SOME BIBLE VERSES RELATING TO INFANT/COVENANT BAPTISM
Apostles’ and Christ’s Teaching on Covenant Children:
1.
Acts 2 shows us the
saving outpouring of the Holy Spirit from Jesus in glory (Acts 2:33)
upon Jews and now also Gentiles/many nations, stands in continuity with and
fulfils all the old covenant promises through Christ’s blood of the new
covenant.
a.
This outpouring of the
Spirit in Acts 2 comes on Pentecost/the Feast of Weeks, which in Deut. 16:11
we see that the households rejoiced before God on that day, “you and your son
and your daughter…”
b.
Acts 2:16 says this
is a fulfilment of Joel 2:28, then quotes it, showing the outpouring of
the Spirit coming upon “your sons and daughters,” etc.
c.
Acts 2:38-39 says
this new covenant promise is to “you and your children”. The adults/men present
in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5) who believe are baptized. These men are heads of
their households. The teaching of the OT and also the NT always indicates that
believer’s children are included in the covenant, and therefore are disciples
of Christ by birth/being born into a Christian household, and therefore receive
the sign of the covenant, which now is baptism.
d.
Consider -- just days
before Acts 2, in Mt. 28:18-20, Jesus ascends to heaven and tells
His disciples to “make disciples” of all the nations by “baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all I have commanded you.”
i.
Presbyterians see
throughout Scripture, both OT and NT, that children have a right to the
covenant because parents have a duty to God and to their children to raise
their children as disciples/members of God’s covenant people (Eph. 6:1-4).
ii.
We recognize Christian/covenant
households, not simply Christian/covenant individuals. If even one parent is a
believer, the children are disciples/raised in the covenantal
nurture/admonition of the Lord.
iii.
Therefore, the covenant
children/babies are baptized as disciples of Christ.
2.
If this seems strange,
consider Eph. 6:1-4. Children are commanded to obey parents in the Lord, &
fathers in particular are commanded to “bring them up in the training and
admonition of the Lord.”
a.
In fact, the old covenant
promise from the 5th commandment is APPLIED TO NEW COVENANT CHILDREN
OF BELIEVERS in v. 3, “that it may be well with you and you may live on ON THE
EARTH.” This shows that children are born into the new covenant (how else can
the covenant promises be applied to them, and how else can they be raised in the
admonition/nurture of the Lord?).
b.
This is consistent with
Scripture. OT children were born into the covenant, infant males received the
covenant sign/circumcision, and parents were to teach God’s commands to their
children diligently (Deut. 6). Since NT children/babies of believers are
to be discipled, they are disciples, and as disciples of Christ they are
to be baptized, Mt. 28:19-20.
c.
For Baptists to be
consistent, they have to say that their babies/children are not disciples until
they are older and repent and believe in Jesus. Only then can parents raise
them in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and only then are children
commanded to “obey your parents in the Lord” and “Honor your father and mother”
(Eph. 6:1-2).
i.
Thankfully, I don’t know
many consistent Baptists. They often raise them in the fear and admonition of
Jesus while maintaining that their children are “unbaptized non-disciples” that
have to be evangelized until they repent and believe.
ii.
But this is an oxymoron,
you don’t bring up pagans/unbelievers in the fear/ admonition of the Lord, you
evangelize them. Likewise, you don’t evangelize your children, you bring them
up in the (covenantal) fear & admonition of the Lord. Presbyterians do this consistently by
baptizing babies, Baptists inconsistently by not.
d.
I realize from a Baptistic
perspective that “babies as disciples” seems like the real oxymoron, but
biblically Israelite children were born in covenant to God, circumcised, and
therefore were His people/disciples while babies. Nowhere in the NT does God
change this pattern.
i.
In fact, the pattern is
reaffirmed in Acts 2, the adults repent, believe and are baptized, then
are told, “The promise is to you and your children.” Rom. 4:11-12 tells
us Abraham had faith first, then was given the sign of the covenant,
circumcision, for him and his children/male sons who were to be
circumcised.
ii.
With that in mind, consider
young Timothy, who in Acts 16 we read has a Jewish mother who is a
believer in Jesus. Thus, he comes from a believing/covenant household. We learn
in 2 Tim. 3:15 that his mother did not wait until he was of a certain
age, but from infancy/ βρέφος Timothy had known the holy Scriptures
which are able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Christ (The
word βρέφος is always used to denote infants/babies, see its 8 uses in the
NT below).
iii.
Timothy’s father was not
Jewish, and so Timothy was not circumcised until Paul circumcised him, but the
covenantal principle is seen in 2 Tim. 1:5 where Paul mentions the
“genuine faith” in Timothy that was also in his grandmother Lois and his mother
Eunice.
iv.
Here we see the covenant
principle concerning children remaining the same from the old to the new
covenant. The child Timothy was learning Scripture before Christ began his
earthly ministry, yet that covenantal rearing by his mother (and grandmother
before her) is praised by Paul even after Christ is risen.
3.
Consider in Lk. 19:9,
when Zaccheus repents, Jesus says salvation has come to his house,
because Zaccheus “is a son of Abraham”. Here Jesus reaffirms the
household covenant principle.
a.
In Gal. 3:7 we read
that “only those who are of faith are [true] sons of Abraham.” It seems that
Baptists therefore conclude that only those who possess saving faith are in the
new covenant, and therefore only those who possess saving faith are to be
baptized.
b.
But consider that I Cor.
7:14 tells us covenant children of even one believing spouse are “holy”.
This is because the believing spouse “sanctifies” the unbelieving spouse,
otherwise the children would be “unclean”. What does this mean? Let’s review
some things:
i.
Being unclean, clean, and
holy all has to do with covenantal language, and is found in the OT. Those
ceremonially unclean were unfit to approach God in the Temple.
ii.
The OT system of many
ritual washings of the people was required even for various bodily deformities,
skin diseases, women while menstruating, etc. Until they were ceremonially
washed/cleansed, they were not fit to approach God (Lev. 12-15).
iii.
The wonderful conclusion
from I Cor. 7:14 is that when there is even just one believing spouse,
the whole household has, through Jesus, been ceremonially
washed/sanctified/made holy & therefore allowed/fit to approach God in
worship!
iv.
Now, in the NT, what is it
that visibly expresses/symbolizes washing away of sins? It is the
ceremony/sacrament of baptism! "Get up, be baptized and wash away your
sins" (Acts 22:16). We should baptize our children because they are
holy to the Lord.
c.
This is why Jesus can say
to Zaccheus that salvation has come to his house, not just to Zaccheus. This
doesn’t mean that Zaccheus’ wife and kids would be automatically saved/born
again, but it does mean the whole family was a household that has the blood of
Christ applied to it, as the blood of the Passover lamb in the OT was placed on
the doorposts of the house, and spared the 1st born son from being
killed by the death angel.
d.
Christ is now our Passover
(I Cor. 5:7), and His blood too is on the doorposts of the house/family
of even just one believing parent, meaning the whole family is now in covenant
with God, and the whole family is now offered the gospel/covenant promise that
they will be saved and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit if they repent
and trust in Jesus.
e.
Therefore, God’s
covenant/gospel promise of salvation and the Holy Spirit is held out to each
person in the household (Acts 2:38-39), and especially
the children as the believing parent(s) must disciple them/raise them in the
nurture/admonition of Christ the Lord.
4.
The issue is that the
Baptist believes one is only in the new covenant if he/she has already repented
and believed, usually admitting this was not the case in the OT covenant(s),
but believing that this is part of what is “new” about the “new” covenant now
that Christ has shed His blood.
a.
But the Presbyterian
follows the OT pattern & sees it continuing in the NT, that one is in the
covenant if the gospel/covenant promise of salvation & the gift of the Holy
Spirit has been extended/offered to you.
b.
Because I as a father am to
raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord from infancy, the
gospel/covenant promise of salvation is something God has graciously made and
brought my children into from their conception.
c.
Whether my children repent
and believe determines whether or not they receive the promise of salvation
offered to them, but it does not determine whether or not they are in the
covenant. The Baptist’s error is thinking God hasn’t covenanted
until you’ve accepted, but God imposes the covenant sovereignly, on whomever He
wills.
d.
The Presbyterian is
consistent with the OT teaching about covenant, and sees that in the NT the
covenant is the same in essence, its newness being that it is the final
form/fullest expression and the blessed fulfillment of all the preceding
covenants. The Greek word repeatedly used to speak about the New Covenant
refers to something being refreshed, revitalized, rejuvenated [kainos]. So the
New Covenant gives new life and fulfillment, to all that is promised in the prior
covenants, by the renewing blood/work of Christ.
5.
This is why Jesus blesses
babies/infants by touching and praying for them; He’s bestowing covenant
blessings by saying that such belong/have a right to the kingdom of God, Mk.
10:16, Mt. 19:13, 15.
a.
For Jesus to do this but to
then say that believer’s children are excluded from the new covenant in His own
blood is a serious contradiction.
b.
That Jesus blessed even
infants/babies/ βρέφος
shows that He was not doing this based on regeneration/saving faith, but
because they belonged/had a right to the kingdom/covenant through the believing
parents that brought them to Jesus.
c.
Whether these children
would ultimately inherit the kingdom of God and remain in the covenant would
depend upon whether they believed in Christ personally for salvation.
d.
Believer’s children are
heirs of the kingdom of God, but just as a King’s child might be heir to the
throne but never receive that inheritance/kingdom due to forfeiting it, dying,
renouncing it, etc., so too, sadly, can covenant children of King Jesus
renounce/forfeit their inheritance by unbelief/apostasy and be removed from the
covenant & promised kingdom.
e.
But for
our children to simply be in the covenant, heirs of the kingdom, and born into
the sphere/kingdom in which Christ and His regenerating Holy Spirit is at work,
is a tremendous blessing & encouragement to parents!
f.
We have a hopeful
expectation and prayer that as we raise our children in the fear and admonition
of the Lord, within the covenant where Christ’s Spirit is active, that our
children will be regenerated and trust in Christ for salvation, receiving the
covenant promises/blessings of eternal life in the kingdom of God, rather than
the covenant threats/curses of everlasting destruction outside of His kingdom
in hell (Mt. 13:47-48; Rev. 21:7-8, 27).
6.
Also consider, both Baptist
and Presbyterians agree the new covenant is better than the old.
a.
Yet the Baptist thinks that
excluding children from the covenant is a good/better thing?
b.
Presbyterians find this a
terrible thing, as it would put children into the position of being like the Gentiles/pagan
nations before Christ came (see Eph. 2:11-13), “without Christ, being
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the
world.”
c.
I Cor. 7:14 has
already shown that, if anything, there’s more/richer new covenant mercies to believer’s
children, not less/none. Presbyterians baptize their babies because Jesus
receives them, blesses them, says the kingdom belongs to them, and because
Jesus calls them holy/clean. Baptism symbolizes all these things, Jesus' love
and blessing, inclusion in the kingdom/church/covenant, & holiness/being
fit to approach the Lord in prayer and worship.
7.
Baptists think
Presbyterians mess up the atonement here, that since the new covenant is in
Christ’s blood, and Christ atoned for only the elect, then only the elect can
be in the new covenant that is in Christ’s blood. Baptists equate being in the new
covenant with being elect.
a.
Baptists think it is bad if
the new covenant can still include, temporarily, the non-elect &
unregenerate. But Presbyterians point out that Baptists achieve this regenerate
only covenant at the expense of their own children (and adults baptized without
genuine faith)!
b.
But the idea of a
regenerate only covenant was never the case before, and so the burden of proof
is on the Baptist to show how the new covenant is elect/regenerate only before
Christ returns. Presbyterians agree that when Christ returns, He will
judge His own people, and all that is false will be removed & only the
elect/regenerate will receive the kingdom of heaven.
8.
But as we will see below,
the new testament indicates that the new covenant, like all the preceding
covenants in the old testament, is also one that can be broken by unbelief, and
until Christ returns, is made up of both the elect and non-elect, the
regenerate and the unregenerate.
a.
Returning to Galatians, Paul
says in Gal. 5:4 that those seeking salvation through circumcision “have
become estranged [some translations say severed]
from Christ….you have fallen from grace.”
b.
The Baptist often takes
this to mean that such a person was never really regenerate to begin with,
which is true enough, but then goes further to say that such a person was never
part of the covenant, which simply is not true.
c.
You cannot become
estranged/severed from Christ and fall away from grace if you never belonged to
Christ nor had a participation in His grace. Because the Baptist demands a
regenerate only new covenant, he has to resort to saying something like the
person fell away from what they thought was Christ and grace, or
that they fell away from their profession of faith and membership in a church.
But that is not what Scripture says.
d.
Scripture says they are
severed from Christ Himself and have fallen away from grace. The Presbyterian
understands this covenantally, just as the Israelites fell away, that such a
person has fallen away from the covenant of grace and from Christ whom they
were covenanted to. But since we do not require everyone in the covenant to be
regenerate (as the covenant has never required in the OT or the NT), we do not
fear that one can lose their salvation/regeneration.
e.
This covenantal context is
seen right away in Gal. 1:6 where Paul marvels that those in Galatia are
“turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a
different gospel”. Christ has called each person in the Galatian church, &
that calling is the new covenant/gospel call. This helps us make sense of many
parables of Jesus, including Mt. 22:14 where we read that many are
(covenantally) “called, but few are chosen/elected.”
9.
It is critical to note that
the Baptist seems to think Jesus was not present in the OT with the
Israelites. Since Jesus has now come and shed His blood, this is why the new covenant
cannot be broken, they say. But the NT teaches that Christ was with
the Israelites all along.
a.
I Cor. 10: Moreover,
brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the
cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized
into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4
and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But
with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in
the wilderness.
i.
Here we see that even
baptism was in the OT, that ALL the Israelites were baptized in the old
covenant under Moses, and yet with most of them “God was not pleased” and they
did not inherit the covenant promised land. (Noah’s flood is also a baptism, I
Pet. 3:20, the same waters that save are those that judge in the flood and
Red Sea)
ii.
We also see that all the
Israelites/covenant people of God had spiritual nourishment from the
pre-incarnate Christ Himself from the rock, yet they fell away from
Him.
b.
Now if the new covenant was
unbreakable, this would be a great time for Paul to tell us, but he does the
opposite, he warns us not to be like the Israelites:
i.
6 Now these things became
our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they
also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them… 9 nor
let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were
destroyed by serpents… 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples,
and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have
come.” We, like the Israelites, can tempt Christ to our own eternal
destruction.
10.
Most Baptists do not see
the new covenant as having any threats, but only salvific blessings, since the
new covenant, to them, is made up of regenerate persons/true believers only.
a.
But Presbyterians argue
that any true covenant has blessings and curses, promises and threats, and
therefore the new covenant does as well. Often Baptists see the new covenant as
unconditional, but Presbyterians generally see persevering faith as the
condition of the new covenant, as all the other covenants are conditioned upon
faith, and as there is an underlying unity between all the covenants of
Scripture. That faith is a gift from God does not change the fact that
faith is a covenant condition.
b.
This is why Presbyterians
see one covenant of grace under various administrations throughout the OT and
NT, whereas Baptists see the new covenant as something more or less brand new,
fundamentally different altogether from all the preceding covenants.
c.
Galatians has shown that a
working, persevering faith is the condition of the new covenant (which was the
condition of all the covenants), since unbelief led to being severed from
Christ and falling away from (covenantal) grace. I Cor. 10 was another
example.
11.
The book of Hebrews
especially reveals not only that the new covenant is conditioned upon
persevering faith, but also that the punishment for covenant breaking is most
severe:
a.
Heb. 3:12-4:2,
“12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of
unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another
daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the
deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we
hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, 15 while it
is said:“Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the
rebellion.” 16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came
out of Egypt, led by Moses? 17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it
not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? 18 And
to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did
not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of
unbelief. Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us
fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the
gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they
heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
i.
The brethren are addressed
as possibly having an unbelieving heart that departs from the living God.
Brothers are those in the covenant, and you cannot depart from God if you were
never covenanted to God. Notice also the gospel/covenant promise in v. 19, “of
entering His rest,” remains, and in 4:2, “the gospel was preached to us as well
as to them.” We stand in the covenant in the same spot as the Israelites, and
our children do as well. Thus our children are in the covenant, disciples, and
should be baptized, b/c they like we have the gospel/covenant promise of
entering His rest preached to us, and they like we must receive the covenant/gospel
promises by persevering faith, a working faith that grows
in sanctification, Jas. 2:14-26.
ii.
The Baptist might look at Heb.
3:14 and say that proves that only those who “hold the beginning of our
confidence steadfast to the end” are actually in the covenant, & those that
fall away, whatever they fell away from, it was not the new covenant.
iii.
But that’s reading into v.
14 things that are not there. It says to be a true partaker of Christ
you must persevere in the faith, not a partaker of the new covenant.
iv.
Baptists and Presbyterians
both agree that if you lose faith, you were never a regenerate/salvific
partaker in Christ and His saving blessings to begin with.
v.
But John 15 shows some are
non-regenerate partakers of Christ, for there we read the following: “I am the true vine, and My Father is
the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit
He takes away… 6 If anyone does not abide in
Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered;
and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are
burned.” Jesus says you can be a branch in Him, but not bear fruit, and be
taken out of Him by God the Father. This is not about losing salvation, but
losing your covenantal relationship to Christ through apostasy. We can be
Judas’s, actual disciples that fall away from a real relationship to Christ.
b.
Heb. 6 contains a
similar passage to John 15:
4 For it
is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy
Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the
age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them
again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of
God, and put Him to an open shame. 7 For the earth which drinks
in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those
by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but
if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to
being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
i.
Again, there are those in
the covenant, who have tasted the heavenly gift, had a (non-salvific, yet real)
partaking of the Holy Spirit, have heard the gospel preached in Church and
known something of its power.
ii.
Yet they so fully fall away
that they bear thorns & briers/blaspheme, receive covenant curses, &
are burned in hell.
c.
Heb. 10 is very
clear and explicitly says breaking the new covenant incurs WORSE punishment
than breaking the old, and that the Lord judges His own covenant people:
i.
26 For if we sin willfully
after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a
sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery
indignation which will devour the adversaries.
ii.
28 Anyone who has rejected
Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of
how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has
trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by
which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of
grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”
says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” These words
speak for themselves.
d.
Heb. 12:15-17
says we can break the new covenant and forfeit its salvific blessings like Esau
did, & like the Israelites did after hearing God from Mt. Sinai. Indeed, we
hear God from the pulpit through the preacher every Sunday, where we have come
to “Mt. Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an
innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the
firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits
of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.”
Therefore, “see that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not
escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not
escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven,”
(v. 25). And finally, “28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom
which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we [may serve God
acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our
God is a consuming fire.” Nothing could be clearer – we are
warned time and time again not to transgress the new covenant.
12.
Romans 11
is also a very critical chapter showing that Jews and Gentiles are grafted into
the same covenant/Christ, and that as the Jews have been broken out, Gentiles
can be as well.
a.
This shows that the
covenants are one in essence, multiple in administrations, as the Presbyterians
hold and counter to what the Baptists claim of multiple differing covenants.
b.
It also shows that the new
covenant can be broken, as Gentiles are warned not to boast but that we, too,
like the Israelites, can be broken out of the covenant, if we like the Israelites
lose faith and turn away from God/Christ (Rom. 11:19-23).
13.
Peter teaches this too:
2 Pet. 2:18-22 “turn away from the holy commandment.” 2 Pet. 3:17,
“Beloved… beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away
with the error of the wicked.”
14.
Jesus own parables teach
that the new covenant can be broken/transgressed: Parable of the tares, Mt.
13; of the dragnet, Mt. 13:47; Of the unforgiving Servant, 18:21;
Of the wedding feast, Mt. 22, faithful and evil servant, Mt. 24;
Wise & foolish virgins + talents, Mt. 25. Parable of the Minas, Lk.
19. Importance of Christians to be watchful, Lk. 21:34ff. And
others.
15. Finally, Baptists sometimes question whether Baptism really replaces circumcision as sign/seal of the covenant. This could be discussed at length, but Col. 2:11-12 shows they point to same reality: In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the [i]handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
βρέφος [strongs:1025]
Shows that Jesus blessed infants, not just
children who had faith.
babe (4), infants (1), young children (1), child (1),
babes (1)
|
Luke 1:41 |
And it came
to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the
salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was
filled with the Holy Ghost: |
|
Luke 1:44 |
For, lo, as
soon as the
voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the
babe leaped in my womb for joy. |
|
Luke 2:12 |
And this shall
be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped
in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. |
|
Luke 2:16 |
And they came with
haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the
babe lying in a manger. |
|
Luke 18:15-16 |
And they
brought unto him [JESUS] also infants, that he
would touch them: but
when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.” |
|
Acts 7:19 |
The
same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil
entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young
children [babies], to the end they
might not live. |
|
2 Timothy 3:15 |
And that from a
child [since a baby/infant!] thou hast
known the holy scriptures, which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus. |
|
1 Peter 2:2 |
As newborn babes, desire the
sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: |
Disproving
Reformed Baptist view of Jer. 31:
1. Refuted by its interpretation in Hebrews 10, showing we
can still break the new covenant.
2.
Also Jer. 32:37-40
speaks of the new covenant (same promises/everlasting covenant) yet it
is for “the good of them and their children after them,”
includes covenant children still.
3.
Promise of heart
circumcision is not new in Jer. 31, it is found in Deut. 30:6; God will
circumcise “their hearts and the hearts of their descendants/children”.
4.
Gen. 17:13
calls Abrahamic covenant with circumcision “everlasting”, God says in
18:18-19 that God chose Abraham “that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness
and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” The
promises the LORD will bring to Abraham is that Abraham would become the father
of a great nation, and all the nations of the earth are blessed in Abraham.
That is realized through Christ at the Great Commission in Mt. 28, and
we are all called children of Abraham if we are in the new covenant.
5.
New covenant in Hebrews
13:20 is said to have Jesus and it is “through the blood of the everlasting
covenant” that we are made complete in every good work. Christ’s blood is the
realization of all the types and shadows of the OT temple rituals. Yet Heb.
12:24-26 we can be covenanted to Christ and yet still “not escape if
we turn away from Him [Christ] who speaks from heaven”, v. 26.
6.
So the new covenant at
this time is not regenerate/elect only, and since children stand in the same
relation to the new covenant as they did the old, they are to be baptized.
7.
It is also clear that
infant baptism does not guarantee the salvation of covenant children, as many
fall away today as they did in the OT. But what excites Presbyterians
is that the new covenant promises to us & our children are richer/stronger
as they now come through Christ on High and the superabundant outpouring of His
Spirit.
8.
Many
believe the “new” in new covenant indicates something “brand new”, when
really the “newness” is a re-newing of the covenant through the work of Christ,
whose blood is now the sacrifice & He the High Priest, fulfilling the OT
temple/priesthood (Heb. 9-10)
9.
One of the words used
in Greek for “new” does mean something that is brand new and has never been
seen or heard of before. [neos] But the Greek word used
to speak about the New Covenant refers to something being refreshed,
revitalized, or rejuvenated. [kainos ]So the New Covenant in one sense gives
new life, and fulfillment, to all that is promised in the old covenants, by the
renewing work of Christ. So there is covenantal continuity.
10.
On Jeremiah 31:34 –
a. Instead of seeing a quantitative distinction in this new
covenant promise, it seems like a better interpretation of Jer. 31:34 would be
to see a qualitative distinction between the new and old covenant.
b. 1 John 2:27 says “But the anointing which you have
received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but
as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is
not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”
c. If 1John 2:27 is a fulfillment of the new covenant
promise of Jer. 31:34, then the promise would refer to a greater operation
of the Holy Spirit to aide believers in discerning truth from error. Cf.
Acts 1:4-8, 2:33, 38-39.
d. The phrase “you do not need that anyone teach you” seems
very similar to the “No more shall every man teach his neighbor” passage of
Jer. 31:34. John & Jeremiah are not
saying we don’t need teachers (Eph. 4:7-16 shows Christ gave us teachers as
a New Covenant blessing). They are saying God will bless all believers with
a fuller “anointing” of the Spirit of God to guide us into all truth, be
Bereans/discerning, etc.
Continuity
& Discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant Administrations:
“Covenants” is plural, but “promise” is singular (in Eph. 2:12). This
indicates that, although there are several covenants throughout Scripture, they
are not separate from one another, but all point to one singular promise, the
Immanuel Principle, that God will be with/redeem His people, and they shall
serve Him. This brings unification to Scripture and harmony from the Old
through the New Testament. Some Baptists will say that because the covenants
are plural, there are multiple or varying promises that God makes to man, but
the fact that the word promise is singular indicates that all the covenants
point to the same promise that God will dwell with His people and righteousness
shall reign. The different covenants simply expand upon or explain the one
promise that binds the covenants together.
1.
The professor
discusses twelve continuities between the old and new covenants (testaments):
1.
Both covenants have the same parties, Jehovah and the house of Israel.
Jehovah is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and the house of
Israel is not an ethnic group but rather those who have faith in Christ (Gal.
3:29). The house of Israel is comprised of the seed of Abraham, which is
Christ, those who have faith in Christ, and believer’s children.
2.
Both covenants have the same gospel. Hebrews 9:13-14 makes this clear
because it connects animal blood sacrifice to Christ’s blood sacrifice. “13 For
if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who
have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more
will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself
without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God?”
The animal sacrifices pointed to and were
sacramentally connected with the sacrifice of Christ. They did not serve a
different purpose but foreshadowed the blood sacrifice of Christ Himself for
the remission of sins. The same gospel, the same good news of salvation, was
being proclaimed in the old and new covenants. Romans 1:2 also says that the
gospel of God and Christ was “promised beforehand through His prophets in the
holy Scriptures.”
3.
Both covenants have the same Christ. In Luke 24:44ff. Christ is walking
with his disciples after He was resurrected, and He preached about Himself from the OT Scriptures. In
Hebrews 11 it is said that Moses chose to suffer the reproaches of Christ than
enjoy what Egypt had to offer.
4.
Both covenants have the same faith. Romans 4 in particular makes this
clear, as Paul refers to the faith of Abraham and David as supreme examples of
what it means to have faith in Christ. Abraham and David were both justified by
faith in Christ. Romans 4:11 makes clear that Abraham’s faith which “was accounted
to him for righteousness” (v. 3) was his before he was circumcised so that he
might “be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised
(Gentiles and NT believers), that righteousness might be imputed to them also.”
5.
Both covenants confer the same blessings. There are both physical and
spiritual blessings in both the old and new covenants. God said to Israel in
the old covenant that He would be their God and they would be His people.
That’s certainly a spiritual promise. Ephesians 6:1-3 reiterates the benefit of
children obeying their parents, namely that they will live long lives.
Matthew indicates that the meek will
inherit the whole earth.
6.
Both covenants have the same judgments pronounced. Hell is both
spiritual and physical punishment in the old and new covenants. Hebrews
10:26-31 indicates that God will judge His people for spurning the blood of
Christ, and prior to Christ anyone who spurned the law of Moses would be put to
death.
7.
Both covenants have the same law. Christ in Matthew 5:17-18 says He came
not to abolish but to fulfill the law, and that the law will not pass away
until heaven and earth pass away and until “all is accomplished.” Christians
are called to be like Christ and obey the Father as Christ obeyed, and Christ
obeyed the law, so too Christians must obey the law of Moses.
8.
Both covenants have the same church. The church did not begin at
Pentecost as some Dispensationalists say, but it began with Adam and Eve
outside of Eden when they trusted in the promise of God, which was that He
would crush the head of the serpent through the seed of the woman. Acts 7:38
brings out that Stephen spoke of Moses who was out with Israel, the “ekklesia”
or church/congregation in the wilderness. Moses received the laws from God to
give to the church. Hebrews 3 brings together Moses and Christ as builders of
the same house of God, the difference being not in the houses but in the
builders, for Christ is the son of the owner of the house and Moses is a
servant of the owner. This house is the church.
9.
Both covenants have the same goal. God says in Exodus 19:5-6 that Israel
would be His own special people and they would be to God a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation. This language is applied to the church in the new testament
as well in 1 Peter 2:9, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people for God’s own possession.” The goal is united in both
covenants.
10.
Both covenants have the same definitions. The old testament and 1 John
3:4 both define sin as a transgression of the law of God. Atonement, salvation,
peace, grace, etc., all have the same definitions and meaning.
11.
Both covenants have the same foundation. Both are covenants of grace,
and are not dependent upon the efforts of man to be fulfilled. The realization
of the promises of the covenant are dependent upon the sovereign grace of God
alone. Mt. Sinai came after the Red Sea, meaning that grace was first and law
was second. The law was not given to earn grace, but grace was given so that
God’s people could be redeemed and keep the law in love and joyful obedience.
Romans 4:13 makes clear that Abraham and his descendants inherit the world
through faith and not the law.
12.
Both covenants have the same operating principles. Holiness of life
defines the character of the covenant relationships with God and man. No man
can be a friend of God and disregard His law. Jesus in John 14 says that we are
His friends if we obey His commandments. In both covenants, the operating
principle is that continued enjoyment of God’s blessings is inseparable from
perseverance in righteousness.
Seven legitimate
(biblical) differences between the OT and NT.
1. The difference between
incomplete and complete.
2. The difference between
limited and universal.
3. The difference between
sufficient and abundant.
4. The difference between
good and better.
5. The difference between
ornate and simple.
6. The difference between
shadow and reality.
7. The difference between prophecy and
fulfillment.
Comments
Post a Comment