# No One Will Tell Them To 'Know The Lord'



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

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.”
__________________


----------



## Herald (Aug 22, 2007)

Paul - welcome back!



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



Paul - first, what's behind the conjunction? Are you asking "if" because Baptists believe only the regenerate are in the New Covenant, or are you postulating a hypothetical?

Second, the premise behind your question is fundamentally flawed. As a Baptist I see the following passage in Jeremiah as a futuristic fulfillment:



> Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."



In the eternal state there will be no need to evangelize because everyone in the New Covenant will know the Lord.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Hi Bill,

I'm responding to the standard credo-baptist apologetics. 

My argument is against men like Fred Malone, Steve Wellum, &c.

So, I'm glad you disagree with them. 

Now, my premise isn't flawed, _their's_ is.

I thus take it that I have proven that the prophecy in Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 is not currently realized, and with that much of credo-baptist apologetics vanishes. Not only that, I just had you, a credo-baptist, agree with me.



> In the eternal state there will be no need to evangelize because everyone in the New Covenant will know the Lord.



Correct, Bill, and that's what I had stated

Originally Stated Above: You see, only in the New Heavens and Earth will “each man no longer teach his brother or his neighbor to know the Lord.”

So, you have just posted that Fred Malone's, and Steven Wellum's, and Tom Schreiner's, and David Kingdon's, etc., etc., etc., premise is flawed. And that's what my post was getting at.


----------



## tellville (Aug 22, 2007)

I think the whole point of the credo position is that only the elect are in the NC. The NC does not, and will not ever include people who are not of the elect. There is no such thing as Covenant breakers. Your scenario is false because those people were never in the NC to begin with. You are assuming the padeo view that the visble church is equivalent to the NC. 

Like I said above, the NC does not, and will not ever include people who are not of the elect.Therefore, anybody who shows an absolute sign that they are not one of the elect obviously should not be given the sign of Baptism. For example, in the debate between James White and Bill Shishko, Bill stated that even if the parents in the household are believers he would refuse to baptise any child if they rejected the faith, no matter how old or young they were. 

Now where the credo would part with Bill or most padeos is in how to define what an absolute sign that someone is not in the covenant is. For Bill and most padeos it is a clear rejection of the faith. For the credo it is a clear rejection of the faith AND absolutely no positive evidence in favour or very little credible evidence in favour of the person being in the NC. Most Padeos would use this same credo qualifier to protect the Lord's table. So, when the credo sees an "unrepentant, absolutely no sign that they are regenerate in any way" infant, credos say "no way" to Baptism. Why, because to the credo this is an absolute sign that someone is not of the elect (at least in a present temporal sense) and thus is a good reason to not Baptise.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Hi Mark,

I'm afraid you totally missed what I wrote.

The guy I'm referring to is, in fact, regenerate, and hence in the NC.

I used the LBC even to prove that things like this can happen to regenerate Christians.

If you'd like, I can also point out that regenerate covenante member, who murdered and committed adultary, in King David?

So, I'd appreciate it if you would re-read my above argument since you've completely misunderstood it.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 22, 2007)

Hi,

I do believe Malone is wrong on alot of his definition of Jeremiah 31.. I recommend Sam Waldron The Reformed Baptist Manifesto under the chapter Paedobaptism.. The whole book is a examination of Jeremiah 31....

He teaches and I would concur that Jeremiah 31 passage is part of an Already/Not Yet Fulfillment... It has started, and is progressive but not complete unto consummation.. So when we say that only believers are in the new covenant that has been initiated with Christ but is not perfected unto consummation... Currently there are unsaved in the church but we should strive for only believers in the church. Which will be realized at consummation.. It is like Sanctification... Our Sanctification is not complete until consummation... But it is progressive and we should strive for that Sanctification..... The same holds true for the New Covenant and Jeremiah 31.... The passage that tells us "that no one is the new covenant will tell his brother or neighbor to know the Lord will be realized in the consummation but it has been initiated......

I hope this helps..... Waldron give alot more information.... This would be mainline Reformed Baptist teaching on the New Covenant as held by Sam Waldron, Pastor Nichols of Grand Rapids, Pastor Al Martin of Montville, Pastor Mark Chanski of Holland aleast from the sermons I have heard from them on this subject.....

Michael



Tom Bombadil said:


> 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,
> 
> ...


----------



## tellville (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I'm afraid you totally missed what I wrote.
> 
> ...



Sorry Paul! I must have read it too fast. The first time I read it it didn't seem like these people eventually turn their lives around and thus I thought you were assuming the Padeo definition of who a Covenant member was. Your reductio makes a lot more sense now. 

Thus, I would agree with the posts of Bill and Michael and really have nothing more to say at the moment!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Sounds Good all,

So the credo argument from Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 doesn't touch the paedobaptist.

Maybe other arguments do, and we can deal with those, but this one in particular, is out the window.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 22, 2007)

I am not sure how you draw that conclusion from mine or Pastor Browns posts.... Reformed Baptist say that Jeremiah 31 has been initiated and is progressive but not complete unto consummation.. So it is not perfect but we still strive for Jeremiah 31 based on profession of faith unto the Not yet has been totally fullfilled in consummation....

I see Paedo's only see Jeremiah as Not Yet fullfillment completely bypassing the Initiated Already aspects of the New Covenant definition of Jeremiah 31.....

By the way, the same holds true for the "All shall know me" in Jeremiah 31 which is my response to your next post on Jeremiah 31. The answer in the previous post of mine is the same answer for this one......

Michael





Tom Bombadil said:


> Sounds Good all,
> 
> So the credo argument from Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 doesn't touch the paedobaptist.
> 
> Maybe other arguments do, and we can deal with those, but this one in particular, is out the window.


----------



## Herald (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I'm responding to the standard credo-baptist apologetics.
> 
> ...



Paul - just to keep the discussion intellectually honest, I know you are cognizant that Baptists view the New Covenant as a present and future reality. Because you didn't reference this pivotal view of Baptist theology you are doing Baptists a disservice. It's not as though you are on to something new in this long standing debate. Recognizing that, where do you wish to go from here in the discussion?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Bill

In respect to intellectual honesty, let's make sure we have my objection down.

I cited Malone (and many others) as saying that "no one will tell his neighbor..." means that "a NC member will not evangelize another NC member." I think I disproved this argument.

So, I have not misrepresented Baptists. In fact, Bill, every Baptist that I have spoken to, including some guys at SBTS, have recognized that in my objection I have indeed found a major flaw in *this particular* argument used by Baptists.

Anyway, I made my point. I'm not sure you've grasped it yet. The Baptist has tried to prove that *here and now* every one in the NC is elect because *everything* in Heb. 8 is here and now. I proved that this is not the case.

So, Bill, if you don't use the arguments that men like Malone, Wellum, &c. use, then my post wasn't directed at you. But, let's make sure that we agree that it did refute the specific argument used by the above scholarly baptist apologists. That you may have been unaware of this shows that Baptists have many disagreements amongst themselves just like Paedos do. Btw, Fred Malone used the argument of Paedobaptist disagreements as some kind of argument against paedobaptism. So, I think you've helped us show that Malone has made not one, but two bad arguments.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, I made my point. I'm not sure you've grasped it yet. The Baptist has tried to prove that *here and now* every one in the NC is elect because *everything* in Heb. 8 is here and now. I proved that this is not the case.



Paul, I like you. You make me think!

Now, as to this particular argument: Obviously you have debated with people I have not, so I am not going to argue over whether anyone makes the point that *everythin* in Hebrews 8 (Jeremiah 31) is here and now. But, your disproving that point does not make the Baptist belief fall. Everything in Heb. 8/Jer. 31 does NOT have to be true in order to see the New Covenant members as being regenerate. Just one has to be true. If any of them are true here and now in any way, then our point stands.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I made my point. I'm not sure you've grasped it yet. The Baptist has tried to prove that *here and now* every one in the NC is elect because *everything* in Heb. 8 is here and now. I proved that this is not the case.
> ...




I never intended the argument to make "the baptist belief fall." I know there are other outs that can be taken. I was attacking one particular, and popular, credo-baptist apologetic.

So, we may need to do a different kind of surgery with you.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> So, we may need to do a different kind of surgery with you.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> So, we may need to do a different kind of surgery with you.





The doctor is in. He will see you now...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 22, 2007)

Greetings:

God help you if you call someone to repentance on this site! 

Well, not only that, but if we are no longer going to teach each other to "know the Lord" than why have Pastors and Teachers? We should just gather at church for fellowship because everybody already knows everything!

Grace to you all,

-CH


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> God help you if you call someone to repentance on this site!
> 
> ...



Way to not pay attention to anything anyone said in the thread and then totally misrepresent the credo-Baptist view.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

This thread _is_ going to stay on topic with the OP, that much I can promise you. 

Paul - Doug was right, you make me think. I'm not going to be in a rush to respond to you simply because I am not versed in debating this subject. But I'm not adverse to learning and either defending my own position or proved wrong. 

I'm sure you agree (at least I hope you do!  ) that the purpose of theological debate is the quest for truth, not the exercise of defeating your opponent. Approached from that premise I embrace the credo/paedo discussions. I am sure I still have much to learn. God grant me the humility to admit when I am wrong, the grace to counter with charity and patience when I do not know.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 23, 2007)

Bill,

As I said in my debate, I do not think either side can claim certainty regarding this issue. In fact, since we've ben debating this for almost 2,000 years, my goal isn't to "win" necessarily (because I actually don't think this will be settled until we cross the Jordan) but to at least have other people appreciate and respect the paedo position, not give bad arguments (on either side), and at least credit us with trying to be biblical rather than "traditional." Now, the way I go about that may seem vigorous, that's just how I discuss most things. But, you know my motives. I too am open to being wrong. In fact, I very well could be! ...but, I don't think so.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Bill,
> 
> As I said in my debate, I do not think either side can claim certainty regarding this issue. In fact, since we've ben debating this for almost 2,000 years, my goal isn't to "win" necessarily (because I actually don't think this will be settled until we cross the Jordan) but to at least have other people appreciate and respect the paedo position, not give bad arguments (on either side), and at least credit us with trying to be biblical rather than "traditional." Now, the way I go about that may seem vigorous, that's just how I discuss most things. But, you know my motives. I too am open to being wrong. In fact, I very well could be! ...but, I don't think so.





Brother, you know I am glad that you have returned. I appreciate your candor and look forward to many fruitful discussions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This thread _is_ going to stay on topic with the OP, that much I can promise you.
> 
> Paul - Doug was right, you make me think. I'm not going to be in a rush to respond to you simply because I am not versed in debating this subject. But I'm not adverse to learning and either defending my own position or proved wrong.
> 
> I'm sure you agree (at least I hope you do!  ) that the purpose of theological debate is the quest for truth, not the exercise of defeating your opponent. Approached from that premise I embrace the credo/paedo discussions. I am sure I still have much to learn. God grant me the humility to admit when I am wrong, the grace to counter with charity and patience when I do not know.



I think it does need to be stated Bill that it is not fair to Paul to simply claim he's trying to score debate points.

Paul cannot win for trying. He's either accused of a shotgun approach or, in this case, scoring debate points when he tries to knuckle down on a specific Reformed Baptist argument (and not from a slouch either). Sometimes cases are built on very small points. I just spent a few hours the other day trying to make this very point to another credo-Baptist.

Do you know what I find interesting is this: I'll interact with many credo-Baptists who repeat certain arguments over and over. No Baptists pipe in and say: That's not quite accurate. Then I'll get into a discussion with another credo-Baptist and critique the "Credo line of thinking" and people are incensed: "Well we don't believe that."

It's useful to at least "file" some thoughts that are generally accepted because I get some Baptists mad at me because I repeat a popular line of argumentation and then I'm accused of misrepresenting the credo-Baptist view.

Isn't it strange that, for something so perspicuous as credo-Baptism, it's like pinning down Jello to get _the_ argument for the doctrine. I've yet to encounter a confessionally consistent Reformed paedobaptist that I have difficulty following. All the teachers are pretty much in consistent agreement on the nature of the Sacrament and the arguments for it.. Credo-baptism is so eclectic, though, that I get it from about every angle imaginable.

Thus, I for one, am very happy to find some agreement on even a small point.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2007)

> I think it does need to be stated Bill that it is not fair to Paul to simply claim he's trying to score debate points.



Rich, that is precisely why I asked the question. I've been gun shy on this topic in the past because of what I consider to be hidden agendas or mean spirited debate tactics. I know others (paedo and credo) share the opinion. I want to make sure that we are discussing/debating a topic in order to understand the truth so that God may be glorified. Some of us are so invested in the public reputation we have created on our particular view that it smacks of pride. I have to plead guilty to that. At times I have not had the purist intentions when I have discussed this topic. I've repented of that and have asked God to give me a more humble heart. One does not have to "go soft" on what they believe in order to learn. Pride really does stink! 

Thanks for keeping my feet to the fire brother Rich.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2007)

Hey, I understand the inclination. I left any illusion behind that people think "I've got it together" a long time ago in about 100 different: "I need to repent to so and so for saying this...."

I've found the safest and most effective route is to always lead with what is true and to always acknowledge what is true in another. I remember debating Martin Marprelate about a year and a half ago and he criticized a work and called the author's integrity into question because it said that Josephus wrote "...around the time of Christ...." I guess 50 years isn't close enough and that 2000 years ago nobody better ever say we lived "...around the time of the Beatles." That kind of pride drives me through the roof.

My perspective on the Baptism threads has always been, in my mind at least, a God glorifying pursuit of the Truth. I know this might sound arrogant but my goal here is to help people. It's been very helpful to me because I've learned a great many perspectives about the Baptist view. Thus, when I'm presenting a counter to "my crowd", I don't lead with _ad populum_ arguments but lead with the strengths of the Baptist argument (understanding what they are) and then criticize them on where I see the error is.

I also think that insufficient dialogue takes place on the similarity between the Paedobaptist conception of those united to Christ and the Baptist conception of the same. The group of people is exactly the same, the benefits are the same but the Baptist conception sees the goal of the Church as identifiying those most perfectly. I think that most Baptists assume that by Baptizing children we assume we're playing fast and loose with the benefits of Christ's union.

I wish, then that the dialogue sometimes would focus on moving from the common assumption about the benefits of the elect and off of that issue to practical theology and how the visible Church is or isn't an administration aimed at nurturing and building up the Elect. This is where the rubber really meets the road and, unfortunately, we drive over it together far too infrequently.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I also think that insufficient dialogue takes place on the similarity between the Paedobaptist conception of those united to Christ and the Baptist conception of the same. The group of people is exactly the same, the benefits are the same but the Baptist conception sees the goal of the Church as identifiying those most perfectly. I think that most Baptists assume that by Baptizing children we assume we're playing fast and loose with the benefits of Christ's union.
> 
> I wish, then that the dialogue sometimes would focus on moving from the common assumption about the benefits of the elect and off of that issue to practical theology and how the visible Church is or isn't an administration aimed at nurturing and building up the Elect. This is where the rubber really meets the road and, unfortunately, we drive over it together far too infrequently.



It is interesting, Rich, that as I was in my usual lying-awake-all-night-trying-to-get-to-sleep position I was thinking the same thing about the similarities of our beliefs, despite some of the differences. Practically (if we truly follow what we say we believe) we will look the same.

As far as _the_ main point that credos hold onto as opposed to paedos, I would guess it all boils down to who we believe is in the covenant. Honestly, I had no idea until I read C. Matthew McMahon's book that paedos believed that unbelievers were in the New Covenant in the same way they were in the Old Covenant. Having read some books on the subject and interacted in these threads I now understand that position more, see the continuity of it, and appreciate it much more than I did before. I still disagree with it, but I appreciate it more.

I agree with Paul (BTW, I think Tom Bombadil is, of all the characters in the LOTR trilogy, one of the strangest!) that we will not solve this on this side of the Jordan. And I also think that when we get to heaven we are going to find out that we were all a little off. You'll know who I am because I will be wearing the dunce cap and sitting over in the corner.


----------

