“In short, all of the objections our Baptist friends offer could also have been made against the inclusion of covenant children in the administration of the covenant of grace under Abraham. Nevertheless, God still saw fit to include children in the administration of the covenant of grace under Abraham. Thus, the real issue here is the nature of the new covenant. That is why I keep saying that the new covenant is a new administration of the Abrahamic covenant.”

The new covenant is the new administration of the Abrahamic covenant. Just as the typological (looking forward) sign and seal of admission to the administration of the covenant of grace was applied to Abraham’s children (beginning with Ishmael) so the sign and seal of admission to the administration of the covenant of grace is applied to the children of believers (Acts 2:39; 16:15). In response to the Abrahamic paradigm frequently comes the objection: “But Galatians 3:16 says the promise is to “the seed” not to ‘the seeds.’ Does that not tell us that the Abrahamic pattern has effectively ended and been replaced by the Baptist approach of believer-baptism?”

It is true that Galatians 3:16 says that the promise is, to quote Paul, “to his seed.” It is quite true that, as Paul says, the word seed is in the singular. That truth, however, cannot work against the inclusion of covenant children in the administration of the covenant of grace. We know this from Genesis 17. It follows the same pattern in Genesis 12:7, 13:15; 15:18; and 17:7. Scripture says,

and I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout the generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you.

Does the fact that God made a promise to the seed in the singular mean that covenant children are not involved in the administration of that promise (the new administration of the covenant of grace)? Of course not. We cannot assume the Baptist premise that the substance (that which makes a thing what it is) and the administration (the sphere where and the means by which the promise is received) of the covenant of grace are identical. They are not. In the very same place where scripture uses the singular, which Paul interprets to refer principally to Christ, believers are commanded to apply to their children the sign and seal of initiation into the administration of the covenant of grace.

One reason evangelicals sometimes have difficulty with this is the conflation or confusion of two categories: substance and administration. In the Baptist approach, only those who are believed to have already received the substance of the covenant of grace, i.e., Christ and his promises, by grace alone, through faith alone are allowed to receive the sign and seal of entrance the covenant of grace. In effect, the sign of initiation becomes a sign of renewal or recognition of what has already taken place. In the Abrahamic paradigm, however, initiation and recognition of reception are not the same thing. That’s why there are two sacraments: baptism (initiation) and the Lord’s Supper (recognition or renewal). Following the Abrahamic pattern, we initiate the children of believers on the basis of the divine command (Genesis 17; Matthew 28:18–20) and we pray with and for them, we catechize them, we nurture them in the family and congregation through the due use of ordinary means (Westminster Shorter Catechism 88) and when, by God’s grace, they give evidence of spiritual life and make a credible profession of faith, they are admitted to the Lord’s Table, which is the sign and seal of recognition of what has taken place. In the Abrahamic pattern, the administration of the covenant of grace is one thing and the substance of the covenant of grace is another. We administer the sign and seal of admission on the basis of divine command and promise, not on the basis of what we think to have occurred in a particular person.

Read More