The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING

Forgive me jumping in mid-flow, I’m not a regular but I do have an interest (don’t we all!) in Covenant Theology. I’m a Baptist and don’t subscribe to NCT, but rather to historic Baptist CT. I’d like to respond to JEdwards post above and in passing thank him for his gracious tone throughout. I believe it is crucial to explore this issue and hope to do so without hostility. My post is long as I’ve quoted the original so I won’t ramble on any more.


I’m not overly familiar with this division of the Kingdom into three aspects, but I don’t think it causes many difficulties other than to omit consideration of OT saints and to make Consummation of the New Covenant synonymous with what exactly? The Lord’s Second Coming, Judgement, Glorification ?

There is undoubtedly this content in Jeremiah –the most immediate sense of the prophecy –but there is still a conditional aspect that means words like “in all its fullness” can’t be used carelessly. (Jer 31:30)

Well observed. And crucial to a right understanding of Covenant Theology. The Baptist CT contention here would be that the Old Covenant was never salvific; and external observances never effectual. Salvation was always and only by faith in the blood of the Glorious Promised Redeemer. Only those in the OT who had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit to trust in Christ’s redeeming blood would be saved. They would enter into the everlasting covenant of Grace. Many of these would have been Jews, most of them members of the symbolic Old Covenant (although many before Sinai and many of other nations and even priesthoods –Melchisedec, Sareptan Widow). But yes, those –and only those- with the laws written on their minds would be redeemed.

Rather this is simply a covenant formula –it is the statement of a covenant.


This paragraph introduces the idea that one can participate in the New Covenant yet not in a saving way. It was certainly true of the Old Covenant that one could participate in all the externals of that Covenant –circumcision, Levitical worship, Jewish civil and ceremonial law and so on without regeneration. But the Baptist contention is that the Old Covenant was a picture –a type –a teaching symbol; and what it was a teaching symbol of is the internal reality of the New Covenant. Presbyterian CT errs in the failure to differentiate the type from the reality.

Let me ask what OT saints were saved by? Which “covenant” transaction saved them? It is the Baptist view (and the view of a famous paedobaptist as well –John Owen See Works Vol XXII on Hebrews 8.6) –that the New Covenant operated throughout and before the Old Covenant interlude as a Promise. It is called the new covenant because in time Christ fulfilled the Promise, thereby enacting it as a Covenant proper, but its effects were salvific even while promissory.

To be in the New Covenant, one has to be regenerated. That is the antitype of the OT “separated people”.


Not all paedobaptists would hold this Presbyterian CT as I said above (John Owen) but since the Baptist use of the verse is being objected to, I’ll answer as I can.

This isn’t the only verse we Baptists take our credo position from but we certainly do contend the New Covenant is only for believers. Within the exegesis of prophetic statements let me question the argument just made.
Jer 31:34 states, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,"
It is crucial to determine who “they” are in this verse. If “they” are the members of the New Covenant –the regenerate, as we Baptists contend, then we will certainly obey the great commission and evangelise the lost, but the regenerate have no longer need of someone to lead them to salvation. “They” are already there! –they know Him. I am not saying we no longer teach, edify, sermonise and magnify the Lord –(I believe we will do this even in Glory) –but we will no longer teach believers as if they are unbelievers.
And of course- missions and evangelism will continue –outreach to those outside the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 states, “for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD,” Again the Baptist position (alone) makes perfect sense of this. All in the New Covenant do know the Lord. Now there is an obvious difference between saving knowledge and Systematic Theology final exams, but in the case of every regenerate person the Lord Jesus Christ is known as Saviour.

“Fully fulfilled” is a tautology. While it’s true that not everyone who will be saved is saved now; (there are elect who are as yet unregenerate, or even unborn) it is entirely logical, Biblical and theologically sound that those who are saved are fully saved.

Rather than seeing the “Continuity of the Covenants” on the Presbyterian model, the Baptist CT sees the Everlasting Covenant of Grace as active throughout creation from the Fall, with the teaching interlude of the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) interposed as a type of the church prior to the Coming of the Promised Messiah. Salvation was by faith in the God’s Promise of the (New) Covenant in the blood of the Redeemer to come, and thenceafter by the same faith as a realised historical (New) Covenant.

Can Baptists infallibly tell the regenerate from the unregenerate? Of course not. But Biblical teaching, credible profession, testimony and evidence of change of life; and church discipline properly applied make cases of error extremely rare in Reformed Baptist churches worthy of the name.

I would accept the notion of Visible/Invisible church only inasfar as it describes human error and deception. I think to set up an ecclesiology with this as a mainstay is an error of Covenantal thinking carried over from the OT nation-state of Israel as I’ve indicated above.