Subscribe via reader
Subscribe via Email
Follow via Twitter
Rethinking what I can & can’t live with as a pastor
March 19th, 2009 by James GrantWell, I have looked back over Mark Dever’s list of things he can and cannot live with as a Pastor. I don’t want to be the person he is warning about at the beginning of the article, but I really need some help on understanding and thinking through the process that puts some things on the “cannot live with list.” For example, I previously linked to Dever explaining why he cannot live with infant baptism. But after I went back and read the list, it just still does not make sense to me. Here are the three things he listed as not being able to live with:
- universalism
- racism
- infant baptism
Now this list shows precisely why putting one’s view of baptism in this category creates problems. I for one do not want one’s view of baptism placed in the same category as universalism and racism. I simply cannot in good conscience do that.
Posted in Baptism | 54 Comments »
March 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Hey James,
Wouldn’t you say that all of our bad doctrine is due to sin? If it weren’t for the fall, wouldn’t we be able to come to consensus on what the Bible.
I can only see two other options.
First, perhaps God wasn’t clear on the question of baptism. In that case, our errors are God’s fault and not any fault of our own.
The second option I see is to relegate baptism to a tertiary matter, making baptism a doctrine of little importance.
Can you help me out here? Is there another option?
Grace and peace,
Tom
March 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
By the way, I agree that the doctrine of baptism is not in the same category of sin as universalism and racism (which are heinous intentional sins). I think Dever would agree too.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Is it possible that some error (including theological error) is DUE to sin, but perhaps that individual instances of such error should not be called a SIN? Would it be worth noting a possible distinction, such that SIN is only a description of specific, clearly Scriptural acts of disobedience? (In addition to the way in which we use SIN as an overarching meta-concept to describe our fallen condition.)
Dangerous ground I know, just thinking out loud here, James…and using your blog comments to do so. Thanks for being there for me.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
@Tom: Always glad when you comment here. I agree with you that Dever would probably make that type of distinction, but that illustrates part of the problem, no?
I would agree with what you also say about our bad doctrine being the result of sin, but exactly how we go about explaining that should cause us pause.
You set up two options: 1) God isn’t clear, or 2) baptism is a secondary matter.
The issue of clarity is a complicated issue. This involves our view of the Bible and how God is communciting things to us. Is God clear on how the second coming will take place? Hmm…
One way to solve the baptism problem is to make baptism a primary doctrine (as a rite), but the particular application of it a secondary matter. I want baptism to be essential, but how it is done is not as essential.
I would prefer to be able to speak of degrees of errors in regard to baptism instead of something that says it has to be one particular way.
First, I cannot regain a strong conviction on immersion. I just cannot see making it the exclusive mode. Second, I have struggles with exactly how we view children in the church. It seems pretty clear to me from Scripture that children are part of the church.
So even if we cannot find ways to live together, I would like to be able to accept different views on this issue. It is just not clear enough to me from the Scriptures that it has to be one way.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
@Jason: That is an interesting idea. I certainly think that we should come a great deal of consideration to this issue. I would take the issue of the Second Coming as a parallel example. Certainly our error is due to sin, but as long as we hold to the second coming, we have some flexibility in regard to the particulars. I would see baptism in the same way.
But I think one of the issues for many Baptists, and Dever tries to point this out, is that Baptism, according to their view, is a specific act of obedience by the person being baptized. By implication, if an infant doesn’t make a cognitive decision to be baptized, he or she hasn’t been obedient themselves.
I certainly do not agree with that, but I think that is what he is saying.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
James,
I was not aware that sin could be placed on a sliding scale. Is it not true that sin is sin, and the only sin that holds rank over others is to blaspheme the Christ our Lord Jesus.I’m just a small time country man but my mother gave me some good advice once, she said “you better stand up for something or you will fall for every thing”. In other words if you believe ones view of baptism is sin stand up and say so, with love and respect to my dear brothers and sisters in Christ of the PCA, who know I would gladly have there backs on almost every other issue, but I would not allow them to take the Lords supper at my church because of there view of baptism and would hope that there conviction were as great as mine and would say the same thing of me in turn at there table.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:31 am
James,
I would be curious to hear your biblical support for this statement:
“t seems pretty clear to me from Scripture that children are part of the church.”
Thanks,
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Thinking out loud here…
If a convinced paedobaptist said that it was OK to do believer baptism by immersion, or if a convinced baptist said it was OK to do infant baptism, wouldn’t that to a small degree be universalistic?
I think Dever is wise in calling it “sin”. Just as a Presbyterian would be wise to call not baptizing children a sin. Someone on the 9marks blog pointed out that the Westminster Confession condemns people who don’t baptize children (WCF 28.5).
I don’t see how someone convinced on either side can do anything BUT call the opposing view sin.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:32 am
@Jason [Comment #6]: Well, I don’t know if sliding scale is the best word, but we certainly make distinctions among sin, even out in the country where I am from too. If someone sins inside the family, only the family might know about it. The repercussions don’t go very far. But if someone steals another persons cow, uh oh, the whole community is going to be involved.
Yes, I am being quite serious. Our sin has relational repercussions that depend on what it is. On top of that, the Bible makes distinctions between intentional and unintentional sins. We also have issues related to moral sin or theological error. Is it a sin not to believe in a premil coming of Christ? I wouldn’t say that.
So, we certainly do make distinctions among sin, and part of my point in this is to address that. Racism and universalism, as pointed out by my friend Tom, are heinous intentional sins. They should not be anywhere near the same category as infant baptism.
As for accepting them at the Lord’s Table, we do at my church. And if you showed up at their church, they would accept you. That particular issue is a one way street for some Baptists, and I might add that the rebaptism thing is a one way street for some Baptists too. Unless you went to a church where the elders are trying to make a point (which would be rare in this case), you would not have to be rebaptized. They would accept your immersion as a confessing Christians.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:40 am
@ Garrett: Thanks for pointing that out. I should not have said “pretty clear” because that is the whole point, isn’t it. I probably should have qualified that more by saying it seems clear to me now.
Well, I think a statement like Paul makes in Ephesians 6, “children, obey your parents in the Lord,” is something indicating that children are part of the church. Of course that wouldn’t solve anything in a discussion like this because the undergirding presupposition is my definition of the church.
One could easily say he is talking to baptized children who have made a decision for the Lord. But I cannot do that anymore. When I preach in my church and I address the children, I am not limiting myself to the baptized children who made a decision. When I pastor, I don’t make distinctions on that issue. Those children are being addressed as participants in the church.
But in that statement, the issue boils down to how I view the church (and by implication the new covenant). I don’t define the church as the elect, regenerate members. I define the church as the church I see right in front of me and the church I pastor.
But then there is also the issue of how I view nurture (of children in a Christian family) and how I view conversion. So it never stops.
Anyway, my apologies for overstating the clarity of the issue generally speaking. Five years ago I would have said, “It seems clear to me that children are not part of the church because they are not part of the New Covenant.” I simply don’t think Scripture supports that anymore.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:47 am
@Don: Glad you are thinking out loud here! I love it!
To address the first issue, yes, the WCF calls it a sin. And Baptists call the opposite a sin. My concern is over precisely how helpful that is. Especially given the different categories of sin I pointed out above.
Second, although the WCF calls it a sin, they will nevertheless accept a confessing baptism by immersion. Of course they baptize adults, and for them mode doesn’t matter in determining whether the baptism was legitimate.
So what we have here is a situation where confessionalists (who affirm the WCF) accept what we do, even though they call it a sin, but we do not accept what they do.
As for calling the acceptance of both positions (even to a small degree) universalistic, I am not following the logic behind that. Is that because it is connected to salvation? Universalistic has a particular connection to salvation regardless of one’s particular life. I wouldn’t attach that word to this debate/discussion. I think it is confusing. Instead, I would speak of it as a theological matter in terms of what is essential and non-essential. But help me out with what you are trying to get across. I’m just not following right now.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Thanks for the clarification James. I appreciate your candor.
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Good discussion! I just wanted to comment on and ask questions about your reading of Eph 6:1.
First, you said you can’t see the children addressed as children who profess to believe. But, why not since the letter to the Ephesians is explicitly addressed “to the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph 1:1). The letter is explicitly to those who are “faithful.” Do you believe that all children of believers are faithful?
Second, don’t all the commands of the new covenant go out to the whole world? Aren’t all men to believe? Aren’t all men to repent? Aren’t all men to come to Christ and to obey His good and gracious instructions? If so, then aren’t all children everywhere *required* by the new covenant to “obey your parents in the Lord?” All children everywhere are required to be in the Lord! And, they are all required to obey their parents in Him. The fact that they are required to do so does not mean that they are “in the Lord” or that they will be “in the Lord,” only that they are obligated to do so.
For these two reasons, it seems to me that Eph 6:1 is weak evidence that unbelieving children are in the church.
But, I would definitely affirm that they are in the new covenant community!!! They are certainly addressed by the Bible since the law and the gospel is extended to the children in the new covenant community. They benefit from the new covenant as they sit under the preaching of the Word of God, as they participate in the life of the community, and as they observe the example of the body of Christ.
But, the church is explicitly revealed to be composed of those who profess to be believers and who the Bible charitably grants are believers, “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (1 Cor 1:2).
Are all the children of believers sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, and do they “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?” The church is composed of those who profess to be believers and who call upon the name of Christ.
I love you brother!!!! : )
Blessings in Christ,
Tom
March 20th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Tom: I gotta go mow my yard!!
I have a quick answer, but not sufficient. I Think Eph. 6 is speaking about the “gospel” environment, not some creational mandate/law. Children are always supposed to obey their parents. That is foundational to the moral law. But the way I read Eph. 6 is that the command there is rooted in the gospel: “in the Lord.”
Ephesians is known as the great example of how the indicatives precede the imperatives. So the obedience of children in a Christians environment is rooted in something different than the environment outside the gospel/church. It has an indicative.
We will probably not agree on Eph 6, but when I preach it, I am telling all the children in my church to obey their parents “in the Lord,” whether they have been baptized or not. But I would not use that language to children or parents outside the church as you seem to indicate above.
I’ve got to mow the church yard too!!!
March 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Just to be certain I was clear about where I stand, though the children of believers are in the new covenant community and though the Bible certainly speaks to them and gives them blessings, instructions, and promises, they are not in the new covenant itself (which is composed of believers only) and apart from a credible profession of faith, they are not to be incorporated into the visible church (which is a mixed group composed of professing believers, though the professing believers in the church who sit there on Sundays are both believers and unbelievers).
March 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Tom: I am glad you see them as part of the new covenant community!! That is a great step. But then you go on to make a distinction that I cannot make, and which the Bible doesn’t make (but I realize we all do this since we are all trying to get at this issue).
You are making the distinction between the New Covenant members and the New Covenant community. I just cannot do that!!
March 20th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I’ve enjoyed reading the exchanges.
JHG, I would like to know how the issue of ecclesiastical authority comes into play on this matter, given that neither side’s position is mentioned in the Bible with the explicitness that both sides tend to claim. In other words, there is not an explicit example (for either side) of an infant being baptized or an infant baptism being rejected in the New Testament.
Yet, both sides accept each other as ecclesiastical entities operating within the “Church” universal.
In the end, what I would like to see (regarding this baptism issue alone) is a willingness on Dever’s side to respect the wisdom of other pastors and accept infant baptism as a possible, yet not mandatory practice, while still upholding the absolute requirement of baptism (infant or adult) within the Church.
This would never happen, but I would like to see it.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:48 am
But, James, you say that I make a distinction that the Bible doesn’t make but you haven’t addressed the biblical evidence I have produced in support of such a distinction.
What about Eph 1:1 and 1 Cor 1:2? Do you believe that all children of believers are “faithful,” “saints,” “called of God,” who have “called on the name of the Lord?”
These texts seem to require that children of believers who are undeniably part of the church community are not part of the church itself. How could I read them differently?
Also, it isn’t a “step” to say that children are a part of the new covenant community. It is simply a “fact” that all Baptists who have thought about this issue have recognized. Children are there. They are wonderfully there! They are actually a part of the community. Baptists have never wanted to deny that. What we deny is that they are a part of what the NT calls and identifies as the “church.”
Tom
March 20th, 2009 at 10:56 am
One last thing: Don’t the Ephesian indicatives precede the imperatives even for those outside the church? Is it just the law that ought to be preached to the world or is it also the gospel? The gospel indicatives of God’s great saving actions go out to all the world. Do they not? Is this not the preaching function of the covenant of grace / new covenant?
Now, if you mean the indicative of assurance, then certainly assurance of salvation and of being in Christ doesn’t go to the world, but neither does it go to all the church, or else we wouldn’t have multitudes of texts addressed to believers in the church on how to “know” that they are in Christ.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Tom,
Your drawing an “unnecessary” distinction between the NC and the NC community. That’s the whole disagreement. The point of a covenant is the fact that it is tangible and real in its historical outworking. Thus, in an already/not yet era, we should all understand and expect the NC and the NC community to be a “mixture” of believers and non-believers until the Lord returns. Yes, we are to strive for the purity of the NC and its community through church discipline, but there is no warrant for bringing baptism into the realm of church discipline (which is what you are ultimately doing by delaying baptism for children of believers). You are doing it to try and maintain some artificial purity of the New Covenant that simply does not exist in Scripture or in the reality of the present age.
I simply see no scriptural evidence for your conclusions.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Glenn, how do you handle Eph 1:1 and 1 Cor 1:2? That’s the scriptural evidence I produced in support of my conclusion.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Tom,
The greetings of Paul are covenantal. They do not demand the distinction you are drawing. I see nothing in either verse that implies that the NC is somehow only made up of true believers.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Glenn, I think it is a disservice to our children to treat them like disciples of Jesus when they don’t manifest the qualities of a disciple of Jesus. I believe we should only treat like disciples those who profess and act as Christ said disciples do.
According to Scripture, if a person cannot “bear his own cross,” and “come after” Christ, he “cannot be a disciple” (Luke 14:27). Jesus says, “Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). And, “if you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine” (John 8:31). And, “You are My disciples if you have love for one another” (John 13:22). And, “By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples” (John 15:8). Can an infant do these things? Do all the infant children of believers believe?
March 20th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Glenn, the greetings refer to his audience as “faithful” and those who “call on the name of the Lord Jesus.” Do infant children of believers meet all these criteria?
March 20th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The only way I can imagine anyone saying that the epistolary greetings describe infants is if he bifurcates biblical soteriological categories into “covenantal” and “decretal/eschatological.” But, this distinction would seem to flow more from a paedobaptist system-demand than from a plain reading of the text.
“Faithful” on a paedobaptist system cannot mean “eschatologicaly believing,” therefore, it must not. It must mean “covenantally believing,” which isn’t qualitatively or quantitatively the same as “decretal believing.”
There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that places infants in the church.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
James,
A quick reply: I think you’re right that I shouldn’t attach that word to this debate. I wasn’t using “universal” in the pure sense as relating to salvation. I was using it more in a very general, “anything goes” way.
I’m enjoying this discussion.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Glenn,
One of the specific promises of the new covenant (of which every Christian is a part of) is “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:34; cf. Heb. 8 & 10).
I know you would argue that there is an already/not yet aspect to this, so that there are still unbelievers in the new covenant, but I’ve never been able to understand WHERE interpreters get their rationale for applying an already/not yet qualification to this promise. It seems to me to be very much imposed on the text at the presuppositional level, rather than arrived at through exegesis of the text itself. Shouldn’t we expect that the differences between the old and new covenants themselves (as delineated, for example, in 2 Cor. 3) would lead to differences in the covenant communities as well?
Also, do you apply the already/not yet schema to the rest of the promises of the new covenant? If so, how would that work for “I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more”?
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Great discussion. If I might offer an opinion on the Eph 6 discussion.
First, is the promise “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land” part of the New Covenant anywhere except here? Not that I’m aware of.
Second, we need to take all of what the Bible says about New Covenant membership into consideration when we work to decide who Eph 6:1-2 is addressing. The sign and seal of New Covenant membership is the Holy Spirit (2Co 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30). New Covenant members have their sins forgiven and all know the Lord. (Jer 31). There just isn’t any indication that children of NC members are automatically members themselves.
With that in view, I am inclined toward Tom’s understanding rather than James’.
As far as there being a distinction between covenant community and covenant membership, I would appeal to the OT references to the aliens who sojourned with Israel. They participate in certain aspects of the OC and were granted protections under the OC, but they were not children of Abraham, heirs according to promise.
See, this is what I said we needed to talk about elsewhere. Not baptism, but NC membership.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Thanks for dropping by on the discussion Tim. As to your references to the New Covenant, I no longer believe that it is unbreakable, so that is one of my governing presuppositions. So yes, the broader discussion concerns NC membership and one’s view of the nature of the New Covenant.
For me, there are several areas that concern the discussion of Baptism.
1) The Nature of the New Covenant (breakable or unbreakable)
2) The Nature of Conversion (how one describes it in regard to children who grow up in the church; this is part of point 3; but some people cannot imagine that I would ever admit to a more nurturing model than a crisis conversion experience)
3) A Theology of Children (which includes views of nurture and discipleship-which is about the difference between a catechetical faith or a conversion oriented faith)
4) Practical implications for the Christian life and identity that any theology must address (which means the sociological importance of identity in the church)
March 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I am waiting for my paedobaptist, confessional Presbyterian brother Jesse to jump in here. Where are you Jesse?
March 20th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I very carefully avoided whether the NC is breakable. Wasn’t sure why but I’m glad I did.
I think that amongst Reformed Baptists, our greatest weakness is that we’ve yet to articulate a robust theology of children and the NC. David Kingdon noted that in Children of Abraham but no one has answered his call!
When I’ve discussed paedobaptism with folks, some aren’t persuaded because of the “what about the kids” question.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
James,
If I was surprised to hear you say that children are in the church, I’m doubly so to hear you say that the new covenant is breakable. Could you elaborate?
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I think that the theology of children is a huge problem in Baptist circles. That has to be addressed.
But part of that theology involves the practical implications of what is taking place in the church. We have a more liturgical worship service. Every Sunday we have a corporate confession of sin, say the Lord’s Prayer, have a confession of faith, etc. We also have communion on the first and the third Sunday.
I am convinced that one of the reasons we have not thought through this issue more clearly is because communion is so infrequent. Once communion hits you frequently, the all kinds of other things come up. Children, almost inevitably at the age of 4-7, start asking questions about their identity and participation in the church.
Now those kids have been catechized. We have Catechism Class every Wednesday night, and we have made a commitment to a more catechetical, nurturing process for the life of faith. That creates all kinds of other issues that I didn’t anticipate when we started it.
So, Baptists certainly do need to do the work of involving a strong theology of children in terms not only of conversion and nurture and the relation between the two, but also in terms of sociological experience and kingdom identity that is being shaped in them form ages 0-8 (or whenever they get baptized).
March 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I nominate Tom Hicks for the job. What do you say, shall we draft him?
March 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Perhaps I can write it with Tom and bring some balance
But some would wonder if I am a Baptist anymore, Tom included!!
March 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
@ Garrett: I’ll give a short elaboration and then come back to it. What I don’t mean is that elect people can loose their election. I don’t think the new covenant is speaking in terms of eternal election. I think that is what the covenant of redemption is (although I understand people don’t agree with that covenant, no problem; I just want to clarify I am not talking about election).
So, I affirm eternal election. I affirm those who are elect will be in heaven. So I am saying something else when I talk about the New Covenant.
What I am saying is that there are some in the new covenant community who have been baptized who are not elect. I realize that one of the central baptist arguments for ecclesiology is the new covenant promises and the implication for a sort of regenerate church membership. But I don’t think that argument is solid.
I personally think that when Jesus is talking about the sower and the seed, he is describing what is taking place in the new covenant. Part of my reason for thinking this is Hebrews. I think Hebrews uses the language of covenant breaking in chapters 3-4, 6, 10, and 12-13. I think when the New Testament talks about apostasy it is talking about covenant breaking.
Take Hebrews 10:29-30 as an example:
“How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.” And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.”
I interpret that passage in terms of breaking the New Covenant. Those people have been set apart by God, but now their actions/unbelief have results in their judgment. And then the writer says that the Lord will “judge his people.” That type of judgment will not take place on the elect. It will take place on the people described in this passage. But those people are described as God’s people.
So, I need some way to speak about people in the church who are called God’s people but are not the elect. If I believe the New Covenant is unbreakable, then I need to have some other category, like the New Covenant community or something like that. But I prefer to call the church/new covenant community God’s people.
That is not a satisfactory explanation, but hopefully it makes sense.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Just a few thoughts on a Friday when I am way behind schedule.
1. Tom per comment 13; The idea that all covenantal promises and commands by extension go to the whole earth is an odd interpretive maneuver. The fact that all “should” come to Jesus and know Him, doesn’t mean the commands in Ephesus that flow from knowing Him some how are directed to the world by extension. While the Mosaic administration made provision for the convert, the commands/blessings/promises were covenantally and historically conditioned and given to a particular people. The same is true in Ephesus, a particular people are in mind (the church) and not “all folks everywhere”.
2.Tim per comment 27, you mention that the covenantal blessing/promise attached to the obedience of children in Ephesians 6 (blessing and long life in the land) is only found here. I am not sure what you were aiming at by bringing that up, but it is odd that it does find its way into the NC since the same promise was directed to kids in the OC and we KNOW they were in the covenant!
The reality in Ephesians is that Paul goes from submit one to another “in the Lord” down a list of folks “in the Lord” including husbands, wives, children etc. It is clear he believes these groups he is speaking with to be “in the Lord” and able to obey because they are “in the Lord” (indicative/imperative). Therefore Paul is speaking to these children as those “in the Lord” and therefore a covenantal promise is fitting, since they are covenant members. The only question is, “Is Paul speaking to the ‘professing’ children only (Baptist) or all the children of believers present (paedo)?” That is of course the crux of the argument.
For now, all I want to say is if you are a Baptist, be one BUT please don’t ever raise your non-baptized children using this verse. Don’t tell them to obey mommy and daddy because God thinks its right because the only place we find such commands are within covenantal contexts with promises and blessings attached (see Eph 6.1 and Ex 20.12ff). These are not some dehistoricized “general” principles of obedience. These aren’t ethereal eternal principles for all men everywhere. These are commands with promises from the God of the covenant to the children of the covenant. So I encourage you to raise your kids with some other book, the book of nature perhaps, but lay off this book it’s a covenantal document from the covenantal God to his covenanted people and no amount of adumbrating from text to “eternal principle” will change those realities.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
James,
One of the specific things mentioned in Heb. 8:7-13 as being wrong with the old covenant is that those under it “did not continue” in it (Heb. 8:9). This is why God “found fault WITH THEM” (Heb. 8:8), and made a new covenant in which this problem of “not continuing” would be solved by God putting His law into the minds and hearts of His new covenant people (Heb. 8:10).
In addition to that passage, we have God saying in Jer. 32:40: “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.” Not only does God promise not to turn away from us, but He ensures that we will not turn away from Him!
In light of these things, it seems wrong to say that the new covenant is breakable; that is one of the very things God was fixing by making a new covenant!
I realize that the warning passages of Hebrews are there, and they must be dealt with, but surely they can be explained without having to contradict what seems to me to be the plain teaching of several texts.
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Tom, per comments 23,24,25:
First, I find it hard to believe that children in Baptist churches are not being treated like disciples. Maybe your fellowship is more in line with your thinking, but I just don’t see how that is the case for most Baptist churches. They treat their children like disciples and always promote raising them in the “discipline and admonition of the Lord.”
Second, as to what infants and young children can do… I believe James has already touched on this regarding the catechetical faith or a conversion oriented faith. It’s not about setting a standard for when someone has been converted to a certain level of understanding in order to declare them a disciple and worthy of baptism. It’s about covenant nurture and raising our children to be found mature in Christ. This means TEACHING them to bear the cross of Christ, to abide in His word, and to love one another. That is how we make disciples after all, isn’t it? I cannot believe that a faithful Christian parent would promote delaying such things until a child was a certain age or ability. I started with mine from before the day they were born and haven’t stopped since. Therefore, I believe we are all treating them like disciples and there is no scriptural warrant that tells us we should not baptize them since we are explicitly commanded to baptize in order to make disciples.
Lastly, I do not see the distinction between eschatology and covenant. They are hyper-related and that is the point I was making about the “already/not yet”. This means that anyone’s faith in this age is both covenant and eschatological, whether that faith perseveres or not. Faith is faith, but the difference is found in whether it lasts or not.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Even if we accept this dichotomy, it begs the question: how is it that those children are identified as members of the covenant community?
Because they show up for worship? Because of their Sunday School attendance record or Youth Group participation?
The Old Testament had a way: the males were circumcised. Regardless of whether they were a part of the true covenant Israel, it was clear that they were most certainly a part of the community of Israel.
I haven’t heard a consistent answer to this from the credo-baptist side. Maybe I’m not well-read in the matter (from that perspective), or maybe it’s because of the paucity of credo-baptist theology of children (as alluded to above).
March 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I got to watch Sinclair Ferguson perform a baptism (an infant baptism) last summer, and his words rang true to Glenn’s comments in #39. He said:
March 20th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Garrett,
I agree with you when you suggest we must make sense of Hebrews 8 and the rest of the book but you seem to suggest that making the new covenant unbreakable is the only way to make sense of it.
The New Covenant, as God promises, is a covenant that will not be terminated and continue on through eternity. That covenant has a mediator who, unlike Moses, has already passed from wilderness to promised rest, therefore the guarantee of that covenants continuance is in place.
That said, here we are, on this side of the Jordan waiting for the full inheritance in the New Creation. We are in the covenant, we have the promises and the down payment but not the “by sight” possession. Therefore we must continue lest we fall on this side of rest. For this we need teachers, we need the body, we need the word and sacraments. We have all these needs because we dont have full possession of the promise at this time.
There is the “now and not yet” of the new covenant. And when the fullness comes, in the new creation, then and ONLY then will Jeremiahs prophecy be completely fulfilled for us (it is ALREADY for Christ). Then we will have no need for anyone to teach us to “know the Lord” for we all shall know Him from the least to the greatest. Only then will their be no need to “fear falling into the hands of the living God”.
Until then, we must hold on to Christ and continue in faith, lest we be cut off. Thanks be to God that it is He who works in us to will and to do His good pleasure.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Rev.,
We are SO CLOSE. I agree with basically everything you said (minus your understanding of “know the Lord”), but I don’t see the lack of continuance, being cut off, falling on this side of the rest, etc. as anywhere defined in the NT as “breaking the new covenant”. Again, the passages quoted above specifically say that, for those who are actually in the new covenant, God ensures their continuance and puts the fear of Him in their hearts specifically so that they won’t turn away from Him. If anyone does turn away, it simply shows that they were never in the new covenant to begin with.
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“For he tramples underfoot the Son of God and he counts the blood of the covenant by which he was consecrated as defiled.”
Which blood?
Which covenant?
There are people “consecrated” to holy service by the blood of the new covenant who, after a season, fall away and come under more severe judgement. They are set apart like Israel of old “by the blood of the covenant” but they turn back and count it as an unholy thing. Were they elect? No. Were they set apart in some way for holy service by the blood of the NC? Yes. That is why their judgment is more severe than the “pagan out there” in the world.
That is one place you see this scenario. A scenario that shows us that real historical life cant be parsed out from our perspective by merely “elect” and “nonelect” but must rather deal with “elect in the covenant” and “non elect in the covenant”. Anyone involved in a church with a Lord’s Table and discipline has to grapple with this reality.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Rev. Pirschel, re comment 32.2. I bring that up to make the point that Eph 6:1-2 is not a New Covenant promise therefore we should not infer that children are automatically in the New Covenant from it.
What Paul is doing there is applying the Decalogue as it is written. That doesn’t mean church kids are under the Mosaic covenant, it simply shows that the Decalogue is a summation of the law written on our hearts. The qualification “in the Lord” is there because we may not honor our parents by dishonoring God. If mom says, “Come worship Athena with us, there’s a good lad” they are not to obey. This was a real danger in that day.
I think it is interesting that the other place you see this commandment applied in the NT, it is not applied to small children but to the Pharisees in Mark 7. Don’t want to make a bunch out of it, but it is interesting to see Jesus apply it to adults.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Rev.,
That is a strong verse, I admit. A couple points, and then I’ll be done. I don’t want to completely hijack this post (or is it too late for that?!), but feel free to reply as you see fit.
1) As you are probably aware, the author of Hebrews is fond of using “Christian language” to describe those who in fact are not believers. This is most obvious in Heb. 6, where he describes people who fall away, but who, prior to falling away, have: “been enlightened”; “tasted of the heavenly gift”; been made partakers of the Holy Spirit”; and “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come”. I would see Heb. 10:29 in a similar light. The false professors are described as being “sanctified by the blood of the [new] covenant,” even though they were never actually in it.
Also, this thing of using “Christian language” to describe those who are not in fact Christians is not peculiar to Hebrews; we can see the same thing in other places. One example would be in John 2:23 where it is said that many “believed in His name,” which is the exact same phrase that we have in John 1:12. But in John 2 it is being used with reference to false professors, as “Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.”
2) Whatever Heb. 10:29-30 DOES mean, we know it can’t contradict the verses I referenced earlier from Heb. 8. Yes, imposing an already/not yet scheme onto those new covenant promises solves the problem, but to me it ends up being just that: an imposition onto the text, not something derived from the text itself.
As an aside, the already/not yet scheme has a lot of truth to it, but I’ve seen it applied in ways that I thought were unbiblical. It ends up becoming this big blanket that gets thrown over everything in the NT, which causes some folks to (in my view) miss the clear statements of NT revelation. I’m not directing this comment at you, but just making a general observation that I’ve noticed over the past couple of years.
3) I can’t help but feel that our discussion here is being driven by underlying presuppositions about the nature of biblical covenants. You are a presby pastor, who I would guess (correct me if I’m wrong!) holds to covenant theology, with it’s “one covenant of grace, several administrations” understanding of the covenants. If that is the case, we can never really deal with the things we’ve been talking about without first dealing with covenant theology. We obviously don’t have the time (or energy!) for that here, but I would just direct you to two articles that I feel are excellent on this issue. They are by Jon Zens, and called “Is There a Covenant of Grace?”, and “An Examination of the Presuppositions of Dispensational and Covenant Theology”. They can be found here:
http://www.grantedministries.org/articlesTitle.php
A final thing. Even though I am baptistic (obviously!), I would have no problem embracing you as a brother and welcoming you to the communion table at my fellowship (which is a nondenominational church). Personally, I think this stuff among some Baptists of barring presbys from participating in the Lord’s Supper is divisive and thoroughly uncalled for. To bar someone from taking communion is tantamount to saying they are not a Christian, and should not be done to those we call brothers in Christ.
Thanks for the interaction,
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Oh, BTW James, Glenn Jones mentioned that you were going to the DGM National Conference this year. My wife and I go almost every year. You and Glenn and I and my wife should go out for dinner. I’d love to meet you guys.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
@Garrett: you said,
“As you are probably aware, the author of Hebrews is fond of using “Christian language” to describe those who in fact are not believers.”
This is precisely the point
@Tim: I hope to go to the conference, but not sure if I will be able to make it. Glenn is trying to wish me there!
March 20th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
James,
But you make it sound as if the author of Hebrews thinks the lost really ARE in the new covenant, not merely that it SOUNDS as if they are. There is a big difference between the two.
gh
March 20th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The author of Hebrews is not trying to make it sound that way. He is saying it. That is precisely the point. Why else would he use Christian language to describe them?
March 20th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Because the writers of the NT don’t have a problem using “Christian language” to describe experiences of the Spirit that fall short of genuine conversion. This would include expressions of temporary and/or superficial faith as seen in John 2 (mentioned above) and the parable of the sower.
I know you would respond by saying that these unconverted people (who express a temporary or superficial faith) are actually IN the new covenant, but they end up falling away, to which I would reply as I did in comment #38. Is there any way to get off of the merry-go-round?
By the way, I don’t usually stay up late at night commenting on blogs; I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. I’m usually in bed by 9. (I’m a loser.)
gh
March 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
James, I don’t remember what I told Tim about you going to the DGNC, if I have anything to say about it… you ARE going!
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
James,
I this is a great discussion…I hope we can solve all these issues! To be sure, we have some inconsistencies in our churches, those that practice infant and believers baptism. My issue is overcoming those inconsistencies. Like you, I don’t necessarily hold to a conversion view of salvation, but I would hope that there would at least be conviction of sin. This can occur in young children, so we should be excited when this begins to happen, when children begin to ask questions. I see this as the work of the Spirit. We should help them understand sin, the gospel, and new life in Christ. And I think this happens at an early age. The fact that children (like mine) who were born to believers (as I was) plays a big part in this. Maybe I’m semi-covenantal?
Having repented of their sin, confessed Jesus as Lord, been baptized, etc…they are members of the church and should be treated as such. If at some point in their lives they turn away from this, what should they be considered but covenant breakers? I really don’t want to say this, but what conclusion am I to draw?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm