Argument Against Classical Covenant Theological Paedobaptism For Your Consideration

[LockTheDeadbolt]

I thought I'd put it up an argument here and just let people poke holes in it for awhile. So without any further ado, have at it:

Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).

1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).

1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.

Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)

2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.

2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).

Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore Not A.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off 1a and 1b are incorrect from a Particular Baptist position.

In the framework of the Particular Baptist we do not hold that Circumcision and Baptism are as closely related as you are implying in 1a.

In 1b I think John Owen discredits this. Is the New Covenant really New. - The PuritanBoard And he held to a Federal Theology.

I do believe Covenant Theology is true in Presenting a threefold understanding. There is a Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and a Covenant of Grace.

And that the Covenant of Works and Grace are overarching Covenants. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are subservient to them as I state here. Herman Witsius Rich Barcellos sent this to me when i asked about a reference for it. The edition I have is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,

"It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."

I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works.[/QUOTE]"]

Herman Witsius Rich Barcellos sent this to me when i asked about a reference for it. The edition I have is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,

"It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."

I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Also here are a few things on circumcision and Baptism as they relate to each other in Colossians 2:11-12.

These are all from my blog on the Puritanboard. They are not long drawn out threads.

An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12 - The PuritanBoard

Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink - The PuritanBoard

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard

And just for some insight here is something on John Tombe and Genesis 17 concerning the Abrahamic Covenant.

John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 - The PuritanBoard

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

First off 1a and 1b are incorrect from a Particular Baptist position.

That's why I was mostly looking for critical responses from a paedobaptist perspective. (The thread title was intended to be a clue in that respect.) I'm aware of the 1689 LBCF Covenant Theology perspective on this as well.

Thanks for the links.

 

[Sven]

Are you saying that regeneration does not apply to those of the Old Covenant? It seems to me that you are. You say that the Old and New are not just different different administrations but different covenants, yet you haven't demonstrated this. How are the Old and New Covenants different. Doesn't Paul demonstrate that Abraham was justified by faith the same way that people in the New Covenant are (Rom. 4)? Doesn't Moses tell the Israelites that it is not outward adherence to the Law but inward regeneration that counts ("circumcision of the heart," Deut. 10:16), which is what the New Covenant emphasizes (Titus 3:5). Furthermore, I take you to mean that in the Old Testament God's covenant worked along familial lines. This is implied in the promise to Abraham "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen 17:7. If the New covenant no longer worked along familial lines then we would expect the language to change, but this is not the case as is implied in Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." Also this is implied in the "household" baptisms (Acts 16:33; Acts 16:15).
Further still, baptism is not just based upon circumcision but also the washings and sprinkling of blood that took place in the OT, the flood (1 Pet. 3:20,21), and the passing through of the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1,2). I may add in passing that their were infants who passed through the Red Sea.

Nice try.

 

[chbrooking]

Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).

True.

1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).

True, but the parenthetical remark is not the justification for seeing that correspondence. There is an explicit link, e.g., in Col. 2.

1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.

Yes. Again, this is made explicit in Gal. 3-4 (see links below).

Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)

We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens.

2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.

Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.

2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).

What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace. Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity.

Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore Not A.

You have not established "Not B". You've merely asserted it. You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Every premise is mis-stated. The Abrahamic Covenant is not identical to the New Covenant. They are different administrations of the one Covenant of Grace but not identical.

More specificaly, with relation to 2b.

How many Covenants are expressed in Romans 5:12-21?

[bible]Romans 5:12-21[/bible]

What is the basis for salvation for these multiple Covenants you have in mind?

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

Are you saying that regeneration does not apply to those of the Old Covenant? It seems to me that you are.

A careful reading of what I wrote would preclude this inference:

2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.

You say that the Old and New are not just different different administrations but different covenants, yet you haven't demonstrated this. How are the Old and New Covenants different.

All of Scripture speaks of them in terms of separate covenants, not a "single covenant with multiple administrations" (as in Jer. 31 or Heb. 8-9, as I said in the OP). The "one covenant - multiple administrations" is most often presented as a presupposition, not a textual inference. This is because little is available in the way of exegetical justification for the formula, in my humble opinion.

The continuity within the multiple covenants and their multiple administrations is the result of them being covenants made by the graciousness of an immutable God, not some extra-biblical supposition of a single "covenant of grace."

Feel free to try again, however.

 

[chbrooking]

How, then, are we heirs with Abraham? One covenant with multiple administrations is a good and necessary consequence of Gal. 3.

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens... Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.

I can see why this would be a reasonable point of contention. I attempted to be as brief as possible in regarding Col. 2, primarily to take it easy on the reader, initially anyway.

2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).

What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace.

You've only begged the question against 2b here, specifically when you say, "clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace." This is, of course, not so clear at all since it is one of the matters of contention presented in my argument.

Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity.

It might be a case of what you consider a "good" consequence, but I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it is "necessary." I never stated or implied anything about the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and see no necessary consequence which would "force me" into adopting a theory of justification by works under the Mosaic covenant. Maybe you can demonstrate this necessary consequence?

You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.

Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man. Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?

 

[Archlute]

Your argumentation is biblicistic in that it refuses to look at the Scriptures as a theological whole, and to then draw theological conclusions from that big picture. Using your form of argumentation, you could easily go on to deny the Trinity.

I am not setting that forth as an attack, just pointing out that your methodology has already been used by men such as Faustus Socinus and others in their attempts at dismantling doctrines that they did not feel expressly taught by the text of the Word. It is known as a biblicistic and rationalistic methodology.

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

Every premise is mis-stated. The Abrahamic Covenant is not identical to the New Covenant. They are different administrations of the one Covenant of Grace but not identical.?

Admittedly, the term "identical" could be understood to carry more force than I really intended. I was merely using the term in reference to the singularity of the covenant of grace, with respect to the relation between the Abrahamic and the New covenant "administrations." I'm not sure how that makes "every premise" mis-stated, but since I just admitted to possibly making an overstatement, I won't make a big deal out that.

How many Covenants are expressed in Romans 5:12-21?

None of the covenants are "expressly" mentioned in Romans 5, though "death reigned from Adam to Moses" carries with it the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. And of course, the reference to the Gospel of Christ implies the New Covenant. So let's see, that would be 5 covenants. Only the Davidic covenant appears to be absent of any clear implication.

What is the basis for salvation for these multiple Covenants you have in mind?

Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone, in accord with the unity of God's progressive revelation of Himself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

How many Covenants are expressed in Romans 5:12-21?

None of the covenants are "expressly" mentioned in Romans 5, though "death reigned from Adam to Moses" carries with it the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. And of course, the reference to the Gospel of Christ implies the New Covenant. So let's see, that would be 5 covenants. Only the Davidic covenant appears to be absent of any clear implication.

What is a Covenant precisely?

What is the basis for salvation for these multiple Covenants you have in mind?

Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone, in accord with the unity of God's progressive revelation of Himself.

Upon what basis has it "always" been so? 5 covenants above but the basis for salvation has "always" been the same?

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

Your argumentation is biblicistic in that it refuses to look at the Scriptures as a theological whole, and to then draw theological conclusions from that big picture.

As an E-5 Combat Medic, I'd like to deeply thank you for serving Christ and the service men and women of our nation in the Chaplain Corps during a time of war, sir.

That being said, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion above. God's progressive self-revelation has an inherent unity apart from a "one covenant - multiple administrations" theory of redemptive history. There is unity because God is one, though there is diversity because God is also three.

Using your form of argumentation, you could easily go on to deny the Trinity.

Again, I strongly disagree with the assertion that my form of argument could easily lead to anti-Trinitarianism. I honestly don't see why people have such a hard time seeing the clear Trinitarian implications throughout both testaments of Scripture.

I am not setting that forth as an attack, just pointing out that your methodology has already been used by men such as Faustus Socinus and others in their attempts at dismantling doctrines that they did not feel expressly taught by the text of the Word. It is known as a biblicistic and rationalistic methodology.

Wow, talk about guilt by association... Sir...

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 03:17:16 EST-----

What is a Covenant precisely?

A gracious self-revelatory agreement initiated by God with His creation, particularly His image-bearers.

Upon what basis has it "always" been so? 5 covenants above but the basis for salvation has "always" been the same?

It's always been so because God is eternal and immutable and He initiates and reveals the content of the covenants. How is it even conceivable for there to be multiple bases for salvation given by an eternal God? It's a self-refuting concept.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Deadbolt (since I don't know your name) -

As Rich has pointed out, every premise is mis-stated. As Randy noted, this is true (at least the first part) even from a Particular Baptist perspective.

I suggest that you need to go back to the drawing board and rewrite your argument in light of the modifications and clarifications and concessions you've made above. Then we can more accurately interact with what it is that you are trying to say...

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

How, then, are we heirs with Abraham? One covenant with multiple administrations is a good and necessary consequence of Gal. 3.

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." -Gal. 3:7

Are your children the physical descendants of Abraham by birth? No?
Then don't give them the sign of the covenant.

Are your children "those of faith who are the sons of Abraham"? No?
Then don't give them the sign of the covenant.

 

[Sven]

The continuity within the multiple covenants and their multiple administrations is the result of them being covenants made by the graciousness of an immutable God, not some extra-biblical supposition of a single "covenant of grace."

I would agree with you there is continuity between all the covenants. What is that continuity? It is that the sum and substance of every covenant, whether it be with Abraham, Moses, David or the new covenant is this: “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” (Gen. 17:7,8; Ex. 6:7; Ps. 89; Jer. 31:33; Rev. 21:3) In every covenant God offers to those with whom He is covenanting a way through Christ to be a God to them and they to be His people. This continuity strongly implies that the different covenants are all ectypes of one prototype: the covenant of grace.
That there is only one covenant, which all the covenants are but ectypes, is biblically defensible. Every covenant made, whether it be with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant, is called an everlasting covenant (Gen. 9:16; Gen. 17:7; Lev. 24:8; Num.18:19; 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 32:40; Heb. 13:20). If the covenant made with Moses was only temporary, why is it called an everlasting covenant? Unless of course, God is referring to the sum and substance of the Mosaic Covenant, which, again, strongly implies that there is one covenant of grace, which the Mosaic covenant and all others are but an ectype.

As far as I'm concerned, the weakness of your argument is that you make the covenants all to be not only different administrations, but different covenants. If they are different, then why are they all the same as to their sum and substance? Until you can deal with this, I see no reason to deal with the rest of your argument. I do not mean to speak down to you, but you really need to do a lot more studying in covenant theology before you try some stunt like this.

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

Deadbolt (since I don't know your name) -

It's Ben, too. But you can call me Deadbolt if you like.

As Rich has pointed out, every premise is mis-stated. As Randy noted, this is true (at least the first part) even from a Particular Baptist perspective.

I suggest that you need to go back to the drawing board and rewrite your argument in light of the modifications and clarifications and concessions you've made above. Then we can more accurately interact with what it is that you are trying to say...

I appreciate your suggestion, but am unsure of what "modifications" and "concessions" I've made, beyond admitting that "identify" may have been an imperfect word choice. "Clarifications" on this board are inescapable.

I haven't introduced any new information in my follow-ups. It's all in the OP, albeit in a brief statement.

I do, however, appreciate the fact that some of my statements may seem unconventional to those who are regular patrons of the PB, which can make it a bit slippery in trying to "force" me to concede out of "good and necessary consequence" that my arguments are mis-stated, methodologically Socinian, biblicist, rationalistic, Dispensational, anti-Trinitarian and autosoteristic.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 03:43:36 EST-----

I would agree with you there is continuity between all the covenants. What is that continuity? It is that the sum and substance of every covenant, whether it be with Abraham, Moses, David or the new covenant is this: “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” (Gen. 17:7,8; Ex. 6:7; Ps. 89; Jer. 31:33; Rev. 21:3) In every covenant God offers to those with whom He is covenanting a way through Christ to be a God to them and they to be His people.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Immanuel principle is present in each and every one of the biblical covenants.

This continuity strongly implies that the different covenants are all ectypes of one prototype: the covenant of grace.

That there is only one covenant, which all the covenants are but ectypes, is biblically defensible. Every covenant made, whether it be with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant, is called an everlasting covenant (Gen. 9:16; Gen. 17:7; Lev. 24:8; Num.18:19; 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 32:40; Heb. 13:20). If the covenant made with Moses was only temporary, why is it called an everlasting covenant? Unless of course, God is referring to the sum and substance of the Mosaic Covenant, which, again, strongly implies that there is one covenant of grace, which the Mosaic covenant and all others are but an ectype.

The covenant with Moses (along with all the others) are called everlasting covenants because (ready for this one?) they ARE everlasting covenants. No archetype-ectype relationship demonstrated as a "good and necessary consequence" here. Good: debatable. Necessary: not really.

As far as I'm concerned, the weakness of your argument is that you make the covenants all to be not only different administrations, but different covenants. If they are different, then why are they all the same as to their sum and substance? Until you can deal with this, I see no reason to deal with the rest of your argument. I do not mean to speak down to you, but you really need to do a lot more studying in covenant theology before you try some stunt like this.

You can feel free to speak down to me. I recognized that it's generally par for the course around here when I decided to start the thread.

In response to the "weakness of my argument" question ("If they are different, then why are they all the same as to their sum and substance?"), as I said to Rich:

It's always been so because God is eternal and immutable and He initiates and reveals the content of the covenants. How is it even conceivable for there to be multiple bases for salvation given by an eternal God? It's a self-refuting concept.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I do, however, appreciate the fact that some of my statements may seem unconventional to those who are regular patrons of the PB, which can make it a bit slippery in trying to "force" me to concede out of "good and necessary consequence" that my arguments are mis-stated, methodologically Socinian, biblicist, rationalistic, Dispensational, anti-Trinitarian and autosoteristic.

That is because the grounds for participation on this board is Confessional subscription, which you clearly do not on the CoG given your Dispensational understanding of the nature of the Covenants. Your position is an exception for membership (which, I might add was not stated in your application and should have been).

Of course, such a position has no standing on this board as normative and cannot be forced upon a Covenant theology to claim internal contradiction. I can make any system contradictory if I import premises that are outside that system of doctrine.

Let me distill your original argument:

P1. Paedobaptism rests on a Federal/Covenantal understanding of the Scriptures.
P2. I'm Dispensational and I don't see it.
C. Paedobaptism is wrong

 

[Sven]

Deadbolt, you really haven't dealt with the issue. Why are they everlasting? "Because they ARE everlasting" isn't an answer. We can take the everlasting to mean two things: either the covenants made are perpetual in nature and forever binding, in which case, why is Mosaic Covenant said to "vanish away" (Heb. 8:13)? or the covenants are everlasting because they are all the same in sum and substance implying that they are all really one covenant of grace. Again, you have evidenced to everyone here that you really haven't studied covenant theology all that well. I suggest you do some reading.

 

[chbrooking]

As I understand the OP, you are offering an argument to disprove the validity of PB. I offered reasons why we regard the teaching of the Bible (both explicit and that drawn from GNC) to support PB. Your response is, "I don't see it."

Okay. But that doesn't refute our position. Why bother with the formality of premises, etc. if you aren't going to prove your assertions?

If you had said, "Lay out the case for PB and let me try to dismantle it," that would be different. But you've made the positive argument for why our position is not biblical. It seems that the onus is on you.

But okay, I'll bite. It's GNC for me because the only distinction between me and the children of Abraham in the OT is the faith made more certain, living as I do post-resurrection and post-Pentecost. I'm saved by the same faith as Abraham. The gospel was preached to Abraham ahead of time (Gen 3.8).

Gal 3:16 clearly indicates that there was only one True Jew, only one son of Abraham who was truly faithful. By union with him, I am a Jew. Gal 2:11ff indicates that Paul even regarded his Jewishness as via union with Christ.

Nevertheless, God made promises to Abraham and to his children. The covenant was not made with him alone, but with his children. It was by faith that his children would be faithful to the covenant. But they were still marked with the covenant sign.

If I regard the NC as radically new, such that there is no continuity, then Gal 3 doesn't make sense to me. How can I be blessed WITH Abraham, and how could the same gospel that is preached to me have been preached to Abraham? That's why I regard the multiple administrations of one covenant of grace as GNC.

But again. It's your argument. You are the one who bears the burden of supporting your position. I've laid out "B" in your "Not-B" modus tollens. It's up to you to PROVE that my "B" cannot stand.

If there are solipsisms or (I hope not) non-sequiturs, forgive me. I'm in a bit of a rush.

We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens... Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.

I can see why this would be a reasonable point of contention. I attempted to be as brief as possible in regarding Col. 2, primarily to take it easy on the reader, initially anyway.

What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace.

You've only begged the question against 2b here, specifically when you say, "clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace." This is, of course, not so clear at all since it is one of the matters of contention presented in my argument.

Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity.

It might be a case of what you consider a "good" consequence, but I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it is "necessary." I never stated or implied anything about the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and see no necessary consequence which would "force me" into adopting a theory of justification by works under the Mosaic covenant. Maybe you can demonstrate this necessary consequence?

You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.

Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man. Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?

 

[charliejunfan]

Meditate on this, recalling all those were circumcised in the OT, and asking yourself if circumcision was a TYPE or SIGN/SEAL---

Romans 4:11 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 then listen to this-

Paedo-Credo Baptism Debate: Dr. Robert Strimple and Dr. Fred Malone In Thy Light

Nice to meet you!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The covenant with Moses (along with all the others) are called everlasting covenants because (ready for this one?) they ARE everlasting covenants. No archetype-ectype relationship demonstrated as a "good and necessary consequence" here. Good: debatable. Necessary: not really.

It's always been so because God is eternal and immutable and He initiates and reveals the content of the covenants. How is it even conceivable for there to be multiple bases for salvation given by an eternal God? It's a self-refuting concept.

In light what you are asserting in this thread, what is "the blood of the eternal covenant" refering to? Which covenant does the author of Hebrews have in mind?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off here is a good place for me to send you for a definition of a Covenant.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-covenant-24830/#post306041


Here is were Rich and I start to discuss Romans 4, Genesis 17, and Galatians 3,4, & 5.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/case-believers-only-baptism-23640/index2.html#post291015

In an earlier post I said I thought there were the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works in Abraham. It appears I might be correct.

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This may not be correct though since it mentions Sinai and not the pre fall covenant. But there are two covenants in Abraham.

Remember Witsius...

"It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."

We discuss whether Esau was in the Everlasting Covenant here.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/#post369183

I agree with the Westminster here.

Section VI.—Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

And Rev Winzer and I discuss the Covenant of Works and administration in the following.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thread moved to Covenant Theology.

There's really no point debating the sign of the Covenant unless one agrees on what the nature of the Covenant is.

 

[DonP]

Good job Sven, and continuing on which would be easy for hours to shoot that all down from abundant scriptures, but consider
Matt 5:17-"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. NKJV
Nothing changed here.

Gal 3:6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
NKJV
Nothing changed here.
Gospel was preached to them, the nations coming in was always part of this covenant not a separate and different plan or covenant. Still all under the covenant of grace by faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. NKJV
Nothing changed here.
Can't annul the covenant or the promises it contained. All is still the same. This is the covenant with Christ made with Abraham. Same covenant of redemption, cov of grace

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. NKJV
Nothing changed here. Never was a Jew one outwardly in God's eye speaking spiritually. The true Jew was one of the heart. This was cov of grace. Still is. Law written on heart.

Rom 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") NKJV
Nothing changed here.
Same by faith cov of grace with Abe and all his seed of faith then and now.


Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. NKJV
Nothing changed here.
Could it be clearer? Never was ethnic Jews, the cov of Grace and Redemption was always with only those of faith.
God had no covenant with the unbeliever, with ethnic Jews. No future or eternal promises for ethnic Jews, only those of faith.
the earthly Jews got the earthy aspect of the promise only by virtue of at least staying in the visible earthly covenant they got the land.

Rom 11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? NKJV
Nothing changed here.
We who are being saved now, ethnic Jew or Gentile are al being graft back into the old covenant, the old root of promise made to Abraham, the covenant of grace.

2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. NKJV

Now the administration specifics of that period of the covenant of grace changed,
1. it was mainly for Jews, now all races
2. it was in one nation, now all nation can worship
3. it had shadows of things to come, many have now been fulfilled.
4. so the sacrament of passover looking ahead is replaced with the Supper to remember, and the sacrament of death and bloody sacrifice of circumcision as a sign of visible covenant membership has been replaced with a new sign of visible outward covenant membership,

And if not Baptism, then what is now the sign of being a member of the covenant people, not all of whom were then or are now converted, or even elect.

So Adam failed the cov of works for all of us, and all of us are under the covenant of works,
and so from that point on, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses with all the seed of faith, seed of those in Christ, have been in the covenant of grace.

I don't know what could be clearer or simpler to follow.

Christ fulfilled the cov of works for al of those in Him, in the one SEED, in the covenant of Grace, by faith.

So only the outward circumstances of the cov of grace have been changed at times, Noah had to build and get in an Ark. Abraham had to have a child of miracle and then sacrifice his 1st born, and Moses was given the laws for a nation to live under as greater numbers began to come into the visible outward covenant people. They were called people of God, Children of God, My People etc. but these are outward covenantal terms just as today we can call a church member brother and yet he may not be converted.
The outward covenant or membership is controlled by the judgment of man and based on works. The covenant of grace is governed by God infallibly and is by faith perfectly visible only to God.

Nothing has changed except the outward covenant membership has grown and has gone from Noah, to Abe to his descendants to Moses and the nation and now to all nations.

Is it not a glorious incredible plan??? Once you see the full beauty of this one single plan unfolding in perfect harmony all of scripture is so much clearer and God is so much more amazing.

2 covenants, several ways they are administrated in the outward, and all along only one way were they administered in the reality and inward, Faith.

So though the Jewish nation was given laws that had a similarity or form like a covenant of works, this was incidental and secondary, to the real covenant of Grace that was at work.
Just as we have the appearance of a covenant of works today, continue in sin and not obeying the Lord, and you are excommunicated, put outside the covenant people.

But we are not saved by these works. This is the error of the FV, they don't understand the covenants and that judging by works is the work of man for the outward visible covenant.
We are converted and saved by faith alone. And so no man can judge the heart but God. No man knows the state of an infant or youth dying. Our profession and works can be legal and not from saving faith so even those with a credible profession to get into the visible church may not be in the invisible.
Only God knows.
So we can not baptize only believers, because we can't know for sure.
We baptize those in the visible outward covenant, those who have a credible profession by words and works, and their children.
Still today as in the previous testament, the covenant allows for, and the gospel preached includes:
Acts 2:39 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." NKJV

It is the same promise. Though our children are still included in the visible covenant membership obviously, there is no other way to function as a family, being called My People, and to encourage them to pray to their God, than this covenant language, else we would say they were not the children of God, an their prayers would be sin and not heard and God is angry with them until they repent, but this is not How god deals with us.
He deals with us and has us deal with each other not according to the covenant of grace, but according to the visible covenant people.

So we have promise and hope to the right to tell our children god is their Father and to pray to Him and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the lord, though not all may come to saving faith. And some may be born again from the womb.
We do not know when a child was regenerated, for we only can see outward visible signs of this as they become reasonable and old enough to give evidence of belief and good works.

But God did not change this aspect of the outward covenant else we would have had direction that our children were no longer children of God, not to be told to pray to God as abba Father, and that the promise was not to them.

But what saith the scripture, to you and your children are the promises.

My friends this is NT language, and even if you see the newness of the covenant not because it is better, but as a whole new covenant then still the children are in it. 1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. NKJV

The following verses can only be understood in this covenantal outwardly "holy" language? Do you think no one in the OT was saved by the covenant of grace?
Was the old covenant void of Christ and His work?
Were they only saved by a covenant of works and sacrifices?

Then exactly what were the conditions of the OLD covenant?
Do this and you shall live, do not obey and you shall die? Of course not else not could be saved. That may have stood for the justice system to really kill them or drive them out of the nation in some case, but this was not the salvatory covenant they were under. What were the particulars of the contract of the OT that a man could be saved by?
It was the same cov of grace
Gen 17:10-12 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. NKJV
The covenant was always with believers and their children, even slaves who were under the authority of the head of the house were circumcised as a sign they were also in the covenant in the visible sense. God deals with households in the visible covenant and individuals in the invisible. So the gospel was you and your household will be saved as with Zacheus, this day salvation has come to your household. Believers AND their children.
Though there is no absolute certainty of their salvation it is the ordinary way with God to deal with His people. Now there is hope for your household to be saved. And there is no way that a household with small children that all were made to make this immediate profession of faith. It is not required for the children until they are of reasonable age, to be their own household and head.

There was no certainty that a circumcised child or slave would be truly saved or a true believer, it was only a sign they were in the visible church or covenant. Note how this is expressed in the NT

Then better covenant and hope etc. can only mean new in the sense of better or more clear, and easier, more fulfilled and completed by primarily the completion of Christ's work.
Heb 7:19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. NKJV

Heb 7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. NKJV

Heb 8:6 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. NKJV

Was not Abraham promised as good an inheritance in eternity as we? Then it is not a different covenant of grace, but a better ministration of it with more clarity and less shadow, in the fulfillment of it, rather than the expectancy.

This is the Jewish figurative language.
One Lord, one faith, ONE Baptism.
For the One body, One temple, one holy royal priesthood.

Not two bodies, not one saved by works or sacrifice, all of grace, all part of one covenant, manifested in several ages in several ministries.
Amen

 

[Grimmson]

Furthermore, I take you to mean that in the Old Testament God's covenant worked along familial lines. This is implied in the promise to Abraham "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen 17:7. If the New covenant no longer worked along familial lines then we would expect the language to change, but this is not the case as is implied in Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." Also this is implied in the "household" baptisms (Acts 16:33; Acts 16:15).

It is true that the Old Testament worked according to families, and to some degree such is the case through Adam in our sin nature, however we do start to see a shift in the Old Testament to a different covenant to come; which is by far a better covenant. In fact we do start to see changes in the language, such as in Acts 2:39 for you see it is also for “ all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” and not just for you and your children. For we see salvation is not through direct decent to a line of believers, but by the calling and drawing of the Lord to his self (See John 6: 36-37, 44).

In regards to household baptisms, I think this was a rarity instead of the norm. In Lydia’s case we already know that she was a “worshiper of God”(Acts 16:14).Therefore she already had a strong influence in her household in regards to religious practice and there a good chance that they may have been present at the riverside; hence implying that they heard the Gospel from Paul and was baptized. Now with the Philippian jailer, in verse 34 we see that the “his entire household rejoiced that he believed in God”. I find it strange that non-believers would rejoice. In fact Jesus words are what echoes in my mind for the norm:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Matthew 10:34-36

Believing is the key to baptism, not just the head of the household, but those in it. This can clearly be seen in Acts 18:8. And it distinguishes itself from the old covenant.

Another example of the change of language which I will set forth is in Acts 11, where salvation is clearly given to the gentiles. A radical concept to Peter and the rest of the believing Jews.

There is a sense that God is still working through family lines, but it is not by present physical families that are through Adam, but through the Christ who is the second Adam. We are made live again not by our parents, were we inherit original sin, but through the Holy Spirit. And it is through the Holy Spirit that we are children of God and heirs in Christ. Therefore a distinction is made between the physical and the spiritual. We are all children of Abraham in this sense, but we are the spiritual offspring through faith and not the physical.

Regarding the question, ‘Doesn't Moses tell the Israelites that it is not outward adherence to the Law but inward regeneration that counts ("circumcision of the heart," Deut. 10:16)’


Moses does tell the Israelites the need to follow the entire law of God He also tells them in the passage to circumcise their own hearts and to no longer be stubborn. Man by their own nature cannot circumcise their own hearts, which is why the new covenant is a better covenant. Deuteronomy 10:16 and the 10th commandment clearly show the necessary component of the need for inward regeneration that counts towards one righteousness. The problem is with the old covenant as we see in their history that they could not keep that covenant as was judged accordingly. In fact what I would say is that both the outward and the inward equally matter and that the inward would be reflected and seen by the outward as they progress. It was this covenant that Christ fulfilled and who righteousness we now have accredited to us. The old covenant is till in affect, the problem however is do you want to adhere to the old that condemns you by your own merit or by Christ which saves you from this old covenant, who’s design was to show your sin and need for Christ.

As a conclusion there are clear covenantal differences between the old and new covenant. This includes the end of the sacrificial system, salvation through physical descent, adherence to the Law, and Moses or levitical priest standing between the people and God. Jesus is now our high priest and not the order of Levi. Christ being the God man was the better sacrifice, between Man and God. And descent as a child of God is through faith. Those who were saved in times past were not I would say truly saved by old covenant system, but by looking towards Christ in faith. For there is your continuity of the covenant of grace.

 

[DonP]

Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man. Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?

When God began to show me the doctrines of grace it took me years to remove all of the filters of dispensational thinking. It has been 35 years and I am not sure I have gotten them all out yet.

But I struggled with the same rational thinking you are going through.

My mind kept seeing scriptures with the background of dispensational programming. so I was not free to just see what the scriptures said from a blank neutral mind. So this is why some say your interpretation is dispensational, and you don't see the traces of it still there influencing your thinking.
Be patient with yourself and us. We have all been through this and are very zealous of God's truth, and also of helping you to see truth clearly.

all the answers are here and in scripture if you will be as open to see the other perspective as you did when shown the doctrines of grace.

So I think you will find this more congenial if you would be a little more inquisitive in how you pursue your discussions, being new to the reformed truths of the scripture.

I think the posts will be gentler and you will see the grace, and love the people here have for you. The intensity is created by you when you come from a place of being right and they wrong.

Just keep asking questions, Well what about this?
Then how do you understand this ? Etc.

And I think you will find the people here more kind and willing to help you come to the understanding many of us have come to after years of sophisticated and thorough study, and some have been raised with their whole lives.

Few if any here hold to such a minority teaching today and take a stand against the broader church and other ministers without having a very solid basis on which to do it.

The Jewish language and thus their thinking is very figurative and full of these figures.
to simply look up a word definition in a dictionary and base an interpretation of a passage on that is very unwise.

The Greek is somewhat easier, but even then you are dealing with Jewish minds speaking to Jewish men or those who have been influenced and taught by Jewish thinking.
We must keep this in mind as we seek to interpret and understand what the thinking of the people was that is being addressed by the author.

An example of this is, some things are said to be everlasting. But they are not everlasting in the "now" temporal earthly aspect of the prophecy, but are eternal in their spiritual fulfillment.
Like the covenant, with Israel, the nation was destroyed, sent to exile, God says those laws are done. So they were not everlasting in the physical, but long, for many generations, which it also means. But in the spiritual reality they pointed to, they are eternal. And so those of faith enter in to that aspect while others are left with the temporal earthly only. So the children of Israel were exiled and the nation ended. It was not a continuous everlasting promise to them of land.
Hope this helps. I am so glad you are studying these issues though. May God have grace on you and bring your efforts to fruit for His glory and your joy!

 

[Grimmson]

As a conclusion there are clear covenantal differences between the old and new covenant. This includes the end of the sacrificial system, salvation through physical descent, adherence to the Law, and Moses or levitical priest standing between the people and God. Jesus is now our high priest and not the order of Levi. Christ being the God man was the better sacrifice, between Man and God. And descent as a child of God is through faith. Those who were saved in times past were not I would say truly saved by old covenant system, but by looking towards Christ in faith. For there is your continuity of the covenant of grace.

First, salvation has never been through physical descent, but only by faith in Christ alone. Covenant membership (not election) is by family descent, but there are Covenant Breakers. Membership never guarantees salvation.

Secondly, we are still very much to "adhere" to the moral Law of God (summarily taught in the Decalogue), it didn't begin with Moses.

Finally, concerning your last sentence, I do not know any Reformed folk that would say anyone was ever saved by the old covenant system. If so, well, they'd be terribly wrong and unReformed, for sure.

First, salvation in the Jewish mind, including Peter initially was only for the Jews. Your right to say that membership in the old covenant was through physical descendants, however that does change in the new covenant for all knows the Lord in that covenant as members. Also we see the giving of baptism to those that believe. In fact those who are TRUE members of this covenant are also elected to salvation; and thus a major difference between the old and the new. You do find a mixture visibly, however their leaving is proof they were never members to begin with.

Second, I never said we should not adhere to the moral law of God. We should. In fact I would say that the requirements within the law are more demanding as we see in the Sermon on the Mount then with the morality recognized through Moses alone. Christ fulfilled the moral law for us, along with the rest of the law. In fact in the new covenant we see God’s laws into our minds and written on our heart. So the law is still very important. And we show are love for God by trying to adhere to the commandments of God by faith. I think we need to be careful to recognize that it is not through adhere to the Law that saves us, but through Christ and his sacrifice; so that we will not have a reason to boast. Also I never said that it began with Moses, but Moses gives a foundational and fuller law of God compared to what we see in creation. In fact we assign the entire Pentateuch as being the Torah or the Law. And I was using the Law in the sense of the Sinai or Mosaic covenant, along with the laws we find in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

In regards to my last sentence, I think there has been some covenantal confusion between the old and new covenant as it pertains to the covenants of works, grace, and redemption. And how we see continuity and discontinuity between the two; which historically I think brought upon as a reaction the rise of dispensationalism. I think we need to clearly define our terms and what is under what covenants and how they interact with each other.

I know there are people here that disagree with arguments against the discontinuity between the old and new covenants, particularly in relation to households that I posted earlier above. I think we need to be drawing clear cut distinctions first from the two, because I have ran across people who claim to be reformed that did not recognize that such distinctions exist. That one of the reasons why we have the federal vision and the new perspective on Paul rise up in reformed ranks. We depend on our categories that we teach, without taking a step back and look at the covenants not from a theological perspective initially, but a historical one. Once the historical has been established, then we can move on to the theological categories that exist with good reason such as works, grace, and redemption.. I think if we use that approach some of the covenantal confusion that exists would fade away to some degree.

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

It is rather presumptuous indeed to assert that one can only disagree with the "Classical Covenant Theology" thesis (as I specifically titled the thread) out of lack of education regarding CT and it's thoroughly reductionistic to confound my argument with Dispensationalism.

Let me point out that I've never been a dispensationalist. Never watched a "Left Behind" movie (much less read one of the books), never had a Scofield Bible, never adopted premillennialism of any kind. After being converted to Christ in college, I attended a PCA church, then an OPC church. I learned the 1647 WCF, but eventually chose to adopt the 1689 LBCF over exegetical issues relating to Col. 2. I am now, however, considering adopting the 1646 LBCF for some of the reasons related to the points of conflict in this thread, namely the CT axiom regarding "one covenant - multiple administrations," as well as an exaggerated emphasis on Moses over Christ (a different but related issue).