The New Covenant’s true meaning
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jer. 31:31-34
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says:
Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, Know the Lord,
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more. (Hebrews 8:7-12)
So what’s so new about the new covenant? And what in the world does that have to do with infant baptism or baptism for that matter? Well, as a matter of fact these two passages are being used as proof texts in contra to paedo-baptism or as some in the Presbyterian circles would like to call “Covenant Baptism”. This question really has to do with who are members of the new covenant or who are to be considered as part of the new covenant and recipients of the covenant sign of baptism. Baptist claim that membership in the new covenant is qualitatively different from membership in the old covenant and Heb. 8 it is claimed and asserted that sets forth this clear difference and that in light of this difference the children of believers are not to be recognized as covenant members and receive the sacrament/sign of baptism. THis position suffers from many weaknesses and it is based on poor exegesis. Nevertheless, Paedo’s and Credo’s are in agreement that it is indeed true that there is something new in the new covenant.
The Dispensationalist and “Reformed” Baptist will say that Jeremiah is prophesying that the New Covenant that is to come is going to be different than that of the Old Covenant in that it is in the heart and spiritual. The Old Covenant was not in the heart nor spiritual (depending which baptist you talk to). This is the writers’ point in Hebrews 8. that those in the New Testament church will be saved and regenerate. The New Testament presumes a regenerate membership in the church when they write. Regenerate people are the only ones in the New Covenant. Jesus will radically bring about a new kind of way in dealing with men. There will be no more need to teach the law because God will teach it to all and write it on their hearts. They say that in the day of Pentecost this is clearly seen as the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in men.
In the paedo view this view point makes no sense. Romans 8:9 “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His”. Abraham was as much saved and filled with the Spirit as any Christian.
We ask this question, Is Jer. 31 speaking of a new covenant?
The Baptist says, yes, “New”. It’s right there in black and white. “New!”
We understand that, but you should always take time to do a word study or two, and be sure of your syntax and grammar. Now I do not claim to be a Hebrew or Greek expert by no means but I do have the tools for research. So Even though we are talking simplistically about the covenant, we should address the word here. This is a little more heavy than how we have been talking, and may be a bit technical. The Hebrew word is not just the simple “new” but “renew” or “refresh.” The word for “new” is an adjective that is used 53 times in the Old Testament. It comes from the verb form of the word. That verb form is its root and its basic meaning. When we trace the verb through the Old Testament, it is used to mean, “renew or repair” cf. Isa 61:4; 2 Chron. 24:4, 12; Psalm 51:10 (12) Lam. 5:21; 1 Sam. 11:14; 2 Chron. 15:8; Job 10:17; Psalm 104:30; Psa. 103:5; 2 Chron. 24:4; 24:12; and etc. The idea around the word itself as an adjective means taking something already existing and “renewing it”; either repairing it to a previous state or in taking something that was already and making it better. As both a noun and adjective this word refers to things new in this sense, and to things restored. Now some like to think that this word is exclusively meant as “brand new.” But this doesn’t do justice to its use in the Old Testament. They will quote verses like, Exodus 1:8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt,” or Isaiah 43:19. “I will do a new thing.” These surely seem like “new” is “brand new don’t they?
There is more to it than just quoting a verse or two. For example, without going into great detail, is the station of “kingship” new or not? Is having a new king something brand new or a renewal of the class of kingship? How does the Hebrew mind think about this? How does the rest of Scripture demonstrate this? A new king does not make the class of “kingness” new, even though a new king is a good element of fulfillment to kingship. What about Isaiah 43:19? How would you explain the new things that God does? Does God do “new” things, or is He eternally immutable? It seems we have a theological riddle. How would one reconcile the eternal immutably of God, and Him doing “new things?” I mean, after the act of creation and containment of creation, does He change from doing old things to doing new things?
The obvious and biblical answer to that is yes and no. For God, of course not. He never does “new” things. It is not like He had a plan, made a mistake, and decided to do something “new.” But in our eyes, the realities surrounding the fulfillment of anything God does makes it new to us. The Lord’s mercies are completely new every morning right? But also “renewed” every morning. (Lam. 3:23). Job desired that his glory was “fresh” in him, Job 29:20. This does not mean “new” but renewed. God’s glory cannot be “new,” as in brand new since it always is. A survey of the Old Testament will show that such a “renewing” in Hebrew is considered as new, though its cognate is old, and simply refreshed. It is almost never used of “new, as in “brand new,” even when God says he does “new things” or “new kings” are put on thrones. There is more to the Hebrew mind and language than thinking one dimensionally about words.
Now considering the context of Jeremiah 31. Chapters 30-33 have an overall structure that uses a repetition of “Behold” four times. It structures the “Restoration” ideas surrounding “Israel” and “Judah.” (Restoration passages are VERY important.) They were in exile and God is promised to bring them out of exile and renew the covenant He had with them. He is not going to renew it like the covenant he made with Moses – with burdensome Laws, so to speak. Rather, He will fulfill it in Christ. The context of Jeremiah is comparing Abraham’s covenant with the Mosaic Law, the tablets of stone, and the promises of the Lord to Abraham, of which we know Christ is the fulfillment. Abraham’s covenant is not new. It is refreshed, renewed, fulfilled, completed, etc., in Christ (which ultimately points to the use of this passage in Hebrews 8). For instance, we are dealing with the same God, the same law, the same people (the elect), the same fallen status of people (in sin), the same status of God (gracious and longsuffering, but also judicious), the same status of justification (by faith alone), the same stipulation (blood covers sin), the same provision of the stipulation (Christ), and the same reward (peace with God and everlasting life). What is really new then?
Now a classic Dispensationalist baptist will say, “I would have said that regeneration is the new thing – the law written on the heart.” But that does not seem to fit well. Was Abraham regenerate??
The greater context of the text does not limit Jeremiah 31 to just “regenerate people”. The restoration ideas do not limit the passage to merely an internal aspect to the covenant. If that were really true, then things like the Lord’s Supper, and Baptism, outward and external sacraments in the New Covenant, would not be necessary. But Jeremiah 31 is not simply speaking about something internal – it is much bigger than that. It includes Israel’s children, and the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. Jeremiah 30:20 says, “Their children also shall be as before, And their congregation shall be established before Me; And I will punish all who oppress them.” And Jeremiah 31:17, right before our passage says this, “There is hope in your future, says the LORD, That your children shall come back to their own border.” Listen to what Jeremiah 32:18 says, “You show lovingkindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them, the Great, the Mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts.” And we should not forget Jeremiah 32:39 says, just a chapter after, but in the same context, “then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them.” If it is really only just about “a regenerate church membership” then why mention the “good of the children?” Oftentimes Jeremiah 31:31ff is ripped from its context, and misread. Now we are talking about a “renewed Covenant” or a “refreshed Covenant” in Jesus Christ which makes a lot of difference.
Next question then; What covenant is being contrasted with in this renewed or refreshed covenant in this passage? Is it Abraham’s? No. It’s the Mosaic covenant. The covenant here is a renewing, or refreshing of the Abrahamic promise over the scaffolding of the Mosaic covenant. The covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, one that the Messiah will bring in, is going to be the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled.
What about writing the law on the heart? It is clear that the contrast is one of regeneration. But ask, was Abraham regenerate? Is Paul too stupid to use Abraham as the Father of our faith? We would have to say “yes”, Abraham was regenerate. Was he saved by grace through faith? Yes. Did he have the Spirit indwelling him as you and I do? Without a doubt (Romans 8:8!!!!).
If this is the case, what makes this renewed covenant in Jeremiah 31 different? What about Hebrews 8? It quotes this at length surrounding the ministry of Jesus as High priest forever? Is Hebrews wrong? What is wrong is the interpretation of Jeremiah 31 that Baptists bring to Hebrews 8. Hebrews 8 quotes the whole passage in Jeremiah. But what if you misunderstand Jeremiah 31? Will you ever understand Hebrew 8? Nope!
This is a renewed covenant, the scaffolding of the Mosaic covenant is gone, and the writing is on the heart. But this is not new, it is the renewed covenant of Abraham, and that is an important point. What else is different about this renewed covenant? It says no one will teach his neighbor saying “know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest”. Isn’t this regeneration? No! It can’t be since it is the renewed covenant of Abraham fulfilled in Christ. Many think this meant that those in the New Testament church would be regenerate. That is why Baptist assert “our church only baptizes people on profession of faith.” It cannot be talking about regeneration and just regeneration. Abraham, as Reform Baptist say, was regenerate and that happened before the promise. So Jeremiah’s “newness” or “renewed” covenant is not just talking about regeneration alone. Let’s ask this question: Do we have teachers today? Yes, we have teachers today. But the text says we will not have any more teachers in this renewed covenant. No one will “teach one another saying…”
But we have teachers today. Are we saying the New Covenant is not now? Of course not!
Already/not yet aspect of prophecy
The New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, is a “now and not yet” covenant despite those Baptist who want to deny this fact. In the Old Testament the Abrahamic Covenant was awaiting its fulfillment. But Abraham was saved. It was a “now” and “not yet” covenant. It was “now and not yet” in promise. Jeremiah, although, is quite plain and we need to take the text as it stands. In the New Covenant there will be no more teachers. The verb “teach one another” is “they teach one another.” It is third person. “No one [they] will teach his neighbor.” In the fulfillment of the New Covenant, the renewed covenant of Abraham, there will be no more teachers. When will everyone, from the least in the kingdom to the greatest in the kingdom, know the Lord? And remember, this is a time when there are no more teachers. Do regenerate individuals not need teaching despite their having the Holy Spirit? Do all regenerate church members “know the Lord” exhaustively and completely? I think not.
We would have to say in heaven. Only in heaven will everyone know the Lord completely and in heaven there will be no teachers. I use this same logic with Full Preterist as they attempt to use Jer. 31 as an already fulfilled prophecy.
The renewed covenant made with the house of Israel and Judah is the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled in Christ. It is set in contrast to the ceremonial and judicial laws given at Sinai because the blood of bulls and goats do not really save. Jesus Christ inaugurates the coming of this new kingdom and renewed covenant. In doing so, the New Covenant is “now” for us, since we are saved; but it is also “not yet,” in that in heaven all people will know the Lord form the least to the greatest. There are teachers now in inaugurating the renewed covenant, but there will be no teachers then. There are saved people now, just as in the Old Testament, but the “knowing” is complete only in heaven. No church, anywhere, is made up of all regenerate people, and is without teachers or pastors. Many people think that the New Testament church is supposed to be made up of only regenerate members. That is why dispensational churches only want to baptize regenerate people, those who simply make a profession of faith, and leave the children out. Although, in reality, they have no “proof” in any way of ensuring the person is saved, but they will baptize them anyway. But Jeremiah is not talking about excluding or including people in this way. In the time of Abraham, even people like Esau were included in the covenant, and the New Covenant, is not consummation with a completely regenerate “membership” until we get to heaven. Only then will we have no more teachers.
Its because of thier backwards hermeneutic. Hebrews 8 stops short of the verse quoted so credos figure that’s all they need to pay attention to as if the writers of Hebrews did not understand the Jeremiah chapters in context. If an Old Testament prophecy about the New Covenant expressly included the children of believers when it was written, the New Testament cannot contradict this meaning. It can expound on it and explain it, but never contradict it, otherwise we are left at best with a hermeneutic of severe discontinuity, and at worst we have a contradictory Bible.
The visible administration of the New Covenant (or more simply put, the New Covenant itself) is made up of believers and their children (Jer. 30-34; Isa. 59:21; Zech 10:6-12; Ezek. 37:24-28). Now, the Baptist may say in response that the New Covenant is made up of only the elect. But even if they say that, given their inward/outward distinction, even if only the elect are in the New Covenant “inwardly”, this has no bearing on the “outward” administration, since I think they believe non-elect persons can be part of the “outward” administration. And given that the OT prophecies of the New Covenant explicitly include our children (just like EVERY covenant before it using the same exact language), Baptists have no grounds to exclude our children from the outward administration of it.
Now the question is how are the children included in the outward administration? Are they brought into the church by means of a covenant sign? Or are they just a part of the church by proximity? Also, I’m curious. When Baptist talk about “professing believers”, do they have in mind only people that have the capacity to utter the sentence, “I confess Jesus as Lord” with their mouths? Or is not faith itself, even if it cannot be professed in intelligible words (I believe infants have faith) enough to be included in the church?
And now that I think about it, where exactly does the New Testament teach that only those who publicly profess faith are to be baptized and included in the external administration of the covenant (which I assume you would say is the visible church – if I’m wrong about that, I apologize)? Now, if you say that this is based upon specific examples of baptism in the New Testament, you are committing an is/ought fallacy because you are establishing a universal requirement with a particular example. The absolute most you can say based upon each baptism example is that it is permissable to baptize professing believers, but you cannot say that this is a requirement. So I ask you again, where is the principle specifically given in the New Testament that baptism and inclusion in the church is limited to those who profess faith?
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Circumcision is technically not a guarantee that father Abraham had faith or even righteousness, what circumcision guarantees is God’s promise, that righteousness will be credited on the basis of faith alone. Saying this another way is that circumcision is the sign that authenticates the truth of God’s promise, that HE will accredit righteousness to the one who has faith. What is certified is not necessarily truth about Abraham or any one else circumcised, but a truth of God. Circumcision certifies the truth of God’s promise in the gospel, that all who have faith will be accounted righteous.
Therefore becoming the sign/seal of God’s promise. Baptism is the same thing as sign and seal. In both, God, through the signs promises to be the God of that person when that person has faith and also promises that upon faithlessness that person will be cursed and cut off from the people of God, again consider Ishmael in the OT and Simon the Sorcerer baptized by Phillip.
Abraham possesed faith before circumcision to show that circumcision is the sign of promise to all those who believe like Abraham. Baptism becomes a seal when faith is present.
So I don’t need a verse that says “baptize babies”. Thus we are on equal footing. Furthermore, with the other things Scripture teaches us, (according to my view of course) a disciple is a believer and children of believers should recieve the covenant sign as well. So, we both infer. You cannot show a verse that says don’t baptize babies and I don’t have one that says “do baptize babies”. What we must do then is look at how the bible considers children…the WHOLE text…”tota Scriptura”. If we can show that the Bible considers children as covenant members then we don’t have a problem.
Warning passage of Heb. 10:29
In light of all this, can the Baptist make sense of the warning in Hebrews 10? I don’t think so.
A friend of mine on facebook stated: “Also, with regard to Hebrews 10:29, it says, “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…” This passage can also be rendered as, “…the blood of the covenant by which He (Christ) was sanctified”. The “he” is not referring to the apostate who is in “covenant”, but is referring to Jesus as the one sanctified. Read John 17:19. Jesus says, “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.”
But what my buddy here fails to realize is that this rendering of the text doesn’t make any sense of the context. The context is clearly speaking of the same person who has committed apostasy. Sure, did Christ sanctify Himself? No doubt, but in this immediate context this is not the rendering. Either way, you still have a person profaning the blood of the Covenant by which Christ was sanctified. Therefore the apostate is still profaning the blood of the Covenant, for how can a person NOT in the covenant profane the blood of the covenant? It just doesn’t make any sense. What also doesn’t make sense contextually is that the writer of Hebrews is writing about an apostate then in a blink of an eye in one quick sentence is talking about Christ then suddenly turns his attention back to the apostate. These Covenantal warning passages make it clear that there is indeed covenant breakers in the New Covenant just like there was in the Old Covenant. In other words there would be no need to warn regenerated elect members of the new covenant that they have the ability to fall away lest you affirm Arminianism.
Again therein lies the Baptist problem. It is a misunderstanding of what the Covenant of Grace is stemming from the promise made with Abraham. Baptists would have to discontinue the Covenant in order for their view to fit but even then it still doesn’t fit tightly because they cannot account for the Covenantal warning passages to the Church not to unbelievers. This where your dispy comes out.
29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10
Can a baptist account for this passage? Absolutely not!
Conclusion
The “newness” of the new covenant then specifically pertains to the external apsects, the outward administration, of the covenant of grace. The new covenant is not new in its nature or membership as our Baptist brothers would like to believe. One single covenant of grace exists and Gods’s elect have been justified in the same way throughout redemptive history which is by grace through faith. The usage of the Jeremiah 31 text in the Hebrew 8 passage does nothing to establish a change in the membership of those who are in the new covenant nor are children excluded in the new covenant. Covenant membership still includes believers and their children and those who believe that Heb. 8 particularly verse 11 is teaching the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the new covenant need to carefully investigate and observe that the word “least” (greek: mikros) in 8:11 is also used elsewhere in the NT to refer to children (Matt. 18:6, 10, 14; Luke 9:48). This is also true of the Hebrew word for “least” qaton (Jer. 6:11-13). The congregation of people of God has included children throughout redemptive history and children are still included in the new covenant (luke 1; Eph. 6). These reasonings the Baptists claim abbrogates the inclusion of children in the new covenant but this exegetical logic holds no weight and lacks explicit change in administration since this excluding children in the new covenant is such a radical idea, we would think that there would be a clear command to do so, don’t you think?
In Christian unity,
Ricky Roldan
Urban Reformed Theology 
What up Bro. Ricky,
You told us to reply here, so here we go:
I really don’t have a dog in the fight, and of course I can be honest enough to say that I haven’t finished reading the whole post, but the Hebrew word for “new” has 3 different meanings. Are you sure that in Jeremiah, it really does mean “renew”? In the other verses where you say it means “renew” you are correct. Now of course, we can make it fit our theological stances, because really, who decides what the words mean in the first place… but we have to be honest with the text…
So when you look up just the Strong’s numbers in the ESV, you get 53 hits… But when you search for that word the way it is used in the rest of the bible you only get 16 hits…
lemma:חדשׁ:2@NCJSFN
English Standard Version 16 results
Deut 24:5
1 Sam 6:7
2 Sam 6:3
2 Sam 6:3
2 Sam 21:16
1 Kings 11:29
1 Kings 11:30
2 Kings 2:20
1 Chron 13:7
2 Chron 20:5
Isa 65:17
Isa 66:22
Jer 31:31
Ezek 11:19
Ezek 18:31
Ezek 36:26
Here’s the info from my DBL lexicon.
2543 חָדָשׁ (ḥā∙ḏāš): adj.; ≡ Str 2319; TWOT 613a—
1. LN 58.70–58.75 new, i.e., pertaining to that which is recent, new, not old (Ex 1:8; Lev 23:16; Jos 9:13; Dt 20:5; Jdg 5:8; SS 7:14), note: Isa 66:22 NIV text as 2544;
2. LN 28.28–28.56 new, i.e., pertaining to something not previously known (Ps 40:4[EB 3]; Ecc 1:9);
3. LN 10.53–10.61 unit: אִשָּׁה חָדָשׁ (ʾiš∙šā(h) ḥā∙ḏāš) bride, formally, new woman, i.e., a woman recently married (Dt 24:5)
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
To be honest I stopped at where you said you didn’t read the whole post….lol…..so if you would like a thorough response brotha Chris I would implore you to read the entire blog, thanks my stage genius brotha…lol….besides your missing the point and dealing with just one part of the argument, no disrespect
Nah… I didn’t need a response to that. It was just a #thinking out loud moment. Actually when I stopped reading it was because I decided it would be easier to just have my computer read it back to me.
So now that I listened to the whole thing. Here’s my question: What is the criteria for infants to be elect? You’re saying that children of elect are elect and that’s cool, but what about children of parents where say the mother is elect but the father is not or vice versa? Is there ever a chance that some children somewhere aren’t elect?
This reminds me of that discussion about whether or not babies go to hell when they die… So in carrying through with your analysis of there’s really nothing new under the sun (although it may be new to you), was it true before it was written that people that were not his people would be called his people or did that only happen at a certain point in time?
Thanks for your time and very good insights my brother… Keep it up…
LOL…you and your inspector gadgets……
Chris asked: “What is the criteria for infants to be elect?”
Gods sovereign predestination.
Chris: “You’re saying that children of elect are elect and that’s cool, but what about children of parents where say the mother is elect but the father is not or vice versa? Is there ever a chance that some children somewhere aren’t elect?”
I apologize but your are mistaken. I didn’t say nor believe that all children of elect are elect.
Chris: “was it true before it was written that people that were not his people would be called his people or did that only happen at a certain point in time?”
I need you to rephrase this question, I’m not sure what you mean. Biblically speaking though, the people who were not called His people was clearly the Gentiles which are now part of His people by faith.
Andrew stated: “First things first. A well written blog, my brotha. Enjoyed reading it. I do, however, and naturally of course (lol), have a few objections (please read it all before responding):”
Thank you for your kind words bro…..and of course you would or you wouldn’t be a Baptist lol
You asserted: “1) Your view of the New Covenant is different to many Covenant theologians.”
No disrespect but that is just a mere assertion. My training and understanding of the Covenant of Grace which IS the New Covenant under better promises and administration stems from reading and studying the best of Reformed scholarship such as Herman Witsius, John Owen, Herman Ridderbos, Geerhardus Vos, Herman Bavinck, Charles Hodge, and the Father of systematic theology himself John Calvin to name a few. The problem is that they are all Presbyterian and will negate many of your understandings of what is the nature of the New Covenant in the OT which is “renewed” in the New Testament.
You continue: “From what I see, a vast majority of Presbys associate the new covenant with the elect of God alone, yet, hold that because there is an external administration of it (just like the church [visible] is the external administration of the Church), the “visible” new covenant community has some false converts in it. That much we agree on”
Unfortunately we do not agree here. With all due respect brother this statement alone shows your misunderstanding of the Reformed Presbyterian position and show confusion on your part which sheds light on why you went ahead and jumped ship and went over to the Credo position. Think about what you just asserted above, if Paedo’s associated the new covenant with the regenerate elect alone then that would make us Reform Baptist/Credo, why? Because as you answered your own objection we Presby’s see in the OC and in the NC the Visible/Invisible Church but who are BOTH in the New Covenant. This distinction hasn’t changed and is vitally important for there is continuity in the Blessing/Curse aspect as I keep saying over and over. If this distinction of covenantal blessings vs covenantal curses is overlooked and misunderstood then the rest of your ecclesiology will fail.
Professor Sinclair Ferguson, in a course on the sacraments, convinced me that both blessings and curses, promises and warnings, covenant keeping and covenant breaking, are inherent to the covenant of grace in both old and new dispensations. The necessary implication of this is that the covenant includes, therefore, both those who are elect or regenerate, and those who are not. Those members of the covenant that are elect and whom the Spirit regenerates are given grace to keep the covenant by ongoing repentance and faith, and thereby receive the promised blessings. Those members of the covenant that are not elect and are never regenerated
become covenant breakers, and thereby receive the curses warned of, with the eventual result of being cut off from the covenant.
This is where our Baptist brothers are confused. They have no choice to incorporate a dispensational hermeneutic in this regard.
You continue: “But where do infants of believers come into this picture if they can’t profess faith?”
Thats just it bro, they don’t have to profess nor posses faith because this command to give them the sign is based on the fact that they belong to the VISIBLE covenant community and when they are baptized being given the sign of the Covenant of Grace administered in the New/renewed Covenant that sign is the same promise God made to the Children who where circumcised in the OT/OC in that if they put true faith in Christ they will recieve the full benefits of the internal invisible covenant and will be numbered with the true elect of God in regeneration JUST LIKE IN THE OC! They go from the Visible to the Invisible community by faith. Remember its God promise and Covenant not ours.
You assert: “I realize the paedo-ist answer will be from Scriptures such as, “…of such is the Kingdom of God” (Lk. 18:16) and what not. But, this is a stretch to say the least. If a believer’s 5 year old child professed faith in Jesus Christ, it would be biblical to baptize that child. But we cannot presume on God’s grace, as if, virtue of being born in “covenant” is going to necessitate receiving the sign of the new covenant. Only one who gives evidence of being in the new covenant should receive its sign.”
Well, I dont argue this way because I just stick to the clear evidence of the fact that Circumcision signified regeneration and unprofessing children were given this sign as a promise that God will save them in the evidence of true faith which continues into the NT. Again, you are basing your whole argument on a false premise that only those who profess can receive the sign which again is not tenable considering the total sum of Scripture and the true nature of the Covenant of Grace both in the OC and NC.
You state: “2) I agree that the New Covenant is a renewed covenant, as well as refreshed and brand new one.”
No Andrew, you cannot in one breath assert that you believe that the New Covenant is actually the Renewing of the same Covenant and then in another breath claim that it is a brand new one. Thats a total contradiction, you either its the same Covenant of Grace renewed or a totally different Covenant with the Dispy’s. In my opinion I think you are stuck in covenantal limbo at the moment….lol
continued……………in next reply
Continued……..
You continue: “3) The part in where you allude to one needing to say, “know the Lord” is because they will ALL know him. This does not, of course, negate the need for preaching. There is considerable development of this theme in the NT. Jesus says to call no man teacher or instructor. He says, “for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers”. All of Jeremiah 31 is about the New Covenant in Christ, which is fully fulfilled now. Also, 1 John 2 says: “27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. ”
This statement is confusing for in one instance you say that “they will ALL know him” does not negate the need for preaching (teaching) but then you quote certain texts that insinuate that there is no need for preaching or teaching. So which one do you affirm?
Your problem with your presupposition is that it cannot account for the fact that there are indeed teachers and preachers helping Gods people “know the Lord”. So it cannot mean what you claim it does in the New Covenant which I actually labored in my article to explain the Already/not yet aspect of prophecy. Allow me to reiterate I stated:
“The New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, is a “now and not yet” covenant despite those Baptist who want to deny this fact. In the Old Testament the Abrahamic Covenant was awaiting its fulfillment. But Abraham was saved. It was a “now” and “not yet” covenant. It was “now and not yet” in promise. Jeremiah, although, is quite plain and we need to take the text as it stands. In the New Covenant there will be no more teachers. The verb “teach one another” is “they teach one another.” It is third person. “No one [they] will teach his neighbor.” In the fulfillment of the New Covenant, the renewed covenant of Abraham, there will be no more teachers. When will everyone, from the least in the kingdom to the greatest in the kingdom, know the Lord? And remember, this is a time when there are no more teachers. Do regenerate individuals not need teaching despite their having the Holy Spirit? Do all regenerate church members “know the Lord” exhaustively and completely? I think not.”
You see Andrew the Baptist cannot make sense of this fact. Baptist want all this prophecy fulfilled now and don’t account for the “not yet” while Dispensationalist want this prophecy fulfilled not yet and do not take into account for the “now”
You asserted: “4) The Greek definition of the term “neighbor” in Jeremiah and Hebrews is “citizen of a community”. In today’s society, citizen in a nation includes every kind of person because our societies are multicultural and diverse in every way. But When God is speaking to his people through Jeremiah, “citizens” and “neighbors” were all in the covenant, because they were physical descendants of Abraham. I just got done skimming the passages in the OT that use the term neighbor, and every one used it to direct those who are within the covenant. This is natural, of course, since God was directing and laying out commandments for the community of Israel he has established. The term neighbor is not used, as far as I can tell, to refer to those outside of Israel.”
Honestly this point has no relevance……The fact remains in the New Covenant Teachers and Preachers are teaching “know the Lord”. Baptist must assume that all who come to their service are all regenerate in order for your argument to stand.
Andrew says: “5) The passage itself is contrasting the OC with the NC, and has as its whole goal to show the differences of them in: (i) who is included and (ii )what the benefits of the covenant are. You must see that there is a big difference between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel, right? I think that one of the biggest differences between the way it was in the OC and the way it is now, is that God doesn’t deal on a national, ethnic level with his people anymore, but that his people are marked out by their faith. They are “Abraham’s seed” who are true Jews according to faith. That seems to me, when I step back and look at it, to be a very big shift from the OC to the NC. And although you could be in physical Israel and not “know the Lord”, you cannot be in spiritual Israel without knowing the Lord. Paul describes the exclusivity of the “true Jew” as one who has been regenerated: “a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter”.
Andrew this fact in which I totally agree is NOTHING NEW at all……..OT saints were also true Jews and Abrahams seed according to faith which was signified in Circumcision. There is no big shift in that at all bro. I think here you just refuted your own credo argument. Come back home bruh lol
Lastly you state: “what two time periods is he contrasting? You say he is contrasting “Old Cov and New Cov” on the one side with “New Cov in Eternity” on the other.”
No, again with all due respect and love bro you are confused about what Covenants are being contrasted in Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 again allow me to reiterate what I said in my article, I clearly stated:
“Next question then; What covenant is being contrasted with in this renewed or refreshed covenant in this passage? Is it Abraham’s? No. It’s the Mosaic covenant. The covenant here is a renewing, or refreshing of the Abrahamic promise over the scaffolding of the Mosaic covenant. The covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, one that the Messiah will bring in, is going to be the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled.”
You continue: “The writer of Hebrews is trying to prevent them from going back to the OC by showing them the glory of what they presently have;”
Yes, but what OC? Surely not the Abrahamic Covenant for Christ was its mediator as well as they looked forward to the Cross, then it must be the MOSAIC Covenant which killed and was written in stone. This is the Baptist smoking gun per se.
I already addressed this in length in the article……what you will need to do is refute my presentation which is of course the classical Reformed view.
You reiterated: “1) I said, “a vast majority” (not THE vast majority or the mainstream) of Presbys associate the new covenant with the elect of God alone, yet, hold that because there is an external administration of it (just like the church [visible] is the external administration of the Church), the “visible” new covenant community has some false converts in it.”
And again this is false unless you have some sources to back this up.
You said: “There are so many different shades of Presbyterianism in relation to covenantal interpretation. That’s why we have Paedo-communion advocates, federal vision, etc. I am not saying this was THE view of the Magisterial Reformers, but is, however, the view in a certain majority of Presbyterian circles I have engaged with.”
Actually they are a minority but in reference to the essence and nature of the New Covenant aka Covenant of Grace we are in one accord though indeed some take it to an extreme.
You asked: “My question to you is, if everything in the NC is so similar to the OC, particularly its administrations, then can you tell me what exactly makes the New Covenant NEW? Does not Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jer. 31 indicate that the whole point of the NC is that it is unbreakable and that the OC was breakable? How can you not see this?”
Absolutely not…….You even affirmed with me that the New Covenant is not totally new but rather a “renewing” of the one already in place unless you are retracting that now, let me know.
What makes the New covenant “better” is the mere fact that Christ has come to fulfill the New Covenant on the cross to which now women are given the sign and not men only and that Gentiles are now included instead of Jews only, just to name a few.
One last thing that nails this notion of no covenant breakers in the New Cov.
A biblical refutation of the Baptist thesis that the new covenant is made only with believers, could proceed along the following lines of argument:
1. If the new covenant is one made only with believers, then we would expect that it
would be announced, inaugurated, and perpetuated as excluding the children of
believers, when in fact the opposite is found in Scripture:
a) The new covenant is announced as one that includes our children:
Isaiah 59: 20-21; Jeremiah 32: 36ff; Ezekiel 37: 24-27
b) The new covenant is inaugurated as one that includes our children:
Matthew 19:14; Acts 2:38-39
c) The new covenant is perpetuated as one that includes our children:
1 Corinthians 7:14; Ephesians 6:1-4; examples of household baptisms
2. If the new covenant is one made only with believers, then we would expect that it
would be spoken of as unconditional and unbreakable, when in fact the opposite is found in Scripture. The new covenant is conditioned on persevering faith and obedience, and may be broken by unbelief and disobedience: John 15: 1-8; Romans 11:17-24; 1 Corinthians 9:24-10:1; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4;
Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 3-4; Hebrews 10:4-39; 2 Peter 2: 17-22
Irrefutable!
I want to ask: *Please bear with me here-there is a method to my madness.
Where did the explicit command to change the sabbath from the last day of the week to the first day of the week come from?
Andrew stated: “There is, however, explicit texts that indicate the New Covenant is only with believers. These I have provided.”
Where have you provided such? On the contrary I provided clear texts showing actual covenant breakers.
You continue: “My response is this: Jer. 31:34 is not stated in the context of a preacher preaching to the whole congregation during the service, as you have put it. But rather, it is stated in the context of those who carry the sign of the new covenant (i.e., baptism). In an ecclesiologically accurate biblical church setting (i.e., baptistic), do men tell baptized individuals to “Know the Lord”? Obviously not. The fact that they carry the new covenant sign is what visibly marks them out as new covenant members. Hence, one would not say “Know the Lord” to those who visibly display new covenant membership in the waters of baptism. But wait. Now you’re going to say, “But, how do we know if the baptized individual is truly regenerate?” Answer: “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:16) and “the tree is known by his fruit” (Matt. 12:33). And I believe Jesus’ words should suffice until He returns to make the invisible church the visible church in His perfect timing. Amen.”
Of my entire argumentation you choose this refutation as the nail in the coffin of my rebuttle? This is just a small portion of the entire baptist dilemma. I hope this is not your final answer for the main premise is the Baptist confusion and misunderstanding of the nature of the Covenant of Grace with its sign and seals not merely if there are preachers in the New Covenant. With all due respect you didn’t even touch the main points of my rebuttle and only chose one minuet piece of the whole.
You asserted: “In an ecclesiologically accurate biblical church setting (i.e., baptistic), do men tell baptized individuals to “Know the Lord”? Obviously not.”
Of course they do…..Again, you haven’t even began to deal with the point that this is an Already/not yet aspect of Prophecy. Do the regenerate “know the Lord” completely? Again this is a confusion of the meaning of this text on your part and the part of all Baptist who attempt to use this argument.
You continue: “The fact that they carry the new covenant sign is what visibly marks them out as new covenant members. Hence, one would not say “Know the Lord” to those who visibly display new covenant membership in the waters of baptism. But wait. Now you’re going to say, “But, how do we know if the baptized individual is truly regenerate?” Answer: “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:16) and “the tree is known by his fruit” (Matt. 12:33).
So are you saying that professors of faith who are baptized do not produce artificial fruit? In other words, are you claiming that noone who is given the sign of the New Covenant via Baptism does not produce fake fruit and only APPEAR to be true? Are you assuming that all those who the Baptist Church gives the sign to are all truly regenerate? I sure hope not. In contrast, there are those who appear to produce good fruit and are given the sign who ultimately fall away and apostatize from the faith and have shown not to be truly regenerate and have shown to not “know the Lord”. This much is obvious so it is beyond me why you would use that logical fallacy.
You continue: “Remember, “neighbor” in this instance is a “citizen of a community”. Which community? The present new covenant community.”
This response is self refuting since “neighbor” according to your definition is one who assumes to be in the new covenant community per you.
You asserted: “How do we know who are the new covenant members? We know by recognizing (as per Matt. 7:16; 12:33) those who have been marked out by the sign of the new covenant.”
Again, this criteria fails because we really DO NOT know who is in the INVISIBLE elect covenant community. You assume that because a person is given the sign of baptism he or she is truly elect and regenerate and this sir is a major mistake on your part. See response above……
I have maintained and proven that there are visible new covenant breakers per Hebrews 2;6;10 to name a few warning passages which again you haven’t dealt with. The bottom line Andrew is that only God knows who belongs to the Invisible Church aka Elect and if Baptist want to be consistent with their position then they shouldn’t be giving the sign to noone since they really do not know who is regenerate, therefore according to Baptist presuppositions ONLY GOD can give the sign.
You state: “Notice that this new covenant is being contrasted with the OT covenants where those who carried the covenant sign (i.e., circumcision) still had to be told, “Know the Lord” because of their blatantly open rejection of the Messiah. In the new covenant era, you don’t tell those who carry the new covenant sign to “Know the Lord”, unless it is within Presbyterian or traditionally Reformed congregations.”
Again this response shows a lack of understanding the nature of the New Covenant via the Covenant of Grace. I already refuted this notion in my original article.
It is clear to me that your view of the New Covenant is Dispensational and not Covenantal reformed as you would like to think.
Andrew writes:
‘There is no explicit text indicating that the Sabbath should be changed.”
So, you have changed it? How is it that you simply take this at face value? Maybe the Adventist are correct?
Please show me where the abrogation of placing the sign on infant children is at:
Gen 17 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
The depth of this statement is radical:
” I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come”.
An everlasting covenant, for the generations to come……whoever doesn’t follow this command, ‘you will be cut off’.
Your premise that all believers in the NC are regenerate is flawed. How many credo baptists have been baptized only to apostatize? This is one of the many inconsistencies w/ the credo rationale. No internal/external distinction of the covenant of grace to support the apostasy that occurs.
In regards to jer 31, I will refer you to a thread on PuritanBoard where it was discussed extensively:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedobaptists-jeremiah-31-31-34-a-2065/
Thanks in advance.
Scott stated: “Your premise that all believers in the NC are regenerate is flawed. How many credo baptists have been baptized only to apostatize? This is one of the many inconsistencies w/ the credo rationale. No internal/external distinction of the covenant of grace to support the apostasy that occurs.”
Indeed! And this is in my opinion the major flaw of their dispensational remnants.
Matt McMahon answers all this issues related to Jer 31 passage; it was easier for me (time wise) to provide the link instead of having to go over every single jot and tittle.
Indeed, and actually when speaking with McMahon he helped me to understand this more clear and develop my position and arguments as you can see from my article as I borrow many of his points.
Andrew stated: “OK, brother, if you are going to pull the, “we don’t know who are in the invisible church” card… why, then, do you give the Lord’s Supper to only those who profess faith?”
To be quite frank Andrew its not a card to pull or some clever argument to win a debate but rather it is the inevitable consequence of your Baptistic presuppositions. Honestly, I have yet to see you deal with the main premise of the paper you only deal with the secondary issues that cannot be discussed until you have the over-arching premise correct first and that is that the Covenant of Grace is one ETERNAL Covenant and the “new” covenant mentioned in Jer.31 is not a totally “new” and different covenant but rather the same Covenant of Grace but with non-bloody signs and seals and more extensive administrations.
Why do we give the supper to only those who profess? Very simply because we don’t know who truly is and truly isn’t and we let God determine that, the truly elect will partake blessings upon themselves while the reprobate professors will partake in their own destruction as they have taken unworthily (1 Cor. 11:27, 29)
You asked: “Why don’t all those in the new covenant on your criteria participate in the table? Surely, you don’t know that all those who partake in communion are invisible church members, so why not give it to the infants as well? Where is the consistency in this?”
Again, very simple. All who profess and have been baptized partake of the table but infants do not because as mentioned above in 1 Cor. 11 it tells us that we as Covenant people must BE ABLE to “examine himself” (vs. 28) before partaking of the Lords Table, Infants cannot discern nor examine themselves worthy, honestly I think thats a silly Baptist argument.
You asserted: “So why not exercise this same protection for the waters of baptism if it is a new covenant practice as well?”
We do…..but for children it is a COMMAND not an option and this indeed has been proven by true Reformed Covenanters for centuries. You must not be reading my points. It is a prerequisite that one understand the promise attached to the signs and seals.
You stated: “And actually, the view of the new covenant I am presenting is nothing but fulfilment theology. Just as we Amils believe we are in the symbolic 1000 year millenial kingdom now since Christ (not some future fulfillment), we must also, likewise, believe the fulfillment of the new covenant has already come in Christ (not awaiting some future fulfillment). I believe Amils who hold to the Reformed Presbyterian view of CT and not the Reformed Baptist view of CT have dived into an ocean of inconsistency as well. Reformed covenantal or not, at the end of the day, New Covenant theology is more faithful to Semper Reformanda than Covenant Theology is.”
Again this proves the Presbyterian argument that the Baptist (as I mentioned in one of my replies) only make emphasis on the “already/now” but do not account for the “Not Yet/future”. True Amils teach the Already/not yet aspect of prophecy in all areas of Prophetic prospective especially in the New Covenant.
I think the “already/not yet” spin on Jeremiah 31 is a stretch. Not even John Calvin interpreted it that way. Further, 1 John alludes to that very text and states flat out that they had “no need that anyone should teach” them. He said that THEN, not for some future fulfillment.
To understand then, in what sense we have no need for a teacher now, read Calvin on Je 31. He explains it quite well and in such a way that i, as a “reformed baptist”, can “amen.”
Jason, even though this small point isn’t the final determiner of the Paedo argument as a whole I will nevertheless address it.
You stated: “I think the “already/not yet” spin on Jeremiah 31 is a stretch.”
Ok….is this Covenant of Grace totally fulfilled and consumated? Nope. Therefore not much of a stretch then. It is here NOW and ALREADY but obviously it still has not reached its final maturity in bringing in ALL the elect into this New Covenant therefore it is still NO YET. This much is indisputable hence my the point still stands. Do we “know the Lord” now? Yes. Do we “Know the Lord” in full completeness? No…….just that simple.
Regarding 1 john 2:27 again I make emphasis on the fact that we indeed are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who teaches us as to safeguard our minds from error according to that context. But has the Holy Spirit taught us ALL things EXHAUSTIVELY? I think not.
You continue: “To understand then, in what sense we have no need for a teacher now, read Calvin on Je 31. He explains it quite well and in such a way that i, as a “reformed baptist”, can “amen.”
Actually what paragraph do you speak of? since I find no evidence in your favor but rather I find that it speaks against your position.
I mean Calvin is not the hinge that holds all this together but I am curious as to what he said that leads you to believe he disagrees with what I said.
King Neb,
First of all, the ‘now and not yet’ does not encompass the whole of Jer 31; parts of it are relevant to the idea. What part are you saying is a stretch?
In what way is it a stretch? All believers experience the now and not yet in one way or the other. Abraham experienced it-He had the Gospel preached to him! That Gospel was now and not yet! John the Baptist experienced it. Jeremiah spoke of things that had passed, were evident during his day and forward to the consummation at Calvary.
First of all, Calvin himself states that the Lord is using hyperbole here:
“But He hyperbolically extols this favor when he says that no one would have need of a teacher or instructor, as everyone would have himself sufficient knowledge”
Calvin fully addresses the idea here:
“Now, let us reconcile these two prophecies. The design of both is to set forth the favor of God, manifested by Christ at his coming. The one passage says, “No one will teach his neighbor;” and the other, “Lay hold will each on the hand of his neighbor, and say, Let us come and ascend into the mountain, that Jehovah may teach us.” Now the way of reconciling them is this, — that Jeremiah says, that the people would not be so ignorant under the new covenant as to stand in need of the first principles of truth; but that Isaiah says, that each would lay hold on the hand of his neighbor, that they might mutually help one another, so as to attain the knowledge of God’s law. The question is thus solved; and we, at the same time, see how remarkable is the benefit with which God favors his people, as he thus makes himself familiarly known to them.
He says, All shall know me, from the least to the greatest He does not mean that knowledge would be in all in an equal measure. Experience indeed proves this to be false; and further we know, that God has testified from the beginning, as Paul also reminds us, (Romans 12:2, 3) that the measure of his gifts is according to his good pleasure. But the Prophet means, that those who are the least or the lowest among God’s people shall be endued with so much light of knowledge that they will be almost like teachers.”
The above validates a now and not yet. Now, being that the blessing was being fulfilled to a degree prior to Christ coming. I don’t understand what is the conflict.
Why would calvin say that this is a hyperbolic statement-why?
In reference to ‘all knowing the Lord’, please enlighten me; where does everyone who is called a believer never fall away? Is the prophesy false-was Jer a false prophet? No! God forbid-it is because this is a glimpse of Heaven. There will be no need of teachers any longer in Glory-this is part of the not yet principle.
Additionally, when the scriptures speak of the old covenant, they are speaking of the covenant of works, not the Mosaic covenant. Men have been saved the same way since the fall, by justification by faith alone. Hence, these statements on the old vs new go all the way back to Adam (after the fall). This is important to understand-The paedo (reformed) see these events happening/initiated back in Genesis and consummated at the cross; again an example of the now and not yet. The credo see’s something monumental occurring at calvary when Christ states, ‘it is finished’. Tho we agree that Christ said that, we see it as a consummation whereas you all see it as a initiation of the new covenant.
I want to add, I was a Particular Baptist years ago. Only when I came to understand what Covenant really meant did I see the bible as one unit of Gods word, i.e. no dispensations. I don’t expect you’d agree cause if you did, you’d become Paedo-but hey, it’s all God anyways-not me!
Please forgive me if this is a tad scattered, I’nm working fast and I am doing a few things at once.
Scott, thank you for those added details. I was reading Calvin’s commentary on Jer 31 last night over and over and could not for the life of me see any ammunition that can be used by our Baptists brothers, so I was scratching my head and thats why I asked Jason what I did above because I though I was missing something. But thanks for clearing that up for me bro, great job.
Also, what I was trying to convey in the original blog was that Baptist apparently assume that noone in the Old Testament Covenant of Grace we regenerate. Was not Abraham regenerate along with the Remnant of Israel that God set apart for Himself? Did they NOT “know the Lord”? It just seems silly to me for the Baptist to claim that this is somehow a new concept in the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace. There is nothing ‘new” about that lol……That argument fails miserably.
Rick,
That is why I am saying that the timing is everything. The CoG was initiated in Gen 3, post fall; the now and not yet is in realtime, i.e Abraham et. al. has the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice even though it is a mile down the road. I guess the question to ask the credo is, if this (the New Covenant) was initiated at Calvary, what implications does this have for the OT saint?
Jeremiah mentioning this new thing is really not new, he is actually speaking again in the now and not yet; He is repeating something that the OT saints all knew. Think about it….something new is gonna happen that the OT saint did not have? What could that be? How does this affect the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Does it change it? Did the OT saint have something different? Does the NT saint have a hand up on the old due to this new thing? It’s highly inconsistent!
There has always been an internal/external distinction. Blowing it on this point causes stress to the rest of the bible; you end up dispensationalizing everything.
Great points Scott……these points cannot be refuted. I call all Reformed Baptist to come home lol
Rick, when i first saw that you had posted this, i thought, “cool. i’ll print it out and give myself a week or two to respond in detail.” I did print it out. And i read it again today, with a pen in hand. After marking it up some, i’ve decided not to drag this out and just cut to the chase. Plus, i want to take the family camping the next two days and after that, i’ll be back at work, working 4 straight, 13 hour days; so i’ll say what i want to say tonight and leave it at that. ( :
I’m a little baffled here. I’m still trying to figure out just who/what exactly you guys are arguing against.
For starters, i don’t have a problem accepting inferences as being just as true as explicit statements. I agree wholeheartedly with the WCF when it states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”
For example, if John 3.87 said, “Rick is a man” and John 4.239 said, “All men are mortal”, then i would have no problem accepting the statement “Rick is mortal” as being just as true and “necessary” as those two explicit statements; even if that conclusion were never explicitly stated in Scripture. I think any Baptist who immediately dismisses infant baptism because it is not “explicit” is naive. So that entire convo about the change in Sabbath is completely irrelevant to me. My problem is not with inferences. My problem is whether or not your inferences are valid to begin with.
And considering that many reformed admit that “infant baptism” is “grounded”, not in the NT, but in the OC act of circumcision (see Warfield and Berkhof); then i am seriously suspicious with how you can DEDUCE anything about “baptism” from texts that say nothing about baptism, i.e. Ge 12! Put another way: an argument is made invalid when it introduces new terms into the conclusion that are not contained in the premises. How then can you conclude anything about “baptism” from premises that don’t even speak of baptism?
The only way i could even begin to see an argument work is that you would have to literally equate baptism with circumcision. And while 1689ers certainly recognize a relation of the two to some degree, i find no place in Scripture that identifies the two as being equal.
Some other stuff that had me baffled: in one place you spent some time arguing that Abraham was regenerate; making it sound as though a 1689er would disagree. You rhetorically ask, “was Abraham regenerate?” and in one of your comments you say, “what I was trying to convey in the original blog was that Baptist apparently assume that noone in the Old Testament Covenant of Grace we regenerate”
Yet, in that very same article, you say, “Abraham, as Reform Baptist say, was regenerate and that happened before the promise.”
Which is it? Does a 1689er (as opposed to a dispy baptist) believe that Abraham was regenerate or not? In one place you argue as though we don’t believe that, but in another place your article affirms that we do.
There are some places in the article that are, quite frankly, a waste of breath for a 1689er. There are other places that are just false.
For example, you say, “The Dispensationalist and “Reformed” Baptist will say that Jeremiah is prophesying that the New Covenant that is to come is going to be different than that of the Old Covenant in that it is in the heart and spiritual.”
I don’t know of any 1689er who says that. You don’t quote any sources. But then, in the very next line, you say, “The Old Covenant was not in the heart nor spiritual (depending which baptist you talk to).”
lol. Again, which is it? You say that dispy and reformed baptists don’t believe that the o.c. was spiritual and then turn right around and imply that apparently some do.
Another example: You say, “He never does “new” things. It is not like He had a plan, made a mistake, and decided to do something “new.”
Ok…but who in the world is saying that? Dispies? Yes. Me? No. Again, this is not something a 1689er would say.
That entire spill on defining “new” was completely useless to me. You’re preaching to the choir there. I can understand why you would need to go over that with a dispy, but not a 1689er.
For example, regarding the sentence i just quoted above that says, “The Dispensationalist and “Reformed” Baptist will say that Jeremiah is prophesying…”; that sentence originally, written by Matthew McMahon, did not have the words “reformed baptist” in it.
So the original quote was not even written against “reformed baptists” and apparently you threw that in there because in your mind, there is no difference between “reformed baptists” and “dispensational baptists.” But that is false. And no where have you demonstrated in this post that one necessarily leads to the other.
This explains other statements that simply just don’t add up in what is supposedly a criticism against 1689ers:
“There will be no more need to teach the law because God will teach it to all and write it on their hearts.”
Can you provide a single quote from a 1689er who says this? I know of none.
I think it would serve all of us better if you wrote something that clearly identifies your target and then respond with your own thoughts, so that the argument flows better from beginning to end. I drew a “X” over a great deal of this, especially the first 7 to 8 paragraphs, and just wrote off to the side, “doesn’t apply to me”.
Where the article finally gets to something i can interact with is when you get into Jeremiah 31. Now, let me just add here, i don’t consider myself an “expert” in Jeremiah. I am certainly open to correction here. But when the article portrays me as saying something i, representing a 1689er, never said, then it certainly doesn’t help convince me of your position.
For example, you (or whoever, lol) said, “The New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, is a “now and not yet” covenant despite those Baptist who want to deny this fact.”
Sources please. I have yet to read a 1689er who believes that the “Covenant of Grace” is “totally fulfilled and consummated.”
Further, that whole issue of whether it is consummated or not is entirely beside the point. The only reason that comes up is because in your mind, if one does not accept your interpretation of Jer 31, then the only other option is to think of it as consummated. But i’m not forced to go that route, because i challenge your understanding of the text to begin with. And to reiterate, your final conclusion of Jer 31 may in fact be true, but i can’t accept the way you got there. Your whole “already/not yet” argument is created out of what i believe to be a false understanding of Jer 31 to start with. It’s not that i disagree with you that we are still in a “not yet” phase. I don’t know of a single 1689er that would disagree with you. I just don’t think that question has anything to do with Je 31.
Where i think you go wrong is when you say that Jeremiah 31 is telling us that there will be no teachers. But that isn’t what it said:
“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.”
Notice what it DIDN’T say. It didn’t say, “there will be no teachers.” Nor did it say, “no longer shall each one teach.”
Instead, it said that “no longer shall each one teach…saying ‘Know the Lord’.” What is being negated is not the need for teaching. What is being negated is a SPECIFIC TEACHING, namely, “Know the Lord”. Now, why would this specific teaching not be necessary within the New Covenant community? “FOR they shall ALL know me…”
This is in contrast to the old covenant community in which many did NOT ‘Know the Lord’. (31.32 ‘my covenant that they broke’)
One of the reasons why the New Covenant is better than the Old is because the New cannot be broken by any who are in it! ALL will KNOW the LORD. That’s the point.
Even the late presbyterian John Robbins agrees. A TableTalk devotion stated: “The fact that Hebrews gives real warnings and teaches that the new covenant can be broken might seem strange to those of us from a Reformed background. After all, are not the elect secure in their salvation? Surely it is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation?… How then can these warnings be real? The answer lies in the concept of covenant. When God makes a covenant, He makes a covenant with both believers and unbelievers, with both the elect and the reprobate…. Human beings are responsible to keep the covenant….”
To which Robbins replies:
Interestingly, Robbins makes a link between what you are teaching to some of the elements within the Auburn Avenue theology…the same link Seal and Brandon make and they don’t understand why you don’t go there.
The wiki article on Federal Vision points this out as well: “What distinguishes the Federal Vision from other interpretations of Covenant Theology is its view of the nature of the covenant, namely that the covenant is “objective” and that all covenant members are part of God’s family whether or not they are decretally elect.”
Frankly, i don’t get why you don’t go that route either, considering that you are arguing that non-elect children can be within the new covenant.
You accuse us 1689ers of being dispy…it’s fair game, right? ( ;
Back to the “no teaching” bit. Since the point of the text is to contrast the mixed crowd of the Old Covenant community to the New Covenant community in which ALL know the Lord; the convo about the “already/not yet” is irrelevant here. The text is not making any statement about consummation vs progression. It is making a statement concerning the nature of all those who are in the new covenant.
And I John picks this up: “18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.4 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us5—eternal life. 26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.”
Notice that he says to them THEN, almost 2,ooo years ago, that they “ALL have knowledge” and have “no need that anyone should teach” them. Clear allusion to Jeremiah 31. Scholars recognize this. Even my ESV footnotes Jeremiah 31. Yet, he then turns right around and says that they have been “taught”. Is it a contradiction? No. If you keep this in context, the knowledge he is saying they have no need to be taught of is in direct contrast to “he who DENIES the Father and Son.” In other words, these false teachers don’t “Know the Lord” and they are being contrasted to those who “have been anointed by the Holy Spirit”, ie. know the Lord. And notice what he says of these deceivers, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”
These were false teachers working WITHIN THE COVENANT COMMUNITY who did not know the Lord and thereby revealing that they were NEVER OF THE COVENANT TO BEGIN WITH!
Yes, Baptist churches desire to have an all regenerate membership. But of course, we understand that no church is perfect and we can’t infallibly know the hearts of others. However, if a baptized member reveals later down the road that he isn’t a believer, then what that proves is that he was “never of us” to begin with. That is where church discipline comes into play.
And as i stated above, Calvin’s comments on Jeremiah fit right into this. Yes, i understand that Calvin would argue differently regarding children, etc., etc., but at least on THIS TEXT in Jeremiah, he is saying exactly what i’m saying:
Rick, you continue to add to “know the Lord” in this text the words “exhaustively” and “completely”. And yes, i agree with you that we don’t know him exhaustively and completely. In fact, i would say that we will NEVER know the Lord “exhaustively”, so i don’t even understand what it is you think you’re proving. But the knowledge being spoken of here in Je 31 has nothing to do with exhaustive knowledge of the Lord. Calvin explicitly says that the knowledge being spoken of here is of “first elements”. I agree. And he states explicitly that we “now”, “at this day”, have this knowledge that we don’t need to be taught. I agree. The discussion of the “already/not yet” is not even brought up here because that has nothing to do with the point of the text. And me saying that that is not the point of this particular text is not the same thing as me saying that i deny the “already/not yet”.
In other words, if we were to combine the NT commentary on this passage from I John along with the comments by Calvin and paraphrase Jeremiah 31, it would read something like this:
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they with whom i have made this covenant with shall have no need of teaching one another the elementary, first elements of the faith; for they shall all know the first elements, in that they will all know me savingly.”
Once you understand that the “knowing” here is specifically talking about “first elements”, and not “exhaustive knowledge”, then you’ll understand why the whole ‘already/not yet’ vs consummate debate is completely irrelevant here.
FURTHER, if that is in fact what Jeremiah is saying, then it certainly nails your position of arguing that there are some who have been covenanted with who will never come to “Know the Lord.”
Well, since it is getting late, i’ll wrap up with these last thoughts. All of your references to “children” texts do not persuade me.
1. You don’t exegete any of them, in context. For example, you mention Je 32.39, “then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them.” Ok, but keep going, “I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.”
See that? I will put the fear of me in their hearts, THAT THEY MAY NOT TURN FROM ME.
Now, are you going to insist that every child of a christian parent has had the fear of God put into them so that they will NOT turn from God? That would be absurd.
But notice, this jives with what i said about ch 31. Again, the point is that those with whom the Lord makes this new covenant with WILL NOT TURN FROM HIM. They will ALL know him. Hence, if a person who visibly associates with the new covenant community ends up turning against the Lord, then all that reveals is that that person was NEVER IN IT to start with.
2. The 1689ers that i know don’t exclude children from the covenant. So merely pointing out a bunch of “new covenant” texts that mention “children” doesn’t prove anything.
The issue isn’t whether or not children can get in on the covenant action. The debate is WHICH children.
I have no problem, for example, with Acts 2: For the promise is for you and for your children…” But keep it going Rick…”and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
He qualifies it…”everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
It is not “all the children” or “all the children of christian parents” anymore than it is “every single person who is far off”. Why not force baptism on everyone then? No…it is “all the children of whom the Lord calls to himself.”
So y’all can quote all the “children are included” passages all you want. And i would say “amen. All the children whom the Lord has called.” And the Lord obviously does not effectually call every child born of Christian parents. Saying that the promise is for children is not the same thing as saying that the children are automatically in. Those are two different things. Your claim is that those texts are saying that all the children of believers are automatically in. I’m saying that the children of believers (all children for that matter) can come in, if exercising faith. You need to demonstrate that those texts mean the former, and not the latter; not whether or not children can get involved, for that is not my dispute.
If and when my son and daughters arrive at a point where they have discerned the Gospel, their need of repentance, and express faith in Christ, then they will be baptized. If that happens while they are still “children”, then great! Age has nothing to do with anything.
Well, so much more that could be said, but i’m beat (almost 3am). Gotta get up in the morning for a camping trip.
Perhaps i’ll put together a more detailed post in the future regarding my take on the covenant of grace. But like i said, there were many things said here that don’t even work against a 1689er, so i just really didn’t feel like going that deep.
And i hope you know that you have no need of anyone teaching you that i still love ya. lol. Peace out, my dear brother.
jason
King Neb said: “I’m a little baffled here. I’m still trying to figure out just who/what exactly you guys are arguing against.”
If its not already obvious it is against the Dispensationalist and the Reformed Baptist view of the New Covenant. Yes I went ahead and lumped both together as both see a discontinuity in the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. So don’t be baffled bruh lol…..
Neb continues: “For starters, i don’t have a problem accepting inferences as being just as true as explicit statements. I agree wholeheartedly with the WCF when it states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”
Awesome, though I knew you did already….I do consider you Reformed actually.
Neb says: “I think any Baptist who immediately dismisses infant baptism because it is not “explicit” is naive. So that entire convo about the change in Sabbath is completely irrelevant to me. My problem is not with inferences. My problem is whether or not your inferences are valid to begin with.”
Coo, but brotha Bushey was using that example to Andrew not you and I agree with you for one to use the “explicit” argument against paedo’s is naive and silly. But unfortunately that one of their favorite arguments but if you don’t use it then great.
Neb says: “And considering that many reformed admit that “infant baptism” is “grounded”, not in the NT, but in the OC act of circumcision (see Warfield and Berkhof); then i am seriously suspicious with how you can DEDUCE anything about “baptism” from texts that say nothing about baptism, i.e. Ge 12! Put another way: an argument is made invalid when it introduces new terms into the conclusion that are not contained in the premises. How then can you conclude anything about “baptism” from premises that don’t even speak of baptism?”
Thats where the Baptist confusion enters in. The main premise is the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and so if this Covenant of Grace continues into the New then it can be DEDUCED that Baptism clearly replaced circumcision. Therefore taking into account the total sum of Scripture (tota scriptura) it can be inferred and deduced.
Neb: “The only way i could even begin to see an argument work is that you would have to literally equate baptism with circumcision. And while 1689ers certainly recognize a relation of the two to some degree, i find no place in Scripture that identifies the two as being equal.”
Thats the Dispensationalist and Reformed Baptist (who borrow from the Dispy’s on this point) error. Circumcision and NT Baptism is indeed related and equal as one is a bloody sign that signifies the same thing that the non-bloody sign signifies, Regeneration. Does Baptism not also mean that the regenerate has been “circumcised of the heart”? Of course it does. We can get into more detail on this if need be.
Neb continues: “Some other stuff that had me baffled: in one place you spent some time arguing that Abraham was regenerate; making it sound as though a 1689er would disagree. You rhetorically ask, “was Abraham regenerate?” and in one of your comments you say, “what I was trying to convey in the original blog was that Baptist apparently assume that noone in the Old Testament Covenant of Grace we regenerate”
Yet, in that very same article, you say, “Abraham, as Reform Baptist say, was regenerate and that happened before the promise.”
Which is it? Does a 1689er (as opposed to a dispy baptist) believe that Abraham was regenerate or not? In one place you argue as though we don’t believe that, but in another place your article affirms that we do.”
Ok fair enough but the confusion can be cleared in that in the first point when discussing those Reform Baptist that agree that Abraham was indeed regenerate are totally inconsistent when using the “ALL know the Lord” in the new covenant argument.
And in regards to the Dispy’s view that noone was regenerate my point was that they are also inconsistent when taking into account Romans 4 because noone can be righteous without being regenerate.
You continue: “There are some places in the article that are, quite frankly, a waste of breath for a 1689er. There are other places that are just false.
For example, you say, “The Dispensationalist and “Reformed” Baptist will say that Jeremiah is prophesying that the New Covenant that is to come is going to be different than that of the Old Covenant in that it is in the heart and spiritual.”
I don’t know of any 1689er who says that.”
ummmm, are you kidding? This is the Reform Baptist MAIN PREMISE! LOL….Ever heard of Dr. Fred Malone? Paul K. Jewett? These two are the modern main authorities for the defense of Credo-Baptism. I have both their books and they say precisely this. They claim that the OC was external in nature while the NC is internal in nature. As a matter of fact John MacAurther writes:
“The New Covenant will have a different sort of law; an INTERNAL not an EXTERNAL law. Everything under the old economy was primarily EXTERNAL(emphasis mine). Under the Old Covenant obedience was primarily out of fear of punishment……Even when the old law was given, of course, it was intended to be in His people’s heart (Deut. 6:6). But the people could not write it on their hearts like they could write in on their doorposts. And at this time the Holy Spirit, only changer of hearts, WAS NOT YET GIVEN TO BELIEVERS….In the New Covenant true worship is INTERNAL, not external, real, not ritual” (MacArthurs commentary of Hebrews)
Reformed Baptist Leon Morris agrees with Johnny Mac:
“The first point is that the new covenant is INWARD and dynamic:it is written on the hearts and minds of the people. A defect in the old had been its OUTWARDNESS. It had divinely given laws, indeed; but it was written on tablets of stone. The people had not been able to live up to what they knew was the word of God. It remained external. (The Expositors Bible Commentary on Hebrews)
Reformed Baptist Philip E. Hughes also incorrectly asserts: “This new covenant, not like the covenant made with the people through Moses, would be of grace, not of works; radical, not EXTERNAL; everlasting, not temporary; meeting man’s deepest need and transforming his whole being, because from the beginning to end it would be the work, not of man, but of God himself. In other words, the law which formerly was EXTERNAL and accusing now becomes INTERNAL, an element of the redeemed nature, and a delight to fulfill.” (A commentary on the Epistle of Hebrews)
These Reformed Baptists clearly assert that the internal operations of Divine grace was not even present in the Old Covenant saint. I think this is suffice to give credit to my points above.
“Sources please. I have yet to read a 1689er who believes that the “Covenant of Grace” is “totally fulfilled and consummated.”
I was responding to Andrew Gunn who say precisely that sir, maybe you can help him out on this point.
Neb continues: “Where i think you go wrong is when you say that Jeremiah 31 is telling us that there will be no teachers. But that isn’t what it said:
“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.”
Notice what it DIDN’T say. It didn’t say, “there will be no teachers.” Nor did it say, “no longer shall each one teach.”
Instead, it said that “no longer shall each one teach…saying ‘Know the Lord’.” What is being negated is not the need for teaching. What is being negated is a SPECIFIC TEACHING, namely, “Know the Lord”. Now, why would this specific teaching not be necessary within the New Covenant community? “FOR they shall ALL know me…”
This is in contrast to the old covenant community in which many did NOT ‘Know the Lord’. (31.32 ‘my covenant that they broke’)
One of the reasons why the New Covenant is better than the Old is because the New cannot be broken by any who are in it! ALL will KNOW the LORD. That’s the point.”
Yes, that is the point! And this is the point I have been trying to convey to you guys that this idea that “all will know the Lord” IS NOTHING NEW. lol…..
Your arguments logical conclusion then is that the Remnant Elect of OT Israel who were ALL regenerate did NOT KNOW THE LORD. This is nonsensical! Being a consistent Calvinist then this ALL will know me is in reference to not only will Israel know the Lord but that ALL the Elect of all nations will “Know the Lord” Did the non-elect of Israel “know the Lord”? Of course not. In contrast, will the non-elect within the VISIBLE Church know the Lord? of course not.
Case and point….ALL the regenerate elect knew the Lord in the Old administration of the Covenant of Grace just like ALL the regenerate knows the Lord in the New……..This is the point that you guys don’t grasp apparently. Reform Baptist are inconsistent and contradictory while the Reformed Presbyterians are consistent with the continuity and nature of the Covenant of Grace both old and new, period.
Grace and Peace
Wow…where to begin. You guys are all over the place and AGAIN didn’t even touch the main premise of the error we have pointed out to you guys. I mean its all good to piggy back of each other and all that but stick to the main point lol. I feel like I have to repeat everything I said all over again as you guys are ignoring the main problem at hand. But I am about to head to the gym to get my Team Jacob on lol so when I get back I will dedicate my time to dealing with what I believe to be the relevant points.
Andrew asserts: “To start with, if anything, does not your view of the new covenant look similar to the dispensational eschatological view? (i.e., you are asserting that prophecy is not fulfilled). This is what dispensationalists do. They hold off on the 1000 year reign of Christ, etc. and say that is yet to come. But we know it has already come at Calvary. The new covenant in His blood is no different in that regard,.”
Nope….comparing apples and oranges
You continue: “Now, this is where you illogically and arbitrarily choose texts without any form of consistency. So, if 1 Cor. 11 is addressing ALL individuals with the statement “examine yourselves”, and infants are excluded from the Lord’s Supper because of the fact that they can’t “examine themselves”, how do you come to texts such as “REPENT and be baptized” (Acts 2:38) and arbitrarily insist that these texts only refer to adults and not all individuals!?!?!?! Such thinking is erroneous.”
You think its erroneous because you do not comprehend correctly the nature of Covenantal signs and seals as I have been repeating over and over.
This is a mere assumption on your part that we arbitrarily infer things into these texts. It only refers to adults because thats who the text was talking to, simple as that. If a child at 3yrs old claims they believe in Christ would you think they understand what they are saying and baptize them? I think not. Same concept bro.
Andrew continues: “Brother, it’s simple. If infants cannot “examine themselves” (in order to partake in the Supper) then why should they be baptized if they cannot “repent” (in order to receive baptism)?”
Yes it is pretty simple. First of all its a Covenantal COMMAND. Secondly, if you already conceeded that Circumcision signified regeneration then why are you asking me this question? Were children in the OC able to discern if they wanted to follow Jehova and recieve the sign of regeneration? Nope. Again this is a lack of understanding the nature of signs and seals….I can’t emphasis this enough.
Lastly you state: “I mean, as wrong as the federal vision cats are, they at least show virtue of consistency with the new covenant ordinances and believe the “examine yourself” text is referring only to adults, just as much as the “repent and be baptized” is only referring to adults, hence the “covenant” children are included in both ordinances. Reformed Paedobaptists who arbitrarily choose not t to endorse paedocommunion are practicing nothing but a “half-way” covenant. Praise God they are baptistic in their view of the Lord’s Supper at least.”
Actually, this is irrelevant as Federal Visions view of Baptism is heretical to begin with bro. But i have not time right now to get into all that.
@rickyroldan, great post brother.
Grace and Peace Joshua…….you make want to bust out my Yankees santa cap lol