# True Israel and Infant Baptism



## Covenant Joel (Aug 22, 2004)

I am trying to understand what Scripture says about baptism, and how much continuity there is between the old and the new covenants. 

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the prophecy of the New Covenant. It says, however, that the prophecy is for Israel and Judah. Dispensationalists obviously have a problem with this, because if we are in the New Covenant, then the church has inherited a promise made to Israel, and the Israel/Church distinction is wavering. 
I am certainly not dispensational, and I do indeed see that the fulfillment of the New Covenant is indeed in the church. However, I am not certain as to the members of this New Covenant. This is my dilemma:

The opening verses of Romans 9 teach that "not all Israel is of Israel." In other words, not all who are ethnically part of the nation of Israel are truly Israel. For only those who are spiritually Jews are true Jews (Romans 2:28-29). So, true Israel is composed of those who are TRULY believers. In other words, as Galatians 3 puts it, "only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." Only those who truly believe are children of Abraham, and are therefore true Israel. 
Now if indeed the church is true Israel, the fulfillment of the typology of the ethnic nation of Israel in the Old Testament, then the church does not really include those who are not truly believers. And if this is the case, and the prophecy of the New Covenant is fulfilled in the True Israel, the Church, then how can we say that there are truly uncoverted people in that New Covenant? 
And if no unconverted people are in the NC, then should babies be baptized?


Joel


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 22, 2004)

This may be helpful:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonSimpleCovenantTheology.htm


----------



## kceaster (Aug 23, 2004)

Joel,

What we must always keep in mind about the church is that there are things about it God enables us to see, and there are things about it we cannot see.

I think this is the root of the problem in the American church over the past 20 or 30 years. We've all the sudden gotten so caught up in who is and who isn't the church.

If you're familiar with the Lordship salvation issue, you'll see that the root of the argument is in trying to determine who is and who is not a Christian. It is the same thing with the Auburn Avenue guys.

If the American church were a persecuted church, we would have no problem figuring this out. We would see the separation of those who say the Name and those who live the Name. However, we are in a fairly prosperous time and it is beyond our sight.

Read up on things having to do with the visible/invisible church distinction. This should help you see the issue more clearly. If you understand it, it will open your eyes to the fact that God has always dealt with two kinds of peoples in the church, both OT and NT. This is the reason for passages like Matt. 7:21-23. Clearly, there are those sheep that we see with our eyes, who are really goats.

But, if you've read Dan's recantation, you will see a perspective that baptism is not about making sure that we baptize only the true sheep. We are to baptize all those who would be disciples. We make disciples by having children and bringing them up in the fear of the Lord.

There will always be goats mixed in the sheep. We are not commanded to remove the goats or withhold from them. We are commanded to remove the wolves and these are the ones who are evidently still enemies of God.

Does this make sense?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 23, 2004)

Joel,

[quote:4e678ef918]Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the prophecy of the New Covenant. [/quote:4e678ef918]

Well actually, this passage is not [i:4e678ef918]the[/i:4e678ef918] prophecy of the New Covenant. It is one of many (and those four verses are the Baptists' favorite). But I would encourage you to study the other OT prophecies about the New Covenant as well. Here are a few: Isaiah 59:20-21; Ezekiel 37:21-28; Jeremiah 32:37-40; Zechariah 10:6-12. I think what you'll find is that the New Covenant, though it is a better covenant with better promises, is the same as all the other covenants of Scripture in that it is for us and our children.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:77d2a3ea0f="luvroftheWord"] I think what you'll find is that the New Covenant, though it is a better covenant with better promises, is the same as all the other covenants of Scripture......[/quote:77d2a3ea0f]

This is not true. It cannot be a [i:77d2a3ea0f]better[/i:77d2a3ea0f] covenant based on [i:77d2a3ea0f]better[/i:77d2a3ea0f] promises with a [i:77d2a3ea0f]better[/i:77d2a3ea0f] Mediator and still be [i:77d2a3ea0f]the same[/i:77d2a3ea0f] as all the other covenants. To be better sets it apart!

If you have not done so I encourage a read of James White's latest article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review ( subscribe here: http://www.rbtr.org ) where he addresses the newness of the new covenant and with very precise exegesis shows what all the "betters" add up to!! A NEW covenant.

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 24, 2004)

Phillip, if you're going to quote me, please quote the whole statement. You can make anybody's theology look silly if you only quote part of what they say.

Here is the statement again with the part that you conveniently left out:

[quote:3af5b9918b]I think what you'll find is that the New Covenant, though it is a better covenant with better promises, is the same as all the other covenants of Scripture [b:3af5b9918b][i:3af5b9918b]in that it is for us and our children.[/i:3af5b9918b][/b:3af5b9918b][/quote:3af5b9918b]

I know that you didn't intentionally misrepresent me because you are a man of character. But I don't understand why you left that out because that little qualifier changes the statement. Of course the New Covenant isn't EXACTLY the same. The New Covenant is a more glorious covenant with better promises and a better mediator. It is not a covenant of shadow like the Mosaic. There is no bloody sign of inclusion like the Abrahamic. It is obviously different and better. But one thing it has in common with every other covenant is that it is with us and our children. Scripture [i:3af5b9918b]explicitly[/i:3af5b9918b] says so. If you don't believe me, read those passages I cited above.

I am very familiar with James White's arguments for credobaptism and all his sermons and arguments concerning the New Covenant. He came to the Baptist church I used to attend in Lynchburg and gave a very long, technical, and exegetical "sermon" on the newness of the New Covenant. I have listened to his audio sermons on the PRBC website more than once. I used to use his arguments as my primary ammunition against paedobaptism. James White was my living patron saint during my Reformed Baptist days. I and a couple of my Baptist buddies used to sit and talk about his arguments and how devestating they were, and how we just could not conceive of how they could be refuted. But alas, here I am 2 years later and White's arguments just don't seem that convincing anymore.

All that to say, I know the arguments, and I know exactly what he will say in his article. I'm sure I won't be surprised in the least.

By the way, do I have to actually subscribe to the RBTS to read this article?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:e62f9e50f8="luvroftheWord"]
By the way, do I have to actually subscribe to the RBTS to read this article?[/quote:e62f9e50f8]

No you can read the first part of the article on the journal site. To get the rest you have to buy the issue. ($10) There will be an issue in January where Dr. White attempts to rebutt Pratt and Neill's articles from the Case for Covanental Infant Baptism.


----------



## Goosha (Aug 26, 2004)

*The Apostle Paul's Interpretation of the New Covenant*

I'm sure debates over Romans 11 have already occurred and I hate to beat a dead horse, but maybe I can bring up something new. 

The apostle Paul discusses in this chapter branches being grafted into and cut off from the olive shoot (verses 17-24) which set up the context for the next several verses. Verses 25-27, the Apostle Paul argues for the salvation of Israel from Old Testament texts that refer to the New Covenant (verses 26-27). I think these verses in Romans 11 give us an idea of Paul's understanding of the New Covenant. Verse 25 is clearly a reference to the future and yet he refers to the New Covenant in his proof texts. Thus, I think it reasonable to conclude several points from these passages: 

1.) Since the New Covenant is apart of Paul's argument in context of individuals being cut off from the olive shoot, the overall flow of the text argues that [b:f092ac871f]new covenant can be broken and people can be cut off (verses 17-24 flowing into 26-27).[/b:f092ac871f]

2.) [b:f092ac871f]There is a future fulfillment of the New covenant. [/b:f092ac871f] This is proven from the future fulfillment of verse 25 and its flow into verses 26-27 where the New Covenant is referenced.

3.) Since Olive Shoot refers to new covenant Israel and since Paul warns people that their faith is what grafts them in and its the lack of faith that ultimately results in a person being cut off, [b:f092ac871f]the condition of the New Covenant is 'faith.' [/b:f092ac871f]


Pastor way writes:
[quote:f092ac871f]This is not true. It cannot be a better covenant based on better promises with a better Mediator and still be the same as all the other covenants. To be better sets it apart!

If you have not done so I encourage a read of James White's latest article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review ( subscribe here: http://www.rbtr.org ) where he addresses the newness of the new covenant and with very precise exegesis shows what all the "betters" add up to!! A NEW covenant. [/quote:f092ac871f]

I personally don't disagree with the main thrust of the Jame White's exegesis. Actually, I don't disagree with alot of what baptist exegesis brings us. As far as the text goes, most of the time baptist and paedobaptists don't take diametrically opposing interpretations. There tends to be a great deal of unity just slightly different applications of the same biblical data. In this case, I think James White does a trememdous job in exegeting the passage; however, he has a couple of poor applications (I think)-

1.) He draws conclusions that the writer of Hebrew never even alludes to. Nowhere ever does the writer make an application that everyone presently in the new covenant is atoned for. In fact, he makes a 1 verse application and then enters into a discussion (next chapter) on the superiority of Christ's priesthood (something not desputed among paedobaptists). 

2.) He does not prove but assumes that every promise of the New Covenant is presently fulfilled (i.e. universal salvific knowledge). According to the Apostle Paul, there is a definite future fulfillment to the New Covenant by which all Israel will be saved (i.e universal salvific knowledge). 


Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Goosha (Aug 31, 2004)

Goosha,

I have to hand it to you, your a great exegete. No one can even understand let alone argue against your most incredible argument from Romans 11. Keep up the good work.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 31, 2004)

He's trying to get somebody to respond to his argument. Nobody's responded yet, so he just did it himself.

I thought it was pretty funny myself.

[By the way Jayson, you need to read the signature requirements. Click here. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5636]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 1, 2004)

I'll respond to your argument, Jayson.

If you're in the New Covenant in Christ's blood, your sins are forgiven. Plain and simple. Therefore, everything you said above is wrong. People only appear to be cut off from the olive tree "externally", but "internally" only the elect are in the New Covenant.

Hey, it's a response, right? Maybe someone who is really a Baptist will answer.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 2, 2004)

Craig,

You got me!! Why didn't I think of that?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2004)

My take, for what it's worth:

The root is the word/the gospel. The olive tree is the covenant of redemption; the branches are the covenant of grace. Those branches cut away are those whom are in the COG that are not elect.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 7, 2004)

Scott writes,


"My take, for what it's worth: 

The root is the word/the gospel. The olive tree is the covenant of redemption; the branches are the covenant of grace. Those branches cut away are those whom are in the COG that are not elect."

I don't disagree with this. I don't usually use this much systematic language with exegesis but I think what your saying is reasonable.

I tend to think that the olive tree may have a special connection to olive tree analogy sometimes used of Israel in the old testament (like Jer. 11:17). Consequently, Paul was using the same terminology in keeping with the old testament. thus, the Olive Tree could be Israel and the branches are the members and the root is Christ. I don't think this is any different than your interpretation but I just don't use any systematic terms to describe it.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 8, 2004)

I was just kind of looking at the title and thinking. It might help to think of the true Israel as those that perservere. The elect are those that bear fruit. The reprobates don't and are extinguished in covenantal curses.

A little more on the topic at hand, Witsius considered the restoration of Israel one of the benefits of the New Covenant as did Calvin (at least whenever it was that he commented on Rom 11). The promise of the restoration of Israel is all over the scriptures (Ezekiel 11, Jeremiah 30 and nearly all the way to the end of the book Jeremiah, in Ezekiel. In the Gospels. In the Pauline Epistles notice how the book of Acts ends! Romans thematically seems to pick up right were the narrative ends in Acts etc). I found Witsius' arguments compelling.


----------

