Quick look @ New Covenant & the changed heart
I hope I don't tick off my Presbyterian brothers... esp. since I like their churches (as a whole) generally more than Reformed Baptist ones...
In light of my diving into Covenant Infant Baptism arguments, I found this defense from Dr. James White regarding Hebrews 8 and the New Covenant to be useful.
He asserts that the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant - that the covenant sign was correctly administered to those whose hearts were changed (like David) and those whose hearts remained corrupt (like Ahab).
The New Covenant, however, is not a mixed covenant. ALL in the New Covenant know the Lord. The text looks not to a future fulfillment, but is speaking as a present reality. The New Covenant is better now; It won't be better later, it is presently better, in a similar way that Christ is a better mediator now, and the sacrifice of Christ is better now than the sacrifices under the Old Covenant.
I must say, this is what I keep coming back to in my focus on Infant Baptism. The nature of the New Covenant. I understand that the Old Covenant contained both the regenerate and unregenerate. Still, when I read Hebrews 8, arguably the most extensive look at the New Covenant in its makeup, I see that those who are in the New Covenant are those who have had their sins forgiven - the elect.
Look at Hebrews 8:
In light of this, I would argue it is wrong to administer the sign of the covenant AND claim that a child is a member of said covenant when there has been no repentance or faith on the part of that infant.
No sins forgiven = no covenant membership.
I'm continuing to look into the matter... And honestly, I wish I could be convinced and just become Presbyterian. But the biblical evidence continues to get in the way.
On a comedic side note, my good buddy Jeremy has a friend (I'd like to think of him as a mutual friend now, actually) who attends Southern Theological... and stated that Presbyterians have three kinds of verses that they look to dealing with Infant Baptism:
Hah. Simplistic analysis? Sure. But the question really is: Is it accurate? ...
In light of my diving into Covenant Infant Baptism arguments, I found this defense from Dr. James White regarding Hebrews 8 and the New Covenant to be useful.
He asserts that the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant - that the covenant sign was correctly administered to those whose hearts were changed (like David) and those whose hearts remained corrupt (like Ahab).
The New Covenant, however, is not a mixed covenant. ALL in the New Covenant know the Lord. The text looks not to a future fulfillment, but is speaking as a present reality. The New Covenant is better now; It won't be better later, it is presently better, in a similar way that Christ is a better mediator now, and the sacrifice of Christ is better now than the sacrifices under the Old Covenant.
I must say, this is what I keep coming back to in my focus on Infant Baptism. The nature of the New Covenant. I understand that the Old Covenant contained both the regenerate and unregenerate. Still, when I read Hebrews 8, arguably the most extensive look at the New Covenant in its makeup, I see that those who are in the New Covenant are those who have had their sins forgiven - the elect.
Look at Hebrews 8:
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
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,
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.
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 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.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
In light of this, I would argue it is wrong to administer the sign of the covenant AND claim that a child is a member of said covenant when there has been no repentance or faith on the part of that infant.
No sins forgiven = no covenant membership.
I'm continuing to look into the matter... And honestly, I wish I could be convinced and just become Presbyterian. But the biblical evidence continues to get in the way.
On a comedic side note, my good buddy Jeremy has a friend (I'd like to think of him as a mutual friend now, actually) who attends Southern Theological... and stated that Presbyterians have three kinds of verses that they look to dealing with Infant Baptism:
- Verses on Baptism, but lack children
- Verses on Children, but lack baptism
- Verses that lack both baptism AND children!
Hah. Simplistic analysis? Sure. But the question really is: Is it accurate? ...
How do you feel about doctrine and teachings of the church being based on inference as opposed to clear cut, positive, statements? The answer to that question will determine if you are ever going to be satisfied with "the biblical evidence" for infant baptism.
ReplyDelete@Alax - thanks for reading and commenting.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. The question has some validity. For instance, between the Presbyterian form or the Baptist forms of church government - either side observes inference from the biblical text to support their position they see as biblical. (Other denominations/styles of government seem to have to try even harder to infer their government of the church from the text). So there are elements that we can draw from inference.
My concern is that inference should be secondary to what is plainly revealed in Scripture. When I see that the New Covenant is marked by the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8), the plain meaning seems to be - in the argument of Hebrews - that the New Covenant is not a mixed covenant, but is better - as it is based on the better promises of the New Covenant and the superior works of its priest and mediator. I do not know why I would infer anything to the contrary, in light of what we know about the New Covenant. Any attempt to push the definition of the New Covenant's members having the forgiveness of sins (from the least of them to the greatest) into the New Heavens and the New Earth appears to violate the argument of the author of Hebrews. The New Covenant is better NOW and has better promises NOW... not just better later after you die.