# Jeremiah 31:31-34 & Infant Baptism



## mccaffertyb7

Hi friends,

I'm trying to think through some issues on baptism and would really appreciate some feedback. I come from a rather Baptist background, but currently stand undecided, and I'm trying to learn more about the different stances on baptism, but particularly the paedobapist view, because I am least familiar with it. 

One of the aspects of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that typically raises objections against infant baptism is the statement that all participants in the new covenant will know the LORD. "They will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jeremiah 31:34). The introduction of unregenerate infants into the community of the new covenant seems to contradict Jeremiah's prophecy here that salvation is fully distributed within the new covenant. 

Well, I've read Richard Pratt's understanding of this passage, and he makes a distinction between the inauguration of the fulfillment of the New Covenant, the continuation of fulfillment of the New Covenant, and the consummation of the fulfillment of the New Covenant. His argument is that Jeremiah's prophecy in Jeremiah 31:34 will be completely fulfilled in the consummation of Christ's kingdom. So, the promise that the new covenant makes to grant salvation to all participants will happen one day, but until that time, we should continue to have children and baptize them just like believers circumcised their sons in the Old Testament. 

If I'm understanding Pratt correctly, none of the provisions of the New Covenant are strictly fulfilled until the eternal state. He seems to be reserving the new elements of the New Covenant for the eternal state, but denying them to the inaugural/present state. Am I correct? But hasn't the New Covenant already been established? Hebrews 8:6 talks about how the New Covenant "has been enacted", which leads me to believe that the full establishment of the covenant is not strictly future, but also present. 

Any help or feedback is appreciated. I'm trying to think through this issue, and am interested to hear from paedobaptist and credobaptist brothers.


----------



## JSauer

The author of Hebrews is the describing the mediating function of the temple arrangement given to Moses being obsolete, not the arrangement given to Abraham. Galatians 3 hashes this out. Christ now meditates directly rather than through types and shadows. 

The covenant isn't new (in substance) The mediator and function is new and better because Christ is better.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> The author of Hebrews is contrasting the arrangement given to Moses being obsolete , not the arrangement given to Abraham. Galatians 3 hashes this out.



Ok, then, what are the implications of that? Help me out please. What does that mean with regards to the New Covenant and its fulfillment within the present and eternal states?


----------



## JSauer

I lengthened my last post-- anything specifically you need addressed?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> The covenant isn't new. The mediator and function is new and better because Christ is better.



So, you disagree with Pratt that there are new elements to the covenant predicted by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, i.e. that all people will know me, from the least to the greatest of them?


----------



## JSauer

It seems like there are two options:

1) there is no longer any need to teach our neighbor because we all know God
2) there is need to teach our neighbor to know God

So unless there is another option we haven't reached this level of fulfillment.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> It seems like there are two options:
> 
> 1) there is no longer any need to teach our neighbor because we all know God
> 2) there is need to teach our neighbor to know God
> 
> So unless there is another option we haven't reached this level of fulfillment.



Ok, brother, sorry, but you are just completely confusing me. I know we haven't reached that level of fulfillment. But when Presbyterians baptize their babies, they are including in the New Covenant people who do not know the Lord. They are introducing unregenerate and unbelieving people into the community of the New Covenant. But we are told that in the New Covenant, "all people will know Me." So, if the New Covenant has already been presently enacted (Hebrews 8:6), how do you justify baptizing infants who do not yet know the LORD?


----------



## JSauer

I know its tough, but if you can track with me it will change the way you understand the Bible. 

1) Circumcision is a sign of the one covenant of grace given to Abraham
2) Baptism is a sign of the one covenant of grace now that Christ has shed His blood once for all in that covenant of grace (before Him and after)

3) Hebrews and Jeremiah are talking about the covenant made with MOSES being made obsolete, not the covenant made with Abraham.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> I know its tough, but if you can track with me it will change the way you understand the Bible.
> 
> 1) Circumcision is a sign of the one covenant of grace given to Abraham
> 2) Baptism is a sign of the one covenant of grace now that Christ has shed His blood once for all in that covenant of grace (before Him and after)
> 
> 3) Hebrews and Jeremiah are talking about the covenant made with MOSES being made obsolete, not the covenant made with Abraham.



Thanks for your response, but you didn't really address the question that I am struggling with. Can you agree with me that Jeremiah's prediction of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 teaches that in the New Covenant all people will know the LORD, from the least to the greatest of them?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is an older post that might be beneficial here. 


http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/hebrews-8-jeremiah-31-a-76069/#post968699

First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation. There are a few questions that need to be answered as a whole in order to understand this passage. What is the subject of this passage you are sighting? Teaching is a big part of the context of this passage. It seems to be at the heart of the issue concerning what you are inquiring about. I believe the most brief explanation I can find to help explain this passage and your question comes from a past conversation on the PB. So I think I will repost it and see if it helps any. If it doesn't please allow me to know where it doesn't help. 




> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.
> 
> 
> Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one separate the objective redemptive-historical priesthood from the people to whom the Priest is ministering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were making the separation by rejecting the objectivity of Hebrews 8-10 with reference to the change of priesthood. I was showing the objective context. If you view the people within this context you will see that the application of the "new covenant" can't possibly be in the direction of an inward work ensuring a regenerate covenant membership. The parallel is between the two priesthoods and their effect on the people, not between the two kinds of people. In the former you have priests who could not once and for all sacrifice for the remission of sins. In the latter Christ has once and for all sacrificed for the remission of sins. The people, in both instances, are sinners. It is because they are sinners that they need a priest to sacrifice for them. If one makes the contrast to consist in the subjective state of the people one is effectively saying that the people of the new covenant don't need ANY priest because they perfectly keep the law of God written in their hearts. This would deny the gospel altogether. The very fact that the writer exhorts them to hold fast their confession of Jesus as their great high priest indicates that they are still sinners who depend upon His atoning sacrifice. The law of God is not so written in their hearts that they no longer have sin which requires atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The group that is receiving the ministry of Christ is by no means a non-issue when considering these matters. What indication is there in this epistle that those who receive the ministry of this High Priest can become finally rejected and lost? Are the warning passages really for that purpose of describing what it will be like to fall out of the New Covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are Hebrews being tempted to return to the ordinances of the Old Testament. The warnings are fitted to show them the fact that there is no divine refuge in Old Testament ordinances now that Jesus has come. The warning which ensues the teaching of the new covenant frames the threatening in such a way as to include the covenantal nature of God's curse. 10:29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Again, it only makes sense if the objective nature of the covenant is understood. If you insist on making Hebrews 8-10 something subjective which only applies to the elect you would be bound to maintain that the elect could profane the blood of the covenant, which denies one of the fundamental points of Calvinism. Taking it objectively, as a point of administration, no such problem is encountered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the change in objective priesthood needs to dominate the discussion. Look at what the writer of Hebrews says RIGHT before he cites Jeremiah. He says, "For he finds fault with THEM when he says:" ... and he goes on to quote the New Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please look at what the writer has said from the beginning of chapter 8 leading up to the verse you have quoted. The section is entirely taken up with the priesthood. Go through the various contrasts in chapter 9. What is the point of concern? The ordinances as they relate to the priesthood. The objective work of Christ in His once offering up of Himself as a sacrifice is made the contrast. Look, again, at what is said before and after the quotation in chapter 10: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." The issue pertains to the priesthood which makes atonement for sin. According to Hebrews, "I will remember their sin no more" means there is no continual sacrifices made for sins. Then look at the warning which closes this section of the Epistle: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." The point is, There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins under the old covenant administration. From beginning to end the only use that is made of the passage from Jeremiah is the objective, redemptive-historical significance that it has with respect to the change of priesthood.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel no need to exhort your brethren, Dennis. That sounds hyper-Calvinist to me. God uses means to work in His people's lives. While we are in chapter 10 of Hebrews perhaps you could take some time to meditate on the chain of exhortations in verses 19-25. It is obvious that the writer did not regard the passage from Jeremiah as if it did away with the need of teaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Rev. Winzer is precise here and puts the context and application to point squarely where they belong. I hope this helps a bit.

I would also refer to Calvin on this point concerning the Covenant of Grace in Jeremiah 31

"Now, as to the new covenant, it is not so called, because it is contrary to the first covenant; for God is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself, he then who once made a covenant with his chosen people, had not changed his purpose, as though he had forgotten his faithfulness. It then follows, that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, he had already made his covenant with Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. As then the Law depended on that covenant which God made with his servant Abraham, it follows that God could never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant. For whence do we derive our hope of salvation, except from that blessed seed promised to Abraham? Further, why are we called the children of Abraham, except on account of the common bond of faith? Why are the faithful said to be gathered into the bosom of Abraham? Why does Christ say, that some will come from the east and the west, and sit down in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? (Luke 16:22; Matthew 8:11) These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual." ~ John Calvin, on Jeremiah 31.

In my estimation this topic has to go back and examine if the substance of the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant differ. In my estimation they don't. I believe the WCF chapter 7 is spot on.


----------



## JSauer

It's easy to talk past each other on this topic, but I just wanted to make sure that you understand that Hebrews and Jeremiah are referring to the fading temporary Mosaic system and not the Abrahamic. It seems like that settles it for me. Jesus didn't do away with the Abrahamic covenant. He did away with the Mosaic system. If you understand that, then I'm not sure where your confusion is on infants receiving the sign because it's really not the same category.

I guess if I took the opposing position on Jeremiah 31 I would have to ask myself: What right do I have to tell others to know the Lord since that's been already fulfilled?


----------



## JSauer

And I agree that the above previous post handles it better than I could. This is a topic where it's easy to give a drink with a firehose, so I am trying to keep my responses brief and to the point. I have nothing new to add-- but I do hope you get your question answered to your satisfaction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There are abrogations in Abraham and Moses as the types are fulfilled by the anti-type. They are fulfilled in Messiah the Prince. Let's examine what the Westminster states. 



> CHAPTER VII
> 
> Of God's Covenant with Man.
> 
> 
> I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> 
> II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> 
> 
> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> 
> IV. *This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> *
> 
> V. *This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.*
> 
> *VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations*.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> It's easy to talk past each other on this topic, but I just wanted to make sure that you understand that Hebrews and Jeremiah are referring to the fading temporary Mosaic system and not the Abrahamic. It seems like that settles it for me. Jesus didn't do away with the Abrahamic covenant. He did away with the Mosaic system. If you understand that, then I'm not sure where your confusion is on infants receiving the sign because it's really not the same category.



I'm lost right now. Sorry. So are you saying that the Mosaic covenant was not part of the covenant of grace, and thus fades away?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is an older post that might be beneficial here.



That response is just kind of overwhelming me. Too much. I need something simple. Jeremiah says "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." What does this mean, and how is it fulfilled?


----------



## JSauer

Does this answer your question?

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> Does this answer your question?
> 
> 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
> 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
> 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
> 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
> 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
> 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
> 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.



No, it does not.


----------



## JSauer

Now, Hebrews 8 " 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."


----------



## JSauer

If neither of these sections deals with your issue, maybe try to state it in one sentence so I can understand.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> Now, Hebrews 8 " 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."



I know you might think quoting Scripture will help. But it's not going to help. Because the problem is that each particular passage of Scripture has multiple interpretations. The Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians have distinctly different interpretations of Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31. So, just quoting Scripture isn't going to do the trick. You're going to have to walk through what each passage means.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Brennan, I was a Reformed Baptist for a long time. One of the main issues for me had to do with what you are trying to work out. I started questioning these things based upon the differences in hermeneutics (principles of interpreting scripture) between Baptists and Reformed / Presbyterians. This is where I ended up after examining some things. 

The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter

The main issue for many has to do with whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace or if it is a mixed Covenant including both the Covenant of Works (in some sense sometimes) and the Covenant of Grace. After my attention was drawn to this topic with a bit more focus on how the Westminster Divines and other Reformed men approached the topic I landed squarely that the Mosaic Covenant was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. You can see why by reading my blog which is linked to above. I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31. There are a lot of discussions on the Puritanboard concerning this. Just use the search feature. You will see a lot of discussions that are rather illuminating.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> If neither of these sections deals with your issue, maybe try to state it in one sentence so I can understand.



My issue: Jeremiah says regarding the new covenant that "they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest." Paedobaptists consistently say that baptized children are in the new covenant, but that doesn't necessarily mean they know the LORD or are saved. How can it be right for infants to receive the covenant sign of baptism when they sometimes do not and may never "know the LORD"?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Brennan, I was a Reformed Baptist for a long time. One of the main issues for me had to do with what you are trying to work out. I started questioning these things based upon the differences in hermeneutics (principles of interpreting scripture) between Baptists and Reformed / Presbyterians. This is where I ended up after examining some things.
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter
> 
> The main issue for many has to do with whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace or if it is a mixed Covenant including both the Covenant of Works (in some sense sometimes) and the Covenant of Grace. After my attention was drawn to this topic with a bit more focus on how the Westminster Divines and other Reformed men approached the topic I landed squarely that the Mosaic Covenant was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. You can see why by reading my blog which is linked to above. I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31. There are a lot of discussions on the Puritanboard concerning this. Just use the search feature. You will see a lot of discussions that are rather illuminating.



Thank you. I am definitely familiar with the different understandings of the word 'new' and also the different interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant. 
I'm still wondering how Presbyterians make sense of Jeremiah's claim that "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Jeremiah also announces that the new covenant cannot be broken. But aren't baptized infants that never come to faith in Christ covenant breakers? Do you tackle those issues in your blog post?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

mccaffertyb7 said:


> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Hebrews 8 " 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you might think quoting Scripture will help. But it's not going to help. Because the problem is that each particular passage of Scripture has multiple interpretations. The Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians have distinctly different interpretations of Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31. So, just quoting Scripture isn't going to do the trick. You're going to have to walk through what each passage means.
Click to expand...


And context is important. I do find that quoting scripture is very important. I would say that a lack of knowledge is what hinders us. Walking through each passage must have a context. To quote scripture piece by piece without the context may be very dangerous. So one must examine the historical context as well as the context and relationship each passage has with the whole. Christ is greater than Moses. Moses did purely point to Christ. It is called progressive revelation.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> And context is important. I do find that quoting scripture is very important. I would say that a lack of knowledge is what hinders us. Walking through each passage must have a context. To quote scripture piece by piece without the context may be very dangerous. So one must examine the historical context as well as the context and relationship each passage has with the whole. Christ is greater than Moses. Moses did purely point to Christ. It is called progressive revelation.



I'm not trying to say it's not important. It is. What I'm saying is that simply posting Scripture that I am familiar with isn't particularly illuminating for me. I'm aware of the different passages, but the problem is that they are understood in different ways. And I'm trying to understand how they are understood. But if you just post Scripture and don't unpack what you are trying to tell me, I just get really confused.


----------



## JSauer

As concise as possible, here it is:

The new covenant Jeremiah is talking about has been fully accomplished by Christ, but will not be fully in effect until we are with Christ. It's already, but not yet. We are living in the time where Christ reigns in heaven and we are here on earth. Our churches are not made up of 100% regenerate people and the sacraments point to what Christ has done, and what He will do when all is completed. Only His people who are written in the Lambs book of life will live and reign with him forever. 

Now, if you take the opposing view of including infants, you have to make the case that we can more clearly now tell who is regenerate in the New Testament, than the Old Testament church. And you would also have to make the case why the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace included children and the New Testament excludes them. And then you would have to make the the case that the church had it wrong for the first 1500 years along with every major reformer.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> As concise as possible, here it is:
> 
> The new covenant Jeremiah is talking about has been fully accomplished by Christ, but will not be fully in effect until we are with Christ. It's already, but not yet. We are living in the time where Christ reigns in heaven and we are here on earth. Our churches are not made up of 100% regenerate people and the sacraments point to what Christ has done, and what He will do when all is completed. Only His people who are written in the Lambs book of life will live and reign with him forever.
> 
> If you take the opposing view, you have to make the case that we can more clearly tell who is regenerate or not in the New Testament, that the Old Testament church couldn't. And you would also have to make the case why the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace included children and the New Testament excludes them. And then you would have to make the the case that the church had it wrong for the first 1500 years along with every major reformer.



Ok, but if the new covenant time is a time when all know the LORD, how can it be right for infants to receive the covenant sign of baptism when they sometimes do not and may never "know the LORD"?


----------



## JSauer

Answer this: why was circumcision given to Abraham and his children?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> Answer this: why was circumcision given to Abraham and his children?



Sign of the covenant.


----------



## JSauer

Remember, it doesn't say "the new covenant will not be like the one made with Abraham" it says that it will not be like the one that was made with the people when they were led out of Egypt with Moses.


----------



## JSauer

So according to Gal. 3 Abrahams children are those who have faith. We are part of that same covenant, as are our children, but now the sign is baptism. We do not know that they will ever believe, but they are in the church to a degree. The sign has a double edge and they will be held to a higher accountability for their life. Nonetheless, they are not the same as the children of unbelievers.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> Remember, it doesn't say "the new covenant will not be like the one made with Abraham" it says that it will not be like the one that was made with the people when they were led out of Egypt with Moses.



I think you're missing my point. You said that the New Covenant will be fully in effect when we are with Christ. I agree. And you seem to say that the New Covenant has already been enacted by Christ. I agree. If that's the case however, and the New Covenant is a time when all will know the LORD, how can you justify baptizing infants who do not even have a profession of the faith? If the New Covenant is the de jure legal constitution of the Church, then how can we purposefully baptize and include in the new covenant those who do not know the LORD?


----------



## JSauer

How do you propose that we do it then?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

mccaffertyb7 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brennan, I was a Reformed Baptist for a long time. One of the main issues for me had to do with what you are trying to work out. I started questioning these things based upon the differences in hermeneutics (principles of interpreting scripture) between Baptists and Reformed / Presbyterians. This is where I ended up after examining some things.
> 
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter
> 
> 
> The main issue for many has to do with whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace or if it is a mixed Covenant including both the Covenant of Works (in some sense sometimes) and the Covenant of Grace. After my attention was drawn to this topic with a bit more focus on how the Westminster Divines and other Reformed men approached the topic I landed squarely that the Mosaic Covenant was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. You can see why by reading my blog which is linked to above. I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31. There are a lot of discussions on the Puritanboard concerning this. Just use the search feature. You will see a lot of discussions that are rather illuminating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am definitely familiar with the different understandings of the word 'new' and also the different interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant.
> I'm still wondering how Presbyterians make sense of Jeremiah's claim that "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Jeremiah also announces that the new covenant cannot be broken. But aren't baptized infants that never come to faith in Christ covenant breakers? Do you tackle those issues in your blog post?
Click to expand...



You are asking some good questions. I would encourage you to go back and read what I posted above by Rev. Winzer. It is late here and I need to grab some rest. I will address your issues tomorrow. The blog post I sent you to addresses things you need to see concerning some of the arguments I had to deal with as a Reformed Baptist. 


I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much. 


Jer 32:36    "Now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, 'It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence':
Jer 32:37    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.
Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Jer 32:39    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.
Jer 32:40    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.
Jer 32:41    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.
Jer 32:42    "For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.


From the perspective of Covenant breaking one must look at who, what, when, and where. Covenant Breaking is addressed in the New Covenant, is it not? 
Even in Hebrews. 


Heb 10:28    He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29    Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


There is such a thing as Apostasy. At the same time we know that there is a perseverance for those of us who are in Christ. The issue of Covenant and Community are issues that address different areas of concern. Forgiveness and Spiritual renewal (rebirth) are the same in both testaments. Christ in you the hope of glory is the same in both the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Where does it say in Jeremiah that there are no Covenant Breakers or that man can't break the Covenant of Grace? The New Covenant differs in the fact of fulfillment and that we no longer need a Levitical Priest to tell us to know God. Malachi 2:7 states that the people were to seek knowledge of The Lord from the Levites. The Levites were given the responsibility to be the messenger of The Lord . Mal 2:7    For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

It is late. I will check in on this tomorrow. I hope I have helped a bit.


----------



## JSauer

That was a rhetorical question. I am really trying to get to the root of the issue here. Answer this: Why weren't children in the Old Testament required to give a profession of faith before they were circumcised?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> How do you propose that we do it then?



I guess what I'm saying is: if the New Covenant has indeed been enacted, then it should be the de jure legal constitution of the Church NOW, and not just in the future. All people included in the New Covenant should know the LORD, so much as that is possible. Even though the true condition of the Church still resembles in some respects (de facto) the people of God under previous covenants with the presence of both believers and unbelievers, the Church should attempt to include in the New Covenant only those who know the LORD. Thus, people should be baptized only upon a credible profession of faith, because many infants will never know the LORD. 

How would you respond to that?


----------



## JSauer

I guess if Jeremiah 31 said "they will all know me (as much as possible)" you might have a point. 

So why then were children of believers in the Old Testament not required to give a profession of faith before they were circumcised?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> mccaffertyb7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brennan, I was a Reformed Baptist for a long time. One of the main issues for me had to do with what you are trying to work out. I started questioning these things based upon the differences in hermeneutics (principles of interpreting scripture) between Baptists and Reformed / Presbyterians. This is where I ended up after examining some things.
> 
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter
> 
> 
> The main issue for many has to do with whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace or if it is a mixed Covenant including both the Covenant of Works (in some sense sometimes) and the Covenant of Grace. After my attention was drawn to this topic with a bit more focus on how the Westminster Divines and other Reformed men approached the topic I landed squarely that the Mosaic Covenant was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. You can see why by reading my blog which is linked to above. I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31. There are a lot of discussions on the Puritanboard concerning this. Just use the search feature. You will see a lot of discussions that are rather illuminating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am definitely familiar with the different understandings of the word 'new' and also the different interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant.
> I'm still wondering how Presbyterians make sense of Jeremiah's claim that "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Jeremiah also announces that the new covenant cannot be broken. But aren't baptized infants that never come to faith in Christ covenant breakers? Do you tackle those issues in your blog post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking some good questions. I would encourage you to go back and read what I posted above by Rev. Winzer. It is late here and I need to grab some rest. I will address your issues tomorrow. The blog post I sent you to addresses things you need to see concerning some of the arguments I had to deal with as a Reformed Baptist.
> 
> 
> I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.
> 
> 
> Jer 32:36    "Now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, 'It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence':
> Jer 32:37    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.
> Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
> Jer 32:39    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.
> Jer 32:40    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.
> Jer 32:41    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.
> Jer 32:42    "For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.
> 
> 
> From the perspective of Covenant breaking one must look at who, what, when, and where. Covenant Breaking is addressed in the New Covenant, is it not?
> Even in Hebrews.
> 
> 
> Heb 10:28    He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
> Heb 10:29    Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as Apostasy. At the same time we know that there is a perseverance for those of us who are in Christ. The issue of Covenant and Community are issues that address different areas of concern. Forgiveness and Spiritual renewal (rebirth) are the same in both testaments. Christ in you the hope of glory is the same in both the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Where does it say in Jeremiah that there are no Covenant Breakers or that man can't break the Covenant of Grace? The New Covenant differs in the fact of fulfillment and that we no longer need a Levitical Priest to tell us to know God. Malachi 2:7 states that the people were to seek knowledge of The Lord from the Levites. The Levites were given the responsibility to be the messenger of The Lord . Mal 2:7    For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
> 
> It is late. I will check in on this tomorrow. I hope I have helped a bit.
Click to expand...


Ahh, yes. You are getting to where I have been trying to go. I read Richard Pratt's "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant", and he says this: "In the first place, Jeremiah announced that _the new covenant couldn't be broken_. In the consummation of Christ's Kingdom, this prediction will be completely fulfilled." 

So, if I can just ask you a simple question: are you in agreement with Dr. Pratt's statement above?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

It has been a long time since I read Platt's understanding. I don't think I agreed with some of it. Where in Jeremiah 31 does it say that the New Covenant can't be broken or that apostasy can't happen? What is the context and who are the players involved. What is the difference between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New? Doesn't it have to do with the types and anti-types? Isn't there the same proclamation in Jeremiah 32 as in Jeremiah 31? 



> Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
> Jer 32:39    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.
> Jer 32:40    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.
> Jer 32:41    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.
> Jer 32:42    "For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.



Again, I would encourage you to examine Rev. Winzer's responses in post 10 that I posted. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/jeremiah-31-31-34-infant-baptism-83018/#post1042108


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> I guess if Jeremiah 31 said "they will all know me (as much as possible)" you might have a point.
> 
> So why then were children of believers in the Old Testament not required to give a profession of faith before they were circumcised?



I don't know. lol.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It has been a long time since I read Platt's understanding. I don't think I agreed with some of it. Where in Jeremiah 31 does it say that the New Covenant can't be broken or that apostasy can't happen?



Well, as I understand it, it seems to be more of a textual deduction. In Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah is emphasizing the dissimilarity of the new covenant when he says the new covenant is "not like the covenant I made with their fathers..." And if the covenant that was made with their fathers could be broken, then the assumption is that this new and better covenant cannot be broken. Quoting Pratt, "_Without a doubt_ Jeremiah distinguished the new covenant as one that would not be broken..." 
But, to answer your question, I don't think there is anywhere where it explicitly says that the new covenant cannot be broken or that apostasy cannot happen. Pratt's argument is that the new covenant cannot be broken, but that truth is not referring to this present age, but to the future/eternal age. Perhaps I've wrongly taken Pratt's view to be representative of the Reformed Presbyterian community.


----------



## JSauer

If you want a good readable (modern) book that deals with all of these issues I would recommend Word, Water, Spirit by JV Fesko. Thanks for the discussion and I hope your study of this sacrament enlarges your view of Christ and our salvation as it has for me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Reverend Buchanan is really good at explaining things. Maybe he could help us out here by explaining the outward and inward workings of the Administration of the Covenant of Grace. He does this in this thread. I would encourage you to read through it. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/nature-new-covenant-64712/



Contra_Mundum said:


> The Covenant of Grace is unbreakable, because it is made with Christ, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
> 
> What are these redemptive-covenants that we come into contact with in this world? They are all dispensations of the CoG. They all have external and internal administrations, because we are in this world, and worldly things demand worldly administration. That which is outward and external is breakable and falsifiable, if that's all there is; or subject to abuse and false-excommunication, even when the inward reality is present.
> 
> The Baptist denies there is an external administration to the NC. In that view, the covenant is entirely invisible, spiritual, it is not connected to this age--only the age to come. In other words: It cannot be broken, because there's nothing breakable (i.e., this-worldly) to break.
> 
> For our part, we have no problem identifying our non-professing children as being members of the covenant, when we speak of "New Covenant." Because we are talking at that point of those whom God has chosen to publicly identify with his public mark of ownership. They are federally and formally in covenant with him through their membership in the church. They are members because they have an interest in the covenant by their providential birth. We administer this covenant to them in an outward manner, appropriate to the temporal era (NC), _with the expectation that gospel ordinances are the ordinary means by which God himself will administer this same covenant to his elect ones inwardly._
> 
> But the children are not of any necessity (e.g. by birth) spiritual members of the CoG. No man has any claim on God in that way. Anyone, of any age, may be known on earth as participating in the external rites and privileges of the Covenant. That doesn't make them *proper* participants, which is the sole privilege of those who partake in faith.
> 
> So, what are paedobaptists saying, who say that the NC is "unbreakable?" I can't speak for them, some or all. But I might suppose that what some of them mean is, they are thinking of the NC in a pure association with the CoG. In its essence, no matter what covenant-era, the CoG is unbreakable, so Abraham's covenant wasn't breakable, or Moses', _if by the same rule_. But people often speak of the covenant-eras by different rules, meaning different emphases. So when they talk the way you've heard them, perhaps they would also say (as I've heard some), that Abraham's covenant really is the "New" covenant, it just makes no linguistic sense to call it that; it's not "New" in the new-sense until Moses' covenant is set aside. And what is set aside in Moses? The legal, external emphasis, viz. the other rule.
> 
> I think it is much cleaner, simpler, and more helpful to simply speak of one Covenant of Grace, in various dispensations; always having an internal (full and accurate) administration, and and external (partial and subject to human limitation) administration. Why *must* the NC have an "imperfect" worldly aspect? Because we aren't in heaven yet.





Contra_Mundum said:


> dogmatix1517 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would be beneficial, when speaking of the NC, to distinguish between the physical NC and the spiritual NC/CoG? This, I think, would clarify a lot of confusion as it has done for me. I see that people within the physical NC as being able to “fall away” or be “cut off.” This sounds like pretty clear covenantal language to me (i.e. John 15; Rom. 11; Gal. 5; Heb. 3,6,10).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that speaking _adjectivally_ (the physical NC and the spiritual NC) is the way to your desired end. You only sound like you now have two covenants.
> 
> The best way to speak of this is to distinguish between the two ways the one covenant is administered, inwardly and outwardly; Spiritually and ecclesiastically. Persons may be in the covenant either in one of the ways, or in both. Ideally, one is in covenant under both administrations: the Spirit ministers the realities to the invisible spirit, and the church administers the instruments to the corporeal person.
> 
> But it is possible to be in covenant outwardly, while participating in none of the Spirit ministered reality. We call these people hypocrites, or when they publicly abandon the Faith, we call them apostates and excommunicate them. Its also possible for a person to be united to Christ in the spirit, but be outwardly cut off from the covenant. But this external fact does not touch
> the reality that he belongs to the CoG. Many faithful believers have been inadvertently separated from the church; and countless other have been persecuted BY some ecclesiastic body.
> 
> 
> 
> dogmatix1517 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this leads into my next question: Is a baptized infant, assuming it is unregenerate, conditionally in the NC? Here is what I mean: Is the infant’s duty, like those infants in the OT under circumcision, to believe in Christ (do this and you shall live) and thus fulfill their baptismal (gospel) call? (Of course I know that faith comes only by election). If so, I can see how they, like the OT Jews, are still under the CoW though have the means of grace (church, sacraments, etc.) available to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It looks (in the sentences above) like you are correlating (?) belief in Christ through obedience to the gospel call, and the law-principle of "do this and live." I suggest that since Paul tends to put these two principles in *tension* with one another, that we seek other terminology to describe the nature of evangelical obedience.
> 
> 2) It is everyone's duty to believe in Christ right now, today, whether old or young, new to the church or in it for a hundred years.
> 
> 3) Everyone in the church is a disciple. That means he's under discipline 24/7 (just like my kids are under my house-discipline 24/7). Discipleship is a way of life, which in the case of some children is the only way of life they've known. We preach Christ crucified, and the indispensable requirement for faith in the promise, for the attainment of heaven; and we preach that fact to every member, every week. And we expect that drumbeat to re-form lives into Christ's image, because that's one of the Word's promises.
> 
> 4) Using terms like "conditions" or "conditionally" tends to muddy the waters. We are only allowed to judge of the things that are accessible to the outward man, what we can see and hear, the "revealed things." Of course, we warn members most weeks as well, of the folly of rejecting the Word of Christ. But, we don't say to a fiancée, "Joe, you're only conditionally engaged." We don't say to a married man, "Joe, you're only conditionally wed." We don't suspend the legally recognized nature of his commitment on some future contingency.
> 
> 
> 
> dogmatix1517 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in light of this, is the physical NC church the same as physical Israel while the invisible NC church is the same as spiritual Israel? (Romans 9:6b)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the inapt terminology (already discussed), the basic idea is correct. The church had a different way of manifesting itself under the theocracy, but the chosen-people in general formed the visible church.
> 
> 
> 
> dogmatix1517 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premise 1: Luke 22:20 says “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
> Premise 2: Heb. 7 indicates that Jesus is the mediator of a “better covenant.”
> Conclusion 1: Therefore, only those under the blood of Christ (elect) are in the NC.
> Conclusion 2: Consequently, to say that there are unbelievers in the NC is to say that Jesus is mediating (pleading his blood before the Father) on behalf of unbelievers in the NC which directly contradicts both premise 1 and 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, this can only be described as a general syllogistic-structured argument, and not a formal argument, because neither conclusion is strictly built on the premises offered. You can call it an enthymeme perhaps, but it hasn't got the formal structure of a formally valid syllogism.
> 
> So, I'm in danger of creating arguments for JW that he hasn't made (let the reader understand).
> 
> By P1, JW might be saying that Jesus NC blood is spilt for _all_ disciples, because Jesus states that it is spilt for the eleven Disciples (you) who are there. But this trades on the designation "disciple," and then applies what is indubitably meant explicitly for those participating, implicitly to all who are "qualified disciples."
> 
> In answer to this supposed line of reasoning (which may not be accurate), I answer that a) Jesus' blood is certainly spilt and only spilt for the elect of the CoG; but 2) equating disciples (whom we can identify) and the elect (whose identity is unknown) is irresponsible in theory, and impossible in practice.
> 
> Therefore, Jesus' testimony P1 tells us is his blood ratifies the NC, as the offerings of Ex.24 ratified the MC; that those with whom he shares his Supper that evening were explicit beneficiaries (because he had infallible knowledge of their hearts); and we may justly infer that others who partake of the Supper in the like faith receive the same benefit.
> 
> P2 calls for an explication of how the NC is "better," AND (what is often left out in the discussion) what exactly it is better than. The NC is better than MC, and the Jer.31 passage explains this, in terms that relate to the MC context. But the MC is inferior as well to the AC, as Gal.3 makes plain. So, it is not plain at all that Jer or Heb would also affirm that the NC is "better" (using that same language) than the AC.
> 
> We will gladly affirm that the fulfillment of the promises makes our situation preferable (as Jesus says the least in the KoH is greater than JtB). But "preferable" isn't the sort of "better" (i.e "superior") that obtains when the NC is compared to the MC, and its not what Jer had in mind.
> 
> C1 responses--How does the elimination of earthly responsibility of administering Christ's covenant (his government) with his people make things "better?" And I know JW believes in church-government, but in his view it isn't a covenant-administration. So, its a conceptual division.
> 
> In terms of the conclusion, we (on earth) are supposed to be managing(?) the elect in our churches. We are even supposed to be preaching and teaching, for the work of perfecting saints. But (applying Jer.31 woodenly) none of us should be telling our elect brethren to "know the Lord," which is just a synonym for "have faith in Christ/God." Because the NC is just the elect, we're told. But, we can't tell who's elect, so we preach evangelistically anyway?
> 
> The NC isn't "better" because "it only has elect in it." If we use the same rule on all the covenants, then all of them "only had the elect in them," because only the elect were full participants in both an inward and an outward administration!
> 
> C2 responses--It only follows if you agreed with C1. Jesus is the savior of all the elect, of all time, as well those under previous covenant-arrangements as now under the NC. But he isn't the savior of any of those under the other arrangements who weren't inward participants. The whole thing only works once one dispenses with any present day, NC outward administration. He has to get rid of it somehow.
> 
> Jesus is the Mediator of the eternal covenant, Heb.13:20. This Covenant of Grace comes to man in a revelatory series of covenant arrangements, starting with Abraham. It culminates in the fullness of redemption, as Christ himself comes in to take up his Mediatorial tasks. We live in the NC age, which right now is the age of the already and the not yet. Heaven, and the NH&NE are going to finalize the new, permanent reality.
> 
> But we aren't in heaven yet. We are weak, needy people, who receive great blessing from Christ's condescension to our frailty, in giving us the incomparable blessing of his covenant, its government, its signs and seals, its counsels, its ministry; in short, everything the kingdom of God needs while it continues on its wilderness journey. In Mk.10:1-16, Jesus gives his re-formed people some insight as to the constituents his coming kingdom will contain: husbands, wives, and children, on this side of the eschaton.
> 
> 
> Final thought.
> No one--not Presbyterians, not Baptists--"intends" to incorporate non-elect persons in the visible church. But NO ONE can perfectly restrict that membership. Ages ago, God settled the question of how he would set the limits of his incorporation in an imperfect world. He would receive confessors and their children, and bring them under his discipline. He'd take all their children, immediately, for the sake of the elect found among them. This was mercy and grace, of course, for the undeserving, the most helpless. God did not inaugurate the NC era by casting these covenant members out.
Click to expand...


Rich L. does an excellent job here. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/nature-new-covenant-64712/#post837364



Semper Fidelis said:


> I can hardly improve upon what Bruce or Richard have offered but just want to make a few remarks to extend some of the ideas.
> 
> It is very common in these discussions on Covenant Theology to assume that once one ties up the nature of the CoG (call it the New Covenant if you like) that one has addressed the issue of the inclusion of the children of believers. As a thought experiment I created a thread that demonstrated that determining the constituency of the New Covenant does not immediately lead to one conclusion or another: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/argument-paedo-credo-baptism-nature-new-covenant-62692/
> 
> I say this with respect for James Whte but his debates have really only barely touched on the issue of baptism proper. I've listened to both debates and they focus on the nature of the New Covenant. Again, I believe it is so common for this issue to be debated that each side assumes that once that issue has been settled that the rest fall as so many dominoes. I am convinced this is not the case. In fact, I believe this leads to a relatively light approach to dealing with the real issue at hand.
> 
> As Bruce has noted, the CoG is made with Christ and nobody in human history has been united to Christ in the CoG except by faith.
> 
> It is perhaps too easy to miss this point with the Old Covenant as we are lulled into the sense that there is something so obligatory to it for the people of Israel. They're not even given a choice. There's so much tied to land and to the preservation of a people that we can easily conclude that circumcision is fundamentally a land and racial propagation thing with very little to do with the Promise. In fact, in the crassest arguments I've seen circumcision for the Jews and the reason for the application of the sign is primarily to provide a genetic guarantee that Christ will eventually come from that people group. You need Christ to come from people and you need an identifiable people to allow Christ to come from and so God has this Promise to Abraham that runs alongside this circumcision thing that makes sure it physically comes about but the physical sign is not really seen as having a correspondence, fundamentally, with the spiritual aspects of the Promise. All the passages that enjoin the circumcision of the heart, then, are assigned spiritual aspects while this "physical/Land Promise" track are kept on a separate track.
> 
> Consequently, when Christ comes, the physical aspect is fulfilled and all the stuff about kids is really no longer necessary. All that is left is the Spiritual/Elect aspect that sort of ran alongside of the circumcision thing but never really had any true attachment to it. I know this is simplistic but time doesn't allow me to flesh this out.
> 
> So now, according to this view, we're left with a completely spiritual dispensation of the CoG called the New Covenant under the Baptist view. Because it is completely spiritual, I don't think many give stock to the fact that they are dealing with issues of eternal election and the hidden things of God. They will say that God elects the person and then, on the basis of that perceived Sovereign work of God, the believer comes to the Church, announces his belief in Christ, and the Church applies a sign that says: "Joe professes in Christ and we believe he is elect to the best of our ability to discern these things."
> 
> Notice the subtle but very real shift here, however, the Baptist Church does not say: "Joe _is_ elect and we therefore baptize him" but "Joe is perceived to be among the elect to the best of our ability to ascertain."
> 
> In other words, a Baptist Church does not so much contain baptized members of the New Covenant but those that have received the sign of baptism to the best of the visible Church's ability to ascertain that the members of the Church are in the New Covenant. Baptist theology, in fact, notes that baptism does not make one a member of the New Covenant nor does baptism assure that any are in the New Covenant.
> 
> For all the argument about the nature of the New Covenant containing none but the elect, then, when it all comes down to it, baptism is not administered on the basis that the elect are in the NC but on the basis that a person presenting himself for baptism has a profession credible enough for the Church to presume he is in the NC. Given the apostasy of even the most unlikely people, some Baptist Churches have withheld baptism until years of fruit can prove satisfactorily that the person who has presented himself for baptism is not giving a profession that is the fruit of "seed that has fallen on rocky ground...."
> 
> One can argue about the nature of the New Covenant then and it really doesn't settle the issue because identifying that the New Covenant belongs to the elect alone does not inform a historical, local Church that does not have the mind of God.
> 
> That's really the crux of the issue. It's the issue of hidden and revealed things. Deut 29:29 does not give any man or any Church warrant to constitute its membership on the basis of eternal election. In fact, when you back it all out, the Baptist ends up noting that the real issue that they baptize professors is because that's what they're commanded so to do. It's an issue of command. It's an issue of revealed things. It can never be on the basis of the hidden counsel of God.
> 
> That brings me to the point of drawing out what I believe is the fundamental difference in approach to Covenant theology. While the Baptist begins with hidden things in the CoG and sort of backs into an ecclesiology that they reason excludes the children of believers, the Reformed view has always maintained that God condescends to our creatureliness and gives us Sacraments: visible signs that are connected to the spiritual realities they signify.
> 
> The Reformed Confessions walk the razor's edge between the Covenant of Grace that God has made infallibly in Christ on the one hand and the historical administration of the Covenant on the other hand. In one sense, the very sad thing about they way that some treat visible signs as "mere signs" is that it is the only thing we have access to as flesh and blood people. We don't have the mind of God. We are bound to human history and don't stand above time. How can we know that God has elected us from eternity? I've known some that get so tied up in trying to speculate how they can ascertain they are elect and not be deceived that they fail to look to the very things that God has given them in the administration of the Covenant to assure them of such things.
> 
> Baptism isn't fundamentally a statement I make but it's a statement that God makes. He announces a Promise. God, both in the Gospels and the Sacraments, creates the reality that He speaks about. A person may ask: "How can a person believe the Gospel command 'Believe' if they are dead in their sins and trespasses?" The answer is that God creates life in the heart of the hearer so that the Word itself fulfills the conditions it commands.
> 
> The Sacraments also, bear a relationship to the things they signify. What trips most Baptists up is that, on the one hand, they see all these spiritual realities signified by the Sacrament. It signifies everything that only the Elect can ever possess.
> 
> "Indeed", says the Church, "these are realities only God can produce. It is not our job to grant the realities that the Sacraments represent but to ministerially announce God's promise in these signs and let the Holy Spirit sovereignly attend as He wills." The winds blows where it wills and we do not perceive it.
> 
> Yet, then, because it is ordained of God that the Church would announce His Promises in real human history He attends to the Promises and, for those He has sovereignly saved, the Promise heard in real history and felt by real water, serves as God Himself saying to the person: "If you trust in my Son then your salvation is as certain as what you have heard and experienced in your life." He condescends to make historical promises to each of us.
> 
> Sacraments, in this view, are then much more certain because they do not depend upon my recollection of a faith I might have had at my baptism but it is always grounded upon the Promise of God that never waivers. Even the adult convert needs this assurance who has been walking with the Lord for years.
> 
> I feel like I'm writing a tome that I never set out to write and I know I'm leaving myself open to a lot of criticism due to a misunderstanding of this position but I have to emphasize that this is fundamentally about understanding that the nature of discipleship is not one where the Church begins with a more or less certain knowledge of election and then proceeds on the basis that all its members are elect but it proceeds on the basis that everything it does in Word and Sacrament is a means instituted by God to create life out of death: the Kingdom of God among us.
> 
> Increasingly, I find utility in the fact that Calvin used regeneration in so many ways because we tend to think of regeneration as a point in spiritual life that, if we can just place our finger on it, then we will all have certainty that we have arrived.
> 
> Yet, while the Scriptures are not afraid to speak of the life that God grants to the believer through the Gospel as he first lays hold of Christ in faith, it also unashamedly enjoins the Church to abide and, "If Today you hear his voice harden not your hearts."
> 
> There is a real danger in the "I've been regenerated once" that one can fail to heed the fact that God appoints means of grace for our spiritual nourishment and continued conversion. Do we pray before each Lord's day that we would continue to be converted unto the Gospel or do we assume that we've entered into a time where we no longer say to one another "...know the Lord..." to the point that we think there are some people (the unregenerate) that aren't at the point of conversion yet and need injunction while the rest of us sit back and let those portions of the Gospel affect them?
> 
> In other words, when I pray for the congregation (or even for my family), I ask that God would convert us. If unregenerate, that some would hear the Gospel for the first time. That may even be someone who has attended Church for fifty years. I never assume that a person is too sanctified that, while it is called Today, they might yet hear His voice for the first time. If the person has walked with Christ for years then Today is another day to be transformed by the renewing of the mind.
> 
> The nature of discipleship is then fundamentally not one of certainty about the election of the individual but one of responsibility. Disciples are baptized and taught. Disciples are even converted through the teaching. We don't start with a converted person and then baptize them but baptism and teaching are a means to the end of discipleship that men, women, boys, and girls might taste and see that the Lord is good. We pray for them, we nurture them, we instruct them, we reprove them, and they hear the Gospel constantly. They hear its commands and its injunctions and, by God's grace, it produces life in whoever the Spirit so ordains. The Church does not see the Spirit move but does enjoy its blessing. Yet, in spite of our best and wisest discernment, no Saint is so close to God in our estimation that we fail to enjoin him to press in and no Saint is so weak that we don't nurture the bruised reed or the smoldering wick. We act according to command and not decree.
> 
> I have to run now. I've spend far too much time and have probably rushed this in trying to get it finished. If my presentation is confusing or there are typos, please forgive me and do ask questions if I'm confusing anywhere above.



I hope these help.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

JSauer said:


> If you want a good readable (modern) book that deals with all of these issues I would recommend Word, Water, Spirit by JV Fesko. Thanks for the discussion and I hope your study of this sacrament enlarges your view of Christ and our salvation as it has for me.



Thank you brother. My pastor gave me that book to read. I will make sure to read through it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brennan,
Probably, another voice chiming in here is less--not more--helpful...

I think a simple glance back through this thread provides ample evidence that one of the great problems in discussing these matters is that we don't speak each other's language. Yes, we are using English, and common theological terminology. But we are not using this speech in ways familiar to those with whom we are trying to communicate. The fact of similarity only adds to the overall confusion.


Jer.31:34 says more than simply that "all" in the New Covenant will know the Lord. It also says that _the teaching office_ is *obsolete*. Pratt's logic seems to be that:
1) clearly, the NT establishes the ongoing presence and validity of the teaching office in the New Covenant age.
2) therefore, it is reasonable to infer that Jer.31:34 cannot be baldly descriptive of an _inaugurated_ state of affairs in the New Covenant.
3) rather, Jer.31:34 envisions an idealized New Covenant reality, a consummated and fulfilled expression, one in which the familiar office of the teacher has disappeared, being unnecesary.
4) since Jer.31:34 is not descriptive of the _inaugurated_ but rather _fulfilled_ New Covenant reality with respect to teachers; thus also the statement: "they shall all know me," should be reckoned descriptive of the membership in the fulfilled, spiritual, and heavenly reality, and not the membership (strictly speaking) of the merely inaugurated, temporal, and earthly state.​
The distinction between the inauguration and the fulfillment, the imperfect and the perfect, is often spoken of in these terms: "Already and Not-Yet." We are presently living in-between the ages, in an overlapping time when the powers of the age-to-come have already begun to make themselves known, at the expense of the powers of this present, evil age. For believers, this involves us in a necessary tension of living in a body that is tied to the world that now is, while having within us the living, spiritual principle that belongs to the power of resurrection life--something that the current mode of existence cannot contain forever.


I believe Pratt's point is legitimate and quite helpful; but it is not the only method that Reformed handlers of this passage have used. In comparative terms, since the level of contrast in the passage itself is between the Sinai Covenant (Old or Mosaic Covenant) and the new covenant destined to replace it, it is fair to ask whether anyone under the Sinai Covenant ever had (v33) the law of God put in their minds and written on their hearts. Was anyone ever truly converted under the ministration of the Old Covenant? Did God forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no more?

As the answer is unquestionably "yes," given the number of saints among the Israelites over the course of fifteen centuries or so that the Sinai Covenant was in force; then clearly by parity of reasoning, an absolute distinction is not being made by Jeremiah. The Old Covenant was inadequate as a final or permanent arrangement, but that is a far cry from saying that it was absolutely deficient. It was, in the main, a massively externalized system of signs, and the imposition of law (a thing good in itself, but lacking any saving power). Nevertheless, there were persons under its authority who were saved along with their father Abraham by a selfsame faith.

Thus, it is possible to understand in the promise of the institution of the New Covenant a perfectly legitimate _hyperbolic_ assertion of the power and efficacy of the mainly spiritual and internal covenant of forgiveness--a helpful new (resumed, from Abraham) emphasis on grace in preference to works. It is not the case that Jeremiah offers a weak comparative: "some" saved, versus "all" saved. The literary context militates against such a read, as he indicts the covenant people _en masse_. We might rephrase Jeremiah's claim: whereas "no one" was saved under the Old Covenant (another hyperbolic assertion); yet "everyone" is saved under the New Covenant. This is an intentionally stark, but not strictly literal comparison.

We don't need to pit this alternative against Pratt entirely. His recognition of the final, perfected New Covenant condition in the terms of Jer.31:34 most certainly is admitted by virtually anyone who treats the basic contrasting terms as comparative in history. Beyond history, there is only the stark contrast between condemnation in the Covenant of Works, and forgiveness in the Covenant of Grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thank You! Thank You! Thank You, Bruce.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Galatians 3:29
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Children born under the Old Covenant were circumcised/born into a physical nation (just as slaves/aliens were). 
We (believers) who live under the New Covenant were born again/baptized into a spiritual nation. Entry requirements for the New Covenant are spiritual new birth, leading to personal faith and repentance. Entry requirements for the Old Covenant were physical birth or physical circumstances. 

Nobody is born of the flesh into Christ.  Nobody ever was, since time began!
Nobody becomes an heir of the promise/a member of the New Covenant by physical birth or because of the faith of their parents. Nobody ever did! 

The glory of Jeremiah 31, with the beautiful promises and blessings, is directly related to those who are ‘born again of the Spirit’. There is no placing of the law in the hearts of babies (and never was) simply because those babies were born to believing parents (or parent). There is no forgiveness of iniquity (and never was) for the children of believers based simply on the faith of their parents or their sprinkling as a baby. Outside of spiritual regeneration, nobody, no matter who their earthly parents might be (or have been), has or can or will ever ‘know the Lord’.


----------



## Craig.Scott

If one were to permit Jeremiah 31 _alone to teach us on the nature of the new covenant, i would understand the difficulty, but let us remember that it is not alone in speaking of the new covenant to come:

*Isaiah 65:22-23
*

22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, *and their offspring with them.*


*Ezekiel 37:24-25
*

24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, *and their children, and their children's children for ever*: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.







In Christ_


----------



## Peairtach

Once the Mediator comes and we know Him, all other mediators - prophets, priests and kings - become superfluous. See Joel 2: there is a democratisation of these offices in the New Testament in that in Christ all of God's true people are in a real sense prophets, priests and kings, without the formal and outward trappings of office.

The Baptist take on this passage has the problem that if the Lord intended His New Covenant people to only consist of the regenerate, He would have given power to His elders/overseers to discern them. As it is you have people who do not know the Lord in Baptist churches and accepted into the New Covenant by baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Logan

I grew up in a Baptist environment as well. However, I don't think the Baptist (dispensational?) view really solves all the problems here. Baptists also baptize unbelievers, no matter how hard they try to do otherwise; so the alternative seems in that view baptism must not be a sign of the covenant (lest these unbelievers be "part" of it), which raises additional problems.

So perhaps a good approach would be to try to understand this passage in Jeremiah on its own terms, as opposed to a paedo/credo-baptistic view?


----------



## Jack K

Brennan,

I will risk chiming in as well, and will try to be simple. Rev. Buchanan addressed Jeremiah 31 very well in his post above. I don't think more needs to be said on that. But... I suspect you will still be bothered by the impression you have (and keep repeating) that paedobaptists baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people, and credobaptists don't. That's a fair concern. It sounds like paedobaptists have no respect for saving faith. Many Baptists I know have been taught that this is the case.

How might your thinking change as you consider the following two points?

1. Nearly ALL churches baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people. Yes, some children who're baptized as infants turn away from the faith. But some people baptized as adults do too, proving that the churches that baptized them can't really be sure that _anyone_ they baptize is a true, lasting Christian. It isn't really _belief_ that's the basis for baptism in any church, since we can't detect saving faith with certainty. Rather, churches baptize those who give evidence that they belong to Christ and who are going to be discipled. Credobaptists require a personal profession of faith as that evidence, while faithful paedobaptists require either a personal profession OR the profession of a parent (since belonging to a Christian home is seen as evidence of belonging to Christ and makes one a disciple who's being trained in the faith... even though it's possible that child, like anyone who once belonged visibly, will someday turn away).

2. It is presumptuous and untrue for us to assume that we, as smarter adults, have true faith and are regenerate while our young children surely are not. As Randy briefly pointed out in his first post, who are we to say such a thing? Our hope must never be in one's ability to declare faith with some requisite amount of sincerity. Rather, our hope is in the work of the Spirit to implant the new life that gives faith. We baptize children because we are looking to God, who speaks of the inclusion of believers' children, and not to them or to how much faith they can or cannot articulate.

Until these two points are grasped, I suspect it will be difficult to accept paedobaptist thinking no matter how well Jeremiah 31 is explained. In fairness, there are credobaptists who do grasp these points and still believe the biblical standard for baptism includes a personal profession of faith. But it sounds to me as if you have not yet come to think in terms of these points. Until you do, I'm not sure you're ready to really understand a Reformed paedobaptist, much less become one.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Hemustincrease

Baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one who has been born again of the Spirit. 
False professors may indeed be baptized with water but the outward sign is not the entry requirement into the New Covenant is it? Biblically speaking, water Baptism follows the baptism of the Spirit, it does not proceed it. It symbolizes what has already taken place, not what ‘might’ take place in the future. The inner baptism of the Spirit is the only means of entry into the New Covenant and Jeremiah provides a beautiful picture of the fruit of that baptism. Forgiveness, a knowledge of God and a love for His law. These things are New Covenant blessings (every member of the New Covenant receives them) and are not inherited through fleshly means but through the work of the Spirit. They apply only to the spiritual seed of Abraham. Paedo Baptist churches are filled with people who are told that they are members of the New Covenant because their parents are and because they were baptised (by water, not by the Spirit) as babies. Yet many of these will not be forgiven, will not know God and will not love His law. So what then was Jeremiah prophesying? He did not say ‘some’ will know me or ‘some’ will be forgiven or ‘some’ will have my law written upon their hearts. 

The New Covenant consists 100% of born again believers. This is one of the glorious things about it which makes it so much better than the Old Covenant. That there will be tares growing up alongside the wheat (here on earth) which we may not be able to discern readily is a fact our Lord warns us about. Yet nowhere does He tell us that these unbelieving, unregenerate men and women, boys and girls are actually part of His justified and sanctified New Covenant people.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Jack K said:


> (since belonging to a Christian home is seen as evidence of belonging to Christ and makes one a disciple who's being trained in the faith... even though it's possible that child, like anyone who once belonged visibly, will someday turn away).



Are you saying that Christ cannot keep His own? That one who once ‘belonged’ to Him, might not belong to Him for eternity? Where do you find such a teaching in Scripture? I see in Scripture only two kinds of people. Those who belong to Christ and never can be lost and those who do not belong to Christ (the way of salvation being open to them whilst the day of grace remains). 

For a credo baptist to baptize one who has made a credible profession of faith, but then proves himself to be an apostate, in no way diminishes the power of Christ to keep His own to the end. Rather it simply proves that this false professor never did belong to Him in the first place. However, according to what you have said, baptized babies (the children of believers) do automatically belong to Christ, but that there is a very real possibility that He might not keep hold of them to the end. 

My children often say to me “Mummy, I don’t know whether or not I am saved” or “Mummy, I don’t know if I will go to be with Christ when I die, because I don’t know if I belong to Him or not.” My answer is always the same. I point them to Christ, to the promises of Scripture and urge them to keep on seeking, keep on asking etc. However, a paedo baptist would perhaps answer such a question with almost a rebuke. “You do belong to Christ because you were born to a Christian parent and were baptized as a baby” but would also then go on to say “but of course, you might not always belong to Christ”. 

I will not tell my children that they are saved. I will only ever point them to Christ and to His promises. Their ‘belonging’ to Him is purely and wholly a work of the Spirit and has nothing whatsoever to do with their fleshly heritage. If they are His, His Spirit will assure them of their safety in Christ. But it seems to me a very sad thing indeed, to tell children that they belong to the most wonderful Savior this world could ever know, the most precious and altogether lovely Redeemer of sinful men........to teach them of all the promises and blessings rendered upon those who belong to Him.......and yet to then also tell them that belonging to this Savior does not come with any kind of assurance whatsoever. For this most precious of Saviors might just let go of them so that one day they no longer belong to Him at all.


----------



## mccaffertyb7

Bruce,

Incredibly helpful. Thank you very much.


----------



## Logan

Jo,

I don't think it is fair to characterize the paedobaptist position as you have above. I, for example, pray regularly for my children and instruct them so that they too might be saved. However, I do not treat them as if they are outside of a Christian home or as though they are outside of the church. As Matthew Henry said, they have been enrolled in the school of Christ. Also, from the 1689 London Confession, 29:1

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

It sounds like the sign of the covenant. Is it not?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

Jack K said:


> Brennan,
> 
> I will risk chiming in as well, and will try to be simple. Rev. Buchanan addressed Jeremiah 31 very well in his post above. I don't think more needs to be said on that. But... I suspect you will still be bothered by the impression you have (and keep repeating) that paedobaptists baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people, and credobaptists don't. That's a fair concern. It sounds like paedobaptists have no respect for saving faith. Many Baptists I know have been taught that this is the case.
> 
> How might your thinking change as you consider the following two points?
> 
> 1. Nearly ALL churches baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people. Yes, some children who're baptized as infants turn away from the faith. But some people baptized as adults do too, proving that the churches that baptized them can't really be sure that _anyone_ they baptize is a true, lasting Christian. It isn't really _belief_ that's the basis for baptism in any church, since we can't detect saving faith with certainty. Rather, churches baptize those who give evidence that they belong to Christ and who are going to be discipled. Credobaptists require a personal profession of faith as that evidence, while faithful paedobaptists require either a personal profession OR the profession of a parent (since belonging to a Christian home is seen as evidence of belonging to Christ and makes one a disciple who's being trained in the faith... even though it's possible that child, like anyone who once belonged visibly, will someday turn away).
> 
> 2. It is presumptuous and untrue for us to assume that we, as smarter adults, have true faith and are regenerate while our young children surely are not. As Randy briefly pointed out in his first post, who are we to say such a thing? Our hope must never be in one's ability to declare faith with some requisite amount of sincerity. Rather, our hope is in the work of the Spirit to implant the new life that gives faith. We baptize children because we are looking to God, who speaks of the inclusion of believers' children, and not to them or to how much faith they can or cannot articulate.
> 
> Until these two points are grasped, I suspect it will be difficult to accept paedobaptist thinking no matter how well Jeremiah 31 is explained. In fairness, there are credobaptists who do grasp these points and still believe the biblical standard for baptism includes a personal profession of faith. But it sounds to me as if you have not yet come to think in terms of these points. Until you do, I'm not sure you're ready to really understand a Reformed paedobaptist, much less become one.
> 
> Does that make sense?



Hi Jack,

thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps I wasn't totally clear in all of my previous posts - I'm not under the impression that credobaptists don't baptize unregenerate or unbelieving people. I'm well aware that they do. Certainly, there are apostates within Baptist churches - men and women who have been baptized upon a credible profession of faith, but then walked away from the LORD. I think what I'm trying to grapple with is this: if the New Covenant is the legal constitution of the Church in this age and the New Covenant consists of those who know the Lord, then there would seem to be a need to show intense effort to only include within the New Covenant those who have a credible profession of faith. Why? Because we want to ensure that the actual condition of the Church resembles the legal constitution of the Church as closely as possible. Of course, there must be the recognition that the actual condition of the Church still resembles the condition of the people of God under previous covenants, which means that there will be both believers and unbelievers. But we are trying, as much as it is possible in this fallen world, to only include those in the New Covenant who have credible professions. Am I making sense? And that is the difference between infants and adults. Because although infants may indeed be regenerate, they have not made a credible profession of faith. Therefore, it would seem to be rash to include them within the New Covenant before being reasonably convinced that they actually do possess faith in God. (Are you saying that Presbyterians are reasonably convinced that infants do possess faith in God?) The goal is to limit the amount of apostates as much as possible, because in so doing, the actual state of the church most closely resembles the legal constitution of the Church. If that is the case, it would seem to preclude baptizing infants. 

I'm eager to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Jack K

Hemustincrease said:


> Are you saying that Christ cannot keep His own? That one who once ‘belonged’ to Him, might not belong to Him for eternity?



Jo, Reformed believers have traditionally used the phrases "visible church" and "invisible church" to distinguish between those who visibly belong to Christ (because they are a part of his church) and those who belong invisibly (because they have saving faith, which is something no one on earth can see with certainty). When I said that paedobaptists believe the children of believers "belong," I used the word "visibly" to indicate that I meant they are part of the observable church. Forgive me for assuming you would catch the meaning of that term. It's insider speak, I know.

Part of the paedobaptist position, if I may speak for it, is that the children of believers are included in the visible church. And it is those in the visible church, who are being discipled, that we baptize... since we cannot know with certainty who is part of the invisible church.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Logan said:


> Jo,
> 
> I don't think it is fair to characterize the paedobaptist position as you have above. I, for example, pray regularly for my children and instruct them so that they too might be saved. However, I do not treat them as if they are outside of a Christian home or as though they are outside of the church. As Matthew Henry said, they have been enrolled in the school of Christ. Also, from the 1689 London Confession, 29:1
> 
> "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> It sounds like the sign of the covenant. Is it not?



‘_Fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection_” This applies only to regenerate, born again, Holy Spirit baptized believers. Unregenerate people have no such fellowship with Christ, no matter who their earthly parents happen to be. The only way to be reconciled with God is through Jesus Christ. Once a person truly is justified, they belong to Him and are no longer their own. This belonging is eternal. You cannot (and never have been able to) ‘belong to Christ’ via your parents faith. 

‘_engrafted into Christ’ _those who are truly in Christ will never cease to be in Him. Again, this can only apply to those who have been born again ‘of the Spirit’ not of the flesh.

‘_remission of sins_’ outside of Christ there is no remission of sins. Equally, one cannot be in the New Covenant and not have full remission of their sins. Thus, to say that a child is in the New Covenant but then pray for the remission of their sins appears contradictory and confusing.

‘_newness of life_’ members of the New Covenant are ‘new creations’ in Christ Jesus. This refers to a baptism of the Holy Spirit, such that water baptism would follow and symbolize. 


Thus, I can only conclude (I say this accepting that there may be other possible conclusions) that the paedo baptist must either believe that the New Covenant community is a mixed community (for which there is no evidence whatsoever in all of Scripture, and the opposite is plainly taught in many places, including the text this thread is centered upon), and that children of believers automatically become members of that community purely by physical birth/circumstances and that it is entirely possible to begin life as a member of Christ and end life outside of Christ. Or, they must believe that being born to a Christian parent automatically means the child will be truly saved. 

I’m not suggesting that paedobaptists don’t pray for their children or urge them to Christ etc. Not at all! I am just honing in an what appears to me to be a contradiction. On the one hand they tell them that they automatically ‘belong to Christ’ and the only evidence required for this is their belonging to Christian parents or parent (whether by birth or adoption etc), yet on the other hand they are praying for their children to ‘belong to Christ’. The point I was trying to make is simply this....do they belong to Christ or do they not? If they do, then why pray for them to be saved? They already are! If they do not, then why baptize them (and tell them they belong to Christ) as those who already have fellowship with Christ and are engrafted into Him, with full remission of their sins and living in newness of life (ie being born again) when you don’t believe that to be the case? 

What would you tell a child, whose parents professed faith in Christ when they were babies, had them baptized and then some years later, both parents proved to be apostates. What position then does the child have? Are they (still?) members of the New Covenant or not? If everything rests upon the faith of the parents, the position of the child is fragile indeed, for not a few seemingly Godly parents have turned apostate. Or would you counsel that child that their baptism (on account of it having been done in good faith etc) was the entrance into the New Covenant regardless of the now lack of faith of their parents? Or would you just turn back to Scripture and urge the child to repent of their own sins and trust in Christ alone for their salvation turning their eyes rightly away from their earthly birth and unto the new birth which Christ says nobody can be saved without?


----------



## Hemustincrease

Jack K said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Christ cannot keep His own? That one who once ‘belonged’ to Him, might not belong to Him for eternity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jo, Reformed believers have traditionally used the phrases "visible church" and "invisible church" to distinguish between those who visibly belong to Christ (because they are a part of his church) and those who belong invisibly (because they have saving faith, which is something no one on earth can see with certainty). When I said that paedobaptists believe the children of believers "belong," I used the word "visibly" to indicate that I meant they are part of the observable church. Forgive me for assuming you would catch the meaning of that term. It's insider speak, I know.
> 
> Part of the paedobaptist position, if I may speak for it, is that the children of believers are included in the visible church. And it is those in the visible church, who are being discipled, that we baptize... since we cannot know with certainty who is part of the invisible church.
Click to expand...


 OK. I am familiar with those terms, but had taken the


Jack K said:


> belonging to Christ


bit literally. Sorry for the bunny trail.


----------



## Logan

Jo,

Without becoming quite wordy (I only meant to make a brief comment in this thread anyway) I was asking basically if baptism was the "covenant sign". It sounds to me that even from the 1689 Confession, it is. If it is, then you can't avoid the problem of baptizing those who eventually are apostate. The idea that only people who are truly regenerated can be baptized is impossible to adhere perfectly to (that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try, if that is God's command).

Additionally, if it is the "covenant sign" then the arguments against baptizing children could be raised against circumcising children. Both are given as signs of the covenant, signify membership, cleansing from sin, repentance, etc. Paul even calls believers in the NT the "circumcision". People focusing on the "new covenant" like to try to emphasize the differences, but there are really more similarities between the old and the new than they are often willing to admit 

Lastly, I wonder if you think Paul's admonition to children in Eph 6:1--3 is written to say, your children? Children in the church or just "believing" children? For my part, I am quite certain it is an admonition for all children in Christian homes at the very least, and yet the letter was addressed to the "saints" and the "faithful". Were the children considered part of the church? what is the sign of belonging to the church? Regardless as to whether you baptize your children or not, you do treat them as though they are part of the church, and expect them to live their lives as Christians. There is something different about them as opposed to children born in non-Christian homes, and for that I am thankful.


----------



## Jack K

mccaffertyb7 said:


> although infants may indeed be regenerate, they have not made a credible profession of faith. Therefore, it would seem to be rash to include them within the New Covenant before being reasonably convinced that they actually do possess faith in God.



If this is the heart of your concern, my way of thinking responds with the following points:

1. When I see a church kid, I do NOT begin with the assumption that he is unproven or more likely than any of the rest of us to deny Christ some day. Rather, I begin with the assumption that God has put this child into his church and is at work in him. I'm expectant about seeing faith in that child, because I know God is good. I don't make assumptions about God's timing (the child may have no faith yet), but neither do I assume that my faith is necessarily stronger than his. Childlike faith is affirmed many times in Scripture, and it would be wrong of me to assume that just because a child is still a child he is to be suspected as a future apostate in a way that I am not.

2. Baptism is not an earned badge of honor, either for kids or adults, as if we wait to see signs of growth in a believer and then baptize him because he's proven himself fit. Rather, every instance of baptism in Scripture comes at the very beginning of the Christian life, _before_ growth and discipleship. If a child is in the church and is being discipled, he should be baptized.

3. Baptism not only begins the life of discipleship; it is an important sign from God that ordinarily aids in the discipleship process. I can't teach a kid to love God while at the same time treating him as if he's a unproven heathen whom, unless the kid proves otherwise, God is likely to hate for all eternity. To teach a kid to love God and to disciple that kid in faith, I need to have some expectation that God loves that kid and is at work in the kid's life. To do otherwise is to attempt discipleship without grace, a fatal error.

4. Be careful not to make too much of the New Covenant, as if what God instructed before the cross doesn't really count today. I don't see any scriptural evidence that in this era we are instructed to more rigorously "vet" those who would enter the covenant community than God's people did in Old Testament times. If anything, the main thrust of Scripture is that now the gates are flung open and all may come to Jesus. It would seem strange if under the New Covenant God's community is more open than it used to be for adults, but now has new restrictions that didn't exist before for the children of God's people.

Anyway, that's how this paedobaptist thinks. I hope it helps you. I do much work with kids at my Baptist church, so obviously I don't think these points are absolute essentials for cooperation with others. And I find with most Baptists that as they understand where I'm coming from, they find the position is not as unthinkable as they once thought.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

mccaffertyb7 said:


> if the New Covenant is the legal constitution of the Church in this age and the New Covenant consists of those who know the Lord, then *there would seem to be a need to show intense effort to only include within the New Covenant those who have a credible profession of faith.* Why? Because we want to ensure that the actual condition of the Church resembles the legal constitution of the Church as closely as possible. Of course, there must be the recognition that the actual condition of the Church still resembles the condition of the people of God under previous covenants, which means that there will be both believers and unbelievers. But *we are trying, as much as it is possible in this fallen world, to only include those in the New Covenant who have credible professions*. Am I making sense? And that is the difference between infants and adults. Because although infants may indeed be regenerate, they have not made a credible profession of faith. Therefore, *it would seem to be rash to include them within the New Covenant before being reasonably convinced that they actually do possess faith in God.* (Are you saying that Presbyterians are reasonably convinced that infants do possess faith in God?) *The goal is to limit the amount of apostates as much as possible,* because in so doing, the actual state of the church most closely resembles the legal constitution of the Church. If that is the case, it would seem to preclude baptizing infants.



Brennan,
Please allow me to challenge certain premises.

In the first place, its clear (in the above post) that you aren't distinguishing between the _substance_ (spiritual) and _administration_ (visible) of divine covenant, at least with respect to the New Covenant. If you acknowledge this, then you stand firmly in the Baptist tradition, which does not confess an earthly, temporal administration of the New Covenant; but only a spiritual and immediate administration.

Most Baptists I know do believe in something akin to a dual (internal/external) administration of previous covenants (e.g. Abraham, Moses); but according to Baptist theology, any external administration demanded was due to the absence of covenant fulfillment in Christ. And in their view, this defect was remedied in the New Covenant enactment. Classic covenant theology (CT) views this perspective as "overrealized eschatology," i.e., we aren't in heaven yet.

CT interprets *all* the covenants as being made _exclusively_ between God and *believers*, insofar as the realization of the blessings thereof. What we mean is that those who are "blessed with faithful Abraham" are always and only those who shared in the faith of Abraham. There weren't and aren't any real, eternal blessings for anyone, no matter how closely associated administratively with a particular covenant they are, who do not have the spiritual substance.

The corresponding interpretation regarding covenant-curses fits the CT scheme as follows: those who do not inherit the blessing with Abraham are those who are unbelievers. That is to say, those who instead receive the judgments of the covenant are those whose participation was limited to the external administration. Ishmael, Esau, many Israelites who died in the wilderness, Saul, Absalom, Jeroboam, Ahab, many Israelites whose wickedness brought on the exile--the list of the faithless is long.


You claim that our New Covenant duty is to "make intense effort" at including in our visible _presentation_ of New Covenant realities only verbal confessors--those who witness their voluntary opt-in attachment to this covenant. Simply depending on a personal statement doesn't seem to fit the definition of "intense effort" (not that I think Scripture calls for it); but I am aware that some Baptist churches do not baptize immediately upon profession of faith, but after a waiting period of some time--months or years--in an effort to see fruit of the initial profession.

Personally, I question the validity of any attempt to read the heart, whether short or long term. Presbyterians baptize mature converts upon their initial profession, usually with a brief period of catechesis (basic Christian instruction) beforehand; but generally grant the judgment of charity to the convert, that they have repented/abandoned known sin, or will do so upon further instruction (submission to discipline). If in your practical history the habit I've just described is essentially the method you know from your Baptist past, then I think that "intense effort" may be too strong a description.

Perhaps you mean that it _seems_ as if the Baptist credo-only practice is (somewhat) more rigorous than a Presbyterian's, given that an infant cannot volunteer to join this covenant, or protest his inclusion. But this observation is only meaningful _after_ one has determined that the credo-only practice exclusively warranted by Scripture. As far as practical evidence goes, I can only declare that upon considering typical baptismal-rites alone, if the USA is any reliable indicator: the practice of credo-only baptism does not increase one whit the likelihood that a particular church will be marked by faithfulness. If it be objected that the failure surely lies elsewhere, rather than in the baptismal practice; then that objection must also be granted to the Presbyterian.


The Presbyterian will generally agree with you, of course, in the idealized proposal: "we want to [ensure] that the actual condition of the Church resembles the legal constitution of the Church as closely as possible." The question is: how are we to *ensure* this is the case? Is it by _preemptively_ exercising exclusionary discipline on the children of believers, and waiting on a cognitive exercise of their will before discipling (disciplining) them as members?

We might ask the question another way: Is church membership more like an enlistment (Baptist), or more like a citizenship (Presbyterian)? In the Presbyterian understanding of the covenants, God visibly included children of believers in the church _explicitly_ in Gen.17, although we would see the reality going back to Gen.4. And he has not (so far as Presbyterians know it) put them out--preemptively disciplined them--and therefore they remain in, as minor citizens.

So as your post indicates (where I *bolded* your statements), according to the Baptist commitments you've grown up with, you believe that the best way to _not-quite-guarantee-but-come-close-to_ a pure earthly expression of believers in union with one another in Christ, is to insist on 100% verbally expressed testimony to a preexisting spiritual faith union with Christ.

The Presbyterian (at least, the non-establishmentarian kind) will also insist on not-including under the church's constitution (and discipline) anyone of-age to make his own decisions, who does not profess the true religion. But I must continue to challenge the claim that the credo-only practice is inherently superior to the (confessional) paedobaptist practice for the purpose of reflecting spiritual reality. If the Presbyterian "errs" on the side of _inclusivity,_ he at least is able to support his practice by an appeal to the prescribed "inclusivity" of the historic (OT) church, leaving aside the disputed NT data. If the Baptist "errs" on the side of _exclusivity,_ he must admit his practice leaves out of the picture a fair number of God's forever-children (minors who are actually being disciplined in the faith, unless their spiritual formation is grossly neglected), while including an equal number of of false-sons in the portrayal.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Logan said:


> then you can't avoid the problem of baptizing those who eventually are apostate. The idea that only people who are truly regenerated can be baptized is impossible to adhere perfectly to (that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try, if that is God's command).



I don’t consider the baptism of possible apostates a problem to be honest (from a credo position). We are commanded to preach the Gospel and to baptize those who profess faith. If by obedience to that command we unwittingly baptize false professors, what is that to us? If these false professors reveal their true colors, as likely they ultimately will, they will be (or should be) disciplined and ultimately cast out of the church. Their false profession and subsequent baptism does not alter the Biblical doctrine of regenerate membership or baptism. Both sides agree that baptism as an outward sign does not prove inward regeneration has already taken place. The point is, that those who practice infant baptism knowingly admit into fellowship (of the visible church) those who are not (or certainly cannot demonstrate that they are by confessing with their mouth etc) born again of the Spirit and call those babes members of the New Covenant. This is contrary to what Scripture teaches us about the New Covenant. Nobody’s first birth admits them into the New Covenant. Only the new birth does this. 


Logan said:


> Additionally, if it is the "covenant sign" then the arguments against baptizing children could be raised against circumcising children.



Who would dare to raise an argument against God’s plain commands? 
Circumcision was plainly commanded by God. He gave clear instructions as to whom it was to be applied to and when. Nobody was left guessing as to who should receive it or what it meant etc. To presume that baptism is to be applied in the exact same way as circumcision is to read into Scripture what simply is not there. Circumcision was a cutting of the flesh to denote a fleshly belonging to a physical and temporary nation. Baptism symbolizes a spiritual washing and a belonging to a spiritual and eternal nation. ‘An inheritance incorruptible!'




Logan said:


> Both are given as signs of the covenant, signify membership, cleansing from sin, repentance, etc. Paul even calls believers in the NT the "circumcision". People focusing on the "new covenant" like to try to emphasize the differences, but there are really more similarities between the old and the new than they are often willing to admit



Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant. A Covenant which included blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. ‘Do this and live, disobey and die.’ It did not signify cleansing from sin or repentance. It simply set apart a physical nation to God using a physical sign. The vast majority of Old Covenant Jews were dead in their transgressions. 

What would there be to rejoice in, anymore than the Jews of old, if baptism only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community? Baptism symbolizes our burial with Christ and our having been raised up with Him, through faith, to new life! Our old life has been buried/put to death and we have, through faith, put on new life in Him. (Col. 2:12, Romans 6:4) In this there is so much more to rejoice in. Circumcision meant only that a Jew came under the law. The full condemnation of that law. 

The focus on the New Covenant being new and different is a Biblical one. The differences are glorious. The differences are worthy of our continual thanksgiving and praise to our Savior! The differences prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are wholly inconsistent with a mixed covenant community. Rather than a nation of people who were primarily stiff necked and rebellious, not loving God or His law, under the New Covenant, every single member would know God, love His law, know full remission of sins and willingly follow their Lord and Savior. I make no apology for centering upon differences as glorious as these.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Jack K said:


> I don't see any scriptural evidence that in this era we are instructed to more rigorously "vet" those who would enter the covenant community than God's people did in Old Testament times. If anything, the main thrust of Scripture is that now the gates are flung open and all may come to Jesus. It would seem strange if under the New Covenant God's community is more open than it used to be for adults, but now has new restrictions that didn't exist before for the children of God's people.



Membership of the New Covenant is 100% a Sovereign choice. It isn’t for us to ‘vet’ anybody insofar as true covenant membership is concerned. We are simply instructed to be faithful to the commands of Christ (preach the Gospel, baptize those who profess faith , purge the church of false teachings/false teachers/those who are impenitent etc). 

All may come to Jesus Christ, on the condition of their repentance and faith. Not on condition of their physical birth or any other external circumstance. I am not shutting my children out of the New Covenant. I am urging them into it, but ultimately, God’s Sovereign choice and grace alone will save my children’s souls and unite them with Christ, in true covenant with Him. Not my faith. Not their physical birth. Not membership of a local church. Christ alone!


----------



## JSauer

Jo, I would be interested to hear how you would answer the question I posed to the original poster:

Why weren't children of believers required to make a profession of faith in the Old Testament before they received the sign of the covenant of grace (circumcision)?


----------



## mccaffertyb7

Jack K said:


> Anyway, that's how this paedobaptist thinks. I hope it helps you. I do much work with kids at my Baptist church, so obviously I don't think these points are absolute essentials for cooperation with others. And I find with most Baptists that as they understand where I'm coming from, they find the position is not as unthinkable as they once thought.



Thank you Jack. This is exactly what I was hoping to accomplish by starting this thread. I'm really just trying to get a better grasp of the paedobaptist position, and your contributions have been helpful. I'm at the point right now where I've questioned my Baptist roots enough that I don't feel confident to call myself a Reformed Baptist. But I wouldn't say I'm _fully_ convinced of the paedobaptist position yet. It is very helpful for me to see the Presbyterian response to the typical Reformed Baptist arguments.


----------



## Jack K

mccaffertyb7 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, that's how this paedobaptist thinks. I hope it helps you. I do much work with kids at my Baptist church, so obviously I don't think these points are absolute essentials for cooperation with others. And I find with most Baptists that as they understand where I'm coming from, they find the position is not as unthinkable as they once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jack. This is exactly what I was hoping to accomplish by starting this thread. I'm really just trying to get a better grasp of the paedobaptist position, and your contributions have been helpful. I'm at the point right now where I've questioned my Baptist roots enough that I don't feel confident to call myself a Reformed Baptist. But I wouldn't say I'm _fully_ convinced of the paedobaptist position yet. It is very helpful for me to see the Presbyterian response to the typical Reformed Baptist arguments.
Click to expand...


Thank you. And do listen to Bruce, in particular, as well. His insight into these issues is far beyond my own.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Hi Brennan,

You are getting a lot of answers from paedobaptists, but ultimately I think you'd also be blessed by hearing the credobaptist side.

Please feel free to take a moment to look at this link and see if perhaps some of your questions might be addressed. It's a quick read. Not at all exhaustive, but quite instructive.

Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

Also, if you can bear this commentary, I notice that you seem to be trying VERY HARD to force yourself to see the paedo side. It's almost as if for some reason you feel that you "must" fall in line with that, but haven't been convinced yet.

I might point out that this is not the best tactic to use for self-instruction. To be honest, I went the same route once. I desperately tried to convince myself that paedobaptism was biblical, and ultimately it fall apart under proper scrutiny.

Now, the more I read about it the more obvious the flaws seem to be. It's like people trying to use cunning methods to prove that 0 = -1 or something. The proofs are all sound, but once you look at the premises and axioms that are relied upon, the logic falls to the ground.


----------



## Logan

Jo,

Unfortunately, in "dissecting" my statements I feel as though you've missed the big picture I was trying to paint. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate here and in the interest of allowing the OP the topic, I will bow out. But please do keep in mind that I myself used many of the same arguments you are using. I think the foundational difference is views of the covenants and perhaps what circumcision means. You've said that circumcision did not signify cleansing or repentance but was merely a physical sign for physical people. I don't think that is sound and it might be a profitable study to look into how circumcision is talked about in the Old and New Testaments.

E.g., John Gill on Genesis 17:11
"[physical circumcision] was also an emblem of spiritual circumcision, or circumcision of the heart, which ties in the putting off the body of sin, in renouncing man's own righteousness, and in his being by the grace of God, and blood of Christ, cleansed from the impurity of his nature, propagated by carnal generation, in which the member circumcised has a principal concern."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hemustincrease said:


> We are commanded to preach the Gospel and to baptize those who profess faith.


Precisely, we're *commanded* (via imperatives) to preach the gospel (Mk.16:15); and _make disciples_ (Mt.28:19), which is by baptizing and teaching (participles of means).




Hemustincrease said:


> If by obedience to [that] command we unwittingly baptize false professors, what is that to us?


This is essentially the Presbyterian position as well, which simply thrusts the question back to its proper beginning, which is: who are the proper subjects? How is that to be determined? Presbyterians (as much as Baptists) appeal to Scripture for their answer.




Hemustincrease said:


> those who practice infant baptism knowingly admit into fellowship (of the visible church) those who are not (or certainly cannot demonstrate that they are by confessing with their mouth etc) born again of the Spirit and call those babes members of the New Covenant.


Precisely, your contention is that _we don't know the spiritual nature of some of those *(viz. infants)* whom we baptize._ Allow me to take this one step further, and say quite clearly: We don't know the spiritual nature of ANY person whom we baptize, of any age or by any profession.

Because we distinguish between the substance (inward/spiritual) of the covenant, and the administration (external/visible) of the covenant, we are able to identify everyone under the care and discipline of the church as "members." Nor is it worthwhile to erect a hard divide between Covenant, and Church as the proper sphere of covenant activity.




Hemustincrease said:


> Nobody’s first birth admits them into the New Covenant. Only the new birth does this.


It's your choice to merge, or identify 1:1, both spiritual substance of the New Covenant and its visible administration (if you admit of any). But if you want to persuade a Presbyterian he's wrong, you will have to undermine his ostensible Scripture-supports for dividing the two ideas.




Hemustincrease said:


> To presume that baptism is to be applied in the exact same way as circumcision is to read into Scripture what simply is not there.


This is just the point of contention, and has to be (repeatedly) argued for, and not simply asserted (i.e. begging the question). It's obvious that this is your firm conviction, and that you do not understand (or see) what the Presbyterian alleges (thinks) is plainly witnessed by the text.




Hemustincrease said:


> Circumcision was a cutting of the flesh to denote a fleshly belonging to a physical and temporary nation. Baptism symbolizes a spiritual washing and a belonging to a spiritual and eternal nation. ‘An inheritance incorruptible!'


This is a very truncated perspective on both circumcision and baptism. I don't like to tout my own contributions, but here is a much more complete presentation of the available evidence, regardless of what conclusions anyone reaches on the basis of it: The PuritanBoard - Circumcision and Baptism revisited




Hemustincrease said:


> Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant. A Covenant which included blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. ‘Do this and live, disobey and die.’ It did not signify cleansing from sin or repentance. It simply set apart a physical nation to God using a physical sign. The vast majority of Old Covenant Jews were dead in their transgressions.


It isn't my purpose to convince you that the Sinai Covenant was spiritual at the core, rather than being chiefly about the showy accidents of it. But you should understand that most Presbyterians covenant-theologians are not impressed with any claim that circumcision merely set apart a physical nation to God using physical means. According (explicitly) to Paul and to the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, Abraham and Moses _et al._ were fully capable of recognizing, and did recognize, the true, spiritual dimensions of the covenants to which they were parties. Outward signs always point to inward realities.

And however many Old Covenant Israelites were believers and unbelievers across their generations--which surely must have fluctuated mightily over the centuries and circumstances--no human being is actually in any position to say whether it was a minority, a majority, or a vast majority _in toto_ who were always dead in their transgressions. We may have our suspicions and suppositions, but regardless of them: Israel was the visible church, and faithful in greater or lesser degrees over the 1500yrs of the national incorporation.




Hemustincrease said:


> What would there be to rejoice in, anymore than the Jews of old, if baptism only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community?


Indeed. And what joy or honor would there be if circumcision only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community? Anyone who accepted it solely on that basis was sure to inherit nothing but the curses that accompanied it. Of course, CT also teaches that there are curses (not merely blessings) associated with the New Covenant, Heb.10:29 for instance and elsewhere in that covenant-treatise. Again, for those who are attached to the Substance (Christ) of the New Covenant, he provides them full protection from the Judgment. But for any who "insult the Spirit of Grace," they will certainly partake of an even more severe retribution than those who rejected Moses (v28).




Hemustincrease said:


> The differences prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are wholly inconsistent with a mixed covenant community. Rather than a nation of people who were primarily stiff necked and rebellious, not loving God or His law, under the New Covenant, every single member would know God, love His law, know full remission of sins and willingly follow their Lord and Savior.


And of course, this cannot be found anywhere on earth this side of heaven. Do you really think of your church as being filled with people who are *not* primarily stiff necked and rebellious? Wasn't it the error of the Pharisees to disassociate themselves with the guilt of others in their company, and of their fathers?

What I mean is, that the OT church was obliged to view themselves under both an eschatological aspect (holy and righteous), as well as a temporal aspect (sinful and rebellious). The Pharisees in Jesus day were misguided "puritans," focused on themselves exclusively under the ideal perspective. Hence the great disparity between the prayer of the Pharisee and the Publican, Lk.18:9ff. And the same holds true for the NT church. We have to view ourselves under both aspects--ideal *and* marred. And as long as we are still in the world, the _imperfect_ ought to be the "thorn in our flesh" that will not be relieved in any way other than by lives of constant prayer to God for relief and strength, and repentance.

Our primary perspective of the church on earth will be either: as 
1) a *perfect* (heavenly) gathering of *imperfect* people--nothing but sinners here, and a pretty mixed bag of them; or as 
2) an *imperfect* (earthly) gathering of *perfect* people--"sure" saints, folks we're pretty confident are going to heaven with us.
_[addendum: there's obviously a couple other ways to combine those *bold* terms, but these are the two most common and theologically significant]_


----------



## mccaffertyb7

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> You are getting a lot of answers from paedobaptists, but ultimately I think you'd also be blessed by hearing the credobaptist side.
> 
> Please feel free to take a moment to look at this link and see if perhaps some of your questions might be addressed. It's a quick read. Not at all exhaustive, but quite instructive.
> 
> Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism



Thanks Sean. I've read Waldron and listened to Samuel Renihan and Richard Barcellos talk about the issue. So, I'm fairly familiar with the credobaptist side. Just trying to think through the issue and look at it from both sides.


----------



## Hemustincrease

JSauer said:


> Jo, I would be interested to hear how you would answer the question I posed to the original poster:
> 
> Why weren't children of believers required to make a profession of faith in the Old Testament before they received the sign of the covenant of grace (circumcision)?



They were not required to profess faith, because entrance into the Old Covenant was by natural birth not spiritual. Entrance into the New Covenant is not circumcision of the flesh (or water baptism) but the circumcision of the heart which is entirely a gracious work of the Spirit which can and must be confessed before men. 

Under the New Covenant, all that counts for anything before God, is the work of the Holy Spirit. Every blessing and privilege of the New Covenant is contingent upon our ‘being in Christ’. 

Circumcision admitted a person into the external blessings/privileges of the Old (natural) Covenant. It did not bring them ‘into Christ’. It did not afford them any New Covenant blessings. These things came about then, as they come about now, through a work of the Holy Spirit, not through any outward sign or symbol and not through natural birth. The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace. It was a legal covenant. ‘Do this and live. Disobey and die’. 

Water baptism, without a prior Baptism of the Spirit avails nothing. It cannot and does not give any baby entrance into the New Covenant anymore than being born to a Christian gives them entrance into it. It points to (or should) the gracious, inner work of the Holy Spirit, not to the natural and external circumstances of a baby.

‘Unless ye be born again........’ 

To be part of the New Covenant (whether Jew or Gentile) we must be His seed. Born again of the Spirit. *Spiritual seed.* To consider the children born of our own natural seed to be automatically under the same gracious Covenant as those who are ‘born of God’ is to elevate natural man and his progeny in a way which does the very opposite of exalting Christ and the work of the Spirit in bringing forth, by means of ‘second birth’ true spiritual progeny. 

There are two lots of people in this world according to Scripture. 
1.Those who have been born physically yet never born again of the Spirit and so are outside of the covenant of grace. (This includes many circumcised Jews who were under the Old Covenant as well as many people today who were baptized as a baby.)
2. Those who have been born again of the Spirit of God and so are under the covenant of grace and eternally secure in Christ. 

A person is either fully under grace or fully outside of it!

However, according to those who practice Infant Baptism there must be some additional category. Some kind of earthly purgatory where their children wait until either Christ saves them or they prove themselves apostate? 
Do they have enough of the righteousness of Christ (somehow conferred upon them through natural seed) to be brought into His Baptism, but not quite enough to count them as His blood bought people? Are they buried with Him in His baptism but not yet raised up to new life?


----------



## Hemustincrease

Logan said:


> You've said that circumcision did not signify cleansing or repentance but was merely a physical sign for physical people. I don't think that is sound and it might be a profitable study to look into how circumcision is talked about in the Old and New Testaments.



Circumcision of the heart (which physical circumcision pointed to, for those who had spiritual eyes to see) did and does indeed signify cleansing and repentance. One who is circumcised inwardly is one who is ‘born again’ of the Spirit. One who was circumcised physically was not necessarily ‘born again’ of the Spirit. The outward circumcision meant only that they were members of physical Israel.

Obviously, these differences can’t be easily chewed out on a forum such as this, but I hold this subject to be so hugely important and essential to a proper understanding and grasp of the Gospel, that I felt it reasonable to enter into a discussion which by it’s very nature, will be impossible to reach the end of.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Contra_Mundum said:


> But you should understand that most Presbyterians covenant-theologians are not impressed with any claim that circumcision merely set apart a physical nation to God using physical means.


I do understand that and it grieves me greatly, because it is not my claim or anybody else’s that they are not impressed with. It is the truth of God. (I speak of physical circumcision, not circumcision of the heart.)


Contra_Mundum said:


> According (explicitly) to Paul and to the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, Abraham and Moses et al. were fully capable of recognizing, and did recognize, the true, spiritual dimensions of the covenants to which they were parties. Outward signs always point to inward realities.


Are you suggesting that every single circumcised Jew (who had received the outward sign) had spiritual eyes (also received the inward reality of faith/grace)? It wouldn’t appear so from what you continue to say, so what is meant by ’outward signs always point to inward realities? Are you speaking generally? If so, I would agree. Or are you speaking individually (see again the first sentence of this paragraph)? You admit that not all Israel were regenerate. In other words (or in Reformed Baptist words, to be specific ) not all physical Israel were spiritual Israel, yet the true church, the body of Christ is 100% spiritual Israel. Is it possible for one to be under grace and to also perish under condemnation? I do not believe that it is. One cannot be under grace and under condemnation at the same time. Either they are justified (by grace, through faith) or they are not.
Yes, Abraham and Moses had faith. Circumcision of the flesh did not bring that about. Circumcision of the heart granted them spiritual eyes. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> Israel was the visible church, and faithful in greater or lesser degrees over the 1500yrs of the national incorporation.



Israel was not the visible church ) and herein lies the main reason we differ of course) and was not (as a nation) faithful but faithless. Israel was a physical nation, redeemed from a physical country and then given a legal covenant to live under. It foreshadowed and pointed to a better covenant with better promises (spiritual redemption and a gracious covenant for a spiritual Israel) but physical Israel was not one and the same as spiritual Israel. She was not the redeemed body of believers which God’s dealings with her foreshadowed. Were there members of the body of Christ, the true spiritual Israel, within her borders? Absolutely. But primarily, physical Israel was faithless, wholly unable to keep the terms of the legal covenant (as any who ever lived would equally fail, apart from grace) made with her at Sinai and as such suffered the curses God promised would take place as a result of her disobedience and unbelief. The Gospel was preached to Israel and some were truly redeemed, but for many their redemption was physical and temporary.


Contra_Mundum said:


> And what joy or honor would there be if circumcision only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community? Anyone who accepted it solely on that basis was sure to inherit nothing but the curses that accompanied it.



Absolutely! Only those with true faith would ever see the real blessings of God’s covenant with physical Israel. Yet of course, most of Israel did not care about the blessings or the curses...... until a curse was upon them of course! Some even agreed to be circumcised so they could marry the daughters of Israel.......they were not thinking about God’s blessings or curses! Others actually believed they were keeping the law and dared to suggest to God that He was cursing them unjustly! The greatest blessing of being under the Old Covenant was the fact that they had the Gospel preached to them. They had the opportunity to repent from their miserable efforts at keeping the law and trust in a Messiah who would one day come to die in their stead and be the Author of a New and better, a gracious covenant, sealing it with His own blood!

The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace. However, it was indeed gracious of God to set aside a chosen physical nation and to impart to them His truth and instruct them in the way of salvation. But as Scripture tells us, most ignored His warnings, rejected His way of salvation and chose to stake their flag with pagans and idolators.


Contra_Mundum said:


> Originally Posted by Hemustincrease
> The differences prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are wholly inconsistent with a mixed covenant community. Rather than a nation of people who were primarily stiff necked and rebellious, not loving God or His law, under the New Covenant, every single member would know God, love His law, know full remission of sins and willingly follow their Lord and Savior.
> And of course, this cannot be found anywhere on earth this side of heaven. Do you really think of your church as being filled with people who are not primarily stiff necked and rebellious?


I believe that Spiritual Israel, who are the true church/body of Christ are exactly what God prophesied they would be through Jeremiah. (Which God tells us would be strikingly different to the physical nation of Israel.) They all know God. They all have His law written upon their hearts. They all enjoy the blessing of the full remission of their sins. I believe that they are all ‘new creations’ in Christ Jesus. That they were buried with Him through baptism and raised again to ‘new’ life, through faith. I believe what God tells me in His Word. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> The Pharisees in Jesus day were misguided "puritans," focused on themselves exclusively under the ideal perspective. Hence the great disparity between the prayer of the Pharisee and the Publican, Lk.18:9ff. And the same holds true for the NT church.



I don’t recall our Lord describing the Pharisees in such gracious terms. He did not tell them they were merely misguided. He rebuked them as hypocrites whose hearts were far from God and plainly told them that their father was not Abraham, but the devil! The disparity is not some minor misunderstanding. The former was not ‘misguided’ but utterly blind. The difference was quite evidently ‘grace’.

P.S I apologize for the repetitive nature of the last three of my posts, this included. I answered Jesse’s question and posted it before I saw the other two posts directed at my previous responses.


----------



## Logan

Hemustincrease said:


> The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace. It was a legal covenant. ‘Do this and live. Disobey and die’.



I'm concerned that you're espousing a theology that your baptist forebears would have not.



1689 London Chapter 7 said:


> 1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make *a covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> 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, until the full discovery thereof was completed 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 the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.



Circumcision was instituted for Abraham, the father of the faithful, according to Paul. And it was not only for physical descendants: those foreigners wishing to join Israel were also to be circumcised so they could partake in things such as the Passover. Circumcision did not guarantee salvation any more than baptism does.

Moreover, you've repeatedly made the claim that the "New Covenant" is different because everyone belonging to it is really saved. Was this not true of national Israel as well? I know you're not saying that those who were part of the "covenant community" in Israel were all saved, so wherein lies the difference between then and now? Was there not a visible and invisible church then as there is now? Have the labels merely changed? If you think so, you're arguing semantics.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Logan said:


> 'm concerned that you're espousing a theology that your baptist forebears would have not.



I appreciate your concern, but (and surely Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress demonstrates as clearly as anything outside of Scripture that I am at least in a minority of two and what great company he is ) I am primarily striving to hold to the truth of Scripture, even if that disagrees with some (but by no means all) of those good and Godly men who have gone before. 




Logan said:


> Moreover, you've repeatedly made the claim that the "New Covenant" is different because everyone belongto it is really saved. Was this not true of national Israel as well?



All physical Israel were physically redeemed out of Egypt. However, all physical Israel were not redeemed out of their far greater spiritual problem, slavery to sin. 


Logan said:


> I know you're not saying that those who were part of the "covenant community" in Israel were all saved, so wherein lies the difference between then and now? Was there not a visible and invisible church then as there is now? Have the labels merely changed? If you think so, you're arguing semantics.



No, there wasn’t a visible and an invisible church (in the way I think you and other paedobaptists mean). There was a 100% regenerate spiritual Israel then just as there is now. Not all physical Israel were saved (from sin) but all Spiritual Israel (the true church) were most certainly saved (from sin) then just as they are now and always will be. (I hope I am not totally misunderstanding your question??? Apologies if I am.)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I think what helped me through all of this, after reading everything I could from the Reformed Baptist Institute guys, was their lack of covenantal distinction. First, a study of Hebrews will clearly go against the idea of a believer/non-believer distinction. More precisely, scripture is written in a covenant keeper/ covenant breaker distinction. Hebrews 10 clearly points that "The Lord will judge *HIS* people." If all are believers in the new covenant, then how could the writer of Hebrews consistently say that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" toward HIS own people? There are a numerous other places, but I think Hebrews 10 hits the hardest. Also, you ask specifically the question how all will know the Lord in the new covenant in Jeremiah and that no one will have to teach one another. Here you ask the question with presuppositions. You claim you are trying to understand, but asking the question from a baptist stand point (even though you go to a PCA church). Hebrews 8 interprets Jeremiah at this point. Hebrews 8 is making a clear distinction between the Mosaic Covenant and The New which has come because Christ has come. I cannot add anything really to this discussion other then saying that there is a here/not yet distinction within what Jeremiah is proclaiming.

I'd also like to add that both passages has nothing to do with baptism. Rather, it is speaking about covenant administrations.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jo,
Because I sense it is to little purpose pursuing this exchange (I'm not trying to change your mind; just attempting to accurately describe what Confessional Presbyterians believe, and dispel the myths some have imbibed), I'm not going to keep responding at length. See below for briefly addressing some of your questions/comments.

Both you and I recognize that a change of view would require a complete revolution in our respective methods of biblical interpretation. I'm not going to start the process of interpretation in Matthew; you aren't (likely) going to start the process in Genesis. I typically discourage investigators from using such practical matters (e.g. baptismal questions) as the driving impulse of their faith-pursuit. Admitting infant baptism (or credo-only) should be the _practical result,_ the _conclusion_ of one's theological commitment. We should avoid wherever possible having a practice that seeks justification.



Hemustincrease said:


> Are you suggesting that every single circumcised Jew (who had received the outward sign) had spiritual eyes (also received the inward reality of faith/grace)? It wouldn’t appear so from what you continue to say, so what is meant by ’outward signs always point to inward realities? Are you speaking generally? If so, I would agree. Or are you speaking individually (see again the first sentence of this paragraph)? You admit that not all Israel were regenerate. In other words (or in Reformed Baptist words, to be specific ) not all physical Israel were spiritual Israel, yet the true church, the body of Christ is 100% spiritual Israel. Is it possible for one to be under grace and to also perish under condemnation? I do not believe that it is. One cannot be under grace and under condemnation at the same time. Either they are justified (by grace, through faith) or they are not. Yes, Abraham and Moses had faith. Circumcision of the flesh did not bring that about. Circumcision of the heart granted them spiritual eyes.


Since you are wise enough to recognize your initial question is already answered by the rest of what I wrote, then I will move on to the subsequent series. The statement: "outward signs always point to inward realities," could have been stated, "...spiritual realities," but perhaps the confusion would still obtain. Naturally, it is a general more than a specific (individually applicable in every case) statement. And you do well to agree in that sense, because you assuredly believe that one purpose behind a mature professor's baptism is to have the outward symbol of identity match the inward reality that should be (but isn't always!) present.

But let me also grant one of our (probable) disagreements here. Because Baptists believe that evidence of an active faith must be antecedently present for a valid baptism, baptism is conceived by Baptists in the principal place as a word from man to God and other men, the "answer" referred to in 1Pet.3:21. Presbyterians do not deny that an answer is present or due from the baptized; but we believe that God speaks first in (not just prior to) baptism, as in everything else religious. Presbyterians say that in the principal place, baptism is a word from God to men, and also to this man (the one being baptized).

Because we are Reformed, we say that baptism is a _conditional_ statement, God declaring: "_*IF*_ you believe the gospel, your sins will be forgiven (cleansed) and you will have everlasting life." We don't believe the divine declaration is: _"*On account that* you are..."_ saved, baptized, or etc.

Because we don't agree with the Baptist contention that 100% of proper recipients of baptism must witness their own antecedent faith, we don't think an infant so baptized has had a false word spoken to him in this way. The statement is a true conditional statement, no matter who it be spoken over; and so also for this reason we do not re-baptize anyone, whether baptized old or young, if they have for a time fallen away and return, maybe even never actually believed earlier. Because God's word still stands, 2Tim.2:19, and "Let God be true, but every man a liar," Rom.3:4.

And we believe that the same basic idea behind NT ordinances stands back of the OT ordinances, such as circumcision; which is reflected in the heart-circumcision notion already present in Moses' (the earliest biblical) witness. To us, this is sufficient proof that spiritual notions have never been cut off from ritual practice, as long as our religion has existed (from the beginning of time).


I'm not asking you to consent to the truth of what I've said, other than to agree that I've represented both your Baptist beliefs and my Presbyterian beliefs in a respectful and faithful way. You should agree that what I've presented for my side is actual Westminsterian doctrine and the basis we assert for it, and give up any fictions alleged about our beliefs contrary to what we confess. It doesn't matter if unConfessional Presbyterians teach otherwise. Or if Romanists, Anglicans, Lutherans, or others make alternative claims.

I can find various Baptist-types who believe various things about baptism that you would dissent from as well. Church-of-Christ practice comes to mind, as well as those who authorize a literally endless series of (re)baptisms, in an effort to get the timing correct. You have a right to be judged by the content/claims of your Confession, and so do I.


If you have questions I haven't answered, and would like them addressed, I will not abandon the discussion. However, I repeat that I have no desire to "correct" your position, but only to eliminate myths about what Presbyterians believe and why, making corrections of that sort.

Blessings,


----------



## Hemustincrease

Contra_Mundum said:


> Both you and I recognize that a change of view would require a complete revolution in our respective methods of biblical interpretation. I'm not going to start the process of interpretation in Matthew; you aren't (likely) going to start the process in Genesis. I typically discourage investigators from using such practical matters (e.g. baptismal questions) as the driving impulse of their faith-pursuit. Admitting infant baptism (or credo-only) should be the practical result, the conclusion of one's theological commitment. We should avoid wherever possible having a practice that seeks justification.



I absolutely agree that it is not a demonstration of wisdom to begin with a practice and then go to Scripture to seek justification for it. Pretty much anything can be ‘proven’ by doing that. So far as where I would begin.....the beginning is always '_a very good place to start_’ and certainly has been where the Lord has had me begin doctrinal studies, not to mention the more general daily Bible reading. 

I do appreciate your non combative approach and thank you for the respectful manner you have taken towards what is a significantly different belief to your own.


----------



## JSauer

Bruce & Randy,

I am completely open to having my position corrected. It seemed like Randy wasn't in agreement with what I was saying at the beginning of this post and wanted Bruce to explain. Was anything I said out of accord with what confessional Presbyterians believe?

I remember a couple years ago when I was trying to grasp these issues and I was getting a lot of information dumped on me and in an effort to keep things simple I hope I'm not oversimplifying them.


----------



## timmopussycat

JSauer said:


> It seems like there are two options:
> 
> 1) there is no longer any need to teach our neighbor because we all know God
> 2) there is need to teach our neighbor to know God
> 
> So unless there is another option we haven't reached this level of fulfillment.



This is only true if the word "know" means that kind of knowledge in which we know someone exhaustively. Unfortunately the Hebrew word we translate "know" has a considerably wider range of meaning than that. The range runs from the intimate knowledge of husband and wife (Gen. 4:1), to intellectual deductions (Gen.8:11), intellectual knowledge or lack thereof (Gen.31:32), and personal acquaintance (1 Sam 10:1). 

And personal acquaintance has various depths, for example, I may know a colleague at work slightly, but not as well as I know my best friend whom I know very well indeed and whose character has become known to me from walking through various crises together. 

In Jer. 31:34 and its context, we are not given anything to define the sense of the word "know" beyond that of general personal acquaintance. And certainly anyone in Christ does know the Lord in this general sense. But since the Lord is not physically present with us today, in his mercy he gives both Scripture and teachers so that we may more easily move on to become better acquainted with him.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation.



While infants can know the Lord as this text makes clear, it took an equally supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41) for her to discern that her infant was so filled. What is at issue for us is: what ought the church to do we do when we don't know the state of the infant?


----------



## timmopussycat

> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.
> 
> 
> Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.
Click to expand...


The exhortation, "Know the Lord" in Jer. 31:34 may not necessarily refer to the mediatorial functions of the priesthood, but may have been a challenge to an Israelite who did not know the Lord by the then available means of Scripture study, prayer and participation in the sacrificial system to start doing so. And this verse is not quoted in isolation in the NT but when we find it quoted in Hebrews it is as part of the longer passage (31-34) which outlines what the new covenant will be like.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.



Halliday's lexicon notes that the word used in Jer 31:31 is "new" (châdâsh) not "renewed" (châdash).


----------



## JSauer

Tim-- so you are saying that when "they all will know me" -- that's just a relative knowledge that all people in the church have now?

Was that not the case with the people in the desert? Or even the case with all humans according to Romans 1?

And it seems like the author of Hebrews 8 is using that passage to show that:


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.
And, 
"13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.


 
Agreed that we can get into trouble when we divide the scriptures wrongly. It is worth noting however that Jeremiah 31 seems to be part of a larger section that starts at 29:1 which seems to have taken place rather early in Zedekiah's reign. Jer. 32 on the other hand is dated to Zedekiah's tenth year, thus we may not too quickly assume that the two chapters are linked.


----------



## timmopussycat

JSauer said:


> Tim-- so you are saying that when "they all will know me" -- that's just a relative knowledge that all people in the church have now?



Yes



JSauer said:


> Was that not the case with the people in the desert?



The case of the people in the desert is not in view in Jer 31:31-4. What is in view is the case of Jeremiah's contemporaries who, with very few exceptions, did not have such awareness. 



JSauer said:


> Or even the case with all humans according to Romans 1?



While all men do have a conscience testifying of God's eternal greatness and divine nature, this is not the same thing as a personal knowledge of him. 



JSauer said:


> And it seems like the author of Hebrews 8 is using that passage to show that:
> 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.
> And,
> "13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."



That is indeed how he is using it. And that is exactly why Brennan has the problem he does. For one of those better promises is that "all shall know me from the least to the greatest."


----------



## JSauer

And I agree that there will be a time that all will know Him to the level that it won't even be necessary to have the bible or teachers. But that is not where we are at now.

If Hebrews 8 is inserting Jer. 31 and contrasting the new covenant with the one made with those in the desert, then those in the desert didn't all have this relative knowledge you speak of, correct?


----------



## timmopussycat

Logan said:


> Lastly, I wonder if you think Paul's admonition to children in Eph 6:1--3 is written to say, your children? Children in the church or just "believing" children? For my part, I am quite certain it is an admonition for all children in Christian homes at the very least, and yet the letter was addressed to the "saints" and the "faithful". Were the children considered part of the church? what is the sign of belonging to the church? Regardless as to whether you baptize your children or not, you do treat them as though they are part of the church, and expect them to live their lives as Christians. There is something different about them as opposed to children born in non-Christian homes, and for that I am thankful.



The children Eph. 6:1-3 was written to were clearly not infants. At the very least, Paul is presuming that they were old enough to understand his charge to them. Such children could well have been baptized by the early church. (May we please keep in mind that not all children are infants, and that credo Baptists are on record as baptising very young children on occasion when those children professed understanding and believing the heart of the faith.)


----------



## timmopussycat

JSauer said:


> And I agree that there will be a time that all will know Him to the level that it won't even be necessary to have the bible or teachers. But that is not where we are at now.
> 
> If Hebrews 8 is inserting Jer. 31 and contrasting the new covenant with the one made with those in the desert, then those in the desert didn't all have this relative knowledge you speak of, correct?



Not all of them would have had it. The covenant made with national Israel included both those who were true saints, born again descendants of Abraham who knew God in this sense and those who were not born again and did not know God like this. (Remember that it is possible to see a miracle take place before your eyes and not know God personally at all.) We are told that one of the differences between Old and New Covenants is that the New includes the former but not the latter.


----------



## JSauer

So you would agree with these two statements : 

the old covenant was made with people who were physical descendants of Abraham no matter if they had faith or not.

Now those who are in the covenant are only those who possess faith, but that hasn't always been the case.

My question to you is this: doesn't Paul's definition of Abrahams children in Galatians 3 disprove this? And when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again Jesus scolds him for being Israel's teacher and not knowing this. Why should Nicodemus know something that hasn't yet occurred? 

Correct me where I've misunderstood your position.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

JSauer said:


> Bruce & Randy,
> 
> I am completely open to having my position corrected. It seemed like Randy wasn't in agreement with what I was saying at the beginning of this post and wanted Bruce to explain. Was anything I said out of accord with what confessional Presbyterians believe?
> 
> I remember a couple years ago when I was trying to grasp these issues and I was getting a lot of information dumped on me and in an effort to keep things simple I hope I'm not oversimplifying them.



Jesse,
I admit I haven't read your posts with precision, probably because I assume you and I have Confessional agreement. From what I can remember seeing, I don't think I disputed your substance. You were making good attempts at providing basic guidance.

Discussing such issues is an art. It's hard to simplify without oversimplifying. It's hard to walk the line between presentation and argument, if that's where you want to be.

Communication--including listening/paying attention--is a practiced skill. I'm sure this thread will provide you with some lesson for a future conversation.

Peace,


----------



## JSauer

Thank you-- I am glad that there are precise people like yourself to help imprecise people like me. Explaining these things in a biblical way is a skill and I appreciate your example. I can't just tell everyone I meet to talk to go to Michigan and find Bruce, so I need to be able to explain these doctrines clearly.


----------



## Hemustincrease

JSauer said:


> doesn't Paul's definition of Abrahams children in Galatians 3 disprove this?



Abraham had natural seed and spiritual seed. His natural seed included those whom God ‘hated’ and ‘rejected’ (Ishmael/Esau) and those whom God set apart as a chosen people (and even amongst these special physical descendants, many were not spiritual children or heirs of the spiritual realities of the promise, but only heirs of the physical ’type’ of the better spiritual realities to come.) The promise to Abraham also included spiritual seed, namely and of pivotal importance, Christ as the promised Seed and all those who would believe upon Him (the faithful). In Adam, all sinned and came under condemnation. In Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham, all, whether Jew or Gentile (who are in Him) are set free from that condemnation and receive the fullness of the promise which physical Israel partook of the ‘type’. When people presume that the ‘type’ and the spiritual reality which that type foreshadows are one and the same, they bring in all manner of confusion. 

The true heirs of the promise are the faithful. Esau was not one of the faithful. He was not ‘chosen’ unto salvation yet he was still the natural seed of Abraham and a recipient of the natural out workings of the promise given to him. Our Lord made it very clear, that not all of the natural children of Abraham were true children. Not all were faithful. Not all were spiritual children. Not all were going to inherit the glorious spiritual fullness of the promise given to him. Some were in fact, children of the devil! God demonstrated the spiritual unimportance of natural birth in the plainest of ways. He demonstrated it in the stark difference between Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau. All four were true natural seed of Abraham, but only two received the fullness of the promise. Circumcision of the flesh gave no spiritual or gracious benefit to Esau or to Ishmael. It availeth nothing (so far as spiritual blessings or peace with God etc). The sign and seal of the gracious covenant was to be the circumcision of the heart (pointed to in the sign and seal of the legal covenant) and they (Esau/Ishmael) were ‘uncircumcised’ in that regard despite bearing the sign and seal of the national Israel.

Jesus affirms all this by telling Nicodemus that one must be ‘born again’. Nicodemus should have known this because this Gospel truth had been proclaimed all throughout the Old Covenant era. The Messiah was prophesied. The new birth was prophesied. The New Covenant was prophesied and much of the Old was a type, a shadow of the new, which ‘circumcised’ hearts would have seen and rejoiced with anticipation in. 

Those who have circumcised hearts are the true heirs of the promise! There are no children of the devil in this company. All are redeemed, blood bought children and their circumcised hearts are the sign and the seal of the New and better covenant they can rejoice in being eternally a part of. 

"_They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him._” John 8

Here Jesus tells Jews that they are not the children of Abraham, for they do not his works, but just a few verses later He says this:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

In the former He is speaking spiritually and in the latter He is speaking naturally/physically. All Jews are the natural seed of Abraham, but not all are his spiritual seed. The ‘church’ (the body of Christ) does not have any children of the devil within it. All are Christ’s. All are true spiritual seed of Abraham. All are saved by grace. Abraham understood that he would not see the greatest fulfillment of the promise in his day by any means other than spiritual eyes. He did not live to see the Messiah come in the flesh, but he understood (and rejoiced in) as one whose heart was circumcised, that only through the coming Messiah could anyone, no matter who their natural father might be, ‘know God’ and find peace with Him.


----------



## MW

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

It is not wise to be wiser than God. It is an abusing of the ordinance to act the part of God in it. It is for the Lord to manifest His purpose of grace through the means, not for men to manipulate the means to produce their own "selected-elected." It is an unkindness to elect infants to deprive them of the token of God's love in order to keep the means pure. The Lord well knows how to keep His ordinances pure in an impure world.


----------



## Hemustincrease

armourbearer said:


> "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
> 
> It is not wise to be wiser than God. It is an abusing of the ordinance to act the part of God in it. It is for the Lord to manifest His purpose of grace through the means, not for men to manipulate the means to produce their own "selected-elected." It is an unkindness to elect infants to deprive them of the token of God's love in order to keep the means pure. The Lord well knows how to keep His ordinances pure in an impure world.



Esau was an ‘elect’ infant (insofar as natural seed) and he bore the sign in his flesh, yet God hated him. If baptizing babies is one and the same as the circumcision of infants under the Old Covenant, then how is it a ‘token of God’s love’? What benefit does it confer? It did not confer spiritual blessings then and it cannot do so now. Esau was ultimately condemned along with all the uncircumcised Gentiles and Jacob was saved along with all the Gentiles whose hearts were circumcised. 

Nobody can deprive a living soul of the sign and seal of the New Covenant for it is entirely a work of grace.....not of hands!

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by _the circumcision of Christ_:” Colossians 2:11


----------



## MW

Hemustincrease said:


> Esau was an ‘elect’ infant (insofar as natural seed) and he bore the sign in his flesh, yet God hated him. If baptizing babies is one and the same as the circumcision of infants under the Old Covenant, then how is it a ‘token of God’s love’? What benefit does it confer? It did not confer spiritual blessings then and it cannot do so now. Esau was ultimately condemned along with all the uncircumcised Gentiles and Jacob was saved along with all the Gentiles whose hearts were circumcised.



Esau was not "elect" in the sense the word is being used in this thread, though I grant a temporal and conditional election to external privileges in Esau's case.

The faith of elect Jacob was nurtured under the token of grace, as is every elect infant. I do not know why you would desire to take away the children's bread lest the dogs eat of the crumbs.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Esau and Ishmael were just as much the natural seed of Abraham as Isaac and Jacob were. Yet they were not of the true circumcision. Ishmael was made into a great nation and became the father of 12 rulers. He was thus blessed as a direct result of being the natural seed of Abraham. However, neither were the spiritual seed of Abraham. 

If my children are not of the true circumcision, who has deprived them of that? Who deprived Esau? 
The outward sign was applied faithfully by Isaac, a man of faith, but God did not circumcise his heart. You may apply water to your babies, but unless God circumcises their hearts, the water will do them no more good than the circumcision of the flesh did for Esau. I am taking nothing away from my children, nor do I have the least bit of concern about dog’s eating crumbs. It bears no relevance to this subject.

I repeat:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:” Colossians 2:11


----------



## JSauer

Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant. 

Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Jer. 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." 

Rom. 4:11 "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,"



It isn't because circumcision used to be physical and now is spiritual. Just as we are baptized today outwardly, we still need to be baptized inwardly when we are regenerated, just as the Old Testament church.


----------



## MW

Hemustincrease said:


> If my children are not of the true circumcision, who has deprived them of that? Who deprived Esau?



The issue does not pertain to grace but to means of grace. Secret things belong to the Lord, the things revealed are for us and our children. The correct question is, Who has deprived them of the means of grace? In the case of Esau, no one, not even God, deprived him of the means. His sin was to despise the means and sell his birthright. It was his attitude to the means which manifested he was a profane fellow. There is no sense in depriving infants of the means in the fear they might profane them; the means of grace are the means God uses to save them from profanity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While infants can know the Lord as this text makes clear, it took an equally supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41) for her to discern that her infant was so filled. What is at issue is what ought the church to do we do when we don't know the state of the infant.
Click to expand...


I believe that is answered. We raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. We exercise the means of Grace that God commands. Part of that means is taking them to The Lord, baptizing them, and discipling them as the Gospel commands. 

Mat 19:13    Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:15    And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


Mat 28:18    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Mat 28:19    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliday's lexicon notes that the word used in Jer 31:31 is "new" (châdâsh) not "renewed" (châdash).
Click to expand...



I have heard some different explanations Tim. Some dependent upon whether or not it is in verb form or an adjective. The New Testament doesn't use the word neos (brand new) in Hebrews 8 but kainos (refresh) which signifies renewal. Pertaining to the mediator Christ is neos to the Kainos Covenant. 
Another help in understanding this would be in John 13:34. A commandment to love each other was nothing new. The commandment to love one another was not neos (brand new) but kainos (refreshed with more). Jesus added more depth to it when he said to love them as He has loved them. 


Lev 19:18    Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.


Joh 13:34    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.


Anyhow... That is how I am understanding this at this time.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While infants can know the Lord as this text makes clear, it took an equally supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41) for her to discern that her infant was so filled. What is at issue is what ought the church to do we do when we don't know the state of the infant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that is answered. We raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. We exercise the means of Grace that God commands. Part of that means is taking them to The Lord, baptizing them, and discipling them as the Gospel commands.
> 
> Mat 19:13    Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
> Mat 19:14    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
> Mat 19:15    And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
> 
> 
> Mat 28:18    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Mat 28:19    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> Mat 28:20    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Click to expand...


So we should follow Jesus command and example: i.e. don't hinder the children from coming to him and don't baptize those who don't ask?


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliday's lexicon notes that the word used in Jer 31:31 is "new" (châdâsh) not "renewed" (châdash).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard some different explanations Tim. Some dependent upon whether or not it is in verb form or an adjective. The New Testament doesn't use the word neos (brand new) in Hebrews 8 but kainos (refresh) which signifies renewal. Pertaining to the mediator Christ is neos to the Kainos Covenant.
Click to expand...


Bauer's Lexicon disagrees


BAGD on kainos said:


> . . . in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new. In such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old . . . the new covenant (several Scriptures ending with Heb. 8:8.



And the point of specific relevance to the OP is that one of 3 superiorities stated of the NC over the OC is that "all shall know me" which implies that under the OC all did not know God. 

The notion that we can postpone the day in which all in the NC come to know God via an already not yet hermeneutic stumbles at this: the superiorities of the new are specifically stated to eventuate at the making of the covenant. 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Another help in understanding this would be in John 13:34. A commandment to love each other was nothing new. The commandment to love one another was not neos (brand new) but kainos (refreshed with more). Jesus added more depth to it when he said to love them as He has loved them.
> Lev 19:18    Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
> Joh 13:34    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.



Although "kainen" is an adjective, its use in Matt. 9:17 is enough to prove it does not always carry the idea of renewing when in that form. In fact there is no example of the word's use in the NT where the context forces a rejection of "new" in favour of "renewed." John 13:34 is a perfect example of why the reading renewed cannot be proven. When Jesus added "as I have loved you to the OT command to love others, his addition creates a new command - a fact which is enough to make the known meaning "new" a sufficient fit against a claimed meaning that fails to demonstrate a better fit in any NT context in which it occurs.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed that we can get into trouble when we divide the scriptures wrongly. It is worth noting however that Jeremiah 31 seems to be part of a larger section that starts at 29:1 which seems to have taken place rather early in Zedekiah's reign. Jer. 32 on the other hand is dated to Zedekiah's tenth year, thus we may not too quickly assume that the two chapters are linked.
Click to expand...



Thanks Tim. You are correct. At the same time though I am seeing the promises in the following chapters to be very relevant and similar. God will be their God. Their hearts are turned toward the Lord. Their sin is forgiven. The difference seems to come to light in the topic of mediator and who has the privilege of knowing God and how he is known. In the Old the Levites were privileged and responsible for the people's knowledge of God. They were the mediators in that capacity. What is promised and different in the New is the mediator. Now everyone (from the least to the greatest) has direct access through Christ. Now there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Similarities are the same God declaring his ownership of a people. Forgiveness is apparent. A heart for God seems apparent. Plus, the Everlasting Covenant is pronounced as it was long before. What is apparent is what was and what is. And I believe our Children play a significant part in this. I don't see that has changed as the context in these passages have to do with the least to the greatest. 


Anyways, I hope I have helped you understand what I have seen and what I understand whether I be correct or not. I sure hope I am. ;^)


Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39    And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
Jer 32:40    And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.


Jer 33:6    Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth.
Jer 33:7    And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
Jer 33:8    And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
Jer 33:9    And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.


----------



## Hemustincrease

JSauer said:


> Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.



People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant. (It does not.) The New Covenant is made up only of those who ‘believe’ and have repented of their sin. (These are the true circumcision). Their entrance into the New Covenant is conferred upon them by the circumcision of the heart.....a work of God, not of man. Entrance into the New Covenant is not by outward sprinkling or natural birth, but by inner cleansing and spiritual new birth. 




JSauer said:


> Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."



To be buried with Him in baptism and *raised with Him through faith*, is to be circumcised in the heart, not sprinkled with water as a baby. The Biblical ordinance of water baptism which follows this circumcision of the heart, pictures that burial and the raising up with Christ from the dead. If you believe that the water baptism of babies symbolizes this (being buried with Christ and raised with Him *through faith*) then you must believe that the babies of New Covenant believers are in fact regenerate and possess that required faith, yet you have said they are not! A baby is not buried with Him and raised with Him ‘through the faith of their New Covenant parent/s’. They must first have personal faith.




JSauer said:


> Rom. 4:11 "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,"



‘as a seal of the righteousness *that he had by faith*’ Whose faith? His faith or his parents faith? 

‘to make him a f*ather of all who believe *without being circumcised’ Personal belief is essential. 

"_But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, *but of God.*_” John 1:12

"_And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,_” 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism is not a ritual or the mere removing of dirt from the flesh but is an appeal to God for a good conscience. How can a baby appeal to God for a good conscience? Baptism is the outward expression of an inward appeal to God. This can only happen when true faith is present in the one being baptized. If water baptism is applied to a baby (who cannot make this inward appeal, through personal faith) or to a false professor, then it avails absolutely nothing at all. To think otherwise would certainly appear superstitious and Peter quite plainly does away with any superstition people might have pertaining to it.


----------



## Peairtach

Hemustincrease said:


> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant. (It does not.) The New Covenant is made up only of those who ‘believe’ and have repented of their sin. (These are the true circumcision). Their entrance into the New Covenant is conferred upon them by the circumcision of the heart.....a work of God, not of man. Entrance into the New Covenant is not by outward sprinkling or natural birth, but by inner cleansing and spiritual new birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be buried with Him in baptism and *raised with Him through faith*, is to be circumcised in the heart, not sprinkled with water as a baby. The Biblical ordinance of water baptism which follows this circumcision of the heart, pictures that burial and the raising up with Christ from the dead. If you believe that the water baptism of babies symbolizes this (being buried with Christ and raised with Him *through faith*) then you must believe that the babies of New Covenant believers are in fact regenerate and possess that required faith, yet you have said they are not! A baby is not buried with Him and raised with Him ‘through the faith of their New Covenant parent/s’. They must first have personal faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rom. 4:11 "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ‘as a seal of the righteousness *that he had by faith*’ Whose faith? His faith or his parents faith?
> 
> ‘to make him a f*ather of all who believe *without being circumcised’ Personal belief is essential.
> 
> "_But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, *but of God.*_” John 1:12
> 
> "_And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,_” 1 Peter 3:21
> 
> Baptism is not a ritual or the mere removing of dirt from the flesh but is an appeal to God for a good conscience. How can a baby appeal to God for a good conscience? Baptism is the outward expression of an inward appeal to God. This can only happen when true faith is present in the one being baptized. If water baptism is applied to a baby (who cannot make this inward appeal, through personal faith) or to a false professor, then it avails absolutely nothing at all. To think otherwise would certainly appear superstitious and Peter quite plainly does away with any superstition people might have pertaining to it.
Click to expand...


You are saying that the sign, water baptism, should only be applied to those who already have the thing signified, regeneration.

The correct teaching is that the sign should be applied to those who profess faith, whether they are really regenerated or not, and their children, whether they are really regenerated it not. In those who are regenerate and those who are unregenerate, God the Holy Spirit can bless the sign to them with His Word.

You're assuming that God the Holy Spirit can only bless the sign if it's applied after someone has received the thing signified. The power and grace of God are not so limited.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Hemustincrease

Peairtach said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant. (It does not.) The New Covenant is made up only of those who ‘believe’ and have repented of their sin. (These are the true circumcision). Their entrance into the New Covenant is conferred upon them by the circumcision of the heart.....a work of God, not of man. Entrance into the New Covenant is not by outward sprinkling or natural birth, but by inner cleansing and spiritual new birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be buried with Him in baptism and *raised with Him through faith*, is to be circumcised in the heart, not sprinkled with water as a baby. The Biblical ordinance of water baptism which follows this circumcision of the heart, pictures that burial and the raising up with Christ from the dead. If you believe that the water baptism of babies symbolizes this (being buried with Christ and raised with Him *through faith*) then you must believe that the babies of New Covenant believers are in fact regenerate and possess that required faith, yet you have said they are not! A baby is not buried with Him and raised with Him ‘through the faith of their New Covenant parent/s’. They must first have personal faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JSauer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rom. 4:11 "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ‘as a seal of the righteousness *that he had by faith*’ Whose faith? His faith or his parents faith?
> 
> ‘to make him a f*ather of all who believe *without being circumcised’ Personal belief is essential.
> 
> "_But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, *but of God.*_” John 1:12
> 
> "_And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,_” 1 Peter 3:21
> 
> Baptism is not a ritual or the mere removing of dirt from the flesh but is an appeal to God for a good conscience. How can a baby appeal to God for a good conscience? Baptism is the outward expression of an inward appeal to God. This can only happen when true faith is present in the one being baptized. If water baptism is applied to a baby (who cannot make this inward appeal, through personal faith) or to a false professor, then it avails absolutely nothing at all. To think otherwise would certainly appear superstitious and Peter quite plainly does away with any superstition people might have pertaining to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying that the sign, water baptism, should only be applied to those who already have the thing signified, regeneration.
> 
> The correct teaching is that the sign should be applied to those who profess faith, whether they are really regenerated or not, and their children, whether they are really regenerated it not. In those who are regenerate and those who are unregenerate, God the Holy Spirit can bless the sign to them with His Word.
> 
> You're assuming that God the Holy Spirit can only bless the sign if it's applied after someone has received the thing signified. The power and grace of God are not so limited.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


I assume nothing. 

The correct teaching is that the New Covenant is a community of circumcised people. There is no back door for the natural born children of the true circumcision. There is one way and one way only. It is not a sprinkling with water. It is a Person and His name is Jesus. 

I rejoice in the better promises of the New Covenant and am very, very glad, that I am not merely looking forward to the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, but am living in the glorious fulfillment and blessings and reality and benefits of it today. To the one who sealed me with His blood, to become a true child of the promise, I give all the glory and to Him, I point my children. Away from all thought of natural privilege and to the necessity of the new birth.


----------



## Logan

Hemustincrease said:


> I assume nothing.
> 
> The correct teaching is that the New Covenant is a community of circumcised people. There is no back door for the natural born children of the true circumcision. There is one way and one way only. It is not a sprinkling with water. It is a Person and His name is Jesus.



Jo, I feel as though in your eagerness to argue against the confessional presbyterian position, you still have not taken the time to understand it. Both sides make assumptions. Both try very conscientiously to hold to scripture. Both seek to exalt Christ as the only way to salvation. We should be careful of talking past each other.

Do you know, for example, that our baptized children are not allowed to the communion table without a profession of faith? There is no "back door" here, as you speak of. Yet at the same time, we lay hold of God's promise to be a God to us and to our children.

Do you think you would you be able, as an exercise, to argue the presbyterian position?


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed that we can get into trouble when we divide the scriptures wrongly. It is worth noting however that Jeremiah 31 seems to be part of a larger section that starts at 29:1 which seems to have taken place rather early in Zedekiah's reign. Jer. 32 on the other hand is dated to Zedekiah's tenth year, thus we may not too quickly assume that the two chapters are linked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Tim. You are correct. At the same time though I am seeing the promises in the following chapters to be very relevant and similar. God will be their God. Their hearts are turned toward the Lord. Their sin is forgiven. The difference seems to come to light in the topic of mediator and who has the privilege of knowing God and how he is known. In the Old the Levites were privileged and responsible for the people's knowledge of God. They were the mediators in that capacity. What is promised and different in the New is the mediator. Now everyone (from the least to the greatest) has direct access through Christ. Now there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Similarities are the same God declaring his ownership of a people. Forgiveness is apparent. A heart for God seems apparent. Plus, the Everlasting Covenant is pronounced as it was long before. What is apparent is what was and what is. And I believe our Children play a significant part in this. I don't see that has changed as the context in these passages have to do with the least to the greatest.
> 
> 
> Anyways, I hope I have helped you understand what I have seen and what I understand whether I be correct or not. I sure hope I am. ;^)
> 
> Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
> Jer 32:39    And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
> Jer 32:40    And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
> Jer 33:6    Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth.
> Jer 33:7    And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
> Jer 33:8    And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
> Jer 33:9    And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.
Click to expand...


Yes the promises of the later passage reflect those present in the passage where the New Covenant is first promised and amplify it. But neither passage says anything about the mediator. What is mentioned is the conditions of the covenant itself. And on that note I need to make two points which I forgot last night.
1) Normally when a covenant comes into force all of it comes into force immediately unless a delay is expressly specified for particular provisions to take effect. Nothing is said of any delay affecting any NC provision. So all who are truly in the New Covenant must 'know God' in the sense that the writers of Jeremiah and Hebrews intended from the moment they entered the covenant.
2) Wherever the NC of Jeremiah is referred to in Hebrews, part or all of Jer. 31:31-4 is quoted. When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew". Now it is known that the NT writers feel free on occasion to make their own translations of OT texts under the leading of the Holy Spirit Had our writer thought of what happened at Calvary as a renewed covenant he could have used the word for 'renew' as Paul does in Rom. 12:2. But the writer of Hebrews translates Jeremiah "straight."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"



I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew). On the other issue I plainly see that when we take the Hebrews 8 passage and the Jeremiah 31 passages to heart the subject of better mediator is quite significant.


----------



## PaulMc

Hemustincrease said:


> I assume nothing.
> 
> The correct teaching is that the New Covenant is a community of circumcised people. There is no back door for the natural born children of the true circumcision. There is one way and one way only. It is not a sprinkling with water. It is a Person and His name is Jesus.
> 
> I rejoice in the better promises of the New Covenant and am very, very glad, that I am not merely looking forward to the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, but am living in the glorious fulfillment and blessings and reality and benefits of it today. To the one who sealed me with His blood, to become a true child of the promise, I give all the glory and to Him, I point my children. Away from all thought of natural privilege and to the necessity of the new birth.



It seems to me, reading through the points you are making, is a main point of disagreement is that the meaning of circumcision (it is a sign) is spiritual (pointing to spiritual circumcision i.e. salvation) just as the meaning of baptism is spiritual (pointing to spiritual baptism and salvation, i.e. washing of sin etc).

Regarding who is in the new covenant, the confusion in understanding seems to be that paedobaptists assume an external administration of the covenant (hence Heb 10:29 etc) as well as the true internal covenanting, which no-one would deny is with the regenerate alone. See Louis Berkhof - 'Dual Aspect of the Covenant' in his Systematic Theology for the paedo understanding of this.


----------



## PaulMc

Bruce's comparison chart of circumcision and baptism is excellent, and I also very much appreciate Randy's reposting of Matthew Winzer's explanation of the context and meaning of Hebrews 8.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew).
Click to expand...


BAGD does not give "renew" as a possible meaning for kainos in anything other than a person who has been converted in Eph 4.24, and even there the case could be argued that "new" is a better fit in a sentence where "the new self which, in the likeness of God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." As far as I know no Bible translation has translated "kainos" as "renew" anywhere in the NT. Certainly the KJV doesn't. Also the NASB and ESV definitely do not translate the word as "renew" at any point when the subject is the New Covenant. In view of this evidence, I suggest that anyone who suggests that the "kainen diatheken" should be translated "renewed covenant" has the obligation to demonstrate why the latter reading is superior. Lacking such evidence, there is a fairly strong case that translating "kainen" by "renew" is an example of eisegesis.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> On the other issue I plainly see that when we take the Hebrews 8 passage and the Jeremiah 31 passages to heart the subject of better mediator is quite significant.



There is absolutely no question that the better mediator of the new covenant is a point of very significant import. But the mediator is not mentioned in either the Jeremiah passage nor its quotation in Hebrews where what is mentioned are specific details by which the New Covenant is superior to the Old.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Logan said:


> Do you know, for example, that our baptized children are not allowed to the communion table without a profession of faith?



Yes, I do know that that is how many Presbyterians practice their doctrine, but I also know that it is inconsistent practice (why should a baptized New Covenant member, a child of the promise, be refused admission to the Lord’s table?) and there are those who plainly see that inconsistency........some of those practice paedo communion (which is at least consistent with everything else they teach, even though it is as unbiblical as infant baptism) and others would prefer to practice it but are not permitted to do so by higher rulings within the church. Then there are those such as yourself, who baptize their babies but believe it right to refuse them admission to the Lord’s table. 

I grant that from the brief posts I am able/wish to make on this forum, it might appear that I am coming at this subject from a position of ignorance but this is not the case. 

If somebody told me that they believed the sky was pink with yellow spots, I would be able to understand what they believe (the sky is pink with yellow spots) and could maybe even deliver a fine argument (all based on falsehood of course) to support what they believe, but their actual belief would remain utterly incomprehensible. This is pretty much how it is with paedobaptism. 

My desire is not to argue against something as much as contend ‘for’ the faith. This subject is crucial isn’t it? If we have the wrong understanding of baptism, we have the wrong understanding of the Gospel. That renders it something which I am passionate about as a result of being passionate about the Gospel. Are paedobaptists without passion for the Gospel, for the truth, for Christ? Of course not, but I believe, without shadow of a doubt, that their passion is misplaced and their understanding built upon very faulty foundations.


----------



## timmopussycat

Missed this on the first passing through this thread. 

I don't know if I am the "you referred to in the following, but I'll answer anyway. 



JSauer said:


> So you would agree with these two statements :
> 
> the old covenant was made with people who were physical descendants of Abraham no matter if they had faith or not.



Yes the Sinaitic covenant was made with all of national Israel. 



JSauer said:


> Now those who are in the covenant are only those who possess faith, but that hasn't always been the case.



If you mean "Now, i.e. in the New Covenant those who are . . .," I answer yes. If by the Covenant you mean the Old Covenant, I answer no. 



JSauer said:


> My question to you is this: doesn't Paul's definition of Abraham's children in Galatians 3 disprove this?



No, for those children of Abraham who lived under Sinai and had faith were included in both covenants but those who either did or do not have faith whether under the Old Covenant or in the era of the New are not children of Abraham. 



JSauer said:


> And when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again Jesus scolds him for being Israel's teacher and not knowing this. Why should Nicodemus know something that hasn't yet occurred?



Because Christ was rebuking him for a failure to understand something else.

As Don Carson has shown (Exegetical Fallacies p. 48), Ezekiel prophesied a time of eschatological cleansing (36:25-27) in which God gives a new heart and a new spirit. In his view "birth" or "begetting of water and spirit" is "thus not a hendiadys but a reference to the dual work of the spirit who simultaneously purifies and imparts God's nature to man." And it is this that Nicodemus should have understood, and it was for his failure to understand this point that Christ chided him.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other issue I plainly see that when we take the Hebrews 8 passage and the Jeremiah 31 passages to heart the subject of better mediator is quite significant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no question that the better mediator of the new covenant is a point of very significant import. But the mediator is not mentioned in either the Jeremiah passage nor its quotation in Hebrews where what is mentioned are specific details by which the New Covenant is superior to the Old.
Click to expand...


I don't mean to be disrespectful Tim but are we reading the same passages in Hebrews 8? The whole premise is about Christ's priesthood. 



> (Heb 8:1) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
> 
> (Heb 8:2) A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:3) For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:4) For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:5) Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


----------



## littlepeople

Just to point out a quick something which makes a huge difference:


Hemustincrease said:


> People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant.


This is not the case. The confessional belief is that they belong to the covenant because they were born to believing parents. They are baptized because it is their right as covenant members. 

from the DPW


> That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized



Brennan, Good for you for taking the commands of God so seriously. I (like most of us here I'm sure) waded through the same texts as you are now, and I got to know God's word much better and loved Him more. I can recommend picking up a little book called "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology"– by C. Matthew McMahon - the proprietor of this website.

One little nugget from that book which helped me was this: consider Acts 21:17-26 - Paul's actions here make a clear case for infant inclusion in the early christian church. So either Paul is wrong here, and he misunderstood the teaching of Jeremiah. OR Jeremiah doesn't mean what credo's think it means, and infants are included in the new covenant administration. Just something to think about.

Enjoy your pursuit - it was fun for me - hope it is for you too.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BAGD does not give "renew" as a possible meaning for kainos in anything other than a person who has been converted in Eph 4.24, and even there the case could be argued that "new" is a better fit in a sentence where "the new self which, in the likeness of God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." As far as I know no Bible translation has translated "kainos" as "renew" anywhere in the NT. Certainly the KJV doesn't. Also the NASB and ESV definitely do not translate the word as "renew" at any point when the subject is the New Covenant. In view of this evidence, I suggest that anyone who suggests that the "kainen diatheken" should be translated "renewed covenant" has the obligation to demonstrate why the latter reading is superior. Lacking such evidence, there is a fairly strong case that translating "kainen" by "renew" is an example of eisegesis.
Click to expand...


Okay Tim. BAGD is not the all in all although it is a very important useful work. 

Here is Walter Kaiser an Old Testament Scholar on this topic and he isn't known as an adherent to Covenant Theology.

*The Uses of the Old Testament in the New*

By Walter C. Kaiser. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New - Walter C. Kaiser - Google Books

In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Christians are noted to be new creatures in Christ. Obviously the person is the same person but is new (Kianos) in Christ. We are being made into a new man. We can also look at the (kainos) new man of Ephesians 2:15 which has its root in the Israelite's or the new man which is renewed in Colossians 3:10. We can go back and forth on this topic but I will just leave it at this. I believe you have failed to understand the positions I am only trying to help you understand that I hold to and why I hold to them. I don't expect you to change and I am only trying to help you understand why I believe what I do and why. May God bring us both closer to him.


----------



## Hemustincrease

armourbearer said:


> There is no sense in depriving infants of the means in the fear they might profane them; the means of grace are the means God uses to save them from profanity.



So, are you saying that God uses water baptism as the gracious means to save uncircumcised (faithless) babies from profanity......but they could grow up and resist that grace and be profane anyway? 
How is this ‘better’ than the Old Covenant?
How is a sprinkled baby any ‘better' off than a circumcised Esau or an uncircumcised Gentile? 
How is a baby that could grow up to resist grace and be profane (condemned/outside of Christ etc) a child of the (New Covenant) promise?
What part of the promise is theirs for certain? What do they actually inherit as ‘New Covenant children’ if not eternal life? 

Of course, we then come almost full circle. To you, a child of the promise is equally an Esau or a Jacob an Ishmael or an Isaac for all had the outward sign applied. To me, a child of the promise can only ever be an Isaac or a Jacob for only they were inwardly circumcised.

"_Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time._” ! Peter

The New Covenant proclaims promises such as these! No wonder it is called the ‘Gospel’. Wonderful, glorious promises which every single member of the New Covenant can know for certain apply to them. Yet baptized babies cannot own these promises can they? After all, they might grow up to be an Esau. So which promise/s are paedobaptists saying their natural children can be certain of, if any?


----------



## whirlingmerc

Along those lines, in a related verse, Jer 32:40, those in the New Covenant will have the fear of God
Jeremiah 32:40 (ESV) 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.


----------



## PaulMc

Hemustincrease said:


> This subject is crucial isn’t it? If we have the wrong understanding of baptism, we have the wrong understanding of the Gospel.



Really?


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BAGD does not give "renew" as a possible meaning for kainos in anything other than a person who has been converted in Eph 4.24, and even there the case could be argued that "new" is a better fit in a sentence where "the new self which, in the likeness of God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." As far as I know no Bible translation has translated "kainos" as "renew" anywhere in the NT. Certainly the KJV doesn't. Also the NASB and ESV definitely do not translate the word as "renew" at any point when the subject is the New Covenant. In view of this evidence, I suggest that anyone who suggests that the "kainen diatheken" should be translated "renewed covenant" has the obligation to demonstrate why the latter reading is superior. Lacking such evidence, there is a fairly strong case that translating "kainen" by "renew" is an example of eisegesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Tim. BAGD is not the all in all although it is a very important useful work.
> 
> Here is Walter Kaiser an Old Testament Scholar on this topic and he isn't known as an adherent to Covenant Theology.
> 
> *The Uses of the Old Testament in the New*
> 
> By Walter C. Kaiser. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New - Walter C. Kaiser - Google Books
> 
> In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Christians are noted to be new creatures in Christ. Obviously the person is the same person but is new (Kianos) in Christ. We are being made into a new man. We can also look at the (kainos) new man of Ephesians 2:15 which has its root in the Israelite's or the new man which is renewed in Colossians 3:10.
Click to expand...


The insurmountable problem with adducing Col. 3:10 to justify translating "kainos" as "renew" to establish the idea of a renewed covenant is that the word translated "renewed" in Col. 3:10 is not kainos but "anakainoumenon" the standard word for "renew" in the NT and which, as I have already pointed out in connection with Rom. 12:2, is the word which we could reasonably expect the inspired writer of Hebrews to have used in translating the Hebrew word for "new" in Jer 31:34 had the latter author believed that "renew" was intended. 

That the inspired author of Hebrews did not use the very word that would have established the idea that the covenant Christ made was a renewal of the old rather than a new covenant is a very strong argument that the writer recognized that the covenant Christ instituted was truly a new one.


----------



## MW

The argument that the new covenant is entirely new is irrelevant. Elect infants are saved under the new covenant however one understands its relationship with the Old Testament.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

And besides, this whole line of argument ends up being a semantic tempest-in-a-teapot.

Just like different English words that bear similar weight (new, fresh, novel, contemporary, etc.), the common NT Gk. words each have a range of meaning/use. Trying to hinge an argument on whether _kainos_ "means" brand-new or renewed is exegetically tenuous at best. The Gk. reference is a rendering of a Heb. original; and there is no way to determine if the Septuagint translator (and Heb. clearly borrows straight from the LXX) simply chose one appropriate word out of several synonyms available, or possibly just the commonest word.

And, the New Covenant is referred to under at least two different "new" terms, by the same author, in the same book: Heb.8:8,13 use _kainos_ (the most common NT term); and Heb.12:24 uses _neos_ (found about half as many times in the NT).

When this author chooses his own term (i.e. when he isn't quoting a well known OT text), he uses both _kainos_ (Heb.9:15) and _neos_ (Heb.12:24) in equal measure. He even uses a _third_ term for "new," Heb.10:20, _prosphatos,_ "...a *new* and living way." Which is to say, that as a rhetorician, he varies his language and uses a richness of expression for the benefit of his hearers.

So even if one likes to find a particular nuance for the use of either covenant-descriptive term, the preacher is obligated in two ways. 1) He is not free to call for certainty and submission to this interpretation based purely a lexical consideration that artificially narrows the full semantic domain of the word; and 2) he must balance out the one lexically-derived claim with the fact of the other's existence.


----------



## Hemustincrease

PaulMc said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> This subject is crucial isn’t it? If we have the wrong understanding of baptism, we have the wrong understanding of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...



Yes


----------



## PaulMc

Hemustincrease said:


> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> This subject is crucial isn’t it? If we have the wrong understanding of baptism, we have the wrong understanding of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


That's a new one I haven't heard before.

Would you like to expand on your point and let all the paedobaptists here know in what way we have an incorrect understanding of the Gospel?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> The argument that the new covenant is entirely new is irrelevant. Elect infants are saved under the new covenant however one understands its relationship with the Old Testament.



Randy seemed to think the distinction is of importance to a proper answer to the OP when he introduced the question:



PuritanCovenanter said:


> After my attention was drawn to this topic with a bit more focus on how the Westminster Divines and other Reformed men approached the topic I landed squarely that the Mosaic Covenant was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. You can see why by reading my blog which is linked to above. I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.



And since one finds the idea that the covenant instituted by Jesus is a "renewed Sinai" being taken up by other Reformed writers in other discussions, it seems profitable to address the question. 

One may also note that the question of elect infants being saved under the New Covenant, although certain, is equally irrelevant to the OP of this thread, because what is at issue there is the problem Jeremiah 31:34 poses as to how the church identifies the elect.



mccaffertyb7 said:


> One of the aspects of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that typically raises objections against infant baptism is the statement that all participants in the new covenant will know the LORD. "They will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jeremiah 31:34). The introduction of unregenerate infants into the community of the new covenant seems to contradict Jeremiah's prophecy here that salvation is fully distributed within the new covenant.


----------



## timmopussycat

Contra_Mundum said:


> And besides, this whole line of argument ends up being a semantic tempest-in-a-teapot.
> 
> Just like different English words that bear similar weight (new, fresh, novel, contemporary, etc.), the common NT Gk. words each have a range of meaning/use. Trying to hinge an argument on whether _kainos_ "means" brand-new or renewed is exegetically tenuous at best. The Gk. reference is a rendering of a Heb. original; and there is no way to determine if the Septuagint translator (and Heb. clearly borrows straight from the LXX) simply chose one appropriate word out of several synonyms available, or possibly just the commonest word.
> 
> And, the New Covenant is referred to under at least two different "new" terms, by the same author, in the same book: Heb.8:8,13 use _kainos_ (the most common NT term); and Heb.12:24 uses _neos_ (found about half as many times in the NT).
> 
> When this author chooses his own term (i.e. when he isn't quoting a well known OT text), he uses both _kainos_ (Heb.9:15) and _neos_ (Heb.12:24) in equal measure. He even uses a _third_ term for "new," Heb.10:20, _prosphatos,_ "...a *new* and living way." Which is to say, that as a rhetorician, he varies his language and uses a richness of expression for the benefit of his hearers.
> 
> So even if one likes to find a particular nuance for the use of either covenant-descriptive term, the preacher is obligated in two ways. 1) He is not free to call for certainty and submission to this interpretation based purely a lexical consideration that artificially narrows the full semantic domain of the word; and 2) he must balance out the one lexically-derived claim with the fact of the other's existence.



Rev. Buchanan, with all respect may I suggest that you have either missed a point or are not making yourself sufficiently clear? 

The Greek lexicographical resources I have at hand – including some, but not all of the standard references - are unanimous in NOT assigning the meaning "renewed" to "kainos" where the word is used in connection with the New Covenant. Lacking such support, I don't see how one may legitimately introduce "renewed" as a possible translation for "kainos" in Heb. 8:8 especially as "kainos" has never been translated as "renew" in the NT by either of the 3 major translations currently in use that tend towards word for word translation (KJV, ESV NASB). Is there a standard reference or translation that does so assign the meaning "renewed" to that verse or to any reference to the covenant which Christ made the night before he was betrayed?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tim,
I just think the connotation of the word is ... [wait for it] ... ... "new."

That's it. The assertion, that "covenant theologians aren't letting this new covenant be NEW enough," is pretty much the origin of this semantic tug-of-war. In other words, it is a claim about the precise nuance of the Gk. _kainos_ that originates this entire debate.

I once read a non-CT writer, who declared that since _kainos_ ALWAYS qualified _diatheke_ in reference to the New Covenant, and since _kainos_ meant utterly new and totally unrelated to anything ever seen or encountered before in covenant terms, therefore the whole debate was actually settled by a simple resort to the lexicon.

What covenant did he think Heb.12:24 referred to?

My position doesn't require me to spend any time proving "renewed" is a perfectly good rendering of _kainos_. I think its a wholly unnecessary diversion, and "new" is a perfectly acceptable rendering. Christ's covenant is marvelously new, and has many excellences that befit his final and fulfillment administration of the covenant of grace. But this descriptive adjective doesn't oblige me to conclude that there is no real and precious elements of continuity with what has gone before. That's a gratuitous claim, based on an arbitrary lexical restriction, which I reject.

Abraham's covenant was "new" with respect to Noah's. The Sinai covenant was "new" with respect to Abraham's. And Jesus' covenant is "new" with respect to Moses'. It's not CT's claim that _kainos_ should be read "renewed." That stance is reactionary to the assertion that with us, NEW isn't new-enough. And it moves the discussion too quickly (in my opinion) from exegetical theology to biblical & systematic. "Covenant of Grace" is a biblico-systematic categorization, and concepts of "renewal" across the major administrations are not properly referenced to _kainos_ or to any biblical word per se, but to the unfolding of the unified plan of God.

I hope I've clarified what I meant. Thank you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks Bruce. I think we are saying the same thing in relation. I am still trying to understand this. That is why I am only trying to explain what I understand instead of declaring This Is It. There seems to be something that I am not doing very good at. I want to make my understanding clear in terms of Progressive Revelation. I appreciated how you noted, "Abraham's covenant was "new" with respect to Noah's. The Sinai covenant was "new" with respect to Abraham's. And Jesus' covenant is "new" with respect to Moses'." Am I not correct to say that there was a building from one Covenant to the next? Fulfilment plays a lot in this scenario but aren't there base issues that run through all of the Covenants that make them substantially possessing the same elements of Reconciliation between man and God including regeneration, Forgiveness of sin, etc.?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I hope I have not muddied the waters up by bringing in the word renewal. It sounds like I have. For that I am regretful. I was only trying to explain what I understood from people I have read. Some where not Covenant Theologians even. Walter Kaiser Jr. was the President of Gordon-Conwell and President of the Evangelical Theological Society as well as Trinity if I am not mistaken. A supposedly top notch Hebrew / Old Testament Scholar. I have also seen many other references from others. The debate is strong on both sides. Like I said, I hope I haven't muddied the waters up too bad. 

I love my Reformed Baptist brothers and have great respect for them. I was one for 30 years and still read with great pleasure and benefit from their stances. So please don't think I necessarily render their opinions empty. 

Our goal is Love for Christ on both sides of the Isle.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Randy,
I understood your aim. You seem to be recalling efforts of even non-CT scholars like W.Kaiser to respond to reductionist claims about the nature of the New Covenant, that are based largely on artificial semantic limits. Theologically, it's impoverishing, and one doesn't have to agree with CT to see that.

The introduction of the notion or nuance of "re-new" by such scholars into the discussion is nothing but an acknowledgement that creating a kind of "hard" distinction between new-in-kind vs. new-w/-respect-to-time, and then trying to cast all occasions of a word into that mold, is an exegetical dead-end. It's an a priori.


----------



## timmopussycat

Contra_Mundum said:


> Randy,
> I understood your aim. You seem to be recalling efforts of even non-CT scholars like W.Kaiser to respond to reductionist claims about the nature of the New Covenant, that are based largely on artificial semantic limits. Theologically, it's impoverishing, and one doesn't have to agree with CT to see that.
> 
> The introduction of the notion or nuance of "re-new" by such scholars into the discussion is nothing but an acknowledgement that creating a kind of "hard" distinction between new-in-kind vs. new-w/-respect-to-time, and then trying to cast all occasions of a word into that mold, is an exegetical dead-end. It's an a priori.



Thanks for clarifying. Much appreciated.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Bruce,

Thank You so much for all of your help and patience through the years. I have grown to love how you don't make things about you but Christ. I am more prone to explain things by revealing my experiences and learning. You have patiently just put Christ before us. I am still trying to learn how to get out of His way. Thanks.


----------



## Hemustincrease

PaulMc said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> This subject is crucial isn’t it? If we have the wrong understanding of baptism, we have the wrong understanding of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a new one I haven't heard before.
> 
> Would you like to expand on your point and let all the paedobaptists here know in what way we have an incorrect understanding of the Gospel?
Click to expand...


Isn’t that what I have already been doing?


----------



## whirlingmerc

JSauer said:


> I guess if Jeremiah 31 said "they will all know me (as much as possible)" you might have a point.
> 
> So why then were children of believers in the Old Testament not required to give a profession of faith before they were circumcised?



_ think you meant to say 'boys' since girls are not circumscribed. Only boys being circumsized seems a bit of a challenge for paedo baptists _


----------



## JSauer

What have you read to make you think that boys being physically circumcised is a problem for paedobaptists? I don't think anyone is saying that circumcision and baptism are the same practice. I think if you investigate this you will find a rich explanation for shedding of blood in the old vs. bloodless in the new and why men carry this sign until Christ fulfills everything. The sign is different, but the substance, covenant, and the thing signified is the same.


----------



## MW

The OP stated, "One of the aspects of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that typically raises objections against infant baptism is the statement that all participants in the new covenant will know the LORD."

As elect infants are under the new covenant it is certain that they "know the Lord" in the sense intended by the prophecy of Jeremiah and expounded in Hebrews 8-10. They do not know the Lord through a mediating earthly priest of the line of Aaron who must continually sacrifice for them, intercede for them, and teach them the will of God for their salvation. They know the Lord through Christ, the great High priest after the order of Melchizedek, who has once offered up Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile them to God, who makes continual intercession for them, and who teaches them by Word and Spirit the will of God for their salvation.

As the "old covenant" extended the same spiritual blessings to elect infants under the law it is obvious that the new covenant is not entirely new as to substance; its newness consists in the way it is administered, not being by means of type and shadow, but in reality and substance by Christ Himself.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> The OP stated, "One of the aspects of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that typically raises objections against infant baptism is the statement that all participants in the new covenant will know the LORD."
> 
> As elect infants are under the new covenant it is certain that they "know the Lord" in the sense intended by the prophecy of Jeremiah and expounded in Hebrews 8-10. They do not know the Lord through a mediating earthly priest of the line of Aaron who must continually sacrifice for them, intercede for them, and teach them the will of God for their salvation. They know the Lord through Christ, the great High priest after the order of Melchizedek, who has once offered up Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile them to God, who makes continual intercession for them, and who teaches them by Word and Spirit the will of God for their salvation.
> 
> As the "old covenant" extended the same spiritual blessings to elect infants under the law it is obvious that the new covenant is not entirely new as to substance; its newness consists in the way it is administered, not being by means of type and shadow, but in reality and substance by Christ Himself.



The new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is explicitly contrasted with Sinai covenant given by Moses as being "not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." (Jer. 31:32) Specific contrasts between the two covenants are pointed out. Unlike Sinai, all those in the new covenant will:
1) have God's law within them and written on their hearts,
2) have God as their God, and 
3) know him.

Changes to conditions of a covenant make the covenant so changed new by definition, even if some of the conditions are not altered.

Compared to Sinai, the covenant Christ made is indeed new, for there are 3 new conditions. Compared to the covenant God made with Abraham, the covenant is both new and similar, for one of the conditions Christ made in the new covenant was not part of the covenant with Abraham. In God's covenant with Abraham, nothing was said about having God's law within and written on the hearts of Abraham or his descendants.

Compared to the covenant of grace lying behind both the covenant with Abraham and the Sinai covenant, it must be observed that apart from certain specific exceptions, (the prophets, King David etc.) we have no record of OT believers as a group receiving the Holy Spirit in the way foretold by Ezekiel in Ezek. 36:25-27 (the additional promise of the new covenant). Indeed such indications as we have are to the contrary, especially John 7:39.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tim,
If those substantive conditions you claim exclusively for the NC obtain,then what you propose for the present is fundamentally a *different* religion.
We don't share a religion with Moses, David, with any of the faithful (Heb.11?) of the OT; 
just some sort of God-in-common with them.

How in the final analysis this avoids identification as dispensationalism, I can't tell.​
I also wonder at your read of Abraham, and the nature of his obedience, Gen.12:4; 17:1; 18:19; 26:5; Heb.11:8; and that of his children. Can true religion be separate from covenant? Can real obedience be anywhere other than from the heart? And can the heart produce divinely acceptable obedience without the Spirit's re-inscription of the law within? Aren't human children of Adam the same now as ever?

Paul, writing about the faith of Abraham and of Christians, tells us that this is the _*same *religion,_ not simply the same God. Religion isn't in the cult, but in the nature of the relationship. The external exhibition of inward regeneration is appropriate to the positive prescriptions of the specific era under examination.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> The new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is explicitly contrasted with Sinai covenant given by Moses as being "not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." (Jer. 31:32) Specific contrasts between the two covenants are pointed out. Unlike Sinai, all those in the new covenant will:
> 1) have God's law within them and written on their hearts,
> 2) have God as their God, and
> 3) know him.



It is not WHAT is administered, but HOW it is administered. If the terms related to the "matter" of the covenant there could not be any correspondence between Old Testament institutions and New Testament realities; but the New Testament proceeds on the basis that the reality in Christ is substantially what the Old Testament institutions anticipated. The comparisons made in Hebrews reveal that the difference in the covenants only pertains to the "manner" of administration.

Romans 9 indicates one might be externally in covenant while not being essentially in covenant. Those who were essentially in covenant under the Old Testament genuinely enjoyed the blessings promised.


----------



## timmopussycat

Contra_Mundum said:


> Tim,
> If those substantive conditions you claim exclusively for the NC obtain,then what you propose for the present is fundamentally a *different* religion.
> We don't share a religion with Moses, David, with any of the faithful (Heb.11?) of the OT;
> just some sort of God-in-common with them.
> 
> How in the final analysis this avoids identification as dispensationalism, I can't tell.​



​You seem to have missed the significance of my qualifying clause when I wrote of Sinai: "Changes to conditions of a covenant make the covenant so changed new by definition, *even if some of the conditions are not altered.*"​
Just because a covenant is new does not mean that it is entirely different from the one it supersedes. Some stipulations may carry over, as, for example, some stipulations changed my late mother's last two wills, others remained the same. Nor does the fundamental relationship necessarily change when God issues an initial covenant and later a subsequent covenant with additional blessings: for there may be a vast number of conditions common to both, even though the latter is properly described as "new" and the former becomes comparatively "old." It is undisputed among all "vanilla Westminsterians" (thanks to Rev. Greco for that lovely term), that there are stipulations of the old covenant that are no longer applicable in the new, not to mention the recognized blessings peculiar to the new including the better mediator, and one routinely observes such vW's blandly operating on the premise that those changes have eventuated without in the least vitating the fundamental relationship between God and men first set forth in the CoG, then the Abrahamic covenant, next Sinai and finally given its fullest blessings in the New Covenant. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> I also wonder at your read of Abraham, and the nature of his obedience, Gen.12:4; 17:1; 18:19; 26:5; Heb.11:8; and that of his children. Can true religion be separate from covenant? Can real obedience be anywhere other than from the heart? And can the heart produce divinely acceptable obedience without the Spirit's re-inscription of the law within? Aren't human children of Adam the same now as ever?



Yes the children of Adam are the same now as then. Of course Abraham's obedience was by a divinely gifted faith, but that God-given faith was never made an explicit stipulation of the Abrahmic or Sinaitic covenants. And God is free to give such faith without making such gift an explicit covenantal condition; he is free to give non-covenanted blessings that go beyond what he covenants as and when he pleases. And as Christ points out, when noting that God gives certain temporal blessings to the ungodly, he does do so. When God announces the new covenant, he tells us explicitly that one of the advances of it on Sinai is that all members of the new covenant will experience the heart work of the Holy Spirit. This implies no more than members of Sinai not included in the covenant of grace (which includes the covenant of Abraham) did not have this heart work.

What about the case of those who were in the covenant of grace / Abraham in the OT? Whether or not the heart can indeed produce divinely acceptable obedience without the Spirit's work of writing God's law in the heart is a moot point: ultimately Abraham and his children do not find acceptance through the work of the Spirit re-inscribing the law within, but only through that faith in God (and now Christ) which alone is credited as righteousness.

It is certain that there is scriptural evidence that suggests that the Spirit's renewing work of Jer 31:33, 34 may not have been a universal blessing to those members of the CoG living under the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants as none of the Sinai era references to the future new covenant blessings such as Ez. 36 or Jer 31 give any hint that any contemporaries were enjoying those blessings. David in Ps. 51: seems to believe that he was in danger of losing the presence of the Spirit, which would seem to imply that he had no understanding that the Spirit was covenantally obligated to remain with him. And, as previously noted, John 7:39 makes it certain that there was at least some sense in which the Holy Spirit had not yet been given before Christ was glorified. Whether all OT members of the CoG did enjoy this heart work as an uncovenanted blessing or not, I don't know, but what is certain is that with the proclamation of the new covenant, the Spirit's work is, for the first time, announced as an explicit condition of a covenant and, more importantly, applied to all within it.

And it is that declaration that created the problem that the OP states. Should the church be proclaimed to be the de jure fullfilment of the NC even though we know de facto that not all professors will prove elect?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Paul, writing about the faith of Abraham and of Christians, tells us that this is the _*same *religion,_ not simply the same God. Religion isn't in the cult, but in the nature of the relationship. The external exhibition of inward regeneration is appropriate to the positive prescriptions of the specific era under examination.



As far as I know Paul never uses the term religion. That he argues that our faith is that of Abraham I affirm, likewise that its focus is on the nature of the relationship not on outward actions.


----------

