<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]My parting thought is, I believe that any distinction you might come up with between the "covenant reprobate" and the plain old every day pagan will be a distinction without a significant difference. Wilson and co. have been scratching their heads over this one for a few years but nothing seems to be forthcoming but a whole lot of confusion for God's people. Can you elaborate on why you think that such a topic would make a worthy debate? What I mean to say is, are you aware of any differences between the baptized-reprobate and the non-baptized reprobate other than the obvious ones we have already identified? When you say this might be a worth while debate, do you have something specific in mind? What am I missing?</font><hr></blockquote><p> Doesn't this debate have real pastoral significance if the threat of apostasy is real? Isn't what a pastor and a church has to say about the besetting sin of a member of the church vastly different than what a pastor has to say to a pagan about the same sin? Maybe I missed this in the posts above (if so, forgive me), but the distinction seems to have distinct practical pastoral significance. To the former you can preach repentance and God's covenantal promises brother to brother and sister to sister in the context of discipline whose sole purpose is reconciliation of the member of the visible church to Christ. To latter, it seems much more contingent. To the former a calling back; to the latter a calling for the first time.<br><br>Clay

Last edited by onefear; Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:31 PM.