this morning to Hebrews chapter 8. Hebrews chapter 8, as you're turning, I just want to take a moment to thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you again. I was here with my family last year. We had a blessed time with all of you. I'm very sorry, and I know they're very sorry they couldn't be here with you, but I really appreciate the opportunity. As I consider my brothers, Mark and Nick, and their expertise historically and theologically, I'm not sure what I can add, but I hope that by the Lord's grace, as I share with you today, the situation I was in and the exodus I underwent as somebody who came to understand the scriptures, and I don't mean that in a negative way, but I hope that that will be of help to all of you. Now, I don't know everybody's situation in regards to the position on baptism. Maybe it is the case that you don't see this position clearly taught in scriptures. Or perhaps you're a young believer and you wonder, why are we doing this anyway? Or maybe you just have some things that you'd like to clear up you're not totally convinced about. Hopefully, as I talk to you today, that we can be helped in that regard. piggyback my brother Mark's talk, and he's mentioned some things that I will overlap. And I hope that that rather than seeing that a simple repetition, we'll be able to see that as reinforcement of some very important truths that we need to understand in the scriptures. But let's begin reading Hebrews chapter eight. I'd like for us to read the whole chapter. It's not that long, just 13 verses. The point of what we are saying is this. We do have such a high priest. Who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven. And who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. And so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest. For there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at the sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle. See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain. But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one. And it is founded on better promises. Such a verse is very crucial for us in understanding what the new covenant is all about. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said. The time is coming, declares the Lord. prophecy from Jeremiah 31, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, it will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant. And I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel. After that time, declares the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, because they will all know me. From the least of them to the greatest, for I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. By calling this covenant new, He has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Let's pray together. Our Heavenly Father, as we have just sung, your mercies are eternal. And we know they are eternal because of what has been accomplished in Jesus Christ, who is a mediator of the new covenant, one which surpasses and replaces the old because the shadow has gone away and the fulfillment is with us. He has accomplished all. as the second Adam, what Adam the first could not. And he has taken upon himself the penalty for all of our sins, for we in Adam stand as covenant breakers before him. We rejoice to know that as we are united to Christ by faith, all that he has accomplished becomes ours. We are accepted by You. Our sins have been forgiven. The righteousness of Christ has become ours. We are Your beloved people. We rejoice to know that we can come and consider Your Word. And as we look this day, as we continue on in this conference, studying the sacraments, Recognizing what our brother shared with us yesterday evening, these are wonders. There's not something magical in them, or mechanical in their administration, but they are wonderful. Help us to see that. May this not be some academic exercise where we reach some theological position, but may these truths change us. May they even now, as we consider them, be a means of grace to us, as we understand them in faith. We pray this in the name of our Savior Christ Jesus. Amen. As Andy mentioned, I was converted as an unbeliever, because after I graduated from college, I was a wicked young man whose pursuit in life was the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. And it was through the ministry of God's Word, through preaching, and through the personal witness of my cousin, that I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ, that He drew me unto Himself, through the prayers of my cousin's Sunday school. It was a Baptist Bible Fellowship Church in Titusville, Florida. So I've, in many ways, very much in common with a lot of you who, while I'm not a Southerner by birth, I have a great admiration and love for people in the South because of this particular church where God's Word was brought home to me. Well, I won't go through all the details in regards to my conversion, but I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior. I thought to make it official, I had to go forward in a service. I believe by that time I had already been converted. The Lord had shown me the truth from the scripture that as a sinner, I was on my way to hell and my only hope was Jesus Christ. Well, as I was converted, my cousin then said to me, Bobby, now you need to get baptized. And at that time, and maybe it's true of some of you here, I don't know everybody, maybe you don't know much about baptism at all. I knew nothing about baptism. But I knew this. I had been baptized as a baby in a Presbyterian church. And I said to him, and as I look back on it now, I was one who supported infant baptism even before I understood, I said, Jeff, I was baptized as a baby. I don't need to be baptized. I had no idea what I was talking about. He says, oh, no, no, no, Bobby. You believe first and then you get baptized. That's what the Bible teaches. And at that point, at the age of 20, 21, that became my position and was my position when I went back to Pennsylvania and eventually started seminary and graduated from seminary. But as one who was wrestling with the doctrines of grace, or what we know as Calvinism, eventually embracing those doctrines, getting involved in a Reformed Baptist church. And then, as Andy said, I came to know Mark Herzer. We grew apart from one another just because we didn't see each other, and we ran into each other again at a time when I was wrestling over, where am I in regards to baptism? And through my discussions with him, I tell people it's his fault I became a paedo-baptist. Through my discussions with him, through the books that I was reading, through my discussions with others, through my pouring over the scriptures and pleading with God to show me the truth about baptism, I came to embrace this doctrine of paedo-baptism or the idea that scriptures mandate the baptism of infants and young children, even before they have an understanding of what baptism is or an understanding of salvation in Jesus Christ. And so today, as I consider the possibility, there may be some who are coming out of a Baptist background and maybe wrestling with their own position. I come with what, as you see in the title, are confessions. a case for infant baptism, or the confessions of a former Baptist. And so I'm going to give to you five confessions, not to say that there weren't any others, not to say that these that I'm giving you, there are five of them, are all the most important ones. In fact, the first four would probably be the most important ones I had to make, and the fifth one's sort of an aside that helped me. Maybe it's a question you have. It's regarding whether we ought to baptize by immersion. But as I considered the word of God, I found I had to make these confessions. And so we'll go through them. The first one is this, and perhaps the most important. It was possible, here's the confession, it was possible to be one of God's covenant people, yet not one of the elect. I'll repeat that for you, in case you're writing these down. It was possible to be one of God's covenant people, yet not one of the elect. Or the technical way of saying it, as my brother Mark shared with me so long ago, is Covenant is not coextensive with election. He said, Bob, your problem is, as a Baptist, you want to make covenant coextensive with election, or you want to say that all of the elect are in the covenant. Only those who are in the covenant will be safe. They're the elect. They're the same groups of people. Now, I would qualify this by saying that These confessions come as one who was a Reformed Baptist. So, if you're not convinced, as the Reformed Baptist is, that there's a continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and that God doesn't have two peoples of God, Israel and the Church, but one people of God, as the dispensationalists teach, there are two peoples of God, and they teach that there's pretty much a strict divide, not all of them, between the Old and New Testaments. If that's the case with you, some of these confessions really might not make much of an impact. So I'm very much addressing those who would be Reformed Baptists as I make these confessions. But as I recognized that it was possible to be one of God's covenant people, yet not one of the elect, I then realized that it was possible, as was the case under the old covenant, to rightly receive the sign of the covenant. Then it was circumcision. We're going to talk a little bit about covenant theology in just a moment. It was right to receive the sign of circumcision and receive spiritual, spiritual, yes, blessings under the old covenant and thus As I consider that not everybody in the covenant is one of the elect, it is possible and right to receive the sign of the new covenant. Now, baptism. And with that, receive spiritual blessings in that covenant. You see, I believed and I was taught this. Well, we just read Hebrews chapter 8, where we're discussing the new covenant. And the writer of Hebrews goes on to share with us the prophecy of Jeremiah from Jeremiah 31, his prophecy of the new covenant at a time when Judah was being punished and he's looking not only to the exile, but the restoration. You know how we speak of Israel being taken out of the land into exile, Israel to to Assyria, Judah to Babylon. But the prophets, in speaking of judgment that would come to Israel and Judah, also spoke of restoration. That God, in His grace, would take the people back to the land. But as we read of those prophets, not just in Jeremiah, but also in the minor prophets, we see language there that seems to go beyond Just coming back to the land, there's this talk of this perfect state that's going to occur with these people. And so we quickly realized that in returning back to the land and being restored to the land, they didn't get everything God promised at that point. So there was something more yet to come. And that something more would come only through Jesus Christ. It's something we are experiencing now as the church, but it's something we have not experienced in full and will not experience in full until Jesus returns. But here's what I was taught as a Reformed Baptist. And incidentally, I'm going to spend a lot more time on this point than the others, because I believe this is the more crucial of all of them, the most crucial. I was taught this as a Reformed Baptist. You see these promises of Jeremiah and Jeremiah 31, that everybody in the covenant will know the Lord and everybody will have their sins forgiven. No one will need to teach anybody. They'll all know the Lord. They will have the law in their hearts. They'll be regenerate. That promise, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, means this. Everybody under the New Covenant will experience these things. Now, I stand saying to you today, it will only be later that that will be experienced in full. You see, we said that under the Old Covenant, everybody got some blessings, but they were earthly blessings. Only some people got spiritual blessings. But under the new covenant, everybody gets the spiritual blessings because they're the elect. Now, the consequence to that is this. If that's true, we can only give the sign of the covenant, which is baptism, to those who are the elect. We can't know who the elect are perfectly, but we at least, as we seek this ideal in the church, can say this. Only people who are making a credible profession of faith can receive baptism. You believe first. Now this wasn't a whole lot different than what my Arminian Baptist cousin said. Bobby, you believe first and then you get baptized. That's essentially the same, that was very much continuous. But you say, maybe you're saying, now hold on Bob, stop a second here, all this talk of covenants, covenant theology, I really, I'm having a hard time with this. Pastors talked about it, but I'm not just getting, I'm just not getting it. Well, I wish I could say I had all of it myself, but I don't. And the discussions we've had in the last couple of days as we've talked about our Our different topics shows that I don't have all that understanding. But let me try to help you. And some of the things I say today, even those in our circle as Pato Baptist might not agree with everything that I say. But may I encourage you to do this? This has been helpful to me. When you think of the term covenant, don't freeze and say, oh, there's this covenant term again, covenant theology. I'm going to get all confused. Think of this when you think of covenant. The promise that God made to Israel, the promise that he made to Abraham, the promise that he made throughout the history of Israel. I will be your God and you will be my people. Now, if you remember that as a summary, I know this is somewhat simplistic, but I'm helped by simplistic ideas, as I consider covenant theology. If you can get that in your head, That goes a long way. I will be your God and you will be my people. There's a bond established there. And when we consider covenants in the Bible, that's how we see this. It's a generic term that might just mean agreement between two parties. But in the Bible, it refers to God as the sovereign Lord. choosing to enter into a relationship with a people. To promise them, I will be yours. You will be mine. And not only to promise these things, but to expect to obligate them. As he says, I will bring you to myself. And we see some of these glorious ways that God spoke of Israel as the apple of his eye, as his chosen possession, a treasure. He said this of all of Israel, even those who weren't saved were part of his covenant people simply because they were part of his covenant people. And he said, I will be yours and you will be mine. You will be my special possession. And as you are my special possession, you must be mine. You must be separated unto me apart from the world. There are obligations upon you. And we speak of the covenant of grace as we talk about this relationship. And indeed, what we have, that relationship that we have with the Lord is by grace. We'll talk about that more. But we consider what the relationship God entered into with Adam, not everybody agrees with this terminology, as a covenant of works. Where God promised life to Adam, conditioned upon his obedience. Some say there was grace involved there, others say that it was a covenant of love, others say that You know, as the Puritans, some of the Puritans would call it a covenant of life. Just to show that there wasn't a this for that situation where if you do this, I'll give you that you've earned it. It's this is strict justice. No, because what God was promising to Adam was much more than what Adam could give as obedience, and yet there was a connection. And as we read, if we were to go to Romans 5, we see that Adam existed as a head for us. And as God entered into this relationship with Adam, He was entering into it not only with Adam, but for everybody who would descend from Him. As the Catechism says, by ordinary generation. But Adam sinned and fell. And the covenant of works, we say, was broken by Adam. And as the Puritans would say in the one New England primer, in Adam's fall, we sinned all. That's a very simple way of noting that at federal head for us, and as we read In Romans 5, through one man's sin, sin came to all of us. In effect, we all have sinned in Adam. In effect, we all have broken this covenant. Well, that's a pretty bleak situation. But already in the garden, you know, in Genesis 3.15, there was a promise of this seed, a redeemer. The seed of the woman that would crush the head of the seed of the serpent. through grace. So God entered into a relationship now with the people strictly through grace. Now, some say that God the Father made a covenant of redemption with God. The son and others say, well, when we speak of the covenant of grace, we speak of the covenant of grace in this way. God made a covenant. Through Jesus Christ, with Jesus Christ, that he would provide salvation for all whom God appointed to salvation. And all that would be applied by the Holy Spirit of God. So that we can say, well, the covenant is with us in a sense, but only through Jesus Christ. Now, O. Palmer Robertson has this definition of a covenant that's helpful. He calls it a bond in blood. Sovereignly administered. In other words, it's not simply just a girl. I'm going to be gracious to everybody and save everybody. There was a price to be paid. You see, Jesus did as the second Adam or the last Adam, we read in First Corinthians 15. Adam was a living being. Christ, as the last Adam, was a life giving spirit. He accomplished through Jesus what was not accomplished through Adam. Jesus had to do what Adam could not perfectly obey the law on our behalf. And not only that, there was a penalty to be paid for the sin that had been committed. And so Jesus, through his shed blood, had to pay the price of the covenant that was broken. Now, in Genesis 15, we see a very powerful picture of this in the covenant that God makes with Abraham, don't we? Do you remember what was going on there, how Adam was instructed to chop animals in two and set them apart? That was a picture of what it meant to enter into a covenant. The word literally means to cut a covenant. And the sovereign or the master required the servant, the lesser in the agreement, to walk through those pieces. Do you remember what happened? Abraham didn't walk through those pieces. There was a smoking fire pot and a blazing torch that went through there. Oh, yes. That signifies the presence of God. You know what? When that lesser walked through those pieces that were cut up and the blood was shed, they were essentially saying this. May the same be done to me if I fail to meet the obligations of this covenant. God was saying that. May this be done to me if I fail to meet the obligations of this covenant. He wasn't saying that essentially, but you know what he was saying. Essentially this, you have failed, and it will be done to me. Jesus Christ, we read in Isaiah, was cut off from the land of the living. That helps us now as we come in the old covenant, which is part of the covenant of grace. It's not that the new covenant is part of the covenant of grace and the old covenant isn't. It's that the old covenant, as we look over here on the board here, My friends make fun of me because I like to draw diagrams on the board. But I decided, well, the board's here, I'm going to draw a picture. But I wondered whether I should, because as I was doing it, Victor came up to me and he said, you're right on my boat! I said, what did you say, Victor? You're right on my boat! He said, oh, I'm sorry. But I left it up anyway. But you see, the old covenant is the promise, the shadow, the ceremonies, the sacrifices that pointed ahead to Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment. You see, this accounts for the difference. This accounts for the fact that now the old covenant is obsolete. It wasn't sufficient. It was limited. It's now brought to an end because it was not the fulfillment. It was pointing to the fulfillment. It's not the new covenant is not of an entirely different nature. But an entirely different administration, because Jesus. No longer do we need a priest to offer a sacrifice once a year. He came as a better high priest with a better sacrifice in a better tabernacle, not made with human hands. This is a covenant of better promises because it's fulfillment. But under the old covenant of grace, we can say, the sign, remember, was circumcision. The cutting away of the foreskin. And we know, well, that represents a separation of the people unto the Lord. It represents cleansing. We see these images in scripture. But one of the things we fail to recognize many times is this. That was a picture of what happened in Genesis 15, that cutting away the skin. In a sense, that judgment, that drama of judgment through which one would walk and say, may the same be done to me is what is happening. I don't mean to be grotesque in saying this, but it was a drama of judgment. This will happen to you if the obligations of the covenant are not fulfilled. And no one could fulfill them, could they? That's why when we come to Colossians 2, and let's turn there, please, would you? My brother Nick has talked to us about Romans 4 11 in terms of the sign of circumcision of the Old Covenant, a sign, a seal circumcision was, as he said, a sign that represents to us the promises, but they're not just simply represented to us, they're sealed as a stamp. Just like if you got a receipt from somebody, well, that receipt would represent the idea that you've paid for what was on there. But in many cases, you don't just get the receipt, you get the stamp paid in full. It's a validation, it's an authentication of what has been paid for. As Nick brought that out, for circumcision was that in the Old Covenant. And now it has been replaced by baptism, which we read of in Colossians chapter 2. In him, Jesus, you were also circumcised in the putting off of the sinful nature. OK, there's a picture of regeneration. cleansing of being set apart unto the Lord, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ. Now, some would see that as, here's the reality of regeneration. Yet I believe the most appropriate way to understand this, as many commentators do, this circumcision done not by the hands of men, but done by Christ, is his crucifixion. The circumcision of Christ is what we read of in Isaiah, that he was cut off. He is our circumcision. He took the curse that was represented in the cutting away of the foreskin, that not only, as we have heard already from both Mark and Nick, The covenant not only signified blessings for God's people, but also curse. If those who are in that covenant would turn away in unbelief and reject the covenant. Jesus was our circumcision. He took the curse. And then we go on to see this transition to baptism under the new covenant in the scheme of promise and fulfillment. having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And we see, don't we? And we could go back to Romans six and see another image of this. The baptism, as John Murray rightly says, the great thing presented to us in baptism is union with Jesus Christ. You see, baptism is an identification with someone as a head, just as we read of people being baptized into Moses in 1 Corinthians. So what's that all about? It's all about the people being identified with him as he, as a mediator, led them out of Egypt through the Red Sea. Baptism presents to us a union with Jesus Christ, and this idea of a curse under the Old Covenant is still present under the New Covenant. How do I know that? What does Jesus say in Luke chapter 12 verse 50? He says, I have a baptism to be baptized with. Well, after he had been baptized, he was speaking of his crucifixion. So whether it's the cutting away of the foreskin or the water applied in baptism, there is a sense in which this is presenting to us the judgment that would come upon Jesus Christ on behalf of his people or the judgment that will come to those who have received the sign but who do not receive it in faith or who do not have it in faith in the end. That is how we now can understand, and we come back to this idea, it's possible to be one of God's covenant people and yet not one of the elect. And now we come to the New Testament, and I would read passages like Hebrews 10, 29, where it talks about trampling the Son of God underfoot and treating as unholy the blood of the covenant by which you have been sanctified. And as a reformed Baptist, I scratch my head. How am I to understand this? Is this just some sort of a hypothetical statement that will never come to be? Or is it the case, as some of the Arminians that I would come across would say, this is talking about you losing your salvation. And a straightforward reading of the text seems to indicate that that was true. But as I looked at this verse, as I went to John 15, I read of the branches being cut off. cast into the fire and burned. As I read in Romans 11, how the wild olive shoot was grafted into the tree, the Gentiles. Why was it grafted in? Because the natural branch had been cut off. And the Gentiles are there warned, don't be proud. Don't think you're something that they were cut off, not because they failed to obey. Yes, they failed to obey. Why were they cut off? Because of their unbelief. You'll be warned, Gentiles. God will cut you off, too. How am I to understand such language? How am I to understand 1 Corinthians 10 that talks about the Israelites drinking from the rock that was Christ, eating spiritual food, drinking spiritual drink? Yet God wasn't pleased with them, and he destroyed them in the desert. And we read in Hebrews 3, that the people did not enter the land as a blessing of God because of their unbelief. They had the gospel we read, yet they didn't have it with faith. We can understand it only by understanding it covenantally. In other words, it was possible to be one of God's covenant people and not be one of the elect. It was possible, we'll talk more about this in circumcision, it was possible to even get spiritual blessings, but blessings that won't save you necessarily, and lose them one day because of your unbelief. Children, you've been challenged already. You have great spiritual blessings that come by way of the covenant and receiving this sign. I shudder as I think of my own children and the possibility that one day they might spurn them, turn away from them. I implore you to consider this. What is yours in the Lord? What Paul speaks about in Romans 9, The benefits that come to those who are in the covenant. They have the promises, they have the law, they have the adoption as sons, they have a covenant, they have all sorts of spiritual blessings, they have the word of God. There are many benefits that come that can be lost. How do I understand the sanctification in Hebrews 10? I understand that in the same way as we speak of a child being holy in 1 Corinthians 7, 14, that this child is recognized as belonging to the Lord, maybe not savingly, but set apart unto him. So when that water of baptism is applied, it's essentially saying this child belongs to me. This child is set apart unto me, consecrated to me. He has promises and he also has obligations. And it's obligations not only to the child, but to the parent to bring that child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But you see, the New Testament clearly teaches that we can have these blessings and yet lose them. It's not these verses aren't teaching that you can lose your salvation. But they are teaching that you can lose spiritual blessings as you are cut off from the covenant. And great judgment will come to those who are in the covenant, who now have turned their back on it, and on the blessings that come to them, and on Jesus who is present in them. You can apostatize. Our Father White says this, it is true that apostates suffer, apostates to the covenant, suffer real losses. But the losses they suffered do not include blessings they never actually had. Namely, saving graces that flow from the decree of election. See, the blessings they had weren't saving blessings. And the language that we read isn't to be understood as though they could lose their salvation, but that they now I think they have They've turned away from the Lord and they've been cut off from the covenant. Now, what does that have to do with me embracing infant baptism? This. Just as children now, as under the old covenant, can partake of spiritual blessings. And receive the sign of circumcision, which shows they've entered into that relationship as being children of believing parents. So, too, under the new covenant, we have every right to administer this. You see, the sign doesn't bring the blessings. Now, there are some in the federal vision would teach that the blessings really don't come until the sign is applied. Now, the blessings are there by virtue of the fact that this is a child of the covenant, the moment he's born. And a baptism is a sign and seal authentication of those blessings and of the promises of God that apply to them. We have every right to apply that. Now, I've taken a lot of time on that point, so we'll have to move quickly to the second. But that was a big one for me to understand. You see, if it was the case in the New Covenant, that only those who are the elect are in the New Covenant, then I dare not baptize anybody who doesn't make a credible confession of faith. How do I understand these promises in the New Covenant? This way, like all the other promises of restoration, they're fulfilled to a certain degree now. When Jesus came, the New Covenant was started or inaugurated. It continues now. It will be consummated or fulfilled totally when Jesus returns. But only then, so that at that time, when those who were merely partakers of the covenant, but not partakers of the saving blessings of Christ, will be exposed. Everyone then at that time under the new covenant will be of the elect. They will all know the Lord. They will all have forgiveness of sins. They all have a law of God in their hearts. Associated with this point, we move on and we've looked at these verses already, Colossians 2, 11 and 12. Came this confession, I had to confess as I search, search the scriptures, any argument used against the baptism of infants would also have to be applied to circumcision. Any argument used against the baptism of infants would also have to be applied to circumcision. We call this, many people call this Calvin's contention. Not that he's the only one that ever used such an argument, but he made it very popular. And he says this. For what? He's speaking of the Anabaptists of his time, those who believe that you ought to be rebaptized. If you weren't baptized after you believed, he says this, for what will they, the Anabaptists, bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision? And we go to what our brother shared with us in Romans 4.11. Abraham received a sign, a seal, or a signifying seal, after he believed. OK, well, that makes sense in regards to my Baptist argument. He received the sign after he believed. What was that a sign of a seal of the righteousness of God that comes by faith? As if God was saying this in this seal, in this stamp, I promise without fail to provide the righteousness of God that comes through Jesus Christ. Here in a context that was dealing with justification, the righteousness of Christ, I promise to provide this to all who believe. Okay, we understand then that Abraham should get that sign, that seal. Well, did it stop being a signifier? seal. An authentication that God would provide the righteousness of God to everyone who believes. It was applied to them before they believed. They received the sign because they were part, Mark shared, how God treats households. In a covenant away, he doesn't deal with simply as individuals as believers, but in our entire household. That those children in that family should receive that seal. And as we considered all that we have regarding the old covenant and the new covenant and the possibility of being in the covenant and yet not one of the elect, because We spurn it due to our unbelief, just like the Israelites. We recognize that the argument against baptism... Hey, look, you know, you can't baptize infants. The Bible clearly teaches there's no example of a baptism of an infant explicitly. But the Bible speaks about believing first before you're baptized. Repent and be baptized. It clearly says that. But you see, any argument against baptism... Now, here's where this applies to the Reformed baptism, because to a certain degree, one who doesn't see continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament doesn't care much about this argument. To say that against infant baptism is to say the same thing against circumcision. Because the back the reformed Baptist will say, I agree with you guys. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Most will say. I agree with you on that. I maintain that there's a certain analogy between them. But I won't maintain that that you ought to baptize your infants like they did, but any argument against it is an argument against circumcision, because we would be denying the right to Abraham to circumcise his children, explicitly against the command of God. That doesn't make any sense at all. Well, how do they answer that? They answer it this way. Look, under the old covenants, circumcision as an earthly sign entitled the people to earthly blessings. Everyone who got it. But not everybody got spiritual blessings. But under the new covenant, everybody gets only spiritual blessings. What were those earthly blessings? Well, one of them explicitly was going into the land, getting the promised land. It was a physical blessing and all you needed to get it was to be circumcised. Was that true? No, it's not. We read in Psalm 95, we read in Hebrews 3, they didn't enter into the land because of what? Not because they weren't circumcised, because of their unbelief. They fulfilled the physical requirements. But they didn't get the physical blessing because they did not meet the spiritual requirement, and that is to trust in the Lord, to have faith. And is it the case that under the new covenant, all we get is spiritual blessings? No! That's not all I'm looking forward to. I'm looking forward to a resurrected body. First Corinthians 15, I'm looking forward to the new heavens and the new earth, physical blessings. Second, Peter 3. It's not the case that argument falls apart. Now, one of the books I read as I was wrestling with this and one of the greatest defenses of reformed Baptist position was David Kingdon's Children of Abraham. Let's say perhaps the two best defenses are that of Kingdon and Paul K. Jewett. But one writer, Jay Duma, criticizes Kingdon in this regard, and he used this very argument. You get earthly blessings, everybody does, but only some get spiritual blessings under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, everybody gets the spiritual blessings. He says, Kingdon sets up an erroneous distinction between a fleshly old and a spiritual new dispensation and is incorrect to speak of covenant blessings that have only an earthly character. You see, it wasn't the case that all they got was earthly blessings. They got spiritual blessings. Otherwise, how do we make sense of First Corinthians 10? They drank from the rock, which was Christ. How do we make sense of Romans 9 and Romans 3, where Paul goes on to share all the benefits, spiritual benefits, that came to the people just because they were in the covenant? There were great spiritual blessings that came. I move on to number 3, the third confession I had to make. The burden of proof to deny the obligation for baptizing infants was heavier than the one to prove it. I read that again. I had to say, I had to admit the burden of proof to deny the obligation for baptizing infants was heavier than the one to prove it. Here's what I said. I remember getting into an argument with somebody about this. I said, look, It's simple. Show me from the New Testament one clear example of an infant being baptized. I don't want to hear about the household baptisms in the Book of Acts, because there's no proof that there were infants in the households. I don't want to hear about that. Show me one clear example that an infant was baptized, or show me one clear command to baptize infants, and I'll gladly change my position. The burden is on you to show. And the one with whom I was arguing said, I'll accept that, and I'll seek to show you how, while it's not an explicit command, that it is required. It's not so simple as you make it. But he said, but you know, really, characteristically, The burden is upon the Baptist, especially you, Bob, who is a reformed Baptist and wants to maintain that there's one people, God, and that the Old Testament or the New Testament is continuous with the old. What do you mean? Well, here's the burden you need to show me. That God now treats children differently. You need to show me that God no longer allows us or demands that we put the sign of the covenant on infants, children of believers. That's where the burden is. Well, I had to think about that. Here's the burden I gave him. Here's the burden he gave me. And I had to conclude that my burden was not nearly The one I gave him was not nearly as heavy as the one he gave me. We speak of this as an argument from silence or an argument that comes from what is not said. Me saying, well, there's nothing said about baptizing infants. Therefore, we don't baptize. And his argument from silence was there's nothing said about God no longer giving the sign or considering the children not as part of the code, therefore, we must Well, where does this argument come from? How can we understand that? Well, Mark shared Acts 2.39 with us this morning, where we read of a promise that comes to those, as he tells them, you know, they say, well, what must we do? They're convicted by what Peter had to say. Repent and be baptized. This promise is for you and your children. All who are far off, who are, who's that? The Gentiles, just as we read in Ephesians 2. They were once far off, but now they've been brought near. They were once those who were foreigners to the covenant, now they're brought near. How would the first century Jew, and I've read this and I sat and I, okay, I'm going to think about this. How would the first century Jew there at Pentecost have understood what Peter was saying? As they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. This promise is for you and your children. They would have understood it exactly the same way they understood the promises to them under the old covenant. Theirs were the promises. Everybody in the covenant. And they would have concluded, oh, yes, I need to be baptized. There's a transition going on here, circumcision to baptism going on in the history of the church. I need to be baptized, I'm believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean my children need to believe first before they're baptized, because Peter said the promises to them. What would we have expected? If Peter meant to say, the promise is only to them if they believe first. Do you realize what that means? Your children are no longer part of the covenant. They're cut off. I'm going to tell you right now, there would have been an uproar. We don't read of such an uproar, do we? Not at all. Associated with that is the household baptisms. As Mark shared, God dealing with household. Yes, it is the case, just as I said, as a Baptist, there's no clear indication of infants being in any of the household baptisms in the Book of Acts. For example, Acts 16, the baptism of Lydia's household and the baptism of the Philippian jailers household. But knowing how God treated family. How would the first century Jew have understood what was going on? Very simply, they would have understood it this way. The head of the household believes everybody comes under the Lord's jurisdiction. Everybody gets the sign. Everybody's baptized. You know, it doesn't matter to me whether there were infants in the households in the Book of Acts. What matters is this. It follows the accepted pattern. That if one believes in his baptist, the entire household is brought under that jurisdiction. The head of the home speaks for the family, just as Joshua did. Remember what Joshua said in Joshua 24? Look, you choose, choose who you're going to serve. As for me and my house, I'm speaking on behalf of my house. And fathers, you ought to speak on behalf of your household in this regard. In the same way, we will serve the Lord in this place. See, children, I'm not simply saying, look, choose who you're going to obey. You will obey the Lord here. You will serve Him. You will look to Jesus Christ as your Savior. Zachary Crofton and his Zachary Crofton as a Puritan. My brother Mark brought my attention to this book. The Virtue and Value of Baptism, first published, I think, in 1657, says that the enemies of our baptism cry for an express command to baptize infants. But instead of showing any, we think we have good reason to say, we who baptize infants, who have a long tenure and interest in the covenant, show us a clear gospel writ of ejection if you think now to dispossess us. You see, he was saying, you have a burden of proof to show us. Maybe you're struggling with it. Really, you've got to accept that burden of proof. That's one I couldn't get away from. And that's a glorious way, one aspect of defending infant baptism. To know that God has nowhere said he treats our children differently. And doesn't that make sense with the new covenant? No longer the Old Covenant limited to Israel in a geopolitical way, but to the entire world, Jews and Gentiles. It's more expansive. Does it make sense that God would now say your children aren't part of that? Doesn't make any sense at all. We move on to the fourth confession. By forbidding the baptism of infants, I faced a dilemma regarding how to treat the children of believers. By forbidding the baptism of infants, I faced a dilemma regarding how to treat the children of believers. Specifically, my children. Because here's where it became a difficult issue. How do we deal with that? If I'm going to be consistent with my Baptist theology, I had to admit this. I had to say with David Kingdon, who who expressed this in a rather open manner, and I appreciate the fact that he does. Some don't express it quite so forthrightly. He said, we do not say to our children, be a good Christian child. We say, repent and believe. What does that mean? Means this. Even though you're a believer, You treat your children as unbelievers. As Mark said, you cannot... I had to accept this. Bob, you can't pray with your children. You can only pray for them. You can't nurture their faith. You can only tell them to believe. You can't tell them to pray to their Heavenly Father. You can't Tell them to thank Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Because they're unbelievers. First Corinthians 714, which speaks of the children. Again, I'm glad Mark shared this because we're running out of time as holy. Not the holiness that we have through the grace of regeneration, but a sanctification being set apart, being consecrated unto the Lord, brought under his jurisdiction. And because of that, we have the blessings that come. And with that, we are expected to live as believers. And with that, we can say to our children, Live as a good Christian child, or as Paul said to the children in Ephesus, obey your parents in the Lord. Not just obey your parents in a wooden fashion in the Lord. We can hold them accountable. To believe and to live for Christ, we can encourage them to pray to the Heavenly Father, we can encourage them to thank Jesus for forgiveness. Just as Jesus encouraged the little children to come to him, we can encourage them to come to their Savior as Savior. That doesn't mean we don't tell them, repent and believe. That doesn't mean we don't give them warnings. We look at all these passages in the Gospels where the children come to Jesus and he receives them. We can encourage our children that Jesus receives them. and we can treat them. Now Mark and I have just a little, I think we're very close here, just a little bit of a difference, maybe. I believe we can treat our children as Christians. And I think as I qualify that, I'm hoping he would agree with me as I say this, as far as they manifest themselves as believers, even at a young age, manifesting their faith in Christ as a young child, as a small child, even as a three-year-old. I know that brings other things into discussion, but as we hold them accountable to live as Christians, we can treat them accordingly. And I don't share that to contradict what has been said, and I don't think I have all the answers here. You know, I wrestle with this. And this is something perhaps we can take up in our question and answer time. And incidentally, please, if you have any questions for clarification, bring them up. And if you don't ask them during the session, please feel free to pull one of us aside individually and ask your question. We want to be of help. And then number five. It was impossible to support the idea that the New Testament taught only baptism by immersion. That's what I was taught. Now, this isn't a big deal for pedo-baptism, but you see, here's what I was taught as a Baptist. Those pedo-baptists really don't care much about the scriptures. If they did, they would pay attention to the fact that when the Bible talks about baptism, it talks about immersion, but they're pouring and they're sprinkling. Whereas Augustus Strong, the systematic theology theologian I studied when I was in seminary, a Baptist, said, the command to baptize is the command to immerse. That's simple. Well, I'm thankful that a Baptist, Paul K. Jewett, admitted As for the question of the proper mode, it is too much to say, as is often done, that the Greek New Testament word baptizo can mean nothing else but immersion. Nor can it be established that the essential theological significance of baptism is entirely lost if some mode other than immersion is used. Now, he goes on to support the idea that immersion is the best way to baptize, but he admits You can't say that everywhere the word baptism occurs, you must. It must mean immersion. Other pictures occur, too, that help us to show that there are other proper modes. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, when the spirit was poured out at Pentecost, supports the mode of pouring the sprinkling of the blood to cleanse us from our sins. In Hebrews 10 supports the idea of sprinkling. And the identification with Christ in his burial and resurrection does, I believe, encourage the mode of immersion. Maybe I'm a little bit different than some Paedobaptists. I believe immersion is appropriate for baptism, partly because of the depiction of judgment, of identifying with Jesus Christ in his death. And I'll point this out tomorrow as we go through 1 Peter 3, the idea of baptism as a picture of judgment. But these are all appropriate. I'll stop in regards to the mode there and just read for you a quote out of the book Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, published by PNR. I don't think there are any on the book table. Many of the essays are very good and there are some I wouldn't necessarily recommend too highly, but overall, the book is very good. Mark Ross writes this. in regards to the profit or the benefits of baptism, as we consider this defense for infant baptism. With this, I close. It is just in this way that the baptized child has something the unbaptized child does not. Baptism signifies and seals truths that are most precious. It shows that we do have a place within God's covenant. That we are called most precious. Children, you are most precious to the Lord. It shows that we do have a place within God's covenant, that we are called by his name, that his promises have indeed been given to us. The baptism does not guarantee that we have possession of what is promised. That can only be guaranteed by faith. is that one condition out of which obedience will flow, but it's faith. It's unbelief that will cause you to be cut off from the covenant. It's faith that joins us to Christ and fulfills all the obligations of the covenant. But the baptism, listen, the baptism can assure us as we look to it, as we improve upon our baptism, as we heard, it can ensure us That faith is enough as a visible token of God's promise. It gives tangible expression to the certainty of God's promise to us. And that is something more than just the promise itself. God could have simply left things as a promise. That would have been enough. But he didn't. He gave us more choosing to give us a tangible reminder that sensible sign That wonder that Nick talked about to assure us of his promises and to mark us out as his own. The child who grows up with that. Listen, listen, the child who grows up with that and whose parents and church. See, the church has a responsibility to the covenantal children of the entire church. and whose parents and church rightly apply it through instruction and training, has something the unbaptized child does not have, and it is great in every respect. Amen. Let's pray briefly. Our Father, please, we pray that if If there are any unanswered questions, if there's anything that is not clear to those who might be wrestling with these issues or who have questions and who want to be more certain, maybe they have family members asking questions, that You will help us, that You will make things clear from Your Word. We do pray now in our session of answering questions that You will be with us throughout this entire day and through what remains of the conference. We pray in Christ's name, Amen.