# In covenant without a mediator?



## S. Spence (Feb 16, 2007)

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this. It might have more to do with CT. 

I’ve just been re-reading through Fred Malone’s, ‘A string of pearls unstrung.’ He makes a point I didn’t notice the first time I read through it:

_The New Covenant Sacrifice
*To say that all physical infants of believers are "in" the New Covenant as the infants of Abraham were "in" the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants violates the doctrine of particular redemption. Hebrews 9 reminds us that God's covenant requires mediation through blood. *The Passover Lamb brought physical deliverance for all Israel because all ate it. The Annual Atonement (Lev. 16) was offered on behalf of the whole assembly, all Israel. Of course, these sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience, but their design was for the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. *If Christ's sacrifice is offered up only for His elect people as the "New Covenant in My blood" (Lk. 22:20; Mk. 14:24), how can the unregenerate children of believers be said to be "in" the New Covenant, church, and kingdom without an effectual Mediator? They cannot. Indeed, Heb. 9:15 defines Christ as an effectual Mediator of the New Covenant to insure that "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." Can one be said to be "in" the New Covenant or church without a Mediator? Not on the basis of the concept of the church in the New Testament. *Though all would agree that false professors were addressed as members of the church for which Christ's effectual blood was shed, yet they were so addressed on the basis of their profession, not on the basis of their parents' faith. Even then, they were to be put out of the church if their profession proved spurious by their life. Yet there was some outward evidence to designate them "in" the church. But there is no clear basis for saying infants of believers are "in" the church unless we are also willing to say that they are "in" the "church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). No, if an infant is said to be "in" the New Covenant administration of the one covenant of grace and "in" the church without effectual mediation, severe violence is done to the biblical truth that "Christ loved the church and give Himself up for her." Can an unregenerate infant be called "in" the church by Christ's effectual mediation and never receive salvation? Absolutely not. Therefore, violence is done to the doctrine of particular redemption._

My questions are how can one be in covenant without a mediator? How was it possible under the Abrahamic Covenant and how is it possible today under the NC?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> My questions are how can one be in covenant without a mediator? How was it possible under the Abrahamic Covenant and how is it possible today under the NC?


I have a question for you: What makes you think the Abrahamic Covenant is different than the New Covenant?


----------



## S. Spence (Feb 16, 2007)

Apart from greater benefits such as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and so on, I don't see much of a difference. I see the NC as a renewal of the Abrahamic Covenant.


----------



## S. Spence (Feb 16, 2007)

Maybe I should point out that I actually see things from a paedobaptistic point of view even though I attend a Baptist church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Maybe I should point out that I actually see things from a paedobaptistic point of view even though I attend a Baptist church.



Well, he seems to defeat his own conclusion by one of his premises that the Abrahamic Covenant is one in the same with the Mosaic Covenant, which is false. He needs to answer that question for the Abrahamic Covenant.

Let me change this paragraph:



> To say that all physical infants of believers are "in" the *Abrahamic Covenant* as the infants of Abraham were "in" the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants violates the doctrine of particular redemption. Hebrews 9 reminds us that God's covenant requires mediation through blood. The Passover Lamb brought physical deliverance for all Israel because all ate it. The Annual Atonement (Lev. 16) was offered on behalf of the whole assembly, all Israel. Of course, these sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience, but their design was for the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. If Christ's sacrifice is offered up only for His elect people as the "New Covenant in My blood" (Lk. 22:20; Mk. 14:24), how can the unregenerate children of believers be said to be "in" the *Abrahamic Covenant*, church, and kingdom without an effectual Mediator? They cannot. Indeed, Heb. 9:15 defines Christ as an effectual Mediator of the New Covenant to insure that "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." Can one be said to be "in" the *Abrahamic Covenant or church* without a Mediator? Not on the basis of the concept of the church in the New Testament. Though all would agree that false professors were addressed as members of the church for which Christ's effectual blood was shed, yet they were so addressed on the basis of their profession, not on the basis of their parents' faith. Even then, they were to be put out of the church if their profession proved spurious by their life. Yet there was some outward evidence to designate them "in" the church. But there is no clear basis for saying infants of believers are "in" the church unless we are also willing to say that they are "in" the "church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). No, if an infant is said to be "in" the *Abrahamic Covenant* administration of the one covenant of grace and "in" the church without effectual mediation, severe violence is done to the biblical truth that "Christ loved the church and give Himself up for her." Can an unregenerate infant be called "in" the church by Christ's effectual mediation and never receive salvation? Absolutely not. Therefore, violence is done to the doctrine of particular redemption.



Thus to say that Isaac, while he was an infant, was in the Abrahamic Covenant, does violence to the doctrine of particular redemption.


----------



## S. Spence (Feb 16, 2007)

Could it be he's confusing election with covenant. That salvation requires a mediator - Christ and His shed blood. However it is possible to be in covenant without being elect?

I don't think he would deny that there were unbelievers in the Abrahamic covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Could it be he's confusing election with covenant. That salvation requires a mediator - Christ and His shed blood. However it is possible to be in covenant without being elect?
> 
> I don't think he would deny that there were unbelievers in the Abrahamic covenant.



Yes, he does deny that one can be in the Abrahamic covenant without being elect by stating that one cannot be in the New Covenant or the church without being elect.

Yes he conflates election with New Covenant (read Abrahamic covenant) participation. He even conflates it with church membership by stating that only the elect are in the church.

The problem he has, with this schema, is that he has no basis for baptism. He says he does here:


> Though all would agree that false professors were addressed as members of the church for which Christ's effectual blood was shed, yet they were so addressed on the basis of their profession, not on the basis of their parents' faith.


He doesn't connect, of course, the idea that he's gotten to his goal - that is, made sure they only admitted the elect. He just presents what his acceptable bar for error is: false profession. He then presents an unwarranted conclusion: that none were admitted on the basis of their parents' faith. He merely affirms this but does not establish this from any Biblical text.

This is the common Baptist fallacy: move from the idea of an Elect Church to the idea of baptizing only professors. They make that leap not by any teaching of the scriptures but by an unwarranted inference. Nowhere in Scripture do we encounter this reasoning.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> However it is possible to be in covenant without being elect?



I would have to say no to that. The covenant is made with the elect _alone_ or I suppose to be more accurate, with Christ and the elect in him. The reprobate are not in the covenant of grace.


----------



## Gryphonette (Feb 16, 2007)

*Excellent question.*



> how can one be in covenant without a mediator?


When it comes to the New Covenant, one cannot.

Hebrews 8:6 "But Jesus has now obtained a superior ministry, and to that degree He is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been legally enacted on better promises."

Hebrews 9:15 "Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions [committed] under the first covenant."

Anyone for whom Christ mediates is surely destined for glory, for it's unthinkable that any of those given to Him should be lost ("I give them eternal life, and they will never perish —ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand..." John 10:28).

The idea of anyone being in the New Covenant, i.e. being one of whom it's written "Therefore He is always able to save those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25), being eternally lost is nonsense. 

Now, will the SIGN of the New Covenant be applied to those who are not, in fact, IN the New Covenant?

Most assuredly.

But the only people actually IN the New Covenant are those for whom Christ lived, died, was risen, and now pleads for in Heaven.

And not one of them will be lost.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> *A summary of baptist presuppostions:*
> 
> 
> --To be in the New Covenant is to be one of the Elect.
> ...



This is the argument that could turn me towards Credo-baptism  If it is based upon the Covenant then in my opinion your argument is far stronger. Would you accept that the Abrahamic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace?


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Feb 16, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> The same tired arguments get rehashed time and again and I have laughed out loud when watching some of the threads unfold because it is predictable almost down to the very phrases.


----------



## S. Spence (Feb 16, 2007)

From what folks are saying here, the general consensus seems to be that Ishmael and Esau etc were not actually in the Covenant but only received the sign of the covenant, fair enough.

However is it then correct to speak of them as Covenant breakers, as if they were never in the covenant how could they break it?

Heb 10:29 and other passages do seem to indicate that it is still possible to break the covenant in this NC era. I don't think that these passages can really be totally explained away by just saying they are talking about false professors who were baptised. That’s why I believe that covenant and election are separate. The covenant can be and is broken, whereas those saved by God will persevere until the end.


----------



## Gryphonette (Feb 16, 2007)

If they're claiming to _be_ in the Covenant but then break it, it'd seem reasonable to refer to them as "covenant breakers".

It's "the judgment of charity" again, in that one refers to people as they refer to themselves.


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 16, 2007)

^^^^Trevor - I do not believe that Baptists who embrace the bulk of Covenant Theology have to accept any more discontinuity than Paedo's do. 

Paedo's have continuity where I don't, and I have continuity where Paedo's don't. Different discontinuities for Baptists, and in any debate these are all that are discussed, but they are just that, different - not more. And no, not trying to play politician-like word games here.

Don't have much time, but here's an example of baptist continuity, where paedo's have discontinuity: the Priesthood.

In the Old, blood sacrifice was made on behalf of *ALL* members of the Old Covenant by the priests. No one in the Old Covenant would ever be without some sort of offering on his behalf by his priest. This is detailed in many places, most prominently in Leviticus 16.

Credo's have continuity on this point - with their view that all New Covenant members (being elect) have atonement and sacrifice made on their behalf by their High Priest, Christ Jesus, just like members of the Old Covenant did with their priests.

Paedo's, on the other hand, have non-elect members of the New Covenant who, by virtue of Christ's sure and limited atonement, never have any offering on their behalf by Christ, the High Priest of their Covenant. He did not make sacrifice for every member of His New Covenant, whereas OT priests, who supposedly foreshadow his work, did.

You can have continuity on the work and role of the Priesthood, or you can have continuity on the membership of the covenant. You can't have both.

*Sorry to derail the thread, if I have done so.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Feb 16, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> From what folks are saying here, the general consensus seems to be that Ishmael and Esau etc were not actually in the Covenant but only received the sign of the covenant, fair enough.
> 
> However is it then correct to speak of them as Covenant breakers, as if they were never in the covenant how could they break it?
> 
> Heb 10:29 and other passages do seem to indicate that it is still possible to break the covenant in this NC era. I don't think that these passages can really be totally explained away by just saying they are talking about false professors who were baptised. That’s why I believe that covenant and election are separate. The covenant can be and is broken, whereas those saved by God will persevere until the end.



They can be said to have been in the covenant, because they were raised within the promises of the covenant. Yet this does not mean that God was unfaithful to them, for what benefit they should have derived from it, accused them all the more. 

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
-- Romans 3:1-3 (ESV)

If the covenant and election are separate, then what is the purpose of the covenant, and who are the objects of the covenant? The covenant of works is broken everyday by everyone, but the covenant of grace stands upon the promise of God alone, and that grounded in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.


----------



## Gryphonette (Feb 16, 2007)

That's an intriguing observation, Jeremy....I've never thought about that before.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 16, 2007)

smhbbag said:


> ^^^^Trevor - I do not believe that Baptists who embrace the bulk of Covenant Theology have to accept any more discontinuity than Paedo's do.



We shall see about this.



> Paedo's have continuity where I don't, and I have continuity where Paedo's don't. Different discontinuities for Baptists, and in any debate these are all that are discussed, but they are just that, different - not more. And no, not trying to play politician-like word games here.
> 
> Don't have much time, but here's an example of baptist continuity, where paedo's have discontinuity: the Priesthood.



We both think there is a new priesthood, so that in itself is not going to get you anywhere.



> In the Old, blood sacrifice was made on behalf of *ALL* members of the Old Covenant by the priests. No one in the Old Covenant would ever be without some sort of offering on his behalf by his priest. This is detailed in many places, most prominently in Leviticus 16.



Agreement. The catch is going to be the reason why ALL of the members of the old covenant are not in heaven.



> Credo's have continuity on this point - with their view that all New Covenant members (being elect) have atonement and sacrifice made on their behalf by their High Priest, Christ Jesus, just like members of the Old Covenant did with their priests.



Paedos have just as much continuity. If they did not then they would not be able to talk about covenant judgements and graphing in and taking out of branches of the tree. Also Paedos obviously believe in covenantal judgment. That makes little sense without mediation for the non elect.



> Paedos, on the other hand, have non-elect members of the New Covenant who, by virtue of Christ's sure and limited atonement, never have any offering on their behalf by Christ, the High Priest of their Covenant. He did not make sacrifice for every member of His New Covenant, whereas OT priests, who supposedly foreshadow his work, did.



Paedos believe in the mediation of wrath due to the counting of the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing, etc. This wrath being something different than the regular wrath for unbelievers. You will disagree with the passages produced to support this view but at least give Paedos the right to hold a wrong position 



> You can have continuity on the work and role of the Priesthood, or you can have continuity on the membership of the covenant. You can't have both.
> 
> *Sorry to derail the thread, if I have done so.



You can have both.

We must remember that in the OT there was nothing holding back God from deciding before the foundations of the earth that Everyone in Israel is/will be elect and will be regenerated in due time and is going to heaven.

Or put another way, God could have decided that everyone who will have the blood of bulls and goats etc spilled for them, I will regenerated and they will be justified etc. and will be in heaven.

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 16, 2007)

Here's where the Baptist view (if we can grant a certain universality on this point) has the same problem as the FV. Now that I have your attention...

It over-eschatologizes the New Covenant. The NC is so divorced from all that has gone before it that it threatens to become Marcionite. 

In redemptive history the covenant of grace since Adam's fall has always had two elements: decree and administration. Not everyone in the Abrahamic covenant was a participant in the decree of election. Not everyone mixed the gospel with faith (Heb 4) not everyone was elect but they all participated in administration of the covenant of grace. So, as the FV has everyone in the covenant of grace IN THE SAME WAY ("head for head," "all or nothing"), thus conflating the administration with the decree (so that the admin swallows up decree) so the Baptist view conflates the decree and administration so decree swallows up administration. They are two different sides of the same mistake. 

The New Covenant is a New relative to Moses not to Abraham. See Rom 3-4. There remains a decree and an administration. All the elect participate in the decree and the reprobate participate only in the administration, but they still participate in that. Malone's view seems to erase the category of administration from the New Covenant, hence the complaint about an over-realized eschatology.

A reading of the NT reveals, however, that the church since the apostolic age has always been mixed with folk who are elect, who come to faith, who participate in both the administration and the decree and with folk who are members of the covenant of grace but who participate only outwardly in the covenant of grace. The old Reformed writers called this participating "externally." 

If the New Covenant is so utterly different from Abraham, then why is Abraham the father of all who believe, both Jew and Gentile?

We need both the decree AND the administration and we need NOT to confuse them.

See the Heidelblog for more on this.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2007)

> It over-eschatologizes the New Covenant. The NC is so divorced from all that has gone before it that it threatens to become Marcionite.


 
That's really insightful, and very helpful.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 16, 2007)

> We both think there is a new priesthood, so that in itself is not going to get you anywhere.



Sure, it can. We both believe there is a new priesthood, but if the new priesthood, as it relates to sacrifice for Covenant people, is consistent with the Old Priesthood, then the Baptist position on New Covenant Membership is proven. If the new priesthood is _not_ consistent with the Old, then the Paedo position is proven, or at least gains support.



> Agreement. The catch is going to be the reason why ALL of the members of the old covenant are not in heaven.



Is this a trick question? I don't get the purpose of it. The blood of bulls and goats has never been, or ever will be, sufficient to atone for man's infinite sin. All the members of the Old Covenant had a sacrifice - but it was incapable of saving, in an of itself. Only what they foreshadowed is capable of saving them.

Now why is this a catch? I must be missing something.



> Paedos have just as much continuity. If they did not then they would not be able to talk about covenant judgements and graphing in and taking out of branches of the tree. Also Paedos obviously believe in covenantal judgment. That makes little sense without mediation for the non elect.



Can you use an example in the New Testament, post-resurrection/bringing of the New Covenant, where unbelieving members of the Church are referred to using those metaphors? As in, an NT gentile false-professor - spoken of as "taken out of the tree," etc? I only ask because I can only recall this being applied to OT, in-covenant non-believers. Those non-believers were in the tree! Falsely professing folks who never were in the Old Covenant, are not counted as part of the tree at all, so they can't be taken out. 

The only other passages than can be taken to mean anything close are the ones you mention in the next section, which never explicitly mention them being 'in the tree.'



> Paedos believe in the mediation of wrath due to the counting of the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing, etc. This wrath being something different than the regular wrath for unbelievers. You will disagree with the passages produced to support this view but at least give Paedos the right to hold a wrong position



There certainly is additional, unique wrath saved for those who live amongst and within the elect in the Church, yet still hate God. I'm not quite sure about the phrase "mediation" of wrath - but them being in the Covenant, and thus Covenant-breakers, is not necessary for there to be good reason for God to pour out extra wrath on their heads.



> We must remember that in the OT there was nothing holding back God from deciding before the foundations of the earth that Everyone in Israel is/will be elect and will be regenerated in due time and is going to heaven.
> 
> Or put another way, God could have decided that everyone who will have the blood of bulls and goats etc spilled for them, I will regenerated and they will be justified etc. and will be in heaven.



So, it is possible to have both, if God had done something that we both agree He didn't do?


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 16, 2007)

Big time oops. I was logged in under Hermonta's name when responding to his last post. I'm his roommate.

No, he has not gone crazy and is not arguing with himself. That last post was mine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> *A summary of baptist presuppostions:*
> 
> --To be in the New Covenant is to be one of the Elect.
> --Thus, to be in Christ is to be in covenant.
> ...


Trevor,

I already anticipated this line of reasoning:


SemperFideles said:


> ...He doesn't connect, of course, the idea that he's gotten to his goal - that is, made sure they only admitted the elect. He just presents what his acceptable bar for error is: false profession. He then presents an unwarranted conclusion: that none were admitted on the basis of their parents' faith. He merely affirms this but does not establish this from any Biblical text.
> 
> *This is the common Baptist fallacy: move from the idea of an Elect Church to the idea of baptizing only professors. They make that leap not by any teaching of the scriptures but by an unwarranted inference. Nowhere in Scripture do we encounter this reasoning.*


Perhaps you can prove me wrong by showing:

1. The necessity of the leap from the elect to the professor portion in the above.
2. The verse(s) that make this logical leap.

I've labeled it a fallacy. Why is it not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Rich;
> 
> The leap in baptizing only the professors is based usually (and in my case) on both the Jer 31 promise of the NC and the explicit examples of the NT where it seems as if a profession of faith and repentance precedes baptism.
> 
> ...



Trevor,

Forgive me for missing it but I don't see how all your discussion of discontinuity addressed the issue of the logical fallacy I have an issue with.

I have not challenged you, precisely, on the perfection of the NC (or that it only contains the elect). 

Here are your therefore statements:

--Therefore only believers are in the NC. (Let me grant you, for sake of argument, that you established this above)
*--Therefore, the visible church, being the NT covenant community should resemble this as far as it is possible in this sinful world. 
--Therefore, though we can never know who they Elect are, we only administer the covenantal signs to those that show indications of being in the covenant. (this, by the way, is not a presumptious claim to KNOW who the Elect are. The Day of Judgment will hold many surprises).*

Where do those other two "therefores" follow necessarily? What Scripture establishes this? You cannot merely appeal to a pattern of who was baptized. Those are performed without editorial and they were not performed for either of the reasons you claim they were above. You give the *reason* for those baptisms of believers as flowing logically from the perfection of the New Covenant, through the desire to make the Church reflect this perfection, through using profession to achieve this end. Thus the premise for baptizing professors, according to you, rests on the desire to have a perfect Church. The examples you presented don't offer this as the reason why the people were baptized so where do you get this from?


----------

