00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Welcome to the Protestant Witness.
Sorry, it's been a little while. I changed the name of the YouTube
channel, as you can see, to match up with the Thorn Crown Ministries,
the Protestant Witness, so I'm going to try to make these all
one. But I still need to learn how to post stuff on that, but
Tim Shaughnessy is going to show me how to do that sometime soon.
But anyway, I'm your host, Pastor Patrick Hines, here in Kingsport. It's wet today and overcast.
But Tennessee, Northeast Tennessee is a beautiful place to live.
I love living here. And the pastor of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian
Church. And today I wanted to do a program
on a very thoughtful email I got from a fella who's got some questions
about paedo-baptism. What is paedo-baptism? Well,
it's the idea of infant baptism. The way I like to describe it,
it's not really believers' baptism versus infant baptism, because
I believe in believers' baptism myself. And I would not baptize
an adult unless they made a profession of faith. But the question before
us here is, what about this idea of households? I believe in household
baptism. And the questions that this fella
asks here, and I asked his permission to do a video on this, they're
really good questions. They're actually questions that I myself had a
while back, many, many years ago now. And he said here, hi,
I have three issues with the Pato Baptist view that I'm hoping
you can help me sort through. Number one, as I understand it,
Pato Baptists argue that the children of believers are members
of the new covenant. If so, wouldn't that mean the
federal headship over them is transferred from Adam to Jesus
simply by virtue of their physical birth? And wouldn't this mean
there are unregenerate people under the federal headship of
Christ? If so, doesn't 1 Corinthians 15 make it clear that all under
Christ's federal headship are saved? The answer is no. One
of the things I've noticed to the issue, are the children of
believers members of the New Covenant? No, they are not. One
of the things I've noticed in a lot of Baptists that I've talked
to over the years is that there really seems to be almost no
understanding at all of the distinction between the visible and the invisible
church. It's almost like it's just not part of their thinking
at all. If you're baptized, you have
to be in the New Covenant. Now, if pastors said, we will
not baptize you unless you're in the New Covenant, that would
mean you never baptized anyone, because you would not be able
to know for sure if they are or not. We don't argue that our children
are members of the new covenant. We make a distinction, because
the Bible does, between the invisible church, all of the elect of God,
across all the ages of time, from the beginning to the end,
those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world,
and the visible administration of the covenant of grace. There's
a distinction between those two things. And the fact of the matter
is, people have said to me, well, what covenant are your children
in? To me, that's the same as asking, well, what covenant was
Esau in? What covenant was Ishmael in?
Esau, God did not establish His covenant with Esau. God did not
establish His covenant with Ishmael. Both were circumcised, though.
And both were raised as part of the covenant community. because
they were part of Abraham's household. But, neither of them, although
they bore the sign, neither of them were in the Abrahamic Covenant.
And this is the thing that I've noticed, especially among Reformed
Baptists, that I don't see them really seeing this at all. The
Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are essentially identical.
they are essentially identical to one another. And because both
of them are only with the elect. Only with the elect. You're not
in the Abrahamic covenant by birth. You received the sign
by birth, yeah. You received the sign and were
raised in the covenant community. But just like after the coming
of Christ, the covenant community is not exclusively made up of
the regenerate. It can't be. Because we're not infallible.
So there is a visible church and then there's the invisible
church. And so, no, we don't believe our children are in the
new covenant any more than anyone prior to the coming of Christ
would have assumed that their children were in the Abrahamic
covenant. Remember what Jesus and John the Baptist dealt with
was people who thought that very thing. We have Abraham as our
father. Remember what Jesus said to them
at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 8? I think it's in 8 to
44. You are of your father, the devil.
Do not think that you can say, we have Abraham as our father.
You're of your father, the devil, and his will you want to do.
And who are the true children of Abraham? It's Jews or Gentiles,
anyone before or after the coming of Christ that believes in the
promise of God. Of course, they were looking
forward to the coming of Jesus. We now look backward to the coming
of Jesus. So there's not two separate covenants here. There's
one gospel. to him. I remember Archibald
Alexander Hodge pointing that out in his commentary on the
Westminster Confession when I was working through this baptism
issue years ago and thought, wow, the Apostle Paul says that
Abraham had the gospel preached to him. The gospel is the death,
burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How could that have been
preached to Abraham? But you see, that's what covenant
theology is all about. Abraham, as Jesus himself says
in John 8, Abraham looked forward to seeing my day, Jesus said.
He saw it and was glad. What was Abraham's faith ultimately
in? The coming seat of the woman. The one who would fulfill that
covenant promise with all the elect. So, as Jesus teaches us,
you could no more be born into the Abrahamic covenant than you
could be born into the New Covenant. Because they're essentially identical
to one another. Because both of them are with
the elect. And here's one of the biggest mistakes I see made. Greg Welty
makes this error over and over again. Fred Malone in his book,
The Baptism of Disciples Alone, which is really misnamed. The
book should be called The Baptism of Professing Disciples Alone.
But anyway, the error that they make constantly is they really
do treat the Abrahamic Covenant as if it is the Old Covenant.
It's not. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the Old Covenant. The
Abrahamic Covenant is completely distinct from the Old Covenant.
Completely different from the Old Covenant. Look at Galatians
4, 21-31. Paul explains that one is a covenant of gratuitous
promise, the other is a legal covenant. Okay, look at Galatians
4, 21 to 31. I've preached entire sermons
on that, on this topic, to help people see that if you fold the
Abrahamic covenant into the Old Covenant, you're going to have
a massive problem. A massive problem. Because Paul's
entire discussion of how we're made right with God really doesn't
even make reference to the New Covenant. It refers only back
to the Abrahamic promise. Every time someone is a believer
Every single time, before and after the coming of Christ, they
fulfill the oath that God swore to Abraham in Genesis 15-17,
where the smoking firepot passed between the pieces, where God
told him, look at the stars and count them if you can, so shall
your descendants be. How is that promise fulfilled?
In the elect coming to faith. Every star that he saw, figuratively
speaking, is a true believer, one of the elect of God. So the
Abrahamic covenant is an effectual covenant only with the elect.
The New Covenant is an effectual covenant only with the elect.
Okay, and that's going to get into this next question here.
I realize this is a more common objection, but I have never heard
a sufficient response. What about the quotation of Jeremiah
31 in Hebrews 10? He means Hebrews 8, but he said
Hebrews 10. That's just a typo on his part. Doesn't that seem
to indicate that all those in the New Covenant will be regenerate?
Yes. Everyone in the New Covenant
is regenerate, just like everyone in the Abrahamic Covenant is
regenerate. You couldn't be born into the Abrahamic Covenant,
but you could be born into the covenant community. You can't
be born into the new covenant, but you can be born into the
covenant community. See, and here's the thing. There
is the elect. God has his elect. He knows who
they are. And then there's the visible church. The visible church
has always consisted of those who profess faith in the true
religion, or in our case, since we're after the coming of Christ,
those who profess faith in Jesus Christ and their households and
their children. That's the visible church. Now,
so we look at our children as part of our church, but they're
non-communicating. It's a very interesting thing.
People will say, well, if you're going to baptize them, then they
should be able to take communion too. And that's just not the case
at all. If you look at Exodus chapter 12 at the institution
of Passover, I believe it's verse 36. No, no, no. When the people do
the Passover, and their children would ask, what is the meaning
of this service that you're doing? What does this mean? And the
Passover. If I can find it here, Exodus.
Anyway, it's in Exodus chapter 12. It might be verse 26, I believe. Exodus 12. Yeah, there it is. not 36, 26.
Exodus 12 verse 26, listen closely to this. And it shall be when
your children say to you, when they're taking the Passover together
as a household, what do you mean by this service? Now note, it's
very clear there. The Hebrew is very, very clear.
They're not asking what is the meaning, what do we mean by this
service? Remember, what is the New Testament
parallel to the Passover, the Lord's Supper? It seems to me,
it looks very clear to me, children did not participate in the Passover
meal, although they were there present for it. Now, they were
circumcised and part of the community, and their parents had to embrace
their covenantal duties. Think about Deuteronomy 6. These
things shall be in your heart, and you shall teach them diligently
to your children. You shall speak of them when
you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up,
when you sit in your house, et cetera, et cetera. So all these
things are part of the covenantal responsibilities. Those same
duties are for parents in the New Covenant era as well. They
have the very same commands, Ephesians chapter 6 verse 4,
And so those very same commands, think of Genesis 18, where God
said of Abraham, And so, all this stuff about,
well, what do you think about presumptive regeneration? I don't
believe in presumptive regeneration, because the call of parents to
evangelize their children is Old Testament teaching and New
Testament teaching. There is no, well, you just assume they're
Christian? No, you don't do that. But you embrace those covenantal
duties, to teach them to obey God and to believe in Jesus Christ,
to open the hymnals and to sing the hymns and everything else.
But let's look at Jeremiah 31 here. Jeremiah 31, as it's quoted
in Hebrews chapter 8, is a very common text. It says, look, they
will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. This
is a passage I used for a very long time before I finally saw
that I was misusing it. Well, it sounds like everyone
in the New Covenant is regenerate. They are. The New Covenant is
with the elect, just as surely as the Abrahamic Covenant is
with the elect. That's not a new thing. And this is where, you
know, if you actually think that the new covenant, the fact that
it's an effectual covenant only with the elect, is a brand new
idea that has never been thought of before and never been seen
in the history of redemption, then I have to wonder what your
understanding of the Abrahamic covenant is. How do the New Testament
writers understand the Abrahamic covenant? How did Jesus understand
the Abrahamic covenant? It was an effectual covenant
only with the elect. This is what made the Baptistic view
eventually die, in my own thinking. You can't treat the Abrahamic
promise as if it is the Old Covenant. Now, before you get to Hebrews
8, there's Hebrews chapter 6. Hebrews chapter 6 has a very
important discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, of the Abrahamic promise.
Look at Hebrews 6, 13 and following. Listen carefully to the passage.
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because he could swear
by no one greater, he swore by himself saying, surely I will
bless you and multiplying, I will multiply you. And so after he
had patiently endured, he obtained the promise for men indeed swear
by the greater and an oath for confirmation is for them an end
of all dispute. Excuse me. Thus God, determining to show
more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of
his counsel, confirmed it by an oath that by two immutable
things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have
strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the
hope set before us. This hope we have is an anchor
of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the presence
behind the veil where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus,
having become a high priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.
And then Hebrews 7 is a lengthy discussion of Melchizedek and
the fact that he, you know, has no genealogy when he sort of
steps out of nowhere in the book of Genesis and is spoken of for
just a couple verses and then he disappears, that he's a type.
He's a type of the superior priesthood that would last for eternity.
That's why Jesus in his resurrection body holds that priesthood, the
term in Hebrews 7, untransferable. That's why there's only one priest.
That's why you have pastors and elders. You don't need priests
anymore because there's only one priest, Jesus. So you have that lengthy
discussion there, but the Abrahamic promise in Hebrews 6, 13 to 18
is critical. It's immutable. It's immutable.
It's unchangeable. The Abrahamic Covenant is still
in effect right now. That's why every believer is
called a child of Abraham. We are the children of Abraham
through faith in Jesus Christ. How many times does Paul say
that? I mean, read Romans and Galatians and it's everywhere.
He says it repeatedly, emphatically. We are the fulfillment of the
Abrahamic Covenant, just like Isaac was, just like Jacob was,
just like all believers. David. King Hezekiah, all the
godly Israelites, Elijah, Elisha, the 7,000 that refused to bow
their knee to Baal, etc., etc., Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego, all of them were fulfillments of the Abrahamic covenant, because
that is an effectual covenant only with the elect, but it had
a visible administration that very often included people who
were not elect. Because the visible church has always consisted of
those who profess the true religion and their children. It has never
been the case that people believe in Jesus and then they go to
church and leave their kids at home. That just doesn't happen. Our
kids are to be considered part of the visible church. And we
have the same duties, although the Old Testament people gave
the sign of circumcision to their infant children, and they did
not assume they were saved, which is why God told Abraham in Genesis
18, verse 19, I think it is, you are to command your household
after you to know the Lord, to do righteousness and justice,
just like we have the same responsibility today, to teach our children,
to evangelize them. And that's why I always tell
people you see two tendencies constantly in church history,
and you see two tendencies among the Jewish people with regard
to circumcision and everything else. One tendency is to basically
see it as worthless and almost a waste of time and why even
do it. The other is, well, it automatically saves you. It means
you're going to heaven because you're circumcised. People did
the same thing with baptism. Some people sound like they almost
wish God hadn't even given us baptism because, oh, it's just
too complicated and there's all these divisions over it. And
if you baptize babies, you're just asking for people to assume
that they're Christians. No. No, you're not. No more than
God giving that sign to infants prior to the coming of Christ
would have caused them to assume that their children were part
of the Abrahamic covenant or that they were automatically
going to heaven. If we listen to the Word of God, we're not
going to make those kinds of mistakes. So anyway, listen, back to Hebrews
8 and Jeremiah 31. So in Hebrews 6, prior to the
discussion of the Melchizedek priesthood in Hebrews 7, you
have this discussion of the Abrahamic promise, this oath, which is
a reference back to Genesis 15-17, the smoking fire pot between
the pieces. God saying surely I will bless you multiplying.
I will multiply you and this is an immutable promise. This
is an unchangeable promise These promises are still in effect
right now. He uses the term promise. Okay uses that term promise Now,
when we get to Hebrews 8, it talks about a contrast between
the New Covenant and the Old Covenant. Now, for the longest
time, I thought that what he was making a reference to here
was, well, the New Covenant is different from everything in
the Old Testament, meaning the Abrahamic Covenant and the Old
Covenant. And folks, you've got to hear this. Listen to the words
of the citation from Jeremiah 31. It starts in verse 8. Because
finding fault with them, he says, behold, the days are coming,
says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers, listen carefully, the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took
them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. What
covenant is that? Is that the Abrahamic covenant?
Of course not. That's the Sinaitic covenant. That's the Mosaic covenant.
And the Mosaic covenant is a legal covenant. Three times. Three
times. From Exodus 19. In Exodus 19
it's once. Exodus 24 verses 3 and 7 have
it two more times. The people swear an oath of obedience
to the old covenant. To the giving of the law through
Moses. The covenant that God made when he took them out of
the house of Israel. or took them out of the land of Egypt.
So when he took them out of the land of Egypt, that was the giving
of the law. In Exodus 19, the people swear, we will do everything
that Yahweh our God has said. In Exodus 24.3, we will do everything
that the Lord our God has said and be obedient. Exodus 24.7,
we will do everything the Lord our God has said and be obedient.
That's the old covenant. That's the old covenant. And
it says that the new covenant is established on better promises.
It says, look at what it goes on to say here. Not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,
because they did not continue in my covenant. You see that?
This is not talking about the Abrahamic promise. This is not
talking about the Abrahamic covenant. We already saw earlier in Hebrews
chapter 6, the Abrahamic covenant is immutable. It's in force right
now. It is an immutable oath and is the very foundation of
our consolation, of our knowing that we're going to heaven, is
that oath that God swore. So this covenant cannot be a
reference to the Abrahamic promise. You have to keep the Abrahamic
covenant and the Old Covenant separate. They are not the same
thing. And yet Fred Malone, Greg Welty make that error constantly
in their stuff on this issue. They treat the Abrahamic Covenant
and the Old Covenant as if they're the same thing. And yet the book
of Hebrews will not allow for that. Think about that. The Apostle
Paul says that the Abrahamic promise in Galatians 3.8, the
Abrahamic promise is the gospel. Hebrews chapter 4 verse 2, Israel
had the gospel preached to them. The Abrahamic promise is the
gospel. Look at the last verse of Hebrews 8, Hebrews 8 13. In
that he says a new covenant, he has made the first obsolete.
Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish
away. If you include the Abrahamic covenant as the old covenant,
Paul says that the Abrahamic covenant is the gospel. So I
guess the gospel is obsolete and is growing old and vanishing
away. Obviously that's a massive error. The Abrahamic Covenant
is immutable. It is still in force right now.
The Abrahamic Covenant is an effectual covenant only with
the elect. So this idea, well the New Covenant,
they will all know me. That's the Abrahamic Covenant
too. It's identical to it. And yet the New Covenant has
a visible administration that obviously includes households
just like it did before the coming of Christ. See, this is the issue
here. What you don't see, what you
don't see after the coming of Christ is a change in this concept. You see an individual believes
and a household is baptized. An individual believes and a
household is baptized. When I was still a Baptist, I
was very comfortable. Just pitch every one of them
to me. Acts 10, I can answer for you. Everyone heard. Akuo
means understand. So babies can understand. Okay. Then Acts chapter 16 and Lydia
and her household. There's a way you can understand
it that would not necessitate babies or infants or toddlers
or anything like that. And it's like passage after passage.
I was comfortable dealing with them individually and eventually
became a little bit disillusioned. Why do I have to come up with
a way of diffusing all these passages? What's very clear here
is that the concept of household solidarity with regard to the
administration of the Covenant of Grace has not changed. The
Visible Church is still, it is still, those who profess to know
Jesus Christ and their children and their families. And so they
are part of the church, just like they were before the coming
of Christ. And they were to be instructed by their parents.
Deuteronomy 6, Genesis 18-19, Deuteronomy 11, Deuteronomy 17,
Deuteronomy 21. I mean, how many times does it
say, fathers instruct your children, when you sit in your house, when
you walk by the way, when you lie down, when you rise up, over
and over and over and over again. Psalm 78, we will not hide them
from our children, that they may put their hope in God. The
command to evangelize your household is Old Testament and it's New
Testament. The inclusion of entire families in the visible church
is Old Testament teaching, that's New Testament teaching. It hasn't
changed. See now, what I would expect to see, if in fact there
has been this change, and it would be a very significant change,
to say now, now the visible church is only professing adult believers. And their kids, their households,
they're not part of the community anymore. They are to be excluded.
And I would think, okay, prayer, prayer is something only a Christian
can do. And yet everybody teaches their kids how to pray, whether
they're Baptists or Paedo-Baptists, right? I mean, when your children
sin, don't you teach them how to pray, how to confess that
sin and ask the Lord's forgiveness and share the gospel with them?
I mean, everyone prays with their children. Everyone, every Christian
person who is conscientious is going to teach their children
how to pray. And yet, if you're consistent with this Baptistic
idea, you would have to say, well, until we see some signs
that you're really regenerate, prayer, all you're doing by praying
is provoking the wrath of God, because you're not praying with
a mediator. And yet, we all know to train up our children to behave
as Christians. And yet, all along the way, we're
calling them to repent and believe the Gospel. And so, and to sing
the hymns too. As soon as my children, and I
have a big family, as soon as my children could hold a hymnal,
they were not allowed to sit in church and draw on stuff and
putter around. They were to be participants.
We in this household, in this family, you are going to show
proper respect to God and you are going to participate in worship.
And as soon as you can hold a hymnal and find the page number, you
are to turn there and to sing God's praises. And it would never
have occurred to me to say, well, we need to wait and see if you're
regenerated or not, because only a Christian can worship God.
Isn't that true? Only a regenerate person can really worship God.
Unregenerate people can't worship God, because it's just hypocrisy
then. And yet every parent, Christian
parent, instinctively knows, I need to teach my children how
to behave like Christians. And yet I know that they still need
to be regenerated and born again, just like before the coming of
Christ, so it is today. Fewer things are clearer in scripture
than the fact that the gospel has not changed. Paul belabors
the point. Genesis 15 and six, Abraham believed in God and it
was accounted to him for righteousness. And he says, it wasn't just written
for him, but for us as well. It shall be imputed to us, Romans
4, 22 and 23. And so we are the ones who, together
with Old Testament believers, New Testament believers, are
justified by faith alone. We believe and are accounted
as righteous. And yet the visible administration of the covenant
of grace is not infallible. and you don't have a perfectly
regenerate church, and we never will, it has always been professing
adult believers in their households and their families. And that's
why, boy, I tell you, if this really has changed in the New
Covenant, aren't the New Testament writers pretty sloppy? I mean,
wouldn't you want to be careful about saying so-and-so believed
and then their household was baptized? And Paul talks about
the firstfruits of Achaia in 1 Corinthians 1. I baptized the
household of Crispus and Gaius, and I don't know if I baptized
any other. And there, clearly, he means any other households.
Wouldn't you think that if this has changed and the household
principle is terminated now, which is what the Baptists are
saying, that concept is out of the New Covenant. Wouldn't you
think that they would say, so-and-so believed and was baptized, end
of story, move on to the next account. Why talk about a household
being baptized? Isn't that pretty sloppy? Well,
I think that the implication is quite clear. Covenant theology,
recognizing that the Abrahamic covenant is not the old covenant,
and that it's still in force right now, that it is an effectual
covenant only with the elect, and yet it had a visible administration
that often included the non-elect. And the thing is, people will
say, well, you're saying circumcision could rightly be given to someone,
a horrible man like Ahab. And all these, these terrible,
horrible, awful Israelites. Well, much like the New Testament
church, the Old Testament church failed very often to practice
Jewish discipline and throw people out. I mean, read through the
Old Testament. There were, there were measures
in place to excommunicate people and to get them out. And very
often they didn't do that. Just like the church today very
often doesn't. And so church discipline is real important,
but the way that God has gathered his people has not changed. It's
always been adult believers and their children. You don't assume
they're believers, but you don't assume they're reprobate too.
Every time a Baptist asks me, what's your view on presumptive
regeneration? I always fire back with, well, what's your view
of presumptive reprobation? Do you assume all of your children
are reprobates? That they're never going to come
to Christ and that they're hell bound? Well, no, of course not. Well,
I don't assume that they are, that they're going to heaven.
What do I assume? Here's what I assume. I'm supposed
to obey the scriptures. I am to teach them diligently
the gospel, call them to repentance and faith, and to raise them
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is what I assume.
Now, what do we see in scripture? Very often, the normal way God
works is through the family unit. Think of Malachi 2.15. Why does
God make the two one? He desires a godly offspring.
God desires us to be fruitful and multiply, and to have children,
and to embrace children as a gift, and to raise them to know the
Lord. And I've been, you know, by the grace of God alone, very,
very blessed. None of my kids have shown any signs of rebellion
against God. None. It's been one of my greatest
fears, and I know that that could happen, but I have not seen any
signs of rebellion in them. And it's not because I'm infallible.
I'm anything but infallible. My wife and I have done everything
perfectly. We've made plenty of mistakes. But we have obeyed those commands,
and we've taught them the catechism. My four older children know the
entire Westminster Shorter Catechism from memory. My younger kids,
I'm working on it with them, and we read the Bible every single
day, and we talk about the things of God every single day. We do
family devotions and family worship every single day. Every morning,
I get my older kids out of bed, read a chapter of the Bible to
them. Every evening, we get together and do it again. No matter what's
going on, with ruthless consistency, people need to do this. Because
those are our duties before God. And if we're so busy that we
can't do that, then our priorities are messed up. Okay, so this
very thoughtful email, he says, doesn't this seem to indicate,
Jeremiah 31, it's a citation in Hebrews chapter 8, doesn't
that seem to indicate that all those in the New Covenant are,
will be regenerate? Yes, it does. And everyone in the New Covenant
is regenerate. Just as everyone in the Abrahamic Covenant was
regenerate too. Because it's an effectual covenant only with
the elect. Just as Jesus taught us, do not think you can say,
we have Abraham as our father. John the Baptist, do not think
you can say we have Abraham as our father. God can raise up
children to Abraham from these rocks. You are not an heir of
that covenant promise without faith. And yet you could be born
into the visible church, the visible community. Well, why
would God command circumcision to be given to infants who can't
make a profession of faith? Because that's what he said to
do. See, think of Romans chapter 4 verse 11. Here is a passage
that I had a real difficult time trying to come up with a response
to. Romans 4 11. What does circumcision signify
according to the Apostle Paul? It is a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised. So circumcision
was given to Abraham after he believed in Christ as a sign
of his faith. As a sign of his justification
that he had by faith. And yet God commanded this sign
of justification by faith to be given to babies. Well, that
doesn't make any sense because they can't make a profession.
Obviously, if you think that way, you're not thinking biblically.
God's concerns are not your concerns. God said to do this. They did
it. It's the same thing with the new covenant. It's the same
thing. I don't see any signs at all that this is now different.
And listening to the responses to Romans 4.11, you know, I've
got the pages dog-eared and marked. with sticky tabs in my copy of
Fred Malone's The Baptism of Disciples Alone, he makes the
incredible statement that circumcision signified justification by faith
to Abraham. There's no denying it. It's right
there in Romans 4 11. And he says, and it never signified
that to anyone else ever. So circumcision signified something
to Abraham that it never signified to anyone after him. I remember
thinking there is no possible way that that's true. When you
look at Genesis chapter 17, Genesis 17 verse 10. This is my covenant
which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants
after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised, and
you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins. So all
the infants, every male child, and you too, Abraham, shall be
circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a
sign of the covenant between me and you. I see no evidence
whatsoever that circumcision meant something to Abraham that
it doesn't mean to the children. Where is that? Does the Old Testament
say it? And Abraham, just this once for
you, circumcision will mean salvation. It will signify and seal your
justification by faith. But it's never going to mean
that again to anyone else. Now I have a question. Was David
a believer? Yeah. Was David justified by
faith alone? Yes. Romans 4, 6, just as David
speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness
apart from works, and then he quotes Psalm 32, 1 and 2. Was
David a believer? Yes. Was David justified by faith
alone? Yes. Did David have a sign and seal
of the righteousness that he had by faith? Yes. What was that
sign? Circumcision. When did he receive
it? When he was an infant. well, shouldn't there be an opportunity
to be re-circumcised upon profession of faith? No, that's not the
way God does it. And here again, I remember years ago going through
this, every argument I come up with, everything I say, everything
I can come up with, if it's valid, if it's valid against infant
baptism, then it would have to count against infant circumcision
too, because baptism and circumcision signify the same thing. Salvation,
justification by faith, And so, I understand why Fred Malone
would say that, well, circumcision means one thing for Abraham this
one time, and then it never means that again after that. I just say, there's no indication
anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament that circumcision
meant anything other than the same thing for everyone it was
ever given to. And so I have a big problem with that. Okay,
so to answer the second question, doesn't it indicate that the
new covenant, everyone in it is regenerate? Yeah, it does.
And everyone in the new covenant is regenerate. And that's a true
statement, but it's also irrelevant to the issue of what is the visible
church? The visible church has always
been those who profess faith in Christ and their families.
Before the coming of Christ, it was those who profess faith
in God and the promise of God together with their children.
And the thing is, all of the attempts, and I remember working
through this argument too, years ago, well, it was just a sign
of Jewish identity. Circumcision was a sign of genealogical
connection to Israel. That's also perfectly false.
Listen to Exodus chapter 12, beginning at verse 43, listen. And the Lord said to Moses and
Aaron, this is the ordinance of the Passover, no foreigner
shall eat it. But every man's servant who is bought with money,
when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. So people
who were not the descendants of Abraham, people who were not
genealogically connected to Israel, would be circumcised and then
they could take the Passover. What does that remind you of?
When you're baptized, you can take the Lord's Supper upon profession
of faith, and of course, I've already pointed out, children
did not participate in the Passover. They would ask their parents,
just like children ask their parents now. Why are you eating bread
and drinking wine? Why are you doing that in church?
I've heard my own kids ask my wife that. I've heard them asking
that, and I've heard her explain. It's a great witnessing opportunity,
just like it was in Exodus. But listen to the passage continue,
verse 45. Sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it in one
house that shall be eaten you shall not carry any of the flesh
outside The house nor shall you break one of its bones and the
congregation of Israel shall keep it that term kahal congregation
Or a da a da the congregation the assembly The church. Okay, but the church is not a
new covenant thing. The church is there in the wilderness
acts 738 the ecclesia in the wilderness and Okay, when a stranger,
listen to verse 48, Exodus 12, 48 is key, listen. And when a stranger dwells with
you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, okay, this is a
non-Israelite, a stranger, a foreigner, let all his males be circumcised,
and then let him come near and keep it, the Passover, and he
shall be as a native of the land, for no uncircumcised person shall
eat it. So, those who were not genealogically descended from
Abraham or Israel could keep the Passover if they went through
the initiatory rite of circumcision. What does that sound like? Baptism,
doesn't it? Same thing. And households were
circumcised to the Lord. Households are baptized over
and over. Where is the evidence that this
is the New Covenant is now this entirely different thing that
has no analog at all in the Old Testament? This is a totally
new thing. Where's the evidence of this? I don't see it in the
New Testament. And if it has changed, where now it's only
professing adults, their children, their households are not part,
they are not part of the visible church anymore. Where's the evidence
of that? Where's the evidence of it? I don't see it in scripture
anywhere. Okay, Galatians 3, his third
question. In Galatians 3, Paul says those
of faith are the sons of Abraham. So if the promise is to Abraham
and his offspring, Christ, and we are included because we are
in Christ through faith, wouldn't that mean it is to those who
are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, not the physical?
Yes. Exactly correct. If so, shouldn't that lend itself
to the baptism of believers only since only believers would be
heirs according to the Abrahamic promise? No. No more than that
would necessitate only believers prior to the coming of Christ
should be circumcised. That you have to look and wait for signs
that that person is actually a true believer because God commanded
it. You see, the question assumes,
it assumes that there is no effectual covenant only with the elect
prior to the coming of Christ, and that's just not the case,
because the Abrahamic promise is that. It is that. So, yeah. Alright, so the last paragraph
here. And just to show you that I'm not trying to play some sort
of gotcha game, I can see potential flaws in the Credo Baptist argument,
which I have brought to my pastor to try to help me work through.
The foremost problem I see is that 1 Corinthians 7.14 really
does seem to be using covenantal language to describe the children
of believers. I commend you for that, for sure. Because the interpretations,
yeah, and he even says, none of the credo interpretations
of that passage I've heard have been satisfactory to me. I agree,
they're not satisfactory. I've heard people say, in fact,
John Gill even says this, and there's another fellow, Brian
Borgman, argues that, Malone argues this. Actually, I think
Malone argues one of two things here. Anyway, the two main things
I've heard from that side are this is referring to a Christian
influence, that holy as opposed to unclean means you have a Christian
influence in your life, which is clearly not the case. The
terms are covenantal terms. They're taken directly from the
Septuagint. There's, I think it's a hundred
and fifty times clean versus unclean, meaning inside the camp
versus outside the camp. in Leviticus and the Old Testament
law. The other interpretation is that
this is referring to the legitimacy of births. That God does not
recognize children as being legitimate unless both parents are believers. And I remember hearing that thinking,
how could anyone seriously think that that's what he's talking
about here? So God doesn't recognize if two non-Christians are married,
their children are still illegitimate in God's eyes? That's an awfully
high price to pay to just... The thing is, the passage, I
think there's implications there for the issue of baptism, but
it really isn't even talking about that issue. But yes, they are
holy, haggios, that is speaking in covenantal terms, I agree
completely. Okay, so he says, so I'm not
just trying to find a way to hold up to my traditions. I have
a three-year-old son and wish to be obedient to our Lord regarding
whether or not I should be giving the covenant sign to him. So
this is more than an intellectual exercise in theology to me. Obedience
to our Lord is at stake and I understand the gravity of that. Okay, very
very thoughtful email Obviously a very sharp sharp guy. He knows
he understands the issues and has studied them. I hope this
has been helpful I think the key issue what I've noticed again
and again in my discussions with very sharp Baptists over the
years has been there almost seems to be It's like there's no doctrine
of the visible versus the invisible church. It's like the visible
church has got a mirror the invisible church as closely as possible
and We've got to try our best to make it mirror that, and I
say, look, the indications that we see in Scripture is that the
gospel has not changed, only how much we know about it has
changed. So it's not a difference in kind. The New Covenant is
not a difference in kind, it's only a difference in degree of
knowledge. We know a lot more. We know a lot more about the
seat of the woman, the coming Messiah, than Abraham did. And
yet, as Jesus says in John 8, I think it's verse 56 and following,
Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day. He rejoiced
at the thought of seeing my day. He saw it and was glad. David
was looking forward to the same hope as well. Job was looking
forward to the same hope. I know my Redeemer lives. And
so they were all looking forward to the same thing, to the Redeemer,
to the man who would come and rescue his people from their
sins. And the visible administration of the one covenant of grace
has always been professing adult believers in their households.
And that wasn't just a Jewish thing. Circumcision is not a
sign of ethnic identity or Jewish identity. Circumcision has a
provision in Exodus chapter 12. If a foreigner, someone who is
a pagan from outside of Israel, wants to join the community and
partake of the Passover and has an interest in the one true God,
their household is to be circumcised and then they can be brought
in and to be treated as a native of the land. Doesn't that sound
so much like baptism? Now, I remember reading the subordinate
documents to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, and they
try to make this argument that circumcision is just about Jewish
identity. And I just think that is clearly
not the case. Circumcision, according to Paul in Romans 4.11, is a
sign of personal salvation. And yet it was given to infants
who could make no profession of that. And so the association
of baptism to faith is not an argument against the practice
of infant baptism. So I hope that's been helpful.
I hope this fellow will correspond some more. I hope this video
has been helpful to him. I appreciated his email. I've
been corresponding with a number of folks. I preached a couple
sermons on this. I'll link to them in the description
of this video. And people have told me that they have found
those sermons, and I put the manuscripts up in PDF form on
Sermon Audio, so you can download them and look at them that way
if you'd like to. People are welcome to correspond on this
issue. I think it's a very important issue. It's an issue that I started
really studying in earnest. I wasn't raised in Reformed churches.
I was raised in Baptistic circles. I was never a Reformed Baptist,
but I became Reformed in my soteriology, and as I was working through
covenant theology, I remember discovering, man, most reformed
denominations practice infant baptism. Why do they do that?
And then understanding the structure of biblical covenants, the very
close tie between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic promise, and
understanding the Abrahamic promise is not the Old Covenant. And
so when Hebrews chapter 8 cites Jeremiah 31, and, well, the New
Covenant is different from the Old Covenant. Yeah, it's different
from the legal covenant at Sinai where the people three times
swear an oath of obedience. That covenant was not a promise
covenant like the Abrahamic promise. was. The Abrahamic Oath was.
So the Abrahamic Covenant is not the Old Covenant. So when
you read the citation from Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8, that's not contrasting
the New Covenant with the Abrahamic Promise. And especially because
in the very same book of Hebrews, two chapters earlier, he says
the Abrahamic Covenant is immutable. can't change, and it's always
in effect. So the New Covenant is enacted
upon better promises, meaning those Abrahamic promises, which
is why Paul in his entire discussion of justification in Romans 4
makes reference to Abraham and the promises made to Abraham.
Every single time someone is a true believer, they are a fulfillment
of that promise, and that was prior to the coming of Christ
and after the coming of Christ. So I hope that's been helpful.
I appreciated the email, and thanks for watching.
Infant Baptism Questions Answered
| Sermon ID | 6141894812 |
| Duration | 42:28 |
| Date | |
| Category | Miscellaneous |
| Bible Text | Hebrews 8; Jeremiah 31 |
| Language | English |
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.