Let's take your copy of God's Word.
Turn to the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 10.
For those of you who haven't seen us all summer, yes, we are still continuing our verse-by-verse
! exposition of the Gospel according to Mark, and we have made it to chapter 10. We have seen
the conclusion of Jesus' Galilean ministry and His public ministry at large, and He's
begun to travel kind of halfway through chapter 8 with the disciples towards Jerusalem, and
His attention has turned towards them. There's lots of Pericopes here that are specifically
poignant and challenging to those of us who claim to be in Christ. And last week we came
to Mark 10, verses 13 through 16. Let's pray together first, and then I'll read that to
you. Father God, I have no good that is mine apart from you. In the preaching of your Word,
there is no wisdom that's been given to me that wasn't given to me by you. There's no degree
of slickness of presentation that could possibly change anyone's heart apart from your work in their
lives. And so I plead with you today. Help me. Empower me to speak with clarity and with conviction.
And help, Father, all of us to believe and to follow Christ as we should. And it's in His name I pray.
Amen. So Mark chapter 10, beginning in verse 13. And they were bringing children to Him that He might
touch them. And the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them,
Let the children come to Me. Do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly I say to
you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. And He took them in His arms
and blessed them, laying His hands on them. And last week we spent some time talking about what it is
that this text does mean. And we see that we are meant to have a childlike faith. And we came to
understand together that this is not an ignorant faith, but that this is a faith that recognizes we
have nothing to offer the kingdom of God. That we have nothing to add to the equation of our salvation
because we are like children. But we also talked about some things that this text does not mean.
And we did this because I ran across in a commentary that I've been using in my study
of the Gospel of Mark by J.C. Ryle, who was a 19th century Anglican bishop. He wrote this,
Of course, it is not pretended that there is any mention of baptism or even any reference to it in the
verses before us. All we mean to say is that the expressions and gestures of our Lord in this passage
are a strong indirect argument in favor of infant baptism. It is on this account that the passage
occupies a prominent place in the baptismal service of the Church of England. This fascinated me
as John MacArthur would say, this is a dry passage. There's no mention of baptism in it anywhere. And
yet it is used by Anglicans as a central text for the baptism of infants. And so in brief last week,
I made the point to you that this text does not mean that there's some sort of special salvific category
for children, although I would make a case there is from other biblical texts, but not this one. Or that
this text is a case for infant baptism. And I promise you that we would look at that at greater length
today. So we're starting kind of as a jumping off point, Mark chapter 10, but we're going to look at some
selected texts today. Now, as I don't typically do, we're going to be dealing thematically. I want to encourage you to
try to turn and try to keep up with me, but I'm afraid I have a lot of info to cover.
My normal 45-minute sermon is about four and a half pages. This is seven, so I'm going to move and try to get us
through, because I know you guys are already all hungry.
There are a number of categories of what people believe about baptism, and there are some various
erroneous views that we won't even address in any degree today. But the two more common categories that we
would find people that we would fellowship with that believe are paedo-baptists and credo-baptists.
Now, paedo-baptism or paedo-baptists is derived from the Greek paes simply means child. It's a simple term,
sounds really fancy. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, more erroneous
views like the Catholic Church are paedo-baptists. We are, our church, I can't speak for every individual
here, we are, I am, what's called a credo-baptist, which is from Latin, credo, I believe.
Now, for the sake of simplicity for this sermon, I'm going to use the terms paedo-baptist and
Presbyterian interchangeably, and let me tell you why. I'm going to paint with some extremely broad
brushstrokes over the coming 45 minutes or so, but we find ourselves most theologically aligned
with the Presbyterian Church, and specifically the branch of the Presbyterian Church known as the
Presbyterian Church of America, the PCA Church. I am thankful for our PCA brethren. I want you to hear me
very carefully. Please let this flavor everything else I say today. I am thankful for them. In fact, I discovered
that every commentary I'm using for Mark right now was written by a Presbyterian. Isn't that fascinating?
They have offered so much to the Kingdom of God. We have a PCA church in our town, which I love,
and I am thankful for. I consider the pastor a friend, although we have had trouble finding time
to get together and to know each other at a deeper level. We'll continue to work on that. I am thankful
for their partnership in the Gospel in this community. Glad that they are here.
However, we need to know why we believe what we believe. Not simply because it's another flavor,
it's another idea concerning baptism, but because we have conviction about it. Some would have us just
amiably disagree and fellowship with one another. I read a sermon this week from a pastor who was
celebrating that he had both Credo Baptist and Paedo Baptist in his congregation. To say that this is a
secondary issue, which I agree, it's not central to the Gospel. Baptism is not necessary for salvation,
but it is an important doctrine. Baptism is not only given as an individual commandment to you and to me,
but it is granted to the church, to the local church, as an ordinance. An ordinance or a sacrament. We tend to not,
in Protestant churches, use the term sacrament because Catholics believe that the sacraments
actually administer grace. They go in your good person list. We don't believe this is the case. So we tend to use
the term ordinance. That is, it was ordained by Christ. An ordinance is a Christian right with particular
significance. There's two of them. In the case of baptism, it's the Christian right that grants
admittance to the covenant community. Paedo and Credo Baptists agree on this. The Lord's Supper is the
other, which renews our commitment to the covenant community. It's part of the reason we do it every
Sunday here in our congregational meeting. Convictions ought to be held. I recently overheard a PCA pastor,
one that none of you would know, say, well, we're pretty much a Baptist church.
And it wasn't my place in the conversation to scream, no, you're not. You're not, right? In fact,
what you believe about baptism stands in antithesis to what Baptists believe about baptism.
Now, I, with you, wish there was no denominationalism. What a wonderful world that would be, where we all
could agree on all things in the scriptures. But what I will say as a benefit, as a value of
denominations, is that it means that we believe things, that we have convictions, that we stand firm
in, and that collectively, as a local congregation, we hold those things together. It matters what we
believe about baptism. I don't think it's okay that it's a non-issue in our churches. I do believe
we should hold the same convictions, and I'll show you why in the coming moments. Now,
paedo-baptists do not contest that a believer ought to be baptized if that person makes a profession of
faith, and they have never been baptized. If you were not baptized as an infant, and you make a
profession of faith, you should be baptized, right? Our point of contention is whether or not an infant
should ever be baptized, right? So, paedo-baptists believe in believer's baptism, which is why I think
it's important that we clarify that we're credo-baptists. We believe in believer's baptism alone, and not
infant baptism in any case. We don't have to look long or make a very long, challenging argument for
baptism of a believer. We see baptism as expression in the scriptures of repentance and faith. We see
this in Acts chapter 2, verse 37 through 38 and 41. Now, when they heard this, they were cut to the
heart. This is the conclusion of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, and said to Peter and the rest
of the apostles, brothers, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, repent and be baptized, every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit. Repent and be baptized, and it's expression of our repentance. And then verse 41,
so those who received this word, received the word, were baptized, and there were out of that day about
3,000 souls. We will address verse 39 in a moment. Colossians 2, 11-12, Paul also expresses
baptism as a response of repentance and faith. Verse 11, chapter 2, Colossians,
in him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh
by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised
with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead. So we have,
those of us who have believed in Christ in the symbol of baptism, we've been buried with him,
and we've been raised with him, past tense, through what? Our faith. It's an expression of a thing that
has occurred. Our faith. It's commanded to us to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit in the Great Commission, Matthew 28, 19 and 20. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.
See people come to repentance and faith and baptize them.
We don't have to look hard to make this argument, and no one, no one disagrees on this point.
To my knowledge, it has never been debated in the history of the church.
I looked long and hard this past week for the history of infant baptism, and there is a lot of
disagreement about it. Some say that it existed from the first century. Some say not until the third,
which is the place that I'm arriving at. It would seem that it came about as part of state control of
religion. It was a way to include all of the citizenship in the church so that they could be
ruled over, but it's difficult. Boy, is it difficult. There's no lack of writing on the topic. I have read
and read and read this week trying to to get all the education I could possibly gather on, and I have to
tell you, I still feel a bit ignorant on the history of it all. Create some challenges for us. We want to
look at the church past and understand how we should operate now. Like we want to stand on the shoulders
of giants, and we have giants to stand upon their shoulders. Men that have contributed so much to our
faith. This is a case, it would seem though, that we need to just look at the scriptures, because there is
so much disagreement on the matter. Let me read to you from the Westminster Confession, 1646.
Chapter 28 of Baptism. Now hear me, this is what the Presbyterian Church holds to in this day. This is
their confession of faith. Section 1. Baptism is a sacrament, or ordinance, of the New Testament,
ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible
church. So it grants admission to the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the
covenant of grace, or his engrafting into Christ, right? It's a picture, it's a symbol of what has
happened. A sign, a seal of covenant grace, and engrafting into Christ of regeneration, the changing
of our hearts, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness
of life. Okay? We all agree upon this. Boy, I read that and I say, that is beautiful. However, the Westminster
Confession, chapter 28, section 4, says not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience
unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
Now, I'm aware of all the arguments. If you sit in this room as a paedo-baptist, I'm completely aware
of them, but when you read the Westminster Confection, it is contradictory. Not only in tone, but in reality,
it is contradictory. Right? What did they just say baptism was about? Not only for the solemn admission
of the party baptized into the visible church, right? But also as a sign and seal of covenant grace,
and engrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to
walk in a newness of life. All of this is present moving forward. Not a future hope. The language
doesn't say that at all. And so we find ourselves in a place of confusion. And there are three ways,
I think, that the doctrine of infant baptism confuses the church. Isn't it interesting that as we've come
to chapter 10, we have dealt now with the three stories so far with issues that are really contentious
in the church that have been challenged in so many ways. A couple of weeks ago, we talked about divorce
and remarriage and all of the views. And we started a process that our church is going to need to go to
resolve what we believe about divorce and remarriage. We've come to this text, which on the surface doesn't
seem to have anything to do with anything that would cause any contention whatsoever. However, it's been
misused, I believe. And next week we get to talk about money, wealth, what's become of that in the church.
We need clarity in our day. This has never been untrue. We need the Bible to communicate to us how it is
we're to live our lives in every respect. I find this issue particularly frustrating because I love you guys.
Again, broad strokes. I'm not upset at any one individual. I think that people who hold the doctrine of infant baptism
do so with a clear conscience, with good motivation. But I just think they're wrong. I think they're confusing
the church of God. I think that the reformers didn't go far enough. They took giant steps. We owe them so much,
but they didn't press on into the truth. And that's what I want for us. And that's what I want for you as an
individual. To submit yourself in every way to the Word of God. Three ways it confuses us. Infant baptism
confuses our belief in the sufficiency of Scripture. It confuses our belief in the sufficiency of Scripture.
I believe that the Scripture is a perfect guide to holiness. Psalm 19, 7-13. Listen carefully.
Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless and innocent.
God's law is perfect to deliver us to this point that we might be blameless if we could keep it.
Right? We're given that blamelessness in Christ. But the Word of God is sufficient for this. We don't need to appeal
to history. We don't need to appeal to tradition. All we need is the Word of God.
This is why I've been saying to you all summer long after reading our text, this is God's Word to us.
Written for His glory and for our good. Right? Our good. Our eternal good.
We would all do well to listen to it in order to believe its promises and obey its commands.
Presbyterians find many of their roots in the Reformation, as do we as a Protestant denomination.
Men that threw off the false teaching of the Catholic Church waved a banner called Sola Scriptura.
By Scripture alone. We will not allow the history or the traditions of the Catholic Church to define for us what it is we should believe.
You remember Martin Luther, the great Reformer, nailed his 95 feces on the door, 95 reasons that indulgences were not biblical.
And he was summoned to the Diet of Worms in 1521.
And he said this,
The Reformation, the Reformers, had a principle they called the regulative principle of worship.
As defined by John Calvin as follows,
God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.
Not fascinating.
Now they would say expressly sanctioned would be that it's given as a command or example,
or that it could be deduced by good and necessary consequence,
which was a way of the time simply to say plain reason or plain logic.
This is all I want.
Show me in the Scriptures.
Show me where the Scriptures say it and use plain reason.
Don't get fancy on me.
Just show me with plain reason and the Scriptures that something is true,
and I'll believe it to be true.
A good example of something arrived at that's not expressly taught,
but that it has arrived at by plain reason or logic,
is the doctrine of the Trinity.
The term Trinity is nowhere used in the Scriptures.
However, the Bible speaks of the Father as God in Philippians 1-2,
Jesus as God in Titus 2-13,
and the Holy Spirit as God in Acts 5-3-4.
So by plain reason, we can arrive at God being three in one.
I don't believe this is the case for impton baptism.
Infant baptism is nowhere taught in the Scriptures.
Pato Baptists agree that it's nowhere expressly taught.
They would just say that it can be inferred by plain reason.
One of their primary defenses is that while it's not found anywhere expressly in the Scriptures,
that it's also not anywhere expressly prohibited in the Scriptures,
which I find fascinating.
Again and again and again you'll read this type of reasoning.
The Bible nowhere prohibits us from physically abusing our children, does it?
Yet we know with plain reason, right?
This way of treating our children is contradictory to the way in which we are guided to treat our children.
The Bible nowhere expressly prohibits heroin use.
However, we know that we're to honor and worship God with our bodies,
not destroy them.
These are plain reason.
These are things that we can arrive at simply and easily.
Infant baptism is not that way.
And the argument of household baptisms is often made by paedo-baptists.
Right?
Places like Acts 16, 14-15,
we see a woman named Lydia and her household is baptized.
Acts 16, 30-34,
and if you'd like to turn with me to this one, you can.
Paul and Silas are in a Philippian prison.
They're praying and singing hymns.
You remember there's an earthquake and all the doors open up.
And the Philippian jailer,
the man that was in charge,
feared for his life because he thought they had escaped.
He was actually about to kill himself.
In verse 30 of chapter 16,
they told him,
don't kill yourself, we're here.
It says,
It doesn't say anything about infants.
In the text at all, does it?
In fact,
likely, a Philippian jailer who was in charge would have been a much older man.
It probably wouldn't have had infants in the house anyway,
but it doesn't say.
It says nothing at all.
It's an argument from silence.
Are we to presume then that there's a doctrine we should practice in our churches
because maybe?
I could just as easily teach to you that there were teenagers in this house,
as anyone else can make the case that there were infants in the house.
1 Corinthians 1.16,
Paul here mentions baptizing the household of Stephanas.
Again, no mention of infants,
those who were unable to profess faith in Christ being baptized.
Now, I mentioned that we were going to look at Acts chapter 2, verse 39,
that I would come back to it.
Now, remember verse 37 and 38.
Now, when they heard this,
they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles,
Brothers, what shall we do?
And Peter said to them,
Repent and be baptized,
every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the forgiveness of your sins,
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Verse 39.
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off,
everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
Verse 40.
And with many other words,
he bore witness and continued to exhort them,
saying,
Save yourselves from this crooked generation.
So those who received his word were baptized,
and they were added to that day 3,000 souls.
So you see in a sandwich,
and I intentionally presented it to you in that way,
verse 37,
verse 38,
response of faith.
Verse 31,
response of faith.
And then we see verse 39,
speaking of a promise for you and your children.
But don't miss that it's also for all who are far off,
everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
Peter is broadening the scope of the gospel.
The gospel is now available to all people who respond in faith.
Not just you who are here on the day of Pentecost,
but you can go back to your house,
and you can preach the gospel to your kids.
And they can receive it.
And you can go far off and preach the gospel,
and they can receive it.
If our logic stays consistent with the Pato-Baptists,
the promise being for you and for your children,
but wait,
and all who are far off,
it would seem that when I become a Christian,
my kids are automatically granted that as well,
and everyone else,
as long as I can call them far off.
So you guys should run as far from me as you possibly can.
It doesn't hold water.
Pun intended.
Turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
There's a new issue in the church now.
What happens if a believer is married to an unbeliever?
This is now suddenly a new issue.
Not people who are of the same lineage,
not an Israelite married to an Israelite,
but what happens now that there's a status change in a marriage?
And Paul addresses that.
Chapter 7, beginning in verse 12.
To the rest I say, I, not the Lord,
that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever,
and she consents to live with him,
he should not divorce her.
Stay together.
If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever,
and he consents to live with her,
she should not divorce him.
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife,
and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.
Otherwise, your children would be unclean,
but as it is, they are holy.
It's interesting language, right?
Verse 15.
But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so.
In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved.
God has called you to peace.
For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?
Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Now, firstly, the point of the text is speaking of unbelieving spouses, right?
You see that.
It wraps back around to that with this interesting little interjection
that the children are made holy.
Verse 16 says,
Remain with them.
If they're willing to remain with you, remain with them.
Because verse 16 says,
How do you know?
Maybe in your living out the gospel
and your presentation of the gospel to your spouse,
they may become saved.
What a glorious thing that would be
if both of you would be regenerate
and your marriage could better reflect the glory of God.
So if they're willing, stay with them.
That's the point of the text.
This is what he's trying to communicate to us.
So what does he mean for the unbelieving husband is made holy?
Another way of translating that word is made sanctified or set apart.
And all Paul's communicating here
is that the blessings of the gospel are made available to these people.
If they're willing as an unbeliever to stay in your house,
just as your children are going to stay in your house,
let them stay.
It's good for them to be in the presence of someone who is redeemed.
They are in a sense then set apart,
given the blessings of God through your faith.
This is all Paul is communicating to us here.
Now the Pato-Baptist argument draws a lot,
and I think rightly this is the best possible case for it,
through the covenants,
through the covenant of grace specifically.
Now Presbyterians are what we would call
covenant theologians or covenantalists.
They're on one end of a spectrum
of how it is that we understand
the ages and the covenants of God.
I find that covenant theology
is over-reductionary.
It's almost too simple.
And it is that it looks that there are two
overarching covenants in the scriptures.
There's a covenant of works
which was given to Adam and Eve pre-fall.
They broke that.
They broke the fellowship as a result.
And ever since then,
everyone else who has lived
has lived under the covenant of grace.
Whether or not they responded to it
and were the people of God,
they live underneath it.
And in an over-simplification,
that means that every promise
given to the Israelites of the Old Testament
is a promise that directly correlates
to the church in our day.
I just don't think it's that easy.
The other end of that are dispensationalists,
the whole left-behind crowd,
if you're familiar with that.
I'm also not on that end of the spectrum.
I'm somewhere in between.
It's very difficult to sort it all out
and to figure out
where does God make a promise
to the Old Testament people of God
that carries forward
to the New Testament people of God?
How do these things find their mark?
There's not possibly enough time
to work out all the intricacies of that.
There wasn't enough time in this week
to work out all the intricacies of that
and the way God's covenants manifest
in the New Testament
versus the Old Testament.
But this is the draw that they make,
the connection that they make,
that the Old Testament Abrahamic covenant
found in Genesis chapter 12
and the mark of it,
which was circumcision to the males,
which was just for infants eventually,
once all the men had been circumcised,
new men were circumcised,
is found in Genesis chapter 17.
So there's a mark given to the people of God,
specifically men of the people of God,
and that now baptism is the direct correlation
of that in our day.
Now rightly, right, again,
respect these men,
valuable biblical theologians.
Rightly, Romans chapter 9,
second half of 6 through 8,
for not all who are descended from Israel
belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham
because they are his offspring,
but through Isaac shall your offspring be named.
This means that it is not
the children of the flesh
who are the children of God,
but the children of the promise
are counted as offspring.
We see this to be true in the Scriptures,
that we are children of Abraham.
We can sing that ridiculous song,
Father Abraham,
and turn in circles
and kick our legs around
because we are children of Abraham
because of the spiritual blessings
that have been brought to us.
But the covenants have changed, right?
There was a physical birth,
a physical birthright granted,
but now it's a spiritual birthright
that we have.
I believe that some of the promises
of God still apply to the nation,
the actual bloodline of Israel
in this day,
but not all of them do.
Romans chapter 2,
verse 28 and 29,
Paul writes,
For no one is a Jew
who is merely one outwardly,
nor is circumcision outward and physical,
but a Jew is one inwardly,
and circumcision is a matter of the heart
by the Spirit,
not by the letter.
His praise is not from man,
what man can do,
what man can accomplish,
but from God,
because God has circumcised our hearts,
made us clean in that way.
In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology,
which I would commend to you,
he writes,
We should not be surprised
that there was a change
from the way the covenant community
was entered in the Old Testament
through physical birth
to the way the churches entered
in the New Testament,
which is spiritual birth.
There are many analogous changes
between the Old and New Covenants
in other areas as well.
There's a few for you.
While the Israelites fed on
physical manna in the wilderness,
New Testament believers
feed on Jesus Christ,
the true bread that comes down
from heaven,
John chapter 6.
The Israelites drank physical water
that gushed from the rock
in the wilderness,
but those who believe in Christ
drink of the living water
of eternal life that he gives,
John chapter 4.
The Old Covenant had a physical temple
to which Israel came for worship,
but in the New Covenant,
believers are built
into a spiritual temple,
1 Peter.
Old Covenant believers
offer physical sacrifices
of animals and crops
upon an altar,
but New Testament believers
offer spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God
through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter and Hebrews.
Old Covenant believers
receive from God
the physical land of Israel
which he had promised to them,
but New Testament believers
receive a better country
that is a heavenly one.
Hebrews chapter 11.
In the same way,
in the Old Covenant,
those who were the physical seed
or descendants of Abraham
were members of the people of Israel,
but in the New Testament,
those who are the spiritual seed
or descendants of Abraham
by faith are members of the church.
And how do we know?
How do we know?
If you were a member,
if you were a seed of Abraham
unless you have professed faith in Christ.
Furthermore,
the Bible nowhere makes such a connection
between the Old Covenant sign
and the New Covenant sign.
Doesn't it seem like a pretty important thing
to connect if it was meant to be connected?
As baptism is an ordinance of the church,
it reasons,
it reasons that this would follow.
Recall John's baptism,
Mark chapter 1, verse 4.
It was a baptism of what?
Repentance.
It was a baptism of repentance.
Recall John the Baptist's response
to the Pharisees and the Sadducees,
the religious elite,
those who had a bloodline heritage
to the people of God.
Verse 7, Matthew chapter 3,
he says,
But when he saw many of the Pharisees
coming to his baptism,
he said to them,
You brood of vipers,
who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bear fruit in keeping with repentance
and do not presume to say to yourselves,
We have Abraham as our father.
For I tell you,
God is able from these stones
to raise up children for Abraham.
We are those stones
that have been raised,
professed faith in Christ,
and are baptized
with the baptism of repentance.
He refused to baptize
those who didn't bear
fruit of repentance.
Now here's an argument for you
from silence.
Acts chapter 15,
the Jerusalem council.
Paul and Barnabas
are currently in Antioch,
and we see,
starting in verse 1,
but some men came down from Judea
and were teaching the brothers,
Unless you are circumcised,
according to the custom of Moses,
you cannot be saved.
Unless you take this sign,
the Jews,
you cannot be saved.
And after Paul and Barnabas
had no small dissension and debate,
I love that record,
no small,
a large dissension and debate with them,
Paul and Barnabas
and some of the others
were appointed to go up to Jerusalem
to the apostles
and the elders
about this question.
Do you recall this story
that the gospel has been expanded
to the Gentiles,
and Paul and Barnabas
are on missionary journey,
and they are bringing people
to faith in Christ,
and there's this constant nagging
of the Judaizers.
We see it in Galatians.
That's what the book of Galatians
is all about,
is telling them that
they can't be saved by their works.
They don't have to be circumcised.
Don't be circumcised.
It doesn't matter anymore.
It's no longer the sign.
It's no longer the mark.
And so they go,
and they have this recorded conversation.
This council decides
to send letters out
to all the Gentile churches
to tell them not to worry about it.
You're okay.
You don't have to be circumcised.
Why did they not record here
by the hand of Luke,
baptism's the new thing.
Don't worry about the circumcision.
Don't worry about the circumcision more,
but be sure you're baptizing
because that now is
this new sign of the covenant.
They don't mention it anywhere.
Baptize your infants.
It's not in the scriptures.
Can you get your head around that?
I can't.
I have a really difficult time
doing so.
And I have to say,
the whole matter seems to be
a way of reconciling
the doctrine of original sin
and the need to repent and believe
concerning children who die
prior to such confessions.
Isn't that a challenging thing?
If we're to believe
that we have a father
who was Adam
and his sin,
the original sin,
passed to us,
that we have the same guilt,
isn't that a challenge
that we're born in iniquity,
the Psalms say?
What happens to our young ones?
We're not able to respond.
We don't get that.
How can we possibly reconcile
these things?
There are some that just argue
against the doctrine of original sin,
stating that children are inclined
to sin by their nature.
They're born with a propensity
to sin by their nature,
but they're not guilty of sin
until they knowingly sin.
My kids knowingly sin all the time.
I've got a four-year-old
and a two-year-old.
This is where we get the concept
of the age of accountability
found nowhere in the Scriptures.
As a church,
we hold to the doctrine
of original sin.
Our statement of faith says,
we believe that man was created
in holiness
under the law of his Maker,
but by voluntary transgression
fell from that holy and happy state.
This would be Adam.
In consequence of which
all mankind are now sinners,
not by constraint,
but choice,
being by nature
utterly void of that holiness
required by the law of God,
positively inclined to evil,
and therefore under just condemnation
to eternal ruin
without defense or excuse.
We believe this to be true.
What happens to children
who die in the womb?
To our young ones?
To children who are mentally,
or adults for that matter,
who are mentally handicapped
and don't seem to be able
to understand and conceptualize?
The truth of it is
that I don't know.
I throw myself on the mercy of God
for the matter.
I lean on his character
to say, surely,
surely they're not being
eternally punished.
Surely not.
There are some instances
in the Scripture.
We see David has a young one
that dies,
and he says that one day
he'll be with him.
Speaking of glory.
We've got some hints
and some clues to that,
but the Scripture
don't speak clearly to it.
And it puts us in a place
where we ought to just say
we believe that God
knows what is best.
We trust him in that
because he's good,
sovereign ruler.
Now I'll say that
modern Presbyterians
don't believe that infant baptism
is salvific.
They do not believe that.
Again, broad brush,
maybe some do.
As far as I know,
PCA Church does not believe
that it is salvific,
salvific.
Although they do use
the terminology that it's
a sign of covenant promise,
which is hard for me
because it seems that if God
makes a promise,
he necessarily fulfills
that promise.
And the Westminster Confession
seems to give some hint to that.
Again, chapter 28,
this is section 6.
The efficacy,
or the effect,
of baptism
is not tied to that
moment of time
wherein it is administered.
Right?
So they're not saved
at the time of baptism.
Yet,
notwithstanding,
or nevertheless,
by the right use
of this ordinance,
the grace promise
is not only offered,
but really exhibited
and confirmed
by the Holy Ghost
to such,
whether of age
or infants,
as that grace
belongeth unto
according to the counsel
of God's own will
in his appointed time.
It seems to say
that they will.
That they will
be saved.
They have another section
that says
not necessarily.
It's fascinating.
It seems very confusing
to me.
I found on the website
for the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church,
not PCA,
so to be very clear
and fair about that.
This gentleman wrote,
Moreover,
I personally believe
that when believing parents
sometimes experience
the tragedy
of an infant
miscarried from the womb
or dying soon
after birth,
we may cling
with reasonable hope
that our little one
is in heaven
with the children's Savior.
Worldlings,
that is those
who are not believers,
have no such hope.
That's the inference
he draws.
In the fourth century,
Augustine,
who we love,
wrote this.
If you wish
to be a Christian,
do not believe,
nor say,
nor teach
that infants
who die before baptism
can obtain the remission
of original sin.
If you wish
to be a Christian,
how dare you
say,
believe,
or teach
that kids
that are not baptized
can be saved.
That's what he's saying
here.
So the baptism
then,
in some way,
extends grace to them.
And again,
whoever says
that even infants
are vivified
or brought to life
in Christ,
when they depart
this life
without participation
in his sacrament,
that is baptism,
both opposes
the apostolic preaching
and condemns
the whole church
which hastens
to baptize infants
because it
unhesitantly believes
that otherwise
they cannot possibly
be vivified
in Christ.
Right?
No church
that hastens
to baptize them
because if we don't
they can't possibly
be vivified
in Christ.
So it would seem
that early
church leaders,
Augustine of Hippo
believed that there was
grace administered
to baptism.
There's much confusion
over this
where the Bible
does not give
clarity.
We should simply
not try
to define it.
So it confuses
our belief
in the sufficiency
of Scripture.
Point one.
These are going
to move faster now.
Foundation laid.
It confuses
the nature
of the church.
It confuses
the nature
of the church.
What is the church?
We believe
in a believer's
church.
Ephesians 5.25
says Christ
loved the church
and gave himself
up for her.
Every New Testament
reference concerning
the universal church
or the local church
rather,
whether it's past,
present,
or future,
is always speaking
of those who are
in the faith.
Not those outside,
not those that we
question,
not our kids,
but those who are
in the faith.
Remember the
Westminster Confession?
Baptism is a sacrament
in the New Testament
ordained by Jesus Christ
not only for the
solemn mission
of the party
baptized in the
invisible church.
We believe that
to be true,
but we just believe
that somebody
must be saved
for that to be
the case.
From our own
document,
from our bylaws,
those seeking to
become members
of Christ's family
church must meet
the following
conditions.
Number one,
such persons
must profess
who have been
born again
of the Holy
Spirit,
having believed
in the power
of God Almighty
in Jesus'
death,
resurrection,
and ascension
to save them
from the bondage
and penalty
of their sins
and bearing fruit
of their new
life in Him.
You must be
a Christian
and you must
be giving
some evidence
of that,
that you are
a Christian,
that you are
a good tree
bearing good fruit.
And secondly,
such persons
must have been
baptized by
immersion or
expressed intent
thereunto,
right,
when we get
the tank out
to make that
happen as soon
as we possibly
can.
That we agree
upon this,
that we are
believers and
we are united
in this together.
To be clear,
the kids in our
church that
haven't professed
faith in Christ
and been baptized
are not members
of our church.
They don't sit
in our meetings
and vote.
Right?
We don't hold
them to the
same standard.
Please don't
hold my kids
to the same
standard you
hold me to.
They're not
yet members
of our church.
What a wonderful
opportunity to
not give our
kids a false
sense of
their salvation.
Does it not
confuse that
matter when you
say to a child
you were baptized,
therefore you're
part of the
covenant community
because you
have received
the covenant
sign of
promise.
Oh, but wait.
You must repent
and believe.
After the fact,
you must respond
in faith from
the symbol of
the baptism that
was originally
given to you
as a child.
In our church,
failure to be
baptized would
constitute a
matter of church
discipline.
If you want to
join our church
and you've never
been baptized or
you were baptized
as an infant
and you don't
see the case
for believer's
baptism and
you refuse to
be baptized as
a believer,
we would say
that we can't
fellowship together
in this way.
It's a plain
case in the
scriptures made
here.
If you were to
be obedient to
the call of
Christ, you
need to be
baptized.
You say,
no, I
totally disagree.
If we allowed
you to be a
member of our
church, there
would be an
immediate case
for church
discipline.
Would there
not?
We'd be saying
repent of your
sin of not
being baptized.
And the
proper repentance
would be to
be baptized.
And if you
didn't, we
would have
to excuse
you from
the church.
So we
just prevent
that altogether
by not allowing
it to begin
with.
Listen again,
the Westminster
Confession,
chapter 28,
section 5.
Although it
be a great
sin to
contemn or
treat with
contentment or
neglect this
ordinance, yet
grace and
salvation are
not so
inseparably
annexed unto
it as that no
person can be
regenerated or
saved.
without it.
Or that
all are
baptized are
undoubtedly
regenerated.
So catch
what they're
saying.
It's a
great sin
to hold the
position I
have.
To treat
infant baptism
with contempt.
Will not do
it.
Will not
baptize my
children.
Yet, again,
broad stroke,
in many,
many, many
Presbyterian
churches, if
you hold
different
convictions,
you're not
required to
have your
child baptized.
What kind
of a
conviction is
that?
And about
an ordinance,
no less.
My personal
conviction
concerning
alcohol is
that I
don't.
I don't
drink alcohol
because of
my position,
because of
the culture
in which we
live in.
I think that
the possible
negativity of
doing so
far outweighs
any short-term
benefit of
doing so.
It just
makes no
sense to
me.
But the
scriptures
nowhere prohibit
you from
doing so,
and therefore
I'm not going
to teach you
that you
cannot.
Right?
This is the
type of
gray area
conviction that
we can
disagree on.
Somebody,
I know many
of you do,
enjoy a good
glass of wine
with your
meal,
go ahead.
No problem.
We can
fellowship
together on
that.
We can be
a church
together around
that matter.
This is one.
How could we
possibly disagree
on this?
Right?
A conviction
about an
ordinance given
to us as a
church.
How it is
that we
define the
community of
faith.
And you say,
nah, don't
worry about it.
I say a
conviction treated
that way is no
conviction at
all.
Thirdly,
it confuses
the meaning
of believer's
baptism.
Infant baptism
confuses the
meaning of
believer's
baptism.
Again, let's
just remember,
what is it that
we believe
baptism means?
It's a symbol,
right?
It's not
salvific.
It doesn't
bring to us
any type of
grace.
It's a picture
of the grace
that's already
occurred in
our lives.
Romans chapter
6.
Again, notice
the past tense
language.
You not know
that all of us
who have been
baptized into
Christ Jesus
were baptized
into his
death.
We were
buried,
therefore,
with him
by baptism
into death
in order
that,
just as
Christ was
raised from
the dead
by the glory
of the
Father,
we too
might walk
in newness
of life.
Our old
selves have
been put
to death,
and we are
now a new
creation.
This is the
picture of
baptism,
right?
It's showing
everybody,
I have
believed in
Christ.
The old
Nathan is
dead and
gone.
The new
Nathan is
here.
I want
to be in
fellowship
with you.
I want
to be held
to that
standard.
Please help
me to do
so.
Michael
Green,
Presbyterian,
in his
book,
Baptism,
its purpose,
practice,
and power,
says this,
and I just
want to tell you
up front,
I completely
disagree with
him.
Infant
baptism
stresses the
objectivity of
the gospel.
It points to
the solid
achievement of
Christ crucified
and risen,
whether or not
we respond to
it,
not that we
gain anything
from it unless
we repent and
believe.
I agree with
that.
But it is the
standing
demonstration that
our salvation
does not
depend on our
own very
fallible faith,
it depends on
what God has
done for us.
Infant
baptism
stresses the
initiative of
God and
salvation,
should it be
attached primarily
to man's
response or
to God's
initiative?
That is the
heart of the
question.
For the
Baptist,
baptism primarily
bears witness to
what we do in
responding to
the grace of
God.
For the
paedo-baptist,
it primarily bears
the witness to
what God has
done to make
it all
possible.
Wrong!
That is not
what we do when
we baptize
somebody.
We are not
applauding the
person baptized.
Good for you.
You chose
faith in
Christ.
Exalt you.
Not at all.
We are praising
God for what
He has done,
what He has
accomplished in
that person.
We know you are
a Christian.
You have
professed faith.
Let's see what
that looks like.
Let's get our
minds around it
by burying
you and
raising you
once again.
Michael Green
needs to sit
down with me.
This is a
horrible explanation
of what we
believe baptism
to emphasize.
Now as a
separate but
really inextricably
tied issue is
the confusion
about the
mode of
baptism.
I will tell
you, this
is not a
hill I am
going to
die on.
I would
not do
it.
However, we
baptize by
immersion and
we do so
for two
reasons.
For what we
believe the
ordinance of
baptism
represents.
That is our
death.
I have said
to you before,
I will say
it to you
again.
If our
culture as
a whole begins
laying people
out on the
ground when
they die and
tossing a
handful of
dirt in
their face and
walking away,
this is the
way we expose
of dead
people, we
may reconsider
the way that
we baptize
people.
Maybe.
Wait till you
get to my
second point.
But just by
this one point,
maybe we would
consider that.
But what do we
do with dead
people?
They are buried.
Even if they are
not buried,
they are in
tomb.
You keep
dead bodies
away from
animals.
Let them
decompose at
their own
happy rate.
This is the
way that people
are dealt
with when
they die.
I've got to
tell you,
we've got a
cattle trough.
If you haven't
been here long,
we have a
cattle trough we
bring out and
we put it
right here.
It is a
pain in the
rear.
I've done
it each
time.
I have
flooded our
stage twice
and spent
hours cleaning
up the
water.
It's a
pain.
It really,
really is.
It's heavy.
I had to
devise a
complicated hose
system to
fill it.
We've got to
spread plastic
out all over
the place.
It is worth
the trouble
though.
It is worth
the trouble
because of the
picture and
what it
represents.
That's the
first reason.
Secondly,
though,
the Greek
word from
which we
derive our
English,
baptize or
baptist,
is baptizo,
which means,
catch this,
which means
not to
wash.
Not to
wash.
It means to
dunk repeatedly
and in a
number of
cases it's
used for
drown,
immerse,
go underwater.
Now,
you see a
couple of
cases in
the Bible.
We see
Jesus,
Mark chapter
1,
goes down
into the
water when
he comes
back up.
It's
possible,
and many
paedo-baptists
argue,
that he
simply walked
down to
the water.
That's where
the water
was at.
He walked
down to
it.
He walked
back up.
Maybe he
was standing
in the
water.
Possibly
it was
a little
bit easier
to sprinkle
in that
way.
But the
word
baptizo
means to
dunk,
dunk
repeatedly,
or to
drown.
And to
add,
to heap
upon that,
Martin
Luther,
again,
our famed
Protestant
Reformer,
said,
in the
primitive
church,
baptism
was a
total
immersion,
or burial,
as it
were.
John
Calvin,
Presbyterian,
says,
baptizo
signifies
to
immerse.
And it
is certain
that
immersion
was the
practice
of the
primitive
church.
Philip
Sheff,
a 19th
century
Presbyterian
theologian
and church
historian,
said,
immersion
was
unquestionably
the original
form of
baptism.
So somewhere
along the
way,
somewhere
throughout
history,
someone
figured it
out and
got it
right and
got it
better than
the early
church,
seemed to
understand it,
even apart
from what
the very
word
itself
means.
So I
think it
confuses our
belief in
the sufficienting
of scripture.
I think it
confuses the
nature of
the church.
I think it
confuses the
meaning of
believers'
baptism.
I think for
all these
reasons,
while it's
not the
gospel,
it's an
obedient
response
to the
gospel.
What are we
commanded to
do in the
Great
Commission?
Go and
make
disciples of
all nations,
baptizing them
teaching them
all that I
have commanded
you.
This is no
different.
This is a
doctrine that
should not
be neglected.
This is
something that
you should
find out
what you
believe.
Search the
scriptures for
it.
I hope I've
made a case
for you to
be a
credo-baptist
today.
Wrap your
hands around
it.
Fellowship
with those
who agree
with you
because we
honor the
gospel when
we do so.
why would
we believe
in a
doctrine
that's not
anywhere
explicitly
taught in
the
scriptures?
As I've
argued,
cannot be
arrived at
by plain
reason and
that confuses
so much.
It is a
precious
ordinance.
If you
have not
been baptized
as a
believer,
you should
do so.
What a
wonderful
thing to
celebrate in
with the
church of
God.
What God
has done
in your
life.
His
initiative,
His
work,
His
accomplishment,
if you
don't know
where you
stand on
this,
if you're
shaky on
the matter,
study your
Bible and
pray that
God would
reveal the
truth to
you.
If you
come out
at the
end of
that as
a
paedo-baptist,
I will
give you
a big
hug.
We can
fellowship
with one
another in
reaching this
community.
We can
preach the
gospel side
by side.
I will
link arms
with you
in so
many
respects,
but you
shouldn't
be part
of a
Baptist
church.
You
just
shouldn't.
Let's
pray
together.
Let's
pray together.
Let's
pray together.
Let's
pray together.
Let's
pray together.