Thanks for being here. I'm glad you're here. Caleb's coming around and giving out just a simple handout that has a couple of words on one side of it, some space for notes, and then a similar drawing to what I put up on the board, which I know is hard to see, but hopefully the one on the back of this will serve you better and maybe look something like mine by the time we're done together this evening.
So, baptismal views. I have three goals for this evening. Number one, I want to bring some clarity to the two orthodox views of baptism.
There's a lot of varied views, little nuanced things out there, but big views understood by those that we would call faithful Christians.
That's number one. Just bring a bit of clarity to that.
Secondly, I want to show that hermeneutics, or the way that we read the Bible, drive the varying understandings of baptism.
So, we're going to back up a bit from the issue of baptism itself to help us see why the conclusion has come to.
Thirdly, to defend in brief the position that our church holds.
So, I just, I find it impossible to present an entirely fair and balanced view.
I'm hoping that you will see that Presbyterians are not insane.
So, Ty's here. Ty's the reason we're having this class tonight.
Although, I think it's a good thing to do anyway.
I want to help you see, there is a, or reasons that Ty has come to the conclusion that he's come to.
Because we want to wrap our minds around, how is it that people who believe a lot of the things that we believe
might differ on something that we also hold to be true.
So, I want to give a little defense of credo-baptism, but I'm not even going to spend a ton of time on that.
So, those are my three goals.
I have two hopes for this evening.
Number one, that tonight will be the beginning of many fruitful conversations.
And that's the clarifying word there, that we actually have conversations that are helpful to us and our faith.
Concerning the ordinance of baptism, tonight will not be enough.
There's much, much more that could be said.
But perhaps we'll spark and engage you in some great Bible conversation concerning these ordinances.
Secondly, tonight, that I can help you to disagree agreeably.
So, wherever you end up landing on this issue, just that you'll see there's reason for us to extend a lot of grace to one another
as we're trying to navigate matters that aren't always as simple as we'd like for them to be.
So, those are my three goals.
Those are my two hopes.
I've got some caveats, but I want to pray that the Lord would help us with those things,
and then we'll proceed together.
So, let's pray together.
Father God, we do thank you for today, for the opportunity to gather together with the church this morning,
and the way that you blessed our time together as we prayed and sang and heard your word preached this morning.
We're glad now to be back together.
And Father, I am grateful that we have any concern at all about what your word says about anything at all,
and we recognize that this is a work of the Spirit on our behalf.
You have made us alive.
We were once dead, cared nothing about the things that most concern you,
and you have saved us.
And we are so glad this evening that we have any reason at all to open up the word and to think about it
and think about how we can be obedient to it and to please you.
And so, Father, I pray you'll help me to be clear that we'll have minds that can comprehend this evening,
that you'll help us to be those who disagree agreeably,
that there will be something distinct about your people when we find ourselves not seeing eye to eye,
that we do so in a way that even embraces those difference,
and that we would do that for the glory of Christ.
And we pray this in His name. Amen.
Okay, so two caveats for this evening.
So first, and I mentioned this in brief already,
but everything I will cover this evening could be given much more attention.
Really, when approaching stuff like this, it's not really the way I like to teach.
I'd much rather have the text and just tell you everything the text says and move on.
But when you're coming at something like this, there's so much that could be said in the matter of it all.
So I just thought it best to make every effort to handle it in a single evening,
just because I know that our schedules are packed,
and many of you don't really need to spend weeks on the matter.
You don't need books and books presented to you.
So I've tried to distill it down.
I've tried to make it as simple and presentable as possible.
I'm confident I won't do the best job of that.
So just so you know, there are better people who could do a better job of this.
But maybe because you know me, this will be good.
Secondly, I'm going to do my best to fairly represent each view.
But again, I'm just not an expert on the matter.
So do ask good questions.
Feel free to ask me questions.
I'll do my very best to answer them.
Do study on your own.
Yeah, let's work toward the truth together and keep us moving.
I do know the question has been asked if this could be recorded.
I do think it's being recorded, but we're going to be doing some things on a whiteboard,
so that may not be super helpful.
So you might be able to be helpful to others.
And I would encourage you to engage people in conversations about this very matter.
Be wary of teachers and leaders who want to keep you from entertaining ideas and exploring truth.
It's good, I think, for leaders to warn people like,
hey, be careful with that, you know, that thing you're listening to or that doctrine of entertaining.
There are certainly some very dangerous things that need to be shut down.
But things like this ought to be encouraged.
Like, yeah, take your time with it.
Really consider it.
We're confessional people.
Confessionalism, I will ongoingly argue for.
I think it's good for us to say what we think the Bible teaches about things
and to summarize what we think the Bible teaches about things.
It's a way to help us be faithful and continue to be faithful.
And so I would rather have people in our church who are confessional.
They believe something and they know why they believe something.
I'd rather have that and go through the process, although it can be painful at times,
of weeding through and disagreeing and finding ourselves, I hope, at some agreement at the end.
I'd rather go through all of that process and have people know, for example, in this case,
why you're a Baptist versus just kind of going along with it because it's how you grew up
and it's what you know and you just kind of boop-a-doo.
And there's peace because you don't say anything at all, but you don't really know what you believe.
I think it's important for us to know what we believe and to be able to defend what we believe.
And, of course, to do so with a great deal of charity.
So, all right.
So let's begin with some definition of terms.
Now, I regret I had already pressed copy on this thing and realized,
uh-uh, that's not the best way to do this.
So there's three things I want to define for you just in brief.
Pado-baptism.
Credo or credo, you'll hear some people say.
And some people also say pedo-baptism, which just irks me.
So, pedo-baptism.
I'm going to say credo-baptism.
And then I realized that covenantalism, I made it look like this is a third view of baptism
and it's not.
We're going to talk about covenantalism to help us understand the other two views.
So I just regret that looking like it's not a baptismal view.
So I just want to be clear on that as we start to get into this.
So, pedo-baptism.
First, it's derived from the Greek pais, child.
So it means child baptism specifically.
Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians.
There's a lot of faith traditions that are pedo-baptist.
Not my intention to denigrate any practitioners of pedo-baptism.
Some of the aforementioned denominations do so, though, merely for tradition's sake.
They don't know why they do what they do.
Some do so erroneously, believing doctrines like baptismal regeneration.
There's some really, like, off-the-wall baptism stuff.
We're not addressing every single view of baptism tonight.
There's no scope for that this evening.
So if you came for that, I do apologize.
We're not going to be addressing the heretical pedo-baptist views this evening.
Those that deny justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.
The view I want to explain this evening is a wide-held view.
Many who hold it do so out of an earnest desire to please the Lord by being faithful to His Word.
So, I do think pedo-baptism is an error.
But there's some comfort in the fact that it's an ancient error.
There's been faithful Christians throughout time who have believed this,
but also believe that we're justified by grace through faith in Christ alone.
That's who I'm talking about this evening when I say pedo-baptists.
It's those whom we agree with on primary doctrine.
So that's who I'm talking about.
But do know that when you use that term,
there's also a lot of other stuff going on in that bigger and broader category.
Now, to be clear, the name can be a little misleading
because all pedo-baptists, that I know of.
You may correct me. I may be wrong.
But I believe all pedo-baptists believe in believer's baptism.
That is to say, they believe that if a person was not baptized as an infant,
comes to faith in Christ as an adult, then they should be baptized.
So, it's a little misleading because it would make you think that they only baptized children.
But that's not the case.
If you come to faith as an adult and you were not baptized as a child,
they all agree that you then should be baptized.
The distinguishing factor is whether or not a child should be baptized.
Who is the proper recipient?
They would say those adults who profess faith in Christ and their children.
So, there's the term.
Pedo-baptism.
Or pedo.
Credo-baptism comes from the Latin credo or I believe.
So, as a church, as a whole, we are credo-baptists.
I want you to know that there are credo-baptistic practices that I do not agree with.
So, again, we have this broad categorical term,
and there's things that happen under that banner that I do not agree with.
An example of this that's happening in the Southern Baptist Convention right now
is called spontaneous baptism.
And they will just set up the tank,
and all you have to do is line up,
and they'll put a cool t-shirt on you with their church logo on it
and film the whole thing to be broadcast on the internet
and count the numbers and then write the books and do all the other things.
I think this is not a good practice at all.
And I'm not defending that kind of a practice.
Just because somebody claims to be a credo-baptist
doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what they're up to.
We hold that the only proper recipients of baptism
are those who have made credible professions of faith in Jesus Christ.
And there's a lot that could be debated and talked about.
How do you determine that?
We won't get into that this evening.
But just simply put,
we believe that those who should be baptized
are those who make credible professions of faith in Jesus Christ.
And so this evening, when I say credo-baptist,
it is to those with whom we agree closely on the doctrine at hand
that I am referring to.
So not the erroneous stuff out there at the edges.
So those are the two positions that we're going to look at this evening.
You're probably in some measure familiar with them already.
However, to help you, particularly when it comes to pedo-baptism,
to understand the position,
we need to talk a bit about covenantalism.
So that's where covenantalism comes into this conversation.
So covenantalism can be set against dispensationalism.
And I'm not going to explain all of that to you,
but we are not, as a church, dispensationalists.
Dispensationalists believe that people were saved in different ages.
That's what a dispensation is, in different ways.
And that's an over-reduction of the terminology.
But we distinguish ourselves from dispensationalists,
and that's kind of the water we swim in in American Christianity,
just so that you're aware.
A lot of stuff, a lot of understandings come out of dispensationalism.
But we, instead, are covenantalists.
Our church, as a total, as a whole, we're covenantalists.
But there's some different types,
some different varieties of covenantalism.
So three, I want to share with you, briefly.
The first is Westminster federalism.
Westminster federalism.
And that is to say, this is from the Westminster Confession,
federalism just speaks to the fact that Adam was our federal head,
and now Christ is our federal head if we're found in him.
This is also often called Reformed Covenantalism.
And that's probably the term I'll use this evening.
Westminster federalism is a mouthful.
So is Reformed Covenantalism.
But, Reformed Covenantalism.
So it's been rightly said of Baptists
that it's difficult for us to use the term Reformed.
And I agree.
I honestly don't think it's the best term for us.
Often what we'll do is we'll call ourselves Reformed Baptists
because we're making that distinguishing point there.
But largely, the covenantalism of the Reformation
was what we call Westminster Federalism
or Reformed Covenantalism.
Covenantalism.
We're going to get into it.
That's what this diagram here is going to look like.
So we're going to go there here in just a minute.
So it's all stemming out of 17th century writing
Westminster Federalism.
The second one is 1689 Federalism.
1689 refers to the Second London Baptist Confession.
1689 Federalism.
And yep, that's the official term for it.
They have not come up with anything
catchier than that.
And that is a Baptistic Covenantalism.
And then the third,
which we're not going to talk about in detail tonight,
but it's Progressive Covenantalism.
Progressive Covenantalism is not really
too far apart from 1689 Federalism.
This is a thing I've been discovering
as your elders are having a lot of conversations
about 1689 Federalism versus Progressive Covenantalism.
And I'm finding only in some small applications
is there really much difference at all
between the two views.
So both Baptistic,
so we're going to talk 1689 Federalism tonight.
I may make some,
this is not all noted,
so I may make some off-the-wall comments
addressing Progressive Covenantalism as well.
But that's where we're coming from
as a Baptist church,
is at least one of these two
covenantal views.
So ways that we read the Scripture.
Okay?
So Westminster Federalism,
1689 Federalism,
Progressive Covenantalism.
I'll stop there for just a quick second.
Does anybody have any questions
that are not like,
what is 1689 Federalism?
I set the trajectory for you already,
I hope.
So,
anybody have any,
am I flying over anything
that anybody's repeated?
Or,
yes, my love.
Well, I'm worried about asking it
because the example you just gave
is similar to the question
I'm about to ask,
but is there a way
to like just really quickly
define Progressive,
I know that the last one you said,
like,
because I know that's very similar
to what you just said.
Is there anything that like,
just if you ever try to write
like a little bit of a definition,
like a quick one,
that would set it apart
from the other two?
Like,
no taking any.
No.
Okay.
They're,
they're,
they're real similar.
So,
I'll,
the,
I actually think
that they're so similar,
except in a couple of applications,
they,
they just use language differently.
Okay.
So,
it's not,
it's not something
to be too fussed about.
In fact,
in my notes,
I've got 1689 federalism
and then as a,
as a sub,
as a sub category,
I have Progressive Covenantalism
just as like a,
also this.
Yeah.
I,
I think,
I think we'll find
that they agree
on just about everything.
So,
okay.
Anything else?
Yes,
Lynn.
Do you think
you just have to do
the tie-in
to the
part of?
Yes.
Yeah,
I said that super fast,
but I said,
how we read the Bible.
Yeah.
So,
so how,
as covenantalists,
which we should be,
right?
It's good,
good for us not to think
that people were saved
differently at different times,
right?
So that's,
the big,
the big overarching,
and again,
it's more complicated
than,
than I'm making that out to be,
but is that,
that people have
always been saved
the same way.
There's not
multiple ways
in which
people are saved.
there are dispensationalists
today that still believe
that ethnic Jews
are going to be saved
differently than the rest
of the world.
My father was sharing with me,
I was talking a little bit
about some of these views,
and my dad,
when he worked at the
North American Mission Board,
was making the case,
just the really good,
honest case,
that we ought to be doing
more evangelism
amongst Jewish people.
And he said,
I kept getting just
odd answers,
and I just never,
like,
it's like they didn't,
it felt like they didn't
like Jewish people,
but it's like they were weird
about whether or not
we should share the gospel
with Jewish people.
I said,
that was dispensationalism,
that play.
They were going,
I don't know
that we're supposed to.
I think we're supposed
to leave them alone
because God's got
a specific way
that he's going to save them
different than
through faith in Christ.
And we would just
flatly reject that.
Like,
no,
just read the book
of Romans,
right?
Like,
we would just reject it.
So,
yes,
but the way
you understand,
and I'm going to show you
the difference here
in a moment,
brings you
to some conclusions,
whether
Paedo or
Credo Baptist
conclusions.
yeah.
So,
I found,
and I've
studied this
to some degree,
but especially
in starting to have
good conversations
with Ty,
going,
oh,
okay.
Because for a lot
of years,
I was very frustrated
by the Paedo Baptist
argument.
And I'm going,
okay,
like,
I get why you get there.
And that's what my hope
for you tonight
is to kind of give you
like my version of it.
Like,
oh,
okay,
I get why you get there.
It makes more sense
to me now,
although I still disagree,
but it makes more sense.
So,
yeah.
Okay,
so let's launch into it.
Are you ready?
All right,
so,
I feel like,
this is not a thing
I normally do,
so bear with me
as I try to write
and talk
and pull this off
at the same time.
I have never been
a seminary professor,
so we're going to try
to make this happen.
So on the back of your sheet,
you have the two things
that I've drawn
minus a couple
of little details.
And so,
I'm just going to let you
write in
and keep up
with what you want
to pull off
as you do it.
Okay?
So,
we're going to talk
specifically about
Westminster Federalism,
Reformed Covenantalism,
which is this top line
up here
first.
And what
this view sees
in the Scripture
is two
overarching
covenants.
Okay?
So just real quick,
when I say the word covenant,
what pops in your mind?
Marriage.
Sure.
Did Abraham a covenant?
What else?
Agreement.
An agreement.
Okay.
Yep.
Maybe you have a deep,
a deep promise
kind of an agreement.
Yeah,
sure.
But you're popping on those,
there's things in the Bible
where you're like,
oh,
that's a covenant,
the Abrahamic covenant,
the Noahic covenant,
the Davidic covenant,
those types of things.
Covenantalism,
particularly,
the two we're going to
talk about tonight,
see two overarching
covenants.
There's the covenant
of works.
So this,
this is my creation line
right here.
This is my fall
line there.
And here you have the
covenant of works.
Okay?
So,
Adam and Eve,
right,
created both able to sin
and able to not sin.
We're given commands,
right?
So Adam's put in the garden
to work it and to keep it.
He's told one thing
that he cannot do
that we have a record of.
This is Genesis 2,
verses 15 through 17.
The Lord God took the man,
put him in the garden of Eden
to work it and keep it.
And the Lord God
commanded the man saying,
you may surely eat
of every tree of the garden,
but of the tree
of the knowledge
of good and evil
you shall not eat
for in the day
that you eat of it
you shall surely die.
Right?
So there's the covenant
of works,
right?
He could have,
he could have stayed
in good condition
with his God
in the place
in which he lived
had he done
what he was supposed
to do.
Right?
So this is the covenant
of works.
And it all falls apart,
right,
when Eve and then Adam
disobey.
Right?
So Westminster
federalism starts
with Adam
as our representative,
right?
all of us now
guilty in him
for his sin.
Okay?
After this,
so everything
from this line,
so I'll draw it up here,
and on,
it's called
the covenant
of grace.
everything
happening after this,
the covenant
of grace.
And we find
the expression
of this covenant
in Genesis chapter 3,
verse 15.
Anyone just know
off the top of their head
what that verse is?
It's a big one.
often called
the proto-euangelion.
I will put
enmity
between you
and the woman
and between your
offspring
and her offspring.
He shall bruise
your head
and you shall
bruise
his heel.
Right?
This is the very first,
right,
shadowed
proclamation
of the
coming of Christ.
He's going to come.
He's the snake crusher,
right?
We use that language
with our
kiddos
quite a bit.
Right?
So the covenant
of grace
is given
in Genesis chapter 3
and verse 15
in this view
and then
ratified.
So a covenant
needs blood
to be ratified
either
in Genesis
3.21
or
anybody
tell me
what happens
in Genesis
3.21?
Yep.
That's right.
He clothes
Adam and Eve
so there's
the sacrifice.
This is the
first physical
death.
An animal
dies in order
to be made
into clothing
for Adam
and Eve.
Okay?
So either
ratified
Genesis
3.21
or
in Genesis
chapter
15
after that
first giving
of the
Abrahamic covenant
and then
Abraham
sees God
he split
animals in
half
and he
makes the
covenant
and passes
between them
the smoking pot.
Okay?
So there's
some variance
in what
holders of this
view
when they
think exactly
this was
ratified
but either
way
early in
Genesis
ratified.
Okay?
So there's
the covenant
of grace
given
here.
Okay?
Then you
have
so I've
drawn little
arrows
because these
are just
pointing us
along.
Right?
These are
all covenant
of grace.
So people
here
are saved
by
believing
that somehow
as this is
being revealed
somehow
God by
his grace
is saving
them.
Don't have
the full
realization
yet of the
cross of
Christ
but it's
moving them
in that
direction.
So you
have the
Noahic
that's
Genesis 8
you have
the Abrahamic
Genesis 15
and 17
you have
the Mosaic
Exodus 19
and 20
you have
the Davidic
2 Samuel
7
you could
put in
here
the
Aaronic
not
ironic
Aaronic
the promise
that there
would be a
lineage of
priests that
come from
Aaron
you could
insert that
one in
there
but these
are the
typical
significant
covenants
that are
made
right
pointing
in this
direction
so
moving
toward
covenant
and then
Christ
comes
okay
now
what
the
holders
of this
view
this
reformed
covenantalism
will say
is that
there are
there's
one
covenant
of grace
under
two
administrations
okay
under
two
administrations
so I'm
going to
write that
up here
and then
I'm
going to
read to
you
from the
Westminster
Confession
so
this
would be
pre-Christ
would be
your first
administration
so
from the
fall
and this
ratified
promise
in Genesis
315
you have
the
first
administration
and
after the
cross of
Christ
you have
the
second
administration
the
first
administration
!
called
the
old
covenant
that's
where we
get our
term
old
testament
from
and then
here
the
new
covenant
can
somebody
tell me
a sign
of the
old
covenant
the first
administration
that would
pertain to
our
conversation
tonight
circumcision
okay
so that's
going to
matter here
in just a
second
I'll
show you
okay so
here we go
this is from
the Westminster
Confession
chapter 7
section 5
and I do
for a moment
want to
commend the
Westminster
standards to
you
really helpful
in a lot
of ways
disagree with a
few things
contained within
but largely
agree with a
lot of it
here I find
myself disagreeing
so heads up
there but
they say
chapter 7
section 5
this covenant
so referring to
the covenant
of grace
was differently
administered in
the time of
the law and
in the time
of the gospel
under the law
it was administered
by promises
prophecies
sacrifices
circumcision
the paschal
lamb and
other types
and ordinances
delivered to
the people of
the Jews
all for
signifying
Christ to
come
which were
for that
time sufficient
and efficacious
through the
operation of
the spirit
to instruct
and build
up the
elect in
faith
and the
promised
Messiah
by whom
they had
full remission
of sins
and eternal
salvation
and it's
called
the Old
Testament
that's
everything
I was just
saying
right
chapter 7
section 5
the Westminster
confession
so everything
that's going
on
right
from
Genesis 3
15
all the way
to the coming
of Christ
is all
types
shadows
under
this
idea
of
an
administration
section 6
so the
following
section
chapter 7
section 6
under the
gospel
when Christ
the substance
was exhibited
the ordinances
in which the
covenant
is dispensed
are the
preaching
of the
word
and the
administration
of the
sacraments
of baptism
and the
Lord's
supper
which
though
fewer
in
number
and
administered
with more
simplicity
and less
outward
glory
yet in
them
it is
held
forth
in more
fullness
evidence
and
spiritual
efficacy
to all
nations
both Jews
and Gentiles
and it's
called
the
New
Testament
there are
not
therefore
two
covenants
of grace
differing
in
substance
but one
and the
same
under
various
dispensations
and they
don't mean
dispensationalism
they just
mean
ages
right
they're
just
saying
look
different
administrations
of the
same
so
of the
covenant
of grace
they see
a lot
of
continuity
between
the
old
and the
new
testament
!
covenant
whatever
word
you like
to insert
there
there's
a lot
of
continuity
between
the two
so
you
could write
this
and this
is fair
and I'm
going to
get
Ty to
confirm
or deny
this
for me
in just
a second
you could
write it
like this
old
testament
israel
equals
new
testament
church
and I'll
explain
church
in a
moment
but
Ty
fair
I'm not
arguing
against you
right here
I'm helping
them understand
lots of
continuity
is what's
seen though
between
old
testament
israel
and the
new
testament
church
specifically
in this
way
right
so
again
they're not
all consistent
but the
consistent
paedo-baptist
right
the
westminster
paedo-baptist
is going to
argue for
both a
visible
church
and an
invisible
church
now as
baptists
we use
that same
language
and we
would use
that language
of invisible
like
throughout
time and
space
so we
would say
the church
invisible
like the
church
that met
all over
the world
this morning
on sunday
we can't
see them
they're
invisible
to us
right
they're not
using that
terminology
the same
way
so perhaps
you have
read
presbyterians
before
and maybe
gone
I'm confused
about what
they're
talking about
that's why
they're using
the terms
differently
than we
tend to
use those
terms
so what
they mean
is
old testament
israel
was a
nation
state
right
there's an
ethnic
so all
throughout
the old
testament
we've just
done a bunch
of dealing
with this
in romans
9
through 11
right
and there
paul talks
about a
remnant
who's
saved
throughout
that time
that would
be
presbyterians
are using
the term
invisible
church
so those
those who
are actually
by faith
right
believing
believing in
these types
and signs
and promises
that this
covenant
of grace
is effectual
for them
they are
actually
converted
and saved
right
so there's
the nation
there's
the
visible
nation
and that
nation
takes what
sign
in the
old testament
they take
the sign
of
circumcision
right
the boys
right
which is
a sign
for the
nation
right
the sign
of the
covenant
for this
nation
they take
that sign
but within
that
there are
those jewish
people who
actually believe
right
who have
placed their
faith
signs
types
they're
believing
they're
believing
that somehow
it's going
to be
saving
for them
in that
in this
I'll use
their language
dispensation
right
of God's
redemptive
work
so yes
John
yes
yep
yeah they
certainly
would
I mean
all the
evidence is
here for
it
right
yeah
for sure
yeah
okay
so
they will
argue
that today
there is
a
a visible
church
which was
made up
of all
those
adults
who profess
faith
in Jesus
Christ
and their
children
so they
bring
that language
over
so I've
argued to
you before
that I
think
paedo-baptism
confused
because I'm
going what
are you guys
doing that
really
confusing
the
nature
of the
church
what I
didn't
realize
is we
actually
believe
something
different
about the
nature
of the
church
of course
it does
because we
actually believe
something
different
about the
nature
of the
church
so there's
going to
be a
visible
church
right
it's
those
who
are
who
are
baptized
but there's
going to
be a
subset
of that
church
who
have
placed
believing
faith
in
Christ
now
for me
something
that was
helpful
right now
your elders
are thinking
a lot
about what
we want to
do with
young people
who are
professing
faith
in
Christ
so we
want to
be so
careful
that we
don't give
false
assurance
to young
people
professing
faith
in
Christ
right
Baptists
have been
bad at
this
in this
past
generation
right
I love
Jesus
like
tally
the number
right
and it's
the common
it's the
common
testimony
of young
people who
come here
and are
baptized
that they
were baptized
when they
were
seven or
eight
pretty
typical
they
come to
later
believe
they
weren't
actually
Christians
at that
time
and I'm
not saying
that young
people can't
be saved
I believe
young people
can be
saved
I think
I was
saved
at a very
young age
let the
children come
to me
we're not
arguing that
but we
are we
we do
want to be
really careful
about that
peace that
credible
profession
of faith
in Christ
we want to
be really
careful
about who
who we
bring in
and call
church
okay
so that's
the perspective
that we're
coming from
we intend
to bring
this to
you
have a
big
old
conversation
about
what we
think we
should do
and present
it to
the church
to
affirm
or deny
you could
disagree
with us
we're okay
with that
I think
so
I'm trying
to think
really carefully
about that
Presbyterians
do this
in various
ways
with a
different
ordinance
they do
a process
of confirmation
that goes on
and again
I'm arguing
good
orthodox
pedo-baptist
churches
that's where
they're
primarily
concerned
because
they say
you can't
inspect
yourself
you can't
approach
the table
carefully
if you're
not in
Christ
and so
they go
through a
process
at that
point
to be
careful
about
who
gets
to receive
that
now
there are
some
out there
Doug Wilson
who
practice
pedo-communion
too
and they
have their
kids
eating
and I
just
get
I mean
frankly
it's more
consistent
but I
get real
uncomfortable
with that
but
I
digress
so
that
helped
me
go
okay
we're
both
being
careful
baptists
are being
careful
with a
particular
ordinance
rather than
the
we're
careful
with the
other
one
as
well
but
we're
really
careful
on the
front
end
of
that
equation
so
yes
Jim
why do
you think
that Doug
will see
what you
point
as
ordinance
!
because
he's
equating
the two
things
he's
saying
that
they're
part
of
a
church
therefore
they should
be
able to
receive
the
sacraments
of the
church
it's
more
consistent
with the
Westminster
language
honestly
before it
gets there
yes
tie
yeah
sounds like
pedo
communion
to me
that's a
very
baptist
thing
to say
okay
yes
it is
okay
so
this
is
this
is the
thing
for me
like
this
is why
I'm
backing
you
way
up
to
covenant
theology
to
reform
covenant
theology
to go
this
is my
case
like
I
don't
think
it's
crazy
that
they
get
there
again
I
don't
agree
I
do
think
it's
an
error
but
this
is
how
they're
getting
to
this
place
so
I've
heard
R.C.
Sproul
say
if you
read
the
Bible
from
the
front
to
the
back
you'll
be
a
paedo
baptist
if you
read
it
from
the
back
to
the
front
then
you'll
be
a
credo
baptist
that's
what
he
means
he's
just
basically
saying
you
have
to
bring
all
of
the
Old
Testament
data
to
the
New
Testament
and
there
would
have
been
this
understanding
amongst
this
is
the
way
he's
reading
the
Bible
and
he's
really
studied
it
too
feel
free
to
try
to
punch
holes
don't
wear
them
out
he'll
have
answers
for
you
he's
really
thought
it
through
and
he's
convinced
of
this
I do
want to
read
to
you
just
to
give
some
help
from the
paedo
baptist
perspective
they
do
believe
in
salvation
by grace
through
faith
in
Christ
alone
sometimes
I find
the
language
confusing
it's
a little
even
a little
frustrating
to me
don't
use
the word
that way
if you
don't
mean
baptism
is
salvific
of
children
this
is
their
chapter
28
section
1
this
is
a
good
statement
on
baptism
is
a
sacrament
of
the
new
testament
ordained
by
Jesus
Christ
not
only
for
the
solemn
admission
of
the
party
baptized
into
the
visible
church
!
but
also
to be
unto
him
a
sign
and
seal
of
the
covenant
of
grace
of
his
engrafting
into
Christ
of
regeneration
of
remission
of
sins
and
of
giving
up
unto
God
through
Jesus
Christ
to
walk
in
the
newness
of
life
which
sacrament
is
by
Christ's
own
appointment
to be
continued
in
his
church
until
the
end
of
the
world
right
so
love
chapter
28
section
one
if
you
understand
what
they
mean
by
visible
church
but
the
rest
of
it
I'm
like
yes
and
yes
the
language
essentially
even
though
you get
into
other
articles
it
doesn't
feel
this
way
to
us
is
what
it's
saying
is
there's
the
promise
is
offered
for
salvation
and
it's
especially
offered
to the
children
of those
who
believe
functionally
we tend
to
agree
right
I
mean
we
have
a
church
that
is
big
on
having
our
kids
with
us
and
we
see
like
as
a
pattern
people
tend
to
come
to
faith
in
large
numbers
in
homes
of
Christian
people
there
seems
to
be
some
generational
faithfulness
on
God's
part
so
from
my
best
understanding
and
again
I'm
no
expert
on
the
matter
and
I
can
appeal
to
Ty
but
Ty
is
also
not
he's
not
been
in
a
Presbyan
church
for
a
long
time
they're
essentially
using
infant
baptism
like
it's
like
a
and
this
is
going
to
sound
so
paltry
so
I
don't
mean
for
it
to
but
it's
like
it's
like
a
ramped
up
baby
dedication
right
it's
a
baby
dedication
that
they
think
has
some
God
ordination
special
work
that's
being
done
as
the
church
being
offered
to
that
child
as
the
child
of
believing
parents
in
a
church
that's
going
to
teach
the
gospel
to
them
so
that's
not
crazy
not
crazy
it's
an
error
I love
you
Ty
but
it's
not
crazy
right
okay
are you
guys
leaving
us
are you
just
okay
you're
like
you're
like
all
right
we
heard
the
part
on
Westminster
federalism
we're
out
yeah
so
we
would
use
the
term
invisible
visible
would
be
the
local
church
like
the
church
we
might
even
expand
that
to
like
the
churches
down
the
street
people
we
can
know
people
we
can
see
it's
very
like
on
the
surface
versus
invisible
would
be
the
church
that
my
grandparents
went
to
they're
all
dead
right
like
I
can't
see
them
or
the
church
in
China
this
morning
I
can't
see
them
we
would
use
the
terms
that
way
correct
we do
not
mean
that
no
do
not
mean
that
yeah
the
visible
church
for
us
because
we're
Baptists
would
be
the
members
of
our
church
and
then
I
would
suggest
and
I
might
extend
it
to
those
I
hope
like
I
see
a lot
of
fruit
in
and
I
hope
to
see
become
members
of
our
church
because
you're
you know
members
somewhere
perhaps
coming
from a
place
to a
place
etc
so
yes
because
there's
lots
of
scripture
that
talks
about
I
mean
the
work
of
discipline
is
to
is
to
hopefully
to
minimize
mitigate
that
as a
problem
in the
church
but
we
get
parables
like
the
wheat
and
the
tares
at
the
end
God's
going
to
have
to
do
a
sifting
of
us
but
we
do
I
think
are
meant
to
be
about
the
work
of
examining
the
soils
and
working
no
in fact
the
Bible
doesn't
give us
visible
and
invisible
as
categories
I
suggest
so
that
make
sense
yeah
we
Baptist
really
like
the
thing
that
most
distinguishes
Baptist
is
Baptist
people
will
go
baptism
nope
not
baptism
it's
regenerate
church
membership
baptism
we believe
ties to
that
but
regenerate
church
membership
is
what
we
believe
to
hold
so
will
we
do
that
with
perfection
absolutely
not
I
mean
how
could
we
can't
see
the
heart
but
we're
given
tools
by
which
we're
to
be
about
the
work
of
doing
the
best
we
can
by
grace
to
see
people
into
the
church
who
are
in
fact
as far
as we
can
tell
Christians
and
people
out
of
the
church
who
are
as far
as we
can
tell
not
Christians
sure
but
they
still
have
to
do
the
work
they
can't
again
I'm
talking
faithful
Presbyterians
won't
just let
adults
be
like
I'm
a
member
of
the
church
and
take
communion
and
do
all
of
those
things
without
discipline
they're
going
to
still
see
people
out
of
the
church
in
the
same
way
they're
also
concerned
about
it
they're
not as
concerned
about
it
early
they're
more
concerned
about
it
later
but
they
don't
want
to
give
people
false
assurance
either
so
the
work
still
exists
it
puts
regardless
the
main
we're
going
to
use
the
term
ordinance
as
a
Baptist
church
because
it's
to put
!
you almost
always
will see
Presbyterians
you just
use the
word
sacrament
but
they're
using
the
Lord's
Supper
in
that
putting
in
order
way
as
well
and
a lot
of
Presbyterians
will go
oh we're
comfortable
with the
term
ordinance
so
they're
also
doing
it
there
as
well
we're
using
baptism
as
part
of
that
process
we know
we have
to do
it
here
but
let's
also
be
careful
!
about
who
we
bring
into
that
realm
of
having to
do
the
discipline
work
with
them
so
at the
end of
the day
what do we
believe the
Bible teaches
okay we're
going to deal
with it
the way the
Bible teaches
it
what you
come down
to
okay now
so I'm
going to
use the
1689
um
second
London
Baptist
confession
I'm going to
read a
little bit
of it
and then
I'm going to
draw another
picture for
you up
here
um
I will
argue
it's the
finest of
all
Baptist
confessions
uh
in the
preface to
the second
London
Baptist
confession
the
particular
Baptist
is what
they
were
called
in
their
day
it's
probably
a
term
we
should
we
should
recapture
but
stated
that
much
of
the
content
of
their
confession
was
taken
directly
from
the
Savoy
Declaration
which was
written in
1658
by a group
of
congregationalists
so they
have some
congregational
language
in
1689
and the
Westminster
Confession
which was
written in
1646
written
ratified
I don't
know
there's
probably
some
difference
in those
years
but
adopted
um
okay
so
the
second
London
Baptist
was
not
not a
ripoff
because
the
Baptist
didn't
want
to
do
their
work
right
they
used
a lot
of the
language
because
they
were
trying
to
say
we
agree
so
much
with
you
guys
we've
got
some
differences
but
man
do we
agree
in a lot
so just
listen to
this
this is
in the
introduction
to the
second
London
Baptist
we
did
like
the
Savoy
declaration
and
the
Westminster
confession
in
making
use
of
the
very
same
words
with
them
both
in
these
articles
wherein
our
faith
and
doctrine
is
the
same
with
theirs
and
this
we
did
the
more
abundantly
to
manifest
our
consent
with
both
in
all
the
fundamental
articles
of the
Christian
religion
so
I've been
making this
case to
you
for
theological
triage
there
I think
using
the term
fundamental
articles
for those
first tier
issues
like
those
things
that
must
be
known
and
believed
to be
saved
fundamental
articles
we
agree
on
and
that
is
huge
right
it's
huge
in
their
day
it's
huge
in
our
day
like
let's
recognize
how much
we
agree
on
and
if
we
all
spent
more
time
talking
about
the
things
we
agree
on
in
every
realm
we
would
be
much
better
for
it
right
seems
like
it's
getting
hard
to
disagree
with
people
but
so
they
were
particularly
mindful
as they
sat
down
to
write
this
document
that
they
pick
up
language
they
just
said
look
let's
be
so
careful
what
we
do
with
the
second
London
Baptist
the
particular
Baptist
intentionally
sought
to
unite
with
other
English
Christians
in
the
fundamentals
of
the
faith
and
to
be
distanced
from
the
Sokinians
and I
won't
get
into
who
they
were
but
they
were
Baptistic
but
they
denied
the
doctrine
of
the
Trinity
and
other
fundamental
doctrines
like
Christ
satisfaction
they
didn't
believe
that
Christ
paid
the
full
penalty
of
debt
for
the
church
they
were
a
mess
and
also
Baptists
so
these
Baptists
were
trying
to
go
no
we're
not
those
guys
please
don't
lump
other
just
odd
broad
errors
as well
kind of
all over
the map
they got
some things
right
but
they
got
some
things
terribly
wrong
the
1699
states
a few
lines
later
than the
aforementioned
citation
that they
had
I like
this
phrase
no
itch
to
clog
religion
with
new
words
so
they
were
trying
to
be
careful
like
let's
not
let's
not
mess
oh
gosh
like
everyone's
going to
pour
over
every
word
so
carefully
when
something
as
significant
as
this
is
adopted
and
published
so
we
don't
want
to
clog
religion
with
new
words
we
agree
on
almost
everything
together
okay
so
they
disagreed
on
covenantalism
okay
so there was a
disagreement
here
they would
not use
the term
one covenant
of grace
with
two
administrations
although
they did
hold
this
covenant
of
works
covenant
of
grace
distinction
a little
side
note
for
progressive
covenantalism
they don't
want to
use
the term
covenant
of grace
because it's
not
explicitly
found
in the
scripture
and I'm
really
sympathetic
toward
that
the idea
of
progressive
covenantalism
they're
saying
there's
one plan
of salvation
and it's
revealed
progressively
right
it's
fulfilled
in Christ
it's revealed
progressively
across
the text
and they
wanted to
avoid
this
kind
of
language
but
for
tonight
I want
to show
you the
things
that are
similar
so
same way
we've got
covenant
of works
we've got
creation
we've got
the fall
okay
we've got
oh man
I wrote
in my way
I'm taking out
Old Testament
Israel equals
New Testament
church
you guys
okay with
that
I hope
so
because
it's
gone
all right
we have
here also
the
covenant
of grace
which is
spoken of
here
Genesis 3
15
but not
yet ratified
so it's
not ratified
here
Genesis 3
21
or
they would
say in
Genesis
15
so rather
I think
did I give you guys
dotted lines
and I
think I drew
an arrow
on your
page
but really
if I had
color on your
page I'd
want to do
this
so can you
see I just
drew over
that
so here we
have
same thing
we've got
our
not going to
read any of
this I know
but I'm
going to
do it
fast
Abrahamic
Mosaic
Davidic
right
similar
similar to
their
paedo-baptist
brothers
they're saying
these things
types
shadows
symbols
right
by faith
that somehow
somehow
these promises
right
we believe
are going to
save us
they're speaking
to this
covenant of
grace
so they're
like this
but it's
not ratified
until
Christ
comes
so a
text
this is
Hebrews 9
verse 11
through 15
but when
Christ
appeared
as a
high
priest
of the
good
things
that
have
come
then
through
the
greater
and
more
perfect
tent
not made
with
hands
that is
not of
this
creation
he
entered
once for
all
into the
holy
places
not by
means of
the
blood
of goats
and calves
but by
means of
his
own
blood
thus
securing
an
eternal
blood of Christ, who through the eternal
spirit offered himself without blemish to
God, purify our conscience from dead works
to serve the living God.
Therefore he is the mediator
of a new covenant
so that those who are called may receive
the promised eternal inheritance
since the death has occurred that redeems
them from the transgressions
committed under the
first covenant.
Okay.
So here's
where you would find
so you hear me, I wrote here
ratified
here
covenant of grace
ratified.
And it's what distinguishes
this
this as
old covenant, like we're not using the
administration language here
but old covenant
and new covenant.
The new covenant is really new
is what some guys would argue
and there's
therefore
less continuity.
There's still some continuity
but there's less
continuity.
So the sign of
circumcision
points to the need for the circumcision
of our hearts
accomplished by
Christ
replaced.
It's no longer.
Now we have
baptism
as a different thing
that points to what God
has accomplished.
It's pointing back to a reality
that he has
created in us.
Less
continuity.
And that's
where the rub is.
So
hermeneutically
how you read these
and there's a lot of text
and I just decided
I can't get into it all tonight.
There's just no way.
I don't even have the notes for it
so don't ask me
what all the texts are.
There's a lot to be
peeled through
and understood.
Read your Bibles
over and over
and over and over
again.
But how
you read the Bible
how you approach
these covenants
God's redemptive purpose
is going to tend you
toward
one conclusion
or another.
Tend you
one conclusion
or another.
Yes?
Seal.
The covenants of God
all needed blood sacrifice
to make them
it's like the way
that he signed them
was with blood.
Yeah.
Is that a fair
definition, Ty?
Yeah.
Your brow looked furrowed
that's why.
Okay.
Is that your listening face?
I have yet
I'm going to
I'm going to figure out
a way to draw
the progressive
covenantal thing.
I have not figured out
how to make it
look different
than this one
but I'm working on it.
Maybe a less dashed line
like
big dashes
I don't know.
Okay.
So
I'm going to
just press a little bit
on
credo baptism
from the scripture
why
that's where I'm at
where
again
as a
total
our church
is at
this is from
the
Second London Baptist
Confession
this is
article
29
which is on baptism
and it has
has four sections
so
we're going to
take each of those
sections as a point
so
number one
they write
baptism is an
ordinance of the
New Testament
ordained by
Jesus Christ
that's
Mark 1
9
to those baptized
it is a sign
of their fellowship
with him
and his death
and resurrection
of their being
grafted into
or united
with him
of remission
of sins
and of submitting
themselves to God
through Jesus Christ
to live
and walk
in newness of life
so
baptism
they're saying
pictures a thing
that has occurred
symbolically pictures
a thing that's already
happened
Romans 6
3-5
do 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
for if we
have been
united with
him in a
death
like his
we shall
certainly
be united
with him
in a
resurrection
like his
so a thing
that's happened
baptism
pictures it
for us
by the way
Pato-Baptists
have good
good
faithful
explanations
for a lot
of these
texts
so
yeah
talk with one
sometime
see what they
say about
some of these
things
Colossians 2-12
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
Galatians
3-27
for as many
of you
as were
baptized
into Christ
have put
on
Christ
Mark 1-4
John appeared
baptizing in
the wilderness
and proclaiming
a baptism
of repentance
for the
forgiveness
of sins
people were
being baptized
who were
repenting
of their
sins
baptism
became so
synonymous
with repentance
that it
is used
interchangeably
in the
scripture
with that
term
so a good
example of
that is
Acts 22
and verse
16
Paul is
speaking in
Jerusalem
and now
why do you
wait
rise and be
baptized
and wash
away your
sins
calling
on his
name
second
section
they write
those who
personally
profess
repentance
towards God
and faith
in
and obedience
to our
Lord Jesus
Christ
are the
only proper
subjects
of this
ordinance
so again
there's
the issue
at hand
they're going
to talk about
mode here
in just a
minute
I'm less
concerned
about mode
I'm more
concerned
about who
who is the
proper
recipient
of the
ordinance
and I'm
concerned
about that
because
I'm
concerned
about
how we
define
the
nature
of the
church
so
first
kind of
concern
as we
think about
applying
baptism
to infants
I believe
that
paedo-baptism
confuses
the sufficiency
of scripture
and the
doctrine
of
progressive
revelation
now that's
just a belief
I hold
again
Baptist
if I
said to
Ty
do you
believe
in
the
sufficiency
of
scripture
and the
doctrine
of
progressive
revelation
he would
say yes
and I
would
believe
him
so
I'm
not
saying
they don't
love their
bibles
one of the
cries of the
reformation
sola scriptura
2 Timothy 3
16 and 17
you guys know
this one
all scripture
breathed out
by God
profitable
for teaching
for reproof
for correction
and for training
in righteousness
that the man
of God
may be
complete
equipped
for every
good work
and it's
just
maybe my
own
obtuseness
but I
have a
difficult time
thinking that
just a
plain
average
guy
sitting down
and reading
the bible
would arrive
at the
paedo-baptist
position
it seems
more clear
repent
believe
be baptized
in the
new testament
the regulative
principle of
worship
was defined
by John
Calvin
as follows
God
disapproves
of all
modes
of worship
not
expressly
sanctioned
by his
word
and so
we often
say by
command
or example
or deduced
by good
and necessary
consequence
an example
of that
is the
trinity
we want
to apply
plain
reason
or logic
as we
draw out
of the bible
what we are
to do
as we
gather
together
so you'll
find
right
with
good
well-meaning
faithful
paedo-baptists
that they
come to
different
logical
conclusions
than we
come to
and again
with Ty
he'll go
yeah
I see
your point
this is what
I think it
means
and I go
I don't
think that's
what it
means
and we
come to
disagreement
agreeably
so
and I just
hope to this
point that I've
shown how
paedo-baptists
arrive at their
position
they get there
honestly
they do
get there
honestly
but I
do fear
that they
read
the Old
Testament
into their
New Testament
rather in
the light
of it
that it
exposes
that progressive
revelation
that it
brings clarity
to it
feels like it
brings it the
other way around
I mentioned
the R.C.
Sproul quote
previously
so that's a
concern of mine
secondly I
believe that
paedo-baptism
confuses the
nature of the
church
although it
confuses what
I believe the
nature of the
church is
a believer's
church
it does
confuse that
they hold
the nature
of the
church
a bit
differently
however
Ephesians 5
verse 25
says that
Christ
loved the
church
and he
gave himself
up for
her
and I
just want
to be
careful
and clear
about
who
church
is
because
that's
so
important
seems to
me
every
New
Testament
reference
concerning
the
universal
church
or the
local
church
seems to
be speaking
of those
in the
faith
whether
past
present
or
future
and so
that's
why we
like the
term
ordinances
instead of
sacraments
believe that
baptism
and the
Lord's
supper
put in
order
they're
like a
fence
for who
is
and who
isn't
church
and that
that's
good
for the
church
it's
good for
the witness
of Christ
in the
world
and it's
good for
people
who
haven't
placed
their
faith
in
Christ
yet
like
how
do
we
distinguish
who
is
and
who
isn't
church
I think
that's
something
we need
to be
clear
and careful
about
thirdly
I believe
that
paedo-baptism
actually
confuses
the meaning
of
believer's
baptism
I picked
up an
interesting
book
where a
guy
spends
all
of
his
time
arguing
from
the
Westminster
confession
against
the
Westminster
confession
!
He uses
its
words
against
it
written
I'd love
for it
to be
a thing
I could
hand out
but it's
just
bad
writing
but
you need
to go
and read
the entire
article
and you'll
think
yes
wait
what
like
you're
like
how did
that
get
in
there
so
Mark
16
whoever
believes
and is
baptized
will be
saved
but
whoever
does
not
believe
will
be
condemned
Acts
2
41
so
those
who
received
his
word
were
baptized
and
they
were
out of
that
day
about
3,000
souls
Acts
8
12
when
they
believed
Philip
as he
preached
good
news
about
the
kingdom
of
God
in
the
name
of
Jesus
Christ
they
were
baptized
both
men
and
women
Acts
18
8
Crispus
the ruler
of the
synagogue
believed
in the
Lord
together
with
his
entire
household
and
many
of
the
Corinthians
here
in
Paul
believed
and
were
baptized
and
they
wouldn't
argue
against
this
sure
because
these
people
believed
!
I
find
it
difficult
to
find
that
in
the
text
I
also
want
you
to
note
an
argument
from
silence
which
I
will
caution
you
to
make
but
in
this
case
I
find
it
a
very
compelling
argument
from
silence
so
in
Acts
15
beginning
in
verse
1
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
and
after
Paul
and
Barnabas
had
no
small
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
so
they're
saying
we've
been
debating
with
these
guys
let's
go
make
sure
we're
getting
it
right
good
for
them
right
what
a
good
practice
so
being
sent
on
their
way
by
the
this
question
right
authoritatively
These
are
apostles
this
council
if you
read
further
determines
that it
is not
necessary
for a
Gentile
to be
circumcised
in order
to be
saved
but
they
do
determine
to
instruct
the
Gentile
believers
so
they
send
a
letter
they
circulate
a
letter
amongst
Gentile
believers
as a
result
of
this
council
and
here's
what
they
instruct
them
this
is
Acts
15
verse
20
to
abstain
from
the
things
polluted
by
idols
and
from
sexual
immorality
and
from
what
has
been
strangled
and
from
blood
that's
what
they
send
out
now
we're
not
arguing
that
a person
needs
to be
baptized
to be
saved
but
why
at
this
crucial
juncture
in the
life
of the
New
Testament
church
when
this
important
question
has
been
raised
about
the
nature
of
circumcision
when
a
council
has
been
called
a
letter
written
and
dispersed
do
they
mention
nothing
of
baptism's
correlation
with
circumcision
it
just
seems
like
this
was
the
time
to
do
it
that
Luke
would
have
recorded
that
for
us
I
believe
in the
clarity
of the
Bible
again
I
wouldn't
put
this
as
a
fundamental
doctrine
but
it's
an
ordinance
of the
church
and
I
like
to
think
that
we
can
arrive
fairly
easily
at
what
we
ought
to
do
and
this
is
a
place
that
man
if
God
intended
for
us
to
replace
one
with
the
other
it
seems
to
me
that
it
would
have
happened
here
but
even
as I
say
that
I
know
that
arguing
from
silence
we
should
be
careful
with
doing
that
type
of
thing
third
section
the
outward
element
to be
used
in
this
ordinance
is
water
in
which
the
individual
is
to
be
baptized
in
the
name
of
the
Father
and
of
the
Son
and
of
the
Holy
Spirit
and
I'm
going to
skip
over
some
of
this
because
you
guys
know
already
number
four
immersion
or dipping
of the
person
in
water
is
necessary
for
this
ordinance
to
be
administered
!
to dunk
repeatedly
to
drown
this
is
the
language
like
I said
I'm
not
terribly
fussed
about
mode
but
rather
who
the
recipient
of
the
baptism
is
I
will
be
hard
pressed
to do
it
any
other
way
it
had
to
be
some
I
don't
know
water
becomes
such
a
commodity
and
I
don't
know
it's
like
Mad Max
days
and
there's
no
way
we
can
you
know
we're
all
getting
our
two
drops
of
water
per
day
ration
it
had
to
be
pretty
severe
for
me
to
stop
immersing
people
as a
picture
of
what
has
already
happened
in
their
life
by the
grace
of
God
death
to
life
for
that
to
be
really
clear
right
so
how
we
arrive
at
our
credo
baptist
position
has to
do
with
how
we
understand
covenant
of
grace
the
nature
of the
church
and the
conclusions
that come
as a
result
of that
so
okay
I will
answer
questions
now
but
can I
answer
questions
about
things
I've
said
and not
all the
possible
questions
that could
be asked
because I
probably
won't do a
great job
of answering
them anyway
and then
maybe we
have some
continuing
conversation
because I
have a
feeling
you'll
ask
questions
I'll
go
I'll
get back
to you
on that
let me
go
run
that
down
but
anything
that
I've
said
that
needs
to be
clarified
a bit
repeated
etc
yes
I don't
anybody
know the
answer to
that
congregational
Quakers
yeah
there you
go
there's a
handful
yeah
I should
probably
know more
yep
so again
lots of
agreement
a lot of
agreement
going on
here
it really
has to
do with
with the
covenant
of grace's
activity
so here
you've got
covenant
of grace
with two
administrations
I'd say
this is the
most distinct
thing going
on
two
administrations
and here
they're saying
it wasn't
ratified until
Christ
so it's
it just
sees
more
discontinuity
something
different is
happening here
these
covenants
are doing
things
right
they're active
they're involved
in God's
redemptive plan
but as
as pointing
covenant of grace
there's just
more discontinuity
in the process
of it all
it's really
that simple
what do you
mean by
administration
Ty you want
to define
administration
yes
so we all
know about
presidential
administration
so matter
of presidential
administration
not
administration
there's
a direct
presidential
administration
there's
someone
covering it
and there's
speaking
and there's
people in that
administration
like
handling it
or
yeah
so for
example
if you're
just talking
about
these
covenants
a good
example
is the
law
whenever
you're
reading
that
message
I see
that when
the
wrong
is presented
in the
Christian
that
wrong
is
Christ
and instead
of
revealing
Christ
I see
that mission
offering
Christ
and in
doing
that
music
so
these
different
types
of
promises
are
being
offered
and in
that
administration
you have
the old
testament
administration
but even
in that
it's coming
in different
ways
these things
are offered
and interacted
with
the overarching
one is the
big two
yeah
in a lot
of ways
and I don't
mean this
as a
to cut
this down
but it
just
flattens
it
simplifies
it even
maybe that's
appealing to
some people
it's a little
simpler
as it
makes
reading
old
testament
promises
to Israel
easy
just to go
oh
they're talking
about the
church
it's nice
when you
read it
simpler
that way
I don't
find my
reading of
the old
testament
that easy
I don't
think it's
I think it's
a little
too simple
but
Lynn
who are
the hands
so
it said
that the
old
testament
is equal
to the
testament
church
but in
the
moral
of
fact
to
1689
we could
just see
that as
the
church
not a
direct
correlation
between
the actual
nation
so
yeah
so
1689
federals
would be
really
happy
to call
would be
really
happy
to call
those
who
were
saved
in the
old
testament
church
we
would be
happy
to do
that
we
would
say
church
and we
would
be
happy
to
draw
like
I don't
know how
to draw
it on
here
but
there's
been
a
church
through
the
age
right
so
I'm
okay
with
the
language
of
the
age
of
the
church
I
don't
mind
saying
that
post
christ
god's
people
but
we
would
we
would
take
all
these
people
and go
yeah
come
with
us
like
we're
all
part
of
the
same
family
and
in
that
correct
yeah
correct
um
uh
I
would
say
um
I'm
because I've
not thought
carefully about
how I'd
want to
use
this
language
um
old
testament
redeemed
people
could
equal
church
so
what
um
westminster
folks
are
going
to
want
to
take
they'll
take
the
invisible
church
I
could
transport
that
language
down
here
I
just
don't
want
to
bring
it
over
here
but
I
would
say
invisible
church
here
is
church
that
does that
clarify it
okay
Sally
administration
like
you're
five
years
old
um
it's
not
I
think
you're
probably
over
complicating
it
in your
thinking
I'm
late
I'm
trying to
lay it
out
I'm
trying to
lay it
out
to
give
you
um
their
language
so
types
symbols
uh
sacraments
that
uh
I mean
yeah
uh
that
orders
things
here
and
different
ones
here
but
it's
but it's
flat
this way
just a lot
of continuity
so they're
they're
one
they're
one
for
one
swapping
some
things
out
across
and
this
and
this
language
is
just
not
language
that's
used
here
because
we
want
to
be
more
clear
about
the
discontinuity
between
the
two
yeah
we
just
tend
not
to
so
so that
helps
two
different
ages
two
different
ages
same
covenant
of
grace
yeah
these
are
all
communicating
something
about
the
covenant
of
grace
yeah
so
a
redeemed
jew
in the
old
testament
or
before
christ
so
obviously
they would
only believe
that there
is a
god
the
father
because
they
don't
know
of
christ
yet
a
redeemed
jew
is going
to be
believing
truly
in god
and they're
going to
be
sacrificing
for
their
sins
and
they
a
truly
redeemed
person
might be
actually
recognizing
that there's
going to be
something else
they're
actually
going to
be
picking
out
the
old
testament
all
things
that
point
to
christ
is that
yeah
but
wouldn't
fully
comprehend
we
because
we
believe
in
progressive
revelation
i mean
maybe given
maybe
maybe the
spirit
gave
some
insight
into
it
but
i
think
i
think
they're
believing
somehow
god
is
going
be
faithful
to
his
!
promise
somehow
these
this
constant
sacrificial
system
never
go
on
how
could
i
possibly
make
atonement
for all
of my
sin
how
could
it
how
could
it
ever
be
that
this
would
save
me
but
god
said
right
that
i
do
these
things
i'm
pursuing
i'm
somehow
this is
all
going to
come
together
which
is the
i think
the frustrating
thing for
the reader
of the bible
when you
get to
the new
testament
and the
jews
reject
jesus
so
you're
!
there
like
all
the
stuff
that
you
it
should
have
been
like
we
see
it
now
but
is
yeah
so
we
get
we
get
all
the
like
i mean
the
light
is
like
spotlighted
back
on it
in
the
new
testament
all
these
and
the
rock
was
christ
you
know
you
go
whoa
the
rock
was
christ
um
but
like
paul
uses
abraham
as the
like
example
of being
justified
by
faith
and
when you
look at
what
did
what
did
he
believe
right
he
looked
out
and he
saw
the
stars
and god
said
your
offspring
is
going
to
be
like
that
number
and
this
is
genesis
15
it's
right
after
that
so
shall
your
offspring
be
and
he
believed
the
lord
and
he
counted
it
to
him
as
righteousness
somehow
you're
going to
make
my
offspring
that
and
that
was
credited
to
him
as
righteousness
so
it's
this
belief
in
the
future
somehow
of all
of this
coming
to be
and
then
now
we
know
exactly
what
it
is
we're
believing
in
one
plan
of salvation
so
I'm
going to
go
here
and
then
here
sorry
thank
you
Matthew
but
your
I
will
raise
up
one
you
will
build
my
time
and
we
know
that
was
saying
you're
not
solemnly
but
ultimately
he was
really
saying
Christ
and
David
did
do
that
in
his
prayer
following
that
he
prophesied
us
right
how
did
that
fit
in
with
these
two
views
of
the
covenant
of grace
of him
living that
out
right
so
where
would
it
and how
it
was
practically
like
the
idea
of
the
covenant
of grace
like the
Davidic
covenant
was made
yes
he knew
God was
talking about
his offspring
to come
but
practically
what's the
difference
between
the two
views
when you
look at
something
it doesn't
change
anything
I think
what it
changes
is where
you're
looking
like
if David
is looking
forward to
the new
covenant
being
repealed
that
hence
leads
to
the
church
baptistic
thinking
and then
the
present
here
is
saying
that
saving
covenant
of grace
is being
administered
given
since
chapter 15
so
the
view
of the
church
is
it
starts
there
so
the
difference
is how
that
covenant
of grace
is going
is it
going like
this
and then
shooting
this way
and David
is looking
there
or is it
actually
being
given
right there
offered
to read
the two
confessions
you'll see
how they
lay out
the first
and second
covenant
but
the
west
bishop
says
the first
covenant
which Adam
fell
and sinned
the second
covenant
Christ is
freely
offered
and given
and use
that language
specifically
to try to get
this two
covenant
distinction
beginning
in one
after another
where the
1689
would say
that
after this
is fallen
through
progressive
revelation
to promises
the first
covenant
of grace
what it's
basically
saying
is God
turning past
selected
people
Adam
failed
in bringing
eternal life
therefore
God
bringing about
his
people
and those
people
are
saved
and
so the
two
distinguishes
it all
ages
the new
covenant
is it
being dispensed
both ways
or is it
only dispensed
at this point
times forward
so one other
real quick
thing that might
help me
make sense
so the
example
we're talking
about
when I read
that
and then I
read what
the apostles
say about
that instance
my understanding
is that
it was
meant to
point to
Christ
it was
for
them
in that
time
so for
example
God told
Moses to
strike the
rock
and water
would come
out
so he
did
and there
is that
in a way
it's a
prophecy
Christ
being struck
put to
death on
the cross
for a
sin
and out
from that
is
floating
in the
water
the second
time when
he told
Moses to
speak to
the rock
was
that
Christ
crucifying
and dying
would be
put to
death
our
sins
bringing
us
living
water
that's
happened
and now
God is
saying
in faith
ask
and receive
but Moses
didn't do
that
he disobeyed
God
and
I guess
if I'm
understanding
it right
I guess
the talk
people would
say
that
those that
saw that
as
prophetic
that
there
somehow
an
administering
of their
salvation
through that
faith
in the
what was
to come
versus
the lower
view
which is
simply
saying
that's
just
prophetic
Christ
but it
doesn't
administer
anything
to
salvation
is that
there's
still
salvation
comes
through
faith
but how
does that
example
practically
come
together
I guess
yeah
when I
hear the
questions
what I
think
they're
asking
about
is that
required
self-dific
knowledge
base
like
it's
about
Jesus
and I
would
just
say
don't
conflate
those
two
things
that
that's
a
ruling
target
what's
a
progressive
revelation
implies
is that
people know
more
over time
so it's
not like
you believe
that's
how we
identify
that you're
redeemed
but that
one covenant
of grace
would entail
a specific
amount of
knowledge
at various
points
in time
does that
help at all
yeah
I fear I drew
a picture
and it
complicated it
for you
instead of
simplifying it
for you
that
that story
of a
faithful
paedo-baptist
and a
faithful
credo-baptist
would preach
the same
way
I don't
think we
would have
I mean
it would be
so minute
in maybe
some of
the language
we would
use
perhaps
but yeah
I think
that's my
knee-jerk
response
is nothing
it doesn't
change anything
there's so
much agreement
between the
two
the big
thing
is really
when is
this ratified
and therefore
the conclusion
that there's
more or
less
continuity
between
old and
new
but the
people of
god
believe
god
and
old and
new
testament
they
believe
whatever
he had
revealed
up to
that point
even if
they didn't
fully understand
it
that's the
distinction
that's the
unity
of the
matter
yep
okay
Matthew
this is the
last one
and then I'm
going to pray
and let you
guys go
if you want
to go
and you can
hang out
and talk
if you want
to
as long
as you
want
to
it depends
broadly
so you're
going to
have
one end
of the
spectrum
spontaneous
even
make a
profession
baptized
and then
there's
some
traditions
or even
just
churches
individually
that have
big
examination
processes
for that
to take
place
so it's
a spectrum
all over
the place
so
yeah
I said
one more
go ahead
okay
thank y'all
for coming
let me pray
for us
and I'll
dismiss you
and again
hang out
you can
convene
around the
board
if you
want to
and I
will
regret
drawing
pictures
so
yeah
let's
pray