Q and A

The point: Do not deal with those who hold differing positions in an accommodating, condescending, unchristian way.

Martin recounts an elder from a Paedo-Baptist church condescendingly telling him he's 'so right on so much, and wrong on the covenant, and on baptism,' illustrating the ungracious way he has been treated on this issue.

I have often been on the other end of things, where I have been very ungraciously dealt with by my Paedo-Baptist friends, just as recently as a week ago. I had an elder in a Paedo-Baptist church come up to me with a very knowing, look on his face, and I have had this done to me many, many times in many parts of the world, and said, well, you know, it is amazing. You can be so right on so much, and wrong on the covenant, and on baptism. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

2:14 - 2:39 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not deal with those who hold differing positions in an accommodating, condescending, unchristian way.

Martin humorously states that Pastor Nichols 'left all his dirty work to me' by leaving the Q&A session for him, explaining Nichols' absence for an ordination.

And Pastor Nichols has been leading us in a study, in which we examined every passage in the New Testament, for it's only in the New Testament that you find any explicit references to baptism. Looked at every passage in which it is said certain ones were baptized, and we considered the subjects of baptism, the significance of baptism, baptism in relationship to the sacraments, baptism in relationship to circumcision, and then there is yet one section to be covered, baptism in relationship to the biblical doctrine, and then there is yet one section of the covenants. Now, all along the way, peri...

3:25 - 4:39 Read in full sermon

The point: Remember that God has no grandchildren, only children, emphasizing personal faith.

Martin uses the analogy 'God has no grandchildren, only children' to emphasize that salvation is a personal relationship with God through faith, not inherited through parents.

saying, in thee shall all the nations be blessed. They that are of faith, not they that are the seed of those who have faith. There's no, God has no grandchildren. God has no grandchildren, only children.

16:55 - 17:13 Read in full sermon

Driving home: They have no capacity to receive the word, neither do infants. So when it says they that received the word were baptized, it was only such as who received the word were baptized.

Martin uses the absurd example of not baptizing 'crows, nightingales, reptiles, snakes, and dogs' because they cannot 'receive the word,' to highlight that infants also lack this capacity, thus arguing against infant baptism from the silence of the text.

You do argue from silence. This describes who was baptized, and they are limited by this phrase, they received the word. No others were baptized. Crows, nightingales, reptiles, snakes, and dogs were not baptized that day.

25:57 - 26:15 Read in full sermon

Driving home: They have no capacity to receive the word, neither do infants. So when it says they that received the word were baptized, it was only such as who received the word were baptized.

Martin sarcastically asks if 'little toddlers, eight months old' could be 'continuing steadfastly in the apostles' teaching,' to show the absurdity of applying Acts 2:42 to infants.

Now, I don't mean to be unkind. Can you imagine these little toddlers, eight months old, precocious little children, continuing steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in the prayers? But this passage says all who were baptized continued in all those things. I can put my bifocals on backwards, and I still see that that's what the passage says.

26:56 - 27:23 Read in full sermon

Driving home: They have no capacity to receive the word, neither do infants. So when it says they that received the word were baptized, it was only such as who received the word were baptized.

Martin compares the paedobaptist's desperate search for biblical support to a Jehovah's Witness who, committed to a premise, finds 'verbal proximity' in the Bible (e.g., 'the Father's greater than I') to support an unbiblical tenet, illustrating a flawed hermeneutic.

It's finding, it's having a desperate longing to find some justification for a cause that's already been, you're already committed to. And where you find any language, it sort of looks, it's like the Jehovah's Witness, you see. He's committed to the premise, Jesus Christ is not God. He looks at his Bible, and he says, aha, the Father's greater than I.

27:53 - 28:13 Read in full sermon

The point: Insist that no one become a communicant member or eligible for office unless they show positive evidences of conversion.

Martin explains that God mandated circumcision for Israelites, not giving them a choice, because they were 'hard-hearted,' illustrating that God's purpose was to have a nation, not necessarily a regenerate people, which differs from the New Testament church.

Totally unfounded in New Testament exegesis. You did have Israel within Israel in the Old Testament, and you had it by divine appointment. God was determined to have a nation called the nation of Israel. That's why he didn't let them have a choice as to whether they'd be circumcised. They were so hard-hearted that if they had a choice, most of them would have told the rabbi, don't come near me with that flint. I'll punch you in the mouth. That's right. God was so determined that he made the decision they'd become Israelites before they had any choice in the matter.

39:11 - 39:41 Read in full sermon

The point: Insist that no one become a communicant member or eligible for office unless they show positive evidences of conversion.

Martin cites John the Baptist's rebuke to the Pharisees ('Don't think to say within yourself, we be Abraham, see?') as an example of the shift to a new community based on 'fruits meet for repentance,' not inherited covenant signs.

So he did have a nation, but by and large, that nation was uncircumcised in heart. But there was an elect remnant according to the election of grace. There was an Israel within Israel. This arrangement, where you had two circles of Israel, was not because someone introduced a silly notion that babies ought to be, male babies ought to be circumcised and called Israelites. No. It was by explicit divine mandate. In fact, God says, every male that is not circumcised shall be cut off from the nation. So you had this two-level thing by divine arrangement, but you don't have that in the New Testament...

39:41 - 40:30 Read in full sermon

The point: Live in the light of what your baptism signifies, possessing the blessings of redemption in Christ Jesus.

Martin contrasts the paedobaptist exhortation to 'improve your baptism' (get inwardly what you have outwardly) with the biblical exhortation (live in the light of what you already possess), highlighting a fundamental difference in their understanding of baptism's significance.

You have what your baptism means. You have what your baptism means. You have what your baptism signifies. Now live in the light of it. Whereas in the Old Testament, God can say you have circumcision of the flesh, but get inwardly what you have outwardly. Nowhere in the New Testament do you find such an exhortation. Get inwardly what you have outwardly. It says you have what you've declared. Now live in the light of it. See the difference in the exhortation? Romans 6. What? Don't you know? As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. He doesn't say, don't you know you we...

42:13 - 43:12 Read in full sermon

Driving home: I want to believe that every Christian parent wants to believe rather than to embrace what Scripture says God's election is not prejudiced by bloodlines and he made that so plain at the beginning that, if you don't belie…

Martin uses the examples of Ishmael and Isaac, and Jacob and Esau, to demonstrate that God's election is sovereign and not prejudiced by bloodlines or parental desire, even within covenant families.

And that's a problem that many of their theologians wrestle with. Doddy's question was, how do they get this to come in with the doctrine of election? If election is the free, unfettered, sovereign, gracious choice of God of certain sinners unto life and salvation, how do we parallel that with what does matter to the people today as they believe that God has been chosen? Because if God has been chosen, right, so we have to come in with the doctrine, teaching with the notion that I can presume my children are elect simply because they're my children and it would be simplistic to say that an ina...

43:38 - 45:01 Read in full sermon