Members of the New Covenant

If you'll turn with me, please, to the book of Hebrews, chapter 8. Book of Hebrews, chapter 8.

This evening, we are continuing the study that we began this morning.

So if you weren't with us, I apologize for that. But we are looking at the ordinances of the church, those things that God has commanded us to observe as the church and to whom and upon whom those acts are to take place.

This evening, we will be celebrating the lives of two people, their profession of faith through baptism.

So we wish especially to focus upon that subject this evening. But before we look to God's word, let's ask the

Lord to bless our time. Our gracious Heavenly Father, once again, we thank you that you have brought us together this evening to listen to your word, to, by your

Spirit, be conformed ever closer to the image of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And, Lord, we would ask, especially as baptism is observed in this place, that you will be glorified.

Those who are baptized will indeed experience a special presence of the

Spirit in their lives that they give public testimony of what you have done in and through and for them.

And, Lord, we would ask that all of us would be reminded of our commitment, our faith in the

Lord Jesus Christ and the fact that this baptism represents and pictures for us our participation in his death, his burial, and his resurrection.

May we indeed walk in newness of life, we pray in Christ's name. Amen. This morning, we began looking at the subject of the ordinances of the church, very often called sacraments.

We talked a little bit about the background of those terms. We talked a little bit about how the early

Baptists, the early English particular Baptists in the 17th century, had not had much of a problem with the term sacrament, primarily because they were in opposition to and in dialogue with their

Presbyterian or Anglican brothers, and that that was the standard terminology at the time.

But then as time went by and more and more the focus was upon Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism's misuse of that term sacramentum and the sacramental system, that the term ordinance became much more common and prevalent, and that, at least in my opinion, it seems to be,

I think, a better term in light of the fact that it means that which is ordained, that which was commanded by Christ of his church.

And we looked at the Lord's Supper. We looked at the fact that in the very commandments as to how the

Lord's Supper is to be celebrated, we saw that there was a necessity for the ability on the part of those who partake of the

Supper to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine themselves, to, in other words, engage in an active understanding and proclamation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is given to us in the

Lord's Supper, which we celebrated just last Lord's Day evening. And we began to ask the question then, well, if that's the case, is there a direct correlation between the individuals who would partake of the

Supper and those who would be baptized? And, of course, as Baptists, we believe that there is a direct correlation between the two, that both are ordinances of the new covenant, that the

Lord's Supper in the institution, in the very words of the institution, Jesus himself said, this is the blood of the new covenant.

It's poured out for you. This body is given for you. We believe in particular redemption.

We believe that there is a perfect harmony between what the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have accomplished in the gospel.

And, therefore, obviously, those who partake of the Lord's Supper are those who are, by so doing, by proclaiming the

Lord's death, are likewise proclaiming their own participation in this new covenant.

And so, in light of that, we began to look at the subject of baptism. And we, of course, recognize, probably much more so than most

Baptists, we recognize our history, and we recognize the close association that we have with our

Presbyterian brothers, members of other Reformed denominations who are

Paedobaptists, or they might prefer terms like Oikobaptists, or that's household baptism, or whatever other terminology they might want to utilize.

And I will not have time this evening to develop all of the issues that come up in this particular subject.

I have had the opportunity of engaging in debate on this subject a couple of times, and I really think the debate we did a few years ago with Pastor Bill Shishko of the

Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church was an example of how believers could engage in disagreement going to the

Word of God and doing so with respect and, indeed, love for one another. And we are in an unusual position because very often, as Reformed Baptists, we find ourselves more closely allied in our worldview and our experience with some of our

Presbyterian brothers, conservative Presbyterian brothers, especially OPC -type brothers, than sometimes we do with fellow

Baptists. That's because, I believe, a commitment to the

Reformed faith, to the sovereignty of God, to the fact that the Gospel is about what God is doing to glorify

Himself. When we have that kind of a common commitment, it's going to create all sorts of closeness in our fellowship and in our proclamation.

And, in fact, when it comes to defending the existence of God, the Bible, the

Gospel, we will find ourselves shoulder to shoulder with the vast majority of our conservative

Presbyterian brothers. And yet, they cannot be elders here, and I cannot be an elder there.

And it's appropriate that that would be the case. We are divided in our worship. And why is that so?

Well, as you may know, we have different views of church government. And we don't see any evidence in the

New Testament that there is any organization above the local church that has authority over the local churches to tell them what they can do.

We don't have a session and presbyters and all the rest of those things are associated with that form of church government.

But, obviously, the biggest thing is our view of baptism. And we looked this morning.

We read from the Westminster Confession of Faith. We compared that with the London Baptist Confession of Faith.

And as we concluded this morning, I said the real issue, the fundamental issue between us is our understanding of the nature of the

New Covenant, the nature of the New Covenant. And so I wish to look at the single clearest text on the subject of the

New Covenant in the New Testament because baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament.

I honestly believe that when you boil it all down, the fundamental difference is we allow the

New Testament to define what baptism is, and our Presbyterian brothers insist on making the

Old Testament define what the New Testament ordinance of baptism must be so as to not create a great disjunction between the old and the new.

And so where do we go to find that? Well, in Hebrews chapter 8. Now, we've gone through this chapter, shall we say, with a fine -tooth comb in the past.

And through the wonderful medium of sermon audio, you can go back and listen to everything that we had to say in much more depth because we only have a few minutes this evening.

But what I want to emphasize is this, and this is something that I will just be honest with you.

I find it missing in the vast majority of the presentations of the most scholarly Presbyterians that I know.

And that is Hebrews chapter 8 is an argument. It is an apologetic.

Remember, it wasn't long ago we were preaching through Hebrews, and what was the whole theme? There's nothing to go back to.

The people are under pressure to go back to the old ways. And so what the writer is doing is demonstrating there's nothing to go back to.

And so for this to be an argument that fits into the flow of the book of Hebrews, this new covenant that is going to be described here has to be a present reality.

Now, why do I say this? Because many of my Presbyterian brothers try to say, well, yeah, that new covenant is a great thing, and it's going to be great when it's fully inaugurated.

Someday, down the road. But we're not there yet. And I immediately stop and say, don't you realize?

You're putting your system ahead of your exegesis here because if you were just reading Hebrews, if we were anywhere else in Hebrews, if we were in a part of Hebrews about atonement and priesthood and Melchizedek, you would never say that.

You would recognize immediately that the tradition flags are getting in the way here.

But when we come to this one thing, and all of a sudden, well, some will say, well, yes, it has been inaugurated, but it's not in its fullness yet, and it's going to grow over time.

Others say it's future. It's eschatological. It's yet to come. Let's take a look at why it is that these statements would be made.

Beginning in verse 7 of chapter 8. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

For finding fault with them, he says, Behold, days are coming, says the

Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. This is a quotation, of course, from Jeremiah chapter 31.

Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

For they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. Now, stop right there for just a moment.

Immediately, the response is often given to us, well, yes, that's just the Sinai covenant.

That's not the Abrahamic covenant that goes before that. Well, what is the relationship between those two covenants?

Well, there's a lot of people who argue about what those things are, but here's the point. Has anyone kept any of God's covenants other than Jesus Christ perfectly?

Of course not. Of course not. Did the children of Israel break the covenant vows that they made even in the

Abrahamic covenant by not believing in Yahweh and not being faithful to Him? Was not the

Sinai covenant an expansion upon what it meant to be in the Abrahamic covenant? Well, of course it was.

And then the other thing, and again, don't have time to expand upon it, but just be aware of the fact that in the

Hebrew of Jeremiah 31, it does not say, I did not care for them, says the Lord.

Remember, we talked about this. This is a very important text. In the Greek Septuagint, that's what it says.

But in the Hebrew, it says, even though I was a husband to them. The author specifically quotes from the

Greek Septuagint to make his point even stronger, and that is that there was something about that old covenant, there's going to be something new in this new covenant, and it's going to involve

God's personal participation and relationship with the people in this new covenant.

There were people in the old covenant, they bore the covenant signs, but they did not know the Lord. It did not guarantee that relationship with Him.

Well, you want to know about this new covenant? Here it is. Verse 10, For this is the covenant thou wilt make with the house of Israel after those days, says the

Lord. I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their

God, and they shall be my people. So immediately, what do you see here? This covenant is internal.

I will put my laws into their minds. Instead of a constant resistance and chafing against the law of God, there will be a love for the law of God because there is a love for God.

There is a relationship that exists, and because now you know the law represents what He desires, you desire to be pleasing to Him, and therefore, that law becomes internalized.

It becomes the guide of life. I will write them on their hearts. It's internal. It's personal. And I will be their

God, and they shall be my people. You say, oh, but that was supposed to be under the old covenant too. That's the whole point.

God had given them all these miracles and signs and had done all these wondrous things, and yet what happened with their hearts all the time?

What is the constant theme we see over and over and over again? Idolatry, going away, going after other gods, combining worship with the gods of other peoples over and over and over and over.

The law and relationship has not been internalized. Now, were there people under the old covenant that had that relationship with God?

Of course there were. They're called the remnant. They've been there from the beginning. But the point was that the covenant itself did not bring that about this new covenant.

It's different. It's not like the old covenant. And notice what the background of this was.

Notice the introduction of this in verse 6. But now He, Jesus, has obtained a more excellent ministry byasmuch as He is also the mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted on better promises.

So that's the context. That's what the author is trying to demonstrate is that Jesus is a mediator.

He has obtained a more excellent ministry. He is the mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted on better promises.

Now, my friends, if that's still 2 ,000 years down the road, this person doesn't know how to argue.

This is present. This is now. This is what would encourage Jews who are under pressure to go back to stay faithful to their commitment to Christ.

There's nothing here about, well, someday, someday your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids are going to experience the new covenant.

That would not be much of an argument. That would not be much of an argument. And so what is being said?

Well, they shall, verse 11, and they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother, saying,

Know the Lord, for all will know me from the least to the greatest of them. You see, that was the difference between the remnant, the faithful remnant that did not bow the knee to Baal.

That was the difference between them and all the rest of the people. They all bore the same covenant sign. They are all the offspring of Abraham, but not by faith.

Only those who are by faith were the true offspring of Abraham. And hence those others, they bore the covenant sign, but they didn't know

God. There's this new covenant. It's so internal, it's so personal that you don't have to have someone go along and say,

You need to know the Lord. Let me introduce you to the Lord. If you're in the new covenant, you know the Lord, for all will know me from the least to the greatest of them.

That's why when we look at the new covenant, we can't go, Oh, it's a mixed covenant like the old covenant. It's got a mixture of things.

No, it says, For all will know me. If what you're saying is, Well, no, I've actually heard some of my

Presbyterian friends say, Well, the supremacy of the new covenant is more people in the new covenant know

God than under the old covenant. So it's an improvement, but it's not that good yet.

Really? The point is that the reason that all will know me from the least to the greatest of them is because the fact that God is the one that initiates this covenant and God is the one who writes his laws upon the heart.

God is the one who is drawing his elect people unto himself. Verse 12,

For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. This is the covenant of salvation itself.

You cannot separate it from what Jesus said. This is the blood of the new covenant poured out for you.

Here's what the new covenant is, and we dare not in any way diminish its expansiveness and its perfection for any reason whatsoever.

When he said, Verse 13, A new covenant he has made the first obsolete, but whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

You see how this functions as an argument. There's nothing to go back to.

It's obsolete. It's ready to disappear. In fact, in just a matter of years after the writing of this, it did.

The temple was gone. Jerusalem was destroyed. It was over with. And so, the new covenant.

The new covenant. Lord's Supper. That covenant meal.

This is my body. This is my blood. We believe this with the elect of God, yes? What about baptism?

If what we believe is true, when we look at the New Testament, if what we understand about the new covenant is true, and if this is an ordinance of the new covenant.

Now, let me stop just for a moment and address one thing rather quickly. Going back to dear brother

John, Calvin that is, ever since brother John Calvin, the assertion has been made that, well, you see, if you just look at Colossians Chapter 2,

Verses 11 and 12, there it is. There you have circumcision and baptism.

Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. Now, I would argue that's a complete misunderstanding of Colossians Chapter 2, because the circumcision made without hands is not circumcision.

Even all the way back in the law, circumcise your hearts. Good luck trying to do that on the eighth day, physically.

It's a spiritual thing. That's regeneration that's being referred to there. It's the circumcision made by Christ.

Well, what has Christ done other than raise you to spiritual life? But, have you ever thought about something?

We're told that baptism is just simply the continuation of circumcision. Therefore, since it was, well, okay, it's sort of the continuation of circumcision, because it was only given to males under the old, but now it's given to males and females.

So, it's sort of, so there is a difference, but that's just sort of shoved under the rug, and we don't think about that too much.

But if that was the case, why was there a conflict in Acts Chapter 15?

Remember Acts Chapter 15? Big Jerusalem Council, what was it all about? Well, what do we do with Gentiles?

Do they need to be circumcised before they become believers in Jesus Christ, before they can be fully incorporated?

That's what Galatians is about. That's what Acts 15 was about. Well, if the apostles were teaching that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, why was there even an argument?

Why was there even an argument? Because the answer to the question would have been, well, of course they need to be circumcised because they've been baptized, and that's the continuation of circumcision, right?

Is that how Paul argues in Acts 15? Is that how Paul argues in Galatians?

Not a whisper, not a word. Interesting, interesting.

But if our understanding of what the new covenant is is true, then when we look at baptism, what we're going to find is the same kind of thing that we saw when we looked at the

Lord's Supper. In other words, who's going to be baptized? Disciples alone, because who partakes of the

Lord's Supper? Disciples alone. You will never, ever, ever see, if we're right about Hebrews 8, you will never see the disciples, the apostles, baptizing an unbelieving, unrepentant person.

You'll never see it. It happened all the time under the old covenant called circumcision. Look at a bunch of the kings of Israel.

Unrepentant, unbelieving. Now, you might argue, well, they shouldn't have been. But the point is, we should see a consistency here.

So let's, very quickly, time is going by very fast, but let's look at two of the texts that our

Paedo -Baptist brethren rely on, and I believe utterly refute their position. Acts chapter 2.

Acts chapter 2, verse 39. Well, we all know

Acts 2 .38. If you've ever run into one of the old -line Church of Christ folks, you may come to the conclusion this is the only verse they know.

But it says, Peter said to them, Repent, each one of you, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. Then verse 39. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the

Lord our God will call to himself. Now, I cannot tell you how many times

I have heard my Presbyterian brothers talking about this text, and they say,

See? It's for you and for your children. And then they stop.

They stop. It's like the rest of the verse is in a font that's way too small to be seen. It's been, they dropped their

Bible into Baptist baptistry, and the ink disappeared. I don't know what happened, but it's just like it's not even there.

It's for you and your children. Well, what's the promise, first of all? You will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. So, I guess you're going to be consistent and say, This is for you and for your children.

So, if you're baptized, you and your children, what? Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So, you believe covenant children are possessed by the

Holy Spirit. So, is the Holy Spirit the Arabon, the down payment of their redemption? You must believe in baptism of regeneration, right?

Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Who's being discussed here?

The promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off.

Who's that? The Gentiles. He's speaking to Jews. He's speaking to the people who only a matter of days earlier said,

His blood be upon us and our children. I can understand why they may have been going,

What should we do? We called for the blood of the Messiah to be upon us and our children.

And Peter says, No. No. God hasn't accepted your self -curse in that activity.

The promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit for anyone who has faith and believes and repents is for you and your children and for all who are far off.

Gentiles. It doesn't say and their children as if that was even relevant.

And what is the guiding phrase? And this is what amazes me. When my dear

Reformed brethren stop using Reformed hermeneutics and interpretation, that's an immediate indication that we're now treading with tradition rather than with Scripture.

And that's what happens here. Because for you and me, as many as the Lord our

God will call to Himself should immediately make us go, Ho! Hey! Election! There it is again all over the place.

Right? That's the controlling term. Who's the promise for? Jews, Gentiles, as many as God calls to Himself.

That's who receives the Holy Spirit, right? Isn't that what it's about? That's what it's about.

And what happens? And with many other words, He solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying,

Be saved in this perverse generation. So then, those who had received His word were baptized and that day there were added about 3 ,000 souls.

Nothing about households, nothing about babies, nothing about nothing. It's who was baptized?

Those who had received His word were the ones who were baptized.

Hmm. Sounds pretty consistent. Sounds pretty consistent. But, but, but, but, many of my brethren say, well, what you need to do is you need to recognize this thing about households.

Because Paul said he baptized the household of Stephanas and that's enough to establish an entire doctrine of infant baptism.

Well, let's look at the one time we were actually given a lot of information about a household baptism.

It's Acts chapter 16. Remember Paul and Silas singing in the jail.

Earthquake. Doors open. The jailer's about to kill himself because if the prisoners escape, he's going to die a rather ugly death anyways.

Verse 31, they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household. And they spoke the word of the

Lord to him together with all who were in his house. Please note that. Please note that.

They spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

Now, may I make the assertion that means that everybody who were in his house could understand the spoken word that was given to them.

Is that really a leap? Or is the leap, well, you know, there might have been little ones and why say that the word was spoken to them?

A testimony was given. Keep that in mind. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household who had done what?

Heard the word of the Lord. And he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly having believed in God with his whole household.

Now, you would think, open and shut case, but be careful, be careful.

The word having believed in verse 34.

Having believed is singular. Singular. So they say, see, here it is.

You have one man believing and as long as you have one believing head of the household, male or female, because they're going to do the same thing with Lydia, then everyone in the household is to be baptized.

And so what happens here is the only one who believed was the jailer, but everyone was baptized.

That's what you're told. Now, aren't there a few things there that make you go, really?

Because if that's the case, well, first of all, having believed in God, Panoikai, with all his household, the natural reading of that would be that his entire household was rejoicing and his entire household had believed.

That would be the natural reading. I mean, it's just right there. But what would you have to believe if you were to take the other viewpoint of this?

Because remember, they had spoken the word of the Lord to them, to everyone in the household.

If this is going to work as an idea that you only had one believer and everyone else is baptized because of that one person's faith, what does that mean?

They had rejected. They had rejected the message preached to them.

They had rejected it. They hadn't believed. Only he believed. So now, as Reformed people, we are supposed to believe that they were rejoicing greatly together with someone who had accepted

Christ while they had rejected the claims of Christ, but were baptized anyway. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

We don't believe that people rejoice when we embrace Christ and they reject

Christ. Oh, we just think that's wonderful for you, Dad. It's great. Oh, we're going to get baptized too.

That's great. But we still reject it. No. What's going on here is so painfully clear and obvious that it is only the weight of tradition that can cause someone to not see what is going on here.

And I suggest to you that a consistent Reformed hermeneutic that would look at these words and go, oh yeah, it makes perfect sense that they rejected the message and yet they rejoiced in his having believed does not make any sense.

That goes against what we believe about anthropology, the doctrine of man. That's not what man does.

And so here you have two examples. Two examples that are frequently brought forward as evidence for the baptism of infants, and yet what we don't have is anything that fulfills the actual requirement of what the

Westminster Confession of Faith itself says, and that is that baptism is a, in its terms, sacrament of the new covenant commanded by Christ.

What was the exact terminology here? I think I still have it marked here. Baptism is a sacrament of the

New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ. Where did

Jesus Christ ordain baptism of unrepentant, unbelieving individuals?

Where do we ever have an example of someone joined to the new covenant who does not know the

Lord? Now immediately the last objection I'll deal with here. The last objection I'll deal with here. And we are going to have a test for the two folks that are being baptized.

They will need to pass an entire discussion of the errors of paedo -baptism before baptism this evening.

I thought you might want to know that. One last objection is they'll say, look, wait a minute, wait a minute.

You're being unreasonable here because you're saying that it's wrong for us to give the sign of the new covenant to children because we admit, the vast majority of them do anyways, admit that many of them are not of the elect and that there are going to be many who in later life are going to walk away and they're going to reject.

And we understand that. But haven't you baptized people who have gone apostate?

Maybe your whole thing about the new covenant here is all wrong because you admit that there might be people in your church that would become apostate.

Right? Well, that's why you need to make a differentiation as the writer to the

Hebrews did between the new covenant which is made with all the elect and the visible church.

And that's what we have in Hebrews. Is that not what we have in Hebrews? How many times we went through Hebrews?

Did we hear the writer speaking to the entire congregation? What does he do? He gives warnings.

Now, the sad thing, the thing that frightens me, honestly, here is that there is a movement within Reformed circles that is so wedded to this view of paedo -baptism that they're willing to say,

Oh, no, no, no. Yes, you can be in the new covenant and you can be lost. And they will absolutely look at Hebrews 10 .29

and they don't care what John Owen said. They don't care what the grammar of the text says. And they don't care that you can go to John 17 and Jesus sanctifies himself.

No, no, no, no, no. That new covenant must be breakable so that our practice can continue.

And that's dangerous. And we see the results of that today in some of the movements within Reformed circles.

They're not movements within Reformed Baptist circles because they can't be. Because the foothold that it has is not a part of the

London Baptist Confession of Faith because we recognize the consistency of the audience of the ordinances of baptism and the

Lord's Supper. Now, last Sunday evening, we gathered together.

We partook of the same bread. We drank the cup. We gave thanks for a perfect sin -bearer and the unity that we have in the body of Christ.

This evening, we have the opportunity of seeing the other ordinance in baptism.

Now, as I said this morning, I will say again, when I see this,

I think back upon my baptism. It was a long time ago.

And looking at this, I'm afraid, I'm afraid

I might have almost been pedo -baptized in the sense that you probably would have had a hard time seeing me.

I was not big for my age. But I remember it. I remember it clearly.

I believe to this day that I was baptized properly as a follower of Jesus Christ.

I knew what that meant. And I wanted to follow him in obedience. And when

I see baptism, I think back upon that. I think back upon it, and I ask you, as a baptized follower of Jesus Christ, to think back and be thankful for the fact that God has been faithful to you for all those years, however long it's been.

I remember when George was baptized, Christmas Eve, as I recall. That was a special Christmas Eve. It really was.

And I've had the privilege of seeing a number of the rest of you baptized. I've only baptized a couple people myself.

But I want you to think back. And if you're here this evening, and you name the name of Christ, but you've not been baptized,

I want you to think about this ordinance as well and what it means. The proclamation on the part of these individuals that I fearlessly proclaim that Jesus Christ is my

Lord and Savior. He died, was buried, and rose again the third day. And I am united with Him.

I've died with Christ. I've been crucified together with Him. What an incredible proclamation that is.

Let us give thanks this evening for the ordinances the Lord has given to His church.

Let's pray together. Our gracious Heavenly Father, indeed we are thankful for Your Word and we are thankful for the opportunity we have this evening to consider

Your truth and, Lord, to see Your truth brought into fruition and into action in the baptisms we are about to witness.

Lord, we thank You for the ordinances of the church which constantly drive us back to thinking about the Gospel, to thinking about Jesus Christ and our complete dependence upon Him.

Father, we love You. We thank You for the Gospel. We thank You for meeting with us by Your Spirit this evening.

Be with those who are about to be baptized. May everything that is done be done under the honor and glory of Jesus Christ, for it is in His name that we pray.