More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Started reading
June 13, 2024
Only after a theology of parenthood is understood may we properly turn to a discussion of covenantal baptism. When it comes to childrearing, between the Old and New Testaments there is total and complete continuity on the subject of godly parenting. There is no discontinuity. It needs to be emphasized again that there is continuity in the promises of God with regard to parenting.
One of the problems in the entire debate over baptism has been the natural mistake of deriving the doctrine of the covenant from our doctrine of baptism, instead of beginning with the doctrine of the covenant, and then proceeding to discuss baptism.
they did not look up all the passages that addressed parents, children, generations, descendants, promises, covenants, circumcision, Gentiles, Jews, olive trees, and countless other important areas. In other words, the subject is bigger than it looks.
For evangelical baptists one of the hardest things to overcome in a discussion of these matters is the prejudice that associates any form of infant baptism with the kind of paedobaptism which is practiced, for example, by the Roman Catholic church. This is honestly one of the hardest aspects of the discussion for baptists to get past. But in the arguments that follow, there is no creeping sacerdotalism or advocacy of priestcraft of any kind. Biblically understood and practiced, infant baptism is thoroughly and completely evangelical.
Circumcision began with the promise, to use Paul’s terms, and not with the law. It is part of the promise to Abraham, and was not instituted at Sinai.
A central feature of the New Covenant, however, was that it would do precisely that—cleanse the conscience. Quoting Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews assures us of the central importance of true forgiveness under the New Covenant. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more” (Heb. 8:12).
The Levitical administration of the covenant culminated in a terrible curse for disobedience (2 Cor. 3:9); the New Covenant administration will culminate in a tremendous blessing for obedience (Heb. 8:11).
The New Covenant will not end in the condemnation of the covenant people. Rather, it will end with a spotless bride, beautifully adorned for her Husband. The New Covenant is a ministry of worldwide salvation.
We are therefore justified in saying that under the Levitical administration the people of God lived in servitude—and it was a yoke that was impossible for them to bear (Acts 15:10).
we know from Scripture that there were many faithful saints during that time, and that they were put right with God in the same way we are—by grace through faith. But how could such saints stand before God on the basis of a Levitical administration which was fleshly, earthly, temporary, immature, disobedient, cursed, external, etc.? A sinner needs far more than external religion in order to be able to stand before the Lord. Faith in Christ The answer is that they stood before God on the basis of the gospel of Christ, and they did so by faith.
for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). In other words, the New Covenant is effective in the salvation of the Old Testament saints. How were David’s sins washed away? By the blood of Christ. How was Abraham put right with God? Through faith in the gospel. But the blood of Christ is the blood of the New Covenant. And the gospel is the message of that same covenant.
at any building site, there are many materials used in the process of building that are not part of the final edifice. They are temporary; for an example, consider the scaffolding. When the building arrives at a certain point of completion, the scaffolding comes down.
the scaffolding, when compared to the building as a building, is far inferior to it.
The baptistic assumption is that unbelief is utterly inconsistent with the New Covenant, such that the covenant cannot really be entered into by unbelievers. In other words, the sin of unbelief (to the point of apostasy) is an impossibility for members of the New Covenant. Therefore, the elect and the covenant members are the same set of people.
This is quite a good insight.
The paedobaptistic assumption is that unbelief is utterly inconsistent with the New Covenant, such that it violates that covenant. Such a violation means that the curses of the covenant now apply to those unbelievers who are within the covenant. Therefore, the elect and the covenant members are not identical sets of people.
The paedobaptist holds that the difference between the covenants is that the promises in the New are much better—meaning that the ratio of believer to unbeliever will drastically change. The history of the New Israel will not be dismal like the Old Israel.
The Gentiles were threatened with removal from the same tree the unbelieving Jews had been in. But if this were the tree of salvation, then the elect can lose their salvation—which cannot be defended biblically. And if this is the tree of the covenant, then the point stands.
Confronted with the gross and unbelieving history of the Jews, the baptist must say the Old Testament record of the disobedience of the Jews does not apply to our situation, and that to compare them is to compare apples and oranges. But this means he must therefore explain why the New Testament draws parallels where the baptist draws contrasts.
