Tag Archives: Reformed Baptist

Calvinism: An Introduction


With the summary of chapter 3 “The New Covenant Constitution and Arminianism” from a Reformed Baptist Manifesto written in the last post, it seems like a good time to expound upon some of the central tenets of Calvinism, otherwise known as the Doctrines of Grace.  Before beginning, it would serve us well to examine the historical development of Calvinism.  I should point out that while the name Calvinism has been given to the synthesis of 5 particular theological concepts, they didn’t originate with John Calvin (1509-1564).  In fact, the 5-points of Calvinism were written after Calvin’s death and were written as a defense of the 17th Century orthodox faith against what was determined to be the “heresy” of Arminianism[1].

Though Calvin certainly held to “Calvinism”, as can be seen in his Institutes of Christian Religion, historically, the beliefs can be traced throughout church history to the writings of Augustine (354AD-430AD), and I would argue to the Apostle Paul and all of inspired Scripture.  However, for some reason when modern evangelicals hear the term Calvinism they immediately put up a wall of defense and condemn not only Calvin, but anyone who would follow the teachings of this dastardly villain[2] (in their mind).  The problem is they, like me at one time, know little to nothing about Calvin neither the man nor the beliefs which share his name.  Without the work of Calvin, building upon the work and reformation of Martin Luther, there would have been no Protestant Reformation, no separation from Rome.  Calvin was not only instrumental in the Reformation, the proclamation of the gospel, the advancement of systematic theology, the writings of biblical commentaries, but he was instrumental in the discussions of church vs. state, church government, work ethic, and an argument could be made that America, as a democracy, owes the establishment of a republican form of government to John Calvin.  Take a few minutes to view the brief video about Calvin below (forgive the Desiring God commercial) or listen to the longer biography by Steven Lawson given at the 2009 Ligonier Conference, also below.

To understand the basis for the 5-points of Calvinism, we must examine why they were even written to begin with.  Largely, they were the consequence of a rebuttal to a contrary set of doctrines advanced in Netherlands in the early 17th century.  The “5-points of the Remonstrants”, as they are known, were drafted in 1610 by the Remonstrants, a group who sought to carry on the legacy of their teacher Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).  They were written to set forth an opposition or protest against the teachings of Calvin, particularly as they were expounded upon by the author of the Belgic Confession (1561)[3].  Written in face of persecution from the Roman Catholic Church, the Belgic Confession remains one of the most helpful and comprehensive confessions of the Reformed faith.  For the purposes of why the Belgic Confession was written, see the helpful article here: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/belgic-confession/

Controversy swirled for nearly a decade after the publication of the Remonstrant’s articles.  To settle the dust storm, a synod was called to examine these articles as they related to the confessions of the Belgic churches.  “This synod convened on November 13, 1618 consisting of 39 pastors and 18 ruling Elders from the Belgic churches, 5 professors from the universities of Holland, 19 delegates from the Reformed churches in Germany and Switzerland, and 5 professors and bishops from Great Britain. France was also invited but did not attend. The Synod was thus constituted of 86 voting members in all. There were 154 formal sessions and many side conferences held during the six months that the Synod met to consider these matters. The last session of the Synod was held on May 9, 1619.”[4]

Upon study of the Remonstrant’s objections, and a comparison of their beliefs with Scripture, the Synod determined that the Arminian doctrines were unscriptural.  Not only did they reject their assertions, but they drafted a rebuttal setting forth the beliefs that had been advanced by Calvin, et.al., coming out of the Reformation.  This document, called formally The Canons of Dort[5], contained, among other issues, a point by point rebuttal of the 5 articles set forth by the Remonstrants.  This summarized 5-point rebuttal is what has become commonly known as the 5-points of Calvinism.  As irony would have it, neither Calvin nor Arminius were alive during this debate, consequently, neither were able to stamp their own signatures upon the beliefs that have now become synonymous with their names.

Below you will find a helpful comparison of the two 5-point systems[6].  It’s not difficult to see the modern evidences of Arminianism in today’s church.  Although Arminianism was rejected at the Synod of Dort, these beliefs were revived from their dormancy through the ministry of John Wesley (1703-1791) (and others) and have come to dominate much of modern evangelicalism.  There is much more that could be said regarding the issue, but numerous books and anthologies have been written documenting the historical debate and defending/rebutting each position as the discussion wears on into the 21st Century.



Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.
Total Inability or Total Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not — indeed he cannot — choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ — it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation— it is God’s gift to the
sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
Conditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Unconditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Universal Redemption or General Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.
Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man’s contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.
The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The eternal call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By mean, of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s, grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.
Falling From Grace
Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. etc. All Arminian, have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ — that once a sinner is regenerated. he can never be lost.
Perseverance of the Saints
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.
According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man(who must respond)—man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. REJECTED by the Synod of Dort. This was the system of thought contained in the “Remonstrance” (though the “five points” were not originally arranged in this order). It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural. According to Calvinism: Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. REAFFIRMED by the Synod of Dort. This system of theology was reaffirmed by the Synod of Dort in 1619 as the doctrine of salvation contained in the Holy Scriptures. The system was at that time formulated into “five points” (in answer to the five points submitted by the Arminians) and has ever since been known as “the five points of Calvinism.”



[2] It should be noted that many people equate the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus with John Calvin, particularly the inaccurate account written by Voltaire, the source for much of the false information.  In reality, Servetus was convicted of heresy and by law was required to be burned at the stake.  Not by John Calvin.  Calvin actually worked to have the execution sentence changed to a more human form and it has been recounted that Calvin was concerned with the eternal soul of Servetus 16 years earlier and the concern remained up to Servetus’ march to the stake at which he was burnt.

[6] From: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/ –  “The following material from Romans: An Interpretative Outline (pp.144-147). by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, contrasts the Five Points of Arminianism with the Five Points of Calvinism in the clearest and most concise form that we have seen anywhere. It is also found in their smaller book, The Five Points of Calvinism (pp. 16-19). Both books are published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.(1963). Messrs. Steele and Thomas have served for several years as co-pastors of a Southern Baptist church, in Little Rock, Arkansas.”


The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Arminianism


We come now to the third chapter and third major assertion set forth by Sam Waldron in A Reformed Baptist Manifesto, a defense of the New Covenant Constitution of the Church.  In the previous two chapters we looked at the contrasts between Reformed Baptists and 1.) Dispensationalism and 2.) Antinomianism.  Here we turn our attention towards Arminianism.

For those who may be unfamiliar, Arminianism is, generally, the belief that man has free-will to determine his own destiny, i.e. salvation.  It is most often contrasted with God’s sovereignty in salvation, or what is commonly called Calvinism.  For more on this, search either term on this site or head over to monergism.com for more comprehensive articles on the subject and a history of the controversy.  I hope to have a more informative post on the development of Calvinism soon.

Our purposes here will be to examine the arguments set forth by Dr. Waldron in his aforementioned book.  The point of this particular chapter, as set for by Waldron, is that “the origination, building, or source of the Church…through the instrument of the New Covenant” is God “the sole sovereign builder, originator, and author of the Church as a whole, and of its individual members.” Waldron then takes up three major theses to defend this assertion, again turning his attention to Jeremiah 31.

1.     The Sovereign Determination behind the New Covenant

To this point, Waldron examines the contrast between the Old and New Covenant.  Turning to Exodus 19:4-6 we see the stated terms of the Old Covenant:

“4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

What may be obvious in this passage is the simple “if-then” statement used by God in the extension of this covenant to Israel.  “If you obey…then you shall be My own possession.”  In striking contrast the New Covenant, as quoted in Jeremiah 31 contains no if-then statements but rather the dogmatic assurity of the Lord saying, “I will” numerously.  This is what Waldron indicates is the Sovereign determination behind the New Covenant.

2.    The Unbreakable Character of the New Covenant.

In this particular section, we see the emphasis of the breakable nature of the Old Covenant, particularly in Deut. 29:25-28; Ps. 78:10,11; Jer. 11:9,10; 22:6-9; 34:13; Ezek. 44:6-8.  Continuing to focus on the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, Waldron cites the following passage to note the contrast between the breakable character of the Old Covenant and the unbreakable character of the New Covenant:

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.”  Jeremiah 31:31,32

The Old Covenant was written on breakable stone, and was broken as we have seen from the passages referenced above.  However, the promise of the New Covenant is that it is inscribed upon the hearts.  Lest one walk away thinking that the Old Covenant was somehow deficient or imperfect, Waldron points out that the real problem with the Old Covenant was with the people with whom it was made.  Citing Hebrews 8:8 he writes, “The Old Covenant did not secure the covenant keeping of those with whom it was made.  That was its fault.  Its fault was simply that it did not enable those with whom it was made to comply with its conditions.”  Conversely, the New Covenant supplies all that it demands through the regeneration of the heart, upon which the Covenant (law) is written and the presence of the Holy Spirit causes believers to walk according to the statutes and commands of God (See Ezek. 36).  Concluding this section, Waldron provides segue by asking, “How can God simply sweep aside the demands of His own justice and make a New Covenant like this with the house of Israel after their sins have brought upon them the fierce overflowing wrath of God?”

3.    The Mediatorial Guarantee of the New Covenant

This section begins with the promise that “God will forget the sins of His people and forgive their iniquities” given in Jeremiah 31:34, Waldron rightly points out this passage does not tell us how God will accomplish this, until Jeremiah 33:14-16, “14 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”  Further, the book of Hebrews (see Hebrews 7:22) provides divine commentary and explanation of how God planned to bring about this forgiveness, namely through the work of Jesus Christ particularly His office as “both priest and sacrifice of the New Covenant” which “insures and secures the establishment of the New Covenant and the impartation of its blessings to God’s Israel.”[1]  As Waldron concludes, “Jesus’ priestly sacrifice of Himself, once-for-all, finally, and efficaciously fulfills the demands of God’s law and assures the forgiveness of sins for all who are part of the New Covenant people of God.”[2]

Concluding Lessons

In order to bring to conclusion this chapter, against the incompatibility of Arminianism and the New Covenant, Dr. Waldron briefly summarizes the points of Arminianism, i.e. the “system which teaches that man’s free will is sovereign in salvation.”

  1. God has chosen to save those who believe in Christ and persevere in obedience to Him to the end.
  2. Christ died for each and every man, but only those who believe benefit from His death.
  3. In order for men to believe in Christ, God must work by His grace in their heart.
  4. Though this grace is the source of all good in men, yet they may resist this grace and not be saved by it.
  5. Though God will provide everything that men need to persevere to the end, it is not certain that once a man believes in Christ unto salvation, he will persevere to the end and finally be saved.

He then goes on to contrast each of these points with the doctrines of grace, or what some have termed “Calvinism”.  Some of Waldron’s comments are briefly quoted below.

  1. Total Depravity – “We see the truth of total depravity in the contrast with the Old Covenant mentioned in our passage.  What the Old Covenant demanded was simply faith and obedience.”  However, “Every faculty of man’s soul is polluted with sin.  All men are unable to do anything of any spiritual good.  Even repentance and faith are impossible due to this total depravity and total inability.”
  2. Unconditional Election – “God’s covenant is not made with a nation that has proved itself worthy of His choice.  Rather, God, with sovereign, unchangeable purpose has chosen through the New Covenant to make them worthy of His choice.”
  3. Limited Atonement – “We have seen from the Scriptures that the cross of Jesus Christ is saving because of its connection with this covenant.  Jesus’ whole work was covenant work; His blood covenant blood, His priesthood covenant priesthood, His office as Mediator a covenant office.  The question about the scope, extent, or design of the death of Christ ought not to be answered, therefore, without reference to this covenant.”
  4. Irresistible Grace – “God actually writes His law upon the hearts of His people.”
  5. Perseverance of the Saints – “God remembers their [those in the New Covenant] sins no more” He therefore is faithful to the promises of His covenant.
Dr. Waldron concludes this chapter with several helpful thoughts about what we learn from the doctrines of grace in a practical, straightforward manner.  I hope to take a few posts to explain further the 5 points of Calvinism that Dr. Waldron introduces here.  Again, if you would like to purchase this brief, helpful work on the Reformed Baptist approach to the New Covenant see RPAP.  Also, I also recommend Dr. Waldron’s exposition on the 1689 London Baptist Confession, available on Amazon.

[1] Pg. 55

[2] Pg. 57

The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Dispensationalism


The last several posts have focused primarily on reforming the local church.  In keeping with this, our focus now shifts to what a New Testament Church should look like.  Although the majority of the post below was written before the recent posts on reformation, it seemed best to me that it be held off until now.  It is my hope through interacting with a recent book that I read, it will become obvious that a biblical, New Testament church must have as its constitution, the New Covenant.

Part 1: Dispensationalism

Recently I finished up reading an excellent, succinct book written by Dr. Sam Waldron entitled A Reformed Baptist Manifesto.  While Waldron is quick to point out the book promises much more than it can deliver, his modesty does not sell the book short because instead of aiming to provide a comprehensive list of what Reformed Baptist’s believe and what they don’t, Waldron approaches the book from the perspective of the New Covenant and how it serves as a Constitution for the Church and this in turn provides some helpful distinctives for Reformed Baptist beliefs. In short, Reformed Baptist’s typically hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, are characterized by their belief in the sovereignty of God (especially in salvation, sometimes called Calvinism), and their belief in believer’s baptism (credo) as opposed to infant baptism.

Originally presented as a series of sermons preached by Dr. Waldron, RBM has been compiled into a very readable, informative book by Dr. Richard Barcellos.  As a side note, I have profited much through the course work and teaching of both men as provided by the Midwest Center for Theological Studies.

The subject of this post will be Dr. Waldron’s first chapter “The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Dispensationalism.”  In this chapter Waldron seeks to establish his thesis that the New Covenant is the Constitution of the Church.  He begins by quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Waldron begins from the negative perspective by addressing the denial of of his thesis.  He states it as follows:

Its Denial: The Promise of the New Covenant does not apply to the Church

As Waldron points out, this denial of the New Covenant application to the Church is a popular belief that “dominates American Christianity” and finds its roots in the systemization of a movement known as dispensationalism, which we’ve discussed here and here (and which I hope to address more fully soon).  This systemization can be credited to C.I. Scofield and the publication of his reference bible in 1909.  While stating that some might call it a misrepresentation, Waldron nevertheless asserts that “Dispensationalism denies that the New Covenant is fulfilled in (or is the Constitution of) the Church.”

In order to dismiss the notion that dispensationalism is being unfairly branded as denying the application of the New Covenant to the Church, Waldron provides two responses to possible objections.  The first response is that dispensationalism has so evolved since its origins under the leadership of John Nelson Darby, it becomes difficult to even define the systems beliefs.  In other words, a person who claims to be a dispensationalist having been built up and rooted in classic dispensationalism might have progressed in their beliefs such that they can no longer be called one, even though they may still claim to be.  Waldron likens this to a classic car buff who has a Model T frame but then adds car parts of differing models and when he has assembled the car, claims it to be a Model T.  A highly qualified sense is necessary.

His second objection concerns how dispensationalism might define itself in academia, but that this definition differs significantly from what is represented in the church pew.  With both of these objections, Waldron asserts that the denial of his thesis is expressed most fundamentally by classic dispensationalism, espoused by the aforementioned Darby, Scofield, and more recently Charles Ryrie.

With these objections addressed, Waldron moves on to include several quotes by classic dispensational proponents that support his theory of their practical denial of the New Covenant as the Constitution of the Church.  They are included below:

  • “…the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the Church…the covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future, literal fulfillment” – J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p.124-125
  • “The New Covenant is not only future, but millennial.” – Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 112
  • “…the premillennial position is that the new covenant is with Israel and the fulfillment in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ.” – John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 209

With these quotes establishing the basis for the denial that he laid out earlier in the chapter, Waldron then moves to include several interesting quotes identifying truths that must be held if dispensationalism is to be validated:

  •  “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct…a man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions.” – Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p. 44-48
  • “If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then premillennialism is condemned.” – Charles Ryrie, Premillennial Faith, p. 105,106,111
  • “If the Church fulfills this covenant, she may also fulfill the other covenants made with Israel and there is no need for an earthly millennium.” – J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 116

What I find interesting about these quotes is that not only is “dispensationalism condemned” if these tenets are not held, but on a broader scale premillennialism itself is condemned, even before one proceeds to interpret the 1000 years from Revelation 20.  At this point I must point out that all dispensationalists are premillennial, by rule, but not all premillennialists are necessarily dispensational.  Nevertheless, the relationship is seen in the quotes listed above.  If you read the response written on George Eldon Ladd’s view of historic premillennialism, then you can understand this relationship even better.  He (Ladd) does not hold to the distinction between Israel and the Church and in the end logically has trouble defending his own view of premillennialism, apart from the mention of 1000 years in Revelation 20, which he must by premillennial necessity read back into the rest of Scripture (as he readily admits).

Continuing on in Sam Waldron’s book, he progresses to the defense of his thesis:

Its Defense: The promise of the New Covenant does apply to the Church

Here, Dr. Waldron rightly turns his attention to the New Testament to note how it uses, comments on, and/or otherwise understands the application of Jeremiah 31:31-34, or more generally the New Covenant.  He provides commentary on the following verses:

  •  Luke 22:20 (NASB) “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'”  Commenting on this passage, Waldron adds that, “This is the last supper eaten by Jesus and the Apostles in which the Lord’s Supper was instituted.  The Apostles were, according to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the Church.”  This brings up an interesting dilemma for the classic dispensationalist.  Are the Apostles part of the Church or part of Israel?  As Jews according to the flesh, who are clearly Christians serving as the foundation for the Church, to whom do they belong if there is to be a distinction between Israel and the Church? Waldron concludes his observations of this passage by stating that the “cup” was the outward symbol of the New Covenant and their participation in it.
  • 1 Corinthians 11:25 (NASB) “In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'”  The inclusion of this passage by Dr. Waldron serves to show the continuity between Christ’s words during the Last Supper and the institution of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial (and expectation of the future wedding feast with Christ, I might add).  Another question comes to mind here: Who is to participate in the Lord’s Supper?  If, as classic dispensationalists posit, the New Covenant belongs to Israel alone, then 1) What business is it of the Church to partake in the sacrament or ordinance of the Lord’s Supper? This surely would be blasphemous and 2) Why does Israel not observe the Lord’s Supper? finally 3) What act has Christ given to symbolize the New Covenant, if not the Lord’s Supper?  I address these questions at length in this post New Covenant Membership.
  • 2 Corinthians 3:6 (NASB) “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”  Waldron adds here that “the reference of this passage to Jeremiah 31:31-34 cannot be evaded” and that the relationship in this passage is the writing of God’s law on the heart, i.e. “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts.” 2 Corinthians 3:3.  “Gentile Corinthians, believers and church members had, therefore, the blessings promised in the New Covenant found Jeremiah 31.”  Waldron concludes by stating that Paul called himself a servant of a new covenant and asks, “How could the Apostle to the Gentiles be a servant or minister of the New Covenant if that covenant is not fulfilled in the Church, but is ‘future and millennial’?”
  • Hebrews 8:1, 6-13 (NASB) “Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,” and “6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. 10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. 11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ For all will know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. 12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more.”   13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”  This passage is of extreme relevance and importance to the issue because it’s subject is actual quotations from the passage in Jeremiah 31.  In fact, the next few passages, all from Hebrews, deserves significant attention.  Waldron observes the context and application of this passage implies that, “the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah was inaugurated by Christ and is currently being fulfilled.”  At this point, a lengthy footnote is provided on the dispensational assertion for the authorial intent of Hebrews.  (see Waldron bottom of page 18).
  • Hebrews 9:14-15 (NASB) 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”  Here, Waldron succinctly concludes that the mediatorial work of Christ in cleansing the recipients of the New Testament “who have been called” necessarily refers to both Jews and Gentiles.  “If you have been called, then Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant for you, and you partake in the New Covenant and its blessings.”
  • Hebrews 10:10-19 (NASB) “10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.   11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them 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,17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”   18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.   19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,”  Another passage explicitly quoting Jeremiah 31, this passage uses the Old Testament temple language and applies it to believers, whom through the blood of Christ, may now enter the holy place.
  • Hebrews 12:22-24 (NASB) 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.” In this final passage, note the connection that the author makes between Mount Zion and the “Church of the first-born” with the blood of Jesus Christ.  It should be noted that the concept of Zion is a major OT theme, yet here we see Hebrews drawing on that theme, perhaps in a  typological manner, of the heavenly, true Zion.

Waldron concludes that “every New Testament use of Jeremiah 31:31-34 relates it to a present fulfillment in the Church.  Conversely, there is no justification anywhere in the New Testament for seeing its fulfillment as future and millennial (either in whole or in part).  There is, on the other hand, every reason to see it as the Constitution of the Church in the present age.”

Its Difficulty: The difficulty of applying the New Covenant to the Church

Having completed the section on the defense of his thesis, Waldron then asks the lingering question in this discussion.  “Does not Jeremiah 31 say that the New Covenant was to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah? How can it be, then, that the New Covenant is fulfilled in the mainly Gentile Church?”  To answer this, Waldron points to three New Testament passages : Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:16-24, and Ephesians 2:11-13.  I commend those passages to you for personal study.

He concludes this defense of this lingering difficulty by stating succinctly, “The New Covenant can be fulfilled in the Church because it is the New Israel of God. ”  As I noted earlier, even the Apostles, upon whom the church is founded, were Jews.  Perhaps a helpful way of looking at this is to say that it is not Jewish exclusion, i.e. replacement theology or supersessionism, but Gentile inclusion, to form one new man, a New Israel, the Church made of both Jews and Gentiles.

In his concluding, “Practical Implications” section, Waldron includes the following 5 ways that the Church is minimized when it does not recognize its New Covenant Constitution:

  1. By thinking of it as a mere human institution.
  2. By sinfully neglecting membership in it.
  3. By resentment of its authority.
  4. By vision-less stagnation of our hopes for it.
  5. By pessimistic prayerlessness for its prosperity.

In Summary, my conclusion, which I do not ascribe to Dr. Waldron, is that distinction #1 for a Reformed Baptist Church is that The Application of the New Covenant must be exclusively to the Church.  Please note that I am not concluding that Reformed Baptist’s cannot be Premillennial, simply that I think Dr. Waldron rightly points out that they must hold to the application of New Covenant exclusivity to the Church.  Additionally, and one point that I hope to defend when I finally address dispensationalism, is that the Church as I define it here necessarily includes both Jews and Gentiles; both those prior to the Cross and subsequent to it.  All of whom by faith have embraced Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Next up: The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Antinomianism

A Reformed Baptist Manifesto may be purchased (and should be!) at Reformed Baptist Academic Press.

For more on Dispensationalism, see Introducing Dispensational Premillennialism and Understanding Dispensationalism