We'll read this morning. From Jeremiah chapter 31, beginning in verse 31 and reading through verse 34. It's a familiar text. We'll read it once again. Hear the word of the Lord. 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 the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. 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 every man teach his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord. For they all shall 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. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. You may be seated. Well, this morning is the final sermon in our series on the ordinances of the New Covenant. It's the final sermon on the subject of baptism. We'll have two more sermons next month concerning the Lord's Supper, but this morning we will finish dealing with this sacrament of baptism. And we begin by asking the question, what is baptism? And that sermon, we explored the picture that baptism presents to us. It's a symbol. It points to something greater than itself, something beyond the act of baptism, namely to the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Christ and us in him by faith. And then we explored the text of the New Testament as it relates to baptism, and we demonstrated that in the words of the Presbyterian scholar B.B. Warfield, it is true that there's no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament. no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. And we saw that in the text of the New Testament. If we had only the New Testament to go by, that would lead us to the baptism of believers alone. But B.B. Warfield continued and goes on to say, if such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. If we had to have a text in the New Testament that told us to do this, we wouldn't do it. We wouldn't baptize infants. But, he says, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, where the church was instituted. And so last week, we addressed this argument from our covenant theology. We looked at the covenants in Scripture from Adam to Christ, and we found that we disagree with the Presbyterian formulation of covenant theology. They see one covenant, the same in substance, but with multiple administrations under various federal heads, Abraham, Moses, David, and then Christ, our understanding of the New Covenant is that while it is organically related to those old covenants, it is distinct. Its purpose is distinct. It offers everlasting life. Its scope is distinct. It is extended beyond the physical offspring of Abraham to all of those who are Abraham's offspring by faith. It is distinct in quality. The Old Covenant was, in the words of the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2, a shadow of things to come. But the substance is of Christ. And so we saw that the New Covenant is distinct from the Old Covenant. Its purpose is everlasting life. Its scope is all who believe. Its substance is Christ. And so we concluded from our covenant theology that the very nature of the New Covenant demands the baptism of believers alone, those who become offspring of Abraham by faith. Warfield continues, and he says that nothing short of an actual forbidding of infant baptism in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now. In other words, the Presbyterians hold that the New Covenant and the Old Covenant are essentially the same covenant of grace, alike in substance, differing in administration, And they see that the infants of covenant members were included in the covenant community and given the sign of the covenant, which was circumcision under the old covenant. And they conclude that unless Scripture expressly repeals this principle of the inclusion of babies, of infants, the children of covenant members, And unless scripture explicitly repeals that principle, then they must continue to practice it and administer baptism to their children. And what happens at this point is that the pedobaptist wants an explicit text that forbids infant baptism. And the baptist wants an explicit text that commands infant baptism. And so we end up at loggerheads. Neither one of us gets that text we're looking for. They aren't convinced by our covenant theology, we aren't convinced by theirs. They want a proof text and so do we. And most of the time this argument stalls out and goes nowhere from this point forward. But I want to argue this morning that the Old Testament itself and the New Testament as well explicitly do abrogate and repeal and do away with this principle of familial inclusion in covenant membership. So we begin by revisiting this text in Jeremiah 31. We've looked at it several times recently, and it's the promise of the new covenant given during a period of exile in the Old Testament. And we read it multiple times recently, always beginning in verse 31, but I want to back up a couple of verses and get a little more context. The prophet is speaking of the future restoration of the people of God, and this is typological of the church. And so this is all leading up to the promise of the new covenant. And in verse 29, it says this, in those days, they shall say no more. So this is something they have said previously, but in those days, when God's people are restored and the new covenant is established, they shall no more say this, the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. So this is a sort of proverb that teaches that under the old covenant, the sins of the fathers were visited upon the children. Exodus 34, verses 6 and 7, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation. And so this proverb comes to be spoken, the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. Now this proverb is meant to demonstrate the close relationship that is had between a father and his offspring in regards to covenant. What the father does affects the child. I eat sour, unripe grapes, and my children get that taste in their mouth. This is obviously an over-exaggeration, but it's there to make a point. The point is that the father's actions directly relate to the child's experience. in the covenant community. But the scripture goes on at this point to say in verse 30 that things will be different in the new covenant. No longer will they use this proverb, but everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. And then we have the text concerning the new covenant, the new covenant that promises that God will put his law in our minds and write it on our hearts. He will be our God and we shall be his people. No more shall every 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. No more will there be members of the covenant community who do not know the Lord. They will all know the Lord. If they are members of the covenant, that's how they became members of the new covenant is by knowing the Lord Jesus Christ. And so there's a distinction here between the old covenant and the coming new covenant. In the old covenant, it was possible for someone to be a member of the covenant because of this principle of familial inclusion and yet not know the Lord. In the new covenant, this is different. There are no members of the New Covenant who do not know the Lord. And so this text explicitly does away with the principle of the inclusion of the children of Covenant members. No more are the father and child connected in such a way that if the father is a member of the covenant, the child is automatically a member of the covenant. It doesn't work that way in the new covenant. Each individual must know Christ personally. This same proverb and the same abrogation of the principle of familial inclusion is also found in Exodus and Ezekiel 18. We read a portion of that text earlier, but here's how it begins. The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, what do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. As I live, says the Lord God, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel." Then the rest of Ezekiel 18 goes on to give an example. An example of a man who is a member of the covenant community and who keeps the covenant. He does the things he is supposed to do in obedience to the Lord. But he has a son who does not, a son who rejects the covenant, who rejects the Lord, who sins against God and fails to be obedient to the covenant. And that son gains no favor by virtue of his father's righteousness. But then that wicked son has a son who sees his father's sin, rejects it, and returns in faithfulness and obedience to the Lord. And this grandson now is a member of the covenant in spite of his father's wickedness. This is a new arrangement in the New Covenant, differing from how the Old Covenant worked. In the New Covenant, Ezekiel 18 goes on to say, those who are members of the New Covenant will be given new hearts and new spirits by the Lord. text prophesying the coming of the new covenant explicitly does away with the idea that the children of covenant members are automatically included in the covenant because their parent was. But they must actually receive from the Lord a new heart, become regenerate, and know the Lord personally themselves in order to be a member of the covenant. So here are two texts in the Old Testament, both speaking of the coming of the New Covenant and teaching that the New Covenant differs from the Old Covenant in this way. But then we turn to the New Testament, and I want to look at a handful of texts that do away with this principle of familial inclusion in the Covenant. And these are texts that are at times used by our pedobaptist brethren to support their view. So I want to turn to 1 Corinthians 7. Now, our pedobaptist brothers don't all agree with one another. Some will turn to this text and say that it supports their view, and others will say, no, it doesn't. And I want to argue that not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. In 1 Corinthians 7, here's the context. The context is principles concerning marriage. And later in this chapter, in verse 39, the apostle will instruct the church in Corinth that Christians are to marry only in the Lord. That is, a Christian woman should only marry a Christian man. She should not marry a non-Christian. But in verses 10 through 16, the apostle is addressing a somewhat thorny issue, the issue of divorce and is it allowed and when, and particularly if two unbelievers are married to one another and then one of them gets saved. One of them is now a believer and the spouse is not. What happens in this situation? And so in 1 Corinthians 7, verse 10, the apostle writes, and says, now to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. So he's echoing the teaching of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount. A wife is not to depart from her husband, but even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. So here's the teaching, don't get divorced. But, verse 12, to the rest I, not the Lord, say, so Christ didn't specifically address this, but now the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is, if any brother has a wife who does not believe and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. and a woman who has a husband who does not believe. If he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him." So two unbelievers are married, one of them has gotten saved, the other one has not. If the unsaved spouse is content to live and continue in the marriage with the now saved spouse, so be it. And he says in verse 14, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. This is the important verse, we'll come back to it in a moment. But in verse 15, but if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. So if you get married and then one of you gets saved and the other one doesn't, and the one who is unsaved goes, this is not the same person I married. You've changed. You love this Jesus now more than you love me. I can't live with this. I want out, I want the divorce. The apostle says, let them go. But God has called us to peace. So if they're willing to stay, you let them stay. Four, he says in verse 16, how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? So if the unbelieving spouse is willing to stay, you stay in the marriage. You may be the means God uses to bring your unsafe spouse to the Lord. So this is the idea. Don't seek out a divorce. If the unbelieving spouse resents your newfound love for Christ, thinks you've been brainwashed, whatever, and they want to leave, you let them go. But in between these two ideas, we have sandwiched verse 14, which says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse and that the children of such a union are holy. So does this mean that these children, and by extension then if one believing parent makes the children holy, then certainly two believing parents would make holy children. So does that mean then that these holy children ought to be considered members of the new covenant and given the sign of the covenant, which is baptism? Some Presbyterians believe so, and they turn to this passage, and they go, see, here is what, the term they use is federal holiness. Because of the parent's belief and faith, the child, now being subject to that parent, enjoys a federal holiness and should be given the sign of the covenant and considered a covenant member. But let's put this in context of the entire Scriptures. Let's use the analogy of faith and compare Scripture to Scripture. In Ezra chapters 9 and 10, we're going back to the Old Covenant, the people have been in exile. They've now returned from exile to Jerusalem and they are rebuilding the city and the temple. And Ezra discovers that some of the men have married pagan wives of the peoples that had been settled into the land of Judah. And they've had children with these pagan wives. And after much prayer and fasting, a careful inquiry is made and a list of the men who have committed this act is put together. And these men are called to account And these men swear before the Lord in the presence of Ezra and the rest of the Levites that they will put away their foreign wives and the children. They will divorce their wives and disown their children. Now that sounds pretty harsh to our ears, but it was part of their commitment to the old covenant and the purity of the covenant community. Now, imagine believers in Corinth who have heard the gospel preached, and they've gotten saved, but their spouse has not. And now they're reading the Old Testament scriptures, and they read this passage in Ezra, and they go, uh-oh, this is how they did this back then. If the spouse wasn't a Christian, they divorced them, and they disowned their children. My spouse is not a Christian. Does this mean I have to divorce them and disown my children? And the apostle says, no, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. In other words, being married to an unbeliever does not render you unacceptable to God. It doesn't negate the blessings of God, which come through marriage, even to unbelievers. But rather, since the believer is holy, the marriage is a holy state to them. And since the natural family unit is no longer the basic unit of the covenant community, the purity of the covenant community is not at stake the way it was under the old covenant. So they are free to enjoy the privileges and blessings of marriage to their spouse, unbelieving though they may be, and that unbelieving spouse does not defile them or the Church. In fact, that unbelieving spouse is sanctified, set apart for holy use to them in the marriage. The children are not illegitimate, they are not to be disowned, but since the marriage was a real marriage, blessed by God, the offspring of that marriage are legitimate children, a blessing from the Lord. Now if this verse meant, as some of our pedobaptist friends believe it does, that the children of this believing spouse are holy and should therefore be given baptism and considered members of the new covenant, then should not the unbelieving spouse also be given baptism and considered a member of the new covenant? No Presbyterian will argue for that course of action. This passage shows that marriage is a creation ordinance, not a new covenant ordinance. that marriage to an unbeliever, especially one entered into before conversion, does not make a Christian unclean, and it does not defile the covenant community in any way, and that the children of that marriage are legitimate and not to be disowned. Then the passage ends by saying that the believer should seek peace and remain in such a marriage if possible, for it may present an opportunity for the salvation of the unbelieving spouse and the children. But this means that the unbelieving spouse and children are not, by virtue of marriage to a believer, considered members of the covenant. The mixed marriage between a believer and an unbeliever does not defile the purity of the new covenant community of faith. The spouse and the children are not considered members of the covenant. They're not automatically church members just because one of the spouse got saved. Mike Rinehan wrote concerning this text and said this, the passage in question, by context and comparison with other texts of scripture, cannot be used to prove infant baptism via a federated holiness from parents to children. The author's original intent was to comfort believers with an unbelieving spouse that their marriage and children issuing from it were, in God's eyes, matrimonially legitimate. This passage, far from upholding the principle of familial inclusion, actually teaches the opposite. It teaches that to the pure, all things are pure. To the believing spouse, the marriage and the children are pure and legitimate. They don't have to divorce their unbelieving spouse and disown their children. They may be the means God uses to bring their family to faith in Christ, but each individual must enter the new covenant by means of personal faith in Christ. They are not automatically members of the covenant. Now let's turn back to John's gospel and the prologue in John chapter one. Speaking of Christ's incarnation as he comes to earth, John writes and says that he came to his own and his own did not receive him. But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The Jews themselves, from of old, the people of God, in covenant relationship to Him, were not made members of the new covenant on the basis of their lineage and family history, but on the basis of faith in Christ alone. Only those who received Christ by faith are given the right to become the children of God, not born according to flesh and blood, but according to the Spirit of God. Once again, the principle of familial inclusion is explicitly done away with in the New Covenant. Physical birth is not the entrance into covenant membership, but rather spiritual birth by faith in Christ. Now we turn to John the Baptist in Luke chapter 3. John is baptizing. And the multitudes were coming out to him to be baptized in the Jordan, multitudes of Jews, the offspring of Abraham. And then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones, and even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So John is addressing Jewish members of the Old Covenant who have come to him for baptism. They trace their family lines back to the 12 sons of Israel, and therefore to Abraham himself. But John says they are a brood of vipers. A brood of vipers, that's family language. He's saying they may be Abraham's physical offspring, but spiritually they're descended from venomous serpents. That's not a compliment, by the way. John then tells them God can raise up true children to Abraham from these stones. Children to Abraham who are spiritual offspring of Abraham. The point of this passage is that physical descent from Abraham does not give you membership in the new covenant, only fleeing to Christ in repentance and faith. As G.K. Beale writes in his New Testament Biblical Theology, he says, you do not have to be of the bloodline of Abraham to be his true child, nor do you have to move to Israel geographically to become an Israelite. You merely have to move to Jesus, the true Israel, and embrace him. Jesus is the only one in whom the eschatological family finds its ultimate source, and whose task was to create a new family of God, which should have been part of the task of the first Adam. Along these lines, Jesus' appointment of the 12 apostles represented not only a reconstitution of a new Israel around himself, which was to grow exponentially, but also the creation of a new people to live in a new creation. Once again, the text of the Scripture disrupts the Old Covenant principle of the inclusion of families and the offspring of covenant members to show that the New Covenant is distinctly different from the Old Covenant. Inclusion in the New Covenant is spiritual, not physical. Finally, let's turn to Matthew's Gospel, chapter 10. And here, Jesus is speaking, and He's sending out the 12 to preach throughout the land of Israel. And it says in verse 6 that He is sending them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He's sending them to the Jews. to the offspring of Abraham. And they are to proclaim Christ and His covenant and His kingdom. The good news of the kingdom of God has come. The Messiah is here. And He's giving them instructions on how to go about this task. And part of his instructions are these, in verses 35 through 37. Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Then a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Unlike the old covenant, in which membership in the earthly family of Abraham guaranteed covenant membership, the coming of the new covenant kingdom actually disrupts earthly families. Now this is not to say that the children of believers are never included in the covenant. They often are, praise the Lord. But each individual must come to Christ on the basis of his own faith and gain membership in the new covenant on the basis of Christ's blood shed for them particularly. Christ says that a man's own household, father and son, mother and daughter, will not be together in the covenant. And as parents, we must regard our King above our earthly kin. We must love Christ more. He is the fullness of God, the beauty of holiness, the righteousness of God, the Word and wisdom of God incarnate. He is to be praised, to be loved, to be treasured, to be valued, adored, and preferred above all else. Earlier in the service this morning, we read Mark chapter 10, where Christ promises that those who leave earthly families to follow Him will gain more than they lose. They will gain their own soul and communion with the Creator forever. And in addition, they will gain a new family. Not only does the new covenant disrupt the principle of familial inclusion, but it promises a new family. After Jesus teaching in Matthew chapter 10, two chapters later in chapter 12, Jesus teaches about the creation of a new covenant family. In verses 46 through 50, Jesus is engaged in teaching the crowds and the multitudes of people who have followed him around Judea. And it says that while he was still talking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and brother stood outside seeking to speak with him. And then one of them said to him, look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you. But he answered and said to the one who told him, who is my mother and who are my brothers? And he stretched out his hand toward his disciples and said, here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. Echoing what we have seen in these other passages, Jesus teaches that the physical family ties are abrogated in the new covenant. They simply don't carry the weight of covenantal inclusion that they did under the old covenant. But at the same time, he teaches that new family relations are created by inclusion in the covenant, by faith. Later, his own brother, according to the flesh, James, will come to faith and be a brother, according to the Spirit of God, and an elder in the church. Those who come to Christ, we were told in John chapter one, are given the right to become the sons of God, and thus they are adopted into the household of God, and become brothers and sisters and mothers to one another, sons and daughters of God, the Heavenly Father. Reformed Baptist pastor and author Sam Renahan put it this way. He said, the membership of a given covenant is always determined by the federal head of the covenant. In this case, Jesus Christ is the federal head of the new covenant, the one through whom its blessings flow. His sheep are those given to him by the Father. The people of the new covenant are the elect of God. They are those people whom Paul loves to say are in Christ. Membership in the new covenant, therefore, is defined and delineated exclusively by relation to the federal head of the covenant, Jesus Christ. And as Romans 8 verse 9 states, anyone who does not have the spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Under the old covenant, membership in the covenant was defined and delineated by your relationship to Abraham, the head of the covenant. But under the New Covenant, it is defined and delineated by your relationship to Jesus Christ, the mediator and head of the New Covenant. But what about our children? Are we then to consider them to be little pagans? How are we to think of them? We're commanded in the New Testament, in Ephesians chapter six, verse four, to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Well, first, I think this means that we should think of them as a blessing from the Lord. Scripture tells us that children are a blessing. And as we saw in 1 Corinthians 7, even the children of a mixed marriage between a believer and a non-believer are to be considered a legitimate blessing from the Lord. So we should be thankful for the children that God has given us. And secondly, we should think of them as our primary mission field. Christ has sent his church to disciple the nations, and we must begin in the home. If God has blessed you with children or grandchildren, then God has given you a calling. He has given you a responsibility to a particular aspect of the mission to make disciples of the nation. Rejoice in that calling that he has given you. Bring them up in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. Now our Presbyterian friends at this point might sometimes push back and say, well now wait a minute, you don't believe that your children are members of the new covenant. You think that they're pagans. So why would you bring them up in the Lord? And we answer, because it's biblical. Ephesians doesn't tell us to act as though they were covenant members, but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And this means three things primarily. It means, first of all, that we are to evangelize them, that we are to make Christ known in the home, clearly articulating the glory of the gospel and the call to repentance and faith. We are to preach and teach the gospel of salvation to our children. Our Presbyterian friends do this as well. They believe that their children are covenant members but still unsaved. So they teach them the gospel and pray for their salvation. They can have no objection that we do the same. Secondly, it means that we are to teach them to live godly lives in the pursuit of righteousness and truth. As our confession says, along with the Presbyterian's confession, the moral law doth forever bind all as well-justified persons as others to the obedience thereof. Even unbelievers are obligated to keep the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments. Teaching our children to live according to the law is not a contradiction to our believing that they're not covenant members until they profess faith in Christ. It simply means that we believe that they're humans made in the image of God and with His law written on their heart at creation. And as creatures, they owe obedience to their creator. And so we teach them to do so. And third, it means that we teach them to pray. And again, we turn to our confession, along with the Westminster Confession, as a summary of the biblical teaching on this topic. And we point out that both of these confessions agree together, saying, prayer with thanksgiving, being one part of natural worship, is by God required of all men. Now, this doctrine is derived from places like Psalm 65, too, which says, O you who hear prayer, to you all flesh will come. In Isaiah 55, six and seven, seek the Lord while he may be found. Call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord and he will have mercy on him and to our God for he will abundantly pardon. So we teach our children the gospel. How can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? We teach them to live obediently to the moral law of the Creator written on our hearts. They're obligated to keep that law as creatures made in His image. We teach them to pray to Him with thanksgiving, confession, and repentance. In other words, we obey the Great Commission in our homes. We make disciples of our children. We pray fervently for their repentance, their salvation, and their adoption into the New Covenant family of God. The Old Testament, when it speaks of the New Covenant, and all the texts in the New Testament as well, clearly do abrogate this principle of the inclusion of the physical offspring of covenant members in the new covenant. But the scripture does more than that. It creates a new covenant family, bound together by the blood of Christ, the head and mediator of the covenant. A family with new hearts, children of the Heavenly Father, brothers and sisters to one another. What a blessing it is when our natural offspring join this supernatural family. Praise the Lord for that. This should be our aim and our prayer as parents. But this also means that those who are, as of yet, childless, and those whose children are grown and have left the home, are still part of the family and household of God. And there is work to be done to teach the gospel, repentance, and faith in Christ alone, to make disciples, to baptize them, to teach them, to observe all that he has commanded us. So even those of you who do not have children currently in the home can still be faithful and fruitful and multiply, make disciples of others by proclaiming the glory of Christ, His covenant, and His kingdom. In the New Covenant, the bond of natural families doesn't carry the same covenant privileges it did in the Old Covenant. But the new covenant creates a new family of which all those who come to Christ in faith are a part. And when new children are spiritually born into this family, then they are given the sign of the covenant, which is baptism. The old covenant we saw in Jeremiah 31 could be broken. The new covenant is unlike the old covenant. But our Paido-Baptist brothers and sisters consider their children that they have baptized, who do not, have not yet made a profession of faith, to be covenant members while unsaved. And if those children reach the age of discretion, as their confession says, and do not make a profession of faith, those children are due to be considered covenant breakers. But let me ask you this, in the text of Hebrews, the word better occurs over and over and over again. The new covenant is a better covenant in Christ's blood, which is better blood and a better sacrifice, a better country, a better hope, better promises, promises concerning a better salvation and a better resurrection. Can this better covenant with a mediator who saves to the uttermost, according to Hebrews 7, be entered into and then broken by those who fail to receive the better promises of everlasting life? Does Christ's mediatorship fail? The answer is no. He loses none of those who are His, but will raise them all up on the last day, according to His own words in John 6. The head of the new covenant is not a man that he should fail, but he is the Lord from heaven, the one who never fails, the one to whom all power and all authority have been given. Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, for He has redeemed us to God by His blood. the blood of the new covenant out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And he has created a new covenant family by the spirit, the regeneration, the washing in the blood of Christ. Let us pray.