Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes. Romans 9:4.
Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 question
- Thread starter VaughanRSmith
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Romans 9:4.
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
When Christ spoke of dividing households, He wasn't commenting on 'the household principle' or, as Mr. Bombadil said, the covenantal status of children.
He was giving clues as to Who He was, the Almighty:
Gen 3:15. "...and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children...."
..pain not only in bearing children but in raising them as well, with grandchildren.
He was giving clues as to Who He was, the Almighty:
Gen 3:15. "...and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children...."
..pain not only in bearing children but in raising them as well, with grandchildren.
Last edited:
B.J.
Puritan Board Freshman
One thing is for sure.......
If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the author of disobedient children and family turmoil.
He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion. How far do we really want to take this?
Vaughn,
I think you've sensed the difficulty in interacting on this subject. Unless everybody is forced to stay on the original question then it's never really interacted with as has been the case in this thread.
Whether or not Jesus meant to communicate a doctrine of dividing families in His parabolic statements is a discussion in itself (in the same way He told us we had to hate our families).
But it's not germane to what Gene was arguing.
He argued from Jeremiah 31 and stated that it teaches against paedobaptism due to its teaching on an unbreakable Covenant.
What I found ironic is that Gene accuses paedobaptists of not interacting with the passage but he doesn't interact with the idea that "...nobody will teach his neighbor...." What precisely is the role of a Pastor in such a scheme? I've been under the impression that Pastor Gene had a teaching ministry after all. Even he's going to have to interact with whether or not, prima facia, every aspect of that prophecy is true.
Further, I would add that it is typical of the strange method in which Baptists build a theology of the Covenant by working primarily from prophecy of the Old Testament and Historical Narrative. All other principle doctrines are developed from didactic passages.
Lastly, I am perfectly willing to grant what he wants us to grant for the sake of argument. Let me grant his point that the Covenant is perfect and consists only of the elect.
It still doesn't provide for a basis to refute infant baptism. It doesn't provide for a basis for any baptism.
Why?
Because the identity of those in the New Covenant is unknown to us in such a case.
Why?
Because the New Covenant consists of the Elect alone - the invisible Church.
An invisible thing is not seen or comprehended by us.
Which is why, in the final analysis, Baptists like to begin with this "perfect Covenant" paradigm and then pretend as if it's the basis for a believer's baptism. They believe they can move from claiming an elect membership to an actual act of baptism.
They cannot.
They move to profession at this point and then do a hand motion to distract us from the fact that probability of election is not election. They acknowledge they baptize false professors. In fact, they even acknowledge that nearly 100% of the kids that grow up in their Church are baptized at some point.
So then they say: "Yeah but just because we baptized them didn't make them a part of the New Covenant. They're just a part of the Church, which is visible but does not correspond to the New Covenant."
Thus, they're arguing, using the New Covenant, to argue for a rite that does not join a person to the New Covenant.
So we see that New Covenant perfection does not form the basis for a single baptism and baptism does not join a person to the New Covenant.
And Pastor Gene wants us to explain how we can baptize infants in light of Jeremiah 31.
What? According to Baptist theology, what does baptism have to do with New Covenant membership?
{Incidentally, I don't really think how a Jew might have understood it is germane by the way.}
Answerman
Puritan Board Sophomore
Jeff Niell has a 3-part lecture series on this very issue. It has been a while since I have listened to them but I remember that he discusses many of the baptistic arguments using this passage. Therefore I recommend these for both paedo and credo baptists.
Here is a link to the lectures:
http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?speaker=Niell
Here is a link to the lectures:
http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?speaker=Niell
Non Dignus made a direct reply to the OP from a Presbyterian standpoint. I did the same from my baptist view. The thread quickly devolved, but the OP has been addressed from both sides.
It does not say that no one will teach his neighbor; it says no one will teach his neighbor to "Know the Lord." Gene does not teach his church members to know the Lord. He teaches them to know Him better.
Is there an example in an epistle where the author implores a member of the church to "know the Lord"? I cannot think of one. It simply is not the role of a church shepherd to do so.
Last edited:
Yes you did. I re-read his OP. I believe you haven't done any better than Gene did in establishing it as an argument for believer's only baptism as I indicate above.
As opposed to those pesky Old Covenant days when people who knew the Lord knew who didn't know the Lord and knew to tell them to "know the Lord!" Now we know who knows the Lord and who doesn't know so we don't have to tell our neighbors to know. You know?
So, based on the above assertion, how do you know who knows the Lord and who doesn't? Does the Pastor not teach anyone to know the Lord in the Church because he knows they already know the Lord? Is your conclusion, then, that all members of the Church are elect?
If not, then who, by name, in your Church does the passage above apply to? Who does it not? I really need some names for your conclusion to follow.
Finally, you did not interact with the remainder of my charge that you cannot move from an elect NC membership to a baptism that does not join a person to the New Covenant.
That is way too much to chew alongside this other stuff. In another thread while there aren't already 5 topics on the table, I'd be glad to do so.
Yes, as opposed to those days, when visible covenant membership did not automatically mean treating one's neighbor as elect. Which is exactly what the text says..."No longer will a man teach his neighbor...."
I don't.
Right conclusion, different reasoning. No, he doesn't teach anyone in the visible church to know the Lord. But not because he knows they already know him...but because their presence in the visible church implies they have already professed saving knowledge of the Lord. He then treats these people as elect, addressing them as saints and holy ones. And as such, not telling them to "repent and believe."
No, but all members of the visible church are treated as if they are.
I confess I don't understand this question. The passage describes all of us, not just pastors. No one in the visible Church implores another to Know the Lord - it's not just a restriction on shepherds. We all treat each other as regenerates.
Last edited:
But that's not what is argued for by Baptists. You're not claiming simply a visible membership but an elect membership in the New Covenant.
Are you telling me that your Pastor never preaches the Gospel? Do the words "...know the Lord..." have to be uttered for this to apply? This is an awfully wooden application to a piece of prophecy that you're using to assume that a man knows the Lord. What is the Gospel call other than a plea to "...know the Lord..."?
Presumptive election, eh? You and Don really need to talk.
Except your children right? Let me get this straight so I'm understanding you correctly: you don't believe the Gospel call is appropriate for Baptized members anymore because you have to treat them as if they "know the Lord". Do I have this correct?
Not to people who are already professed believers. Do you send a missionary with gospel tracts to a ministers' conference? (ok, for some denominations that may be appropriate). In discipleship with my future wife, should I implore her to confess Christ as Lord, in the same way I would an unbeliever?
Definitely not...any communication with the intent - "This is what you must do to be saved" would qualify.
That's exactly what it is.
This is not presumptive election. It is not doubting a person's profession until I have specific, actionable reason to doubt it. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the point you were trying to make with Don in another thread.
Yes. I don't "preach the gospel" to professed believers, whose confession I have no reason to doubt.
Last edited:
Jeremy,
I don't know if you realize this but you had to accept paedobaptist premises to make the argument that you made. I'll leave aside the discussion of whether the Gospel is not for believers (Wow! I hope the rest of you are as concerned as I am about that).
How have you accepted paedobaptist premises?
Because you claim that Jeremiah 31 is describing the visible Church and not the Elect alone.
The Baptist position is that it is describing the elect alone. The passage does not describe a possible or presumed election (according to your premises) but an actual election.
I'll interact with a Baptist on this but not a Baptist borrowing capital from my worldview to avoid the problems of concluding that Jeremiah 31 only applies to the elect.
If you want to argue like a Baptist again then please interact with the questions on Baptistic and not Paedobaptist premises.
I don't know if you realize this but you had to accept paedobaptist premises to make the argument that you made. I'll leave aside the discussion of whether the Gospel is not for believers (Wow! I hope the rest of you are as concerned as I am about that).
How have you accepted paedobaptist premises?
Because you claim that Jeremiah 31 is describing the visible Church and not the Elect alone.
The Baptist position is that it is describing the elect alone. The passage does not describe a possible or presumed election (according to your premises) but an actual election.
I'll interact with a Baptist on this but not a Baptist borrowing capital from my worldview to avoid the problems of concluding that Jeremiah 31 only applies to the elect.
If you want to argue like a Baptist again then please interact with the questions on Baptistic and not Paedobaptist premises.
Incidentally.
Presumptive election=not doubting a person's profession until I have specific, actionable reason to doubt it.
You just said:
This is not presumptive election. It is presumptive election.
It is what I was telling Don, which is why I'm glad you pointed it out.
Why is this such a problem? Plenty of "gasp! did he just say that?" But not a reason so far. When was the last time anyone on this board implored another member to "Confess Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of your sins"? Of course no one does that, everyone here treats each other as if they are regenerate. And that is entirely appropriate.
I believe you are conflating two different questions. 1) Why don't NC members preach the gospel to one another, in my view? and 2) Why don't visible church members do that, in my view? Two very different questions.
This passage is describing the elect alone, New Covenant members, and invisible Church members - all of which are synonymous.
So, when the passage says no new covenant members will teach each other to "Know the Lord" - I take that at face value.
Why don't NC members preach the gospel to one another? Because they are all saved. That is answered in this text, and I don't borrow any premises in reaching that conclusion.
But, on the different question that brings us outside of this text, is why, in the visible church, I say members have no reason to preach the gospel to one another.
It is a vastly different question, and I don't go to this text for my answer. My answer on this question lies in the fact that I don't doubt someone's professed salvation until I have valid reason. For that reason alone, I will never doubt a Church member's salvation - and thus never preach the gospel to him. He has made profession.
I apologize for my imprecision. I have only heard PE referred to in the context of the salvation of infants who die in infancy, so I assumed when you said "PE" - you meant the whole ball of wax. I only apply that PE principle to those who have professed. So, yes, I should have been more clear in adding that part - I presume election after confession. TOr equivalently, I presume professions are credible.
Last edited:
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Rich, I would have to say anyone who puts Jer 31 as the visible church is really not understanding the text.
10"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."
So, everyone born into a family with believing parents will recieve this covenant? We know that not to be true, since there are some who, what you would call, "Apostate". Every child you baptise, you are declaring, "God will save you to the uttermost -- obey His Word." Yet, how can an unregenerate person obey God's Word? You are presupposing they are regenerate. Paul even tells us: "14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." So, you would have to change this to, "Anyone who is not born into a family of believing parents are the natural man."
Also, we know that there are many people in the visible church that are unbelievers. So, according to Heb 9:15 Christ "is the mediator of a new covenant." Are you saying that Christ is the mediator for these people as well? Christ told His apostles, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." So, was the blood that Christ shed for the visible church?
You can make light of this all you want Jeremy. You stated that the Gospel is not for presentation to those who already expressed faith in Christ but only for those who haven't expressed it. This is not Reformed. I need to hear the Gospel all the time.
I have to hit the rack so I'll let other's pick up your glaring inconsistency here.
If Jeremiah 31 only applies to the elect and not to false professors in the visible Church then it follows necessarily that it does not apply broadly to the visible Church when it suits an argument. I'm confusing nothing. I'm comfortable with applying the passage to the visible Church because I believe there is a visible and invisible administration of the New Covenant. Baptists do not. Gene even labored to point this out to Mark on the Narrow Mind. He precluded that this passage could apply to the visible Church but that it applies to the New Covenant alone. That's because Gene is consistent in his Baptistic Covenant Theology.
If the population of Jeremiah 31 is restricted to the elect then you cannot, for convenience or arguments sake, say: "Well I'll apply a passage that I believe doesn't apply to the visible Church to the visible Church because I'm supposed to treat other members of my Church with the judgment of charity."
You have one of two options here:
1. Embrace the truth that the New Covenant includes a visible administration.
2. Retrace your steps and try to argue as a consistent Reformed Baptist.
Your third option of dancing between positions doesn't cut it. I'm not continue to engage an eclectic Baptistic/Paedobaptistic understanding of Jer 31.
Andrew,
Spoken like a true Baptist. You need to keep Jeremy in line.
OK, I've granted this earlier for the sake of argument (internal critique). Read what I challenge you with after that and let's see how you handle moving from the above premises to baptism.
Good night. Happy posting!
B.J.
Puritan Board Freshman
Let me back track to the first page and respond to Jeremy. Jeremy and I were discussing the literal reading of this text:
I said:
Jermey responded by saying:
Then I said:
To which Jeremy said:
Then I went to bed.
Picking up:
Jeremy, good morning.
No, I am not a Baptist anymore. I am being reprogramed as we speak. I know you qouted me, but I was citing James White who used the "literal" interpretation in his debate with Shishko that other Baptist have been using on this thread.
All I was trying to point out was that if one uses a "literal" interpretation of this text than this is the result:
1) If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the author of disobedient children and family turmoil.
2) He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion.
This is another problem for Baptist, who quite frankly, use this text against Paedo's?!?
I was not sure if you wanted to go that far just to argue "literally" against Paedo's.
I said:
Jermey responded by saying:
Then I said:
To which Jeremy said:
Then I went to bed.
Picking up:
Jeremy, good morning.
No, I am not a Baptist anymore. I am being reprogramed as we speak. I know you qouted me, but I was citing James White who used the "literal" interpretation in his debate with Shishko that other Baptist have been using on this thread.
All I was trying to point out was that if one uses a "literal" interpretation of this text than this is the result:
1) If Jesus is saying that households will be divided in a literal sense, He is also saying that He is the author of disobedient children and family turmoil.
2) He is also not the Prince of Peace, but rather rebellion.
This is another problem for Baptist, who quite frankly, use this text against Paedo's?!?
I was not sure if you wanted to go that far just to argue "literally" against Paedo's.non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
Let's talk about 'absolutism'. For example, the NT teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation. True. But at the same time the NT teaches that Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. It takes into account an imperfect administration in an imperfect world.
I think it is the same with membership. The Baptists take 'All will know the Lord' as an absolute. Taken as a regular rule, not as an absolute, Jeremiah 31 describes a covenant community administered in a fallen world. Just as Christ subjected Himself to the curse, the NC is subject.
Unlike the OC, those that show unbelief are excluded in the NC.
I think it is the same with membership. The Baptists take 'All will know the Lord' as an absolute. Taken as a regular rule, not as an absolute, Jeremiah 31 describes a covenant community administered in a fallen world. Just as Christ subjected Himself to the curse, the NC is subject.
Unlike the OC, those that show unbelief are excluded in the NC.
B.J.
Puritan Board Freshman
As for Jeremiah 31.....
Why would the writer of Hebrews say this:
Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged 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 fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?
Why would the writer of Hebrews say this:
Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged 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 fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?
As for Jeremiah 31.....
Why would the writer of Hebrews say this:
Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged 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 fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?
Me too.
Mangum and BJ, thank you guys for hanging on in this thread.
About the Hebrews passage that has brought so many credo's to the dark-side......
I love this text!
V. 30 is huge - and obviously comes from quotes out of the OT, specifically Deut. 32:35-36.
What is Deut. 32 about? It is about the Lord pouring wrath on the enemies of his covenant people, and protecting those he loves from the wicked.
So why would Paul (eh em, *cough*, I mean "the author of Hebrews") use a passage about protecting the covenant people from evil as a warning to the covenant people?
If the author is indeed saying that some of the NC people will be the objects of God's wrath, then the author turns the meaning of Deut. 32 not into something different, but entirely opposite of what it originally meant! A passage that originally promised hope and protection for covenant people, now is quoted to threaten wrath on them?
____________________________________________________________
Read Deut. 32.
Here's 35 and 36 in the NIV:
Here's 35 and 36 in the NASB:
Quite a difference!
Now which makes more sense in the context of the chapter? All of Deut. 32 is about God's protection of Israel, and wrath on enemies. To me, it is clear that in 35, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" - this is a promise to destroy enemies. The objects of wrath are non-covenant members.
In v.36, how much sense does it make that in a text all about hopeful promises to His people, God would promise judgment on them? And then follow that "I will judge (you)...and have compassion on my servants?" In context, there's not place for that rendering. The NASB gets it right. God promises wrath for enemies of the covenant in 35, and compassion and vindication for the covenant people in 36.
I believe the author of Hebrews uses these two verses exactly the same way - that is, true to their original meaning. He declares God's wrath on the enemies of the covenant who "sneak in" to the community of believers as wolves, and trample under foot the Son of God. They are equivalent to the covenant people's enemies in Deut. 32. God will show them no mercy and extra wrath.
But he then quotes v.36 to comfort the true covenant people - in the proper rendering of the NAS - that He will vindicate them from this threat from within. They will not be overrun with such apostates, and God will uphold His church. He will, just as in Deuteronomy, defend His covenant people from invaders.
I believe this passage is very strongly in favor of an entirely-regenerate NC community, not opposed. And, I believe this understanding is far more consistent with the quotation of Deutoronomy, and just plain makes more sense.
*Oh, and I'll respond later on the subject of divided households. I just love talking about this passage and used up the time I had. Sorry!
About the Hebrews passage that has brought so many credo's to the dark-side......
I love this text!
V. 30 is huge - and obviously comes from quotes out of the OT, specifically Deut. 32:35-36.
What is Deut. 32 about? It is about the Lord pouring wrath on the enemies of his covenant people, and protecting those he loves from the wicked.
So why would Paul (eh em, *cough*, I mean "the author of Hebrews") use a passage about protecting the covenant people from evil as a warning to the covenant people?
If the author is indeed saying that some of the NC people will be the objects of God's wrath, then the author turns the meaning of Deut. 32 not into something different, but entirely opposite of what it originally meant! A passage that originally promised hope and protection for covenant people, now is quoted to threaten wrath on them?
____________________________________________________________
Read Deut. 32.
Here's 35 and 36 in the NIV:
Here's 35 and 36 in the NASB:
Quite a difference!
Now which makes more sense in the context of the chapter? All of Deut. 32 is about God's protection of Israel, and wrath on enemies. To me, it is clear that in 35, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" - this is a promise to destroy enemies. The objects of wrath are non-covenant members.
In v.36, how much sense does it make that in a text all about hopeful promises to His people, God would promise judgment on them? And then follow that "I will judge (you)...and have compassion on my servants?" In context, there's not place for that rendering. The NASB gets it right. God promises wrath for enemies of the covenant in 35, and compassion and vindication for the covenant people in 36.
I believe the author of Hebrews uses these two verses exactly the same way - that is, true to their original meaning. He declares God's wrath on the enemies of the covenant who "sneak in" to the community of believers as wolves, and trample under foot the Son of God. They are equivalent to the covenant people's enemies in Deut. 32. God will show them no mercy and extra wrath.
But he then quotes v.36 to comfort the true covenant people - in the proper rendering of the NAS - that He will vindicate them from this threat from within. They will not be overrun with such apostates, and God will uphold His church. He will, just as in Deuteronomy, defend His covenant people from invaders.
I believe this passage is very strongly in favor of an entirely-regenerate NC community, not opposed. And, I believe this understanding is far more consistent with the quotation of Deutoronomy, and just plain makes more sense.
*Oh, and I'll respond later on the subject of divided households. I just love talking about this passage and used up the time I had. Sorry!
Last edited:
B.J.
Puritan Board Freshman
Jeremy,
Thanks for your expostion. I did'nt really see anything that addesses the issue of the text. The issue is Covenant memebers that are under judgment. God's judgment unto death. Yes, God will purify His people from invaders, but are you suggesting that He does that fully this side of eternity?
When is this vindication? Now, or later? Will he not seperate the sheeps from goats on the last day? Remember it is the goats who cry out that they did so many great things, and God tells them to depart for He never knew them. And yes, for the time being I view that passage as a judgment of God's NC people. I cant imagine an atheist, or Muslim saying those things at their judgment.
The passage in question is warning people who are viewed as Covenant members. I dont see why I have to disagree with your comparision of the Deutoronomy text. Your position does not seem to undermine my view of an internal/external NC people. It strenghthens it. Even if the text are parellel to one another all you have shown is that the enemies of God (in Hebrews) can be likened to the enemies in Duetoronomy. Unlike the enemies of God in Duetoronomy the ones in Hebrews are warned specifically. Your assesment seems to indicate that God went "door-to-door" warning people that if they mess with Israel He would lay the smack down on them. Which is not in the text. Contrary to the warning in Duetoronomy, God does go "door-to-door" in His warning in the book of Hebrews. Why? Because they were considered NC members and could not be distinguished from the true believers.
Thanks for your expostion. I did'nt really see anything that addesses the issue of the text. The issue is Covenant memebers that are under judgment. God's judgment unto death. Yes, God will purify His people from invaders, but are you suggesting that He does that fully this side of eternity?
When is this vindication? Now, or later? Will he not seperate the sheeps from goats on the last day? Remember it is the goats who cry out that they did so many great things, and God tells them to depart for He never knew them. And yes, for the time being I view that passage as a judgment of God's NC people. I cant imagine an atheist, or Muslim saying those things at their judgment.
The passage in question is warning people who are viewed as Covenant members. I dont see why I have to disagree with your comparision of the Deutoronomy text. Your position does not seem to undermine my view of an internal/external NC people. It strenghthens it. Even if the text are parellel to one another all you have shown is that the enemies of God (in Hebrews) can be likened to the enemies in Duetoronomy. Unlike the enemies of God in Duetoronomy the ones in Hebrews are warned specifically. Your assesment seems to indicate that God went "door-to-door" warning people that if they mess with Israel He would lay the smack down on them. Which is not in the text. Contrary to the warning in Duetoronomy, God does go "door-to-door" in His warning in the book of Hebrews. Why? Because they were considered NC members and could not be distinguished from the true believers.
Not to ignore the rest of your post, but for the sake of actually moving on one portion of the topic, I'll just address this.
The bolded part is the contradiction. In Deuteronomy 32, no covenant members were under judgment, but explicitly protected. Yet, if we say in Hebrews 10 there are any covenant members at all that are under judgment, is this not a troubling contradiction?
No, God does not do that fully this side of eternity. Chiefly, it is a promise that, even on this side of heaven, the Church will not be conquered and will flourish.
We both acknowledge that everyone spoken of in Heb. 10, externally, appears as a covenant member. The debate is over whether they really are.
Last edited:
Answerman
Puritan Board Sophomore
Wow! this thread is on fire.
Earlier I posted a link to three lectures on exactly this subject and I think the lecture does an excellent job at exegeting these two passages. But since not everyone has time to listen to them, I would like to provide a breif summary.
1. The question should be asked what did the phrase "know the LORD" mean to the Israelites in Jeremiah's day?
2. It was understood that the priest's in Israel "knew the LORD" in a special sense, when only they were allowed to perform their ceremonial function. All other Israelites were considered strangers to this function. Num 18:22-23, Deut. 33:10, Exodus 29:33, Exodus 30:29-33
3. The context of Hebrews, especially in Chapters 5-10, is dealing with how Christ's work fulfills the external aspects of the Old Covenant.
4. When you get to Hebrews chapter 8 the subject being specifically dealt with is the Priestly service.
5. Therefore it can now be said that the covenant members in the New Covenant can be said to "know the LORD" in the same special sense that only the priesthood was previledged to enjoy in the Old Covenant.
The beauty of this view is how perfectly it fits with the immediate and overall context of Hebrews.
This is a very brief summary of these lectures, many other passages and Biblical arguments were given, so if this tweaked you interest, you can get the lectures and hear the full presentation of this view. He also quotes from Arthur Pink and John Calvin on these passages to support his case.
Earlier I posted a link to three lectures on exactly this subject and I think the lecture does an excellent job at exegeting these two passages. But since not everyone has time to listen to them, I would like to provide a breif summary.
1. The question should be asked what did the phrase "know the LORD" mean to the Israelites in Jeremiah's day?
2. It was understood that the priest's in Israel "knew the LORD" in a special sense, when only they were allowed to perform their ceremonial function. All other Israelites were considered strangers to this function. Num 18:22-23, Deut. 33:10, Exodus 29:33, Exodus 30:29-33
3. The context of Hebrews, especially in Chapters 5-10, is dealing with how Christ's work fulfills the external aspects of the Old Covenant.
4. When you get to Hebrews chapter 8 the subject being specifically dealt with is the Priestly service.
5. Therefore it can now be said that the covenant members in the New Covenant can be said to "know the LORD" in the same special sense that only the priesthood was previledged to enjoy in the Old Covenant.
The beauty of this view is how perfectly it fits with the immediate and overall context of Hebrews.
This is a very brief summary of these lectures, many other passages and Biblical arguments were given, so if this tweaked you interest, you can get the lectures and hear the full presentation of this view. He also quotes from Arthur Pink and John Calvin on these passages to support his case.
B.J.
Puritan Board Freshman
In your mind it seems. We didnt say anything, the writer of Hebrews did. Furthermore, I cut you some slack and let you have your Deutonronomy/Hebrews analogy. The bottom line is that their is no reason to have to reconcile the two, In my humble opinion. I fill I did that even though I didnt have to.
Jeremy, again, why are Covenant members being warned?
- Status
