Lord's supper sign of "unbreakable" New Covenant?

[aleksanderpolo]

I know there are baptists on this board who would deny Baptism as the sign of the "unbreakable" New Covenant. How about the Lord's supper?

There are passages that clearly state that the Lord's supper is the sign of the "unbreakable" New Covenant: Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20.

Taking up a covenant sign means entering into a covenant with someone (see all examples from the OT, this is the definition of covenant sign, right? Just as signing a contract means entering into "contractual relationship" with someone). Does that mean those who partake the Lord's supper are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant? Does that imply "communional regeneration" for the baptist? Just food for thoughts.

 

[Herald]

What is the power behind the New Covenant? Is it not the blood of Christ? The Supper, while a means of grace for the believer, cannot exceed what Christ did at Calvary.

Paul wrote:

[bible]1 Corinthians 11:25[/bible]

The Apostle clearly explains the purpose of the Lord's Supper. Ἀνάμνησις (anamnesis), remembrance. It is where we get the word amnesia; the inability to remember. Baptist's do not see the Lord's Supper as regenerative in any sense.

How do we enter into the New Covenant? By faith. Is there a sign of the New Covenant? Yes. It was the death of Christ on the cross. The Lord's Supper remembers our Lord's death, but it can never be more than that or else we stray into the error of Romanism.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

If I am not mistaken, I take it to mean that you are denying the Lord's supper as the sign of the New Covenant, correct?

Then how do you explain:

Matthew 26:28 "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"

Mark 14:24 "And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

Luke 22:20 "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Isn't it clear that the cup is the sign of the new covenant from these passages? What is the relationship between the cup and the new covenant in these passages?

Is there a sign of the New Covenant? Yes. It was the death of Christ on the cross.

It seems that your commitment to the unbreakability of the new covenant has made you incapable of distinguishing between the covenant sign and the thing it signified, In my humble opinion. Death of Christ is not the sign, it's the reality that actually saves us, signified by the cup and the bread. I think you have confused the two.

Does that mean there is no covenant sign for the New Covenant in a Baptistic framework? Does your confession clarify this?

 

[Herald]

I was trying to focus attention on that which saves us, the blood of Christ. I may have chosen my terms poorly. The Supper is a sign, but the reality of our salvation is found in His blood. I point you back to my first post about the Supper being a remembrance. The Supper signifies what Christ did, but the Supper is not salvific. The blood is salvific.

I'm not sure where you're going with this thread.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

I'm not sure where you're going with this thread.

I am trying to understand how Baptist see the Lord's supper. I am not denying that they can function as rememberance, but the passages I quote means more than that.

If the Lord's supper is the sign of the New Covenant, those who partake are in the New Covenant (this is how covenant sign works in the whole Bible), you know where I am going...

If the Lord's supper is not the sign of the New Covenant, how do you explain the four passages that say "The is the blood of the New Covenant?" What precisely is the relationship between the cup and the New Covenant?

And what are the covenant signs of the New Covenant in a Baptistic framework?

 

[elnwood]

I am trying to understand how Baptist see the Lord's supper. I am not denying that they can function as rememberance, but the passages I quote means more than that.

If the Lord's supper is the sign of the New Covenant, those who partake are in the New Covenant (this is how covenant sign works in the whole Bible), you know where I am going...

If the Lord's supper is not the sign of the New Covenant, how do you explain the four passages that say "The is the blood of the New Covenant?" What precisely is the relationship between the cup and the New Covenant?

And what are the covenant signs of the New Covenant in a Baptistic framework?

A baptist would agree that the Lord's Supper is a sign of the New Covenant, but would dispute your presupposition that those who partake are necessarily in the New Covenant. That may be how the covenant sign worked in the OT, but not in the NT.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

That may be how the covenant sign worked in the OT, but not in the NT.

Can you give me scriptural support that in the NT, the covenant sign functions differently?

A baptist would agree that the Lord's Supper is a sign of the New Covenant, but would dispute your presupposition that those who partake are necessarily in the New Covenant.

To admit that the Lord's Supper as sign of New Covenant is to admit there is a external administration of the New Covenant, which means there are people under the external administration of the New Covenant who are not saved. This is what I am trying to say. I think this is the reason Bill is trying not to say directly that baptism and the Lord's supper are the signs of New Covenant.

 

[Herald]

Can you give me scriptural support that in the NT, the covenant sign functions differently?



To admit that the Lord's Supper as sign of New Covenant is to admit there is a external administration of the New Covenant, which means there are people under the external administration of the New Covenant who are not saved. This is what I am trying to say. I think this is the reason Bill is trying not to say directly that baptism and the Lord's supper are the signs of New Covenant.

Polo - it depends on what you mean by saying that there are people under the external administration of the New Covenant who are not saved. If you mean there are unsaved people who partake of the Supper, I would agree. If you mean that by partaking of the Supper they are under the New Covenant I disagree. The New Covenant is salvific in nature, not merely an external sign that joins a person to the covenant community regardless of their spiritual condition (the paedo position). This is where I believe covenantalism is carried too far. An unsaved person can be baptized and/or partake of the Lord's Supper but they are not under the New Covenant.

If by "external administration" you mean believers who remember the Lord regularly through the Supper, I can buy that. But I know that is not what you mean. You're using a neat approach in trying to tie the New Covenant to a sign. And while the Lord's Supper does signify the New Covenant, it only signifies the New Covenant to those who are covered by it, those who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Bill, In my humble opinion you do not see the difference between the external administration and the internal reality of a covenant. Therefore whenever someone say that baptism or the Lord's supper are the signs of the New Covenant, you immediately translate the "New Covenant" into "Salvation" and thinks the other party is holding to baptismal regeneration or covenantalism. I am not aware of anyone on this board who say that baptism or the Lord's supper saves, but I've seen you emphasizing that "baptism doesn't save" a number of times, who are you reacting against?

The New Covenant is salvific in nature

What about the "OLD Covenant", is it not salvific? How were the OT saints saved?

You're using a neat approach in trying to tie the New Covenant to a sign.

I am just sticking to the concept of covenant and covenant sign in the whole of scripture, especially clear in the OT which is the scripture used by the Apostles and our LORD. I think your concept that people can participate in the covenant sign but are not part of the covenant in any sense is a radical departure from the idea of covenant and covenant sign in the scripture. It's like saying that I can sign a contract but I am not legally binded by the contract. And I would like to see scriptural support for that in the NT.

it only signifies the New Covenant to those who are covered by it, those who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

How about circumcision? What does it signify to Jacob? Is he in the covenant? Is he saved? What does it signify to Esau? Is he in the covenant? Is he saved? Do you see how radically different you interpret covenant sign in the "New Covenant" and the "Old Covenant"? Again, where are the scriptural support for that radical departure?

It's been nice talking to you, I am enjoying this conversation.

 

[Herald]

Polo - there is a reason why I connect salvation with the New Covenant. The only way a person can enter into the New Covenant is through the blood of Christ. I am well aware of the covenantal language that is used.

I believe the real issue at hand is the substance of the New Covenant. What is it? Is it really a brand-new covenant, or is it simply a refreshed covenant? I will grant you this: if the New Covenant is simply an improved or refreshed covenant, then you have weight to your argument. I happen to believe that the New Covenant is exactly that...new! I briefly wrote about them: Here and Here.

As far as the O.T. saints, their faith was in the "now" of their day, but it would have been for naught if the reality of the New Covenant had never materialized. In other words there was nothing within the Old Covenant alone that could save.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

As far as the O.T. saints, their faith was in the "now" of their day, but it would have been for naught if the reality of the New Covenant had never materialized. In other words there was nothing within the Old Covenant alone that could save.

I agreed that the OT saints would not be saved if the New Covenant had never materialized. But were they in the New Covenant? Why is it that they were in the "Old Covenant", yet the benefits purchased by Christ in the New Covenant cover them, according to your baptistic framework?

Consider this: when Paul wanted to explain justification by faith in the New Covenant, he went back to Abraham in the "Old Covenant", why?

Because the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant" are the same, single covenant of grace that saves. New Covenant is the Old Covenant fulfilled. If the New Covenant is a radically new covenant, it wouldn't make sense for Paul to use Abraham and his circumcision to illustrate the New Covenant. Your failure to see this keep driving you to "physcallize" the old covenant and its signs, as the old covenant do not save according to your baptistic framework. But the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are really of the same substance, that's the only reason why saints in the Old Covenant can possibly be saved.

WCF 7.6 There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

 

[Iconoclast]

signs of? or reality

I have always thought of baptism, and the Lord's supper as something believers do in the obedience of faith. That is why we call it believers baptism. When we celebrate the Lord's supper we always point out it is for believers only as is spoken of in 1 Cor.11.
It is not an external sign of some possible or hyper- thetical possibility. It is a declaration and outward confession of a completed work.
The New Covenant is unbreakable to all the Father has given to the Son. No more,no less.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Again, does the baptism and Lord's supper signify something inside of us only? Or does it signify something inside and something outside of us? How do you explain the "this is my blood of the covenant" language? And why is it then in 1 Cor, when those take up the Lord's supper do not receive it with faith, they are taking upon themselves judgment and curses? This is clearly covenant language. And why are they under covenant curse, unless they are in the covenant? Are they saved? Do they partake in the covenant sign?

Also, if the New Covenant is unbreakable, no one should partake in the covenant sign, because we don't know who are the elect and therefore in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.

 

[elnwood]

Again, does the baptism and Lord's supper signify something inside of us only? Or does it signify something inside and something outside of us? How do you explain the "this is my blood of the covenant" language? And why is it then in 1 Cor, when those take up the Lord's supper do not receive it with faith, they are taking upon themselves judgment and curses? This is clearly covenant language. And why are they under covenant curse, unless they are in the covenant? Are they saved? Do they partake in the covenant sign?

When Christ says of the bread, "This is my body," is he actually saying that the bread is his body, as the Roman Catholics suppose? No, the bread is symbolic of his body. In the same way, when Christ says of the cup, "This is the NEW covenant in my blood," is he saying that the cup is actually the new covenant? No, the cup symbolizes the new covenant which is inaugurated by Christ's blood.

Thus, those for whom Christ's blood is shed are those who are in the new covenant. Those who are in the new covenant are those for whom Christ's blood has been shed for, and actually partake of Christ's blood (not the physical cup).

If you assert that the new covenant is breakable, you're asserting that those for whom Christ shed his blood can fall away. This is a clear denial of limited atonement.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

When Christ says of the bread, "This is my body," is he actually saying that the bread is his body, as the Roman Catholics suppose? No, the bread is symbolic of his body. In the same way, when Christ says of the cup, "This is the NEW covenant in my blood," is he saying that the cup is actually the new covenant? No, the cup symbolizes the new covenant which is inaugurated by Christ's blood.

Exactly, therefore the cup is the covenant sign of the New Covenant, which is what I am saying all along. Can you find me an example in the bible in which someone take up a covenant sign but is not a member of the covenant?

If you assert that the new covenant is breakable, you're asserting that those for whom Christ shed his blood can fall away. This is a clear denial of limited atonement.

Not really, you believe this only because you have equated "New Covenant" with "Salvation". Esau was in covenant with God, Esau was not saved, Christ didn't shed his blood for Esau. So, to summarize what I've been saying:

1. To take up a covenant sign is to be in a covenant. Just as to sign a contract is to be under the contract and binded by the contract. (This is clearly the case in the OT, see Genesis 17, Jer 34, and also 1 Cor 11. Please give me scriptural support to show that in the NT, this is no longer valid.)
2. The Lord's supper is the covenant sign of the New Covenant (which you agree).
3. There are those who partake in the Lord's supper but are not saved.
4. Therefore, there are those who are under the external administration (covenant sign) of the New Covenant, yet they are not saved.

Again, please note that our difference is that: 1. You equate "New Covenant" with "Salvation", which I don't. 2. You do not distinguish between the external administration of a covenant and the internal reality of the covenant. Esau is a clear example of those who has the former but not the later. How about those in your church who are baptized or partake in the Lord's supper but do not trust Christ? Are those similar to Esau?

Hope this clarify a bit.

 

[Calvibaptist]

How about circumcision? What does it signify to Jacob? Is he in the covenant? Is he saved? What does it signify to Esau? Is he in the covenant? Is he saved? Do you see how radically different you interpret covenant sign in the "New Covenant" and the "Old Covenant"? Again, where are the scriptural support for that radical departure?

Let's back up a minute. What do you mean by "Old Covenant?" Are you referring to the covenant made with Abraham (of which Jacob and Esau would have been a part)? Or are you referring to the covenant made at Sinai with the nation of Israel (of which Jacob and Esau were not even alive for)? You seem to be suggesting that the Old Covenant is the one made with Abraham.

But, the New Covenant is "new" in comparison to Sinai, not Abraham.

Jeremiah 31:31-32 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.

The difference between the Old (Mosaic) and New Covenants in this passage is that the Old was external (laws that could be broken written on tablets of stone, sign of the Sabbath - Exodus 31:13) and the New is internal (law in their minds and hearts, circumcision of heart - not external organs, indwelling of the Spirit).

I am unsure where you would find that circumcision is a sign of the Mosaic Covenant (which is referred to as the Old Covenant). It is a sign of the Abrahamic. Under the Abrahamic covenant, there were always believers and unbelievers.

But, the New Covenant (which is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant) only has believers, because it is internal, not external. Certainly, there are external aspects, such as association with a visible church, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. But the covenant itself is internal, with the true sign being the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

And, certainly, some could pretend that they are part of the covenant by doing the externals. But, if they do not truly have the Holy Spirit, then they are not in the Covenant. The Covenant is made with God's people, not those who are outside.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

The problem of physicallizing the Mosiac covenant is that the circumcision of heart is not a new concept introduced by the "New Covenant". Moses urged the Israelite to circumcise their heart so that they have the internal reality corresponding with the external sign:

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

This is in the Mosaic covenant, isn't it?

There are prominent typological elements in the Mosiac covenant, but to say that the Mosaic covenant is purely external is to beg the question: "How are those under the Mosaic covenant saved?" And what are the functions of the animal sacrifice in the Mosaic covenant? Are there forgiveness of sin in the Mosaic covenant? Which lead us to: there are both external and internal elements in both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant.

But the covenant itself is internal, with the true sign being the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Again, you are confusing the covenant sign and the things it signified. When was the last time you see visibly someone baptized by the Holy Spirit? Is it visible? Did you see the doves? Are there any visible sign of the New Covenant? If the signs are not visible, can they still be called covenant sign? Where do you find scriptural warrant that the New Covenant is completely new in the following ways: 1. It has no visible covenant sign. 2. We don't know who are in the New Covenant and who are not because it only belongs to the elect. 3. It is completely internal.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The problem of physicallizing the Mosiac covenant is that the circumcision of heart is not a new concept introduced by the "New Covenant". Moses urged the Israelite to circumcise their heart so that they have the internal reality corresponding with the external sign:

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

This is in the Mosaic covenant, isn't it?

Yes, it is. But the Lord circumcising the heart is a promise made that will occur after the curses of the Mosaic Covenant take place and the people are gathered back (obvious reference to times of Messiah).

Deuteronomy 30:5-6 - "Then the LORD your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. 6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

There are prominent typological elements in the Mosiac covenant, but to say that the Mosaic covenant is purely external is to beg the question: "How are those under the Mosaic covenant saved?"

I never said the Mosaic Covenant required that there were no internal aspects. BUT, the overwhelming characteristic of the Mosaic Covenant is that it is external. There are people under the Mosaic Covenant that were not saved. They had no internal relation to God. They were physically in the covenant, but spiritually dead.

In answer to your question, they are saved the same way they were saved before the Mosaic covenant and after the Mosaic covenant. They are justified by faith, just like Abraham.

And what are the functions of the animal sacrifice in the Mosaic covenant? Are there forgiveness of sin in the Mosaic covenant?

Temporary covering until the blood of the Lamb of God was shed. As well as typological of the future sacrifice. As well as to teach that a holy God demands holiness in His people. The forgiveness of sin was always based on the blood of Christ, not on the sacrificial system of Moses.

Hebrews 10:4 - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Which lead us to: there are both external and internal elements in both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant.

Agreed and never denied. The New Covenant is the one that, in the administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, makes a major advance. The New Covenant consists of the law being written on the heart and the Spirit being put in the hearts. This cannot happen to an unregenerate person. It can only happen to the regenerate.

I hope I don't sound too dispensational here! I'm still trying to fight off years of bad teaching.

I do believe that regeneration took place under the Old Covenant. That is the only way anyone could be saved by faith. This is the point of John 3. Nicodemus should have understood this. But the difference appears that the New Covenant is made with the remnant that is left of the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel." The remnant would be the elect. There would not be any non-elect in the remnant because it is the "remnant that will be saved."

Joel 2:32 - And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.

Romans 9:27 - Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.

And while many can do the external things, it does not mean they are really part of the covenant.

Again, you are confusing the covenant sign and the things it signified.

But you seem to be confusing external actions with being part of the covenant.

When was the last time you see visibly someone baptized by the Holy Spirit? Is it visible? Did you see the doves? Are there any visible sign of the New Covenant? If the signs are not visible, can they still be called covenant sign? Where do you find scriptural warrant that the New Covenant is completely new in the following ways: 1. It has no visible covenant sign. 2. We don't know who are in the New Covenant and who are not because it only belongs to the elect. 3. It is completely internal.

Good points at the end. I thought of some of that as I was typing. I do believe that baptism is a sign of the covenant. You could add the Lord's Supper to that. My point is that I disagree with your assertion that anyone who performs the sign is automatically in covenant with God.

Abraham was not in covenant with God because he circumcised himself. He was in covenant with God because God called him in Genesis 12 and made a unilateral covenant with him. He performed the sign of the covenant in Genesis 17 because he was already in covenant, not in order to get into covenant with God.

A person does not become part of the covenant by being baptized either (or taking the Lord's Supper). A person performs the sign of the covenant (baptism and Lord's Supper) because they are already in covenant.

Any heathen Gentile in Egypt could have circumcised themselves during the time of Abraham (similar to the people of Shechem in Genesis 34) and not been in covenant with God. In the same vein, anyone can be baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper and be lying about being in covenant with God. Doing the sign does not necessarily mean there is a reality.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1) We don't believe that Isaac, for example, got into covenant with God by being circumcized. He already belonged to it, and for him and other covenant children failure to be circumcized was considered "breaking the covenant" not "failure to join it."

2) Baptists refuse the distinction of dual aspect to covenant--internal and external. We do not. Men like Esau, Absolom, Ananaias, and Simon the Sorcerer were "in the covenant" as far as we are concerned, however their hearts weren't in it. So much the worse for them.

Any heathen Gentile in Egypt could have circumcised themselves during the time of Abraham (similar to the people of Shechem in Genesis 34) and not been in covenant with God. In the same vein, anyone can be baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper and be lying about being in covenant with God. Doing the sign does not necessarily mean there is a reality.

3) The quote above presents a skewed (badly) parallel. You are equating the equivalent of some joker baptizing himself and calling that a "covenant sign." Sure, lots of people are "ritually cleansed" today in hinduism and islam, but that doesn't make those acts Christian baptism. Neither would someone not joining the children of Israel but getting chopped make him "circumcised" in the covenant faith of Jehovah.

The offense of Israel upon the Shechemites was their taking this sign of the covenant and bastardizing it, making a mockery of its holy character assigned to it by God, for the purposes of making their opponents suffer, be weak and defenseless, and then murder the lot of them. And to make it worse, they told them this sign would bring them into some kind of social identification with God's people, further denigrating the covenant (of which the brothers said nothing). Nothing similar about it, unless you compare it to baptismal mockery.

 

[Calvibaptist]

1) We don't believe that Isaac, for example, got into covenant with God by being circumcized. He already belonged to it, and for him and other covenant children failure to be circumcized was considered "breaking the covenant" not "failure to join it."

But my problem is this:

To take up a covenant sign is to be in a covenant.

The inference from this is that anyone who was circumcised became part of God's covenant people.

But, Paul says this about the sign:

Romans 4:11 - And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised

The sign of circumcision was a sign (or seal) of the righteousness (imputed) by faith that he had while still uncircumcised (Gen. 15).

 

[Calvibaptist]

2) Baptists refuse the distinction of dual aspect to covenant--internal and external. We do not. Men like Esau, Absolom, Ananaias, and Simon the Sorcerer were "in the covenant" as far as we are concerned, however their hearts weren't in it. So much the worse for them.

I don't refuse the dual aspect of the Abrahamic covenant as administered at Sinai (or even with the physical descendants of Abraham before Sinai). I don't know about other Baptists, but I refuse the dual aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant as administered in the New Covenant people.

As I stated earlier, since what causes the New Covenant is God circumcising the heart of the remnant, putting His laws in their hearts, and putting His Spirit in them to cause them to walk in His ways; and since the New Covenant is made only with the remnant according to Jeremiah 31 (who are the elect), then there are no unregenerate people in the New Covenant. There may be unregenerate people who take the signs of the New Covenant, but they are not in covenant with God.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

The inference from this is that anyone who was circumcised became part of God's covenant people.

I apologized for my unclear language. I should clarify by saying that, 1. they are not in the covenant because they applied the covenant sign on themselves, but 2. they are in the covenant, therefore the covenant sign should be applied on them. I think you would agree with this assessment too.

As I stated earlier, since what causes the New Covenant is God circumcising the heart of the remnant, putting His laws in their hearts, and putting His Spirit in them to cause them to walk in His ways

Can you applied the above description on Abraham, Moses, or David? Were they in the "New Covenant"? Are these description exclusive to the "New Covenant" alone? So what is the difference between the substance of the Abraham/Mosiac covenant and the New Covenant?

I do believe that baptism is a sign of the covenant. You could add the Lord's Supper to that.

If we agree that covenant sign should only be applied to those who are in the covenant (hope that you agree with this), then following a Baptistic view, we shouldn't baptize anyone or admit anyone to the Lord's table, because we do not know who are the elect and therefore in the Covenant.

If you think that covenant sign should be applied to both people who are in the covenant and not in the covenant (e.g. professors of faith whom we have no way of knowing whether they are elect), then a covenant sign is no longer a covenant sign, because it has no corelation with whether the person receiving the sign is in the covenant, right? It would be like a membership card given to both members and non-members, the membership card will no longer have anything to do with membership. Or a wedding ring wore by both married or unmarried people, the wedding ring no longer bear any relation to marriage.

Hope that I am clear.

 

[elnwood]

I apologized for my unclear language. I should clarify by saying that, 1. they are not in the covenant because they applied the covenant sign on themselves, but 2. they are in the covenant, therefore the covenant sign should be applied on them. I think you would agree with this assessment too.

This answers the question that you asked here:

If we agree that covenant sign should only be applied to those who are in the covenant (hope that you agree with this), then following a Baptistic view, we shouldn't baptize anyone or admit anyone to the Lord's table, because we do not know who are the elect and therefore in the Covenant.

You said "they are in the covenant, therefore the covenant sign should be applied on them." Baptists agree. Baptists say that Baptism and the Lord's supper should only be given to the elect. Baptists don't claim to administer that perfectly, but we try our best. No one has ever said that the covenant signs should only be given to those for whom it is known without a doubt that they are in the covenant.

Unless you are a paedocommunionist, you do the same thing in the administration of the Lord's Supper. You try your best to make sure only those for whom Christ's blood has been shed partake of the sign of Christ's blood.

As a baptist, though, I am confused as to why you insist that the cup IS the New Covenant, and yet you deny the cup to your New Covenant membership until they give a profession of faith. Why not be consistent and withhold baptism until profession of faith as well?

 

[non dignus]

As a baptist, though, I am confused as to why you insist that the cup IS the New Covenant, and yet you deny the cup to your New Covenant membership until they give a profession of faith. Why not be consistent and withhold baptism until profession of faith as well?

In order to commune, the member is required to discern the Lord's body. Small children cannot do this, but it doesn't follow from this that they are not full members of the covenant. Normally children do not assume primary rolls in contracts generally; neither should they drink wine.

 

[elnwood]

In order to commune, the member is required to discern the Lord's body. Small children cannot do this, but it doesn't follow from this that they are not full members of the covenant. Normally children do not assume primary rolls in contracts generally; neither should they drink wine.

The question was more for Polo, who was so insistent that the cup IS the New Covenant. I can see it if small children can't vote in congregational meetings, but we're talking about a New Covenant sign, the most distinctive visible symbol of the Covenant.

And if you deny one covenant sign because Scripture says one ought to examine oneself, why do you not also deny the other covenant sign because Scripture says to repent and then be baptized?

 

[non dignus]

And if you deny one covenant sign because Scripture says one ought to examine oneself, why do you not also deny the other covenant sign because Scripture says to repent and then be baptized?

Because that is not ALL the scripture says about it. Abraham received the sign because of his faith. Ishmael received the sign because of Abraham's faith. Abraham was a covenant head as father of his household. Fathers today are still covenant heads.

 

[non dignus]

If we agree that covenant sign should only be applied to those who are in the covenant (hope that you agree with this), then following a Baptistic view, we shouldn't baptize anyone or admit anyone to the Lord's table, because we do not know who are the elect and therefore in the Covenant.

Good point. Even a deathbed baptism wouldn't be security of election.

If you think that covenant sign should be applied to both people who are in the covenant and not in the covenant (e.g. professors of faith whom we have no way of knowing whether they are elect), then a covenant sign is no longer a covenant sign, because it has no corelation with whether the person receiving the sign is in the covenant, right? It would be like a membership card given to both members and non-members, the membership card will no longer have anything to do with membership. Or a wedding ring wore by both married or unmarried people, the wedding ring no longer bear any relation to marriage.

Polo,
Very good point here. This clarified it for me greatly. As a sign of the reality it is hereby divested of it's significance.

Why did Christ pronounce blessings and cursings to the churches in Revelation?

The baptist has got to wrestle with the fact that the New Covenant carries both positive and negative sanctions.

 

[non dignus]

The Christian is in the world but not of the world.

The non-elect hypocrite is in the covenant but not of the covenant.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

The question was more for Polo, who was so insistent that the cup IS the New Covenant. I can see it if small children can't vote in congregational meetings, but we're talking about a New Covenant sign, the most distinctive visible symbol of the Covenant.

Don, I am not insisting the Cup IS the New Covenant, I am just quoting scriptures that says "This cup IS the blood of the New Covenant" to show the close relation between the cup and the New Covenant, so that we cannot deny the Cup as a sign of the New Covenant.

WCF 27.2 II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

If there is such a close bond between the sign and the things it signified (its blessings are only for those who receive it by faith, but it's curses are for those who receive the external sign but have no internal reality), then to say we don't know who are the members of the New Covenant, those who receive the New Covenant sign might or might not be in the New Covenant etc is really to devoid the covenant sign of its meaning, which is contrary to the scripture.

 

[elnwood]

Don, I am not insisting the Cup IS the New Covenant, I am just quoting scriptures that says "This cup IS the blood of the New Covenant" to show the close relation between the cup and the New Covenant, so that we cannot deny the Cup as a sign of the New Covenant.

WCF 27.2 II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

If there is such a close bond between the sign and the things it signified (its blessings are only for those who receive it by faith, but it's curses are for those who receive the external sign but have no internal reality), then to say we don't know who are the members of the New Covenant, those who receive the New Covenant sign might or might not be in the New Covenant etc is really to devoid the covenant sign of its meaning, which is contrary to the scripture.

I disagree. The New Covenant sign of baptism, like the Old Covenant sign of circumcision, represents regeneration. So even in the Old Covenant you have an inexact representation between what is signified and what is actual.

If there can be a discontinuity between what circumcision represents (regeneration) and who is actually regenerated, surely there can be an inexact representation between what the New Covenant sign represents and who are in the New Covenant.