The Difference between the Old, New and Everlasting Covenants

[The Biblicist]

Without denying that the salvation declared so clearly in the New Covenant is the only salvation from Genesis to Revelation and without denying it is the only way sinners are saved from Genesis to revelation, yet this covenant is called "new" with respect to its relationship with the "old" and is called the "second" with respect to the "first" or Old covenant and not without good reason.

There is more to the "new" covenant than mere salvation or the clarity of God's redemptive plan that is found in no previous covenant more clearly as in this covenant.

Indeed, there is a visible structure as in the "old" covenant or a visible "kingdom" administrative order that makes it comparable to the "old." It is "new" in the sense of time as a visible administrative order.

Without confusing the new order, with the old public house of God and its old ordained ministry, with its old ordinances, and its "old" Testament scriptures, yet in the ministry of Christ on earth God set up a new public visible kingdom administrative order that had some similarities with the previous visible kingdom administration on earth.

1. A New public house of Worship - the ekklesia
2. A New public ordained ministry
3. New public administrative ordinances
4. New public commission
5. New Testament Scriptures

It is this administrative order of the "new" covenant that is temporal and confined "until the end of the age" (Mt. 28:20).

Yes, there are many differences between the new visible kingdom administrative order and the old order. The old order primary anticipated the first coming of Christ and was wholly abrograted with the coming of Christ. The new covenant public kingdom administrative order is declarative in its function without legislative authority. The "new" covenant administrative provides a visible expression of God's rule through his people on earth in an orderly and descent fashion unified in faith with an orderly discipline that glorifies God.

Satan also has set up a counterfeit visible expression of God's rule that is characterized by confusion and disorder inclusive of every opposing system of faith and order imaginable.

The true kingdom order is primarily characterized by three visible expressions - (1) The same N.T. Gospel is preached by this visible order; (2) The same N.T. water baptism is administered by this visible order, (3) The same visible unity in doctrine and practice as seen in the New Testament. Thus, this "new" covenant visible order is manifested after the threefold pattern of the Great Commission - Mt. 28:19-20.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Indeed, there is a visible structure as in the "old" covenant or a visible "kingdom" administrative order that makes it comparable to the "old." It is "new" in the sense of time as a visible administrative order.

I regret that I cannot go along with all this. Its aim seems to be to disfellowship all paedobaptist churches, and that is a step too far for me.
I will repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread.

The Old Covenant had a human, earthly mediator, Moses, and a human earthly priesthood offering the sacrifices of various earthly animals in an earthly temple. The whole point of the New Covenant is that it has a better mediator, a better priesthood and a better sacrifice in the Lord Jesus Christ who has ascended into the 'true tabernacle that the Lord erected, and not man' (Hebrews 8:2). We therefore have now (contra the Church of Rome), no earthly head of the church(es), no earthly priesthood and no continuing sacrifices.

Neither Jeremiah nor the writer to the Hebrews ever mentions the ekklesia when comparing the two covenants. Nor does Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, the only other place I can think of where the two covenants are contrasted. This is not to say that we can do whatever we like in the ekklesia- not at all!- but it is to say that the church is not the New Testament version of the Tabernacle or Temple; that is not on earth but in heaven (Hebrews 8:2; 9:11).

The essence of the New Covenant, according to Jeremiah 31:31-34 is that
1. God's law is written not on tablets of stone but on the hearts of God's people.
2. Those who are in the New Covenant all know the Lord.
3. Those who are in the New Covenant have their sins forgiven.

Now it is absolutely true that these points establish Believers' baptism: only the regenerate are in the covenant and therefore only the regenerate should receive baptism. But baptism is never called the seal of the covenant- the Holy Spirit is that (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). Whilst I believe that churches practising infant baptism are in error, I am not willing to deny that they are churches at all unless they compound their error by believing in Baptismal Regeneration or Presumptive Regeneration.

 

[The Biblicist]

I regret that I cannot go along with all this. Its aim seems to be to disfellowship all paedobaptist churches, and that is a step too far for me.
I will repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread.

Martin they are not true churches and cannot possibly be true churches unless you can find a church, any church in the New Testament that is composed of lost unregenerate infants, and the rest of saved unbaptized sprinkled or poured believers!

This this through with me. You don't give them credit for baptism do you? How can sprinkling and pouring be credited as baptism. By denying them baptism do you deny them salvation? No! You simply draw the line where the bible draws it. They have no baptism as no sprinkling or pouring can ever symbolize the believer with the gospel of Christ. So just be consistent and deny them New Testament church status as well, because no assembly unbaptized person can ever claim to be a true New Testament church.

Don't misunderstand me here! I am not questioning the salvation of any sprinkled believer in Christ but no amount of sprinkled/poured believers can be a New Testament church. I am just calling you to be consistent with the doctrine of salvation when it comes to the nature of New Testament churches.

BTW my aim was not directed to paedobaptist assemblies. My aim was to demonstrate the new covenant had a visible administration on earth when properly assessed would properly define the nature of true New Testament churches.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Old Covenant had a human, earthly mediator, Moses, and a human earthly priesthood offering the sacrifices of various earthly animals in an earthly temple. The whole point of the New Covenant is that it has a better mediator, a better priesthood and a better sacrifice in the Lord Jesus Christ who has ascended into the 'true tabernacle that the Lord erected, and not man' (Hebrews 8:2). We therefore have now (contra the Church of Rome), no earthly head of the church(es), no earthly priesthood and no continuing sacrifices.

There is no possible way that anyone true to the New Testament can deny there is a new visible public institution for worship that is called the ekklesia because it is found repeatedly established in nearly every place the apostles travelled in the book of Acts. It has ordinances. It has an ordained ministry. It has a mission. It has membership. It has a democrative form of government. Christ addresess such directly in Revelation 2-3. This ekklesia is built without hands as the very materials are living stones, water baptized professed believers who are instituted according to the principles of the Great Commission. This institution is what Paul describes to Timothy as "the house of God" in 1 Tim. 3:15 with an ordained ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-13) and he would be instructed by Paul how he should behave himself in that assembly. If that assembly were in heaven or invisible or universal there would be no need to be instructed how to behave in it because your whole life would be in it.


]

Neither Jeremiah

Jereminiah did not because it was a New Testament revelation.

nor the writer to the Hebrews ever mentions the ekklesia when comparing the two covenants.

Yes he does (Heb.9:1; 10:22-27; 12:15-22).

Nor does Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, the only other place I can think of where the two covenants are contrasted.

Yes he does. The very first two verses refers to letters of commendation when persons travelled between churches (Acts 18: Rom. 16:1-2).

This is not to say that we can do whatever we like in the ekklesia- not at all!- but it is to say that the church is not the New Testament version of the Tabernacle or Temple; that is not on earth but in heaven (Hebrews 8:2; 9:11).

It is one sense - the public house of worship (1 Tim. 3:15). Try to find the phrase "the house of God] previous to 1 Tim. 3:15 where it does not describe a visible public house of worship where ordained men administered ordinances (1 Tim. 3:1-15).

The essence of the New Covenant, according to Jeremiah 31:31-34 is that
1. God's law is written not on tablets of stone but on the hearts of God's people.
2. Those who are in the New Covenant all know the Lord.
3. Those who are in the New Covenant have their sins forgiven.

He is speaking about the nation of Israel here and its future salvation as "the elect" and it will be saved as described. However, the salvation being described here was applicable directly by God to Israelites when Jeremiah spoke. When Moses spoke. When God spoke to Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.

The New Testament ekklesia DOES NOT ADMINISTER THIS COVENANT SALVATION TO ANYONE but it is the New Covenant ADMINISTRATOR of the disipline and ordinances and visible expression of the new covenant administration of the everlasting covenant. In other words no church, no preacher, no ordinance administers salvation to anyone as God has administered this salvation from Genesis 3:15 till He comes again. God administered directly to the elect under the old covenant and he now administers it directly under the HUMAN ADMINISTRATION of the new covenant.

Now it is absolutely true that these points establish Believers' baptism: only the regenerate are in the covenant and therefore only the regenerate should receive baptism. But baptism is never called the seal of the covenant- the Holy Spirit is that (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). Whilst I believe that churches practising infant baptism are in error, I am not willing to deny that they are churches at all unless they compound their error by believing in Baptismal Regeneration or Presumptive Regeneration.

Tell me, would the church on Pentecost receive infants into their membership? Would they receive sprinkled or poured believers into their membership? Can you find ANY church among the dozens recorded in scripture that is composed of such? Why then do or accept what not only cannot be found in scriptures but which VIOLATES SCRIPTURE???

 

[kyredneck]

the salvation declared so clearly in the New Covenant is the only salvation from Genesis to Revelation

Agree:

35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. Mt 13

'Hidden', but all the while in effect.

this covenant is called "new" with respect to its relationship with the "old"

Right again:

13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. Heb 8

The Old Covenant was an addition:

19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Gal 3

And then it was removed:

27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12

15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

 

[The Biblicist]

Martin they are not true churches and cannot possibly be true churches unless you can find a church, any church in the New Testament that is composed of lost unregenerate infants, and the rest of saved unbaptized sprinkled or poured believers!

This this through with me. You don't give them credit for baptism do you? How can sprinkling and pouring be credited as baptism. By denying them baptism do you deny them salvation? No! You simply draw the line where the bible draws it. They have no baptism as no sprinkling or pouring can ever symbolize the believer with the gospel of Christ. So just be consistent and deny them New Testament church status as well, because no assembly unbaptized person can ever claim to be a true New Testament church.

Don't misunderstand me here! I am not questioning the salvation of any sprinkled believer in Christ but no amount of sprinkled/poured believers can be a New Testament church. I am just calling you to be consistent with the doctrine of salvation when it comes to the nature of New Testament churches.

BTW my aim was not directed to paedobaptist assemblies. My aim was to demonstrate the new covenant had a visible administration on earth when properly assessed would properly define the nature of true New Testament churches.

Martin, would your church interact and treat a pedobaptist institution as a New Testament church? Meaning, you would recognize their ordinances by accepting their baptism of a person who was a believer prior to being sprinkled? If so, would not be a repudiation of the gospel truth that this symbol is designed to convey/ If not, is not that rejection of their ordained ministry in the very function forming an assembly? Meaning, if you rejected their ordinance of baptism, even Pedobaptists recognize there can be no church where there is no baptism. Think about this last statement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin they are not true churches and cannot possibly be true churches unless you can find a church, any church in the New Testament that is composed of lost unregenerate infants, and the rest of saved unbaptized sprinkled or poured believers!

I think there may be a difference between the situations in Britain and in the USA. Over here, in England at least, there are very few Presbyterian churches that are not hopelessly liberal. The main paedobaptist churches are Anglican. Most of these are also liberal, but there is a fair number of sound Anglican churches. In these, children are not allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper until they have been 'confirmed.' Therefore 'lost, unregenerate infants' are not brought into full membership. Also, in such churches, adult baptism these days tends to be by immersion.

Think this through with me. You don't give them credit for baptism do you? How can sprinkling and pouring be credited as baptism. By denying them baptism do you deny them salvation? No! You simply draw the line where the bible draws it. They have no baptism as no sprinkling or pouring can ever symbolize the believer with the gospel of Christ. So just be consistent and deny them New Testament church status as well, because no assembly unbaptized person can ever claim to be a true New Testament church.

Don't misunderstand me here! I am not questioning the salvation of any sprinkled believer in Christ but no amount of sprinkled/poured believers can be a New Testament church. I am just calling you to be consistent with the doctrine of salvation when it comes to the nature of New Testament churches.


BTW my aim was not directed to paedobaptist assemblies. My aim was to demonstrate the new covenant had a visible administration on earth when properly assessed would properly define the nature of true New Testament churches.

The difference between us is that I find the essence of the New Covenant in the New Birth, salvation by faith alone and the priesthood of all believers. While not denying the importance of correctly-administered ordinances, I don't find the essence of the N.C. there. Any place therefore where the Gospel is faithfully preached, the Lord's Supper celebrated correctly (ie. not Transubstantiation) and church discipline upheld is to me a church..
You mentioned Hebrews 9:1 as a reference to the ekklesia. I don't find it there. 'Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.' The point of this passage is to compare the earthly nature of the O.C. with the heavenly nature of the N.C. This contrast occurs in v.11. 'But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is not of this creation.' The O.C. tabernacle (and by extension, the Temple) is replaced in the N.C., not by the ekklesia, but by heaven itself to which believers now have direct access by their Great High Priest.

That there is a N.T. church with overseers and deacons who must comply with certain standards of behaviour (1 Timothy 3), which believers are to attend regularly (Hebrews 10:25) I do not deny at all. There are many fine officers in paedobaptist churches who run their churches in exemplary fashion save for the question of baptism. I understand if you take a different view, but whilst I could not attend such a church, I cannot separate myself from such people. For 'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand because God is able to make him stand' (Romans 14:4).

 

[The Biblicist]

The difference between us is that I find the essence of the New Covenant in the New Birth, salvation by faith alone and the priesthood of all believers. While not denying the importance of correctly-administered ordinances, I don't find the essence of the N.C. there. Any place therefore where the Gospel is faithfully preached, the Lord's Supper celebrated correctly (ie. not Transubstantiation) and church discipline upheld is to me a church.
You mentioned Hebrews 9:1 as a reference to the ekklesia. I don't find it there. 'Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.' The point of this passage is to compare the earthly nature of the O.C. with the heavenly nature of the N.C. This contrast occurs in v.11. 'But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is not of this creation.' The O.C. tabernacle (and by extension, the Temple) is replaced in the N.C., not by the ekklesia, but by heaven itself to which believers now have direct access by their Great High Priest.

That there is a N.T. church with overseers and deacons who must comply with certain standards of behaviour (1 Timothy 3), which believers are to attend regularly (Hebrews 10:25) I do not deny at all. There are many fine officers in paedobaptist churches who run their churches in exemplary fashion save for the question of baptism. I understand if you take a different view, but whilst I could not attend such a church, I cannot separate myself from such people. For 'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand because God is able to make him stand' (Romans 14:4).

When you leave the Scriptures and start down the road of pragmaticism then any opinion is as good as another.

Again, I think you are confusing rejection of church status with rejection of salvation status.