The Nature of the New Covenant

[dogmatix1517]

Hello all,

I am a paedobaptist but I’m having a hard time with answering the question as to whether the New Covenant (NC) is only spiritual or spiritual/physical (inward/outward). It would seem that if it is only spiritual, the Baptist has the upper hand in the debate between the credo and paedo positions. I have found this to be the essence of the debate. I have scrolled through the various threads in this forum and have seen the paedo argue for a spiritual/physical aspect of the NC based on the warning passages in Hebrews. This makes sense in light of the "already, not yet" hermeneutic. I read Pratt's argument for the threefold aspect of Jeremiah 31 here and found that this was his argument as well. It just sounds weird to say that the NC is "breakable." The problem I'm having is that I'll run into paedos that say the NC is only spiritual and then I run into ones that say the opposite. Which one is it?
This question also applies to the Covenant of Grace (seeing as the NC is the blooming of the CoG). It would seem that if unregenerate infants were “identified with” but not “in” the CoG, then, metaphorically speaking, they have one foot in the CoG and the other in the CoW. You can see where my mind goes with this. Please help brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Peairtach]

There is a duality to the administration of the Covenant of Grace.

E.g. In a sense Abraham was spiritually and internally in the CoG before he was circumcised, because he had true faith before he was circumcised. But he was not visibly, and legally and externally in the CoG until he was circumcised. He had the love without the bond but then he also received the visible, legal and external bond.

On the other hand - if Ishmael didn't have true faith - he was visibly, legally and externally in the CoG, when he was circumcised but not internally. He was in the bond of the Covenant without tasting the love of God or love to God.(Ezekiel 20:37)

You have, by way of illustration, a similar duality in the covenant of marriage. A couple's hearts can be bound together in love and yet they have not yet become visibly, legally and formally married. And vice versa. Both aspects of the reality of covenanting must be taken seriously.

These things are still true in the New Covenant administration. The Covenant of Redemption ("pactum salutis") between the Father, Son - representing only the elect - (and Holy Spirit) to save the elect, is progressively revealed in history as the Covenant of Grace and in its administration includes the non-elect.

E.g. Louis Berkhof has a section in his Systematic Theology on the duality of the Covenant of Grace.

E.g. John 15 teaches that there are branches that are visibly in the Vine - Christ and His Church - but because they are not sucking of the sap and have no life in them are to be cut out and burned.

It would seem that if unregenerate infants were “identified with” but not “in” the CoG, then, metaphorically speaking, they have one foot in the CoG and the other in the CoW.

Those who have been born into Christian homes - and are still unregenerate - and others (adults) who come within the administration of the CoG - are under the administration of the CoG and have all the privileges, promises and responsiblities associated with that. But until they are regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit they are in their hearts breakers of the CoW, and may seek to be reconciled to God by keeping the law as a CoW, until they are enlightened regarding the benefits of the CoG.

God in His grace to the children of those adults who have a credible profession of faith in Christ, brings these breakers of the CoW under the gracious influences of the CoG, and determines that these will be efficacious to the elect.

Maybe they're just misinformed don't know.

Not every paedobaptist or Presbyterian has thought these things through, and there's always room for learning more anyway.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Covenant of Grace is unbreakable, because it is made with Christ, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

What are these redemptive-covenants that we come into contact with in this world? They are all dispensations of the CoG. They all have external and internal administrations, because we are in this world, and worldly things demand worldly administration. That which is outward and external is breakable and falsifiable, if that's all there is; or subject to abuse and false-excommunication, even when the inward reality is present.

The Baptist denies there is an external administration to the NC. In that view, the covenant is entirely invisible, spiritual, it is not connected to this age--only the age to come. In other words: It cannot be broken, because there's nothing breakable (i.e., this-worldly) to break.

For our part, we have no problem identifying our non-professing children as being members of the covenant, when we speak of "New Covenant." Because we are talking at that point of those whom God has chosen to publicly identify with his public mark of ownership. They are federally and formally in covenant with him through their membership in the church. They are members because they have an interest in the covenant by their providential birth. We administer this covenant to them in an outward manner, appropriate to the temporal era (NC), with the expectation that gospel ordinances are the ordinary means by which God himself will administer this same covenant to his elect ones inwardly.

But the children are not of any necessity (e.g. by birth) spiritual members of the CoG. No man has any claim on God in that way. Anyone, of any age, may be known on earth as participating in the external rites and privileges of the Covenant. That doesn't make them proper participants, which is the sole privilege of those who partake in faith.

So, what are paedobaptists saying, who say that the NC is "unbreakable?" I can't speak for them, some or all. But I might suppose that what some of them mean is, they are thinking of the NC in a pure association with the CoG. In its essence, no matter what covenant-era, the CoG is unbreakable, so Abraham's covenant wasn't breakable, or Moses', if by the same rule. But people often speak of the covenant-eras by different rules, meaning different emphases. So when they talk the way you've heard them, perhaps they would also say (as I've heard some), that Abraham's covenant really is the "New" covenant, it just makes no linguistic sense to call it that; it's not "New" in the new-sense until Moses' covenant is set aside. And what is set aside in Moses? The legal, external emphasis, viz. the other rule.

I think it is much cleaner, simpler, and more helpful to simply speak of one Covenant of Grace, in various dispensations; always having an internal (full and accurate) administration, and and external (partial and subject to human limitation) administration. Why must the NC have an "imperfect" worldly aspect? Because we aren't in heaven yet.

 

[dogmatix1517]

Hi Richard and Bruce,

Thanks for your input. I see the mistake I was making now. I was saying that the CoG and the NC are one-in-the-same. This is certainly true in the inward/spiritual sense but not in the physical administration of this NC dispensation. Thank you Bruce for this clarification, this is a HUGE help! I still have a few more questions if you don’t mind…

Do you think it would be beneficial, when speaking of the NC, to distinguish between the physical NC and the spiritual NC/CoG? This, I think, would clarify a lot of confusion as it has done for me. I see that people within the physical NC as being able to “fall away” or be “cut off.” This sounds like pretty clear covenantal language to me (i.e. John 15; Rom. 11; Gal. 5; Heb. 3,6,10).

So this leads into my next question: Is a baptized infant, assuming it is unregenerate, conditionally in the NC? Here is what I mean: Is the infant’s duty, like those infants in the OT under circumcision, to believe in Christ (do this and you shall live) and thus fulfill their baptismal (gospel) call? (Of course I know that faith comes only by election). If so, I can see how they, like the OT Jews, are still under the CoW though have the means of grace (church, sacraments, etc.) available to them.

Also, in light of this, is the physical NC church the same as physical Israel while the invisible NC church is the same as spiritual Israel? (Romans 9:6b)

I am curious as to how we paedobaptists would respond to the arguments that James White (AOMin.org) has brought up against Bill Shishko and Gregg Strawbridge concerning the sole spirituality of the NC in his various paedobaptism debates. His argument is:

Premise 1: Luke 22:20 says “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Premise 2: Heb. 7 indicates that Jesus is the mediator of a “better covenant.”
Conclusion 1: Therefore, only those under the blood of Christ (elect) are in the NC.
Conclusion 2: Consequently, to say that there are unbelievers in the NC is to say that Jesus is mediating (pleading his blood before the Father) on behalf of unbelievers in the NC which directly contradicts both premise 1 and 2.

One note concerning James White’s (JW) debate with Gregg Strawbridge is that, when challenged with Hebrews 10:29, JW responded with saying that the “he” is Christ, not the apostate.

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

Therefore, according to JW, Christ is the one who was sanctified (?) and not the apostate, who was identified with the covenant (means of grace).

Sorry for all the questions. Thanks for your thoughtful insights

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

P.S. I truly admire James White and all the work that he does. He is awesome tool in the hand of the Lord. I, like 80% of his listening audience, happen to disagree with him on this issue of baptism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do you think it would be beneficial, when speaking of the NC, to distinguish between the physical NC and the spiritual NC/CoG? This, I think, would clarify a lot of confusion as it has done for me. I see that people within the physical NC as being able to “fall away” or be “cut off.” This sounds like pretty clear covenantal language to me (i.e. John 15; Rom. 11; Gal. 5; Heb. 3,6,10).

I don't think that speaking adjectivally (the physical NC and the spiritual NC) is the way to your desired end. You only sound like you now have two covenants.

The best way to speak of this is to distinguish between the two ways the one covenant is administered, inwardly and outwardly; Spiritually and ecclesiastically. Persons may be in the covenant either in one of the ways, or in both. Ideally, one is in covenant under both administrations: the Spirit ministers the realities to the invisible spirit, and the church administers the instruments to the corporeal person.

But it is possible to be in covenant outwardly, while participating in none of the Spirit ministered reality. We call these people hypocrites, or when they publicly abandon the Faith, we call them apostates and excommunicate them. Its also possible for a person to be united to Christ in the spirit, but be outwardly cut off from the covenant. But this external fact does not touch
the reality that he belongs to the CoG. Many faithful believers have been inadvertently separated from the church; and countless other have been persecuted BY some ecclesiastic body.

So this leads into my next question: Is a baptized infant, assuming it is unregenerate, conditionally in the NC? Here is what I mean: Is the infant’s duty, like those infants in the OT under circumcision, to believe in Christ (do this and you shall live) and thus fulfill their baptismal (gospel) call? (Of course I know that faith comes only by election). If so, I can see how they, like the OT Jews, are still under the CoW though have the means of grace (church, sacraments, etc.) available to them.

1) It looks (in the sentences above) like you are correlating (?) belief in Christ through obedience to the gospel call, and the law-principle of "do this and live." I suggest that since Paul tends to put these two principles in tension with one another, that we seek other terminology to describe the nature of evangelical obedience.

2) It is everyone's duty to believe in Christ right now, today, whether old or young, new to the church or in it for a hundred years.

3) Everyone in the church is a disciple. That means he's under discipline 24/7 (just like my kids are under my house-discipline 24/7). Discipleship is a way of life, which in the case of some children is the only way of life they've known. We preach Christ crucified, and the indispensable requirement for faith in the promise, for the attainment of heaven; and we preach that fact to every member, every week. And we expect that drumbeat to re-form lives into Christ's image, because that's one of the Word's promises.

4) Using terms like "conditions" or "conditionally" tends to muddy the waters. We are only allowed to judge of the things that are accessible to the outward man, what we can see and hear, the "revealed things." Of course, we warn members most weeks as well, of the folly of rejecting the Word of Christ. But, we don't say to a fiancée, "Joe, you're only conditionally engaged." We don't say to a married man, "Joe, you're only conditionally wed." We don't suspend the legally recognized nature of his commitment on some future contingency.

Also, in light of this, is the physical NC church the same as physical Israel while the invisible NC church is the same as spiritual Israel? (Romans 9:6b)

Except for the inapt terminology (already discussed), the basic idea is correct. The church had a different way of manifesting itself under the theocracy, but the chosen-people in general formed the visible church.

Premise 1: Luke 22:20 says “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Premise 2: Heb. 7 indicates that Jesus is the mediator of a “better covenant.”
Conclusion 1: Therefore, only those under the blood of Christ (elect) are in the NC.
Conclusion 2: Consequently, to say that there are unbelievers in the NC is to say that Jesus is mediating (pleading his blood before the Father) on behalf of unbelievers in the NC which directly contradicts both premise 1 and 2.

Obviously, this can only be described as a general syllogistic-structured argument, and not a formal argument, because neither conclusion is strictly built on the premises offered. You can call it an enthymeme perhaps, but it hasn't got the formal structure of a formally valid syllogism.

So, I'm in danger of creating arguments for JW that he hasn't made (let the reader understand).

By P1, JW might be saying that Jesus NC blood is spilt for all disciples, because Jesus states that it is spilt for the eleven Disciples (you) who are there. But this trades on the designation "disciple," and then applies what is indubitably meant explicitly for those participating, implicitly to all who are "qualified disciples."

In answer to this supposed line of reasoning (which may not be accurate), I answer that a) Jesus' blood is certainly spilt and only spilt for the elect of the CoG; but 2) equating disciples (whom we can identify) and the elect (whose identity is unknown) is irresponsible in theory, and impossible in practice.

Therefore, Jesus' testimony P1 tells us is his blood ratifies the NC, as the offerings of Ex.24 ratified the MC; that those with whom he shares his Supper that evening were explicit beneficiaries (because he had infallible knowledge of their hearts); and we may justly infer that others who partake of the Supper in the like faith receive the same benefit.

P2 calls for an explication of how the NC is "better," AND (what is often left out in the discussion) what exactly it is better than. The NC is better than MC, and the Jer.31 passage explains this, in terms that relate to the MC context. But the MC is inferior as well to the AC, as Gal.3 makes plain. So, it is not plain at all that Jer or Heb would also affirm that the NC is "better" (using that same language) than the AC.

We will gladly affirm that the fulfillment of the promises makes our situation preferable (as Jesus says the least in the KoH is greater than JtB). But "preferable" isn't the sort of "better" (i.e "superior") that obtains when the NC is compared to the MC, and its not what Jer had in mind.

C1 responses--How does the elimination of earthly responsibility of administering Christ's covenant (his government) with his people make things "better?" And I know JW believes in church-government, but in his view it isn't a covenant-administration. So, its a conceptual division.

In terms of the conclusion, we (on earth) are supposed to be managing(?) the elect in our churches. We are even supposed to be preaching and teaching, for the work of perfecting saints. But (applying Jer.31 woodenly) none of us should be telling our elect brethren to "know the Lord," which is just a synonym for "have faith in Christ/God." Because the NC is just the elect, we're told. But, we can't tell who's elect, so we preach evangelistically anyway?

The NC isn't "better" because "it only has elect in it." If we use the same rule on all the covenants, then all of them "only had the elect in them," because only the elect were full participants in both an inward and an outward administration!

C2 responses--It only follows if you agreed with C1. Jesus is the savior of all the elect, of all time, as well those under previous covenant-arrangements as now under the NC. But he isn't the savior of any of those under the other arrangements who weren't inward participants. The whole thing only works once one dispenses with any present day, NC outward administration. He has to get rid of it somehow.

Jesus is the Mediator of the eternal covenant, Heb.13:20. This Covenant of Grace comes to man in a revelatory series of covenant arrangements, starting with Abraham. It culminates in the fullness of redemption, as Christ himself comes in to take up his Mediatorial tasks. We live in the NC age, which right now is the age of the already and the not yet. Heaven, and the NH&NE are going to finalize the new, permanent reality.

But we aren't in heaven yet. We are weak, needy people, who receive great blessing from Christ's condescension to our frailty, in giving us the incomparable blessing of his covenant, its government, its signs and seals, its counsels, its ministry; in short, everything the kingdom of God needs while it continues on its wilderness journey. In Mk.10:1-16, Jesus gives his re-formed people some insight as to the constituents his coming kingdom will contain: husbands, wives, and children, on this side of the eschaton.


Final thought.
No one--not Presbyterians, not Baptists--"intends" to incorporate non-elect persons in the visible church. But NO ONE can perfectly restrict that membership. Ages ago, God settled the question of how he would set the limits of his incorporation in an imperfect world. He would receive confessors and their children, and bring them under his discipline. He'd take all their children, immediately, for the sake of the elect found among them. This was mercy and grace, of course, for the undeserving, the most helpless. God did not inaugurate the NC era by casting these covenant members out.

 

[Peairtach]

Do you think it would be beneficial, when speaking of the NC, to distinguish between the physical NC and the spiritual NC/CoG? This, I think, would clarify a lot of confusion as it has done for me. I see that people within the physical NC as being able to “fall away” or be “cut off.” This sounds like pretty clear covenantal language to me (i.e. John 15; Rom. 11; Gal. 5; Heb. 3,6,10).

Louis Berkhof has a chapter in his Systematic Theology on the duality of the CoG ( "The Dual Aspect of the Covenant" p.284-289)

Some of the ways of looking at this that he considers are:

A. An external and an internal Covenant.
B. The essence and administration of the Covenant.
C. A conditional and an absolute Covenant.
D. The Covenant as a purely legal relationship and as a communion of life.

The expression "in the covenant but not of the covenant" was used by Dr Bavinck for unconverted people in the administration of the CoG.

It would be useful for Reformed Baptists to admit that some of those baptised in their churches are in some sense in the covenant but not of the covenant, when they subsequently show poor signs of regeneration. But if it was conceded that it was possible for an adult to be in the administration of the covenant before God, but not its essence, that would be conceding too much to the paedo-baptist position that children of those professing faith should be baptised because although we do not know if these children are regenerate when baptised, they are yet meant by God to be under the administration of the CoG.

I hope I'm not misrepresenting the views of our baptist brethren, but are they forced by their logic /arguments to make the New Covenant purely "spiritual"?
The New Covenant isn't purely spiritual anyway, whether you're Presbyterian or Baptist, because all orthodox sides concede that our bodies will be raised.

 

[dogmatix1517]

Thanks guys,

This may be a little off topic (though relating to Baptism). What does Paul mean when he says "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ?" -Gal. 3:27. I suspect it has to do with regeneration and thus, fulfillment of the thing signified by baptism. Maybe I'm wrong. Could it possibly be referring not to water baptism at all? I would have the same question for Rom. 6:3-4. I know that Baptists use this to show that Baptism is for only those who have "put on Christ."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Baptism illustrates "union with Christ." Relevant to those who have been baptized, baptism signifies to believers truths such as: like a garment Christ covers you; his righteousness clothes you.

You are right, for Baptists timing is very important because they understand that the sign must follow the reality to be legitimate. There must be an existential, spiritual union in effect through regeneration prior to a sign erected to point at a personal fact of appropriation. For such, baptism is about an individual's claim to regeneration. But the truth is that Gal.3:27 doesn't articulate a specific order to the rite of baptism; it only admonishes those who are baptized to believe in what baptism means.

Our greatest concern is unto the meaning of what is signified by baptism, which isn't tied to the moment of administration. We desire a good answer to the question, "Do I as an individual believe in the union of which baptism is a picture of objectively?" Proper baptism preaches a gospel that is true, irrespective of the existential state of the person's heart who's baptized, or at the time of the baptism. This is why we say that, if a person has been given a recognizable baptism (a Christian baptism, performed by a minister ordained with Christ's authority), then he's baptized. Because it's a church-act primarily, and not an individual's non-verbal testimony. Baptism is effective unto faith, whenever that comes alive to the message of the gospel.

So, we cannot say (to anticipate the question) that an infant baptized has that hour "put on Christ"--but of course, we also couldn't say that about an adult either! But, each of us personally (regardless of when we were baptized) when we encounter Paul's words concerning the meaning of union with Christ in baptism, either lay hold of that truth with believing heart, or we fail to do so.

What Paul does in his letter, any good gospel preacher does in the pulpit--he affirms and urges his audience (made up of who knows what, using the judgment of charity), to personally consider that to be baptized and a part of the Christian church is a witness of belonging to Christ--which is all the qualification one needs to be justified. One thing we know for sure Paul was NOT saying was: if a Galatian was baptized with water, then he had most assuredly put on Christ in the spirit.

Paul's specific point in Gal.3:27 is that, no matter the origin or background of a believer (Jew or Greek, etc.), though his union with Christ (spiritually) illustrated (physically) by his union with the church (the body of Christ) in baptism (and all that rite signifies), he is fully invested in Christ. That's the point of "all" (v26), "as many as" (v27), "all one" (v28). The Jews, the men, the free--these are not privileged, or have anything more than a new Gentile convert. "Faith in Christ Jesus" (v26), is the sole criteria for being Christ's, Abraham's, and heirs (v29).

We believe (yes, even paedobaptists) that faith and baptism go together. We just don't think that it matters in every single case that baptism properly follows profession. But infant children of believers are proper recipients of baptism, who then ought to grow up into the faith, as believer's children should have done since Abraham's day and earlier.

 

[Phil D.]

What Paul does in his letter, any good gospel preacher does in the pulpit--he affirms and urges his audience (made up of who knows what, using the judgment of charity), to personally consider that to be baptized and a part of the Christian church is a witness of belonging to Christ--which is all the qualification one needs to be justified. One thing we know for sure Paul was NOT saying was: if a Galatian was baptized with water, then he had most assuredly put on Christ in the spirit.

Rev. Buchanan, could you further explain the meaning of "justified" as you used it in this context? Thanks!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

PD,
We belong to Christ, so then we are justified. We aren't justified, and so then become Christ's.

The letter to Galatians is written, in the main, to address the issue of "right-standing" (justification) before God, in Christian doctrine. What does it take? Instrumentally the issue is faith, of course. But that's not the ground of our justification--the ground is the righteousness of Christ. We are accepted only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. Christ claims us; we belong to him. That's it--he loves us. He lives and dies for his beloved; then applies the benefits of his redemption to us, including justification and union with Christ.

He gives would-be believers the power of saving faith so that apprehending Christ is within their grasp, and the natural choice. But he doesn't love them because they now have the faith-faculty. There is nothing in us that makes us lovely to God. If you belong to Jesus, you don't need anything else for acceptation by the heavenly Father. You aren't loved any more (or less) because you might be circumcised, or a male, or a freeman. We aren't loved because we are indwelt by the Spirit. He loves us, so then he gives us his Spirit. We aren't accepted because baptism cleanses us. But because he loves us, and justifies us, he also cleanses us and makes us over into loveliness.

I hope I've made this as clear as a bell. What qualifies us to be justified? Election in Christ. Christ claims us.

 

[dogmatix1517]

Forgive my ignorance for I am still wrestling to understand Covenant Theology.

Would it be accurate to say that the external aspect of the CoG is the visible church?

If so, is someone who is unregenerate, but yet externally in the CoG, still internally (spiritually) under the CoW?

If this is true, it would seem that all human beings are not only spiritually in the CoG or CoW (i.e. regenerate or unregenerate), but also externally in the CoG or CoW (i.e. going to church or not going to church).

P.S. Rev. Bruce and Richard Tallach, I have very much appreciated your answers and patience in answering my questions. Richard, I did read Berkhof on the duel apect of the CoG. I found it somewhat helpful but wish he could have expounded it a little more for simple folk like myself

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would it be accurate to say that the external aspect of the CoG is the visible church?

Yes. The church is the sphere or arena in this world where the CoG intersects with our lives in this world. I like to think of a church as a little embassy of the Power of the age to come (far way,over the horizon, out of view). But citizens of that far country may still come and receive privileges of their citizenship for their whole person, body and soul, although they are living as aliens in a strange land.

If so, is someone who is unregenerate, but yet externally in the CoG, still internally (spiritually) under the CoW?

Most definitely. A person is either dependent on his own works to stand before God, or the works of his Mediator. There are many church-members, even professors of religion, who are not trusting in the merits of Jesus for payments charged to their account.

If this is true, it would seem that all human beings are not only spiritually in the CoG or CoW (i.e. regenerate or unregenerate), but also externally in the CoG or CoW (i.e. going to church or not going to church).

Simply "going to church" is not the same thing as being a member of the church. Although, external membership is (as previously noted) no guarantee of spiritual membership. But at least the person who is going to church is coming (if it's a gospel-church) to the place where God's blessings are presented and procured.

You could take the four aspects (two pairs) and describe all the possible relations to the church/CoG, visible and invisible:

IN and IN (both ways)--this is ideal;
IN one way, OUT the other;
OUT the opposite way, but IN the other;
and OUT and OUT--that is, under the covenant of works and uninterested in (or ignorant of) the church.​

 

[Peairtach]

Richard, I did read Berkhof on the duel apect of the CoG. I found it somewhat helpful but wish he could have expounded it a little more for simple folk like myself

Well think through how the covenant of marriage has its internal and external aspects as a useful illustration to help get your head round the covenant idea.

It's a bond of love.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I can hardly improve upon what Bruce or Richard have offered but just want to make a few remarks to extend some of the ideas.

It is very common in these discussions on Covenant Theology to assume that once one ties up the nature of the CoG (call it the New Covenant if you like) that one has addressed the issue of the inclusion of the children of believers. As a thought experiment I created a thread that demonstrated that determining the constituency of the New Covenant does not immediately lead to one conclusion or another: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/argument-paedo-credo-baptism-nature-new-covenant-62692/

I say this with respect for James Whte but his debates have really only barely touched on the issue of baptism proper. I've listened to both debates and they focus on the nature of the New Covenant. Again, I believe it is so common for this issue to be debated that each side assumes that once that issue has been settled that the rest fall as so many dominoes. I am convinced this is not the case. In fact, I believe this leads to a relatively light approach to dealing with the real issue at hand.

As Bruce has noted, the CoG is made with Christ and nobody in human history has been united to Christ in the CoG except by faith.

It is perhaps too easy to miss this point with the Old Covenant as we are lulled into the sense that there is something so obligatory to it for the people of Israel. They're not even given a choice. There's so much tied to land and to the preservation of a people that we can easily conclude that circumcision is fundamentally a land and racial propagation thing with very little to do with the Promise. In fact, in the crassest arguments I've seen circumcision for the Jews and the reason for the application of the sign is primarily to provide a genetic guarantee that Christ will eventually come from that people group. You need Christ to come from people and you need an identifiable people to allow Christ to come from and so God has this Promise to Abraham that runs alongside this circumcision thing that makes sure it physically comes about but the physical sign is not really seen as having a correspondence, fundamentally, with the spiritual aspects of the Promise. All the passages that enjoin the circumcision of the heart, then, are assigned spiritual aspects while this "physical/Land Promise" track are kept on a separate track.

Consequently, when Christ comes, the physical aspect is fulfilled and all the stuff about kids is really no longer necessary. All that is left is the Spiritual/Elect aspect that sort of ran alongside of the circumcision thing but never really had any true attachment to it. I know this is simplistic but time doesn't allow me to flesh this out.

So now, according to this view, we're left with a completely spiritual dispensation of the CoG called the New Covenant under the Baptist view. Because it is completely spiritual, I don't think many give stock to the fact that they are dealing with issues of eternal election and the hidden things of God. They will say that God elects the person and then, on the basis of that perceived Sovereign work of God, the believer comes to the Church, announces his belief in Christ, and the Church applies a sign that says: "Joe professes in Christ and we believe he is elect to the best of our ability to discern these things."

Notice the subtle but very real shift here, however, the Baptist Church does not say: "Joe is elect and we therefore baptize him" but "Joe is perceived to be among the elect to the best of our ability to ascertain."

In other words, a Baptist Church does not so much contain baptized members of the New Covenant but those that have received the sign of baptism to the best of the visible Church's ability to ascertain that the members of the Church are in the New Covenant. Baptist theology, in fact, notes that baptism does not make one a member of the New Covenant nor does baptism assure that any are in the New Covenant.

For all the argument about the nature of the New Covenant containing none but the elect, then, when it all comes down to it, baptism is not administered on the basis that the elect are in the NC but on the basis that a person presenting himself for baptism has a profession credible enough for the Church to presume he is in the NC. Given the apostasy of even the most unlikely people, some Baptist Churches have withheld baptism until years of fruit can prove satisfactorily that the person who has presented himself for baptism is not giving a profession that is the fruit of "seed that has fallen on rocky ground...."

One can argue about the nature of the New Covenant then and it really doesn't settle the issue because identifying that the New Covenant belongs to the elect alone does not inform a historical, local Church that does not have the mind of God.

That's really the crux of the issue. It's the issue of hidden and revealed things. Deut 29:29 does not give any man or any Church warrant to constitute its membership on the basis of eternal election. In fact, when you back it all out, the Baptist ends up noting that the real issue that they baptize professors is because that's what they're commanded so to do. It's an issue of command. It's an issue of revealed things. It can never be on the basis of the hidden counsel of God.

That brings me to the point of drawing out what I believe is the fundamental difference in approach to Covenant theology. While the Baptist begins with hidden things in the CoG and sort of backs into an ecclesiology that they reason excludes the children of believers, the Reformed view has always maintained that God condescends to our creatureliness and gives us Sacraments: visible signs that are connected to the spiritual realities they signify.

The Reformed Confessions walk the razor's edge between the Covenant of Grace that God has made infallibly in Christ on the one hand and the historical administration of the Covenant on the other hand. In one sense, the very sad thing about they way that some treat visible signs as "mere signs" is that it is the only thing we have access to as flesh and blood people. We don't have the mind of God. We are bound to human history and don't stand above time. How can we know that God has elected us from eternity? I've known some that get so tied up in trying to speculate how they can ascertain they are elect and not be deceived that they fail to look to the very things that God has given them in the administration of the Covenant to assure them of such things.

Baptism isn't fundamentally a statement I make but it's a statement that God makes. He announces a Promise. God, both in the Gospels and the Sacraments, creates the reality that He speaks about. A person may ask: "How can a person believe the Gospel command 'Believe' if they are dead in their sins and trespasses?" The answer is that God creates life in the heart of the hearer so that the Word itself fulfills the conditions it commands.

The Sacraments also, bear a relationship to the things they signify. What trips most Baptists up is that, on the one hand, they see all these spiritual realities signified by the Sacrament. It signifies everything that only the Elect can ever possess.

"Indeed", says the Church, "these are realities only God can produce. It is not our job to grant the realities that the Sacraments represent but to ministerially announce God's promise in these signs and let the Holy Spirit sovereignly attend as He wills." The winds blows where it wills and we do not perceive it.

Yet, then, because it is ordained of God that the Church would announce His Promises in real human history He attends to the Promises and, for those He has sovereignly saved, the Promise heard in real history and felt by real water, serves as God Himself saying to the person: "If you trust in my Son then your salvation is as certain as what you have heard and experienced in your life." He condescends to make historical promises to each of us.

Sacraments, in this view, are then much more certain because they do not depend upon my recollection of a faith I might have had at my baptism but it is always grounded upon the Promise of God that never waivers. Even the adult convert needs this assurance who has been walking with the Lord for years.

I feel like I'm writing a tome that I never set out to write and I know I'm leaving myself open to a lot of criticism due to a misunderstanding of this position but I have to emphasize that this is fundamentally about understanding that the nature of discipleship is not one where the Church begins with a more or less certain knowledge of election and then proceeds on the basis that all its members are elect but it proceeds on the basis that everything it does in Word and Sacrament is a means instituted by God to create life out of death: the Kingdom of God among us.

Increasingly, I find utility in the fact that Calvin used regeneration in so many ways because we tend to think of regeneration as a point in spiritual life that, if we can just place our finger on it, then we will all have certainty that we have arrived.

Yet, while the Scriptures are not afraid to speak of the life that God grants to the believer through the Gospel as he first lays hold of Christ in faith, it also unashamedly enjoins the Church to abide and, "If Today you hear his voice harden not your hearts."

There is a real danger in the "I've been regenerated once" that one can fail to heed the fact that God appoints means of grace for our spiritual nourishment and continued conversion. Do we pray before each Lord's day that we would continue to be converted unto the Gospel or do we assume that we've entered into a time where we no longer say to one another "...know the Lord..." to the point that we think there are some people (the unregenerate) that aren't at the point of conversion yet and need injunction while the rest of us sit back and let those portions of the Gospel affect them?

In other words, when I pray for the congregation (or even for my family), I ask that God would convert us. If unregenerate, that some would hear the Gospel for the first time. That may even be someone who has attended Church for fifty years. I never assume that a person is too sanctified that, while it is called Today, they might yet hear His voice for the first time. If the person has walked with Christ for years then Today is another day to be transformed by the renewing of the mind.

The nature of discipleship is then fundamentally not one of certainty about the election of the individual but one of responsibility. Disciples are baptized and taught. Disciples are even converted through the teaching. We don't start with a converted person and then baptize them but baptism and teaching are a means to the end of discipleship that men, women, boys, and girls might taste and see that the Lord is good. We pray for them, we nurture them, we instruct them, we reprove them, and they hear the Gospel constantly. They hear its commands and its injunctions and, by God's grace, it produces life in whoever the Spirit so ordains. The Church does not see the Spirit move but does enjoy its blessing. Yet, in spite of our best and wisest discernment, no Saint is so close to God in our estimation that we fail to enjoin him to press in and no Saint is so weak that we don't nurture the bruised reed or the smoldering wick. We act according to command and not decree.

I have to run now. I've spend far too much time and have probably rushed this in trying to get it finished. If my presentation is confusing or there are typos, please forgive me and do ask questions if I'm confusing anywhere above.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich,
I'm going to print this out. I know someone who might benefit from reading it. I have read some real gems of your posts, and this is one of the best. Thanks.

Even if you feel the need to dress it up some, or lightly edit it, this would make a great instructional essay, in my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,
I'm going to print this out. I know someone who might benefit from reading it. I have read some real gems of your posts, and this is one of the best. Thanks.

Even if you feel the need to dress it up some, or lightly edit it, this would make a great instructional essay, in my opinion.

Thanks Bruce. I appreciate the encouragement.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Some Differences Between Baptist and Reformed Theology on the New Covenant (pt 1)

Part 2

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Here's part 3

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Part 4

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Part 5

 

[Peairtach]

Part 5

I enjoyed reading these posts, Dr Clark (Scott), but maybe you could further clarify the proper interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34,

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (ESV)

since some Baptists make great play of this somehow showing that there are no unbelievers in the CoG in its New Covenant phase.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Richard,

I tried to answer this concern, in the posts, in several ways:

1. Heb 10 clearly does NOT agree with the Baptist view of the new covenant.

2. The NC is the new administration of the Abrahamic covenant. There were reprobates and hypocrites in the Abrahamic covenant. The NC must be administered. That's why there is church discipline. That's why there us a distinction between cov initiation and cov renewal. The Baptists collapse the two.

3. The NC is semi-eschatological not consummated. The Baptist view of the NC is overly eschatological.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

On my phone. Can't edit well. More later but re-read parts 4-5.

 

[Peairtach]

Thanks.

So basically Jeremiah 31:34 is looking at things from an ideal perspective and the baptists need to interpret this verse from the clearer New Covenant reality - where we know, and the Baptists know, that people, including adults in Baptist churches are baptised but do not always show that they know the Lord.(?)

Baptists saying that such baptisms were never real baptisms i.e. annulling them isn't an option, since apart from anything else we don't read of annullment of circumcision or baptism in Scripture (?)

There's also another problem that (some?) Baptists seem to be saying that you can't be an unbeliever and be in some sense in the New Covenant, but you can be an unbeliever and be in the Visible Church (?)

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Richard,

Yes, this is essentially correct. The Baptist divorces or abstracts the NC from the history of redemption. The Baptist view of the NC collapses the administration of the NC into its administration.

One thing I tried to highlight in the posts is the hermeneutical differences between the way the Reformed read Jer 31 and the way Baptists read the same passage. The Baptist view doesn't account for the literary genre of the passage. Test the Baptist approach to Jer 31 by applying the same approach to other similar passages. I guess that most confessional Baptists would disavow the resulting interpretation but when it comes to Jer 31 they read it the way dispensationalists read prophetic literature. I'm not saying that Baptists are dispensationalists but there are some similarities in hermeneutics when it comes to the method they use in this passage.

The proposed Baptist reading of Jer 31 doesn't account for either the NT interpretation of Jer 31 or the method the NT writers use to interpret it.

The Baptist cannot say that the apostates "tasted of the power of the age to come" nor can the Baptist view allow one to say that some of the Jewish Christians were "enlightened" but Hebrews says just that.

Here Reformed theology differs from both the Baptists and the FV. The latter say that "tasted" and "enlightened" = being regenerate or temporarily united to Christ by baptism. The former don't have a category by which to understand a class of people who have been initiated into the NC, who were professors of faith, who were participants in the life of the covenant community, who, nevertheless, were not elect and who did not benefit from the new administration of the Abrahamic covenant by grace alone, through faith alone. Reformed folk think that the enlightened tasters really were in the NC but they weren't of the NC any more than Esau was of the Abrahamic covenant. Was Esau circumcised? Yes. Was he a member of the covenant of grace? Yes, outwardly (Rom 2:28; Rom 9). It's hard to see how, on the Baptist view, if the NC is of the sort that they say, how Paul could have compared the NC church to the Israelites in 1 Cor 10.

 

[dogmatix1517]

Could anyone direct me to ant sources on the duel aspect of the CoG? I already have Berkhof's Systematic Theology and Scott Clark's Baptism, Election, and the Covenant of Grace. I have found McMahon's A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology helpful and am halfway through Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology. All are good, I am just hoping for more sources.

Dr. Clark, thank you for your articles, they are enlightening (pardon the pun). I also hope to study under you in 2 years when I finally graduate college (I was born and raised in San Diego).

I hope you all can forgive my ignorance, I have grown up in a dispensational background and am still struggling for that paradigm shift into covenant theology (without the Baptistic influence) through Scripture and solid Reformed teachers.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

For what it's worth, I've compiled the new covenant series into one document.

Here's another essay, a little more technical than the pamphlet, on the dual aspect of the covenant of grace. The footnotes might be useful.

See you at sem!

Be sure to call Mark MacVey (877-480-8474) at WSC to let him know your intentions.

This page on preparing for seminary will also be useful.

Could anyone direct me to ant sources on the duel aspect of the CoG? I already have Berkhof's Systematic Theology and Scott Clark's Baptism, Election, and the Covenant of Grace. I have found McMahon's A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology helpful and am halfway through Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology. All are good, I am just hoping for more sources.

Dr. Clark, thank you for your articles, they are enlightening (pardon the pun). I also hope to study under you in 2 years when I finally graduate college (I was born and raised in San Diego).

I hope you all can forgive my ignorance, I have grown up in a dispensational background and am still struggling for that paradigm shift into covenant theology (without the Baptistic influence) through Scripture and solid Reformed teachers.

 

[dogmatix1517]

Hi Dr. Clark,

I just finished your 5 part series Some Differences Between Baptists and Reformed Theology on the New Covenant and I saw something that you said that I was curious about. In part 5, while addressing the Baptist objection to Acts 2:38-39, you say:

My Baptist friends object by pointing out the inclusion of Gentiles. I reply by saying, so what? The Reformed argument is not that Abraham was not typological. Of course Gentiles are being included!

First, I need to preface my question. I just got done reading C. Matthew McMahon's book A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology and in the book he argues that when Peter is preaching this sermon, he doesn't have the gentiles in mind at all. He draws this conclusion based on the fact that Peter is using Joel 2 as his text to preach from and in Joel 2:27 it is evident that this prophesy is about Jews.

Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel:
I am the LORD your God
And there is no other.
My people shall never be put to shame.

This seems to make sense, according to McMahon, because it isn’t until Acts 10 that Peter realizes that gentiles are included in the covenant purposes of God. So when Peter says, in v. 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.

He is just quoting the end of Joel 2 (v.32) which says

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.

McMahon's argument is to show that Peter still has covenant in mind (which obviously includes infants) though he doesn't realize that gentiles are included until later (Acts 10). So when Peter says "and to all who are afar off," he has the Jews who are scattered abroad in mind.

So then my question is simply this: What do you think? Is this a flawed argument or is their cogency to it? I would just like your opinion

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Peter might have still been thinking in less-inclusive (i.e. OT-covenant-exclusive) terms. But you must regard the Pentecostal Jerusalem context (with all the foreign languages being spoken) argues at the very least for an inclusive sweeping-in of converts into the Jewish-Messianic kingdom from all over the world.

In other words, the promise to Abraham, "in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed," has to be fulfilled in Messiah in some fashion. Its clear that the ethnocentricity of the insular mind was a hard nut to crack. Even after Peter's encounter with Cornelius, Paul faces down the same Peter over the Judaizers at Antioch. But (aside from the deep and deadly serious theological problem) on the surface, Paul vs. the Judaizers was not an argument against Gentile inclusion, but the manner of that inclusion.


The consistent answer of the NT to the question of OT prophetic fulfillment, is (as RSC points out) to read whomsoever comes to faith in Jesus Christ--be they Jew or Gentile--as being rightly incorporated into the one people of God. There is no better way to describe that body, using OT language, other than to call them "Israel," and to identify them with the former families of Israel that had been cast off through exile and alienation. The typological significance of OT Israel lies in the fact that they are a "representative humanity," and they end up in the same condition as the historical-whole human race: lost.

The fact is: it doesn't matter whether Peter (on Pentecost) has complete "clarity" on who constitutes the prophetic remnant. He is speaking to another "mixed multitude" (the description of the crowd that fled from Egypt), which group of ethnic Jews and foreign seekers of Israel's God is now called out of the new "Egypt/Jerusalem" and is ready to begin a new trek to the true Promised Land.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The fact is: it doesn't matter whether Peter (on Pentecost) has complete "clarity" on who constitutes the prophetic remnant.

Indeed, consider Caiaphas:

[bible]John 11:49-52[/bible]

 

[Peairtach]

If the argument was true it would mean that the promises regarding children that are in the Scriptures were (are?) for Jews and not Gentiles, in the more gracious New Covenant. Is that likely?

Is it likely too that there were no people among those at Pentecost who had not become Jews but were yet God-fearers like Cornelius? A whole Court of the Temple was devoted to the Gentile believers in the Lord God.

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. (Acts 2:5, NIV).

Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" (Acts 2:9-11)

God-fearing Gentiles would be related to and would associate with Jews and Gentiles who had become Jews, and would want to be in Jerusalem for the the great Jewish holidays.

How could Peter possibly know that they were all Jews, or that it was even likely that there were no God-fearing Gentiles among them?

According to the Baptists the New Covenant Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) is just believers in Christ and not their childen. Yet when Gentiles became part of Israel in the Old Testament period their children were included.

Now when Gentiles become part of the more mature Israel - that we are, i.e. the Church - their children are excluded, according to the Baptists, and if the Baptist logic is taken, no Biblical i.e. Covenantal promise regarding the children of believers carries any weight with God now. They all fell to the ground in the First Century.