The following message is brought to you by Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Newcastle, Indiana. For additional messages and to learn more, please visit www.crbc.faith. Alright, does everyone have a handout for today's lesson? If you don't, raise your hand and Mr. Nolan will get you one. We are in part four under the heading of the significance of baptism. Part four of still dealing with the significance of baptism. This is going to be the last part under this heading. The heading of the significance of baptism is of course designated because in our confession of faith paragraph one is chiefly dealing with the significance of baptism. I don't want to waste or lose too much time in a recap but you know we have been looking at this issue both biblically and also historically. And last week, our historical approach led us up to the Reformation. When we saw out of the Reformation, there were two communities of Christians that were anti-sacramentalists. They rejected the heretical position of the sacramentalists that largely began to be formulated in a tradition rooted in the third and fourth century of the church that was perpetuated and continued chiefly by the Roman Catholic Church. And those two groups or two societies of Christians who were anti-sacramentalist that rejected these heretical positions and practice of baptism were divided up into two groups. There were the anti-sacramentalist who also retained the tradition of infant baptism, and there were those who rejected not only the heirs of sacramentalism, but also rejected the tradition and the heir of infant baptism. Those were the Anabaptists and the English Baptists. And we wanted to be Autists, we wanted to be charitable to the position of our fellow anti-sacramentalists who insist on maintaining the tradition of infant baptism. And we began to look at some of their teachings. How is it that they, on the one hand, can agree with us regarding the significance of baptism? that it is to the person baptized, the individual who receives the sacrament of baptism, it is to them a confession of them yielding up, their following the Lord Jesus Christ, them becoming a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, them giving themselves up in their own words of their confession unto God. How is it that we can agree so much on the meaning or the definition of the significance of baptism, but practice it in a different way? How is it, in other words, can they agree with us as Baptists, but yet still baptize infants? Well, as we look through, we saw, as you see on page number two, from the writings of their own men, some of the most eminent theologians, Calvin, Zwingli, Hodge, Engelsma, into the modern era, we had Murray, we had several men we looked at, and we concluded that their biblical rationale could be summed up with three theological points. Three theological presuppositions that they believe justify their practice of infant baptism, although holding to an anti-sacramentalist position. And you see, it had something to do with an understanding of biblical covenants and covenant membership. That was the first one. They see, in other words, that the covenant of grace belongs not only to those who have faith, but also to those who have faith and their children. And so members of the Covenant of Grace are not only people who have saving faith, but also their children, whether their children possess saving faith or not. Another presupposition or biblical rationale that they feel justifies their practice as anti-sacramentalists to practice infant baptism is some kind of relationship or understanding of how infants you see in your handout were circumcised in the old covenant. Basically, the rationale is that the covenant sign, when we ask what covenant sign, they're meaning the covenant of grace, the sign of the covenant of grace. They would say that the Covenant of Grace sign in the Old Testament was circumcision, which was applied also to children as well as to certain cases some adults. So there was some relationship between circumcision as it was practiced in the Old Covenant to infants as to their justification of why they baptize infants. And then thirdly, closely related to that, they unequivocally you saw saw a parallel between baptism and circumcision. And sometimes that sounds, as you see it in your notes, that the covenant of grace sign in the New Testament is baptism, which has been, or which has rather replaced circumcision, and it should be applied to both those who confess faith, believers, and also their children. And so we see just in those three overarching presuppositions that our fellow anti-sacramentalists who baptize or sprinkle their infants, we see there's two pillars. There's two superstructures, you could say, that underlines their justification of why they, as anti-sacramentalists, practice infant sprinkling. One pillar is an understanding of circumcision. The other pillar is covenant theology. We'll get and unpack more covenant theology, the aspect of their understanding of the covenants and covenant theology when we get to paragraph two dealing with the subjects of baptism. But today, I think it's prudent for us to look at the issue of circumcision. I confess to you it's rather difficult trying to navigate a pathway to process all this data and present it to you. But I believe circumcision and the significance of circumcision falls and should fall under the heading of dealing with the significance of baptism because they place so much emphasis on it. It is at this point, I believe, that our fellow paedo-baptists, or I should say, not fellow, our paedo-baptist brethren, is what I meant to say, this is where they expand the significance of baptism. This is where, in their definition, that we otherwise agree with, becomes a little bit more stretched, you could say, this understanding of circumcision. But just to make sure that we are barking up the right tree here, about their emphasis on circumcision and its relationship to its significance as implied unto baptism. Let's look once again just briefly, I promise it's going to be briefly, at their own writings just to ascertain something of the fact that we are pursuing a correct and honest, genuine path to understand their position. You see in your handout there from the Belgic Confession, you can see in the footnote what the Belgic Confession is, it's history, it's placed amongst Reformed, Pado-Baptist churches. But listen to what the Belgic Confession says in Article 34. We believe, quote, we believe and confess that Jesus Christ, in whom the law is fulfilled, has by His shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood. which anyone might do or wish to do in order to atone or satisfy for sin. And all the Baptists would say Amen. Continuing on, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, Christ established in its place the sacrament of baptism. I'm going to interact with this just a little bit. We see that there is an unequivocal delineation that circumcision has been replaced with baptism. It's very clearly stated there, right? There's no qualifying statement. There's no further elaboration on how Christ did that. It's just stated. It's understood by them. They clearly say that. Christ established in the place of circumcision the sacrament of baptism. By it, continuing with the quote, we are received into God's church and set apart from all other people in alien religions that we may wholly belong to Him whose mark, or you could say whose seal and sign, we bear. Baptism also witnesses to us that God, being our gracious Father, will be our God forever. Continuing on with quoting the Belgian Confession, it goes on to say, for that reason, we reject the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. That's somewhat a mischaracterization of the doctrine of the Anabaptists. They would say they would reject the baptism of children where there is no faith. So anyhow, continue on with the quote here. We believe, they say, our children ought to be baptized and marked or sealed with the sign of the covenant of grace. When I read covenant in paedo-baptist literature, you almost always have to say the full statement of what they mean, covenant of grace. I always tell you this when we're going through the preaching of the Word of God in our Sunday morning sermons, when we come to covenants, we come to the words covenants, the idea of covenants, you always have to ask yourself, in what context is this covenant being established between man and God? Who are the members? What are the conditions or the prerequisites to be in this covenant? And so that's just helpful because they refer to the covenant, the covenant, the covenant a lot. And just remember, when you read their literature, always ask yourself, what covenant are they talking about? And in this case, going back to the quote, look down at your notes there, we believe our children ought to be baptized and marked or sealed with the sign of the covenant of grace. As little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises. You can underline that if you have a pen. Basis of the same promises made to our children. There is another clear statement. That one of their pillars, isn't it, is a complete unqualified, unequivocal, identical, parallelism between circumcision, and they even say promises of circumcision, with baptism. And you see up on the board, that's really the question that we're seeking to ask today. Can we say and agree with our fellow anti-sacramentalists that circumcision equates or equals, can it be imported in its meaning into New Covenant baptism? Continue on with her quote, and truly Christ has shed his blood, no less for the washing of the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore, they ought to receive the sign of the sacrament of what Christ has done for them. Just as the Lord commanded in the law that by the offering of a lamb for them, the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. There's a lot of theology being said there. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. We have to get out of this statement of theirs for the sake of time. But look at the very last statement. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for Jewish people. So I think we are barking at the right tree, aren't we? We are understanding what they're saying. They are saying that circumcision is identical to baptism. And so we understand circumcision was applied to children. Thus, baptism should be applied to children. It doesn't matter if faith is there, as long as it's there on behalf of the parents. But just to make sure we're really fairly representing this position, this, you could say, pillar of their justification of why they do what they do, let's look once again at one of the main doctrinal standards of the Reformed Paedo-Baptists, the Heidelberg Catechism in Question 74. It asks a very straightforward question. Should infants too, or should infants also, be baptized? And the answer is yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant. It's referring to the covenant of grace, God's covenant of grace and congregation through Christ's blood. The redemption from sin. And the Holy Spirit who works faith are promised to them no less than to adults, therefore. since it's promised to them. There's the conclusion. By baptism, as a sign of the covenant of grace, they must be incorporated into the Christian Church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the Old Covenant by circumcision in place of which baptism was instituted in the New Covenant. So we are understanding them correctly. That's their position, right? So this leads us to, you see in your notes, to make this observation. After everything we learned last week from their eminent theologians about the issue, coming to very clear, precise statements that that is what they're saying. Circumcision informs us of how to practice new covenant baptism. We have to make this observation. We can clearly deduce that our fellow anti-sacramentalists construct, they build their biblical rationale upon this so-called unity, or you could say this parallelism that lies between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. Therefore, it does us, as their fellow anti-sacramentalists, who are honest inquirers, really wishing to better understand, could we be wrong on something? On what we say the significance of baptism is. It does us no good to only focus on the silence in the New Testament of the practice of infant baptism. Because you see, that's not really the crux of their argument. The crux of their argument, according to their own theologians, according to their own confessions of faith, set upon two pillars. The biblical covenants, covenant theology, and the relationship or the analogy that exists between circumcision and baptism. So as credo baptists who want to come and try to interact with Pato Baptist brethren, and we begin to just start talking about the silence of the New Testament, which, by the way, is part of the discussion. It is part of the argument. It is part of our polemics. It is part of the overarching dialogue that we must bring to the table and discussing and ascertaining whether or not we're correctly worshiping God through the sacrament of baptism. It's really not the whole argument. It's really not the whole picture. You have to, we have to do credence to this apparent so-called parallelism between circumcision and baptism. And brothers and sisters, I propose that's what we do today. As you see on page four in your notes, we must dive deeper into this assertation that our fellow anti-sacramentalists claim that circumcision is in fact parallel with baptism. And furthermore, to what extent does this analogy really exist? Along the way, we need to have in the back of our mind a couple questions. What is the link between these two signs? Just how closely related is circumcision to baptism? These are just kind of questions we'll have in the back of our mind because that's the assertion that they're making. These are important questions because the indirect inferences which Pato Baptists derive from scripture and employ to support their practice, it lies at the very center of their theology regarding the nature of the church and all the sacraments of the church. It is, you could say, as I've said before, a pillar which justifies and supports their particular, this particular act of religious worship, that is infant sprinkling. And without such a pillar, this part of their worship would have to be confessed as being in gross error. And if it's in gross error, we humbly submit to our fellow anti-sacramentalists. You should repent. You should acknowledge you were wrong. You should let go of the tradition and bring and reclaim the purity of the sacrament of baptism to the Church of Jesus Christ. Or you could state it another way. Don't miss this. You have it in front of your notes. If it can be demonstrated that there is in fact, as they have stated, an identical relationship between circumcision and baptism, then listen clearly, all of us should be baptizing our infants. If it can be demonstrated from Scripture that there is clearly an identical relationship Between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism, we're changing the name of this church tomorrow. Well, we'll have to have a church meeting on that, but you get the point. Right? Would you agree? If we come to the Bible and we can ascertain from the Bible that what informs us, what is the authoritative measure for us to practice baptism is this identical analogy from circumcision, then we must bow our knee to the truth of the Word of God. On the other hand, if they're not identical, if they're not identical, there would be no warrant for the practice of infant sprinkling without a clear command from God. Would you agree with that? If they're not identical, Whatever circumcision was, whatever its relationship was to baptism, we need to re-look at it. And maybe it's not as flattened as the apparent presentation of it is by our paedo-baptist brother. Maybe it's not that simple. I was telling my wife just this week after studying the issue, I can to a very great degree Sympathize with people in the pew who are Pado-Baptist churches. I can, to a great degree, understand how you could almost go along with the practice. We said last week, I believe there is a God-honoring, humble deference to their pastors, to men who have went to seminary and who have learned and have written long books, and even though they can't fully understand, What they're saying, they still nonetheless will pay deference to the authority of the church and humbly sit there. And you know what? On the surface, there is a certain logical deduction. It does have that somewhat of advantage in its polemical approach. Oh yeah, the people of God, they circumcised their children in the Old Covenant, and so why wouldn't we baptize our children in the New Covenant? On the surface, there does seem like an identical analogy. But as I just said, on the other hand, if we scratch the surface and we see there's not identical analogy, every single person who bears the name of Christian, who has the preserved pure word of God in their hand, it's their responsibility to search out what men say and compare it with the word of God and test it according to the scripture. Because if we can demonstrate that they're not identical, and there is, in fact, no warrant for the practice of infant sprinkling in the New Testament, to continue to do so would violate one of the core doctrines of Reformed theology, which we all agree with, and that is the regulative principle of religious worship. Namely, as you see in your notes, God shall only be worshipped, brethren, by the means that He has instituted. and not according to the imagination and devices of men. So therefore, the burden falls on us to now review the so-called analogy. Review the so-called analogy. Let's look at page five at the top. Let's look at this analogy. For the sake of the younger ones in the church, what do we mean when we're talking about an analogy? What is, you can ask the question, an analogy? Well, an analogy is simply a comparison of two separate non-identical things that may share certain common traits with one another. That's an analogy. I gave you an example in your notes there. We can draw an analogy between an apple and an orange. They're both fruit. They're both sweet tasting. They're both somewhat similar in their shape. They both have somewhat of a circumference shape. But no reasonable person in this room, no reasonable person would say that they're identical. An apple's an apple, young man. An orange, young lady, is an orange, right? You wouldn't, obviously, really try to convince me that they're the same. You wouldn't do that. As you see in your notes underlined, it's similarly We may state that although there is a link, there is a biblical analogy between circumcision and baptism, which we're going to get to, that does not make them unequivocally identical in their purpose or their meaning. I underline that because that's an important point. If they're not identical, then what ways are they different? And if they're different, how does that then apply to how we ought to use circumcision, use the Old Testament to teach us how to practice baptism? And so I suggest to you that we approach this analogy by first looking at the differences and then looking at the similarities. First, the differences by underlining the differences between the Old Testament circumcision rite and the New Testament sacrament of baptism, the error that is often promoted by reformed paedobaptists of, you see it in capital letters, assuming that no New Testament command is needed to make baptism equal to circumcision is going to become apparent. We don't have time to go into it and we didn't last week really have the time to do it. But one of the major thrusts of their polemics or their justification is that if circumcision didn't unequivocally mean that we're supposed to understand baptism in the same way, well, then God would have told us. The Apostle Paul would have had a big section in one of his epistles to the New Testament church and say hey listen I know and I understand that the quote-unquote covenant community has always circumcised their their baby boys But coming into the new covenant listen things are changed a little bit now and now we're going to include different people and we're going to perform in a little bit different way so for them so when they say so see the apparent silence of that our fellow anti-sacramentalists, these Anabaptists and these English Baptists, what they focus on, it's really insignificant because that's not the point at all. They assume the silence justifies or supports their argument, you see. The very silence is an assumption that God hasn't changed anything in relationship between the old covenant believers and their children and the new covenant believers and their children. However, if we can amplify, you could say, amplify, point out some differences, then it gives everyone pause. It gives everyone reason to stop and to say, are we sure we're being right with this unequivocal parallelism that we're making? So you see in your handout here, I gave you a chart. On the left-hand side, you have you know, the category or the column under the heading of circumcision. And I'm going to offer, there could be more, I'm going to offer seven differences between circumcision and baptism. And on the right hand side, you have a column with the heading of baptism. And as we talk about it, I just want you to circle yes or no. You see under the category of baptism, whether or not it can be categorically the same or what is said of circumcision in this particular aspect or out of these seven different reasons. Can it be said of baptism? If not, circle yes or no. Okay. The first one is we have to admit when we look in exegete all of the text in the old covenant scriptures that circumcision was exclusively given to males. The most obvious difference is that circumcision was only administered to males. If infant baptism has in fact replaced, has in fact been instituted to replace circumcision, then should not infants or should not baptism be restricted only to males? Right? That's a logical import. That's a logical, you could say, inference from circumcision and how it was practiced to how we're going to practice baptism in the New Testament. Nowhere in the Scriptures, in the Old Testament or the New Testament, is the church ever commanded to baptize girls. Did the Apostle Paul spell that out? Did Jesus teach that? Was John at the River of Jordan calling out, come, repent and be baptized. And now we're calling upon the girls too to come. Now something great's happening. And we want all men and women to come. No, no. So if circumcision has been replaced by baptism, The Old Testament right of circumcision is supposed to inform us how we today are supposed to be practicing baptism. Why did we start practicing baptism of infant girls? God commissions the church to baptize all disciples of Jesus, male and female. who have a profession of faith, but nowhere is the church ever commissioned in scriptures to baptize girls who are without a profession of faith. So in this first one, the male exclusivity to circumcision, can we apply that to New Testament baptism? Circle yes or no. There's one difference. It's not identical. Oh, that's just a minor difference. Just a minor difference, we can look over that maybe. Well, look at the next one. It's sometimes, very often times, this is, I don't want to say underestimated, maybe that's not the right way to say it, but it's definitely not emphasized enough, and that is, That circumcision had a distinct purpose, which I'm sure Brother Defoe is going to get to in Genesis chapter 17 when it's instituted. It had a distinct purpose of marking one as a citizen of Israel. Circumcision. It was circumcision, not faith, that was the requirement for citizenship in the nation of Israel. You didn't have to have faith. You didn't have to really inwardly believe that all of this stuff was true. But you did have to be circumcised. You did have to have the outward modification of the male secret place in order to be a citizen in the covenant community, which will become known as Israel. Although God demanded faith. Yes, he did. It was never a qualification for citizenship. OK. Membership into God's old covenant national people was never ever predicated on salvific faith or genuine faith, or you could say an inward faith. In fact, we know from Hebrews 3, we know through the testimony of all the Old Testament scriptures, most, if not in fact, a majority of the Hebrews who had outward circumcision never had inward faith. They were delineated and marked out as a stiff-necked, rebellious people. That's why over and over, beginning with Moses, they were called to circumcise your heart. Unbelieving Jews, listen to this, they remained children of Abraham and citizens of national Israel their whole life. Brothers and sisters, that's just a fact when you exegete the meaning and the usage of circumcision in the Old Testament. So here's the conclusion of just that one aspect that we're looking at of circumcision, trying to ascertain, can we import that into baptism? If baptism admits unbelieving infants into God's new covenant community, the new Christian church, can these unbelieving children who have received the outward sign of baptism never have any inward faith, still be called, as Calvin said, the people of God? The children of Jehovah? They couldn't say that in the old covenant. You could live your entire life in the covenant community so long as you had circumcision and you followed the moral, ethical code. You were a good Jew. You remained in the covenant community. You were considered a member of the Abrahamic covenant. Are we willing to say we want to adapt that understanding of circumcision in the church of Christ? That once you've received baptism, no matter how old you are, you never have to have inward faith, but you're considered a child of God. I don't think many pale Baptists are willing to say that. In fact, most of them say, if our children are to remain in the covenant of grace, when they become mature, they have to confess faith. But that wasn't the case in Old Covenant use of circumcision. Why the change? Why the modification? Where's the authorization to make such a requirement of the teenage son or the adult spouse? It wasn't in the Old Covenant when they received circumcision. So why now? Are we to assume that this aspect of circumcision has changed? And if so, why? So, this outward sign of a nationalistic inclusion and the Abrahamic covenant community totally void up, never required, faith never was required. Are we willing to say that ought to inform us how we ought to understand the significance and the practice of baptism? Yes or no? To kind of build upon that, there was another aspect of how circumcision and its significance was used if we're wanting to draw parallels between circumcision and baptism in the Old Testament that I think is significant for the conversation, since we're being asked to believe that there is an identical institution of baptism in place of circumcision. Infants were not the only unbelievers that were commissioned to be circumcised. Remember, Ishmael, he received it when he was 13 years old. The male servants. Some of them, as Brother DeVos is going to get to, some of the servants, the indentured servants, some of them were purchased servants from pagan masters. Now, or in Abraham's tribe. They're in his clan. They had to receive circumcision. Faith wasn't a prerequisite for them to receive that. They were unbelieving adults. They would admit, well, Abraham tells me I've got to do it. He is the master. I've got to do it. And so they would do it. So if circumcision was applied to unbelieving adults, if circumcision is applied to unbelieving teenagers, if circumcision, the way it was used in the Old Testament, was applied in that way, then why can't we do it now with baptism? You, brother, say you're a new member of our church. You come here. And I get to, as a pastor, talk to you, and I qualify your testimony. This seems like a genuine testimony. I see fruits in your life after a time of spending, you know, a period amongst us. I say, you know what, I really, honestly, from the best that I can tell, can discern that this brother really is a blood-bought believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. And so is his wife. But as teenage children, obviously or not, there's some issues there. And we all can sympathize with that, right? We're parents. We're all raising kids. And it's a struggle. We pray that God would give them and grant them the faith of their mother and father. Well, the way circumcision was used in the Old Testament, your children would be circumcised. No matter, they could be 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18. Whether they accept your faith or not, just by your patriarchal headship, They have to recognize, they have to receive the sign of the covenant community who live here. If not, they're to be cursed of God, as Brother Defoe will get to in Genesis 17. Are we prepared to utilize baptism that way? Well, to be honest, there are many reformed patal Baptist communities that will do that. They will do that. Some won't. Some require someone who's mature. And where's that age at of maturity? Who arbitrarily gets to guess that? Well, when a young man or young woman's 13 and there's a new family comes to the church, mom and dad clearly are believers, but the 12-year-old and the 13-year-old, they haven't professed faith themselves. But maybe we can say when they get to 16, we can come to them and decide that issue again. In some paedo-baptist churches, if the teenager or the child is voluntarily willing to do it, they'll baptize them with no profession of faith. We had a family here at our church. They were telling us they were visiting a Pato Baptist church for a while, and they witnessed that. There were some children, I think they were 17 to 18 years old, had no profession of faith. They openly said, at this time, I'm not a Christian. But, and think about this for a moment, but to not upset their parents, they were willing to undergo Christian baptism despite the fact they outwardly said they had no faith. Think of the psychological confusion that's involved with that. What kid is going to tell their mom and dad who's saying, you know, this is our understanding of the Bible. I'm a Christian father. Your mom's a Christian mother. And therefore you should receive Christian baptism because you're our children. This is the sign of our faith. I mean, what kid's going to say no to that? Right? The tension that would be there. No, they're going to say, well, listen, hey, mom, dad, this is your thing. I'm not convinced of the Christian faith. I haven't arrived there. But if it'll make you happy, I'll do it. Is that really how we want to practice baptism? And I don't want to be sounding uncharitable or mischaracterizing the position of many paedo-baptist churches. I think with this little Pandora's box of trying to identify baptism with Old Testament circumcision, they have to change things. And they have to modify things arbitrarily. And so most of them, I'll say this, most of them were practiced in a way that many Credo Baptists will. When a family comes in and if a teenager is coming into that family, they're not going to just automatically give the sign of the covenant to that teenager apart from a profession of faith, but they will an infant. They will perhaps a toddler. So, Considering this aspect of unbelieving adults, are we willing to say that that's an identical equation with baptism? That circumcision understood how it was practiced that way? Is that equal with baptism, sister? Would you write a yes or a no on that? No? Shake your head. She would say no. Okay. Well, circle no there. Unbelieving adults. Another aspect, I won't spend as much time on this, is the aspect that the children of unbelieving parents were given the sign of circumcision just by their descendancy of their grandparents. So in the way that would work in the Old Testament, say I'm a Jewish man and I have heard the account of faith that has been orally passed down to me through the generations. I have heard the marvelous work, a covenant that God had made with Abraham, and I believed it with all of my heart. I knew when we would worship God in this ceremonial way, these strange ways with animals and blood and things like this, I knew what it pointed to. It pointed to a promise once and for all work. Say I had that faith. And I have six children. And none of my children believe that. Because they want to be blessed in the community, they want to benefit from the different things that belong to our nation, they're going to go along with it. Because if they don't, They can be penalized by death. You don't bring your sacrifices. You don't follow along the ceremonial or the judicial laws that are instituted. It's not just, oh, well, just agree to disagree. No, you're cast out of the community. So say my six children in this context, they want to enjoy and continue the benefits of belonging to the community. They have circumcision, they're following all the outward rules and laws. I as a Christian, or I as a Jewish grandfather, I as a Jewish grandfather could take on my My, you could say, entrance into the community. The physical lineage of my descendants could have my children. In fact, demand to take them through the temple to be circumcised. It doesn't matter if their parents believe or not. Are we willing to do that now with baptism? Can you do that with baptism? Are we willing to baptize children of grandparents who have faith, but their parents don't? Just as in the Old Testament, You were circumcised. You could be circumcised just because your grandparents were circumcised. Is there an identical equation there? Yes or no? No, there's not, brothers and sisters. There's not. So we've already demonstrated at least four differences between the use of Old Testament circumcision that we are not willing to honestly say could be identified or applied to the significance of New Testament baptism. Another one, a fifth one? Jewish ethnic identity. Although, that's a little bit wrapped up in the second one, but it's worth pointing out secondly or fifthly on its own. Although circumcision had a spiritual significance, it also had a national and a typological significance. That is, circumcision was used by God, and this is going to come out in its institution, in Genesis 17, it was used by God to specifically signify and mark out a particular people. Circumcision represented and signified Jewish affiliation. It was one of the identifying marks that separated the Jews from all other people around them. No one could argue that. That is one of the significant uses of circumcision. Are we prepared to say that's what baptism does? Does it ethnically, nationally, separate you from all other people? No. In Christian baptism, there is no ethnicity. There is no Jew. There is no Gentile in Christian baptism. That's plain New Testament Pauline epistle teachings. And so, the ethnicity that's connected to circumcision the way it was used in the Old Testament, We can't apply that to baptism. But yet our Pano Baptist friends want to say circumcision is parallel with Christian baptism. But they're not even willing to say that. Who gets to pick and choose which differences are applied and which ones are not applied? That's what I want to know. And like I said earlier, if we can demonstrate there are just one or two differences, it causes all of us to stop and reconsider the whole argument altogether. No matter how logical it sounds, no matter how emotional it sounds, no matter how long it's been a tradition practiced by visible Christians. There were different broadening participants in baptism that weren't allowed in Old Covenant circumcision. We talked about that a little bit. this different participation. We're now in New Testament baptism. It's more restricted. I'm not baptizing my employees just because they're, you could say, in a similar way under my jurisdiction for a certain amount of hours a day like Abraham circumcised his servants. We baptize girls now in the New Testament with no explicit clear warrant to do so from the scriptures. So there is a narrowing as to where it was circumcision. It was very broad. That's an important difference. We're not willing to broaden, are we? The use of baptism, are we willing to do that? Paedobaptists are incorrect in this argument, I would offer you. They denied the admission of baptism to infants who do not have at least one believing parent. That wasn't the case in the Old Covenant. The parents didn't have to believe at all, not even one of them. So why now is this prerequisite that there has to be at least one believing parent as reformed paedo-baptist practice infant baptism? When circumcision was correctly administered in the Old Covenant to children, even if they had no believing parent, it was legitimate. In making this change, paedo-baptists do not fully rely upon the inferences that they begin to construct and consistently use them. They pick and they choose which inferences, which teachings of Old Covenant circumcision they want to apply to baptism. I have one here too. The circumcision was an aspect in using the Old Covenant as a condition. When it gets to its institution in Genesis 17, if Abraham didn't do it, he was cursed. He was going to be cursed. It was a condition of the covenant. Are we willing to say that about baptism? Are we willing to say that if you don't do baptism, you don't have saving faith? That sounds borderline, almost like sacramental language. Does baptism really do something or impact somehow the condition of the covenant of grace? No, it doesn't. It doesn't. We saw in our very first message that there were people in the New Testament who received baptism and then they would walk away from the faith because they never was of the faith. So baptism didn't save them. The thief on the cross, remember that example. He died without Christian baptism. Are we prepared to say that Jesus' words and promises to him that he would see with Jesus that day the glories of heaven? Are we willing to say that there's no way that can happen because he didn't receive Christian baptism? No, that's because baptism, the covenant of grace, is not conditional upon the sign or the mark of baptism as the old covenant, Abrahamic covenant, was with the sign of circumcision. Now, as you see in your notes, those are some differences. Often, paedobaptists will argue that these differences, they know of these, and this is how they treat them, that they're modified by the very nature of the new covenant. Oh, well, we're aware of those. We're aware of those differences. But the very nature of the New Testament, the very nature of the New Covenant demands that we modify some of these aspects and understanding of circumcision, even though there's no expressed biblical teaching regarding baptism of infant girls or the exclusion of unbelieving adults and various other modern alterations that I've been hinting to and drawing out for us. They are all necessary and obvious inferences. They would say they're implied by what we see in the New Covenant. And this is their Pandora's box of hermeneutics. For the paid of Baptist, don't miss this church. I know we're getting kind of lengthy here, but don't miss this for our fellow anti sacramentalist infant sprinkling. Brother to use the New Testament at this point of their modification. To use it and the nature of the new covenant at this point is their authority to determine what are obvious alterations that need to be made between circumcision and baptism. Where do they have a ground to keep some aspects of old covenant circumcision being influential and authoritative in the practice of baptism? So in other words, if they say, well, we're aware of all these differences, but look at the data in the New Covenant. Obviously, we're supposed to baptize our daughters. Obviously, we're not supposed to be baptizing unbelieving employees or unbelieving adults. That's obvious here. Well, if you're willing to go to the New Testament to be authoritative, to direct you on how to alter the practice of baptism where you don't like the import or the parallelism that circumcision demands, Why is it that you just don't allow the New Testament you see to inform you for everything? Here's why. Because the New Testament is silent on infant baptism. So we come back to the point we made last week. What this anti-sacramentalist infant sprinkling practice is, is a tradition in need of a theology. And when it fits our hermeneutics to practice or tradition that is not handed to us by the apostolic command and pattern of the New Testament church, we go to the Old Testament and we see and we build a case there. But then instead of allowing all of it consistently to be imported into how we're going to practice baptism in the new covenant. No, no, no. We pick and choose our fruit. We're not going to allow that. We go for authority to the new covenant. And this is what makes it so difficult. I scratch my head from time to time. And when I'm talking to other Reformed paedo-baptists, they are a slippery noodle because they'll go to the Old Testament to grab the text they want. And then they'll jump over the New Testament and grab the text they want. And you find yourself saying, why do you arbitrarily do that? What is your consistent hermeneutic? Does not the New Testament offer the final authoritative interpretation of everything that's gone before because you apply that in all your other doctrine. You can take everything we just said here today and you can apply it to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as well. It gets even more confusing when you would ask, why don't your children then, why don't you do paedo-communion or infant communion, toddler communion? Some who are consistent do. They most certainly do. But a vast majority of Reformed paedo-baptists do not. Our fellow anti-sacramentals, they would never let their children just take communion. Where do they get the authority to do that? They go to the New Testament and they build their case there why their children shouldn't take communion. Well, if you do it with that, why don't you do it with baptism? This leads us just considering the differences to consider the similarities. I'm going to be very brief with this one, because oftentimes in their writings, the. similarities to spiritual significance, the spiritual similarities are greatly amplified, and those differences that I just went through are greatly minimized. But we as Reformed Baptists, we want to bring it all to the surface and we want to look at it and say, can this be a logical, easy, applied, simple parallelism between circumcision and baptism? Obviously, the answer is obviously no. But there does exist an analogy between the two. As Reformed Baptists, we do not deny that there is not an analogy. We do not deny that there's a relationship between the two. Just because they're not identical, it doesn't mean that they're not related. How are some of the ways? This is just some, there could be more. Circumcision was a sign of a gracious covenant. It was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant, Brother Defoe unpacked that a little bit last week. It was a gracious covenant. Now, as Covenantal Baptists, we're willing to, and we will, look at that and say, or ask the question, can we really say that that is the covenant of grace? Is the Abrahamic covenant flattened to mean and be equated with the covenant of grace? But no matter what answer you walk away with, you have to admit it was a sign of a gracious covenant. It was gracious. God told Abraham it had with it physical blessings and spiritual blessings as well. He's going to give him a seed. He's going to give him posterity. He was going to give him a land that they could rest in. Romans 4.11 communicates to us that Abraham understood the great spiritual aspect to the covenant. So it was a gracious covenant. Despite whether we say we want to agree that it was itself in substance the covenant of grace, we at least can say that there's an analogy, right? Because baptism itself is a sign. It's a mark. It is a seal. It's an emblem of a very gracious covenant. An unconditional gracious covenant. So we could circle yes there, couldn't we? There is a similarity. They both are a seal of inward faith. Now, before you say, wait a minute, you're contradicting yourself. Well, we know that circumcision for some was a sign of inward faith, but not all. Not all. So there is a similarity. Romans 4.11, one of the favorite passages of Pato Baptist to go to, says this, and it shows us how Abraham understood circumcision. Romans 411, Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal, a mark of righteousness, of faith, here it is, which he had. To Abraham, this was a sign. It was a mark. It was an outward changing of his body, of the righteousness of faith that Abraham had. That can't be applied to Esau. Circumcision didn't mean that to Esau. You know what circumcision meant to Esau and the majority of the other unbelieving Israelites? It meant that I'm in this nationalistic covenant community entitled to the blessings and privileges of whatever that identification can make. You as an American brother, you're benefiting greatly by living in this country and being a citizen of America. I don't think right now you would want to step out of, if you allow the terms, this covenant community of America and go live in Iran, would you? No, of course, he's shaking his head no. That's why Esau, the sign, the mark of circumcision was not to him righteousness of faith. No. It was just an outward sign that included him in an external covenant which we would say is the Abrahamic covenant that entitled him to certain physical blessings. Continue with Romans 4.11 Just noting the fact that circumcision for some was a mark of inward faith. It was definitely to Abraham. And in fact, all of the ancient church who really had Abraham's faith, it was a mark of individual saving faith. It was a seal, it was a mark of righteousness. Circumcision was of the faith which Abraham had when he was, yet he had even when he was uncircumcised. That he might be the father of all them that believe. Circumcision to Abraham. was a sign of the righteousness of the faith that he had in the God and the covenant God was making with him that he would be a father to those who believe. that would come. Abraham did not understand the sign of circumcision to mean that it is a mark that when someone receives it, they're guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to receive the blessings of God someday. No, he didn't. He didn't receive it at all like that. He didn't understand it at all like that. But we have to admit that for Abraham and the other Old Testament believers, That circumcision was a mark. It was an identification of their faith. And thus there is an appropriate analogy. There is a spiritual significance that we can say is parallel with baptism. And that's why paragraph one of the Westminster Confession, when it talks about the significant baptism, agrees with ours because we all agree that baptism is a sign. It is a mark of inward faith. It is a confession to be made that something has happened. Something has happened inwardly. They both, for the last one, the similarity, they both are typological. They both have typological references pointing toward a circumcised heart. Circumcision, although it was performed outward on the body, brothers and sisters, often it was referred to in a typological sense, necessitating the circumcision of the heart. We'll read a couple of scriptures. I had more, but because of time, I'm just going to read two. Deuteronomy 30 verse 6. This is so important. The typological use of circumcision pointing to a circumcised heart. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul and with and that thou mayest live us. Jeremiah 4.4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the foreskin of your heart. He's not talking about open heart surgery there. He's talking about a spiritual reality. Circumcise yourselves unto the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart. You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my fury come forth like fire and burn that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings. These are just a sampling from the Old Testament. where it is clear that there was a consistent call to repentance issued under the figure of not outward circumcision, but there was a call to repentance using the language of circumcision to point to an inward circumcision of the heart. Now, what's relevant about that is this is what the New Testament does. It's using circumcision and the analogy of circumcision to not point to a mere outward physical end. No, but point to a greater end. That is a circumcised heart. New Testament passages using that analogy of circumcision. Romans 2 29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter who pray whose praise is not of men, but of God. Philippians 3 3. For we who Christians, For we Christians who have the circumcision of the heart, he says, flippings three, three, four, we are the circumcision. That was a term often used all the time to refer to the Jews. We are the Jews. We are the true Jews. He's saying, Paul, yes, we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh. The circumcision and baptism, we have to admit, along with our paedo-baptist brothers, it's okay to do this, we have to admit that they do share in their typological references to both the need and the reality of a circumcised heart. So you can agree that there is somewhat of a spiritual significance, there is a spiritual analogy that does exist between circumcision and baptism, and the analogy is this, the need for a circumcised heart, which baptism symbolizes, has occurred. That's what it is. But just because we recognize and agree with the spiritual significance and analogy of circumcision to baptism, doesn't mean that we minimize, to fit our theology of the children of the church, we minimize the obvious differences. Amen? And that, we would say, is what has happened. Please bear with me in my concluding thoughts as we wrap this up. Are you having your notes there? Although circumcision and baptism can be said to have some spiritual shared analogy, It cannot be said that they are identical. Thus, to claim that infant circumcision in its meaning and its purpose can simply be transferred over to baptism is naive at best and it's reckless at worst. Too many modifications and changes have occurred between the old and new covenant to assume that what was true in the old automatically must be true in the new. The Old Testament cannot be the authority upon the nature of baptism, brethren. Because of these differences, the nature of the New Covenant must establish the relationship between circumcision and baptism. The things that are and are not transferable from circumcision to baptism that we've been laboring to point out must be determined then by the teachings of the New Testament. Moreover, final thought. If we are to base the participants of baptism on the nature of the New Covenant, we are obligated to restrict the participants to those who, quote, know the Lord. As the scriptures emphatically say concerning the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31, 34, pointing forward to this reality, which was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost, they shall all know me. Friends, God's done this. God's done this in the Church of Christ. This is the nature of the Church of Christ. We have a spiritual baptism. We have something that has been not promised, but that's been fulfilled. It has been realized. And we ought to be shouted from the rooftops, brothers and sisters. Jeremiah in a prophetic sense, the Holy Spirit prophesying through him of this glorious coming of the Messiah to bring this about our Lord Jesus Christ, given his life for this reality to be accomplished. They shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest declares the Lord. Church, this declaration, an explanation of the new covenant is clearly referring to disciples alone, unlike the old covenant. and its use of circumcision, the new covenant leaves no room for unbelieving participants. No room for people without faith to be called the people of God. As Calvin said, the inheritors of the covenant of eternal life. Since this is the case, the Old Testament inferences do not outweigh the silence of the New Testament and the nature of the New Covenant. And so we would humbly, with much charity, look again, as I said it earlier, to our Reformed, to Paedo-Baptists, our fellow anti-sacramentalists, who no doubt it cost them much to take that stance, their forefathers in the faith, to repent, to stop this error and this practice of infant sprinkling. Let us pray.