"Covenant Language" in Baptist Churches?

[Larry Hughes]

Joseph,

I agree, not that "my seal of approval" means anything!

One has to wonder since Abraham is the father of THE faith and Abraham and the Israelites understood the promises to their children, then if we do not include our children - do we really have the same faith in degree?

Ldh

 

[Peters]

First, let me admit that I am a little peeved that you would call virtually 100% of the Reformers and Puritans "quite horrible" (not to mention Abraham himself!).

Brother, I didn´t call the Reformers and the Puritans "œhorrible". I said that a particular view that I saw emerging from your words concerning the nature of children was "œhorrible". Please notice the words I placed in bold. I´m sorry if the word "œhorrible" offends you. Would you prefer the word "œfalse"? Besides, you accused me of being "œdispensational". I will leave it up to you to decide who has delivered the greater insult . And your Abraham comment is, well . . .

Literally millions of Christians throughout history have realized the Biblical truth that God DOES differentiate between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers.

Please be assured that I appreciate the significance of church history in theological discussion, but your comments above are no real argument and you know it.

According to Scripture, He always has. --- It is YOUR baptistic/dispensational/child-excluding view that is new . . . not the covenantal view.

I don´t remember saying anything about what was "œnew" and what wasn´t. Also, don´t you think it´s strange that you would accuse me of being dispensational when it is you who clearly reads the New Testament in light of the Old? Ironic.

It is one thing to disagree and to be a baptist. But it is quite another thing to say that "it's quite horrible" . . . basically slapping the face of the great majority of Christian preachers/leaders/scholars throughout church history.

Do you embrace everything that these men have ever taught? How do you refer to the things they have taught that you reject? We are talking the very nature of human beings, the Covenant of Grace, and what it means to be "œin Christ", so if we are going to disagree let us do it with some backbone. That doesn´t mean being nasty, of course, but firm, clear and sometimes strong. Surly this can happen without jeopardising Christian love.

Would you really say such a thing to the face of Cyprian, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Ames, etc.?

Brother, what should I say to this? What would Luthor say to this? Shall I let these men so bind my conscience that I dare not disagree with them? Again, this is no argument, brother.

Even better, would you say such a thing to the face of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, etc.? They certainly did distinguish between their children and the children of pagans

It is incredibly interesting to me that refer to nothing in the New Testament. Do you not think that you as a Christian see the purposes of God clearer than all these men? Why do you cling so tightly to the shadows and so loosely to the substance? Use the shadows appropriately and not at the expense of the reality.

Second, you are quite mistaken when you say that it is "not based on ones standing in Christ". On the contrary, Biblical Covenant Theology dictates that believers' children are included in the covenant because of their special standing in Christ.

What is this third kind of being? The Scripture teaches that you are either clothed in Christ or you are not clothed in Christ, in Adam or in Christ, saved or damned, in light or in darkness (I could go on). These standings are based on one being a new creation, having the old-man slain and the new-man raised up because of God´s grace through the gift of faith alone. The issue is the heart (what God has always been concerned with). You are advocating some third state of being. What is it? Please don't tell me that the children of Christians are born clothed in the righteousness of the Son.

Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith in Christ. And yet God commanded that sign and seal to be given to the infant descendants of Abraham.

Yes, and who are the "œdescendents of Abraham" in the New Testament? They are those of the same "œfaith" as Abraham. They are those who belong to Jesus Christ by faith. People are not born belonging to Christ in this way. Come out from the shadows, brother!

Was Abraham therefore being "horrible" to make a distinction in this way, between his children and the children of others?

This is my point entirely! The children of Abraham are the children of faith according to the New Testament! So as Abraham made this distinction between "œhis children and the children of others" he was acting better than he knew. He was being faithful to the degree of light that God was shedding at that time in redemptive history through that covenant. It was a typological, shadowy anticipation of what was to come. This is the way in which we should observe Abraham´s discrimination, for God truly does not love the world in the same way that He loves His people, those of faith in His only Son.

I think not! On the contrary, if an 8-day-old infant was not circumcized, then that infant immediately became a covenant breaker .

Ok, an act (or lack of an act) AFTER a person is born is what constitutes a person a "œcovenant breaker". Given your understanding of continuity, you have been very clear here!

Therefore, it would be much more Biblical to say that it is "horrible" to not distinguish between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers. One is automatically in special relation to God. The other one is not.

You have not shown that this is true.

 

[street preacher]

Baptist churches by nature are not covenantal. If you really look at Baptist doctrine it doesn't allow for it. Reformed Baptists are a little different but you still do hear enough about the covenant as it is presented in the Scriptures. I think that the first reason why they don't is because they really don't look at the Bible as being one complete message from God. Reformed Baptists, at least the ones that I know, do but I think that they are missing an important insight concerning the Covenant and has affected their view on baptism. Speaking about non-reformed Baptists, they have been so afraid of appearing Catholic that they have laid aside many of the most cherished Christian doctrines that the church has always taught. To me they have become alot like the Catholics in some of their thought patterns. They have changed their doctrine over the years that they have become just as unbiblical in their own church doctrines, and through bad hermanuetics, that they are as unbiblical as the Catholics themselves. I know people in the SBC that are very reformed in their thinking but this is not the majority of them. The Independent Fundamental Baptists are even more so like the above. I still love these people but I don't think they are preaching the truth. I was raised in the SBC. I am also not saying that they are cults either, but that they have strayed from the gospel as a whole, which includes covenantal teachings of course, as the Galatians did.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
It is incredibly interesting to me that refer to nothing in the New Testament. Do you not think that you as a Christian see the purposes of God clearer than all these men? Why do you cling so tightly to the shadows and so loosely to the substance? Use the shadows appropriately and not at the expense of the reality.

I would be happy to show you abundant New Testament support, but it would be lost on you, since you do not yet understand the significance of the covenant and it's signs and seals in the Old Testament. Until we agree on what was going on with Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac, it would be futile for me to jump ahead to Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Luke 18, Luke 19, etc.

You cannot build a roof until you first have built the house, my friend.

Originally posted by Peters

Second, you are quite mistaken when you say that it is "not based on ones standing in Christ". On the contrary, Biblical Covenant Theology dictates that believers' children are included in the covenant because of their special standing in Christ.

What is this third kind of being? The Scripture teaches that you are either clothed in Christ or you are not clothed in Christ, in Adam or in Christ, saved or damned, in light or in darkness (I could go on). These standings are based on one being a new creation, having the old-man slain and the new-man raised up because of God´s grace through the gift of faith alone. The issue is the heart (what God has always been concerned with). You are advocating some third state of being. What is it? Please don't tell me that the children of Christians are born clothed in the righteousness of the Son.

Again, until you understand what was going on in the Old Testament, the New Testament isn't going to be clear to you.

Were there "only two" types of people in the Old Testament? I think not. There were at least three categories:

1) Regenerate, and in covenant with God. (saved Israelites)
2) Unregenerate, and in covenant with God. (unsaved Israelites)
3) Unregenerate, and not in covenant with God. (unsaved Gentiles)

You are denying the existence of category #2. The unsaved Israelites were in covenant with God, and received blessings that the unsaved Gentiles did not receive. However, when the time came for judgment, their condemnation was greater than that of the Gentiles, because they spurned God's grace and broke the covenant with Him.

The same category applies today in the Church. There are unregenerate people who are in covenant with God.

The infants of believers fit into either category 1 or category 2. But either way, they are covenant members, and therefore are commanded to be given the covenant sign. Abraham circumcized Ishmael as well as Isaac.

When Zaccheus alone believed, salvation came to his entire household. When the Phillipian jailer believed, his entire household was baptized. In Acts 2, Peter said that the promise is for you AND for your children. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul said that the children of believers are holy. In Malachi 2, God said that He wanted good Christian marriages so that there would be a Godly seed. Even go back to the "New Covenant" passage in Jeremiah 31. Then look at the context . . . look at the several paragraphs both before and after . . . even Jeremiah said that the children of believers were included in the promise. The bottom line: the children of believers are covenant members. Are they regenerate or unregenerate? We don't know. We presume them regenerate. But either way, they are covenant members and should receive the covenant sign.

Originally posted by Peters

Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith in Christ. And yet God commanded that sign and seal to be given to the infant descendants of Abraham.

Yes, and who are the "œdescendents of Abraham" in the New Testament? They are those of the same "œfaith" as Abraham. They are those who belong to Jesus Christ by faith. People are not born belonging to Christ in this way. Come out from the shadows, brother!

Do you really believe that Abraham and Moses were just locked away in "shadows" and didn't really know what was going on? Would you dare to tell Abraham or Moses that they were just "doing the best they knew" because they were only aware of "shadows"? Give me a break!

You said that "People are not born belonging to Christ in this way". Really? The ENTIRE nation of Israel coming out of Egypt partook of Christ (including the infants!). And yet do you believe that Korah and his followers were regenerate, or that the majority of the Israelites in the Exodus were regenerate? Of course not! The Lord God "bought" all of them . . . and yet that does not mean they were all regenerate.

Again, you need to understand the Old Testament before we can make our way into the New.

 

[street preacher]

Great stuff brother!

 

[blhowes]

Interesting thread. I'm glad that I started it with a fairly innocuous question so as to avoid controversy.

 

[Joseph Ringling]

A few observations/questions if you don't mind.

biblelighthouse said:

The same category applies today in the Church. There are unregenerate people who are in covenant with God.

The infants of believers fit into either category 1 or category 2. But either way, they are covenant members, and therefore are commanded to be given the covenant sign. Abraham circumcized Ishmael as well as Isaac.

But doesn't the Bible teach that the new covenant is not like the old covenant,in that it is new, that it is faultless, while the other is faulty?

Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, he says: " Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah

Also,you rightly point out the three categories of people in the old covenant but Jeremiah 31:34 speaking of the new covenant says that in this covenant this would no longer be the case. He says that "they shall all know me" not leaving exception for unregenerate covenant members.

Jer. 32:40 says that the law is written on the hearts of all covenant citizens, guaranteeing that no member of God's new covenant people will ever break the new covenant.

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul said that the children of believers are holy

But in that same passage it also says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified. V. 14.

So why then don't you baptise unbelieving husbands/wives? It would only be consistent wouldn't it?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Joseph Ringling
biblelighthouse said:

The same category applies today in the Church. There are unregenerate people who are in covenant with God.

The infants of believers fit into either category 1 or category 2. But either way, they are covenant members, and therefore are commanded to be given the covenant sign. Abraham circumcized Ishmael as well as Isaac.

But doesn't the Bible teach that the new covenant is not like the old covenant,in that it is new, that it is faultless, while the other is faulty?

Are you suggesting that Abraham, the father of the faith of the Church, was/is not a New Covenant member?

Furthermore, have you done your exegesis on the Hebrew and Greek words for "new" in reference to the "New Covenant"? It does not mean "brand new". Rather, it means "renewed". The "New Covenant" is the renewed Abrahamic covenant.

The New Covenant is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant could not and did not abrogate the promises that had already been made to Abraham. The Mosaic Covenant was simply "scaffolding" on the building of the church, if you will.

Originally posted by Joseph Ringling
Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, he says: " Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah

Also,you rightly point out the three categories of people in the old covenant but Jeremiah 31:34 speaking of the new covenant says that in this covenant this would no longer be the case. He says that "they shall all know me" not leaving exception for unregenerate covenant members.

You need to look at the "they shall all know me" phrase through the proper eschatological spectacles of the "already and the not-yet". Not all facets of the New Covenant are in effect yet. Please take the time to read this article referring to this very question: http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.New.Covenant.Baptism.pdf

Originally posted by Joseph Ringling

Jer. 32:40 says that the law is written on the hearts of all covenant citizens, guaranteeing that no member of God's new covenant people will ever break the new covenant.

. . . and one verse earlier, in Jeremiah 32:39, the children of believers are included in the covenant blessings.

The law has always been written on the hearts of God's people. That is nothing new to the "New Covenant" or the New Testament.

In fact, God's law is even written on the hearts of the unregenerate. See Romans 2.

Additionally, there are a number of New Testament texts clearly pointing out that people DO and WILL break the New Covenant. For example, check out Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10.

Originally posted by Joseph Ringling

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul said that the children of believers are holy

But in that same passage it also says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified. V. 14.

So why then don't you baptise unbelieving husbands/wives? It would only be consistent wouldn't it?

No.

The unbelieving spouse is sanctified . . . ceremonially/relationally clean for the purpose of intra-familial dealings. The beleiving spouse is not made "unclean" by being in contact with the unbelieving spouse.

But the child is covenantally "holy" . . . which is not said of the spouse.

(And even if you were to use this passage to argue that the unbelieving spouse is a covenant member, the spouse's unbelief would automatically make him/her a covenant breaker. But the infant child, on the other hand, shows no evidence for unbelief. We presume the child regenerate until he/she demonstrates otherwise.)

(On a seperate note, it would be interesting to start a thread regarding the question of whether spouses of believers are or are not covenant members [albeit covenant breakers]. After all, were not entire households baptized when one person became regenerate? . . . .but let's save that question for another thread . . .)

 

[Theological Books]

I've always had problems with the alleged exegesis of "kainos" in Hebrews 8 regarding the "newness" of the New Covenant, or at least what it is to means and looks like, specifically.

For instance, "kainos" can mean "new" as in brand new, or something that was not there previously, such as Mark 2:21, "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results." The new patch of cloth is not the same as the old patch of cloth, but is a different patch of cloth used in conjuction with the old cloth. However, the new is not the old, nor is the new a "renewed" portion of the old, or the old portion "renewed." The old portion is renewed by the addition of a separate, new piece, but the new piece is not itself the renewed old piece being applied.

Also, from John 19:41, "Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid." Was this tomb a "renewed" tomb?

And, from Matthew 9:17, "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved." Is this a "renewed" wine? Is this the same wine as the old wine, but renewed?

Also, from 1 John 2:7, "Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard." He is using the same word to denote the very opposite of the alleged implied meaning in Heb 8:8. But John, in the next verse, goes on to write, "On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining." He uses the same word with two different meanings, but the meanings are qualified.

I realize you are speaking of the use of "new" in relation to the "new covenant," but I want to make the semantic range of "kainos" a bit more clear. Also, logically, there is a problem with the concept of renewed, or identity, if you are going to assert identity between the New and the Old Covenant. Leibniz rightfully states if any one property exists in one thing, yet not another, they are not identical. For instance, a given object may consist of properties A, B, C, D, and E, while another object may consist of properties A, B, D, E, and F. The two objects are not identical, but different, though there possess some identical properties. This does not mean the two objects are the same, or are identical, though they share some identical properties. So, the connotation of something being "renewed," or the same object with identical substance being reiterated, does not do justice to the context or the actual differing substance of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Does this mean the spiritual promises of the New Covenant differ from the spiritual promises of the Old Covenant? No, but the New Covenant is not the identical Old Covenant with a different name of reference. I can call God the Father "God," or "Father," but I am addressing the exact same, identical person (containg all the same properties as the other). The first person of the Trinity is the same, identical (in properties) referent as God or Father. This is not true with the New Covenant, though. I cannot call the Old Covenant the New Covenant, for they are not identical. They have differences in regard to the substance of that which defines them, namely differing (and also identical) properties. So, by definition, the Old Covenant is not the New Covenant, but is a different covenant, unless you can say the Old Covenant is (identity) the New Covenant. You wouldn't say that, would you? You are not saying the New Covenant is the Old Covenant, are you? Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "renewed," or what these "renewal" exegetes mean? Are you saying the New Covenant is the Old Covenant renewed in the sense of the "new" heavens and "new" earth? If so, can you tell me what you think that looks like? I seriously want to learn about this.

 

[biblelighthouse]

No, the New Covenant is not the Old Covenant. They are different.

I am equating the Old Covenant with the Mosaic administration.

The New Covenant is the renewed Abrahamic covenant . . . NOT a renewed Old Covenant. The difference is greatly important.

From Abe to Moses, the Abrahamic covenant was in force. From Moses to Jesus, the Abrahamic covenant AND the Old covenant were each in force. From Jesus to the end of the world, the Old covenant is abrogated, and the Abrahamic covenant continues in force, in a renewed state.

Make sense?

 

[Peters]

The infants of believers fit into either category 1 [Regenerate, and in covenant with God. (saved Israelites)] or category 2 [Unregenerate, and in covenant with God. (unsaved Israelites)] But either way, they are covenant members, and therefore are commanded to be given the covenant sign. Abraham circumcized Ishmael as well as Isaac.

Second, you are quite mistaken when you say that it is "not based on ones standing in Christ". On the contrary, Biblical Covenant Theology dictates that believers' children are included in the covenant because of their special standing in Christ.

Are they regenerate or unregenerate? We don't know. We presume them regenerate. But either way, they are covenant members and should receive the covenant sign.

These are three quotes from you. It just sounds like you´re confused. They can be unregenerate but still in some "œspecial" standing in Christ. You haven't explained this third state of being with respect to sin and redemption. What does being in Christ in a "special way" promise the children of believers?

When Zaccheus alone believed, salvation came to his entire household. .

How far are you willing to take this? Now a family is saved because of the faith of one of its members? So in actual fact, you do know whether or not children of Christians are saved.

When the Phillipian jailer believed, his entire household was baptized.

Are we to baptize our 30 year old unbelieving brothers and fathers and mothers then?

Acts 2, Peter said that the promise is for you AND for your children

Read the context and rest of the verse. "œThen Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.. For the promise is to you and to your children,and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them".

Do you really believe that Abraham and Moses were just locked away in "shadows" and didn't really know what was going on? Would you dare to tell Abraham or Moses that they were just "doing the best they knew" because they were only aware of "shadows"? Give me a break!

"œAssuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matthew 11:11).

"œSo let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17).

"œFor if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain. "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises" (Hebrews 8:4-6).

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Hebrews 11:13).

They "œknew what was going on" according to light that was given them by God in the particular covenant. Do you think that they understood the anticipatory nature of the Levitical Priesthood rightly? Do you think that they understood the way that we do that Christ is the Shekinah glory? Do you think that they understood the way that we do that Christ is the temple, the Land, the Sabbath etc.?

"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

If we still see things somewhat dimly this side of the cross you better believe that they did.

The same category applies today in the Church. There are unregenerate people who are in covenant with God.

Brother, this is a massive jump. You have to strip the newness of the New Covenant in order to make this work. What makes the New Covenant "œbetter"?

You said that "People are not born belonging to Christ in this way". Really? The ENTIRE nation of Israel coming out of Egypt partook of Christ (including the infants!).

Brother, the real issue is that you want me to play ball in a park laced with your presuppositions. You have only, in so many words, said: "œThis is how it was for Israel under the Old Covenant; therefore, this is how it is for us under the New Covenant". You don´t seem to understand the nature of redemptive history as the unfolding mystery of Christ.

"To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ephesians 3:8-11).

Again, you need to understand the Old Testament before we can make our way into the New.

I understand the Old Testament as anticipatory, as the typological, foreshadowing of Christ, and I understand the New Testament as interpreting these shadows as fulfilled in Christ, the revelation of Christ, the mystery of God revealed.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Peters]

 

[Theological Books]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
No, the New Covenant is not the Old Covenant. They are different.

I am equating the Old Covenant with the Mosaic administration.

The New Covenant is the renewed Abrahamic covenant . . . NOT a renewed Old Covenant. The difference is greatly important.

From Abe to Moses, the Abrahamic covenant was in force. From Moses to Jesus, the Abrahamic covenant AND the Old covenant were each in force. From Jesus to the end of the world, the Old covenant is abrogated, and the Abrahamic covenant continues in force, in a renewed state.

Make sense?

Yes, that is much clearer. Thanks.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
It just sounds like you´re confused. They can be unregenerate but still in some "œspecial" standing in Christ. You haven't explained this third state of being with respect to sin and redemption. What does being in Christ in a "special way" promise the children of believers?

You and I both agree that not all Israelites were regenerate.

Do you agree that 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus partook of Christ, or not?

If you do agree with me here, then you must agree with me on the three divisions of people. What are we to make of the Israelites who partook of Christ, but were still unregenerate? Do you think that the Egyptians partook of Christ too? I don't think so! There are the unregenerate who do not partake of Christ (the Egyptians), the unregenerate who do partake of Christ (the unregenerate Israelites), and the regenerate who partake of Christ (the regenerate Israelites).

So, again, do you agree that 100% of the Exodus Israelites were partakers of Christ?

Originally posted by Peters

Acts 2, Peter said that the promise is for you AND for your children

Read the context and rest of the verse. "œThen Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.. For the promise is to you and to your children,and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them".

How about if you read the context of the passage. Peter was speaking to Jews only, and was speaking about Jews only. Nothing he said had anything to do with Gentiles. And the word "call" here was not ever used either in Joel or in Luke or in Acts to mean "effectually called" . . . Peter was just referring to Joel's speaking about God calling Jews back to the land.

To exclude children from inclusion, you have to totally ignore everything Joel said about the sanctification of infants, the Spirit falling on believers' children, and the context in which Peter said "and to your children".

Originally posted by Peters

Do you really believe that Abraham and Moses were just locked away in "shadows" and didn't really know what was going on? Would you dare to tell Abraham or Moses that they were just "doing the best they knew" because they were only aware of "shadows"? Give me a break!

<snip>

If we still see things somewhat dimly this side of the cross you better believe that they did.

I'm not sure what your point was in quoting all those verses. How exactly do they help support your point?

Originally posted by Peters

The same category applies today in the Church. There are unregenerate people who are in covenant with God.

Brother, this is a massive jump. You have to strip the newness of the New Covenant in order to make this work. What makes the New Covenant "œbetter"?

A better English translation would be "The Renewed Covenant". The "New Covenant" is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant.

It is "better" than the Mosaic administration of the Old Testament. The Mosaic administration could not and did not annul the promises that had already gone into effect hundreds of years earlier.

Originally posted by Peters

You said that "People are not born belonging to Christ in this way". Really? The ENTIRE nation of Israel coming out of Egypt partook of Christ (including the infants!).

Brother, the real issue is that you want me to play ball in a park laced with your presuppositions. You have only, in so many words, said: "œThis is how it was for Israel under the Old Covenant; therefore, this is how it is for us under the New Covenant". You don´t seem to understand the nature of redemptive history as the unfolding mystery of Christ.

"To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ephesians 3:8-11).

Again, you need to understand the Old Testament before we can make our way into the New.

I understand the Old Testament as anticipatory, as the typological, foreshadowing of Christ, and I understand the New Testament as interpreting these shadows as fulfilled in Christ, the revelation of Christ, the mystery of God revealed.

The great "mystery" was NOT Christ and His fulfillment of the shadows. Moses himself trusted in Christ. Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad. Just read Isaiah 53 for goodness sake.

The great mystery was that Gentiles would take part, as Gentiles, in the covenant in equality right along side with Jews.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

But doesn't the Bible teach that the new covenant is not like the old covenant,in that it is new, that it is faultless, while the other is faulty?

The Old Covenant was not faulty, the people were.

 

[Peters]

Brother Joseph, let me just say that i'm thankful for this discussion.

Do you agree that 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus partook of Christ, or not?

What do you mean "œpartook of Christ"? Do you mean that they "œpartook of Christ" without faith?

How about if you read the context of the passage. Peter was speaking to Jews only, and was speaking about Jews only. Nothing he said had anything to do with Gentiles.

"œAnd it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17; Joel 2:28).

"œAnd it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved" (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32).

You don't think that these verses have anything to do with the gentiles?

To exclude children from inclusion, you have to totally ignore everything Joel said about the sanctification of infants, the Spirit falling on believers' children, and the context in which Peter said "and to your children"

Is this what you´re referring to in Joel? That's pretty thin, brother.

"œNow, therefore," says the LORD,
"Turn to Me with all your heart,
With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning."
So rend your heart, and not your garments;
Return to the LORD your God,
For He is gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm.
Who knows if He will turn and relent,
And leave a blessing behind Him--
A grain offering and a drink offering
For the LORD your God?
Blow the trumpet in Zion,
Consecrate a fast,
Call a sacred assembly;
Gather the people,
Sanctify the congregation,
Assemble the elders,
Gather the children and nursing babes;
Let the bridegroom go out from his chamber,
And the bride from her dressing room.
Let the priests, who minister to the LORD,
Weep between the porch and the altar;
Let them say, "Spare Your people, O LORD,
And do not give Your heritage to reproach,
That the nations should rule over them.
Why should they say among the peoples,
"Where is their God?"' (Joel 2:12-17)

I'm not sure what your point was in quoting all those verses. How exactly do they help support your point?

The point was that Christians understand the purpose of God clearer than any who have gone before them because of where they are in the unfolding of redemptive history with the light of the fullness of Christ.

A better English translation would be "The Renewed Covenant". The "New Covenant" is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant.

I am not qualified to address the Greek, but I suppose I could see what someone else has said. In the meantime, see Theological Books above.

The great "mystery" was NOT Christ and His fulfillment of the shadows. Moses himself trusted in Christ. Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad. Just read Isaiah 53 for goodness sake. The great mystery was that Gentiles would take part, as Gentiles, in the covenant in equality right along side with Jews.

Yes, the "œmystery" was the inclusion of the gentiles in the promise, but you cannot divorce that from Christ Himself as though there is no connection between the two with respect to what the mystery is. In Colossians 1:26-28 Paul explains that the mystery is "œChrist in you, the hope of glory", and that this was "œhidden from ages past". Everything is tied up in Christ. I don´t know how you can say that Christ and His work of redemption is not the mystery. And, yes, isn´t Isaiah very clear.

Calvin commentates on Ephesians 3:4 thus:

But why does he affirm that it was not known, when it had been the subject of so many predictions? The prophets everywhere declare, that people shall come from every nation in the world, to worship God; that an altar shall be erected both in Assyria and in Egypt, and that all alike shall speak the language of Canaan. (Isaiah 19:18.) It is intimated by these words, that the worship of the true God, and the same profession of faith, will be everywhere diffused. Of the Messiah it is predicted, that he shall have dominion from east to west, and that all nations shall serve him. (Psalm 72:8,11.) We see also, that many passages to this purpose are quoted by the apostles, not only from the later prophets, but from Moses. How could that be hidden which had been proclaimed by so many heralds? Why are all without exception pronounced to have been in ignorance? Shall we say, that the prophets spake what they did not understand, and uttered sounds without meaning?
I answer, the words of Paul must not be understood to mean that there had been no knowledge at all on these subjects. There had always been some of the Jewish nation who acknowledged that, at the advent of the Messiah, the grace of God would be proclaimed throughout the whole world, and who looked forward to the renovation of the human race. The prophets themselves, though they spoke with the certainty of revelation, left the time and manner undetermined. They knew that some communication of the grace of God would be made to the Gentiles, but at what time, in what manner, and by what means it should be accomplished, they had no information whatever. This ignorance was exemplified in a remarkable way by the apostles. They had not only been instructed by the predictions of the prophets, but had heard the distinct statement of their Master, (John 10:16,) "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one fold and one shepherd; "and yet the novelty of the subject prevented them from understanding it fully. Nay, after they had received the injunction, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," (Mark 16:15,) and, "Ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth," (Acts 1:8,)
they dreaded and recoiled from the calling of the Gentiles as a proposal absolutely monstrous, because the manner of its accomplishment was still unknown. Before the actual event arrived, they had dark and confused apprehensions of our Savior's words; for ceremonies were "a vail over their face, that they could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." (2 Corinthians 3:13.) With unquestionable propriety, therefore, does Paul call this a mystery, and say, that it had been hidden; for the repeal of the ceremonial law, which admitted them within the vail, was not understood.

The discussion seems to be swaying a bit, but I think it´s going in a good direction. How one puts their Bible together is the real issue.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The reason I would translate "new" as "renewed" or, more likely "fresh" is because of the Hebrew word used in Jeremiah for it (kdsh), not the Greek word in the New Testament.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The reason I would translate "new" as "renewed" or, more likely "fresh" is because of the Hebrew word used in Jeremiah for it (kdsh), not the Greek word in the New Testament.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
Brother Joseph, let me just say that i'm thankful for this discussion.

I'm thankful for this discussion too! Thanks for taking part!

Originally posted by Peters

Do you agree that 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus partook of Christ, or not?

What do you mean "œpartook of Christ"? Do you mean that they "œpartook of Christ" without faith?

I mean that 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus were partakers of Christ, regardless of whether they had saving faith or not.

Originally posted by Peters

How about if you read the context of the passage. Peter was speaking to Jews only, and was speaking about Jews only. Nothing he said had anything to do with Gentiles.

"œAnd it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17; Joel 2:28).

"œAnd it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved" (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32).

You don't think that these verses have anything to do with the gentiles?

I'm positive that Peter wasn't talking about Gentiles here. He didn't get a clue about Gentiles for another 8 chapters in Acts. And even then, in Acts 10, God had to do some serious convincing.

Furthermore, if you compare the wording of Acts 2 with Joel 2, it can be easily shown that the phrase, ". . . and to those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call", is in reference to Jews in the dispersion, NOT Gentiles.

Interestingly, however, the "all flesh" does include infants. (Or do you think that Jewish babies are not included in humanity as "all flesh"?)

Like I said:

To exclude children from inclusion, you have to totally ignore everything Joel said about the sanctification of infants, the Spirit falling on believers' children, and the context in which Peter said "and to your children"

In Joel, it says to "sanctify the congregation", including "nursing infants".

It also says that God will pour out His Spirit on your "sons and daughters" . . . (Or do you think that infant sons/daughters are somehow exluded here?)

 

[Peters]

I mean that 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus were partakers of Christ, regardless of whether they had saving faith or not

So you mean they entered into a covenant with Christ and no faith was necessary. That's your definition of the term "partook of Christ"?

If you are saying that the entire nation of Israel partook of Christ (covenanted with Christ), even though some had not saving faith in Christ, as a basis for arguing that kids are in covenant with Christ even when they have not faith in Christ, then you must also say that unbelieving adults can covenant with Christ (and therefore be baptized *do you hold to this?*), since they were also numbered amongst the entire nation of Israel. If this what you mean, then i reject it.

Israel were dealt with as a nation foreshadowing the Church. That is, they were a typological anticipation of the elect (a holy nation) being covered in the blood of the spotless Lamb. The elect are those whom God has given to the Son that none should be lost.

Moreover, to be consistent with your understanding of the Passover, you must conclude that not only unbelieving children and adults can be in covenant with Christ without faith but that they are also saved, for wasn´t the whole nation saved from Egypt?

I'm positive that Peter wasn't talking about Gentiles here. He didn't get a clue about Gentiles for another 8 chapters in Acts. And even then, in Acts 10, God had to do some serious convincing.

Our concern is what the prophecy means, not what Peter knew (there were things that Paul taught that Peter thought hard to understand). People speaking better than they know is a significant theme in the Scriptures.

Furthermore, if you compare the wording of Acts 2 with Joel 2, it can be easily shown that the phrase, ". . . and to those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call", is in reference to Jews in the dispersion, NOT Gentiles.

Joseph, both Peter and Joel use the term "œall flesh". How on earth can you say that this does not include gentiles?

Interestingly, however, the "all flesh" does include infants. (Or do you think that Jewish babies are not included in humanity as "all flesh"?)

I do think that Jewish babies are included in humanity and I do think that Jewish babies, along with those from all flesh, can be saved. You´re making my points for me now, brother.

In Joel, it says to "sanctify the congregation", including "nursing infants".

Actually, verse 16 says, "œGather the children and nursing babes", not sanctify them.

It also says that God will pour out His Spirit on your "sons and daughters" . . . (Or do you think that infant sons/daughters are somehow exluded here?)

I believe that "œsons and daughters", infants and otherwise can be saved. This is not the issue.

Something else: Since the New Covenant is to be understood in contradistinction from the Mosaic Covenant (Heb 8:8-9), how could it be a "œrenewed" Abrahamic covenant? Wouldn´t the background against which the New Covenant is set (namely the Mosaic Covenant) make it a "œrenewal" of the Mosaic Covenant? How do you work a "œrenewal" of the Abrahamic Covenant from this context?

The New Covenant is the work of God in the hearts of sinners. It is the divine work of the circumcision of the heart. This circumcision of the heart cannot take place apart from faith in Christ, and this reality is exhibited in baptism. These are all the connections that the apostle Paul makes.

"œIn Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col 2:11-13)

When you baptise infants who have uncircumcised, dead hearts because of the imputed sin of Adam, you detract from the significance of faith in Christ and the work of Christ in His resurrection from the dead.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters

I mean that 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus were partakers of Christ, regardless of whether they had saving faith or not

So you mean they entered into a covenant with Christ and no faith was necessary. That's your definition of the term "partook of Christ"?

If you are saying that the entire nation of Israel partook of Christ (covenanted with Christ), even though some had not saving faith in Christ, as a basis for arguing that kids are in covenant with Christ even when they have not faith in Christ, then you must also say that unbelieving adults can covenant with Christ (and therefore be baptized *do you hold to this?*), since they were also numbered amongst the entire nation of Israel. If this what you mean, then i reject it.

As for 100% of the Israelites partaking of Christ, I was simply quoting Scripture. I was just asking you whether you believed it or not.
In fact, 100% of the Israelites in the Exodus not only partook of Christ, but 100% of them were also baptized! Again, I'm going no farther than what Scripture explicitly teaches.

Besides, unbelieving adults covenant with Christ and are baptized all the time, especially in baptist churches! There is no such thing as "believer's baptism", because you don't know who the believers are. There is only "credobaptism". . . baptism on the basis of profession. But there are many who profess lies. And their judgment will be more severe than if they had never been sanctified by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). Also look at Hebrews 6 and Romans 11. 2 Peter 2:20-21 is also important here. Those who enter the covenant of grace, and then break the covenant, heap severe judgments upon their own heads.

Originally posted by Peters

I'm positive that Peter wasn't talking about Gentiles here. He didn't get a clue about Gentiles for another 8 chapters in Acts. And even then, in Acts 10, God had to do some serious convincing.

Our concern is what the prophecy means, not what Peter knew (there were things that Paul taught that Peter thought hard to understand). People speaking better than they know is a significant theme in the Scriptures.

Furthermore, if you compare the wording of Acts 2 with Joel 2, it can be easily shown that the phrase, ". . . and to those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call", is in reference to Jews in the dispersion, NOT Gentiles.

Joseph, both Peter and Joel use the term "œall flesh". How on earth can you say that this does not include gentiles?

Marcos, to answer your question, here's a quote from Dr. McMahon's book, "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology":

Student: It says in Joel 2:27, in context, "œThen you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame." So I guess this applies to Israel then, right?

Professor: Correct. The prophecy is concerning Israel. Peter is preaching to Jews. He quotes the fulfilled passage. Now might I ask, does this passage ring with covenant ideas or individualistic ideas? Are we talking about family here, or individual people?

Student: It says "œsons and daughters."

Professor: Is there anything about menservants and the like?

Student: Yes, menservants and maidservants- even old men and young men. Sounds like everyone in the household is being covered here.

Professor: Ok so far. Let´s see what else Peter says. He quotes David´s Psalm about Jesus when He is entombed. He will not see corruption. He did not see corruption. Jesus was raised from the dead. He directs this to whom?

Student: It says in Acts 2:36, "œTherefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." I would have to say it is directed to
Israel.

And again:

Professor: What is Peter saying here?

Student: He is including the believers, and their children in the covenant. The promise is actually for them. But wait! It also says "œand to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Isn´t that "œeveryone" else who will be saved? How could Peter be talking covenantally? I mean, yes, everyone saved is in the covenant, but I think your argument just died because those who are far off are also the unsaved Gentiles who will come into the fold later. Or even, both Jews and Gentiles who will come later. What do you say to that?

Professor: You argue well, but the Bible does not support your argument. Answer this: Does Peter believe that the Gentiles are included in the Covenant at this point in time?

Student: Of course. He would not have said "œall those afar off" if he were not thinking of the Gentiles - all those God would save at a later time. This could include all the elect for all the future "“ and that could mean you and I.

Professor: You are absolutely wrong. Peter is no more thinking about Gentiles here than he is thinking about eating a pork sandwich. It is often the case that Dispensationalists believe Peter, and the other apostles, had everything straight in their minds once we roll around to the book of Acts. This is not the case, and your argument is faulty.

Student: Why?

Professor: Read for me the verse that Joel quoted but Peter left out earlier.

Student: "œFor in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, "Among the remnant whom the LORD calls." Oh my! Peter does actually quote this but later in his message. He leaves the phrase "œwhom the Lord calls" off until he "œclinches" his argument with it about Jesus being raised from the dead. In other words, it looks as though he is "œfilling in the blanks" to Joel´s prophecy and adds a bit more commentary on what happened. He makes things more clear by doing this in his finely interlaced sermon. Then he says "œas many as the Lord will call." I never saw that.

Professor: Most don´t. they simply assume it is referring to Gentiles. Let´s see if I can set this straight for you. Peter´s sermon centers on the Gospel of Christ being the fulfillment of grace to Israel. He quotes the first section of Joel, explains his points, and then quotes the last part of the last verse of Joel to conclude his message, at least what we have of the message that the Holy Spirit deemed important for all time. His whole sermon flows very nicely together. He specifically and
intentionally left off that last part of the verse until it was time for the "œclincher" to come. The climax is not "œrepent and be baptized." The climax is the next verse that holds the whole passage together. It is a reformulation of the Abrahamic promise, and the prophecy fulfillment of Israel in Joel all wrapped up into a neat little verse. So what does that tell us?

Student: Peter was thinking about the Jews, not the Gentiles. The prophecy of Joel is for the Jews. This is hard to accept. My Dispensationalism doesn´t like this.

Professor: I know, but stick with it. It will pan out in the end. Since Peter is speaking to the Jews, and he is not thinking about the Gentiles at this point, what really clinches it for us that demonstrates that Peter did not think the Gentiles were yet involved?

Student: I am not sure.

Professor: Well, when did Peter actually have a personal lesson about Gentile inclusion in the covenant by God?

Student: Ah, yes, Acts 10 and Cornelius. Peter learns that what God has now called clean, he should not call unclean. That makes sense now. But couldn´t Peter have been "œhelped" by the Holy Spirit in that Acts 2 passage? Couldn´t the Holy Spirit be saying "œthose whom the Lord calls" as Gentiles? Can´t the Spirit override Peter to define this verse as referring to Gentiles?

Professor: No. The reason is twofold "“
1) Joel´s prophecy is to Jews, so remember that good hermeneutics is bent on keeping things in context, and
2) that the Holy Spirit does not turn men into robots. He does not overpower their mind and simply use them as a pen and piece of paper.

Everything Peter preached and said in Acts 2 he understood. Otherwise we would fall into the heresy of the dictation theory. That is where the Holy Spirit simply dictated information to the writers and Apostles of the New Testament and overrode their minds and wills. It´s not orthodox at all.

Student: I see. So Peter preaches to Jews and it is smothered in covenant language. Children are referenced, and "œas many as the Lord calls" is referring to Jews. What Jews?

Professor: Jews not present. Peter is preaching to the scattered people of God. God is calling the remnant back as Joel prophesied "“ His chosen people. Yes, later, Gentiles are seen as those grafted
in. Gentiles, according to Romans 11, are grafted into the same trunk that the Jewish branches were broken off. It is quite clear that Paul, in finishing those pristine passages about election, is demonstrating the nature of the covenant in chapter 11. Maybe we should briefly read that to ensure that you understand that the Jews and Gentiles will make up "œIsrael." Read Romans 11:17-21.

Student: "œAnd if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "œBranches were broken off that I might be grafted in." Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either." It seems some of those branches grafted into the covenant can also be broken off as well. The Jews were broken off, those who did not believe. This seems very clear to me now. Yes, I also see that the Gentiles have been grafted in. They are part of the trunk now. But they can also be broken off. Why is that? I thought election is "œordained?" Can people fall away?

Professor: No, people cannot fall away, but they can break the covenant and show themselves to be Apostate like Esau. They can transgress and break the covenant, and then the curses follow. They
can break the Covenant of Grace, but never the Covenant of Redemption. From the look on your face I think you are with me. Summarize, then, Acts 2 for me.

Student: Peter preaches to Jews about Jesus and his death and resurrection. He quotes all of the prophecy of Joel, the fulfillment of the Jews Pentecost, but in two parts, filling in some information
about what the Old Testament says about Jesus through David, and some commentary about what Jesus accomplished. Then he gives a call to repent and be saved. He then demonstrates that the covenant promise is for those who repent, for their children, and all the Jews afar off that God will draw in "“ all for the lost sheep of Israel. Do I have it?

Professor: Yes, that is a simple summary.

Marcos, hopefully the above excerpts from McMahon's "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" have convinced you that Peter could not have been talking about Gentiles in Acts 2.

Originally posted by Peters

In Joel, it says to "sanctify the congregation", including "nursing infants".

Actually, verse 16 says, "œGather the children and nursing babes", not sanctify them.

You are missing the point. Actually, all I need is the phrase "sanctify the congregation". Infants were already included in the congregation, so I don't even need verse 16. So verse 16's mention of nursing babies is just gravy. It just is a reminder that babies were part of the congregation . . . just as they were elsewhere in the Old Testament (and the New Testament, for that matter).

Originally posted by Peters

It also says that God will pour out His Spirit on your "sons and daughters" . . . (Or do you think that infant sons/daughters are somehow exluded here?)

I believe that "œsons and daughters", infants and otherwise can be saved. This is not the issue.

You agree they can be saved, and yet you categorically deny baptism to ALL of them. Fascinating.

Originally posted by Peters
Something else: Since the New Covenant is to be understood in contradistinction from the Mosaic Covenant (Heb 8:8-9), how could it be a "œrenewed" Abrahamic covenant? Wouldn´t the background against which the New Covenant is set (namely the Mosaic Covenant) make it a "œrenewal" of the Mosaic Covenant? How do you work a "œrenewal" of the Abrahamic Covenant from this context?

Just briefly, here's how I break down the aforementioned covenants:

From Abe to Moses, the Abrahamic covenant was in force.

From Moses to Christ, the Abrahamic covenant was still in force, AND the Mosaic covenant was in force.

From Christ to the end of the world, the Mosaic covenant is abrogated, and the Abrahamic covenant continues, in a renewed state.

Originally posted by Peters
The New Covenant is the work of God in the hearts of sinners. It is the divine work of the circumcision of the heart. This circumcision of the heart cannot take place apart from faith in Christ, and this reality is exhibited in baptism. These are all the connections that the apostle Paul makes.

And I suppose you think nobody in the Old Testament had circumcised hearts? Give me a break. Physical circumcision is a symbol of heart circumcision. And yet God commanded that some unregenerate people be circumcised. Their subsequent breaking of the covenant resulted in great judgment. Baptism also is in reference to heart circumcision. So it should be no big surprise that it is also sometimes given to unregenerate people, unto their greater condemnation. Thank you for helping me prove the point that circumcision and baptism are connected.

Originally posted by Peters

When you baptise infants who have uncircumcised, dead hearts because of the imputed sin of Adam, you detract from the significance of faith in Christ and the work of Christ in His resurrection from the dead.

You are ignoring the fact that circumcision carried the SAME spiritual significance as baptism. So, let's see how your last statement holds up when I replace the word "baptise" with the word "circumcise":

"When you circumcise infants who have uncircumcised, dead hearts because of the imputed sin of Adam, you detract from the significance of faith in Christ and the work of Christ in His resurrection from the dead."

Ooooh . . . but we wouldn't want to say that, would we? That would be slandering God's direct command in Genesis 17!!!

If your argument fails for circumcision, then your argument also fails for baptism, because they BOTH are signs and seals of faith in Christ.

 

[Peters]

Joseph

Professor: No, people cannot fall away, but they can break the covenant and show themselves to be Apostate like Esau. They can transgress and break the covenant, and then the curses follow. They
can break the Covenant of Grace, but never the Covenant of Redemption. From the look on your face I think you are with me. Summarize, then, Acts 2 for me.

This is where the real issue resides as I see it. We seem to be arguing off centre, or maybe it´s just me who is not arguing to the real issue.

And I suppose you think nobody in the Old Testament had circumcised hearts? Give me a break.

I understand why you responded with this point. I was clumsy and inaccurate in what I wrote - apologies.

People are saved in the Covenant of Grace on the basis of the Covenant of Redemption through the historical, temporal administrations of the Covenant of Grace of which the New Covenant is one. Of course people could have a circumcised heart before the New Covenant was established. The heart is circumcised according to the Covenant of Grace which has existed from the beginning.

You are ignoring the fact that circumcision carried the SAME spiritual significance as baptism.

I think that I need to decide, as a Baptist, whether one can be in the New Covenant and not be in the Covenant of Grace (saved). Thanks for making me think through the issues, forcing me to be consistent.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
People are saved in the Covenant of Grace on the basis of the Covenant of Redemption through the historical, temporal administrations of the Covenant of Grace of which the New Covenant is one. Of course people could have a circumcised heart before the New Covenant was established. The heart is circumcised according to the Covenant of Grace which has existed from the beginning.

You are ignoring the fact that circumcision carried the SAME spiritual significance as baptism.

I think that I need to decide, as a Baptist, whether one can be in the New Covenant and not be in the Covenant of Grace (saved). Thanks for making me think through the issues, forcing me to be consistent.

No problem at all, my brother.

In this line of thinking . . . what are your thoughts about Romans 11? Faithless Jews were cut out of that covenantal tree. But that means they were once part of it! I'm guessing that you and I would agree on what that means . . . The faithless Jews were in covenant with God, although unregenerate. Eventually, their apostasy was obvious enough that God cut them out of the tree.

You and I also agree that Gentiles are constantly being grafted into that Romans 11 tree. In the New Covenant, Gentiles are in covenant with God, side by side with Jews.

So, under the New Covenant, can Gentiles be grafted in without being regenerate? If there are unregenerate, and ultimately reprobate, Gentiles *in* the covenantal tree of Romans 11, then ultimately they will have to be cut off the tree just like the faithless Jews. Can that happen?

Answer:

Romans 11:
[21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
[22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

 

[Peters]

So, under the New Covenant, can Gentiles be grafted in without being regenerate?

Only if you differentiate between an outward entrance into the temporal, historical covenant (NC) and an inward entrance into the temporal, historical covenant´s essence (COG); the latter being accomplished by grace through faith, and the former being accomplished by conformity to the external signs given for the covenant. One could be unregenerate and in the NC outwardly, faithlessly but could not be in the NC inwardly through faith which is to be in the COG and therefore held secure eternally by the mighty hand of Christ.

If there are unregenerate, and ultimately reprobate, Gentiles *in* the covenantal tree of Romans 11, then ultimately they will have to be cut off the tree just like the faithless Jews. Can that happen?

Similarly, I think one will have to decide if the covenantal tree of Romans 11 is the temporal (NC) or the essential covenant (COG).

 

[street preacher]

WOW! I love it. This is so educational.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters

So, under the New Covenant, can Gentiles be grafted in without being regenerate?

Only if you differentiate between an outward entrance into the temporal, historical covenant (NC) and an inward entrance into the temporal, historical covenant´s essence (COG); the latter being accomplished by grace through faith, and the former being accomplished by conformity to the external signs given for the covenant. One could be unregenerate and in the NC outwardly, faithlessly but could not be in the NC inwardly through faith which is to be in the COG and therefore held secure eternally by the mighty hand of Christ.

Then you and I basically agree that there are unregenerate people who are members of the "temporal, historical covenant (NC)"?

That's the point I've been arguing.


To use your terminology of "outward entrace" and "inward entrance" into the covenant, I would say the following:

1) Spirit Baptism marks a person's "inward entrance" into the covenant.

2) Water Baptism marks a person's "outward entrance" into the covenant.

Agreed?

Originally posted by Peters

If there are unregenerate, and ultimately reprobate, Gentiles *in* the covenantal tree of Romans 11, then ultimately they will have to be cut off the tree just like the faithless Jews. Can that happen?

Similarly, I think one will have to decide if the covenantal tree of Romans 11 is the temporal (NC) or the essential covenant (COG).

If Romans 11 is "the temporal (NC)", then you have unregenerate people currently in covenant with God, who will prove apostate, and will be cut off from the covenantal relationship. Their branch will be cut off the Romans 11 tree.

If Romans 11 is what you call the "essential covenant", then you will have to change your "believers only" view of the COG.

Either way, you have unregenerate people *currently* in covenant with God.

Every covenant God has ever made with man has included both the regenerate and the unregenerate. This includes the Adamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the New covenant.

I am enjoying this discussion. I think we are both understanding each other better and better as we go.

 

[Peters]

To use your terminology of "outward entrace" and "inward entrance" into the covenant, I would say the following:

1) Spirit Baptism marks a person's "inward entrance" into the covenant.

2) Water Baptism marks a person's "outward entrance" into the covenant.

Agreed?

Agreed, if you mean this:

1) Spirit Baptism (regeneration) marks a person´s entrance into the COG (saved)

2) Water Baptism (getting wet in a particular context) marks a person´s entrance into the NC (not necessarily saved).

If Romans 11 is "the temporal (NC)", then you have unregenerate people currently in covenant with God, who will prove apostate, and will be cut off from the covenantal relationship. Their branch will be cut off the Romans 11 tree.

If they are unregenerate they are only in the NC outwardly and not in the NC inwardly which is to be in the COG and saved.

If Romans 11 is what you call the "essential covenant", then you will have to change your "believers only" view of the COG.

That´s tricky because the language of the New Covenant can overlap into that of the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, one will have to make decisions on the language of Romans 11 with theological consequences in view.

Either way, you have unregenerate people *currently* in covenant with God.

But in what *way* they are in covenant with God is everything.

Does their outward covenanting with God which is void of faith in and love for Christ promise them anything?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters

To use your terminology of "outward entrace" and "inward entrance" into the covenant, I would say the following:

1) Spirit Baptism marks a person's "inward entrance" into the covenant.

2) Water Baptism marks a person's "outward entrance" into the covenant.

Agreed?

Agreed, if you mean this:

1) Spirit Baptism (regeneration) marks a person´s entrance into the COG (saved)

2) Water Baptism (getting wet in a particular context) marks a person´s entrance into the NC (not necessarily saved).

If Romans 11 is "the temporal (NC)", then you have unregenerate people currently in covenant with God, who will prove apostate, and will be cut off from the covenantal relationship. Their branch will be cut off the Romans 11 tree.

If they are unregenerate they are only in the NC outwardly and not in the NC inwardly which is to be in the COG and saved.

If Romans 11 is what you call the "essential covenant", then you will have to change your "believers only" view of the COG.

That´s tricky because the language of the New Covenant can overlap into that of the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, one will have to make decisions on the language of Romans 11 with theological consequences in view.

I don't see any heavy disagreement so far. If I were to use your terminology, I'm not sure that there is any disagreement.

Believers and unbelievers are both in covenant with God. But the believers are in covenant with God in an "inward" sense that the unbelievers do not have. To the covenant members who apostatize, Christ will say, "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:23).

Originally posted by Peters

Either way, you have unregenerate people *currently* in covenant with God.

But in what *way* they are in covenant with God is everything.

Does their outward covenanting with God which is void of faith in and love for Christ promise them anything?

Yes, there are many temporary benefits to being in covenant with God.

Is the "promise" just for "potential blessings"? --- No! Regardless of whether a person is currently saved or not, there are many blessings that come with being part of the visible church. That was true both in the OT church (Israel), and in the NT church (visible congregations). If we allow that Hebrews 6 and 10 are talking about unsaved covenant-breakers, then we get a clue regarding some of the very real benefits that come to *all* covenant members, whether saved or unsaved.
According to Hebrews 6 & 10, covenant members:
* are enlightened
* have tasted of the heavenly gift
* are made partakers of the Holy Ghost
* have tasted the good word of God
* have tasted of the powers of the world to come
* have received the knowledge of the truth
* are sanctified by the blood of the covenant

These are more blessings than I would want to shake a stick at. And think about it: Are unsaved children enlightened at all? Have they tasted the good word of God? Have they received knowledge of the truth? Are they sanctified (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14)? I would say that the answer to each question is "Yes". The children of believers are beneficiaries of the covenant in ways that the unchurched children of unbelieving parents are not. Covenantal membership does NOT merely entail "potential" blessings.

Of course, a person must have faith and repentance to enjoy *all* the blessings of the covenant. But then again, even those of us who *already* have faith have not yet experienced *all* the blessings of the covenant. (I don't know about you, but I haven't been glorified yet.) <grin> I would argue that *all* covenant members, this side of the afterlife, have experienced some (but not all) covenant blessings.


You and I both agree that an unregenerate person can be a member of the New Covenant in the "outward" sense, as you put it.

You and I both agree that there is an "inward" sense that a regenerate person is a covenant member. Christ truly "knows" this person, but He doesn't "know" an unregenerate member in the same way (Matthew 7:23).


Nevertheless, there are real benefits to being in covenant with God, regardless of whether you are regenerate or not.

But the flip side is important as well: unregenerate covenant members who apostatize are cut off the Romans 11 covenantal tree, and their judgment is worse than for the unregenerate person who was never a New Covenant member.

So there is a real sense in which covenant membership is "efficacious" for ALL members of the New Covenant . . . Covenant membership is effectual unto glory for the elect. . . and Covenant membership is effectual unto greater damnation for the reprobate.


your thoughts?

 

[Peters]

To the covenant members who apostatize, Christ will say, "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:23).

Apostatise from what though? From no faith? From no love for Christ? From a form of godliness? What is the difference, in terms of punishment, for the unregenerate person in the NC outwardly only and the unregenerate person who is not in NC outward only? If it"˜s that the one in the NC outwardly only receives a greater condemnation because they have been the recipient of greater light, fair enough. But the fact remains that both categories of unregenerate people will be damned if they are not in the COG. Hence, you can only have regenerate people in the COG, or you lose the necessary theological distinctions between the NC and the COG and end up conflating the two. In other words, people will not be condemned for breaking the NC but for not being the COG. Do you agree?

Yes, there are many temporary benefits to being in covenant with God.

Absolutely, but these can be reaped by anyone in the NC (baptized unregenerate adults) not just the children of believers. In fact, all these temporary benefits can be reaped even by non-NC members!

The children of believers are beneficiaries of the covenant in ways that the unchurched children of unbelieving parents are not.

Why? Is it just because the children of believers are exposed to the things of God and the means of grace more often than the children of non-Christian parents? If this is the only reason, fine! But i believe you think it´s more than this. That´s why I asked you if there is any *promise* made to the children in these benefits, because if there is then the promise must extend also to everyone since these temporal blessings can be received by anyone!

(I don't know about you, but I haven't been glorified yet.) <grin>

Actually, I have. So believe me when I say you are wrong to be a pedobaptist.

Nevertheless, there are real benefits to being in covenant with God, regardless of whether you are regenerate or not.

There are real benefits for being in covenant in the NC, but I still do not see how these benefits are exclusively for people who have been baptized and are therefore in the NC.

But the flip side is important as well: unregenerate covenant members who apostatize are cut off the Romans 11 covenantal tree, and their judgment is worse than for the unregenerate person who was never a New Covenant member.

Perhaps, but do you not think that there are people who have not been baptized into the NC and have yet received more light than those who have? Will they not receive a greater condemnation than those ignorant ones in the NC?

So there is a real sense in which covenant membership is "efficacious" for ALL members of the New Covenant . . . Covenant membership is effectual unto glory for the elect. . . and Covenant membership is effectual unto greater damnation for the reprobate.

I would say *can* be efficacious because the issue is faith and COG membership not necessarily NC members

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters

Apostatise from what though?

From covenant membership.

Again, according to Hebrews 6 & 10, covenant members:
* are enlightened
* have tasted of the heavenly gift
* are made partakers of the Holy Ghost
* have tasted the good word of God
* have tasted of the powers of the world to come
* have received the knowledge of the truth
* are sanctified by the blood of the covenant

And these things, especially the last one on the list, do not apply to unbelievers outside the covenant.

Originally posted by Peters

Yes, there are many temporary benefits to being in covenant with God.

Absolutely, but these can be reaped by anyone in the NC (baptized unregenerate adults) not just the children of believers. In fact, all these temporary benefits can be reaped even by non-NC members!

Certainly not!

How can non-covenant-members partake of Christ, partake of the Holy Ghost, or be sanctified by the blood of the covenant???

Originally posted by Peters

The children of believers are beneficiaries of the covenant in ways that the unchurched children of unbelieving parents are not.

Why? Is it just because the children of believers are exposed to the things of God and the means of grace more often than the children of non-Christian parents? If this is the only reason, fine! But i believe you think it´s more than this. That´s why I asked you if there is any *promise* made to the children in these benefits, because if there is then the promise must extend also to everyone since these temporal blessings can be received by anyone!

Yes, God makes a distinct promise regarding the children of believers. He promises to be the God of their children.

But God does not promise to be the God of everyone's children. It is a special promise He makes to believers.

Originally posted by Peters

But the flip side is important as well: unregenerate covenant members who apostatize are cut off the Romans 11 covenantal tree, and their judgment is worse than for the unregenerate person who was never a New Covenant member.

Perhaps, but do you not think that there are people who have not been baptized into the NC and have yet received more light than those who have? Will they not receive a greater condemnation than those ignorant ones in the NC?

You are mixing up logic here, by adding in multiple variables.

Here is the proper question, which isolates the variables:

If two people have received an identical amount of light, and one is a covenant member, while the other is not, will they both receive equal condemnation?

I believe the answer is NO. The one who broke covenant will receive the greater condemnation.

 

[Peters]

Certainly not!

How can non-covenant-members partake of Christ, partake of the Holy Ghost, or be sanctified by the blood of the covenant???

Are you saying that these things can only be experienced by children of Christians?

Can an unregenerate NC member who is not the child of a Christian (a baptised adult) partake of these things?

Yes, God makes a distinct promise regarding the children of believers. He promises to be the God of their children.

But God does not promise to be the God of everyone's children. It is a special promise He makes to believers.

I don´t understand what you mean here. Brother. Are you saying that God promises to be the God of the children´s children? Your second paragraph confuses me even more because, on the basis of your first paragraph, it sounds like you´re saying the children of believers are believers.

Here are two questions:

Does an unregenerate child born of Christian parents, who is baptised into the New Covenant, need to be saved in exactly the same way that an unregenerate child, who is born of non-Christian parents, who has not been baptised into the New Covenant needs to be saved?

What do the temporal blessings of the NC *promise the baptised child of a believer* for eternity?