The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Fred Malone a dispensationalist?

Steve while YOU may “suggest” that they are not, the Scripture (i.e. God) says they are! You have already been shown this here.

However, God has ONE covenant plan of redemption which is developed throughout HIS redemptive history. Beginning with Adam we see this covenantal relationship (Hosea 6:7). Although the first Adam fell and came under the sanctions of the Covenant of Works, God in His sovereignty revealed to him, (in embryonic form), a redemptive economy, with the promise of “the seed” (see WCF VII.3). There was even an enjoyment of the covenant-grace before the ratification of the Abrahamic Covenant as seen in Genesis 5:22; 6:8-9.

The Noahic Covenant continues in the vein of grace. Here we actually see the first time “covenant” is used in Scripture (berith; Gen 6:18, etc.). The provisions of this covenant are the results of God’s gracious favour—man did not earn or merit them. The physical salvation of Noah and his family from the flood is a symbol of spiritual redemption from judgment, by faith in God’s divine promise. Calvin states,

This covenant was made with all creation, and the terms of this covenant are still in force today. Steve do you have rainbows in your backyard or have those been “obliterated”? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rainbow.gif" alt="" />

Next the Abrahamic Covenant comes in God’s historic order revealing even more of His redemptive plan. In Genesis 12:1-3 the promises made to Abram are covenantal. The covenant here is ratified by sacrifice (Gen 15) and confirmed by the sign and seal of circumcision (Gen 17). This covenant is referred to in Scripture more than any of the others and the NEW Covenant is clearly an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3:8-9; Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18).

When the NEW Covenant refers to the superiority of the NEW over the OLD, “in context” this NEVER refers to the Old Testament in its entirety (remember the civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of the law). As matter a fact if you will check “your references” you will discover that each is to the Mosaic Covenant in these instances (i.e. 2 Cor 3; Gal 3; Heb 7-8, etc.) and not the Abrahamic. The NT never states that Abrahamic Covenant passed away in its entirety (though parts have been changed in its administrative aspects; i.e. circumcision to baptism), rather it states that the covenant with Abraham will bless ALL the nations of the earth and that Christian believers of EVERY race are described as the “children of Abraham” (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:29). Did you note that the Abrahamic Covenant is “an everlasting” covenant as well (Gen 17:19)? There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

The Mosaic Covenant continues God’s historical redemptive plan. God identifies himself at the burning bush to Moses as the God of Abraham—the God of the covenant (Ex 3:6) though the first express reference to the “covenant” is found later (Ex 19:5-6). The connection between these two covenants is VERY close. As E.J. Young states, ‘a proper understanding of the events at Sinai will make it clear that the covenant of Sinai was only an administration of a covenant that was already in existence.’ As Berkhof comments, ‘the orthodox Reformed view of this covenant has been that it was essentially the same as that established with Abraham, though the form differed somewhat.’ Even at Horeb God reminded the people of the covenant with Abraham (Deut 1:8) and when Moses plead with the LORD in behalf of the golden calf incident in was based upon the covenant (Ex 32:13; the name Abraham is used, not Abram, a covenant name). God also reminded the people that when they repented of their sins, He would be mindful of His covenant with Abraham (Lev 26:42; Deut 4:31).

There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

Now, we come to the Davidic Covenant. As Golding states, ‘the formal element in Israel has grown, so the original promise of Genesis 3:15 to Adam, and of Genesis 17 to Abraham, had become progressively obscured, thus almost necessitating reiteration of the covenant. Consequently, 2 Samuel 7 records a further, and yet more specific revelation of the divine promise, given by means of the covenant with David.’ You may observe this covenant in Psalms 89:3-4, 28, 34. Of course, the Davidic Covenant clarified, deepened, and focused on the ONE who will descend from King David. A major point of this covenant is the fact that it is made with David in his kingly office and in this way God establishes how He will reign over His Kingdom—by a King of His own appointing—King Jesus, from the lineage of David (Gen 49; Jer 33:1; Is 11:1, compare Matt 1:1). As O Palmer Robertson states, ‘The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants do not supplant one another; they supplement one another.’ There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

Lastly, is the Covenant with Christ. This is referred to as the New Covenant and the last covenant. However, “new” does not mean completely different. Yes, Steve you have stressed phases like “not according to” (Jer 31:31) and “obsolete” (Heb 8:13), but out of their overall context. The “new” is new not because it is contrary to the first covenant, but because there is a clearer and fuller manifestation of God’s gracious unfolding plan of redemption. The “new” fulfills the “old” in a way that transcends it, but not “obliterating” it into non-existence (after-all its ONE Covenant). If “obliterated” then the Adamic is GONE, and yet Christ is not called the “first” man Adam, but rather the “last.” See there is still continuity and unity. The OT saints were saved by grace and faith, however, if these OCs are “obliterated” how is the NC saint saved. However, they are not “obliterated” are they (Eph 2:8-9)?

2 Corinthians 3 refers to the NEW Covenant. The NEW Covenant is here explained in its richness and fullness. It is the ministration of the Spirit as the Spirit of life (vss. 6, 8); it is the ministration of righteousness (vs. 9), and of liberty (vs. 17). Furthermore the NC is the dispensation of the forgiveness of sins (Heb 8:12). In all this the covenant is seen a sovereign administration of grace and promise, constituting a relation with God. However, at the center of this relationship is still the OC promise, “I will be your God and ye shall be my people” (Gen 3:8, 17:22, 18:33, 35:13; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23, 11:4; 30:32; Ezek 14:11, 36:28, 37:23, 27, etc.). There is covenant UNITY and EVERLASTINGNESS.

Thus, as one may see, NOT ACCORDING TO (Jer 31:31) does not mean a complete doing away with. It means in a different manner as demonstrated even in the verse cited:

Here it says that the LORD will put HIS LAW in their inward parts. The tables of stone would be put upon the tables of our heart. This is the primary manner [not only] in which the Old in different from the New. Please note that the NEW Covenant is here contrasted with the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic. A NEW Covenant was essential as the Mosaic law was given on two tables of stone, thus being outside of man. The NEW Covenant is living, inside of man, as distinct from the ethics outside of him. Yes, the NC is a better covenant (Heb 7:22), has a better hope (7:19), with better promises (8:6), a more excellent ministry (8:6), a greater and more perfect tabernacle (9:11), a better sacrifice (9:23), a new and living way (10:20), and of course, has a greater and more excellent High Priest (8:1), however the NC is the FULFILLMENT of the OC, and NOT its “obliteration” as you would have us believe. The Bible does not condemn the law, rather it condemns the weakness of the flesh to keep it. Jeremiah condemned Israel for not keeping the covenant (Jer 31:32; 2:5, 13, 20, 32, etc.), but did not condemn the law (Rom 7:12; 1 Tim 1:8).

Steve I use to be Baptist and held to its errors. I preached that error for years, for which I humbly asked God to forgive me and He extended immeasurable grace. I became a paedo when actually studying the issue of Baptism and Dispensationalism and seeing the error of the hermeneutic method, etc. Moreover, discussions here at the Highway and other sources helped me see the truth—so I could be free indeed.

Yes, ‘All the promises in [Christ] are Yes, and in Him, Amen.' However, HE gave the promises to Adam, Noah, Abraham, David and thus ‘All the promises in [Christ] are Yes, and in Him, Amen,' to them as well!

As far as understanding the NT with the OT I think one needs to re-read the OT/NT. One should NOT place one part of God's Word ABOVE another--it is all holy, just, and good, besides;

Please note that above I have stressed the continuity of the covenants, since this is the “problem” most have. However, please realize that there is discontinuity as well. An understanding of CT like any other truth will need a person who is diligent in study and a desire to truly learn the reality of Scripture. I apologize for not understanding it better than I do, so I could make it clearer and a reality in other's lives. I need more study so I may be a better servant. LORD help us all to grow in grace and truth.

Hello J.E.,
Thank you for your most interesting post. I feel that we are getting close to the hub of the argument.

You wrote in response to me:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:


The question is, does the Old Covenant form part of the Everlasting Covenant? I suggest that it does not.


Steve while YOU may “suggest” that they are not, the Scripture (i.e. God) says they are! You have already been shown this here.
------------------------------------------------------------

With respect, doing a word search on ‘Everlasting Covenant’ does not constitute an argument. The Everlasting Covenant is revealed to be the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (Heb 13:20). Each of these texts that you have quoted is speaking of Christ (John 5:39; 2Cor 1:20 ), not of the OC. Let’s take just one text:-

Num 25:10-13. ‘Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: ‘Phineas, the son of Eliezar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, “Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant and an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.’

Now where are the physical descendants of Phineas today? Where is their priesthood? What sacrifices do they offer? Where do they offer them? The wholeLevitical priesthood, Temple and all, was swept away utterly, finally and completely in AD 70 (unless You are a dispensationalist and believe that God will bring it back in some way during the ‘millennium’ <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />). The physical promise to Phineas was abrogated in 1Sam 2:30. It is inasmuch as he is a type of Christ that the promise to him has been kept. Read the Numbers 25 text again and see if the Lord Jesus Christ doesn’t jump out at you! But the priesthood of which he was part, has not been modified, it has been utterly and completely changed (Heb 7:11-18, esp vs 12 & 18 ).

We can look at any of the other texts if you would like to.

You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
However, God has ONE covenant plan of redemption which is developed throughout HIS redemptive history.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Agreed, save that I would change the word ‘developed’ to ‘foreshadowed’. God does not develop or improve His plans (Acts 15:18 ). It is, ‘The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to the saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches and the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory’ (Col 1:26-27 ).

However, when you continue:-
------------------------------------------------------------
In reality there is only ONE covenant which God makes with His people. The NC is none other than the OC more fully revealed.
------------------------------------------------------------

I remain in agreement, but start to get just a little bit twitchy, and when you go on to say:-
------------------------------------------------------------
the NEW Covenant is clearly an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3:8-9; Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18).
------------------------------------------------------------

I want to cry out, ‘No, no, 10,000 times no! This is precisely where Paedobaptists go wrong. They impose Abraham upon Christ. ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I AM!’ (John 8:58 ). The Abrahamic Covenant was a covenant of promise (cf. Eph 2:12 ). It was an adumbration of something that, though it was yet to come, had been in the mind of God from all eternity (Micah 5:2 ). You must read the Genesis account of Abraham in the light of what we are told in the NT (Rom, Gal. Heb etc) if you are to understand it fully, not the other way around. Abraham may be the father of the faithful, but Christ is the author of faith (Heb 12:2 ).

You continue:-
------------------------------------------------------------
The law which will be written in the hearts is none other than the law which has already been given.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but which law? The law that would prevent me from eating shrimp cocktail or pork sausages or wearing a polyester and cotton shirt is not written on my heart. Is it written on yours? The moral law has always existed, thus predating the Old Covenant. The foreshadowing of Christ in the sacrifice of clean animals only also precedes Moses (Gen 4:4, 7:2 ), but is now fulfilled in Christ. And being fulfilled, it no longer has any physical application to us.

You go on to say:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NC is NOT “brand new” it is the fulfilling of the OC (just because something is fulfilled does not mean it disappears! When a glass is filled with water, the glass does not cease to be a glass ). The OC is not replaced, but continues on in the fulfillment of the NC! Essentially, the reference in Hebrews 8:13 to the OC vanishing away is to the form and not to the substance. To understand it any different is to make a grave hermeneutical error.
------------------------------------------------------------

With respect, not so! If I drink out of a paper cup, I drink once and then the cup has filfilled its purpose as a cup, so I throw it away. Even a glass or a pottery cup eventually breaks after continual use; then again, it has fulfilled its purpose and can be discarded. So the Old Covenant has fulfilled its purpose by introducing the New Covenant and is now finished. As it is written, ‘He takes away the first that He may establish the second’ (Heb 10:9 ). “Oh but He hasn’t really taken away the old covenant, He’s just amended it a little!” That’s not what the text says. Read it again. Read it from verse 5. You are forcing your presuppositions upon the sacred text.

So what of the OC has disappeared? Well, the Temple has gone, the priesthood has gone, the sacrifices have gone, the ceremonial laws have gone, the dietry laws have gone. They are all fulfilled in Christ. Even the moral law, as something that condemns me, has gone. Whereas it was written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them’, now we read, ‘There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.’ Does that mean that I no longer have to keep the 10 Commandments? ‘God forbid! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?’ God’s everlasting, righteous law is no longer written in tablets of stone to condemn my stony heart, but rather it is written upon my new heart of flesh, so that I can say, Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day!’ and, ‘His commandments are not grievous.’

You write:-
------------------------------------------------------------
As matter a fact if you will check “your references” you will discover that each is to the Mosaic Covenant in these instances (i.e. 2 Cor 3; Gal 3; Heb 7-8, etc.) and not the Abrahamic.
------------------------------------------------------------
I’m a bit puzzled by this. The Old Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant. The OC is the Mosac Covenant (Heb 8:9 ). I thought that was a given. The Abrahamic Covenant is a Covenant of Promise.

You continue:-
------------------------------------------------------------
As O Palmer Robertson states, ‘The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants do not supplant one another; they supplement one another.’
------------------------------------------------------------

That is absolutely correct. In each of the Covenants of Promise, we see a little more detail concerning the coming Seed. The Mosaic Covenant, however, though it is a C of P, also contains the Old Covenant Law. ‘And this I say that the law, which was 430 years later [than the Abrahamic Covenant], cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ’ (Gal 3:17 ). The Mosaic Law did not contradict the promises of the earlier covenants but was ‘Added because of transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made' (Gal 3:19 ).

You also say:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The promise was: "they shall be my people, and I will be their God" (Jer 24:7).
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but the people of God are different under the NC than in the OC. Of the OC people it is written:-

‘Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a very small remnant, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been made like Gomorrah (Isaiah 1:9 ),

but of His New Covenant people, He says:-

‘For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.’

When Paul writes to the church at Corinth, he is writing, ‘To those who are (better ‘have been’) sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.’ He knows nothing of an visible/invisible church; everyone to whom he is writing is a saint. Likewise, John writes; ‘But you ( ie. every single one of you) have an anointing from the Holy One (1John 2:20 ). To be sure, there are ‘Those who have crept in unnoticed’ (Jude 4 ), but they, ‘Were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went outthat they might be made manifest that none of them were of us’ (1John 2:19 ). Every NT letter supposes a church full of believers, in line with the NC promise of Jer 31:33-34. To be sure, there are warnings against apostasy, but they end, ‘But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you….’ (Heb 6:9 ).


I must draw to a close because of other duties and I’m concious of not having answered all your points by any means. They will have to wait for another day. Just one last thing. When you moved from Credo to Paedo, you passed me going in the other direction. I was baptized into the Church of England as a baby and thought I was a Christian for nearly 40 years because of it. In my ignorance and superstition I baptized all three of my children as infants also. But all the time I was dead in trespasses and sin, and no more born again than a dog. When The Lord finally drew me to Himself, I became aware of Acts 2:38; ‘Repent and be baptized!’ How could I follow my Lord’s command? I couldn’t if my infant baptism were true baptism, because the Holy Spirit calls for repentance first. Therefore, realizing that my first baptism was mere superstition, I requested true Christian baptism on the grounds of my repentance and faith in Christ. Praise the Lord, one of my children has followed me; I continue to pray for the other two.

Every blessing,
Steve

Begin <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> Of course, Christ was before Abram/Abraham, however you are saying that Christ and Abraham are involved in two “totally” different covenants, which is not true. Though Christ is before Abraham, God historically placed Abraham’s covenant before the NC. However, both are Christ’s covenants—for they are ONE (all the covenants are Christ’s administered historically in time according to His will).

Moreover, if you obliterate the truth of Abraham’s Seed, then you obliterate the truth of Christ’s Seed. Steve, are you of Abraham’s seed (Gal 3:7-9)? You will say you are “an heir of God through Christ” (Gal 4:7), however you need to see how this was unfolded in Galatians 4:19-31 (—in Abraham). If you obliterate Abraham’s Seed, then you indeed are preaching “another Gospel” not found in Scripture! If you are Abraham’s Seed, then his covenant continues—though in a fuller way in Christ!

Where before you were using a dispensational hermeneutic, now your dispensational theology has surfaced. You are speaking now of totally “different cups” (cups = covenants) and the “cups themselves” breaking. This is erroneous theology—dispensational to the core (more on this below). In addition, you have made God the Creator of imperfect covenants (pl.).

However, in opposition to this, the “Covenant” is ONE and it is PERFECT, proceeding through redemptive history and being “fulfilled” (but not obliterated) in Christ (PERFECT here means that it was from God whose covenants are holy, just, and good and thus PERFECT. This ONE Covenant progressed (became fuller, more revealed, and thus better) until the NC arrived and thus there was a progressive revelation of ONE covenant). The OC itself was not insufficient, rather the people trying to keep it were (Rom 8:3). An individual breaking the covenant of God within the OC (or the NC—Heb 6, 10), does not make the covenant(s) “sinful” or “wrong.”

Once again you speak of “totally” different covenants. Once again you do NOT see ONE covenant progressing through redemptive history. Steve if you pinch a text from here and another from there you can make the Bible say whatever you desire it to (Spoof-texting). However, look at Heb 10 IN CONTEXT of the WHOLE book of Hebrews. Christ is the “fulfillment” of the OC. This is what “takes away the first” means. If they were “completely obliterated” then Heb 11 (the faith chapter) would not need to follow Heb 1-10 as an “example” of faith today (but why if it is obliterated). The NC is a “fulfillment” of the OC not its “complete obliteration.”

YES…., but what continues on in the OC is fulfilled in Christ since it is ONE covenant. There is a continuance of the OC in Christ. Yes, its shadows and types have gone, but they ARE SEEN in Christ and in His administration—they are fulfilled (and being fulfilled) and thus continue on—the OC continues on in the NC (of course, there is continuity/discontinuity).

The law can still condemn you NOW (temporarily, not eternally). It is still possible to speak evil of the law (Jam 4:11). We still have church discipline. It is still possible to be condemned (temporarily, not eternally) because the Christian can still sin (I John 4:20-21). What does the Holy Spirit use to convict you TODAY of sin, righteousness, and judgment? Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but “fulfill” it (Matt 5:17). News Flash, Christians don’t always say, feel, or obey your hermeneutic of, “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day!’ and, ‘His commandments are not grievous.”

Dispensationalism once AGAIN (and I am not using the term hermeneutic here). Steve was the church in the OT? As Gerstner states, “According to Dispensationalism, Israel and the church are different in almost everyway.” According to Steve, “the people of God are different under the NC than in the OC.” Gerstner adds, “The dispensational distinction between Israel and the church implicitly repudiates the Christian way of salvation…. If these are two different types of people, how can they have the same salvation?” Grace2u YOU are preaching another gospel—dispensationalism!

Everyone who was a member of the Corinthian Church (or any other church) Paul wrote to was clearly not among the elect. The Corinthian Church had numerous sins in their midst; division, fornication (1 Cor 7), drunkenness, calling Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3), etc. and for anyone to assume for a moment that “everyone” of these Corinthians (without exception) were elect is truly presumptive and unscriptural. Paul did not know who the elect were, if so why would he call election a mystery (Rom 9-11)? Have you read 2 Cor 13:5? Compare Rom 1:1-7 with Rom 16:17-18, etc.

What you have done is actually PROVE that there is a visible/invisible church distinction. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Hello again, J.E.,
You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Where before you were using a dispensational hermeneutic, now your dispensational theology has surfaced.
------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you are feeling unsure of your arguments because you have brought out your pathetic hate word again. Last time you did so I adopted the policy of Proverbs 26:5; this time I shall adopt that of the preceding verse.

You also wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
'Once again you speak of “totally” different covenants.'
and
'...however you are saying that Christ and Abraham are involved in two “totally” different covenants.'
------------------------------------------------------------
You have placed the word "totally" in inverted commas as if it were a direct quotation from me. It is not. I have never used the term 'Totally different' to describe the covenants, and nor would I.

You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
However, look at Heb 10 IN CONTEXT of the WHOLE book of Hebrews. Christ is the “fulfillment” of the OC. This is what “takes away the first” means. If they were “completely obliterated” then Heb 11 (the faith chapter) would not need to follow Heb 1-10 as an “example” of faith today (but why if it is obliterated). The NC is a “fulfillment” of the OC not its “complete obliteration.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
Where have I used the term, "totally obliterated"? Why are you using quotation marks for it when it is the first time that it has appeared in our discussion? The only term that I HAVE used in this discussion which you quote is the one that you appear to approve of- "fulfilled". I have used that several times.

It would be nice to think that I might get an apology for being deliberately misquoted, but I'm not holding my breath. However, if we are to continue this discussion, it would be better if you would concentrate on what I DO say rather than on constructing your very own straw man to demolish.

With regard to Hebrews, I look forward to your overview of that book proving decisively from the text that the Old and New Covenant are one and the same. That will be very interesting. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Every blessing,
Steve

J.E., You wrote:-
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JE stated,

The promise was: "they shall be my people, and I will be their God" (Jer 24:7).
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve replied,

Yes, but the people of God are different under the NC than in the OC.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dispensationalism once AGAIN (and I am not using the term hermeneutic here). Steve was the church in the OT? As Gerstner states, “According to Dispensationalism, Israel and the church are different in almost everyway.” According to Steve, “the people of God are different under the NC than in the OC.” Gerstner adds, “The dispensational distinction between Israel and the church implicitly repudiates the Christian way of salvation…. If these are two different types of people, how can they have the same salvation?” Grace2u YOU are preaching another gospel—dispensationalism!
------------------------------------------------------------

Again you are misrepresenting me. What I wrote was:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but the people of God are different under the NC than in the OC. Of the OC people it is written:-

‘Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a very small remnant, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been made like Gomorrah (Isaiah 1:9 ),

but of His New Covenant people, He says:-

‘For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.’
------------------------------------------------------------
There has only ever been one way of salvation throghout redemptive history- through faith in the finished work of Christ (John 8:56 ). Under the OC, the elect of God were a remnant of the Children of Israel. In the NC, they are a people called out of the world. That is the difference of which I was speaking.

You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone who was a member of the Corinthian Church (or any other church) Paul wrote to was clearly not among the elect. The Corinthian Church had numerous sins in their midst; division, fornication (1 Cor 7), drunkenness, calling Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3), etc. and for anyone to assume for a moment that “everyone” of these Corinthians (without exception) were elect is truly presumptive and unscriptural.
------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that anyone who ever sins is not a Christian? I trust not! However, once again, you are not reading my posts. There may well have been those who attended the 'ekklesia' in Corinth who were not saved, but according to the Holy Spirit they were not part of the church. Rather they were those who, 'Have crept in unnoticed', and 'Have neither part nor portion in this matter' (Acts 8:21 ). 'They were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us' (1John 2:19 ). As Paul says, 'Put away from yourselves the wicked person'(1Cor 5:13 ) and 'Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition' (Titus 3:10 ).

The Church of Christ is to be a pure body as far as we can make it so. As Paul wrote, 'That I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ' (2Cor 11:2 ). We will never achieve this absolutely in this fallen world, but that is no reason whatsoever not to try. The bane of the Church today is unredeemed people taken into membership. They pervert the worship of their assembly with their unredeemed tastes in music and their distaste for longerc prayers or sermons. Alas, non-reformed Baptist churches are as guilty as any for this, when they baptize those of whom there is no sign of true conversion. However, baptizing infants is an even surer way of polluting the Church, as is shown in the apostasy of the Genevan church in the 18th Century, the English Presbyterian church in the 18th and again in the 20th Century, the PCA in America in the 1920s and the current ghastly state of the Church of England. The Reformed Baptist churches in England, weak as they are, are the only ones to have kept anything like a consistent witness from the 17th Century to the present day.

Every blessing,
Steve

Steve I don’t know why you call this a hate word. Many dispensationalists are Christians, just like many CTs are Christians. You really need to quit being so emotional. Moreover, this does nothing for your argument.

What is amazing is that you yourself made this declaration that you interpret the Bible as do the dispensationalists when you said, Yes, but the people of God are different under the NC than in the OC. Do you understand Gerstner's concern? He states: ‘According to Dispensationalism, Israel and the church are different in almost every way.’ HE adds, ‘The dispensational distinction between Israel and the church implicitly repudiates the Christian way of salvation…. If these are two different types of people, how can they have the same salvation?’ Clearly, you are being dispensational and are preaching another gospel. If you desire to retract your statement, fine, but as long as you maintain it, you remain what you have said you are.

Did I say they were quotations from you? Where? Steve I use “….” to draw attention to certain words as well, not just for quoting others (example here). YOU already KNOW this. It may be time for you to take another break, you seem <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />, but please understand that I still <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hugs.gif" alt="" /> you Steve, though your theology (in this area) is .

Now, your posts reveal “totally” different covenants. Here is an example:

In respect to the OC you stated;

Twice here in this quote, YOU state that the OC may be thrown away or discarded. This is a complete doing away with. You have put God’s Covenant into a Hefty Bag and dumped it. Useless rubbish. This implies that God’s covenant is defective and not eternal. This illustrates “totally” different covenants—for many (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) are in your dispensational hefty bag.

What you are saying is that God made the Abrahamic Covenant and then did away with it in the Mosaic. Then God made the Mosaic Covenant and did away with it in the Davidic. Then God made the Davidic Covenant and did away with it in Christ. What you see is God “totally” doing away with one covenant (throw it away and discarded) and then making another, and then merely adding to these newer a few pieces of "trash" from the former. This is an incorrect view of the covenants and is dispensational. As I have STRESSED so may times, THERE IS ONE COVENANT, and with each age or dispensation it is further revealed. God does not need to add anything of the former covenant(s) to the newer ones, because it is already there. However, in His divine wisdom, He "fulfills" the OC in progressive ways as the administration of the covenant proceeds in redemptive history. Do you see the difference?

Please note that your example of the pottery cup breaking is NOT Scriptural. The Covenant of God is eternal. His WORD is everlasting. Individuals stray away from the covenant(s) (Adam in the Garden, etc) and thus the cup is not rubbish. It is not the cup that is defective, it is the human heart (Rom 8:3).

The New is a progressive revelation of the Old. Are you saying there are TWO ways to God? Are you saying that the OC did not have faith? Are you saying the OC had no grace? Are you saying the church is not in the OC? Are "grace" and "faith" in the dispensational hefty bag or is there ONE covenant progressing through redemptive history? Please prove that the NC is not an extension and further revelation of the OC?

Steve you are still seeing OT Israel vs. NT Church. You are still seeing TWO different covenants, instead of one progressive one. Did the saints of the OT know the LORD? Did God forgive the iniquity of the OT saints? Does God still remember the sins of the OT saints? While I AGREE with you that we have it BETTER now, it is ONE church throughout redemptive history. Look at the verses you are using to defend this;

These verses have a present and future aspect to them. They have NOT been “totally” fulfilled yet. Though that have been inaugurated, Jesus tells us to pray, “thy kingdom come,” as the fullness of the Kingdom is not totally here yet. ALL do NOT yet know the LORD is proven in that: (1) we still evangelize and have missions, and (2) if the LORD tarries for a few more minutes, some new “future” saints will be born, who do not yet know the LORD.

Taken in CONTEXT this speaks of being totally fulfilled in glorification. ONLY when Christ returns for His church will it be fully comprised of ALL believers. This verse looks forward to the eschatological invisible church for its consummation. Until then there are both lost and saved in the church (visible/invisible).

Additionally, we must remind ourselves that Jer 31:34 falls on the heels of Jer 31:32 which says, “It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant …." The New Covenant today is still able to be broken every time we sin (i.e. Heb 12 on discipline follows Heb 8 on the NC), and Heb 10 states,

The Church today is still made up of visible and invisible members.

Steve I agree with you that the unsaved in the churches do not belong to the “eternal” church or the “invisible” church (which I prefer), however they are still members of “visible” congregations. The church of Corinth had lost members in it. As you so ably pointed out ‘they crept in unnoticed,’ (thus many were not caught). Many were “in” the visible church only for a time, until they were discovered. Moreover many others were not purged out till their death. Either way, "all" do not know the LORD.

I agree, but we are only human and cannot discern ALL the elect. If Paul couldn't do it how do you expect to do it? I agree that we should do our best, but until God does the rest (Second Coming), it will not be <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well then you need to speak to God as He set up the program with circumcision and then baptism. I guess He should have consulted you before he acted. God designed that saved and lost circumcised family members would be in the covenant during the OC and in the NC there are saved and lost baptized family members. Even if you excluded every infant from being baptized you still have lost baptized people in the church—you still have the SAME problem. What you have failed to see is that this is a means of grace of getting many saved. Many are saved after baptism (not by baptism). However, many would have never sat under God’s Word had it not been for their baptism. Isn't that the way it worked with circumcision as well--the unbelieving circumcised infants were saved after their circumcision (not because of their circumcision, but after it in time)? Your method does away with the covenant relationship between God and His people. But, yet we are in a New "Covenant." I think it is best not to question God’s methodology.

Hi J.E.,
Not<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />; more <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> You don't seem to have the faintest understanding of what I'm trying to say and no interest in finding out. I hadn't intended to grace your last post with a reply, and this will definitely be my last on this thread. After this, I leave you to your <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mickey.gif" alt="" /> theology.

You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
What you are saying is that God made the Abrahamic Covenant and then did away with it in the Mosaic. Then God made the Mosaic Covenant and did away with it in the Davidic. Then God made the Davidic Covenant and did away with it in Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, I have never said anything of the sort. Indeed, I earlier quoted Gal 3:17 which clearly states that the Mosaic covenant does NOT do away with the Abrahamic. Heigh-ho!

What I have said is that the OLD COVENANT has passed away (Heb 8:13 etc). Now the Old Covenant is NOT the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant nor the Davidic Covenant. Read Jer 31:32 slowly and carefully until you understand what the Old Covenant is. It's not rocket science. It is the system of laws given by God to Moses on Mt Sinai. It is THAT which is done away with in the New Covenant. The sacrifices, the dietary laws, the Levitical priesthood, the ceremonies, circumcision are all done away with. As far as their observance is concerned, they can be put into your 'hefty bag' (whatever that is <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Not an English term) and dumped. That is not to say that there is no benefit in reading and preaching about them- they speak of Christ- but as far as their observance is concerned, they are actually harmful ((Gal 5:3 ). Even the Decalogue, as something that condemns us (Gal 3:10) is done away with in Christ (Rom 8:1; Gal 2:21 ) since the moral law is now written, not on stone tablets but upon the hearts of believers (Jer 31:33; 2Cor 3:3 ).

The other covenants (Abrahamic etc) are the Covenants of Promise (Eph 2:12 ). They speak of the coming Seed and each successive one gives more detail about Him. But the everlasting Covenant (Covenant of Redemption, call it what you will) is realised (as opposed to foreshadowed) in the New Covenant in Christ, which is shown in Heb 13:20 to be the Everlasting Covenant finally revealed (Col 1:25-27 ).

Therefore we do not impose the shadow upon the reality by baptizing infants when the NT clearly states that baptism is reserved for disciples (Acts 2:41 etc). Baptism is NOT the seal of the New Covenant; the Holy Spirit is (Eph 1:13; 2Cor 1:22). If we baptize infants, we are performing a law work upon them, something we do, which we hope will make them in some way right with God. Well, it won't. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone.

Does it really matter? Is it important whether we baptize infants or not? Well, if all paedo-baptists were like Pilgrim, who is quite clear that baptism has no effect upon the infant, then I would not keep keeping on about it. It's just a little confusion about the covenants. It is when we get to the realm of 'Presumptive Regeneration' that the matter gets serious. I append an article which appear in a Christian mag recently:-

‘Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men’s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant’s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.

A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christioan friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She ‘reached out to her with a lifeline’ (as the evangelical cliché says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family’s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let’s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a “Covenant child.” He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had “broken the covenant again” by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church’s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father’s real grief was that she had become “a [expletive deleted] Baptist!” In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of “pressing to much out of covenant theology.” He asked in desperation, “What’s a pastor to do?” Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, “Become a Reformed Baptist.” I also sent him John Tombes’ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.’
Michael T. Renihan

Such an occurence as this will be relatively rare. What is likely to be more common, and much more serious is when the child does NOT rebel. When he/she follows all the outward ordinances of the faith without demur. But such a child will never have been urged to repent and trust in Christ! How can he have been? It is 'presumed'that he already has. He will join a youth group called 'King's Kids' or 'Covenant Kids' where he may hear lots about the Bible, but never that 'You MUST be born again.' It is 'presumed' that he already is. and the deadly danger is that he will hear, on the Last Day, our Lord say to him, "I never knew you!"

Steve

And you prove individuals are disciples how? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/spin.gif" alt="" /> You prove that this change in covenant relationship happened where in Scripture? Acts 2:41 does not do it!

You said, “If we baptize infants, we are performing a law work upon them.” You are still not understanding what covenant and its respective relationship(s) really mean. Paedo’s do not impose a shadow upon reality (a reality that cannot be proved, by a mere profession), rather they simply see the reality of a “covenant” relationship (taught in OC and no-where abolished in the NC—it is a new “covenant”), where there are both lost and saved in the covenant, which shall be separated out at the last day (i.e. there are covenant breakers in the NC as well - Heb 6; 10). Baptism is not a work of the law, but an obedience of faith to the covenant that God has established! Believers not baptizing their infants are covenant breakers, not walking by faith, understanding their heritage, and recognizing the covenant relationship God even has with (elect and non-elect) children.

And where may I ask have I supported 'Presumptive Regeneration'? Have I (and others) not done the exact opposite here? Have not those here that have supported such error been reproved?

Now, you append a magazine article. Pope Steve are you now speaking to us ex-cathedrally from England with a magazine story and placing its authority on par with holy Scripture? A story from a magazine does not make the reality of what the Scripture teaches any different. It is quit that you take one illustration and make it the teaching of the whole paedo system. Maybe we should call your apologetic Presumptive Presbyterianism. An apologetic defense that credo is correct because Presumptive Regeneration is wrong is not a good argument. You still have to contend with those of us who embrace CT. Please prove your case from Scripture and not emotional and ex-cathedral appeals to your audience.

The other errors of your post have been dealt with elsewhere.

You guys look like you could use a cup a joe <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

That was a cup of "Joe" the pot will come next <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Actually Joe I was going to suggest to you both that there are very many brands of decaffinated coffee that are just as tasty. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Hello JE,
I thought I ought to answer some of the points you made in this part of the thread before leaving. You obligingly gave the relevant quote from Hebrews:-

Hebrews 8:10-12 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more.'

You then continued:-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These verses have a present and future aspect to them. They have NOT been “totally” fulfilled yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You state this without giving any Scriptural support. The natural reading of these verses (whether in Jeremiah or Hebrews) is that in the Old Covenant only some knew the Lord and in the NC, everybody does. What you are doing is indulging in a fine piece of eisogesis to make the Scriptures agree with your pre-suppositions. However, there are at least two NT texts that place this ‘Knowing of the Lord’ very firmly in the present:-

1John 2:20ff. ‘But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it………..But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you…….and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

1Cor 2:12, 15. ‘Now we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been given to us freely by God……..But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.’

Even Paedo-baptist commentators on 1John, like Candlish and Kistemaker, admit the link between 1John 2:20ff and Heb 8:10ff. Obviously, when he says, ‘You know all things’, John is not suggesting that the recipients of his letter knew quantum mechanics or the value of pi to 50 decimal places; nor was he suggesting that they were fully versed in every conceivable aspect of theology; but they knew the Lord and they knew the way of salvation, and they did not need someone to tell them anything different. John says, ‘YOU have an anointing…..’. He is assuming that every single one of the people he is writing to knows the Lord. They are the New Covenant people of God.
Just in case there is any doubt about this, the writer to the Hebrews repeats the Jeremiah quotation in10:15ff, and in verese 15 and 18, he places the quote very firmly in the present.

You Continued:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we must remind ourselves that Jer 31:34 falls on the heels of Jer 31:32 which says, “It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant …."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly so. “IT WILL NOT BE LIKE THE [OLD] COVENANT. The old covenant could be broken, the new cannot.

You added:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Covenant today is still able to be broken every time we sin.’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT!!!??? Can you not read to the end of the verse? ‘For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’

You mentioned Heb 10:29. ‘Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which [he] was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace.’

Can apostates be said to have been ‘sanctified’? Surely not in view of Rom 11:29? Therefore the ‘he’ (‘He’) here must refer to ‘the Son of God’ (John 17:19 ). These apostates were never in the NC, whether or not they were baptized. They had, ‘neither part nor portion in this matter’ (Acts 8:21 ) and ‘were not of us’ (1John 2:19 ).

You ended:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is best not to question God’s methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amen! But you have not proved to me that you know what that methodology is.

In your most recent post, you wrote:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You prove that this change in covenant relationship happened where in Scripture? Acts 2:41 does not do it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your link has reminded me that I owe Pilgrim a post. I had forgotten.

However, in answer to you, let me pose you a question in return: since Pentecost was a Jewish festival,and since only Jews were allowed into most of the Temple area (Acts 21:28 ), it seems to be reasonable to suppose that most if not all of the ‘multiude’ (Acts 2:5-6 ) to whom Paul spoke on the Day of Pentecost were circumcised Jews. If there is only one covenant and if these men had already received one covenant sign, why did Paul command them to receive another? And why did they obey him without demur?

My positively last performance here. Time for that cup o' Joe <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

Every blessing, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Steve

To insist that EVERYONE without exception in the “visible church” is in the NC (in a saving way) and that without exception “know the LORD” (in a saving way) is against the whole counsel of God! Apparently in your examination of Hebrews 8, you failed to read and understand Hebrews 6 and 10. Kistemaker, one of my former professors, even states concerning Heb 10:29;


Thus, even he has issue with what you assumed he said. Your constant failure to discern the difference between the visible and invisible Church continues to hamper your perception of the truth of God in this matter. Please review this diagram again.

While it is true, as you have shown in 1 John 2:20; 1 Cor 2:12, 15, that those in the “invisible” Church “know the Lord” this is not true of ALL in the “visible” Church. You only proof texted part of the Gospel message. What about those in the “visible” church, who are not members of the “invisible”? What of those who are only visible members of the NC and not invisible members; who use the covenant language (LORD, LORD), do the covenant works of Christ, and participate in the NC in various forms (hear the Word, take the sacraments, etc.) and yet they are false teachers, permanent covenant breakers, professors only, and not possessors of real life;

Calvin comments;

Are there hypocrites, covenant breakers, and deceivers in the “visible” church, in the OC/NC? In John 11:45-53, Caiaphas, the high priest and a member of the “visible” Church, revealed without question that he was not a member of the “invisible” church, for after his counsel, many “from that day forth took counsel together for to put [Jesus] to death.”

In Matthew 23:1-3 and 13, Christ himself plainly affirms that hypocrites are members of the “visible” church. In these passages, Jesus recognizes the scribes and Pharisees status as properly appointed teachers in the “visible” Church. Indeed, He commands His disciples that they must respect them when they teach the laws of Moses. However, He warns them not to follow their hypocritical model, as they do not practice what they preach. He explicitly identifies them as hypocrites (covenant breakers) and affirms that they are not in the “invisible” Church for they will not enter the "kingdom of heaven." However, in contrast their membership in the “visible” church is both recognized and sustained.

What of the example of Judas (Matt 10:1-5)? Judas was a part of the “visible” Church having received an external call from Christ himself. Christ also personally commissioned Judas to preach the Gospel! Moreover, Christ empowered Judas to cast out demons and heal the sick. Are we now to suppose that Judas was never a member of the “visible” church (though he was visibly doing all these things)? Did Jesus know that Judas was a covenant breaker before He selected him—i.e. the son of perdition? Who selected this reprobate to preach? The answer is clear; Judas, as a member of the “visible” Church, having a close association with other covenant members and selected by Christ himself, was a covenant breaker, deserted Christ during a covenant meal, and betrayed the covenant head!

Yes, unbelievers can be sanctified (1 Cor 7:14). Please note “sanctified” has different meanings in different contexts—you are confusing the sanctification of salvation with other types of sanctification. Kistemaker states;

While in reference to the “invisible” Church apostates have ‘neither part nor portion in this matter’ (Acts 8:21 ) and ‘were not of us’ (1John 2:19 ), this is not true in reference to the “visible” Church, as already shown to you above. Again, you are (1) not looking at the whole counsel of God, and (2) confusing visible and invisible Church distinctions in Scripture.

Judaism is not Christianity! Circumcision had been replaced with baptism, as Paul wrote in Col 2:11-13. Why did they obey, because they were now Christians and knew the above facts were true for themselves and all their house (Acts 2:38f). Same covenant, different administration, different sign, same Lord. As Wes states, ‘Paul revealed the progressive revelation of God's covenant which found fulfillment in Christ.’

Scripture, good to the last drop and beyond. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

Joe

As you know I am a Credo-Baptist, however I can't for the life of me understand why Steve would accuse you of 'Presumptive Regeneration'.
Steve has read enough of your posts to realize that.
I don't see a lot of difference between what Pilgrim believes and what you believe and yet he is accusing you of believing in 'Presumptive Regeneration'.

Tom