# Jer 31:31-34 "Already and not yet" -Kline



## non dignus (Oct 4, 2007)

"Note that Kline defines “breakability” as “_the tree itself was felled_,” as opposed to _individual branches _being broken off while the covenant tree remains intact. *The New Covenant is unbreakable only in the sense that the covenant itself cannot be terminated*, not in the sense that apostasy of individuals within the covenant is impossible."


Read more...


----------



## non dignus (Oct 5, 2007)

No one wishes to refute Kline's assertion that Jeremiah was speaking of corporate apostasy, not individual apostasy?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

Read the passage.


> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> ...



That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 5, 2007)

I read the whole article, and I have to say that among Reformed paedobaptist theologians, I've never heard the claim that the _visible_ administration threatens _no_ curses, but _only_ blessings. Even if one accepts the article's claim that even excommunication only implies a possible curse in the invisible Covenant of Works, wouldn't the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever in the visible New Covenant result in what could be considered a curse _of that covenant_? 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 seems to point in that direction:



> Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.



Calvin's interpretation of verse 29 seems to suggest the same thing:



> This, then, he does, when he declares that this food, otherwise health-giving, will turn out to their destruction, and will be converted into poison to those that _eat unworthily_.



Since it is _through the sacrament_ that the "destruction" or "poison" (which would certainly seem to count as _curses_) comes, and that sacrament is specifically an ordinance _of the visible New Covenant_, I don't see how it could be interpreted in a way that renders its curses as not also being within _that_ covenant.

Am I missing something here? Am I (or Lee Irons) misunderstanding Kline? Isn't the historic Reformed position that the visible New Covenant offers both curses and blessings, and that which one of the two each member of that covenant receives through the visible means of grace depends on whether he is _invisibly_ a member of the New Covenant or the Covenant of Works? So even though the curses in an invisible, eternal sense would be through the Covenant of Works, would not their visible, temporal enactment be through the visible New Covenant?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> *That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.*
> 
> (Jer 31:34) *And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.*




Where does Jeremiah _ever_ use the phrase "least to greatest" to mean "every single person individually?" This would be the only place. Does't an author's usage have determinitive status over our desired interpretations?

I've already shown that if you take "teach his neighbor to know the lord" to mean every single person individually does not need to be told that they need salvation because they are all regenerate, that NC members still do that. I showed it in my debate with Cook. To say, "Oh, no, it just means we won't teach people that we think are regenerate to know the Lord" has several problems:

a) Same in the OC. If you really thought someone was regenerate, you didn't tell them that they needed to be saved.

b) It's possible that who you "think" knows the Lord, really doesn't. Thus you would _not_ be teaching someone to know the Lord who, in fact, _actually needs_ to be taught to know the Lord. And, there are those that we "think" are not regenerate, but really are, and so we tell them to "know the Lord." Thus we _do and we don't_ tell people who need to hear "know the Lord," to know the Lord.

c) That phrase "those who we think are regenerate" is not in the text. That's not good exegesis.

Now, you can take a different interpretation here, as some do, but I think I have done away with the most popular.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with Kline here. I'm not yet sure if the corporate reading is the best, it is certainly possible, especially since "they broke my covenant" is used corporately. The corporate translation makes sense of the two. But, it may not be correct. However, I think I have shown that Randy's counter to Kline has severe problems.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 5, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> I read the whole article, and I have to say that among Reformed paedobaptist theologians, I've never heard the claim that the _visible_ administration threatens _no_ curses, but _only_ blessings. Even if one accepts the article's claim that even excommunication only implies a possible curse in the invisible Covenant of Works, wouldn't the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever in the visible New Covenant result in what could be considered a curse _of that covenant_? 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 seems to point in that direction:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I completely agree. Apparently Kline was writing with the Shepherd controversy in mind, with an emphasis on the CoG merely as an extension of the CoR. Obviously the curses of the new covenant do not have an identical meaning as curses do in works covenants. 

My main motive in starting the thread is that I have never heard the 'corporate apostasy' theory. But it certainly rings true in the context of Jeremiah's audience being in, and understanding the corporate principle. It doubly rings true in light of federal theology.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> (Jer 31:34) *And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.*




I can't say it better than Mr. Manata.

Why now in the church do *'they all know Him'*? 
Because, unlike the Old covenant, men who show themselves unbelieving are excluded by the office of the keys. And this fits very nicely with the 'corporate apostasy' theory. Whereas before, Israel was cut off _en masse_, now the faithless are cut off individually, leaving a remnant in which all shall know Him. 

And I don't mean 'all shall know Him' in an absolute sense, because much biblical language is not in absolute terms, but is spoken charitably in hope.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> I read the whole article, and I have to say that among Reformed paedobaptist theologians, I've never heard the claim that the _visible_ administration threatens _no_ curses, but _only_ blessings. Even if one accepts the article's claim that even excommunication only implies a possible curse in the invisible Covenant of Works, wouldn't the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever in the visible New Covenant result in what could be considered a curse _of that covenant_? 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 seems to point in that direction:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Chris,
There is a difference between curses of condemnation and discipline from the LORD as the text mentions. Jeremiah says that their (The New Covenant Member) iniquity is forgiven and their sins remembered no more. 


> But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.



Anyone outside of the covenant is just condemned and storing up to that end.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 5, 2007)

Can we get someone to design a "yawn" smiley?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > *That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.*
> ...



Well that would be a nice question if that were all he said brother and if that were the only part of the verse that implied what you were thinking. But every man his neighbor, and every man his brother is also added to the point. From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say. That is why I put this in brackets (every man his...).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Can we get someone to design a "yawn" smiley?















yawners for ya.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Can we get someone to design a "yawn" smiley?
> ...



Thanks. That's kind of what I felt like as I began reading yet another thread meant to draw us into a credo/paedo debate over whether Jeremiah 31 meant individuals or not and whether any aspect of it refers to now or if it is just future...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > CredoCovenanter said:
> ...



That's not an argument, Randy. Why don't you try making one. I don't see the connection between what you said, to the conclusion you want. it's like this:

P1: It says each man his neighbor and brother, and all from least to greatest:


{BIG GAPING HOLE}


C1: Therefore, it means every single person numerically.

Try to tie P1 to C1.

Anyway, brother, here's another refutation for you. Refutation via reductio ad absurdem:

Jer. 42:1 Then all the army officers, including Johanan son of Kareah and Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah, *and ALL THE PEOPLE from the least to the greatest* approached 2 Jeremiah the prophet and said to him, "Please hear our petition and pray to the LORD your God for this entire remnant. For as you now see, though we were once many, now only a few are left.

See, it says "ALL THE PEOPLE." It says, all the prople "FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST." It says they prayed and petioned. Did the infants do this, Randy? Or, maybe there were NO INFANTS in all Israel???

Jer. 8:Therefore I will give their wives to other men 
and their fields to new owners. 
*From the least to the greatest*, 
all are greedy for gain; 
prophets and priests alike, 
all practice deceit. 

It says, "the covenant people's wives." It says, "from the least to greatest," ALL are greedy for gain. All men, prophets, priests, least to the greatest. But this too doesn't mean every one!

And, if you want to get technical:

It doesn't say "every man his sister." And, in fact, not all the "neighbors" in Israel professed the true religion. Why do you still have pagan neighbors, Randy? It says, according to you, ALL your NEIGHBORS, Randy. Are all your neighbors saved???

~The Yawner


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 5, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



Not jumping into the debate at this point. But, could you explain something to me? How is it that the emphasis on the corporate aspect of the phrase "all the people from the least to the greatest" in any way excludes whatever individuals would be included in that corporate group?

For example, John 3:16 says, "God so loved the world..." Now, that is a corporate statement that obviously does not mean every individual who has ever lived is loved in the same way by God. But, neither does that statement exclude individuals on whom God's love is poured out. I really don't understand the difference.

*EDIT* Let me use a better example: You mention Jeremiah 42 and the reference to "all the people from the least to the greatest" approaching Jeremiah. You then go on to suggest that it obviously doesn't mean every single person, including infants, in Israel came up to Jeremiah. My question to you is, "How does this phrase in any way exclude individuals from being considered?" Is it just that the people of Israel were the borg and became a collective that were not individuals?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

What does Jeremiah 31:34 say? Does it say "all the people?" I am not sure you can make a blanket statement concerning every individual inside or outside the Covenant. It seems the implication is for those individuals that the Lord is making His new Covenant with. All of them. Everyman his brother and every man his neighbor. Like I said, the part about from the least to the greatest has to do with status in life probably. Everyman his neighbor and every man his brother has to do with those with whom the Lord is making his New Covenant with. The part about from the least to the greatest was at the end of the verse so I added it. Maybe it was confusing for you. Go back and reread what I wrote. I explained it before.



> From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 5, 2007)

I tell my neighbor, "Know the Lord." Of course. Who doesn't?

Therefore, this must speak of the 'not yet'.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

non dignus said:


> I tell my neighbor, "Know the Lord." Of course. Who doesn't?
> 
> Therefore, this must speak of the 'not yet'.


Yes, I do also if they are not New Covenant Members. This is a common sense passage. This passage speaks about people who are New Covenant members already. Those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins God remembers no more. It might help you if you quit separating parts of the passage to the point you lose the understanding of the text.

Going to a football game guys. See ya later.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > CredoCovenanter said:
> ...



Doug, 

The answer you seek is in following the context of the argument.

Non_Dignus made a move arguing that Jer. 32 might not be talking about "individuals."

Credocovenenter offered a rejoinder: The language in Jer. 31 implies that it is talking about every single eprson individually.

I offered a surrejoinder: (a) Jer. doesn't mean every single person individually when he uses that phrase elsewhere, (b) we have empirical examples that falsify Credocovenanter's interpretation

So, it may not exclude individuals.... my arguemnt was that it doesn't necessarily make reference to *ALL* members, numerically, of the NC. 

So, my point was that it's not as easy for the Baptist to make the argument that Jer. 31 proves that only regenerate are in the NC as he thinks it is. In fact, it looks like his interpretation is flat out wrong, exegetically and empirically.

Not only that, there's more than one way to skin a cat. One could interpret Jer. 31 in the popular credo baptist way, and still not disprove paedobaptism if one holds to a two-circle view of the NC. That one verse is talking about one circle, says nothing about the other.

Anyway, my only point is that baptists who pin their hopes on Jer. 31 are overreaching and overstating their case. The debate is tougher than they'd like to think.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> What does Jeremiah 31:34 say? Does it say "all the people?" I am not sure you can make a blanket statement concerning every individual inside or outside the Covenant. It seems the implication is for those individuals that the Lord is making His new Covenant with. All of them. Everyman his brother and every man his neighbor. Like I said, the part about from the least to the greatest has to do with status in life probably. Everyman his neighbor and every man his brother has to do with those with whom the Lord is making his New Covenant with. The part about from the least to the greatest was at the end of the verse so I added it. Maybe it was confusing for you. Go back and reread what I wrote. I explained it before.
> 
> 
> 
> > From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say.




Randy, I have diproved your "each and every single argument." If you have a counter, I'm all ears. If not, you've lost one of your "big guns" for credo baptism.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> > I tell my neighbor, "Know the Lord." Of course. Who doesn't?
> ...




No, you might very well do it to NC members. There are people who are back sliding, they are NC members, but for now, they don't act like it. If someone is living like an unbeliever, does not attend church, you treat them like an unbeliever. You tell them that they need to be saved. You tell them that they need to know the Lord.

Anyway, you didn't answer David's argument. 

You have neighbors. You tell them to know the Lord. But, you are supposed to not tell them that. Now, you can take "neighbor" to mean "regenerate person," but where's that idea? Jeremiah doesn't use the term that way in every instance. And, Jesus tells us who are neighbor is. And it is not synonymous with "regenerate person." So, you have to contort and stretch and bend words to get to your very nuanced position.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 5, 2007)

*Hebrews8*



non dignus said:


> "Note that Kline defines “breakability” as “_the tree itself was felled_,” as opposed to _individual branches _being broken off while the covenant tree remains intact. *The New Covenant is unbreakable only in the sense that the covenant itself cannot be terminated*, not in the sense that apostasy of individuals within the covenant is impossible."
> 
> 
> Read more...



The New Covenant is unbreakable because it is made only with The elect.



> 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
> 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
> 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
> 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> ...



All that are given come. [ as per verse 37] No man can come,except given "a hearing ear" [vs45] being taught of God [vs45].
This is the same group of people described in Hebrews 8. Having a Great and Eternal High Priest intercedeing for them, having accomplished redemption on their behalf, and knowing the reality of the indwelling of the Spirit in their experience coming from death to life.
They continue to learn of how they may serve the Lord, as they had been urged to do in Hebrews 6;9-12



> 9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
> 10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
> 11And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
> 12That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
> ...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

> The New Covenant is unbreakable because it is made only with The *elect*.



Many elect people are unregenerate people. All regenerate people are elect, but the converse is not true. Your above statement allows non-regenerate members into the NC. If so, what's the problem with letting non-regenerate covenant children in? I think you need to shore up your theory.



> All that are given come. [ as per verse 37] No man can come,except given "a hearing ear" [vs45] being taught of God [vs45].
> This is the same group of people described in Hebrews 8.



And? So that means that (a) there is no visible administration or (b) that professing somehow means you're regenerate? I don't see you proving (a) or (b) anytime soon, so your claim has nothing to do with either (a) proving that only regenerate people can be called covenant members or (b) proper subjects of baptism. There's a lot more work you need to do in order to shore up your argument.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 5, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Doug,
> 
> The answer you seek is in following the context of the argument.
> 
> ...



Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

On the other hand, would I be ok in saying that paedos who pin their hopes on the complete continuity of the covenants are overstating their case? I think that the entire argument stands and falls not on one's interpretation of a particular text, but on one's view of where the covenants have continuity and discontinuity. I am not seeking a new argument, I am just trying to understand the foundations that we should really be discussing.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

> On the other hand, would I be ok in saying that paedos who pin their hopes on the complete continuity of the covenants are overstating their case?



Sure. That's why I don't do that. In fact, the covenant can be continuous with discontinuity. Every paedo grants discontinuity. So, if the Baptist can show discontinuity here, then the paedo has a problem. If he can't, though, then he has a problem. Or, one could deny CT. Then the paedo would have to try and prove CT, and then make his case for continuity. My style attempts to be able to show infant baptism even if continuity and CT is abandoned. Of course, I don't think it should be abandoned, so I incorporate it into my paedo apologetics.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 5, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > On the other hand, would I be ok in saying that paedos who pin their hopes on the complete continuity of the covenants are overstating their case?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. That's why I don't do that. In fact, the covenant can be continuous with discontinuity. Every paedo grants discontinuity. So, if the Baptist can show discontinuity here, then the paedo has a problem. If he can't, though, then he has a problem. Or, one could deny CT. Then the paedo would have to try and prove CT, and then make his case for continuity. My style attempts to be able to show infant baptism even if continuity and CT is abandoned. Of course, I don't think it should be abandoned, so I incorporate it into my paedo apologetics.



I am reading the one Baptist book you mentioned that you thought was well-researched: _Believer's Baptism_ edited by Schreiner and Wright. Right now I am in the middle of the chapter on "Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants" written by Stephen Wellum. In your estimation, did he adequately present the CT view and refute it. I understand you disagree with him, but did he present and accurate picture and refutation?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > What does Jeremiah 31:34 say? Does it say "all the people?" I am not sure you can make a blanket statement concerning every individual inside or outside the Covenant. It seems the implication is for those individuals that the Lord is making His new Covenant with. All of them. Everyman his brother and every man his neighbor. Like I said, the part about from the least to the greatest has to do with status in life probably. Everyman his neighbor and every man his brother has to do with those with whom the Lord is making his New Covenant with. The part about from the least to the greatest was at the end of the verse so I added it. Maybe it was confusing for you. Go back and reread what I wrote. I explained it before.
> ...



I am sorry but I haven't seen you disprove anything, but I have seen you take a statement and misapply it. I haven't seen any counters from you that were applicable to my arguments. I have seen a few references to the phrase 'from the least of these to the greatest' but no references to the specific point about every man. You are skewing and missing the point altogether by misdirecting the conversation as I pointed out before. BTW, you are pretty good at that.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > > On the other hand, would I be ok in saying that paedos who pin their hopes on the complete continuity of the covenants are overstating their case?
> ...




I think he did a good job representing our position. Very accurate. Some of his arguments that worked, worked against positions I don't hold to, and the other ones didn't hit. At the end of the day, his argument boiled down to this: But the Bible tells us that the NC is not a mixed covenant community anymore, this idea is the only thing that allows paedos to include their infants, thus paedos should exclude their infants." That was brief, but I think it represents the essence.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 5, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > CredoCovenanter said:
> ...




Randy, your argument that the NC has only regenerate members in it, all individually, from Jer. 31, was this:

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." 

Where in there makes you think it is talking about everyone?

"all and least to greatest" isn't it. So, what is? "Brother and neighbor?" Why not "sister?" Why does "brother and neighbor" make "all and least to the greatest" mean "everyone individually?" Why, where's your argument? Where was your exegesis? Where? Furthermore, I gave an example of someone doing what you said "ALL INDIVIDUALLY" would not do, namely, tell a NC member to know the Lord. This arguemnt was not rebutted. I can't help it if you either can't or won't see a refutation. By the way, you're pretty good at doing that.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 5, 2007)

*??*



Tom Bombadil said:


> > The New Covenant is unbreakable because it is made only with The *elect*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 6, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



Come on Tom. Lame argument and question. Women were not culturally mentioned in most passages, and women could be considered neighbors. So tell me... is the case that their iniquities are forgiven negated now, and also the fact that God remembers their sin no more if they are in the New Covenant? Doesn't sound like unconverted people are included by that language.

Concerning your hypothetical situation that you played out before Gene. It was just that. Hypothetical. BTW, Have you never done something that didn't need to be done because you were mistaken? Unless you are perfect I am sure you have overcompensated for something you felt was lacking. It was a poor example in my book. 

And you are correct. I don't always understand things people are trying to tell me. Just ask my MOM. I bet your mom would say the same thing about you. LOL But I am trying.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 6, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > CredoCovenanter said:
> ...




So you don't have a response? You can't show that it means every single person individually. Whose sins are forgiven? And, if the corporate understanding is involved, that's no problem. You still need to prove "EVERYONE INDIVIDUALLY" in the NC is regenerate. Where do you get that from, Randy? Show us. All the baptists I know used to say, "see, it says "all of them from the least to the greatest." Now you're saying that TAHT PHRASE doesn't tell us that it is everyone, so, where do you get "everyone" from. If it is "no longer will each man tell his neighbor or his brother," then you must deal with my unconvenient argument that you are trying to hurry out the back door before he stays and ruins your party. We come to that argument, and your rejoinder, next.

Next up. Even if it is a hypothetical, that doesn't matter. Can you come up with a hypothetical 4 sided triangle??? Can you come up with a hypothetical married bachelor??? If ALL bachelors are unmarried, then I can never come up with a married bachelor, actual or hypothetical. Likewise, if no NC members will/would tell andother NC member to know the Lord, then you could answer my hypothetical. My hypothetical should be able to fit within your system. To dismiss it as a "hypothetical" shows just how serious to take your arguments and responses. But, what if it isn't "just a hypothetical?" That is discussed next:

Next, it is not "just a hypothetical." Are you denying that there are indeed people who are indeed NC members and thus regenerate??? Are you denying that there are no regenerate members who have backslidden? That are now currently living *as if* they were children of satan? Surely you can't deny this. Even your confession:

*********

LBC Ch. 17:

3._____ *And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit*, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end. "

**********

Was your confession speaking in hypothetical??? 

Since THERE ARE people like this, and TO US they would appear UNREGENERATE, and we SHOULD TELL people we think are unregenerate to "know the Lord," we THERFORE, will/have/do tell NC members to "know the Lord."

You, like Gene, can't seem to "get" the argument. As my good baptist friend at SBTS says, "It's because they don't want to deal with it. IT IS a defeater to that interpretation of Jer. 31." You can continue to close your eyes Randy, and assert that the question is stupid, but that doesn't change the point that it *in fact* does refute your interpretation.

Now, I can't keep doing this. If you can't offer a response that deals with the arguments, but just type to save face, then we'll have to shake hands and part ways.

~Paul

(P.S. My question about descriptions and prescriptions had nothing to do with morals. You might want to change that part in your "review" of my debate. Some of my baptist friends are embarrassed that their fellow baptists can miss arguments that bad.)


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 6, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > > The New Covenant is unbreakable because it is made only with The *elect*.
> ...


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 6, 2007)

*Thank you for your response*

Paul,
Thank you for your substantial response. I was glad you were able to take the time to work through my response to you and offer up some good verses and issues for me to consider. I would like to take some time with your post,look at some of the contexts of the verses you offered , as well as some of the quotes from other brethren.
I have to be up for a men's/breakfast/and nursing home ministry tommorow morning, so I would ask you to be patient with me in my response to your last post. It will probably be later on in the day.
I was glad to see that we are in agreement on many of the portions of scripture being discussed. I do have some responses, and perhaps an additional question or two for you.
I will seek to clarify a little bit more of how I was intending the verses to tie in.
{ my typing is pathetically slow,so sometimes I try to cut corners } and as a result I think some of my thoughts do not sound as clear a note as I would like them too.
Thank's again for taking the time to offer your response.
IN Christ, Tony D


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 6, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> Paul,
> Thank you for your substantial response. I was glad you were able to take the time to work through my response to you and offer up some good verses and issues for me to consider. I would like to take some time with your post,look at some of the contexts of the verses you offered , as well as some of the quotes from other brethren.
> I have to be up for a men's/breakfast/and nursing home ministry tommorow morning, so I would ask you to be patient with me in my response to your last post. It will probably be later on in the day.
> I was glad to see that we are in agreement on many of the portions of scripture being discussed. I do have some responses, and perhaps an additional question or two for you.
> ...



Tony, no problem. I don't know if I'll be able to get into an extended discussion. Maybe I'll read your response and let it stand from there. Have a good time with the men, and thanks for helping out at the Nursing home!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > I think he did a good job representing our position. Very accurate. Some of his arguments that worked, worked against positions I don't hold to, and the other ones didn't hit. At the end of the day, his argument boiled down to this: But the Bible tells us that the NC is not a mixed covenant community anymore, this idea is the only thing that allows paedos to include their infants, thus paedos should exclude their infants." That was brief, but I think it represents the essence.
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Oct 6, 2007)

Excellent summation, Rich!

Who really, really is in the new covenant? I guess the profession of an 8 year old really bags it.

Re: covenant termination vs individual apostasy, I noticed the preamble to the new covenant announcement of Jer 31.

"24*In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity*_: every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant....._"

In the new covenant we do not stand or fall together, " _But every one shall die for his own iniquity_ ". These are covenant members. He's not talking about Babylonians here. 

Today, I do not teach my brother or neighbor to know the Lord because their sour grapes do not make me pucker. That is, I am not now affected in the covenant by their unbelief. "Neighbor" is clearly alluding to Iraelites in community. Jeremiah is speaking in contemporary terms that they could understand. The future of the covenant did not involve landed communities; physical boundaries. My neighbor now is an Atheist, Muslim or Bhuddist, and does not pertain to the covenant or the discussion. Jeremiah is simply describing the church in terminology not foreign to his hearers. 

As to the status of children, verse 35: 
"_Thus saith Jehovah, who giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, whot stirreth up the sea, so that the waves thereof roar; Jehovah of hosts is his name:u 36If these ordinances depart from before me, saith Jehovah, then *the seed of Israel *also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 37Thus saith Jehovah: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all *the seed of Israel* for all that they have done, saith Jehovah. 38Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the city shall be built to Jehovah from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner. 39And the measuring line shall go out further straight onward unto the hill Gareb, and shall turn about unto Goah. 40And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto Jehovah; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever."_ The kingdom, which is the church, will never end.

Question. Does this sound like the Lord is putting the children outside the kingdom?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 6, 2007)

David,

I wrote this up on the Baptist use of that passage:

*L. The Individualistic Nature of the New Covenant Objection:*

The argument based off this text from Jeremiah 31,

27 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. 28 And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the LORD. 29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.' 30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Malone takes from this,

“When the New Covenant administration is examined by Baptists, they see ample evidence that the New Covenant does not include the organic idea in covenant membership in the same way the Abrahamic covenant did. Rather, they see a new individualistic element in the New Covenant administration that was not as patent in the Old Testament ‘covenants of promise.’

[…]

The promise was that, in the days of the New Covenant, God would cease bringing generational covenantal curses upon men for the sins of their fathers as he did upon the members of Old Testament organic Israel. The link would be changed. Each would die for his own sin, not the sins of the father. According to O. Palmer Robertson, every heart in the New Covenant Israel will be individually changed and directly responsible to God. 

[…]

In other words, although the Israel of God in the Old Testament included all naturally born children under the blessings and curses, the New Covenant ‘Israel of God’ only includes regenerate individuals in the covenant, not the organic seed. There is a heightened individualism in the New Covenant.”

My problems with the above argument are numerous:

1) Daniel Block has written what Tremper Longman has referred to the best book on the Old Testament; his commentary on Ezekiel. Block notes about Malone’s type of argument,

“For more than a century this chapter has provided the primary basis for the widely held notion that one - perhaps the most - important contribution made by Ezekiel to Israelite theology was his doctrine of individual responsibility. Prior to this time sin and judgment were supposed to have been dealt with by Yahweh on a corporate basis.”

So we can see that Malone’s interpretation is simply keeping in step with some standard views on the claim by Jehovah made in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is not disputed that they are referring to the exact same proverb. Therefore, any answer applicable to Ezekiel is likewise applicable to Jeremiah as well. Block goes on to note that,

“In recent years, however, scholars have largely abandoned this view. Not only is the individualism reflected in this chapter [Ezekiel 18] evident in texts much earlier than Ezekiel; the corporate emphasis of earlier writings is never abandoned in favor of strict individualism. Furthermore, individual responsibility is much more muted here than has previously been supposed. Indeed, the aim of this dispute in the transformation of the corporate body, specifically the exilic community. These are the children whose ‘teeth are set on edge’ (v. 2). This corporate focus is highlighted by early references to Israel (vv. 2, 3) and repetitious later identification of the addresses as ‘the house of Israel’ (vv. 25, 29-31; cf. also vv. 6, 15). The call to repentance is issued to the community as a whole. To identify a new doctrine of individualism as the principle agenda of the chapter is to confuse subject with theme.”

Block notes that this was a “pithy saying” that operated in both the ancient Near East as well as Israel. Malone’s interpretation suffers from a few problems. First, this saying was a secular proverb. Block says that Ezekiel quotes the proverb correctly (Jeremiah was trying to highlight the anteriority of the father’s actions, hence his use of the perfect verb, akelu). The non-perfect use of the verb represents “true proverbial style” (Block, 560). It also “expresses belief in an inevitable and uncontrollable determinism. This is how things are; one can do nothing to change it” (Block, 560).

Second, in ch. 16 Ezekiel does quote cause-effect relationship between generations, but this is just to establish that personality traits are passed on from one generation to the next.

Third, why, if this challenge by the people is intended to mock previous ways God has dealt with his people, why was the point made so “obliquely?” (Block, 560). Indeed, Ezekiel’s audience makes direct charges against God in this very chapter (v. 25).

And, fourth, since the Israelites ask why God should not punish people for the sins of their fathers in v. 19, then the traditional interpretation has a built in contradiction to it. Supposedly, in v. 2 the people reject the traditional theology, and then in v. 19 they ask for it to be implemented!

So, Block concludes that “the problem the proverb poses for Ezekiel is not with punishment that children are bearing for the sins of the fathers, or even the issue of theodicy. On the contrary, it reflects a materialistic fatalism, a resignation of immutable cosmic rules of cause and effect. … To the extent that the charge concerns God at all, it accuses Him of disinterest or impotence in the face of the exiles’ current crisis” (Block, 561). 

The response to the Israelites is an extended theology on the involvement and immanency of God. Jehovah responds by claiming that he is Lord over all life. Jewish as well as Gentile. Theocentrism is taught and fatalism repudiated. Their fate, as is the fate of every man, is in the hands of a personal God. 

2) The credo Baptist who makes the argument that all people are now held responsible for their own sins (as the universal claim says, “the soul who sins shall die) and there is no more principle of children being punished for the sins of their fathers has a contradiction in his system if he holds to a covenant of works. All men still suffer, and are born with the guilt of, Adam’s sin. Even Christians. Our bodies still break down. We still sin. In fact, why would we accept Christ’s righteousness? Jehovah also states the if a man sins but his father (his own federal head) is righteous, the sinful son will still be punished (Eze. 18:5-13). Thus a total and complete abandonment of the traditional principle of federal headship theology cannot be accepted. It was also argued that corporate responsibility, correctly considered, was not the subject up for debate.

3) In 1 Corinthians 5 we note that the sin of one individual is counted as the entire congregation’s sin. If they do not take care of it, they will also be punished! In Titus 1:10 we note that entire families are destroyed because the heads of those families have accepted Judaizing teaching. And, in Matthew 10, we read that entire households and towns are destroyed because of the decision of at least one representative of that town.

4) The Baptist says that in the New Covenant people are responsible for their own self regarding salvation. But God has never punished a sinless person for the sins of another. That is, he has never sent anyone to hell who lived a sinless life just because their parent sinned (assuming that they didn’t already have Adam’s sin). The point in Ezekiel is that these people thought they had done nothing wrong. And so, ex hypothesis, the Baptist would have to say that God used to send people to hell for doing nothing wrong!

5) Lastly, since the proverb was to be said “no more,” meaning from that day foreword, then if the Baptist is correct that the exegetical intent is to say that the children of believers are no longer considered in the covenant until they personally profess faith, then why were they still included in the covenant for hundreds of years? Obviously no one interpreted Jehovah’s response to the proverb as saying that “people can only enter the covenant by way of profession of faith.”


----------



## non dignus (Oct 6, 2007)

Good stuff, thanks.

In your debt,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 6, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> So you don't have a response?



Well, I gave you a response and you just don't seem to like my responses. Your arugement that I don't have a response is fallacious and negates what I have said or asked.



Tom Bombadil said:


> You can't show that it means every single person individually. Whose sins are forgiven? And, if the corporate understanding is involved, that's no problem. You still need to prove "EVERYONE INDIVIDUALLY" in the NC is regenerate. Where do you get that from, Randy? Show us.



Okay.... Let me make this statement again. 



> So tell me... is the case that their iniquities are forgiven negated now, and also the fact that God remembers their sin no more if they are in the New Covenant? Doesn't sound like unconverted people are included by that language.



Does this part of the passage only apply to some of those or all of those whom God is speaking about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Are some of the sins covered for all men in the New Covenant, or are all of the sins of some men covered, or are all the sins of all men covered for those in the New covenant. I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently and I believe the text has also. Everyone whom God makes this New Covenant with has their INIQUITIES FORGIVEN and their SINS ARE REMEMBERED NO MORE.





Tom Bombadil said:


> Next up. Even if it is a hypothetical, that doesn't matter. Can you come up with a hypothetical 4 sided triangle??? Can you come up with a hypothetical married bachelor??? If ALL bachelors are unmarried, then I can never come up with a married bachelor, actual or hypothetical. Likewise, if no NC members will/would tell andother NC member to know the Lord, then you could answer my hypothetical. My hypothetical should be able to fit within your system. To dismiss it as a "hypothetical" shows just how serious to take your arguments and responses. But, what if it isn't "just a hypothetical?" That is discussed next:
> 
> Next, it is not "just a hypothetical." Are you denying that there are indeed people who are indeed NC members and thus regenerate??? Are you denying that there are no regenerate members who have backslidden? That are now currently living *as if* they were children of satan? Surely you can't deny this. Even your confession:
> 
> ...



I believe my answer to your hypothetical was sufficient. You didn't even answer my apology for your hypothetical situation. 



> Have you never done something that didn't need to be done because you were mistaken? Unless you are perfect I am sure you have overcompensated for something you felt was lacking.



Are the warning passages needed for those who can not fall away? Do we always see clearly and know how to apply the scriptures in all situations perfectly. I would say no one on this side does. And the Lord knows that. And we are over compensator's even if the situation isn't necessary. God is making a statement that in the New Covenant everyone who is in the New Covenant knows him. They have eternal life and Jesus Christ said that knowing God was eternal life.



> (Joh 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.




So do we need to evangelize a backslidden Christian? Can't this be a general statement where the LORD is simply making a statement that everyone who is in the New Covenant already knows the LORD. 



> (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



Sounds like you are just straining at gnats to say what the passage doesn't say. You are saying that not everyone included in this passage has their iniquities forgiven and their sins forgotten even though that is what the LORD says. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> (P.S. My question about descriptions and prescriptions had nothing to do with morals. You might want to change that part in your "review" of my debate. Some of my baptist friends are embarrassed that their fellow baptists can miss arguments that bad.)



Okay, PM me and tell me what you are specifically saying here. I will gladly correct my mistakes. I appreciate it. Plus your poor baptist friends won't be the only ones I embarrass. I have embarrassed myself and a many other good people before also. Especially the LORD. Communication can be complicated and I sure don't understand every conversation correctly. Thanks brother.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 6, 2007)

> Well, I gave you a response and you just don't seem to like my responses. Your arugement that I don't have a response is fallacious and negates what I have said or asked.



I asked specific questions, you didn't respond to them. I know you typed something. Typing something irrelevant isn't a response.



> Does this part of the passage only apply to some of those or all of those whom God is speaking about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Are some of the sins covered for all men in the New Covenant, or are all of the sins of some men covered, or are all the sins of all men covered for those in the New covenant. I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently and I believe the text has also. Everyone whom God makes this New Covenant with has their INIQUITIES FORGIVEN and their SINS ARE REMEMBERED NO MORE.



Did Jer 42 apply to all it was speaking of? Was that all of Israel, all in the covenant? Get it now? Where are you getting "everyone" from? Jeremiah uses "all" and "least to greatest" every time to speak of classes of people. Furthermore, it is prophecy. Why expect it to be fulfilled right now? Where do you get that from? 



> I believe my answer to your hypothetical was sufficient. You didn't even answer my apology for your hypothetical situation.



a) No it wasn't.

b) I showed that it wasn't a hypothetical.



> Have you never done something that didn't need to be done because you were mistaken? Unless you are perfect I am sure you have overcompensated for something you felt was lacking.



Where does it say "need" in the passage? Is your exegsis of the verse this: "No longer will a man [need to] tell his neighbor and brother to knwo the Lord?" Why do you get to just magically insert phrases in Scripture??? That's an odd method of biblical scholarship.

And, furthermore, I will not do anything Scripture says I will not do. If Scripture says that I will not do X, I will not do X. Scripture says I will not sin in heaven, I will not sin. Scripture says in the new heavens and earth, "no longer" will there be any curse. That means, no curse. What don't you get here, Randy?

In the OC people actually took their physical mouths, and formed their physical lips and vibrated their physical vocal cords to get the soud waves to come out , and then the waves vibrated off ear drums and sent signals to the brain, Israelites interpreted those waves as "Hey neighbor, you need to know the Lord." That is because they thought they did not know the Lord. but, now in the NC, you say it is all (at least Jer. 31) fulfilled now. it says, "no loger will the above happen." I have shown that it does happen. Out of the millions (or billions) of regenerate NC members who have existed, surely hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) have fallen into sin, acted as an unregenerate unbeliever, maybe even got excommunicated. Randy's hypothesis is that no other NC member ever told any of these NC members to "know the Lord." If even one NC member has told another NC member to "know the Lord," then your theory is debunked. Simply announcing that you have answered it, isn't an answer. 



> So do we need to evangelize a backslidden Christian? Can't this be a general statement where the LORD is simply making a statement that everyone who is in the New Covenant already knows the LORD.



It says, "no one will tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." No you say that this is not what the text means! But, they did do this in the OC. So, how is the NC different???? How is the claim about what will happen in the NC different from the OC? In the OC people actually told other people to "know the Lord." (Read the Bible, the prophets say this frequently!!) So, this "no longer" refers to something that will "cease." We know that people actually used their mouths to say "know the Lord." but Randy rips all that out of context just to "save" his theory.



> Okay, PM me and tell me what you are specifically saying here. I will gladly correct my mistakes. I appreciate it. Plus your poor baptist friends won't be the only ones I embarrass. I have embarrassed myself and a many other good people before also. Especially the LORD. Communication can be complicated and I sure don't understand every conversation correctly. Thanks brother.



There's too many, and I don't have the time. That's why I haven't responded to it.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 7, 2007)

*many responses/small posts*

Paul and Rich,
I am still not sure how to get the quotes of individual sentences in the little quote boxes,so i might just cut and paste some of the sections I would like to respond too.[When I click on the blue quote thing,the whole post comes on. I do not know how to highlight individual sentences. I typed in the word


> but i did not get the little box thing. Anyway,
> 
> 
> Paul let me clear this one up first.
> ...


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 8, 2007)

*part 2*

Paul ,you asked this question;

Now, why do you think you can ascribe 1 Cor 12 and Rom. 6 to *professors?* Why does saying some words mean you can have the benefits ascribed to you?

ANSWER- In 1 cor 12 we are told that it is God that sets the members in the body as it pleases Him.All Spirit filled believers openly profess ,and confess Christ openly. When I quoted Jesus saying that a confession of Christ is needful,you say it does not matter in reference to the baptism issue. That is because you have a wrong view of Baptism. It is clearly an Identification when rightly administered to an elect person. Baptism of a believer itself is a confession of Christ.

In Acts 19, they had identified with John's baptism,but were instructed about The Lord Jesus then they were baptized in the name of the Lord. in verse 4 it almost sounds like they saw John's baptism as you padeo's see infant baptism. They did not say to them,well John's baptism signified the same thing anyway,so you are covered.
No, they believed and were baptized

Romans 6 is speaking to believers exclusively,that is why I say it applies to them who profess.
they were dead to sin
baptized into Christ [Spirit baptism]
walking in newness of life
sin no longer had dominion of them
they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine 
made free from sin
in verse 20-22 they looked back upon a sinful past 
Sounds like a description of believers who profess to be new creatures in Christ to me.


The work described in 1 Cor 12;13-18 and romans 6 is Divine work upon the object of God's love.


you also posted this- [Where are you commanded to baptize professors, let alone professors alone? Paul didn;t have to say that they were "in the covenant and then not in." But, in fact, he does tell us that people can be kicked out of the covenant for covenantal transgression in 1 Corinthians 5. "Expell the wicked from among you," is the covenant motiff for removal from the covenant for trasngression of covenantal norms]


5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus
Paul does not say the fornicator of 1Cor 5 is being removed from "the covenant" vs 5 says he is being delivered to satan for the destruction of his flesh,that his 'spirit' may be saved.

You seperate the covenant into internal, and external. The bible does not. That is why you are constantly looking for visible administration. The Apostles do not use this language,you do. you get lost in your theological constructs like when you say this;

Right, and Bavinck says that unbelievers are "in but not of" the covenant. I never said they were in the internal covenant. We view a two-circle aspect to the covenant. Your entire post has been one long lesson on how to beg questions.
The apostles do not use all of this language that you padeo use ; 
two circle aspect of the covenant
internal /external
visible/ivisible
"in,but not of'
This sounds like Bill Clinton,is is not is.

You cannot explain away 1jn 2:19 that way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2007)

Anthony,

Without trying to untangle the response to Paul and myself, I want to state that I have _never_ ridiculed profession. I believe it is one fruit of a regenerated heart. I believe if you read my consistent problem with the Baptist reliance upon profession is that it is certainly not the _only_ fruit though I would agree with the idea that we _expect_ mature men to profess. Yet, it is unmistakable that profession does not equal regeneration. For the adult, it is a minimal pre-requisite to enter into a life of _discipleship_.

It is no mistake that Christ commands the Church to make disciples and not professors. Often there is a mistaken notion that to be a disciple is to merely profess. Discipleship includes profession but is much larger. I see too many focusing on fruit (perhaps even seed sprouting on a rocky path) instead of maturation. Even Paul's doctrine on the benefits of union with Christ in Romans 5-8 prepares the believer for the discipleship of Romans 12-16. Many can _profess_ they believe Romans 5-8 but is the fruit of a Gospel-wrought transformation evident in their lives so that they agree that Romans 12-16 is reasonable in light of their great salvation?

Thus, these theoretical discussions that, in the New Covenant, men won't tell their neighbor to know the Lord do much, in my mind, to undermine the program of discipleship. As I noted, I can teach passionately about our having died with Christ and being risen anew with Him as we are united to Him by faith. I can speak of the perfection of Christ's work.

But, I also believe that Abraham participated in those benefits and that his heart would have encountered the Law of God much differently than a Pharisee would. Many Baptists want to say that what Abraham and his progeny inherited was primarily a physical promise. I see in it something spiritual and see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as having received the same promise in their flesh as I did in my baptism. The difference between them and I is greater blessing living on the other side of the Cross and, in fact, it is greater blessing because I have the fuller revelation of how to use the Law and His Church to build up the immature to maturity.

Thus, I don't despise profession but, in fact, I uphold it's true significance because I don't confuse in profession more than it is and try to pack the entire nature of the New Covenant into something that can admittedly be faked by men. God's salvation and redemptive purpose include that I profess Christ but it also includes that I die to sin and live to Him.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 8, 2007)

*I agree*

Rich,
I am in full agreement with your last post. Certainly the doctrinal root in many if not all of the epistles comes before the practical instruction in the latter half of most of the epistles,particularly Romans ,and Ephesians.
False professions,walking the aisle ,or raising a hand , as if mans will were sovereign is an abomination.
We seem to live in a day of doctrinal decline so I do not want to contribute to that. Your clarification on your view of both profession,and saving union with Christ were also helpful.
I pressed the point for several reasons. Sometimes it is not as easy to post what could more easily be clarified in person. In a response to Paul,I mentioned
Mt10:32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 
Paul responded that it does not directly deal with the issue of baptism,in it's context,exegetically.

This in Mt.10 is not a direct discussion on baptism. But I believe this section of scripture speaks of the whole tenor of the Christian life,ie, the whole man,confessing the whole Christ.

From your baptism,to your speech,to your vocational life, in every sphere of life we are to be a testimony to the grace of God. Could we call this covenant keeping,or covenant faithfulness,or the obedience of faith as Paul mentions in Romans 1:5-7.

A false professor,takes the Lord's name in vain. We look at baptism as the proper confession of an Obedient faith.
I would imagine that padeo's would use a similar idea in attempting to hold someone accountable to what they understand baptism was" pointing to"? If the person was not showing fruit of the Spirit.
Does this process take place? Is there a time or an age when this comes into play? Do you inquire of the person as to the state of their soul? Do you ask them if they are saved? or do you say since you are in Christ?
I think one time Bruce addressed this in part,and I am sure [ more than sure,lol,] that there must be an old thread on this issue. Rich, is there a term used in Padeo circles for this type of inquiry? Is it done by the parents primarily,or the elders?or both/ Tonyd


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> A false professor,takes the Lord's name in vain. We look at baptism as the proper confession of an Obedient faith.
> I would imagine that padeo's would use a similar idea in attempting to hold someone accountable to what they understand baptism was" pointing to"? If the person was not showing fruit of the Spirit.
> Does this process take place? Is there a time or an age when this comes into play? Do you inquire of the person as to the state of their soul? Do you ask them if they are saved? or do you say since you are in Christ?
> I think one time Bruce addressed this in part,and I am sure [ more than sure,lol,] that there must be an old thread on this issue. Rich, is there a term used in Padeo circles for this type of inquiry? Is it done by the parents primarily,or the elders?or both/ Tonyd



Tony,

It's late here and I need to hit the rack. I'll let someone else weigh in a historical tradition. I believe _The Reformed Pastor_ is a good place. I find it interesting that people are worried about the false presumption or confession of a child and whether or not he/she has really professed Christ. It's been my experience that it's the adults who typically need the most attention. Most of the well catechized children who become adults that I've known understand what they believe and why they believe it. I find, on the other hand, that the Churches that emphasize profession have a pretty ignorant "man in the pew" and the confession is very ambiguous.

I believe elder care ought to play a large and regular role to ensure that all members, young and old (shall we say "least to the greatest"  ), understand the nature of the faith. As I said, the Christian life is about maturity and not a once in a lifetime "let's make sure Johnny has confessed Christ". My opinion is that it should happen organically. Ironically, we had a discussion recently about the sincerity of childhood professions because parents tend to push their children to profess ("walk the aisle"). It's not that I don't desire to see my children mature to adult faith but I'm not anticipating a punctuated conversion and worrying "when is James going to confess - I better try to lead him to Christ." Rather, I see his faith as a maturation process.

In short, I view my children as disciples. I view the professing adults as disciples. I see immaturity in profession in my children - expected. I see immaturity in the profession of grown men in my Church - expected (but sad). In fact, just yesterday one of the women came to me and thanked me for Sunday School and my passion. She noted how rare it is to find men that are passionate about Christ these days. This is not to toot my horn as I told her that God's grace has been powerful in my life. But she's right - and many of these men are professing, baptized men. Should I be bringing them to a "repeat crisis" or should I be discipling them? Christ commands the latter.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 8, 2007)

Anthony,

Sorry for the misunderstanding about the denigration of faith professions. (I really need to flesh out my thoughts more, but I don't want to be tediously wordy.)

The confession of a small child is precious. Bless that child's heart! But I'm just amazed that one would rather baptize on the basis of a child's state of mind rather than on God's promise to be God to me and my children. 

Rather than work from an fruitless quest to discern who is elect, and thus new covenant members, why not give real creedance to a man's profession by acknowledging concretely God's work in building his church. I think this puts more stock into a profession of faith: what God is doing, not what man is doing.

BTW There is support for using the terms 'inward' and 'outward'. 

_"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."_

We also say that we are 'in the world but not of the world'. Wouldn't you agree? Therefore it would not be improper to say, "one could be in the covenant but not of the covenant."


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

Rich and david have addressed some issues, let me add another. Here's an argument against the idea that a "profession" is a good probabilistic indicator of a regenertae NC member, and hence the proper subject of baptism.

I do not think we need to be certain in order to know a proposition. That being said, I still don't think we can "know" another's regenerate status.

But, let me do away with some unnecessary baggage. For arguments sake I'll grant that we can know that, to use paradigm examples, men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, etc., are regenerate. While I'll concede this for sake of discussion, these examples don't bear on the debate at hand. This is because we form our beliefs about these particular fellows on the basis of watching their long term fruit.

But, the context of the debate is "baptism." The example of the Bible is that baptism should be given very soon, if not immediately after profession. This is too soon to "know" that a professing subject S is "regenerate." 

Now, just because we do not hold to a infallibilist constraint, that doesn't mean that we can say that we know any ole proposition. This gets into a whole host of epistemological questions and problems, though.

Suffice it to say, here's an example:

Say you walked into a factory and saw a bunch of widgets coming down the assembly line and they were all colored red. So, you form the belief you are being appeared to redly. At this point, given this info, I'd say that you knew they were red. Now, say that a floor supervisor told you that there was a red light illuminating the widgets so as to detect otherwise unnoticeable hair line fractures. Actually, only about 15% are red. Thus you'd now have a defeater for your belief that the widgets were red. So, it wouldn't be wise to say, "Oh there's a red widget. I know it, and just because I could be wrong doesn't mean that I know it!" 

See, there's other things to take into account. And this is the same kind of argument I'd make about your argument for "knowing" that so and so is elect/regenerate.

So, the information about the red light and the probability of a particular widget being a red widget served as a defeater for your belief that any one particular widget was a red widget.

Do we have these kinds of defeaters in the Bible? I think so:



> Matt 13: 24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No*, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them*. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"



So, say there was a field that had dogs to protect the sheep, but there were wolves too that looked almost exactly like the dogs from a distance of 100 meters (and this was as close as you could get to the field). So, when you met the owner of the field you tell him you saw one of his dogs. He informs you that there are almost just as many wolves as dogs, and they look almost similar. You now have a defeater for your belief that you actually saw a dog. At this point you say, "Let me shoot the wolves so that your sheep will be safe." The owner of the field responds, "No, don't shoot them because you may just as easily hit a wolf instead." This should be an undisputed case of epistemic defeat, this applies to the claim that we "know who is regenerate."

The second analogy really bears on the Baptism issue since many baptists, following the examples of the NT are for immediate baptisms (and many baptists must since they relie so heavily on arguments from example as normative when it comes to the subjects of who were baptized).



> Matt. 13: 18 "Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."



Note that only one of the seeds "immediately" reject the word. These people are immediately unfit subjects for baptism.

Now, out of the other 3, only one of them "truly believes." And, the text does not say how long they act as if they accept the word, but we know it is not "immediate."

Therefore the probability that a baptist pastor is baptizing an "elect person" on the basis of the profession they see is low, roughly .3! 

Now, if the probability that belief B is the case is low, then you have a defeater for B. This can be seen in another paradigm case of defeat. Say that you ingest a hallucinogenic drug called XX. Say that only .3% of those who ingest XX are immune to his hallucinogenic causing properties. Thus if you formed the belief that you took XX, and if you also came to believe that the probability that you are hallucinating is .7, then you have a defeater for most of your beliefs!

So I have established the argument that "only elect are in the covenant" has no bearing on "how we know who to baptize." And, at least if my above work is right, and it appears that it is, I have.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Therefore the probability that a baptist pastor is baptizing an "elect person" on the basis of the profession they see is low, roughly .3!



I believe it is more like .31415 

I know the number is immaterial. To me, the concern is not an immaterial one that we keep the Church pure but, again, it is an un-Biblical view of discipleship that I find most problematic that leads one to argue that the reason we baptize professors is that they are more likely regenerate. Notice that, when the actual subject comes up about the nature of what "sprouts" from the Gospel is described not in terms of a difference of the visible manifestation of the plant but on the duration and nature of its fruit. In their early stages the plants look alike.

What I note is that what is core to Baptists regarding Baptism (the idea that the NC Church be kept pure by the admin of the Sacraments) is not something that is naturally expressed as core to the Scriptures themselves. I know that sound pejorative but I'm giving my opinion.

In other words, sure Christ talks about the different plants - but He doesn't stop to warn the Church to wait until the plant dies off because He wants His Church pure. Sure He talks about tares but the warning is to be gentle and longsuffering lest you harm wheat. Sure portions of the Epistles talk about the full assurance of benefits extending from union with Christ but _never, never, never_ is the application made from the perfection of union with Christ to a "fencing of baptism". One would think that, if one is going to argue that a pattern of Covenant inclusion was to be argued, that the "tenor" of conversation would match that of Christ and His Apostles. To my mind, the reasoning is completely absent from the Scriptures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I gave you a response and you just don't seem to like my responses. Your arugement that I don't have a response is fallacious and negates what I have said or asked.
> ...



I am not so sure my responses are irrelevant. And you don't seem to answer my questions?


Tom Bombadil said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Does this part of the passage only apply to some of those or all of those whom God is speaking about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Are some of the sins covered for all men in the New Covenant, or are all of the sins of some men covered, or are all the sins of all men covered for those in the New covenant. I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently and I believe the text has also. Everyone whom God makes this New Covenant with has their INIQUITIES FORGIVEN and their SINS ARE REMEMBERED NO MORE.
> ...




I am not so sure Jeremiah is only speaking of all classes. I think he is speaking of all classes and all of the people here. And I think this is defined in Jeremiah 42 also. Jeremiah is writing about a group of people who are left and spoken of as a remnant. They are all wanting Jeremiah to petition the Lord on their behalf. I don't get why you are having a hard time with this. 



> (Jer 42:1) Then all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest, came near,
> 
> (Jer 42:2) And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD thy God, even for all this remnant; (for we are left but a few of many, as thine eyes do behold us



Here is Keil and Delitzsch


> Jer 42:1-6 -
> "And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer_42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer_42:3. That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz., Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer_42:1., insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer_40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer_43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer_42:1 of this chapter. Hitzig, Ewald, etc., are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer_43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer_40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer_42:1 and Jer_40:8) is highly improbable. *They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer_41:16). תּפּל־נא as in Jer_37:20; see on Jer_36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish;* - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce," since it is quite plain from Jer_43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet. But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer_42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God. We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord's reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.



I do believe Jeremiah is being petitioned by all of the people who are included in this remnant to intercede for them. They are not the wholel of Isreal. This is obvious by the text. They are not all of the Covenant Community. They are a remnant and it is defined as such. The text defines who these people are. I also believe the text in Jeremiah 31 defines everyone in the New Covenant to be those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are remembered no more. It isn't that hard to understand. 





Tom Bombadil said:


> Where does it say "need" in the passage? Is your exegsis of the verse this: "No longer will a man [need to] tell his neighbor and brother to knwo the Lord?" Why do you get to just magically insert phrases in Scripture??? That's an odd method of biblical scholarship.
> 
> And, furthermore, I will not do anything Scripture says I will not do. If Scripture says that I will not do X, I will not do X. Scripture says I will not sin in heaven, I will not sin. Scripture says in the new heavens and earth, "no longer" will there be any curse. That means, no curse. What don't you get here, Randy?



I am not a Hebrew Scholar Paul and I am not capable of discerning whether hyperbole is spoken here. Calvin believes hyperbole is spoken here. Just check it out. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> In the OC people actually took their physical mouths, and formed their physical lips and vibrated their physical vocal cords to get the soud waves to come out , and then the waves vibrated off ear drums and sent signals to the brain, Israelites interpreted those waves as "Hey neighbor, you need to know the Lord." That is because they thought they did not know the Lord. but, now in the NC, you say it is all (at least Jer. 31) fulfilled now. it says, "no loger will the above happen." I have shown that it does happen. Out of the millions (or billions) of regenerate NC members who have existed, surely hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) have fallen into sin, acted as an unregenerate unbeliever, maybe even got excommunicated. Randy's hypothesis is that no other NC member ever told any of these NC members to "know the Lord." If even one NC member has told another NC member to "know the Lord," then your theory is debunked. Simply announcing that you have answered it, isn't an answer.



First off let me say that I have answered your situation and that you just don't like my answer. Your proclamation that I have no answer is not true. Does everlasting always mean everlasting in the scriptures. I know Reformed theologians who do not think so. I think you need to read things in context. The New Covenant is a reality. The New Covenant is in Christ now. His work is complete and the New Covenant is in His blood. Everyone who is a member in the New Covenant, in Christ, is assured of eternity with Christ based solely upon His work. Their union with Christ assures them of eternal life. They can not apostatize. That is one of the identifiers of someone who is a New Covenant member. Or let me ask you. Can a person who has his iniquities forgiven and his sin remembered no more apostatize? Maybe you believe they can. 

In the Old Covenant, not all of them shared in the Everlasting Covenant that Isaac shared in. So the encouragement to know the LORD with those who didn't Know God in a saving way should have been proclaimed. The same is true today. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> > So do we need to evangelize a backslidden Christian? Can't this be a general statement where the LORD is simply making a statement that everyone who is in the New Covenant already knows the LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> It says, "no one will tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." No you say that this is not what the text means! But, they did do this in the OC. So, how is the NC different???? How is the claim about what will happen in the NC different from the OC? In the OC people actually told other people to "know the Lord." (Read the Bible, the prophets say this frequently!!) So, this "no longer" refers to something that will "cease." We know that people actually used their mouths to say "know the Lord." but Randy rips all that out of context just to "save" his theory.



In the New Covenant Community this is true because the text says the reason why this is true is because they will all know Him. As I pointed out before Jesus said knowing God was eternal life. So If someone has received Christ and is justified, their sins are remembered no more, and their iniquity is forgiven do you need to tell them to know the LORD so they can have their sins forgiven and their sins remembered no more again? I believe these are the people considered to be in the New Covenant. 

Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the gospel. There is a level of sin that a justified believer will not enter into. It is the sin unto death. We are not to even pray for this according to John. Even an excommunicated person may be in sin but he will not totally reject the truth if he is a New Covenant member. He may not comply with it but he will not deny the truth of Christ. If a person does this and totally does not believe the Gospel no more I would consider that they never knew the LORD. They deny the LORD and He will deny them. And this is the kind of person you described. An excommunicated member or one struggling with a sin may struggle with assurance but they will not deny that the LORD has paid for the sin of His people. I can't say that I have ever told another believer to become a rebeliever again. BTW, rebeliever is a new word I just thought up. Do you like it? To have someone become an unbeliever in the Gospel and deny Jesus is Jehovah is beyond a believers reach. Because the seed in him is not corruptible.

(1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Paul, I believe the New Covenant member is in union with Christ. Their iniquities are forgiven and God will remember their sins no more. I believe this is the doctrine of the New Testament also. You obviously do not. I also believe that believers baptism is what happened in the Early Church. This passage is not the stand all to defend or refute believers baptism. But that is another discussion.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

All that work, gladd it is so simple to respond to:

1) Infats were in the community of people Jer. was referring to. The exiles had infants, Randy. The response is to all the exiles, Randy. Not "some" of them. But, the "all/least to greatest" was not all the people. Your commentary does not refute my understanding

2) Hyperbole in one place, but not in another??/ Sounds arbitrary, Randy.

3)


> Now here is why I think your example became a hypothetical. You stated that the guy said he no longer believed the gospel. There is a level of sin that a justified believer will not enter into.



I said he *said* he no longer believed the gospel. Anyway, here's a refutation:



> Luke 22:
> 
> 54Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. 55But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. 56A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him."
> 57But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said.
> ...




Many regenerate Christians can outwardly deny that they trust in Christ. This does not change the fact that if they really believed, God justified them. 

You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> All that work, gladd it is so simple to respond to:
> 
> 
> I said he *said* he no longer believed the gospel. Anyway, here's a refutation:
> ...



This is before Peter was Converted.



> (Luk 22:31) And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
> 
> (Luk 22:32) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
> 
> ...



Your refutation is mistaken. After Christ rose from the dead, and Peter was Converted, and filled with the Spirit, he never denied Christ again because he was converted and received power for his conversion. 






Tom Bombadil said:


> You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.



And you have no answer for the truth that New Covenant Members sins are remembered no more by God and that their iniquities are forgiven. I'll end my side from here as you are.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.



Tom, although I have been learning a lot from these various threads, I really am starting to dislike them because we tend to be rude in our comments to one another (and I mean all of us from the least to the greatest )

But, I have a question regarding your understanding of this "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." Aren't there a few senses in which the phrase "know the Lord" is used in the Scripture? I can think of two at the very least:

One would involve salvation (eternal life) in general:



> John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.



And another would involve an increasing knowledge of God for those who already have eternal life:



> Ephesians 4:11-13 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;



The first is true of the New Covenant people in the here and now (from a Baptist perspective) in that all members of the New Covenant "know the Lord" because they all have eternal life. The second is increasing and won't be fulfilled until the consummation (which is the "not yet") since we don't know him as we are known.

So, whereas we don't have to preach the gospel to members of the New Covenant in order to "get them saved" (I hate that phrase), we do continue to preach the gospel to them as a means of continued discipleship.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

I came back to add one more thing to my above post, but let me briefly address the below:



> This is before Peter was Converted.



ROTFL!  This is ripe. Let's look a couple verses earlier:



> 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your *faith* may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."



So unconverted men have faith!!

How about:



> Matthew 16:16
> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."



Or,



> Luke 5:8
> When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"



Unconverted, children of the flesh can admit those things???

I take it that I have now fully refuted Randy's view of Jer. 31. My "hypothetical" counter argument works. It has sustained all of Randy's counter arguments. he has been forced to grasp at straws, make rather ridiculous claims, just to save his theory. 



> And you have no answer for the truth that New Covenant Members sins are remembered no more by God and that their iniquities are forgiven. I'll end my side from here.



I believe NC members sins are rememered no more. This will fully be realized in heaven, not now when the historical administration is attached to it.

Anyway, regarding Jer 42. The remnant is the remnantleft at Judah and Mitzpah. We know that there were children included in this remnant:

Jer. 40:7 When all the army officers and their men who were still in the open country heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam as governor over the land and had put him in charge of the men, women and *children* who were the poorest in the land and who had not been carried into exile to Babylon

But in Jer. 42 all this remnant, from least to greatest it says, did this: "42:1 the least to the greatest approached 2 Jeremiah the prophet and said to him, "Please hear our petition and pray to the LORD your God for this entire remnant. For as you now see, though we were once many, now only a few are left. 3 Pray that the LORD your God will tell us where we should go and what we should do."

Surely there were young children, even infants included in this large remnant. Does the baptist belieev that young children, even infants, did the above? Those pagan sons of Adam. Those God haters. They weren't "mature" yet. 

Okay, now I really am done.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > You have no answer to my argument against "no more will a man tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord." All attempts have been refutesd. Thus your argument has been refuted. You've had multiple opportunites to defend your position, you have not in any substantive way. You may think you have. Fine. I'll end my side from here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
> ...



I gave a long and detailed argument above. Consult it first before responding. You can see the argument developed, and how your response is irrelevant, in this thread. People in the OC actually told people to "know the Lord." it said this would stop. No longer will it be done. I gave real world examples where it does indeed happen.

Don't cionfuse my curtness with rudeness. I don't have time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > This is before Peter was Converted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every man has some kind of faith. A Chrisitian's faith is made alive and right by the Spirit of God by grace.


I have seen many men who acknowledge Jesus is Lord but they want nothing to do with Him. 

And yes, I do believe unconverted men can see the Holy and cower. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> I take it that I have now fully refuted Randy's view of Jer. 31.
> Okay, now I really am done.





Thanks for the time Paul. 
Be Encouraged brother.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 9, 2007)

If you say so, brother.



> 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."



Wouldn't he already be sifted? Satan shouldn't worry about those who are currently his!

What did he "turn back" to? His previous unconverted position???!


How about Matt 16?



> 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
> 
> 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
> 
> 17Jesus replied, "*Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven*. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.



How about:



> John6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
> 
> 67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
> 
> ...



Why wasn't unconverted Simon grouped in here too? 

And how about this:



> John 13:6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
> 
> 7 Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
> 
> ...



I'm astonished, frankly. It appears that you will never let anyone critique your baptist belief. It seems that there is no point to engage in objective argumentation with you, then. it seems there is a "save the theory at all cost!" attitude. A, don;t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up attitude.

if you want to believe Peter was unconverted, not much I can do about that. A dead sinner, God-hater, man at enmity would not say those things from the heart. There is zero indication that he was lying, or the the Bible is misleading us. Interesting that Judas is not spoken of like this!

Anyway, have a good night, brother.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 9, 2007)

Whenever scripture says, 'all', how often does it mean 'every single one without exception'? Not very often. 

This is the trouble Arminians run into with John 3:16. 'God so loved the world' must mean that He, 
loved everything about the world, 
loved everything in the world, and 
loved everyone in the world. 

The Bible often does not speak in absolute terms.
We would agree that one must be baptized in order to be saved. But we don't see that as an absolute. 
He is the 'Saviour of all men' but he is not the Saviour of absolutely every man. 

We are to pray for kings and all who are in authority, 'from the least to the greatest'. Does that mean He absolutely desires the salvation of absolutely everyone?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 9, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> If you say so, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is why Peter was not grouped with or acted like Judas.



> (Joh 17:12) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.



The LORD had kept him. I am not saying Peter is lost and outside of Christ as you seem to be putting words in my mouth. Christ had him. He was a member of the flock of Christ's sheep. I am just saying something was different with him before Christ rose from the dead, and after He rose, and after the LORD filled the disciples with the Spirit. There is a marked difference. There was some conversion that fixed Peter solely upon Christ that he didn't have before. But to make my point that a man who is lost can do God's bidding and bless the LORD and His people lets look at Balaam. He could only speak what the LORD would have him speak and he had to bless Isreal instead of curse them. 

I am not saying I fully understand this. I have thought about this for many years. And the answers are not as clear for me as they seem to be for you. But then again you are more gifted than I am. Some of us just have to work on things a little longer before we fully understand. I am glad you have it all figured out. Some people do believe in preveniant grace. Others don't. If I am not mistaken Augustine did. I am not sure if I do. I do believe in Common grace and imagine there are different levels of God's influencing grace upon people. 

In conclusion I do not believe a New Covenant Christian will ever do what you suggested in your statement with Gene. And the 1689 doesn't suggest that a backslider would either as I stated above. 

*This is off topic a bit so if you want to carry on with this make a new thread and we can split this.

*


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 9, 2007)

> In conclusion I do not believe a New Covenant Christian will ever do what you suggested in your statement with Gene.



Yes, Peter did. When Jesus said he would "turn back" what was he talking about? Peter would "turn back" to his unconverted self??? Why did Jesus *commend* Peter's faith? Why would Jesus commend a "kinda sorta" pagan faith? (And, btw, should Peter have been rebaptized! Or did his baptism point AHEAD to future realites? Peter is an instance of paedobaptism on your terms  )

Anyway, you're saying a NC believer will never *say* that he doesn't believe in Christianity???? How would you prove that? Offer an argument.

But, my argument doesn't need it. Here's the argument:

1) All those who have been excommuicated are to be treated as if they were unbelievers.
2) All those who are treated as if they are unbelievers should be told to know the Lord.
3) All those who have been excommunicated should be told to know the Lord.
4) Some NC members can be excommunicated.
5) Some NC memebrs should be told to know the Lord.

Let's look at I Cor.5



> 1 Corinthians 5
> Expel the Immoral Brother!
> 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.



If that person is unrepentant, and continuing to live like the above, he needs to be told to know the Lord. Instances like this happen a lot. That can happen to NC members too. Your confession agrees

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, *fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein*, whereby they incur God's displeasure and *grieve his Holy Spirit*, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, *have their hearts hardened*, and their consciences wounded, *hurt and scandalize others*, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end. 

!!!!!!

If a meet someone who is currently exhibiting the above, showing no signs of repentance, I will tell them that they need to know the Lord. They are, seemingly, headed to hell and they need a savior. Your theology here, randy, is actually dangerous. That you wouldn't tell the above type person to "know the Lord" is rather scary.

Is Randy saying that it is impossible that a NC member could fall into grevious sin, and leave his family for another woman, stopping to provide for them? I don't see why this is impossible. Randy's confession seems to allow for it. Let's see how this person is described:



> 1 Timothy 5:8
> If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.



So can a NC member not do this for a time? Is this impossible? Sure, they would eventually repent, and turn back, but what is the argument that NC members could not fall into this sin? If we think we are above these sins, BEWARE. I actually think Randy is offering dangerous teachings all in the name of saving his credobaptism!

Now, if the above *can* be said to be true of a NC member, then you should tell them to "know the Lord." Here's the argument:

1. All who have denied the faith and are worse off than unbelievers should be told to know the Lord.
2. Those who falter in a 1 Timothy 5:8 kind of way have denied the faith and are worse off than an unbeliever.
3. Therefore Those who falter in a 1 Timothy 5:8 kind of way should be told to know the Lord.

Now, can a NC member do this:



> Matt 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, *treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector*.



Certainly this is possible for a NC member to do. Right/ or is this another sin that NC members cannot commit per Randy's dangerous theory? If an NC member can do the above, he should be, per Jesus' teachings, be treated as a pagan or a tax collector. So, we can offer this argument:

1. All those who are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors should be told to know the Lord.
2. Some NC members are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors.
3. Some NC members should be told to know the Lord.

So, on the one hand you have my arguments, on the other you have wild and ad hoc theories offered up by Randy. Randy has not addressed my arguments, and his position leads to dangerous theological implications. All positions which lead to dangerous theological implications should be rejected. Randy's theories should be rejected. 

My conclusion has been shown to follow. Randy's only counter - the Peter was not converted counter - has been disproven and shown to have wild implications (e.g., Jesus commending false faith, Jesus saying that he would "turn back" to his unconverted self, etc.,). Not only that, I have shown that my conclusion follows even without the Peter argument.

I take it that, therefore, I have proven that in the here and now, this side of the Jordan, the prophecy in Jeremiah is not completely fulfilled. This will only and finally happen in the glorious new heavens and earth. There, every NC member will have his sins forgiven, all will know the Lord and no one will tell his neighbor or brother to know the Lord. During its historical outworking, we will have those who are in the covenant legally. They are mixed in among us. On the last day they will be judged. The Lord will judge his people (Heb. 10:30).


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 9, 2007)

Let's also note that Randy has given no scriptural argument for his claim that a backslidding Christian cannot *say* that he doesn't believe Christianity is true.

What verses would support this?

I never said the guy *apostatized,* a final and complete falling away.

All we have so far is Randy's mere extra-scriptural assertion that "A NC member would not do that."

So, besides my positive case that they would, and there are times we would tell them to know the Lord regardless of the denal thing, Randy must also make a positive case for his assertion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 15, 2007)

First off thanks for your patience guys. I lost my internet and television service from very early last Tuesday Morning till Friday evening, so I couldn't respond. And I don't get on the PB much during the weekends. My brain needs all the rest it can get. Especially dealing with you very smart people.

I answered some of the apostasy questions over here. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/apostasy-25614/#post314549

I first posted it here but need to direct it over to the apostasy thread. I want to take up the Jeremiah thread again without the distraction of the apostasy issue. I will continue it also after I have considered what Paul has said and bounced his thoughts off of a few other guys.


----------

