Puritan Board Freshman
Paedo-baptist StatementThere is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.
In Jeremiah 31 God promises a new covenant and in verse 32 he says it will not be like the covenant he made him with their fathers when he took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt. This is clearly a reference to the covenant made with Moses on Mount Sinai.
Concerning the Response Below: Dr. Welty’s comments get at a critical aspect of the new covenant. I agree with him wholeheartedly that under the Abrahamic covenant all did not have the law written on their hearts or know the Lord or have their sins forgiven. What is Dr. Welty implying in this quote? Is he implying that because “each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and the Abrahamic” that therefore just as the new covenant replaced the Mosaic therefore it also replaces the Abrahamic? But that does not logically follow. The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant are still two distinct covenants. Just because one is ended it does not follow that the other is ended.
Baptist ResponseThe following quote is taken from “A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism” by Greg Welty:
Paedobaptists may claim that baptists are failing to recognize that the contrast which Jeremiah is drawing here is between the New Covenant and the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, not between the New Covenant and the covenant as originally administered to Abraham. Since paedobaptists justify infant baptism with reference to the Abrahamic (not Mosaic) Covenant, the fact that Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant as different from the Mosaic is of no relevance for the question of infant baptism. This point is well taken--the Mosaic Covenant was indeed added to the Abrahamic promises, not repealing or replacing them but furthering their ultimate purpose (Galatians 3:17-19). But reflection upon the realities of the Abrahamic Covenant will reveal that each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and the Abrahamic! Under the Abrahamic Covenant, all did not have the law written on their hearts, or know the Lord, or have their sins forgiven. Covenant children such as Ishmael and Esau, who lived under the Abrahamic but not the Mosaic Covenant, bear eloquent testimony to this fact.
Which do you agree with? Is there an error in either of the arguments?
The last post in this series can be found at:
You are also welcome to go to the following link to engage in a discussion on baptism: