Within the Reformed Tradition there has always been an emphasis upon the unity of the Old and New Covenants (i.e. Testaments) (Richard Pratt Jr., “Reformed View: Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant” in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, pg. 65). In other words, the Old and New Covenants are the same in substance, yet differ in their differ outward forms.
Of this unity, John Calvin remarked,
“The covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in substance and reality that it is altogether one and the same…He [God] was no less Spirit, however, under the period of the legal ceremonies that after they were abolished; and must therefore have demanded then the same mode of worship which He now enjoins…In every essential respect the worship was the same. The distinction was one entirely of outward form” (Taken from Ronald Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, pg. 27).
In authenticating this position, the following shall serve as arguments in favor of this claim.[1]
Five Reasons In Favor of the Unity of the Old and New Covenant
First, in both the Old and New Covenants, the church should be considered as one. John Murray points out that even though the form of the church differs within the Old and New Covenants, this does not necessitate that the church did not exist within the Old (Christian Baptism, pg. 43). The people of God were called the church in the Old Testament (Acts 7.38) and the New Testament is simply an extension of the Abrahamic covenant. We observe this to be the case in Galatians 3.9, 14, and 17, which reads,
So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith…so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith…This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
Moreover, Abraham is considered to be the father of all who believe in Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, from among the nations (Rom. 4).
So, instead of being considered two separate entities, the church is to be likened to a tree that has grown from one root into one trunk with many branches (Rom. 11.16-21). Besides, Gentiles who were originally not included in the original covenants are now considered fellow citizens in the household of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2.12, 19-20) (also see Robert R. Booth, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, pg. 82-88)
Second, the promise of life and salvation is described in the same way in both the Old and New Covenants. Cornelius Venema said,
“When God first entered into an everlasting covenant with Abraham, he promised to be God to him and to his seed after him (Gen. 17.7). This language is used of the covenant made at Sinai under Moses (Ex. 19.5; 20.1), of the covenant made on the Plains of Moab (Deut. 29.13), of the covenant with David (2 Sam. 7.14), and of the new covenant in Christ (Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10)” (“Covenant Theology and Baptism” in The Case for Covenantal Baptism, pg. 216).
This is why it was said before that the Israelites looked forward to the promise of life and salvation, whereas we today look back in time to this promise.
Third, the same Mediator – Jesus Christ – resides over every administration of God’s covenants. We observe this to be the case when we consider that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2.5) thereby making Him the only way that mankind can be reconciled to God (John 14.6; Acts 4.12; Heb. 13.8). For instance, when Abraham trusted in God, his trust was placed in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3.16, 28-29; cf. John 8.56), who was to come.
Fourth, the gospel is the same in both the Old and New Testament’s. Redemption history begins in Genesis 3.15, reaffirmed in God’s covenant with Abraham, which came to fruition in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We see this when Paul asserted that “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal. 3.8).
Finally, the obligation of the covenant of grace is essentially the same throughout the Old and New Covenants. In response to God’s promise in providing an heir and making his descendants more numerous than the stars, we read, “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15.6; cf. Rom 4.9; Gal. 3.6; James 2.23). Consequently Abraham set an example of faith in obtaining the promise of eternal life from God for all who believe among Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom. 4.9-25; Gal. 3.7-9). Therefore, we today are to follow his example in living our life in faith as well.
Some Final Thoughts
Since the covenant is foundational to the practice of infant baptism, it is important to reiterate this point. For “The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the NT economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church” (Murray, pg. 45).
Not only does the unity of the covenants point to the validity of infant baptism, so too does the analogous similarities between circumcision and baptism, thus adding further evidence to the unity of the covenants and the necessity of administering baptism to infants. For the meaning of baptism is not derived from the New Covenant alone, but rather from the Old Covenant as well (Pratt, pg. 65).
When juxtaposing baptism with circumcision, we can readily see that the two are similar in substance. Although some antipaedobaptists (i.e. Those against the practice of infant baptism), such as Fred Malone, contend otherwise, some that hold this position have said themselves that circumcision and baptism do indeed symbolize the same inner reality (Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, pg. 89).
Next week I will turn our attention to their similarities.
[1] The first point primarily stems from John Murray, Christian Baptism, 43, whereas the following four arguments derive from Cornelius Venema’s work in The Case for Covenantal Baptism entitled, “Covenant Theology and Baptism.” 215-217.
Food for Further Thought:
Formulating a Doctrinal Position
Covenant: Defined and Delivered
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post:
Related posts:
- An Apologia of Infant Baptism: What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean? In comparing circumcision with baptism, John Murray proposed that they...
- An Apologia of Infant Baptism: The Argument from Silence Both paedobaptists – those that adhere to infant baptism –...
- Infant Baptism Resources After initially coming to Christ in December of 2002, I...
- An Apologia of Infant Baptism: Formulating a Doctrinal Position When formulating a doctrinal position, it is imperative that we...
- Covenant: Defined and Delivered Last week I ended my post – An Apologia of...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
An Apologia of Infant Baptism: What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean? « Reformed and Reforming
on Jan 27th, 2010
@ 10:48 am:
[...] implications of the unity of God’s covenant with man and the similarities of baptism and circumcision are tantamount to the baptism of infants. For if [...]
An Apologia of Infant Baptism: The Argument from Silence « Reformed and Reforming
on Feb 2nd, 2010
@ 9:44 pm:
[...] reasonably presume that infants were indeed included in the administration of baptism due to the unity of the covenants and the similarities of circumcision and baptism. When we consider that Jewish parents would have [...]