Sermon: Baptism - The New Covenant, Pt. 1

The Limits of the Baptism Series and the Need for a Biblical Foundation

So, like I said, we have about 10 minutes to be able to cover our subject this week. Actually, this will be a two-parter and we will continue next week, so just put that down in your notes and that way I'll have even less excuse for going super long this evening because we will have a little bit more time next week.

This is a part of our baptism series, though we will be saying very little about the term baptism or the meaning or anything else we'll be talking about. What Baptists normally call the ordinances of the church, what Presbyterians normally call the sacraments of the church, obviously there's a long history of the utilization of both of those terms that we're talking about, specifically those things the Lord gave to His church in baptism and the Lord's Supper.

And we did about five weeks on the Lord's Supper a couple of years ago. It's actually been that long now, amazingly, and we're about 12 or 13 sessions into our examination of the subject of baptism. And pretty much everybody in this room, unless you're newly visiting, is well aware of the fact that when you look at Apologia Church, we preach the sovereignty of God, we preach the doctrine of election, we preach particular redemption, we preach what are called the doctrines of grace, and we also preach very strongly the rest of what defines a Reformed soteriology and Reformed worldview.

Baptism, Covenant Theology, and the Real Question at Issue

And so we have a very strong emphasis upon God's law, upon God's kingdom, and Christ's reign over this world, and yet next week we will have a baptismal service and we will fill a baptismal font. We don't have a little font over here that we can just simply put a gallon of water in and we're ready to go.

We have baptism by immersion of believers, and that is not the historically Reformed practice. And in fact, if we had tried to set up shop in Geneva, Calvin would have drop-kicked us through the goalposts.

And certainly Luther probably would not have accepted our experience either or our teaching, and we certainly know that Zwingli would not have accepted our teaching either. And so down through the past number of centuries we have had the necessity of having interaction with our brothers when they would accept us as brothers and were not seeking to imprison us or drown us in England.

And on the subject of the proper mode and subjects of baptism. And this continues to this day. I have debated that subject in this room in 1995, I believe it was. I have debated the subject with Presbyterians of differing stripes and tastes and perspectives, and we continue having those discussions even to this day.

And so we now come having covered much of what needs to be covered, I think, in establishing the meaning of baptism, the mode of baptism, what the New Testament says about baptism to the real issue. Because when I first started this series, what did we hear even from our dear brothers and sisters who listen to what we have to say and welcome much of what we have to say?

What did we hear right from the start? Well, you're not dealing with our real arguments, and we kept saying that's because we haven't gotten to them yet. There are necessary foundational issues, which does to me seemingly indicate that very often this conversation takes place without having established the needed foundations in Scripture concerning what Scripture says about this subject.

I think it's more important to know what Scripture says about baptism than to know what anyone else has to say about baptism, even if I happen to have tremendous respect for them, even if I happen to find a great deal of light and edification in what they say upon other subjects.

I want to know what the Scriptures say on these subjects and upon these issues. That is the most important thing. And having established those things, now we get around to, so, what about all the arguments regarding the covenant, regarding the idea that there is one covenant, and since there was a sign for infants under a portion of the old covenant, not all of it, that came about after you have an Adamic period and the Noahic period, it was, a sign for infants was not definitional of those things, and what about the fact that you have the covenant of grace?

How does the covenant of grace relate to the old covenant, the new covenant, and to all those wonderful books I have on my shelf from Calvin and all the Westminster divines and Bovink and Kuiper and all these people, they're just, we learn so much from them, and yet when it comes to this one issue, we're the odd people out, and do we really need to keep arguing about this?

And there are a lot of people that eventually get to the point of saying, no, you know what, I'm tired of it, I want to be one of the big boys, I'm tired of getting what we call the Presbyterian pat, where you get the little pat on the back and you'll figure it out someday, and I get it all the time.

I get it all the time, and I have for decades. And so, why? What's the real issue? Now instead of starting with all the Presbyterian arguments and then finishing up with what we think might be a better way of understanding it, I want to start where we stand and lay out solid foundational biblical realities regarding the New Covenant.

The New Covenant in Hebrews and Jeremiah 31

What is the New Covenant? Is the New Covenant in full effect today? Because there are people that would say it's not. And once we understand what the New Covenant is and the New Covenant's relationship to such subjects as election, who are the elect?

Were there elect people in the Old Covenant?

Well, of course.

But were there non-elect people who bore the covenant signs under the Old Covenant?

Well, of course.

We look at so many of the Jewish kings, and they bear the covenant sign, they've been circumcised. And therefore, they are called to be faithful to what they are commanded to do in that Old Covenant, and yet they don't.

They're not faithful.

They don't do those things. And so as a result, God's name is defamed. And we recognize that there was a remnant, according to grace. There were people who were clearly elect and were regenerate. There was someone named David.

Well, David did bad things, that's true, but David received forgiveness. If he didn't, we don't either. And so you have, under the Old Covenant, these problems that we see. And do we simply take how the Old Covenant understood the signs and just transfer them?

Because we're not dispensationalists here. I hope that doesn't shock any of you. But we're not dispensationalists. I was raised a dispensationalist. We're not dispensationalists here. And so we recognize that God has been working covenantally, that there is a covenant of grace and it's been there since the Garden.

And we recognize, you know, again, I don't want to scare too many people off here. You know, I know it's Mother's Day. But we happen to be general equity theonomists and post-millennialists, too. That's really scary for a lot of people, I realize.

Careful.

I know now the girls are getting to that, too. And so we recognize how important it is to look at all of God's Word, to not have a New Testament-only or a red-letter-only attitude. And so we recognize that God's law says so much to us today.

We get all of that type of stuff. So how in the world can you remain a Baptist in light of all those things? It has to do with the nature of the covenant. And what you'll discover, and what most of you have already discovered in your conversations, is the issue really comes down to this.

Are the New Covenant signs defined first and primarily by the New Covenant Scriptures, or by allegedly necessary inference from the Old Covenant Scriptures? That's really what it ends up boiling down to.

If you put your weight on what the New Covenant Scriptures say about baptism in the Lord's Supper, the conclusion is pretty clear. It's pretty obvious. In every instance of baptism that we saw in the book of Acts, you had the proclamation of God's Word, you had the exercise of faith.

And we saw that you can sort of stand on your head and spin and sort of look at things sideways and try to come up with some type of household idea and maybe there was an infant hiding someplace, but the point is, that was the apostolic example that was given to us for baptism.

Now what's interesting is, is when you look at the Lord's Supper. And some of you probably saw the discussion I had with Pastor Wilson, who we love. And I can guarantee you, if he had the time to do it, and he was in Phoenix, we would love to have Doug Wilson stand from this pulpit and proclaim the Gospel to you.

He is our brother. I've gotten to know him, and I'm going to tell you something right now, I've said this on my program and I'll say it here. I've now gotten to spend enough hours over the last two trips I've made to Moscow with Doug, here's the most important thing I can say about him.

He is what he is, wherever he is. No errors, no trying to put something on. He and I had a lunch at taco time.

Amen.

Thank you. And you know what? The man that I sat there eating crisp meat burritos with, oh that's just so wonderful, is the same man you hear on Blog and Mayblog, the same man you hear preaching at Christ.

Church.

He's the same, he doesn't, he just is who he is. And that means he's consistent, and that is the best thing you can say about anybody. It really is. We'd have him preach here in a second, but he and I have debated each other more than.

Once.

Now, we did so especially with a lot of love for one another, but we don't agree on these things. And when you listen carefully, now I don't know if any of you listened to the conversation we had a couple weeks ago on the issue of the supper.

But if you didn't, I hope you at least caught something that we recorded in my fifth wheel.

Afterwards.

He specifically said that you can have a healthy believing church as long as you do discipline. And the way he said it was the Baptists put their bouncers at the front door, and they're checking IDs. And the Presbyterians put their bouncers at the bar, likening it to a nightclub, which of course for Baptists makes sense.

But if it was a nightclub, we put our bouncers at the door, we check IDs on the way in. And the Presbyterians put their bouncers at the bar, and they kick people out from the inside. He said the point is you can both have a healthy situation as long as you both do church discipline.

Which as I said, and how often does that happen? He said, I'll have to admit, not very often. Not very often. But his whole idea was we are looking for that profession of faith at the door. And they're assuming it, and then if you don't live like it, they kick you out from the bar.

See the difference? So the question for all of us, real simply, is what does the New Testament look like? Where are the bouncers in the New Testament if we're going to make that application? Now what's interesting is their view, and Pastor Wilson and Christ Church, are not strict paedo-communionists.

He prefers the term child communion. Why? Because a strict paedo-communionist will say you baptize them as an infant, and you do what we used to do, sort of, we had something called intinction, where you take the bread and you dip it in the wine, but what they do is they take a little crumb and put a little bit of wine on it, and you stick it in the infant's mouth.

They don't do that. They don't do that. There are people that do. There are groups that do. He said there are Eastern Orthodox that will do that with the Lord's Supper. The vast majority of Presbyterians, the Westminster Confession folks, do not practice paedo-communion.

And you will find those folks specifically saying in their books against paedo-communion that the New Testament documents have to define how you do the Lord's Supper. And I go, amen! That's exactly right.

They do. And that's why there are people that say, well, there's an inconsistency on the other side at that point. Well, we'll let them do the debates about that and the arguments about that, and we'll read the books and things like that.

But the whole issue always comes down to, where do you put the weight? Do you put the weight on the New Testament defines baptism in the Lord's Supper? Or do you say the patterns from the old override anything you think you're seeing in the new?

That's going to be the issue. So with that having been said, what I want to do this Sunday and next Sunday is nail down one really vitally important thing. What does the New Testament say about the New Covenant?

Hebrews as the Key to the New Covenant

What is the New Covenant? Now there is an entire movement called New Covenant theology, and I'm not talking about that in any way, shape, or form. What I'm talking about is there is a phrase, and it's primarily found in the book of Hebrews, but, as you know, the book of Hebrews contains the longest single continuous citation from the Old Testament.

Did you know that? The longest continuous citation from the Old Testament is in Hebrews chapter 8, and it's the quotation of Jeremiah chapter 31 verses 31 and following about the New Covenant. What we have in the book of Hebrews, and I think this is one of the problems, is I'll be honest with you, I preached through Hebrews for years, about a decade ago, a little over a decade ago, I think it was 85 sermons, don't worry.

How many Matthew sermons were there? Do we even know? We don't even know. I know how many Hebrew sermons. You don't have any idea. Okay, we need to find out. We need to, because if it's like 86, then I need to redo Hebrews.

But that book of Hebrews is not one of the most popular books in the evangelical church.

Today.

And I'll be honest with you, when I grew up, it seemed like a mystery. I heard rare preaching from it. And I'm going to tell you why. You can't figure out the book of Hebrews if you don't know your Old Testament, because the writer assumes you know it and know it well.

And as a result, even down through church history, I would say to you that Hebrews contains as much if not more direct teaching on the meaning and intention of the triune God in the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ upon the cross as any other book in the New Testament.

It is at least equal with Romans on that subject. And yet, for most people, it's a closed book. There's just too many of those Old Testaments. There's too much Leviticus in there. And for a lot of people, Leviticus, you know, the only thing they know about Leviticus is every time I try to read through the Bible, I get to Leviticus, and I don't end up reading through the Bible, because I don't get it.

But that book is the book that focuses us in on the New Covenant and tells us that in the New Covenant, we have a better mediator and we have better promises.

Hmm.

That obviously is vitally important if we are talking about the signs of the New Covenant. But in the New Covenant, that New Covenant has a better mediator and better promises. I remember, I don't know how many years ago it was, 17 or something or so, I remember once I was on a flight, I do remember flying, and I thought to myself, you know, I'm just going to read Hebrews, and I'm going to lay everything else aside, and I'm going to ask myself the question, what is this really all about?

And so I just started at the beginning, and I just read through it, and I was struck by the reality that the theme of that book is not that difficult to figure out. It's really right on the surface. It's written to Hebrew Christians.

I'm convinced it's written well before the fall of Jerusalem, because it talks about the sacrifices being offered at the temple. So I'd put it in the late 50s into the 60s. It's written to Hebrew Christians who are being tempted.

We know what was going on. You become a Christian in those days, and all of your Jewish friends and family, aside from putting you out of the synagogue, are going to say, come back, you've joined a cult, it's going to fade away, there's nothing to it.

Come back, offer the sacrifices, Jesus might have been a nice guy, but he wasn't the Messiah. And the whole theme of the book is real simple. There's nothing to go back to. There's nothing to go back to.

Look at it. It was all pointing away from itself to a much greater fulfillment. There's nothing to go back to. From the very first chapter, talking about who Jesus was, identifying him as God in human flesh.

I mean, Hebrews chapter 1 is one of the greatest texts on the deity of Christ around. Starting from there, all the way through, is this strong argument, there's nothing to go back to. And so central to that argument, central to that argument, is the fact that there is a new covenant with a mediator who is our high priest who never dies.

And so the author takes all this vitally important stuff, especially from Yom Kippurim. You've heard of Yom Kippur, right? The Day of Atonement. It's really Yom Kippurim, it's the Day of Atonement. Because you look at Leviticus chapter 16 and following, and there was more than one sacrifice offered that day.

But it was the central day where the high priest would enter into the holy place. If you grew up with the King James, it was the holy of holies. Well, that's just a Hebrew way of saying the holiest place.

And there the priest, representing the people, would go in and he would sprinkle the blood upon the altar. And then there was no place to sit down in there. He couldn't stay. He had to immediately leave that place, leave the presence of God.

Only once a year could he, with that blood in that bowl, enter through that veil representing the people. And so the author takes all of that and says, don't you see? It was pointing away from itself at something greater.

So let's pick up with some of that. I'm going to have to go through this quickly for two reasons. One of which is I only have 18 left on my battery. Don't know how I did that, but... Hebrews chapter 7.

Christ’s Eternal Priesthood and Once-for-All Atonement

Hebrews chapter 7. Now, the author speaks to us about a priesthood. And this again is where people start getting a little bit lost. Don't have time to develop all of this, but we have Jesus is made a priest without an.

Oath.

Verse 20. And as much as he was not made priest without an oath, for they have become priests without an oath, but he with an oath, by him who said to him, and then you have the quotation, the Lord has sworn and will not relent.

You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. And so he's bringing in these Old Testament texts in regards to this coming Messiah. This one who is greater. He's the son of David, but he's even greater than David.

The Lord has sworn and will not relent. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Well, there's only one Melchizedek. And we don't have his death recorded for us. We don't have a genealogy recorded for us.

That's the whole reason the Holy Spirit did that. By so much more, Jesus has become a surety, a surety or a guarantee of a better covenant because he's made a priest, not in the way the old priests were.

They're just, it's because they're born in those families and they die. But Jesus made a priest in a different way. Notice, in a different way. There's still an intimate connection. The Old Testament scriptures are telling us about this stuff.

We're not just breaking them apart going, you don't need to worry about any of that stuff anymore. But there has to be a recognition that there is a better covenant. And here you have a priest being made a priest in a different way than priests had been made priests under the old covenant.

So follow the argument. Verse 23. Also, there were many priests because they were prevented by death from continuing. They were prevented by death from continuing. And so you have many priests. You already know where he's going to go with this, right?

But he, because he continues forever, because he lives forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. The term there is aparabaton. It's unchangeable and it cannot be passed on to someone else. It's unique.

It's unchangeable. It's an important text to keep in mind. When those more missionaries come knocking on your door, of course, I think they pretty much have all of our doors marked off, stay away, apologia.

Don't talk to those people.

But if they do come by and they say elder this and elder that, they think they actually hold the Melchizedek priesthood. When I talk to those young men, I go, you do realize that Melchizedek did not have a genealogy.

Do you have a genealogy?

Yeah.

You got a father and mother. Melchizedek didn't. And you do realize that the Melchizedek priest continues forever in his office and he has an unchangeable priesthood. And the Melchizedek priest, therefore, verse 25, he is also able to save the uttermost those who come to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Can you save the uttermost those who draw unto God by you? I've asked many a Mormon missionary that. The looks have been truly astonishing. No one ever asks them that. That is like a conversation that's never had amongst the Mormons.

I think it's, I personally think it's one of the biggest theological weaknesses of their system and a really good direction to go because they're just not used to hearing anybody talk.

About it.

So keep that in mind when you're speaking with them. But he, because he continues forever, because he has been raised from the dead, has an unchangeable.

Priesthood.

Well, isn't that a change? Isn't that something new? Isn't that something different than the priesthood that you had under the old covenant? Now you still have the connection, but you have a greater fulfillment.

The priest could only make a picture of Jesus in a, in a, in a, in a, to a certain level. They couldn't go all the way. There could not be a, a perfect representation. In fact, if you recognize what we have under the old covenant, our types and shadows, those types and shadows of necessity cannot be as great as the fulfillment.

The fulfillment has to go beyond that. So you have Christ, he continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore he is also able to save to the uttermost those who draw nigh to God through him.

Those who draw nigh to God through him. It's about salvation. And he is able to save completely. Completely. Think about what that means. I can't, I can't not point out whose theology teaches a gospel that has a Savior who can save completely.

How many people today preach a message of self-improvement, of God trying, of a Savior who tries his best? That's not what it says. If you want to see a vitally important description of a true Savior, he needs to be able to save completely.

Who can do that? If you make this a synergistic cooperation between Jesus who's doing the best he can and us, we're always going to mess it up. We're always going to mess it up. He is able to save to the uttermost, completely, the ones coming to God through him.

This is a picture. What did you see on Yom Kippur? You saw the faithful coming to the temple and they are believing that that high priest is representing them in going into the presence of God and offering the commanded sacrifice.

And yet, the point of Hebrews is going to be over and over again. That wasn't enough because it had to keep being repeated. Because they had to come back again the next year, and the next year, and the next year.

But here's what I want you to see, and this is, I think it's important. We in our dear Reformed Brethren, at least the ones who still really believe Reformed Theology, we believe in the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary.

We believe that he actually accomplishes something, right? And so we don't believe in the concept of an atonement that is universal but ineffective. We believe in a particular redemption. We even sing the songs, my name was graven on his hands.

Ever thought about what that song is actually saying? That when Christ dies, he knows for whom he's dying. It's not just some peanut butter type spreading it all out there and hope someone takes advantage of it idea.

It's personal. It's the elect dying in their head. Again, there is a direct connection in the scriptures between what it teaches about the effect of the death of Christ and what the covenant is that brings that about.

What did Jesus say?

Drink.

What is it? It's the blood of the covenant. Well, for whom is that made? There must be a consistency between our understanding of the sign of the covenant in the supper, the blood, and those for whom it is spilled.

So if you believe in particular redemption, those two go together. You're not going to give that sign to unbelievers unless you come up with the idea that you're just hoping someday they'll become believers.

And then obviously I think that then moves forward to the issue of baptism because we're talking about what? What is baptism picture? Death, burial, and resurrection. Who has died and been buried and resurrected with Christ?

Everybody? There are denominations that say so. We recognize that is not the case. So we must see that there is a consistency.

Let's see.

He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw nigh unto God through him.

Why?

Seeing he always lives to make intercession for them. There's the key issue. For whom is Christ making intercession? And on what basis? You see, the old high priest goes into the holy place, sprinkles the blood, and then he has to leave.

He can't stay there to make intercession for the people. He can only do it once a year. And he's got to go back in to do it again and back in to do it again. Christ enters in and he's seated at the right hand of the Father.

And his, as we saw, the Lamb, Revelation chapter 5, remember how he's described? Standing as if what? As if slain. Standing as if slain. The death marks upon him. He always lives to make intercession for them.

It's specific. It's personal. And it's effective. It's effective. Here's your better promises. Here's your better mediator. Only shadows unto the old. But for whom does he make intercession? If his intercession is effective, it's only for the elect.

You see how this is all connected together? We have to be consistent in how we look at these things. For such a high priest was fitting for us who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens, who does not need daily as those high priests to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, then for the people's.

That's Yom Kippurim. For this he did once for all. Once for all. That is vitally important. This he did once for all. Not repetitively. Not once for a year. When he offered up himself. When he offered up himself.

For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness. But the word of the oath, remember where we started, the word of the oath, I'm going to make you a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which came after the law, appoints the son who has been perfected forever.

If this new covenant then is in the Son, how can it be anything other than a far greater.

Fulfillment?

A far greater fulfillment. We continue on. Now this is the main point of the things we are saying. We have such a high priest who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, the true tabernacle which the Lord erected and not man.

Back up a second. What's Hebrews all about? There's nothing to go back to. What were they being told? Come to the temple. Oh, isn't it glorious? We have a high priest who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected and not man.

Why should I go back to a shadow?

Something that's going to be torn down by the Roman legions.

Why should I go back to that?

I have a minister of the sanctuary. He's seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens. He's in the true tabernacle. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.

Therefore it is necessary that this one also has something to offer. For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest. Since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law, who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle.

For he said, see that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain. So we're talking about the tabernacle. The writer of Hebrews primarily talks about the tabernacle, that first image that was given, more so than the temple.

But now he, our mediator, has obtained a what? More excellent ministry in as much as he is also a mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. A more excellent ministry. Remember I pointed out to you that under the old covenant, you had so many who bore the covenant signs, but did not have changed hearts.

They bore the covenant signs. We will talk about this later on when we deal with the specific arguments, but it's very clear that part of the reason for that is that you had, as part of the old way of doing things, the continuation of the Jewish people in the land.

And so there was a connection to those promises. But what that resulted in was having people who bore the covenant signs who did not have.

Changed hearts.

They did not have changed hearts. They went through the motions, but oh, look at all the numbers of people that we could talk about under the Old Testament. And they showed no love for God. They had hearts of stone, not hearts of flesh.

But what if we had a more excellent ministry? What if we had a mediator who can save to the uttermost? What if he's a mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises? Would that not, think with me, would that not impact to whom we give the signs of that.

Covenant?

Then we had, then we have Jeremiah 31, 31 to 34 quoted, beginning in verse 8. Now, that will be the essence of what we look at next week. I'm placing it in a context so we can, when we dig deep into it next week, we've got that context already established.

So what are we seeing? We are seeing that there is an establishment of a better covenant of which Christ is a mediator, which is established on better promises. And so therefore, the citation, beginning in verse 7, for if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

There's something about that first covenant that does not bring about perfection in those for whom, who enter into it, plainly what's being said. And then, as I said, beginning in verse 8, we have the longest continuous citation from the Old Testament through verse 12.

And that will be what we really focus in on. But let's just look at the conclusion after the citation in that he says, a new covenant he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The Old Covenant Shadows and the Better Sacrifice of Christ

So what are you going to go back to? How can you find anything in the temple? If it's the old, it's vanishing away. But I want you to see the rest of the application. Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service in the earthly sanctuary, for a tabernacle was prepared, and then you've got the description of the tabernacle.