What are the differences and similarities between the old and new covenants? Are they one in substance or are they different? How do they help us to understand scripture? How does it potentially shape our view of infant baptism? What do Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists believe in regards to this issue? Paul in this episode also concludes his critique of James White’s recent Baptism debate with Gregg Strawbridge.
[smart_track_player url=”https://soundcloud.com/megiddo-radio/165-old-covenant-vs-new-covenant-answering-james-white-and-credobaptist-arguments-part-2″ title=”#165 Old Covenant Vs New Covenant: Answering James White And Credobaptist Arguments (Part 2) ” social=”true” social_twitter=”true” social_facebook=”true” social_gplus=”true” social_email=”true” ]
Thank you for your work.
I believe that no one was ever saved by virtue of the OC because the OC was not cut/covenanted with the blood of Christ. The NC was cut/covenanted at the cross with the blood of Jesus. In other words, Jesus says the NC is in His blood, but the OC is just bulls and goats.
Now even though I believe that no one was ever saved by virtue of the OC, I do believe that those living in the OC were saved through the promise of the NC that is mentioned in Genesis.
This understanding is described through Pascal Denault’s book The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. I was wondering if you have read this.
Would you help me understand why this view is biblically wrong? I watched your two videos in response to the James White and Strawbridge debate. I can still take your comments and have them fit in my understanding of a NC that was promised in Genesis so that the fathers were trusting in that NC promise for salvation.
I do not want to be argumentative. I am earnestly seeking why my view could be wrong. I sometimes feel that both views could be read from Scripture even though only one can be correct.