Tabletalk/RC Sproul and the Covenant

[John 6-37]

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/rev...rror.asp?ID=31


Tabletalk Rewrites the Covenant
Posted: 3/9/2004
Friends, The February 2004 issue of Tabletalk, a monthly magazine published by Ligonier Ministries, contains a lethal misrepresentation of the Covenant of Grace. In its February 18 "devotional," we read these words: "The book of Hebrews uses this story [of ancient Israel] as a basis for warning Christians to persevere, thereby proving that the new covenant can be broken as well [as the Mosaic could].... "The fact that Hebrews gives real warnings and teaches that the new covenant can be broken might seem strange to those of us from a Reformed background. After all, are not the elect secure in their salvation? Surely it is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation?... How then can these warnings be real? "The answer lies in the concept of covenant. When God makes a covenant, He makes a covenant with both believers and unbelievers, with both the elect and the reprobate.... Human beings are responsible to keep the covenant...." Nothing could be further from the truth. First, Hebrews says that the new covenant is better than the old Mosaic covenant: "But now he [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as he is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises [than the Mosaic covenant]. For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." Second, the new covenant, says Hebrews, is better because it cannot be broken: "I will put my laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them " (Hebrews 8:10-11). There is no possibility of these things not happening: "All shall know me." Third, God does not make the new covenant, the Covenant of Grace, with both the reprobate and the elect, despite what Tabletalk says. The Covenant is made with the elect only. Question 31 (and many other questions as well) of the Westminster Larger Catechism makes this perfectly clear: "Q.31 With whom was the Covenant of Grace made? "A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." In the new and better covenant, God the Father made an agreement with God the Son, Jesus Christ. Acting as the Mediator, as the Representative and Substitute for his people, the elect, Jesus Christ, fulfilled all the conditions of the Covenant of Works that Adam had failed to fulfill. Jesus procured all the blessings of salvation for his people, and that salvation he gives to them all as a free gift. What Tabletalk is teaching is false doctrine. Tabletalk's covenant is the basis of the Antichristian Neolegalism that is sweeping through Reformed churches. This false covenant does not recognize the role of Christ as Mediator. Instead, it requires believers to fulfil unspecified conditions of the covenant in order to keep their salvation. In this false covenant, there is no room for Christ as the Substitute for and Representative of his people, who alone met the conditions the holiness of God requires for salvation: perfection. In this false covenant there is no room for Christ as Savior. In this false covenant, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the necessary and sufficient ground for salvation of sinners is denied. In this false covenant, sinners are told that they themselves must meet the conditions of salvation, the "oblgations of the covenant," and by their own "covenant faithfulness" obtain the blessings of the covenant. If they love the brethren and the truth, the writers, editors, and publishers of Tabletalk must issue an immediate apology to their readers, and a correction and retraction for these false statements. Their failure to do so will justifiably cause many more to doubt the doctrinal soundness of Tabletalk. For three years Tabletalk gave Douglas Wilson, a proponent of Neolegalism, a platform for his views; now the magazine is giving George Grant, a featured speaker at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (which is the primary source of Neolegalism in the PCA), a platform for his views. When taken to task two years ago for saying in Tabletalk that Peter was the head of the church, the editor of Tabletalk refused to issue a correction or retraction to his readers. So the magazine's record is not good. The question we must ask is, Will Tabletalk repudiate Neolegalism and its proponents, or will it continue to teach it and to give the proponents of Neolegalism a platform? John Robbins The Trinity Foundation March 4, 2004 For further reading go to www.trinityfoundation.org

[bgamall]

"Tabletalk's covenant is the basis of the Antichristian Neolegalism that is sweeping through Reformed churches"

From Augustine to Luther to Calvin, legalism has been the essence of covenant theology and Protestantism. Wake up man. The leaders of Protestantism were SACRALISTS. They were murderers. What do you expect? Holy people?

Having said that, faith continues to the end. Paul said the Law of Christ can be fulfilled with love and with caring for the brethren and James said faith without works is dead, ie, not a true faith.

[wildboar]

From Augustine to Luther to Calvin, legalism has been the essence of covenant theology and Protestantism. Wake up man. The leaders of Protestantism were SACRALISTS. They were murderers.

Any evidence for such claims or just taking the place of Satan making accusations against the saints?

[bgamall]

"Any evidence for such claims or just taking the place of Satan making accusations against the saints?"

I guess you haven't read "Reformers and their Stepchildren". It is all in there. The false teacher Servetus was arrested by Calvin and put to death by the Geneva council. I guess you really have lead a sheltered life Wildboar.

BTW I do not necessarily agree with the theology if there is any put forth by "Reformers and Their Stepchildren" because it was written by a Protestant historian. Still, the truth of what happened is not lost on those who read it.

Satan is Protestantism. He revealed himself through Sacralism more than in any other way. He controlled the nations. So, you are being used and don't even know it if you support these murderers.

[wildboar]

I guess you haven't read "Reformers and their Stepchildren". It is all in there. The false teacher Servetus was arrested by Calvin and put to death by the Geneva council. I guess you really have lead a sheltered life Wildboar.

Calvin was somewhat instrumental in the arrest and had warned the Unitarian Servetus about returning to Geneva but played a very minor role in the Geneva council and asked that Servetus be given a more merciful method of execution, but he was denied. Many of those on the council were not even Calvinists. I'm not defending the relationship between church and state as being correct at that time, but even Servetus agreed that the state had that power. To act as if Calvin acted as some sort of despot in Geneva is absurd. When the anabaptists had oppurtunity they set up governments far more tyrannical than any protestant government. Also, you said that Augustine and Luther were murderers as well without providing any evidence. Perhaps, you should take the time to re-read what the Reformers and their stepchilren actually says and also read the reply by Dr. Nigel Lee, "The Anabaptists and Their Step-Children" which can be found at: http://www.dr-fnlee.org/anab.html Following is some of what is said about Servetus:

Calvin the consistent Trinitarian defended his own baptismal views especially against those of the antitrinitarian and antipaidobaptistic heretic Servetus the Unitarian Anabaptist. Those defences are very instructive.

To Calvin, "Servetus was both an Anabaptist and the worst of heretics."250 For Servetus and his followers repudiated not only the triune baptisms of covenant children -- but even the Triune God Himself. Nevertheless, Calvin still gave even Servetus every opportunity to put his case.

As Calvin wrote in his Last Admonition of Westphal (in 1557): "I have not taught in word anything that I have not confirmed by act. For when Servetus was, by nefarious blasphemies, overthrowing whatever piety exists in the world -- I, nevertheless, called him to discussion; and not only came prepared to give an account of my own doctrine, but chose rather to swallow the reproaches of that vilest of men, than furnish a bad example by enabling anyone afterwards to object that he was crushed without being heard."

Explained Calvin:251 "In our day have arisen certain frantic men, such as Servetus and others who by new devices have thrown everything into confusion.... The name of Trinity was so much disliked, nay detested, by Servetus - - that he charged all whom he called 'Trinitarians' with being atheists." For to Servetus, they were 'polytheists' and hence unbelievers in one God alone.

Continued Calvin regarding Servetus: "The sum of his speculations [about God] was that a threefold deity [alias a compound of three separate gods] is introduced wherever three Persons are said to exist in His essence.... He [Servetus] sometimes cloaks his absurdities in allegory, as when he says that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God.... He at last reduces the divinity of both to nothing; maintaining that...there is a part of God as well in the Son as in the Spirit -- just as the same spirit substantially is a portion of God in us, and also in wood and stone."

Of his several serious errors, it was the antitrinitarianism of the Anabaptist Servetus which was by far the worst. Explained Calvin:252 "Out of many, let the one example of Servetus suffice. For this man who was already puffed up with Portuguese pride and is now even more swollen with his own arrogance, made up his mind that the best way to make a name for himself was to overthrow all the principles of religion. Accordingly, not only does he repudiate as absurd all that was taught by the Fathers ever since the apostolic age itself and accepted by all believers all down the course of the ages -- but he also criticizes it, and tears it to pieces with the cruelest of insults....

"He imagines that the Word of God [alias the Eternal Son] did not exist before Moses introduces God speaking in the creation of the world." To Servetus, "when God put forth such great power as He did, it is as if He [the Word] actually began to exist only then -- rather than that He [thus] gave evidence of His eternal being..... [To Servetus, Christ] is the 'Son of God' only by the right that He was conceived in the womb of the virgin.... Servetus collects many wagonloads of speculations, which are so meaningless that it is easy for any sensible man to see that only someone bewitched by a blind love of himself can be so foolish."

Calvin further observed253 that "Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists," also wrongly assumes that "infants...are unable to believe." To Servetus, for that reason, all infants still "lie under condemnation."

Replied Calvin: "Seeing it is certain that [covenantal] infants are blessed by Him [Christ], it follows that they are freed from death.... Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul's testimony is that...the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace....

"Servetus [himself] afterwards adds that no man becomes our brother, unless by the spirit of adoption -- which is only conferred by the hearing of faith." Calvin answered: "Who will presume from this, to give [or prescribe] the law to God -- and say that He may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method" than by hearing the Word physically through one's ears?

Servetus, continued Calvin, "objects that Cornelius was baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit.... He objects that infants cannot be regarded as new men.... But what I have said again and again, I now repeat.... From non-age...God takes His own methods of regenerating."

In a letter to Servetus, Calvin made an even more pertinent remark. "We say that Christ extends His hand to the children of holy parents as soon as they are born or conceived ('simul ac nascitur') -- in order to liberate them from the general guilt of sin."254

We cannot here deal with Calvin's minor role in the final trial of Servetus -- before the then still non-Calvinistic magistrates of Geneva. Harvard's Dr. G.H. Williams was sympathetic toward that heretic. Yet even Williams wrote255 "that Servetus the anti-Nicene anti-Chalcedonian Anabaptist was not a pacifist. He expressly recognized the state as ordained by Christ, and he legitimated as proper to a Christian magistrate the punishment of obstinate or blasphemous heretics by death....

"As the trial ran its course Servetus was variously --headstrong, truculent, and plaintive.... He demanded that Calvin be imprisoned likewise, with death to one or the other under the poena talionis.... Bullinger of Zurich...asked for the death penalty.... The condemnation of Servetus' doctrine was unanimous.... The public prosecutor Claude Rigot -- himself a Libertine! -- accused Servetus of subverting the social order, of a dissolute life, and of affinity with Jews and Turks....

"The court found Servetus guilty..., and condemned him to be burned at the stake.... Calvin intervened to secure an execution more merciful than death by burning, but the judgment was not changed. It was Farel who conducted Servetus to the place of execution..., urging him to recant. Servetus rejected all entreaties.... In his extremity, he was explicit in his belief -- still refusing to ascribe eternity to the person of Jesus Christ."

[bgamall]

"Calvin was somewhat instrumental in the arrest and had warned the Unitarian Servetus about returning to Geneva but played a very minor role in the Geneva council and asked that Servetus be given a more merciful method of execution, but he was denied"

Wildboar, read what you wrote. Jesus said His kingdom was NOT OF THIS WORLD. The Ayatola Calvin saw Servetus in his congregation and had him arrested. That he pleaded for a more merciful death was not showing any mercy at all. Sacralism is from hell, Wildboar, and your words just reinforce my position. Thank you.

Calvin is sitting in hell wondering what happened. Trust me on that one Wildboar. You need to repent of this love of sacralism and believe the truth as it is in Christ!

I am not supporting the Anabaptists at the time, at least the ones we know about. I have always been against their doctrines and their off the wall beliefs.

BTW I do not believe in infant salvation at all. The elect enter into the fellowship of suffering for their FAITH. I do not make this a test of fellowship. But I believe that it is the only conclusion of scripture.

Dr Lee will go down with Calvin unless he too repents of this blasphemy against Christ who taught us that his kingdom is not of this world.

Notice I said that Servetus was a false teacher. That doesn't excuse Calvin's involvement in his sacralist murder. This is not authorized state behavior because true believers in Christ believe that his authorized kingdom and government is not synonymous with the state.

[wildboar]

bgamall:

Your own words condemn you, I will speak with you no longer cast pearls before swine.

[Robert R. Higby]

bgamall states:

Satan is Protestantism. He revealed himself through Sacralism more than in any other way. He controlled the nations. So, you are being used and don't even know it if you support these murderers.

But you are wrong! Satan is not Protestantism! To confine and identify the activities of Satan to the deplorable errors of Luther and Calvin--this is a most awful and damnable error.

Luther and Calvin were regretably engrossed in the errors of the time in which they lived. They caved in to state-church sacralist murders in an attempt to please and reform the papacy. Horror of horrors! But the sectarianism of Baptists and all other sects in the last 500 years is no different. The damnable heresy of sectarianism would forbid true believers from participation in the body of Christ. In essence, this is the same murderous error of Luther and Calvin, since it denies the full paricipation in Christ's body to Nonconformists. Baptists and other sectarian heretics are absolutely no different than the 16th century reformers.

So bgamall, if you want me to condemn Luther and Calvin, this would require me to condemn you also!

[bgamall]

"Luther and Calvin were regretably engrossed in the errors of the time in which they lived. They caved in to state-church sacralist murders in an attempt to please and reform the papacy. Horror of horrors! But the sectarianism of Baptists and all other sects in the last 500 years is no different. The damnable heresy of sectarianism would forbid true believers from participation in the body of Christ. In essence, this is the same murderous error of Luther and Calvin, since it denies the full paricipation in Christ's body to Nonconformists. Baptists and other sectarian heretics are absolutely no different than the 16th century reformers."

A murderer does not have the love of God in him. Ask the Apostle John. So, Bill, condemn away. It does not surprise me that you would do so. I always thought you were a defender of murderers. It just took some plain language to get it to come out. They cannot be saved.

If Jesus kingdom WAS of this world, then the heads and decision makers of murdering sacralist systems could be saved. But His kingdom is not of this world and so they have no authority by God to be carrying out their persecutions and murders.

I am glad we all know where we stand. But make no mistake, apostacy is apostacy, and it started immediately after the apostles, and crystalized in Constantine and Augustine. The Protestants were followers of this system and of these men. The 1646 confession folks stood as a shining light against these fatal errors.


"I will speak with you no longer cast pearls before swine." Wildboar, that is not a complete sentence. Calling me swine after I tell you the truth is not wise.

[disciple]

A murderer does not have the love of God in him. Ask the Apostle John. So, Bill, condemn away. It does not surprise me that you would do so. I always thought you were a defender of murderers. It just took some plain language to get it to come out. They cannot be saved.

you therefore also condemn moses and david among others. i doubt that was what john had in mind. nevertheless, i suggest, as a moderator, that this invective be softened. there is no need for the excessive sarcasm and condemning of souls. condemning is not our job but God's. and that is a reminder for everyone here. allow me to remind everyone here of the forum rules:

No 'people bashing'
It's ok to feel angry, sad, or irritated and express yourself with words. It's ok to tell someone that you think they are wrong, teaching heresy, perverting the truth, or maybe a bit confused.
What you may not do is use insults, harrassment, derogatory comments, obscenity, profanity, excessive sarcasm, facetious remarks, or any hurtful jab to make a point.

If you aren't sure about your post, consult a moderator, or don't post it.

Posting Guidelines
1. Respect the personhood of others while engaging their ideas.

2. Carefully represent the views of those with whom you are in disagreement.

3. Be careful in defining terms, avoiding needless use of inflammatory words.

4. Be careful in the use of generalizations; where appropriate offer specific evidence.

5. Seek to understand the experience out of which others have arrived at their views. Hear the stories of others, as you share your own.

6. Exercise care that expressions of personal offense at the differing opinion of others not be used as a means of inhibiting dialogue.

7. Be a patient listener before formulating responses.

8. Be open to change in your own position and patient with the process of change in the thinking and behavior of others.

9. Make use of the forum moderators where communication can be served by it.

10. Always remember that people are defined, ultimately, by their relationship with God -- not by the flaws you discover or think you discover in their views and actions.

[bgamall]

"you therefore also condemn moses and david among others. i doubt that was what john had in mind. nevertheless, i suggest, as a moderator, that this invective be softened. there is no need for the excessive sarcasm and condemning of souls. condemning is not our job but God's. and that is a reminder for everyone here. allow me to remind everyone here of the forum rules:"

Please note that Moses and David were authorized sacralists but Calvin and Luther were not. Also note that you cannot teach theology without condemning the perveyors of false doctrine. As to the people who have condemned me here, also note that I have not condemned back. My warnings to them have been measured and patient.

If you cannot tell the difference between Moses and Calvin, then there is really nothing more to say.

[disciple]

Please note that Moses and David were authorized sacralists but Calvin and Luther were not.

neither moses or david used the authorized sacral means to kill. their murders were premeditated for their own personal gain and not for the state. both should have been stoned per the Jewish Law (except that the Law wasn't in existence yet for Moses).

Also note that you cannot teach theology without condemning the perveyors of false doctrine. As to the people who have condemned me here, also note that I have not condemned back. My warnings to them have been measured and patient.

my point is that you are condemning others (i.e., Calvin, Luther, etc.) which is God's job and not yours. condemning a teaching is different from condemning individuals. and i would say that your warnings have not been measured and patient (and i say this as a moderator).

If you cannot tell the difference between Moses and Calvin, then there is really nothing more to say.

this is exactly what i'm talking about. just please note the rules and guidelines and abide by them. if you do not wish to comply, then actions may need to be taken.

[bgamall]

"neither moses or david used the authorized sacral means to kill. their murders were premeditated for their own personal gain and not for the state. both should have been stoned per the Jewish Law (except that the Law wasn't in existence yet for Moses)."

You will have to show what those were. And you don't see Moses or David killing prophets or men of faith. Moses had authority of God and so did David to have a holy civil government. The Reformers had no such authority. That is what you are failing to understand.

And you are being unfair with regard to who is condemning whom. I did not start any of that among the posters here and you know it. You can be dishonest about this if you like, after all you are the moderator.

But it does not make you right. And you are not right.

BTW look at the quotes in the other thread if you really want to know what the reformers believed. You can see that they had no clue about New Covenant revelation. That is obvious from THEIR OWN WORDS.

"my point is that you are condemning others (i.e., Calvin, Luther, etc.) which is God's job and not yours." Jesus condemned the pharisees and if my condemning the neo pharisees is muzzled, and if you kick me out, I will count it as a glory to God. So, it is up to you disciple. There are thousands of message boards on the net and I was looking for one when I found yours.

[disciple]

You will have to show what those were. And you don't see Moses or David killing prophets or men of faith. Moses had authority of God and so did David to have a holy civil government. The Reformers had no such authority. That is what you are failing to understand.

i understand that. my point is that both murdered and neither murdered for state purposes. perhaps that is what you are failing to understand. at this point it seems rather pointless to pursue this any further since you appear to miss the main issue that these men were murderers for their own gain and yet both were called the friend of God. this is because of grace and God's forgiveness. we mustn't make the new covenant into a covenant of works (based on whether someone murdered or not).

And you are being unfair with regard to who is condemning whom. I did not start any of that among the posters here and you know it. You can be dishonest about this if you like, after all you are the moderator.

But it does not make you right. And you are not right.

i understand that you did not condemn anyone here personally but you began with the condemning to hell of men rather than teachings much in line with the methods of authoritarian law Christianity which is really what you seem to be wanting to oppose (and rightly so). my point is that there is no reason to play God for any of us here whether it be referring to live people in this forum or anyone else. this is not conducive to meaningful dialogue.

BTW look at the quotes in the other thread if you really want to know what the reformers believed. You can see that they had no clue about New Covenant revelation. That is obvious from THEIR OWN WORDS.

i have read "stepchildren" and i agree that the magesterial reformers had their issues. but i'm not willing to say that they are all in hell. i think that their beliefs in this area were no different than the roman catholic understanding (though they were less harsh and torturous), but in their shoes and living in their culture and times i'm not sure many of us would have done much better.

i'm currently taking a seminary course on church history (up to before the reformation) and have learned much about the way things were in regards to church and state (in fact that seems to be the main focus of the course...i.e., to hilight church-state relations throughout history). ever since constantine there has been a struggle to define the boundaries and ground rules for church-state relations (e.g., how much jurisdiction does the state have in the church and vice versa?). in the east the church has always basically been a department of the state. this has not changed since constantine. in the west, the state basically became a department of the church. breaking out of this mold is what the reformation began (though this was not really the goal of the magesterial reformers) and this was not really realized until what occurred in england and the american colonies in the 1600-1700s.

anyway, i digress...the point is that the proper response might be:

"i'm sorry...i'll try to be more careful from now on."

not

"i didn't do it...they did!!! and you know it!"

[bgamall]

"i understand that. my point is that both murdered and neither murdered for state purposes. perhaps that is what you are failing to understand. at this point it seems rather pointless to pursue this any further since you appear to miss the main issue that these men were murderers for their own gain and yet both were called the friend of God. this is because of grace and God's forgiveness. we mustn't make the new covenant into a covenant of works (based on whether someone murdered or not)."

The New Covenant revelation is clear. Those who murder do not have the love of God. What happened regarding Moses and David happened prior to this revelation. There is a different standard in the New Testament, for example, the Sermon on the Mount. The New Law is different.

Therefore disciple, if we are to be judged by the New Law, and we see that the Reformers had no idea there is a new law, how can they be saved? I don't think this is something that can be pushed under the rug. They lived according to the law of Moses and they punished men for disagreeing religiously. Jesus said His servants would not use the sword to fight for Him.

But Luther and Calvin used the sword, the hangman, and whatever other carnal power they could use to establish their sacralist state. They are not the servants of Christ because they did not put the sword down in His defense.

[disciple]

The New Covenant revelation is clear. Those who murder do not have the love of God. What happened regarding Moses and David happened prior to this revelation. There is a different standard in the New Testament, for example, the Sermon on the Mount. The New Law is different.

so murder was OK in the covenants of promise? am i missing something here?

[bgamall]

He that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist. Therefore it is not that murder was ok, but rather that the grace and standards are higher for the heart in the NT.

The elect in the OT had God given faith. But they were not in the Kingdom of God. The standard in the kingdom of God is that a murderer does not have the love of God in him.

If you, disciple are using David as an excuse for Luther and Calvin to commit unauthorized murders and then claim salvation for themselves you will fail. The NC is plain, "my kingdom is not of this world, so my servants don't fight." Luther and Calvin took the sword and encouraged the death of those who would not submit to sacralism. The state is not holy in the New Covenant.

[disciple]

If you, disciple are using David as an excuse for Luther and Calvin to commit unauthorized murders and then claim salvation for themselves you will fail. The NC is plain, "my kingdom is not of this world, so my servants don't fight." Luther and Calvin took the sword and encouraged the death of those who would not submit to sacralism. The state is not holy in the New Covenant.

i do not think that the state is holy in the NC and i'm not trying to excuse anyone's behavior. i'm simply trying to provide a different perspective from your own. i agree with you that what the magesterial reformers did was evil to the core (and is not the way of the new covenant), but what i do not agree with is that we can determine who is in or out of the kingdom of heaven based upon any particular sin they committed. the NC is a covenant of grace not a covenant of works. john was not saying that someone who murdered could never enter the kingdom of heaven but that a murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him. if you understand john to say that someone who murdered cannot have eternal life then paul himself could not enter the kingdom of heaven and you have made the NC a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace (basing it on what man does or doesn't do...in this case restricting some because of a particular sin they committed, i.e., murder).

[bgamall]

"i do not agree with is that we can determine who is in or out of the kingdom of heaven based upon any particular sin they committed. the NC is a covenant of grace not a covenant of works. john was not saying that someone who murdered could never enter the kingdom of heaven but that a murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him. if you understand john to say that someone who murdered cannot have eternal life then paul himself could not enter the kingdom of heaven and you have made the NC a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace (basing it on what man does or doesn't do...in this case restricting some because of a particular sin they committed, i.e., murder"

I agree with what you say about Paul. In fact he assented to the death of Stephen. I agree with you about a particular sin with regard to the already saved, except murder. I base this on John's statement.

But my condemnation of the Protestants is based upon a combination of things including murder, doctrinal blindness, and continual way of life. The sacralist system swallowed all who were in it. That is the way I believe. At the root of crucial doctrine, the sacralist system attacked true doctrine.

Luther not only warned the Anabaptists about the hangman, but he also taught that the law could humble a person to bring them to Christ. He baptised adult unbelievers. He saw one covenant both old and new. He probably believed in eternal generation as all the Protestants did. These things all add up disciple. And we have no proof of a late life repudiation of these views.

[disciple]

I agree with what you say about Paul. In fact he assented to the death of Stephen.

you agree that paul did not have eternal life (i.e., that he could not enter the kingdom of heaven)? what exactly do you agree with?

I agree with you about a particular sin with regard to the already saved, except murder. I base this on John's statement.

we mustn't miss the rhetorical device in what john was trying to say here. i do not believe that he is saying that anyone who has ever committed the sin of murder cannot have eternal life. this is not the teaching of 1 John 3:11-15. here is the passage:

1 John 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

here is the syllogism:

Minor Premise: People who do not love abide in death (illustrated by exhibit A: Cain who literally slew his brother because of his hatred)
Major Premise: People who hate are murderers (a parallelism with the minor premise)
Conclusion: These people (people who positively hate and negatively do not love = murderers) do not have eternal life adiding in them

so it is crucial to understand that john is using cain as a rhetorical device to say that those who do not love (expressed by action, cf. 1 John 3) are essentially murderers. he's not even really talking about those are actual literal murderers (who have physically taken someone's life). cain is being used a exhibit A to prove that those who do not love in word and deed are demonstrating that they abide in death (i.e., they are murderers) not life. exhibit B of the example of love is Jesus Christ:

1 John 3:16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

in other words, those who claim to be in the family of God and yet have complete apathy toward the needs of the body are just living a sham. in other words, the teaching of 1 john is that a changed life expressed in a love for one another is the evidence that one is in the family of God:

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren...4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love...5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments...13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.