Jeremiah 31:27-30 - Page 2

Andrew P.C. · #41 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Hello Andrew,

I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.

Ok. Fair enough.(I still have to research all of this myself.)

Hmm.. I was going to write more, but I'll have to study this some more and keep up with you guys at the same time. Hebrews 8 is basically the hinge for me. I haven't yet seen a good response to hebrews 8. Maybe if any of you guys have an online article on hebrews 8, that would be great.

What do I need to respond to? I don;t see how Heb. 8 touches the paedo position, in the slightest. In fact, you still tell New Covenant members to "know the Lordc," but according to your interpretation of Hebrews 8, this won't happen anymore.

Hmm.. Now here is the part where as a consistent baptist I would say that only by their profession can we know if they are in the covenant, yet, in reality I can't know that for sure.

As a baptist only the "invisible" church is in the NC, and even John Frame states this:

Quote:

Since in Jeremiah it is said to provide for the forgiveness of sins and the writing of the law on the heart, we are inclined to say that it includes only the elect. But the NT warning passages suggest that it is like the earlier covenants-- that people can belong to it and then fall away.

So it seems to have two dimensions. The covenant in Jeremiah 31 implies that only the elect belong to it. Nevertheless, there is a visible expression of that covenant, the church. When people enter the church, they subscribe to the New Covenant by receiving baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The elders seek to make a judgment as to whether those requesting baptism (for themselves or their children) are making a credible profession. A "credible profession" is all that they are able to see; they cannot see the heart. Ordinarily, a credible profession is a symptom of a regenerate heart. But sometimes it isn't; or sometimes elders may use standards of credibility that are too low. And of course not every baby baptized in infancy becomes a regenerate person. For such reasons, unregenerate people sometimes do enter the church. They are "in" the New Covenant from the church's point of view, because they have subscribed to that covenant. They are not in it from God'spoint of view, for they are not elect in Christ.
So there does seem even in the New Covenant to be a distinction between inner and outer, between "Israel" and "of Israel."

Source: http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer....ions/site/iiim

As he states:

Quote:

They are "in" the New Covenant from the church's point of view, because they have subscribed to that covenant. They are not in it from God'spoint of view, for they are not elect in Christ.

Jim_Johnston · #42 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

OK,
if what was intended to be expressed (not what was printed) was

Quote:

the child does not have to be in union with Christ in order" for a Christian to tell him "to obey the Lord

then no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.

As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is different about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially identical to today's?

Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.

What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

If NO ONE in the NC will "tell his brother or neighbor to know the Lord," then how do you deal with this:

Some say that there is no need to evangelize New Covenant members because they all know the Lord. They are individually saved (Malone, 94). This is subject to a serious reductio ad absurdum by this unfortunately ever-so-real case: Say a man comes to your church. He hears the preaching of the word. Tell the pastor and elders that he believes in Jesus. They tell him to repent and be baptized. So he does. His repentance is genuine. This means he has been regenerated. He is thus a New Covenant member. For 2 or 3 years this man plays a vital role in the congregation, serving, tithing, and even helping other new converts in their growth. This man is growing is sanctification and knowledge. But, as often happens, Satan attacks this man. God has chosen to discipline his son. As the London Baptist Confession says,

And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves…

And so this man commits adultery on his wife. He refuses to repent, despite the pleas of his elders and friends. He leaves his wife and is subsequently excommunicated. For two years we hear reports about this man; how he’s living with his lover, not attending church, and even saying he doesn’t believe. But one day you, a member of the church and a one time good friend, run into him at the local Starbucks. You guys chat a bit about how life is treating the both of you. It looks like a door may be open enabling you to get more personal in your conversation. What do you say to this man? Well, I think every Christian would agree that we would evangelize him. Tell him to know the Lord. Tell him that he needs to be saved. But here’s the rub, this guy, and yourself, are New Covenant members! My question is, what is one member of the New Covenant doing telling another New Covenant member to “know the Lord?”

Not only do we have a clear cut case of a New Covenant member telling another New Covenant member to “know the Lord,” the corollary of my reductio leads to a dangerous presumption. Say a member of your church is the most “holy” person you know. He is always giving of himself. Evidences what appear to be the fruit of the Spirit. Has continued to attend church for 35 years. Is always seen every morning reading his Bible and praying. Despite all of this, this man is deceiving everyone. He is putting on an outward show. To be consistent, the Baptist who interprets Jeremiah 31 in this overly-realized way cannot tell this man to “know the Lord.” Otherwise, he’d be telling someone he thought was a covenant member to “know the Lord,” and this is staunchly forbidden. Therefore the Baptist cannot tell a person to “know the Lord,” even if this is precisely what this person needs to hear!

The Baptist may say that we should tell everyone to “know the Lord” because we don’t know who the elect are. I agree, but this goes against their claim that in the New Covenant it is currently realized. If the New Covenant is fully realized then how is our telling New Covenant members to “know the Lord”, “not like” the Old Covenant? You see, only in the New Heavens and Earth will “each man no longer teach his brother or his neighbor to know the Lord.”

Andrew P.C. · #43 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:02 PM

[quote=Tom Bombadil;298140]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Actually, as stated by James White, this would be totally false. Baptists distinguish between "childeren" and "infants".

Yes, my infants are not my children.

But, if this is so, then when Deut. teaches that "all Israel, the men, women, and children" were before the Lord on the day of assembly, we must believe that "no infants" were present because "we distinguish between children and infants." And, when does an infant become a child?

The law says at 18 months? So, would you baptize an 18 month old and apply all the "children" text to them?

I therefore conclude that the "infant/children" dichotomy, in this context, is absurd.

So, you don't distinguish between a 12-year-old and an 8-month-old? Would you still baptize a 12-year-old if they flat out reject Christ? (This is the distinguishing I'm talking about.)

Jim_Johnston · #44 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Hmm.. Now here is the part where as a consistent baptist I would say that only by their profession can we know if they are in the covenant, yet, in reality I can't know that for sure.

Hi Andrew,

How do you determine that? How does "profession" = "they're in the covenant?" In fact, what is the probability here? Out of the billion or so "professing" Christians, how many are elect? That number is inscrutable.

Quote:

As a baptist only the "invisible" church is in the NC, and even John Frame states this:

Well, the devil's in the details. This depends on how you define things. Was Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc actuyally "in" the New Covenant? They are in the invisible church? So, you'd need to work this out.

But, yes, we agree that elect, and all elect (or, regenerate, if you will) in this present epoch of history are in the NC. This doesn't logically mean that no non-elect are. All dogs are in the class of mammals. That doesn't mean that no cats are, though.

Hope that helped.

Jim_Johnston · #45 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

So, you don't distinguish between a 12-year-old and an 8-month-old? Would you still baptize a 12-year-old if they flat out reject Christ? (This is the distinguishing I'm talking about.)

Of course I distinguish. But that doesn't mean that infants are not children. And, your point isn't the point White was making. White used the false dichotomy to get around the "you and your children" language. So, you've not represent White correctly.

Andrew P.C. · #46 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

OK,
if what was intended to be expressed (not what was printed) wasthen no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.

As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is different about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially identical to today's?

Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.

What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

If NO ONE in the NC will "tell his brother or neighbor to know the Lord," then how do you deal with this:

Some say that there is no need to evangelize New Covenant members because they all know the Lord. They are individually saved (Malone, 94). This is subject to a serious reductio ad absurdum by this unfortunately ever-so-real case: Say a man comes to your church. He hears the preaching of the word. Tell the pastor and elders that he believes in Jesus. They tell him to repent and be baptized. So he does. His repentance is genuine. This means he has been regenerated. He is thus a New Covenant member. For 2 or 3 years this man plays a vital role in the congregation, serving, tithing, and even helping other new converts in their growth. This man is growing is sanctification and knowledge. But, as often happens, Satan attacks this man. God has chosen to discipline his son. As the London Baptist Confession says,

And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves…

And so this man commits adultery on his wife. He refuses to repent, despite the pleas of his elders and friends. He leaves his wife and is subsequently excommunicated. For two years we hear reports about this man; how he’s living with his lover, not attending church, and even saying he doesn’t believe. But one day you, a member of the church and a one time good friend, run into him at the local Starbucks. You guys chat a bit about how life is treating the both of you. It looks like a door may be open enabling you to get more personal in your conversation. What do you say to this man? Well, I think every Christian would agree that we would evangelize him. Tell him to know the Lord. Tell him that he needs to be saved. But here’s the rub, this guy, and yourself, are New Covenant members! My question is, what is one member of the New Covenant doing telling another New Covenant member to “know the Lord?”

Not only do we have a clear cut case of a New Covenant member telling another New Covenant member to “know the Lord,” the corollary of my reductio leads to a dangerous presumption. Say a member of your church is the most “holy” person you know. He is always giving of himself. Evidences what appear to be the fruit of the Spirit. Has continued to attend church for 35 years. Is always seen every morning reading his Bible and praying. Despite all of this, this man is deceiving everyone. He is putting on an outward show. To be consistent, the Baptist who interprets Jeremiah 31 in this overly-realized way cannot tell this man to “know the Lord.” Otherwise, he’d be telling someone he thought was a covenant member to “know the Lord,” and this is staunchly forbidden. Therefore the Baptist cannot tell a person to “know the Lord,” even if this is precisely what this person needs to hear!

The Baptist may say that we should tell everyone to “know the Lord” because we don’t know who the elect are. I agree, but this goes against their claim that in the New Covenant it is currently realized. If the New Covenant is fully realized then how is our telling New Covenant members to “know the Lord”, “not like” the Old Covenant? You see, only in the New Heavens and Earth will “each man no longer teach his brother or his neighbor to know the Lord.”

My only response would be Matthew 7:

Quote:

21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Yet, in Hebrews 8 God says:

Quote:

I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Obviously this man is not a NC member. If he "knew" Christ he would have been part of God's people. But because of his rejection, Christ says this in John 12:

Quote:

48"(A)He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; (B)the word I spoke is what will judge him at (C)the last day.

Contra_Mundum · #47 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

OK,
if what was intended to be expressed (not what was printed) was

Quote:

the child does not have to be in union with Christ in order" for a Christian to tell him "to obey the Lord

then no, I have no issue. My question was based on the actual words as printed.

As for the question what does "union with Christ" have to do with the matter?, Rich's original point was the older age commands weren't given as if they were doable without union with Christ. So exactly what change has occured?, where is the discontinuity? What is different about how BELIEVING parents are to treat with their children from that age to this? Aren't all the OT instructions for raising and instructing children in the OT faith (see Proverbs) essentially identical to today's?

Rich's problem (and mine) is that we're living in a day when there's this attack on solidarity, in favor of a kind of preoccupation with individualism. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis. And in the NT, God deals with families. We think a denial of either principle is unsubstantiated and an arbitrary dichotomy. There isn't some cosmic meat-cleaver coming down, and establishing what is basically a dispensational division, whatever name it goes by.

What about the language in Hebrews 8? God says "I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT...NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

What about it?

All I see is emphasis (bold) being placed on the particular parts of the quote that you see as helpful to your position.

Did God put his "laws in their mind" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes.
Did God "write them on their hearts" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes.
Was God "their God" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes

Does anyone today (do you?) "teach his fellow citizen and brother, 'Know the Lord'"? Yes. (I hope you do)
Was God ever "merciful to their iniquities" to any in the Old Covenant? Yes.
Did God ever "remember their sins no more" of any in the Old Covenant? Yes.

So, what is left from the passage? "All shall know me."
"Well," says the baptist, "that's it, the ALL. That's what's NEW about the New Covenant. All means All, and that's all All means."

Well, I say you can't have it both ways. If "all" in this section means "perfection", then you need to be consistent. You need to go back to the first half of verse 11, and apply with the same degree of consistency the rigor imposed on the word "all" to the word "none".

If you do this, I think you have got a BIG problem. You (or your pastor) need to STOP CALLING ON PEOPLE YOU TRULY BELIEVE ARE SAVED TO REPENT OF SINNING. "Know the Lord," spoken to the neighbor, to the brother, to the church member in the Old Testament, is nothing but a call to repentance, to return to the Lord.

Sinning is practical atheism. If you are thinking about God, loving him, concerned to do his will, concerned to avoid disobedience, you will not do what you WOULD do if you didn't know him. So when your pastor calls after you to abandon the "sin which so easily entangles," when he says "Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted," there he goes, telling you to "Know the Lord." tsk tsk.

Now, I know that you will say to me, "Oh, that's silly, we know we cannot stop preaching and teaching. You cannot say this verse tells us not to do this." Well, I'm not saying it does.

I'm saying that if your side was consistent in applying an absolute interpretation even across this one SINGLE VERSE, not you SHOULDN'T, but rather you WOULDN'T BE calling on the gathered New Covenant "brothers" to repent, and "Know the Lord." But the fact is that you DO.

The implication of what I'm saying should be obvious. If "none" (or "everyone"/"all") in the BEGINNING OF the sentence is not ABSOLUTE, in other words, if the absolute language of the first half of the verse is supposed to be understood in a comparative sense, then the "all" in the LATTER part of the sentence should not be taken ABSOLUTELY either.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm just observing that the very part of the passage you decided NOT to emphasize (bold), is the specific part that militates against the absolute reading you've settled on. I'm saying that if the "alls" in the sentence were absolute, then we WOULDN'T see happening what (in a decent church) we see every Sunday. So, SINCE we DO see believers in and out of church, in the believer's community, calling on one another (and quite rightly) to "Know the Lord," then the ALL OF THEM SHALL KNOW ME, has to be conditioned by that reality.

Peace.

Andrew P.C. · #48 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

So, you've not represent White correctly.

My apologies. Late at night... tired... no coffee...

I'll have to re-listen to the debate.

Jim_Johnston · #49 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

My only response would be Matthew 7:

Yet, in Hebrews 8 God says:

Quote:

I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Obviously this man is not a NC member. If he "knew" Christ he would have been part of God's people. But because of his rejection, Christ says this in John 12:

Quote:

48"(A)He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; (B)the word I spoke is what will judge him at (C)the last day.

Wow. Look, Andrew, I know that people are going to believe what they want to. I'm sure you're a committed credo-baptist. But it appears that you didn't even read my argument.

The man is a backslidding, albeit regenerate, New Covenant member.

Now, if you're seriously going to say that the regenerate wouldn't do things like that, I ask you to recall King David, the regenerate murderer and adulterer.

So, please re-read my argument and show me how you can make sense of it given your understanding of the fully realized New Covenant.

Contra_Mundum · #50 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 12:16 AM

I heard in the debate the statement (in answer to such points as I have made here),

"Hebrews 8 is God's perspective on the New Covenant, not man's."

First of all, that certainly isn't obvious from a surface reading. It might help relieve the tension created by the obvious disjunct between the absolute statement in the beginning of the verse, and the absolute in the latter portion. Simply say "Its all God's perspctive" and you can absolutize the whole thing. How convenient.

Fine. Just don't accuse the paedo of "poof" eschatologizing difficult texts so as to avoid problems (as was stated in the debate).

Second, if this is all just God's perspective, then honestly, I don't see ANY difference being stated at all between the Old and New covenants. Because none of the saved in the Old Covenant needed to call his brothers to "know the Lord" then either, from God's perspective; for "all" of the covenant-elect already knew him, from the least to the greatest, from God's perspective.

But I know the comeback for this one too. "God was in a real, secular, non-spiritual covenant with unbelievers. They were bound in covenant with God, apart from any faith conditions. Pure Covenant of Works. And if they circumcised their kids, God would let them stay in the land forever. Then, when that looked pretty easy (just one stipulation!), God made it much harder by giving them the Law of Moses. But he still let them have a Temple, so that they could keep the law, if they tried hard enough, and followed the ritual cleansings. But faith still wasn't required. All just legal stuff, because this was a secular covenant."

And of course, here we part company with our friends across the aisle once again. We completely reject the "secular covenant" idea. It is a necessary construct (and see Nehemiah Coxe) to ensure that there is a kind of non-spiritual covenant created for non-believers. So under that rubric: 1) Abraham's covenant is divided--now there are two covenants with him. 2) Circumcision meant ONE thing for Abraham, and ANOTHER thing to his physical descent. 3) Moses' covenant is simply the secular covenant enlarged and expanded. 4) The typological (spiritual) elements are "granted" to the secular by way of superimposition. 5) The Temple service is fundamentally a secular forgiveness, a secular covenant renewal. 6) Those who are elect-in-Abraham's covenant are simply carried along in this secular ride. 7) So, one can see how, in perfect consistency with this view, there is only one way to look at the revelation--From Back to Front. New Testament back into the Old. All the "light" is at the end. All the Old Testament is to be read and understood through this lens.

When it is all laid out, I really don't see how we can cross the divide, the separation of credo and pedo baptism. There is a hermeneutical CHASM between the two. It has never appeared so wide to me as tonight. And it is YAWNING. It is the difference between reading front to back, and back to front. It's never appeared so wide, nor yet SO CLEAR to me, as at this hour. As I pause and reflect, I am actually pained, just a little, because I realize that we are not going to see this separation healed in our lifetime, perhaps not til the end of time.

Wannabee · #51 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is immutable. Imagine that.

We need to be careful here. God's character/nature is unchanging, but the manner in which He relates and communicates with man changes a great deal. It also depends on which covenant you're talking about. Are all covenants eternal? Do any covenants supercede older covenants. Is not the NC "better" than the OC? Was not the Old made obsolete by the New? This has already been stated. Does this mean that God changes?

Semper Fidelis · #52 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is immutable. Imagine that.

We need to be careful here. God's character/nature is unchanging, but the manner in which He relates and communicates with man changes a great deal. It also depends on which covenant you're talking about. Are all covenants eternal? Do any covenants supercede older covenants. Is not the NC "better" than the OC? Was not the Old made obsolete by the New? This has already been stated. Does this mean that God changes?

Yes Joe but, literally, Baptist seem to strain to find discontinuity.

I was returning from my wife's ultrasound this afternoon and was thinking about this fact. I think Bruce summed it up pretty well for me.

Notice how everything went in a circle up above. Nobody really answered my question about means. The substance of salvation is continuous and yet, according to Baptist theology, God has given fewer tools to believers today to "train up children in the fear and admonition of the Lord" than He did in the Old. He's still electing people before they "...have either run or willed..." but He's left no means in place in the home to train up a child in the way that he should go. How do Baptists account for this?

I'll be honest with you Joe. I know you go to Master's Seminary but I'm just not smart enough to be a Baptist. I know that sounds funny but this very thought came to me today. I'm just not smart enough for it. Especially the Dispensational versions are way too complicated for me. I'd never know where in Scripture I was supposed to be reading what seems to be spiritual as not longer applying to me and where it did. I'd never know who was pursuing Christ like I was (and stumbling perhaps) and who wasn't.

As it is now, I really don't have a problem picking up anywhere in the Bible and seeing the template of the NT laid over it but them pursuing the same goal with types and shadows. I certainly have no clue where people get this "two type" of Abrahamic promise (or is it four). I'm not trying to cut people down but it's just so complicated.

I called Gene two weeks ago and he said: It seems like you have to have a PhD to understand the paedobaptist position. I disagree. Look at all the times in the debate where Paul simply wanted to transport the same language used in the OT and assume that God was perspicuous in how He was using it as well as how the NT writer applied it. All of it was re-interpreted according to a "Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 invisible, perfect New Covenant" code. "No, you can't go to Abraham...."

Look, I can tell you for a fact that the Reformed Baptist position is complex because when I get most of the Reformed Baptists aside that don't have the whole system down it is really quite easy for me to explain the paedobaptist Reformed position to them. It doesn't require an elaborate telling of the perfection of the NC and how that connects to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 and how, therefore, we should be baptizing only the regenerate but we can't do that in reality so we're going to baptize the professors cause that's the next best thing.

I kind of hope every now and again that people will see how hard the middle is to hold on this point.

Especially when I ask a simple question about means of Grace. Does a Baptist have an answer to my question?

And, Joe, thank you again for being gracious. I'm not typing the above up to be un-gracious but I really want to see if there is a simple "man on the street" way that Baptists can hold this together and how they know how to "train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord", how they understand that their children are supposed to obey them because of a promise from God to them, and why God pulled the rug out from under them in the NC when all sorts of means were available for the elect in the OT.

Calvibaptist · #53 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Thus, what I'm asking is this: Pretend for a moment that God has elected a child in a Baptist Church from all eternity to be saved. What means are there now instituted in the Church? How would He go about saving that child? We have a glimpse of this in the Proverbs and throughout the OT but Baptists short circuit this by saying that children no longer participate in these means.

I am not quite sure why paedos think that a Baptist would not teach their children the Scriptures (means), teach their children to pray (means), have their children in public worship (means), explain to them the meaning of the Lord's Supper of which they are unable to partake (means), etc.

Baptists do all these things precisely because our children need to be converted and need the means that God has established for conversion. We do not see Baptism as a means of conversion. We see Baptism as a sign of conversion.

If you looked at a Reformed Baptist church and compared it to a Presbyterian church, you would probably find little difference in the way children participated in the life of the church.

Semper Fidelis · #54 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:32 AM

Yes, I know you do these things Doug but I've never had a Reformed Baptist adequately account for why you do these things under your current schema. The reason why the OT Saints did such things is that they were Covenantally obligated to and aided by God in that work.

It's like this:

1. OT Saint: Told to train children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Entire Covenant community, Wisdom literature to train a child to lay hold of Covenant promises, Rabbi's teaching youngsters, etc is all set up to aid in the task - a means to the child's election.

2. NT Saint. Told to train children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Family is on its own. Whatever the Church does incidental to that is quite unintentional because God isn't really commanding you to do anything any more. Child isn't Pastor's responsibility - just those in the visible Church - of which unprofessing children are not part.

I've said repeatedly that the best Baptist is an inconsistent Baptist at this point. When asked how Baptists figure they have a responsiblity to their children they can never quite formulate the idea Scripturally because they keep running up against their systematic insistence against the notion. After all, in this very thread another credo-Baptist is trying to argue that we're all on our own. I assume you must agree with him since you're not repudiating that line of thinking.

If we're all on our own then the kids are on their own too. No help from Mom. No help from Dad. No help from you. In fact, I'm told, we ought to expect father against son.

Calvibaptist · #55 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I simply don't understand this obsession with seeing discontinuity in the Covenant. Perfect example, yet again, how God's nature is immutable. Imagine that.

Honestly, I don't understand why it is considered "discontinuity." I consider it progression. If there is no difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, why have a New Covenant? Why in the world would God do away with the Old and bring in the New if there is no difference?

The fact is, there are many differences. We all agree on the major differences involving the doing away with the ceremonial law, sacrifices, ect. and putting in their places Christ as the perfect law-keeper and perfect sacrifice. There is the difference of priesthood, where the Aaronic priesthood is done away with and in its place Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizadek. I could go on with progressive differences.

No, the New Covenant has not come into completion. There are still aspects of progression that have not progressed to their fullness. We are not completely sinless. We do not obey all the time. We still have to be taught. So, some of the promises of the New Covenant, although begun, have yet to be fulfilled.

BUT, there is one progression that Baptists see that paedos do not. That is a progression in the covenant people. The thing that Jeremiah says that was a major change from the Old Covenant to the New was that the New couldn't be broken. The reason it can't be broken is that, unlike the Old Covenant which had both regenerate and unregenerate members, the New Covenant only has regenerate members. I know we've had discussions about this before, so don't jump on me!

This is NOT discontinuity any more than having the ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ is discontinuity. It is progression. With the progression from Old Covenant to New Covenant, there is a progression in blessings; there is a progression in covenant people; there is a progression in covenant sign.

I honestly don't understand why paedos are willing to see a change in the sign from circumcision to baptism and not consider that "discontinuity" but when credos also see a change in the covenant people that is called "discontinuity."