Old vs New Covenant Community

[Corey Powell]

In a recent debate I listened to between a Presbyterian. and Baptist, the Baptist made a point regarding the covenant community that I could not find having been addressed here before.

He argued that, in the Old Covenant, the covenant community was based on being a child of Abraham/citizen of Israel, NOT on being the child of a believing parent. However, in the new, the Presbyterian claims that it is believers and their children in continuity with the old, even though this was not the case.

The interlocutor did not address this claim, I am curious how one might respond to this.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paul writes that Abraham's actual seed has only ever been them of faith. The Baptist claim involving a radical discontinuity of earthly identity and a spiritual is one we reject, i.e. that Abraham's seed on OT terms was simply or initially genetic.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Paul writes that Abraham's actual seed has only ever been them of faith. The Baptist claim is one we reject, that his seed on OT terms was simply or initially genetic.

Who had a legal obligation (or right, if you want to look at it that way), to circumcision?

 

[Corey Powell]

Paul writes that Abraham's actual seed has only ever been them of faith. The Baptist claim involving a radical discontinuity s one we reject, that his seed on OT terms was simply or initially genetic.

So then even in Israel, the national people itself was not the covenant community, but even then it was only believers and their children? Even if all Israel males received the sign of the covenant?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Who had a legal obligation (or right, if you want to look at it that way), to circumcision?

Members of the church-state.

So then even in Israel, the national people itself was not the covenant community, but even then it was only believers and their children? Even if all Israel males received the sign of the covenant?

Just like the NT church, members/citizens were supposed to be believers, adherents by faith to the God of Abraham/Israel. Pity it wasn't always so, or that it isn't so today, either.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Members of the church-state.

And how was membership of the church-state determined?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

And how was membership of the church-state determined?

Participation in the religious life of the people, i.e. the chief part of a credible profession; not falling under law/discipline to being cut-off.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Participation in the religious life of the people, i.e. the chief part of a credible profession; not falling under law/discipline to being cut-off.

So... circumcision wasn't automatically obligated to the physical descendants of Abraham regardless of any profession of faith?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So... circumcision wasn't automatically obligated to the physical descendants of Abraham regardless of any profession of faith?

Of course they were *obligated* to believe what Abraham (and Isaac, Moses, David, etc.) believed. THAT'S the reason they should submit or be submitted to the rite. No empty or faithless identification is justifiable

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Of course they were *obligated* to believe what Abraham (and Isaac, Moses, David, etc.) believed. THAT'S the reason they should submit or be submitted to the rite. No empty or faithless identification is justifiable

The question at hand isn't about what they were obligated to believe, though, is it?

A child who was descended from Abraham, even if that child was born to unbelieving parents (who were in turn children of unbelieving parents, repeat for as many generations as you'd like) had just as much right and obligation to circumcision as a child born to believing parents. Right?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The question at hand isn't about what they were obligated to believe, though, is it?

Perhaps by your lights, but not as I see. Acts connected to faith, or its all just play-acting.

A child who was descended from Abraham, even if that child was born to unbelieving parents (who were in turn children of unbelieving parents, repeat for as many generations as you'd like) had just as much right and obligation to circumcision as a child born to believing parents. Right?

No way. Being cut off was a real thing; ends one's lineal claims, such as they were.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Perhaps by your lights, but not as I see. Acts connected to faith, or its all just play-acting.

So close. Soooooooooooooooooooo close.

No way. Being cut off was a real thing; ends one's lineal claims, such as they were.

But if the parents (whether believers or not) were part of the "visible nation of Israel", why shouldn't their children be circumcised?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So close. Soooooooooooooooooooo close.

Not even sure what this might indicate, or what I'm "close" to. You wrote of an "obligation" on the physical descendants of Abraham, and you appear to support the idea that this duty is without respect to faith. Well, I suppose if you tie circumcision to a covenant-of-works, this might make some sense.

Obviously, if God obligates something, it's sin to set it by. I am sure that the descendants of Ishmael were cut off from the covenant, because of their father. I'm sure the descendants of Esau were as well. The obligation to circumcise their children died with their fathers' being cut off or apostatizing.

Thankfully, there are descendants of both men who were reunited with the covenant of their father Abraham. How so? By faith, of course, and they took the sign when they rejoined the nation; but not because they were descended from Abraham, but because they were converts, adoptees.

Given my rejection that circumcision is in any way a covenant of works or tied to the original, but a sacrament of the covenant of grace, naturally I recast any idea of "obligation" in terms of faith. No obligation with respect to participation in the covenant of grace is bound upon parties who have abandoned even the external administration of it. First, attend the matter of reestablishing covenant relations with God; then go about fulfilling any obligations that entail.

But if the parents (whether believers or not) were part of the "visible nation of Israel", why shouldn't their children be circumcised?

Who says this couple or that aren't believers? Is this their public claim, or the determination of a court of the Law, or a hidden matter of the heart?

As you word the question, I interpret the proposal as the equivalent of "Shouldn't visible members of the NT church bring their children to be baptized?" Since any potential apostasy is hidden, if the members are not under any discipline or suspicion of false profession, I as a Presbyterian say those children you wrote of should be circumcised.

2Sam.15:17-22​

And the king went out with all the people after him, and stopped at the outskirts. Then all his servants passed before him; and all the Cherethites, all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites, six hundred men who had followed him from Gath, passed before the king.​

​

Then the king said to Ittai the Gittite, “Why are you also going with us? Return and remain with the king. For you are a foreigner and also an exile from your own place. In fact, you came only yesterday. Should I make you wander up and down with us today, since I go I know not where? Return, and take your brethren back. Mercy and truth be with you.”​

​

But Ittai answered the king and said, “As the Lord lives, and as my lord the king lives, surely in whatever place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life, even there also your servant will be.” So David said to Ittai, “Go, and cross over.” Then Ittai the Gittite and all his men and all the little ones who were with him crossed over [the Brook Kidron].​

This Philistine of Gath threw in his lot with the people of God, particularly with their king the anointed one to whom he gave his allegiance. There is no reason to think this man, or his wife, or his little ones had any lineal connection to Abraham. But these were now part of the visible nation of Israel, so surely he and all his house were circumcised.

It is not the case that some Israelites were circumcised out of a mindless ritual conformity to a covenant of works demand, and others were circumcised on account of faith. I find such a notion irreconcilable with biblical religion. It MUST be the case that some Israelites were circumcised for nothing but their heritage; but that is manifestly a corruption of a holy ordinance intended to mark out the household of faith.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So... circumcision wasn't automatically obligated to the physical descendants of Abraham regardless of any profession of faith?

The obligation was not limited to just "the physical descendants of Abraham" as the original command/covenant further stipulated: "And every man-child of eight days old among you, shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: so my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." (Gen.17.12-13, emphasis added)

 

[Ploutos]

The recent threads on covenant theology - and particulary the difference in covenantal thinking between Presbyterians and Baptists - have been very informative to me. I've come away with a lot of good information about the Baptist view which I think gives me more understanding of it, and I've grown in my understanding of my own Presbyterian beliefs.

In trying to put all this together in my head, I think I've noticed something, and I can take a stab at putting it into words so that others can help me through clarification or correction.

What I seem to notice is that there is an idea of covenantal obligation that is present, in some sort of corporate or communal way, in Presbyterian thought but not in Baptist thought. God covenants with people, but he covenants with people as part of a family or clan unit and as part of a nation, and he entails them with certain objective obligations which fall on all. I could think of a breadwinner being called to relocate to another part of the country because his job has asked him to do so. If this breadwinner has a family, then a covenant obligation of sorts is laid on the whole family with the expectation that they will be on-board in heart and mind.

I'm not pretending to think there's no sense of obligation in Baptist theology - simply that it all seems very individualistic to me. An individual is called to enter into covenant with God, and upon doing so he submits to the sign of that covenant. But what I don't see is any thought of how that impacts the community, or how the community impacts the would-be believer. There's no "hey, you're with us, and we're all going this way" mentality.

I suppose this was all expressed much more eloquently by @Contra_Mundum when he spoke of the institution--individual spectrum, with Presbyterians being between Catholics and Baptists in where they locate the church. It was interesting to read LBCF Ch. 26 and WCF Ch. 25-26 earlier today - I'm clearly not as familiar as LBCF but it strongly bears that notion of God's church as a collection of individuals who associate into bodies and that constitutes the church. It seemed to even forbid (LBCF 26.15) any notion of one church wielding power over another for the correction of error. But in the Presbyterian system, that one errant church is part of the body and for the health of the body that error needs to be addressed and dealt with.

What I'm getting from this is that when it comes to the visible church, the Presbyterian view is not simply "professing believers plus their children" but a covenant community with whom God enters into an agreement that imposes collective obligations upon them. The external obligations must be followed or the offender is removed from the visible assembly. And the clear expectation is that the internal obligation will be followed, or the offender is removed for all eternity from the heavenly assembly. All this results in a conception of the visible church that is not any less intent on purity or sincerity, nor any more intent on being wilfully distinct from the true invisible church (such that Baptist accusations of "two churches" fall very short of the mark), but rather one defined as that community (and the constituent individuals) with whom God has entered into covenant, offered the covenant blessings, and imposed the covenant obligations. By contrast, the Baptist view seems to me to more along the lines of those individuals with whom God has entered into a true saving relationship, plus or minus the margin of human error in making judgment calls. So both have a notion of a visible and invisible church, and both have a notion of false professors, but the notions are very different. When it comes to the topic of baptism itself, this seems to confirm for me that for Presbyterians, baptism is a sign of God's promises, whereas for the Baptist, even the Reformed one, there is still a sense that it is focused on our individual response to the promises of God.

 

[MarrowMan]

In a recent debate I listened to between a Presbyterian. and Baptist, the Baptist made a point regarding the covenant community that I could not find having been addressed here before.

He argued that, in the Old Covenant, the covenant community was based on being a child of Abraham/citizen of Israel, NOT on being the child of a believing parent. However, in the new, the Presbyterian claims that it is believers and their children in continuity with the old, even though this was not the case.

The interlocutor did not address this claim, I am curious how one might respond to this.

No, it wasn't. The "base" has always been the promise of God. This objection is not new. It's been addressed ad nauseum.

 

[davejonescue]

I'm not pretending to think there's no sense of obligation in Baptist theology - simply that it all seems very individualistic to me. An individual is called to enter into covenant with God, and upon doing so he submits to the sign of that covenant. But what I don't see is any thought of how that impacts the community, or how the community impacts the would-be believer. There's no "hey, you're with us, and we're all going this way" mentality.

I am not a Baptist scholar, so please be kind, but one aspect of this might be because Jesus himself alludes to the fact that even within a family unit, there is unlikely to be a unanimous faith. "Your enemies will be that of your own household, etc." Matt. 10:36. Also, it seems within the Baptist framework, that Baptism is the formal entrance into the divine family, which encompasses the whole community of the saved, by cognitive confession/profession. This then becomes your community, where it is expected that each Saint be treated as family regardless if they are under your roof or not. 1 John 3:14. This is in contrast to what seems like infant-baptist where one is considered part of the divine family regardless if they are saved. I think the latter extends a bit further as sort of a covering of the child under the scope of the believing parents, and this is where Baptists might part ways as taking that covering for granted, since in scripture, it doesnt indicate that any sort of formal seal was needed to make it in effect. 1 Cor. 7:14.

 

[MW]

He argued that, in the Old Covenant, the covenant community was based on being a child of Abraham/citizen of Israel, NOT on being the child of a believing parent.

This would have been news to Paul.

Rom. 4:11-12. "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

 

[Ploutos]

I am not a Baptist scholar, so please be kind, but one aspect of this might be because Jesus himself alludes to the fact that even within a family unit, there is unlikely to be a unanimous faith. "Your enemies will be that of your own household, etc." Matt. 10:36. Also, it seems within the Baptist framework, that Baptism is the formal entrance into the divine family, which encompasses the whole community of the saved, by cognitive confession/profession. This then becomes your community, where it is expected that each Saint be treated as family regardless if they are under your roof or not. 1 John 3:14. This is in contrast to what seems like infant-baptist where one is considered part of the divine family regardless if they are saved. I think the latter extends a bit further as sort of a covering of the child under the scope of the believing parents, and this is where Baptists might part ways as taking that covering for granted, since in scripture, it doesnt indicate that any sort of formal seal was needed to make it in effect. 1 Cor. 7:14.

We don't consider people "part of the divine family regardless if they are saved" - I don't think that's an accurate reading of the Presbyterian view. People are part of a covenant community in the hope and expectation that the covenant promises of God will be truly and internally applied to them.

I appreciate your explanation of the Baptist viewpoint here. It does seem to confirm that Presbyterians view baptism as an objective sign of God's promises while Baptists view it in terms of our response to God. Even the way in which the visible church is defined differs in this way - we think of the difference between the invisible and visible churches as having to do with God in his wisdom choosing where those covenant promises do and don't take root, while for the Baptist the difference is simply the margin of human error - again a way of looking at it that revolves more around human effort than God's promises and his wisdom in applying them how and where he sees fit.

 

[Corey Powell]

Members of the church-state.

Just like the NT church, members/citizens were supposed to be believers, adherents by faith to the God of Abraham/Israel. Pity it wasn't always so, or that it isn't so today, either.

What role might the fact that Israel was not just the church but the state play in this discussion? As you demonstrated, people not born to Abraham could enter the covenant, but they had also then to be citizens of Israel, correct? If Israel was divorced as a nation and the civil laws abrogated, did this serve the point that one no longer needed to be a citizen of the nation of Israel to be in the covenant community? But then the nature of who is in the covenant community (the gathered sign-bearers who have faith and their households) did not change but spread to the whole world.

It is not the case that some Israelites were circumcised out of a mindless ritual conformity to a covenant of works demand, and others were circumcised on account of faith. I find such a notion irreconcilable with biblical religion. It MUST be the case that some Israelites were circumcised for nothing but their heritage; but that is manifestly a corruption of a holy ordinance intended to mark out the household of faith.

Would you liken this to, say, the PCUSA which still baptizes but the majority of its members likely don't have faith? They aren't baptizing because God requires them to and so they have some merit for it, but because they have lost and corrupted the sacrament and continue out of tradition but are "Sons of snakes." In the same way, not all Israel was actually worthy of receiving the sign, but did so out of tradition... am I on track or way off? Trying to get a grasp on the argument.

This would have been news to Paul.

Rom. 4:11-12. "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcise

In regards to this passage, what was Paul asking in Rom. 4:9 "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised"? I had always, as a Baptist, read that as "for the nation for Israel." Is it better then to understand those who where presumed to be the sole receivers of the blessing were the "circumcised" as in those who were in the covenant administration, not the physical descendants of Abraham? Was the assumption being made that to properly believe one must first enter the covenant via circumcision?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What role might the fact that Israel was not just the church but the state play in this discussion? As you demonstrated, people not born to Abraham could enter the covenant, but they had also then to be citizens of Israel, correct? If Israel was divorced as a nation and the civil laws abrogated, did this serve the point that one no longer needed to be a citizen of the nation of Israel to be in the covenant community? But then the nature of who is in the covenant community (the gathered sign-bearers who have faith and their households) did not change but spread to the whole world.

This is a question pertaining to "accidental" or "incidental" considerations. An answer should not be settled on that challenges the basic principle that Israel was the visible church then. I call Israel of old "the church-state," not state-church, for this reason. It was not a state with a religion, but a religion with a state.

We shouldn't think of Israelite citizens as if they had a national identity, as today for instance, and a religious affiliation besides. To live in Israelite territory without covenant commitments and benefits was to be an alien in fact.

Israel was not "divorced" as a nation. Israel was reduced to One Faithful Son, and the rest were disinherited. All the benefits of union or reunion are found in connection to Him who has inherited all. "His father has given him all that he has." You have a stake in the covenant through union with the Principal. Jesus IS Israel, and the Vine, and his people are Israel by virtue of remaining in him.

Would you liken this to, say, the PCUSA which still baptizes but the majority of its members likely don't have faith? They aren't baptizing because God requires them to and so they have some merit for it, but because they have lost and corrupted the sacrament and continue out of tradition but are "Sons of snakes." In the same way, not all Israel was actually worthy of receiving the sign, but did so out of tradition... am I on track or way off? Trying to get a grasp on the argument.

This world and many of its churches have nothing but "historic faith" marking them. They baptize, some even on profession and by immersion--i.e. by some rule--but it is pure symbolism. There is no "merit" to it, but it might please God to use such a stamp of his ownership, indecently given, to the good of one of his elect at the time of his choosing.

Where faith never is present or appears in connection to a covenant sign, that sign may stand like a witness to something, but it is not fulfilling its whole or best design.

 

[No Other Name]

whereas for the Baptist, even the Reformed one, there is still a sense that it is focused on our individual response to the promises of God.

while Baptists view it in terms of our response to God.

I appreciate you beyond words for your gracious ability to discuss over differences.

Respectfully, I must object to this language. It makes us seem quasi-Arminian - if not worse.

It is the Holy Spirit's wok on us by regeneration that is the base for our response to the promises of God.

He alone is the administrator of the New Covenant as the seal of the New Covenant.

The Holy Spirit is explicitly identified as the seal upon believers (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). In 2 Corinthians 1:22, it is said that God “has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit”. John Gill says:

the seal by which they are sealed, is not any of the ordinances, as circumcision under the Old Testament, or baptism, or the Lord’s supper under the New; for these are no seals, nor are they ever so called; but the Spirit of God himself, as the Holy Spirit of promise; for the same who, in the next clause, is called the earnest, is the seal;


John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (2 Corinthians 1)

Moreover, in the same passage, the Spirit is said to be given as “a guarantee,” a “pledge,” or an “earnest.” A pledge is a “solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something”. Both this passage and Ephesians 1:14 identify the Spirit as the guarantee given to believers. Neither the ordinances nor anything else other than the Spirit is the seal and pledge of the New Covenant and its members.
The signatories of the Confession, in an appendix to the Confession, said the following on this topic:

If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every beleiver (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else, neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted in the place of circumcision, as to have the same (and no other) latitude, extent, or terms, then circumcision had; for that was suited only for the Male children, baptism is an ordinance suited for every beleiver, whether male, or femal. That extended to all the males that were born in Abrahams house, or bought with his money, equally with the males that proceeded from his own loynes; but baptisme is not so far extended in any true Christian Church that we know of, as to be administred to all the poor infidel servants, that the members thereof purchase for their service, and introduce into their families; nor to the children born of them in their house


An Appendix

 

[Ploutos]

I appreciate you beyond words for your gracious ability to discuss over differences.

Respectfully, I must object to this language. It makes us seem quasi-Arminian - if not worse.

It is the Holy Spirit's wok on us by regeneration that is the base for our response to the promises of God.

He alone is the administrator of the New Covenant as the seal of the New Covenant.

The Holy Spirit is explicitly identified as the seal upon believers (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). In 2 Corinthians 1:22, it is said that God “has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit”. John Gill says:


Moreover, in the same passage, the Spirit is said to be given as “a guarantee,” a “pledge,” or an “earnest.” A pledge is a “solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something”. Both this passage and Ephesians 1:14 identify the Spirit as the guarantee given to believers. Neither the ordinances nor anything else other than the Spirit is the seal and pledge of the New Covenant and its members.
The signatories of the Confession, in an appendix to the Confession, said the following on this topic:

Yes, I certainly acknowledge that you believe in a monergistic soteriology, not synergistic as Arminians do. Presbyterians also believe in a response to God and that doesn't make us Arminian. But baptism symbolizes God's promises, not our individual response. It still seems to me that the act of baptism itself, in Baptist thought, represents the response to God, does it not? The seal is only administered upon profession of faith...

 

[No Other Name]

Yes, I certainly acknowledge that you believe in a monergistic soteriology, not synergistic as Arminians do. Presbyterians also believe in a response to God and that doesn't make us Arminian. But baptism symbolizes God's promises, not our individual response. It still seems to me that the act of baptism itself, in Baptist thought, represents the response to God, does it not? The seal is only administered upon profession of faith...

The sign of baptism is only administered upon credible profession of faith; the seal is administered by the Spirit upon regeneration. That is why (to my Baptist brain) your original comment dipped into soteriology when you did not have any intentions at all towards that. (And knowing you, I knew you did not mean soteriology. I really did). Thank you again

 

[Ploutos]

The sign of baptism is only administered upon credible profession of faith; the seal is administered by the Spirit upon regeneration. That is why (to my Baptist brain) your original comment dipped into soteriology when you did not have any intentions at all towards that. (And knowing you, I knew you did not mean soteriology. I really did). Thank you again

Doesn't that still make the sign of baptism a response to the Spirit's work?

 

[davejonescue]

Yes, I certainly acknowledge that you believe in a monergistic soteriology, not synergistic as Arminians do. Presbyterians also believe in a response to God and that doesn't make us Arminian. But baptism symbolizes God's promises, not our individual response. It still seems to me that the act of baptism itself, in Baptist thought, represents the response to God, does it not? The seal is only administered upon profession of faith...

Does not this look like a response as well?

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God." John 1:12

 

[Ploutos]

Does not this look like a response as well?

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God." John 1:12

It does.

 

[MW]

In regards to this passage, what was Paul asking in Rom. 4:9 "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised"? I had always, as a Baptist, read that as "for the nation for Israel." Is it better then to understand those who where presumed to be the sole receivers of the blessing were the "circumcised" as in those who were in the covenant administration, not the physical descendants of Abraham? Was the assumption being made that to properly believe one must first enter the covenant via circumcision?

He was questioning the exclusive claim that the blessing was only for the circumcised. He insists it was also for the uncircumcised. This blessing was and is always predicated on faith, particularly the justifying faith of Gen. 15:6. Circumcision was merely the outward sign; as baptism is the outward sign now. Without faith it is impossible to please God and it is only by faith that the elders of the Old Testament church received a good report, Heb. 11:1-6.

 

[No Other Name]

Doesn't that still make the sign of baptism a response to the Spirit's work?

Yes indeed.