The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Optimus · #17 (**permalink**) 04-06-2004, 12:07 PM

Melissa,

I've got to admit that i have not seen any reasons to call Paul "King of Red Herrings". In my eyes, he answered your initial question, first asked by Reena Wilms:

"Can someone give me please verses in the New Testament were it is written that there are covenant breakers in the new covenant?"

Paul answered by saying:

""""Several passages teach that there are people set apart in the new covenant (without the full blessings of salvation), who yet fall away. Thus there are unregenerate new covenant members. For example, Hebrews 10:29-30:
• Heb 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Objection: Hebrews 10:29 is a disputed passage. It is an unsafe procedure to use a disputed text to establish a matter (like, there are unregenerate new covenant members).(47)
A simple, but probably unpersuasive response might be, "OK, I'll use Hebrews 6:4-8."
• Heb 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
An objection would likely follow: "But Hebrews 6:4-8 is a disputed passage and it is an unsafe procedure to use a disputed text to establish a matter (like, there are unregenerate new covenant members). So I could say, "OK, I'll use John 15:2-6."
• "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit. 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
An objection would likely follow: "But John 15:2-6 is a disputed passage and it is an unsafe procedure to use a disputed text to establish a matter (like, there are unregenerate new covenant members). So I could say, "OK, I'll use Galatians 5:4."
• You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Of course, after a while, it becomes apparent that the objector has a position on the covenant, a priori, that no biblical text may revise. Hence it follows that such a position is not a fully biblical position since it does not take into consideration all that the Bible has to teach on the subject.
In effect the objector is requiring an unbearable burden of proof on the one who holds that there can be apostasy from the new covenant. The objector is really saying, "You have to prove apostasy from the new covenant without depending on a disputed passage, and by the way all the apostasy passages are disputed." So one is left with the insurmountable task of proving new covenant apostasy without being able to use any passage which speaks of apostasy.
More than that, the objector does not permit the use of the Old Testament texts which teach covenant apostasy because allegedly "that's the difference between the previous covenant and the new covenant." So one is not permitted to appeal to the Old Testament nor the New Testament apostasy passages in order to prove covenant apostasy.
Remember, the precise dispute on such apostasy passages is not the question of covenant membership anyway--the issue relevant to the present study--but rather, the question of perseverance of the saints and the Calvinistic/Arminian debate. It seems to me that accepting a view of the new covenant which permits unregenerate membership (whether from a baptistic or paedobaptistic perspective) actually alleviates a great deal of Calvinistic stress. One can then see the legal, external, and obligatory connection to the new covenant, yet not have to maintain that such apostates are converted and afterward lose their salvation.
Objection: Unregenerate people can be "in the covenant" because men put them "in the covenant" but God has not put them "in the covenant."
This is an equivocation regarding the phrase "in the covenant." If those words mean the very same thing, when men do it or when God does it, then the unregenerate person who is "in the covenant" is simply "in the covenant."
In the specific case regarding Hebrews 10:29, the terms are perfectly consistent with the concept of the visible church being covenantally set apart, i.e., "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" (Exo 24:8, Mat 26:28, Heb 9:19-20, 12:24). God sets His people apart with the sacramental blood (in the Old Testament) which prefigured the blood of the cross and which is sacramentally present in communion (Mat 26:26ff).
As has been demonstrated, God's covenants with men have visible signs and when one receives the duly administered entrance sign, such a person is counted as "in the covenant."
Thus men should regard those that receive the sign of the covenant as "in the covenant."
It is the conclusion of previous argumentation that God has put the children of believers in covenant union with him."""

Then, you came out from left field with this:

"Paul, with all due respect, where am I commanded to have the babies in my family baptized? Under the old covenant, Jews were commanded to have the males circ'd on the 8th day. (I still don't understand why doctors circ boys when they're 2 days old. It's probably a bad idea.) But could you give me Scriptures that command me to have my babies baptized into the new covenant? I have nothing against paedo's. I'm just wondering why you are so dogmatic about it.
Bee"

You do the math.

I dont want to cause a fight, or join one, I just wanted to point this out from a third person point of view. Hope this helps.

God Bless