The Nature of the New Covenant

[dogmatix1517]

Thank you all.

'nother question. If Christ is the Mediator of the CoG, how does he act as mediator toward the unregenerate (or reprobate) in the CoG? Any sources you could point me to?

Also, I have a Baptist friend who just challenged me on misinterpreting the warning passages in Hebrews. Whereas I would see them as applying toward the whole covenant community, he sees them as only applying to the elect. To him, the warning passages are a means to keep the elect persevering in the faith. When I challenged him saying that that meant that these were empty promises in his view, he replied with the Acts 27 account of Paul and those on the ship with him. In the story, their ship is being tossed around by a storm and Paul stands up at one point of the voyage and tells them that an angel came and told him that no one would perish. A few days later, some sailors try to get off the ship and Paul shouts to them, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved" (Acts 27:31). So Paul tells them that no one will perish in one breath, then warns them that if they leave the ship, they will perish. Therefore, Paul's warning is a means to keep them on the ship and thus have their lives spared. This is Dr. Thomas Schreiner's view of the warning passages. Frankly, I find it a superb argument! What are your thoughts???

---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

LOL! Sorry for all the questions. I just thought of one more (I wouldn't blame you if you gave up answering my questions). C. Matthew McMahon made an argument that all those who were saved in the OT were in the New Covenant. He seemed to use the word "New" in 2 ways: First, after Adam broke the CoW, a NEW covenant was made, namely the CoG. Second, as referring to the New Covenant (or Renewed Covenant as he argues for) talked about in Jer. 31. Thus he said he would argue with a Ref. Baptist in this way...

Presbyterian: How were OT saints saved?
Baptist: By the blood of Jesus.
Presbyterian: So then they were in the New Covenant?
Baptist: No. That comes later.
Presbyterian: But Christ is the Mediator of the NC, right?
Baptist: Yes, but the NC came after the OT.
Presbyterian: Then how were OT saints saved?
Baptist: By the blood of Jesus

Round and round it goes...

Any thoughts???

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In the purest sense, Jesus doesn't Mediate for the unregenerate, although he must (in some sense be the eternal Mediator of his Elect, even prior to their conversion).

It might be permissible to say that indirectly, those who are reprobate and in the church are sub-mediated-unto through Christ's ecclesiastical Ministers. But this is manifestly an incomplete, imperfect mediation, because it is only outward and symbolic.

But Baptists do not agree with us that the NC is outwardly administered (and yet most do agree there is a NC Ministry...). Everything in the NC for the Baptist is IMMEDIATE to the believer.
_______________

Of course the warnings (in Heb.) are means for retaining the elect. Isn't that true of ALL the warnings in the Bible? How does this fact translate to "and thus they can't mean anything actually dire for covenant apostates, because we already know that there can't be apostates in the New Covenant"? This is viciously circular. Completely unpersuasive. Why should the Presbyterian accept an either/or understanding of the warnings? It just sounds like a Baptist evasion.
_______________

To speak as CMM speaks is (in my opinion) somewhat anachronistic. The covenant arrangements have "names" so they can be tagged and pegged historically. Better to speak of the CoG as being the same in essence across the ages, and fulfilled in Christ. But if you understand what CMM is trying to relate in his dialog (that Abraham is saved by Christ, and his blood, which is "New Covenant") then it might be effective.

Myself, I would say that to call the CoG "New" wrt the CoW is not the Bible's use of the term "new covenant ", and only adds a novel wrinkle to the discussion, and isn't that helpful. But CMM is also using a line of reasoning that helped him (as a former Baptist), so its is possible it is persuasive, in an idiosyncratic way.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

...

Thanks Bruce. I appreciate the encouragement.

Bruce, Rich. There has been a lot of lengthy discussion on this. Do you have a handful of Recommended books and or web links that get to the heart of the debate.

Have you read Fesko's book 'Water, Word and Spirit'. Is this a comprehensive resource on Covenant theology and Baptism?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I like what I've read of Fesko's book; I recommend it.

I don't think there is a "silver bullet" argument for nailing the debate. There are a plethora of reasons why people hold on to their positions. Not reducible to one common denominator. One argument may sway one person completely in one sitting, which is unpersuasive to someone else.

I've come to a few conclusions about the matter, and the beginning of them is: we should remember that Paul put baptism on the second-level. It isn't unimportant, but its not the most important issue in the church.

But I also think that a major difference in addressing the issue has to do with a very fundamental question: How do we read the Bible? At the end of the day, our differences here prove that for most of the participants, it is not simply a matter of a "blind-spot," but of something more basic. We end up agreeing with our Particular Baptist fellows/brethren on many things, in part because there are so many ways to get there, the issue of Salvation is pervasive to the Bible. But, our hermeneutics are not the same. Many similarities (PTL)! But not identical, and in some ways contrary.

 

[dogmatix1517]

Would you say that the warning passages in the NT are the only way of proving that unregenerate people are in the NC? Sorry if this is a overly-simple question.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What is meant by "proof"? What method and content would be received as proof, or acknowledged as proving the point?

I don't want to read-into the question itself too much analysis, but beginning right there I think it is possible to see the limits or parameters that will be acceptable to one person or another.

For some persons, the only acceptable form of proof will be a single Scripture verse, or sentence--a proposition reducible to words to the effect that "some outwardly-New Covenant members are not inwardly-New Covenant members" (which has a nice syllogistic pattern to it). When it becomes necessary to start combining passages of Scripture in order to make a case, rather than different passages supplying several independent, stand-alone postulates--any one of which is a free and clear support--the barriers immediately go up.

We're talking basically about what is reckoned a difference between conclusions of "good and necessary consequence" (1646 WCF 1.6), and those that are "necessarily contained" (1689 LBC 1.6). That may seem like a semantic quibble, however I think it was reworded in the LBC as a intentional statement that attempted to "raise the bar" on what conclusions based on Scripture premises could bind the conscience.


If the nature of the New Covenant is such that it cannot contain (in any sense) unregenerate members, then there are no propositions in Scripture that individually, much less together, can imply as much.

If, on the other hand, the nature of ALL administrations of the Covenant of Grace are such that ONLY regenerate members participate in the substance of ANY of them, then this view of the evidence concerning membership reorients the hermeneutical angle of not only the Hebrews passages (e.g 4:1; 6:4ff), but of many other passages as well. Such as:

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

1Co 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Mat 24:10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.

2Pe 3:16b-17 There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Jud 1:17-23 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.

Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.​

All such references raise the question of what constitutes "apostasy," how does it happen, what does it mean to "fall away"? Fall away from what? and what did the former association amount to?


But more, one can ask how directly is any passage teaching doctrine and practice directed to the whole congregation? We do not differentiate (on the human level) between certain folks present who are being addressed, and who aren't. As pastors, we can direct our words to different types of people, who may have different applications appropriate to them. And one sort of major division we may acknowledge is the difference between the natural man and the spiritual. But, this distinction is by no means obvious once individuals are formally united to the church (members) by baptism and public profession.

Thus, any warnings against sin and error constitute a plea not to drift from the sure confidence of faith through allegiance to the truth. Every sin is a potential (proverbial) straw, that will break the camel's back, and plunge a former professor into apostasy. Not simply the most dire.

 

[Peairtach]

...

Thanks Bruce. I appreciate the encouragement.

Bruce, Rich. There has been a lot of lengthy discussion on this. Do you have a handful of Recommended books and or web links that get to the heart of the debate.

Have you read Fesko's book 'Water, Word and Spirit'. Is this a comprehensive resource on Covenant theology and Baptism?

There are lots of books/booklets and resources on this. But I wasn't persuaded in that sense, since I was brought up in a Presbyterian family.

Here's a page on baptism at Monergism
Monergism ::

I found John Murray's book on baptism helpful.

Read widely and deeply on Covenant Theology and think about the place of children in the Covenant, and whether in the New Covenant there is a change - from organic to atomistic - such that only individuals are engrafted rather than families (e.g. Romans 11; cf. I Cor 7)

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Quote from Bruce

I've come to a few conclusions about the matter, and the beginning of them is: we should remember that Paul put baptism on the second-level. It isn't unimportant, but its not the most important issue in the church.

I've been trying to get a discussion going on baptism vis-a-vis the Lord's Supper here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/basis-admission-baptism-lords-supper-65858/