New Covenant isn't better?

Status
Not open for further replies.

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I'm a little confused.

If the New Covenant is a "better" covenant enacted on "better promises" ...

And in the Old Covenant, the children of believers were included in the covenant and its promises ...

But, according to Baptistic theology, children of believers are excluded from the New Covenant until they profess faith ...

So then, the Old Covenant is more gracious and has better promises than the New Covenant?

Am I missing something here? :detective:
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
Ha.

That's cause (from a baptist perspective) everyone in the new covenant is saved, but only some of those in the old covenant were.

Makes sense to me from my baptist perspective.

Now stop stirring the pot and get back in your box, Gabe!

:lol:;)
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
*nails down the lid*

In your box Martini, and don't come out until the rapture!

But seriously, from my perspective, a covenant in which all members are eternally secure is FAR BETTER than one in which all members are not.

No-one was saved through the old covenant. Those who were saved, were saved because they were also future new covenant members.

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Lest you doubt that I think that there are clear benefits to being in a household of faith - I do not. We may be born once into a family of faith, but unless we are born again by the Spirit of God we are damned. Period. And the one does not guarantee the other.

If you think there was great worth in all the millions of hebrews being in covenant with God, most of them didn't - they rejected God, they were damned.

What was the value to them? Nothing apart from some temporal earthly blessings.

We look to a heavenly city whose builder and maker is God, just like Abraham did.

Blah blah blah yadda yadda this isn't going anywhere and all this is going to be is another baptist-bashing thread, isn't it?

:chained:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
*nails down the lid*

In your box Martini, and don't come out until the rapture!

But seriously, from my perspective, a covenant in which all members are eternally secure is FAR BETTER than one in which all members are not.

No-one was saved through the old covenant. Those who were saved, were saved because they were also future new covenant members.

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Lest you doubt that I think that there are clear benefits to being in a household of faith - I do not. We may be born once into a family of faith, but unless we are born again by the Spirit of God we are damned. Period. And the one does not guarantee the other.

If you think there was great worth in all the millions of hebrews being in covenant with God, most of them didn't - they rejected God, they were damned.

What was the value to them? Nothing apart from some temporal earthly blessings.

We look to a heavenly city whose builder and maker is God, just like Abraham did.

Blah blah blah yadda yadda this isn't going anywhere and all this is going to be is another baptist-bashing thread, isn't it?

:chained:

Jonathan,
I do not want this to eb another Baptist bashing thread. If it starts goiing that way. I will close it; I promise. I do want to interact with a few of your statements if you don't mind:

No-one was saved through the old covenant. Those who were saved, were saved because they were also future new covenant members.

I would better word this as all saints, whether old or new, were saved by faith alone, in Christ alone. The above statement makes it look as if the justification didn't occur until the actual cross.

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Didn't Abraham have all of this?

:scholar:
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Didn't Abraham have all of this?

:scholar:

Yes, of course he did. My point would be that the new is better than the old because we have the SUBSTANCE whereas Abraham could only look forward in faith to a future atonement.

JH
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Didn't Abraham have all of this?

:scholar:

Yes, of course he did. My point would be that the new is better than the old because we have the SUBSTANCE whereas Abraham could only look forward in faith to a future atonement.

JH

Two things:
1) How does your last statement fit into your previous one? Does it not contradict? Would this not also indicate that those during the time of the cross had a hand up on the future generations as well?
2) Practically, how is the idea of 'substance' applied differently for the OT saint?



[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Didn't Abraham have all of this?

:scholar:

Yes, of course he did. My point would be that the new is better than the old because we have the SUBSTANCE whereas Abraham could only look forward in faith to a future atonement.

JH

Two things:
1) How does your last statement fit into your previous one? Does it not contradict? Would this not also indicate that those during the time of the cross had a hand up on the future generations as well?
2) Practically, how is the idea of 'substance' applied differently for the OT saint?



[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]

1. No, I don't see a contradiction. What I am addressing is Gabe trying to suggest to me that as a baptist, the new covenant cannot be 'better' as scripture says that it is. Of course it is 'better', for the reasons I stated.

2. I have never met an OT saint, mainly because they have been in glory for thousands of years, so I can't ask them for a practical opinion. Sensibly we can easily say that the OT saint did not know the reality, the full story, of redemption, whereas the NT saint does.

JH
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I would sooner have the new covenant than the old. I would sooner have my Saviour's blood than a scapegoat or sacrifice. I would sooner have Christ my high priest than any other.

Didn't Abraham have all of this?

:scholar:

Yes, of course he did. My point would be that the new is better than the old because we have the SUBSTANCE whereas Abraham could only look forward in faith to a future atonement.

JH

Two things:
1) How does your last statement fit into your previous one? Does it not contradict? Would this not also indicate that those during the time of the cross had a hand up on the future generations as well?
2) Practically, how is the idea of 'substance' applied differently for the OT saint?



[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]

1. No, I don't see a contradiction. What I am addressing is Gabe trying to suggest to me that as a baptist, the new covenant cannot be 'better' as scripture says that it is. Of course it is 'better', for the reasons I stated.

2. I have never met an OT saint, mainly because they have been in glory for thousands of years, so I can't ask them for a practical opinion. Sensibly we can easily say that the OT saint did not know the reality, the full story, of redemption, whereas the NT saint does.

JH

Jonathan,
But how is this applied practically; in regards to the different generations? You say it is 'better'. Does the NT saint have a hands up on the OT saint? Did those at the cross have a practical hands up on those from our generation?

[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
How is the 'picture' more practically beneficial to those whom:
1)were at the cross
2) those whom look back to the cross
in contrast to those whom looked to the cross? In what way is it 'better'?

[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott,
It is certainly better in that , "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son..."

(Helping a brother out who is being picked on seemingly for no other reason than there are paedo-baptistic brothers looking for an argument).



[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Dan....]
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
Thanks Dan, I don't think I'm being picked on - after all, I bit Gabe's bait.

As for my response, I couldn'a put it better than Dan.

And I maintain that WE, NT Saints, have the SUBSTANCE of much that was type and shadow in the OT, including redemption, applied and accomplished.

JH
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Dan....
Scott,
It is certainly better in that , "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son..."

(Helping a brother out who is being picked on seemingly for no other reason than there are paedo-baptistic brothers looking for an argument).



[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Dan....]

Dan,
Thanks for your post. I agree; However, that is not what I am referring. What I AM referring to is the idea that the NC is practically better. For instance, Jonathan states above:

including redemption, applied and accomplished.

Did not the OT saint have this reality? They did! So, how is it practically better (other than what you have mentioned)?

PS Dan,
If you will look to the initial posts, I made mention that if this thread turns south, I will close it in an instant.



[Edited on 6-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
But the New Covenant isn't just promised to those who are already in it. It is for the benefit of believers and their children. This is abundantly and consistenly clear throughout the entire Bible.

Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.

Isa 59:21 "œAnd as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord: "œMy Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord, "œfrom this time forth and forevermore."

Isa 54:13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children.

Ezek 37:24 "œMy servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore.

Psalm 103:17 But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, 18 to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

There's just a snippet of all the major references to the New Covenant in the Old Testament. All of the references make promises regarding the covenant children of believers. Does this concept change in the New Testament with great detail or is it merely confirmed without a hiccup?

Matthew 19:14 but Jesus said, "œLet the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 1:48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.

Luke 1:68 "œBlessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, ... 72 to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, 73 the oath that he swore to our father Abraham ...

Luke 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "œLet the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Luke 19:9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Baptists claim that, in Christ, the New Covenant has discarded the parent/child covenantal relationship and promises, and that salvation is an individualistic happening. However, the New Testament clearly teaches that it has not been discarded but restored, made possible by the "better promises" of the "better covenant" mediated by none other than Jesus Christ.

Luke 1:17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

Just my :2cents:



[Edited on 6-17-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
(Heb 7:7) And without all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.

(Heb 7:19) For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw near to God.

(Heb 7:22) by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant.

(Heb 8:6) But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was built upon better promises.

(Heb 9:23) Therefore it was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves were purified with better sacrifices than these.

(Heb 10:34) For you both sympathized with my bonds and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that you have in Heaven a better and an enduring substance.

(Heb 11:16) But now they stretch forth to a better fatherland, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

(Heb 11:40) for God had provided some better thing for us, that they should not be made perfect without us.

(Heb 12:24) and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling that speaks better better than that of Abel.




Other considerations -- Nowhere is an OT saint said to be "in Christ." Also, nowhere is an OT saint said to be baptized in the Spirit.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Joe,
In your view, is the new covenant essentially the Abrahamic covenant? It seems that all those "better things" you showed in the Hebrew verses are also true about God's promise to Abraham:

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Act 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, it is better ... but in what context? Obviously in Hebrews the context is NOT the spiritual substance of the covenant and salvation, as that doesn't change. Salvation is salvation, unless you're a radical dispensationalist. Hebrews presents the "betterness" in regards to the abrogation of the Levitical law, the new priesthood of Christ that is eternal, etc. Hebrews 7 through 9 is very clear in this regard, and we shouldn't impose a context on it that simply isn't there.

Old Covenant believers weren't "in Christ"? Then how were they saved? I think you have it backwards. Scripture presents it as we were the ones not "in Christ"; that is, Gentiles.

1 Cor 10:1 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "œthe uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands"” 12 remember that you (Gentiles) were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you (Gentiles), although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree (Christ, cf. Isaiah 11:1,10; Rom 15:12; Rev 5:5; 22:16), 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "œBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.

And on and on I could go ... It is the Gentiles who were not "in Christ", not the Jews. We have been brought near. We have been grafted in. We are now feeding on the same Spiritual Rock of Christ. We are now considering the reproach of Christ as gain, as Moses did.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Wannabee
(Heb 7:7) And without all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.

(Heb 7:19) For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw near to God.

(Heb 7:22) by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant.

(Heb 8:6) But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was built upon better promises.

(Heb 9:23) Therefore it was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves were purified with better sacrifices than these.

(Heb 10:34) For you both sympathized with my bonds and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that you have in Heaven a better and an enduring substance.

(Heb 11:16) But now they stretch forth to a better fatherland, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

(Heb 11:40) for God had provided some better thing for us, that they should not be made perfect without us.

(Heb 12:24) and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling that speaks better better than that of Abel.




Other considerations -- Nowhere is an OT saint said to be "in Christ." Also, nowhere is an OT saint said to be baptized in the Spirit.

I am NOT arguing that the new covenant is not better as Christ assuredly made the statement, hence it is true. However, I AM arguing in regards to the timing of the new testament and Jesus' description of a better covenant. How it is better practically speaking, and when was this better covenant initiated. As I have previously mentioned, the OT saint had all the benefits practically.

I previously asked:

How is the 'picture' more practically beneficial to those whom:
1)were at the cross
2) those whom look back to the cross
in contrast to those whom looked to the cross? In what way is it 'better'?


Joe,
Are you implying that the OT saint did not have the HS? The baptism spoken of during the building of the NT church was specific for that time. All saints are baptized in the HS; as you can read in Acts ch 1, we are all sealed in the HS upon conversion. Practically speaking, please describe how this is different for the OT saint?

Question: Is not NT language different from OT language? For example, the OT is Hebrew, the NT is Greek. Are you saying, since the language is not present in the OT, that Abraham or King David were not in Christ?

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
Bob,

I consider the NC to be a partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic. I think that's pretty clear. The differences would more likely be in what capacity. That's a whole nother can of worms.



As for "in Christ." Your comments are valid, however, you still have to deal with the fact that there is not one single reference to OT believers being IN Christ, nor being baptized by the Holy Spirit. It is necessary for this to be dealt with in our understanding.

Your references are good. Consider, Christ = Jesus = YHWH. Also, are you claiming that all references to an olive tree refer to Christ?



Scott,
I've not studied this out. It is apparent that the NC is better, for obvious reasons. My point is that these things have to be dealt with, and without a knee jerk response that says that the OT saints had all the same benefits and that the Holy Spirit worked the same way, and that they were in Christ. There is a difference. As to how that works out... still figuring.
We also have to consider that Jesus made it apparent that He had to depart in order for the HS to come. There was nothing like Pentacost, ever. The NT period was unlike any other period in history. All of these things need to be explained.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Wannabee]
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
How was an OT saint progressively sanctified? Or, perhaps the better question, were they? Romans 8 is pretty specific about how the elect are saved, or does that just apply to NT believers?

If they are justified, sanctified, and eventually glorified, then I don't see how they could not be in Christ or devoid of the normative work of the Holy Spirit.

Without the Holy Spirit giving faith to the OT saints, God could not have been pleased with any of them.

In Christ,

KC
 

Puritanhead

Puritan Board Professor
Me thinks me presbyterian friends like too much to cast all baptists as thorough going dispensationalists because it seems you're arguing against dispensationalist presuppositions...
 

turmeric

Megerator
Were they actually baptised with the Holy Spirit in the OT? All of them? I seem to recall an incident in the Book of Numbers where 70 of them were, also the H.S. rested on Saul at times, and with David always as God promised not to remove Him from David. I'm sure they (the O T saints) were progressively sanctified, but my understanding was that at Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon the church in a new way since Jesus had died and risen again.
 

Peters

Puritan Board Freshman
Scott
Did not the OT saint have this reality [redemrtion, accomplished and applied]? They did! So, how is it practically better (other than what you have mentioned)?

Because at this point in God's unfolding mystery, that is, Christ in redemptive history, you and I can point out Christ, know and experience Him more clearly than any who have gone before us, even John the Baptist.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Peters]
 

Texas Aggie

Puritan Board Freshman
The New Covenant is much better than the Old. It is now open to the gentiles. Just as the Jews (covenant members of Abraham) can be traced back to the loins of Abraham ("in" Abraham).... we have been placed "in" Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. This makes the elect heirs to all of the divine covenants.

The New Covenant is partly fulfilling all the previous covenants.... there is still more yet to be fulfilled (take a look at the Holy Days for start). All of the covenants are connected in some fashion.

God chose a people via Abraham. They were delivered from Egypt, crossed the Red Sea and journeyed into the promise land. No doubt they were the chosen of God as we are. They were delivered from the world by God and given His law to obey. The New Covenant makes the same provision. We are the elect of God, placed in Christ to be a people who love Him and obey His commandments.

We have a righteousness imputed to us via Christ which places us in a proper position before God (just as Adam was before the fall). The Jews escaped death at the initiation of Passover, the same was afforded to us as well (Christ is our Passover lamb). It is amazing to me that we have thrown that out as belonging only to the Jews. We will have none of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top