warning the current hearers/readers of the epistle. Presumably they are in the congregation to which he is writing or else they can't be warned.



Agreed. 



> So, the question is whether, in ch. 10, the writer is saying that some had left the church (we'll leave the definition of COG aside for the moment).



Do you mean "œleft the temporal administration"?


----------



## Peters (Nov 11, 2005)

> As I read Hebrews, there is a danger of apostasy. I suppose the question you're raising is whether it was ever actualized or whether it is purely hypothetical. One could read ch. 10 that way, but it seems strained to me. Why would the author write so forcefully about apostasy and about Judaizing and the other dangers (going back to Moses!) if there were none who had done it and none about to do it and none being seriously tempted?



I don´t see a problem in telling Christians to be responsible in the Christian life, or telling undiscovered hypocrites the same. Warnings are all over the place. 



> Why not write a chapter on any number of purely hypothetical temptations? Why an entire book on this one temptation if no one was doing it and trying to take anyone with them? Does anyone else read Hebrews this way? Owen? Calvin? Lane? I don't think so.
> 
> If the threat is purely hypothetical, I can see a chapter on it, but he says that he wanted originally to write to them about other things but given their circumstances was morally constrained to write them about this threat



It´s difficult to speculate. But I don´t need to, since I think it was a mixed congregation, warning them all makes perfect sense. Hypocrites will fall away from the administration but the elect will not. 



> It isn't clear at all that it's purely hypothetical to the writer to the Hebrews. So, in the first 14 vss he appeals to Christ and the greater than Moses, as the realization of the new covenant. In vv-22 he intensifies his argument for the superiority of the New Covenant by appealing to the provisional nature of the Mosaic epoch and the eschatological character of the New Covenant.
> 
> In v. 23, however, he exhorts them to hold fast etc. Why v. 25 makes things clearer. Some are neglecting the assembly. Now they couldn't neglect the assembly unless they were already in the assembly.
> 
> V. 26 defines this neglect as "sinning," which, if it continues is judged to be deliberate and potentially placing the sinner outside the sacrifice of Christ. By this I take him to be saying that such a one shows himself to be reprobate.



I agree with you. 



> Thus the sin in view is most serious. For this reason in v. 27 he turns to the matter of judgment. In v. 28 he contrasts the new and old covenants. If the old covenant was holy and had sanctions, how much more holy is the new covenant? This is a rhetorical question. v. 29 makes clear that these folk in view either have or may "outrage the Spirit of grace."



I see "œmay", I don´t see "œhave".



> It seems to me, relative to the broader point, whether there are actually any who've apostatized or whether it is a very real possibility (any reading would have to grant this or risk simply ignoring the chapter altogether) and even if we don't call this the covenant of grace, it remains true that there are members of the visible church who come into contact with genuine spiritual realities such that they are now in a special jeopardy should they walk away.



Yes, I agree here too. It doesn´t have to be apostasy from the Covenant of Grace, only from the administration.

The parts I skipped, I skipped because they are taken up in my just previous post.


----------

