The Fruit Police
- Thread starter Larry Hughes
- Start date
- Status
Elect = Disciple
I have never thought that disciple was defined as Elect. Maybe someone who is elect is a disciple or a disciple is someone who is elect but I wouldn't say every disciple is included in the New Covenant nor would I say that every disciple is elect.
How do you define disciple?
I have never thought that disciple was defined as Elect. Maybe someone who is elect is a disciple or a disciple is someone who is elect but I wouldn't say every disciple is included in the New Covenant nor would I say that every disciple is elect.
How do you define disciple?
Another thing. Didn't Jesus tell us we could tell a tree by it's fruit. He must have believed we could discern some things about another teacher or person if he said this to us.
Define disciple for me Paul. Simple task. Not Malones. I haven't read Malone. Was Judas considered a disciple?
Arghhhhhh...another baptism, disciple, new covenant debate......maybe this time we will settle it forever.
Taking from the familiar paedo defensive passage parable strategy (PDPPS)
Jesus in John 15 said, "8By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."
Disciples, who are proved to be such, bear fruit.
Phillip
Taking from the familiar paedo defensive passage parable strategy (PDPPS)
Jesus in John 15 said, "8By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."
Disciples, who are proved to be such, bear fruit.
Phillip
I also believe someone who is a disciple is one who is following by choice, they have to own it for their own. I also don't believe Judas was ever a New Covenant Member. Nor Could he have been. So just because someone is a disciple doesn't make him a New Covenant Member.
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Now it is settled. See how easy that was Phil.
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Fred, I of course agree with your first two sentences, but I don't see how the last one follows - I say that because surely even the elect and the regenerate are to be expected to need discipline as well, until their sanctification is complete.
This is the thread for arguing/discussing baptism isn't it?
Hopefully a parent/child relationship is a little different than teacher/disciple relationship. You do understand the difference don't you Paul? Hopefully your child does follow you and what you teach her. Hopefully it isn't forced although at times we must force a child for their own protection. Try forcing a disciple.
And concerning baptizing the unconverted, no. But the responsibility lies more on the recipient. Just as it does in the communion supper.
Hopefully a parent/child relationship is a little different than teacher/disciple relationship. You do understand the difference don't you Paul? Hopefully your child does follow you and what you teach her. Hopefully it isn't forced although at times we must force a child for their own protection. Try forcing a disciple.
And concerning baptizing the unconverted, no. But the responsibility lies more on the recipient. Just as it does in the communion supper.
Yes, Chris, but the ultimate form of discipline is excommunication. So that is the mechanism for "checking to see for fruit." The point is that examination of fruit is an outcome of the disciple process, not a pre-requisite.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
It is the logical outcome of the 'believers only' position.
Randy, your warning about accusation is well taken however that was not my intention here - that is why no specific names and no specific church at all.
It was the communication that she had no fruit that was the problem as the logical outcome of the 'believers only' position. It is one thing to say to someone (regenerate or unregenerate), "You don't show fruit so I don't think you've been saved or can be baptized into the church". That entire statement is repugnant to the Gospel for it says you must purchase grace. And it is all together different to take that same person to the Law which says you are devoid of anything and in a state guilty wrath toward a holy God, then take them to the Gospel. Preach/teach that rather than waste time doing something one cannot yet pretends to do (detect regeneration) and let the word of God do what it alone can do.
For goodness sakes the very term fruit means the 'result of' or 'effect of' and NOT the 'cause of'. Of what is fruit the effect of? Of works, of itself? No, faith and grace, that is what produces fruit not the other way around. Why is that so hard to grasp?
John Calvin: The Sophists, who make game and sport in their corrupting of Scripture and their empty caviling, think they have a sublte evasion...For, according to them, man is justified by both faith and works provided they are not his own works but the gifts of Christ and the fruit of regeneration (Institutes 3.11.14).
John Calvin: But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Galatians 3:11, 12. For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Romans 10:5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith (Institutes, 3.11.14).
John Calvin: I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz., that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves. Will they produce to us one passage which declares that begun newness of life is approved by God as righteousness either in whole or in part? But if they are devoid of authority, why may we not be permitted to repudiate the figment of partial justification which they here obtrude? (Antidote to the Council of Trent, 1547).
J. Gresham Machen: A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands (What Is Faith?, 1925).
It is what is proclaimed and taught that is the problem!
Blessings,
larry
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Larry Hughes]
Randy, your warning about accusation is well taken however that was not my intention here - that is why no specific names and no specific church at all.
It was the communication that she had no fruit that was the problem as the logical outcome of the 'believers only' position. It is one thing to say to someone (regenerate or unregenerate), "You don't show fruit so I don't think you've been saved or can be baptized into the church". That entire statement is repugnant to the Gospel for it says you must purchase grace. And it is all together different to take that same person to the Law which says you are devoid of anything and in a state guilty wrath toward a holy God, then take them to the Gospel. Preach/teach that rather than waste time doing something one cannot yet pretends to do (detect regeneration) and let the word of God do what it alone can do.
For goodness sakes the very term fruit means the 'result of' or 'effect of' and NOT the 'cause of'. Of what is fruit the effect of? Of works, of itself? No, faith and grace, that is what produces fruit not the other way around. Why is that so hard to grasp?
John Calvin: The Sophists, who make game and sport in their corrupting of Scripture and their empty caviling, think they have a sublte evasion...For, according to them, man is justified by both faith and works provided they are not his own works but the gifts of Christ and the fruit of regeneration (Institutes 3.11.14).
John Calvin: But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Galatians 3:11, 12. For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Romans 10:5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith (Institutes, 3.11.14).
John Calvin: I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz., that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves. Will they produce to us one passage which declares that begun newness of life is approved by God as righteousness either in whole or in part? But if they are devoid of authority, why may we not be permitted to repudiate the figment of partial justification which they here obtrude? (Antidote to the Council of Trent, 1547).
J. Gresham Machen: A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands (What Is Faith?, 1925).
It is what is proclaimed and taught that is the problem!
Blessings,
larry
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Larry Hughes]
So, just because you teach someone that makes them a disciple?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
It necessarily follows that if some disciples fall away that not all disciples are elect, otherwise John Wesley was right.
John 6:
60Many therefore of <his disciples>, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that <his disciples> murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 <<But there are some of you that believe not>>. <<<For Jesus knew>>> from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of <his disciples> went back, <<<and walked no more with him>>>.
67 Then said Jesus unto <<the twelve>> (includes Judas at this junction of time, who Jesus knew in verse 64), Will ye also go away?
It seem very clear.
John 6:
60Many therefore of <his disciples>, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that <his disciples> murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 <<But there are some of you that believe not>>. <<<For Jesus knew>>> from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of <his disciples> went back, <<<and walked no more with him>>>.
67 Then said Jesus unto <<the twelve>> (includes Judas at this junction of time, who Jesus knew in verse 64), Will ye also go away?
It seem very clear.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Many discples just have faith in themselves and of themselves that cannot produce fruit of endurance. They have an intellectual adherance to the gospel but no God-given faith or repentance.
Excellent post, Larry. Scripture alone.
- Status