“But the natural man, the unconverted man, the unregenerate man, is the same kind of man whether he is inside the covenant or outside it, with the difference that reprobates inside the covenant have greater condemnation” (Against the Church, p. 143).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
A person is either in Christ or not. It is like being in the Ark or outside it. In it you are safe; outside it you are sunk! While I agree with you that there are tares among the wheat, no one who is unregenerate is inside the new covenant. Our theological systems need to submit to Scripture, not visa versa. Acts 17:11
Shawn, do you believe in baptismal regeneration then? His point is that baptism doesn’t save, but it does do *something*.
No, Seth, I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. What I meant was, only the Holy Spirit by the means of regeneration can put a person “in” the new covenant or “in Christ Jesus.” Thus, while tares may have a false assurance of salvation (Matt.7:21-23), there are no unregenerate people who are actually in the new covenant. Obviously, I don’t hold to an infant baptism position.
Shawn, A few questions: “…our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did…We must not put Christ to the… Read more »
I take “us” to mean, the apostle Paul and the Corinthian readers (as well as all true believers who read the letter).
Judas was chosen as a disciple, yet I do not believe he was regenerate (see John 6:70-71; 12:6; 13:10-11).
Pastor Wilson If Jesus is indeed the Lord of all nations, how is it possible for anybody to be outside the obligation of the New Covenant, which is to repent and believe (Acts 17:30)? Paedobaptism brings with it so much obsolete Abrahamic baggage that it: 1) Turns the New Covenant into an object rather than a Person ( http://bit.ly/1fmGBRH ) 2) Makes a global Gospel impossible ( http://bitly.com/1onK5Y5 ) A response to this from my FV friends would be great. So far they don’t seem to be able to get their brains around it. That could be a sign that… Read more »
Mike Bull wrote: “If Jesus is indeed the Lord of all nations, how is it possible for anybody to be outside the obligation of the New Covenant…” Mike has written similar comments in the past. These are carefully worded, but deeply misguided. For example, back in May he wrote: “a) baptism isn’t about putting anyone into the Covenant because all nations are now under it, and being offered the Gospel” Mike would like to erase the distinction between covenant and non-covenant member, but he carefully stops short of suggesting that all nations and people are within the new covenant (he… Read more »
Can Christians please come up with a coherent and complete list of things we must believe and do or not do to avoid this condemnation of which you speak? This list changes depending on who I ask. For example, do I have to tithe 10%? If so, is that of my net or gross income? Must I speak in tongues or must I not speak in tongues? If I’m married, can I use non-abortive contraception? If I’m single, am I reprobate if I engage in “self-abuse” or fantasize about single women? Do I have to embrace the five points of… Read more »
Is this a sincere request for information? I certainly would not desire for you the ghastly fate you mention…
Tim: While I’m slightly taking a jab at the inconsistency of Christian doctrine, sure … if there are really all these requirements regarding what one must believe and/or do or not do to not be tormented eternally, I’d like to know what they are. I’m no masochist. If that’s how the Supreme Being operates, there’s not much one can do about it, is there?
James, Sure if God made us, then he makes the rules and our protests are irrelevant. We cannot blame him for the contradictory information given by uniformed would-be-followers can we? The Bible claims to be the very word of God. Since this is true, it is wise to check all claims to Christian doctrine against this standard. The average street level Muslim probably has very little knowledge of the tenants of Islam. You don’t blame that on “Allah” do you? You check the Quran. Man fell into condemnation because he did not want God to be his Lord. This is… Read more »
Katecho – if you’re going to represent my position you could at least get it right. Firstly, Jer. 31 refers not to the New Covenant of Jesus, but to the new covenant made with Israel and Judah. It’s quoted in Hebrews as a type. Secondly, I haven’t radically redefined baptism. Does your baptism look anything at all like Jesus’ baptism? Nup. Thirdly, you’ve totally misunderstood what I meant by “warrior status” because you’re still thinking in Abrahamic terms (PBs seem to have a veil over their eyes). The distinction in the NT isn’t between who is inside and who is… Read more »
I don’t think you’re mad just Australian. No one can understand you through your accent.
Hard to understand how a dead reprobate covenantal baby deserves more condemnation than a plain dead reprobate baby.
James, I’m not sure of your sincerity either, but since you asked, bethyada’s comment on another topic entirely seems to hit the nail on the head as far as your question:
Be sure to follow the link and read the brief article bethyada attached to the phrase “centered set.”
So if I’m understanding correctly: sincerity counts for everything. So long as one thinks one is behaving correctly and is attempting to please God, they get a pass. After all, it’s not as if He’s speaking audibly or communicating with us outside a very difficult-to-understand and esoteric book written by men in ancient cultures over thousands of years.
That sounds reasonable to me, actually.
Sincerity pointed in the right direction. Since Jesus is a real person with real teachings and real expectations, following Him has a content. You can’t actually be following Jesus if your actions are definitively oriented in a different direction from the way He leads, no matter how warm and fuzzy and Jesusish you think you’re feeling about it. But it’s a directional thing, not a check-off thing.
Some parts of scripture are hard to understand, and some are quite plain. The person interested in following Jesus will at least be trying to align himself with the plain stuff.
Mike Bull wrote: “Firstly, Jer. 31 refers not to the New Covenant of Jesus, but to the new covenant made with Israel and Judah. It’s quoted in Hebrews as a type.” This is a novel interpretation of necessity for Mike. The problem is that Hebrews quotes Jeremiah and refers to the Old and New Covenants as the “first” and “second”: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first had been faultless, there would have been… Read more »
Katecho – seems you still don’t really understand either my position, or the way God works. I’ll try to be brief: Re Jer 31: “This is a novel interpretation of necessity for Mike. The problem is that Hebrews quotes Jeremiah and refers to the Old and New Covenants as the ‘first’ and ‘second’…” Please read Jeremiah 31. The context is clear. And whenever God makes a new covenant, everything which preceded it becomes the “old.” Hebrews is speaking about the reunion of Jew and Gentile, and using the reunion of Israel and Judah through “death” in Babylon as a type.… Read more »
Mike Bull wrote: The New Covenant is about a circumcised heart which comes from hearing the Gospel. Pretending that you can “save” your children and that they somehow miraculously believe in the womb (as Pastor Wilson has stated) find no support either in the Old or New Testaments. I’d need to see what Wilson actually said before I would accept Mike’s characterization of it. Some context would be helpful. For example, we know that John the Baptist leaped in the womb, and that he was God’s chosen prophet from the womb. We aren’t given details about why John leaped in… Read more »
Way to go Mike!
Someone is interacting with you. They must speak Aussie. Don’t resort to Temple furniture shape of the Ephod 180 something fish argument(as much as I love that stuff) stay with the narrative verse interaction and we might get somewhere. Be patient. Doug himself may even join in.
“I went down a dry sinner, and came up a wet one”–my dad on his teenaged baptism.
So why wouldn’t we baptise all the sinners then, worldwide, seeing as repentance is irrelevant, and civic baptism is somehow “Christendom”? At least they’d be “in the Covenant.” With that strategy, it will end up as it did before: nationalism with a veneer of religion. David Goldman is very helpful on this one: http://bit.ly/1sznQjg