Question about covenant theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
I've been looking into covenant theology lately and I have a few questions regarding the CredoBaptist vs PaedoBaptist interpretations.

I'm a novice at this and I would like to have some clarifications.

- Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?

- In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Chruch" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?

- Am I right when I say that the CredoBaptist interpretation is that only the elects (or confirmed believers) should be considered as part of the New Testament covenant community and receive the physical seal of baptism? If so does this mean they do not believe in the concept of a visible and invisible church? If so how do you interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly changed with the New Testament administration of the CoG?

- On the other hand in the paedobaptist view, if an adult man coverts to Christianity should his unconverted wife be also baptised along with all his children still living under this roof no matter how old they are? What about times or places where slavery is/was legal, would the slaves be also baptised? If an adult Women converts to Christianity should the children be baptised if her husband refused to have them baptised?

Thanks,
 
I've been looking into covenant theology lately and I have a few questions regarding the CredoBaptist vs PaedoBaptist interpretations.
. . .
I'm a novice at this and I would like to have some clarifications.
- Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?

Those better informed may differ, but I don't think the Bible is explicit as to whether such a community was formally established prior to Abraham.

- In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Church" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?

It would appear that the switch occurred after Christ's resurrection and the giving of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19). That there is a difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is certain from Acts 19:1-5.


---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

- In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Church" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?

It would appear that the switch occurred after Christ's resurrection and the giving of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19). That there is a difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is certain from Acts 19:1-5.

- Am I right when I say that the CredoBaptist interpretation is that only the elects (or confirmed believers) should be considered as part of the New Testament covenant community and receive the physical seal of baptism? If so does this mean they do not believe in the concept of a visible and invisible church? If so how do you interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly changed with the New Testament administration of the CoG?

You are not quite right in your first sentence. The CB understanding is that only those who profess faith can be recognized as members of the covenant community and receive the physical sign of baptism. (We recognize that the living elect includes those who have professed faith and those who have yet to do so.) We certainly believe in the concepts of the invisible and visible church; see the 1689 Old London Confession which says:

OLC 26 said:
1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

For us the visible church is all churches formed by visible saints.

. . . how do [cb's] interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly change with the New Testament administration of the CoG?

I think we interpret such passages the same way calvinist pb's do. We view families of believers as possibly elect and we evangelize them as we do everybody else. Because children are under parent's control they are evangelized in a more intimate and personal way than is possible towards friends and acquaintances. We see no changes to the role of family head, as such, except that we recognize that each member of the family must profess faith before receiving the visible sign of the covenant.
 
Last edited:
I've been kicking around some of the same questions. Particularly regarding the Covenant Community. I'm with Eric on this : :popcorn:
 
We certainly believe in the concepts of the invisible and visible church; see the 1689 Old London Confession which says:

So you would acknowledge that unbelievers will exist within the "visible chruch" (which I suspected). Would unbaptised children be considered to be part of the visible church but not yet part of the invisible church? Or would they be considered to be outside the visible church? What about false converts that have been baptised, are they part of the visible church?
 
As do pb's we acknowledge that unbelievers will exist within church congregations. We are agnostic on not yet professing children. On false converts, they are also part of church congregations and may or may not remain so over time. Some will fall away, others will get that horrible surprise on the last day.
 
As do pb's we acknowledge that unbelievers will exist within church congregations. We are agnostic on not yet professing children. On false converts, they are also part of church congregations and may or may not remain so over time. Some will fall away, others will get that horrible surprise on the last day.

I guess my questions was that according to CB does baptism associate somebody with the visible church or does it presume that this person now belongs to the invisible church?

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

I think we interpret such passages the same way calvinist pb's do. We view families of believers as possibly elect and we evangelize them as we do everybody else. Because children are under parent's control they are evangelized in a more intimate and personal way than is possible towards friends and acquaintances. We see no changes to the role of family head, as such, except that we recognize that each member of the family must profess faith before receiving the visible sign of the covenant.

When we evangelize unbelievers we do not force them to come to church or we do no discipline them when they trangress the law of God. Would you adopt the same approach with your children? Would you discipline an unbeliever if he takes the name of the Lord in vain? How about your children? Assuming that your answers are different for an unbeliever and your children, what is your rational to do so?
 
Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?

Etienne,

The short answer is, "no." The promise made to Abraham inaugurated the covenant bearing his name (the Abrahamic Covenant). There has been, however, one called-out people of God since Adam. This would include the godly line of Seth.


In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Chruch" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?

As explained earlier, God has always had one called-out people since Adam. This called-out people was redemptive in nature. In other words, those who have been called-out are saved. The promises made to Abraham had both a physical and spiritual dimension. One could be part of the covenant nation of Israel but not a spiritual child of Abraham. In that sense there is not complete continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Testament church, or more appropriately, the New Covenant.

The switch from circumcision to baptism began with a transition of sorts during the time of John the Baptist and was completed during the time of the Apostles. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. It was not done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:4), therefore it cannot be called a Christian baptism.


Am I right when I say that the CredoBaptist interpretation is that only the elects (or confirmed believers) should be considered as part of the New Testament covenant community and receive the physical seal of baptism? If so does this mean they do not believe in the concept of a visible and invisible church? If so how do you interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly changed with the New Testament administration of the CoG?

The New Covenant community is made up only of believers. The reality is that we do not possess perfect knowledge, therefore we may not know for sure if a professor is actually a possessor. Still, Baptists administer the sign to professed believers believing that they are the only worthy recipients of the ordinance.

Do Baptists believe in a visible and invisible church? Certainly. The visible church is the temporal church. Those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are part of the visible church. But the visible church is not infallible. Claiming to be something is not the same as actually being that thing. The invisible church is nothing short of the true New Covenant community.

The New Covenant is inviolable. That some would illegitimately make claim to it does not change its inviolability. The Old Covenant was not inviolable; with proof being that one could be a member of the Old Covenant physically but not spiritually. Also, by being disobedient to certain requirements of the Covenant, one could be be cut off. The failure to be circumcised is one such requirement.

As far as the headship of the family; the father is still the spiritual head of the family.
 
Those better informed may differ, but I don't think the Bible is explicit as to whether such a community was formally established prior to Abraham.

Tim, we are not introduced to the covenant community until Abraham. The very fact that God initiated the Abrahamic Covenant, with no mention of a previous covenant community, makes a strong case for it being the first.
 
On the other hand in the paedobaptist view, if an adult man coverts to Christianity should his unconverted wife be also baptised along with all his children still living under this roof no matter how old they are? What about times or places where slavery is/was legal, would the slaves be also baptised? If an adult Women converts to Christianity should the children be baptised if her husband refused to have them baptised?

This won't answer all your questions about this topic, but might help understanding one aspect.

It was helpful for me to understand that baptizing infant children does not make them saved, and does not mean they are necessarily saved.

They are marked out to a position of privilege having at least one believing parent who would raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and a covenant community through which would come the ordinary means of grace (e.g. Word and sacrament).

In this sense, the child is "holy" (set apart) to a position of privilege that the child of an unbeliever is not.

This was true with circumcision in the Old Testament in regard to God's people- they were marked out as a covenant community. (Not all were saved, of course).

It's interesting that at the time of our Lord, Israel also practiced baptism-
but for "dirty" gentiles who would convert and come into the covenant community (which was evidenced by circumcision).

(That's why the Jews were so outraged when John the Baptist told them they need to be baptized).

Also, remember, that while it is more common in reformed churches for baptisms to be of infants, adults do come by profession of faith, then receive baptism as well. Both happen regularly in the life of the church.
 
Coming from a Pesbyterian point of view:

Etienne
- In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Church" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community.

The New Testament Church is the Abrahamic Covenant community. As well as being called the Church, she is called the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) and the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12).

OT Israel on the other hand is sometimes called the Congregation or Church

This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. (Acts 7:38, ESV)

The Gentile Church is grafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree, while the majority of the Jews are (temporarily?) cut out (Rom 9)

The Abrahamic Covenant has three administrations. Abraham to Moses (Patriarchal administration). Moses to Christ (Old Covenant administration). Christ to the Eschaton (New Covenant administration).

- Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?

There was a visible church which didn't have a sign and seal like circumcision, baptism, the Lord's Supper or the Passover, by which people were solemnly admitted to the visible church and the CoG. But the "sons of God" (Gen 6:2) and those that "called on the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26) would have been distinguished by their worship and lifestyle.

Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ?

The baptism of John pointed forward to baptism with the Spirit by Christ into Himself at Pentecost. Our baptism is the same except it points back to Pentecost and points forward or backward to the time when we are baptised with the Spirit by Christ into Himself - i.e. regeneration.

We do not read that the disciples that had been baptised by John, e.g. Peter, Andrew, James and John, were baptised again.

When the Gospels say that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins they aren't distinguishing John's baptism from Christian baptism, which is also a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, but are distinguishing John's baptism from other OT ceremonial cleansings.

If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?

Just as circumcision started long before the time of Moses (Old Covenant), so baptism started sometime before the full inauguration of the New Covenant.

Would unbaptised children be considered to be part of the visible church but not yet part of the invisible church? Or would they be considered to be outside the visible church?

These are part of the visible church and in the CoG - at least externally, if they weren't regenerated in the womb, if so they are in every sense in the CoG - but have not been solemnly admitted to the visible church and CoG by baptism.

When we evangelize unbelievers we do not force them to come to church or we do no discipline them when they trangress the law of God. Would you adopt the same approach with your children? Would you discipline an unbeliever if he takes the name of the Lord in vain? How about your children? Assuming that your answers are different for an unbeliever and your children, what is your rational to do so?

Baptised but non communicant members of the visible Church can't receive church sanctions in the way that communicant members can, by removal of access to the Lord's Supper. But there are other ways of dealing with them, as Dabney indicates in his Systematic Theology.
 
Last edited:
As explained earlier, God has always had one called-out people since Adam. This called-out people was redemptive in nature. In other words, those who have been called-out are saved. The promises made to Abraham had both a physical and spiritual dimension. One could be part of the covenant nation of Israel but not a spiritual child of Abraham. In that sense there is not complete continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Testament church, or more appropriately, the New Covenant.

The New Covenant community is made up only of believers. The reality is that we do not possess perfect knowledge, therefore we may not know for sure if a professor is actually a possessor. Still, Baptists administer the sign to professed believers believing that they are the only worthy recipients of the ordinance.

Do Baptists believe in a visible and invisible church? Certainly. The visible church is the temporal church. Those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are part of the visible church. But the visible church is not infallible. Claiming to be something is not the same as actually being that thing. The invisible church is nothing short of the true New Covenant community.

If the New Covenant community is made up only of believers would this mean that the visible church (which might have unbeliever in her mist) is not the New Covenant Community? If not what would you call the visible church?

You mentioned that in that under the Abrahamic Covenant one could be part of the covenant nation/community but not necessarilty be a spiritual child of Abraham, is this not the same thing as the visible and invisible church in the New Testament?

The New Covenant is inviolable. That some would illegitimately make claim to it does not change its inviolability. The Old Covenant was not inviolable; with proof being that one could be a member of the Old Covenant physically but not spiritually. Also, by being disobedient to certain requirements of the Covenant, one could be be cut off. The failure to be circumcised is one such requirement.

I'm a bit confused here, are you saying the "essence" of the Abrahamic covenant is different than the New Covenant? Could somebody forsake their salvation in the Old Covenant? Being disobedient in the New Covenant can also cause you to be cut off, this is called excommunication. Could not refusing to be baptised warrant excommunication under the New Covenant?

---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

The New Testament Church is the Abrahamic Covenant community. As well as being called the Church, she is called the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) and the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12).

This is technically what I meant by "continuity" of the Abrahamic covenant, but thanks for clarifying.
There was a visible church which didn't have a sign and seal like circumcision, baptism, the Lord's Supper or the Passover, by which people were solemnly admitted to the visible church and the CoG. But the "sons of God" (Gen 6:2) and those that "called on the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26) would have been distinguished by their worship and lifestyle.

This is what I was kind of concluding but I wasn't sure.
 
Bill
The switch from circumcision to baptism began with a transition of sorts during the time of John the Baptist and was completed during the time of the Apostles. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. It was not done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:4), therefore it cannot be called a Christian baptism.

We don't know the Baptist's formula, but we do know that He baptised in the Name of the Lord and with the Lord's authorisation. Christ in His Divine nature gave sanction to the Baptist's baptism, and in His human nature also agreed with it.

If the Baptist's baptism wasn't the equivalent of Christian baptism, would Jesus and His disciples not need to be rebaptised?
 
Bill
The switch from circumcision to baptism began with a transition of sorts during the time of John the Baptist and was completed during the time of the Apostles. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. It was not done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:4), therefore it cannot be called a Christian baptism.

We don't know the Baptist's formula, but we do know that He baptised in the Name of the Lord and with the Lord's authorisation. Christ in His Divine nature gave sanction to the Baptist's baptism, and in His human nature also agreed with it.

If the Baptist's baptism wasn't the equivalent of Christian baptism, would Jesus and His disciples not need to be rebaptised?

Richard, I don't view this as a formula. Did the Apostles have to submit to Trinitarian baptism? Scripture doesn't say, so I won't speculate. I do know that some of the events that transpired from the time of John the Baptist through the book of Acts were transitional, not normative. I can accept the argument that John's baptism of repentance pointed forward to Christ. When we baptize today we do not do so solely on the basis of repentance from sin. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Acts 19 is evidence of the ordinance progressing from transitional to normative.

Acts 19:1-5 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Since those who were baptized were disciples (v. 1), and were previously baptized into John's baptism, why the need to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?
 
If the New Covenant community is made up only of believers would this mean that the visible church (which might have unbeliever in her mist) is not the New Covenant Community? If not what would you call the visible church?

The Baptist understanding of New Covenant community is that it is a designation synonymous with the visible church . We can confidently state that the members of a local church are part of the New Covenant community and the visible church, even if there are false professors in their midst. The difference between the Baptist understanding and Presbyterian understanding is that Baptists only admit members on the basis of a credible profession of faith, whereas Presbyterians include infants who are baptized into believing households.

You mentioned that in that under the Abrahamic Covenant one could be part of the covenant nation/community but not necessarilty be a spiritual child of Abraham, is this not the same thing as the visible and invisible church in the New Testament?

Similar. A male Jew could be part of the Old Testament covenant community on the basis of his circumcision. Going on the assumption that he does not transgress the Law so egregiously that he is cut off from his people, he can remain part of the covenant community even if he does not possess saving faith. This is what Paul meant when he wrote:

Romans 9:6 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Even Abraham was not saved because God chose him to be the father of many nations. Abraham was saved by faith.

Genesis 15:6 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

I'm a bit confused here, are you saying the "essence" of the Abrahamic covenant is different than the New Covenant? Could somebody forsake their salvation in the Old Covenant? Being disobedient in the New Covenant can also cause you to be cut off, this is called excommunication. Could not refusing to be baptised warrant excommunication under the New Covenant?

No one can forsake their genuine conversion; but remember that the Old Covenant did not convey salvation to anyone. A person could live under the Old Covenant and be reprobate. Depending on their offense against the Law they could be cut off from their people. When the Church excommunicates a person it is effectively saying that person is not saved. We would invoke 1 John 2:19:

1 John 2:19 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

...and...

Matthew 18:17 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If they refuse to repent, and never return, they have proven that they were never part of the New Covenant to begin with.
 
The Baptist understanding of New Covenant community is that it is a designation synonymous with the visible church . We can confidently state that the members of a local church are part of the New Covenant community and the visible church, even if there are false professors in their midst. The difference between the Baptist understanding and Presbyterian understanding is that Baptists only admit members on the basis of a credible profession of faith, whereas Presbyterians include infants who are baptized into believing households.

So if we are consistent would this not mean that children of Baptists should not be allowed to be part of the church until they profess their faith (if you accept that baptism is a seal of the covenant)?

Similar. A male Jew could be part of the Old Testament covenant community on the basis of his circumcision. Going on the assumption that he does not transgress the Law so egregiously that he is cut off from his people, he can remain part of the covenant community even if he does not possess saving faith.

Is this not also true for the New Covenant comunity, children are not alienated from the covenant community right, are they not partaker of the same "earthly" benifits as any member of the community?

No one can forsake their genuine conversion; but remember that the Old Covenant did not convey salvation to anyone. A person could live under the Old Covenant and be reprobate. Depending on their offense against the Law they could be cut off from their people. When the Church excommunicates a person it is effectively saying that person is not saved. We would invoke 1 John 2:19:

A person can also live under the New Covenant and be a reprobate, even if the Church excommunicates a person it will not affect his salvation if he is truly saved, it will only alienate him from this community. From my understanding 1 John 2:19 is not speaking of excommunication it is only refering to people "forsaking the faith" (leaving the covenant community on their own). This seem to imply that those person were previously "partakers" of the covenant by being associated to a certain community and decide to leave on their own which is a manifestion of their unbelief.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 AM ----------

It was helpful for me to understand that baptizing infant children does not make them saved, and does not mean they are necessarily saved.

They are marked out to a position of privilege having at least one believing parent who would raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and a covenant community through which would come the ordinary means of grace (e.g. Word and sacrament).

In this sense, the child is "holy" (set apart) to a position of privilege that the child of an unbeliever is not.

This was true with circumcision in the Old Testament in regard to God's people- they were marked out as a covenant community. (Not all were saved, of course).

It's interesting that at the time of our Lord, Israel also practiced baptism-
but for "dirty" gentiles who would convert and come into the covenant community (which was evidenced by circumcision).

(That's why the Jews were so outraged when John the Baptist told them they need to be baptized).

Also, remember, that while it is more common in reformed churches for baptisms to be of infants, adults do come by profession of faith, then receive baptism as well. Both happen regularly in the life of the church.

This much I did undertand from the paedo baptist position, my question was more about the implication of baptism when compared to circumcision. Since women were not circumcised obviously there would differences but when they say that the children are sanctified by the believing mother because of her influence in their life would it mean they should also be baptised even if the husband to not agree?
 
Last edited:
So if we are consistent would this not mean that children of Baptists should not be allowed to be part of the church until they profess their faith (if you accept that baptism is a seal of the covenant)?

We are consistent. No one, child or adult, is a member of the church apart from a credible profession of faith. Thankfully, however, they are exposed to the Gospel by being raised in a Christian home and attending worship with their family.



Is this not also true for the New Covenant comunity, children are not alienated from the covenant community right, are they not partaker of the same "earthly" benifits as any member of the community?

No. Children who have not made a credible profession of faith are not allowed to be administered the ordinances of the Church; baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are both temporal (earthly) and spiritual benefits that are not available to them. They do benefit from the love of the Church, and by hearing the Word of God which will, hopefully, lead to their salvation.



A person can also live under the New Covenant and be a reprobate, even if the Church excommunicates a person it will not affect his salvation if he is truly saved, it will only alienate him from this community. From my understanding 1 John 2:19 is not speaking of excommunication it is only refering to people "forsaking the faith" (leaving the covenant community on their own). This seem to imply that those person were previously "partakers" of the covenant by being associated to a certain community and decide to leave on their own which is a manifestion of their unbelief.

A person cannot be in the New Covenant and be reprobate. The New Covenant is inviolable; it cannot be broken or forsaken. A person can be among those in the New Covenant but not be part of it himself. This is what the book of Jude speaks to.

1 John 2:19 applies in that a person who refuses to repent displays an unregenerate heart. The passage in Matthew 18 speaks directly to church discipline.
 
Etienne,

I'm curious. You're attending a Reformed Baptist church. Have you ever asked these questions to your pastor or elders? I'm not saying your don't have the right to bring these questions up on the Puritan Board; I just want to make sure you're availed yourself to the ministry of those who have charge over you in the Lord.
 
The question I have concerning John's baptism is that if it is solely a baptism of repentance than how would you reconcile the fact that Jesus was baptised by him?

I heard an interpretation which made sense to me saying that the Baptism of Jesus by John was part of this ordination to the priesthood (since he is our high priest). The Levites had to be at least 30 years old before they could be ordained to the priesthood (Numbers 4:1-4) which Jesus would have met (Luke 3:23) and they also had to go throught a purification by water (Numbers 8:5-7). This could explain why Jesus asked the Pharisees if the baptism of John was of men or of God when they asked by which authority he was ministering in the temple.

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 AM ----------

Etienne,

I'm curious. You're attending a Reformed Baptist church. Have you ever asked these questions to your pastor or elders? I'm not saying your don't have the right to bring these questions up on the Puritan Board; I just want to make sure you're availed yourself to the ministry of those who have charge over you in the Lord.

Yes I have and I'm currently going through some suggested books from a baptist perspective, there was just some questions that didn't seem to be answered yet from the few books I have read so far, I just thought I could cut some corners by asking the questions here.

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------

We are consistent. No one, child or adult, is a member of the church apart from a credible profession of faith. Thankfully, however, they are exposed to the Gospel by being raised in a Christian home and attending worship with their family.

So if a child is attending church with his familly he would not be considered part of the community until he is baptised and partake of the communion is that correct?

A person cannot be in the New Covenant and be reprobate. The New Covenant is inviolable; it cannot be broken or forsaken. A person can be among those in the New Covenant but not be part of it himself. This is what the book of Jude speaks to.

so would you say that the New Covenant is somewhat different from the other administration of the CoG? Would you say that the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the CoG itself or an overlaping covenant seperate from the CoG but runing in paralell to it since it could be broken?
 
Last edited:
The question I have concerning John's baptism is that if it is solely a baptism of repentance than how would you reconcile the fact that Jesus was baptised by him?

Matthew Henry writes that Christ submitted to John's baptism in order, "to show his readiness to comply with all God's righteous precepts." Henry goes on to write that Christ, "fulfilled up the righteousness of the ceremonial law." He first set the example and then began His teaching ministry. Did Christ need to repent of sin? As the sinless Lamb of God, He neither sinned nor knew sin; but as One who would atone for the sins of the elect, He first set the example.

Yes I have and I'm currently going through some suggested books from a baptist perspective, there was just some questions that didn't seem to be answered yet from the few books I have read so far, I just thought I could cut some corners by asking the questions here.

I urge you to go beyond books and have actual dialog with your pastor and elders. God has called these men to just such a work. Go to them with your questions and a teachable spirit. I am sure it will profit you much.

So if a child is attending church with his familly he would not be considered part of the community until he is baptised and partake of the communion is that correct?

Any person, including a child, you has not come to faith in Christ is not included in the New Covenant, nor part of the New Covenant community. Being baptized, and partaking of the Lord's Supper apart from being born again, does not make a person a Christian; i.e. a member of the New Covenant.

so would you say that the New Covenant is somewhat different from the other administration of the CoG? Would you say that the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the CoG itself or an overlaping covenant seperate from the CoG but runing in paralell to it since it could be broken?

I believe the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Redemption. It contained physical promises that were built on spiritual truths. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. This was nothing less than a salvific moment in Abraham's life. The covenant made with him points to that through the cutting of circumcision. However, the Abrahamic Covenant was not completely spiritual. As I explained earlier, a Jewish male could be circumcised and live within the covenant community, while all the time not being a spiritual child of Abraham; i.e. not saved. This is why the New Covenant is a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22).
 
I urge you to go beyond books and have actual dialog with your pastor and elders. God has called these men to just such a work. Go to them with your questions and a teachable spirit. I am sure it will profit you much.

I did and still am, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not making false assumption from what I have learn so far from both positions.

Any person, including a child, you has not come to faith in Christ is not included in the New Covenant, nor part of the New Covenant community. Being baptized, and partaking of the Lord's Supper apart from being born again, does not make a person a Christian; i.e. a member of the New Covenant.

So just to confirm, from your perspective the visible church is not part of the New Covenant, only the invisible church is? Your interpretation of New Covenant community is the invisible chruch?

I believe the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Redemption. It contained physical promises that were built on spiritual truths. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. This was nothing less than a salvific moment in Abraham's life. The covenant made with him points to that through the cutting of circumcision. However, the Abrahamic Covenant was not completely spiritual. As I explained earlier, a Jewish male could be circumcised and live within the covenant community, while all the time not being a spiritual child of Abraham; i.e. not saved. This is why the New Covenant is a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22).

Maybe I'm confused but I thought the that Covenant of Redemption was the covenant made between the member of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) which defines their roles in the redemption of the elect? If so how could the Abrahamic Covenant be an adiminstration of this Covenant? From my understanding of the Covenant Theology so far I was under the impression that the Abrahamic was an administration of the CoG. What I also understood was the "betterness" of the New Covenant was in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Hebrews 7:22 is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with the Levitical Priesthood which was ordained as part of the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. This is why the author of Hebrews is refering that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec since he preceded Aaron before the Levitical priesthood was even established.
 
but when they say that the children are sanctified by the believing mother because of her influence in their life would it mean they should also be baptised even if the husband to not agree?

If I'm understanding, we are saying that either parent being a believer would be grounds to have their infant child baptized, whether the mother or father. Really, the child is presented upon the faith of at least one parent.

If you are asking about a situation of a husband not a believer, and a wife who is, should baptism be withheld if the husband objects to baptizing them...

Can the wife tithe when her husband not want to, for example?

Practically, Peter tells us a woman can be used by godly behavior to "win over" the husband to Christ. That is not at all an unheard of pattern when a woman obediently suffers through for this.

There is not a simple answer to every situation.

Situations change.

The believing wife married to an unbelieving husband should make every effort to have the infant children baptized because it is great sin to neglect baptism.

She ought appeal, and appeal again to her husband for consent to do so even if he does not agree.

The posture is try at every opportunity, appealing to God, appealing to husband, trusting God for the results.

It's too simply to pose a scenario and say a woman ought defy her husband, and then claim that is the biblical way.

Larry Burkett used to say with regard to tithing,

The believing wife asks the unbelieving husband to tithe for one year and if they were worse off at the end of one year, she would never ask again. Time and time again, God proved himself through this faith, he related.

This is the way believers approach authority (whether it be husband, parent, employer, magistrate, church authority)- willing to suffer to honor Christ, and in faith.

Scripture gives us many examples, God works this way in the Kingdom.
 
So just to confirm, from your perspective the visible church is not part of the New Covenant, only the invisible church is? Your interpretation of New Covenant community is the invisible chruch?

The paedobaptist would offer the perspective that children are actually born into the new covenant and would be breaking covenant by not being baptised. The sign of the covenant is given to them because they are members of the covenant by virtue of being members of a holy household. That is to say, giving the sign does not make them covenant members, they are given the sign because they are covenant members already. They are holy and thus given the sign.

Any adult is made holy by Word and Spirit. This is made manifest by profession of faith. They are holy and thus given the sign. Their children are holy and thus given the sign. All holy persons are disciples. All disciples are Christians. Thus all holy infants are disciples and Christians.

Therefore the paedobaptist argues that all members in good standing of visible churches are new covenant members. We understand it this way because of the many warnings in scripture about falling away from the new covenant, which would be impossible if only the elect were members of it.

Thus in the presbyterian view there are wolves among the sheep. Hypocrites in the church do not enjoy union with Christ and gifts of the Spirit. They are not connected to the covenant in the same way as elect members. Outwardly, or administratively, the hypocrite is connected and treated in the same way as the elect. As imperfect as this sounds, this is because when the administration of the covenant of grace enters time and space it becomes subject to the fall. Many credible professions of faith are later deemed false. A false professor who is excluded must, by definition, have been included in the first place.

Maybe I'm confused but I thought that the Covenant of Redemption was the covenant made between the members of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) which defines their roles in the redemption of the elect? If so how could the Abrahamic Covenant be an adiminstration of this Covenant? From my understanding of the Covenant Theology so far I was under the impression that the Abrahamic was an administration of the CoG. What I also understood was the "betterness" of the New Covenant was in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant.


The covenant of redemption (CoR) is a covenant of works within the Trinity. The covenant of grace (CoG) is the result of the works and conditions of the covenant of redemption. The CoG is made possible by the CoR. The CoG inaugurated in the Abrahamic promise cannot be annulled by Moses. The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing. in my opinion sacrifices made individually were in gratitude for the LORD'S promise to Abraham's house and sacrifices made generally were for expiation of national guilt.



Jeremiah 31:31-32

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Hebrews 7:22 is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with the Levitical Priesthood which was ordained as part of the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. This is why the author of Hebrews is refering that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec since he preceded Aaron before the Levitical priesthood was even established.

When Jeremiah wrote this the ten tribes of Israel were long gone. Our high priest has joined Israel and Judah together again by the covenant in His blood. How is this is a better covenant? Whereas the prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with the Holy Spirit in the old covenant, all, from the least to the greatest are anointed with the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that we are given divine knowledge as to who the elect are. Rather we are given an outward covenant in order to have a sure faith of who the elect are.
 
Last edited:
The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing.

This is a debatable point. Especially since the New Covenant has the same warnings for the Church as a whole and individually as it was with the Church in the Old Covenant. These warnings of blessing and cursing had to do with apostasy just as they do with the New Covenant Church. Examine 1 Cor 5 and Revelation chapter 2. A good read of the book of Hebrews will also reveal the same thing that the New Covenant is the same in substance as the Mosaic was. The difference is that we have a better surety and high priest.
 
The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing.

This is a debatable point. Especially since the New Covenant has the same warnings for the Church as a whole and individually as it was with the Church in the Old Covenant. These warnings of blessing and cursing had to do with apostasy just as they do with the New Covenant Church. Examine 1 Cor 5 and Revelation chapter 2. A good read of the book of Hebrews will also reveal the same thing that the New Covenant is the same in substance as the Mosaic was. The difference is that we have a better surety and high priest.

Yes sir, a highly debatable point. Etienne probably wasn't asking for this much!

They are similar in substance. Perhaps the major difference being that the holy nation now covers the whole earth as pilgrims and strangers subject to various civil laws in diverse cultures. Are you saying the new covenant has cursings? Are you leaning toward paedobaptism? :D

'good chatting with you again.
 
The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing.

This is a debatable point. Especially since the New Covenant has the same warnings for the Church as a whole and individually as it was with the Church in the Old Covenant. These warnings of blessing and cursing had to do with apostasy just as they do with the New Covenant Church. Examine 1 Cor 5 and Revelation chapter 2. A good read of the book of Hebrews will also reveal the same thing that the New Covenant is the same in substance as the Mosaic was. The difference is that we have a better surety and high priest.

Yes sir, a highly debatable point. Etienne probably wasn't asking for this much!

They are similar in substance. Perhaps the major difference being that the holy nation now covers the whole earth as pilgrims and strangers subject to various civil laws in diverse cultures. Are you saying the new covenant has cursings? Are you leaning toward paedobaptism? :D

'good chatting with you again.
You evidently didn't see this post. http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561
I have been keeping it low key on purpose. :D

And yes, I do believe Hebrews 10:28-31
(Heb 10:28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

(Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


(Heb 10:30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


(Heb 10:31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
 
The covenant of redemption (CoR) is a covenant of works within the Trinity. The covenant of grace (CoG) is the result of the works and conditions of the covenant of redemption. The CoG is made possible by the CoR. The CoG inaugurated in the Abrahamic promise cannot be annulled by Moses. The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing. in my opinion sacrifices made individually were in gratitude for the LORD'S promise to Abraham's house and sacrifices made generally were for expiation of national guilt.

So if understand correctly, the CoG is the covenant between God and his elect which is unbreakable, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic were "earthly" (for lack of better terms) administrations of the CoG in the Old testament Dispensation and the New Covenant is the "earthly" administration of the CoG in the New Testament dispensation (according to paedobaptist)?

So to clarify did the administrations of the CoG in the OT (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) worked in parallel to each other or did one replace the other ( example: did the Mosaic Administration replaced the Abrahamic Administration?)

My understanding so far was that these administrations were running in parallel since they are dealing with different implications of the CoG which were all combined in the New Covenant “administration” under Christ. Is that correct?

Would it be fair to say that the CredoBaptist interpretation of Covenant Theology is that the New Covenant is not an administration of the CoG but is actually synonymous with the CoG itself without any “earthly” administration?
 
The covenant of redemption (CoR) is a covenant of works within the Trinity. The covenant of grace (CoG) is the result of the works and conditions of the covenant of redemption. The CoG is made possible by the CoR. The CoG inaugurated in the Abrahamic promise cannot be annulled by Moses. The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing. in my opinion sacrifices made individually were in gratitude for the LORD'S promise to Abraham's house and sacrifices made generally were for expiation of national guilt.

So if understand correctly, the CoG is the covenant between God and his elect which is unbreakable, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic were "earthly" (for lack of better terms) administrations of the CoG in the Old testament Dispensation and the New Covenant is the "earthly" administration of the CoG in the New Testament dispensation (according to paedobaptist)?

The CoG is earthly. It is breakable because the administration of it has been made subject to the curse. But the elect can never be lost. That is to say the CoR is unbreakable.
So to clarify did the administrations of the CoG in the OT (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) worked in parallel to each other or did one replace the other ( example: did the Mosaic Administration replaced the Abrahamic Administration?)

Yes, the Abrahamic promise is parallel to the Mosaic Covenant. Galatians 3

My understanding so far was that these administrations were running in parallel since they are dealing with different implications of the CoG which were all combined in the New Covenant “administration” under Christ. Is that correct?
Yes. I agree. The dispensationalist gets it exactly backward because the Mosaic Covenant, not the 'church age' is a temporary parenthesis in redemptive history.
Would it be fair to say that the CredoBaptist interpretation of Covenant Theology is that the New Covenant is not an administration of the CoG but is actually synonymous with the CoG itself without any “earthly” administration?

I will defer to the credobaptist, but I think he would say that the New Covenant is brand new and replaces the Abrahamic Promise. However, the CoG must be earthly because the sacraments are earthly, the office of the keys are earthly, and our physical bodies are awaiting glorification. So the CoG has physical blessings as well as spiritual blessings. In my opinion, the credobaptist holds forth an over-realized eschatology in this regard. The paedobaptist would say that the New Covenant is a renewal of the promise to Abraham who is the father of us all. We are also the seed of Abraham. Gal 3:29
 
OK I guess I was confused on what the CoR and the CoG were.

So correct me if I’m wrong but from what I have understood so far, the CoR is the covenant between the members of the Godhead on their roles in the redemption of the elect and it actually involves the unbreakable covenant between God and his elects?

The CoG is the earthly covenant between God and his covenanted people. The reason this covenant can be broken is because it is administered from an earthly perspective and the fact that we live in a fallen world. This covenant has different administrations (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic now combined/fulfilled in the New covenant) with types and shadows pointing to the spiritual realities of the CoR.

The CoR is eternal but the CoG is only spanning from Gen 3:15 until the consummation. Would this be a fair assessement?
 
The thing that I question is whether the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Covenants run parallel. It seems to me that the Covenant of Grace runs linearly through these Covenants revealing the Covenant of Redemption in shadows and promises. It builds progressively revealing each step it progresses into the fulfilment of the New Covenant in which we have the Surety of the Promises, Christ Jesus the Lord.

(Heb 7:21) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: )

(Heb 7:22) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top