# Jeremiah 31:27-30



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will forever come down to one's hermeneutic, specifically with regard to soteriology. One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people. To be sure, both the OT and NT demonstrate instances of God bringing salvation on those outside of familial ties to believers. But to say these instances lay aside the overall Biblical teaching of God's working through families, sacraments and all, is akin (no pun intended) to what antinomians say about the role of law in our lives this side of the cross. (BTW, I'm not equating our credo brethren with antinomians...only saying that I see strong similarities in the hermeneutic both use to arrive at their conclusions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not one shred"? What about these verses?
> 
> [bible]Jeremiah 31: 27-30[/bible]
Click to expand...

Paul Manata responds:



> I saw Elnwood arguing from Jer 31:27-30 (roughly) and that is one of the verses I have responded to in my responses to credos. You can post my answer if you'd like.


 
L. The Individualistic Nature of the New Covenant:
 
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.”


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Paul Manata responds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Elnwood arguing from Jer 31:27-30 (roughly) and that is one of the verses I have responded to in my responses to credos. You can post my answer if you'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L. The Individualistic Nature of the New Covenant:
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Here is where a major mistake is made. Jeremiah associates the removal of this concept with the New Covenant. The same language in 31:27-29 "Behold the days are coming ..." is in v. 31 "Behold, the days are coming ... when I will make a new covenant." Thus, the reason for this saying not being used is because of some fulfillment in the new covenant.

Even if we accept Block's intepretation, since it deals exclusively with Ezekiel, it is at best incomplete. His interpretation may be correct in its immediate context of why that saying is to be said no more in Israel, but he does not answer the question of why that proverb especially does not imply with the coming of the New Covenant.



> 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.



In response, I don't think anyone dies without their own sin and goes to hell for Adam's sin. So there is no contradiction that people will be judged for their own sins, and not the federal head. The contrast being made is Old Covenant earthly punishment vs. New Covenant eschatological judgment. In the Old Covenant, entire families were stoned for sins of the fathers. Not so in the New Covenant.



> 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.



1 Cor. 5 doesn't say the whole congregation is guilty of that one person's sin. They are held accountable for being lax about confronting and dealing with that sin.

In Titus 1:10, it says the whole households were subverted. It says nothing of households being punished for the head of the household's sin.

The use of Matthew 10 proves too much. It is making an analogy to the day of judgment, and we all accept that final judgment is individual, not by town or family representative.



> 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!



Paul completely misunderstands. I'll say it again. New Covenant administration is a better picture of the eschatological judgment. Old Covenant is types and shadows. Old Covenant punished entire families for one sin -- not in terms of final judgment in hell, but physically.



> 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.”



Paul is defining covenant in paedo-terms -- visible church, which is not the way a Baptist defines it. Profession of faith does not make one enter the new covenant. Regeneration does.

In general, I tire of Paul's argumentation because he generally takes a shotgun approach to arguing. That is, he fires off as many arguments as he can in one post, many of which are not very strong, but the post is so long that not very many people want to take the time respond to it, or if they do, he objects because they didn't answer the multitude of small points he includes. It's a great debate technique to overwhelm an opponent, and it makes him formidable in a debate, but it's not very good argumentation.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Hi Don,

The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, _at that time_, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.

In fact, it doesn't even follow that because Jeremiah said that something would happen in "those days" that it's happening now. You're not in heaven. You don't have a resurrected body. The NC prophesies are precisely why hyper-preterists say we are in the new heavens and earth right now. That we have our resurrected bodies. etc. You're over-realizing eschatology.

I would recommend Pratt's chapter on prophecy in the book "When Shall These Things Be?" He discusses contingency and prophecies.

Furthermore, it is proven that "judging sons for their fathers' is not inconsistent with "each man dying for their own sin" by what Jeremiah says in the broader context of the New Covenant:

Jer. 32:

16"After I had given the deed of purchase toBaruch the son of Neriah, I prayed to the LORD, saying: 17'Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. 18 *You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them*, O great and mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts, 19 great in counsel and mighty in deed,whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of man, *rewarding each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds*. 

There was obviously no contradiction between the two claims. And, Jeremiah seems elated about something he was JUST TOLD was "naughty" and "not desirebale to God."

I think it is theologically unresponsible to say that right after Jeremigh knew that God was _unhappy_ with a certain saying, that he would _praise God_ for that _very saying_!

Furthermore, since Eze. and Jer. were referring to _exactly the same thing_ then brother Don has simply made the prophets contradict eachother. It's not "incomplete." Jehovah said that the saying was _not to be said anymore_. From _that day _forward. Yes, that's when elements of the NC started intruding. Don would have us believe that Jehovah wanted the saying to stop _immediately_, but also _hundreds of years later_!

Furthermore, since people die for Adam's sin, people suffer for Adam's sin, then it is fasle that in the New Covenant people don't suffer and die for their father's sin. Infants in the womb have not actually sinned, but they do have a sinful nature. This is because of inheriting Adam's guilt! 

For these reasons I can't agree with Don's response. But, I must admit that I cannot come back to this:



> That is, he fires off as many arguments as he can in one post, many of which are not very strong, but the post is so long that not very many people want to take the time respond to it, or if they do, he objects because they didn't answer the multitude of small points he includes. It's a great debate technique to overwhelm an opponent, and it makes him formidable in a debate, but it's not very good argumentation.



And so my above post can be a priori dismissed because we already know it's not good argumentation. 

Best,

PM


----------



## Calvibaptist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Don,
> 
> The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, _at that time_, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.



I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ. He, through His blood, is the mediator of the New Covenant. No covenant is established without the death of the testator and without the shedding of blood, so the New Covenant could not have began until the death of Christ.

It is also interesting to note that in Hebrews 9:15, which says that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, it also shows us the ones who receive the promise of the covenant - those who are called. And, yes, I know that we (none of us) have any real idea who is truly called or regenerated because we can't see their hearts. But just because we don't know a person's heart, it doesn't change the meaning of the verse.



> In fact, it doesn't even follow that because Jeremiah said that something would happen in "those days" that it's happening now. You're not in heaven. You don't have a resurrected body. The NC prophesies are precisely why hyper-preterists say we are in the new heavens and earth right now. That we have our resurrected bodies. etc. You're over-realizing eschatology.



It is, in fact, and already-not yet realization. Aspects of the New Covenant have begun and have not yet been fully realized. This should be obvious since we all celebrate the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Don,
> 
> The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, _at that time_, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.



Hey Paul,

I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.

Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Calvibaptist said:


> Aspects of the New Covenant have begun and have not yet been fully realized. This should be obvious since we all celebrate the Lord's Supper.



I would point to this postulate as evidence for the continued validity of a weekly rest. "So then, there _*remains*_ a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9).


----------



## Calvibaptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aspects of the New Covenant have begun and have not yet been fully realized. This should be obvious since we all celebrate the Lord's Supper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would point to this postulate as evidence for the continued validity of a weekly rest. "So then, there _*remains*_ a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9).
Click to expand...


And I would agree with you!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

But to speak more directly to Doug's point, Paul is pointing out that the writer to Hebrews points out (8:13) that "he MAKES" the first obsolete, that is reference to the fact that Jeremiah is announcing the DEMISE of the Old Covenant, right then and there. Plus, he goes on to say, "already VANISHING away," being obsolete. Its obsolescence is patent as soon as the NEW MODEL is announced, and the VANISHING starts *right then*.

Paul did NOT say that Jeremiah's words brought the Old Covenant TO AN END, but that aspects of that prophecy were even at that moment begun to realization.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Hi Doug,



> I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ.



That is precisely not what Hebrews tells us.

Heb. 8:13

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."


Thus we see that when "*Jeremiah*" spoke those words, "he [Jeremiah] makes the first one obsolete.

My point is that some of what was prophesied started right after Jeremiah prophecied. The remnant came back, etc. 

Jer. 29: "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.

Sounds familiar? Let's see:

Jer. 30:

1The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the LORD, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it."

In fact, the teaching of the NC in the OC is so wide, and covers so much ground, and is applied to the times of the exiles to the time of the consumation, that it's impossible to make it as simplistic as many Baptists are wont to do.

After the 70 years, when the exiles came back, then all these belssing would be poured out on them. But, as happens quite frequently, the people were unrepentant. Thus historical contingencies pushed the prophecies back.



> It is also interesting to note that in Hebrews 9:15, which says that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, it also shows us the ones who receive the promise of the covenant - those who are called.



Yes sir, and no paedobaptist would disagree with that. The promises ALWAYS came by faith. But, we must note that from the paedo perspective there are two sides to the one coin called the New Covenant. So, to point out what you are, without dealing with our other position and nuances, is to simply beg the question. That the promises are for those who are called, those who draw near, does not mean that there is not still a legal aspect to the covenant. There must be since whoever orthodox preachers let into the kingdom, are actually in the kingdom. it is us finite and fallen people who hold the keyes to kingdom inclusion. God backs our decisions.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, _at that time_, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.
> 
> Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.
Click to expand...


Hello Andrew,

I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely not what Hebrews tells us.
> 
> Heb. 8:13
> 
> "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
> 
> 
> Thus we see that when "*Jeremiah*" spoke those words, "he [Jeremiah] makes the first one obsolete.
Click to expand...


Tom, I know you know grammar better than this. You must take the pronoun "he" in context to find out who the antecedent is in Hebrews 8.



> Hebrews 8:1-8 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --



The "he" in verse 8 who says those things is the same "he" in verse 6, who has obtained a more excellent ministry, who is the same "he" in verse 5 who commanded Moses to make all the things according to the pattern on the mountain, who is the same "he" in verse 4 who is not on the earth, who is the "One" of verse 4 who had something to offer, who is the "High Priest" and "Minister" of verses 1 and 2 who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.

Far from verse 8 talking about what Jeremiah specifically was saying, it is referring to what God said (in the person of Christ) through Jeremiah. The writer to the Hebrews, again, goes into painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant is through the ministry of Christ, not Jeremiah.



> My point is that some of what was prophesied started right after Jeremiah prophecied. The remnant came back, etc.
> 
> Jer. 29: "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.
> 
> Sounds familiar? Let's see:
> 
> Jer. 30:
> 
> 1The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the LORD, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it."
> 
> In fact, the teaching of the NC in the OC is so wide, and covers so much ground, and is applied to the times of the exiles to the time of the consumation, that it's impossible to make it as simplistic as many Baptists are wont to do.
> 
> After the 70 years, when the exiles came back, then all these belssing would be poured out on them. But, as happens quite frequently, the people were unrepentant. Thus historical contingencies pushed the prophecies back.



There is no argument that a remnant came back into the land after the 70 years. And there is no argument that Jeremiah prophesied this. But the writer to the Hebrews (who we were dealing with) is not at all talking about the return of physical Israel into the land. You are starting to sound like a Dispensationalist! The writer to the Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to talk about the New Covenant blessings on Spiritual Israel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.

If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,

guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.
> 
> If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,
> 
> guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.



True, but Jeremiah/the Lord said, "Days are coming..." That means future. Sure it could be future, like in 2 seconds. But we interpret that phrase from how it is applied in the New Testament. The "days" that were coming are interpreted by Christ as being related to His death and interpreted by the writer to the Hebrews as being related to the new High Priest.

They are not related by any one in the New Testament to the return of the Jews to Palestine.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, _at that time_, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.
> 
> Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.
Click to expand...



Ok. Fair enough.(I still have to research all of this myself.)


Hmm.. I was going to write more, but I'll have to study this some more and keep up with you guys at the same time. Hebrews 8 is basically the hinge for me. I haven't yet seen a good response to hebrews 8. Maybe if any of you guys have an online article on hebrews 8, that would be great.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me two questions to the Baptists about how "relevant" this passage is to redemption even if you succeed in establishing "individualism":

1. Has there ever been a time in human history where a man was saved who was not united to Christ?
2. Was there ever a time in human history, in the COG, where union with Christ was conferred by natural generation - from father to son?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Let me two questions to the Baptists about how "relevant" this passage is to redemption even if you succeed in establishing "individualism":
> 
> 1. Has there ever been a time in human history where a man was saved who was not united to Christ?
> 2. Was there ever a time in human history, in the COG, where union with Christ was conferred by natural generation - from father to son?



Salvifically? No. 

Scripture is clear that in order to be in union with Christ, one must die His death and be resurrected with Him. So, your blood has nothing to do with your spiritual state.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Calvibaptist said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.
> 
> If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,
> 
> guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but Jeremiah/the Lord said, "Days are coming..." That means future. Sure it could be future, like in 2 seconds. But we interpret that phrase from how it is applied in the New Testament. The "days" that were coming are interpreted by Christ as being related to His death and interpreted by the writer to the Hebrews as being related to the new High Priest.
> 
> They are not related by any one in the New Testament to the return of the Jews to Palestine.
Click to expand...


Doug,
I just think that your objection _as you originally stated it_ doesn't address the issue _as Paul originally stated it._ What Paul stated was there was a sense in which what Jeremiah uttered had pertinence, it had reality, immediately. This interpretation *cannot be* in tension with a broad, longer-term fulfillment. No one has argued that Hebrews is NOT pointing to FULL-filment of that text in Christ.

But it is another thing entirely to claim that what Jeremiah said was solely directed 500 years into the future. "Planned obsolescence" is ANNOUNCED by Jeremiah. And the vanishing away _starts_ immediately. That it accelerates over time, and that it, in essence, is made total in Christ's coming, is quite germane to the point of Hebrews.

Simply put, Hebrews can say: "Don't act all shocked at this "overturning" of the old order. Jeremiah 500 years ago, was telling you Moses was temporary. If something NEW is on its way in, then what's OLD is on the way out (even if you are living in it). It's obsolete, and evansceing right before your eyes." This is the point, not simply some New Testament writer making clear an obscure fact, only now made plain. No way.

The "vanishing" is not confined to the period from Jesus' birth to the Cross, or from his ministry through his ascension, or from the Cross until 70 AD, or any portion or total of all those years.

The "vanishing" is taking place for 500 years. Jeremish announces it. Ezekiel announces it. Daniel announces it. Every prophet who proclaims a NEW ORDER of things is stating this truth, more and more explicitly all the time. ANd when Messiah arrives, that's it: the OLD is finished and DONE.

Like a movie set. Like a party that's over. The wedding is complete. "We're done here. Start taking all that stuff down." Everything after Jesus is clean-up. 40 years of taking down the decorations. That is not the "vanishing", except in the most rudimentary sense. The woman getting married--her maidenhood was vanishing, all the time from the announcement of the wedding to her wedding. It makes no sense at all to say its only vanishing during the ceremony, or until after the reception, or the honeymoon, or in the sweeping up the empty hall.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.
> 
> If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,
> 
> guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but Jeremiah/the Lord said, "Days are coming..." That means future. Sure it could be future, like in 2 seconds. But we interpret that phrase from how it is applied in the New Testament. The "days" that were coming are interpreted by Christ as being related to His death and interpreted by the writer to the Hebrews as being related to the new High Priest.
> 
> They are not related by any one in the New Testament to the return of the Jews to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doug,
> I just think that your objection _as you originally stated it_ doesn't address the issue _as Paul originally stated it._ What Paul stated was there was a sense in which what Jeremiah uttered had pertinence, it had reality, immediately. This interpretation *cannot be* in tension with a broad, longer-term fulfillment. No one has argued that Hebrews is NOT pointing to FULL-filment of that text in Christ.
> 
> But it is another thing entirely to claim that what Jeremiah said was solely directed 500 years into the future. "Planned obsolescence" is ANNOUNCED by Jeremiah. And the vanishing away _starts_ immediately. That it accelerates over time, and that it, in essence, is made total in Christ's coming, is quite germane to the point of Hebrews.
> 
> Simply put, Hebrews can say: "Don't act all shocked at this "overturning" of the old order. Jeremiah 500 years ago, was telling you Moses was temporary. If something NEW is on its way in, then what's OLD is on the way out (even if you are living in it). It's obsolete, and evansceing right before your eyes." This is the point, not simply some New Testament writer making clear an obscure fact, only now made plain. No way.
> 
> The "vanishing" is not confined to the period from Jesus' birth to the Cross, or from his ministry through his ascension, or from the Cross until 70 AD, or any portion or total of all those years.
> 
> The "vanishing" is taking place for 500 years. Jeremish announces it. Ezekiel announces it. Daniel announces it. Every prophet who proclaims a NEW ORDER of things is stating this truth, more and more explicitly all the time. ANd when Messiah arrives, that's it: the OLD is finished and DONE.
> 
> Like a movie set. Like a party that's over. The wedding is complete. "We're done here. Start taking all that stuff down." Everything after Jesus is clean-up. 40 years of taking down the decorations. That is not the "vanishing", except in the most rudimentary sense. The woman getting married--her maidenhood was vanishing, all the time from the announcement of the wedding to her wedding. It makes no sense at all to say its only vanishing during the ceremony, or until after the reception, or the honeymoon, or in the sweeping up the empty hall.
Click to expand...


Bruce, I agree with everything you said (I often do!). What I was trying to point out is, although the old was vanishing away as the writer of Hebrews points out, the New did not begin until Christ sacrificed Himself.

My reaction was to Tom's statement that the New had already begun the instant Jeremiah spoke it.



> The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy.



I have absolutely no argument that the Old was fading away. I would argue that it began to fade the moment it began. But the New didn't come until the death of Christ.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> Let me two questions to the Baptists about how "relevant" this passage is to redemption even if you succeed in establishing "individualism":
> 
> 1. Has there ever been a time in human history where a man was saved who was not united to Christ?
> 2. Was there ever a time in human history, in the COG, where union with Christ was conferred by natural generation - from father to son?



1. No.
2. No.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove, though, Rich. Paedos constantly make the statement that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Old and New (see the thread on church discipline you started). Credo's believe there is not a on-to-one correspondence between membership in the covenant and the sign given to members.

Sure, in the Old Covenant you could be a member of the covenant people by physical birth and not be joined to Christ. If there had to be a one-to-one correspondence between the covenants I would argue that you could be a member of the New Covenant people and not be joined to Christ (as paedos do). But I fail to see where the New Covenant promises or inauguration in the New Testament indicate that there is a one-to-one correspondence with the Old. The Old is the shadow, with rituals and familial relationship required for entry. The New is the real, with the cross fulfilling the rituals and Jesus standing before the throne saying, "Here I am and the children I have brought with me." Notice the familial context of the New is our relation to Christ, not to our physical parents.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me two questions to the Baptists about how "relevant" this passage is to redemption even if you succeed in establishing "individualism":
> 
> 1. Has there ever been a time in human history where a man was saved who was not united to Christ?
> 2. Was there ever a time in human history, in the COG, where union with Christ was conferred by natural generation - from father to son?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No.
> 2. No.
> 
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove, though, Rich. Paedos constantly make the statement that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Old and New (see the thread on church discipline you started). Credo's believe there is not a on-to-one correspondence between membership in the covenant and the sign given to members.
> 
> Sure, in the Old Covenant you could be a member of the covenant people by physical birth and not be joined to Christ. If there had to be a one-to-one correspondence between the covenants I would argue that you could be a member of the New Covenant people and not be joined to Christ (as paedos do). But I fail to see where the New Covenant promises or inauguration in the New Testament indicate that there is a one-to-one correspondence with the Old. The Old is the shadow, with rituals and familial relationship required for entry. The New is the real, with the cross fulfilling the rituals and Jesus standing before the throne saying, "Here I am and the children I have brought with me." Notice the familial context of the New is our relation to Christ, not to our physical parents.
Click to expand...


The point has to do with the substance of God's Covenant with man in the CoG. I think you make far too much of discontinuity. In fact, it almost looks like, in the other thread, that other Baptists are almost desperate to see God as materially changing His disposition toward people in His Covenant. The substance has always been Christ.

My point also has to do with the purpose of raising a Godly seed (Malachi) and training a child in the way he should go (Proverbs). Why, if the substance was the same, were means available in the Old Covenant to train the Elect and there are no longer means available in the New?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is _immutable_. Imagine that.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me two questions to the Baptists about how "relevant" this passage is to redemption even if you succeed in establishing "individualism":
> 
> 1. Has there ever been a time in human history where a man was saved who was not united to Christ?
> 2. Was there ever a time in human history, in the COG, where union with Christ was conferred by natural generation - from father to son?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No.
> 2. No.
> 
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove, though, Rich. Paedos constantly make the statement that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Old and New (see the thread on church discipline you started). Credo's believe there is not a on-to-one correspondence between membership in the covenant and the sign given to members.
> 
> Sure, in the Old Covenant you could be a member of the covenant people by physical birth and not be joined to Christ. If there had to be a one-to-one correspondence between the covenants I would argue that you could be a member of the New Covenant people and not be joined to Christ (as paedos do). But I fail to see where the New Covenant promises or inauguration in the New Testament indicate that there is a one-to-one correspondence with the Old. The Old is the shadow, with rituals and familial relationship required for entry. The New is the real, with the cross fulfilling the rituals and Jesus standing before the throne saying, "Here I am and the children I have brought with me." Notice the familial context of the New is our relation to Christ, not to our physical parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point has to do with the substance of God's Covenant with man in the CoG. I think you make far too much of discontinuity. In fact, it almost looks like, in the other thread, that other Baptists are almost desperate to see God as materially changing His disposition toward people in His Covenant. The substance has always been Christ.
> 
> My point also has to do with the purpose of raising a Godly seed (Malachi) and training a child in the way he should go (Proverbs). Why, if the substance was the same, were means available in the Old Covenant to train the Elect and there are no longer means available in the New?
Click to expand...



Rich, I'm not sure what "training a child" has to do with "union with Christ". The Child doesn't have to be in union with Christ in order to tell them to obey the Lord.

Also, you can't possibly be saying that one can be in union with Christ and still not be saved. Romans 6:5 is clear "5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection". What other union with Christ is there?


----------



## elnwood

Josh, you make a good point. Achan is what I had in mind. From the description in Joshua, though, I would have to disagree that his entire household was guilty as well. Besides the punishment, there doesn't seem to be any indication in the text. Achan says "I saw the spoil ... I coveted and took ... they are hidden in my tent." It seems very individualistic. Unless his entire household participated in the hiding, but not likely. It doesn't sound like good gossip control.

Besides, the infants in the household could not have been guilty! Surely there must have been infants! Hahaahahaha ... just kidding.

I want to say there are other instances, but the only one that comes to mind right now is in the book of Daniel, when the people who threw Daniel in the lion's den were thrown in with their entire families. You could also make extrapolations based on genocide of entire nations that the children were dying for their father's sins.

In any case, I think we all agree that it was a common enough concept that the proverb came about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Rich, I'm not sure what "training a child" has to do with "union with Christ". You don't have to be in union with Christ in order to tell your childeren to obey the Lord. As a matter of fact, you can't possibly be saying that one can be in union with Christ and still not be saved. Romans 6:5 is clear "5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection". What other union with Christ is there?



The point is that the substance of the Covenant has remained fixed in all administrations of the CoG. The goal was always Christ. Only the Elect ever had Christ. All appeals to a discontinuity seem to assume that the people in the OC were pursuing something else or that God had erected an edifice that was pointing them to something physical rather than a spiritual goal.

Fundamental to the decrees of God are that He establishes secondary causation or means to an end. We call the means that call and confirm the elect the _means_ of Grace. God does not merely elect people to spontaneoulsy transformed into Christ-likeness but He calls them out of the world and develops that character in them through the means of His Church in Word and Sacrament.

These discussions of individualism short circuit that process. They imply that everything that God wrote to parents concerning training in the OT that occurred under a "shadowy" administration were not means to convert His elect. Paul, by contrast, calls it an advantage in every way that the Jews were near all of this Covenant administration.

Thus, what I'm asking is this: Pretend for a moment that God has elected a child in a Baptist Church from all eternity to be saved. What means are there now instituted in the Church? How would He go about saving that child? We have a glimpse of this in the Proverbs and throughout the OT but Baptists short circuit this by saying that children no longer participate in these means.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> You don't have to be in union with Christ in order to tell your childeren to obey the Lord.


Did you mean this, the way it is printed?

Yes, actually you DO have to be in union with Christ for that statement to mean anything of value. When the unbeliever says something like that to his child, he's SINNING. "The plowing of the wicked is SIN." So if he commands "help that old lady across the street" OR if he commands "shove that old lady under the bus" its just exchanging one form of GOD DISHONORING behavior for another.

Is it BETTER to do something formally not in voliation of divine command, than to do a formal EVIL? Sure. But there is no power present to do the good, or even to ask God for help to do the good.

Further, the child is not simply to "obey the Lord" but "obey IN the Lord," the language of union with Christ. This may be taken two ways: 1) the child is to obey the parent "as though" he is obeying Christ, because of union with Christ, or 2) the emphasis could be on the child being "IN the Lord" and therefore his obedience is "as though" Christ were DOING the obedience.

And no one is saying an unbeliever has union with Christ. That is indeed impossible.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists short circuit this by saying that children no longer participate in these means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as stated by James White, this would be totally false. Baptists distinguish between "childeren" and "infants".
Click to expand...


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> You don't have to be in union with Christ in order to tell your childeren to obey the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean this, the way it is printed?
> 
> Yes, actually you DO have to be in union with Christ for that statement to mean anything of value. When the unbeliever says something like that to his child, he's SINNING. "The plowing of the wicked is SIN." So if he commands "help that old lady across the street" OR if he commands "shove that old lady under the bus" its just exchanging one form of GOD DISHONORING behavior for another.
> 
> Is it BETTER to do something formally not in voliation of divine command, than to do a formal EVIL? Sure. But there is no power present to do the good, or even to ask God for help to do the good.
> 
> Further, the child is not simply to "obey the Lord" but "obey IN the Lord," the language of union with Christ. This may be taken two ways: 1) the child is to obey the parent "as though" he is obeying Christ, because of union with Christ, or 2) the emphasis could be on the child being "IN the Lord" and therefore his obedience is "as though" Christ were DOING the obedience.
> 
> And no one is saying an unbeliever has union with Christ. That is indeed impossible.
Click to expand...


Bruce, what i have stated earlier though, is that Presbyterian's have the same problem. You have no idea if the child is elect or not. So saying to your child "obey IN the Lord" would by your definition be much as a sin as the baptist.


----------



## VictorBravo

Andrew P.C. said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be in union with Christ in order to tell your childeren to obey the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean this, the way it is printed?
> 
> Yes, actually you DO have to be in union with Christ for that statement to mean anything of value. When the unbeliever says something like that to his child, he's SINNING. "The plowing of the wicked is SIN." So if he commands "help that old lady across the street" OR if he commands "shove that old lady under the bus" its just exchanging one form of GOD DISHONORING behavior for another.
> 
> Is it BETTER to do something formally not in voliation of divine command, than to do a formal EVIL? Sure. But there is no power present to do the good, or even to ask God for help to do the good.
> 
> Further, the child is not simply to "obey the Lord" but "obey IN the Lord," the language of union with Christ. This may be taken two ways: 1) the child is to obey the parent "as though" he is obeying Christ, because of union with Christ, or 2) the emphasis could be on the child being "IN the Lord" and therefore his obedience is "as though" Christ were DOING the obedience.
> 
> And no one is saying an unbeliever has union with Christ. That is indeed impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bruce, what i have stated earlier though, is that Presbyterian's have the same problem. You have no idea if the child is elect or not. So saying to your child "obey IN the Lord" would by your definition be much as a sin as the baptist.
Click to expand...


I really think there needs to be a clarification here. Bruce said "when an unbeliever says something like that". He was talking about an unbeliever making the command. He was not saying that it is a sin to preach to an unbeliever to obey. So the response, I think, is a non-sequiter.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

victorbravo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean this, the way it is printed?
> 
> Yes, actually you DO have to be in union with Christ for that statement to mean anything of value. When the unbeliever says something like that to his child, he's SINNING. "The plowing of the wicked is SIN." So if he commands "help that old lady across the street" OR if he commands "shove that old lady under the bus" its just exchanging one form of GOD DISHONORING behavior for another.
> 
> Is it BETTER to do something formally not in voliation of divine command, than to do a formal EVIL? Sure. But there is no power present to do the good, or even to ask God for help to do the good.
> 
> Further, the child is not simply to "obey the Lord" but "obey IN the Lord," the language of union with Christ. This may be taken two ways: 1) the child is to obey the parent "as though" he is obeying Christ, because of union with Christ, or 2) the emphasis could be on the child being "IN the Lord" and therefore his obedience is "as though" Christ were DOING the obedience.
> 
> And no one is saying an unbeliever has union with Christ. That is indeed impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, what i have stated earlier though, is that Presbyterian's have the same problem. You have no idea if the child is elect or not. So saying to your child "obey IN the Lord" would by your definition be much as a sin as the baptist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really think there needs to be a clarification here. Bruce said "when an unbeliever says something like that". He was talking about an unbeliever making the command. He was not saying that it is a sin to preach to an unbeliever to obey. So the response, I think, is a non-sequiter.
Click to expand...


Then there is an obvious misunderstanding on his part. I am not talking about an unbeliever saying to his child "obey IN the Lord". How could this be so? I've never even made an implication to this....

Update:

I see where he got this... Yes, that was a mistake on my part. My line of thought was that the CHILD does not have to be in union with Christ to tell them to obey. Sorry Bruce.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I made the correction...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

OK,
if what was *intended* to be expressed (not what was printed) was


> the child does not have to be in union with Christ in order" for a Christian to tell him "to obey the Lord


then no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.

As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is _different_ about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially _identical_ to today's?

Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> OK,
> if what was *intended* to be expressed (not what was printed) was
> 
> 
> 
> the child does not have to be in union with Christ in order" for a Christian to tell him "to obey the Lord
> 
> 
> 
> then no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.
> 
> As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is _different_ about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially _identical_ to today's?
> 
> Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.
Click to expand...


What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
*I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS*,
AND *I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS*.
AND *I WILL BE THEIR GOD*,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
*FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME*,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 
12"FOR *I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES*,
AND *I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO M*ORE."


----------



## Jim Johnston

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely not what Hebrews tells us.
> 
> Heb. 8:13
> 
> "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
> 
> 
> Thus we see that when "*Jeremiah*" spoke those words, "he [Jeremiah] makes the first one obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tom, I know you know grammar better than this. You must take the pronoun "he" in context to find out who the antecedent is in Hebrews 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 8:1-8 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "he" in verse 8 who says those things is the same "he" in verse 6, who has obtained a more excellent ministry, who is the same "he" in verse 5 who commanded Moses to make all the things according to the pattern on the mountain, who is the same "he" in verse 4 who is not on the earth, who is the "One" of verse 4 who had something to offer, who is the "High Priest" and "Minister" of verses 1 and 2 who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.
> 
> Far from verse 8 talking about what Jeremiah specifically was saying, it is referring to what God said (in the person of Christ) through Jeremiah. The writer to the Hebrews, again, goes into painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant is through the ministry of Christ, not Jeremiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that some of what was prophesied started right after Jeremiah prophecied. The remnant came back, etc.
> 
> Jer. 29: "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.
> 
> Sounds familiar? Let's see:
> 
> Jer. 30:
> 
> 1The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the LORD, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it."
> 
> In fact, the teaching of the NC in the OC is so wide, and covers so much ground, and is applied to the times of the exiles to the time of the consumation, that it's impossible to make it as simplistic as many Baptists are wont to do.
> 
> After the 70 years, when the exiles came back, then all these belssing would be poured out on them. But, as happens quite frequently, the people were unrepentant. Thus historical contingencies pushed the prophecies back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no argument that a remnant came back into the land after the 70 years. And there is no argument that Jeremiah prophesied this. But the writer to the Hebrews (who we were dealing with) is not at all talking about the return of physical Israel into the land. You are starting to sound like a Dispensationalist! The writer to the Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to talk about the New Covenant blessings on Spiritual Israel.
Click to expand...



Hi Doug,

Yes, I know he's talking about what God said through Jeremiah. That's obvious. The point is, the author of Hebrews said that WHEN GOD SAID "New Covenant" BACK in Jeremiah's day, then AT THAT TIME he made the OC obsolete, and thus fadding away.

At any rate, I'll await a response to my argumentations.

This point is undisputable (name calling about dispensationalist aside).


----------



## Jim Johnston

Calvibaptist said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.
> 
> If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,
> 
> guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but Jeremiah/the Lord said, "Days are coming..." That means future. Sure it could be future, like in 2 seconds. But we interpret that phrase from how it is applied in the New Testament. The "days" that were coming are interpreted by Christ as being related to His death and interpreted by the writer to the Hebrews as being related to the new High Priest.
> 
> They are not related by any one in the New Testament to the return of the Jews to Palestine.
Click to expand...


Uh, the author of Hebrews said "sdays are coming" as well.

At any rate, if you say that NC elements cannot be institued or realized until Christ's death then you have a problem. That is, _before_ Jesus died he said, "This IS the New Covenant in my blood."


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.
> 
> Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Fair enough.(I still have to research all of this myself.)
> 
> 
> Hmm.. I was going to write more, but I'll have to study this some more and keep up with you guys at the same time. Hebrews 8 is basically the hinge for me. I haven't yet seen a good response to hebrews 8. Maybe if any of you guys have an online article on hebrews 8, that would be great.
Click to expand...


What do I need to respond to? I don;t see how Heb. 8 touches the paedo position, in the slightest. In fact, you still tell New Covenant members to "know the Lordc," but according to your interpretation of Hebrews 8, this won't happen anymore.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Calvibaptist said:


> Bruce, I agree with everything you said (I often do!). What I was trying to point out is, although the old was vanishing away as the writer of Hebrews points out, the New did not begin until Christ sacrificed Himself.
> 
> My reaction was to Tom's statement that the New had already begun the instant Jeremiah spoke it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no argument that the Old was fading away. I would argue that it began to fade the moment it began. But the New didn't come until the death of Christ.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately this is false since Jesus served a NC meal BEFORE he died and shed his actual blood. 

In fact, other Baptists here have argued that in Matt. ch. 10 when Jesus says "from now on father will be against mother" that this is a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:27-30! But, Matt. 10 happened BEFORE Jesus "shed his blood."

I therefore take it that I have proven that elements of facets of the NC can be realized even before the shedding of Jesus blood.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> In any case, I think we all agree that it was a common enough concept that the proverb came about.



And I addressed the "proverb." It wasn't an orthodox theological truth. Thus it has no bearing on the supposed individuality of the NC (which I also showed was not present, cf. I Cor. 5, Titus 1:11, Matt. 10, &c).


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists short circuit this by saying that children no longer participate in these means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as stated by James White, this would be totally false. Baptists distinguish between "childeren" and "infants".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, my infants are not my children.
> 
> But, if this is so, then when Deut. teaches that "all Israel, the men, women, and children" were before the Lord on the day of assembly, we must believe that "no infants" were present because "we distinguish between children and infants." And, when does an infant become a child?
> 
> The law says at 18 months? So, would you baptize an 18 month old and apply all the "children" text to them?
> 
> I therefore conclude that the "infant/children" dichotomy, in this context, is absurd.
Click to expand...


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Fair enough.(I still have to research all of this myself.)
> 
> 
> Hmm.. I was going to write more, but I'll have to study this some more and keep up with you guys at the same time. Hebrews 8 is basically the hinge for me. I haven't yet seen a good response to hebrews 8. Maybe if any of you guys have an online article on hebrews 8, that would be great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do I need to respond to? I don;t see how Heb. 8 touches the paedo position, in the slightest. In fact, you still tell New Covenant members to "know the Lordc," but according to your interpretation of Hebrews 8, this won't happen anymore.
Click to expand...


Hmm.. Now here is the part where as a consistent baptist I would say that only by their profession can we know if they are in the covenant, yet, in reality I can't know that for sure.

As a baptist only the "invisible" church is in the NC, and even John Frame states this:


> Since in Jeremiah it is said to provide for the forgiveness of sins and the writing of the law on the heart, we are inclined to say that it includes only the elect. But the NT warning passages suggest that it is like the earlier covenants-- that people can belong to it and then fall away.
> 
> So it seems to have two dimensions. The covenant in Jeremiah 31 implies that only the elect belong to it. Nevertheless, there is a visible expression of that covenant, the church. When people enter the church, they subscribe to the New Covenant by receiving baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The elders seek to make a judgment as to whether those requesting baptism (for themselves or their children) are making a credible profession. A "credible profession" is all that they are able to see; they cannot see the heart. Ordinarily, a credible profession is a symptom of a regenerate heart. But sometimes it isn't; or sometimes elders may use standards of credibility that are too low. And of course not every baby baptized in infancy becomes a regenerate person. For such reasons, unregenerate people sometimes do enter the church. They are "in" the New Covenant from the church's point of view, because they have subscribed to that covenant. They are not in it from God'spoint of view, for they are not elect in Christ.
> So there does seem even in the New Covenant to be a distinction between inner and outer, between "Israel" and "of Israel."
> 
> Source: http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99721.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim



As he states: 


> They are "in" the New Covenant from the church's point of view, because they have subscribed to that covenant. They are not in it from God'spoint of view, for they are not elect in Christ.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK,
> if what was *intended* to be expressed (not what was printed) was
> 
> 
> 
> the child does not have to be in union with Christ in order" for a Christian to tell him "to obey the Lord
> 
> 
> 
> then no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.
> 
> As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is _different_ about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially _identical_ to today's?
> 
> Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
> TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
> FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
> AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
> AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
> *I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS*,
> AND *I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS*.
> AND *I WILL BE THEIR GOD*,
> AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
> 11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
> AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
> *FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME*,
> FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
> 12"FOR *I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES*,
> AND *I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO M*ORE."
Click to expand...


If NO ONE in the NC will "tell his brother or neighbor to know the Lord," then how do you deal with this:

Some say that there is no need to evangelize New Covenant members because they all know the Lord. They are individually saved (Malone, 94). This is subject to a serious reductio ad absurdum by this unfortunately ever-so-real case: Say a man comes to your church. He hears the preaching of the word. Tell the pastor and elders that he believes in Jesus. They tell him to repent and be baptized. So he does. His repentance is genuine. This means he has been regenerated. He is thus a New Covenant member. For 2 or 3 years this man plays a vital role in the congregation, serving, tithing, and even helping other new converts in their growth. This man is growing is sanctification and knowledge. But, as often happens, Satan attacks this man. God has chosen to discipline his son. As the London Baptist Confession says, 

_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…_

And so this man commits adultery on his wife. He refuses to repent, despite the pleas of his elders and friends. He leaves his wife and is subsequently excommunicated. For two years we hear reports about this man; how he’s living with his lover, not attending church, and even saying he doesn’t believe. But one day you, a member of the church and a one time good friend, run into him at the local Starbucks. You guys chat a bit about how life is treating the both of you. It looks like a door may be open enabling you to get more personal in your conversation. What do you say to this man? Well, I think every Christian would agree that we would evangelize him. Tell him to know the Lord. Tell him that he needs to be saved. But here’s the rub, this guy, and yourself, are New Covenant members! My question is, what is one member of the New Covenant doing telling another _New Covenant member_ to “know the Lord?”

Not only do we have a clear cut case of a New Covenant member telling another New Covenant member to “know the Lord,” the corollary of my _reductio_ leads to a dangerous presumption. Say a member of your church is the most “holy” person you know. He is always giving of himself. Evidences what appear to be the fruit of the Spirit. Has continued to attend church for 35 years. Is always seen every morning reading his Bible and praying. Despite all of this, this man is deceiving everyone. He is putting on an outward show. To be consistent, the Baptist who interprets Jeremiah 31 in this overly-realized way cannot tell this man to “know the Lord.” Otherwise, he’d be telling someone he thought was a covenant member to “know the Lord,” and this is staunchly forbidden. Therefore the Baptist cannot tell a person to “know the Lord,” _even if this is precisely what this person needs to hear_!

The Baptist may say that we should tell everyone to “know the Lord” because we don’t know who the elect are. I agree, but this goes against their claim that in the New Covenant it is currently realized. If the New Covenant is fully realized then how is our telling New Covenant members to “know the Lord”, “not like” the Old Covenant? You see, only in the New Heavens and Earth will “each man no longer teach his brother or his neighbor to know the Lord.”


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as stated by James White, this would be totally false. Baptists distinguish between "childeren" and "infants".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my infants are not my children.
> 
> But, if this is so, then when Deut. teaches that "all Israel, the men, women, and children" were before the Lord on the day of assembly, we must believe that "no infants" were present because "we distinguish between children and infants." And, when does an infant become a child?
> 
> The law says at 18 months? So, would you baptize an 18 month old and apply all the "children" text to them?
> 
> I therefore conclude that the "infant/children" dichotomy, in this context, is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't distinguish between a 12-year-old and an 8-month-old? Would you still baptize a 12-year-old if they flat out reject Christ? (This is the distinguishing I'm talking about.)
Click to expand...


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> Hmm.. Now here is the part where as a consistent baptist I would say that only by their profession can we know if they are in the covenant, yet, in reality I can't know that for sure.



Hi Andrew,

How do you determine that? How does "profession" = "they're in the covenant?" In fact, what is the probability here? Out of the billion or so "professing" Christians, how many are elect? That number is inscrutable.



> As a baptist only the "invisible" church is in the NC, and even John Frame states this:



Well, the devil's in the details. This depends on how you define things. Was Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc actuyally "in" the New Covenant? They are in the invisible church? So, you'd need to work this out.

But, yes, we agree that elect, and all elect (or, regenerate, if you will) in this present epoch of history are in the NC. This doesn't logically mean that no non-elect are. All dogs are in the class of mammals. That doesn't mean that no cats are, though.

Hope that helped.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> So, you don't distinguish between a 12-year-old and an 8-month-old? Would you still baptize a 12-year-old if they flat out reject Christ? (This is the distinguishing I'm talking about.)




Of course I distinguish. But that doesn't mean that infants are not children. And, your point isn't the point White was making. White used the false dichotomy to get around the "you and your children" language. So, you've not represent White correctly.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK,
> if what was *intended* to be expressed (not what was printed) wasthen no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.
> 
> As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is _different_ about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially _identical_ to today's?
> 
> Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
> TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
> FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
> AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
> AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
> *I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS*,
> AND *I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS*.
> AND *I WILL BE THEIR GOD*,
> AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
> 11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
> AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
> *FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME*,
> FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
> 12"FOR *I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES*,
> AND *I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO M*ORE."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If NO ONE in the NC will "tell his brother or neighbor to know the Lord," then how do you deal with this:
> 
> Some say that there is no need to evangelize New Covenant members because they all know the Lord. They are individually saved (Malone, 94). This is subject to a serious reductio ad absurdum by this unfortunately ever-so-real case: Say a man comes to your church. He hears the preaching of the word. Tell the pastor and elders that he believes in Jesus. They tell him to repent and be baptized. So he does. His repentance is genuine. This means he has been regenerated. He is thus a New Covenant member. For 2 or 3 years this man plays a vital role in the congregation, serving, tithing, and even helping other new converts in their growth. This man is growing is sanctification and knowledge. But, as often happens, Satan attacks this man. God has chosen to discipline his son. As the London Baptist Confession says,
> 
> _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…_
> 
> And so this man commits adultery on his wife. He refuses to repent, despite the pleas of his elders and friends. He leaves his wife and is subsequently excommunicated. For two years we hear reports about this man; how he’s living with his lover, not attending church, and even saying he doesn’t believe. But one day you, a member of the church and a one time good friend, run into him at the local Starbucks. You guys chat a bit about how life is treating the both of you. It looks like a door may be open enabling you to get more personal in your conversation. What do you say to this man? Well, I think every Christian would agree that we would evangelize him. Tell him to know the Lord. Tell him that he needs to be saved. But here’s the rub, this guy, and yourself, are New Covenant members! My question is, what is one member of the New Covenant doing telling another _New Covenant member_ to “know the Lord?”
> 
> Not only do we have a clear cut case of a New Covenant member telling another New Covenant member to “know the Lord,” the corollary of my _reductio_ leads to a dangerous presumption. Say a member of your church is the most “holy” person you know. He is always giving of himself. Evidences what appear to be the fruit of the Spirit. Has continued to attend church for 35 years. Is always seen every morning reading his Bible and praying. Despite all of this, this man is deceiving everyone. He is putting on an outward show. To be consistent, the Baptist who interprets Jeremiah 31 in this overly-realized way cannot tell this man to “know the Lord.” Otherwise, he’d be telling someone he thought was a covenant member to “know the Lord,” and this is staunchly forbidden. Therefore the Baptist cannot tell a person to “know the Lord,” _even if this is precisely what this person needs to hear_!
> 
> The Baptist may say that we should tell everyone to “know the Lord” because we don’t know who the elect are. I agree, but this goes against their claim that in the New Covenant it is currently realized. If the New Covenant is fully realized then how is our telling New Covenant members to “know the Lord”, “not like” the Old Covenant? You see, only in the New Heavens and Earth will “each man no longer teach his brother or his neighbor to know the Lord.”
Click to expand...



My only response would be Matthew 7:


> 21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
> 
> 22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
> 
> 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'



Yet, in Hebrews 8 God says:


> I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
> AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.



Obviously this man is not a NC member. If he "knew" Christ he would have been part of God's people. But because of his rejection, Christ says this in John 12:


> 48"(A)He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; (B)the word I spoke is what will judge him at (C)the last day.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK,
> if what was *intended* to be expressed (not what was printed) was
> 
> 
> 
> the child does not have to be in union with Christ in order" for a Christian to tell him "to obey the Lord
> 
> 
> 
> then no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.
> 
> As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is _different_ about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially _identical_ to today's?
> 
> Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
> TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
> FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
> AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
> AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
> *I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS*,
> AND *I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS*.
> AND *I WILL BE THEIR GOD*,
> AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
> 11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
> AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
> *FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME*,
> FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
> 12"FOR *I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES*,
> AND *I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO M*ORE."
Click to expand...


What about it?

All I see is emphasis (bold) being placed on the _particular parts_ of the quote that you see as helpful to your position.

Did God put his "laws in their mind" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes.
Did God "write them on their hearts" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes.
Was God "their God" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes

Does anyone today (do you?) "teach his fellow citizen and brother, 'Know the Lord'"? Yes. (I hope you do)
Was God ever "merciful to their iniquities" to any in the Old Covenant? Yes.
Did God ever "remember their sins no more" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes.


So, what is left from the passage? "All shall know me."
"Well," says the baptist, "that's it, the ALL. That's what's NEW about the New Covenant. All means All, and that's all All means."

Well, I say you can't have it both ways. If "all" in this section means "perfection", then you need to be consistent. You need to go back to the first half of verse 11, and apply _with the same degree of consistency_ the rigor imposed on the word "all" to the word "none".

If you do this, I think you have got a BIG problem. You (or your pastor) need to STOP CALLING ON PEOPLE YOU TRULY BELIEVE ARE SAVED TO *REPENT* OF SINNING. "Know the Lord," spoken to the neighbor, to the brother, to the church member in the Old Testament, is nothing but a call to repentance, to return to the Lord.

Sinning is practical atheism. If you are thinking about God, loving him, concerned to do his will, concerned to avoid disobedience, you will not do what you WOULD do if you didn't know him. So when your pastor calls after you to abandon the "sin which so easily entangles," when he says "Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted," there he goes, telling you to "Know the Lord." tsk tsk.

Now, I know that you will say to me, "Oh, that's silly, we know we cannot stop preaching and teaching. You cannot say this verse tells us not to do this." Well, I'm not saying it does.

I'm saying that if your side was *consistent* in applying an absolute interpretation even across this one SINGLE VERSE, not you SHOULDN'T, but rather you WOULDN'T BE calling on the gathered New Covenant "brothers" to repent, and "Know the Lord." But the fact is that you DO.

The implication of what I'm saying should be obvious. If "none" (or "everyone"/"all") in the BEGINNING OF the sentence is not ABSOLUTE, in other words, if the absolute language of the first half of the verse is supposed to be understood in a *comparative* sense, then the "all" in the LATTER part of the sentence should not be taken ABSOLUTELY either.


I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm just observing that the very part of the passage you decided NOT to emphasize (bold), is the specific part that militates against the *absolute* reading you've settled on. I'm saying that if the "alls" in the sentence were absolute, then we WOULDN'T see happening what (in a decent church) we see every Sunday. So, SINCE we DO see believers in and out of church, in the believer's community, calling on one another (and quite rightly) to "Know the Lord," then the ALL OF THEM SHALL KNOW ME, has to be conditioned by that reality.

Peace.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> So, you've not represent White correctly.



My apologies. Late at night... tired... no coffee... 

I'll have to re-listen to the debate.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Andrew P.C. said:


> My only response would be Matthew 7:
> 
> 
> Yet, in Hebrews 8 God says:
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
> AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously this man is not a NC member. If he "knew" Christ he would have been part of God's people. But because of his rejection, Christ says this in John 12:
> 
> 
> 
> 48"(A)He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; (B)the word I spoke is what will judge him at (C)the last day.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Wow. Look, Andrew, I know that people are going to believe what they want to. I'm sure you're a committed credo-baptist. But it appears that you didn't even read my argument.

The man is a backslidding, albeit regenerate, New Covenant member.

Now, if you're seriously going to say that the regenerate wouldn't do things like that, I ask you to recall King David, the regenerate murderer and adulterer.

So, please re-read my argument and show me how you can make sense of it given your understanding of the fully realized New Covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I heard in the debate the statement (in answer to such points as I have made here),

"Hebrews 8 is God's perspective on the New Covenant, not man's."

First of all, that certainly isn't obvious from a surface reading. It might help relieve the tension created by the obvious disjunct between the absolute statement in the beginning of the verse, and the absolute in the latter portion. Simply say "Its all God's perspctive" and you can absolutize the whole thing. How convenient.

Fine. Just don't accuse the paedo of "poof" eschatologizing difficult texts so as to avoid problems (as was stated in the debate).


Second, _if this is all just God's perspective,_ then honestly, I don't see ANY difference being stated at all between the Old and New covenants. Because none of the saved in the Old Covenant needed to call his brothers to "know the Lord" then either, _from God's perspective;_ for "all" of the covenant-elect already knew him, from the least to the greatest, _from God's perspective._


But I know the comeback for this one too. "God was in a real, secular, non-spiritual covenant with unbelievers. They were bound in covenant with God, apart from any faith conditions. Pure Covenant of Works. And if they circumcised their kids, God would let them stay in the land forever. Then, when that looked pretty easy (just one stipulation!), God made it much harder by giving them the Law of Moses. But he still let them have a Temple, so that they could keep the law, if they tried hard enough, and followed the ritual cleansings. But faith still wasn't required. All just legal stuff, because this was a secular covenant."

And of course, here we part company with our friends across the aisle once again. We completely reject the "secular covenant" idea. It is a necessary construct (and see Nehemiah Coxe) to ensure that there is a kind of non-spiritual covenant created for non-believers. So under that rubric: 1) Abraham's covenant is divided--now there are two covenants with him. 2) Circumcision meant ONE thing for Abraham, and ANOTHER thing to his physical descent. 3) Moses' covenant is simply the secular covenant enlarged and expanded. 4) The typological (spiritual) elements are "granted" to the secular by way of superimposition. 5) The Temple service is fundamentally a secular forgiveness, a secular covenant renewal. 6) Those who are elect-in-Abraham's covenant are simply carried along in this secular ride. 7) So, one can see how, in perfect consistency with this view, there is only one way to look at the revelation--From Back to Front. New Testament back into the Old. All the "light" is at the end. All the Old Testament is to be read and understood through this lens.



When it is all laid out, I really don't see how we can cross the divide, the separation of credo and pedo baptism. There is a hermeneutical CHASM between the two. It has never appeared so wide to me as tonight. And it is YAWNING. It is the difference between reading front to back, and back to front. It's never appeared so wide, nor yet SO CLEAR to me, as at this hour. As I pause and reflect, I am actually pained, just a little, because I realize that we are not going to see this separation healed in our lifetime, perhaps not til the end of time.


----------



## Wannabee

SemperFideles said:


> I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is _immutable_. Imagine that.


We need to be careful here. God's character/nature is unchanging, but the manner in which He relates and communicates with man changes a great deal. It also depends on which covenant you're talking about. Are all covenants eternal? Do any covenants supercede older covenants. Is not the NC "better" than the OC? Was not the Old made obsolete by the New? This has already been stated. Does this mean that God changes?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is _immutable_. Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to be careful here. God's character/nature is unchanging, but the manner in which He relates and communicates with man changes a great deal. It also depends on which covenant you're talking about. Are all covenants eternal? Do any covenants supercede older covenants. Is not the NC "better" than the OC? Was not the Old made obsolete by the New? This has already been stated. Does this mean that God changes?
Click to expand...


Yes Joe but, literally, Baptist seem to strain to find discontinuity.

I was returning from my wife's ultrasound this afternoon and was thinking about this fact. I think Bruce summed it up pretty well for me.

Notice how everything went in a circle up above. Nobody really answered my question about means. The substance of salvation is continuous and yet, according to Baptist theology, God has given fewer tools to believers today to "train up children in the fear and admonition of the Lord" than He did in the Old. He's still electing people before they "...have either run or willed..." but He's left no means in place in the home to train up a child in the way that he should go. How do Baptists account for this?

I'll be honest with you Joe. I know you go to Master's Seminary but I'm just not smart enough to be a Baptist. I know that sounds funny but this very thought came to me today. I'm just not smart enough for it. Especially the Dispensational versions are way too complicated for me. I'd never know where in Scripture I was supposed to be reading what seems to be spiritual as not longer applying to me and where it did. I'd never know who was pursuing Christ like I was (and stumbling perhaps) and who wasn't.

As it is now, I really don't have a problem picking up anywhere in the Bible and seeing the template of the NT laid over it but them pursuing the same goal with types and shadows. I certainly have no clue where people get this "two type" of Abrahamic promise (or is it four). I'm not trying to cut people down but it's just so complicated.

I called Gene two weeks ago and he said: It seems like you have to have a PhD to understand the paedobaptist position. I disagree. Look at all the times in the debate where Paul simply wanted to transport the same language used in the OT and assume that God was perspicuous in how He was using it as well as how the NT writer applied it. All of it was re-interpreted according to a "Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 invisible, perfect New Covenant" code. "No, you can't go to Abraham...."

Look, I can tell you for a fact that the Reformed Baptist position is complex because when I get most of the Reformed Baptists aside that don't have the whole system down it is really quite easy for me to explain the paedobaptist Reformed position to them. It doesn't require an elaborate telling of the perfection of the NC and how that connects to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 and how, therefore, we should be baptizing only the regenerate but we can't do that in reality so we're going to baptize the professors cause that's the next best thing.

I kind of hope every now and again that people will see how hard the middle is to hold on this point.

Especially when I ask a simple question about means of Grace. Does a Baptist have an answer to my question?

And, Joe, thank you again for being gracious. I'm not typing the above up to be un-gracious but I really want to see if there is a simple "man on the street" way that Baptists can hold this together and how they know how to "train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord", how they understand that their children are supposed to obey them because of a promise from God to them, and why God pulled the rug out from under them in the NC when all sorts of means were available for the elect in the OT.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> Thus, what I'm asking is this: Pretend for a moment that God has elected a child in a Baptist Church from all eternity to be saved. What means are there now instituted in the Church? How would He go about saving that child? We have a glimpse of this in the Proverbs and throughout the OT but Baptists short circuit this by saying that children no longer participate in these means.



I am not quite sure why paedos think that a Baptist would not teach their children the Scriptures (means), teach their children to pray (means), have their children in public worship (means), explain to them the meaning of the Lord's Supper of which they are unable to partake (means), etc.

Baptists do all these things *precisely* because our children need to be converted and need the means that God has established for conversion. We do not see Baptism as a means of conversion. We see Baptism as a sign of conversion.

If you looked at a Reformed Baptist church and compared it to a Presbyterian church, you would probably find little difference in the way children participated in the life of the church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Yes, I know you do these things Doug but I've never had a Reformed Baptist adequately account for _why_ you do these things under your current schema. The reason why the OT Saints did such things is that they were Covenantally obligated to and aided by God in that work.

It's like this:

1. OT Saint: Told to train children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Entire Covenant community, Wisdom literature to train a child to lay hold of Covenant promises, Rabbi's teaching youngsters, etc is all set up to aid in the task - a means to the child's election.

2. NT Saint. Told to train children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Family is on its own. Whatever the Church does incidental to that is quite unintentional because God isn't really commanding you to do anything any more. Child isn't Pastor's responsibility - just those in the visible Church - of which unprofessing children are not part.

I've said repeatedly that the best Baptist is an inconsistent Baptist at this point. When asked how Baptists figure they have a responsiblity to their children they can never quite formulate the idea Scripturally because they keep running up against their systematic insistence against the notion. After all, in this very thread another credo-Baptist is trying to argue that we're all on our own. I assume you must agree with him since you're not repudiating that line of thinking. 

If we're all on our own then the kids are on their own too. No help from Mom. No help from Dad. No help from you. In fact, I'm told, we ought to expect father against son.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is _immutable_. Imagine that.



Honestly, I don't understand why it is considered "discontinuity." I consider it progression. If there is no difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, why have a New Covenant? Why in the world would God do away with the Old and bring in the New if there is no difference?

The fact is, there are many differences. We all agree on the major differences involving the doing away with the ceremonial law, sacrifices, ect. and putting in their places Christ as the perfect law-keeper and perfect sacrifice. There is the difference of priesthood, where the Aaronic priesthood is done away with and in its place Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizadek. I could go on with progressive differences.

No, the New Covenant has not come into completion. There are still aspects of progression that have not progressed to their fullness. We are not completely sinless. We do not obey all the time. We still have to be taught. So, some of the promises of the New Covenant, although begun, have yet to be fulfilled.

BUT, there is one progression that Baptists see that paedos do not. That is a progression in the covenant people. The thing that Jeremiah says that was a major change from the Old Covenant to the New was that the New couldn't be broken. The reason it can't be broken is that, unlike the Old Covenant which had both regenerate and unregenerate members, the New Covenant only has regenerate members. I know we've had discussions about this before, so don't jump on me!

This is NOT discontinuity any more than having the ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ is discontinuity. It is progression. With the progression from Old Covenant to New Covenant, there is a progression in blessings; there is a progression in covenant people; there is a progression in covenant sign.

I honestly don't understand why paedos are willing to see a change in the sign from circumcision to baptism and not consider that "discontinuity" but when credos also see a change in the covenant people that is called "discontinuity."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is _immutable_. Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't understand why it is considered "discontinuity." I consider it progression. If there is no difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, why have a New Covenant? Why in the world would God do away with the Old and bring in the New if there is no difference?
> 
> The fact is, there are many differences. We all agree on the major differences involving the doing away with the ceremonial law, sacrifices, ect. and putting in their places Christ as the perfect law-keeper and perfect sacrifice. There is the difference of priesthood, where the Aaronic priesthood is done away with and in its place Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizadek. I could go on with progressive differences.
> 
> No, the New Covenant has not come into completion. There are still aspects of progression that have not progressed to their fullness. We are not completely sinless. We do not obey all the time. We still have to be taught. So, some of the promises of the New Covenant, although begun, have yet to be fulfilled.
> 
> BUT, there is one progression that Baptists see that paedos do not. That is a progression in the covenant people. The thing that Jeremiah says that was a major change from the Old Covenant to the New was that the New couldn't be broken. The reason it can't be broken is that, unlike the Old Covenant which had both regenerate and unregenerate members, the New Covenant only has regenerate members. I know we've had discussions about this before, so don't jump on me!
> 
> This is NOT discontinuity any more than having the ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ is discontinuity. It is progression. With the progression from Old Covenant to New Covenant, there is a progression in blessings; there is a progression in covenant people; there is a progression in covenant sign.
> 
> I honestly don't understand why paedos are willing to see a change in the sign from circumcision to baptism and not consider that "discontinuity" but when credos also see a change in the covenant people that is called "discontinuity."
Click to expand...


But, yet, there is no progression in _substance_ because, as you acknowledged, those saved are united to Christ. What is progressive in the New Covenant is the expansion and abundance of that benefit.

I'm referring to people who are looking at practically any excuse they can find to try and separate fathers from their children, call kids unregenerate, and the like. I'm simply amazed at how Baptist seem to labor at the point that kids need to be considered sons of Adam and unregenerate until they profess. Why is this theme, so central to Baptist theology, completely absent in the writings of the Apostles?

Do you know what Paul calls the children of believers?

Holy.

That idea is almost repugnant to some Reformed Baptists in the way they consistently address them.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> Yes, I know you do these things Doug but I've never had a Reformed Baptist adequately account for _why_ you do these things under your current schema. The reason why the OT Saints did such things is that they were Covenantally obligated to and aided by God in that work.



We do these things for many reasons:
1) We love our children and hope that God saves them. So we apply the means God has instituted.
2) We are commanded to by God. We love God, so we obey his commands. Since parents are in covenant with God, they are "covenantally obligated" to obey God in the same way the OT saints were.

I would say our reasons aren't much different from those of OT saints. OT saints (and paedos) know that the sign of circumcision (or baptism) doesn't confer regeneration onto their children. We know that, too! We hold the same promises that the OT saints did - if you train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he won't depart from it. God attends the means of grace with His grace.



> It's like this:
> 
> 1. OT Saint: Told to train children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Entire Covenant community, Wisdom literature to train a child to lay hold of Covenant promises, Rabbi's teaching youngsters, etc is all set up to aid in the task - a means to the child's election.
> 
> 2. NT Saint. Told to train children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Family is on its own. Whatever the Church does incidental to that is quite unintentional because God isn't really commanding you to do anything any more. Child isn't Pastor's responsibility - just those in the visible Church - of which unprofessing children are not part.



Rich, I will admit that I am fairly new to all of this. I have been a Baptist since I was 13, but it was always the dispensational fundamentalist type that never really got into all this theological discussion stuff. We always assumed you paedos thought that baptism saved your children!

I will also admit that most Baptists are just like point number 2 you describe. I'm not sure that most Reformed Baptists are, but most modern Baptists are. I don't lay that at the feet of being a credo. I lay it at the feet of being worldly or having unregenerate Baptists posing as regenerate Baptists (yes, I know that is a huge problem for our position!)

In an ideal Baptist church, we would probably function much the same as an ideal Presbyterian church. Children are a blessing from the Lord that are under the care ultimately of the family. The family is under the care of the overseers of the church, therefore, so are the children. So, even though we would consider unprofessing children to not be "members" of the covenant community yet, they would still be under the care of the covenant community.

I will say that I am learning a lot on these threads about the covenant community and the covenant nature of salvation. Modern Baptists have forgotten our heritage and don't discuss these things much.



> I've said repeatedly that the best Baptist is an inconsistent Baptist at this point. When asked how Baptists figure they have a responsiblity to their children they can never quite formulate the idea Scripturally because they keep running up against their systematic insistence against the notion. After all, in this very thread another credo-Baptist is trying to argue that we're all on our own. I assume you must agree with him since you're not repudiating that line of thinking.



I'm not sure what you mean when you say that we are all on our own. I don't agree with the way I put things some time, let alone with the way other people put things!

What I would say in relation to that is, we are individually saved by grace through faith. Those who end up in hell do because they are born corrupted by Adam's sin. They sinned in Adam. They also commit individual sins that they are guilty for. They are not held responsible for their father's sins.

At the same time, no aspect of salvation happens in a vacuum. It is ludicrous to argue that it is. God's appointed means of grace flow through the covenant community. So, every aspect of salvation flows through the covenant community as well. God elects a people. God elects individuals to be a part of that people. God then works through that people to bring in the elect. God uses families to do this.

I'm not sure how this is inconsistent for a credo to believe. It is biblical. It is similar to the argument I get from Arminians who say that it is inconsistent for me to preach the gospel indiscriminately and plead with people to be reconciled with God if God has already determined who is going to be saved. I tell them that it is not because it is the means that God uses to save the elect and He has commanded it.



> If we're all on our own then the kids are on their own too. No help from Mom. No help from Dad. No help from you. In fact, I'm told, we ought to expect father against son.



I disagree with his interpretation of that passage, then. We have in our church a 20-year old Jewish girl who "got saved" 2 years ago. It has caused all kinds of strife in her family who have rejected the Messiah. This is what I would say that passage is pointing to. I would not say that the norm is for families to be at odds with each other. I would say the norm is for God to use families to bring in the elect.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Calvibaptist said:


> 1) We love our children and hope that God saves them. So we apply the means God has instituted.



What is the _basis_ for this hope?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Doug, it's Midnight here. I'm going to pay dearly tomorrow if I don't get some shut eye. I appreciate the honesty of your post. It expresses a consistent Baptist "angst" over their children. It's the reason why even the hard core dispensational Baptists still raise their kids as if they are bound to God to do so in the same way God commanded the Church in Deuteronomy to do so. Baptist theology, though, literally erects a neumenal/phenomenal wall between belief and practice for you guys and so what comes naturally to the paedo formulation of the CoG (without corrupting the unique benefits of those united to Christ) creates massive problems when you start breaking it down for Baptists.

This is why I constantly want to get the question down on the ground and wrestle from _what you are doing with your lives_ and get you guys to figure out how you're accounting for it with what you're telling yourself in your head about your kids.

I'll interact more and I'm sure there will be a ton more stuff downstream by then.

Every blessing. I do enjoy interacting with you. You have been a blessing to this board since you joined.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> But, yet, there is no progression in _substance_ because, as you acknowledged, those saved are united to Christ. What is progressive in the New Covenant is the expansion and abundance of that benefit.



I agree that there is no progression in substance. The progression is *who* is actually in covenant. Under the Old Covenant there were regenerate and unregenerate. Under the New Covenant (at least according to Jeremiah 31) there are only regenerate. You call this discontinuity. I call it progression.



> I'm referring to people who are looking at practically any excuse they can find to try and separate fathers from their children, call kids unregenerate, and the like.



I find that disgusting myself!



> I'm simply amazed at how Baptist seem to labor at the point that kids need to be considered sons of Adam and unregenerate until they profess. Why is this theme, so central to Baptist theology, completely absent in the writings of the Apostles?



The theme is actually all over the writings of the Apostles, especially Paul. Romans 1-3 indicates that *all* are under sin before they are justified. Romans 5 indicates that *all* are born in Adam. Ephesians 2 indicates that *all* are born dead in sin and are "by nature children of wrath." This is true of our children as it was true of us. 

I am pretty sure that you are not suggesting that children of believers are born regenerate, are you? You would consider your children, although part of the covenant, still in need of conversions, wouldn't you? They must still repent and believe.

I do agree with you that some Baptists over-emphasize this to the point where they are always talking bad about their children.



> Do you know what Paul calls the children of believers?
> 
> Holy.
> 
> That idea is almost repugnant to some Reformed Baptists in the way they consistently address them.



I will admit to you that this is a good point, and one that credos have a problem explaining...


----------



## elnwood

Calvibaptist said:


> Do you know what Paul calls the children of believers?
> 
> Holy.
> 
> That idea is almost repugnant to some Reformed Baptists in the way they consistently address them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit to you that this is a good point, and one that credos have a problem explaining...
Click to expand...


The children are holy. And so are the unbelieving spouses of believers. Should we baptize them?

[BIBLE]1 cor. 7:13-14[/BIBLE]

I argued this in another thread, and the response was that the unbelieving spouse was "made holy" and the children "are holy." But if that was the case, how can the "otherwise your children would be unclean" apply if they are inherently holy, and not made holy?


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what Paul calls the children of believers?
> 
> Holy.
> 
> That idea is almost repugnant to some Reformed Baptists in the way they consistently address them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit to you that this is a good point, and one that credos have a problem explaining...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The children are holy. And so are the unbelieving spouses of believers. Should we baptize them?
> 
> [BIBLE]1 cor. 7:13-14[/BIBLE]
> 
> I argued this in another thread, and the response was that the unbelieving spouse was "made holy" and the children "are holy." But if that was the case, how can the "otherwise your children would be unclean" apply if they are inherently holy, and not made holy?
Click to expand...


becaus eof the sanctifying effect that just ONE believing parent has on the family. If neither were Christian, then their children would be unclean.

So, why are the children of Christian parent(s) made holy while the children of non-Christian parents unclean?

And, as Baptist Ben Witherington points out when disagreeing with Jewett's interpretation, "isn't there a difference between a verb and a noun?"


----------



## Calvibaptist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) We love our children and hope that God saves them. So we apply the means God has instituted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the _basis_ for this hope?
Click to expand...


The basis for the hope that as we teach our children the gospel that God will save them? Is this a serious question?

Isaiah 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2 Corinthians 4:5-6 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

This should be enough to show that we promise we hold onto is that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for our children as we proclaim it to them day after day. We do not hold onto a promise that God will save our children because they are our physical descendants.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tom Bombadil said:


> becaus eof the sanctifying effect that just ONE believing parent has on the family. If neither were Christian, then their children would be unclean.
> 
> So, why are the children of Christian parent(s) made holy while the children of non-Christian parents unclean?
> 
> And, as Baptist Ben Witherington points out when disagreeing with Jewett's interpretation, "isn't there a difference between a verb and a noun?"




Further, as I explained in that thread, Don, Paul is trying to deal with this problem:
- does my unbelieving Spouse defile me?

He says, in effect, two things:
1. No. You sanctify your unbelieving spouse. This is one of the cool things about the NC that the holy are no longer defiled by approaching the unholy. This did not use to be the case. If a child had leprosy, for instance, you had to cast out your own flesh and blood. I can't imagine how painful that would be. But now the ceremonially unclean no longer defile. Paul obviously doesn't want Christians marrying Pagans but the reasons are not ceremonial but point to the substance of the fact that God's people are always supposed to remain distinct from the world (and also that unbelievers usually lead us astray). But, says Paul, don't leave a spouse that wants to remain because they don't defile you as you suppose.

2. As a _support_, then, for the fact that the unbelieving spouse does not defile, Paul notes the obvious nature of the children. Again, in the OC, the union of the clean and unclean just produces unclean things. But, Paul points out, you guys _know_ your kids are clean (notice he doesn't teach them they are clean but it's assumed they know). Paul drives home the point that if your unbelieving Spouse defiled you then how is it that your children are clean?

In other words, the children are used to demonstrate to the believers that their spouse does not defile them _because_ their children are holy.

Remember when Gene said before the debate that we ought to have our pre-suppositions challenged. I've noted already that everyone can hold the middle as long as they never challenge their pre-suppositions. Internal critiques ought to make us take notice if offending material is not fitting within the suitcase of our pre-suppositions. The holiness of children and the way that Paul talks about them is dissonant from the manner that Reformed Baptists talk about their own kids. In other words, your kids don't fit within your Reformed Baptist suitcase. You guys can talk about the perfection of the NC with aplomb but then you've got kids in front of you and you really don't know what to make of them and how to fit them within your theology.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> becaus eof the sanctifying effect that just ONE believing parent has on the family. If neither were Christian, then their children would be unclean.
> 
> So, why are the children of Christian parent(s) made holy while the children of non-Christian parents unclean?
> 
> And, as Baptist Ben Witherington points out when disagreeing with Jewett's interpretation, "isn't there a difference between a verb and a noun?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, as I explained in that thread, Don, Paul is trying to deal with this problem:
> - does my unbelieving Spouse defile me?
> 
> He says, in effect, two things:
> 1. No. You sanctify your unbelieving spouse. This is one of the cool things about the NC that the holy are no longer defiled by approaching the unholy. This did not use to be the case. If a child had leprosy, for instance, you had to cast out your own flesh and blood. I can't imagine how painful that would be. But now the ceremonially unclean no longer defile. Paul obviously doesn't want Christians marrying Pagans but the reasons are not ceremonial but point to the substance of the fact that God's people are always supposed to remain distinct from the world (and also that unbelievers usually lead us astray). But, says Paul, don't leave a spouse that wants to remain because they don't defile you as you suppose.
> 
> 2. As a _support_, then, for the fact that the unbelieving spouse does not defile, Paul notes the obvious nature of the children. Again, in the OC, the union of the clean and unclean just produces unclean things. But, Paul points out, you guys _know_ your kids are clean (notice he doesn't teach them they are clean but it's assumed they know). Paul drives home the point that if your unbelieving Spouse defiled you then how is it that your children are clean?
> 
> In other words, the children are used to demonstrate to the believers that their spouse does not defile them _because_ their children are holy.
> 
> Remember when Gene said before the debate that we ought to have our pre-suppositions challenged. I've noted already that everyone can hold the middle as long as they never challenge their pre-suppositions. Internal critiques ought to make us take notice if offending material is not fitting within the suitcase of our pre-suppositions. The holiness of children and the way that Paul talks about them is dissonant from the manner that Reformed Baptists talk about their own kids. In other words, your kids don't fit within your Reformed Baptist suitcase. You guys can talk about the perfection of the NC with aplomb but then you've got kids in front of you and you really don't know what to make of them and how to fit them within your theology.
Click to expand...


Hi Rich,

My problem with your argument is that it never says anything about defilement. It talks about holiness. Where does it ask the question "does the unbelieving spouse defile me?"

You may think that it is implied, but I say this is eisegesis. It's not actually there. The whole passage is talking about marriage, singleness, and divorce. It's not talking about defilement anywhere. I believe what the chapter is mainly addressing is whether singleness is superior to marriage (1 Cor. 7:1). There is no reason to believe that this is about defilement.

The argument, then, is that the unbelieving spouse it made holy by the believing spouse. The reasoning? If this were not so, the children would not be holy! Therefore, the children are holy for the same reason the unbelieving spouse is: influence of the believing spouse.

Therefore, if the holiness that comes from the influence of the believing spouse is enough for the children to be baptized, then so should the unbelieving spouses.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Don,

Let me quote the verse again for you to leave you without excuse and any onlookers that might actually think you're taking time to actually read this passage:


> 10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
> 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?


As I said before, this passage is specifically addressed to deal with what to do about unbelieving spouses.

I have not used a shred of eisegesis to establish context. What is eisegetical is to assume that an intent in the passage is to show an equality of status between the unbelieving spouse and the child.

1. The spouse _is sanctified_ by the believing spouse.

ELSE

2. your children would be _unclean_

3. but _they are holy_

I'll leave it to others to read our two accounts of this argument and see which accords with the passage and with the Biblical data on what it means to be clean.


----------

