Confession of Faith, Chapter 28 of Baptism. We're up to Section 4. Section 4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized. We're going to talk now about the subjects of baptism. We're going to talk a little bit about baptizing those who profess faith in Christ. I think there's this misunderstanding on the part of a lot of Anabaptists, at least, this notion that we only baptize infants. That's not true. If someone has not been baptized and they come to faith and they're an adult, they're going to be baptized as an adult. We don't, in other words, we don't reject believers' baptism, but we also embrace paedobaptism or infant baptism. Whereas anabaptists and baptists reject paedobaptism or infant baptism. So there's a sense in which we actually agree on the credo-Baptist point. So when Baptists are trying to convince you that we should baptize people on profession of faith, well, yes. We've never denied that. That is a proper time and situation if the person professing faith has never been baptized. So there really isn't this radical difference at that level that some people think. The radicalism is not there, it's on the issue of infant baptism. So we're going to spend more time talking about infants as the subject of baptism once we've gone through the fact that we can baptize believers. We're going to spend more time precisely because that For anyone who accepts the idea of water baptism, and we've talked about the fanatical excesses of some, like some Anabaptist types, like the Quakers, they're fanatics, Quakers and Shakers rejected sacraments altogether. There are also a group of hyper-dispensationalists that I believe are centered in Michigan. I don't know if they're still around anymore, but they were for quite some time. And they too reject water baptism, for example, not because they would disagree with Baptist theology in the main, but because they're so dispensational that they think the only part of the Bible that applies to the church right now are the epistles of Paul. So the Gospels were when Christ was on earth, describing that. The Acts, we're talking about the early church. Revelations, all about the future, because hyper-dispensation was way in the future, or maybe not so far in the future, but it's still the future. It's not yet. And so it leaves them with just a small portion, mostly Paul's letters, that have application to what they would call the church age, which is what they believe we're in. Those hyper-dispensationalists also reject water baptism. They're fanatics as well. So we're pushing all of that aside right now, and in this section, we're to a point where we're talking with people who agree with us that there are sacraments. And on this one, this particular question, we're going to have to focus on the biggest area of disagreement among people who believe in actual water baptism. That is, those people who actually believe in sacraments. You have an entire group of people, and I believe they are still the largest, they call them Protestants, but Baptists are not really Protestant even. They're radical, they're beyond Protestant. They reject infant Baptists. So because of that, we have to discuss infant baptism to a large degree. We have to go through quite a bit on that point. There are several things that we're going to have to discuss when we get to it. There are different ideas that they have. The problem, you just have to keep this in mind, whenever we're talking about Baptists or Anabaptists, Every congregation has a different confession. There is no guarantee that we're talking about the same thing from group to group. Particularly when we start talking about these independent fundamentalist Baptists and people like that. They have a lot of different flavors. and they're all off some. So when we bring up some of these things and we're talking in generalities, most of the time we can see it applies to some Anabaptists, probably never applies to all Anabaptists because they have no creedal integrity and there is no, in their mind, no reason to be theologically consistent. Yeah. In a way, don't they do kind of have one creedal uniformity? Their creed would be the Bible, but they interpret it differently? Well, that's no creed. The Bible's not your creed. Okay. The Bible's not what you believe. It's what God tells you to believe. So, when somebody says, I believe the Bible, that means nothing to me. Because a Unitarian believes the Bible, can believe the Bible, as well as a Trinitarian. And it just gets worse from there. It's why there have to be creeds, confessions. You can't just say, well, we're gonna agree to believe the Bible together. As soon as people start talking that way, what they're asking for is a big curtain to be drawn over what they really believe. Because you can twist and turn anything In fact, when the Armenians were at Dort, when they were addressed at Dort, the Armenians said to Bogerman, who was the moderator at Dort, all that we're asking is the liberty to interpret the creed, the Belgian Confession, by the Bible. And Bogerman said, that is heresy. We don't interpret the creed by the Bible, we interpret the Bible by our creed. Once you try to reverse that order, what you're doing is looking for a pretext to advance any kind of belief or system of belief. Usually it's just a belief. Most heretics are not systematic because heresy really defies being placed in the system. It's very hard to systematize. And in fact, a lot of times it's in the course of looking at a system of doctrine that you begin to realize that there are problems. It's not necessarily in this or that particular doctrine, but you have to be patient enough to look at the system because the system is either going to be consistent with itself and with Scripture or not. I mean, if people are trying to systematize. And so there's a sense in which we're going to assert that infant baptism is in fact consistent with the systematic teaching of Scripture. All of the things that we've talked about up until this point in the Westminster Confession, that entire system of theology. All of that supplies groundwork and bolsters and supports this doctrine of infant baptism. Baptists want to talk about proof text. The interesting thing about Calvin when he talks about infant baptism is he doesn't begin with proof texting, he begins with a discussion of the covenant of grace and the nature of God's covenant with man. And really, I would say, in this respect, what you believe about baptism is a good case study. for how coherent all of your theology really is. Sacramental theology, again, and I've mentioned this before, this is why I think there's so much time spent on sacramental theology in the Westminster Confession. You know, there are a lot more sections in, if we put together the chapter on the sacraments generally, baptism and the Lord's Supper, There's a lot going on, a lot more sections in those chapters, a lot more words devoted to those chapters than to a lot of other doctrines that we've covered. And I think the reason is because when you get to your sacramental theology, in a sense, you're testing out a lot of your theory, your theological theory. Can it bear the weight of sacramental doctrine and practice? So at that point, it's really a moment of clarity. It's where the proverbial rubber meets the road, theologically. And we see that in the way it's handled. Again, some of the biggest controversies during the Reformation were surrounding sacramental theology. Between the Protestants and the Romanists, but also between the Reformed and the Lutherans. And then later, the Magisterial Reformers and the Anabaptists. There are different degrees, and they're all being tested out proved or broken on the doctrine of the sacraments. So what we believe regarding the sacraments is important and in some sense it is in fact a good indication of of the direction and the shape that all of our theology is going to take. All of our understanding of the teaching of Scripture will fall into the form that our sacramental theology is taking. Now I happen to believe that the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments not only is right, One way I think we know it is demonstrably right is in its mirroring the Christological dogmas that were established in the early Church. The idea of the union of the person of Christ and the two natures. There's this outward and there's this inward. There's this spiritual and there's this physical. So I think that there are a lot of parallels. Alright, let's begin with question one. Are those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ to be baptized? The answer is yes. Look at Mark 16, verses 15 and 16, as well as Acts 8, 37 and 38. Mark 16, verses 15 and 16, Jesus said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. So, I think that it's pretty clear Throughout Scripture, particularly in the New Testament, those who actually profess faith in and obedience to Christ are to be baptized. We can look again at Acts 8, verse 12. Acts 8, verse 12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Once we get beyond that whole question of whether or not baptism is to be continued in the Christian church, that being established, there really has not been, for people who accept water baptism, a big controversy on this particular point. Usually there's not. It's not a matter of what do we do when you have someone who's never been baptized and they express faith in Christ. What do we do with that? The answer very clearly is we baptize. The answer is that we we bring them to the water. That's what profession of faith and profession of obedience to Christ, that's what it entails. If you've never been baptized and you profess faith in Christ, you ought to be baptized. There's not really controversy, I don't think, on that point. So again, when Baptists want to beat you about the ears and tell you, you baptize people who make a profession of faith, yes you do. Unless they're already baptized, because we don't re-baptize. They were called Anabaptists because that meant they were baptizing again. Ana meaning again. It was a re-baptism. We don't want to be re-baptizers. If you're going to be baptized, you shouldn't desire to be baptized again. If you are submitting yourself to being baptized, you should be convinced that if you were baptized allegedly baptized before, that there was something inherently wrong with it. That it wasn't merely unlawful, but that it wasn't a valid baptism. And so you weren't really baptized. For any church to re-baptize those who've been validly baptized is to engage in anabaptism. And they're not really far from the Baptists in that. Because Baptists are anabaptists. They will, they don't, they reject infant baptism, which as I say we're going to defend in a few minutes. All right. The profession of this faith that we're talking about must be either such as is expressed, look at Deuteronomy 5.27 and Joshua 24.24. Deuteronomy 5.27, Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say, and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee, and we will hear it and do it. Or, if it's not expressed, it has to be tacit and implicit, such as we see in Acts 16 verse 15 and also verses 31 to 34. Acts 16 verse 15, And when she was baptized in her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us. And verses 31 through 34, And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved in thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all the straight way. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Okay, so the fact is there is, for adult believers, or adult, I should say, recipients of baptism. There needs to be some express or at least tacit implicit notion that they actually do believe. That there is some kind of acknowledgment of approach. Now, why is it we're saying that? The deranged, those who are asleep, the unwilling, the grossly ignorant, heretics, the openly irreligious, etc. ought not to be baptized. There are people that should be excluded from that. Again, why do we say this? Well, it so happens that it was the practice of the Roman Church to go into pagan nations and go up and down the street and just start sprinkling water on anyone and declaring them baptized. And that's also erroneous. That idea is plausible if you have a Romish view of Sacraments, right? This idea of ex operae operata, the idea that the sacraments are going to have power to work in and of themselves. If I just get that water to touch you, it's holy water and that holy water will change you. So all I need to do is get you in into contact with that and in time it'll work. That's not the picture we have. We don't see that in scripture. They do it because of the idea of national baptism, the idea that we see in Isaiah 52 of Messiah that he'll sprinkle the nations and then again in Christ's Great Commission the idea that we should disciple the nations, baptizing them and teaching them. But it's really a misappropriation. You don't see this happening in the Book of Acts. They're not going into these villages and these towns and so on and just indiscriminately sprinkling water all over the place. They're waiting for the Spirit to work first through the word preached and then they baptize. Yes, that's generally what we see go on. It's actually that that causes Baptists to have a little bit of trouble too. What we do see. So Baptists conclude one thing erroneously from Acts, whereas Papists conclude something erroneous from some other places in Scripture. And I think we're going to try to bring all of this together and balance it together. Yeah. There was still never any time when the Apostles were just, like you used the term, indiscriminately sprinkling a town. The discrimination was the people who came and heard the Word, right? Yeah, there's, right, and there's There's this idea as well that Moses sprinkled all the people. That also feeds that idea in Romanism that we could go into towns and just start sprinkling everyone. But the difference is, remember, the people that Moses is sprinkling, they're already They've already been sort of set apart through the exodus. They've already been devoted to God. There is not that kind of indiscriminate-ness going on with baptism. There's another area here that we can talk about a little bit when we get to infant baptism, and that is the debate between Samuel Rutherford and Thomas Boston over this very concept of who is to be baptized. And Rutherford believed, and I think in this he's right, that in a nation, when you have a national establishment of religion, all of the children in the nation are in fact eligible for baptism. If they're kept back from baptism, it doesn't mean that later in life you're going to let the wicked, profane, and so on come. Would that be because the kings are nursing fathers? Yes, there's an idea there that the whole nation is a household. Let's move on in our point before us. That those only that possess of knowledge, sound sentiments, credible profession of faith, and consistent practice in godly conduct are the ones to be baptized appears in this first. Because such requisites were made by John the Baptist, by the apostles, and our Lord. John taught in order to baptism. Philip demanded profession of faith. In the case of the eunuch, again, look at Acts 8.37. Acts 8.37, and Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, and he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Yeah, which faith and profession required knowledge. So, you know, we can talk about what this eunuch knew or didn't know, I would suggest to you that the fact that he's reading Isaiah, and we basically have every reason to assume from the text that he is already a Jewish proselyte. In other words, he has all of the requisite knowledge except for one thing. He doesn't know Jesus of Nazareth. He doesn't know that he is the Messiah, that he is the Christ. He doesn't know that he's the Son of God incarnate. That's what Philip is sent to declare unto him. He's the rest of the creed already down. So the idea that it was a simple profession of faith here, like a lot of Baptists, for example, would say, I think is very much misguided. He knew enough to question and wonder about that passage in Isaiah 52 and 53. Who's being spoken of in this passage? Is it Christ or is it some other? It took like a basic understanding of the whole Jewish theology, right? He understood that there was a Messiah coming and he's also in expectation like so many that the Messiah may be coming. So he's aware of this. And that means he's aware of a lot that's being taught in the Bible. So Philip is not having to fill in a complete absence of theological knowledge. He's dealing with a situation where the eunuch has already a competent knowledge of the Bible, a competent knowledge of theology, and he just is lacking in this one crucial area that the belief in which represents turning that corner from the Old Testament era to the new. And that is belief in Christ. Jesus is a Christ. All right, John the Baptist required repentance and works worthy of repentance. Look at Matthew 3. Matthew 3, verse 8, bring forth therefore fruits made for repentance. And our Lord himself required discipline and baptism. Matthew 28, verse 19. Matthew 28, verse 19, go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. When he's just teaching there, teaching all nations, the word, same root as Matthew's name. It means to disciple. And so he's saying disciple or discipline. There has to be discipline that is being imposed along with baptism. There's discipline in teaching. There's baptism in teaching in this in this discipline. Because all of these will accompany a saving interest in Christ in ordinary cases. 1 Peter 3.21. 1 Peter 3.21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of the good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There's a saving interest in Christ in ordinary cases. I should say a saving interest in grace will be accompanied with repentance and faith, a desire for that discipline, a desire to be taught. Without those things, there's no way of gauging that there is anything that's changed. That there's any kind of ground for baptizing someone as an adult. There's just nothing. Third, because the Church should, in dispensing baptism, be a faithful witness for Christ and a faithful instructor and reprover. 2 Thessalonians 3, 14 and 15, and 2 John 10 and 11. 2 Thessalonians 3, verses 14 and 15. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Second John, verses 10 and 11. If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed. For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds. So there has to be on the part of the Church a certain faithfulness. You can't baptize indiscriminately and And assume from that that people are going to, they're going to believe, right? That's not, that's not something that you ought to be doing. You can't just walk through the streets sprinkling water and then assume this is the best way to grow the church. Usually when the Roman church did that, right behind that priest that was sprinkling were conquistadors or some other military figures who were going to subjugate the people that were being sprinkled. And they were brought into the church at gunpoint, which is another problem. We've discussed this in other contexts, but it's not, the gospel is not spread by the sword. That might be fine for Islam, but Christianity is not the religion of the sword. So this idea that we're going to impress people into the church, it was a wrong-headed notion. And even in in a nation professing the gospel, you're not going to be able to necessarily to enforce everyone be baptized, even though you're allowing that. Profession of faith in Christ, obedience to Christ, faith in and obedience to Christ, that is the ground, the proper ground for all baptism. And that, why do I say for all baptism? Because that creates the necessary precondition for baptism. Now the question is, the real question between the Anabaptists and everyone else is, is faith simply an individual matter or is it possible that children could be baptized based upon the faith of their parents? one or both parents. We're saying that not only is it possible, but the Bible in fact teaches that that is to be the case. That the covenant, which is the prerequisite, the condition, the precondition for baptism, that in families where one or both parents are believers, there is a precondition met for the extension of baptism to the offspring. And I would just add, as Rutherford does in his Covenant of Grace Open, that in a nation favored with the light of the gospel, where the magistrate, we have a godly magistrate, a national profession, and so on, that that, through the civil leader, who is a civil father to a nation, just like we call George Washington the father of our nation, that kind of idea, in a godly situation that is much more real and tangible and much more put into practice. We're not dealing with tyrants. In those situations, there is a right to baptism existing for everyone in that nation. Everyone's a citizen, born a citizen of the nation. And just like you're born into the covenant household, if you're born into a family, you're born into the covenant household when you're born into a nation that professes a true religion. But let's focus on infant baptism now, and the argument that is pretty, I think this is pretty standard argument, argumentation, certainly from a Reform point of view, but I would say from a Protestant point of view, and to some extent, from a general Christian point of view. Now, I'm a little hesitant because, particularly in the Roman Church, because it's such great pains to create areas where they have doctrines solely based on tradition Very often they present infant baptism as something that you can't really know from the Bible, you get it, the church has learned it and handed this down from the days of the apostles. I think they're right about that point, that it is a practice handed down from the days of the apostles, but I think that it's also taught in the Bible. And that's what we're going to focus on now. Question two, are the infants of one or both believing parents also to be baptized? The answer is yes. And I want, as we go through these verses, well, I'll come back to some of these, because we're dealing with a broad argument that is rooted in covenant theology. Look at Genesis 17, 7, 9, and 10. I want to compare that particularly with Galatians 3, 9, and 14, as well as Colossians 2, 11, and 12, and Romans 4, 11, and 12. And then we're going to look at Matthew 28, 19, Mark 10, 13 to 16, and Luke 18, 15. Genesis 17, verse 7, And I will establish my covenant between their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Verses 9 and 10. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee and their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee. Every man and child among you shall be circumcised. In Galatians 3 verse 9, so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. In verse 14, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Colossians 2, 11 and 12, in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, and putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Romans 4, verses 11 and 12. And he received a sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also, and a father of circumcision to them who are not of circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised. Matthew 20, 80, 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Mark 10, 13 through 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them. And his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not. For of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God is a little child, and shall not enter therein. Luke 18, 15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them. But when his disciples saw it, they would eat them. So, why are they bringing these children to Christ? Every Jew understood the promise. The promise was not only to them, but to their children. And that's why they're interested in bringing their children to the Messiah. Now, the sign and seal of the covenant, circumcision, was placed not only on Abraham, but on his seed. And the children of Abraham are now those who believe in Christ. That's the argument as we move from Genesis to Galatians, Colossians, Romans. It's the same covenant of grace. Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness. He wasn't saved in some other way. Abraham did not then receive circumcision and then believe, he believed and was circumcised. So his faith is the precondition, not only for him receiving circumcision, but for his children being circumcised as well. That promise to Abraham, Paul says very clearly in Galatians, is realized in Christ. He calls baptism the circumcision of the New Testament, circumcising of the heart. In fact, if we were to look throughout the Old Testament, we would see that circumcision itself signified and sealed the circumcising of the heart. How could any Old Testament believer circumcise their own heart? That was an inward spiritual work that needed to be done. But there was an outward sign and seal that pointed to that. So there's a continuity, and we've talked about this going all the way back to chapter 7 in the Confession. There's continuity. The covenant of grace is one. There are different administrations, but it's the same covenant of grace. We talked about this even in the chapter just on sacraments. There's one covenant. Because the covenant substantially is the same, it pertains substantially to the same subjects, which are not only believers, but their seed, their children. Thus the Anabaptists and those that deny original sin are maintaining that no infant so born of believing parents ought to be baptized. And we throw in those that deny original sin, Certainly by the time of Tertullian in the early church, there was a growing conceit. They did not practice anti-baptism, but a lot of people, because of their views of baptism, were beginning to think they should delay baptism as long as they could, and a lot of people like Constantine waited until their deathbed, or when they thought they were close to death, to seek baptism because they believed it would wash away all their sins, and they didn't have to worry then. So they tried to push it off as long as possible. The fact is we're conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. So you need this, whatever help baptism is going to be from the beginning. The same rationale for delaying baptism probably played a large role in encouraging immersion. because they began to view the water of baptism as having some kind of inherent power to work holiness in people. Right. They're confuted. Why? Because, first of all, to covenanted ones, of which number the infants and believers are no less than their parents, We look at Acts 2, 38, 39, Acts 3, 25, Romans 11, 16, Genesis 17, verse 7 again, and also verse 22. Acts 2, verses 38 and 39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. for the promises unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 3 verse 25. Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed. Romans 11 verse 16. For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy. Let the root be holy, so are the branches. Genesis 17 verses 7 and 22. Verse 7. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way of Shur. So, the infancy believers, no less than parents, are in this covenant. they're covenanted with God. And the seal of the covenant belongs to them as covenanted ones, because they're capable of being baptized. It's not to be denied. Look at Genesis 17, 7 again, and also verses 10 and 11 again. Genesis 17, verse 7, and I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, and their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Verses 10 and 11, this is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee. Every man and child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh from your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. So, the idea here is, first of all, children of one or both believing parents are already in covenant with God by virtue of the fact that their parents are in covenant with God. Second, because the outward sacrament of water cannot be denied as such as it received the Spirit of Christ, into whom the promises of the new covenant sealed up in baptism do belong. Look at Acts 10, 47, as well as Acts 11, 15-17. Acts 10, verse 47, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 11, 15-17. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gifts as he did unto us, who believed on the word of his Christ, what was I that I could withstand God? So we know from Scripture that those who have the Spirit of Christ, to them baptism already belongs. Why is it important? Well, Baptists very often will say it's impossible for people to believe until they reach what they call an age of accountability. By the way, there's not one verse. For people who are so hung up on proof texting, there is not one verse in the entire Bible that refers to, alludes to, or can be construed to point to an age of accountability. Unless we're going to talk about a child leaving its minority and moving into its majority. That is taking it far beyond where most Baptists would ever feel comfortable, because that's a much later age than they're generally pressing kids to profess faith. Fact is, however, that to some infants of believers, as well as to others, come to age, the Spirit of Christ has been given. Look at Jeremiah 1.5, Luke 1.15, Matthew 19.14, and Mark 10.13-14. Jeremiah 1.5, Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Luke 1 15. 3. Shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink, and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. Matthew 19 14. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for I am of such as the kingdom of heaven. Mark 10 13 and 14. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them. and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased and said unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. So if of such is the kingdom of God, it's hard to imagine that they should be excluded from this baptism, especially, again, knowing what the Old Testament taught, what was the expectation of those Jews who became what we would call New Testament believers. We're told, to them do the promises belong. Again, look at Acts 2, verse 39. Acts 2, verse 39. The promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. When Peter said that to a bunch of Jews on the day of Pentecost, how would they have understood that? He's talking about baptism. He's talking about the promise being not only to them but to their children. That's not just a call for all adults to get into the pool. That's a general declaration that the covenant belongs to believers and their seed, and the implication of that is, so does baptism. And when we couple that with what we already know about the possibility of what we would call child faith. We don't know at what point, we don't know how faith is formed in a child. But we know that children have faith and can exercise faith. Even in the womb? Even in the womb, Jeremiah and Luke, or John the Baptist, we see it's talked about there. I think it's alluded to in the case of Paul. And if it's alluded to in those cases, then it happens. How usual is it? I don't know how usual it is, but Jesus says of the little children, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. That makes it sound to me like it is much more common than most people would assume. So maybe infants being baptized could be a big part of the church before even the Millennium comes, correct? Like the number of infants who die could be more than the people who have faith. Calvin viewed infant baptism In some respect, I think in the Institutes, he makes some statements that sound to me like he viewed infant baptism, and the fact that baptism had not entirely departed from the Roman Church, as a ground for hope that eventually Romanism would die, but what was Christian would flourish, where Romanism had been. And he bases that on this idea of baptism. So, you know, I think Luther has views in regard to this that are, at least that particular point, are similar. The power of baptism or the presence of baptism in a community. There's a reason why they're adamantly rejecting this notion of Anabaptists that would reject children. They view the Anabaptists in as harsh and extreme a light as they did the Papists. They viewed their error in this other direction as being as bad as potpourri in its most corrupt institution. You can't leave out the children of believers. and say you profess the same belief in the Gospel. You have a different covenant in mind. It's God's covenant that He tenders to His people, including them and their children. because infants and believers are members of the Church, which is sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the Word. Ephesians 5, 25 and 26, Joel 2, 16, Ezekiel 16, 20 and 21, and 1st Corinthians 7, 14. Ephesians 5, 25, and 26. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Joel 2, verse 16. Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children and those that suck the breasts, let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber and the bride out of her closet. Ezekiel 16 verses 20 and 21. Moreover, thou hast taken my sons and thy daughters whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? 1 Corinthians 7 verse 14, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Elsewhere your children were unclean, but now they are holy. So, what's the story with regard to all of this? Well, infants of believers are already members of the Church. That's the point in Ezekiel. You bore those children unto me. God's complaint is, you have brought them up in idolatry. You bore them unto Me. They're My children. They are there being washed by the water of the Word. We don't know what they can understand. We don't know what anyone can understand, but just sitting under the preaching of the Word is washing them, is continually affecting them. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that one parent, one believer, the husband sanctifies the wife, the wife the husband in the case of one being an unbeliever and the other a believer. Why? So that the children are holy. That is, they are set apart to God. Because infants, the less than others come to age, were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. 1 Corinthians 10 verse 2. 1 Corinthians 10 verse 2. And we're all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Yeah, this is one of these verses when people say, oh, there's no infant baptism. Well, yes, there was. Remember, the night that Israel departed, they departed with their children. Remember, in Egypt, there was a wailing throughout the land. All the firstborn in Egypt had died. Israel takes their children, and we're told here that they're all baptized in the cloud in the sea. That includes the infants that they were taking with them. There is infant baptism in the Bible. 5. Because Christ commanded that all nations should be baptized, a great part of whereof were infants. Genesis 22.18 and Matthew 28.19 again. Genesis 22.18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice. Matthew 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So, if you're ever wondering what Christ is referring to when he tells them to go out and baptize, or disciple the nations, baptizing them and teaching them, he's actually applying the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant God had with Abraham. God tells Abraham that in his seed, all nations will be blessed. And if you're baptizing nations, you're not just baptizing adults, you're baptizing children. And that's exactly, that idea is where people like Rutherford are going to raise this idea of national baptism, essentially. The idea that when the household, when the nation is a nation in faith together, that the household of God and the household of the nation are nearly the same. That baptism at that point belongs to all who are born into a kingdom that professes a true religion. 6. Because Christ commanded baptism to be administered to disciples, Infants are also here to be taken in. Acts 15.10. And also we'll get Matthew 28.19 again. Acts 15.10. Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which not our fathers, nor we, were able to bear? Matthew 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. What's that yoke that is being talked about, that neither we nor our fathers are fair? Yoke is everything that was embraced in that covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament. So that yoke was something our fathers, that they took upon not only as adults, but as children when they were circumcised. That yoke is put upon them. That same idea. is present, again, in the Great Commission. The word in the original is methetousate, teach, instruct, or make disciples. They're discipling all nations. Make disciples among all nations, baptizing them. The signification of this Greek word may be gathered from John 4.1. John 4.1? when therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John? Yes, it's said the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made disciples. Same root word is employed here. How did he make disciples? Baptizing. 7. Because the children of believers were, by divine right, circumcised under the Old Testament, therefore the children of believers under the New Testament ought to be baptized because one has succeeded the other. This is an argument from parity in the Covenant. That baptism succeeds the circumcision is evident because one has succeeded the other. As circumcision was the initiating seal under the Old Testament, so is baptism under the New, because the apostles did it ministered so early to the disciples at the first appearing of their new birth and interest in the covenant. Moreover, because by baptism we are said to put on Christ. Galatians 3 verse 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. They both seal up the same thing as evident by comparing Romans 6.11 with Mark 1.4 in Acts 2.38. Romans 6.11, Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Mark 1.4, John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. So again, it's the same covenant The signs and seals have changed All right, but they represent basically the same thing Just in one case, they're looking forward to Christ to come, and the other, they're looking backward. They have a backward reference. So, there is an administering here. Now, why is it that we don't see a lot of infant baptism. And I'm not going to say that we don't see any. In fact, I actually think that there's quite a bit more there, as we're going to see in a moment, than a lot of people assume. We have to remember that the cases where we have adults being baptized We're talking about first generation believers. We're talking about a lot of first generation. And in any first generation of believers, it has to begin with adults. It has to begin with a profession of faith. Like it had to begin with Abraham. It didn't begin with a seed, it began with Abraham. So circumcision is declared to be a seal of the righteousness of faith. Baptism is held forth to be a pledge of the remission of sins. Also that can be seen in Romans 4, 6 to 8, and Colossians 2, 11 and 12 again. Romans 4, verses 6 through 8. Colossians 2, verses 11 and 12. in whom also ye are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, and putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. So the Apostle teaches that our being buried with Christ in baptism is our circumcision in Christ. And that shows that baptism succeeded to us in the room of circumcision. The last reason that we're going to talk about here is because the Apostle says that the infants but of one believing parent are holy. Again, 1 Corinthians 7.14. 1 Corinthians chapter 14, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Elsewhere your children are unclean, but now are they holy. Which is to say, they're comprehending the outward covenant of God, have access to signs and seals of God's grace, as well as they that are born of both believing parents. So, the idea of being holy, that means to be set apart, particularly by covenant, that they're in covenant with God. God recognizes them as already in covenant. And this is important because we don't, as some people would characterize it, we're not baptizing people to make them members of the Visible Church. We baptize those who are already, we already have reason to believe are members of the Visible Church. That is, they already have some evidence that they're in covenant with God, actively in covenant with God. And that can either be profession of faith and obedience to Christ, in the case of an adult, or the seed of one or more believing parents. All right, we want to move on to a third question. And that is, how then should we reconcile these apparent differences from the Wiccan aspersions of the Anabaptists? They say all kinds of things. Usually the things they say are, I think, prove that they're not usually very perceptive people. A friend of mine who was a Baptist a number of years ago wrote and noted that Baptists were, generally speaking, were not known for their systematic theology. They were generally, Baptists are generally known for their preachers, which is why Baptist congregations rise and fall on preachers. If someone's a good orator, generally it'll get pretty big, and if they're not, it won't. Whereas Presbyterian churches, Reformed churches, are built on catechizing and teaching. And When he said that Baptists are generally not good systematizers, I think what he probably could have said if he was going to be a little bit more honest is, Baptists generally are not very intelligent people. Yeah, which is why they're drawn to that that flashy preacher who yes all Yeah, it's all it's all it's all flesh. It's all in the world of advertising. We would say it's all sizzle You sell the sizzle not the not the burger, right? Reform churches are trying to sell the burger Baptists are interested in the sizzle It's probably why they spend so much time on it. I'd go to hell too Anyway So Baptism, being the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant of grace under the New Testament dispensation, is to be applied to all who are visible Church members, and this is extended unto all who have the promise. Again, Acts 2, 38 and 39. Acts 2, verses 38 and 39. Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children and all that are far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. So again, how are they hearing that? They're hearing it as a restatement of that Abrahamic covenant. They're not hearing something else. They're hearing that same covenant of grace being declared to them. To me and to my children. To me and my seed. Now this promise embraces all who hear and believe. Look at Acts 8, 36 and 37. Acts 8, 36 and 37. And as they went upon their way, they came unto a certain water, and the eunuch said, See, here is the water, and doth hinder me to be baptized. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And there also, it embraces those who remotely assent, as we see in Acts 10, verse 7, and then 44-48. Acts 10, verse 7, And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually. And verse 44-48, While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the Gentiles also were poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, and they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, but should receive the Holy Ghost as well as wheat? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Now, the infants then are embraced both for their natural relationship to their parents and because of their domestic relationship as members of the household. Why is that an important point to make? Because baptism, as Abraham learned, not only applied to his physical seed, but to his domestics, his household servants. And so, you know, if you were to adopt a child, that child would be, you know, a rightful recipient of baptism. You wouldn't just put that off. not because there's a natural relation, but there's a domestic relationship. It'll imitate, to some extent, that natural relationship. But that domestic relationship is also the basis upon which, again, Samuel Rutherford would defend the idea of national baptizing. Right. Now, this idea appears, first of all, in the promise that's made to the seed of the believer, Genesis 17, 7. Genesis 17, 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, and their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And even the children of one-believing parents including God's external covenant with the parent. Again, 1 Corinthians 7, verse 14. 1 Corinthians 7, verse 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. This idea then proves the right by natural relationship. We can't deny it by natural relationship. But there's also this idea of domestic relationship, and we see that Abraham's servants were included in the covenant as members of his household. Look at Genesis 17, 12, 13, 23, and 27. Genesis 17, 12, and 13. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man, child, and your generations. He that is born in the house, or brought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 23. And Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the self, same day as God had said unto him. 27. All the men of his house born in the house and bought with the money of the stranger were circumcised with him. So they're all circumcised and that proves the right by domestic or civil relationship. Now let me just say something here for a moment. While I do agree with Samuel Rutherford on this point, the point in our confession right here is to defend infant baptism. It's not getting into that question of whether or not we baptize as Rutherford would advocate nationally or not as Thomas Boston. In other words, neither Rutherford or Boston are taking a non-confessional point of view. They're both going to defend infant baptism. I just want to be clear about that. That's a question that's sort of outside of the scope of what we're talking about here, although I would say that Thomas Boston is minimizing the second line of argument from a domestic relation or civil relation. All right, third. We also justly argue for the baptisms of households, and there are actually a few. Acts 16, 14 and 15. Acts 16, 31 and 33. Acts 18, 8. 1 Corinthians 1.16, Hebrews 11.7, compared with 1 Peter 3.20-21. Acts 16 verses 14-15, And a serving woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized in her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and abide there. And she constrained us. Acts 16 verses 31 and 33. Verse 31, And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved at my house. And verse 33, And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized he and all his straight way. Acts 18, 8. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians here hearing believed and were baptized. 1 Corinthians 1 verse 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. Hebrews 11 verse 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 1 Peter 3 verses 20 and 21 which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, within few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure, whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." If we were to examine New Testament baptisms, actually, there are quite a number of them that refer to household baptisms. That entire characterization implies that there are children, minors or domestics, others that are not necessarily the ones who are the primary professors of faith who are being baptized in conjunction with Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and so on, Stephanus. Those are all examples that should make us pause. In fact, there is, I believe there are actually more of these examples in the New Testament than individuals, just single individuals being baptized. And so, you know, again, if you understand covenantally how these people in the New Testament era are thinking, it would have been highly unusual for, particularly for a Jew, to conceive of a religion or the Messiah coming and all of a sudden narrowing the privileges. I mean, if this is an area where the privilege of the New Testament is narrowing the covenant of grace rather than expanding it, it's the only one I can think of, and it's a bizarre place to do it. And yet there's all this language in the New Testament that I think cuts against understanding that. are the natural, organic reading of the Bible, as any Jew would have, would conclude that the covenant is being made not only with me, but with my children. And that would extend the sign and seal of the covenant, particularly the initiatory covenant, the sign and seal baptism now, not just to me, but to my children. A fourth consideration is the Christian family is a component part of the Church itself. First Corinthians 16 19 and Joshua 24 15 The churches of Asia salute you Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord with the church that is in their house Joshua 24, 15. And it would seem evil unto you to serve the Lord. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. So the family is a component part of the Church. God's Church consists of families joined together. not just individuals. That's another part of the problem with Baptistic thinking. And that's actually had a deleterious effect on the thinking of people in the United States. The American Baptist culture, we've adopted this extreme individualism. It's every man for himself. So, you know, we encourage families to move apart, break apart, all the children to go off and do their own thing. There's no cohesive unit. By the way, one of the great strides in how the Jews have really, in fact, amassed huge fortunes is that they've stuck together as families. They form family corporations, they all work together, they all pool their money together, they lend money among themselves, they don't go outside of the family, they don't make the Gentiles rich unless they have to. They try to avoid that. And they do that because they look at building of the family as also building up of the Jewish religion. The Christian family is a divine institution for the education of the members of the Church Catholic. Deuteronomy 6, 6 and 7. Deuteronomy 6, verse 7. And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. The last thing is natural relationship itself to believing parents will not entitle a child to baptism if the child, on their death, become a member of an ungodly house. So we get Genesis 18, 19, and again, we get Matthew 28, 19, and 20. Genesis 18, verse 19. For I know him, that he will command his children in his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. Matthew 28, verses 19 and 20. Go ye therefore and teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. So the idea here is that God makes a covenant with Abraham. He knows Abraham. there's an assumption that believing parents are going to teach their children. In other words, that there's going to be a teaching of the word which always goes before the sacraments. There is this tendency in high church traditions where they have this mystical or view of sacraments that the sacraments have some inherent power, that sacraments go before teaching. But the fact is there's always teaching going before the sacraments. It's not to say you're going to understand that in baptism, but there's always an establishing of teaching. And again, I would argue that that is another reason why in a nation that has a national establishment, all children would be eligible for baptism because that prerequisite of the establishing of the teaching of the true religion has been met. It's not following behind like when the Romanists went in just to sprinkle people. One more thing, with the Baptists, because they have this low information theology, that is one reason why they have been so prolific in the world. They run, they're like the fella in David's day, you know, girds himself up and runs and gets there and doesn't have a message. And they do that all the time. They get there, they have no message. Whereas reformed people tend to sit around and think a long time about what exactly should be the message we're gonna take to these people. You know, how are we gonna do that? They're more concerned about having an educated, in fact, for a long time, Presbyterians were noted for having some of the most educated among the Protestant ministers. That's declining now because everything is declining, but it shouldn't be that way. The Formed Church should be most concerned about having an educated ministry because you don't want to run, not only unsent, but you don't want to run and get there and have no message. The Baptists are, if you've ever heard that saying, that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth even gets its shoes on. That's kind of how the Baptists are with what they're doing. And then you get there and you have to undo it. But they've managed to spread their heresy all over the world. And so we have to deal with this. All right, next time. We're going to deal with the question of neglect of the ordinance and in what sense we should view grace and salvation tied to baptism.