Paedo-Baptism Answers What is new/better about the new covenant?

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

One charge which credobaptists often bring against Presbyterians is that by flattening out the covenants we miss what Scripture says about how the New Covenant is better than the Old.

I know this is a complex topic, but if you were to give a simple answer to that question, “How is the New Covenant better than the Old?”, what would you say? Particularly, I’m thinking about how we would respond to this question contra the credobaptist assertion that much of what is better is the spiritual/eternal nature of the covenant, the fact that all members of the covenant are elect and secure, etc.

I’m also doing some other reading on this, so reading suggestions are welcome!

 

[Polanus1561]

what is better is the spiritual/eternal nature of the covenant, the fact that all members of the covenant are elect and secure, etc.

That sounds all nice in reality, but the RB has to be challenged on this notion. We both live in the same reality that members do leave the church etc.

So I think the issues should be focus on the exegetical. I propose the eschatological tension of Jeremiah 31 as being crucial here -

JEREMIAH 31: INFANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW COVENANT

www.thirdmill.org

Paedobaptists must understand the above in order to deal with the Baptist reading of a realized, pure New Covenant.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Andrew,

This from R. Scott Clark may be of help: What Is And Is Not New About The New Covenant

 

[Afterthought]

Direct access to God. The Temple said "Come, but keep away;" Christ says, "Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden. I will in no wise cast out any who come." Listen to this: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6122184141859 (Or maybe it was this one: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5292244540185)

All people are welcome to join God's people with their unique cultures (at least, the not sinful parts) and geographical locations. No more heavy burden of ceremonial laws: just think through what it would have been like to be a faithful adherant of them. So many animals sacrificed. So much time spent "unclean" and unable to draw near to the Lord (especially women). So many inconveniences to try and avoid uncleanness. Every adult male having to travel to one location every three years--very inconvenient for a gospel that goes global. John 4

We worship now in Spirit and truth and not according to the material elements and rudiments of the world (Gal 4). No more earthly signs and symbols--which though for a time helpfully pointed to spiritual truths, also obscured the reality that these things were spiritual and made it easier to sucumb to earthly-mindedness and hypocriscy of merely following ritual. The gospel cuts to the heart by the power of the Spirit who has been poured out with more abundance and efficacy.

We now have a vision of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. What glory! What beauty! No need to look through animal sacrifices and symbols, but we have seen his glory in his word and see it again and again in word and sacrament. There is something better indeed about knowing in a more personal manner our Savior and the plan of our redemption and the means of sanctification. It was one thing to have the Messiah to come preached and understand God's great love for his people, but it is another thing to see it happen: the sufferings, the sorrows, the God-forsakenness--all on behalf of his people! To have the OT unlocked and clearly revealed, especially the psalms--the psalms now give a window into the inner life of our Lord and thereby exalt him and his glory and his love for his people all the more!

Pastor's sermon on Hebrews 8 was useful: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=128201947410

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Before the baby arrives, the parents are already parents, aren't they? They have a baby, they just aren't taking care of it as they will, interacting with it as they will, teaching and disciplining it as they will. But they are parents. They love the baby, who is real, who is a person, who is communicating with them albeit in a limited fashion because he's in the womb, not in their arms.

So, what's so "new" about the birth-baby, the baby in arms? If you say its the same baby as before, can you really say that something new has come on the birthday? Things have changed so much, isn't it better to accept that the "old" baby-condition was of a completely different character, not worthy of comparison? The parents-to-be were only play-acting before. There's a fundamental "break in continuity" between the past and the present.

The reality is: while a baby's birth brings about a tremendous shift in the conditions past-to-present, and you can mark the transition pretty cleanly; there is also essential continuity between the promise of the baby's coming, and the baby's arrival. The way the parents relate to the child continues significantly undifferentiated from prior to birth to afterward. Of course, in other crucial ways, nothing is the same once the baby is on hand. Parents are known to take time to reminisce about their life before the baby, and to reflect on how things have drastically changed since. Still, what began of their family on the wedding day and for some time thereafter only became more of the same once their number increased by one.

What's new about the New Covenant is that Christ the Mediator has stepped in, stood up, and sat down on the stage of history. The promise has become reality. The way his people relate to him has changed in significant ways; but at the deepest level not only has it not changed, its previous reality and significance has been proved by his accession. The people who were his people before he was crowned their king--the Israel of God--continue in their unbroken union with him. If it was hard to comprehend before his entrance how things would be better for them; it's not so hard now.

Interestingly, we presently have a similar situation, as it may be hard to comprehend before Christ's Second Coming exactly how things will be better still for us. But by faith we anticipate the upcoming transition just the same. Perhaps it's a little bit like getting grandchildren.

 

[Polanus1561]

The 'What is better about the NC' question can be asked practically. Would anyone, baptist or presbyterian, prefer to live in the OC? Why not?

 

[JTB.SDG]

One charge which credobaptists often bring against Presbyterians is that by flattening out the covenants we miss what Scripture says about how the New Covenant is better than the Old.

I know this is a complex topic, but if you were to give a simple answer to that question, “How is the New Covenant better than the Old?”, what would you say? Particularly, I’m thinking about how we would respond to this question contra the credobaptist assertion that much of what is better is the spiritual/eternal nature of the covenant, the fact that all members of the covenant are elect and secure, etc.

I’m also doing some other reading on this, so reading suggestions are welcome!

Hebrews 8:6 says, “He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” This has to do with what the divines called "the administration" of the covenant. The essence is the same; the administration is different in the new and in this sense it's better. So thinking through the differences in administration between the Old and the New you could think about it this way: The new covenant is better than the old as the light of noonday is better than that of a candle. It's better than the old as a lavish feast is better for a hungry man than a painting of one; or as a gushing river is better for a thirsty man than it's shadow. The new covenant is better than the old as having my wife face to face is better than looking at a picture of her; and as being married to her is better than the promise of having her hand in marriage. The new covenant is better than the old as being a free man is better than having to live in custody; and as growing into maturity is better than remaining a child. The new is better than the old as having a torrential downpour of God's Spirit is better than having drops. And indeed, the new covenant is better than the old as having a church made up of all nations is better than a church that's limited to just one. Again, it's not that the new covenant is something different from the old in its true essence or substance. Just as the new moon is the same as the old in its essence, and just as the older wine came from the same grapes as the new, both old and new covenants belong to the Covenant of Grace. But if compare these two distinct administrations, we have to acknowledge the new is better.