David Field has been imagining a world where the new covenant is co-terminous with eternal decretal election and seeing what happens, here, here and here. It's not pretty.
Particularly worth some thought is what happens when you try to move from the (alleged) unbreakability of the new covenant to antipaedobaptism:
You'd have to think that you could identify the big-E Elect by their faith. But that would exclude the possibility of false faith or temporary faith. And since you can't know for sure that someone's faith isn't false faith or temporary faith then you'd never baptise anyone at all.
If the response is, "we're not claiming to baptize the Elect, only those who look like the Elect because they have faith" then you've just separated out baptism from the New Covenant and said that baptism is for "those who look like the Elect to us".
Which is fine, because that's what paedobaptists / covenantalists are claiming: that we operate at the level of the "look like Elect to us" and that's how God intends it to be.
Mind you, if baptism is then the initiation rite for the New Covenant then you've just said that there are people who rightly receive the New Covenant sign but who are not big-E Elect. But if they rightly receive the New Covenant initiation rite then they break the New Covenant then the New Covenant is breakable.
So if you want to argue that everyone in the New Covenant is a big-B believer (decretally Elect) and yet that we rightly give the New Covenant initiation rite to those little-b believers (non-Elect, those with false faith / temporary faith etc) then you must deny that the New covenant initiation rite actually initiates people into the New Covenant. That is, that the baptism of the non-Elect isn't baptism, it's just "getting them wet". And the NT evidence for that is what precisely? Non-existent, that's what.
Showing posts with label Covenant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Covenant. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Calvin and Covenant/Election
Some quotes from Calvin on covenant and election issues.
"So it was in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and England after the Lord established his covenant there. When those countries were oppressed by the tyranny of the Antichrist, the Lord used two means to keep his covenant inviolable. First, he maintained baptism there, a witness to this covenant; consecrated by his own mouth, it retains its force despite the impiety of men. Secondly, by his own providence he caused other vestiges to remain, that the church might not utterly die.”
[Calvin, Institutes, IV.II.11 (2:1051-1052)]
“But there is also another reason in our case, when God receives us into his favour; for we were covenant-breakers under the Papacy; there was not one of us who had not departed from the pledge of his baptism."
[Calvin, Commentaries, (13:115)]
“For when they claimed for themselves the name “church,” they wanted belief in the gospel to depend upon their decision. Today, in like manner, the papists with this false pretext would willingly substitute themselves for God. Paul, although he admits that, by virtue of the covenant, the offspring of Abraham are holy, still contends that many among them are outside of it. And that is not only because they degenerate from legitimate children to bastards but also because God’s special election towers and rules over all, alone ratifying his adoption.”
[Calvin, Institutes, III.XXI.7 (2:931)]
So, for Calvin,
a. Baptism does something - it witnesses to the covenant and brings with it the obligation to abide by the terms of the covenant.
b. By virtue of the covenant someone can be 'holy' in a way but really be an outsider from the perspective of special election.
c. There is such a thing as covenant-breaking in the new covenant.
d. God's special electing grace is sovereign over adoption and apostasy.
Good.
"So it was in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and England after the Lord established his covenant there. When those countries were oppressed by the tyranny of the Antichrist, the Lord used two means to keep his covenant inviolable. First, he maintained baptism there, a witness to this covenant; consecrated by his own mouth, it retains its force despite the impiety of men. Secondly, by his own providence he caused other vestiges to remain, that the church might not utterly die.”
[Calvin, Institutes, IV.II.11 (2:1051-1052)]
“But there is also another reason in our case, when God receives us into his favour; for we were covenant-breakers under the Papacy; there was not one of us who had not departed from the pledge of his baptism."
[Calvin, Commentaries, (13:115)]
“For when they claimed for themselves the name “church,” they wanted belief in the gospel to depend upon their decision. Today, in like manner, the papists with this false pretext would willingly substitute themselves for God. Paul, although he admits that, by virtue of the covenant, the offspring of Abraham are holy, still contends that many among them are outside of it. And that is not only because they degenerate from legitimate children to bastards but also because God’s special election towers and rules over all, alone ratifying his adoption.”
[Calvin, Institutes, III.XXI.7 (2:931)]
So, for Calvin,
a. Baptism does something - it witnesses to the covenant and brings with it the obligation to abide by the terms of the covenant.
b. By virtue of the covenant someone can be 'holy' in a way but really be an outsider from the perspective of special election.
c. There is such a thing as covenant-breaking in the new covenant.
d. God's special electing grace is sovereign over adoption and apostasy.
Good.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
More on Covenant/Election in Hebrews
Q: Does Hebrews distinguish types of covenant membership?
I think it does:
Q: But isn't some of this 'you're in the covenant' language hypothetical?
Well, take a particular example - one of the warning passages in Hebrews.
Heb. 10:28-29: Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I must admit to finding this passage still fairly difficult, (especially since I'm convinced of limited atonement, which closes down the options for interpreting this verse). But, the trouble with ‘sanctified’ being hypothetical is that wouldn’t that mean everything else is hypothetical too? So the passage would be saying something like this:
"The bad news for apostates is that they profane [but they don’t really profane] the blood of the covenant [which covenant they were never a part of] by which they were sanctified [though they were never actually sanctified by it]. Man, someone who has done [i.e. not really done] any of that will face a far worse punishment than the Israelite under the old covenant who disobeyed the law [which they actually were obliged to obey as part of the old covenant, because the old covenant did have members who were not decretally elect to eternal salvation, unlike the new covenant]."
In short, the new covenant brings worse punishments for non-members who disobey its terms than the old did for those who really were members and disobeyed. Which doesn't make sense to me.
It could be, of course, that the passage does not mean 'sanctification' in the exact same way that some other parts of the bible and some confessions of faith and various (important) theological discussions mean it. In that sense they were never sanctified, sure. But maybe that’s not the only thing signified by 'sanctified,' nor is it the only kind of sanctification the covenant has on offer.
Which means we're back to distinguishing (though not separating) covenant and election, and discussing types of covenant membership.
I think it does:
- You can be a son or an illegitimate child (12:8).
- You can fall away from the living God (3:12)
- You can be the sort of land that drinks in the rain but produces thorns and thistles (6:8)
- You can drift from what you've heard (2:2)
- You can be Esau and sell your birthright (12:16).
- It’s possible to leave Egypt but fail to enter the land (Chapters 3-4).
- You can be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, share in the Spirit, taste the goodness of the word and the powers of the age to come, and yet fall away irrevocably (6:4-6)
- You can shrink back and be destroyed (10:39)
- You can have come to Zion but refuse to listen to the one who speaks from heaven (12:25).
- You can show contempt for the blood of the covenant that sanctified you (10:28-29).
- And yet, it's only if we endure that we are his house/ partakers of Christ (3:6, 14).
Q: But isn't some of this 'you're in the covenant' language hypothetical?
Well, take a particular example - one of the warning passages in Hebrews.
Heb. 10:28-29: Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I must admit to finding this passage still fairly difficult, (especially since I'm convinced of limited atonement, which closes down the options for interpreting this verse). But, the trouble with ‘sanctified’ being hypothetical is that wouldn’t that mean everything else is hypothetical too? So the passage would be saying something like this:
"The bad news for apostates is that they profane [but they don’t really profane] the blood of the covenant [which covenant they were never a part of] by which they were sanctified [though they were never actually sanctified by it]. Man, someone who has done [i.e. not really done] any of that will face a far worse punishment than the Israelite under the old covenant who disobeyed the law [which they actually were obliged to obey as part of the old covenant, because the old covenant did have members who were not decretally elect to eternal salvation, unlike the new covenant]."
In short, the new covenant brings worse punishments for non-members who disobey its terms than the old did for those who really were members and disobeyed. Which doesn't make sense to me.
It could be, of course, that the passage does not mean 'sanctification' in the exact same way that some other parts of the bible and some confessions of faith and various (important) theological discussions mean it. In that sense they were never sanctified, sure. But maybe that’s not the only thing signified by 'sanctified,' nor is it the only kind of sanctification the covenant has on offer.
Which means we're back to distinguishing (though not separating) covenant and election, and discussing types of covenant membership.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Covenant and Election in Hebrews
Hebrews is also of help to us in thinking about the whole covenant-election thing.
Q: Is the new covenant unbreakable? [i.e. are the only people in the covenant those who cannot fall from it]
If yes, then you’d expect the logic in Hebrews to be: The new covenant is unbreakable, so you can’t break it, so you’re fine. In others words, to argue from the covenant to security, but not from the covenant to the danger of falling.
So, how come the logic is: Jesus brings in a new covenant, so don’t be a covenant-breaker, because that’s far worse than being a covenant-breaker under the old [Hebrews 2:1-4, Hebrews 12:18-29]. That is, Hebrews is written to people in the new covenant warning them not to become covenant-breakers.
Ok, so maybe therefore you could put it like this:
The new covenant is unbreakable, so make sure you don’t break it, because if you break it you prove that you’ve never been in it (because, after all, the new covenant is unbreakable). After all, doesn't Hebrews say something like this in 3:6, 14.
Which is fine, but only if we are able to distinguish types of being ‘in’ the covenant. Otherwise I don’t think it works. They’re spoken to on the basis of being in the covenant, not on the basis of maybe being in the covenant. They have come to Mount Zion where they can hear the voice of the Son of God speaking to them.
And if we’re able to distinguish types of being ‘in the covenant’ then it is possible to be a covenant-breaker.
[More to come later...]
Q: Is the new covenant unbreakable? [i.e. are the only people in the covenant those who cannot fall from it]
If yes, then you’d expect the logic in Hebrews to be: The new covenant is unbreakable, so you can’t break it, so you’re fine. In others words, to argue from the covenant to security, but not from the covenant to the danger of falling.
So, how come the logic is: Jesus brings in a new covenant, so don’t be a covenant-breaker, because that’s far worse than being a covenant-breaker under the old [Hebrews 2:1-4, Hebrews 12:18-29]. That is, Hebrews is written to people in the new covenant warning them not to become covenant-breakers.
Ok, so maybe therefore you could put it like this:
The new covenant is unbreakable, so make sure you don’t break it, because if you break it you prove that you’ve never been in it (because, after all, the new covenant is unbreakable). After all, doesn't Hebrews say something like this in 3:6, 14.
Which is fine, but only if we are able to distinguish types of being ‘in’ the covenant. Otherwise I don’t think it works. They’re spoken to on the basis of being in the covenant, not on the basis of maybe being in the covenant. They have come to Mount Zion where they can hear the voice of the Son of God speaking to them.
And if we’re able to distinguish types of being ‘in the covenant’ then it is possible to be a covenant-breaker.
[More to come later...]
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Jeremiah 32 and Infant Baptism
Neil Jeffers (who, I understand, leaves Oak Hill today) wrote a good short dissertation in his third year on Jeremiah 32:37-41 and infant baptism, and I've just finished reading it. To understand the relevance, imagine the following (imaginary) conversation between a (reformed) paedobaptist and a (reformed) baptist:
Baptist: Oi, stop baptising babies, where do you get that from in the bible eh?
Paedobaptist: Er, no, I'm not gonna stop. Baptising infants of believers is taught in the bible, so it is.
B: Where?
PB: Well, in that whole covenant thing.
B (since he is a reformed baptist): Covenant? Yeah, I've heard of that. Proceed my good man, how does it establish your bizarre watery practices?!
PB: Well, y'know, that thing about the children of believers being included in the covenant along with their parents, and therefore receiving the covenant sign too - circumcision in the old, baptism in the new.
B (being an amicable fellow): Ah, I see. There's one problem with that...
PB (also being an amicable fellow): What's that then my ole chum?
B: Doesn't Jeremiah 31:31-34 teach that the new covenant is different from the old in some crucial ways, ways which would lead to (so to speak) 'knocking baby-baptism' on the old head?
Now, whilst PB would always have had plenty of responses at this point (such as 'hmmm, to what extent do you think Jeremiah 31 is eschatologically fulfilled?'), Neil Jeffers has ably provided another, and that derived from a parallel 'new covenant' passage in Jeremiah:
PB: Good point my good man. However, I fear that Jeremiah 32: 37-41 speaks of the new covenant and includes the children of believers.
B: (mumbles something about Spurgeon and heads for the hills)
Ok, so it's not as straight-forward as that (and obviously Reformed Baptist's would hardly be conquered by a single text). If you want the arguments in all their exegetical and systematic detail then read Neil's dissertation (sorry if you're reading this and not at Oak Hill and therefore can't).
BTW I love my baptist brethren, John Bunyan was a legend, Piper is an inspiration, etc. etc. etc.
Baptist: Oi, stop baptising babies, where do you get that from in the bible eh?
Paedobaptist: Er, no, I'm not gonna stop. Baptising infants of believers is taught in the bible, so it is.
B: Where?
PB: Well, in that whole covenant thing.
B (since he is a reformed baptist): Covenant? Yeah, I've heard of that. Proceed my good man, how does it establish your bizarre watery practices?!
PB: Well, y'know, that thing about the children of believers being included in the covenant along with their parents, and therefore receiving the covenant sign too - circumcision in the old, baptism in the new.
B (being an amicable fellow): Ah, I see. There's one problem with that...
PB (also being an amicable fellow): What's that then my ole chum?
B: Doesn't Jeremiah 31:31-34 teach that the new covenant is different from the old in some crucial ways, ways which would lead to (so to speak) 'knocking baby-baptism' on the old head?
Now, whilst PB would always have had plenty of responses at this point (such as 'hmmm, to what extent do you think Jeremiah 31 is eschatologically fulfilled?'), Neil Jeffers has ably provided another, and that derived from a parallel 'new covenant' passage in Jeremiah:
PB: Good point my good man. However, I fear that Jeremiah 32: 37-41 speaks of the new covenant and includes the children of believers.
B: (mumbles something about Spurgeon and heads for the hills)
Ok, so it's not as straight-forward as that (and obviously Reformed Baptist's would hardly be conquered by a single text). If you want the arguments in all their exegetical and systematic detail then read Neil's dissertation (sorry if you're reading this and not at Oak Hill and therefore can't).
BTW I love my baptist brethren, John Bunyan was a legend, Piper is an inspiration, etc. etc. etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
