Answering Paul Manata's Objections (continued)

Answering More Paul Manata’s Objections

Manata offers the following rebuttal:

4) It doesn’t seem that the New Testament writers understood Jeremiah’s prophecy to be saying that only regenerate people are in the New Covenant. This is simply seen in the apostasy passages. The New Testament writers seem to imply that one can apostatize from the New Covenant. Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily encourage one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is 18 why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following statements: Col. 1:23–”if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast,” 1 Cor. 15:2–”by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–”and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–”we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–”if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–”the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–”if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–”if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–”in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–”holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–”faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Some baptists say that these are merely a “means” God uses to keep his elect in the covenant. Well, this is not the universal position because reformed baptists like Roger Nicole, and Wayne Grudem, among others, disagree with it. But, even if these passages are a means of perseverance for the elect, and thus hypothetical warnings for them, since it is read to the entire church, and since there are some non-elect in these churches, what purpose do these warnings serve for them? Indeed, even though non-elect cannot repent and believe the gospel, the gospel call is still a sincere and well-meant offer for them. Are these warnings real warnings for everyone they are read to? Furthermore, why would we take these warnings seriously if we viewed ourselves as regenerate? Since it is impossible for a regenerate to apostatize, why should he take the warnings seriously? I mean, since it is possible that fire could shoot out of our eyes, how serious would we take someone who told us to watch out (!) and make sure we didn’t burn our house down? How much less serious should we take a warning about something that is impossible for us to do? We wouldn’t take serious a warning sign in the middle of the Sahara Dessert, which read “Keep off the Grass!” would we?

Is Manata denying the security of the believer? Is he denying the perseverance of the saints? Is he advocating covenantal nomism, aka, Federal Vision? Do we enter the Covenant of Grace by grace alone only to have our continuation in that Covenant conditioned upon law-keeping? Or is Manata just another inconsistent Paedobaptist? I hope it is the latter and not the former. It should not escape your notice that not a single passage that Manata quotes actually asserts what he says they do. To remind the reader, John said they went from us because they were never really of us. The writers to the Hebrews informs us that the death of Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Jesus said He will not lose even one of His sheep. If the being in the audience ipso fact means that you can actually commit apostasy, then no one’s salvation is actually secure.

The NT was written to believers, members in the New Covenant. Since this language was directed to those with genuine faith, and Manata believes the warnings should be taken in a wooden, literal manner without consulting other clear texts of Scripture, we are left with Pelagianism or with a contradictory Scripture. Neither of these are acceptable. The gospel of Jesus Christ is to be proclaimed to everyone even though God’s elect was forever settled from eternity past. We take the warnings seriously because they come from the pen of the Holy Spirit. We understand we are responsible for how we conduct our lives. Additionally, Manata should recognize that the writings of the NT were to the Church. It is the Church that is the pillar and support of the truth. The preaching of the gospel goes in precisely the opposite direction. It is a general call to repent and believe sent out to all. The writings of the New Testament are directed specifically to the Church, those who believe. Is Manata actually suggesting that the NT writers had unbelievers, false converts in mind when they penned the letters? The letters were address to the Church, to those who were called by God, chosen from the beginning for salvation to eternal life in Christ. The salutations clearly indicate this fact. Ephesus calls the recipients saints, the faithful ones in Christ. Romans says they are called as saints, beloved of God. Corinthians calls refers to them as those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus. I could go on and on. It seems clear to me that Manata’s rebuttal in this instance is not the product of sound exegesis, but rather the product of his own theological scheme.

Answering Manata’s Objections

Paul Manata lists a dozen or so responses to common Credobaptist arguments. The first one is in response to the Credobaptist argument which I have made, namely, that the New Covenant consists of only those who are regenerate.

Manata’s objection:

1) The “they” who broke the Old Covenant is not universal in scope (Moses, Joshua, Caleb, etc.,). So, why take the “they” who are in the New Covenant to be so?

Manata’s rebuttal ignores the thrust of the objection. Manata focuses on the “they” when he should be focused on the “what.” Manata’s rebuttal misses the point entirely. Jeremiah 31:33 says “But THIS is the covenant which I will make with them.” The demonstrative pronoun zo’t creates a very clear connection with the kind of covenant God has in mind. Jeremiah spells it out. Demonstrative pronouns single out a person or thing referred to (Waltke). Jeremiah is referring to something that comes later when he says “But THIS is the covenant that I will make with them. If THIS happens to be absent, then what follows has not occurred. What is the THIS that Jeremiah is talking about? The answer could hardly be any clearer; “I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it.” Jeremiah echoes this again in 32:40 which plainly states, “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.” There is no room for gyrating oneself out of the fact that the New Covenant is one that is unbreakable. And according to this language, no one in the New Covenant will turn away from the LORD because His law is written in their heart and in their mind and the fear of God has been placed in their heart by God Himself. Manata’s rebuttal of the Baptist objection in this case falls short.

Manata’s second objection:

2) Jeremiah frequently uses the phrase “from the least to the greatest” to refer to classes of people, rather than everyone individually (Jer. 6:13, 8:8-10, 42:1). If the baptist wants to say that it must mean every single person individually, then he must believe that infants can approach elders, talk, and ask for people to hear their prayers. This is what “all the people from the least to the greatest,” did in Jeremiah 42:1. And if infants can do that then why would baptists say that they couldn’t make a profession of faith!

Feinburg writes, “The least of them” is very broad in meaning and includes “the least” in intellectual ability, in influence or position, in moral capacity – all are included in the comprehensive scope of the phrase.” [EBC, 577] All the members in the New Covenant will have an intimate knowledge of God untaught by men, but taught by God Himself. Again we are reminded of 1 John 2 and in this case 1 Corinthians 1:30 “But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.” So the Baptist objection has not been satisfactorily answered by Manata. It is the nature of the New Covenant that Manata continues to ignore, assuming I suppose that it is the same as the Old Covenant, or at least nearly the same. In other words, Manata’s continuity is so extreme that it ignores the discontinuity.

Manata’s next objection also misses it’s target:

3) This view, as Robert Strimple says, is like “jumping the eschatological gun.” The only time all God’s people will know God, will be regenerate, and will be saved, is in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Gene isn’t a theonomist, but it seems like he’s trying to do to the covenant people of God what theonomists are trying to do to all the people of the earth! But in “this present age” the tares grow among the wheat and it is God who separates them. The baptist may reply that we should try to have the visible church match the invisible. But since the invisible consists of all the elect for all time, then it most certainly includes some children of believers. By not receiving them into the church they will never, at any time, and in no way, match the invisible church. They refuse membership to over half its members!

The wheat and the tares are not addressing the covenant community. This objection is indeed confusing. The wheat is the product of the good seed sown by the Son of Man. These are the members in the New Covenant. The tares were sown by the enemy. These are the sons of the evil one, sown by the devil. The field in which this all takes place is the world, not the church. Since there is no organism known as the visible church, the rest of Manta’s rebuttal is moot. Perhaps Manata wants the Kingdom of God to be understood as the Covenant community. But that would mean that everyone is in the New Covenant. I don’t think Manata wants to go there. The reader needs to be reminded that this is a parable and as such, it is teaching a general truth about the coming judgment when all men will stand before God as their judge rather than men. But even is Manata wanted to press this issue, I would point to Matt. 13:18 which contrasts the good seed, called the sons of the kingdom with the bad see, called the sons of the evil one. Again, I should also reference 1 Jn. 2:20, 27 which says that we have an anointing from the Holy One and we do not need anyone to teach us about the truth of Christ. Manata’s rebuttal misses its target once more.

Interacting with Paul Manata’s Why I am not a Baptist (again)

In this post I will continue my interaction with Manata on the subject of a mixed community in the New Covenant. Manata writes, The EP, as presented in the New Testament, provides extremely strong support for a continued external dimension to the New Covenant community. Only in the new heavens and earth will the covenant community be a pure, unmixed community. Here I think Manata presents his weakest argument. The exclusion principle is not unique to the Ancient Hebrews. The practice was commonplace in the Mediterranean world. Second, to be excluded from a local fellowship does not imply one is a bona fide member of the New Covenant. Nowhere in the NT do the writers ever imply that there are two components of the New Covenant. John’s words serve as an excellent reason for us to reject this idea immediately.

If we are to accept Manata’s argument that the New Covenant will not be written on the hearts of all those who are members in it, we run into a number of problems. On the one hand, is the New Covenant made with all of Israel and Judah? If it is as like the Old Covenant as Manata suggests, then we must admit that national Israel is a member of the New Covenant. But I don’t think Manata would go that far. After all, what is the basis for membership in the New Covenant? Moreover, what are the benefits of being in the New Covenant. Is there any material difference between the Muslim and the Jew in terms of being under the wrath and disfavor of God for their rejection of Jesus Christ? I would think not. At best, this sort of understanding of the New Covenant reduces membership in it to a meaningless status. Manata cannot have it both ways.

The New Covenant is expressly identified by Jeremiah as that activity of God where He writes His law on the hearts of the covenant members, the elect, true Israel. Those who are in the New Covenant have God as their God and they are God’s people. They will not need to teach each other how to know God because all the members in the New Covenant will know God. Jesus quotes this passage in John 6 in the context of all those that are His. Jesus says that everyone who is taught of God, something Jeremiah reserves for the recipients of the New Covenant, will come to Him. The idea that one could be a member in the New Covenant and not come to Christ is simply not true. John echoes Jeremiah’s words twice more when he informs his church that they have an anointing from the Holy One and do not need a teacher. Why? Because they have been taught of God just as Jeremiah said the New Covenant members would be and Jesus Himself interpreted Jeremiah this way as well.

Romans 9-11 provides excellent material to understand membership in the New Covenant. It is those elect Jews and Gentiles who have faith in Christ. The Gentiles have been grafted into the Covenant by faith in Christ. Unbelief excludes people from the covenant regardless of race, gender, social status, or relations. Only faith in Christ results in membership in the New Covenant community. This is clear when Paul says, “And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.” (Rom. 11:23)

The writer of Hebrews tells us that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, a better covenant. What Christ mediates is efficacious. He offers up for members of the Covenant a better sacrifice. Would Manata say that Christ is the actual mediator for the non-elect? Does Christ offer up sacrifice for those who actually reject Him, those who are not His sheep? The writer goes on to say that the blood of Christ is efficacious, being offered through the eternal Spirit, to cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb. 9:14) This is the mediator of the New Covenant mediating for members in that covenant. The writer then says, “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. (9:16) Is Manata claiming that Christ’s death included those who were not elect? It is only those who have been called that will receive the promise of the New Covenant. (v. 15) This accords perfectly with Jeremiah 31, John 6, Romans 9-11, and 1 John 2. The New Covenant is established in the blood sacrifice of Christ. This sacrifice takes away the Old Covenant in order to establish the New. (Heb. 10:9) It is by this sacrifice that the members in the New Covenant have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:10) It is by this offering that He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (10:14) It is here that the writer to the Hebrews references Jeremiah 31:33. The writer of the Hebrews connects those who have been sanctified, perfected, washed in the blood of Christ and cleansed with the same ones that Jeremiah describes as having God’s laws put upon their hearts and their minds. It is the same audience. These are the objects of the New Covenant arrangement. This is why Paul says that (we) New Covenant members are not of those who endure for a while but then withdrawal to perdition. (Heb. 10:39) These are those who were never really of us. The parable of the sower presents this clearly. The good soil, the New Covenant members, Christ’s sheep, those whom God has actually called, are the members of the New Covenant, in the body of Christ, the Church, in Christ by faith and they will endure to the end. The ones that withdrawal were never really of us.

If the writer to the Hebrews is correct, then members in the New Covenant have been perfected forever, having been sanctified by the blood of Christ once and for all. This sacrifice has created a mixed, but entirely pure community. Mixed in that she is ethnically diverse but one in that she is spiritually pure, sanctified, justified by the one eternal sacrifice of Christ her mediator. The writer of the Hebrews does not use language that implies that the New Covenant is yet to be enacted. The New Covenant has been fully enacted. Christ said it is finished, not it has begun. We are living in the New Covenant arrangement today and the purity of our communities is of utmost importance if we are to be the light we are called to be. This is why church discipline is so critically important. It is why Paul insisted that the Corinthian man be removed immediately. We are not a community of moral and immoral people. Even though wolves are around us along with the hypocrites, they are not of us. They are not in our community. They are not members of the covenant because only God can make someone a member of the covenant.