The New Covenant and Dispensationalism - 34

Well, as we have learned, the book of Hebrews studies the New Covenant and breaks it apart in detail so that we can understand what it says and how it applies to Christians today. You remember that the writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 verses 31 through 34 in Hebrews 8 verses 7 and following to show that the New Covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament 600 years before the coming of Christ. And he shows that that New Covenant was indeed inaugurated by Jesus Christ at his coming when he died upon the cross. And that the New Covenant therefore has replaced the Old Covenant, that is the Mosaic Covenant, which is now obsolete. And that fact challenges the practice of infant baptism as we saw in our message last week. But it also challenges a major tenet of dispensationalism as we're going to see in our study for today. Namely, in dispensationalism, the relationship between Israel and the church.

And so today we're going to cover a couple of bases. We're going to conclude our examination of Covenant baptism and we're going to introduce an examination of dispensationalism. So number one, the New Covenant baptism. Number two, the New Covenant and the New Covenant baptism. Dispensationalism. And then with what time we have, number three, the New Covenant and hermeneutics. And I'll explain that word when we get to it. Okay. All right. The New Covenant and baptism.

Let's review quickly. The Old Covenant, that is the Mosaic Covenant, inaugurated infants as full members of that covenant by the design and command of God. Male children of Old Covenant parents were marked with the sign of the covenant, namely circumcision. In the New Covenant, the sign of the covenant is not circumcision, but rather it is water baptism, which replaces circumcision even as the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. They're supposedly New Covenant children with the mark of the covenant, just as Old Covenant parents marked their children, their covenant children under the Old Covenant. It makes a measure of sense, but the question is, does it conform to scripture?

And my answer to that is an emphatic no. And the answer, the reason why is because, as the Bible tells us, in Jeremiah 31 first, and then repeated in Hebrews chapter eight, that the New Covenant is significantly different from the Old Covenant, not marginally different, but significantly different. And it even goes on to spell out in what ways the New Covenant is different. And the ways that are described for it make it impossible for us to view the baptism of infants into the covenant, that is the New Covenant. As an appropriate Christian practice, because the New Covenant, according to the words that we read in scripture, the New Covenant includes no one who has not been regenerated. Let me call your attention again to Hebrews eight. And with them, he says, and now the quotation begins from Jeremiah, after those days, says the Lord, 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. And what is made clear in the wording of the New Covenant, the terms of the New Covenant, the description of the New Covenant, is that in the New Covenant, every member, every one who actually belongs in that New Covenant has been regenerated. They shall all know me.

That doesn't mean all the people in the world shall know me. The command that or the requirement, the instruction that it is not necessary for one member of the New Covenant to evangelize another member of the New Covenant, that is to say to him, know the Lord, you need to trust Christ, you need to be saved. We don't do that because every member of the New Covenant community already knows the Lord, unlike the Old Covenant, where unregenerate children, and in many cases, even those who are older than children, but unregenerate children were by the command of God, circumcised and considered members of the Old Covenant, but they didn't know the Lord. And so their parents and others had to continually say to them, know the Lord. They had to continually urge them to believe in the Lord and the promises of God with all their hearts. That was their greatest task was to urge people who were already marked as members of the Covenant community by the design and command of God to mark them as members of that community and then to evangelize them. But in the New Covenant, everybody who belongs has already been evangelized. Everybody who belongs has already been saved. Everybody who belongs has already had the law of God's written in their hearts and their minds.

Everyone who belongs has already had all their sins cleansed away on the terms of the New Covenant. And therefore, none of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brothers saying, know the Lord, for all, meaning all the members of the New Covenant, shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of them. Now we know that Christians are commanded to evangelize the world. They're commanded to evangelize the lost. They're commanded to evangelize their unsaved friends and neighbors. So clearly what this is speaking of is those who are members of the New Covenant community. Christians don't need to evangelize them.

They've already been saved. Every member of the New Covenant belongs to Christ by regenerating faith. Now we disciple them by teaching them to observe all things whatsoever God has commanded them. So that's the great contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. Now let me quickly deal with some objections that those who practice infant baptism will raise to my explanation of my understanding of the New Covenant.

And in raising these, I want you to understand that I have been answering these, wrestling with these questions and objections and answering them for at least three decades. Many of you will remember, well, there have been a number of times over the years when the Lord has sent to us Presbyterian Christians to worship with us here in this Baptist congregation. Godly people, wonderful people, born again people who believe in infant baptism and who would from time to time try to convince me that I am wrong. And so I would listen to what they had to say and listen to their response to what I have just taught you about the New Covenant and considered it, waited carefully, if I'm wrong, I want to know.

So I have listened to some of these, all of these, and the ones I'm going to give you now, and let me give you my response to the kinds of objections that are often raised. Objection number one, speaking in terms of Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews chapter 8, but these passages don't even mention baptism. How can you say that this applies to the question of who should be baptized? Baptism is not mentioned in the passage. And the answer to that objection is true. It's not. So does that make my application of it to baptism invalid? Just because it's not mentioned, does that mean it's automatically invalid?

Well, think it through. It would be surprising actually if it would have been mentioned in Hebrews 8 in quoting Jeremiah 31 because Jeremiah 31 was written 600 years before Christ, 600 years before anyone was baptized in water. So that's not surprising. But the point is that Jeremiah 31 quoted in Hebrews chapter 8 contrasts the nature of Old Covenant membership with New Covenant membership. What were the qualifications for membership in the Old Covenant?

Some relationship with the descendants of Abraham, either by birth or by coming into the household, by marriage, or some other relationship with the physical seed of Abraham. That's what was required and then a willingness to embrace the practices of the Mosaic Covenant and of a male to be circumcised. That's what was required to be embraced as a member, full-fledged member of the Old Covenant community. Regeneration wasn't even in view. It wasn't a requirement. It wasn't even mentioned. God's command to circumcise children and others in the terms of the Old Covenant never brought up the question of are they regenerated or not.

That wasn't there. But in the New Covenant, because of the greatness of its newness, we also have the greatness of its contrast and the biggest element of its contrast is this very thing. Old Covenant fully qualified, God-ordained, prescribed members of that Covenant were oftentimes, and in some cases in a majority of them, unregenerate. But in the New Covenant, nobody but nobody but nobody but nobody but nobody comes into that Covenant unregenerate. God regenerates them and that's what places them in the Covenant. That's what qualifies them to be in the Covenant.

And therefore, this is a logical step, but I think it's an appropriate biblical step. If God prescribed that unregenerate people should be circumcised under the Old Covenant, that was exactly what God designed. But if God requires that people who are recognized as members of the New Covenant be regenerated, then that mark of the New Covenant can only be applied to people who are regenerated or at least say they are. That's God's design.

That's God's instruction. You see, the New Covenant is significantly different from the Old Covenant at this very point, at the point of regeneration. And scripture defines the nature and qualifications of both Covenants, Old Covenant and New, and the New Covenant includes no one who has not been regenerated. Now here's another objection. But isn't it true that not all those who were baptized in water in the first century and onward were not truly regenerated? Valid question, isn't it?

It needs to be considered because that is exactly true. We read about some in the New Testament who were baptized upon a profession of faith in Christ and yet turned out to be unregenerate. Simon Magus is one such person and there are others in the New Testament and so it is true that in spite of the fact the qualification in the New Covenant demands a regenerate condition, that the mark of membership in the New Covenant, water baptism, is sometimes and maybe in some cases oftentimes erroneously applied to unregenerate people. So what makes that different from the circumcision of unregenerate children under the Old Covenant?

Well here's what's different. Under the Old Covenant qualifications were external, not difficult to recognize. Is this person the child of descendants of Abraham? Are his parents members active and have not been cast out but are now recognized as members of the Covenant community? Then he qualifies.

You can figure out those things externally. Or is this someone who has married a member, a descendant of Abraham and has married someone who is operating under the terms of the Old Covenant? Then they qualify to be included in the Old Covenant.

External qualifications which could easily be observed because they are external. However the New Testament qualifications are a little more difficult because it's not external, it's internal. It's the matter of the heart. Regeneration which only God knows perfectly whether a person has been regenerated or not, though there are evidences of course.

But the New Covenant qualification is internal and therefore who will be baptized with the mark of the New Covenant depends upon the personal testimony of the person who wants to be baptized. We can't see hearts. We can trace genealogy. We can see if you are a son of Abraham, physical son of Abraham.

We can trace these external things. We can't see the heart so we depend upon a profession of faith, a credible profession of faith. If the person is mistaken, then we've baptized someone who has not been regenerated. If the person is deceitful, sometimes people knowingly profess faith in Christ and want to be baptized and thereby brought into membership in a church when they know they've never been born again. But sometimes they're mistaken about that. They don't know.

And so yes, these errors will occur because of the nature of the qualification which is inward. It cannot be seen by anyone but God. Therefore some unregenerate people will be baptized erroneously even though they are not true members of the New Covenant community. But God commanded the circumcision of unregenerate people. God does not command the baptism of unregenerate people. It may occur but it's not God's stated purpose, design and plan. It happens but it doesn't happen because God told us to do it that way. God didn't tell us to baptize people that we know are unregenerate. But he told the people under the Old Covenant to circumcise people they knew were unregenerate.

That's a vast difference. God commands baptism of believers, of disciples alone, and they only. Now one third objection and then we'll move on to the second part of our message today. But one third objection is that text in Acts chapter 2 which is often raised at this point and is thought and I think sincerely and genuinely thought by many pedobaptists to be an indication of pedobaptism. It's on the day of Pentecost. Peter has preached. Many of the people in the crowd that he's preaching to that number into the thousands have come under conviction.

They're crying out for instructions. When they heard this they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for their mission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now even in that much we see that what preceded baptism in Peter's instructions? Repentance. Repent. Infants don't do that.

They can't do that. Repent and the flip side of repentance is faith. But then this verse, verse 39, for the promise is to you that I'm preaching to says Peter and to your children who may or may not be present when he's preaching and to all who are afar off as many as the Lord our God will call. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, be saved from this perverse generation. And then verse 41, and let's not leave this out because this puts a little bit more into the context that is so important. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.

And that day about 3000 souls were added to them. The promise is to your children. What does that mean? The promise, let's just say in general terms, is the promise of salvation. The promise, he says, is to you. The promise is to your children. The promise is to those who are far off. So does that mean that children should be baptized simply because they are your children or is that a misreading of the text?

I'm convinced it is. The promise of salvation was extended by Peter and his preaching to three groups. To you who are listening to my words, to your children beyond those who are here listening to my words, and to those who are far off, a way of speaking of Gentiles throughout the world. Now the question is, this promise of salvation is first of all extended to you who are hearing my preaching.

The question is, how is it extended to you? It is extended to you upon the requirement of repentance and faith. Repent. You who are listening to my voice, repent and be baptized. That's how the promise is extended to you. The promise is yours if you will repent. The promise is yours if you will receive my words, going on to verse 41. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.

The promise is yours if you will believe it, if you will receive it. Okay, that's how it applies to you, you who are hearing Peter's words. Well, how does it apply to the Gentiles? It applies to as many as are far off. Does it apply to them automatically? Do we evangelize the world by going around and baptizing as many people as we can get into the water because baptizing them brings them into the new covenant and thereby evangelize?

No, nobody would believe that, nobody would practice that. They understand that it applies to those who are far off in the same way it applies to those who are near. It applies to those who are far off if you will receive it, if you will believe it, if you will repent, then it applies to you.

You can be saved too if you will believe, but only if you will believe. That's clear enough I think. So then how does it apply to your children? Why do we think somehow it applies to your children in a way totally different from the way it applies to you who are near and those who are far off?

Clearly it doesn't. It applies to your children the same way it applies to you. This promise is not only for you, but it's also for your children if they will repent. It applies to your children if they will believe. It applies to your children if they will receive these words, then it applies to them. Your children, you may be saved if you will believe in Christ, repent and believe. Your children will be saved if they will repent and believe.

Those who are far off will be saved if they will repent and believe, and when they do, they should be baptized and marked as members of the New Covenant community. That's how I understand these matters. Now let's go to the second issue, the New Covenant and dispensationalism. I have learned to my surprise several times when I have brought up the question of dispensationalism that a lot of people don't know what that term means. You're unfamiliar with it.

That surprises me because it was such an important term all of my life as I grew up in a family that were dispensationalists, in churches that were dispensational, in a school that was dispensational. My first adult Bible was given to me by my grandfather. It was a Scofield reference Bible, leather-bound. Up until then, my Bible was one of these little zipper children's Bibles. You know what I'm talking about.

I don't know how many of those I had. But when I was about 11, my grandfather, who was saved in his middle years and became a fervent follower of Christ and a wonderful student of God's Word, and he had particular radio preachers that he listened to carefully, and he marked up his Bible. I'd come into him in his office. He had his own business.

I'd come into him in his office in Tipton, Iowa, and find him there reading his Bible, marking it, studying. He was a real student of God's Word. The preachers that he followed were all dispensationalists, and he was a dispensationalist.

And C.I. Scofield, I would have to say, in a way, is the father of dispensationalism in America. He lived around the turn of the 19th century into the 20th century, and he produced a study Bible, the Scofield Reference Bible, which I read this week in doing some research, was the most and still remains the most widely sold reference Bible in all the world. No other reference Bible has come close to selling as many copies as the Scofield Reference Bible. It is sold into the millions upon millions upon millions upon millions, and it is a strong dispensational understanding of Scriptures.

It's full of notes, and the notes all are of a dispensational nature. That's what I grew up with. The people who led me to Christ were dispensationalists. The people who trained me in my home and church and school were all dispensationalists. The people that I knew and loved most in Christ in all of my early years were dispensationalists. I don't dislike these people. I love these people.

They are my Christian friends and neighbors, and they have done so much good to me, I couldn't begin to give the honor to them that they deserve. So please understand where I'm coming from. But what is dispensationalism? Well, it's a way of looking at the Bible and at God's dealings with mankind throughout the history of the Bible, in terms of different ways of dealing with people in different periods of history. That's the best way I know how to summarize it in one little statement. And with particular emphasis upon God's unique dealings with Israel. And I think we would all up to this point have to say, well, obviously that's true. God did deal with Israel different from all the other nations of the world. Right.

No problem there. Another feature of dispensationalism is what I would call a very strong and strict literal hermeneutic. And there I get into that word again. And hermeneutic means the rules of interpretation. When we read the Bible, interpret the Bible, we are guided in our interpretation by various rules of interpretation. That's called hermeneutics. You say, well, I don't, I don't remember studying hermeneutics. Most people don't, but most people have certain principles in their mind that they're following, whether they have been studied in school or not.

They have these ideas in mind. And the dispensational hermeneutic is a strict literal hermeneutic. And it makes a strong distinction between Israel and the church. And is very scathing and scornful of anyone who would dare to, to posit that the church might inherit some of the promises that were made to Israel. That just sounds like distorting the word of God. That sounds like confusing the issue. That sounds like, like a terrible thing to do. That sounds like, that's called replacement theology.

It's a terrible thing, replacement theology, to replace the, to replace Israel with the church. Okay. Okay. I understand. I've been there, done that.

I understand. Furthermore, dispensationalism teaches that the church age, the church age that we're in now is basically a parenthesis in God's dealings with mankind. God has been dealing with Israel all these years. Now there's a parenthesis as a church age. But when the rapture, most dispensationalists are pre-tribulation rapturists, when the rapture occurs and the church is removed, then God will start dealing again with the nation of Israel and they will be brought into the millennial kingdom, which will be a literal Jewish kingdom with Christ ruling upon the throne of David in the, in the millennial kingdom of which Israel is now the chief people in the world. Now just like the logic of pedobaptism, there is a certain logic in all of this.

It's not totally crazy. It's logical. But the question is, is it truly biblical? That's the whole point that I'm trying to make here. Some things can be very logical, but if any of the assumptions and presuppositions upon which the logic is built are invalid, then the conclusion is going to be invalid. And that can happen in the area of pedobaptism because certain assumptions are made about a degree of continuity between the old and new covenants, which the Bible does not actually teach.

It teaches the opposite. But if you accept that presupposition and build your theology upon it, then of course infant baptism is not only valid, it is honorable, it is required, it is necessary based upon these presuppositions. But if the presuppositions are wrong, then the whole conclusion is wrong. And I have come to believe that some of the basic presuppositions of dispensationalism are also wrong.

They're very questionable. And how do I address that particular issue? Well, what I found in my study of the Scriptures as a dispensationalist going to the Word of God, I began to realize that my dispensational assumptions and interpretations didn't match the way Scripture interpreted itself.

That became the problem. And I'll show you a couple of examples. But if the interpretation of an Old Testament passage that I have based upon my strictly literal understanding of Scripture and my dispensational presuppositions, if that particular passage of Scripture is quoted in the New Testament by Christ or New Testament authors, and if they don't interpret it the same way that I do, then that raises questions in my mind. If dispensationalism is correct, shouldn't New Testament authors be interpreting the Old Testament to get the same answers that I'm getting in my understanding of these passages based upon my dispensationalism? And how does our text in Hebrews run into this issue? Well, it runs into this issue in regard to who this covenant is made with. Jeremiah said, Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, the house of Judah, and then a couple of lines later, he repeats it, a new covenant with the house of Israel.

Okay? From my dispensational leanings, I would look at that and say, God's got something in store for the nation of Israel in the future, a new covenant with the nation of Israel. I come to Hebrews chapter 8, and I read these very same words, for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, and so forth. I read the very same words quoted out of Jeremiah, but the writer of Hebrews obviously applies them to the church. This covenant made with Israel with the house of Judah and the house of Israel is, in the mind of the writer of Hebrews, made with the church. Hmm, that doesn't fit my dispensational presupposition.

It doesn't work. And so my conclusion, just based on this one text, is that it seems likely that the New Testament church is the Israel of the new covenant. The new covenant that I thought was going to be made with national Israel, reading Jeremiah, I now realize is made with what, for lack of a better term, I would have to call spiritual Israel, because it's made with Israel, but it's made with the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles. Okay, a couple of other examples.

I only have time for two short examples, and then we'll have to wind this up for today. One of my early forays into this came up in the issue of the last two verses of the book of Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, the last two verses of the book, which say this. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse. The promise is that God is going to send Elijah the prophet again, where he's coming, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Without any New Testament information about that, it sounds to me like before the Lord Jesus comes, probably in his second coming, that wasn't clear in the Old Testament, but now that's the way I would look at it now, before the Lord Jesus comes in judgment upon the earth and his second coming, Elijah is going to be raised from the dead and brought back to earth, right? Maybe one of the two witnesses of Revelation chapter 12 or whatever, Elijah, Elijah the Tishbite, the literal Elijah. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet because I'm interpreting as literally as possible, literal whenever possible is the hermeneutic of dispensationalism. But the problem is this same promise about Elijah is reiterated in one way or another in several passages in the New Testament, and in every case it refers to John the Baptist.

I don't have time to show you all those passages. One of them, the one in Luke where the angel was telling Zechariah what his son would be like, John the Baptist, borrows language almost word for word from this prophecy from Malachi. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers. That's what John the Baptist is going to do, this promised child that I'm giving to you. I'll just offer one New Testament text where Jesus makes it very clear who Elijah is. Matthew chapter 17 verse 9 verse 10.

And his disciples asked him saying, why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? They just seen Christ transfigured and realized that he's the son of God. He's God come in the flesh. He is here. Even his glory has been seen.

But wait a minute, wait a minute. Before that day comes, Elijah is supposed to come. That's what the scribes teach on the basis of Malachi chapter 4. Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? Jesus answered and said to them, indeed Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. In other words, their teaching about Elijah coming before the coming of Christ is not wrong. It's right. But I say to you that Elijah has come already.

Whoops, I missed it. When did he come? He's come already and they did not know him. Even the disciples did not know him, but did to him, the Jews, whatever they wished. Likewise, the son of man is about to suffer at their hands. What did they do to John the Baptist? They put him to death. What are they going to do to the son of man?

They're going to put him to death. But then this statement, verse 13, then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist. Well, that puts things in a different light. So evidently and clearly, the words of Malachi about the coming of Elijah are not to be understood in strict literalism. They are in reference to John the Baptist, who will be an Elijah-like prophet, an Elijah-like figure, who's going to have a ministry similar in many ways to that of Elijah. These words are not to be understood in the strictest literal way. They are to be understood as what we call it, symbolically. Elijah is John the Baptist, or maybe put it the other way around, John the Baptist is Elijah. You can't argue against that unless you want to deny what Jesus said. Hmm, that raises some questions.

One more example. And here I read a prophecy out of the book of Amos, chapter 9, verses 11 and 12. On that day, says God, speaking through his prophet Amos, on that day I will raise up, listen to these words now, the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages.

I will raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old. Then they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who does this thing. I read that in Amos, and what do I conclude? I conclude that at some time in the future to Amos, God is going to restore Israel, God is going to restore the throne, God is going to build again the tabernacle of David, that is rebuild the house of David, and even the nation of David. And God is going to in some way bless the Gentiles by this exaltation of the nation of Israel. That's exactly what dispensationalism teaches, and this goes along with it perfectly. Until I read Acts chapter 15, did I bring that one with me?

Am I going to have to do the old fashioned way of looking it up? All right, Acts 15. On the Council of Jerusalem, Paul and Silas, Barnabas first, have been out evangelizing among the Gentiles and many of them have been saved. Following their ministry, every place they went, there went out what we call Judaizers, who were Jews, who said they believed in Jesus, but they followed Paul and Barnabas and taught that these believers in Jesus had to be circumcised and follow the laws of Moses if they were going to be saved. In other words, they could only think in terms of the old covenant. They didn't understand the difference that the new covenant had made.

This raised quite a ruckus. They had a council in Jerusalem to settle this issue. And Paul gave his testimony, Peter gave his testimony about what had happened between him and Cornelius. And then James says, all right, it's time to bring this discussion to a conclusion.

Here's what we understand. Verse 14, Simon has declared how God at first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name and with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written. And now he quotes what I just quoted from Amos. After this, I will return and rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down. I will rebuild his ruins and I will set it up so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.

Even the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who does all these things. It seems to me like the most conspicuous way of understanding the words of James in Acts chapter 15 is to say, the salvation of Gentiles is the fulfillment of Amos's prophecy. That is the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David. But I thought the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David was strictly Jewish. No, what it is, is an enlargement of the physical nation of Israel to include Gentiles. Taking true Israel, those Jews who truly have faith in Christ and are born again and adding to them spiritual Israel, the Gentiles who also have faith in Christ are all brought together into one body and in this way the tabernacle of David is built up. It is restored and this is the way the Gentiles are blessed by the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David.

They are the tabernacle of David. Now, I've run out of time so I can't give you any more examples. There are lots of them and I'm going to consider the possibility of coming back next week to give you some more. But I will take about two minutes for my third point which is the New Covenant and hermeneutics. What is hermeneutics? It is the rule of interpretation or rules of interpretation. Where do these rules come from?

Think, think, think. Where do these rules come from? Not from the Bible, at least not directly. The rules of interpretation are of human origin. The rules of interpretation are what people who study the Bible say, I think this is the way, this is the rule we need to follow to get a proper interpretation from scripture. How does the New Covenant passage address the question of hermeneutics? It challenges a hermeneutic that is true, that depends too strongly upon continuity between the Old and the New Covenant. If that's your basis for infant baptism, the New Covenant challenges that assumption.

There's some measure of continuity, there's some measure of discontinuity, how much of each is there? Well, this would seem to indicate greater discontinuity than you are assuming to come up with your interpretation of infant baptism. But it also challenges the strong literal hermeneutics of dispensationalism because that doesn't have room for a covenant made with the house of Israel to be made with the church. But that's based upon a particular hermeneutic that says you can't do that.

Well, who says you can't say you can't do that? Well, we did, that's the rule of hermeneutics. That means you're not interpreting literally. Well, if inspired writers didn't follow that strictly literal hermeneutic, maybe God is telling us that we need to budge on that a bit to get the proper interpretation. In other words, our hermeneutics which have not, you can't open your Bible to the preface and say now here's the rules of hermeneutics that you must follow as you study your Bible given by God.

It's not that way. Hermeneutics are the rules that we come up with. Most of the time they're pretty good, they're pretty helpful.

But here's my conclusion. Hermeneutics, the rules of interpretation must be tested by Scripture. They are needed.

They are needed to get us started in our study. But they must never be given supreme authority. I've talked with dispensationalists who I've tried to show these things to like I showed you this morning. And I've gotten all kinds of different responses. But many of them just simply say you can't do that, you can't say that, you can't interpret that way because that violates a strict interpretation of Scripture.

Yes, it does. And we must because the Scripture indicates that we must. That's why I do that. We need hermeneutics to get us started in our study, but no hermeneutic must be given supreme authority, only the Scripture is supreme. And our hermeneutics therefore must be adjusted to conform to the Scripture as we find it and understand them.

In other words, we must continue to seek the interpretation that best conforms to all the biblical evidence. And I promise you that will take a lifetime. In fact, I promise you, you'll never get all that done before you go to heaven.

But you need to be working at it. With that I conclude. Let's pray. Father, help us in our study of your word that we may understand it aright and we confess that we don't always get it right, but we want to. So teach us your ways and show us your paths, we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.