New Baptism Debate

[Theocrat]

How could the new covenant be better and with better promises than the old if the sin of the people can invalidate it? In Hebrews 8, the old covenent found fault because of the people's sin. There can be no fault found in the New Covenant because the mediator of the New Covenant takes away sin.

Furthermore, the last sentence of Hebrews 10 invalidates the idea that the warning passages apply to any one in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is built on the mediation and intercession of Christ's blood, which is the better promise that cannot fail.

Sola, what makes the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant is that the New Covenant has a better priesthood than the Old Covenant. The entire book of Hebrews explains how Christ's priesthood, being of the order of Melchizedek, has done to sin what the Old Covenant priesthood could only do in types and shadows (pointing to the need of a new priesthood, anyway).

But nowhere in the New Covenant is there an example, command, nor even an implication that children of believing parents should never be considered members of Christ's Kingdom because of an alleged inability to intellectually assent to the Gospel by a profession of faith. Such a notion is gnostic, and such gnosticism has pervaded Baptist soteriology for centuries.

So, your whole post misses the point about the nature of the New Covenant in contrast to the Old. The difference between the two has nothing to do with a dichotomy of "internal change" versus "external ritual." Both factors are involved in the two covenants. And I believe it is that false dichotomy which taints your view of the New Covenant, especially as it relates to children and their reception of baptism.

[Sola_Fide]

Sola, what makes the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant is that the New Covenant has a better priesthood than the Old Covenant. The entire book of Hebrews explains how Christ's priesthood, being of the order of Melchizedek, has done to sin what the Old Covenant priesthood could only do in types and shadows (pointing to the need of a new priesthood, anyway).

It's a better priesthood, because the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. This High Priest takes away sin. That is why it is better. This is Hebrews 8.

But nowhere in the New Covenant is there an example, command, nor even an implication that children of believing parents should never be considered members of Christ's Kingdom because of an alleged inability to intellectually assent to the Gospel by a profession of faith. Such a notion is gnostic, and such gnosticism has pervaded Baptist soteriology for centuries.

Yes there is. Children of believing parents are not automatically in the kingdom, because the new covenant is based on faith, not lineage like the Old. Every instance of baptism in the New Testament came after a profession of faith. Every single one. Also, this covenant can't be broken, because Christ is "able to save forever those who draw near".

So, your whole post misses the point about the nature of the New Covenant in contrast to the Old. The difference between the two has nothing to do with a dichotomy of "internal change" versus "external ritual." Both factors are involved in the two covenants. And I believe it is that false dichotomy which taints your view of the New Covenant, especially as it relates to children and their reception of baptism.

The difference between the old and new covenants is that the Mediator, Intercessor, and High Priest of the New Covenant takes away sin. The Old Covenant found fault because of the sin of the people. The New Covenant can't find this fault because sin has been atoned for and take away.

This means there can be no such thing as an unregenerate person in the New Covenant.

[Theocrat]

It's a better priesthood, because the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. This High Priest takes away sin. That is why it is better. This is Hebrews 8.

I agree with that.

Yes there is. Children of believing parents are not automatically in the kingdom, because the new covenant is based on faith, not lineage like the Old. Every instance of baptism in the New Testament came after a profession of faith. Every single one. Also, this covenant can't be broken, because Christ is "able to save forever those who draw near".

There is a problem there, Sola. Your assumption that the Old Covenant was based on lineage, exclusively, is false. The Old Covenant was based on faith just as much as the New Covenant is. For instance, recall what God instructed his people through Moses in Deuteronomy 6:1-9:

Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it, that thou mightest fear the LORD thy God to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son and thy son's son, all the days of thy life, and that thy days may be prolonged. Hear, therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it that it may be well with thee and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee in the land that floweth with milk and honey.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD, and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might.

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house and when thou walkest by the way and when thou liest down and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house and on thy gates.

Those instructions applied to infants and adults alike. Faith was always expected of children of believing parents in the Old Covenant, which is why God told parents to bring their children up in His commandments so those children (and their parents) would never forget (i.e., lose faith in) Jehovah their God. In fact, that's what Deuteronomy 6:12-15 continues to instruct for all of Israel:

Then beware, lest thou forget the LORD, Which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God and serve Him and shalt swear by His name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you (for the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you), lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Once again, that command applied to men, women, and children, and it was a warning to not become unfaithful to God. It was not just a commandment given because of lineage, and such commands would have applied to all of those in Israel, even if they were not born of Israel. Nonetheless, those commandments were based on a call to have faith in Jehovah, plain and simple.

Now, I do agree with you that all of the baptisms in the New Testament came after a profession of faith; however, those who professed faith in Christ were heads of their households, which meant that their declaration and promise to follow after Christ did not apply solely to themselves, as individuals, but it applied also to those under their household authority. Therefore, when those believing heads of households were baptized, their households were also baptized, and that's why many times we're told that a person was baptized and his household. From a Jewish mindset, that would have made sense, given the fact that in the Old Covenant, heads of households were circumcised and their houses followed in the Faith to Him Who "cut them off" from the filthiness of the world (which circumcision was a sign of). Baptism is a cleansing sign that does the same thing in the New Covenant, pointing to the High Priest, Jesus Christ, Who has cleansed believers from the filth of the world.

That brings me to your next objection about the New Covenant being unbreakable. The Bible does teach (as some here have cited for you) that members of the New Covenant can be covenant-breakers. That does not mean that Christ has failed in His atoning work as High Priest (for those who break covenant were predestined to do so, anyway); it means that those covenant-breakers have heaped more severe punishments upon themselves on Judgment Day, if they fail to turn back. That is what Hebrews 10 warns against. But it never negates the fact that there will still be those who continually draw near to Christ in the New Covenant, even while others in the Covenant fall away for unbelief. The failure is theirs, not the Lord's.

The difference between the old and new covenants is that the Mediator, Intercessor, and High Priest of the New Covenant takes away sin. The Old Covenant found fault because of the sin of the people. The New Covenant can't find this fault because sin has been atoned for and take away.

This means there can be no such thing as an unregenerate person in the New Covenant.

Yes, the fault found in the Old Covenant was because of the sin of the people, but also, the fault was in the efficacy of the old priesthood system of atoning for sins. They were examples and shadows of the Heavenly things to come, which Christ fulfilled by His own Priesthood. His atonement only needed to occur once for sins, unlike the sacrifices and offerings in the Old Covenant that occurred daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly.

But that has nothing to do with whether one can be considered "unregenerate" in the New Covenant, if your definition of "unregenerate" is relegated to things in which no human can see (such as the condition of a person's heart or soul). You and I both know that there are plenty of Christians who, with their mouths, praise God and, with their hands, do works of service in the Lord's name, but inwardly, they are hypocrites. So, all I'm getting is determining who is "regenerate" and "unregenerate" in the New Covenant is a difficult thing. But God has given us things which we can see to determine who is in covenant with Christ and who is not, and baptism is one of those outward means of doing so.