Check out Logos for a great new FREE Bible.
Here’s a thoughtful link from Justin Taylor
I have experienced much joy and edification during this concerted study and debate with JB2 over baptism and its administration. I do not intend to rehash the points that have already been expressed by JB2 and myself. I am convinced that we should not diminish the importance of baptism and the manner in which it is administered. I also believe that we should be convicted by our understanding of the Biblical administration of baptism.
I thank God for the evidences of grace in my Presbyterian brother and look forward to many more edifying conversations with JB2.
JB1
Although I did not set out to end the “credo vs. paedo” debate, it looks like I’ve done it!! What was supposed to be a final post from both sides, summing up what each of us had learned during our time of debate and study, has, instead, ended with only one side presenting their case, that being the paedo side. In keeping with my Christian values, I will not gloat openly, but will instead privately relish this victory on behalf of this historic, biblical practice.
JB2
JB1 and myself have decided to bring our discussion of “paedo vs. credo” to a close, each taking a moment to post a summary statement about this issue. As I thought about what to write, the following things came to mind. First, it has not been my intention to make converts of anyone who sees credo as the proper view of baptism. Too many wonderful pastors, scholars, authors, and friends hold to that view for me to be overly harsh or dogmatic in my opinion of baptism. That being said, I did set out to do three things:
- Acquire more knowledge in order to solidify the paedo view in my own mind.
- Take this as an opportunity to inform others
- Defend this historic church practice (to the best of my ability).
From my reading and personal study, one point that, to me, encompasses the two differing views best is the following quote from Randy Booth (pastor of Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church) found in “The Case for Covenental Infant Baptism” (P&R Publishing 2003):
Those who see the new covenant as a replacement for the old covenant demand explicit New Testament warrant to include the children of believers in the covenant and administer the initial covenant sign to them. Those who comprehend the new covenant as the extension of the old covenant, where the children of believers were always included in the covenant, require explicit New Testament warrant to exclude their children from the covenant and deny them the initial sign of the covenant. (p. 175)
It is my belief that the above comment shows one of the biggest points of contention between these two views. JB1 and myself spent much of our discussion focusing on the newness of the new covenant, using Jeremiah 31 as a spring board. For me, my study has solidified in my mind the latter of the two; that the new covenant does not replace the old, but rather extends it.
This study has been a wonderful journey into depths of God’s Word that I never envisioned this topic would produce. Through it, I have been convinced of my Presbyterian leaning and of the biblical truth supporting paedo baptism. The chance for true, challenging, deep discussion with a cherished brother in Christ has paid enormous dividends in my life, causing me to look forward to more in the future.
JB2
New Covenant and Salvation continued…
Published January 27, 2009 Church , Theology Leave a CommentTags: infant baptism, paedobaptist
In response to some discussion between JB1 and myself over the issue of the new covenant and salvation being the same or not (see his posts below), I wanted to address a question we tossed around earlier this week. Would Presbyterians be in unity on their view of the new covenant vs. salvation? Doing some investigation, I came across this statement in the PCA Book of Church Order:
“When they [baptized infants] have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church.” 56-4; j(emphasis mine)
With that in mind, it would appear that the official stance of the PCA at least is that the new covenant is breakable, and therefore, something different than salvation. To anyone reading this that would be more knowledgeable of the PCA’s ecclesiology, please correct me in any error I have put forth.
JB2
Here’s some good information on comparing the new and old covenant from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary.
COVENANT, THE NEW A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.
Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23–31; 37:24–28; Jl 2:12–32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31–34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32–34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27–32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3–4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, rsv), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2–4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19–21; 36:26–27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28–32).
A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.
Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6–7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).
A New Covenant The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.
Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6–8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.
In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (rsv; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (rsv; cf. Jl 2:28–32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (rsv).
Superiority of the New Covenant In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8–9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).
The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8–12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.
1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24–25).
2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25–28; 10:12).
3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2–3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11–14; 10:1–10).
4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).
5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).
6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6–8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).
7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20–22).
8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13–14).
Conclusion The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2–4; Gal 5:16–25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.
JB1
JB2 wrote:
Now to my question…Is the “New Covenant“ the same as ”salvation” ? (Some scripture for your consideration: 1 Corinthians 11:25-30; Hebrews 6: 4-8; 10:26-31) Let me know what you think.
OK, before answering your questions, I wanted to address each of the scripture passages that you referenced for consideration. The comments are excerpts from MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary that represent my understanding of the scriptures.
1 Corinthians 11: 23-34 (The Lord’s Supper)
A person who partakes without coming in the right spirit eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. Judgment (krima) here has the idea of chastisement. Because “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1), the KJV rendering of damnation is especially unfortunate. The great difference in Paul’s use here of krima (judgment) and katakrima (condemned) is seen in verse 32, where it is clear that krima refers to discipline of the saved and katakrima refers to condemnation of the lost. That chastening comes if he does not judge the body rightly, that is, the blood and body used in Communion. To avoid God’s judgment, one must properly discern and respond to the holiness of the occasion.
Hebrews 6:4-8
Here is a warning to the merely intellectually convinced not to stop where he is. If he stops after having received full revelation, and especially after he is convinced of the truth of the revelation, he has only one way to go. If, when a man is totally convinced that Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be, he then refuses to believe, this man is without excuse and without hope—because, though convinced of the truth of the gospel, he still will not put his trust in it. He is here warned that there is nothing else God can do. What is the greatest sin that a man can commit? The sin of rejecting Christ.
Hebrews 10:26-31
If a man has heard the gospel, understands it, and is intellectually convinced of its truth, but then willfully rejects Christ, what more can God do? Nothing! All God can now promise this man is “a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” (v. 27). When you know the truth of the gospel and reject it, the consequences are terrible and permanent.
After considering the passages, 1 Corinthians is speaking to a regenerate member of the church and referencing judgement as chastisement of the believer rather than the unbiblical position of the regenerate member losing their salvation in judgement. Both Hebrews’ passages are directed to the unregenerate Hebrew people directing them to the consequences of the ultimate sin. I say all of this to refute these passages as proof texts that would point to a conditional membership aspect to the New Covenant and thereby implying the New Covenant and Salvation being different institutions/states.
I now would state my position that membership in the New Covenant and Salvation are the same thing. I would offer Jeremiah 31:31-34 as one of many proof texts of this position.
31 “aBehold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a bnew covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not like the acovenant which I made with their fathers in the day I btook them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My ccovenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
33 “But athis is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “bI will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and cI will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 “They will anot teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all bknow Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will cforgive their iniquity, and their dsin I will remember no more.” (emphasis mine)
JB1
“What if God is in charge, but not in control?”
Published January 23, 2009 Teaching & Preaching , Theology 1 CommentAssuming I know my audience (all 3 or 4 of you!), the title of this post probably causes you to do a double-take. It’s a line taken from an op-ed piece by Roger Olsen of Baylor University, written around the time of the Minnesota interstate bridge collapse in 2007. I wanted to share it on this blog, as I see it as a good example of how many anti-Calvinists view those in the reformed camp. I use the term anti-Calvinist to distinguish from those who simply disagree, but do so with grace and charity. I encourage you to read it, think deeply about it and, thus, be prepared to enter into debate with those who take this view.
JB2
