In his sermon titled 'Covenant Theology: Baptism,' Robert Bosley aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of credobaptism within the framework of Reformed Baptist theology. The sermon is part of a foundational theology series and seeks to affirm the beliefs of credobaptism while addressing the differences with paedobaptism, particularly within Presbyterianism. Bosley begins by discussing the concept of covenant theology, emphasizing the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works. He explains that the covenant of grace, which is revealed progressively through biblical covenants, is fully realized in the new covenant through Christ. Using Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, Bosley highlights that the new covenant is distinct, superior, and unbreakable, comprising exclusively believers whose sins are forgiven. He contrasts this with the Presbyterian view, which sees the old and new covenants as different administrations of the same covenant of grace. Bosley argues that baptism should be administered only to believers, aligning with the nature of the new covenant. He concludes by urging those who profess faith to be baptized and to live in obedience to Christ, reflecting their membership in the new covenant.

All right, so my attempt this afternoon is going to be to cover in about half an hour what some 15 weeks semesters in seminary cover so Let's go If you could open up your Bibles to Jeremiah chapter 31 This is the first of the next two sessions on baptism kind of wrapping up our foundational theology series that I've been going through. My thinking throughout this series has been to kind of move from the most essential to secondary doctrines. So we started out with issues of who God is, who Christ is, the Trinity, Christology, things like that, most essential doctrines, if you get them wrong, you're not a Christian. And then moving into what makes us a reformed church and that's covenant theology ultimately. And now why are we not just reformed, but why are we reformed Baptists?

And so this is gonna be the first of two sessions talking about Baptism specifically. So that's kinda how this fits in together here. And I'm going to be primarily trying to make a positive case this afternoon for credo-baptism. If you're unfamiliar with that term credo, it comes from Latin, I believe, and of course baptism, it's believers baptism or credo-baptism, which is opposed to the doctrine of pedo-baptism or infant baptism. Now my main goal is to make a positive case for credobaptism, not answer every claim or objection that the pedobaptists could raise against our physician.

First of all, I primarily want to affirm what we believe, not just argue against the other team. Second, there's not nearly enough time to do that because there are many kinds of pedobaptism. It's not just credobaptism and pedobaptism, There's a whole variety within the two camps, but especially within the Paedobaptistic camp. When I do interact with the Paedobaptists, with those who advocate for infant baptism, my main opponent, we'll say, is Presbyterianism. But even then, Presbyterian covenant theology, Presbyterian views on baptism in itself isn't monolithic.

Not every Presbyterian has always agreed since the time of Calvin. It's just not true. But in my mind, I want you to know kind of where we're going. In my mind, the Presbyterian is the main other side I'm arguing against because let's be honest as reformed Baptists we're a lot closer to a lot of Presbyterians than we are to other Baptists and we love our Presbyterian brothers they are truly brothers I'm not trying to kick anybody out of the kingdom this afternoon, but when we debate baptism We are a lot closer to them than most of your southern Baptists But we do have a real disagreement here so with that kind of started, let's look at Jeremiah chapter 31, and I'm going to read verses 31 to 34. Jeremiah 31 through 34.

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with house of Israel after those days says the Lord and this is essential get this I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people. No more shall each man teach his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me. From the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more. Let's pray.

Father we come before you this afternoon so thankful that we have a covenant making and a covenant keeping God. When we could do nothing to save ourselves, Lord, you intervened and you have made a covenant of peace with us because of your Son. Lord, we thank you for the grace that you've shown us today and that you show us every day. Lord, continue to be gracious to us. Help us this afternoon to know your Word and to grow in our love for it and our love for you as we seek to understand these difficult things.

Lord, help us and in all of this may Christ be glorified. Amen. So the last last two sessions that I did on this foundational theology theories were on covenant theology. The first one we touched on the the concepts of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works primarily. Remember, the covenant of redemption, that is an inner trinitarian agreement.

So the Father, the Son, and the Spirit agreeing with one another, a covenant within the Godhead that God will save a particular people to the glory of the triune God. The Father is going to elect a people, the Son is going to die in their behalf, and the Spirit is gonna make that work applicable and effective to those who have been chosen. That's the covenant of redemption. Then God creates the world and he creates our first parents and God entered into a covenant of works with our first father Adam as the representative of the human race and when he fell we fell with him. That's the covenant of works.

And then the second session we talked more about the biblical, what are called the biblical covenants because they're actually named in scripture. We don't see covenant of works or covenant of redemption written in the pages of scripture, but these are terms that describe what we do see taught in scripture. If you have any questions, feel free to talk to me about it or go back and re-listen to those last two messages. But the point is that God has worked with mankind, all his creation, all his interactions with men have been covenantal. That is what makes, that is the core of Reformed theology, that God is a covenantal God who interacts with His creatures, particularly His redeemed creatures, by way of covenant.

God makes a covenant and he saves a mass of mankind through Christ as the head of a new covenant, a new covenant of grace. The second London Baptist Confession says this in chapter 7 paragraph 3, this covenant, the covenant of grace, is revealed in the gospel. First of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman and afterward by farther steps until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and the son about the redemption of the elect. That's that covenant of redemption I had mentioned. And it is alone by the grace of this covenant, the covenant of grace, that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality.

So there's a covenant of grace where God through Christ is going to save the elect. He's going to save sinners through this covenant of grace and it is first given by promise to Adam. And we'll get back to that one. So this is, several people asked for visuals last time. We don't normally do things like this, but a few people last time said, hey, it'd be helpful to see a visual representation of this.

So what we've got here, we've got the covenant of redemption, the overarching plan of God for the redemption of the elect over all of history. You have the covenant of works and then you have that first riser on the step and you see that dotted line. That's going up to the covenant of grace revealed by promise. Does that make sense? Hopefully.

Genesis 3.15, the first promise of the gospel that God is going to send a child born of the woman who is going to crush the head of the enemy. It's the first promise of the gospel. And then on and on, the biblical covenants build on that. That's that language of by farther steps that our confession uses, where the covenant of grace is being revealed by God's promises in the biblical covenants. He's showing how he is going to save the elect by Christ through these covenants.

He's showing it by promise in these covenants. Each one builds on the one before it to further explain what God is doing in the world and through history. Now this conception of covenant theology is historically what the majority of particular Baptists believed when our confession of faith was written. That the covenant of grace operated from the very fall of man all throughout history. That's why it says it's only by the grace of this covenant that anyone's ever been saved.

Only by Christ has anyone ever been saved, even before the cross. We read that very clearly in Romans and the rest of Scripture makes that abundantly clear. But in time, in history, how was it revealed? It was revealed progressively. We have this progressive revelation.

By farther steps, God is making it plain what he's doing. The covenant of grace was operating behind the scenes, but it was not plain yet in the world. It was fully revealed in time at the cross and the inauguration of the new covenant. And so the the Baptists of the 17th century and I would agree that the the covenant of grace in time is the new covenant. That is the covenant of grace.

It's now been brought fully into time and history and to full light. Now, this was the majority opinion of Baptists 400 years ago. It's a little bit more mixed today. The Presbyterian view of covenant theology is more like this. Now they do get points for simplicity, I'll give them that.

The Presbyterian view is that the covenant of grace is, or the old covenant and the new covenant are both the covenant of grace, differently administered at different times. So the old and new covenants are not separate covenants, they're not different in their substance, They're simply different administrations of the same covenant of grace. And you know what I mean by an administration? It's election season. We have an administration that organizes and runs the federal government.

And we've transitioned from one administration to a next when there's an election and a new head of the government elected. That's kind of, not exactly, that's kind of what they mean by an administration of the covenant of grace. Moses administered the covenant of grace under the old dispensation, they would say, and Christ administers it now under the new. So the old and new covenants in the Presbyterian system are not different in substance, it's the same covenant differently administered. The new is not new because it's a different covenant but because the outward forms have changed and the extent of it or the reach of it has now gone from one nation to all nations.

And so who receives the signs of the covenant? Well, in the Old Testament under Abraham and Moses, it was the children of those who were in the covenant who received the sign of the covenant as well. Israel and their children, Israelites and their children received the sign of the covenant. And so the Presbyterian argues that, well, it's the same covenant. And so today we see that Christians and their children should receive the sign of the covenant.

The Baptist rejected this thinking that it flattened out what scripture says too much. Yes there is one covenant of grace that goes throughout all of history but the biblical covenants are not part of that covenant of grace. They point to it and build to it and reveal it by promise, but they are not themselves the covenant of grace. And so Yes, Abraham circumcised his children when they were, when the covenant was first given. Yes, the Israelites circumcised their sons on the eighth day, but the new covenant is not the same as the old covenant.

There has been a change. And so it is not, we can't just assume that what they did we import over into the new covenant. Now, historically, the Pato Baptists, the specifically thinking of congregationalists and Presbyterians were a more of a mixed bag. Like the Baptists were pretty much unified and now our covenant theology is a little more mixed. Historically the Presbyterians were a little bit more mixed and now they're much more monolithic today.

There were many who held to a very baptismic covenant theology. John Owen is a perfect example. He held to this covenant theology, yet he still retained infant baptism. And let me use that as just kind of a segue into a note about history. History is a lot messier than people like to pretend it is.

You will hear, especially when you're talking about the history of the church and the history of baptism, that Baptist theology, believers baptism, is an invention of the 1700s. And it's as if that we are standing 1700 years after the start of the church and we've just come up with something new no one's ever heard of before. As if the entirety of the church was unified and everyone believed the exact same thing about baptism from the apostles until the 1600s. It's simply not the case. The Presbyterian view of baptism and covenant theology was largely formulated for the first time by John Calvin and really systematized by later reformed theologians like Witsias.

Preceding defenses of infant baptism before you get to Calvin largely relied not on covenant theology, but on baptismal regeneration. The belief that baptizing an infant washed away the stain of original sin or made them a new creature. That it was how one was born again through baptism And so why wouldn't you baptize your children if it's baptism that saves? Of course you would want to. It makes sense why they would do that.

But the early church particularly was a mishmash of baptismal views. Now I love reading the early church fathers but we cannot go to them and say that they agreed on everything. It's just not the case. The early church, some argued for infant baptism, some argued against it, some argued for baptizing as soon as possible, Some argued for delaying baptism until as close to death as possible because baptism washes away sins. And if you get baptized and you live for 20 more years, that's a whole lot of sins that have been washed away.

And so the early church was a grab bag of baptismal views. For instance, a book called the Didache, which is essentially an early manual for how to lead and govern the church, probably written before the end of the first century, probably written within a couple decades of the end of the New Testament, I believe. Some would say it's about the same time as Revelation. But it clearly teaches baptism of believers by immersion. It says it.

It says that the one who is to be baptized ought to fast beforehand, they profess their faith, and they are baptized by immersion in running water. That's the ideal. So baptized in a stream. And if you can't find running water, baptize them in a pool. And if you can't even do that, then as a last resort you pour water over their head three times." That's what the Didache says.

Cyprian of Carthage in North Africa taught that baptism could and should be given to infants as soon as possible, arguing against those that they should hold on to the idea of the eighth day pulling from the Old Testament teaching on circumcision. So he argued for infant baptism immediately. Cyril of Jerusalem about a hundred years later in 340 states that baptism is only for those who profess faith in the triune God, and they are baptized by immersion three times, while facing east and naked. So I'm not saying we do everything that the early church says, so. A few decades later in the 380s, Gregory of Nazianzus, the Bishop of Constantinople, argued for infant baptism, but his argument was clearly, he was arguing for a position that not everyone agreed with.

It wasn't universal. In fact, in his baptismal homily, he criticized parents who were not permitting their infants to be baptized as being faithless parents. So don't fall for the canard that Baptists are at odds with the entirety of church history. History is much messier than the neat little cartoon stories we try and make it into. Yes, it is true that the majority of church history has practiced infant baptism in some form or other, but even then that infant baptism was done for different reasons than the infant baptism that's practiced by our Presbyterian brothers and sisters today.

So if our view is considered a theological noven and innovation, the Presbyterian view is only older by about 80 years. So we're not totally out of bounds there. Now because the Presbyterian system teaches that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are equally the Covenant of Grace, just differently administered, they baptize the children of believers. And they ground that in the circumcision of the sons of Israelites under the Old Covenant. Although here there's even an inconsistency, right?

There was no requirement for the father or the mother to believe in the Old Covenant. You just had to be a child of Abraham. Is that, okay. There was no necessity for a parent to believe before a child was circumcised under the Old Covenant. It was simply an external form done because you are of the lineage of Abraham.

The Old Covenant, they say, and we would agree that the Old Covenant was a mixed body of believers and unbelievers there were believing Israelites and their unbelieving Israelites we see that very clearly in the Old Testament But they say because the Old Covenant is a different administration of the covenant of grace, the new covenant is the same. It is a mixed body. A mixed covenant of believers and unbelievers. And just like you had believing people in the old covenant and their unbelieving children, their infant children, received the covenant sign, the Presbyterian would argue that we are to do the same today. Now the model of covenant theology that I hold to, and I do wanna clarify, it's the model that I hold to, I'm actually not entirely sure our elders and I agree on every single thing.

You don't have to agree with everything I'm saying in this to be a member of this church. You don't have to agree with everything in the way I'm laying out coven theology to even be a reformed Baptist. There are good reformed Baptists who would disagree with my exact formulation of covenant theology. That's okay, but I wanted to, I want to present my view and why I think it is consistent with Scripture, consistent with our confession. But the model of covenant theology that I hold to, I think, better reflects the language of our confession.

It says, no, the old covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace was active, it was effective at that time, and it was being revealed by promises, but it was not in time yet, not until Christ. The biblical covenants were a series of steps along the way of that progressive revelation and they pointed to and revealed the covenant of grace, excuse me, by God's promises, but they were not in and of themselves part of the covenant of grace. And this is why the Baptists removed the language of one covenant with two administrations from the Second London Confession. Now, that's a lot of text for you to try and read.

And it's kind of hard to see the bold text, but so we've got the Westminster Confession of Faith. Everybody knows that's the Presbyterians, right? The Savoy Declaration, that's the Congregationalists. There's not a lot of them around these days, but it was the Congregationalists, they held to Presbyterian practice with baptism, but they had a Baptist view of the church. So independent church, no Presbyterians, nothing like that, but held to infant baptism.

Then of course you have the second London Baptist confession. So notice in the Westminster confession, this covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel. Under the law, it was administered and skipped to the end of paragraph five and it was called the Old Testament. Paragraph six, under the gospel, talking about administration of the covenant of grace, under the gospel, it is called the New Testament toward the end of paragraph six. The Savoy Declaration shortens it up a lot and simply says at the beginning and the end, although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered, so again that language of administration of this one covenant, and then at the end, upon the account of which various dispensations it is called the Old and New Testament.

And the Baptists come along and say, this covenant is revealed in the gospel to Adam first and afterward by farther steps until the full discovery therein was completed in the New Testament. So they completely jettison that language of one covenant with two administrations. The Baptists, and if you look at the confessions between these three confessions, this chapter is the point of disagreement. It is the most dissimilar between the Presbyterians and the Baptists. Not the chapter on baptism, not the chapter on church government.

They're different. This is the one that is most different. Because at the end of the day, what are we saying? We actually agree with who should be baptized. Think about it.

We agree you baptized members of the New Covenant. The question is, who's in the New Covenant? That's the question. But today there are some Baptists who hold to a covenant theology, and I'll flip back to this, a covenant theology that is more akin to the Presbyterian view. But even then the Baptists who hold to a one covenant with two administrations perspective, they would go beyond what our Presbyterian brothers would say and say that after Christ there is a refinement or a purification of the covenant of grace under the new covenant so that not only its forms and extents are new but it is new in its purity.

That there's been a refinement in the new covenant as the shadows have passed away and the substance has come in Christ. And so even while they maintain a one covenant, two administration system, they will hold to credo baptism as the shadow or the type of a mixed body of believers and unbelievers, including their children, has given way to a substance of a purified body of only believers. Now, I'm going to leave this up here, but I think we're going to be done with the chart. The question, all this is great, and it's good to think about these things, what did people say in the past, but what does scripture say? Ultimately that is the question.

What does the scripture actually say? And so the rest of my time, short as it is, I want to look at a couple of passages of scripture to see what do we see when we actually look at what the New Covenant is. Because that is the issue. We agree, we baptize members of the New Covenant. But who is it that are members of the New Covenant?

Is it believers and their children? Or is it only believers? And I believe when we look at what the scripture says about the new covenant, we see multiple things. We see one, that it is a different covenant. It is actually a different covenant from the old covenant.

Not only is it different, it's a superior covenant. And why is it a superior covenant? One, it saves its members. The members of the new covenant are the redeemed. It is a superior covenant because it is an unbreakable covenant.

They broke my covenant, God says in Jeremiah 31. I will make a new covenant not like that covenant. It is an unbreakable covenant and it is a covenant with those who know and believe God. And because of these facts, because of what Scripture says about the nature of the new covenant, the covenant sign should be given only to believers because they are the ones who are in the new covenant of grace. So I read Jeremiah 31, open up to Hebrews chapter 8.

I'm sorry, I can't really wait for you. We've got too much to cover and not enough time to do it. But in Hebrews chapter eight, the writer to the Hebrews quotes that passage that we read at the beginning. He quotes Jeremiah 31 and he is using that to explain the superiority of Christ, his priesthood, his work, and his covenant. It's a whole message of the book of Hebrews.

Jesus is better, better than everything that's ever come before. As good as everything was, Jesus is better. That is the message of Hebrews. And the writer especially makes that clear regarding the covenant. So Hebrews chapter eight, I'm gonna begin reading verse six and read to the end of the chapter.

But now he, being Jesus, has obtained a more excellent ministry inasmuch as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which is established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, he says, "'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, "'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel "'and with the house of Judah, "'not according to the covenant that I made "'with their fathers and the day that I took them "'by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 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 in their mind and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my people.

None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother saying, Know the Lord for all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of them for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. In that he says, a new covenant he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Now Remember what I said, what we're going to see when we consider what the Bible says about the nature of the new covenant. It's a different covenant, it's a superior covenant, and it's superior because it saves its members, it's unbreakable, and it's a covenant with those who know and believe God.

We see all of that right here. I will make a new covenant. It's a different covenant. He doesn't simply say a new way of interacting with the same covenant, a new administration of the same covenant. It is a new covenant.

It's also a superior covenant. It is not according to, or it's not like, that the Hebrew could be rendered either not according to the covenant or not like the covenant I made with them. It's not like it. It's a superior covenant. My covenant which they broke.

The old covenant was breakable. This new covenant is not going to be like that covenant. It is an unbreakable covenant. No more shall every man teach his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me. It is believers only who are in this covenant.

From the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more. It saves its members. Their sins are forgiven and forgotten. So Jeremiah 31 and the quotation of it in Hebrews 8 shows all these things.

This is very strange language if the covenant of Moses was itself part of the covenant of grace. Rather, it seems that what Moses was doing was an earthly picture of the heavenly as we're told in Hebrews. He was serving in a shadow, a form of the heavenly reality that was pointing to the covenant of grace in Christ. I also have Galatians 4 in my notes. I don't have time to get there.

Read Galatians 4, 21-26. He clearly lays out there are two covenants. He uses Sarah and Hagar as basically an allegory of the two different covenants. It is two covenants. One a covenant of bondage, one a covenant of freedom and peace.

We'll stay in the book of Hebrews though. Turn over to Hebrews chapter 10. Hebrews chapter 10, let's see, 11 to 18. Can we just read the whole book of Hebrews? Story in verse 10.

Hebrews 10 verse 10. By that will, the will of God, We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this man, the Lord Jesus, After he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after he had said before, This is the covenant I will make with him after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds I will write them. Then he adds, Their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of sins, there is no longer an offering for sin. And the whole point here is he's showing how the priesthood of Jesus is superior because the old covenant priesthood had an ongoing system of sacrifices.

You had the sacrifice over and over as a reminder of sins. We do not have that in the New Covenant. There is one sacrifice for all time that perfects those who draw near to God by Jesus. We do not have a reminder of sins. We have the reminder of the sin bearer in the Lord's table.

But here he is drawing this to the covenant. All this is based in the covenant that God has made. He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. The covenant saves its members and its members are believers. And again, he will put his law into their hearts and write it on their minds.

This is true of the Christian, not the unbeliever, no matter who their parents are. The writer of the Hebrews is going out of his way again and again to show the superiority of Christ in all his works. Now, please understand when I say that, I'm not saying that our Pato Baptist brothers deny the superiority of Christ's work compared to the work of Moses. That's not my point. They absolutely affirm that.

I don't want to strawman our opponents here. But they will simultaneously affirm the superiority of Jesus' work in his priestly office and his sacrificial death and his office as king while still claiming that the old covenant is the same covenant, just differently administered. But the writer of the Hebrews doesn't seem to share this one covenant dual administration's view. Rather, the animal sacrifices, which never took away sins, pointed forward to the need of a better covenant and a better sacrifice. A better covenant where its members are by Christ's one time offering of Himself perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

And again here in chapter 10 he cites Jeremiah 31 and again points out that in this covenant I will remember their sins no more. Those who are in this covenant have their sins forgiven. How can we read this and say that the new covenant includes unbelievers? I'm not talking about church membership. Unbelievers become members of churches all the time.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about church membership. Unbelievers become members of churches all the time. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about church membership.

I'm talking about membership of the covenant with Christ. That is something that is true only for the Christian. Two more chapters over Hebrews chapter 12 beginning in verse 18 Hebrews chapter 12 verse 18 therefore strengthen the hands which hang down and the feeble knees and make straight paths for your feet so that what is lame may not be dislocated but rather be healed. Pursue peace with all people and holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled, lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.

For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears." And so he's saying, pursue peace, pursue holiness, all of these things you need to do. This standard of holiness hasn't changed in the New Covenant. Pursue holiness. But now he makes a contrast beginning in verse 18. For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire into blackness and darkness and tempest and the sound of a trumpet and voice of words that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore, for they could not endure what was commanded.

And if so much as a beast touched the mountain, it should be stoned or shot with an arrow. And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, I am exceedingly afraid and trembling." That is the Old Covenant. It was a terrifying sight. When the law was given it was so frightening the people didn't want to hear God. They said, Moses, you go deal with him.

We can't take it. So frightening was the giving of the Old Covenant that even if an animal, an unthinking creature that could not, that is by definition innocent, they can't sin because they're not moral creatures. If an animal touched it, they had to be killed. How much more was the threat of judgment on sinners who came near? That's the Old Covenant.

But you Christian you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You've come to a better mountain. To an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly, and that phrase general assembly, assembly, it's Church. And the General Assembly, that could also be rendered some of your versions if you have different translation, it may be something like the assembling or the church in festal gathering. It's the idea of the Church of God gathered together in a feast.

That's what we have. Not a terrifying sight where we don't even want to be near it, but we are brought into a feast with our God. The general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven and to God the judge of all to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Again, this is the New Covenant. It is a general assembly and church of the firstborn.

This firstborn, it's not a reference to Jesus, it's plural in Greek. Every member is a firstborn son of God. Every member has been adopted as the firstborn. What's significant about the firstborn? The firstborn was the one who inherited.

Every person in this gathering, in this covenant, receives the promises of God. That's what that language of Church of the Firstborn is getting at. And so yes, in a sense, we baptize children, we baptize spiritual children who have been adopted by God because every member of this covenant is registered in heaven, the church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven. To God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, We're united with all those who have already gone before and are with God in heaven already. Just men made perfect and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant.

Clearly Hebrews 12 is saying that this covenant that Christ mediates is a better covenant. It's a superior covenant. The members of this covenant are Christians. They have their sins forgiven. They have better promises.

Jesus the meteor of the new covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Abel's blood called out for judgment. The blood of Jesus pleads they are forgiven. How could we read this and say that unbelievers are in the new covenant? When we look at what scripture says, the new covenant, it's a different covenant, it's a superior covenant.

It's a superior covenant because it saves all its members. It's a superior covenant because it is an unbreakable covenant. And it's a superior covenant because it is with believers only who know and love the Lord. It's clearly what we see. So what does this mean for us then?

This is not just so that you can have intellectual knowledge and puff yourself up that, oh, you understand covenant theology. Firstly, the obvious application, baptism. We baptize those who make a credible profession of faith. Now your elders are fallible. They have probably baptized unbelievers, but it's not their intent.

It's not the goal to baptize unbelievers. The goal is to baptize those who are truly in the New Covenant of Grace because that is who is a partaker of that New Covenant. Members of the Covenant receive the sign of the covenant. And so if you profess to know the Lord, if you profess that you love him and you're wanting to follow him, you should be baptized. There is no excuse for saying, I'm just not going to do that.

It is an essential part of following the Lord. Don't say that you know and love the Lord if you're not willing to go through the waters of baptism. We're a pretty gentle people here. No one's gonna bite you, no one's gonna hurt you. You don't have to be afraid of anyone here to give your testimony and to be baptized.

We want to see it, we want to rejoice with you. It's a great thing. It's a testimony to God's grace and what he has done for you. So if you do truly know the Lord, if you are in the new covenant, you should follow Jesus' command to you to be baptized. Jesus himself, in giving the Great Commission, he defined what it means to be a disciple.

How do we make disciples? You baptize them and you teach them to obey everything I've commanded you. It's always fascinating to me that those two things are different because baptism is obeying something Jesus commanded you. But it's set aside, it's really the first thing. If you're going to be a disciple of Jesus, you get baptized and you spend the rest of your life obeying everything else Jesus commanded you as we heard this morning.

So be baptized if you have repented of your sins and your trust in the Lord Jesus today do not delay any longer do not continue in your disobedience that is what it is it is disobedience If you have confessed faith and you are not pursuing baptism, it is disobedience. Be baptized. It is a great blessing. It is a means of grace. God uses it to make you more like His Son.

Examine yourself. Secondly, examine yourself. What covenant are you in? We didn't talk really about the Covenant of Works today, but everyone in all of history is either in the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace. And the Covenant of Works doesn't mean you can earn your salvation.

That ship sailed a long time ago. The covenant of works is broken. The wrath of God for a broken covenant of works is on all who are in that covenant. So what covenant are you in? Are you still in a broken covenant of works with the wrath of God hanging over your head?

Or are you in a covenant of peace? A better covenant built on better promises with a Savior who saves to the uttermost those who draw near to him by faith. Who is your covenant head? Is it Adam or is it Christ? For those of you who are in the new covenant, Be amazed and be thankful that you are in a new and better covenant made on and built on better promises.

You have a better covenant. God has done a great work on your behalf. When you were helpless, He drew you in. Thank the Lord and praise Him and spend the rest of your life living in obedience to Him because He has made a covenant of peace with you and has brought you into his family. Let's pray.

Father we thank you for your blessings. Thank you for the new covenant that you have made with us in Christ. Oh God we thank you that you have by your Son forgiven our sins. And Lord, for those who are here today and do not yet know you, I pray God that you would draw them in, that you would change their hearts, that you would cause them to see Christ as precious, that they would run to Him to become partakers of that better covenant. Oh God, we thank You that You keep Your covenant, that You keep Your promises.

And Lord, we just thank you and we praise you for what you have done in Christ in making these promises and keeping your promises and making this better covenant that will endure forever this everlasting covenant. God what a blessing it is to be considered your people. Lord, help us as we leave this place today to live as your people, your slaves, your children, your ambassadors. God, may we live for you as members of a new covenant. Thank you for what you've done when we could do nothing.

In Christ's name, amen.