# "Falling away" passages in light of TULIP



## Me Died Blue (Jul 5, 2005)

In another thread, David Michael Harris mentioned that while he believes in TULIP, he also believes a born again person could still be damned by God the Father, with which Michael Butterfield took issue, saying it cannot be done. David then responded with:



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> This is my problem then, how can I reconcile the parable of the unfaithful servant with strict Calvinistic teaching.
> 
> "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants[d] and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
> ...



Actually, that is a good question, and one worthy of consideration. In fact, I do not believe a Reformed Baptist can consistently answer it in light of TULIP, but a Reformed paedobaptist can. That is because the former group strictly believes that only the elect can be said to be in covenant with God in any sense, whereas paedobaptists and historic Covenant Theology stresses the reality of the biblical distinction between the external and internal components of such covenants. In other words, you are asking a worthy question about how those "falling away" passages can be read in light of TULIP, and the answer I am throwing on the table is that the only way that can be done is if one affirms that the non-elect (and thus never born again) can still in fact be in covenant with God.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 5, 2005)

From my perspective: the non-elect can not be in covenant with God for multiple reasons.

1. God is the initiator of the New Covenant, not unregenerate man.
2. The terms of the New Covenant change the unregenerate
3. He gives a new heart to the individual
4. He writes His law in the heart and mind
5. God gives His Spirit to the believer
6. God imputes the righteousness of His Son upon the believer

These are provisions of the New Covenant. The mere notion that an individual is made a partaker of the Spirit indicates he is "under" the terms of the New Covenant... not under the condemnation of the law (the law of sin and death).

The provision of "justification" sets the individual in proper standing before God. This is the "imputed" righteousness of Jesus Christ. This provision is granted under the terms of the New Covenant, not under the condemnation of the law.

The heart transplant (provided only by God) brings the unregenerate from darkness into light in that the believer is now a new creature, has a nature to love and align his will to the will of God. This is also granted only under the terms of the New Covenant, not under the law of sin and death.

Therefore, a believer who has been made a "partaker" of the New Covenant (initiated by God) has been placed "œin" Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world (imputed righteousness). Those who are "œin" Christ from before the foundation, are those whose names are written in the Lamb´s Book of Life. Those names, written in the Book of Life, are those who God has chosen from the beginning to a salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13).



[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Texas Aggie]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> From my perspective: the non-elect can not be in covenant with God for multiple reasons.
> 
> 1. God is the initiator of the New Covenant, not unregenerate man.
> ...



First of all, everything you just listed applied to those saved in the Old Testament too. There's nothing "new" about any of it.

Second, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the Exodus Israelites partook of Christ, even though they were not regenerate? God "bought" them all, and yet they dealt faithlessly with Him, and received judgment. They were in covenant with Him, and yet were unregenerate.



> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> . . . a believer who has been made a partaker of the New Covenant (initiated by God) has been placed "œin" Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world (imputed righteousness). Those who are "œin" Christ from before the foundation, are those whose names are written in the Lamb´s Book of Life. Those names, written in the Book of Life, are those who God has chosen (His elect).



As I said, ALL of the Israelites in the Exodus were "bought" by God and ALL of them partook of Christ, even though they were not all regenerate. They were an elect nation, and yet not all the individuals were elect. 

The same goes for the church today. All partake of Christ in some sense, and all were bought by God in some sense. But not all are regenerate, thus not all partake of the *fulness* of union with Christ. There is a definite difference between the regenerate in union with Christ, and the unregenerate in union with Christ. The dead branches of Romans 11 may be unregenerate branches, but they are still branches.



[Edited on 7-5-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 5, 2005)

Thanks for your quick reply Joseph, lets just wait and see what others have to say on the matter.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 5, 2005)

I don't see that being a credo or peado has any real significance regarding the issue of falling away. Baptist, based on the LBCF, recognize the visible and invisible church. Based on past conversations with Phillip, and I would assume that all Baptists would agree, Baptists do recognize the probability of a false profession under believers baptism. With that in mind, one could be a member of a Baptist church and be un-regenerate. That un-regenerate person would ultimately fall away or be one of those people who will say "Lord, Lord" on judgment day.

Regarding the parable of the unfaithful servant, it's not wise to take one passage or one parable and establish a whole doctrine. David needs to consider the Scriptures a whole (Analogy of Faith). Taking this parable alone would mean the the "P" in TULIP would be untrue.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 5, 2005)

tp Joseph. Matt, please specify a single one of those six characteristics that did not apply to the Old Covenant. Also, if people cannot be said to ever be in covenant with God in any sense without being born again, how would you answer David's initial question regarding the many falling away passages in light of TULIP?



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Regarding the parable of the unfaithful servant, it's not wise to take one passage or one parable and establish a whole doctrine. David needs to consider the Scriptures a whole (Analogy of Faith). Taking this parable alone would mean the the "P" in TULIP would be untrue.



But Wayne, the problem I see with your last sentence is the exact same error David was making with regard to the passage, which is that it falsely assumes that one cannot truly be called a servant of God and truly be said to have God as his master unless he is born again, whereas I would say that that is the very assumption that parable challenges.

Furthermore, I do not see how Baptists can consistently interpret such passages in light of "P," since while they acknowledge the membership of unbelievers within the visible Church, they do not acknowledge such members as being in covenant with God in any sense, and thus how could they possibly refer to them as servants of God with God as their Master?


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 5, 2005)

Joseph and Chris,

Before I give you a response to the differences between the Old and New Covenants, I would like to know your perspective on a few items:

1. Where was the Spirit of God under the Old Covenant?
2. Where was the law under the old Covenant?
3. Did the Israelites have a heart to know God?
4. How was righteousness imputed to the individual?
5. Who was the surety of the Old Covenant?
6. Who was the high priest over the sanctuary?
7. What were the changes of the law necessitated by Christ's atonement?
8. What is your perspective on the Book of Hebrews?

Before I give you guys an answer, I need to know what your perspective is on the questions listed above. Thanks.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 5, 2005)

I guess I'll add my thoughts to this;

From the context of the whole of Chapter 24 of Matthew and into chapter 25 the jist seems to be on the idea of "knowing the day and hour" and the sudden impact of Christ's return, and our conduct while we watch and wait. 

Saying that, I believe the passage in question to be pointing to those serving in the visible church who are not part of the invisible church, the wolves in sheep's' clothing. Thus they bear all the right names, yet having a name does not always show the heart of a man. (as wayne pointed out, those who in that day will say "lord lord"). Many have the right words and titles to call upon God yet not all speak from a regenerated heart. 
(see Luke 6:46)

I do not believe such persons, although in the visible church, to be in covenant with God, but yet share in the covenant blessings that belong to the church. To move to another parable the weeds and tares grow together and share the same care, rain, and soil; but will one day be separated. 

I take this with the understanding that when you say "being in covenant with God" you mean that He has brought you into the Cov of grace (estate of salvation) by His Holy Spirit, and thus you enjoy all the benefits as seen in the WSC questions 20,29-35. All others are in covenant with God still under the covenant of works. 

ok, standing by now for clarification and/or correction.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Joseph and Chris,
> 
> Before I give you a response to the differences between the Old and New Covenants, I would like to know your perspective on a few items:
> ...



The New Covenant might be better called (in English) the "Renewed Covenant". The New Covenant is the Renewed Abrahamic Covenant.

The Mosaic covenant was temporary "scaffolding" for God's building of the church, but it did not abrogate the Abrahamic promises which had already gone into effect hundreds of years earlier.

Thus, those under the Mosaic covenant were under BOTH the New Covenant and the Old Covenant. So I think you are in error to equate the "New Covenant" to the "New Testament", and the "Old Covenant" to the "Old Testament".

Now, with that in mind, let me respond to some of your questions:

1. The Spirit of God was in the same place in the church in the OT as He is in the NT.
2. The law was in the same place in the church in the OT as it is in the NT.
3. Regenerate Israelites had a heart to know God just as much as any regenerate church member.
4. Righteousness was imputed to regenerate church members in the OT in the same was as it is imputed to regenerate church members now . . . imputed by the merit of Christ.
5. Christ was their surety like He is our surety. All Israelites, both regenerate and unregenerate, partook of Christ. All NT church members partake of Christ. Yet not all are regenerate. Obviously, the regenerate partake of Christ in a salvific and intimate way that the unregenerate do not.
6. Christ was the high priest of the church in the OT just like He is in the New. He is the high priest after the order of Melchizidek (to whom Abraham Himself paid tithe, and with whom He enjoyed an early version of the Lord's Supper). Read Psalm 110 while you think on this.
7. The achievement (in time) of Christ's atonement abrogated the need for bloody sacrifices to point forward to Him . . . all ceremonial laws are abrogated in the NT.
8. Hebrews is a covenantal book written to God's covenant people. The audience consists of both regenerate and unregenerate covenant members.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 5, 2005)

> But Wayne, the problem I see with your last sentence is the exact same error David was making with regard to the passage, which is that it falsely assumes that one cannot truly be called a servant of God and truly be said to have God as his master unless he is born again, whereas I would say that that is the very assumption that parable challenges.
> 
> Furthermore, I do not see how Baptists can consistently interpret such passages in light of "P," since while they acknowledge the membership of unbelievers within the visible Church, they do not acknowledge such members as being in covenant with God in any sense, and thus how could they possibly refer to them as servants of God with God as their Master?



Chris,

I am not quite following you but you may be reading too much into this parable. It appears that you are saying that a person who falls away can "truly" be a servant of God and "truly" call God his master. But in this parable we know the out come. The unfaithful servant was not "truly" a servant of God nor could he "truly" call God his master since in the parable the servant was basically thrown into hell! One who was "truly" a servant would not suffer such punishment.

Regarding being in covenant with God, don't they consider members of the Church members in the New Covenant? (I'm not a Baptist so I'm just assuming.)

BTW, John you need to add a signiture to your profile. Click on the Sig Requirements below my sig.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 5, 2005)

Sorry Wayne,

I think i've got the signature thing figured out now.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 5, 2005)

Doesn't 1 John 2:19 fairly adequately and straightforwardly address the curious phenomenon of apostasy? "Looks can be deceiving..."


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 5, 2005)

Well said Bruce.

And Wayne has a good point. There is no need to polarize biptists and Presbyterians on this issue. All are in the Mosaic Covenant (under the Law) unless redeemed. The unregenerate unto judgment, the regenerate unto salvation. The falling away of a professing believer is simply an unregerate betraying his true condition.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> All are in the Mosaic Covenant (under the Law) unless redeemed.



Uhhh... what?


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 5, 2005)

I guess I could have said that better.

But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God, because by the works of the Law none of all flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law is the knowledge of sin. But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness through the passing by of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God; for the display of His righteousness at this time, for Him to be just and, forgiving the one being of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law. Or is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also, since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law. 
(Rom 3:19-31)

7:1 Or are you ignorant, brothers; for I speak to those who know the Law; that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 

For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin worked in our members through the law to bring forth fruit to death. But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all kinds of lust. For apart from law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once. But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to life, was found to be death to me. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. So indeed the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. Then has that which is good become death to me? Let it not be! But sin, that it might appear to be sin, working death in me by that which is good; in order that sin might become exceedingly sinful by the commandment. 
(Rom 7:5-13)

I say, then, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary to one another; lest whatever you may will, these things you do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 
(Gal 5:16-21)



My point was that all unregenerate are judged according to the Law. The regenerate by the righteousness of Christ.



And I saw a great white throne, and Him sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And a place was not found for them. And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death. And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire. 
(Rev 20:11-15)


----------



## Scott (Jul 6, 2005)

There are various dimensions to this issue. Chris is certainly right that there is an objectivity to the covenant, which one can break.

Another dimension is that the unelect can participate in some of the benefits of the covenant, including receiving benefits of the Holy Spirit. Unelect members of the covenant do not have what the WCF terms "saving faith" yet, as members of the covevant, they they do have what our confession terms "œcommon operations of the Spirit" or what Calvin called "œtemporary faith."

"¢	Westminster Confession 10.4: "œIV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved. . ."


You will note that the proof texts for the "common operations" clause include Matt. 13:20-21 and Heb. 6:4-5, two of the strongest apostosy passages.

Calvin comments on various apostasy passages are also helpful. He distinguishes saving faith from something he terms "termporary faith."

"¢	Calvin´s Commentary on Matthew 13 (the Parable of the Sower). "œThis class differs from the former; for *temporary faith*, being a sort of vegetation of the seed, promises at first some fruit; but their hearts are not so properly and thoroughly subdued, as to have the softness necessary for their continued nourishment. We see too many of this class in our own day, who eagerly embrace the Gospel, and shortly afterwards fall off; for they have not the lively affection that is necessary to give them firmness and perseverance. Let every one then examine himself thoroughly, that the alacrity which gives out a bright flame may not quickly go out, as the saying is, like a fire of tow; for if the word does not fully penetrate the whole heart, and strike its roots deep, faith will want the supply of moisture that is necessary for perseverance. Great commendation is due, no doubt, to that promptitude, which receives the word of God with joy, and without delay, as soon as it is published; but let us learn, that nothing has been done, till faith acquires true firmness, that it may not wither in the first blade."
"¢	Calvin´s Commentary on Hebrews 6: "œBut here arises a new question, how can it be that he who has once made such a progress should afterwards fall away? For God, it may be said, calls none effectually but the elect, and Paul testifies that they are really his sons who are led by his Spirit, (Romans 8:14 and he teaches us, that it is a sure pledge of adoption when Christ makes us partakers of his Spirit. The elect are also beyond the danger of finally falling away; for the Father who gave them to be preserved by Christ his Son is greater than all, and Christ promises to watch over them all so that none may perish. To all this I answer, That God indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the temporal faith mentioned by Mark 4:17 [and Matthew 13]? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up."


----------



## Fernando (Jul 6, 2005)

Two quick points, and then I'll bow out.

God does regard all men as his servants, but not all are "good and faithful". Paul refers to the ruler as "God's servant", and yet the currently reigning emperor (Nero) was anything but faithful. All men are God's servants by right.

I have heard that Augustine believed in the perseverance of the elect, i.e. one could be regenerate and yet fall away if God did not grant persevering grace.


----------



## Robin (Jul 6, 2005)

If the covenant people does not have both unregenerate and regenerate (in both OT and NT) then why, pray tell, is there so much talk (NT) of separating "goats from sheep" "wheat from tares" Etc.

Doesn't this lead to the "visible/invisible" church category?

If there isn't a mix --- then what's the separating about?

Oy....

Robin

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 6, 2005)

That's true Robin, great point.

Not much to seperate out of the those apart from the church who openly reject Christ.

1. The warning verses have no meaning to those openly rejecting Christ outside the church. What would you fall away from that you already were not fallen into?

2. If a truly regenerate believer can fall away then Wesley was right.

3. If the warning verses apply to those truly resting in Christ, then where's the resting in Christ?

4. It seems very clear that such verses presume a mixed body and do not presume a regenerate earthly body (visible).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Chris,
> 
> I am not quite following you but you may be reading too much into this parable. It appears that you are saying that a person who falls away can "truly" be a servant of God and "truly" call God his master. But in this parable we know the out come. The unfaithful servant was not "truly" a servant of God nor could he "truly" call God his master since in the parable the servant was basically thrown into hell! One who was "truly" a servant would not suffer such punishment.



All I am saying is that there has to be a real element to their position with God (i.e. servant-Master) for the warning and falling away passages to make sense. Though they are never regenerate in any sense (as the Federal Visionists would have us believe) and are always condemned under their sin, they are real branches of the tree nonetheless (John 15, Romans 11), and receive more blessing for a time than those that were never even in the visible covenant.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Regarding being in covenant with God, don't they consider members of the Church members in the New Covenant? (I'm not a Baptist so I'm just assuming.)



Actually, the majority of Reformed Baptists I have talked to do not consider any reprobates to ever be members of the Covenant of Grace (and thus of the New Covenant) in any sense - and that is precisely why I said that I do not see how they can consistently account for the falling away passages such as the parable of the unfaithful servant that David brought up in the beginning.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Another dimension is that the unelect can participate in some of the benefits of the covenant, including receiving benefits of the Holy Spirit. Unelect members of the covenant do not have what the WCF terms "saving faith" yet, as members of the covevant, they they do have what our confession terms "œcommon operations of the Spirit" or what Calvin called "œtemporary faith."



Exactly. Denial of the solely visible (i.e. reprobate) aspect of the Church being a real part of the Covenant of Grace is what fails to do justice to passages like the parable of the unfaithful servant, since it essentially is also denying that the cut-off branches were ever real branches, or that the pruned olives were ever real olives.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> If the covenant people does not have both unregenerate and regenerate (in both OT and NT) then why, pray tell, is there so much talk (NT) of separating "goats from sheep" "wheat from tares" Etc.
> 
> Doesn't this lead to the "visible/invisible" church category?
> ...



Exactly - and like you, I fail to see another possible consistent interpretation of those passages that does them justice.



> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> That's true Robin, great point.
> 
> Not much to seperate out of the those apart from the church who openly reject Christ.
> ...


----------



## Robin (Jul 7, 2005)

I think we also need to note that the "warning" passages in the NT are there to prompt the regenerate to persevere....much like the Gospel's language "repent and believe" is designed like a judicial "summons", which calls the elect to faith.

To the ears of the regenerate, hearing the warnings of sin and condemnation will incite alarm in the heart thus calling them to repentance. So finding warnings in the Text does not necessarily presume that a believer can lose their salvation --- the contrary, sin is so powerful that though our faith will persevere, we will go through continual (lifestyle) warring with sin. The unregenerate have an indifferent attitude towards the warnings.

r.


----------



## Scott (Jul 7, 2005)

Robin: That is a good point. The parable of the wheat and tares, for example, is a parable of the *kingdom*. The kingdom (the church) has wheat and tares that will be separated.


----------



## Fernando (Jul 7, 2005)

(Bowing back in again. )

The parable of the wheat and tares speaks of the field as the world, not the church (Mt 13:38).


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 7, 2005)

> All I am saying is that there has to be a real element to their position with God (i.e. servant-Master) for the warning and falling away passages to make sense. Though they are never regenerate in any sense (as the Federal Visionists would have us believe) and are always condemned under their sin, they are real branches of the tree nonetheless (John 15, Romans 11), and receive more blessing for a time than those that were never even in the visible covenant.



Okay, I think I'm following you now. I guess you would say that the real element in their position with God is as JKLeo had mentioned previously that they share in the covenant blessings, though they are actually a curse to them.




> Actually, the majority of Reformed Baptists I have talked to do not consider any reprobates to ever be members of the Covenant of Grace (and thus of the New Covenant) in any sense - and that is precisely why I said that I do not see how they can consistently account for the falling away passages such as the parable of the unfaithful servant that David brought up in the beginning.



Setting aside the idea of reprobation (for in a real sense reprobates are not apart of the CoG since they will not be judged based on that covenant, but are ultimately under the CoW under which they will be judged), a Baptist could argue as Scott has pointed out, that a person could be in the visible church as they answered the general call. Thus they made a profession, were members of the visible church and then fell away.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 7, 2005)

> The parable of the wheat and tares speaks of the field as the world, not the church (Mt 13:38).



Not exactly right. The parable reads differently, and many miss this (I use to myself), for Jesus explains it very clearly later - for it speaks of the Kingdom of heaven, the good seed sown, and that is represented on/in earth/world (on/in the field) by the church not the world at large (the field). In the midst of the Kingdom of heaven, the good seed sown, the enemy sows the tares "“ not the world at large. The good seed > the kingdom of heaven > the church (body) is sown into the world (the field/larger body if you will), AND among the good seed/kingdom of heaven/the church (body) is sown the hypocrites so as to deceive from within, not the world at large which openly rejects Christ. The tares are not the general unbelievers in the world at large but those sown within the church itself represented as a corporate body of seed as the good seed (not individuals by themselves without the church in the world).

Larry

Dr. Luther aptly shows this as well:

THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER
The Parable of the Tares Which An Enemy Sowed in the Field:
MATT. 13:24-30: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

1. The Saviour himself explained this parable in the same chapter upon the request of his disciples and says: He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. These seven points of explanation comprehend and clearly set forth what Christ meant by this parable. But who could have discovered such an interpretation, seeing that in this parable he calls people the seed and the world the field; although in the parable preceding this one he defines the seed to be the Word of God and the field the people or the hearts of the people. If Christ himself had not here interpreted this parable every one would have imitated his explanation of the preceding parable and considered the seed to be the Word of God, and thus the Saviour's object and understanding of it would have been lost.
2. Permit me to make an observation here for the benefit of the wise and learned who study the Scriptures. Imitating or guessing is not to be allowed in the explanation of Scripture; but one should and must be sure and firm. Just like Joseph in Gen. 40:12f. interpreted the two dreams of the butler and baker so differently, although they resembled each other, and he did not make the one a copy of the other. True, the danger would not have been great if the seed had been interpreted to be the Word of God; still had this been the case the parable would not have been thus understood correctly.
3. Now this Gospel teaches us how the kingdom of God or Christianity fares in the world, especially on account of its teaching, namely, that we are not to think that only true Christians and the pure doctrine of God are to dwell upon the earth; but that there must be also false Christians and heretics in order that the true Christians may be approved, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:19. For this parable treats not of false Christians, who are so only outwardly in their lives, but of those who are unchristian in their doctrine and faith under the name Christian, who beautifully play the hypocrite and work harm. It is a matter of the conscience and not of the hand. And they must be very spiritual servants to be able to identify the tares among the wheat. And the sum of all is that we should not marvel nor be terrified if there spring up among us many different false teachings and false faiths. Satan is constantly among the children of God. (Job 1:6).
4. Again this Gospel teaches how we should conduct ourselves toward these heretics and false teachers. We are not to uproot nor destroy them. Here he says publicly let both grow together. We have to do here with God's Word alone; for in this matter he who errs today may find the truth tomorrow. Who knows when the Word of God may touch his heart? But if he be burned at the stake, or otherwise destroyed, it is thereby assured that he can never find the truth; and thus the Word of God is snatched from him, and he must be lost, who otherwise might have been saved. Hence the Lord says here, that the wheat also will be uprooted if we weed out the tares. That is something awful in the eyes of God and never to be justified.
5. From this observe what raging and furious people we have been these many years, in that we desired to force others to believe; the Turks with the sword, heretics with fire, the Jews with death, and thus out root the tares by our own power, as if we were the ones who could reign over hearts and spirits, and make them pious and right, which God's Word alone must do. But by murder we separate the people from the Word, so that it cannot possibly work upon them and we bring thus, with one stroke a double murder upon ourselves, as far as it lies in our power, namely, in that we murder the body for time and the soul for eternity, and afterwards say we did God a service by our actions, and wish to merit something special in heaven.
6. Therefore this passage should in all reason terrify the grand inquisitors and murderers of the people, where they are not brazened faced, even if they have to deal with true heretics. But at present they burn the true saints and are themselves heretics. What is that but uprooting the wheat, and pretending to exterminate the tares, like insane people?
7. Today's Gospel also teaches by this parable that our free will amounts to nothing, since the good seed is sowed only by Christ, and Satan can sow nothing but evil Seed; as we also see that the field of itself yields nothing but tares, which the cattle eat, although the field receives them and they make the field green as if they were wheat. In the same way the false Christians among the true Christians are of no use but to feed the world and be food for Satan, and they are so beautifully green and hypocritical, as if they alone were the saints, and hold the place in Christendom as if they were lords there, and the government and highest places belonged to them; and for no other reason than that they glory that they are Christians and are among Christians in the church of Christ, although they see and confess that they live unchristian lives.
8. In that the Saviour pictures here also Satan scattering his seed while the people sleep and no one sees who did it, he shows how Satan adorns and disguises himself so that he cannot be taken for Satan. As we experienced when Christianity was planted in the world Satan thrust into its midst false teachers. People securely think here God is enthroned without a rival and Satan is a thousand miles away, and no one sees anything except how they parade the Word, name and work of God. That course proves beautifully effective. But when the wheat springs up, then we see the tares, that is, if we are conscientious with Gods Word and teach faith, we see that it brings forth fruit, then they go about and antagonize it, and wish to be masters of the field and fear lest only wheat grows in the field, and their interests be overlooked.
9. Then the church and pastor marvel; but they are not allowed to pass judgment, and eagerly wish to interpret all for the best, since such persons bear the Christian name. But it is apparent they are tares and evil seed, have strayed from the faith and fallen to trust in works, and think of rooting out the tares. They lament because of it before the Lord, in the heartfelt prayer of their spirit. For the sower of the good seed says again, they should not uproot it, that is, they should have patience, and suffer such blasphemy, and commend all to God; for although the tares hinder the wheat, yet they make it the more beautiful to behold, compared with the tares, as St. Paul also says in 1 Cor. 2:19: "For there must be false factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you." This is sufficient on today's text.


----------



## Fernando (Jul 7, 2005)

Larry,

I believe it is an error to equate Kingdom of God with the Church. The Church results from God's reign (basileia). Kingdom of God usually does not mean the sphere or territory in which God rules, but the rule itself. Under God's rule, he allows the wheat and the tares to co-exist in the field of the world (kosmos) until the final judgment.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 7, 2005)

Fernando,

You are certainly welcome to believe that but since that is a mere assertion I can equally assert that I believe it is an error to do so in this parable "“ and have much commentary backing it up (as I suppose you would as well). So, now what do we do?

Plus, your missing the point of the parable in the sewing of the wheat and mingling of the tares within that group which in turn is in the realm of the world or field according to the parable. The wheat is a group/unit within the field (world) and the tares are sown "along" with the wheat. To say the tares are sewn in the world is redundant, since the world is already fallen.

Furthermore, it makes no sense that apostles would say, "should we remove the tares from the world."

Never-the-less, even if you dismiss this passage it doesn´t make the case for regenerate church membership on earth in the least, as there are other scriptures that show God alone knows Who are His - to disprove the "œregenerate" visible church theory. Not to mention that God alone can know or see the heart of a man, which alone militates against such an approach.

And practically it really is quite simple at the end of the day. Until you can show me both how you will detect a man´s heart infallibly AND a testimony from Scripture both showing how and the authority to do so "“ your argument is completely dead.

Unless we journey back to Rome and you speak ex cathedra as to who is in and who is out of the church.

Larry

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Robin (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Fernando_
> Larry,
> 
> I believe it is an error to equate Kingdom of God with the Church. The Church results from God's reign (basileia). Kingdom of God usually does not mean the sphere or territory in which God rules, but the rule itself. Under God's rule, he allows the wheat and the tares to co-exist in the field of the world (kosmos) until the final judgment.



Fernando, you're right. We do not equate the visible church with the Kingdom. However, the Kingdom does reign in the hearts of the true saints within the local, visible church body. Careful distinctions are necessary to keep the boundaries clear.

The whole counsel of Scripture does testify to "wheat and tares" growing together in Christ's church. 1. This is why the NT warnings are there (for they are written TO believers); 2. This is why we are to defend the Gospel and exercise church discipline in good order, as taught in Scripture and why the Church will always suffer false teachers in her ranks until the Lord appears. 

Ever notice, the entire NT is filled with arguments for the true Gospel against those IN the church attempting to falsify or counterfeit it?

The world is easy to recognize as God's enemy....but to recognize the enemies of Christ within the church (catholic - "small c") is far more difficult -- for they masquerade as "angels of light."



r.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Doesn't 1 John 2:19 fairly adequately and straightforwardly address the curious phenomenon of apostasy? "Looks can be deceiving..."



 

You have to; you must consider the phenomenological language of these passage. In any given sense we are speaking of the phenomena of outward evidence. So, knowing what we know about other passages that preclude with an utmost certainty that people cannot fall away, we have to look at these passages like we would Heb 6 and 10. They are describing the things as they are in phenomenological language not as they are in fact or in spiritual reality. In fact, in most instances we only have phenomenological language to go by. If you notice the statements of the WCF you will see that they recognize such a thing.



> Chapter 10. Section 4. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.



I am not, therefore, entriely convinced that the language of the covenant need be applied here.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> They are describing the things as they are in phenomenological language not as they are in fact or in spiritual reality. In fact, in most instances we only have phenomenological language to go by. If you notice the statements of the WCF you will see that they recognize such a thing.
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that the cut-off branches are in God in a phenomenological way pointing to the outward condition, rather than the spiritual condition. I do not think, however, that the Baptists even give that outward condition the acknowledgement that Scripture does, and that is where my use of the covenantal language comes in: The group of people that fit the characteristics described in the first sentence of X.IV are elsewhere referred to in the Confession as the group of people that are real members of the external aspect of the Covenant of Grace, but not of the internal (or, real members of the Covenant of Grace, but not of the Covenant of Redemption, depending on the terminology one prefers). And the error I see on the part of most Baptists that prevents their view from doing justice to the falling away passages is that by denying those people's state of truly being in covenant with God altogether, they are failing to give full biblical credit to the external aspect of the Covenant of Grace, and I see the logical implications of that failure as being a denial that the cut-off branches and olives ever were real branches and olives in any sense.

Am I making sense?


----------



## Fernando (Jul 7, 2005)

Larry,

If "Kingdom of God (Heaven)" is synonymous with "Church" then we could substitute one for the other and it would make good sense. Shall we try?

Mt 4:17 Repent, for the Church is at hand.
Mt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Church.
Mt 6:33 But seek first the Church...and all these things will be added to you.
Mt 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" will enter the Church.
Mt 11:11 Yet the one who is least in the Church is greater than he.
Mt 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Church.
Lk 10:9 The Church has come near to you.



> Furthermore, it makes no sense that apostles would say, "should we remove the tares from the world."



In the context of the parable, it is the angels who gather the tares (v 41, using the same verb used in vv 28-29).



> Never-the-less, even if you dismiss this passage it doesn´t make the case for regenerate church membership on earth in the least, as there are other scriptures that show God alone knows Who are His - to disprove the "œregenerate" visible church theory. Not to mention that God alone can know or see the heart of a man, which alone militates against such an approach.
> 
> And practically it really is quite simple at the end of the day. Until you can show me both how you will detect a man´s heart infallibly AND a testimony from Scripture both showing how and the authority to do so "“ your argument is completely dead.
> 
> Unless we journey back to Rome and you speak ex cathedra as to who is in and who is out of the church.



Umm, you seem to have me confused with someone else. What have I said that you are responding to here?



> Plus, your missing the point of the parable in the sewing of the wheat and mingling of the tares within that group which in turn is in the realm of the world or field according to the parable. The wheat is a group/unit within the field (world) and the tares are sown "along" with the wheat. To say the tares are sewn in the world is redundant, since the world is already fallen.



Help me out here. I don't get your point. It's redundant to say the tares are sown in the world? Well, that is in fact what the parable says. The tares are sown in the field and the field is the world.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 8, 2005)

If you are trying to posit a Romans 9:6 idea that "œthey are not all Israel, which are of Israel," then I can agree with you. Externally and phenomenologically they are inside the covenant, but internally and spiritually they are not in true union with Christ. This certainly does more justice to the falling away passages and a position that I hold. If I may adapt Romans 9:6, all the members of the visible church are of Israel, but not ever member of the visible church are actually Israel.


----------



## Robin (Jul 8, 2005)

Fernando,

I think perhaps, you might be a bit rash to posit that Larry confuses the church with the Kingdom. I don't think any of us do, BTW.

It's really a  to even go there, I think....

However, a meaningful question is: "what are the distinctions between the church and the Kingdom?"

And...the word _apostasy_ requires a falling-away from some thing. How can the world "fall away" when they're already lost? (Speaking of the reprobate.)

I hope I'm not mis-understanding you.

Curteously,

Robin


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

The kingdom is the visible church. 

WCF 25.2 summarizes the biblical teaching nicely.

II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[491] and of their children:[492] *and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ*,[493] the house and family of God,[494] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[495] 

[493] Matthew 13:47. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind. Isaiah 9:7. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.



[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

> Mt 4:17 Repent, for the Church is at hand.
> Mt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Church.
> Mt 6:33 But seek first the Church...and all these things will be added to you.
> Mt 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" will enter the Church.
> ...



Sure. What is wrong with this? 

Hebrews 12:22 indicates that the Church is also is also:

[1] Mount Zion, 
[2] the heavenly Jerusalem (see also Gal. 4:26), 
[3] the city of the living God. 
[4] thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly.

Revelation 12:17 also indicates that the church is the mother of "her offspring = those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus."

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

> Doesn't 1 John 2:19 fairly adequately and straightforwardly address the curious phenomenon of apostasy? "Looks can be deceiving..."



It partially addresses the issue, but not completely. The non-elect in the church genuinely partake of some benefits of the Spirit. This is what our confession terms "common operations of the Spirit." The biblical basis for the the WCF's observation includes Hebrews 6, which talks about those who fall away as having tasted of the Spirit.

I think Calvin's comments on "temporary faith" are helpful too. It is not the case that everyone in the church who leaves had all along been just faking it, consciously aware of their deception. Some receive the Word with joy (i.e. not consciously faking it) but later fall away due to the cares of the world, the work of Satan, or like reasons.

The warnings against apostasy make sense in this context - it is a real possibility. Confirm that your faith is genuine saving faith (which endures), and not the transient temporary faith held by some.


----------



## Fernando (Jul 8, 2005)

Robin,



> I think perhaps, you might be a bit rash to posit that Larry confuses the church with the Kingdom. I don't think any of us do, BTW.



Thanks, but see Scott's comments. Apparently the WCF that you subscribe to requires just such an equation of Kingdom of God = Church. One more reason not to subscribe to the WCF, I say.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Fernando_
> Robin,
> 
> 
> ...



The Kingdom of God = The _visible_ church.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Fernando_
> Robin,
> 
> 
> ...



Apprarently Scripture does as well. Consider Colossians 1:12-15 "giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. *He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love*, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins."


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

Fernando: What is your understanding of what the kingdom is?


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 8, 2005)

The elect of God are the only people in covenant with Him. There are non-elect in the church; however, they are under false notions (they think they are made partakers of His covenant, but they are not because His Spirit abides not in them). They are merely "œunder the law" and they continue to live in such a state.

There is only one covenant now which supersedes all others for the provision of salvation (this does not mean all the other covenants are still not in motion). The term Covenant of Grace, although not found anywhere in the bible, is in fact the correct terminology of the truth which it teaches. The Covenant of Grace (or New Covenant) shows us that the contrast between the two covenants for redemption/salvation is none other than "œlaw and grace."

The terms of the New Covenant (Grace) are different from those of the Old (Law) simply because the terms of the New are spiritual aspects of what was visible in the Old. The New Covenant is more of a "œrenewed" Mosaic Covenant if anything.

There are multiple New Covenant provisions that are given by God that were not bestowed upon the Jews. The Holy Spirit is just one example (and it is of primary importance).

Under the Old Covenant, the Holy Spirit was not placed by God within the individual covenant member. The Spirit of God remained above the mercy seat of the ark inside the Most Holy Place (behind the veil). The nation encamped around the tabernacle and when the nation was to move, the Spirit of God led the way. God was with them, but He did not dwell within the individual (The individual was not the temple of God). This is a New Covenant provision. This also makes the case for the tabernacle being a physical representation of man.

As for the Old Testament saints, they were saved by "œgrace through faith" just as we are. These people were expected to obey the terms of the covenant which they were "œunder." The Abrahamic Covenant was an unconditional covenant (the Jews are obligated to do absolutely nothing). The Mosaic Covenant is conditional: obedience unto life or disobedience unto death. The New Covenant has the exact same conditions as the Mosaic, except God has supplied Himself as the sacrifice as well as supplied the means to obey the law. He gives you a heart to know Him, He writes His law in your heart and mind and He gives us His Spirit. These three provisions were not bestowed upon the Israelites.

As for the Kingdom of God, it comprises those who "œovercome" the fallacy of all the churches. They are not visible, they are invisible. The things that are "œseen" are temporal; the "œunseen" are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). The only indication you have that someone is in the Kingdom is one´s outward manifestation of what is working on the inside. You can not see the heart, but you can see someone who is being led by the Spirit in obedience to the law. The Kingdom is eternal; therefore it is invisible.

The non-elect are not partakers of the Holy Spirit and they do not have the law written in their heart and mind. They do not have a heart transplant to know God and delight in His law. They do however, have a blessing from the Adamic covenant (a means of grace accommodated by the Spirit).... they are a living creation allowed to live on this earth.

In relation to TULIP, it is only someone who has been made a "œpartaker of the Holy Spirit" who may "œfall away." You are only made a partaker of His Spirit by the provision of the New Covenant.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Texas Aggie]


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

Matt: There are allot of mistakes in that, although I think many have been mentioned before.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 8, 2005)

Fernando,

I don´t want to be rash here either. Perhaps I´ve been confusing in my language, not at all uncommon with me.

I thought about it last night where I might have been confusing in my language. I do apologize for that. Last night driving home from work it hit me that I should have clarified that the Kingdom of God is manifest in this world via the church, specifically the visible church. Where else would one "œsee" in this world the Kingdom of God manifest but the church who is that manifestation, or as Paul said the repository of the Covenants and the treasure of the Word held, defended, displayed, testified too and so forth. For example the Kingdom of God and specifically Christ is born witness too every Sunday (Lord´s day) to the watching world when we, the church, gather and worship together. Thus, citizenship to a Kingdom is shown/displayed, hence the term visible church Vs. invisible church. Sunday is a witness to the Kingdom of God and that alone via the visible church.

When I read Robin´s, Scott´s and Scott B.´s extremely more clear post, that is what I was trying, poorly albeit, to communicate. I was encouraged that my thinking was right though my speaking was deplorable and bungled. I think Scott B. zeroed in on it most succinctly with "œthe kingdom of God = the visible church". 

Furthermore, the church militant is at war with the world´s (fallen) kingdom(s). There is a picture if you will of these two kingdoms warring on this world/in this life "“ that is the church and the world.

The reason the parable would make no sense if the tares be sown into the world, that is to say that the point to show tares sown into the world only, is that such would be redundant to speak of. Why? Because the entire world system of men is fallen altogether. No one is shocked that fruitless weeds, even tares, are in the world. The "œfield" in the parable is the broader "œarena" in which the wheat (as a crop) are sown and the tares which mimic wheat to a point, as opposed to other fruitless weeds, thorns and thistles, are sown into the wheat by the enemy for a specific purpose. Namely to attempt to ruin the crop. 

Note that the sewing is not this way: Into the field both the good farmer and the enemy cast wheat and tares respectively to produce a crop IN THE FIELD. But rather, that first the good farmer sewed good wheat seed to set forth a uniform crop (the church) in the overall field (the world). Then, later comes the enemy who surreptitiously sews tares into THE CROP already sewn which is in turn IN THE FIELD. 

We the people of Christ are individuals and like seed, yes, but we are more importantly corporate to the body of Christ and if you will the crop united. Yet, in this world tares are amongst the crop "“ the crop is not pure in this world (the field). But the reapers alone will know and separate out later the wheat from the tares. The servants today cannot do this task and have been told strictly by this parable not to. 

If the parable were merely about Christians in the world and unbelievers in the world, and that we are not to remove the tares from among the wheat in the world as a whole, then all it answers is "œdo not go on a crusade to purify the world by the sword."

And here is the kicker: If the interpretation that is correct is merely the world wheat/tares only "“ don´t remove them "“ then we just merely refrain from bloody crusades. But if the interpretation is correct that we are not to attempt to remove the tares from the wheat in the visible church lest we damage the tender wheat, and we go about seeking upfront "œwho is truly regenerate too much", "œseeking too much fruit before its seasons" "“ then we are disobeying a direct positive command from Christ Himself. That would be sin. 

Christ understood the weakness of the tender wheat shoots, the bruised reeds and smoking flaxes. Not all Christians are walking the Damascus road then suddenly Paul. Even Peter showed great weakness and at that not to show acceptance and casualness toward sin, but as encouragement for those who will sin greatly "“ that hope (expectation) and grace are still yours in spite of this great struggle with sin. To not fall into that trap of, "œI´ve finally as a Christian committed that one sin, that one missing piece of fruit that makes me unworthy, as if you ever were, of grace". Other mere men, who are no more than simul justice et peccator themselves every day, seeking to "œpurify the visible church do this great harm to the tender wheat and at length are disobeying Christ.

*To what kind of person is Christ offered in the gospel?

The person to whom he is held out is no other than a lost sinner, a lost soul. Christ came to seek and save them that were lost. I mean not only these that are sensible of their lost state, but these that are in a lost state, whether they be sensible of it or not. If the gospel comes to them, the offer of Christ comes to them: "To you, O men, do I call; and my voice is to the sons of men" (Proverbs 8:4). We are warranted to preach the gospel to every creature, Mark 16:15. 

Some will offer Christ upon such and such terms, saying, you must be so and so humbled, so and so penitent, before Christ can be offered to you; so that a man that finds himself a lost, sinful, unhumbled, impenitent, wretched creature, can never come to their hand, or meddle with what they offer. How contrary is that strain of preaching to the design of the gospel, which is to compel those very sinners to come in, whom the legal strain of doctrine would keep out and exclude as if the gospel call were only to saints, or to sinners so and so qualified; and so leading men in to themselves for a ground of faith, instead of leading them out of themselves to Christ, exhibited to them in a "word of salvation sent to them" (Acts 13:26). 

Hence see the nature of faith; it is a coming in as we are: poor, maimed, halt, blind, and naked as we are, without tarrying and waiting for better qualifications, which we shall never have till we come in to Christ for them. The legal strain supposes some good quality about the sinner, before he be allowed to meddle with the word of salvation; and so shuts the door of the gospel, which it pretends to open. <<<We need be at no pains to hinder sinners from coming to Christ, to receive the offer, for they are unwilling enough of themselves>>>. (emphasis added "“ ldh) Quote of another Gospel warrior -- Ralph Erskine *


Blessings,
Larry




[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 8, 2005)

Scott, 
Please just give me one mistake, and I will work from there.
Thanks
Matt


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> * . . .To what kind of person is Christ offered in the gospel?
> 
> The person to whom he is held out is no other than a lost sinner, a lost soul. Christ came to seek and save them that were lost. I mean not only these that are sensible of their lost state, but these that are in a lost state, whether they be sensible of it or not. If the gospel comes to them, the offer of Christ comes to them: "To you, O men, do I call; and my voice is to the sons of men" (Proverbs 8:4). We are warranted to preach the gospel to every creature, Mark 16:15.
> ...





> "œIt is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ."



Is this what you mean in the above Erskine quote since he was one of the Marrow Men?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michael Butterfield]


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

Matt: I would advise you to just read the relevant sections of the Confession and Faith, catechisms and related proof texts. If you would like, I can point you to the sections I am thinking of.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 8, 2005)

Michael,

Thank you for the blessing.

First, Paul's answer to your question, "Shall we sin that grace may abound. May it never be."

No that would be absolutely absurd. Turning to Christ IS foresaking sin both open rebellion and self-righteousness. But you come to Him with your sin stained hands, you can in no other way come. If you come with ANY self-righteousness to "purchase" grace, you will NOT receive mercy. And that includes vainly thinking I even know the infinite depth of my sin so as to say, "God, I know how great a sinner I've been, now give me some grace."

One CANNOT turn to Christ without foresaking sin. This is not that ridiculous argument over in the dispensational camp in which both parties confuse everything.

Erskine is getting right to the bones of what the Gospel is and is not and how it is to be set forth unmingled with Law, yet the Law precedes it. And Paul says we are called as ministers (preachers) of the Gospel.

Make no mistake about it - you do not purchase grace even with your turning from sin, not tears, not anything can purchase it - it is freely received. AND THAT empowers one to more and more put the flesh to death.

"If we would engender a true sense of gratitude in ourselves, we should do away with this foolish idea of our own ability - for not even our gratitude is acceptable to God." --John Calvin

The Gospel has the power and it alone by the power of the Holy Spirit to break the heart. The Gospel has the power Paul says.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Michael,
> 
> Thank you for the blessing.
> ...





If you have not listed to Sinclair Ferguson on the Marrow controversy get the tapes and listen to them. In one part of the presentation he speaks of the Jerusalem sinners that were saved on the day of Pentecost and Peter's preaching. That is the gospel! Those who crucified the Lord of Glory could be saved just as you indicate. By coming to Christ.


----------



## Robin (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Fernando_
> Robin,
> 
> 
> ...



"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." Jesus to Pilate, John 18:36

Robin


----------



## Robin (Jul 8, 2005)

With regard to the Kingdom, problems are found in this threefold fact: (1) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdom of God as God's reign. (2) Some passages refer to God's Kingdom as the realm into which we may now enter to experience the blessings of His reign. (3) Still other passages refer to a future realm which will come only with the return of our Lord Jesus Christ into which we shall then enter and experience the fullness of His reign. Thus the Kingdom of God means three different things in different verses. One has to study all the references in the light of their context and then try to fit them together in an overall interpretation.

I hope we can avoid the snares of reductionism; characatures and false dilemmas in order to learn more.



r.


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

Robin: I think this is resolved by understanding that the kingdom is a heavenly kingdom. Eph. 2:6: ". . . and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus . . ." We are now seated in heavenly places. So, you are seated in the heavnly realms and yet living on earth. Your presence on earth does not undermine you being seated in the heavenly realms. Another way to think of this is that we are in the world but not of it.


----------



## Robin (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > Mt 4:17 Repent, for the Church is at hand.
> ...



Scott, 

With all due respect, you have confused the context of the entire chapter of Hebrews 12 - which is the explanation the true worship; covenant of grace contrasted with covenant of works. Sinai vs. Zion...Zion being the place of God's dwelling to where people will stream rather than be fenced away. Space forbids a reprint of the whole chapter, which is best...let's read this much in context...

Hebrews 12:18-24
A Kingdom That Cannot Be Shaken
For you have you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. (Reference to Mt. Sinai) For they could not endure the order that was given, "If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned." Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I tremble with fear." But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 

This language culminates in expressing the Kingdom -- not the visible church...though some traits are shared. Mt. Zion is one of the many mountin motif/images used to describe God's visitation (including Christ) and place of holiness.

But for now, please read all of Hebrews (chapt. 1- 13) to adhere to the point of chapter 12. That is the responsible, right-dividing of the Word.



r.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 8, 2005)

Robin 

Michael,

Thanks for the references by SF, I loove his work & read much of it. I'll begetting those tapes.


Thanks much.

L


----------



## Robin (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Robin: I think this is resolved by understanding that the kingdom is a heavenly kingdom. Eph. 2:6: ". . . and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus . . ." We are now seated in heavenly places. So, you are seated in the heavnly realms and yet living on earth. Your presence on earth does not undermine you being seated in the heavenly realms. Another way to think of this is that we are in the world but not of it.



Agreed, of course....

I intended my emphasis to be that we cannot equate the Kingdom with the physical/visible church in the sense that it is wholly, the church. The real danger in that has a historic record: the Crusades; Inquisition, et al. It's much safer to understand the Kingdom as being the "reign" of the King in the hearts of His people.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Robin
> 
> Michael,
> ...



Ferguson on the Marrow of Modern Divinity

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Michael Butterfield]


----------



## Scott (Jul 11, 2005)

Robin: Reading the entire context of Hebrews, it is clear that Hebrews 12 refers to the visible church. This is a common reformed interpretation (and a correct one). Hebrews does address worship, and it is in the visible church that we find heavenly worship. You might check out D.G. Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk for a good, short essay of the divine dimension of worship in reformed theology. He expressly uses Hebrews 12 as did I. 

Anyway, your view that the visible church is not the kingdom of heaven on earth is inconsistent with reformed confessional standards (as I pointed out in the reference to WCF).

BTW, you might also check out the portions of Calvin's Institutes (in Book 4) that deal with the motherhood of the visible church. He relies on Galatians 4 and other passages for this widely held view. It si very good stuff.

Scott

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by Scott]


----------

