The Present Reality of the New Covenant

The New Covenant is different from the previous one. For starters, the previous covenant was a collective, or a group covenant, and included all manner of people within the nation of Israel, both believer and unbeliever alike, both elect and reprobate alike. The New Covenant, as described by God in Jeremiah 31, is quite different in that it is NOT LIKE the one made before it, which those within it broke. The New Covenant is a specific, or personal covenant, one in which every member meets the description which God has put forth. The New Covenant, according to God in Jeremiah 31, is one in which ALL those who are granted access to it are believers, all are elect. Jeremiah records God saying that, in the New Covenant, they (those who are in it) will all know Him, they (those who are in it) will all have His law written on their hearts and minds, and they (all those within it) will all have their iniquity forgiven and their sin remembered no more.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians, Chapter 6, demonstrates that this is a present reality and not something which is yet to happen. Unlike the previous covenant which purposefully included believer and unbeliever alike, those within the New Covenant are instructed to, first of all, not yoke themselves to unbelievers and, second of all, to remove unbelievers from their midst. Here is what Paul says:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord,and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty. - 2 Cor. 6:14-18

Why does Paul instruct those within the church not to join in any endeavors with unbelievers? I think one reason is because those truly within the church, the body of Christ, had been specially called out from the world. They were members of a New Covenant, one in which there was to be no inclusion of those in the world.

Paul also says, “we ARE the temple of the living God”. Here and now, not sometime in the future, but right here, and right now. The true church, the body and Bride of Christ IS the temple of the living God. The context of what Paul is saying is that, God has already made His dwelling among those who have Christ, He IS their God, and they ARE His people.

This is not some future promise for us. This a present reality. Therefore, we are to keep Christ’s body holy, clean, pure and righteous, as Paul said, “what fellowship has light with darkness?”

My Concluding Thoughts on Paedo Baptism

In my previous post, Les and I finally got to a point where I asked the following question in reply to his accusation that I had built a straw man when I said Paedos presume their baptized children are believers until such time as they prove to be or not be:

So, once and for all, can you please explain EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what it is that Paedos consider their unprofessing-yet-baptized children to be – saved or unsaved, regenerate or unregenerate, born again or not born again?

The part of Les’ reply that answered this question was this:

I am trusting in God’s promise to be their God. I do not assume/presume that they are regenerate. I cannot say with certainty that my baptized infant is elect. Of course, neither can you say with certainty that your teenage professing, baptized child is elect either, right?

You ask if I treat them as believers. I think you are mixing biblical terminology. I treat them as special in God’s sight and partakers of the blessings of God’s covenant family and part of His promise. Can they walk away from God’s promise? Surely.

To which I replied the following as my concluding thoughts on Paedo Baptism:

You guys are good, I’ll give you that. I still can’t figure out what it is EXACTLY that you consider your unprofessing baptized children to be. Some of you presume them to be regenerate, some do not…some of you grant them access to the Table, some do not…some of you consider the new covenant to be breakable, some do not, etc., etc., etc.

In the words of Vinny Barberino…”I’M SO CONFUSED!!!”

-you say you do not assume/presume they are regenerate, yet you give them membership into the church as if they are

-you say they are recipients of the promise, yet you cannot say with certainty that they are elect

-you say that God has promised a myriad of things concerning them, yet if they do not get saved, God has still somehow kept His promises and is not a liar

-you say they are not heirs according to the flesh, but you consider them heirs of the promise because of who they were born to

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

I fear that I must agree with a dear Credo Christian brother of mine when he says, “I am just not smart enough to see what Paedos see!”

I’m just going to have to continue following the explicit examples and commands I see in the NT concerning baptism…that is the easiest and most straightforward thing for me to do. This Paedo thing just has too many variations and unattainable reasonings for me to get a handle on it.

Presumptive Conceptional Regeneration

PRESUME: To take for granted; suppose
CONCEPTION: The beginning of life in the womb
REGENERATION: To cause to be spiritually reborn; to be born from above

This is, by far, the most bizarre theology I see coming from those who advocate and practice the baptism of people who have not expressed repentance and faith on their own.

Others have called it presumptive regeneration. I am adding the word ‘conceptional’ because the presumption that Paedos make is their children are quite possibly regenerated (they actually ASSUME this throughout the child’s life until such time as the child confirms or denies that assumption) while still in the womb, and my thinking on this is, what better point than at the moment of conception?

Make no mistake about it, this presumption/assumption is more than a hope by the parents that their child is regenerate, because that child will be treated AS IF they are regenerate until such time as they prove to be or not to be born again.

The most amazing part of this doctrine rears its head when Paedos make statements like, “If my unborn child is already regenerate, then there will be no eternal need for them to ever hear the gospel.”

This way of thinking is totally foreign to the truth of Scripture, regardless of what many wonderful Paedo brothers and sisters say about it. Scripture is clear. We are all saved by grace, through faith, and faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Scripture makes NO provision for salvation through any other means than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I know many will get upset with me for making this comparison, but presumption conceptional regeneration seems awfully similar to baptismal regeneration. The only real difference appears to be in the timing of the Holy Spirit’s work. Granted, Catholics teach that regeneration at baptism is a sure thing, while Paedos assume it’s a sure thing until the child confirms or denies their parents’ assumption. End the end, though, they sure seem similar to me.

Another Kind of Memorial

Since there are plenty of good Memorial Day posts elsewhere in the blogosphere that honor those who have given their lives for our freedom, I thought I would post on another kind of memorial.

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. - 1 Cor. 11:23-26

In Memory of Little Maria Sue Chapman

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.

Paedo vs. Credo in a Nutshell

I think the major distinction between our positions is that Paedos equate those in the new covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate those in the new covenant with the body of Christ.

I am sure that someone else has probably characterized the difference this way before, but this is something I thought of during the recent discussions we had on infant baptism. I think this may be the simplest way to draw a distinction between the two positions.

What is interesting is that I can find no reference in the Bible to the new covenant relating to both wheat and tares. The only references I find are those which indicate the new covenant consists of those who have been born again…those who are already a part of the body…the Bride of Christ.

Therefore, while I certainly understand the Paedo’s sentimental reasoning with respect to assuming their children are in the covenant of regenerated sinners, there is no scriptural support that they are. I must conclude, based upon the explicit descriptions within the Bible, that the new covenant is indeed referring to those within the Bride of Christ, and not merely those persons who may be found within the visible church.

And the Hits Just Keep on Fallin’…Unless the Subject is Controversial

Just a thought I was thinking about today…

It is interesting to me that, whenever I merely post about various things concerning Scripture or some truth found therein, the hits to my blog run anywhere from about 180-250 a day, but whenever I post about something controversial like infant baptism, or what some church has done, or what some well-known Christian leader has said or bought, etc., my hits go through the roof to around 400-700 per day and even higher.

I was reminded of this yesterday while watching the video of the latest White Horse Inn broadcast, in which Scott Clark, a professor at Westminster Seminary, while talking about those in the past who would try to raise awareness by grabbing the attention of the public (specifically Whitefield), said that when he posts something a little critical about someone, his hits go through the roof. Yet, when he exposits the gospel on his blog, nobody cares about that.

What is your tendency? Do you tend to run to the polarizing issue at hand, or do you tend to focus on the Word of God? I am asking this of myself as well while typing this.

Quality Time

My oldest son Joshua (10 years old) worked with me this weekend setting up moonwalks (in case you don’t know, we run a party planning business). We started Saturday morning around 7AM and got home at around 10:30PM that night. When we arrived back at the warehouse, I asked him what he thought about what we did all day. He replied, “Well…I wouldn’t say that the work was fun…but spending time with you was fun.”

When I relayed to Pam what Joshua had said, I broke down, thinking of how much I love him, and the rest of my children.

I pray that God would give me many more days of time spent with Joshua…before he wakes up one morning and realizes that it’s not cool to hang around with dad.

I love you, Josh.

White Horse Inn Goes Visual!

Selling Jesus – Consumerism, Capitalism, & Competition in the name of Christ

Click the image to see the video of the broadcast.

Little Zoei Sings Amazing Grace

Here’s another great performance from Zoei, the same little girl on the video I posted the other day singing the Lord’s Prayer.