The central debate between 1689 London Baptist brothers and 1646 Westminster Presbyterian brothers is the nature of the New Covenant. Is the New Covenant only made up of regenerate persons or does it consist in some measure of a “mixed multitude” – both believers and unbelievers (as in the Old Covenant in Israel). The argument over whether infants and young children should be baptized on the basis of the profession of faith of their parents highlights this difference. The Presbyterian view holds greater continuity with the Old Covenant, that the promises are for those who believe and their children, while acknowledging that there are still some who come into the New Covenant who do not believe and are not regenerate.
On the other hand, the Baptist view points to passages like Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 to argue that the promise of the New Covenant is that it will be better than the Old Covenant and not like the Old Covenant, where many did not believe. The strongest argument for this perspective (in my view) points to the efficacious ministry of Jesus as the mediator of this new and better covenant. And if your Calvinism is firing on all cylinders, all of your particular redemption and efficacious atonement theology kicks in, and you might suspect your Presbyterian brothers are going a little wobbly. How could Jesus, the High Priest of this New Covenant, lose anyone He died for? Well, the short answer of course is that He doesn’t: everyone Christ intends to save, He saves to the uttermost and not one person can be plucked from His firm, saving hand. But there are other texts that describe a broader, more universal ministry which some partake of and yet reject which us Presbyterian types would point to as evidence that the New Covenant is something a bit broader than just the company of the elect. But I’m getting ahead of myself…
Let me add one more thought before jumping in to my questions for my 1689 Baptist brothers. I offer these questions in an honest spirit of curiosity – not gotcha questions at all, and for the sake of clarity. To anyone who cares to reply, thanks much. As someone who has grown up in the Westminster tradition, there are aspects of the 1689 position that are still very foreign to me, but since I consider you all my brothers and comrades in arms, I’d at least like to hear you out. And related to this last point, I serve as a pastor in a community that has worked together with Reformed Baptist families for decades. In fact, I’ve probably done more believers’ baptisms in the last year or so than I’ve done my whole ministry. So this is not at all meant to signal some kind of change to that warm friendship and comradery. These are just some questions that have occurred to me from time to time – questions I assume that 1689 brothers have answered many times but I simply don’t know the answers to. So four questions for you.
First Question
How do you understand Jesus when He says that He is the vine and we are the branches in Jn. 15? If you are a Calvinist, you do not believe that you can truly come into Christ and then be severed from Him later. You believe in the preservation of the saints. But then in what way may someone be organically united to Christ and yet not bear fruit and be cut out and thrown into the fire? What is that relationship to Christ called? Similarly, the covenant is likened to an olive tree/vine in the Old Covenant (Jer. 11). When Paul describes the Jews being cut out of the olive tree and Gentiles being grafted in, how is that not the New Covenant (Rom. 11)? Furthermore, the warning in Romans 11 is specifically that the Gentile branches not boast themselves against those branches that were cut out since the same God who cut the natural branches (Jews) out is able to do the same again with prideful/unbelieving Gentile branches. Why is the most natural reading of John 15 and Romans 11 not that the New Covenant still admits cutting out and grafting in?
Second Question
How do you understand 1 Cor. 10 where Paul’s warning of the Corinthian Christians rests upon a strong continuity between the Old and New Covenant? Paul tells the Corinthians that Israel was baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and they ate spiritual food in the wilderness and drank spiritual drink, and the Rock that followed them in the wilderness was Christ (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Paul says that the New Covenant Corinthians have what the Old Covenant Israelites had. You have baptism? They had baptism. You have the Lord’s Supper? They had the Lord’s Supper. You have Christ? They had Christ. Those things were written for our examples, Paul says, that we should not lust after evil things as they lusted (1 Cor. 10:6). “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also temped… Now all these things happened unto them as examples… Therefore let him that think he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:9-12). If the New Covenant, marked by baptism and the Lord’s Supper, does not have unbelievers, how does Paul’s warning apply? How could New Covenant members actually “take heed lest they fall”?
Third Question
How do you understand the universal saving language of the New Testament? A common objection from Arminians is the claim that the blood of Jesus must be attempting to save everyone since the New Testament so often claims a universal efficacy. Beginning with the most famous Bible verse of all: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world might be saved through Him” (Jn. 3:16-17). How do you understand God’s saving love for “the world”? Or elsewhere Jesus said that if He would be lifted up on the cross, He would draw all men to Himself (and this He said describing what kind of death He would die) (Jn. 12:32-33). How do you understand Christ’s promise to draw “all men” to Himself? Perhaps most pointed would be the notion of “propitiation” not only for our sins, but also for “the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). How is Jesus the propitiation for the sins of the whole world?
The usual Calvinistic answer to these questions is a combination of recognizing that universal language need not be required to be absolutely universal in order to still be true as well as an openness to distinguishing between sufficiency and efficiency. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save every last human being, but according to God’s secret, decretal will, it is only efficient to save the elect. The ultimate impact of Christ’s saving work will be world-wide and in the end, the total number of the saved will so overshadow the number of the damned that “all men” will have been drawn to Christ. I think these are reasonable explanations, but they expand the lexical-theological possibilities of the universal language in the New Testament. Is Jesus drawing “all men” to Himself? Did Jesus die to save the world? And my question is: if you are willing to recognize that the efficacy of the cross can be described in those universal terms, without meaning an exhaustive and absolute universal application, why can’t the same be true of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8? Why can’t those universalizing texts (Jer. 31/Heb. 8) be making a true theological and historical point (e.g. compared to the efficacy of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant will be WAY more efficacious, the ministry of Jesus in Heaven will be WAY more fruitful, and WAY better and therefore not like the Old Covenant in those ways)?
Fourth Question
How do you explain the lack of significant argument and controversy surrounding the new exclusion of children from the covenants of promise in the New Testament? God’s dealing with Israel by households and covenant promises for children and grandchildren were far more central to the Old Covenant than the general exclusion of the Gentiles, and yet the inclusion of the Gentiles takes up portions of nearly every book of the New Testament. How could an even more monumental shift not have required at least another Jerusalem council and multiple mentions in Paul’s letters? Instead, what we have are many clarifications about the change in ceremonial laws (e.g. clean/unclean, holy days, circumcision) and the repeated insistence that circumcision is no longer the marker of covenant inclusion, etc., but not one mention that children are no longer automatically welcomed into the covenant with their believing parents. I suspect that the Baptist would likely point out the repeated emphasis on repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus as the new boundary marker in the New Testament, but to think that first century people would just do that math and come up with profession of faith baptism does not do justice to the training wheels of the Old Testament regarding God’s promises to our children and their inclusion. The Old Testament believers all knew that the true marker of true covenant fellowship was always repentance and faith (cf. Dt. 10:16, 30:6, Gal. 3:6-7, Heb. 11) and yet their children had always been welcome. Abraham was justified by faith and his children were included in the covenant. Emphasis on the necessity of repentance and faith isn’t enough to imply that children are now excluded until they have their own personal profession of faith.
Where are all the clarifying instructions that parents need to be sure of their children’s faith before bringing them to baptism? I know that some of my Baptist brothers wish that us Presbyterians would put far more emphasis on the word “call,” in Acts 2 (the promise is for you and for your children and as many as are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call…) as though Peter assumed that the festival crowd gathered in Jerusalem would simply look up their TULIP cards and realize that they couldn’t be sure of their infants’ “efficacious call” yet and never even thought to bring them to baptism. But anyone who has done much exegetical work on the word “call/calling” knows that it is used in some places to refer to decretal election efficacy but in other places it is used in a broader covenantal sense (e.g. Is. 41:9, 43:1-22, 45:4, Hos. 11:1-2, Mt. 20:16, Mt. 22:14, Rom. 11:29). In other words, even with an emphasis on the word “call” in Acts 2, why was there no need for clarification by Peter or an immediate controversy over the fact that the promise to children would no longer be marked by covenant signs and seals? Shouldn’t a shift that monumental between the covenants be even more present in the pages of the New Testament than whether Gentiles are now included?
Photo by Alex Shute on Unsplash
Michael Coughlin says
I appreciate your spirit, here!
Caedmon Coley says
Mr. Sumpter,
I reckon I can take a crack at your questions. I appreciate you asking in good faith, and I think you might appreciate some of the answers I have. Bear in mind that I’m 19 years old and I am by no means the definitive voice of Reformed Baptist theology, but I think I could offer you some unique answers to these questions.
Response to #1 – The key to John 15 has to be our understanding of what “abiding” means, specifically in the body of John’s writing. We’re both aware that John seems to be fond of the theme of abiding in Christ, so I think it is only fair to look for some explanation elsewhere in the Johannine corpus. In 1 John 2:19, John says “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us” (LSB). The phrase “they would have remained” is μεμενήκεισαν, which comes from the root word μένω, which, as you know, is the key word rendered “abide” in John 15:6 (see Strong’s, 3306). This link in John’s vocabulary tells us one important thing about those who don’t abide in Christ: they were not of us; indeed, they’re not in the same category as those who are truly in the covenant (i.e. united to Christ), they’re a completely different thing. I think this leaves us good grounds on which to say that the branches cut off in John 15 are not truly united to Christ (i.e. in the covenant), but exist in an entirely different category.
So, to make a long story short, the guy who wrote John 15 also made it clear to us elsewhere that those who do not abide in Christ alongside us believers may appear like branches, but they are not, in fact, of us, and so are cut away.
Response to #2 – I understand 1 Corinthians 10 to be referring to the events of Exodus in a typological way. Which is to say, of course, that the events of Exodus typify Christ, baptism, and the Lord’s supper. I think maybe instead of reading the Old Covenant into the New Covenant (which seems to be how many paedobaptist arguments work in my experience), we should start reading the New Covenant into the Old (which is a hermeneutic, if I’m not mistaken, that we share). The latter is what I think Paul is doing here. Also, keep in mind that analogies and illustrations are only meant to go so far, and I don’t think Paul intended us to read more into 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 than he is actually saying (i.e., “y’all better look at Israel and watch your own butts”), but unfortunately, this is what I think the paedobaptism argument from this passage tries to do.
As for the warning, it’s genuine. But being inspired and whatnot, I think it’s a warning that does its job; it actually works. I believe that every believer who has read that passage has been sufficiently spooked and taken heed to the warning. Lord knows I have!
Response to #3 – The simple answer here is context. The biblical and historical context for all of the so-called “universal atonement” passages screams and shouts that those statements are not supposed to refer to “every last individual on the planet.” I won’t go through all of ’em here, but I’m sure you probably know how the Calvinistic argument surrounding many of these passages goes, so I’ll leave it at that.
But I would be hard-pressed to see the same kind of context present in Jer. 31 or Hebrews 8. I have looked up and down at those passages and I don’t see anything that would make me think they are not intended to be truly universal in their scope. So yeah, all can mean “every last person without exception” AND “the vast majority of people with a few stingy holdouts.” So, to sum up, the word “all” has a semantic domain that includes multiple meanings, and I am persuaded by the context that one meaning can be assigned to one set of texts and another meaning to another set. Languages really are quite amazing!
Response to #4 – This one is also pretty easy, all things considered. I would maintain that the circumcision controversy is the controversy you are looking for. Like you (and probably unlike many other Baptists), I am convinced that physical circumcision correlates to physical baptism. I can heartily affirm that covenant children should be baptized. This is why there is no debate about whether or not covenant children should be baptized in the New Testament.
But before you get your hopes up, I would like to point out that a whole lot of ink was spilled by the Apostle Paul over WHO exactly covenant children are in the new covenant. And this is the thing that keeps me a credobaptist. Consider Galatians 3: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ” (v. 16) “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (vv. 26-27) “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (v. 29). Or perhaps Romans 2:28-29: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (I consider “Jew” here to be synonymous with “child of Abraham”).
So, what is Paul saying? Well, the first thing is that the promise to Abraham is fulfilled not by Abraham’s multitudinous biological offspring, but by his singular descendant, Christ. The one who believes in Christ becomes, by faith, a child of God, a son. The one who is in Christ Jesus (by faith) is then by extension made a child of Abraham (via Christ), an “heir according to the promise.” So, I am a covenant child. I am a fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. But I am this way purely by faith, and not by natural descent.
To tie it all together: Yes, the same group that was circumcised in the Old Covenant should receive baptism (circumcision 2.0) in the New Covenant. Who is that group? Children. But whose children? Obviously Abraham’s children. So gentiles are out, right? No; in the New Covenant, Abraham’s children are those that belong to Christ, those who have become “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). Shaboom. Here’s your credobaptism argument:
P1. We should baptize Abraham’s children
P2. Abraham’s children are those who have faith in Jesus Christ.
C. Therefore, we should baptize those who have faith in Jesus Christ.
So, there you are! I hope these responses are helpful in your thinking on the matter and give you a bit more of an appreciation for your covenantal Baptist brethren. Again, I’m 19. All of this is coming from a guy who only knows enough theology to be dangerous: I know enough to think I know a lot, but I don’t know enough to actually know a lot. I am more than amenable to being wrong on these points, but I’m not afraid to call it like I see it in the meantime. If you’ve read all of this, I appreciate your time and encourage you and the guys at CrossPolitic to keep up the good work.
God bless,
Caedmon Coley
Toby says
Thanks, Caedmon.
Ryan Benson says
Well done, Caedmon!
And thank you, Brother Toby, for your gracious post.
Really, Caedmon did a fantastic job, so I will only add some supplemental comments:
Response to Q1: Just like in the Old Covenant, all those who take the Old Covenant sign (circumcision) were not “true Israel,” all those who take the New Covenant sign (baptism) are not “true believers.” Obedience does not save anyone, but the faith that saves is ALWAYS accompanied by obedience (abiding in Christ), in fact, the only way to obey, is to have a circumcised heart, and that done by the Lord himself (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Matthew 22:36-40).
1689 Covenantalism (credobaptism) is a “mixed multitude” not by intention, as is Westminster Covenantalism (paedobaptism), but because we cannot see into the heart of man, whose heart is desperately wicked, who can know it (Jeremiah 17:9).
Response to Q2: Caedmon’s response is quite clear, and I have nothing to add.
Response to Q3: Caedmon’s response is quite clear, and I have nothing to add.
Response to Q4: Once again, Caedmon’s response is on point. The only thing that I might add is you (Toby) are trying to argue from silence (prove a negative), which is impossible. Regarding Acts 2, I would say that the first century people would just do the math in this way:
Repent + Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ = You will be saved.
Anyone who is able to hear the Word proclaimed and respond in repentance and faith to it, is able to be saved, is in the New Covenant (as far as man can tell…see above), and should therefore, be baptized. This is why there was no need to mention infant baptism in the New Testament, because:
1. Infant baptism was not needed.
2. Infant baptism was not done.
I agree that where we differ is on the nature of the New Covenant. I do not think that there needs to be, nor is continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The New Covenant is better, with a better Mediator, High Priest, and Sacrifice.
I greatly enjoy CrossPolitic. Toby, my wife and I enjoyed sharing a table with you and your wife at a [double] wedding feast in August 2021.
I appreciate the sharpening of iron, and the brotherly love that we share in Christ.
Abraham’s kid (through Christ),
Ryan
Toby says
Ryan,
Thanks much for the reply. One quick reply/question for now on Q4. If repent+believe so clearly implies the necessity of personal faith/repentance for baptism, why does Paul offer it to the Philippian jailor’s entire household? (Please note that I am not arguing here that it needed to include children/infants). Rather, I’m simply asking about the offer of the gospel: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” What is the relationship between a head of household believing and the salvation of his house? Paul didn’t say, “Anyone in your house who is capable to hear this message and personally repent…” Can a 1689 pastor make that simple offer without qualification? Cheers!
Michael Coughlin says
I think Paulnis saying anyone in your house who repents and believes will be saved.
Not YOU repent and believe and then literally everyone in your household, independent of their own belief, will be saved.
Ryan says
Keep reading.
In Acts 16:31, the Philippian Jailer said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
To which they (Paul & Silas) responded, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
So, the entire household was baptized because of the faith and repantance of the head of the househould?
No.
Acts 16:32: “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him AND TO ALL WHO WERE IN HIS HOUSE.” (ESV, emphasis mine).
Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.”
He (the Philippian Jailer, the head of his household) was baptized with his household BECAUSE HIS ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD HEARD THE WORD OF THE LORD, REPENTED, AND BELIEVED.
I am not a 1689 pastor, but a lay elder. My church is not a 1689 church, but I personally lean that way (our church is credobaptist and reformedish). I have filled the pulpit a few times, and yes, I would make the simple offer without qualification.
Toby says
Thanks, Ryan. It’s just worth pointing out that your all bold summary (BECAUSE HIS ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD HEARD THE WORD OF THE LORD, REPENTED, AND BELIEVED) is not in the text. Yes Paul spoke the word of the Lord to them all, but it doesn’t say that each one of them personally repented and believed. Whenever I do a household baptism, sometimes with several children of all ages, I do speak the word of the gospel to all of them, but I baptize on the basis of the faith of the parents. That is at least consistent with the story of the Philippian jailer. Cheers!
Thomas G says
Pastor Toby,
I agree with much of what Caedmon wrote above, but I’ll add a few additional comments on your particular questions.
First though, a preliminary observation:
You state: “the Baptist view points to passages like Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 to argue that the promise of the New Covenant is that it will be better than the Old Covenant and not like the Old Covenant, where many did not believe. The strongest argument for this perspective (in my view) points to the efficacious ministry of Jesus as the mediator of this new and better covenant.”
I would wholeheartedly disagree, I don’t think Hebrews 8 is even a necessary consideration here and that the wording of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fully sufficient to make the key point: The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. Why is it not like the Old Covenant? Because it involves God writing his law on the hearts of the people and all of the people knowing him “from the least of them unto the greatest”. The teaching on discontinuity here is not only plain but very specific, and speaks of the New Covenant in precisely the same terms as credobaptists always have.
Moving to your specific questions:
1. I echo Caedmon’s view on John 15, but let me give you the reciprocal courtesy of saying this is the best argument for your position. This text in isolation could very plausibly be read as positing a “third category” of unbelievers in covenant with Christ, if Jeremiah 31 did not render this impossible. This brings us back to the Reformation principle of clear texts governing unclear. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is abundantly clear about what the New Covenant involves, and is therefore decisive in interpreting John 15 which I think could otherwise plausibly line up with either your or Caedmon’s interpretation.
Regarding Romans 11, the context is completely different. Paul is demonstrably addressing ethnic groups and not individuals, and I would argue that the whole Old Covenant/New Covenant discussion is actually a very unhelpful lens to interpret this text through. The Jews have been cut out for their collective unfaithfulness and the Gentiles will meet the same collective fate if they are boastful. The best Biblical parallel I can think of is Jesus’ threat to take away the lampstand of the church of Ephesus if they didn’t repent in Revelation 2. Was he threatening to condemn every individual believer in Ephesus to hell? No, but he was threatening to institutionally snuff them out, and the record of history tells us he did just that. Just think about the West! Think of our arrogance and boastfulness and the hardened apostate spirit that has come upon us, God’s hardening in judgment, the increased difficulty of evangelism and the rarity of true converts. We are being cut out of the olive tree, and our lamp is going out. Does that mean that all in the West are “cut out” from the New Covenant? Of course not, there’s a whole different category in view here.
2. Regarding 1 Corinthians 10, again I would largely echo Caedmon but would add this caution: In the recent Christian Nationalism G3 fracas online there’s been discussion of the Ring of Sauron, and I’ll use that imagery here if you’ll permit. At bottom, Pastor Toby, your argument is that exhortations to persevere and examine yourself and not be deceived are redundant if addressed to people presumed to be of the elect and only make sense if addressed to people who are truly in Christ but are still truly able to fall away. This argument was forged in the Pelagian/Augustinian debates long ago and it has no other master but Pelagius. It is a denial of God’s use of means in accomplishing his purposes, and can be applied to every other moral exhortation in the New Testament. Why do you preach to the men of your congregation to put their lust to death and keep themselves from pornography? If they are truly regenerate and guaranteed to persevere they’ll do it anyway, and if they’re not truly regenerate then what will your exhortations achieve? You cannot bend this Ring to your will, and I would advise you to cast it back into the fire post-haste.
3. “The usual Calvinistic answer to these questions is a combination of recognizing that universal language need not be required to be absolutely universal in order to still be true as well as an openness to distinguishing between sufficiency and efficiency.” In my experience, most Calvinists tend to choose one or the other of those two options rather than a combination thereof, with the majority choosing the former and looking to contextual factors in the relevant passages. So for instance, “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:4 means all kinds of men based on verses 1-3, “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 means all the nations, both Jew and Gentile (per John’s parallel discussion of the topic in John 11:49-52 and Revelation 5:9), “all men” in John 12 refers to Jew and Gentile given that Jesus’ monologue is provoked by Greeks seeking him, and so forth. As Caedmon has noted, contextual factors of this kind are wholly absent from Jeremiah 31:31-34. It can’t be making the point you are arguing for because “they will all know me from the greatest to the least” cannot be interpreted any other way than as comprehensively universal.
4. I would broadly diverge from Caedmon here although I think some of his points are valid, I’m not sure that he has directly addressed your question. This is the argument you give the most space to, and the one where your passion is most evident. But Pastor Toby, I have to be honest here. As a credobaptist all my life, I genuinely cannot begin to understand why paedobaptists think this argument has the slightest iota of persuasive force to it. I would put it to you that any strength you perceive in this argument rests upon a whole nest of presuppositions that are only found in the mind of an already-convinced paedobaptist, and that in dialogue with credobaptist brothers who seek to wrestle through this topic on the basis of what the scriptures teach, this argument should be left on the shelf. Pastor Gabe brought this argument out in his debate at Apologia, and it went down like a lead balloon.
I don’t want to be overly critical of or insensitive to a concern that I simply don’t understand, so let me respond to your question with a question: In your hypothetical scenario of believing Jewish parents now being scandalised en masse that their children are excluded from the covenant, what practical implication of that exclusion are they upset about? If parents are told that their circumcised son was part of the Old Covenant but is not now part of the New Covenant apart from faith and repentance in due time, what has that child now been deprived of? Not the nurture and teaching of believing parents in a believing community, he still has that. Not peace with God and salvation, we would both agree that Old Covenant membership was not sufficient to provide that and you would extend this also to the New Covenant. So let’s step back from the theological abstractions of being ‘welcome’ versus being ‘excluded’ and ask: What does it practically mean for an infant to be welcomed into or to be excluded from the covenant if it affects neither their upbringing nor their relationship with God? If you can’t provide any concrete examples of tangible benefits or detriments based on whether they’re in or out of the covenant, I would submit that your objection melts away into nothing.
Like Caedmon, I am deeply grateful for your ministry. Keep up the good work!
Toby says
Thomas,
Thanks much for your reply. One quick reply for now on your final question about what Jewish parents my think is being revoked from their children: Paul addresses this in Romans 3:1 right after insisting that true Jews are Jews inwardly. He anticipates this very question: “What advantage then hath the Jew? What profit is there of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly, because unto them were committed the oracles of God.” So Paul’s answer to your question is that children excluded from the covenant would be excluded from “much in every way!” Cheers!
Tim Dehne says
Thank you for your blog. I have benefited from the content that you have put out. Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue about this important topic.
Question #1: I interpret the connection that Jesus is talking about in John 15 as a covenantal connection. Reformed Baptists do not deny that there are unregenerate people in the outward administration of the new covenant, but they are there based on the profession of faith. When people apostatize, they are leaving a profession and a visible yet not true relationship with Jesus. They are members of the church and partake of the sacraments, but they are not truly united to the federal head and thus not partakes of the substance of covenant. Romans 11 tells us that the Jews were cast off because they did not believe and the Gentiles were grafted in because they had faith in Christ. The new covenant does admit “cutting out” of its outward administration (membership and sacraments), but such a person proves that he or she was never really united to Christ.
Question #2: Two things: first, Reformed Baptists do not deny that there are unbelievers in the new covenant professedly and administratively. Such people will fall away. Second, as Calvinists, we believe in the doctrine of predestination, and that also means God ordained the means onto salvation (LBCF 1689 3.7). 1 Cor. 10 is a means of grace to this end.
Question #3: John 6:45 quotes Jer. 31:34 and Isa. 54:13. The Apostle John applies being “taught” or “knowing God” to effectual calling and regeneration. If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, then the universal language of Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 cannot be understood in the same manner Calvinists understand the passages concerning universal atonement.
Question #4: This goes back to the nature of the new covenant. If the members of the new covenant are only those who have received the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit and profession of faith is the evidence of this, then there has been a shift in how one is to fundamentally understand covenant membership. I think this is the contrast Jeremiah is making between the new and old administration of God’s covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Also, I interpret the call in Acts 2:39 is the effectual call.
Toby says
Thank you, Tim.
Kevin says
Toby,
Thanks so much for your questions and for all that you do for the Kingdom of God. The questions are excellent and I believe they point to a common conflating of terms. I am an LBCF guy that doesn’t hold to the Baptist Covenantal distinction. I am in strong agreement with your Presbyterian covenantal view, but don’t agree with it where it arrives at the infant baptism. I am not alone, but may be in the minority amongst the Reformed Baptists. My frustration as a minority opinion is sure to come out in this letter.
As a whole, I think the Baptist Covenantal Distinctive (BCD) leads to serious errors in practice. It quickly creeps into their doctrines of family, church, and governmental authorities. As an example, the recent Leeman article against Christian Nationalism (https://www.9marks.org/article/say-no-to-christian-nationalism/) is just an application of their BCD. In Waldron’s book, A Man as Priest in His Home (https://www.solid-ground-books.com/detail_1990.asp), Waldron has to deny the family covenant in order to establish the application of Job as an example for us today. Many sermons that pit law and grace against one another are absurd conclusions of this BCD.
I believe there are many like me that are frustrated with the BCD, but they are the loudest voice in the Baptist theology market, and there might be a reason for it. It seems to me that the Baptists have taken to what Chesterton calls the mark of madness (Orthodoxy, The Maniac) where they have a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. These are madmen that rather than putting their heads into the heavens, they have put the heavens into their heads (ibid). And toward my fellow LBC brothers (ignore this, Toby), I find the arguments of the BCD to be analogous to the forced and unnatural arguments for dampening a baby – texts out of context as a pretext for their prooftexts.
I arrived at a Presbyterian covenantal view by reading the bible. It is a natural/organic conclusion. It is beautiful and the BCD folks seem to be allergic to anything that smells like Presbyterianism. Thus, they have contrived a wonky framework that constantly encounters covenantal reinterpretations.
The conflation of terms seems like a marketing trick by the Presbyterians. I’m not accusing, but stating what it looks like. Presbyterians often sell the position that infant baptism MUST be coupled with a proper covenantal view. A biblical (Presbyterian) covenantal view, unfamiliar to most Presbyterian churchmen, will transform a church, a family, and a nation. So, I see the presentation of a biblical covenantal view necessarily being paedobaptistic as a canard. Baptists should be taught to “grab them by the covenant” just as well as you grab them by their “baptism.”
Now all of this is predicated on my conclusion that I can hold to the LBC and hold to a Presbyterian covenantal view. A sincere question is, “can I?”
Brandon Adams says
Thanks for the questions Toby. Here are 4 answers
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2023/05/10/4-answers-for-toby-sumpter-1689-federalism/
As Toby mentioned, the primary difference between our views relates to how much continuity we see between the Old and the New Covenants. Toby sees great continuity between the covenants, identifying them both as the Covenant of Grace because he tends to read the covenants with more of a systematic bent that flattens out the particularities whereas we approach the covenants through biblical theology. This is not to say that systematic theology and biblical theology are at odds, but we would argue that systematics should arise out of biblical theology, not the other way around. We must be careful not to let our system iron out the contours of redemptive history and the differences between the various covenants in the Bible. We argue that this difference in our approach leads to the difference in our covenant theologies.
For example, when Scripture says that Abraham or Moses was saved through faith in the Messiah, Toby concludes that the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants were the Covenant of Grace. But that is a non-sequitur: it does not follow. It assumes that the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenant served the same function as the New Covenant. But careful attention to the particularities of redemptive history reveals that is not the case. Those covenants each had particular parties and promises that were distinct from the New Covenant (though certainly related to it). Jesus Christ is only mediator of the New Covenant and thus salvation is found only in the New Covenant, even for those who were justified before the death of Christ.
It is also worth noting that we must be careful not to let parables drive our reading of more clear and explicit passages about the covenants. We don’t want to be slaves to metaphor.
Finally, keep in mind that when we are discussing covenant theology, we are discussing how to put the entire bible together – which makes it one of the most complex topics in theology. So if you’re looking for pithy pep rally one-liners, you’re wasting your time. Playing that game won’t get us anywhere.
First Answer (Vine and Olive Tree)
Toby said that Israel is referred to as an olive tree in the Old Testament (Jer. 11). It is also referred to as a vineyard planted by God. In those passages God warns that he will destroy the vineyard because it did not produce fruit (Isa. 5:1-7; Ezk. 15; 19:10-14; Ps. 80:8ff; Jer. 2:21; 12:10ff; Hos. 10:1-2). God also prophesies of a future vineyard that will bear fruit (Is. 27:2ff; Ezk. 17). “It is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who replaces sour grapes with new fruit” (Reformation Study Bible). In John 15, speaking to Jews, members of the Old Covenant, Jesus references Ezekiel 15’s warning that the fruitless vine will be cast into the fire. He has in mind the nearing end of the Old Covenant, when its curses will be poured out upon Jerusalem. The only hope they will have at that point is in Christ, the obedient son of God, the obedient Israel, the true and new Israel. In contrast to Israel’s failure, Jesus is the “true vine,” bringing forth the fruit that Israel failed to produce. “A paradigm shift has taken place: faith in Jesus has replaced keeping the law as the primary point of reference” (Kostenberger). “If the Jews wish to enjoy the status of being part of God’s chosen vine, they must be rightly related to Jesus [through faith]” (Carson). In Matthew 21, Jesus references Isaiah 5 again in the parable of the vineyard. There, the removal of the tenants refers to “the transferal of the kingdom to a new people of God” (Reformation Study Bible). Thus John 15 does not refer to someone who has been baptized and later apostatizes, but rather to the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New, the transfer of the promised kingdom from Israel (Old Covenant) to those in Christ (New Covenant).
The olive tree of Romans 11 is similar. The tree itself is not to be equated with a covenant, though it is related to the different covenants. The tree can be understood as Israel, but like the vine it should be understood in both its typical and antitypical sense. The root of the tree is the Covenant of Circumcision, which was made with the patriarchs and their natural offspring. God promised to multiply Abraham’s natural offspring as the stars of heaven, which was the nation of Israel, the natural branches (1 Kings 4:20). But again, with the end of the Old Covenant in 70AD the natural branches lost their connection to the root. Their privilege was forfeited by their disobedience and they were cut off. The only natural offspring that remained with a privileged connection to the root is Jesus, the offspring of Abraham who would bless the nations. He transformed the tree as the new Israel. Jesus is now the trunk and only those united to Christ through faith are grafted in as branches. Note that it is through faith, not simply a profession of faith, that one is grafted into the tree. Indeed, Paul warns those with faith that they will be cut off if they cease to believe. Paul wasn’t lying. If someone is united to Christ through faith and they fall away from faith in Christ, they will be cut off. Spurgeon put it this way:
God preserves his children from falling away; but he keeps them by the use of means; and one of these is, the terrors of the law, showing them what would happen if they were to fall away. There is a deep precipice: what is the best way to keep any one from going down there? Why, to tell him that if he did he would inevitably be dashed to pieces… So God says, ‘My child, if you fall over this precipice you will be dashed to pieces.’ What does the child do? He says, ‘Father, keep me; hold thou me up, and I shall be safe.’ It leads the believer to greater dependence on God, to a holy fear and caution[.]
Final Perserverance
Second Answer (Baptized into Moses)
Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 10 does not rest upon strong continuity between the Old and New Covenants. Paul is not arguing that New Covenant Christians have what the Old Covenant Israelites had. There is a similarity, but also a difference and an escalation. Baptism into Moses is not baptism into Christ. Moses was not Christ. Manna was not the Lord’s Supper. (See here and here for more).
But to Toby’s point “If the New Covenant, marked by baptism and the Lord’s Supper, does not have unbelievers, how does Paul’s warning apply?” Being baptized does not make you a member of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is our marriage union with Christ. Baptism is a symbol of that covenant union. However, it is possible to have the symbol without having the union. Just because someone puts a ring on their finger doesn’t mean they’re married. That’s precisely Paul’s point. Don’t rest in your baptism, in your partaking of the Lord’s Supper, or in being part of this group of people called Christians. Do not take Christ for granted. Cling to him and flee sin and idolatry. This warning applies to the unregenerate, but also to the regenerate as an effectual means of our perseverance. Yet that does not entail a mixed, breakable, ineffectual New Covenant. We learn from passages that explicitly expound the nature of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8, etc) that it is made only with the regenerate elect who will not be lost.
Third Answer (All Shall Know Me)
Toby asked why can’t we understand “all shall know me” and similar passages to just mean that the New Covenant is, percentage-wise, better (even WAY better) than the Old Covenant. Why doesn’t it just mean that the New Covenant will be WAY more efficacious than the Old Covenant? Because the text says that the Old Covenant wasn’t efficacious at all! It doesn’t say it was partially efficacious and that the New is also partially efficacious, but WAY more so. It says that the New is efficacious and the Old was not. The New saves. The Old did not. See Hebrews, 2 Cor. 3, Acts 13:38-39, Galatians, etc.
Thankfully, Jesus gave a commentary on these passages. In John 6, Jesus says “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out… No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” Jesus was referring to Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34, which are parallel prophecies of the New Covenant, and it’s clear in this passage’s context that “all” refers to the regenerate elect.
Fourth Answer (Exclusion of Children)
Toby wonders why there was no controversy in the early church about the exclusion of children from the covenant. I’m afraid the answer is staring him straight in the face, but his paedobaptist lenses filter it out. What was the mark of offspring inclusion in the Covenant of Circumcision? Circumcision. What came to an end? Circumcision. There was definitely a controversy about that.
Simply put, the end of circumcision marked the end of any covenant inclusion of the natural offspring of Abraham.
Conclusion
To conclude, you can see why it is important to pay attention to the progress of redemptive history and the particular historical context of passages to avoid flattening out the covenants.
That said, I appreciate the questions that were asked in the spirit of sharpening. I’m thankful for the opportunity it gave me to revisit some of these passages and test my understanding. I hope that my responses and my questions will be taken in the same spirit of sharpening, so that together we can come to a right understanding of God’s Word.
Toby, I’m sure you will have plenty of “Yeah, but…” responses to what I said, and maybe even some more questions. In fact, I’ve got 3 counter questions for you. But rather than going back and forth like this, let’s sit down and get into the weeds on passages like Acts 2. It would make for a great conversation.