Why I am now a Baptist

[Herald]

i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.

I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.

Rich, I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind.

Malone stated it more eloquently:

It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.

 

[Herald]

And Chris (wherever you are), look what you so efficiently started and then said you didn't want to participate in!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.

I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.

Rich, I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind.

Malone stated it more eloquently:

It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.

Well, whether or not Fred Malone has trouble with this idea, the Apostle Paul has no difficulty when he enjoins children in the Church to obey their parents and cites the 5th Commandment applying a LAND promise to a promise of spiritual blessing for honoring of parents.

 

[Kevin]

I feel sad.

Not to have lost a champion, because Gods word is sufficient. But I feel sad to think that someone would defend the bibilical view with such vigor and then be turned on such shallow grounds.

I am no bigot when it comes to our baptist brothers. My FIL is a minister of that ilk, I was born to that faith, I studied at 2 of their schools, and every day I am working to plant a church that welcolms both views within one reformed fellowship.

And yet...

I feel sad. How (I ask in all honestly & sincerity) could you have ever called yourself a presbyterian (who defended the faith, not just an adherent) and still missed the point in Acts?

I just do not understand...

 

[shackleton]

...baptist brothers...ilk...

Ouch

 

[MW]

Ok, Reverend Winzer. My kids were born cut off. I didn't lie to them about it. I am sorry to inform you but I would say that John the Baptist was not normative. He was a special case. We are all born aliens to the Covenant of God as it says in Ephesians. We are all born in sin. That cuts us off.

It may be worth your while to go back and read Ephesians 2:11ff with the Jew/Gentile divide in mind, carefully noting the "ye" and "our" distinction. The apostle himself was not a stranger to the covenant of God by birth. His readership, being Gentiles by birth, were strangers. But now, he says, they are brought near. Note, it is not that a different promise has been made to the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles have been incorporated with the Jews in the same promise. They now possess all the privileges of the circumcision. The New Testament does not restrict but enlarge the sphere of the covenant of grace.

 

[MW]

Am I understanding it correctly that, to not baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?

Not akin to excommunication; it is excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.

 

[satz]

Am I understanding it correctly that, to not baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?

Not akin to excommunication; it is excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.

But why?

Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with.

The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.

Indeed, children of believers are called "holy" for a reason.

It is true that the children of a believing parents are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also "sanctified" (same word as "holy" used for the children only its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptised. To baptise an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified and made holy the the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptised, but not he unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of "covenant children" which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for "covenant unbelieveing spouses" and the baptism of unbelievers.

How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and he the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.

A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God's moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.

One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. "Is my marriage to an unbeliever and abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?" These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.

What, then, is Paul's answer? In essence it is this - both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him (or her) as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to Gods' will.

Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that he children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptised as infants.....

Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner pp. 98-99

This passage is about marriage.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

In answer to JerusalemBlade - we are not looking at the Christian observance of the Feast of Weeks, but How the Jews celebrated it. Since they were the ones who were commanded to bring "all males" on the day, then it would follow that "all males" were there, c.f. Deut 16:16.

In anser to Pilgrim's question about 1 Cor 7:14 I find his and the credo-baptist answers just as slippery as his accusations of paedo-baptists on Acts 2:41. The unanswered problem is this:

What does "otherwise" mean in relation to the unbelieving parent?

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

To say that "sanctified" and "holy" have the same root word does not mean that they mean the same thing. The words "age" and "ageless" both have the same root word, but they mean entirely different things.

If we take the Baptist view that "holy" here means simply, "set apart" then what are the children being "set apart" for? Are they in some kind of purgatory where they are between heaven and earth? And, if so, then where do you find corroborating evidence for such a thing?

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.

Bill writes:

I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant.

I don't think you have a real problem with this, Bill, because you know that the 10 Commandments were a part of the Mosaic Covenant. But, according to past statements, you claim that Jeremiah 31 abrogates the Mosaic Covenant. But, you have also claimed that the 10 Commandments are still binding on Christians in the New Covenant? (Unless you are consistent and hold to antinomianism?)

So, there are things in the Old Testament that are still binding upon the Christian, and there are things in the Old Testament that are no longer binding. You condemn the paedo-baptist for practicing something that you youself, and your fellow Baptists, practice?

I would submit to you that Abraham was not looking for a physical land, but for a spiritual one:

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in taernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God, Hb 11:8-10.

Where do you find anywhere in Covenant Theology that, "If you believe that one part of the Covenant is still binding for today, it then means that you believe that all of the Covenant is still binding?" Making distinctions between what is binding and what is not binding is the very heart of the Pauline interpretation of Jer 31 in Hebrews 8:9-10:39.

Blessings,

CalvinandHodge

 

[Iconoclast]

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.

Pilgrim,
If you get a chance listen to this sermon on Acts 2 and let me know, what you think.
it is on sermonaudio
153 What is a Covenant Child?
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • 46 min.
Hebrews 2; Acts 2 • First Baptist Church of Parker 100+ Play! | MP3

SUN 07/09/2006
Sunday - AM

 

[MW]

Am I understanding it correctly that, to not baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?

Not akin to excommunication; it is excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.

But why?

Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.

Why doesn't it imply that? Baptism is not merely an entrance into the institutional church, but into the church as the visible kingdom of Christ.

 

[MW]

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ok, Reverend Winzer. My kids were born cut off. I didn't lie to them about it. I am sorry to inform you but I would say that John the Baptist was not normative. He was a special case. We are all born aliens to the Covenant of God as it says in Ephesians. We are all born in sin. That cuts us off.

It may be worth your while to go back and read Ephesians 2:11ff with the Jew/Gentile divide in mind, carefully noting the "ye" and "our" distinction. The apostle himself was not a stranger to the covenant of God by birth. His readership, being Gentiles by birth, were strangers. But now, he says, they are brought near. Note, it is not that a different promise has been made to the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles have been incorporated with the Jews in the same promise. They now possess all the privileges of the circumcision. The New Testament does not restrict but enlarge the sphere of the covenant of grace.

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

(Eph 2:2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

(Eph 2:3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.


In the New Covenant unbelieving Israel is cut off. The tree is for those who are in the Covenant of Grace. It is no longer a mixed Covenant. Again we are headed down this road. Even Meredith Kline thought that the Mosaic was a reissuing of the CofW. Everyone is rendered dead by it. That is why I also believe it is a mixed covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in Christ. Now Christ is the head of a New Covenant. He is the Covenant head. And his children are spiritual. Not physical. Paul was a stranger to the Covenant of Grace until Christ came to him and reconciled him.

I would like to ask, are you implying that the Jews were not born under the Wrath of God from birth, and that they didn't need to be reconciled to God and made members of the Eternal Covenant if they were to inherit Christ and and union with Christ? Isn't that what Romans is about? For their is none righteous, no not one. I know you aren't saying that. But you are implying that the Covenant of Grace is mixed with unregenerate and regenerate.

 

[wallingj]

I don't feel like trudging into this argument thus I am only going to offer an observation. Coming from a Baptist background and moving to a Presbyterian background I have heard both teachings and witnessed both baptisms. Therefore, here is the observation I offer. The Baptist church's I have attended, which have been several, routinely had infant dedication ceremonies, and I might add that I participated in two of them with my children. Anyway, the ceremony consists of the parents and the church pledging to raise the child in the Church and that each member would assist in that endeavor. The only thing missing from these ceremonies and the Presbyterian ceremony was the water. It just sort of makes you go .

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Randy,

Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.

At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.

 

[MW]

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Here you make the very point you are contradicting. Paul himself was a child of wrath BY NATURE, Eph. 2:3, and a child of promise BY COVENANT, ver. 12.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Here you make the very point you are contradicting. Paul himself was a child of wrath BY NATURE, Eph. 2:3, and a child of promise BY COVENANT, ver. 12.

He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rob- you said this

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.

Did you mean to say OLD COV by circumcision?

Then you said-

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism.

This is still the main point of disagreement. Randy and Bill have pointed it out already. Only Spirit Baptism does this, water baptism does not.
The view you hold says it does.That is why if you look back at virtually every padeo post, They never mention the new birth,or the Spirit quickening the child.
Yes, when pressed into it they will say something like - of course it depends upon the Spirit's work. Yet when not prompted you rarely will see this highlighted. Salvation is set forth as a methodical step by step procedure,dealing with mental ascent to the idea that all of the "promise" that the sign pointed to, will be just sort of infused into the child- because we cannot tell when where or How the Spirit moves?

Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

Again, you move further and further away from baptism as you yourself well know that neither the Baptist nor the Presbyterian view of Baptism confers union with Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I enjoyed the rest we have had from this kind of discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.

Hence, profession does not put you in either as baptism neither confers new birth to children nor to professors. Who to baptize then?

 

[MW]

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

This is the point we arrive at in view of the apostle's teaching. But to the Corinthians the great problem was how they stood ceremonially before God in view of their sexual union with an unbelieving spouse, and what would be the status of their children as a result. Paul assures them the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage bond for the purpose of making the sexual union legitimate so that their children are set apart to God in the same way that the children of two believing parents are set apart. Paul's statement only makes sense on the presupposition that the children of a believing marriage are set apart to God and not considered unholy as is the case with unbelievers' children.

 

[satz]

Not akin to excommunication; it is excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.

But why?

Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.

Why doesn't it imply that? Baptism is not merely an entrance into the institutional church, but into the church as the visible kingdom of Christ.

Again... but why. Not being a church member does not equal 'having no part in Christ's kingdom'.

 

[MW]

He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular). The text also reads that the Gentiles were strangers to this plurality of covenants holding forth this singular promise, thereby negating any possibility of suggesting a plurality of covenants between the Old and New Testaments. He further says, not that God made a distinct covenant of promise with the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles were brought near and incorporated into Israel's promise. He proceeds to state clearly what this fulfilled promise is: "through him WE BOTH have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father, ver. 18. Jews and Gentiles are united in the fulfilment of the SAME SPIRITUAL promise.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

Again, you move further and further away from baptism as you yourself well know that neither the Baptist nor the Presbyterian view of Baptism confers union with Christ.

I never said baptism conferred anything, did I? I think we were talking about marriage and what holy meant in 1 Corinthians 7:14 weren't we?

Now concerning Marriage to an unbeliever... God's word and declaration that marriage is not unclean makes it legit confers the truth of it. I think that was what we were discussing. This passage is about the sanctity of marriage. The holiness (sanctification) of the family unit and what that holiness is.

 

[staythecourse]

I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.

I am looking forward to seeing the superstructure. If I just started the paedo-credo research and saw someone reverse their theology on this verse I would say the reasoning looks shaky, too.

However, I believe there has been much more thought than the tip of this iceberg.

So please, Chris, when you have time, explain more thoroughly your thoughts.

There's a 5 second rule for candy that hits the floor and a 2 week rule for massive theological changes.

 

[MW]

Again... but why. Not being a church member does not equal 'having no part in Christ's kingdom'.

If you consider the church in its institutional aspect, then obviously not; but the catholic church IS the visible kingdom of Christ on earth (WCF 25:2), and therefore to be denied baptism is to be denied recognition of being a member of this kingdom.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular). The text also reads that the Gentiles were strangers to this plurality of covenants holding forth this singular promise, thereby negating any possibility of suggesting a plurality of covenants between the Old and New Testaments. He further says, not that God made a distinct covenant of promise with the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles were brought near and incorporated into Israel's promise. He proceeds to state clearly what this fulfilled promise is: "through him WE BOTH have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father, ver. 18. Jews and Gentiles are united in the fulfilment of the SAME SPIRITUAL promise.

Your correct it does say Covenants of Promise. But that doesn't negate any possibility of suggesting a plurality of Covenants. It does say Covenants. And I believe the CofG does run through the Covenants as a Promise as the Covenant of Works run through a few of them also. And your are correct. The gentiles were brought near to the Promise of the Covenant of Grace as to where they were aliens in general till now. Christ is the Israel of God is he not? We who are placed in Him are of that same spirtual Promise as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are. Remember not off of Isreal was Isreal. Some were not included just as Ishmael wasn't.