1) The move is always from physical to social to ethical. We have to be before we can know, and we must know before we can minister to. Jesus made plain what kind of family the New Covenant would be – a lot more like the angels, but with a “spiritual/ethcial” version of pro-creation: begetting by the gospel. This is a Covenant Succession that Satan cannot cut off with death. In fact, persecution and bloodshed only expands the kingdom.

2) The Old Covenant Church was predominantly social, that is, under the sword (Pass-over). The New Covenant Church is predominantly ethical in character, that is, as grown ups, its membership consists of those who can bear the sword. Pre-Christ was all about forming. Post-Christ is about filling. The New Covenant has changed the definition of “child.” We represent God not simply physically but ethically as ambassadors who have the same mind (see http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2012/08/30/images-of-god ) So even though Social and Social match each other chiastically, there is progress, as there was between Egypt and Jericho. Who bears the sword now? Not angels but angelic (“messenger”) men.

3) Under the Old Covenant, men fought against flesh and blood (beginning with the serpent) because they were not mature enough to “see,” to discern the spirits animating flesh. Since Pentecost, the regenerate can do that. Hence we no longer fight flesh and blood. We fight to expel and replace the animating spirit in men with the Spirit of God.

4) The new physical world is yet to come. We do see the triple process in the first century, but in the big picture, the physical restoration will come with God’s full presence, a world-wide Shekinah.

I hope that helps.

This is fascinating stuff, though it leaves me with some questions.

1) What exactly do you mean by the New Covenant being primarily ethical/spiritual rather than social? Isn’t the New Covenant about adoption into a family?

2) Why do you interpret the ethics stage so individualistically? Maturity is about a glorified, obedient Adam, granted. But if Adam had obeyed, not only him, but also his ‘household’ (Eve) would have been robed with righteousness (clear from the fact that both of them were clothed with skins after the fall).

3) My understanding was that we are now in a ‘social’ era. I see it all looking like this:

Creation: Old Physical world (4000 BC)
..Social: Old Covenant Church (2000 BC)
….Personal/ethical: Jesus Christ (4 BC)
..Social: New Covenant Church (30-70 AD)
Creation: New Physical world (?? AD)

On what basis do you say we are now in an ‘ethical’ era, rather than a glorified ‘social’ one?

1 – It seems to me that other paedobaptists water down baptism. I respect the Federal Vision because they understand the import of baptism. The problem is they have moved from wrong to half-right.

2 – If children of Christians are not “in Covenant” by blood, what are they in Covenant by? I know it is not purely blood, because adopted children are also baptized. But Covenant succession becomes fundamentally social rather than fundamentally spiritual. The social succession was cut off in AD70. Succession is now purely spiritual/ethical, which makes it impossible to cut off. Baptism must communicate this, not rebuild a wall of enmity between divided flesh.

3 – I made it clear that paedobaptism misrepresents what paedobaptists teach on other issues. Their baptism should be brought into line with their gospel preaching.

4 – I also make it clear that every Covenant was physical, social and ethical, but that the entire history of the Covenants moves from fundamentally physical to social to ethical. Also, as I have written elsewhere, biblical structure corresponds baptism to the Covenant Oath (Sanctions). Every baptism story in the book of Acts follows the Covenant pattern, so confession is tied to baptism. The Law has done its work, and the evidence is a profession of faith. More posts on this under the baptism link at top. A move to a fundamentally ethical standard meant that the social/Land promises to Israel were transcended.

5 – “The rot at the heart of baptistic theology, which is inherently man-centered” is an observation found in “The Failure of the American Baptist Culture.” The New Covenant is fundamentally ethical, so there is no merely “social body” into which one can be placed by baptism. All men are under Covenant. Because Jesus is king of all nations, not just ancient Israel, you and your children are already in the New Covenant, so paedobaptism is redundant. What it supposedly does has already been done. True baptism is not a sign that someone is under the gospel but a vindication that the gospel has done its work. Again, for the difference between Covenant delegation and Covenant vindication, see the posts at link at top. It’s the difference between being under the sword (Adam cut/Passover) and qualifying to bear the sword as an image, a representative of God (Adam invested/Jericho). The Bible is entirely consistent on this process, and it means that paedobaptistic practice violates the intention of the New Covenant sign. If Adam refuses to hide and presents himself to God for atonement and clothing, that is not man-centred. It is an act of faith.

“The problem is, according to them, one can be born physically into the New Covenant and then excommunicated “spiritually” for an unwillingness to repent of unethical behavior.”

You assume infants are BORN christian. This is not my position nor many other paedobaptists. Children of Christians are in covenant because of baptism not because of some kind of “Christian blood” that they inherit.

“[P]aedobaptism is like the modern habit of men dressing as boys to express their shirking of adult responsibilities.”

Here you assume we paedobaptists hold to a strict and simplistic correspondence to baptism; a lethal misrepresentation that probably not even anti-federal vision paedobaptist hold.

“The New Covenant gathering is an ethical gathering… it is predominantly ethical and the change in the Covenant sign communicates that progression.”

This is very strange. You are seriously downplaying the ethical role in the Old Covenant in order to make your case. Israel as a body was identified by God’s mercy and their life in Him Ex. 20; Lev; Deut. The Old Covenant was as ethically important and demanding as the New. Of course the New takes on more dynamic and changes under Christ but there is nothing like a “confessional” ethic that was absent in circumcision that is present in baptism. To make that claim is to beg the question.

Finally, it sure would be nice to read your explanation on the “rot at the heart of baptistic theology, which is inherently man-centered.” I’ve asked this of you before but only got blank pages. If the theology of “I am in the covenant because of MY abilities and maturity to make a believable confession to men that baptized me” is NOT man-centered then I certainly cannot believe your claim that the paedobaptist theology of “I am in the covenant, not due to anything about me, but because of baptism in Christ alone” is.