Preterist - A Message To Darth Gill

[Michael B]

I would need this to be answered SCRIPTURALLY and LOGICALLY where I error regarding Matthew 24 and heaven and earth.


Matthew 24 can not be divided and and therefore / logically: HEAVEN AND EARTH MUST HAVE PASSED AWAY.

Matthew 24
34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Therefore: Since Heaven and earth passed away. Revelation 20 THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT and Revelation 21 and 21 THE NEW HEAVENS AND THE NEW EARTH are fulfilled.

Revelation 20
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 14Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 21
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

Keep in mind that all Partial Preterists say that Matt 24:1-34 are fulfilled. In scripture the gathering of the elect is the salvation of the remnant, Isaiah 65:8f; the remnant are the scattered, Isa. 11:11,16; the scattered are the "dead", Ezekiel 37:11f. Jesus' reference in Matthew 24:31 to gathering the elect at his coming must be seen in light of this Old Covenant background. Thus, Matthew 24:31 (which Partial Preterists say is a past event), is nothing less than the promise of the resurrection.
Now notice heaven's own time-frame for the fulfillment of "all these things". In Daniel 12:6 one angel asked another "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?" The other angel responded "when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished" vs. 7. When was this? AD 70.


God Bless, Michael Bennett <><
steel_saint@yahoo.com

[Brandan Kraft]

Wow! I got your e-mail Mr. Bennett! You're inviting me to a debate? I'll have to think about that - right now debating preterism hasn't been the top of my priorities lately and I have other more important topics in my life right now (such as taking on the conditional primitive baptists)... Anyway, I do like the first comment on your web page I noticed you invited him to a debate as well.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud...chael_666.html

Brandan Kraft

[Michael B]

Hey Brandon - no problem - hey I have actually had many conversations with "conditional" Primitive Baptists. Lemme know if I can get involved. Thanks for your good attitude and for letting me post here. It is a wonderful web site. Very impressive.


Hey - questions about duty faith - maybe you have already addressed:


How could all men everywhere be commanded to repent if it is not their duty?

Acts 17
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


How could "unbelief" be a sin and someone would go to the lake of fire if faith was not a duty?


Revelation 21
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.



By the way - I don't know posting etiquite for forums so bear with me. For instance I am asking about "duty faith" in an eschatology room. Lemme know the proper proceedures if I mess up.

[Brandan Kraft]

How could "unbelief" be a sin and someone would go to the lake of fire if faith was not a duty?

It's sinful to not believe the truth of the gospel. Even the devils believe the gospel message is true. All of God's creatures have a duty to lay down their arms and submit to Jesus as Lord. But men do not have a duty to believe that Jesus died for them. Saving faith is a gift that is given to the elect at the appointed in time in which their eyes are opened to the glorious truth of salvation accomplished FOR THEM!

We've discussed this for at length in this thread if you're interested in reading more about this topic. Also, for your benefit I've posted an article from an Absoluter Primitive Baptist that describes to a "T" my beliefs concerning the doctrine of "doody faith".

http://www.geocities.com/thepredesti...dutyfaith.html

DUTY FAITH

By S. C. Phillips

An Article in The Sovereign Grace Message (July, 1982) on “Calminians” (a term describing a mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism) states in part: “Hardshellism and Arminianism are informed by the same basic principle. They both believe that ability limits responsibility. The hardshell with this principle denies duty faith and duty repentance of natural men under the hearing of the gospel. He believes that because the natural man does not have the ability to truly believe the gospel, in repentance from those things which are contrary to this faith, that he does not have the responsibility to.”

Where the author gained such an opinion of the cause of our objection to duty faith, we do not know. In no way do we believe that man’s inability destroys his responsibility. We only question what standard constitutes the basis for man’s responsibility, the extent and limitations thereof, and who sets the standard by which all men shall be judged upon failure of compliance.

Rather than allow dead-letter Calvinists use subtility of argument to advance their duty-faith by telling others what we believe, we propose to speak for ourselves in this article.

The accommodation of Arminian natural religion with Calvinism is a strange hybrid. Many inconsistencies are found in this mixture, and one of the strangest is that of duty faith.

Historically, it had its rise in Andrew Fuller’s Calvinistic humanism, which attempted to “make God’s universal invitations to sinners” an “honest” invitation. Thus, in its first introduction, it was applied toward making Gospel precepts to be the “duty” of all men to believe, repent, and embrace the Gospel obligations of the new covenant. And, it supposed, that the failure of sinners to do so would then be the cause of their just condemnation. We read a great deal about “Christ dying for all the sins of all mankind, except for the sin of unbelief.” There is no Scriptural support for this premise, since nowhere can a text be cited that Christ died only for some of the sins of sinners, leaving the remainder unatoned. If such were the case, we would have an insurmountable problem in finding an answer for such unatoned sins! Only the Catholic purgatory would supply a substitute for them, which, (even in that system), would be insufficient.

Today, duty faith has evolved into two major branches. Among Arminians, and with some free grace Calvinists, it applies only to the Fullerite concept mentioned above. However, among some Primitive Baptists, (and some Baptist Bride groups of Calvinist ministers) it is now applied to the elect who earn blessings by obedience to duty faith (as with some Primitive Baptists); or to earning special rewards in heaven and in the Baptist church by faithful observance of one’s duty, (as with some Baptist Briders). Both concepts are element of freewillism based upon a system of works. They deny the effectual working of the indwelling Spirit within the saint. And both are attempts to stir people up to push beyond sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. We fear that the motivation springs from a recognition that too many members among these congregations may show too little evidence of a work of grace, or the ministers expect more of them than grace requires. So if grace is not seen to be working effectually in them, then perhaps duty will (at least) move them to act as if grace were working. That would “appear” to supply more unity of witness among those mixed congregations. But whatever the motive, duty faith is a vile motive for worshiping the God who deserves worship from a heart full of adoration and love.

I. Duty faith unto salvation:

As mentioned earlier, the view that it is the duty of all mankind to repent and believe unto salvation was developed by Andrew Fuller among Baptists. According to his followers, unbelief was the only sin not covered by the atonement of Christ.

Those who oppose this view do so on the basis of the revelation of God respecting salvation by grace alone, and the just condemnation of the wicked. All free grace believers - including duty-faith men - believe that God elected His people in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that election was not conditioned upon anything done by them meritoriously. (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 9:11, and II Tim. 1:9). Those believing in unconditional election are aware that if some of Adam’s offspring were chosen, then others were not. They believe that Christ died for all the sins of the elect, and thus judicially saved them from condemnation. They do not believe that He shed His blood for the sins of those whom He foreknew would never be embraced in His covenant blessings.

If one believes that Christ died only for the elect, then upon what basis does one believe that God expects, or purposes, the non-elect to repent and believe unto salvation? Must the universality of fallen man believe that Christ died for them, when in fact the Biblical record is that He did not? Is it, then, a “duty” of the non-elect to believe that Christ died for them, when He did not; and shall these be punished in hell for not believing a lie? “Ah,” one may say, “that destroys man’s responsibility!” Does it? Where has God ever made man responsible to believe a lie?

Many Fullerites and former Fullerites, when faced with the above objection immediately charge their opponents with being “anti-evangelical,” “hypercalvinists,” or “antinomian.” But, since when should Andrew Fuller be allowed to define “antinomianism,” seeing that he is the father of the worst brand of freelivers yet! This writer has been asked on many occasions, “Do you believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners?” He reads a steady diet of “Hardshells do not believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners!” We cannot answer for all those who (like us) oppose “duty faith unto salvation,” but our ministers and churches fully believe in preaching the Gospel indiscriminately to all manner of men. But, we cannot apply grace covenant promises indiscriminately, for God has not given them promiscuously. The application of the Gospel promises is strictly God’s exclusive work. It must be that way, for He has never given us the Lamb’s Book of Life with the names of those He has written therein. WE ARE TO CALL UPON SINNERS TO REPENT, BUT WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CALL UPON THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITE TO DO SO. In the parable of the hundred sheep, our Lord went into the wilderness to seek AND to SAVE that one “which is lost,” and took it home; but left the “ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance” in “the wilderness.” (Luke 15:3-7) By His own testimony, He “came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matt. 9:13) Are His servants greater than their Lord? Are they required to call those whom their Master refused to call? Equally important, are those self-righteous souls who need no repentance obligated to repent and believe unto salvation in the absence of a felt need to do so? We find no such Scriptural injunction. If He has not enjoined it upon the non-elect, then by what authority are they “duty-bound” to repent and to believe unto salvation?

The called and qualified ministers of God are to preach the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the severity of God’s judgments, the terrors of His impeccable law, the justice of God, the mercies of God, the provisions of grace, and to call upon men everywhere to repent and believe in Christ - but they must not, yea, dare not attempt to extend the law or the Gospel beyond the limits set by God Himself. It is well to keep in mind that ... we are unto God (not man) a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” (II Cor. 2:15-17)

The condemnation of the wicked rests upon a deeper foundation than unbelief. Paul went to great extent to prove that it rested upon Adam’s disobedience and the imputation of his transgression upon them. For he said, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered in the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law). Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” (Rom. 5:12-14) What, then, were those individuals required to believe, or what commandments were they enjoined to perform, from Adam to Moses? Sin WAS in the world and the consequence of sin -death - reigned even then. Were they required to repent and believe unto salvation? If so, by what law?

We have heard it was the “moral law, or a higher law,” and for years believed it ourself. But, we have no record of a moral law being given from Adam to Noah, nor from Noah to Abraham. But, we find the law, or covenant, of circumcision given to Abraham, and to his seed - but it included no other. And what about the law given to Moses for Israel? We can not find it given to any except Israel. Hence, we ask: What legal duties are required where there is no law or covenant?

One may say, “But today, the law and the Gospel has been given.” This is true - but still the question stands: to whom are they given? The law was given to Israel. Was the Gospel kingdom also given them? Jesus said relative to Israel in His day when the disciples inquired why He spoke in parables to the masses: “... Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” (Matt. 13:11) We understand that the disciples were the ones “who hath” and would be given more; and the Jews were the ones who “hath not” and the law, which they did have, (or seemed to have) would be taken from them.

What then does natural man in his natural state have enjoined upon him to perform? Our answer is, whatever God enjoined upon him in providence in the light of nature or reason, or directly by word of commandment. And, this is done individually, seeing that collectively (as a people) the Gentiles have no covenant. The Biblical record abounds with instances to prove that God commands individuals. We will select a few instances to illustrate and to clarify the position we are defending.

The Zidonians were not Jews, but Phoenicians. God spoke to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “Arise, get thee to Zarephath which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.” (I Kings 17:9) Now, the Lord commanded this Gentile woman to do something, which in nature she could not do - feed the prophet - for she had no meal. Now, does this inability destroy her responsibility to obey God and feed the prophet? Of course not! But the performance of this command is totally out of her creature power. Her responsibility can only be accomplished by free UNMERITED GRACE! What duties and obligations did she now have? Did she have any by Israel’s law, such as tithing? No. Did she have any by the Gospel of Christ? No. What then? To feed the prophet as God commanded her! And God Himself provided the meal (ability) for them both!

Do we need to speak at length of Abram whom God called, saying, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee”? (Gen. 12:1) What law in Ur of the Chaldees was he under? What covenant obligations and duties did he rest under at the time of this call? Paul answers for us saying, we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.” (Romans 4:9-13). “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (Abraham), cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” (Gal. 3:17) And so then, Abraham who was justified before the law, and before Christ came, was justified by faith in a covenant that was confirmed before God in Christ before the foundation of the world. What then were his covenant duties and obligations? To believe God! But, were any others of that generation so obligated to believe that God also would give them a seed in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed? Were any others required to receive the sign of that covenant by being circumcised and having their male offspring circumcised the eighth day? Of course not!

Athens was a Gentile city-state. Paul visited it and saw their idolatries, and even an altar with the inscription: “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” This text is suppose to be the bastion of the duty-faith universal invitation to believe unto salvation. (Note that we have repeatedly italicized the words unto salvation.) But is this the case? Look carefully at Acts 17:22-3L In the text we find both a very broad application, and a specifically limited one unto salvation. It is an absolute predestinarian (not freewill) text, for we read of God who “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" (vs. 26) We see a limited application in the next verse which says, “that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us:” (vs. 27)

Now notice the broad application: “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead.” (vss. 29-3 1). Of which repentance is the apostle speaking? Repentance unto salvation, or repentance from idolatry? Which is his subject? Idolatry! What “stirred” Paul’s spirit to speak of repentance? “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” (vs. 16) What was the ignorance that God once winked at? Certainly not covenant transgressions! but at idolatry. Finally, did he command that they believe in Christ unto salvation? Not one word! Yet, what was the effect of the message? “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, we will hear thee again of this matter ---- howbeit certain men cave unto him, and believed... “(vss 32-34) We often see the same three classes of people under a Gospel message. Those who believe are those “who haply feel after Him, and find Him.” But the apostle required no duty-faith of any present to believe that Christ died for them all, nor did he give “an invitation” to a single one of them! He preached consistently what he knew by experience, i.e., that salvation was exclusively of the Lord and not of the preacher or the hearer! Since Paul was sent of God and was moved in his spirit because of their idolatry, those who believed not were duty bound to repent from their idolatry, and for this they will be condemned. But for them to believe that Christ died for them (when He did not) was not an obligation under which they had been placed. They were obligated to believe the record that God “hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained,” and to believe the record “that He hath raised Him from the dead.” But we find no covenant promise given them, and hence no covenant obligation required of them.

In spite of the fact that Paul gave no “Gospel appeal”, or invitation,” did he not indeed preach to sinners? Yes, he did: “among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” (vs.3) Did he preach indiscriminately to all manner of men? Yes, “to some who mocked,” to others who said “we will hear thee again” and to the “certain men” and woman who “believed.”

II. Duty-faith unto time-salvation, or “Christian Duty.”

The heading above will be strange to most of our readers. There are no books or literature in the records of our forefathers which use the term or concept. It is a new theory, first recorded at the turn of this century, and the founders of it have only recently passed from the scene.

In religious disputes, extremes beget extremes and sometimes the extremes merge. So it is with this one. It was the result of men who concluded that the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God over all things somehow made God the author of sin. Modern warfare led to the development of new theories designed to refute and to stamp out this “imaginary evil.” The opponents of a sovereign God, fearful that predestination would encourage men to ungodly deportment, limited the sovereignty of God (in their own thoughts). Concluding that His sovereignty was too broad, they at first limited it to His spiritual kingdom only. However, within two decades, (by the 1930’s) the theological problems within that boundary were too great. So, the younger ministers limited it still further. His sovereignty now, they reasoned, extended only to election, to some individuals predestinated to heaven, to calling, to justification, and to glorification. But still problems persisted. As it now has evolved, His sovereignty is limited to election, to Holy Spirit regeneration, (this one now is also being denied) and to glorification. We are reasonably confident that we know where it will end before the century is out - the Missionaries followed the same theological process from Calvinism to Pelagianism too!

Within all that modification, the first issue was a fear that free grace would result in ungodly deportment. Today, the theory above has arrived at the very thing feared. According to the present view, God elected and predestinated His people - not unto salvation - but to heaven and immortal glory. The general tone of that misguided ministry is that one need never repent, believe, or even hear of Christ, never perform any good works, never follow Christ, or believe anything other than that there is a Higher Power (somewhere) that ought to be worshiped ( a tree or black stone -Kaaba - will do, so we have heard some preach); and still they can be God’s “poor little disobedient children” and who will have “eternal salvation” and finally will be housed in heaven and immortal glory. But what of all the other aspects of God’s work in the saints? They classify them as “duties” which they “ought” to perform. If they do, they are rewarded with joy in the “good old church” - theirs, of course - and if not, they “miss the blessings of their time salvation,” but will still be saved in heaven. And this theory, far more than absolute predestination coupled with effectual grace, tends to ungodliness. As honorable christian deportment falters, duty-faith is pressed more and more in hope of motivating church members to at least act like christians!

The other branch of duty-faith is found wide-spread among free grace Baptist churches presently coming from the Arminian groups. The duty-faith of these did not spring from the controversies within the church, but is a hangover from the modern convention Baptists’ freewillism. Nor is it nearly as bad as the above.

Simply put, they believe that one can be a born-again christian without sanctification of the truth. In other-words, while they agree that Arminianism is heresy, yet they believe the preaching of freewillism can regenerate a soul. They must make some kind of accommodation for this inconsistency; therefore, they hold that a free grace Baptist church, organized by some particular formula (they have not yet achieved unity as to what formula is proper) is the Bride of Christ. The Bride of Christ must be a former Arminian Baptist church, having a Calvinistic creed, and reorganized, or reconstituted as a New Testament Baptist Church by direct authority of another Sovereign Grace Baptist Church having Arminian Missionary baptism. Those who are faithful in the Baptist Bride Church will be married to the Bridegroom. All others will be “attendants” at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Within the framework of this needful faithfulness, christian duties performed earn rewards in heaven, which the unfaithful will not receive, and they will also be left out of the marriage. However, these unfaithful servants, like those “disobedient children who miss their time salvation, will still be in heaven - somewhere. Since these unfaithful ones will be “attendants,” then heaven to them is a glorified earthy place still requiring works of some manner. To be faithful enough to be in the Bride, one desiring this high position must tithe, support missionaries, and be regular in their church attendance; and refrain from doing things the preacher considers unchristian-like - usually the same things Arminians hold.

This writer has been associated with both of these groups, and this is the best he can do to explain the general, and dominant views. In neither case should the reader extend the above views to all within these groups. There are various differences within them, but the above particular views are the ones we have in mind as we continue to discuss the subject: duty-faith.

We have raised the question of what law natural man is under; and what covenant obligations were duty-bound for him to perform. Now, let us consider the question in another light. We have pointed out that individually he is under whatever commandment God gives to him.

The apostle says that “for as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law” - not the law itself - “written in hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel.” (Rom. 2:12-16)

So there is a work of the law found among Gentiles who “have not the law.” It is this work of the law, rather than duty-faith, which spiritual Israelites delight it with effectual grace. Paul labored with the Jewish believers in Rome over circumcision and again reaches for proof among the Gentile believers among them, saying, “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom. 2:27-29)

There are Jews resting legally under a covenant law, to whom the law is dead. There are Gentiles who have no law-covenant. There are Jews and Gentiles who have the work of the law in their hearts. It is in this we find the mark or sign of spiritual circumcision, which is our comfort and joy; for it is the work which the letter of the law never could perform!

Now where this work of the law is found, there is a covenant. Where there is a covenant, there are covenant obligations which extend only to the covenanted people. Is the following example a covenant for us who by grace believe? You be the judge: “For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;” (Heb. 8:8-10) Let us pause here to correct an objection. It is argued by duty-faith men that this new covenant is to be made with the Israelis in some latter day, yet to come. Why, then, does Paul, writing to a Gentile church apply it to them? “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (what law?), being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: that the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man’s covenant” (which this covenant is not), “yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before IN CHRIST, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promises of none effect.” (Gal. 3:13-17) Now “this” covenant, the “new” covenant, embraces Gentiles, and the Israel in the text is spiritual Israel - NOT national Israel.

Whatever obligations, or duties, are found in this covenant are enjoined upon the parties thereof: so let us search them out. Here is that covenant: “I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people: And they shall not teach every man and his neighbor, and every man his brother, Saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” (Heb. 8:10-12).

What are the provisions of this covenant? On God’s part, what will He do for the covenanted participants? (1) Put His laws in their minds; (2) Write His laws in their hearts; (3) Be a God unto them; (4) Have mercy on their unrighteousness; and (5) Not remember their sins and iniquities any more. What all is embraced on their part? (1) Be unto Him a people; (2) Refrain from teaching every man, his neighbor, and his brother to know the Lord (a proscription). As you can readily see, this certainly is NOT a works covenant! It is purely free grace! Now talk about duties and obligations and you can grasp the meaning of Christ’s words in Luke 17:10, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” And until one does all the commandments and then goes on to do more than commanded, such have done their duty. Until then, they are unprofitable servants only.

Who is bound most by this covenant? God or man? Under the old covenant, the provisions thereof covered four books of the first five! And it was a burden, of which Peter testified, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? “ (Acts 15:10) Consider the context of Peter’s remarks and see what he and James and the other apostles enjoined upon the Gentile believers: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15: 19.21) That, dear reader, is all of the law which was enjoined upon believers! And that isn’t enough for duty-faith men. In fact, they ignore even this. The same argument stands as well today as then relative to shackling a poor disciple under a duty-faith system of works. It failed before because of the weakness of man; and for the same cause it shall ever fail. Because of free grace flowing from the love of God, He took the hard part (to man) of the covenant obligations upon Himself. He will put the law in their minds thus assuring them that His law will not be forgotten; and through the powerful and effectual operation of the Spirit dwelling within, He keeps them in remembrance before Him in love. It is free grace! He writes His law upon their hearts, and by the same operation of the Spirit causes them to love and to delight in those laws; to feel them; to have a higher morality than law-duty can ever hope to attain. It is free grace! He, and none other, will be their God, and by the gracious work of the Spirit they worship Him in love and adoration and praise. It is free grace! He will have mercy on their unrighteousness, and by His blessed Spirit they will ever be feeling the sweet pardoning love and repentance flowing from godly sorrow wrought within. It is free grace! He will not remember their sins and iniquities, which He laid upon His Darling Son and extracted the ultimate demand of holy justice and the penalty of the broken law, and gives peace like a river unto them. It is free grace! He made sure that He kept within His own hands the divine instruction, or introduction of Himself to His people; for they shall not teach every man to know Him, for “to know Him is life eternal”, which no man can pass on to another. He is our prophet, priest, and king. He made sure that He kept within His own grasp the faithfulness to this covenant, for they could not keep it. They have the easier part - being a mere recipient thereof! To worship Him and refrain from the arrogance of attempting to make believers, or sheep, out of reprobates and goats. This, too, is free grace!

No, my brethren, there is no reward system based upon what man can or ought to do for the Lord. The law of God which is written in the mind and heart of such as are brought into the covenant are the living statutes of God’s kingdom. What is written in their hearts is perfect and in complete harmony with all Scripture and with the holiness of God. All admonitions, exhortations, and injunctions of the Gospel are predicated upon the implantation of that law “after the inward man,” and causes the quickened child of God to “delight in the law after the inward man.” (Rom. 7:21-22)

That new covenant law - the law of the Gospel - is activated by the commandment of God through the Spirit unto obedience and compliance. As Paul stated: “For I” (who said “as concerning the law, was blameless) “was alive without the law once:” - When was a Jew ever without the law of Moses! - “but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” (Rom. 7:9-11) It is by this same commandment that we love God and love one another. (I John 2:3-4; 4:21)

None of the above makes us careless “hearers” only, nor tends to antinomiansm. Powerful words we need, and powerful words we have, to perform good works: “For we are HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS, which God HATH BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10) I say those are powerful irresistible words, for we are ordained unto good works; and these good works are the work of the law in us; and God never left that up to us willy-nilly. When we groan for the removal of sin, God “hath wrought us for the selfsame thing,” (II Cor. 5:5) and “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:13) He makes us “vessels of mercy” to “the end that He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.” (I Thess. 2:13) There is no “chance” of failure in this for we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. It is all free grace; not duty-faith! And ALL the blessings of that covenant of grace were given ALL the saints, equally, in heavenly places in Christ before the foundation of the world. (Eph. 1:1-6)

The reward of all the saints is a crown of life, which is Christ their all in all. The reward is not a higher position which was merited by duty, nor any conditioned upon creature works or faithfulness. If one is not in the Bride of Christ in that great day, he is shut out forever. There will be no door-keepers, cooks, and bottle-washers as “attendants” at that supper! There will be no big “I’s” and little “You’s”; no “holier than thou” elements. There are none in the true church below and certainly will not be in that church above. Matt. 11:7-10 is a discourse upon the unique office of John the Baptist. It is regret-able that verse is taken from the context by some to defend the indefensible. Christ states that none born of women are greater than John the Baptist. The “least” in the kingdom of heaven are not born of women, but born from above, of the Spirit. Further our Lord speaks to the disciples at that time and tells them that he that is least in the kingdom of heaven (on earth in the very presence of the King of that kingdom) is greater (as Spirit is greater than flesh) than John the Baptist. Christ’s statement at the beginning of the 11th verse is relative, i.e. comparing those born of women, but the latter part of the verse simply displays the ascendency of the Spirit over the flesh - even before the glory is revealed as to what we “shall be.”

John 3:25.36 is a record of John the Baptist who is here speaking as the law and the prophets. The law and the prophets “rejoiced” at the “voice” of the Bridegroom - His words were spirit, and truth, and life. The law rejoiced because He magnified the law.., the prophets rejoiced because they were vindicated. His words were now written, not upon stone, but engraved upon the hearts of His subjects. The law (as given by God through Moses) thundered from heaven to the earth. But, the Lawgiver from Zion speaks of heavenly things (to those who have ears to hear) to those who are made to sit together with Him in “the heavenlies” ... yes, even Abraham, and Isaac and all the prophets (including John the Baptist) shall sit down in the kingdom of God. (luke 13:28-30)

John the Baptist culminated the witness of the “law and the prophets” and just as they served to the end of watching over the Bride, so to, he was a “friend of the Bridegroom” - not an “attendant”. The role of the friend of the Bridegroom was to espouse the Bride to the Groom. So ALL God called and qualified ministers are the same, for Paul wrote: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I HAVE ESPOUSED YOU TO ONE HUSBAND, that I may PRESENT YOU AS A CHASTE VIRGIN TO CHRIST.” Thus, the failure to understand the role of Gospel ministers toward the members of the Body of Christ; or to understand the role of John the Baptist as a friend of the Bridegroom - or even what that office was -has led to the whole body of concepts termed “The Baptist Bride” and the conditional scheme of future heavenly blessings as a reward of debt for works done misguidedly in the flesh.

Those who were BLESSED WITH ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSING IN HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST will still find them there; and those who were not will not be there to miss any. For salvation is by free grace - all of it; and not of works - none of it; neither in time or in eternity; neither in the church below, or in the church above. “Salvation is of the Lord.” (Jonah 2:9) “Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and He shall bring forth the Headstone thereof with shouting, crying, Grace, grace unto it.” (Zech. 4:7) To elect Israel of old, it was declared: “Thy Maker is thine Husband; the Lord of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall He be called.” (Isa. 54:5) Where there is a husband, there must be a bride; where there is no bride, there can be no husband. There is but one husband and one bride.

The Predestinarian
Volume 4, Issue 2

[Michael B]

Thanks Brandon - I will check it out.

[Michael B]

Darth Gill wrote: It's sinful to not believe the truth of the gospel. Even the devils believe the gospel message is true. All of God's creatures have a duty to lay down their arms and submit to Jesus as Lord. But men do not have a duty to believe that Jesus died for them. Saving faith is a gift that is given to the elect at the appointed in time in which their eyes are opened to the glorious truth of salvation accomplished FOR THEM!


I agree completely with this statement above. Jesus died for the church. I do not believe that his blood was "sufficient for all but only efficient for the elect".

Thanks for the clarification and for pointing me to the thread Brandan.

Michael Bennett <><

[InChristAlways]

Who is bound most by this covenant? God or man? Under the old covenant, the provisions thereof covered four books of the first five! And it was a burden, of which Peter testified, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? “ (Acts 15:10)

Hi. Interesting quote by Peter as Paul had chastized Peter at one time for being a hypocrite concerning eating with gentiles. The NC would not be like the OC, another thing Israel fails to see [Hebrews 8], yet they want to continue in it to this day though God no longer recognizes it.
Jesus also said the same thing concerning the rulers/priests in matt 23. Again, relating this to prophecy, those rulers essentially became like the OT "pharoah" of Egypt[ezekiel 30] and we know Jesus came to save the lost sheep of Israel, not the corrupt sheperds of Judah/Levi in Jerusalem.
Israel today cannot comprehend God referring to them as Egypt/Sodom/Esau/Gomarrah in the OT and remembering also salvation was of 'OF' the jews, in which I believe those corrupt rulers became His sacrificial meal in the first century. Just a view I have.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, [that] observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.

reve 11:8 And their dead bodies [will lie] in the street of the great city which "spiritually" is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

ezekiel 30:3 For The Day [is] near, Even The Day of the LORD [is] near; It will be a day of clouds, the Time of the Gentiles/Nations. 4 The sword shall come upon Egypt, And great anguish shall be in Ethiopia, When the slain fall in Egypt, And they take away her wealth, And her foundations are broken down. 23 'I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them throughout the countries. 24 'I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon and put My sword in his hand; but I will break Pharaoh's arms,