# Finer questions on the New Covenant



## deleteduser99 (Dec 31, 2017)

I still have issues I want to resolve concerning the NC.

I see plainly that the Abrahamic Covenant is not abrogated. For one, only the Mosaic has been abrogated according to Jeremiah 31, but not the AC (through which, it seems, the OC pays to Melchizedek). So far as I can see, no other Covenant besides the MC is ever indicated as abrogated.

I’ve heard a number of things to say that circumcision is not replaced by baptism but regeneration, but still it seems to fulfill the exact same function as baptism—a sign of admittance into the church. That seems indisputable.

But still my struggle is with what is said about the NC. The language of Jeremiah 31 sounds quite exclusive of any unregenerate party. Some views seem to hold that the “all” refers to the great majority of those in the visible body, but others seem to say (even in Presbyterian circles) that it exclusively refers to the inward members. How can I resolve this? What other passages should I look at to determine what the real answer is?

Also, what passages should I consider when it talks about members not teaching each one his neighbor, and all from the least to the greatest knowing him?

Why is it made a special point to mention the forgiveness of sins when it was available in the OT to anyone who wanted it?

A question specifically for Baptists (Presbyterian comments welcome):
There are many other passages which discuss the NC besides Jeremiah 31, and I was stunned to find that the children are included as beneficiaries (Deut 30:6, Is 44:3-4, Is 59:21, 61:8-9, Jer 32:37-41, Ezekiel 37:24-28, Joel 2:28-32). It would seem that if they are beneficiaries then they have a right to the sign, and any Jew listening would assumes that their childrens’ participation would not only continue, but they would get even better benefits—or a greater extent of them. What’s your take on it?

Also, at what point do I just say that I’ve got the answer on what my position should be Scripturally? As I’ve begun this search I’ve determined that I want to be so convinced of a position that I would never change my mind. However, I’m not a seasoned Christian, so I feel at risk of making an error based on little theological experience, but I need to land somewhere for the sake of getting my family as members in a church, and this is not a small issue. When do you say you’ve debated and discussed enough to close the books and pick your place?

I’ve done a lot of reading and analyzing and thinking, and I may still have more questions.

In all, please help me search the Scriptures, as the NC is not quite clear to me.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 1, 2018)

Harley,

A few things on Jeremiah 31 from a Presbyterian. To clarify, not every Presbyterian would explain the passage this way, but a number of them would. This is a historically Reformed way of understanding this passage and the way that makes by far the most sense to me personally as I wrestled through it:

First, on the passage IN GENERAL:

The passage in Jeremiah 31 and quoted in Hebrews is especially comparing the EFFECT of the Covenant of Grace in the Old Covenant versus that in the New Covenant. Both the Old Covenant and New Covenant are administrations of the Covenant of Grace--they are both about the gospel. But there are also differences between these two administrations of the Covenant of Grace. One of those differences is a difference in EFFECT. In short: In the Old Covenant, the gospel was just as much presented at Sinai (it was the good news that was preached under Moses, etc); so it was not actually the CONTENT that would be different in the New Covenant but rather the EFFECT. In the New Covenant, it would no longer be the remnant or the great minority of the church that would truly embrace the covenant from the heart; it would be reversed so that it would indeed be the majority. In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord tells His people about the new covenant He would make with them, contrasting it with the covenant He had made with them at Sinai, saying: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” This actually leaves us wondering, doesn't it: Didn't God do the same thing in the Old Testament? Did God only begin to write His Law in the hearts of His people in the new covenant? Wasn't it David who wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11)? How then are we to understand the prophecy in Jeremiah? I think in this way: God did write His Law on the hearts of His old covenant people. There were indeed many in the Old Testament, such as David, who embraced God's covenant through faith. God took His Word and applied it effectually to their hearts. But, sadly, there were also countless others who remained unchanged. Moses told his whole congregation in the wilderness: “Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” (Deuteronomy 29:4). And Isaiah cried out, “For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant within them will return. . .” (10:22). So then, though many in the old covenant embraced the message of the gospel, many more remained unchanged. Though there were periods of revival and decline in Israel, it seems on the whole that few embraced Christ. But it would be different in the new covenant. This is the point of Jeremiah's contrast. God would write His Law on the hearts of His people on a much greater scale. So that if we think of the multitude of those whom God is now effectually drawing to himself in the new covenant Church, we have to say that those who embraced the covenant in ancient Israel were few by comparison. The content was the same in the Old Testament; the old covenant was no less about the gospel (Hebrews 4:2,6). But the effect would be different in the new covenant, because God now applies His Word powerfully to the hearts of His people, by His Spirit, in a much greater proportion. As one writer put it: “as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountain. . .” This is another difference in "administration" (rather than substance) between the old covenant and the new covenant.

On the SPECIFICS of Jeremiah 31:

1) The essence or substance of the two covenants is exactly the same: Notice that the word “Law” is actually used of the new covenant, not the old. Jeremiah isn't saying that the Law was what was written in the old covenant, but the gospel would be written in the new. Nor does Jeremiah say a new Law would be given, but rather that a new covenant would be made, in which the same Law would be written in a different place. The difference isn't in what was written but rather in where it was written. So it's not that the Mosaic Covenant was about the Law, whereas the new covenant will be about the gospel. The Mosaic Covenant was no less about the gospel. So when we read that Israel broke this covenant, we're not to think that Jeremiah means that Sinai was a legal dispensation and the people broke the Law (as all of us do). After all, if that's what Jeremiah is saying, how do we make any sense of the contrast? If we also in the new covenant break God's Law by not keeping it perfectly, what sense can we make of Jeremiah's contrast, where the new will be so different from the old? No, when Jeremiah speaks of Israel breaking the covenant, he's not talking about breaking the Law, he's actually talking about breaking the covenant itself—which was a Covenant of Grace. In other words, he means they failed to embrace the covenant from the heart, by faith. And this is what would be different in the new covenant: God's new covenant people would embrace the covenant from the heart.

2) The members of the two covenants are spoken of in general: When God says that “they” broke the old covenant (v32), he's not speaking of every single individual, as we've seen, but rather about Israel in general, on the whole. Again, there were indeed many who embraced God's covenant from the heart under the old covenant, but taken on the whole, the people turned away. Well, the same principle applies to the objects of the new covenant. When God says that in the new covenant He will put His Law within “them”, He's not talking about every single individual, but of the people on the whole. If it is objected that verse 34 tells us that God is indeed speaking of every individual, in that it says “they will all know Me”, we would simply refer back to verses 29-30, which clarify that not every single individual is meant, but again the population on the whole, FOR EVEN IN THE NEW COVENANT there will be some who yet eat the sour grapes and die for their own iniquity. This is confirmed by that expression in verse 34, “from the least of them to the greatest of them”, for Jeremiah uses the same phrase twice before this passage (6:13; 8:10) in speaking of how Israel in his day had turned away from the Lord; but surely no one takes him to be speaking of every single individual; the prophet is rather characterising the vast majority of the people. Bottom line: Jeremiah is not saying there were no individuals who knew God in the old covenant, nor is he saying that every individual would know God in the new covenant, but rather that on the whole, God's people turned away from Him in the old, but that they would know and walk with Him in the new.

3) Again, the reason for this contrast between old and new covenants is that God would cause His Word to take effect upon His people in a much greater proportion in the new covenant. This isn't to say that there were periods in the old covenant when the Spirit was so powerfully at work that it seemed as if that time belonged to the new covenant; or in turn, that there will be periods in the new covenant when the workings of the Spirit seem so small and insignificant that it will resemble more the times of the old covenant. But the comparison is a general one; Jeremiah is speaking of the two dispensations on the whole when he tells us that the old covenant was characterised by the writing of God's Word externally on stone (even though He also wrote that same Word in the hearts of His people), and that the new covenant would be characterised by the writing of God's Word internally in the hearts of His people (even though it is no less still written externally on the pages of our Bibles). The old covenant included God's Law written internally on hearts; and the new covenant includes God's Law written externally on paper, but the difference is that the old would be marked and characterised by the external writing, whereas the new would be marked and characterised by the internal writing. And the reason for this is that God would take His Word and apply it effectually to the hearts of His people unto salvation in such a greater proportion in the new covenant than in the old. Hope this helps you Harley.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 2, 2018)

Jon,

I deeply appreciate your taking the time to spell these things out for me.

A thought had occurred to me a number of times when examining the NC passages, which seems to accord with what you say, with the contrast being in effect: the NC is God doing something to His people. Not only that, but it's what He promised to do to a people already in existence--not as individuals, but as a collective group. Not to a new group of people, but the same one.

I've noticed other places where it's not possible to interpret "from the least to the greatest" as absolutely all without exception, although it still argues a vast majority. For example, Jeremiah 42:1, 42:8 for example. It'd be a stretch to say "absolutely all without exception" in those circumstances. Most stunning are these:

Jeremiah 42:15-17 - Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: If you set your faces to enter Egypt and go to live there, then the sword that you fear shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt, and the famine of which you are afraid shall follow close after you to Egypt, and there you shall die. All the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to live there shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence. They shall have *no remnant or survivor from the disaster that I will bring upon them *.
Jeremiah 44:11-15 - Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will set my face against you for harm, *to cut off all Judah*. 12 I will take the remnant of Judah who have set their faces to come to the land of Egypt to live, and they shall *all be consumed*. In the land of Egypt they shall fall; by the sword and by famine they shall be consumed. *From the least to the greatest*, they shall die by the sword and by famine, and they shall become an oath, a horror, a curse, and a taunt. 13 I will punish those who dwell in the land of Egypt, as I have punished Jerusalem, with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, 14 so that *none of the remnant of Judah* who have come to live in the land of Egypt *shall escape or survive or return to the land of Judah*, to which they desire to return to dwell there. For they *shall not return*, *except some fugitives*.”

And some did return. And so far as I can see, the famine and sword and pestilence promised were to come in Egypt (Jer 44:27).

The phrase is even used in Acts to demonstrate the influence of Simon Magus in Acts 8. "They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called 'Great.'”

I still have a question as to what it means by each one teaching his neighbor. Is this a form of evangelism? Is it just the extent of knowledge that the people of God would have? What would help determine the difference? Either way, it would seem ridiculous to say that the people all have a much richer knowledge of God without true salvation among the people increasing proportionally. After all, that's the intention.

I think I understand what you are saying with the passage on the sour grapes, though I'm still having trouble with interpretation. The best sense in which I had previously understood this is that the exile and the disaster in Judah would be enough payment for the sins of their fathers and that God would be satisfied. Still that leaves a question about the Pharisees being responsible for the blood of the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. But is it all talking about the NC beginning with Jeremiah 31:27?

I'm interested because I've heard that passage in Jeremiah used as a proof (as well as Ezekiel 18) that the vengeance to the third and fourth generation and the blessing to the thousandth generation has been done away with, though I find that doesn't jive with the fact that those in the NC may expect blessing for their children (according to my references in the previous post).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 2, 2018)

Harley,

Thanks for taking the time to read a lengthy reply, and for excusing my copying and pasting from another document.

That's another great text you pointed out from Jeremiah 44:27, and how it uses the same phrase but explicitly states, "except some fugitives." I hadn't noticed that one; well done.

I think each one teaching his neighbor falls in to place when you start understanding that first clause, "all of them will know Me. . ." The great majority of the church in the new covenant will know the Lord, will embrace the covenant from the heart by faith. So when we get together over a meal or coffee, I don't need to say: "Hey man, you need to get right with God", because, by and large, the professing Christians I have a meal with or get coffee with do know the Lord. That's not to say there are exceptions. But again, it's the contrast between the church in the old covenant and the church in the new covenant. 

In my Bible, the heading "A New Covenant" is placed just before Jeremiah 31:27. I haven't extensively researched how different people or groups argue for or against the prophecy of the new covenant beginning with verse 27 as opposed to verse 31; I don't know if people debate this or not. But it seems to me the prophecy of the new covenant starts in verse 27, since: 1) the phrase used to begin v27 is the same used to begin v31, implying Jeremiah is speaking of the same thing; 2) verse 28 puts at an absolute contrast the way God would deal with His old covenant church in contrast to the new covenant church.

With the sour grapes, the people were in effect saying: Hey, why is it that it was our fathers who sinned, but it's us who are being exiled? Why are we being punished for the sins of our fathers and ancestors? Their claim was wrong. It was for the sins of their fathers that they were being exiled, but no less for their own sins as well. But Jeremiah is saying that this phrase won't be used anymore. Why this phrase won't be used anymore is perhaps up for debate. It seems to me the reason is that again, by and large, God's dealings will be different towards the church in the new covenant (and the reason His dealings will be different towards them is that they will, by and large, actually embrace the covenant from the heart by faith and so escape His wrath; and of course they will do so only because God will do that work in them effectually by His Spirit; cf. again verse 28). But then in verse 30, Jeremiah is quick to add that, even though this is all the case, still, even in those days--in the days of the new covenant-- "everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge." So to me, that's the main thing. Even though things will be different in the new covenant in terms of the effect of the gospel on the hearts of God's people, still, even in the new covenant, there will be some who die for their own iniquity.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 2, 2018)

Thank you again. I now see what you’re saying about the sour grapes. There would not be such unfaithfulness in the NC as to demand that the church pay in such a way as Israel did, with consequences to the church coming on future generations; yet, that doesn’t preclude any from being unfaithful and dying in their sins for covenant-breaking.

Jumping to your first post, have I understood your contrast correctly when I say the following: if the MC (OC) was legalistic, but the NC is gracious, then why is it that God just moves the Law from stones to the heart without changing up the terms by which the participants are righteous? Otherwise, it would just be another Law with different terms (aka neonomianism).


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 2, 2018)

Harley, can you ask the question again? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 2, 2018)

Yes. Was it your point that it’s no comfort for the Law to be written on the heart if it’s the Law of a legalistic covenant, ie. The OT? The only way it can bring joy is if that Law came from a gracious covenant, or we just have a new law under different terms, no matter if it’s written in stone or on the heart.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 2, 2018)

Harley, I think you're referring back to the paragraph I numbered as #1, is that right? Towards the beginning of that paragraph, I was trying to make the point that even in the new covenant there is Law; and in fact, it's the very same Law that God gave to Israel in the old covenant. This is to refute those who would make the general sweeping claim that the OT or Mosaic Covenant was all about the Law, but NT or new covenant is about the gospel. Not true: Jeremiah is telling us that actually, the new covenant is just as much "about the Law" as the old covenant was. Fact is, there was gospel in the old covenant just as much as there is Law in the new covenant. The implication is that the Mosaic Covenant was not *different in substance* than the new covenant. This is what some claim who hold to any view other than that the Mosaic Covenant was part of the Covenant of Grace (for instance, the republication view of Sinai; the mixed view of Sinai; and the Subservient view of Sinai). Rather, the Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace; it is the *same in substance* as the Covenant of Grace, and only *different in administration* from the new covenant, just as the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants are. The Law was given largely to Israel as a RULE for God's redeemed people, just as it is for us, for God gives the same Law to His people in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). (This also refutes those who claim that God gives His new covenant people a different, more *radical* standard of holiness in the new covenant than in the old. This misunderstands the deeply spiritual nature of the Law, which the Savior exposited for us throughout the gospels. The Law was not just the *bare minimum* of holiness but rather the essence of holiness--that is, when it was properly understood and exposited). So again, it wasn't that God gave the Law to His old covenant people but would give the gospel to His new covenant people. He had given the gospel to His old covenant people through Moses (Hebrews 4:2); and He would continue to give His Law to His new covenant people (Jeremiah 31:33). So the difference spoken of in the passage doesn't have to do with the CONTENT of what God would give His people (again, law versus gospel) but rather with the EFFECT of the Spirit in the hearts of His people. He gave the gospel in the old covenant, but relatively few believed. But now in the new covenant, He would take that same gospel and cause it to take root in a way that, as a whole, it had failed to do in the old covenant; so that though many believed in the old covenant, we have to say that they were very few when compared with the glory of the days of the new covenant church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 3, 2018)

Harley said:


> I still have issues I want to resolve concerning the NC.
> 
> I see plainly that the Abrahamic Covenant is not abrogated. For one, only the Mosaic has been abrogated according to Jeremiah 31, but not the AC (through which, it seems, the OC pays to Melchizedek). So far as I can see, no other Covenant besides the MC is ever indicated as abrogated.
> 
> ...


The mark of the Christian under the NC would be to have the presence and sealing of the Holy Spirit now residing within them, so those who would be qualified to be water baptized would be those who have already received the Holy Spirit of promise. as only those who have already received Him and are redeemed would qualify under the NC to be now water baptized.


----------



## Cymro (Jan 3, 2018)

Did not our Lord say to the Pharisees, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: For he wrote of me.”
The gospel then and the covenant of grace is about Christ. So Moses was also a preacher of grace. Thus our Lord could teach on the Emmaus road, “and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.” The covenant of grace does not alter, even though the law was added to it. The difference is in its administration, and the amplifying, and increasing of its benefits. Children in the OT were under the promise of grace, so why should they be denied the same privilege in the NT?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 4, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Harley, I think you're referring back to the paragraph I numbered as #1, is that right? Towards the beginning of that paragraph, I was trying to make the point that even in the new covenant there is Law; and in fact, it's the very same Law that God gave to Israel in the old covenant. This is to refute those who would make the general sweeping claim that the OT or Mosaic Covenant was all about the Law, but NT or new covenant is about the gospel. Not true: Jeremiah is telling us that actually, the new covenant is just as much "about the Law" as the old covenant was. Fact is, there was gospel in the old covenant just as much as there is Law in the new covenant. The implication is that the Mosaic Covenant was not *different in substance* than the new covenant. This is what some claim who hold to any view other than that the Mosaic Covenant was part of the Covenant of Grace (for instance, the republication view of Sinai; the mixed view of Sinai; and the Subservient view of Sinai). Rather, the Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace; it is the *same in substance* as the Covenant of Grace, and only *different in administration* from the new covenant, just as the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants are. The Law was given largely to Israel as a RULE for God's redeemed people, just as it is for us, for God gives the same Law to His people in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). (This also refutes those who claim that God gives His new covenant people a different, more *radical* standard of holiness in the new covenant than in the old. This misunderstands the deeply spiritual nature of the Law, which the Savior exposited for us throughout the gospels. The Law was not just the *bare minimum* of holiness but rather the essence of holiness--that is, when it was properly understood and exposited). So again, it wasn't that God gave the Law to His old covenant people but would give the gospel to His new covenant people. He had given the gospel to His old covenant people through Moses (Hebrews 4:2); and He would continue to give His Law to His new covenant people (Jeremiah 31:33). So the difference spoken of in the passage doesn't have to do with the CONTENT of what God would give His people (again, law versus gospel) but rather with the EFFECT of the Spirit in the hearts of His people. He gave the gospel in the old covenant, but relatively few believed. But now in the new covenant, He would take that same gospel and cause it to take root in a way that, as a whole, it had failed to do in the old covenant; so that though many believed in the old covenant, we have to say that they were very few when compared with the glory of the days of the new covenant church.



I think that’s how I understood it; but also, if the OC is legalistic and God does nothing more than move the law from off the stone into the heart, but keeps the substance the same (ie legalism) then there is no comfort for us. All we have then in the NC is just another law, ie. Neonomianism. But it’s all Gospel in BOTH, the only difference being the extent of the work of the Spirit.

Which is why then it can be said that God remembers our sins no more, because there would be few covenant-breakers to be found.



Dachaser said:


> The mark of the Christian under the NC would be to have the presence and sealing of the Holy Spirit now residing within them, so those who would be qualified to be water baptized would be those who have already received the Holy Spirit of promise. as only those who have already received Him and are redeemed would qualify under the NC to be now water baptized.



I have a multitude of thoughts on this. This is what I did hold but now seriously question the validity, as well as the possibility of obeying it. However, for now I’m trying to stay on the topic of the NC, as qualifications for the baptism of adults have been debated multiple times here.

But I am curious, do you have any thoughts on the NC passages from my first post which specifically name children as beneficiaries of the NC? The kids seem to get the same benefits as the parents, which would lead me to think they are all included in the administration—even the substance for the elect among them—and would therefore get the initial rite of entry as well as the adults. It leads me to think that the qualifications for entering and staying in the covenant community haven’t changed from the OT.



Cymro said:


> Did not our Lord say to the Pharisees, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: For he wrote of me.”
> The gospel then and the covenant of grace is about Christ. So Moses was also a preacher of grace. Thus our Lord could teach on the Emmaus road, “and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.” The covenant of grace does not alter, even though the law was added to it. The difference is in its administration, and the amplifying, and increasing of its benefits. Children in the OT were under the promise of grace, so why should they be denied the same privilege in the NT?



This is what I am beginning to conclude.

On a side note, it was Edward Fisher bringing out the Gospel in the AC and the OC that started this two years ago in seed form. It brought me to a greater assurance, deeper love of God and trust in His good character, but also made me realize that part of my theological foundation had just shifted. Then a year ago I began read Colquhoun on Law and Gospel, with the very same effects.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 4, 2018)

Harley said:


> Then a year ago I began read Colquhoun on Law and Gospel, with the very same effects.



That is an amazing book. Best I've read on the subject; I just read it this past year. And Fisher is outstanding as well. Those two are some of the two best books you could ever read for deepening your understanding of the gospel (and also for understanding the nature of the Mosaic Covenant).


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 4, 2018)

Harley,
From a Reformed Baptist perspective (and there were several threads a few months back discussing all this), the NC is new not in that the law written has changed, but the administration thereof has. It is new in that everyone who is in covenant with God is regenerate (glory!). In the OC, you were a member by birth, and received the sign, but membership did not guarantee regeneration. In the New Covenant, founded on better promises, membership is more of an internal thing: the law is written in your heart, and your fellow-member needs not to be evangelized, for he also knows the Lord.
The NC is the glorious fulfilment of what the OC was prefiguring: a community of God's people among whom He dwells. The fact that not everyone in the OC was a recipient of saving grace is part of it's being less good. The fact that it could be broken also. The NC is unbreakable, because it is applied at regeneration: the New Birth.
Children are blessed to be born to Christian parents because they will be taught about Him from early on; they will sit under the preaching of the Word, they will be instructed in His law and ways. But if children are born covenant members by virtue of being born, but can still turn out to be reprobates (which we see every day), then the NC is not really any better.
But your signature says you're attending the church where Greg Nichols labors. You should bring all these questions to him--I know of no one more qualified to intelligently explain RB covenant theology than him. His lectures on covenants are most wonderful.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 4, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> It is new in that everyone who is in covenant with God is regenerate (glory!). In the OC, you were a member by birth, and received the sign, but membership did not guarantee regeneration.



Ben, not trying to be argumentative, but would sincerely like to understand how you might respond to a few follow up questions about this, as representing the historical Reformed Baptist perspective.

It seems to me that the first statement ends up comparing apples to oranges. It seems that the INVISIBLE church in the NC is being compared with the VISIBLE church in the OC. Does that make sense? IE, many were not actually saved in the OT but now in the NT every single individual is saved. But in that statement, one is taking the whole church--including sheep and goats, true believers and empty professors--in the old covenant; but then only taking the sheep and true believers in the new covenant--even though we all know it's true in every denomination that there are still goats and empty professors mixed in with the new covenant church today (whether they are covenant kids who grow up and end up walking away from the faith or adults who profess and are baptize but no less end up walking away). Does that make sense? The comparison doesn't seem to actually correlate to me. It seems to me one needs to compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples; let's either compare the church as a whole--including sheep and goats--in the old covenant, with the church as a whole--including sheep and goats in the new covenant; or else let's compare the true invisible church (only the sheep within the larger body) in the old covenant with the true invisible church (only the sheep within the larger body) in the new covenant. How would you respond to that?

The second question relates to the first, but with the second statement. Does membership guarantee regeneration in the new covenant? By membership do you mean actual church membership (adults who have been baptized in the church)? Or membership in heaven--those who are members of Christ in truth? If the former, again, it seems that cuts against the reality we all know and experience; there are many also in the new covenant who walk away from the faith, even among those who are baptized as adults. If the latter, again, was not it exactly the same in the old covenant? If "membership" means only those who are truly united to Christ, and we say that for that reason every member (true member) of Christ is regenerate in the new covenant, would it not be exactly the same in the old covenant if we use the same definition? If membership means only those who truly know Christ, then we find the exact same thing is true in the old covenant, that every single true member, true believer of Christ was regenerate. In other words, we can say that every true believer is regenerate in the new covenant, and that's a true statement; but isn't it just as true to say that every true believer was regenerate in the old covenant? Am I making sense?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 4, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Ben, not trying to be argumentative, but would sincerely like to understand how you might respond to a few follow up questions about this, as representing the historical Reformed Baptist perspective.
> 
> It seems to me that the first statement ends up comparing apples to oranges. It seems that the INVISIBLE church in the NC is being compared with the VISIBLE church in the OC. Does that make sense? IE, many were not actually saved in the OT but now in the NT every single individual is saved. But in that statement, one is taking the whole church--including sheep and goats, true believers and empty professors--in the old covenant; but then only taking the sheep and true believers in the new covenant--even though we all know it's true in every denomination that there are still goats and empty professors mixed in with the new covenant church today (whether they are covenant kids who grow up and end up walking away from the faith or adults who profess and are baptize but no less end up walking away). Does that make sense? The comparison doesn't seem to actually correlate to me. It seems to me one needs to compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples; let's either compare the church as a whole--including sheep and goats--in the old covenant, with the church as a whole--including sheep and goats in the new covenant; or else let's compare the true invisible church (only the sheep within the larger body) in the old covenant with the true invisible church (only the sheep within the larger body) in the new covenant. How would you respond to that?
> 
> The second question relates to the first, but with the second statement. Does membership guarantee regeneration in the new covenant? By membership do you mean actual church membership (adults who have been baptized in the church)? Or membership in heaven--those who are members of Christ in truth? If the former, again, it seems that cuts against the reality we all know and experience; there are many also in the new covenant who walk away from the faith, even among those who are baptized as adults. If the latter, again, was not it exactly the same in the old covenant? If "membership" means only those who are truly united to Christ, and we say that for that reason every member (true member) of Christ is regenerate in the new covenant, would it not be exactly the same in the old covenant if we use the same definition? If membership means only those who truly know Christ, then we find the exact same thing is true in the old covenant, that every single true member, true believer of Christ was regenerate. In other words, we can say that every true believer is regenerate in the new covenant, and that's a true statement; but isn't it just as true to say that every true believer was regenerate in the old covenant? Am I making sense?


As to your fist question, we are indeed comparing the invisible church in the NC with the visible church in the OC. Why? Because the Old Covenant people of God were a picture, a figure of the New Covenant community that was to be. Their ritual purity, dietary laws, &c, were painting a physical picture of the spiritual reality we have today: a people separate from the world, touching not the unclean thing, received by God, who lives in our midst in a far better way than before, since we need not go to physical Jerusalem to worship at His tabernacle.
The issue of there being false professors among the visible church matters not: they are not supposed to be there, and RB elders are pretty careful about screening applicants so that the unconverted don't jump over the wall, as it were. We deny that it is normal and ordinary for false professors to be members of the visible church--sure, it happens, but it's not supposed to and when they are found out they are excommunicated.
To the second question: in the OC, you were really and truly a member of God's covenant people by being born--but membership in the covenant did not guarantee regeneration. There were those among that group that were regenerate--they were part of what the LBCF calls the "invisible church"--but the others, because they were uncircumcised of heart, were reprobates despite being covenant members.
What RB's are saying is that, outward appearances notwithstanding, you aren't really in God's New Covenant if you haven't been born again. Deceiving the elders into admitting you into church membership doesn't guarantee your salvation. Being born doesn't guarantee your salvation, receiving the sacraments doesn't either. The true New Covenant people is defined more narrowly than the Old Covenant people in that God does not consider you to be in covenant with Him unless He has regenerated you.
Not sure if I can make it more clear than that; I feel that more explanation would be repetitive. Feel free to ask specific questions and I'll seek to address them.
Blessings in Christ Jesus.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 4, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Harley,
> From a Reformed Baptist perspective (and there were several threads a few months back discussing all this), the NC is new not in that the law written has changed, but the administration thereof has. It is new in that everyone who is in covenant with God is regenerate (glory!). In the OC, you were a member by birth, and received the sign, but membership did not guarantee regeneration. In the New Covenant, founded on better promises, membership is more of an internal thing: the law is written in your heart, and your fellow-member needs not to be evangelized, for he also knows the Lord.
> The NC is the glorious fulfilment of what the OC was prefiguring: a community of God's people among whom He dwells. The fact that not everyone in the OC was a recipient of saving grace is part of it's being less good. The fact that it could be broken also. The NC is unbreakable, because it is applied at regeneration: the New Birth.
> Children are blessed to be born to Christian parents because they will be taught about Him from early on; they will sit under the preaching of the Word, they will be instructed in His law and ways. But if children are born covenant members by virtue of being born, but can still turn out to be reprobates (which we see every day), then the NC is not really any better.
> But your signature says you're attending the church where Greg Nichols labors. You should bring all these questions to him--I know of no one more qualified to intelligently explain RB covenant theology than him. His lectures on covenants are most wonderful.



Ben,

It seems that the purely regenerate membership view of the covenant is based on, among other things:

1) the requirement in the NT for someone to have a profession of faith before being baptized (though I question it would not be required of an OT gentile or some sign that the individual intended to be faithful to God), and
2) the “all” and “from the least of them to the greatest” in Hebrews 8; and this is the big text cited on who is a member, and it's cited more frequently than any other on the NC. But if what been said of this phrase “from the least to the greatest” so far in this thread is true, then I’m not aware of any place where it’s guaranteed that all without exception in the administration will be true converts, though the great majority still will.

The first point has been debated many times, but I really want to hear the other side on the analysis presented here of "from the least of them to the greatest” as expressed in posts #2and #3; as Jeremiah 31 referring to "absolutely every single one without exception" would be an exceptional use of the phrase the way Jeremiah uses it. If there's an explanation of how Jer. 31 can still be exclusive despite all the other uses not being so, I’m not sure how.

Yet still, Jeremiah 31 is only one single text that speaks on the NC. It's the most often quoted, but I was a little shocked at looking into other passages on the NC that are in the OT. What I really want to know is, if only the regenerate are members and the children of believers are not considered so until they show signs of conversion, then what’s with all the passages where the children are promised the benefits as much as the parents are? Furthermore, not that they may have the benefits, but that they will have the benefits? If no household principle continues and children are not made beneficiaries, why mention children at all, let alone a multitude of times? And why such similarity to the language of the covenant with Abraham? The reason I press this is because no RB literature has come across my path on these passages, so I really do want to know what the credobaptist take is on them.

What I've found on the NC including children....

Deuteronomy 30:6 - And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Isaiah 44:3-4 - For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams. This one will say, ‘I am the Lord’s,’ another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘The Lord’s,’ and name himself by the name of Israel.”
Isaiah 59:21 - And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.”
Isaiah 61:8-9 - For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. Their offspring shall be known among the nations, and their descendants in the midst of the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are an offspring the Lord has blessed. (Note: this is the chapter which Jesus quotes, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me)
Jeremiah 32:37-41 - Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.
Ezekiel 37:24-28 My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”
In all the verses I see...

It is the New Covenant
It is described in the same fashion as the covenant in Genesis 17 (everlasting, you and your offspring, to be your God and you to be my people)
God is regenerating at least the great majority of participants
There is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit
God will be their God, and they will be His people
They will dwell in the land (referring to dwelling in the renewed earth with God)
There is forgiveness of sins (covenant of peace)
They are not addressed to an antitype, but to the nation of Israel, as I can't see God making these promises to a type
The children are as much equal participants in this covenant and its benefits as the parents are
The other thing that catches me is how God addresses these promises to an entity already in existence, the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and it's fulfilled when the Spirit is poured out on Pentecost on the house of Israel and the house of Judah in Acts. It seems that they are promises to an entity God expected to continue, not one serving as a type of one to come.

If the paedobaptist view is not right to use these as evidence that the membership of the church includes children like in the AC, I'm looking to know how so. But also I'm wondering, would a Jew have understood these promises addressed to some other entity than Israel, or to people in a covenant where absolutely none were unfaithful, or where children were not included as full covenant participants just as the parents were?

Brother I know I write long posts, so anything in the direction of what I could read (preferably online) is what I'm looking for too. I'm only hammering away at this issue so intensively because I need to get my family into membership at a church _somewhere_, and I can't move forward anywhere until I am resolved here. Like I said too, I want to come to a conclusion of which I am certain I'll never look the other way again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 5, 2018)

Harley said:


> Ben,
> 
> It seems that the purely regenerate membership view of the covenant is based on, among other things:
> 
> ...



I'll answer by means of several questions: If the promise of covenant inclusion of children means physical offspring, but covenant inclusion doesn't guarantee regeneration, how is the New Covenant better than the old? Just because a greater number are actually regenerate in the NC? How does God promise to take away their iniquities if later He actually doesn't?

You see, the promise of salvation in Christ is held out to everyone in every place, to all generations (this is what Peter was telling the folk at Pentecost who had recently called Christ's blood onto themselves and their children: the promise of salvation was not only for the immediate hearers, but to all who repent and believe until the end of the world). The verses you cited about children don't mean "every child proceeding from you will be regenerate" (as we know they are not), just as you've gone to great pains to point out that "all" doesn't always mean "all". The promise of descendants is used spiritually (gasp!), just as Abraham was promised innumerable seed, and many of us, who have no physical connection to Abraham's loins, are yet his seed. We are Abraham's children, for God constitutes us so in regeneration. John the Baptist removes all thought of physical birth meaning anything when he said to the Pharisees: "Think to to day to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father', for God can raise seed for Abraham from these stones."

As for the type thing, what is wrong with Israel being not only the type of it's future self, but being really and truly itself, like a sapling is not a mature tree, but when it matures, it's still the same plant? God did indeed pour out his Spirit on Jews at Pentecost, and then sent them out to gather in a whole mess of Gentiles as well. Only dispensationalists deny that the church today is a different entity than the church in the wilderness. We're the same people of God, under a new and better administration.

Sorry if this is too brief: I have to go to work, but can fine-tune in the evening if you need.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Harley said:


> I think that’s how I understood it; but also, if the OC is legalistic and God does nothing more than move the law from off the stone into the heart, but keeps the substance the same (ie legalism) then there is no comfort for us. All we have then in the NC is just another law, ie. Neonomianism. But it’s all Gospel in BOTH, the only difference being the extent of the work of the Spirit.
> 
> Which is why then it can be said that God remembers our sins no more, because there would be few covenant-breakers to be found.
> 
> ...


I would say that ONLY the saved of the Lord are included as to being under the New Covenant of Grace, as only the redeemed have the Holy Spirit and have access to all of those spiritual blessings now in Christ.
Baptists do not baptize infants, but do have baby dedication as a prelude to salvation if they are found later to be now saved in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> I'll answer by means of several questions: If the promise of covenant inclusion of children means physical offspring, but covenant inclusion doesn't guarantee regeneration, how is the New Covenant better than the old? Just because a greater number are actually regenerate in the NC? How does God promise to take away their iniquities if later He actually doesn't?
> 
> You see, the promise of salvation in Christ is held out to everyone in every place, to all generations (this is what Peter was telling the folk at Pentecost who had recently called Christ's blood onto themselves and their children: the promise of salvation was not only for the immediate hearers, but to all who repent and believe until the end of the world). The verses you cited about children don't mean "every child proceeding from you will be regenerate" (as we know they are not), just as you've gone to great pains to point out that "all" doesn't always mean "all". The promise of descendants is used spiritually (gasp!), just as Abraham was promised innumerable seed, and many of us, who have no physical connection to Abraham's loins, are yet his seed. We are Abraham's children, for God constitutes us so in regeneration. John the Baptist removes all thought of physical birth meaning anything when he said to the Pharisees: "Think to to day to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father', for God can raise seed for Abraham from these stones."
> 
> ...


The NC would be for those only who have experienced the new birth from above, as the sealing of the Holy Spirit shows that one is now redeemed.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 5, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> I'll answer by means of several questions: If the promise of covenant inclusion of children means physical offspring, but covenant inclusion doesn't guarantee regeneration, how is the New Covenant better than the old? Just because a greater number are actually regenerate in the NC? How does God promise to take away their iniquities if later He actually doesn't?
> 
> You see, the promise of salvation in Christ is held out to everyone in every place, to all generations (this is what Peter was telling the folk at Pentecost who had recently called Christ's blood onto themselves and their children: the promise of salvation was not only for the immediate hearers, but to all who repent and believe until the end of the world). The verses you cited about children don't mean "every child proceeding from you will be regenerate" (as we know they are not), just as you've gone to great pains to point out that "all" doesn't always mean "all". The promise of descendants is used spiritually (gasp!), just as Abraham was promised innumerable seed, and many of us, who have no physical connection to Abraham's loins, are yet his seed. We are Abraham's children, for God constitutes us so in regeneration. John the Baptist removes all thought of physical birth meaning anything when he said to the Pharisees: "Think to to day to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father', for God can raise seed for Abraham from these stones."
> 
> ...



Thank you for taking the time to reply. This is getting where I really want to gain some understanding.

I understand the objection that a covenant where the unregenerate are allowed is not as good as one where there are no unregenerate, but still I'm asking the question if whether Scripture teaches that is the nature of the NC?

And if we have gone from mostly unregenerate with limited knowledge of God to mostly regenerate with incredibly greater knowledge of God, that's a wonderful improvement. And it gets even better if the kids who are members in the covenant community will by and large share like their parents. So, I don't think a paedo (not Reformed anyway) would take this to mean that the children are absolutely all/will be regenerated, though they can be confident they will see much of it.

I understand what you are saying by Israel being the church and being a type of the one to come; yet still the difference in the membership seems to be based on (partially, besides continuity from the AC and its administration) whether Hebrews and Jeremiah 31 mean "absolutely every single one without exception" based on "they shall all know me from the least to the greatest." If the conclusion I'm drawing from those texts is unwarranted, then I'm looking to see how, which is why I'm inquiring in the first place. If the analysis in the first few posts is correct, then there's no basis in Jer. 31 to say that the substance and administration of the NC include only the elect, and only when they truly believe. Maybe from other passages it could be established, but not from that prophecy.

As to them being the spiritual children, on what basis would a Jew understand the promise to be talking about spiritual children? I would think a Jew hearing that prophecy would assume that the same administration in the AC would continue, and yet the blessings provided would be far greater. And even though, yes, Peter's words would comfort those who effectively cursed themselves, wouldn't Peter as much have these passages in mind when he preached that the promise was to them and to their children and those far off, whether Gentiles or successive generations? Why is a spiritual or typical interpretation which defines them as spiritual children superior here? 

And PS, I apologize if I came across as labeling you dispensational. Perhaps Israel can be a type of itself, but I suppose the disconnect in my mind is how the Israel church prefigures the New Testament church with such a radical difference in membership. Is it that the production of offspring prefigures the conversion of multitudes, and in that way the NT church begets children?

That's all I can type now. Thank you brother.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Harley said:


> Thank you for taking the time to reply. This is getting where I really want to gain some understanding.
> 
> I understand the objection that a covenant where the unregenerate are allowed is not as good as one where there are no unregenerate, but still I'm asking the question if whether Scripture teaches that is the nature of the NC?
> 
> ...


The New Covenant grants toall in Jesus now full spiritual blessings and direct access to God Himself, unlike undr the OT administration of Grace.
And the mark of the NC still seems to be the indwelling/infilling of the Holy Spirit that is now essential for any and all included now under it.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would say that ONLY the saved of the Lord are included as to being under the New Covenant of Grace, as only the redeemed have the Holy Spirit and have access to all of those spiritual blessings now in Christ.
> Baptists do not baptize infants, but do have baby dedication as a prelude to salvation if they are found later to be now saved in Christ.


David,
Confessional Baptists do NOT have baby dedications. All sorts of other groups claiming to be baptist perhaps do so, but baby dedications are antithetical to Baptist polity. They are nothing more than a sentimental, unregulated modern addition, and not to be tolerated.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 5, 2018)

Harley said:


> Thank you for taking the time to reply. This is getting where I really want to gain some understanding.
> 
> I understand the objection that a covenant where the unregenerate are allowed is not as good as one where there are no unregenerate, but still I'm asking the question if whether Scripture teaches that is the nature of the NC?
> 
> ...


Of course we Baptists take the "all shall know me" of Jeremiah as absolutely every single one without exception. But there are other passages we can turn to, like every epistle where the church is addressed as those called to be saints (we take the call to be the Effectual Call), addressed as the elect in Christ, etc. There's a good number of those. In Ezekiel the New Covenant promises a new heart. That's the New Birth. You cannot be considered a part of the NC without a new heart!

As for the Jews understanding, when did they ever understand anything? It wasn't until Jesus rose again and explained things further to the disciples that they understood that there wasn't going to be physical kingship right then in Jerusalem. Though some, like Abraham, understood that they sought a city not made with men's hands eternal in the heavens, the vast majority were looking only for physical blessings. The types and shadows became far more clear in retrospect than when they were in force. The spiritual interpretation is better because it offers salvation in Christ indiscriminately to all who will believe, regardless of their parentage. God's covenant now has nothing to do with physical birth, but with the New Birth. And God's call joins them all into one group--you, your children, those afar off are all bundled into the "as many as the Lord shall call. Aleluia.

As for the PS--I didn't think you were labelling me dispensational. But the Israel church prefigures the NT church in that they were God's chosen people, visibly different from the nations around them, touching not the unclean thing, and with God dwelling in their midst.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 5, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> The spiritual interpretation is better because it offers salvation in Christ indiscriminately to all who will believe, regardless of their parentage. God's covenant now has nothing to do with physical birth, but with the New Birth. And God's call joins them all into one group--you, your children, those afar off are all bundled into the "as many as the Lord shall call. Aleluia.



In the Baptist understanding, what is the difference between the second and third groups? IE, between 2) "your children" and 3) "all who are far off" if the "your children" is to be understood spiritually? Wouldn't spiritual children who are yet to become spiritual children the same as those who are far off?

We (Presbos) see Peter's words as simply reaffirming the same truths God promised to Abraham (though used with different language):

OT: "I will establish My covenant between Me and 1) you [Abraham] and 2) your descendants after you [Abraham's children]. . .3) and every male among you. . . who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants [Gentile converts]." (Genesis 17:7,12).

NT: For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (Acts 2:39).

The promise of Genesis 17 was 1) to Abraham; 2) to his descendants; and 3) to the foreign Gentile slaves from other nations who became part of his household. Peter was addressing a Jewish audience--the descendants of Abraham--to whom promise #2 was made--and declaring to them that the promise God had made 1) to Abraham was 2) also to them (as being his descendants), as well as THEIR children***; as well as 3) to all who are far off--that is--foreign Gentiles among pagan nations. Thus, we see the promise of the NC as extending to both covenant children and Gentile foreigners in the same way as did the promises to Abe.

***Note: This is why we take God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 17 to him and his seed as not just exclusive (or incommunicable) but as also being passed on to those in the covenant line. In other words, the promise of salvation for "you and your seed" wasn't just made to Abraham and we are the seed; rather, that same promise of "you and your seed" (and seed taken as physical, covenant children) is made to every believer in Christ. IE, God's promise is for OUR seed, too.

PS, No hard feelings; thank you for the helpful and insightful discussion.

PPS, I agree with you that the last clause ("as many as the Lord shall call") modifies all the groups mentioned before; God's election has the final word for both covenant kiddos and ingrafted foreigners.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 5, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> In the Baptist understanding, what is the difference between the second and third groups? IE, between 2) "your children" and 3) "all who are far off" if the "your children" is to be understood spiritually? Wouldn't spiritual children who are yet to become spiritual children the same as those who are far off?
> 
> We (Presbos) see Peter's words as simply reaffirming the same truths God promised to Abraham (though used with different language):
> 
> ...


Jake,
The difference between the children and those who are far off is that Peter was showing the inclusiveness of the promise. The promise of salvation if they would believe was for the immediate hearers: "Repent and be converted!" It was to be extended to their children by the ministry of the word: "Repent and be converted!" It was also going to go afar off, by means of missionaries, who would proclaim: "Repent and be converted!" There would be no conversion without repentance, but it was open to anyone--anyone whom the Lord chooses to call. It's the same as "Jerusalem, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth." It's another way of saying: "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely."

The promise of salvation to Abraham was made to him and to his elect seed: not those of his seed who turned out to be reprobates--Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated-- but to those of his seed who believed, and to those not of his physical seed who were made his seed spiritually, by means of the New Birth.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> David,
> Confessional Baptists do NOT have baby dedications. All sorts of other groups claiming to be baptist perhaps do so, but baby dedications are antithetical to Baptist polity. They are nothing more than a sentimental, unregulated modern addition, and not to be tolerated.


I understand your concerns on this issue, but I was just saying what my local church does, as we are Baptists who do not affirm any Confession officially, but there are many within the church that are Calvinists, and some are also Reformed as in holding to one of the Baptist Confessions of faith.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Of course we Baptists take the "all shall know me" of Jeremiah as absolutely every single one without exception. But there are other passages we can turn to, like every epistle where the church is addressed as those called to be saints (we take the call to be the Effectual Call), addressed as the elect in Christ, etc. There's a good number of those. In Ezekiel the New Covenant promises a new heart. That's the New Birth. You cannot be considered a part of the NC without a new heart!
> 
> As for the Jews understanding, when did they ever understand anything? It wasn't until Jesus rose again and explained things further to the disciples that they understood that there wasn't going to be physical kingship right then in Jerusalem. Though some, like Abraham, understood that they sought a city not made with men's hands eternal in the heavens, the vast majority were looking only for physical blessings. The types and shadows became far more clear in retrospect than when they were in force. The spiritual interpretation is better because it offers salvation in Christ indiscriminately to all who will believe, regardless of their parentage. God's covenant now has nothing to do with physical birth, but with the New Birth. And God's call joins them all into one group--you, your children, those afar off are all bundled into the "as many as the Lord shall call. Aleluia.
> 
> As for the PS--I didn't think you were labelling me dispensational. But the Israel church prefigures the NT church in that they were God's chosen people, visibly different from the nations around them, touching not the unclean thing, and with God dwelling in their midst.


To be included among those under the NC. as detailed in the NT, only those who professed a saving faith inJesus were seen as being part of that group, as the Holy Spirit Himself marked them out now being sealing them as being one of the people of God now.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 10, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Of course we Baptists take the "all shall know me" of Jeremiah as absolutely every single one without exception. But there are other passages we can turn to, like every epistle where the church is addressed as those called to be saints (we take the call to be the Effectual Call), addressed as the elect in Christ, etc. There's a good number of those. In Ezekiel the New Covenant promises a new heart. That's the New Birth. You cannot be considered a part of the NC without a new heart!
> 
> As for the Jews understanding, when did they ever understand anything? It wasn't until Jesus rose again and explained things further to the disciples that they understood that there wasn't going to be physical kingship right then in Jerusalem. Though some, like Abraham, understood that they sought a city not made with men's hands eternal in the heavens, the vast majority were looking only for physical blessings. The types and shadows became far more clear in retrospect than when they were in force. The spiritual interpretation is better because it offers salvation in Christ indiscriminately to all who will believe, regardless of their parentage. God's covenant now has nothing to do with physical birth, but with the New Birth. And God's call joins them all into one group--you, your children, those afar off are all bundled into the "as many as the Lord shall call. Aleluia.
> 
> As for the PS--I didn't think you were labelling me dispensational. But the Israel church prefigures the NT church in that they were God's chosen people, visibly different from the nations around them, touching not the unclean thing, and with God dwelling in their midst.



If that’s how you take “from the least to the greatest” I’m still curious how you take Jeremiah’s use in other areas. I have no problem with Paul addressing the people as saints, as even he would know that somehow he addressed were not the real thing, and so I don’t think Paul would mean to imply everyone addressed in his letters was truly converted.

My next question be whether the Jews were so ignorant that they would fail to take notice that the kids got cut out of covenant participation, especially when they we’re looking for a physical kingdom as you said? As far as the passages go, and as I listen through the prophets of the OT I am not only amazed that the children are mentioned in context of the NC, but they are mentioned so much, and they have the very same blessings as promised to the ones addressed. God promised Abraham an eternal covenant to be God to him and his descendants after him (Gn 17)(see also Jn 17:3), and the language of the NC in the OT is working out to a far greater extent what God said He would do.

Inherent in the NC passages is the membership structure of the AC. God hasn’t changed the membership structure to exclude anyone who is unconverted—He is pouring those salvific blessings on those who are already in it, including the children born into it.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2018)

Harley said:


> If that’s how you take “from the least to the greatest” I’m still curious how you take Jeremiah’s use in other areas. I have no problem with Paul addressing the people as saints, as even he would know that somehow he addressed were not the real thing, and so I don’t think Paul would mean to imply everyone addressed in his letters was truly converted.
> 
> My next question be whether the Jews were so ignorant that they would fail to take notice that the kids got cut out of covenant participation, especially when they we’re looking for a physical kingdom as you said? As far as the passages go, and as I listen through the prophets of the OT I am not only amazed that the children are mentioned in context of the NC, but they are mentioned so much, and they have the very same blessings as promised to the ones addressed. God promised Abraham an eternal covenant to be God to him and his descendants after him (Gn 17)(see also Jn 17:3), and the language of the NC in the OT is working out to a far greater extent what God said He would do.
> 
> Inherent in the NC passages is the membership structure of the AC. God hasn’t changed the membership structure to exclude anyone who is unconverted—He is pouring those salvific blessings on those who are already in it, including the children born into it.


The only persons that were included under the new Covenant are just those who have had their sins washed away and cleansed by the Blood of Christ, and they have received Him through faith, and would have the promised Holy Spirit now indwelling them.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 10, 2018)

Harley said:


> If that’s how you take “from the least to the greatest” I’m still curious how you take Jeremiah’s use in other areas. I have no problem with Paul addressing the people as saints, as even he would know that somehow he addressed were not the real thing, and so I don’t think Paul would mean to imply everyone addressed in his letters was truly converted.
> 
> My next question be whether the Jews were so ignorant that they would fail to take notice that the kids got cut out of covenant participation, especially when they we’re looking for a physical kingdom as you said? As far as the passages go, and as I listen through the prophets of the OT I am not only amazed that the children are mentioned in context of the NC, but they are mentioned so much, and they have the very same blessings as promised to the ones addressed. God promised Abraham an eternal covenant to be God to him and his descendants after him (Gn 17)(see also Jn 17:3), and the language of the NC in the OT is working out to a far greater extent what God said He would do.
> 
> Inherent in the NC passages is the membership structure of the AC. God hasn’t changed the membership structure to exclude anyone who is unconverted—He is pouring those salvific blessings on those who are already in it, including the children born into it.


But Harley, in NC times, not only the children, but EVERYONE who didn't believe in Messiah was cut out of the covenant. Don't you see? The New Covenant is for EVERYONE who is united to Christ--physical birth doesn't matter: New Birth does. Otherwise, physical Jews would still be in covenant with God regardless of conversion. But they are not. It's not Israel after the flesh, Paul says, but Abraham's seed are those who are united to Christ.
But as to your last paragraph, I think it's on you to show that God hasn't changed the membership structure to exclude anyone who is unconverted. Because Baptists believe that that's exactly what He's done, and there's nothing in the NT to contradict it, nor in our understanding of the OT prophesies either.
If He is pouring out salvific covenant blessings on those already in it and on their children, as you say, why isn't every Jew saved?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 10, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> But Harley, in NC times, not only the children, but EVERYONE who didn't believe in Messiah was cut out of the covenant.



Does that happen in the new covenant, or does it happen at the resurrection? Consider the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 14:47ff. The net doesn't catch all the fish in the ocean, but a limited quantity. Everything caught in the net represents the church on earth. And it's mixed with good and bad fish. When it's filled, it's brought to the beach, and it's not until the net full of fish is brought to the beach that they separate out the good from the bad fish. "So it will be at the end of the age. . ." (v49). There will be wheat and tares, goats and sheep, good fish and bad fish in the church until Jesus sorts them all out at the resurrection. It seems the Baptist line of thinking, in some ways, wants to attribute to the NC things that won't really happen until the final resurrection.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 11, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Does that happen in the new covenant, or does it happen at the resurrection? Consider the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 14:47ff. The net doesn't catch all the fish in the ocean, but a limited quantity. Everything caught in the net represents the church on earth. And it's mixed with good and bad fish. When it's filled, it's brought to the beach, and it's not until the net full of fish is brought to the beach that they separate out the good from the bad fish. "So it will be at the end of the age. . ." (v49). There will be wheat and tares, goats and sheep, good fish and bad fish in the church until Jesus sorts them all out at the resurrection. It seems the Baptist line of thinking, in some ways, wants to attribute to the NC things that won't really happen until the final resurrection.


The dragnet and the wheat and tares parables are speaking of the church and the world, not of saved and unsaved within the covenant community. Sure, there are tares and evil fish mingled among believers, but the tares are not to be considered part of God's people.
At the resurrection all humanity is before God's throne, and He separates there the sheep (the regenerate) from the goats (the unregenerate). This is not a sorting of church members into true and false professors: it is a separation of all humanity that ever was.
None of these are ascribed to NC times by Baptists--they are all Last Day parables, but I think we see them as having broader scope--a scope for all humanity, than just limited to the church.
Curious now: do you think goats are only false professors in Christian churches, or are all Muslims, Hindus, pagans and heathens goats as well?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 11, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> But Harley, in NC times, not only the children, but EVERYONE who didn't believe in Messiah was cut out of the covenant. Don't you see? The New Covenant is for EVERYONE who is united to Christ--physical birth doesn't matter: New Birth does. Otherwise, physical Jews would still be in covenant with God regardless of conversion. But they are not. It's not Israel after the flesh, Paul says, but Abraham's seed are those who are united to Christ.
> But as to your last paragraph, I think it's on you to show that God hasn't changed the membership structure to exclude anyone who is unconverted. Because Baptists believe that that's exactly what He's done, and there's nothing in the NT to contradict it, nor in our understanding of the OT prophesies either.
> If He is pouring out salvific covenant blessings on those already in it and on their children, as you say, why isn't every Jew saved?



As far as proving that the membership structure hasn't changed I've presented texts on the NC as described in the OT, but if there's another analysis to be taken of those passages it's what I want to see, because this is why I've started the thread (among other things). I've pointed out in post #16 that all the while the New Covenant is using the language of salvation and regeneration it is still using the language of the Abrahamic Covenant (everlasting covenant, I will be your God, you will be my people, to you and your offspring), so I can say I've done that part. And then when I get to the NT and I hear "to your, your children, all who are afar off," and I see the household baptisms, Jesus' blessing of infants/small children who can't appreciate it, the declaration of the holiness of unsaved family members, the analogy in Romans 11 of the olive tree, the vine analogy in John 15, and the warning passages in Hebrews, the essentialness of the AC to perseverance in Hebrews, it makes a world of sense. And brother, I'm writing as someone who two months ago (with only slight exaggeration) didn't believe or understand a single paedobaptist argument.

So if you have any kind of analysis on those texts for me to consider, or could point me to an article, commentary or something that does (book budget is tight now), I really want to see that, as the nature of the NC is/was probably my last objection to the paedobaptist view, and 90% of the time the credobaptist argument goes back to Hebrews 8, which I can say I've done myself.

And if the visible church is the olive tree, the Jewish nationals who professed faith in Yahweh but proved unfaithful were broken off, leaving those who were faithful, and the Gentiles professing faith are grafted into the same tree, then it's no issue to apply those passages to the church today. If they can't be fulfilled in the church today, unless there's a Jewish revival they never will be fulfilled. But, perhaps that's best discussed on the other thread.

As to whether unbelievers could stay in the covenant, I think I've started down that road on the olive tree thread, so we'll probably pick up there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 11, 2018)

Harley said:


> As far as proving that the membership structure hasn't changed I've presented texts on the NC as described in the OT, but if there's another analysis to be taken of those passages it's what I want to see, because this is why I've started the thread (among other things). I've pointed out in post #16 that all the while the New Covenant is using the language of salvation and regeneration it is still using the language of the Abrahamic Covenant (everlasting covenant, I will be your God, you will be my people, to you and your offspring), so I can say I've done that part. And then when I get to the NT and I hear "to your, your children, all who are afar off," and I see the household baptisms, Jesus' blessing of infants/small children who can't appreciate it, the declaration of the holiness of unsaved family members, the analogy in Romans 11 of the olive tree, the vine analogy in John 15, and the warning passages in Hebrews, the essentialness of the AC to perseverance in Hebrews, it makes a world of sense. And brother, I'm writing as someone who two months ago (with only slight exaggeration) didn't believe or understand a single paedobaptist argument.
> 
> So if you have any kind of analysis on those texts for me to consider, or could point me to an article, commentary or something that does (book budget is tight now), I really want to see that, as the nature of the NC is/was probably my last objection to the paedobaptist view, and 90% of the time the credobaptist argument goes back to Hebrews 8, which I can say I've done myself.
> 
> ...


Hi again,

I believe I've addressed all these issues, to the best of my ability--but you have a far better resource at your fingertips, as it were. Your signature states that you're attending the church where Greg Nichols labors. Why not have a conversation with him? As I've mentioned before, he's probably the most qualified person to explain covenant theology from a RB perspective. At least get hold of a recording of his TBC Academy lectures on covenants--it's most wonderful.
Also, he's currently engaged in putting his seminary lectures into book form--volume three is about to come out. I wholeheartedly recommend these as a way to understand RB theology.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 12, 2018)

Greg Nichols’ argument in his book on covenants (which I did read on the AC and NC prior to this thread) says the passages cannot refer to physical children because were that the case then every single child of every single believer would be saved, but that’s not something even Abraham the father of believers had; so the passages refer to the spiritual generations in the church, and God promises to perpetuate the spiritual seed of Christ in every generation on the earth through conversion. The bearing of spiritual children in Zion happens when the Lord adds to the church those being saved. All who enter the earthly chapter of Zion who are unconverted are infiltrators, and generations enter the heavenly chapter through death.

Maybe upon a second look I’ll find more, but that’s what I found on the issue of NC generations prophesied in the OT passages.

In addition, I had listened to the whole series that him and Albert Martin did on baptism at Trinity--all 30-something parts. Granted that was six years ago, but I had, and they presented excellent arguments, most/all of which I agreed to.

Ultimately, we’re where we began. Do the passages mean “all without any exception whatsoever.”


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 12, 2018)

Harley said:


> Greg Nichols’ argument in his book on covenants (which I did read on the AC and NC prior to this thread) says the passages cannot refer to physical children because were that the case then every single child of every single believer would be saved, but that’s not something even Abraham the father of believers had; so the passages refer to the spiritual generations in the church, and God promises to perpetuate the spiritual seed of Christ in every generation on the earth through conversion. The bearing of spiritual children in Zion happens when the Lord adds to the church those being saved. All who enter the earthly chapter of Zion who are unconverted are infiltrators, and generations enter the heavenly chapter through death.
> 
> Maybe upon a second look I’ll find more, but that’s what I found on the issue of NC generations prophesied in the OT passages.
> 
> ...


This view would be consistent with the notion that only the saved are seen as being under the NC, as only those who have received the Holy Spirit Himself qualified.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 12, 2018)

@OP: I don't have time to defend the position or go into detail (some past threads on the PB have some helpful observations on the relevant texts), but I would hold that Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 is referring to the change of priesthood. There are no more merely human priests to mediate between God and man, but the God-Man Jesus now mediates. So all know God directly, instead of by the meidation and teaching of earthly, old covenant priests, from the least to the greatest (no more dependence on superiors for knowing God). The "remembrance of sins" in Hebrews 8-10 refers to the continual sacrifice for sins. The not remembering sins is referring to there being no more sacrifice. We thereby have a change in the administration between the two covenants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 13, 2018)

Mentions the perpetual nature of the daily burnt offerings:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/burnt-offering-was-it-voluntary.94724/#post-1155956

If these sacrifices were 1) a seeking of fellowship with God by his appointed means, and 2) an inescapable recall of the_ reason_ why sacrifice is necessary; then the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ brings to an end the old system of sacrifice. For in bringing himself as Priest and Sacrifice into the true Holy of Holies, and remaining there always for us, "there is no more a remembrance of sin."

All the many and varied barriers to fellowship with God faced by ordinary Israelites, and progressively fewer (but still never overcome fully) the closer one came to the office of the High Priest--even the vail itself is removed in Christ.

Of course, there remains an eschatological realization of this fellowship; but one has neither to artificially deny the ongoing need for teaching in the church or encouragement in the gospel and the faith, nor wait wholly for the consummation to recognize that this passage is fulfilled *now *by Christ in the way of his heavenly mediatorship.

The observation does not void the Baptist argument, who still pleads for a change in NC composition, and eliminates an earthly-administration of the New covenant. But this Cov.Theo. answer to the employment of Jer.31 to that end is to deny that such is the intent of the prophet/H.S.; and not only to deny it, but offer a robust positive alternative (better, I think, than simply an "already/not-yet" regard).


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 14, 2018)

Your quote from "The Olive Tree and Baptists"...



> Allow me to have one more crack at this, since in pondering it I recalled something that hasn't been mentioned. Because of the figurative language the Bible uses, we can't take every reference to children to mean "The immediate physical descendants of every individual". When God speaks to the nation of Israel about them, their children, and their children's children, He doesn't always mean the physical offspring of the individual readers. He means the heirs of Israel as a whole: the heirs of His people. So Isaiah 60:4, speaking of the Gentiles receiving the Gospel, says, "...thy sons shall come from far..." It's figurative language using the picture of a family to express a spiritual reality. Nations are often referred to in this way in the OT prophets "Virgin daughter of Babylon" "Shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem" &ct.
> This is the same way in which I am now a descendant of Abraham without having proceeded from his loins. An attempt to make a strict literal interpretation of figurative language always leads to confusion at best, and at it's worst has given the world the pernicious error of Dispensationalism.
> Now, I'm not accusing anyone here of being dispensational, but only pointing out where getting too literal will lead.



I think you and Greg Nichols would agree.

But my reply is simple: The NC uses the same language as the Abrahamic Covenant (you and your offspring, to be God to you and your offspring, everlasting covenant, etc.), and in all the subsequent covenants they were flesh-and-blood children, that's how they were taken and how they were rightly understood; and I know it's not different because I come to the NT and hear "to you and all your children, and all who are afar off," and I see households baptized, and I see passages either indicate or infer that the status of children born in the covenant community has not changed. So, my interpretation of household baptisms and other events/sayings in the New Testament is in light of what has been said before and what God said would be the case in the NC era.

So, comparing covenant with covenant, event with event, text with text, prophecies about children and the NC in the Old Testament and the explicit recorded fulfillment in the NT, I see that--as we say in accounting--the numbers tie, and I'm not worried that my view will lead to Dispensationalism.

But in the end, both Baptist and Presbyterians will agree that Christians today are grafted into the same tree as Israel, regardless whether you think branches can be cut off. See other thread.

Dachaser said:



> This view would be consistent with the notion that only the saved are seen as being under the NC, as only those who have received the Holy Spirit Himself qualified.



It is consistent, since the credobaptist view (and I would have defended that view as follows) is that since only the regenerate are in the New Covenant community, then the only offspring of the NC could by default be a kind of spiritual descendant or spiritual child of the church or of Christ. That's probably how I would have defended it.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

Harley said:


> Your quote from "The Olive Tree and Baptists"...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those included under the provisions of the NC have now all spiritual blessings in Christ provided to them, and the only ones able to access them have to now be in Christ, which is done by the Holy Spirit baptizing them into Christ at time of salvation.


----------

