New Covenant Baptism, Part 1
One of my best friends and several very good friends have left Baptist circles to become, as they would put it, "fully reformed." What this means is that they've embraced "covenantalism" to the extent that they now view "paedobaptism" (the baptism of infants into the covenant community) as the legitimate covenant sign for all children of believers. This paper is the fruit of our discussions and debates on the issue. It is not exhaustive. It was written as an assignment in one of my classes at the University of Mobile, School of Christian Studies. I'll post them in parts so that you can read each section in one sitting.
I welcome your comments. I would ask that you be kind to one another when and if you post. I would also ask you to try to avoid looking down on the one who differs from you on this issue. You were both bought and paid for by the blood of Christ and are brothers. The formatting of this blog did not allow my footnotes to copy into the text field. If you are interested I'll forward you a copy of the paper via e-mail.
INTRODUCTION
Baptism has been an ongoing source of sectarianism and disagreement since the days of John the Baptist. When John came baptizing in the wilderness, the religious leaders of his day were suspicious and demanded, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet" (John 1:25 NKJV)? Questions about baptism have not subsided. Those who practice infant baptism ask, "Who are you to prevent the baptism of children born to believing parents? 'Nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant' its prevention!" While those who affirm believer's baptism ask, "Why do you baptize infants, when there is 'such appalling lack of New Testament evidence for infant baptism'?" It is the aim of this paper to show that believer's baptism, as clearly revealed in Scripture, is the only orthodox view of the ordinance of Christian baptism.
ECCLESIOLOGY AND NEW COVENANT BAPTISM
The Importance of Ecclesiology
When it comes to the ordinance of baptism in the new covenant community, ecclesiology is a pivotal issue. Those who see the new covenant as being made up of regenerate members only, generally practice believer's baptism. Those who see the new covenant as being an extension of and an improvement upon the Abrahamic Covenant, generally practice infant baptism. The latter assert that in the Abrahamic Covenant unregenerate infants and adults were circumcised as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant community. Therefore, they argue that in the new covenant community, unregenerate infants of believing parents should be baptized as a sign of their inclusion in the new covenant. However, the New Testament unambiguously defines membership in the new covenant community--the church--as consisting of regenerate people only. Therefore, baptism as an ordinance of the church is limited to those who give evidence of being regenerate by exercising repentance and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Church: A Regenerate New Covenant Community
When Christ ushered in the Lord's supper, He said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20 NKJV). This simple phrase provides the basis upon which the new covenant is grounded. It is "the new covenant in [Christ's] blood." His blood is the doorway through which men and women enter the new covenant. Christ, therefore, because He shed His own blood to purchase their eternal redemption, is the best of mediators. His blood guarantees the salvation of each member of the new covenant. This necessitates a regenerate membership in the covenant. For Christ is not the mediator for the unregenerate, but the regenerate.
The writer of Hebrews says, "He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by
means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15 NKJV). Notice that membership in the new covenant has to do with the death of Christ, forgiveness of sins, and is only applicable to "those who are called." Inclusion in the new covenant comes by spiritual birth and not natural birth. This calling is not a general calling, but an effectual calling which produces salvation. Additionally, Hebrews 8:8-12, makes it clear that the new covenant community is comprised of regenerate people who have had the law of God put "in their minds" and written "on their hearts." Consequently, there is no need to evangelize those within the new covenant "for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." Clearly, the new covenant is superior to, and has effectively set aside the Old Covenant. It is made up of those who have been born again, who have been forgiven, and, therefore, need not be evangelized.
Elsewhere in the New Testament we find that membership in the Church is
wrought by the Holy Spirit. This truth is championed by the Apostles. In Acts 2:38 and 39, Peter exhorts the crowd to "repent and let everyone of you be baptized for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" (NKJV). However, not all those in attendance, not all "children", not all "afar off" were recipients of this promise. No, there is a qualifier attached, namely, "as many as the Lord our God shall call." Again, we have the effectual salvific call of God in plain view.
Membership in the church is always a work of the Holy Spirit and only those who have been "baptized into Christ" (not water, but, Spirit baptism) by the effectual call of God are members of His body and "heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:27-29). I Corinthians 12 states that "by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" and that "[we] are the body of Christ, and members individually." It goes on to say that as members of the body of Christ we receive spiritual gifts for the edification of the Church. Likewise, Eph. 4:7-16 teaches that the body of Christ is a living spiritual organism, growing as each member does its part in the exercise of spiritual gifts. Clearly, the spiritually dead--the unregenerate--are in no way part of such a lively, growing new covenant community--the church.
Furthermore, discoursing on the unity of the Church, the Apostle Paul clearly states that membership in the Church consists of those who are united "in one body and one Spirit...one hope of [their] calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph 4:-6). How can this apply to the unregenerate? How can we be united in one body and one Spirit with unregenerate people? Just who does "you all" refer to? Obviously, it refers to those who are in the Church. The context will not allow for any other interpretation. Without doubt, Paul had a regenerate membership in view. Otherwise, if there were unregenerate members within the church who did not have the Spirit of God within them, Paul could not have said, God "is...in you all." Not surprisingly, then, both Peter and Paul describe the church and its members as being alive and growing. In Ephesians 2 and I Peter 2, they define the church as the temple of the Holy Spirit; its members as living stones comprising that temple, and Christ as the chief cornerstone in the temple.
In addition to all of this, the very word "church"--the Greek word ekklesia--refers to an assembly of the "called out ones." When the Apostles chose this term to describe the body of Christ, it is clear that they imagined a regenerate community comprised of those who are called by the Holy Spirit from death to life and transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Therefore, the new covenant symbol of baptism must be limited to those who give evidence by demonstrating repentance and faith that they are truly part of the ekklesia.
posted by Tom @ 2:45 PM
16 Comments:
Hi Tom,
Before I comment... Could you provide me your definition of orthodox? I just want to make sure we are opporating from the same "websters." Al sends
Al, I used to the word "orthodox" to convey the idea of "theologically correct" or "accepted truth". I realize that it has been the accepted practice in the majority of Christendom for nearly 2000 years. But, mere practice of an ordinance over the span of many years does not make it "orthodox". We would both agree that the Roman Catholic Doctrines of an "infused" righteousness and purgatory are wrong, even though they've been adhered to for quite a long time. So, "orthodox", as I used it, was meant to convey "theological correctness." I'm quite sure there will not be anything here that will change your mind. And I'm quite sure you will not agree with much of what I've said. Look forward to hearing your thoughtful critique/feeback. Be patient with me.
Tom, I hear what you're saying about what you meant by the word orthodox, but I think that is a poor way to frame this thing.
>It is the aim of this paper to show that believer's baptism, as clearly revealed in Scripture, is the only orthodox view of the ordinance of Christian baptism.
The "only orthodox view" of God's foreknowledge is exhaustive foreknowledge of future human choices. Therefore, denying God's exhaustive foreknowledge of future human choices (as open theism asserts) is outside the realm of orthodoxy. It is unorthodox. Someone holding this view is unorthodox. He is not only incorrect on this issue, but he has stepped outside the realm of what is acceptable for biblical theology and what the church has authoritatively accepted as the teaching of the Scriptures.
Now, is this what you are saying with the word "orthodox"? I would suggest that in the future you use the phrase "theologically correct," as you clarified in your comment. "Orthodox" is a pretty loaded word that tends to set a heavy tone. Baptists are *orthodox* while paedobaptists are *unorthodox*. Knowing you, I don't really think that is the way you are trying to frame things.
I mean, do you really mean to contend that covenantal infant baptism is "unorthodox" and therefore places an adherent outside the realm of orthodoxy, in the same way that a proponent of open theism is outides the realm of orthodoxy?
Even in my most ardent baptist days, I was never willing to say that a paedobaptist was "unorthodox," even though I was willing to say that a paedobaptist was in error on the issue of baptism and some other things.
After this I'll stop quibbling about terms in the intro and get on to some of the issues you raised in the meat of the post. Thanks for being willing to put it out there.
What I am saying is that Believer's/Credo Baptism is "theologically correct" and paedobaptism is not. Therefore, one of us is sinning when it comes to this ordinance. And, it is no small issue to sin in our practice of such an important ordinance. Certainly, as I already stated in my response to Al, I am not saying that you do not use the scriptures to make your case, or that there is a lack of support for it in church history. I am merely saying that it is not "theologically correct". It is sinful to wrongly administer a sacrament, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I'm sure you agree. Thanks for post. I look forward to reading your insight. I know you guys did not change your position lightly. I'd hope to see you back in the Baptist camp, though I'm happy to have you as a paedobaptist brother...period!
Tom, I think you say more than you like with the word orthodox but we will lay that aside for now. In your paper you said the following: "When Christ ushered in the Lord's supper, He said, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you'... For Christ is not the mediator for the unregenerate, but the regenerate."
On one level this is obviously true. Only those for whom Christ died will enter into heaven, yet scripture does not always equate the church with the saved. Perhaps you will deal with some of these passages in a future post.
In Matthew 13 24- 30 Jesus tells us that the "kingdom of Heaven" is like a wheat field and there are shenanigans going on in the soil.…13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
Notice that Jesus uses the present tense in his declaration. "The kingdom of heaven IS like…" Jesus looked at the kingdom (the realm to which the church belongs) as being mixed. Also, when Jesus offered the cup of the new covenant in His blood to whom was it given? He said, "it is given for you." Who heard him say that and did Jesus really mean all of them? Name names here if you would.
I am going out of town for awhile and may have more time to post while in Groton, CT. God Bless brother!
Al sends
Tom,
Very sound! I believe "orthodox" is the right term, no matter how "loaded" some may think the word is. Some of the replies are interesting and I can tell they come from a "hyper-covanental" viewpoint. We must remember that when our Lord uses the word "like" in parables it doesn't mean "exactly" but "resembles". Parables are easy to use to develop heterodox ideas. Also, the idea that was being inferred by Judas being present at the Last Supper and the "shed for you" including him is absurd, because Jesus immediately excludes him. Incomplete context leads to heterodoxy as well.
Stewart,
What precisely is "hyper-covenantal" (note the spelling)? I am not famliar with that term.
Tom,
I feel like I need to pursue this matter of the term "orthodox" just a bit more. I asked earlier this question:
Do you really mean to contend that covenantal infant baptism is "unorthodox" and therefore places an adherent outside the realm of orthodoxy, in the same way that a proponent of open theism is outside the realm of orthodoxy?
Can you answer that question?
You say that I am in sin because I am wrongly administering the sacrament of baptism.
I was posed this very question by a credobaptist member at our church as we transitioned to practicing paedobaptism in our worship. If you will indulge me, I will include in a separate post my answer to the question of whether someone with differing views on the mode and recipients of baptism is in sin.
Tom, here is that post I mentioned before. Sorry it's so long.
Do the pastors believe that members of the congregation who do not baptize their children are sinning? How are we as a church to regard one another if our views of baptism differ?
The true church of Jesus Christ is made up of those who believe baptism is to be reserved for those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ as a testimony of their salvation and those who believe that God has ordained baptism as a sign and seal of His covenant, which is to be given to believers and their children. We realize that the church of Jesus Christ is divided over this issue. Yet there seems to be a growing unity within the reformed churches over baptism.
We have come together as a body to be a local expression of the church of the living God. As such, we are a collection of paedobaptist families and credobaptist families. Paedobaptist families are convicted that the baptism of their children is biblically warranted. Credobaptism families believe that their children should be baptized only as confessing believers. The nature of the case, that is, the nature of belief and obedience, is such that these families are convicted that to do otherwise would be to sin. However, we can still live together in peace; we do not have to go around regarding other families as sinful. We trustingly and lovingly regard them as families who are doing their best to understand and obey the Scriptures. In humility we recognize that families can do this (on issues of a non-essential nature such as the mode and recipients of baptism) and come to different conclusions – even within the same local church.
We must recognize that the church universal, the church as a whole, like us, does not agree on this issue of baptizing the children of believers. We as a church have recognized this from the beginning, and we have decided to come together as a church in spite of it, in humility refraining from judging or condemning one another and instead uniting as a body of believers who major on the majors of Scripture and find unity at every point where we can do so peaceably. From the beginning of our church, we have lived together as paedobaptist families and credobaptist families. We will continue to do so without being judgmental or mutually condemning. In the past when a family joined the church it probably was not even known (unless there had been a specific one-on-one conversation about it) whether the family was paedo- or credo-. I expect this to still be the case – not because we are hiding something or being cagey about the whole thing, but because we are too busy being about the important matters of the kingdom and training our children and serving one another and studying the Word.
The difference now, obviously, is that the pastors’ views on baptism have changed, and the pastors are proposing that we now practice paedobaptism. Before this change, paedobaptist families who came into the church had to lay aside their conviction that their children should be baptized (though it is true that while we did not practice it, we have always accepted the baptism of infants by sprinkling – a custom at odds with historic Baptist practice and intentionally calculated to contribute to catholicity and unity). Before the pastors’ change, if a paedobaptist family had a baby, they had to live with the fact that the baby would not be baptized. That was something of a hurdle for paedobaptist families to overcome. Now, however, credobaptist families have something of a hurdle to overcome because there will be the practice of infant baptism in the church.
Now, let’s be clear: the hurdle is NOT that credobaptist families have to give up their believers’ baptism convictions or that they have to accept infant baptism. Credobaptist families whose children, for example, are not baptized and who come to Christ will still be baptized by the pastors by immersion – and with great joy and without reservation. However, credobaptist families have to accept the actual practice of infant baptism in the life of the church. That is the hurdle – and it is one that I believe our credobaptist families can overcome. There are many, many Baptist families who are part of Presbyterian churches and who have reservations about infant baptism but who are in great agreement with the theology, vision, and ministry of the church and who function quite well in the life of the church. Pastor Stout and Pastor Bryant are convinced that this can be the case at Providence as well. The pastors do have convictions of their own that will influence how they practice baptism in their own families, and their convictions will invariably come out in the life of the church. But the pastors, with wholehearted purpose, want to lead the church toward unity and love and forbearance, especially on such a polarizing issue as baptism.
We are working toward unity (“the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” – Eph 4:13), and we cannot work toward that unity in different churches. However, even with our differing convictions regarding the baptism of our children, we can work together toward unity and love. We can obey God together in presenting our children to Him as a heritage for His name and for His glory, differing baptismal convictions notwithstanding.
So in direct answer to the question: No, the pastors do not believe that those who do not baptize their children are sinning. Open and unrepentant sin would require church discipline and though some have placed baptism in such a category we, along with others, reject such teaching. This unity recognizes the desire of both credo- and paedo- baptists to be faithful to the Word of God and raise their children in the most God-honoring fashion. Since God has seen fit to include credobaptists and paedobaptists in His church universal the elders at Providence are loath to place barriers where He has granted access.
Instead, we acknowledge that we see the Scriptures differently on an issue that the universal church has been divided over for centuries. In humility we will each obey the Scriptures as we believe we must. For paedobaptist families that means baptizing their children (which in the days ahead will be a new practice in the church), and for credobaptist families that means baptizing their children only after a profession of faith (which has been and will continue to be a reality in the church). The pastors will attempt to treat all these families (to the extent that they are able to, with their sinful natures and limited wisdom) with equal care and love, not regarding one group as being righteous while the other is sinful.
Dave,
I think you know that I do not place the error of "paedobaptism" on par with the error of "open theism". Neither are orthodox..."theologically correct."
I can fellowship with a "paedobaptist"... obviously. I can't fellowship with an "open theist."
As for whether of not it is a sin to wrongly administer the ordinance of baptism, I'm certain that it is. Either I'm sinning (albeit unwittingly) by not baptizing infants and toddlers, or you're sinning (albeit unwittingly) by baptizing them. I appreciate your desire to keep unity in the Church. I hope that you continue to enjoy the blessing of God upon your fellowship. But, one group is sinning. Both cannot be right. Certainly it is important to adiminister this ordinance correctly. Certainly we can agree that it is possible to sin when administering this ordinance. The Catholics and the Church of Christ are sinning when they practice a baptism that is seen to effect regeneration?
As far as Alan's comments concerning the parable of the wheat and tares is concerned, Christ gives the interpretation to this parable in verse 36 and following. The field is not the church. The "field is the world". The enemy is Satan. The separation is the final judgment. Some like to use this passage as a foundation for refusing to practice church discipline. If the field is the church they are right.
Al, I think you'll agree on a second look, that the field is not the church. As to the "Judas" inference, Stew addressed that already. Of course Jesus' blood in no way mediates in any capacity for Judas. Blood is salvific. Christ will be the judge of world. He mediates salvation to His children through His shed blood.
Have a safe trip! See you when you return at our next meeting.
Tom
Tom,
Yes I agree with your response. on the wheat and the tares. (I should never try to think these things out while taking a break at work). Mea Culpa for the poor bible reading!
Al sends
Hello fellow believers.
This is a very interesting post, though not for the reason one might expect.
Before I state the reason I find this post interesting, I first confess that I do not agree with the paedobaptist stance as it does seem biblically correct.
I will take a different approach as plenty of scriptural reference has been stated so I will only assert an opinion in logic to question the accuracy of the paedobaptist stance.
This is...to baptize a child who is aware but unrepentant produces what more than a false security of the child, as they are only aware of the event, but have not accepted Christ? To baptize a child who is unaware and therefore unrepentant produces what more that benefit for the parent as the child could have just as easily not been present as the child was unaware? Anyone can dedicate anyone to anything but if the dedicated does not accept or understand the stance of the dedication, then there can be no dedication effect for the dedicated. Hence, the benefit can be only for the parent and would therefore require a third baptism for the dedicated, this being when salvation actually does occur, would it not?
Now to the reason I find this post interesting...refering specifically to the "sin" comments. Why do we as believers care to this degree over topics that are, though barely, open to interpretation when there are so many that are not and we avoid? Topics we avoid simply because they are politically incorrect. One of many examples is: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Cr 14:34-35
There are of course many other similar topics nevertheless, I do find our focus as believers interesting.
note, in my previous post I state "Before I state the reason I find this post interesting, I first confess that I do not agree with the paedobaptist stance as it does seem biblically correct."
The word "correct" should have been "incorrect", sorry for the confusion.
Tom,
I suppose my first thought as I approach the content of your post is this: why do you begin with the recipients of baptism? Why not begin with the meaning of baptism? What is baptism? Shouldn't that be established before you begin talking about who receives it?
I certainly am not arguing that baptism has great ecclesiological ramifications, but why begin there? Having asked that, what is the meaning of baptism? It seems that this is the foundational question.
Also, you write of "the new covenant symbol of baptism." You assume throughout that baptism is a mere symbol. What is your biblical basis in making that assumption? Is baptism something more than a mere symbol?
Good morning Dave. I am not going to argue against your proposal that the meaning of Baptism should have been my starting point. The reason I began with the "recipients" is because the question, "who are the proper recipiensts of the sign/symbol?" is basic to the differences between "infant" baptists and "credo" baptists. I am not well equipped to provide you any real good explanation as to the difference between a sign and a symbol. But, I do not think I would refer to baptism as a "mere" symbol, as if a symbol is something less than a sign. I would be more inclined to refer to the sign of paedobaptism as "mere" sign. Immersion (which is the practice of most credo baptists) is much more descriptive than sprinkling or pouring, and is a powerful symbol of one's union with Christ. As far as biblical support, it seems I Peter 3:21 reckons baptism as a picture of one's being resurrected to new life in Christ based on one's pledge of a good conscience. Forgiveness of sins, death of the old man, and new life seem to be the thing symbolized by Baptism. In short, union with Christ seems to me to be the best meaning of Baptism. Because one has repented and believed in Christ, he follows John and Jesus' command to be baptized. I'll more fully address the issue of repentance and faith as prerequistes to baptism in the coming posts. So, be patient. I want to give you plenty of time to analyse every jot and tittle of each and every post!!!!
In the meantime, I welcome your definition of the meaning of Baptism and welcome your suggestions as to proper order and content. As I said before, this is by no means an exhaustive work on Baptism. Many of you are much more capable than I. I suppose an entire paper could be written on the meaning of Baptism. Maybe someone more capable than I will write that one for us. We'll post it on the blog for the commentary of those who wish to participate.
Rather than this dialogue being a mere, "I'll pose a question to Tom and wait for an answer, then I'll pose another question relating to that answer", why don't you guys simply post your own thoughts concerning a particular proposition set forth in the paper. I am happy to read your insight and am willing to accept correction. But, before you ask me to defend something, I ask that you post your thoughts on the subject. If you do not understand something that I am saying, feel free to ask for clarification (the term "orthodox" comes to mind). I am certain that there are many things that will fall into the "unclear" category.
Additionally, let others feel free to jump in and offer their own insights and answers to the questions that are posed. I am certain that there are others who are much smarter than I who are reading these posts.
God bless, and thanks for posting.
Oh, and have the courage to include your name if you are going to post. Please don't post anonymously. We are all brothers here...I hope. And please try ignore each others grammar mistakes if you can. I for one am no English major.
Tom
David,
I guess my blog spell-checker failed. "Hyper-covenantal" is my own creation, I might even try to copyright it. What is meant by hyper-covenantal is a viewpoint that denies the uniqueness of the New Covenant in Christ's Blood, which is salvific for everyone in Him, by merging and confusing it with a covenant that had no saving efficacy for anyone.
A hyper-covenantal view confuses covenants in the OT as well. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the Covenant of Circumcision. One was established years before the other. The Abrahamic Covenant was monergistic and the Covenant of Circumcision was synergistic. God covenanted with Abraham to bless all nations through him and there is no indication that Abraham could break this covenant. However, the Covenant of Circumcision could be broken and the violator would be cut off. You can't have a covenant that is unbreakable, yet breakable. If the answer is that the Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision are one and the same and breakable, then how in the world is the New Covenant like the Abrahamic Covenant? That is why the writer of Hebrews used the Greek word we translate as "better" which means better in kind or essence not better in extension. Jesus was not better in magnitude to the angels, but better in essence. The heavenly sacrifices are better in essence to the earthly ones. The heavenly country is better in essence than the earthly one. In the same way the New Covenant is better in essence because of the essence of the priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ.
The essential superiority of the New Covenant over all other covenants for the believer is that now:
"THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Is this not a better covenant of kind and essence? This is totally different than any other covenant!
The OT covenants are shadows of the New Covenant. They reveal the New in a limited way. To understand the reality of the New Covenant you look at the One who ratified it, not His shadow.
Here are some links that explain it better than I ever could:
The Covenant of Circumcision: No Just Plea For Infant Baptism by W.T. Brantly
http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article2.html
Hebrews sermon series by James White
http://www.prbc.org/Sermons2.htm
THE NEWNESS OF THE NEW COVENANT:
Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice,
Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises
James R. White
http://www.rbtr.org/RBTR%20I.2%20The%20Newness%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm
FAQ on the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism
Stan Reeves
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html
A Reformed Baptist View of I Cor. 7:14
Stan Reeves
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html
Grace and peace,
Stewart
Post a Comment
<< Home