Baptism and the supposed spirituality of the New Covenant

[Peairtach]

One of the arguments sometimes used by Baptists is that the New Covenant is more spiritual than the Old Covenant and presumably than the Abrahamic Covenant.

E.g. We've had Baptist posters on this forum arguing that the promises in the Scripture regarding the children of belivers should now be thought of spiritually i.e. that they should be thought of in this New Covenant period as being fulfilled in the spiritual children of believers - those who believe in Christ through the witness of believers.

But a moment's thought will remind us that the New Covenant is not purely "spiritual" but includes physical/bodily matters as well e.g. the resurrection of the body and much else besides.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It has to do with Union in Christ. I don't know where you are getting your strange idea in your post that the physical is separated but it is a false straw man as I understand your observation. My whole being is in union with Christ. He has purchased my whole being. He dignified our physical being also by becoming a man. He has done no such thing with any other part of His creation. Your straw man falls apart in my estimation.

(Rom 8:9) You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

(Rom 8:10) But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

(Rom 8:11) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

We are to glorify God in our bodies. You can not separate the two as you seem to say we are doing. Just an observation.

 

[Peairtach]

He has purchased my whole being. He dignified our physical being also by becoming a man.

What place is there then for the physical offspring of a believer in Christ in the Covenant of Grace?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I think that there is a difference in the nature of the covenants. In the Abrahamic covenant, you knew that if you were a descendant of Abraham, then your child was as well, and thus the child was automatically grafted into the covenant. In the New Covenant, although we would like to think so, we have no guarantee that our children will be part of the elect.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

True, this question of the "nature" of the covenants is very close to the central issue of the debate.

if you were a descendant of Abraham, then your child was as well, and thus the child was automatically grafted into the covenant

For example, the above statement is completely untenable from our contrary perspective. Ishmael's physical descendants were NOT automatic members of Abraham's covenant. The question of belonging to that covenant was unity with the mediatorial covenant-head, a relationship created and sustained by faith. That covenant-headship was passed on to individuals in the early generations (without removing the first and subsequent historical referents: quote "...Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob..."), and later to outstanding mediators of the Old Covenant (Moses, then judges, prophets, priests, kings).

Outsiders were grafted into Israel through conversion, thus making them one with the nation. National members/citizens were subject to the discipline of having their citizenship stripped from them, thus making them no more "automatic" members (which seems to me a rather reductionist way of speaking about the covenant-membership they were accorded by the mercies of God through their providential birth-status; are we so cavalier about our secular-citizenship?), along with any of their descendants who ever remained outside the nation and were not grafted in by a new profession of faith.

Not only is the principle (that birth is an insufficient criteria) apparent from the beginning, in the case of Ishmael; it is made plain in spades in the exile of the northern tribes. It is also shown in Judah's exile, but there's more going on there as the remnant-principle is meant further to be illustrated by their history. But it is vital to see in Judah's exile that the return to the land is never interpreted theologically as a complete restoration and a new covenant. How will God's promises to Abraham and the other fathers in Israel be restored and fulfilled? In Messiah, the perfect Israelite. We would argue, therefore, that the children of believers have NEVER had a guarantee that they are elect, or have substantive (i.e. irreversible) integration into the full realities of covenant identity.


Our dispute has to do with our treatments of the nature of Abraham's covenant, and whether or not it is single, or radically bifurcated into a "lower" and "higher" track--two different covenants in fact.

 

[Peairtach]

I think that there is a difference in the nature of the covenants. In the Abrahamic covenant, you knew that if you were a descendant of Abraham, then your child was as well, and thus the child was automatically grafted into the covenant. In the New Covenant, although we would like to think so, we have no guarantee that our children will be part of the elect.

I think my main point here is that the New Covenant is comprehensive of the "physical" as well as the "spiritual", therefore there is no reason from the point of view of people saying that the New Covenant is more spiritual than the Old Covenant - or the Abrahamic Covenant, if you want to go that far back - that we should expect that the offspring of professed believers should be excluded from the Covenant administration.

Is the New Covenant so much more "spiritual" than the Abrahamic Covenant that the children of believers are excluded from its administration? Or is the New Covenant - as Presbyterians believe - an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant which covers all the bases that were covered by the Abrahamic Covenant both "spiritual" and "physical".

The reason that some associate Moses, and by extension Abraham, with the "physical" and "carnal" is because of the outward and physical ordinances that were added at the time of Moses, and which subsequently fell away at the time of Christ.

But promises regarding future physical resurrection, the Land (the New Heavens and New Earth), and regarding one's children, didn't fall away.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

True, this question of the "nature" of the covenants is very close to the central issue of the debate.

if you were a descendant of Abraham, then your child was as well, and thus the child was automatically grafted into the covenant

For example, the above statement is completely untenable from our contrary perspective. Ishmael's physical descendants were NOT automatic members of Abraham's covenant. The question of belonging to that covenant was unity with the mediatorial covenant-head, a relationship created and sustained by faith. That covenant-headship was passed on to individuals in the early generations (without removing the first and subsequent historical referents: quote "...Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob..."), and later to outstanding mediators of the Old Covenant (Moses, then judges, prophets, priests, kings).

Outsiders were grafted into Israel through conversion, thus making them one with the nation. National members/citizens were subject to the discipline of having their citizenship stripped from them, thus making them no more "automatic" members (which seems to me a rather reductionist way of speaking about the covenant-membership they were accorded by the mercies of God through their providential birth-status; are we so cavalier about our secular-citizenship?), along with any of their descendants who ever remained outside the nation and were not grafted in by a new profession of faith.

Not only is the principle (that birth is an insufficient criteria) apparent from the beginning, in the case of Ishmael; it is made plain in spades in the exile of the northern tribes. It is also shown in Judah's exile, but there's more going on there as the remnant-principle is meant further to be illustrated by their history. But it is vital to see in Judah's exile that the return to the land is never interpreted theologically as a complete restoration and a new covenant. How will God's promises to Abraham and the other fathers in Israel be restored and fulfilled? In Messiah, the perfect Israelite. We would argue, therefore, that the children of believers have NEVER had a guarantee that they are elect, or have substantive (i.e. irreversible) integration into the full realities of covenant identity.


Our dispute has to do with our treatments of the nature of Abraham's covenant, and whether or not it is single, or radically bifurcated into a "lower" and "higher" track--two different covenants in fact.

I will certainly defer to your superior knowledge on this subject, but I will just say that by descendants of Abraham, I was referring to Jews, regardless of how they came to be Jews. I think the only point that myself and my Baptist brethren are trying to make is that we have no assurance that our children are part of the elect and so we have no reason or right to baptize them. As time goes on and they begin to show credible evidence of regeneration, then baptism becomes appropriate. In either case, baptism does not save and we often baptize children who are in fact not saved. It is impossible to discern with absolute certainty the condition of anyone's soul, even our own children's, and it is completely impossible to do so to an infant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No superiority intended, I assure you.

no assurance that our children are part of the elect and so we have no reason or right to baptize them

I understand you here to affirm that an important purpose for baptizing is to mark out visibly the eternally elect. Regeneration produces fruit, and baptism reflecting the individual's desire to affiliate is in your view an appropriate sign to accompany those other signs. The signs are for pointing to salvation, ultimately pointing back to God's election; thus baptism is principally an act of ratification.

t is impossible to discern with absolute certainty the condition of anyone's soul

And this faculty of discernment is paramount, so far as the Baptist church is party to the transaction. The desire being, to avoid a visible marking (baptism) that is false. Naturally if false, the whole ratification is null and void; and a subsequent ratification will be required.



Thus is borne witness to the varied purposes between the two groups by practice of baptism, and our alternative perceptions of the nature of Abraham's covenant and the specifics of its relation to the presently instituted covenant.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

No superiority intended, I assure you.

I did not mean to imply that you were trying to sound superior, I was simply admiting that you have more knowledge on this subject than do I. I think you make some good points and I really think that we probably spend more time worrying about baptism than we should. I think we all agree that it is just a symbol and that it has no saving power in and of itself. Beyond this, we should do as our consious leads us to do.

 

[Herald]

Is the New Covenant so much more "spiritual" than the Abrahamic Covenant that the children of believers are excluded from its administration?

You're asking a question that presupposes the answer is based more on logical deduction than from the text. For the Baptist the New Covenant is "now and not yet" in both it's temporal and eternal administrations. The physical aspect of the New Covenant, as pertains to believers, is seen in passages such as 1 Cor. 15:50-53 and Rev. 21:4. The physical promises of the New Covenant have to do with eternal life and are on the basis of faith. As a covenantal Baptist I believe that God does, indeed, work through covenant families, but I define that term differently than a paedobaptist. But even though God works through covenant families (although not exclusively) the promises of the New Covenant extend to those who exercise saving faith. Therefore, it's not because of any familial identity that the promises of the New Covenant are (whether they be spiritual or physical) extended; it is solely on the basis of grace through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[Peairtach]

Bill

Therefore, it's not because of any familial identity that the promises of the New Covenant are (whether they be spiritual or physical) extended; it is solely on the basis of grace through faith in Christ Jesus.

Surely the promises are especially extended by God in His providence to all in covenant families? Whether every individual lays hold on the promises by faith is another Q.

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

The Apostle says here that those brought up in covenant families have in the Lord's providence a great advantage.

If they use their advantage by grace through faith - well and good. If they sinfully abuse or neglect their advantage it will still redound to God's glory in a different way.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

My question is what do the two different signs signify between the Covenants made with Abraham and the Covenant made with Christ as head? In the Abrahamic there is no doubt that their are promises that are laid out to the non elect who were not recipients in the spiritual promises. Sometimes those promises in the Abrahamic do not overlap to include both the spiritual and physical. In the New Covenant the promises are concerning those who are specifically in Union with Christ and His eternal kingdom. As noted before those who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to him. They are not in union with him in the New Covenant. Is there a promise of land and habitation of the land in the New Covenant for the non-elect as there is in the Abrahamic Covenant? Is there a for certain promise of acquisition of the spiritual blessing because the New Covenant sign is applied as there was a certain promise of acquisition of the physical for those who had the sign applied in the Abrahamic? Even though Esau despised his birthright there were still promises aquired physically for him in the Abrahamic. Abraham was still able to acquire a blessing for Ishmael in the Covenant even though it might not have been spiritual in nature. The same goes for Isaac concerning Esau.

(Heb 11:20) By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

Hebrews 8 definitely spells out to many that the New is New and not like the Old in some manners.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't believe that baptism is a sign of a covenant at all. It is an outward expression of an inward reality that one has died to self and has risen to walk with Christ. It is a public statement of faith and an act of obedience in following Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I don't believe that baptism is a sign of a covenant at all. It is an outward expression of an inward reality that one has died to self and has risen to walk with Christ. It is a public statement of faith and an act of obedience in following Christ.

Then you are unconfessional as the LBCF states it is a sign.

1. BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself 'in newness of life'.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't believe that baptism is a sign of a covenant at all. It is an outward expression of an inward reality that one has died to self and has risen to walk with Christ. It is a public statement of faith and an act of obedience in following Christ.

Then you are unconfessional as the LBCF states it is a sign.

1. BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself 'in newness of life'.

I agree with that. It says what I said above. Just using the word sign doesn't mean it's a sign of a covenant. It is a symbol of statement. It literally symbolizes and means what it represents. That is why it is done by believers by immersion.

A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
Rewritten in Modern English
©1975, Carey Publications, Ltd., 75 Woodhill Road, Leeds, U.K., LS16 7BZ
Reprinted here by permission

CHAPTER 28 - BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER

BAPTISM and the Lord's supper are ordinances which have been explicitly and sovereignly instituted by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, who has appointed that they are to be continued in his church to the end of the world.

Matt. 28:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:26.

These holy ordinances are to be administered by those alone who are qualified and called to do so, according to the commission of Christ.

Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 4:1.
Founders Ministries | bcf-28

A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
Rewritten in Modern English
©1975, Carey Publications, Ltd., 75 Woodhill Road, Leeds, U.K., LS16 7BZ
Reprinted here by permission

CHAPTER 29 - BAPTISM

BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself 'in newness of life'.

Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12.

The only persons who can rightly submit themselves to this ordinance are those who actually profess repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, being willing to yield obedience to Him.

Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12,36,37; 18:8.

The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the believer is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 8:38.

Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance.

Matt. 3:16; John 3:23.
Founders Ministries | bcf-29

This nowhere says "baptism is a sign of a covenant." It says it is a sign of one's fellowship with Christ and I agree with that. It's a public statement.

Anyway, I was just illustrating that we shouldn't be painted with a broad brush as I am a Baptist who would not assert what the referenced baptists in the OP asserted.

 

[Grimmson]

I don't believe that baptism is a sign of a covenant at all.

I do not know how you can call it “an outward expression of an inward reality” and have it not be a sign, for signs point to what is signified by that sign. Therefore one must say that the outward expression of baptism is a sign of God’s covenantal promise pointing to that union we have in Christ or what you may call the inward reality, and thus is a sign of the covenant.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't believe that baptism is a sign of a covenant at all.

I do not know how you can call it “an outward expression of an inward reality” and have it not be a sign, for signs point to what is signified by that sign. Therefore one must say that the outward expression of baptism is a sign of God’s covenantal promise pointing to that union we have in Christ or what you may call the inward reality, and thus is a sign of the covenant.

I didn't say it isn't a sign. I just don't believe it is the same type of sign as OT circumcision.

My point was that I was illustrating to the OP that not all of us would make the argument made by the ones he referenced, so we're not all bad..etc.. I'll retire from the thread now. I hope ya'll understand what I'm saying. It is certainly confessional. I checked the confession before I even typed it. I seem to have stepped into a hornets nest and certainly don't want to do that nor do I want to derail the OPs thread.

 

[Grimmson]

This nowhere says "baptism is a sign of a covenant."

Do you deny that in Romans 4:11 that circumcision was the sign of the God’s covenantal promise to Abraham? I suggest reading Romans 4:11-6:7, for if you read the entire section you should be able to see baptism also as a sign.

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

I didn't see David's earlier post, but I still suggest reading Romans chapters 4-6, in light of Gen. 17 and Matthew 28.

 

[Herald]

BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself 'in newness of life'.

This nowhere says "baptism is a sign of a covenant." It says it is a sign of one's fellowship with Christ and I agree with that. It's a public statement.

David, if the quote from the 1689 LBC does not describe the New Covenant I don't know what does. A sign of his A) fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection B) of being engrafted into Christ C) of the remission of sins. All of these things are New Covenant distinctives. There is not a one for one correlation between circumcision and baptism. They both fulfill different functions. However, that does not negate the New Covenant significance of baptism.

 

[Scholten]

Is the New Covenant so much more "spiritual" than the Abrahamic Covenant that the children of believers are excluded from its administration? Or is the New Covenant - as Presbyterians believe - an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant which covers all the bases that were covered by the Abrahamic Covenant both "spiritual" and "physical".

Hello Richard,
I am very new to the Puritan Board, but I am not new to our practice of infant baptism. I embrace it wholeheartedly. I think you raise a very good question in the above quoted statement. I must admit that after studying this aspect a fair amount I personally have come to the conclusion that our Baptist brothers are correct when they hold that the New Covenant is spiritual in nature.
In this connection they point to Jeremiah 31; 33-34 where it is written, "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (ESV)
When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper He said, "’This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood . . .” (Luke 22:19b-20).
From these and other passages it seems quite conclusive that the members of the New Covenant will all be believers. I think the answer is to be found in distinguishing the Abrahamic covenant from the New Covenant. I believe the Abrahamic covenant continues to exist in New Testament times and is now a divinely given covenant which exists independent of the New Covenant. The same thing is true of the Davidic covenant in which God promised to have a descendent of David on the throne forever. Christ is the fulfillment of that.
I'm not exactly sure how what is described above fits with the Covenant of Grace; perhaps others can speak to that.

 

[Peairtach]

Is the New Covenant so much more "spiritual" than the Abrahamic Covenant that the children of believers are excluded from its administration? Or is the New Covenant - as Presbyterians believe - an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant which covers all the bases that were covered by the Abrahamic Covenant both "spiritual" and "physical".

Hello Richard,
I am very new to the Puritan Board, but I am not new to our practice of infant baptism. I embrace it wholeheartedly. I think you raise a very good question in the above quoted statement. I must admit that after studying this aspect a fair amount I personally have come to the conclusion that our Baptist brothers are correct when they hold that the New Covenant is spiritual in nature.
In this connection they point to Jeremiah 31; 33-34 where it is written, "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (ESV)
When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper He said, "’This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood . . .” (Luke 22:19b-20).
From these and other passages it seems quite conclusive that the members of the New Covenant will all be believers. I think the answer is to be found in distinguishing the Abrahamic covenant from the New Covenant. I believe the Abrahamic covenant continues to exist in New Testament times and is now a divinely given covenant which exists independent of the New Covenant. The same thing is true of the Davidic covenant in which God promised to have a descendent of David on the throne forever. Christ is the fulfillment of that.
I'm not exactly sure how what is described above fits with the Covenant of Grace; perhaps others can speak to that.

That's an interesting perspective Herb. I don't know what others like Bruce would say about it.

It is true that circumcision and the Abrahamic covenant were initiated long before the Exodus, Passover and the Old Covenant. Strictly speaking circumcision is not the sign of the Old Covenant but of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the Passover is the sign and seal of the Old Covenant.

Now baptism was introduced some time before the Lord's Supper and before the events of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Lord i.e. the great events of the New Covenant happened in c.AD 33, 3 or 4 years after the establishment of baptism under John the Baptist.

Are you saying that baptism is the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant in its New Covenant administration, whereas strictly speaking, the Lord's Supper is the sign and seal of the New Covenant?

I would say that in the New Testament era things have not got so "spiritual" that there is no place for the children of believers in the administration of the CoG or that the promises regarding children of believers have fallen to the ground.

34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.

The above passage may only mean that the distinction between God's people and those among them that held the mediatorial office of the prophet would cease. All true believers are prophets in the New Covenant, as they are kings and priests.

From these and other passages it seems quite conclusive that the members of the New Covenant will all be believers.

Not every one who partakes of the Lord's Supper is a true believer, so even according to the administrative scheme you are positing there are some in the administration of the New Covenant who are not true believers.

I believe the Abrahamic covenant continues to exist in New Testament times and is now a divinely given covenant which exists independent of the New Covenant.

"Co-ordinate" or "alongside" it would be better, if your scheme was correct, as God intended both to work together.

I think that it could be said that baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant that has particular reference to the ongoing Abrahamic Covenant, which Abrahamic Covenant did not expire with the First Advent. The Lord's Supper has particular reference to the events of the Crucifixion i.e. the founding of the New Covenant, typified by the events of the Exodus i.e. the founding of the Old Covenant.

It's unconfessional and unbiblical to say that baptism has nothing to do with the New Covenant but is only to do with the Abrahamic Covenant. Baptism was introduced as the mark of the Abrahamic Covenant in its New Covenant administration, as being more appropriate for this era than circumcision would be.

In the period from Abraham to Moses, or in the period from Moses to Christ, circumcision was more suitable than baptism.

 

[Scholten]

Is the New Covenant so much more "spiritual" than the Abrahamic Covenant that the children of believers are excluded from its administration? Or is the New Covenant - as Presbyterians believe - an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant which covers all the bases that were covered by the Abrahamic Covenant both "spiritual" and "physical".

Hello Richard,
I am very new to the Puritan Board, but I am not new to our practice of infant baptism. I embrace it wholeheartedly. I think you raise a very good question in the above quoted statement. I must admit that after studying this aspect a fair amount I personally have come to the conclusion that our Baptist brothers are correct when they hold that the New Covenant is spiritual in nature.
In this connection they point to Jeremiah 31; 33-34 where it is written, "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (ESV)
When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper He said, "’This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood . . .” (Luke 22:19b-20).
From these and other passages it seems quite conclusive that the members of the New Covenant will all be believers. I think the answer is to be found in distinguishing the Abrahamic covenant from the New Covenant. I believe the Abrahamic covenant continues to exist in New Testament times and is now a divinely given covenant which exists independent of the New Covenant. The same thing is true of the Davidic covenant in which God promised to have a descendent of David on the throne forever. Christ is the fulfillment of that.
I'm not exactly sure how what is described above fits with the Covenant of Grace; perhaps others can speak to that.

Thanks for your comments, Richard.

That's an interesting perspective Herb. I don't know what others like Bruce would say about it.]

Hopefully Bruce will join in and comment, too!

Are you saying that baptism is the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant in its New Covenant administration, whereas strictly speaking, the Lord's Supper is the sign and seal of the New Covenant?

I think that is certainly something that needs to be explored. I don't have all the answers in this, but I am searching.

I would say that in the New Testament era things have not got so "spiritual" that there is no place for the children of believers in the administration of the CoG or that the promises regarding children of believers have fallen to the ground.

I have to admit here that I have difficulties with the concept of the Covenant of Grace. As has been pointed out by a number of authors, it is not a biblical term directly. Your comments above are a case in point. You refer to the Abrahamic covenant, the Old Covenant, the New Covenant etc. I am not aware of a statement in Reformed theology which clearly and biblically ties all these covenants together into a concept of the Covenant of Grace. For that reason, I have tended to shy away from using the phrase Covenant of Grace myself.

34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.

The above passage may only mean that the distinction between God's people and those among them that held the mediatorial office of the prophet would cease. All true believers are prophets in the New Covenant, as they are kings and priests..

Good comments.

From these and other passages it seems quite conclusive that the members of the New Covenant will all be believers.

Not every one who partakes of the Lord's Supper is a true believer, so even according to the administrative scheme you are positing there are some in the administration of the New Covenant who are not true believers..

I agree with you. However, it does seem to be consistent with historic Reformed theology that only believers particitpate in the Lord's Supper. (Prior to the views on paedo-communion.)

I believe the Abrahamic covenant continues to exist in New Testament times and is now a divinely given covenant which exists independent of the New Covenant.

"Co-ordinate" or "alongside" it would be better, if your scheme was correct, as God intended both to work together.

Once again, good comment and I agree.

I think that it could be said that baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant that has particular reference to the ongoing Abrahamic Covenant, which Abrahamic Covenant did not expire with the First Advent. The Lord's Supper has particular reference to the events of the Crucifixion i.e. the founding of the New Covenant, typified by the events of the Exodus i.e. the founding of the Old Covenant..

This has good potential.

It's unconfessional and unbiblical to say that baptism has nothing to do with the New Covenant but is only to do with the Abrahamic Covenant. Baptism was introduced as the mark of the Abrahamic Covenant in its New Covenant administration, as being more appropriate for this era than circumcision would be.

And again, well thought out.

In the period from Abraham to Moses, or in the period from Moses to Christ, circumcision was more suitable than baptism.

 

[Peairtach]

Herb

34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.

The above passage may only mean that the distinction between God's people and those among them that held the mediatorial office of the prophet would cease. All true believers are prophets in the New Covenant, as they are kings and priests.

Good comments.

Well this was Joseph Pipa's take on Jeremiah's declaration that all will know the Lord; all the true members of the New Covenant will be prophets (and priests and kings). I'm still interested myself in looking further at that.

Jeremiah's declaration may correspond to Joel's declaration that in the New Covenant era all God's true people would be - spiritually-speaking - prophets:

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.(Joel 2:28-29, ESV)

Herb

Not every one who partakes of the Lord's Supper is a true believer, so even according to the administrative scheme you are positing there are some in the administration of the New Covenant who are not true believers.

I agree with you. However, it does seem to be consistent with historic Reformed theology that only believers particitpate in the Lord's Supper. (Prior to the views on paedo-communion.)

But the fact that God doesn't infallibly reveal to the kirk session or consistory who are true believers, means that it is inevitable with the best care in the world that people will become members of the visible New Covenant administration in partaking of the Lord's Supper who aren't converted. Thus it is God's will that in His providence there will be a mixture of the saved and the unsaved in the Visible Church and in the administration of the New Covenant.

This doesn't mean that the elders shouldn't be careful in their administration of the Lord's Supper and baptism, not to administer the sacraments too boadly or too narrowly, or that they shouldn't encourage those who profess faith in Christ to examine themselves.