The Bible clearly lays out that God interacts with Man through covenants.
This is my understanding of Covenant Theology:
(Click image for larger view)
I had a blog called Jazzycat, and this came up. But, this is Wayne. Jazzycat was the first blog I had. I must go in a few minutes, but I will interact with you here.1) I won't quibble too much, but Adam was given one command only... Hardly a covenant of works. Do not eat the fruit from one tree. There was no works to do here. a. the obedience required one thing.b. No... All other covenants came after his fall. But I am glad you used the word "covenants" plural. More later.... this looks like fun.
Wayne - the Adamic Covenant is a well understood Biblical concept and a good bit more robust than what you have posted here - please go and read this: https://www.gotquestions.org/Adamic-covenant.html
The Essay you link is really quite good and points out the same differences we are discussing. I believe those that do not put all the covenants into one deduced unbiblical covenant are correct. First of all circumcision of the flesh prefigured regeneration by circumcision of the heart and not baptism (Rom 2:28-29). OT male babies were physically circumcised as a sign of being in a physical (Mosaic) covenant with God... They were God's physical chosen people, but only a remnant was saved (Rom 9:27). In the NT God's chosen people are believers who have had their hearts circumcised by God (regeneration). These people the "elect" are God's chosen spiritual people. OT circumcision of the flesh pointed to this spiritual circumcision of the heart. The Mosaic Covenant included a mixed body of mostly unbelievers and few elect believers. The New Covenant is NOT a mixed body and is composed of 100% believers. We can come up with all the invisible and visible church terms we want, but the bottom line is the church and new covenant believers is composed of elect believers only. God will lose none of these chosen elect believers. Believers would do better to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord rather than give them a false sense of security in baptized.
Wayne - I still don’t get what “deduced unbiblical covenant” you mean?
The reformed covenant of grace is deduced and not in Scripture.
The New Covenant has the visible church in it, so there is no way it can be comprised 100% of believers.
Nope... The New Covenant is defined in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and repeated in Hebrews 8:10-12. Therefore anyone meeting these conditions are believers. Also, Heb 9:15.
IOW, the non-believers in the visible church may have church membership, but they are not in the New Covenant.
Wayne, I will give you credit for making me revisit my views of the covenant. As you can see in the post, I have revised my position from View 1 to View 2. The rational is that Hebrews 13:20 is the only reference I can find to an eternal covenant and I now believe it is referencing the new covenant. "New" in the sense it is contrasted from the Old imperfect Covenant and eternal in the sense it is inaugurated by the trinity in eternity past and activated by the death of Christ.
*from View 2 to View 1 - durp
You said in view 2, “Baptism is the new sign and seal of Kingdom membership (also covers children and adults)”Are you asserting baptismal regeneration? Neither children or non-elect adults have kingdom membership whether or not they have been baptized.If we listen to Jesus I think everything is clear and really quite simple… He said in Mt. 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”1. Make disciples (disciples are believers by definition)2. Then baptize them3. Teach them to obey Jesus