Confession of faith chapter 28 of baptism Section 5 Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerate." The doctrine of baptism is what we've been considering last few weeks is one of those very hotly contested issues precisely because we're talking about sacraments and sacramental theology is where a lot of people's preconceptions really pop up and they They show what's really going on, I think, sometimes in theology. So what we're talking about, we've talked about the mode of baptism, the subjects of baptism, but there's this issue. We're calling it a means of grace. What do we mean by that? Now we're going to say, and we are saying, that it's a very wicked thing to neglect or condemn baptism. there's already a problem. If your theology is leading you to condemn baptism, then we know that there's a problem with what you're saying. And so, we've talked generally about sacraments, and now we've been talking more particularly about baptism, but the reason why there's an issue, dam or neglect the ordinance, has to do with the issue of necessity. We're raising the issue of necessity. Now, the question might be Those who condemn and neglect baptism, they don't necessarily view it as a matter of necessity. And we're saying, no, you have to view it in some sense as a necessity. Well, on the other side of the question are the people who believe in baptismal regeneration. believe that there's something inherent, either in the water, it's holy water and it's going to work this in you, or they believe that there's something inherent in the administration of the sacrament and that's going to work grace in you, in it, just by reason of administering the sacrament. That's sort of the other extreme. We find that view with Papists and Lutherans. And we're denying that as well. So how is it that we can say it's necessary, but it's not that necessary? The answer is we distinguish between what we call a hypothetical necessity and an absolute necessity. That's part of our answer here. Baptism is a hypothetical necessity. It is when it can be had lawfully, administered, then there is a presumption that those who would willfully condemn or neglect, because that's what you would be doing when it's lawful, when there's a lawful means, then it's a great sin to condemn and neglect the ordinance. On the other hand, we reject the idea that it is of absolute necessity. So that we would have to say in that case, you know, if it's an absolute necessity, then people would have to to be baptized in order to be saved. This is a view that becomes more and more prevalent in the early church, and a view that is only, with a certain amount of difficulty, going to be put away, put aside, with the coming of the Reformation. We view that view that ascribes to baptism an absolute necessity beyond the sacerdotalism that we object to in that there usually is a tenet with that, quite a bit of superstition. So we find both things objectionable. So again, we're trying to cut a middle path between extremes when we discuss the doctrine of baptism. We're not neglecting or condemning water baptism. In fact, there are a lot of people today I think in some sense a growing number of people, highly influenced by Baptistic movements, and some of them Calvinistic-Baptistic movements, who, while they perhaps don't entirely reject Baptism, simply don't see it as very important. simply see everything in terms of spiritual baptism and because that's for them the important thing that water baptism becomes wholly unimportant and that's a wrong view. We've talked about the fact that God establishes sacraments to be visible words to us. To neglect them, willfully to neglect the administration of sacraments is to reject the visible words that God has put before us. So we shouldn't be doing that. So we're going to deal first with the question of the the sin that's involved in condemning or neglecting the ordinance of baptism. And then we're going to deal with this issue of how or what sense we would say that grace and salvation are associated with baptism. And finally, we're going to deal with another question, not unrelated and that is this notion that Romanism has that the virtue and efficacy of baptism doesn't extend beyond or past the time of administration. Now the reason that's an important question is their entire doctrine of the confessional. The reason for what they would call the sacrament of penance is to deal with sins committed after baptism. So their view of baptism is sin that is original sin and sin committed until the time of baptism, that's all remitted in baptism. But after that you have to deal with sin that occurs. And we reject that view too. We believe that baptism not only has reference to sins that were committed in the past or original sin, but also to all future sins. So we're going to talk about that. Finally, we will address the issue, and to a certain extent it will be preparatory to the next section in the Confession, and that is the question of whether or not grace or the Spirit of God is so inseparably connected to baptism that anyone who's baptized is certainly regenerate. So a lot of times in liturgical churches, high church traditions, they will refer to baptism as regeneration. they will conflate the terms. And while it is the sacrament of regeneration, that does not mean it is a sacrament that regenerates. It's a sacrament that is a sign and seal of regeneration, the promise of regeneration, but that does not mean that it works ex operandi. doesn't have a power in and of itself. So we're going to talk about that as well. We don't believe that all who are baptized are regenerate. By the way, that is one objection because of certain Protestant groups which have so tied baptism to the idea of regeneration, that's fed a certain line of argumentation within baptistic churches that say, well, you know, then we should make sure people regenerate before we baptize them. How are we going to know that? to wait until they come of age and they can demonstrate that they're regenerate and so on. So we need to address that question and between this week and next, Lord willing, hopefully we'll get a little bit better sense of what exactly is going on with baptism and why we call it a means of grace, what it is accomplishing, what it's signifying, what it's sealing. We've talked about it in generalities, we've talked about sacraments in general, but I think in these next couple of sections we will have reason to talk about more specific things that pertain So, the first question then, is it a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance of baptism? And the answer is yes. We want to begin looking at Luke chapter 7 verse 30 and we want to compare it with something which occurs in Exodus 4 Verses 24 to 26. Luke 7, verse 30. The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of them. Exodus 4, 24 through 26. And it came to pass by the way in the inn that the Lord met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at his feet and said, surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go. Then she said, a bloody husband thou art because of the circumcision. So there are two things here that are of interest. The first is this comment made in Luke's Gospel that Pharisees reject this baptism. And in doing so, they're rejecting the counsel of God against themselves. What is going on here? Why is that? One thing that baptism is doing is, it's not only, when we say it's signifying and sealing the covenant, or the promises of the covenant, there's also in baptism a command, in a sense, that it's commanding you to be born again. It's commanding you to live again. Why is that important? Because men born in sin are naturally complacent about their situation. They don't see it as a problem. They don't find themselves challenged by that. In fact, men very easily will relax and recline, as one jurist a number of years put it, slouching toward Gomorrah. That's what men do naturally. It doesn't take any effort. Baptism is saying, listen, you know, your natural state is not going to do it. There needs to be a new creature here. And I command you to live again. Now what are you going to do with that? You need to believe it. That's where faith comes in and believes and receives grace to obey command? Yes. We'll talk about timing of regeneration and all of that. is something in the grace that is being signified and sealed, and its relation, that's something that we'll be dealing with in the next section. So I don't want to get too far into what we'll be talking about next. But, neglecting it, baptism is neglecting God's counsel, and you're doing it against yourself. So God's counsel to you, there's counsel in baptism. as well as this promise going on. And we've already tied together the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision with that of the New Testament baptism. Well here, Moses we see in Exodus 4 neglects circumcision, and God threatens to kill his child as a result. There's a contempt that's been shown. It's not that circumcision couldn't be had lawfully. It could. Moses, for whatever reason, had neglected. So whether we condemn it or neglect it, There's a problem. With that in mind, then we say, thus did the Anabaptists commit a great sin, maintaining their vain opinion, that wickedly condemns and neglects his ordinance to infants born in covenant. The error of Anabaptists and Baptists is not a little thing. They're not resisting or neglecting or putting off the baptism of infants because they don't have lawful access. That's not the reason they're giving. They condemn it. They're willfully neglecting it and they condemn it. They think it's foolishness. And also we say they greatly sin who unnecessarily condemn or neglect this ordinance as many did of old because of erroneous conceptions of the value of the ordinance. And we say of the new. Another problem with Baptists and Anabaptists, they simply think this is following Christ, you know, a matter of discipleship. For them it's an ordinance. It's not really a sacrament. I'm not going to say for all of them, but for a lot of them it's not really a sacrament. And if you have a view that's that low, well of course this doesn't really even figure. It's not really a big deal. And these St. Baptists who are famous for asking us to show that there's a biblical basis for infant baptism, these same people assure people all the time that there's something which they call an age of accountability, for which there is less biblical evidence for that than for just about anything else I can think of. It's a very murky concept. It's not very clear what age we're talking about. They're not clear among themselves when they discuss it. And yet, somehow, We are assured that if you die before the stage of accountability, you know, you're you're going to be saved Because you in their mind you really haven't sinned So a lot of times they don't even have a proper view of original sin and its power alone to condemn you and they certainly don't have a proper view of actual sin. It's not simply an awareness, a self-awareness that makes actual sin. So, you have all kinds of problems which arise when your theology is defective, like the Baptist theology. Now, they're confuted for a number of reasons. Number one, they disregard the express command of Christ. Look at Matthew 28.19. So the necessity of baptism, though it's not absolute, right? We're going to talk about that. It is yet by Christ's command. And that means that there is a necessity. The necessity hangs upon certain things, certain other things being true. But those things being true, that is, you can have it lawfully, you believe or you are the child of a believer, those things being true, there is then a necessity that follows. Not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical necessity. Upon the hypothesis that these other things are true, then baptism is necessary. And to avoid it willfully, that is, to neglect it, especially to condemn it, Those things are strikes against the command of Christ. You're not simply neglecting or condemning a thing in abstraction, something abstractly considered. You're not simply neglecting baptism, but you're neglecting baptism which is commanded of Christ. And that makes it a very serious matter. Second, the unity of the church is placed no less in baptism than in unity of faith. Look at Ephesians 4. There's one body, there's one spirit, and as Paul says elsewhere, there's one Lord, there's one faith, there's one baptism. So baptism is, in fact, a very basic if we want to talk about the lowest common denominator. Baptism is, in a sense, the lowest common denominator of a common Christianity. There's something Christian here. So when Baptists and Anabaptists, when they reject When they reject this with respect to infants, they declare themselves to be something else other than part of the Christian Church. They set themselves apart in a way that destroys certain basal beliefs and practices that define the Christian faith. They deny it to their children. And that's highly problematic. That's very troubling and I think it raises serious questions about the genuine prospect of Baptists being integrated into Christian society. They don't see Baptism as having any kind of reference to community, whereas everyone else does. So that, again, that's neglected. And in some respects, when they talk about it, they're condemning. In fact, we could take it from a little bit different perspective and say, you know, when you talk to them, they don't recognize infant baptism as baptism. A lot of them don't recognize sprinkling. or pouring as baptism. So what are they doing? Well, they're condemning baptism. They're calling it no baptism at all. By the way, I think this is a problem that some people in in certain Reformed circles have fallen into when they, I think without justifiable reason, if you understand what's going on in baptism, to condemn the validity of Romish baptism. They're doing a very similar thing with regard to Romish baptism that the Anabaptists are just doing in general, saying it's no baptism at all. And there's sin in that. This is not a matter of adiaphora. It's not an indifferent matter. Third, baptism like the Lord's Supper is equally testifying to the mystical grace. 1 Corinthians 12. 1 Corinthians 12.13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. So, again, baptism, water baptism points to, or corresponds to, spirit baptism. There is, in fact, a wickedness in condemning and neglecting the ordinance. You're not simply neglecting sprinkling people with water. You are neglecting a sacrament which is a sign and seal of this very real covenant, something which testifies and seals mystical grace, as we'll see in those for whom this grace is intended. 4. The end and effects of baptism, according to the doctrine of the Apostles, belong alike to those converted from unbelievers and to those born of believers and to those who have always professed the same faith of Christ as communing with Christ. Romans 6.3 and Galatians 3.27 Romans 6.3 Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Galatians 3.27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Remission of sins, Acts 22, verse 16. Acts 22, verse 16. And now, why tarryest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Regeneration of the Spirit, Titus 3, verse 5. Titus 3, verse 5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of the generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost. and life eternal, Mark 16, 16. Mark 16, verse 16. The believer who is baptized should be saved, but he that believeth not should be damned. Okay, so the end and effects of baptism then are really the same, whether we're talking about converts from paganism, children born of believers. It's the same thing. And you know, you're not, again, you're not just condemning baptism, or excuse me, you're not just condemning infant baptism, but you're condemning baptism. I mean, if you understand what's going on in baptism. You're condemning baptism as a whole when you condemn infant baptism. Your notions regarding what baptism is and what it respects and so on is entirely off. which is why the question of infant baptism, we talked about this before, but this is not just simply a finer theological point. It's not an open question. There are a few groups out there that will allow you to be in favor of infant baptism or against infant baptism. They want to maintain it as an open question. At least that's how they start. But when you start picking away at them, you find that really the only people who end up sticking with it in earnest are people who reject infant baptism. Because there's a different view, there's an entirely different view of everything that goes along with that. So the condemning or neglecting the ordinance of baptism, and if they do it with regard to infants, they've already demonstrated they have a very defective or deficient view. So there are ends and there are effects that we certainly ascribe to baptism. After all, it's a sign and it's a seal. A sign has an end. It points to something. It has a terminus. It is, in fact, a guarantee of a promise. And a promise has a payoff, a fulfillment. A genuine promise is not empty. We talk about empty promises, but the point here is, God's promises are not empty. If he's giving you a seal, if he's giving you an earnest, if he's giving you a down payment, if you will, then you have every reason to believe that the rest will be forthcoming. Alright, question two. Are grace and salvation so inseparably annexed unto baptism as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it? The answer is no. Look at a few verses here. Romans 4, verse 11, and then Acts 10, verses 2, 4, 22, 31, 45, and 47. Romans 4, verse 11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised. And he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. Acts 10 verse 2, A devout man and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people and prayed to God always. Verse 4, And when he looked on him, he was afraid and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. Verse 22, And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. Verse 31, And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance of the sight of God. Verse 45, And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. And verse 47, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? So there are some interesting things going on. Most notably in the Pastors and Acts, there are a number of places where people demonstrate the presence of saving faith, and they're baptized based upon that. In other words, baptism is not what engenders that saving faith. That's important because, and we've talked about this quite some time ago, saving faith is not what brings about regeneration. Saving faith is the evidence of regeneration. If you believe it's because you've been regenerated, but you don't believe in order to be regenerated. That's like asking a dead person to to stand up. You can't ask Him to stand up until first you've restored life. You can't ask someone to believe who is spiritually dead. Not going to. They can't. You can command them to, but they're not going to. As a number of preachers have pointed out, preaching is From a spiritual point of view, it's like going to a cemetery and commanding dead people to live. From a human point of view, you're asking for the impossible. And people aren't going to live unless God works in them. They're not going to believe unless God works in them. So, if these people in Acts have saving faith, then they're already regenerate. Well, if they're already regenerate, then baptism is not what regenerates them because we're told they were baptized subsequent to giving evidence of being regenerated. And that raises some interesting questions and some dilemmas. So we say thus then do the Papists and Lutherans err, maintaining that baptism is simply necessary to salvation. Is it necessary to salvation? No. Is it necessary? Yes. It's necessary to obey the command of Christ. It's necessary to the well-being of the Church. being a visible sign and seal of the Covenant to the Church and people of God. But it is not absolutely necessary so that a person cannot be regenerated or saved without it. If it were impossible for people to be regenerated and saved without it, we wouldn't have the kind of statements we find in the Book of Acts. So they're confuted for a number of reasons. First, consider the thief upon the cross and others who were saved that were never baptized. Look at Luke 23, verse 43. Luke 23, verse 43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. There was no time or opportunity for that thief to be baptized, and yet we're told he was saved. He was saved through belief in Christ. If there was an absolute necessity to baptism, Jesus wouldn't say today, you're going to be with me in paradise. He would have said, you will be in paradise with me today if you're baptized. Could it have been possible that he was under the Old Testament sign of circumcision under the covenant of grace? I guess he could be a Gentile, correct? At this point, Christ has begun his ministry and he's baptizing. So, it's possible that he was circumcised, but then you have to look at the passage we saw in Luke 7 about the Pharisees. They're condemned for rejecting baptism. They reject it against God's counsel. They're rejecting God's counsel against them. It's against them. Don't do that. Clearly he has no opportunity. Second, and this goes to what I was just saying, we'll go back to Acts 10. Persons unbaptized have had saving faith. Very clear in Acts 10, 22 and 44. Acts 10, verse 22. And they said, Cornelius, the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house and to hear words of thee. And verse 44, while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. You know, why is that important? Well, because what we're being told is, in fact, that these people believed and they received the gift of the Holy Ghost before they were baptized with water. that completely reverses the order if regeneration is tied to baptism, inseparably. Now, it's tied to it in the same sense that a sign and seal are tied to the thing signified or sealed. But those things can come after or before. It doesn't matter. You can have a sign pointing to something that's already occurred as well as something that's going to occur. You can have something sealed that has not yet occurred, or it's already occurred. But in the case of baptisms, we're going to see, because we're not limiting, there's a sense in which what baptism, what is being sealed, there's always more. The promise is always future in some regard. So baptism, whenever you're baptized, it's always sealing. a promise that is not in full possession yet. But here in Acts, it's completely reversed. We know these people are saved. We know that because they believe and they've received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Because infants that are predestinated unto life, though they die in their mother's belly, yet they cannot perish. Matthew 18.14. Matthew 18.14. Even so, it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. So, ultimately, and this always becomes a problem for these very strongly sacramental people. The theology of grace is going to come in conflict with their theology of sacraments. You're going to have to sacrifice belief that that there is such a thing as a sovereign race of God and an election that is meaningful unless you're going to lower the concept of election just simply to include all who are baptized, which sometimes they do. They do something very much like that. The problem is, again, you know, we have unborn infants dying in the mother's womb. Are they outside of the possibility of grace? Christ alludes to the fact that they are recipients of grace. They can be. So that's a problem. Four. to some children before their baptism who have been beloved of God, whose love is unchangeable. Romans 9, 11, and 13. Romans 9, 11, and 13. But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by a spirit that dwelleth in you. Verse 13, for if you live after the flesh, Romans 9, 11, and 13. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. Proceed. Verse 13, as it is written, Jacob, I have loved, but you still have I hated. Others have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost. Look at Luke 1.15. Luke 1 verse 15, for he 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. And some have been also comprehended within the covenant of grace. Acts 2 verse 39. Acts 2 verse 39, for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are before all, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. So what's the point of going through and listing all of those possibilities. Basically, to point out that in the Bible itself, the idea of regeneration is not inextricably bound up with the time of baptism and or even necessarily bound up with baptism at all but we find all of these examples going on okay and the fact that we find all of these examples well that tells us that um that there must be must be then severability. So that baptism and regeneration are not inextricably tied together, not inseparably annexed one to the other, so that no person can be regenerated or saved without it. Jacob's salvation was certain from eternity, we're told. We know of those who regenerated in the womb again before baptism, and those for whom that promise is intended yet to come. Fifth, because that baptism without faith in the inward operation of the Holy Spirit has no efficacy to salvation. Mark 16, verse 16 again in 1 Peter 3, verse 21. Mark 16, verse 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. 1 Peter 3 verse 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 a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Okay, so what is efficacious is baptism in conjunction with faith. Not baptism apart from faith. There's no efficacy to salvation without it. He who believes and is baptized should be saved, but he who doesn't believe should be damned. It doesn't say you're not baptized. Because belief is a matter of absolute necessity. Because baptism is merely a hypothetical necessity. If you don't believe, if there's no faith, you cannot possibly be saved. 6. Because the baptism in the Spirit at one time goes before, and at another time follows baptism with water. Acts 10.37 and Matthew 3.11. Acts 10.37. That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout the fall of Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached. Matthew 3 verse 11, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. So, it's pretty clear from the Bible that there are enough things that are said that I think demonstrate we can't tie regeneration to baptism. such that we could say you can't possibly be regenerated without baptism. Because we know that there are people who are regenerated. We know that because they've exercised faith, they've received the gift of the Holy Ghost, they've been regenerated in their mother's womb, they're elect from eternity. We know that their salvation was sure apart from baptism. That does not mean that they neglect baptism. In fact, in a number of these instances, the first thing that they are moved to do when they believe is seek baptism. They want to be baptized. They have that desire. Question three. Why don't we think of the Popish notion that the virtue and efficacy of baptism does not extend past the time of administration? As I said, the Romish point of view on this is, It's very much tied to the idea of baptismal regeneration, that all sin contracted up until the time of baptism, whether it's what we would call original sin, the birth sin, the native depravity, the result of native depravity, or actual sin that flows from this original sin. All of that is eradicated with baptism, according to Rome. But it stops there. Now, because of this view, this view that's very much tied up with baptismal regeneration, and the idea that it wipes out everything up until the time of baptism, it became, as this view arose and was embraced in the early church, it became more and more commonplace for people to avoid being baptized until their deathbeds. They wanted to make sure. So they would put it off and put it off and put it off and hope that they made the call and, you know, priests could get to them before they were, before they died. It was so common that by the time, by the early 300s, it's, I believe, Constantine himself succumbed to this idea and wanted to put off baptism until his deathbed. We don't view baptism as being restricted in this way, this time factor. Once you've been baptized, the effect of baptism is sort of over. Took care of everything up until that point, but now you've got to deal with it. The paper's in affirming the virtue and efficacy of baptism as to the abolishing and sealing up of more grievous sins and failings, which they call mortal sins. It doesn't extend itself to the time to come, but the time past. So that if the person baptized fall into some deadly and dangerous sin, which wounds the conscience, there's need of another sacrament, which they call penance, whereby the remission of that mortal sin, as they call it, is sealed up unto him, that we say contradicts the scriptures. We believe they're confuted for the following reasons. First, because the sacrament of baptism, after the administration thereof, does not cease to be a sacrament of the blood of Christ, which purgeth us from all our sins. Mark 1.4, 1 John 1.7. Mark 1 verse 4, John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin. 1 John 1 verse 7, But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. It cleanses from all sin. Not just sins of the past, but all sin. There's no time limit put on that. Now, this time factor, we're going to run into this again when we talk about the Lord's Supper, because Popish Mass is based upon a notion that Christ has to be sacrificed again and again and again in order for there to be efficacy in His death. kind of error in thinking here on this. In the case of baptism, it's led to the second sacrament, which they view as intimately related to baptism. And it's because they have this view of baptism Penance occupies this middling position between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, what they call the Mass. They have to go to Penance before they go to Mass, because they have to get their Baptism brought up to date. So Penance is kind of like, it makes up for the lack in Baptism then? Well, whatever transpires between the time of Baptism and the act of Penance, that's not purged away in the water of baptism like everything went before. I see, so penance is like an update. Yeah, it's just an update. Think of it as a software update. That's kind of what it is. It's not final. That's actually why the capping moment for this for a Roman Catholic is going to be extreme unction where you you know your baptism what your baptism intends has to be completed at that time and they'll they anoint you with holy oil and pray over you as you're dying okay so that both of those really become necessities in Romish theology. I think because of, and it's bizarre, they have this tremendous overreaching doctrine of baptismal regeneration on the one hand. On the other hand, they view baptism, the efficacy of baptism as stopping at that time. Whereas we don't view it as regenerative, we view it as a sign and seal. but it's a sign and seal of a covenant that is, and we'll talk about this when we talk about the Lord's Supper, once for all, okay, what Christ did is once for all, doesn't have to go on again and again and again, but the effects of it and the benefits of it are without intermission. They're not limited to a time, this time before, or up until the time you were baptized. And then you need the update, which is called penance. The blood of Christ purges from all sin, not just some. And if baptism represents the sprinkling of the blood, it seals a clean conscience, then it's doing that for all time. So that there's a sense in which when you are praying to God for forgiveness of sin, when you are, in fact, thinking upon your sin and repenting of your sin, you're not having reference to a need to be atoned again. It's not as if you've fallen from grace, and you have to be restored to grace, if you will. You've fallen into sin, perhaps, but what you're doing is you're taking hold once more of the promise that's being signified and sealed in baptism. So, you can and you should think upon your baptism, because in your baptism, everything that you need was promised to you before you, especially if it was as an infant you were baptized, before you were even aware that you had a need. So we don't repent to be forgiven, we repent because we are forgiven? Yes. And it's this faith? Yeah, and that's a great misunderstanding. isn't it, in Romish theology? I think they encourage people to think that you're not forgiven until you repent. But we're saying, no, no, no, you can't repent until you actually are forgiven. You cannot... force God's hand. If he's made an atonement for you, if you are elect of God, he has forgiven you in Christ and for his sake. Second, his justification by faith, which is sealed up to us by baptism in Romans 4, 11 and Colossians 2, 11 and 12. Romans 4, 11. And he received the 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. Colossians 2, verses 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. So justification by faith is for all sins committed both before and after baptism. When you're justified by faith, you're justified not simply for sins committed until you believe or when you believe, but for all sins. Look at Acts 13.34. Acts 13.34, And as concern that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. The sure mercies of David. There's nothing that you're going to do that will make it unsure. You're not going to unsettle this question. If you've been justified by faith alone, you are justified before God. Nothing you do is going to undo that. What you do may unsettle you. I mean, if you really are elect and you backslide, you're going to lose a sense of insurance. You're going to have various consequences. God will chasten you for that. But in terms of eternal consequences, that is settled. Third, because our Savior says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Again, Mark 16, 16. Mark 16, verse 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He doesn't have in their room for penance or extreme unction. It's a very simple statement. Believed and baptized, saved. So is baptism related to your salvation? Yes. But it's related, as I said, as a hypothetical necessity, not an absolute necessity. We see that in the reverse, when it just says, and by the way, if you don't believe, you're damned. Without raising the issue of baptism at all. So what if you're baptized but you don't believe? You're damned. Because A hypothetical necessity being in order is not going to override what is an absolute necessity. It can't make up for the lack of an absolute necessity, which is belief. Fourth, because not only the beginning of our salvation is referred to baptism, but also salvation itself and eternal life. Again, 1 Peter 3.21. 1 Peter 3.21, the like figure wherein to 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. So baptism, Peter teaches us then that baptism is such that it not only has reference to our regeneration and conversion, but it has reference to the whole of our Christian life, because it has reference to the answer of a good conscience toward God. Why can we come boldly into the throne of grace and make a request known to God. Because we have a good conscience. Why do we have a good conscience? We have a good conscience before God because we know that we're justified by faith alone and justified by faith in Christ alone. The works that He's done. It's nothing we've done, it's what He's done. We can be sure of that. Our position? Not so sure. What He's done? Absolutely sure. We're not dependent on what we're going to do or not do. Fifth, because Scripture brings arguments from the use and remembrance of baptism by which We that have been baptized are stirred up to holiness and newness of life, and to put off the old man, and consequently all those sins which the adversaries call mortal sins." Romans 3, 2 and 3, Galatians 3, 27, and Colossians 11 and 12 again. much every way chiefly, Romans 3, verse 2 and 3. Much every way chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. What are some to not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Galatians 3, 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Colossians 2, verses 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." So what is Paul's argument there in Galatians and Colossians in particular? He's arguing that your baptism, he's actually arguing from your baptism, to things like sanctification. Why should you be concerned with sanctification? Why should you be concerned to conform your life more and more to that holiness prescribed by God? Because you've been baptized. You were baptized unto salvation in Christ. And that means you were committed, your life was covenanted, to a use and purpose that perhaps you didn't even realize. But here it is and this is the case. What about the Jews and Romans? Think about them. Does your unbelief make void the promises of God? No. The promise is made in the administration of sacrament to all who believe. If you don't believe, if there's no improvement of your baptism, if there's no issue as a result of your baptism, Does that mean that the promise of God is of none effect? No. It simply means that you, through your unbelief, have rejected that promise that was being signified and sealed to you in baptism. It doesn't mean that it's not real. It doesn't mean that it's not there. And until you're dead, it doesn't mean that you don't have a prior offer of grace in Christ. You can't ever look at it and say, well, that's bad for me that I was offered that. I mean, it will be bad for you if you don't respond with saving faith. It'll be bad for you for eternity. But while you're here on earth, it's not bad. It's a call. It's a call to faith. And that call to faith itself very often works faith. I should say the Spirit of God uses it to work faith. Let's move on to the last question that we want to talk about here. As I said, I've been trying to avoid talking about some things I know we're going to get into in the next section. So, let's look at sort of the flip side of this. Question four, are all that are baptized undoubtedly regenerate? The answer is no. Look at Acts 8, 13, and 23. Acts 8, 13, Then Simon himself believed also. And when he was baptized, he continued with Philip and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Verse 23, For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. So, Simon was baptized, but it turns out that he's not a believer. Which means he's not really regenerate. There's an outward profession, he's baptized, but it turns out not to be the case. I mean, frankly, the case of Simon Magus is palpably clear in the churches that we're going to condemn here. The Papists and Lutherans are maintaining that all and those only who are baptized are most surely regenerated in the same very moment of time where baptism is administered. We're going to talk about that question a little bit more, as I say, next time, so I don't want to get too close to it, but we need to address this issue here because it goes to the question of whether or not salvation is inexorably tied to baptism. And, you know, here again, If regeneration were tied to baptism, always, at all times, Simon Magus would have been regenerated. And he wouldn't have had to fall away totally infinal from the faith. in any Romanist church or any Lutheran church, you're going to see plenty of people who are baptized who give absolutely no evidence of being believers. Even distinguishing between regeneration and conversion, some of those people would, if they were regenerate, some of them would give some indication that they weren't regenerate. They would give some indication that there was an exercise of faith going on. But there are plenty of people, and this is a problem in a lot of churches, people who are on the membership rolls who just never show up, have nothing to do with Christianity or whatever, I think it's sort of an insurance policy that someone will bury them when they die. They're confuted, first of all, because very many that are baptized within the invisible church are damned, in Matthew 7, 13 and 14. Matthew 7, verses 13 and 14. Enter ye in at the straight gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in. because straight is the gate and narrow is the way to which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it. So there are a lot of people who were baptized and have been baptized in the history of the invisible church were damned. Jesus himself refers to the fact that there were a lot of people who think that they're on the right way or think that they're okay, things are okay with them and God and they're going to find out it's not the case. Second, because in those that are come to age, faith and repentance are pre-required to baptism, therefore before they're baptized, they have a beginning of regeneration. Acts 2 38 Yeah, and again the reason that's important is it's saying look if they've they have the the They have evidence of regeneration if they have exercised faith and repentance prior to their baptism, which is required in those who are not baptized who come of age. That tells us that baptism and repentance are not so tied up that those who are baptized are undoubtedly regenerate. You have people who are baptized, or excuse me, who are regenerate, who are undoubtedly not baptized, at least not yet. Third, because not all that are baptized are elected. Matthew 20.16. Matthew 20.16. So the last shall be first, and the first last, for many shall be called, but few chosen. Many are called, and baptism is a kind of calling. Few are chosen, few are elected. There are more people called than are elected. So not everyone who is baptized is elect. But we do know that all that are elected by God are in time regenerated. 1 Peter 1 verse 2. 1 Peter 1 verse 2. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace unto you and peace be multiplied. So, again, if you're elect of God, you're going to be regenerated in time. That's not a guarantee to all who are baptized. All who are baptized have the promise that if they believe, 4. Because the Holy Ghost is the most free agent and worker, and therefore his operation, whence the efficacy of baptism depends, whereby we are regenerated, is not tied to any one moment of time. John 3 verse 8. John 3 verse 8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, and canst not tell whence it cometh, and whether it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit. So, water baptism is a sign and seal of spirit baptism. Signifying spirit baptism. But we know the spirit goes where he wants to go. Does what he wants to do. And that means that he's not inexorably tied to baptism. If the efficacy of baptism depends on the working of the Holy Ghost, and it does, then there cannot be an assumption that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerate, because that's not the way the Spirit of God works. He works sovereignly. We have plenty of evidence that that's the case. That would make man in charge and not make the Holy Spirit, not God. It would make the Spirit of God subject to the whims of men. The fifth thing to consider is because baptism is not a converting but a confirming ordinance even as the Lord's Supper is. Look at Ephesians 1.13. Ephesians 1.13, "...in whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." So baptism is not converting, but confirming. It's confirming the promise of God, and for those For those, as we're going to see in the next section, for those whom that grace is intended in that promise, there is in fact a confirming in them of that grace and it's working. So we'll talk about that more in the next section. In review, I just want you to keep in mind that what we're asserting is that there is no absolute necessity of baptism so that you can't be saved apart from it. On the other hand, that when it may be lawfully had, that it is a great and grievous sin to neglect having it. So next time, as I say, we'll talk about what goes on at the time of baptism and what that means for the elect.