Refuting Credo Position of Heb. 8 (Jer. 31)

[Mocha]

I am interested in reading (or listening to) anyone who can refute the credo postion of Heb. 8 (Jer. 31). So far I have read Jeffrey Niell and Richard Pratt, but both have been unconvincing. If you can direct me to others (preferably an article on line or on sermonaudio.com) I would really appreciate it!

Mike

PS - I am not looking to debate on this thread. I just want to see if there are any other arguments against the credo position than those given by Niell and Pratt.

 

[RamistThomist]

That's tough criteria. Proof does not equal persuasion. Similarly, unpersuaded =/= disproven. I will keep it in mind, though.

I personally thought both Neill and Pratt did well on this text. Ultimately, a discussion of this will come down to hermeneutics.

[Edited on 3--14-06 by Draught Horse]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

John Calvin, Matthew Poole, A.W. Pink and others do great exposition and exegesis of Hebrews 8 (and the book as a whole).

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Mocha
I am interested in reading (or listening to) anyone who can refute the credo postion of Heb. 8 (Jer. 31). So far I have read Jeffrey Niell and Richard Pratt, but both have been unconvincing. If you can direct me to others (preferably an article on line or on sermonaudio.com) I would really appreciate it!

Mike

PS - I am not looking to debate on this thread. I just want to see if there are any other arguments against the credo position than those given by Niell and Pratt.

P1 If the first covenant was breakable, then it is false that it was made with the elect alone
P2 If second covenant is not breakable, then it is true that it was made with the elect alone
P3 Since the covenant under the new is made with a different group of people, we are to withhold the sign of entrance into the covenant to those who profess faith

The above argument is terribly flawed but it really does represent the Baptist position. I´d welcome a Baptist to step forward and improve upon what has been written above. What pains me more than the Baptist argument is the Paedobaptist argument I see argued so often. The weak Paedobaptist argument correctly argues for the continuity between the two testaments. Where it is weak is that it argues that both covenants were conditional in its establishment.

The correct premises for the paedo position can be illustrated thusly:

The OC was established with the elect in Christ, yet the household of a professing believer was to receive the sign
The NC was established with the elect in Christ (which Baptists agree with)

Accordingly, since the two covenants were established with the elect alone, on what basis may we change the rationale behind the administration of the covenant?

Baptists rejoin with "œBut the OC was established with both the elect and the reprobate, whereas the NC is only established with the elect!" Unfortunately, too many paedobaptists argue that both covenants were established with the elect and non-elect. Federal Visionist, Randy Booth, makes this mistake. However, this flies in the face of Genesis 17, Romans 9 and Galatians 3.

Excerpts from a Bible study I have this past Friday night:

Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19And God said, "œNo, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with HIM for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." 22And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

"¢ Who did God establish his covenant with?
"¢ Who did God refuse to establish his covenant with?
"¢ What was the sign of the covenant?
"¢ Who was to receive the sign of the covenant?
"¢ Did all who received the sign of the covenant receive the promise?

2000 + years later / Galatians 3

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ"¦.27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Romans 9:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

--

In other words, although the OC was established with the elect, Ishmael was to receive the sign, as was the entire household of Abraham. Accordingly, to change this precedent of administering the covenant to those to whom the covenant was not established, we need either explicit instruction or good and necessary implication to do so. The Baptists argue that the administration should be changed because of an alleged change in the establishment of the covenant. However, as has been shown, the covenant under the older economy was established with the elect alone, which Baptists fail to grasp! Consequently, that there would be no "œcovenant breakers" under the New Covenant must mean something other than what Baptists think.

Ron

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Ron,
Before I reply in any detail, would you please define for me the 'Old Covenant.' You seem to be conflating or confusing the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Perhaps you think that is right and proper to do, but if you think that, would you please justify it.

Thanks,

Martin

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello Ron,
Before I reply in any detail, would you please define for me the 'Old Covenant.' You seem to be conflating or confusing the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Perhaps you think that is right and proper to do, but if you think that, would you please justify it.

Thanks,

Martin

Martin,

Even if you don't think that the Mosaic economy was an administration of the promise made to Abraham, you can still deal with the fact that the primary meaning of circumcision did not change under Moses. What changed is that God formed his people into a nation. Accordingly, please proceed by dealing with the following:

The Baptist argument is that the Old Covenant was established with believer and unbeliever and the sign was placed on both. Since the New Covenant is only established with believers, the sign should only be placed on them. To ensure proper placement of the sign as best we can, we should only place the sign on those who profess faith.

The fatal flaw in the Baptist argument is that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and not with both believers and unbelievers! Yet it was to be administered to the household of a professing head. When we get to the new, nothing changes!

Remember that Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael would walk before him and live. God said NO -- and that he would establish his covenant with the one Seed, who was Christ (Galatians 3), and all who would be in union with Him. Yet even though the unconditional promise under Abraham was made to the elect (Romans nine), the sign was to be administered to the household of any professing believer. Consequently, the entire Baptist argument is founded on the false premise that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and the non-elect within the household of a professing believer. So naturally, when Baptists rightly see that the New Covenant is established with the elect, they wrongly think that there's been a change when there wasn't.

Ron

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Ron,
You wrote:-

The fatal flaw in the Baptist argument is that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and not with both believers and unbelievers! Yet it was to be administered to the household of a professing head.

I'm afraid that you are conflating the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants to your own confusion. The Old Covenant was not made with Abraham and Isaac, but with the Israelites. Have a look at Exod 24:3-8 and Deut 5:2-3.

Remember that Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael would walk before him and live. God said NO -- and that he would establish his covenant with the one Seed, who was Christ (Galatians 3), and all who would be in union with Him.

I'm glad to read that you do not believe that Ishmael was in covenant with God, but I'm afraid that you are disagreeing with Matt and Scott!

Yet even though the unconditional promise under Abraham was made to the elect (Romans nine), the sign was to be administered to the household of any professing believer.

No sir! The sign was to be given to the house and descendants of Abraham and to dwellers in Israel who wished to partake of the Passover (Exod 12:43-48 ). You will search in vain for any suggestion in the Bible that physical circumcision had any reference to faith for anyone except Abraham (Rom 4:11 ). All the Israelites who came out of Egypt were circumcised (Josh 5:5 ), but they were unable to enter the promised land because of unbelief (Heb 3:19 ).

The following is something I wrote on the Baptism forum recently. Perhaps it will shed light for you on the two-fold nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.

What I'm saying is this. Abraham had a physical seed, and to them there was a physical implementation of the promises. The Israelites did become a great nation; they did inherit the land of Canaan, and they did bless all the nations insofar as the Messiah was born among them. But their blessings were purely temporal; only a small remnant of them had the faith of Abraham and eventually they 'fill[ed] up the measure of their sins' and wrath came upon them to the uttermost (Matt 23:31-39; 1Thes 2:15-16 ).

But Abraham had a 'spiritual seed', a Seed of promise. 'That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these ae not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.' (Rom 9:8 ). Who are these children of the promise? Those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ) and no one else.

Now we come to Gal 4:21ff. Paul speaks of two mothers, Hagar and Sarah, whose children, Ishmael and Isaac respectively, symbolize the Old and New Covenants.

Isaac is not Christ, but he is a 'type' of Him. He was long promised, he had a miraculous birth, he was persecuted by his own people, he was, in a figure, sacrificed by his father, and figuratively raised from the dead (Heb 11:17-19 ). All the promises were tied up in him.

Ishmael is not the Israelites, but he is a type of them. He had only temporal blessings (Gen 17:20 ); he was brought up in a godly household, but it did him no good; he persecuted the true heir; he was finally cast out of the inheritance (Gen 21:10 ).

Therefore Ishmael's mother is said by Paul to symolize the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. It promised only temporal benefits (long life in the land of Canaan) and was dependent upon good behaviour (Exod 19:5 etc) which was not forthcoming and resulted in forfeiture (2Chron 36:14ff etc). But Isaac's mother symolizes the New Covenant in Christ's blood of which it is written, 'I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Ron]

Martin,

It's rather hard to take your post seriously.

I'm afraid that you are conflating the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants to your own confusion. The Old Covenant was not made with Abraham and Isaac, but with the Israelites. Have a look at Exod 24:3-8 and Deut 5:2-3.

This is rather silly. Neither covenant is the "œOld Covenant" then. Have it your way though. We´ll talk about "œpromise" and not covenant. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed, which was the Seed, Christ, and all who are in union with him. The sign and seal of the promise was circumcision, which marked out the visible people of God. The same argument I presented before follows. As I stated: "œRemember that Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael would walk before him and live. God said NO -- and that he would establish his covenant with the one Seed, who was Christ (Galatians 3), and all who would be in union with Him"¦.Yet even though the unconditional promise under Abraham was made to the elect (Romans nine), the sign was to be administered to the household of any professing believer.

No sir! The sign was to be given to the house and descendants of Abraham and to dwellers in Israel who wished to partake of the Passover (Exod 12:43-48 ).

Whew, what a fallacy! I noted that the sign was to be administered to the household of any professing believer, which is true. This does not mean only to them. Of course there were professing converts who also, with their families, were circumcised.

You will search in vain for any suggestion in the Bible that physical circumcision had any reference to faith for anyone except Abraham (Rom 4:11 ).

So what did circumcision mean for 400 some years between Abraham and the inauguration of the nation of Israel?

The rest of your post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Ron

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Ron,

I'm afraid that you are conflating the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants to your own confusion. The Old Covenant was not made with Abraham and Isaac, but with the Israelites. Have a look at Exod 24:3-8 and Deut 5:2-3.

This is rather silly. Neither covenant is the "œOld Covenant" then.

To the best of my knowledge, the term 'Old Covenant' ('palaias diathekes') is found only once in the Bible, in 2Cor 3:14. It is clearly connected there with the Mosaic Covenant. Did you read the texts I mentioned?
Deut 5:2-3. 'The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us who are here today, with those who are alive.'

The promise was made to Abraham and his seed, which was the Seed, Christ, and all who are in union with him.

You need to be very careful here. You and I are in union with Christ, but God has not promised to make of me a great nation, nor has He promised that I shall inherit the land of Canaan, nor that all the families of the earth shall be blessed in me. These are physical promises and they were physically fulfilled in the Israelite nation (Josh 23:14 ). It is the spiritual promise that Abraham should be heir of the world (Rom 4:13; cf. Matt 5:5 ) that is fulfilled in Christ.

The sign and seal of the promise was circumcision, which marked out the visible people of God. The same argument I presented before follows. As I stated: "œRemember that Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael would walk before him and live. God said NO -- and that he would establish his covenant with the one Seed, who was Christ (Galatians 3), and all who would be in union with Him"¦.Yet even though the unconditional promise under Abraham was made to the elect (Romans nine), the sign was to be administered to the household of any professing believer.

No sir! The sign was to be given to the house and descendants of Abraham and to dwellers in Israel who wished to partake of the Passover (Exod 12:43-48 ).

Whew, what a fallacy! I noted that the sign was to be administered to the household of any professing believer, which is true. This does not mean only to them. Of course there were professing converts who also, with their families, were circumcised.

1. Circumcision is never described as the sign and seal of anything except the faith of Abraham. Circumcision therefore was a sign to the Israelites of the faith of Abraham and also of the Seed who should come.

2. Circumcision was not given to the house of 'professing believers.' It was given to physical Israelites. Faith is never mentioned except in the case of Abraham. Those who refused were cut off from the nation. Moreover circumcision was not required for believers living outside of Isael, but only for the physical Israelites and those living in Israel who wished to partake of the Passover. Lot was a 'righteous man' (2Peter 2:7 ) but he was never required to be circumcised. Naaman the Syrian was a believer (2Kings 5:15 ), but Elisha did not require him or his household to be circumcised because he did not live within the borders of Israel. I could go on. Melchizadek was not circumcised and Job and his companions knew nothing of circumcision.

So what did circumcision mean for 400 some years between Abraham and the inauguration of the nation of Israel?

As I said above, it spoke of the righteousness of the faith of Abraham and of the promised Seed. However, it is my impression that it fell into abeyance during the time in Egypt, though this is not clear.

The rest of your post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't believe it is. It is intended to show the two-fold nature of the Abrahamic Covenant which surely has some relevance to the discussion. But to ignore it is your prerogative (Prov 19:27 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Ron]

Martin,

Your reasoning is flawed, I'm sorry. Your assuming:

1. The sign and seal of the promise to Abraham had no significance for 430 years.

2. The sign and seal, after 430, took on national signicance only.

3. Children are not permitted to be considered as pat of the people of God, contrary to old testament precedence.

You're not arguing anything. You're just asserting a position by definition.

Ron

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Ron
Martin,

Your reasoning is flawed, I'm sorry.

Perhaps it is, but you need to show how, and to do it from the Scriptures.

You're assuming:

1. The sign and seal of the promise to Abraham had no significance for 430 years.

The promise to Abraham had great significance. God guarded and multiplied the Israelites during that time, and used the persecution by the Egyptians to cause the Israelites to 'Groan because of their bondage' so that He could hear their groans and resue them (Exod 2:23-25 ). But the Israelites knew nothing of God at that time (Exod 3:13 etc) so it is not likely that they would have practised circumcision (if they did, it certainly wasn't a sign of their faith). Moreover, you are begging the question when you say that circumcision was the 'sign and seal of the promise.' It may have been the sign, but it sealed nothing to anyone but Abraham. If you think differently then let's have your Scripture.

2. The sign and seal, after 430, took on national significance only.

Apart from the seal bit (see above), that's right. I have supported my position with Scripture. If you think otherwise, let's have your Scripture.

3. Children are not permitted to be considered as part of the people of God, contrary to old testament precedence.

Children were part of the Old Covenant people, but that didn't make them the true people of God. Read Isaiah 1:9; Jer 9:25-26; Hosea 1:9. The New Covenant is '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.' Oh look! We're back to Jer 31.

You're not arguing anything. You're just asserting a position by definition.

Well, disprove my assertions then.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Ron]

Martin,

Your views are so esoteric, I'm going to pass. If you come up with a view that's held by let's say 20 baptists, I'll deal with it. Nah, 20 baptists could be a cult, which would not be worth my time. Let's say a couple of thousand.

Ron

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Ron
Martin,

Your views are so esoteric, I'm going to pass.

The basic meaning of Esoteric is, 'Meant for the initiated.' Perhaps your comment says more about you than about me.

If you come up with a view that's held by let's say 20 baptists, I'll deal with it. Nah, 20 baptists could be a cult, which would not be worth my time. Let's say a couple of thousand.

This comment is very interesting and very revealing.

First, it appears that you are unfamiliar with Reformed Baptist thought. I don't think my views on the covenants are too different from those of Coxe, the Haldanes, Spurgeon, Pink or the current writers of the RBTR. If the only Baptists you're familiar with are the arminian or liberal varieties then my writings might well appear esoteric to you.

Second, what is the purpose of this forum? Is it merely to parrot the productions of dead men's brains or to decorate the tombs of the prophets? Surely part of its raison d'etre is to allow participants to bring their thoughts on, and understanding of, Scripture to the scrutiny of their peers to see if it will stand up to rigorous examination?

John Robinson, Pastor to the Pilgrim Fathers, declared in his farewell sermon, 'For I am confident the Lord has more truth and light to break out of His holy word.' It was such a spirit that founded your country. I know his words have been grievously mis-quoted by charismatics, but are the Scriptures now dead? Is there no more light to be gleaned from them than has already come? For my part, I do not believe that the final word has been spoken on Covenant Theology. I don't think either Baptist or Paedo-baptist has got it quite right, and it may be that through study and discussion we may find new truths within God's word.

But not, of course, if we all stick within our comfort zones and refuse to discuss anything new or different (Acts 7:54, 57? )

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
John Calvin, Matthew Poole, A.W. Pink and others do great exposition and exegesis of Hebrews 8 (and the book as a whole).

Of course Pink certainly doesn't refute the credo position since he was one.