# Different interpretation paths?



## anotherpilgrim (Feb 16, 2012)

Hey everyone,
In a discussion about baptism with a friend, I made the following statement, and I wanted everyones (both sides) to comments on it. It wasn't meant to be insulting to credobaptists, but if it comes across as such, I would like to know.

Thanks!

"I think I’ve had to concede that there is an almost fundamental difference between the way a paedobaptists read and sees the bible and the way a credobaptists sees and reads the bible. Namely, that paedobaptists see the unity of both the old and new testaments and therefore interpret all scripture and doctrine starting from the old and then allowing that to inform the understanding of the new. Credobaptists on the other see an almost entire discontinuity between the two testaments and interpret scripture and doctrine starting from the New and only occasionally foraying into the old."

My statement above was in response to the question, "In what, if any, way does the credobaptist say that the old testament informs the understanding of the baptism in the new testament."


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 16, 2012)

If you're talking about dispensationalists you're pretty much on the mark. If not then to a varying but in some cases great extent you're off the mark. I don't view your statement as insulting but as it stands unqualified it is wrong in many cases.

For many credobaptists and especially Reformed type ones there is discontinuity to some extent in relation to some aspects of the covenant administration but there is not a fundamental difference in how we interpret the Bible - I cite the chapter on the Covenant from the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith chapter 7

3. This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, untill the full discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament; and it is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Things to note:

a) the Covenant - singular (refers to the Covenant of Grace
b) is revealed in the Gospel which is first seen in Eden - there you have straight off a statement of fundamental continuity and a statement which immediately fundamentally ties this Credobaptist framework to the Reformed Framework - Covenantal (of some kind)
c) and afterward by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament...i.e the New Testament is not radically new but is the fullest revelation of the Covenant of Grace which underpinned all the other Biblical Covenants.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 16, 2012)

Anish, as a novice in this area of theology, I would have to defer to Pastor Wallace's remarks that your comments about the difference requires so much qualification and are so steeped in caricaturization that it's probably not helpful, ultimately. Both Paedobaptists and Reformed Baptists subscribe to covenant theology and the unity of the testaments. One thing that your comment does correctly, in my opinion, is a heavier weightage for Baptists on the New Testament as a _fulfilment_ of the types and promises found in the OT. I would think that Baptists are more eager to appreciate the differences and distinctions between the testaments, while paedobaptists, perhaps, are more eager to see note the covenantal similarities. Thus, the baptist is very interested in what the revelation/covenant amounted to, and the paedobaptist is interested in how it was first administered and how the essence remains the same through all ages. Thanks for starting this thread. It's a question I've been trying to pin down myself for a while now.


----------



## anotherpilgrim (Feb 16, 2012)

Thanks everyone! I think my comment was an attempt to respond to the question, in what way, if any, does a credobaptist say that the old testament informs or speaks to the understanding of baptism in the new testament. I'm going to edit my post to include that. So, in light of that, what would you guys say?


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 16, 2012)

Ah....this is a much more specific question. You will find again a great diversity among credobaptists. The vast majority will pretty much believe there is no connection at all as you suggest.

Some Reformed Baptists will see a connection with circumcision, i.e they will concede that baptism is the sacrament that speaks of union with Christ, is a sign of spiritual cleansing and is a marker that indicates entrance into the covenant community. That's a fair bit of continuity. Where they will differ is in who is to receive the sacrament in relation to the New Covenant community i.e who is entitled to be 'in the Covenant community. This is where the discontinuity may be seen. The above is a rough summary of my position, it will not necessarily be that (to varying degrees) of other Reformed Baptists).

Again I would suggest that for many RB's the difference is not radical, it is important, and it is very different where it is different, but not really two ways of reading and thinking about the Bible, two different ways of applying the OC in some areas to the NC in some areas, but with a great degree of agreement in most other areas.


----------



## KMK (Feb 16, 2012)

JP Wallace said:


> Again I would suggest that for many RB's the difference is not radical, it is important, and it is very different where it is different, but not really two ways of reading and thinking about the Bible, two different ways of applying the OC in some areas to the NC in some areas, but with a great degree of agreement in most other areas.



I agree. The words 'paedobaptists' and 'credobaptists' are too broad to be of any real use by themselves. Obviously, there are great differences between the way some of each view the covenant. However, Spurgeon's Catechism is fundamentally the same as the WSC. How could that be if Spurgeon-type credobaptists were so different than Westminster paedobaptists?


----------



## eqdj (Feb 16, 2012)

I saw this on the way to work and now see that what I wanted to say has already been said.

I hope that we all recognise that Paedobpatist are not monolithic in their doctrine of Baptism. There are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans-Methodists, Reformed, & Presbyterians. I also encourage our Reformed Paedobaptist brothers and sisters here to recognise that Credobaptists are not monolithic in their doctrine of Baptism. There are Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational, New Covenant, and Covenantal.

If you're asking this board can we assume you're asking about Covenantal Baptist understanding of Baptism?
Where group does your friend fall into?


----------



## anotherpilgrim (Feb 16, 2012)

eqdj said:


> I hope that we all recognise that Paedobpatist are not monolithic in their doctrine of Baptism. There are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans-Methodists, Reformed, & Presbyterians. I also encourage our Reformed Paedobaptist brothers and sisters here to recognise that Credobaptists are not monolithic in their doctrine of Baptism. There are Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational, New Covenant, and Covenantal.



Thank you for clarifying this!! Being new to discussing this topic with others, I think I do make this mistake myself. 

So, what I'm hearing from everyone is that using the terms paedobaptist and credobaptist would actually be making things less clear in this discussion and it would be wiser to avoid it and get down to the underlying stand on Dispensational and Covenantal theolgoy?



eqdj said:


> If you're asking this board can we assume you're asking about Covenantal Baptist understanding of Baptism?
> Where group does your friend fall into?


While I'm sure my friend and most of the others in my circle I engage in this discussion with have some stand regarding Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational, etc., I don't think any of them have actively thought of these concepts and their relation to baptism. I'm open to suggestions on how to properly use the discussion of baptism as a springboard from which to delve into the underlying issues of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. 

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Petty France (Feb 16, 2012)

anotherpilgrim said:


> While I'm sure my friend and most of the others in my circle I engage in this discussion with have some stand regarding Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational, etc., I don't think any of them have actively thought of these concepts and their relation to baptism. I'm open to suggestions on how to properly use the discussion of baptism as a springboard from which to delve into the underlying issues of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.



Debating baptism is often unfruitful because it essentially is a battle of conclusions. Paedobaptists and Credobaptists have extensive systems and presuppositions that play into those conclusions. Debating covenant theology is no guarantee of a more fruitful discussion, but it is the best starting point. Without discussion of those underlying theological convictions you end up with the ages old and useless "infant baptism isn't in the NT" vs. "infant inclusion is not repealed in the NT." What becomes clear is that there is a great deal that each party hears from the so-called "silence" of the New Testament. An added benefit of delving into covenant theology is that it enriches one's understanding of scripture from start to finish, no matter which side you land on.


----------



## Tim (Feb 16, 2012)

What I have wondered for a long time is what is the first point upon which Presbyterians and Baptists depart on the issue? For example, could we in this thread map out the start and end of the argument and find where the point of divergence is?

I am thinking in this manner:

1. Starting point. Agreed.
2. Next point. Agreed.
3. Next point. Agreed.
4. Next point. "Point of disagreement"
.
.
.
N. End point. Disagreement on who are the proper recipients of baptism.


----------



## Petty France (Feb 16, 2012)

Tim said:


> What I have wondered for a long time is what is the first point upon which Presbyterians and Baptists depart on the issue? For example, could we in this thread map out the start and end of the argument and find where the point of divergence is?
> 
> I am thinking in this manner:
> 
> ...



1. The Covenant of Redemption pertains to Christ's commission to redeem the elect and the elect alone. *Agreed.*

2. The Covenant of Works encompasses all humanity in the federal headship, and consequently fall, of Adam. *Agreed.*

3. The Covenant of Grace, in its essence, pertains to Christ and the elect in him because it is the Covenant of Redemption in time and space. *Agreed.*

4. The Noahic Covenant stabilizes creation as the stage in which redemptive history will be played out. *Agreed.*

5. Paedo: The Abrahamic Covenant is a historical administration of the Covenant of Grace and encompasses believers and their children. *Disagreed by Credos.*

5. Credo: The Abrahamic Covenant reveals the Covenant of Grace, but remains distinct from it in its substance and essence. The national promises pertain to Abraham and his physical posterity while pointing to the eschatological promises that pertain to Christ and his "spiritual" posterity. *Disagreed by Paedos.*

6. Paedo: The New Covenant is the final and most full earthly administration of the Covenant of Grace in which the parental authority principle/_oikia_ principle/solidarity principle remains in effect. The Covenant sign should continue to be administered to believers and their children. *Disagreed by Credos.*

6. Credo: The New Covenant is the actual accomplishment of the Covenant of Redemption in history, thus it is the Covenant of Grace fully unveiled and revealed. It always has and always will pertain to the elect and the elect alone. *Disagreed by Paedos.*

7. In the consummation, Christ and the elect enjoy blessed eternity while the reprobate suffer eternal damnation. *Agreed.*


A few comments:
-Some Paedos see the Mosaic covenant as another administration of the Covenant of Grace.
-Both sides would make more arguments at different places in this numbering, but the heart of it is the question of whether or not the Abrahamic Covenant (and the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants) are one in substance and essence with the Covenant of Grace. (Much more could be said about that.) I'm just trying to lay out the simplest steps.
-In the consummation, we're all Baptists. At the end of the day, it's just Christ and the elect in him. *wink wink


----------



## Tim (Feb 16, 2012)

Petty France said:


> 7. In the consummation, Christ and the elect enjoy blessed eternity while the reprobate suffer eternal damnation. Agreed.



Thanks for including a remark about the consummation. It's good to have a reminder that we agree on that.



Petty France said:


> the heart of it is the question of whether or not the Abrahamic Covenant (and the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants) are one in substance and essence with the Covenant of Grace.



Can anyone describe what leads to the point of disagreement for these opposing beliefs?


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 17, 2012)

Petty France said:


> but the heart of it is the question of whether or not the Abrahamic Covenant (and the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants) are one in substance and essence with the Covenant of Grace.



Is it not possible that in fact the heart of the matter is not whether they are one in substance and essence but rather whether there is a difference in administration? I believe our confession teaches that all the covenants are revelations/administrations of the Covenant of Grace (including Mosaic) does that not require that in essence and substance they are one, whatever differences there may be in more periphery ways?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 17, 2012)

Hey, we're actually having a civil and fruitful discussion on baptism. Good job everyone, this is how it should be.


----------



## Petty France (Feb 17, 2012)

JP Wallace said:


> Petty France said:
> 
> 
> > but the heart of it is the question of whether or not the Abrahamic Covenant (and the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants) are one in substance and essence with the Covenant of Grace.
> ...



Brother, it is certainly true that many Baptists hold this position and approach the debate from the stance which you have articulated. However, I would respectfully argue that this is not what the confession teaches, and that this is not how we as Baptists should approach the debate.

I suggest seeing the difference between these two views in this way:

1. The way in which paedobaptists, and some baptists, approach this is to consider the relationship between the historical covenants and the covenant of grace to be one of substance and accident (Aristotelian categories). The substance of the Covenant of Grace remains the same while its accidental properties vary throughout historical "administrations."

2. The credobaptist view considers the relationship between the historical covenants and the covenant of grace to be one of type and anti-type, passing from shadow to fulfillment. 

How does this work itself out?

We have to ask ourselves, what does the term administration mean, and is it possible for the same covenant to be differently administered. As I have argued in the Covenant Theology forum, covenants are administrative documents that belong to particular kingdoms. Covenants define the boundaries, members, sanctions, and more of a given kingdom. A kingdom is administered via covenant. An administration, then, is simply the carrying out of what a given covenant prescribes. Administration and covenant are identical. By definition, then, if you change an administration, you have changed the covenant itself. If a covenant sets the terms for how to govern a kingdom, any change to those terms is actually a change to the covenant. 

We must then ask, what Kingdom is the Covenant of Grace administering? The covenant of grace governs the eschatological Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom held out before Adam in the covenant of works. This kingdom is founded in the Covenant of Redemption outside of time wherein the Father promises the Kingdom to his Son who will earn it upon his incarnation, life, and death. It is ratified in time through Christ's own blood in the New Covenant. In all of history, from start to finish, the Covenant of Grace is the covenant whereby the Kingdom of God is populated with the Messiah-King's people. The Covenant of Grace administers the eschatological Kingdom of God from the fall to the consummation.

Can such a Kingdom and such a Covenant be differently administered? What would that mean, if they could be?

A change of administrations within the same covenant (like the covenant of grace) would be like changing presidencies in America without changing the constitution. However, that is not what the transition is like from the Old to the New. Jesus is not a new president with a new spin on an old document. He is a new King with a New Covenant for a New Kingdom (New in comparison to Israel, Old in consideration of all of history).

What then, is the relationship between the historical covenants of the Old Testament and the Covenant of Grace? It is a relationship of type to anti-type.
The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants administer/govern the Kingdom of Israel. Through the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants, we see the same blessings being set before the people, namely blessed life in Canaan, while the terms of their enjoyment are modified over time. Indeed this could be called a change of administration with the essence of a covenant being retained. However, the changes in administration are clearly covenantal changes because they coincide with the addition of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants to the Kingdom of Israel promised to Abraham. In other words, when the administration changes, it is because a different covenant has been introduced. In that sense, what we see is not a change of administrations with the essence of one covenant being retained, but rather a change of covenants with the essence of one kingdom being retained and modified. 

The covenant of grace is not subject to such modification. In fact, it cannot be altered. Its atemporal foundation in the covenant of redemption places it firmly in God's decree, and its temporal foundation in the new covenant blood of Christ ratifies this precise reality. The Old Testament covenants in themselves do not offer the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. However they do typologically reveal and point to this in such a way that they were sufficient revelation for the salvation of sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. In fact, God had already given sufficient revelation to this end back in Genesis 3. This makes the historical covenants of the Old Testament farther steps in the revelation of covenant of grace while remaining distinct from it in their substance and essence. 

Using typology, the New Covenant is the not the final or most glorious administration of the covenant of grace, but rather it is the covenant of grace fully unveiled. Typology does not deny the presence of the substance of the Covenant of Grace in the Old Covenant. Rather, it clarifies the nature of the relationship between the two. It recognizes that a type is designed to reveal and foreshadow the anti-type without actually being the anti-type. It is the relationship of a shadow to that which casts the shadow. The shadow sufficiently reveals its "Caster" without actually being its "Caster." For example, the sacrifices under Moses, did not take away sins. They were types of Christ's sacrifice, but they, in themselves, were not Christ's sacrifice. They are sufficient instruments of revelation while remaining distinct in substance and essence. So also, on a larger scale, the Kingdom of Israel, blessed life in Canaan, was a type of the Kingdom of God, blessed life that will one day be consummated in the New Heavens and New Earth. 

Scripture does not speak in the language of progressive administrations. Christ, Paul, and the author to the Hebrews did not say "A new and better administration is here!" They said "The real thing is here!" I would strongly encourage all of our brethren who invoke the language of progressive administrations of one covenant to take a second look at that language and justify its use in comparison to the way that scripture speaks of different covenants, whether in Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, or elsewhere.

I would politely suggest that this is the entire sweep of the argument of the author to the Hebrews, namely that the substance which was typified by the Old Covenant has arrived in Christ and his covenant. It is not a new administration of one covenant, but rather it is the unveiling and revealing of that which previously had been prefigured in shadowy forms.

Hebrews 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 *They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things*. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as *the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises*. 7 *For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second*. (Heb 8:1-7)

Hebrews 9:8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing 9 (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10 but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. 11 *But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come*, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. 15 *Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant*, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. (Heb 9:8-15)

Hebrews 10:1 For since *the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities*, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" 8 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." *He does away with the first in order to establish the second*. (Heb 10:1-9)

As to the confession, I would like to point out the emphasis on revelation. "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament." The farther steps here are farther revelation. This is not equal to administrations. Furthermore, Nehemiah Coxe, the most likely editor of the Confession, in his work on the covenants said this in his preface: "That notion (which is often supposed in this discourse) that *the old covenant and the new differ in substance and not only in the manner of their administration*, certainly requires a larger and more particular handling to free it from those prejudices and difficulties that have been cast on it by many worthy persons who are otherwise minded."

I am strongly convinced that this is the teaching of scripture and the London Baptist Confession.


Appendix:
To prove that the Old Testament Covenants were one in substance with the Covenant of Grace, one would have to prove that:
1. Each OT covenant had Christ as its Federal Head
2. Each OT covenant, in itself, offers the blessings of salvation in Christ
3. Each OT covenant governs the eschatological Kingdom of God

Fail to prove any of these (more could be mentioned) and you have lost the essence of the Covenant of Grace.

Saying:
1. Each OT covenant typifies Christ's Federal headship
2. Each OT covenant, in itself, typifies the blessings of salvation in Christ
3. Each OT covenant typifies the eschatological Kingdom of God
Does not destroy the presence and reality of the Covenant of Grace in any way whatsoever. Rather it preserves, clarifies, and brings it into accordance with the language of scripture.

I appreciate your patience in reading.


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 17, 2012)

I have no doubts that the 'older covenants' are typical, at least that, a rudimentary reading of Hebrews would establish that. And again I've not come across anyone who suggests that the 'older covenant' don't point forward to Christ - but since they do so, thereby making Christ always the object of faith, are they not in some sense whatever else they are 'essentially' the same as the Covenant of Grace? In other words at a first reading of what you have written I'm not sure the typical understanding and essential understanding are diametrically opposed or at odds, but perhaps parallel.

Setting aside the word 'administration and concentrating on revelation; with regard to the further revelation spoken of in the confession - what are the covenants revealing by farther steps, surely the referent is the CofG of the previous paragraph? - are the covenants not revealing something of the same thing, as they go along - i.e the Gospel in Christ is always in view as it were, though never in such bright clarity as in the New Covenant? Is this not the meaning of the confession? And that this revelation is in some sense progressive is suggested by the 'farther steps'?


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 17, 2012)

I think it's one thing to say that the older covenants present a figure of Christ, and another thing to say that the older covenants present Christ _himself_. I've generally held the view of the type-anti type understanding of the Old and New Covenants, which is what I see most prominent in Hebrews - and the author's repeated point that the type is not, and must be distinguished from, the substance.

But then, there are New Testament passages that suggest less of the typical understanding and more of the essential understanding. For example, 1 Cor 10: "For I want you to know, brothers,a that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 *and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."*

One has to admit there are passages supporting both views, unless Samuel, you can offer an exegesis of the above which brings it under the type-anti type understanding.

The substance vs. accidens parallel is fascinating and intriguing. The Old Testament saints could be said to have been sacramentally partaking of the essence of Christ in the CoG, especially in the 1 Cor 10 passage, just as we partake of the same in the New Covenant. Could this be so?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 17, 2012)

Just to flesh out the "Presbyterian" position a little bit,

We tend to place considerably more emphasis on the fact that there is still quite a bit "Not-Yet" to go with the "Already" of the present Covenant-age.

We are _not_ in the Promised Land; we are still pilgrims and sojourners; we still have to gather the manna. This is the fundamental stance.

Or, if we take the occasion to think of ourselves in parallel to the people _once resident_ in the land, we observe as they did the many imperfections in that sanctity; we see as they did that the nation is situated in the midst of a hostile world; we see as they did that Joshua did not give us true rest, and that the Sabbath remains in order not only to remind us of creation and redemption, but of the Rest (delight) that awaits. That is, the people in the land were taught that they weren't just "in booths" one week out of the year, but actually they were still wanderers, but paradoxically in the land.

Sound familiar? It should, because once again today we are *still wanderers,* though paradoxically we are "in the land."

In other words, *we aren't ACTUALLY in heaven yet*. Thus, the analogues between our present situation and the situations (plural) all throughout the Old Testament are plenteous and profound.



I'd also like to suggest there is at least another, nuanced approach to this matter of defining/describing "administration." As we might expect, there is little agreement between the sides or factions here concerning this notion that "covenant" and "administration" are synonymous. The supernatural and heavenly nature of the Covenant-of-Grace, and its connection to the earthly manifestation(s) of it, is precisely the point of contention for many who are engaged in this battle of ideas.

I've used this analogy on on the P-B before, and it should be helpful here. For simplicity's and clarity's sake, I will use the terms Old _Testament_ and New _Testament_, rather than Old Covenant and New Covenant, which latter is a narrower dichotomy.

Let me frame the question this way:Is the disjunct between the Old and new Testaments more akin to1) the separation of the Old World from the New World (i.e. the Atlantic Ocean and Colonization)? or
2) the separation between Colonial America and post-War-of-Independence America?​

Above, the illustration of "change of administration within covenant" was likened to changes in the Presidency, under a single Constitution. This thought would have most merit, if our one concern had to do with a description of historic administration of the Covenant of Grace that was one dimensional. But our own (Presbyterian) examinations of these matters have both macro and micro views, views that can appear "flat" from one angle, expansive in another.

It should be plain on historic (and other) grounds that the divide that separated the New Word from the Old was _greater_ than the divide that separated the Colonist-society from the new United States society. Historians often point to the relatively smooth transition between what was (largely) self-government before the War of Independence, and (largely) self-government after the War. In many ways, things were not--and could never be--the same again. The differences were pronounced and profound. And yet, in a myriad of uncounted ways, society continued after the settlement much as it was before, _accompanied with_ the profound sense of the shift in identity, the realization of a Federal system of governance, etc. Significant change; but significant continuity.

There was a new administration. And yet, the dominant population in these same territories *continued* to think of themselves as AMERICANS. This is a powerful testimony to a social-contract (a type of covenant) that can remain unmoved, even while the material superstructure of covenant-order is _drastically_ changed. In contrast, two items: 1) note the pre-existent social-contract adjustment that was wrought simply by individual moves across the Atlantic (within a single generation, a new population arose "that knew not Joseph," i.e. the king); and 2) note the subsequent and contrasting results of the French Revolution (I chose not to describe the American events as a revolution for just this reason).

My point, as I said, is not to debate here whether the "Baptist" (Old/New World) divide, or the "Presbyterian" (Colonial/State) divide has better biblical support relative to the Old/New Testament. But to point out that there is more than one one possible understanding of a "change of administration" than simply the notion of one Constitution and multiple Presidencies. There are degrees of continuity between stages of history all the time. In the one example I gave, there is one change represented by an Ocean, another by a War. Both create admirable disjucnts. But in one sense, Americans are still Americans after the War (as God's people are one body before and after the cross). But no amount of wishful-thinking will make me a *True Scotsman*. The divide is too great.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm beginning to understand more and more the stress (or perhaps 'necessity'?) that Presbyterianism places on the _not-yet _part of the eschatological age. I hope I'm not misrepresenting the position, but it does make sense in light of the tendency to view the Old Testament and New Testament as essentially parallel. This parallel is helped by the fact that we are NOT in heaven, and the New Creation has NOT yet happened, and the church on earth is NOT yet made up of the elect. The concept of an imperfect transitional time between the Christ event and the consummation is essential in Presbyterian theology. Thus, the practice of infant baptism is never made a statement of the infant's saved or unsaved state, but rather the continuation of an OT covenant principle that forms a community that may well be a mixed community of saved and not saved. 

The Baptist is more inclined to view the New Covenant in Jesus to have made a larger "tear in the fabric of time" - a more pronounced break away from the Old Covenant, which were types and shadows. So rather than view the dispensations to be more or less stable and constant, as in the Presbyterian view, it is viewed as a sharp incline which summits at the cross, or perhaps another mountain altogether (?). 

how each system views the totality of Scripture, which both sides want to keep as the priority, will depend on how we interpret the New Covenant, in my opinion. We know that Christ has established something new; the question is _how_ new?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 23, 2012)

The family is still here too, but gives way to something else in the Heavenly Eschatalogical Kingdom.

In the Baptist scheme the sign of the covenant is extended to adult females who profess, while removed from their little boys. Any covenant membership is removed from both boys and girls.


----------



## anotherpilgrim (Mar 21, 2012)

Hey everyone, I was just revisiting this thread and had a question/comment. In as much as salvation in all ages of the church in all covenants and all administrations is always and only by faith in the person and work of Christ, aren't the various 'covenants' (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New) simply temporal executions of the eternal covenant of redemption/grace, i.e. various phases of the execution of the redemption story in our space-time continuum of the eternal covenants?

I fully admit I may be confusing terms of the covenants here; forgive me if I am; I'm still a novice in Covenant Theology.


----------

