Matt 13

Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by Scott Bushey, Aug 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    I'm not ignoring you. Just going camping. I'll get back on later this weekend.

    Don't have too much fun without me. :D
     
  2. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    WOW! I've never seen such big trees. We went to the siquoias. General Sherman is the largest living thing on earth. Amazing! It's base is 36 feet in diameter and it's over 2000 years old.

    Okay, back to the topic at hand.

    Scott, I hope none of my comments seemed agressive. As I refreshed myself on this thread I could see where they might be taken that way. I am not an authority on this issue, nor do I claim to be. I'm trying to work through this WITH you, from a perspective I have not tried before.

    You and Patrick have been very gracious and patient. Thank you. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it's been very rewarding for me.

    We have discussed the intention of this parable. Patrick makes reference to looking "at these pictures of the kingdom as a convenantal sense instead of whether they are elect or not" making the meaning fuller. While this may be true, my concern is that in doing this we are treating the text in an eisegetical way and reading more into the passage than can be safely concluded. Rather than looking at it from a covenantal perspective, we need to simply compare Scripture to Scripture. How can this claim be backed up biblically? [quote:572121f0fa]The 'net' is the gospel and the outward call;[/quote:572121f0fa]On what is this claim based Scott? The kingdom is LIKE a net, but the Gospel is not represented in any way that I can discern. Earlier there is reference to the Word of the kingdom, but this verse is not a clear reference of that one.
    However, even if we conclude that it is the Gospel, we still can't say that the bad fish were attracted by the Gospel. It could be that they were cursed by it. I just can't see how we can conclude that they reacted in a positive way to the Gospel.
    Furthermore, the word used for net here is not used anywhere else in the NT (sagenei). This is not the typcal cast net. This is a drag net. It gathers everything in its path, regardless. It gathers the good, bad and ugly. It gathers the lowest reprobate and the godliest saint. Also, "sea" is a common Jewish reference to all the people of the earth. [quote:572121f0fa]Just to briefly clarify what I meant, I don't think the parable was "intended" for self-examination. I believe it is teaching us what the kingdom is like until the end. Jesus is teaching that it is mixed until the bad are thrown out at his return. But I do believe that self-examination is a practical application of this text, to challenge people to examine their hearts to see what kind of kingdom member they are, good or bad, that is truly believing or just falsely professing.[/quote:572121f0fa]I apologize Patrick. I misunderstood your intention. Other than the statement, [i:572121f0fa]"It is teaching us what the kingdom is like until the end,"[/i:572121f0fa] I'm in total agreement with you on the purpose of this parable. Perhaps I oversimplified it, if that's possible. I would like to point out that you yourself refer to two kingdoms here.[quote:572121f0fa]Was Judas an apostle?[/quote:572121f0fa]As for Judas, I'm not sure we can make any definite conclusions regarding him. Did he perform miracles? It seems so, but we can't be positive. Did he baptize? Perhaps, but inconclusive. Was he a true Apostle? I think that it is evident that he was not by his treachery. Furthermore, Apostles witnessed the risen Savior. Judas does not qualify on two counts. It is also possible, that as a child of Satan, he was given the ability to disguise himself as an angel of light. Did not Pharaoh's magicians duplicate Moses' staff turning into a snake? Why couldn't Judas have been given abilities to help him blend? Now, I'm not claiming that he was, I just think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions that are not clear in the text.

    Thanks for your input Phillip. I think this part especially is appiclable to where this discussion has gone.[quote:572121f0fa]This is the only proper way to interpret them. One passage is didactic epistle, the other is analogy. To argue the absolute sense from the analogical over and against the didactic is terrible hermeneutics.[/quote:572121f0fa]Romans 8:1 is a great reminder of the truth of the need of salvation for one to truly be "IN" Christ.
    Other verses to consider
    1 Timothy 3:13 - [i:572121f0fa]For they having served well gain a good grade for themselves, and much boldness in the faith, those in Christ Jesus.[/i:572121f0fa]
    1 Thessalonians 4:16 - [i:572121f0fa]For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first.[/i:572121f0fa]
    Eph 2:10 [i:572121f0fa]For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.[/i:572121f0fa]
    Eph 2:4-7 - [i:572121f0fa]But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), and has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. [/i:572121f0fa]
    Gal 5:6 - [i:572121f0fa]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but faith working through love. [/i:572121f0fa]
    Gal 6:15 - [i:572121f0fa]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.[/i:572121f0fa]
    Gal 3:26-29 - [i:572121f0fa]For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.[/i:572121f0fa]
    2Co 5:17 - [i:572121f0fa]So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.[/i:572121f0fa]

    Unless I missed something, every one of these passages (and many more) makes it clear that being IN Christ is equal to being saved. Ephesians 2:11-13 is a great reminder of this truth as well, as it points out that [i:572121f0fa]those who were once affar aff are made near [b:572121f0fa]by the blood of Christ.[/b:572121f0fa][/i:572121f0fa]
    [i:572121f0fa]Therefore remember that you, the nations, in time past were in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; and that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once afar off are made near by the blood of Christ.[/i:572121f0fa]

    These examples are are taken from epistles, the backbone of our doctrine. In order to claim that Jesus' reference to the bad branches being "in Him" as a doctrinal theme one has to deal with all of the above, and more. As many have pointed out, including PastorWay, Phillip A and Ryle (see below), we cannot claim clear analogies as a foundation for our doctrinal positions.[quote:572121f0fa]These verses, we must carefully remember, contain a parable. In interpreting it we must not forget the great rule which applies to all Christ's parables. The general lesson of each parable is the main thing to be noticed. The minor details must not be tortured, strained and pressed to excess, in order to extract a meaning from them. The mistakes into which Christians have fallen by neglecting this rule are neither few nor small.
    (Ryle - Expository Thoughts on John)[/quote:572121f0fa]I'm no expert brothers, but it seems to me that to make the claim that this parable's reference to those "in Christ" is an absolute not only takes us into a dead end doctrinally as we encounter the above verses, I think it also opens a can of worms that we cannot possibly get a lid on. Where will this end? I find it strange that I, one who holds to a strict literal interpretation of Scripture, feels the need to expound on the need to keep parables in their proper perspective. But if we continue to hold this pattern then our Savior is litterally a lion, a lamb, a door, a star etc. Of course this is nonsense, but I ask you to show me how you determine where to draw this distinction in dealing with parables.

    Finally, even if this parable says exactly what you think it does, what are the implications? Either way we still have unbelievers confessing salvation and in our "churches?"

    Again, I don't claim to have the last word here. I've tried to think through this the way you've presented it, but can't get around the road blocks I've encountered (all of the above).

    I'm still hoping we can narrow this down. :rolleyes: :bs2:
     
  3. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Joe writes:
    [quote:64c4ab5d3e]As for Judas, I'm not sure we can make any definite conclusions regarding him.[/quote:64c4ab5d3e]

    Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him [b:64c4ab5d3e]his twelve disciples[/b:64c4ab5d3e], he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
    Mat 10:2 Now the names of [b:64c4ab5d3e]the twelve apostles[/b:64c4ab5d3e] are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
    Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
    Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and [b:64c4ab5d3e]Judas Iscariot[/b:64c4ab5d3e], who also betrayed him.
    Mat 10:5 [b:64c4ab5d3e]These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them[/b:64c4ab5d3e], saying.........


    Mat 26:14 Then [b:64c4ab5d3e]one of the twelve[/b:64c4ab5d3e], called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,


    Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake,[b:64c4ab5d3e]lo, Judas, one of the twelve[/b:64c4ab5d3e], came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.


    Mark 6:7 And he called unto him [b:64c4ab5d3e]the twelve[/b:64c4ab5d3e], and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
    Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
    Mark 6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
    Mark 6:10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
    Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
    Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
    Mark 6:13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.


    Luke 6:13 And when it was day,[b:64c4ab5d3e] he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;[/b:64c4ab5d3e]
    Luke 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
    Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
    Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

    John 3:22 [b:64c4ab5d3e]After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.[/b:64c4ab5d3e]

    Joe,
    I believe that the above passages support the idea that Judas was 'one of the twelve'. The 12 [i:64c4ab5d3e]were[/i:64c4ab5d3e] apostles; the 12 (including Judas Iscariot) performed miracles, healed diseases, raised people from the dead, sat at the table and even baptised.

    John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
    John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    We then can conclude, based upon sola scriptura that Judas was a disciple, an apostle, healed sickness, performed various miracles, rAised people from the dead, and even baptized.

    Do you agree; or will you challenge over 2 thousand years of theology proper?

    Joe adds:
    [quote:64c4ab5d3e]On what is this claim based Scott? The kingdom is LIKE a net, but the Gospel is not represented in any way that I can discern. Earlier there is reference to the Word of the kingdom, but this verse is not a clear reference of that one.
    However, even if we conclude that it is the Gospel, we still can't say that the bad fish were attracted by the Gospel. It could be that they were cursed by it. I just can't see how we can conclude that they reacted in a positive way to the Gospel.
    Furthermore, the word used for net here is not used anywhere else in the NT (sagenei). This is not the typcal cast net. This is a drag net. It gathers everything in its path, regardless. It gathers the good, bad and ugly. It gathers the lowest reprobate and the godliest saint. Also, "sea" is a common Jewish reference to all the people of the earth. [/quote:64c4ab5d3e]

    Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
    Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
    Mat 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
    Mat 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
    Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
    Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
    Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
    Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
    Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, [b:64c4ab5d3e]both bad and good[/b:64c4ab5d3e]: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
    Mat 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
    Mat 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
    Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    Mat 22:14 [b:64c4ab5d3e]For many are called, but few are chosen.[/b:64c4ab5d3e]


    This parable as well as the wedding parable means something. It is a description of the kingdom; good and bad are in it. The net is the outward call; those whom respond (even today) are mixed. "Many are called, but few are they You have obviusly agreed with this notion. Your treatment of Judas as an apostle, as a disciple will assuredly frustrate your present position; it must. The conclusion will support the idea that unbelievers are included in the covenant, that disciples are baptized, that disciples do not necessarily have to be regenerate or converted and that it is quite possible that Judas ate the meal; hence concluding that there are unbelievers sitting at our tables.

    Please see commentary from: Poole, Henry, JFB, and Gill. They all agree that this net is likened to the outward call; the gospel.
     
  4. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    Great post Philip A.

    As for the discussion, pardon my tiredness, but I think I got lost.....

    what is the point?

    If it is to say that there are people in our churches that are reprobates (and therefore not members of the invisible church) then yes, we all agree.

    If it is to say that the Bible is teaching that the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, is comprised of both the saved and lost then I believe that the point of the parable has been missed.

    These parables cannot be taken to say as a matter of doctrinal fact that there are lost people who are subjects and citizens of the kingdom of God or Members of His Bride. He never [i:4469f33aca]knew[/i:4469f33aca] them no matter what affiliation they may invalidly claim.

    Phillip
     
  5. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    Hi PastorWay.

    Brother Scott, I mean no disrespect, but it seems that you're straining gnats my friend. I honestly don't care how we define Judas. He was a disciple, or at least an avowed disciple.

    This does not make or break your claim though. It simply doesn't matter. And just as a side note, this is not "theology proper" (the study of God).

    I've read Gill, JFB and Henry and others regarding this passage (I missed Poole). My position on Judas has no effect on my understanding of this parable, at least as far as I can tell. Of course there are unbelievers amongst us. The point is that they are not in the kingdom. The disciples who forsook Jesus simply were not true disciples.

    Scott, you have so many didactic passages to confront in order to prove your claim, yet you are hanging on an analogous interpretation of an analogy, if I can say it that way. We have to use Scripture to bolster our claims. Commentaries are a good check, but if our conclusions contradict Scripture then we must rethink our position.

    We can stop here if you'd like. I just can't see us getting any further. From my perspective your claims regarding the kingdom stretch the meaning too far for my comfort. It's merely plausible, but not proveable. I've shown from didactic passages that being "in Christ" is synonymous with being saved. Yet you have not dealt with these passages and continue to lean on a parable for your doctrinal position.

    I can't see how it could be possible that unbelievers could be in the New Covenant. Jesus calls His own and they recognize Him. The kingdom gathers all people, however this does not mean that all people are in the kingdom. They are gathered for judgment.

    If more than believers are in the NC, then where can you draw the line? Is it simply those who respond favorably to the Gospel? On what do you base this line? What Scripture do you use to support where the cuttoff is between those who are bad fish and those who were never in the net? I'm all ears if it's there. But I just can't make that connection.[quote:4f1c888c51]I am interested in how the credo-Baptist interprets this passage. I never noticed this as clearly as I do now?[/quote:4f1c888c51]Please show me the clarity.

    Your Brother,
    Joe
     
  6. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:8f547cd238]I honestly don't care how we define Judas. He was a disciple.....

    I am interested in how the credo-Baptist interprets this passage. I never noticed this as clearly as I do now?

    Please show me the clarity. [/quote:8f547cd238]

    So, discipleship does not equal regeneration? Looks like you are seeing much clearer now!

    Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him [b:8f547cd238]his twelve disciples[/b:8f547cd238], he [i:8f547cd238]gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease[/i:8f547cd238].


    You cannot deny it, the scriptures show that an unregenerate was a disciple, a apostle and that the miracles performed were under the power given them by Christ, not satan.
     
  7. Philip A

    Philip A Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:bd784868dd="Scott Bushey"]It is a description of the kingdom; good and bad are in it.[/quote:bd784868dd]

    In what sense are they in it, Scott? It seems as though you have ignored my post on the sense intended by the passage. It hardly seems credible to state that this passage "has been avoided", that no one on "your side of the issue" has "adequately dealt" with it, and then turn around and ignore the actual explanation of the passage that you yourself solicited.

    [quote:bd784868dd]Your treatment of Judas as an apostle, as a disciple will assuredly frustrate your present position; it must.[/quote:bd784868dd]

    Why must it? Not merely by the force of your assertion. It must in order for your own presuppositions to stand.

    [quote:bd784868dd]The conclusion will support the idea that unbelievers are included in the covenant[/quote:bd784868dd]

    Another [i:bd784868dd]non sequitur[/i:bd784868dd]. Sorry, but I just don't see a bridge from here to there, and your bare assertion doesn't build it for me. Why must this necessarily follow?

    [quote:bd784868dd]You cannot deny it, the scriptures show that an unregenerate was a disciple, a apostle and that the miracles performed were under the power given them by Christ, not satan.[/quote:bd784868dd]

    I wouldn't deny it for a moment, but what does it prove, and how?
     
  8. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Phillip,
    If you wouldn't deny it for a moment, you tell me; what does it imply, that there is no consistancy in what I pose. I get it, it's just a strawman i've constructed.
     
  9. Philip A

    Philip A Puritan Board Sophomore

    Scott,

    I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, pardon me if it came across that way.

    I merely meant to point out that you've not provided any of us with a bridge to get from Judas being an apostle to unbeleivers being in the covenant. I'm pretty sure I know how you yourself get there, but it would be best for me not to assume that in this discussion.

    Whether or not your statements are consistent with one another within the sphere of your presuppositional framework is not what I'm addressing.
     
  10. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Sorry Phillip,
    What is it you need in that regard?
     
  11. Philip A

    Philip A Puritan Board Sophomore

    How does the fact that Judas was a disciple, an Apostle, and one by whom the Spirit worked miracles, prove that there are unregenerate in the covenant, thereby frustrating the baptist position?
     
  12. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Every covenant of the bible had unregenerates; in covenant with God.
    Why are there warning passages in the NT unless the covenant can't be broken. What covenant was Judas in?
     
  13. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    Just as a note on "covenant" with Judas.

    We know he was not part of the OT adminsitration - that ended with John the Baptist.

    We know that Christ's commission in the NT, under the continuace of the Covenant of Grace was to make "disciples."

    Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make [b:b900764096]disciples [/b:b900764096]of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

    We know Judas was a disciple/apostle.

    Matthew 10:4 "and [b:b900764096]Judas Iscariot[/b:b900764096], who also betrayed Him. "

    Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the [b:b900764096]disciples [/b:b900764096]and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

    So, I think we can easily say that the covenatn by which Judas was a disciple (even a professing "beleiver" at that! - for a time) was the Covenant under Christ's fulfillment.

    The moment of the incarnation marks the inauguration of the COvenant Fulfillment of the Abrhamic Covenant and promise in Christ:

    In Mary's song of praise to God for the Messiah coming she says, Luke 1:55 As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his seed forever."

    Zechariah also says, "Luke 1:73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham."

    Even Christ equated the works of Abraham to works done before Him, John 8:39 "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham."

    And we certainly know that Melchizedek's priesthood, which is Christ's, is highlighted all through Hebrews as Christ's fulifllment as Priest.

    So I think it is rather easy to show that Judas was under the New Covenant, but a covenant breaker (Hebrews 6:1-6; 10:29; 1 Tim 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 4:10; 1 Tim. 5:15) In fact, the Son of Perdition, that the Scriptures would be fulfilled.

    [/b]
     
  14. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    Howdy Matthew!

    Can either you or Scott give us a short and precise definition of what it means to be in the New Covenenant?

    Thanks
    Joe
     
  15. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

  16. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    Thank you Scott.

    I enjoyed reading through it. Here's a sample:[quote:101a2eb4ec]Question 37

    Q: Does the Gospel then teach that all are in the Covenant of Grace?
    A: It certainly calls all to this covenant, but no one becomes a member of it except those who accept and keep it, that is, those who by true faith receive Christ, who has been offered to them, and his blessings.[/quote:101a2eb4ec]Do you realize that all of the answers to the questions in this describe someone who is genuinely saved?

    I agree with the definition stated whole heartedly.
     
  17. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Joe,
    You state:

    [quote:fdbb67601c]Do you realize that all of the answers to the questions in this describe someone who is genuinely saved?[/quote:fdbb67601c]

    Yes. Ursinus is describing the elect and the covenant of redemption. What I have been fighting for is the covenant of grace; which includes the elect and unregenerate.

    Was Esau in the covenant? Was Ishmael? Was Judas? Yes, the covenant of grace.

    The warning passages are in scripture because people do fall away from the covenant of Grace; Not from the C.O.R. (we know they can't).

    I will quote Matt:
    " people cannot fall away, but they can break the covenant and show themselves to be Apostate like Esau. They can transgress and break the covenant, and then the curses follow. They can break the Covenant of Grace, but never the Covenant of Redemption. "

    Joe,
    Here's a thread on the C.O.G............

    http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3049&highlight=covenant+grace
     
  18. Philip A

    Philip A Puritan Board Sophomore

    Scott,

    Before we go down this rabbit trail and depart entirely from the original topic of this thread, could you deal with the answer that you explicitly asked for? Until you do so, none of your arguments and objections based on these passages can stand. Let me repeat myself:

    "It seems as though you have ignored my post on the sense intended by the passage. It hardly seems credible to state that this passage "has been avoided", that no one on "your side of the issue" has "adequately dealt" with it, and then turn around and ignore the actual explanation of the passage that you yourself solicited."
     
  19. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Philip,
    Just for the record, after re-reading your earlier post [where you quote Owen], I have no qualms with that which you pose. I don't see any conflict with what the paedo ascibes to and that which you have stated. However, are you not technically misusing Owens quote in that the 'sense' he is utilizing this rationale is based upon that which you and I are struggling; that being those whom are in the covenant of grace; the non-elect, and the elect who are in the covenant of redemption? So, along with Owen, it is in this [i:02650118b6]sense[/i:02650118b6] that I understand these passages. But truthfully, you cannot say that this is the 'sense' that you agree. In the sense you have utilized Owen (including Pastorway (in his agreeing with your post) and Wanaabee, quoting another reformed person in Hendriksen), have you not made Owen a credo Baptist in his theology or in the least, misunderstood his position, because obviously, his position in diametrically different.

    Based upon Owens theology, I still stand upon my proposition that the net is the gospel, the fish in the net are the members of the covenant of grace, and the final cleaning out of the bad fish are those removed from the final covenant of redemption, i.e. the elect. In regards to Matt 15 and the vine; the vine is the gospel/ the word, the branches are the members of the C.O.G and those cut away in the end are those whom are not members of the C.O.R.


    If you are referring to the 'frustration' I spoke of, I intend to direct that frustration towards the fact that the credo believes that the new covenant is made up of the elect only and that discipleship equates with regeneration. Is this clearer? Uh, it's not a rabbit trail by the way....
     
  20. Philip A

    Philip A Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:3ac340080e="Scott Bushey"]
    Just for the record, after re-reading your earlier post [where you quote Owen], I have no qualms with that which you pose.[/quote:3ac340080e]
    So you agree that the passages cited deal with persons appearing to be in the kingdom and in Christ, who are not truly so? That was the main point that I was making.
    [quote:3ac340080e]I don't see any conflict with what the paedo ascibes to and that which you have stated.[/quote:3ac340080e]
    That is entirely true. My interpretation is no threat to the paedobaptist, because it is transparent to views of both baptism and covenant inclusion. All it does is take away from the paedobaptist the ability to argue for non-elect in the CoG from these particular passages. It takes them "out of play" so to speak. It requires that you make your point on other grounds.
    [quote:3ac340080e]However, are you not technically misusing Owens quote in that the 'sense' he is utilizing this rationale is based upon that which you and I are struggling; that being those whom are in the covenant of grace; the non-elect and the elect who are in the covenant of redemption?[/quote:3ac340080e]
    Owen is arguing that the scripture speaks of those who appear to have been bought by Christ, but are not truly so. I was making a parallel observation that the scripture also speaks of those who appear to be "in the kingdom" and "in Christ", but they are not truly so. I certainly was not claiming Owen in my camp, just using his example to prove that scripture does actually speak in different senses other than the true and absolute sense.
    [quote:3ac340080e]I intend to direct that frustration towards the fact that the credo believes that the new covenant is made up of the elect only.... Is this clearer?[/quote:3ac340080e]
    Absolutely. My point was that you cannot do so from these passages. As I said above, you must prove your argument on different grounds.
    [quote:3ac340080e]and that discipleship equates with regeneration[/quote:3ac340080e]
    Who would ever say such a thing? I don't know of any confessional Reformed Baptists who would say actually agree to this. Perhaps it could be attributed to sloppy writing, but no cRB in his right mind would intentionally make such a statement.
    [quote:3ac340080e]it's not a rabbit trail by the way[/quote:3ac340080e]
    It is a natural progression along the lines of your arguments, but not particularly applicable to the passage we are discussing, if my points above are correct.
     
  21. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:c6a06a5d52]
    So you agree that the passages cited deal with persons appearing to be in the kingdom and in Christ, who are not truly so? [/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    No, I along with Owen et. al. acknowledge that these people are covenant people and in covenant with God. Just because ultimately, during the final judgment they are shown to be not in the C. O. R., does
    not make them any less in covenant with God. Also, Just because Owen doesn't qualify his every statement along the lines of the C. O. G. doesn't mean he has abandoned the doctrine when he speaks along the lines you are referencing. As I have stated, these people are in covenant with God, externally. Nonetheless, in covenant and as I mentioned in my last post, 'in the kingdom'.

    [quote:c6a06a5d52]That is entirely true. My interpretation is no threat to the paedobaptist, because it is transparent to views of both baptism and covenant inclusion.[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    That is incorrect; it is not transparent. The defining of this passage must be interpretted through the lens of CT, else you end up with the idea that the C.O.G. has no meaning; it dismantles the covenant under that guise that the external members of the covenant are no more in covenant with God than the heathen, and this is just not the case. So, for you to interpret it this way shows one of two things. Either you do not understand the true nature of the covenant or you are redefining it.

    [quote:c6a06a5d52]All it does is take away from the paedobaptist the ability to argue for non-elect in the CoG from these particular passages. It takes them "out of play" so to speak.[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    Again, Baptistic thinking and your musunderstanding of the covenant. Owen is describing the C. O. R.


    [quote:c6a06a5d52]
    Owen is arguing that the scripture speaks of those who appear to have been bought by Christ, but are not truly so. I was making a parallel observation that the scripture also speaks of those who appear to be "in the kingdom" and "in Christ", but they are not truly so. [/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    Philip,
    Your interpretation, which is not in harmony with the thinking of CT. Keep in mind, these passages are describing end time events, i.e. the seperating of the bad from the good. Prior to this event, the C. O.G and the C. O. R. co-exist; both are in covenant with God, i.e Noah's son Ham.

    [quote:c6a06a5d52]I certainly was not claiming Owen in my camp, just using his example to prove that scripture does actually speak in different senses other than the true and absolute sense.
    [/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    Again, true or absolute, without utilizing Owen's quote in the same respect Owen intends is taking him out of context. Foundated in this statement are the truths of the C. O. G.

    [quote:c6a06a5d52]
    Who would ever say such a thing (that discipleship equates with regeneration)? I don't know of any confessional Reformed Baptists who would say actually agree to this. Perhaps it could be attributed to sloppy writing, but no cRB in his right mind would intentionally make such a statement.
    [/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    Most credo respondees to this question say that regeneration and discipleship go hand in hand.

    [quote:c6a06a5d52]
    It is a natural progression along the lines of your arguments, but not particularly applicable to the passage we are discussing, if my points above are correct.[/quote:c6a06a5d52]

    Based upon the fact that you have removed the C.O. G from the scope of this passage, a covenant Jesus Himself embraced, your points are incorrect.
     
  22. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    Disciple simply means to student or follower. It does not denote any sense of salvation. This really proves nothing.

    This thread is getting more convoluted. Simple question asked[quote:6d7e628d28]Can either you (Matthew) or Scott give us a short and precise definition of what it means to be in the New Covenenant?[/quote:6d7e628d28]Was replied to with a link describing true believers.

    Your reply to this observation seems somewhat evasive Scott. I'm sure you meant well, but if you don't want to use the link you first gave, please give me the definition I've asked for. Your other link involves hours of work to get through. Just a clear, concise definition if you can, please.

    Thank you
    Joe
     
  23. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Joe,
    It's your right if you want to discontinue. No one is hog tying you to this discussion. :rant: I've asked plenty of questions of you and you have not answered any of them? For instance: 5 posts back I asked you, "Was Esau, Ishmael, Judas in a covenant? You never answered. 10 posts back I asked you, "Every covenant of the bible had unregenerates; in covenant with God. Why are there warning passages in the NT unless the covenant can't be broken. What covenant was Judas in?" No answer! You asked me for a simple explanation of the New Covenant; I provided Ursinus' rendering and an additional link Matt wrote. Matt piped in; Did you read what He he posted Joe?
    Who said I didn't want to use the link I provided? Ursinus is an excellent example. However, the problem you face is that [b:d88d30c3a7]if[/b:d88d30c3a7] you understood covenant theology, you would know what exactly Ursinus was referring; which is the covenant of redemption; which is made up of the elect only. I will repeat this: The covenant of grace (a real covenant, instituted by God, sealed in blood), which co-exists alongside the covenant of redemption, has the elect and non elect in it. So, you see, the fish, the wedding participants, the branches which are cut off, they are all in the covenant and are receiving covenant blessings, blessings that the Egyptians (heathens) do not receive. This rendering reconsiles all the mentionings of 'good and bad' people, fish, branches.

    The whole point of this thread was to exegete the parables accurately which comfortably reflects this fact. I've addressed every piece of scripture. I've given analogy that fits. [i:d88d30c3a7]Your[/i:d88d30c3a7] charge of evasion and convolution is in fact ad hom and also evasive. I have adequately proven that the covenant has non believers in it as well as proven that you and Philip have used Owen and Hendriksen erroneously and out of context by quoting him and using his quote in a baptistic fashion. You know it (now) and so does everyone else who has been following this thread. You have nothing left to add because there is nothing left to add. I suggest you re-read the thread, especially my last couple of posts.

    Let me ask you finally, was the ark a type of Christ? Was Ham in the Ark? Was Ham elect? What did the covenant provide Ham? How about this; it saved his life. The common grace of the external covenant saved the unregenerate, non elect Ham's life, for Gods glory.
     
  24. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Scott,

    I think you mis-spoke. The covenant of grace does not have any non-elect in it. The external aspect of the covenant of grace - including the new covenant, do.

    Not Ursinus' comment from your link:

    [quote:f89e56b6b4]Question 37

    Q: Does the Gospel then teach that all are in the Covenant of Grace?
    A: It certainly calls all to this covenant, but [b:f89e56b6b4]no one becomes a member of it except those who accept and keep it, that is, those who by true faith receive Christ[/b:f89e56b6b4], who has been offered to them, and his blessings.[/quote:f89e56b6b4]

    This does not affect the new covenant, but it does bear on the covenant of grace
     
  25. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Fred,
    What then is the difference between the COG and the COR? Are you making a conscious decision to follow the WCF as they are following Turretin? Have you read Matt's paper on the COG and how Turretin divides it?
     
  26. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    Fred,

    Scott is right in asking this question above.

    Are you talking about the CoG in terms of Predestination, or the Cog in terms of the visible external covenant community in that SAME covenant?

    Remember, Westminster followed Turretin, and Ursinus gives the same information as Turretin does. They divided the CoG into two sections:

    1) The Cog as it related to Christ's service (i.e. presdestination based on the work of Christ - i.e. Chapter 3 in the WCF) and...

    2) The CoG as it appears in time with men (i.e. WCF chapter 7.) The covenant community of "believers" rounding up both beleivers, and thier children, and the covenant beleiver, or Gospel Hypocrite.

    The Reformation, during that time, made this distiction across the board. Today it is not "distinguished" in this way and results in confusion.

    Teh Sum of Saving Knowledge (of the Westminster Standards) bears this out quite nicely in applying practically the WCF. it explains both the CoR there AND the CoG and how they work together. In other words, they followed Turretin's outline and distinction for the WCF (which is why there is a chapter 3 and a seperate chapter7), and then followed the same teachings of Cocceius (who taught Witsius, who would publish his works later).
     
  27. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    I'll quote you Matt:

    "The Covenant of Redemption is a pact or agreement between the Father and Son. The Covenant of Grace is the outworking of the fruit of the Covenant of Redemption in time by the application of the Holy Spirit on the church. The Covenant of Grace is not coextensive with salvation necessarily. The elect in that covenant are certainly saved, however, the external administration of the Covenant of Grace allows for the gospel hypocrite to seal the maledictions of the covenant to himself since he openly professes Christ, and covenants with God, but is devoid of saving grace."


    Taken from: Francis Turretin"(tm)s View Of The Covenant Of Grace And Its Distinctions, With Critical Notes Following

    By C. Matthew McMahon


    http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm
     
  28. Philip A

    Philip A Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:e31317c5e0="Scott Bushey"]

    The defining of this passage must be interpretted through the lens of CT....

    Again, Baptistic thinking....

    Your interpretation, which is not in harmony with the thinking of CT....[/quote:e31317c5e0]
    Since all of your arguments simply reduce to silliness, i.e. "you're a baptist, so you're just wrong", I'll take that as a sign that you don't have any arguments of substance left. The only way for me to see things you're way is to take on you're presuppositions, but the problem is that you've given me nothing but circular reasoning; you've failed to provide me any kind of entry point into your presuppositional construct.
    [quote:e31317c5e0]Most credo respondees to this question say that regeneration and discipleship go hand in hand.[/quote:e31317c5e0]
    I'll leave you alone with your straw men then, and take this opportunity to get off the circle.
     
  29. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:fcdf63ab5c="Philip A"][quote:fcdf63ab5c="Scott Bushey"]

    The defining of this passage must be interpretted through the lens of CT....

    Again, Baptistic thinking....

    Your interpretation, which is not in harmony with the thinking of CT....[/quote:fcdf63ab5c]
    Since all of your arguments simply reduce to silliness, i.e. "you're a baptist, so you're just wrong", I'll take that as a sign that you don't have any arguments of substance left. The only way for me to see things you're way is to take on you're presuppositions, but the problem is that you've given me nothing but circular reasoning; you've failed to provide me any kind of entry point into your presuppositional construct.
    [quote:fcdf63ab5c]Most credo respondees to this question say that regeneration and discipleship go hand in hand.[/quote:fcdf63ab5c]
    I'll leave you alone with your straw men then, and take this opportunity to get off the circle.[/quote:fcdf63ab5c]

    These passages are examples of the COR and COG. If the new covenant cannot be broken Philip, please explain to me why there are warning passages in the new testament?

    You say my arguments are silly; I'll take that as a compliment because I am in good company as the historical orthodox, i.e the WCF and most all of the reformers agree with me.

    I never said that you are wrong [i:fcdf63ab5c]because[/i:fcdf63ab5c] you are a credo, I did however point to your misunderstanding of CT as a disadvantage in fully understanding this passage in the light it was intended. As far as [i:fcdf63ab5c]substance[/i:fcdf63ab5c] is concerned, it can be found above in my previous posts.

    Presuppositions? Everyone has presuppositions. If you are implying that my theology is based uopon presuppositions alone, I disagree. Was Owen's theology based upon presuppositions? Turretin? Calvin?

    Entry point? The Covenant! God is a covenant keeping God. There have been unregenerates in every covenant in the bible. Here's youre starting point. These passages must be seen along these lines. If they are not seen through the God of the covenants, disharmony is the result.

    Straw man? Strike a match, I promise, it will not burn!
     
  30. VanVos

    VanVos Puritan Board Sophomore

    Personally, as credo-baptist, I would interpret alot of these parables preteristically (in the partial sense of course). This could be speaking of the transition period of the passing away of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 Matt 24:1-36 Heb 8:13, Matt 21:43, Matt 8:11-12 etc. These verses are in reference to the judgment that came upon the Old Covenant community. There are plenty of verses that speak of the final judgment at the end of world Rev 20:7-12, John 5:28-30, 1 Cor 15:23-28 etc But I don't think that what we have here. To me, this is best way explain these verses, although I am open to correction here, by both credo and paedo baptist alike.

    VanVos
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page