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?

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

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?

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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]

__________________
C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D.
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.com, www.apuritansmind.com and www.puritanpublications.com
Member - Christ Presbyterian Church, Professor at WTS for Puritan History & Theology.

Suggested Tag: "I'm not user friendly."

Life Maxim: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Like Card Magic? Check out: www.cardconjurer.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

Joe,
Here is Z. Ursinus' interpretation:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism...usCovenant.htm

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

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/vi...covenant+grace

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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."

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

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....

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

[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.

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

[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 judgement 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.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

Joe,
It's your right if you want to discontinue. No one is hog tying you to this discussion. 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.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

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?

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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).

__________________
C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D.
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.com, www.apuritansmind.com and www.puritanpublications.com
Member - Christ Presbyterian Church, Professor at WTS for Puritan History & Theology.

Suggested Tag: "I'm not user friendly."

Life Maxim: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Like Card Magic? Check out: www.cardconjurer.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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...tsTurretin.htm

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

[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.

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

[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!

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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 Judgement that came upon the Old Covenant community. There are plenty of verses that speak of the final judgement 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

__________________
Rev Jonathan James Goundry
*Calvinist @ Heart
Missionary with International Christian Institute www.iciministry.org
www.fide-o.com
www.vanvos.blogspot.com
www.unchainedradio.com