Acts 16
Infant Baptism (John Reisinger)
Pastor Martin addresses the controversial subject of infant baptism, arguing against its biblical basis by systematically dismantling common paedo-baptist arguments. He begins by asserting the lack of explicit command or example for infant baptism in the New Testament, then refutes the inference from household baptisms. The core of his sermon focuses on challenging the covenant theology argument that baptism replaces Old Testament circumcision, meticulously examining confessions of faith and catechisms to expose what he perceives as logical inconsistencies and unbiblical assumptions regarding the salvation and covenant status of baptized infants.
Primary Texts
Topics
Outline 10 sections · 46 min
- The Importance of the Infant Baptism Debate 0:05
- The Presumed Link Between Reformed Theology and Paedo-Baptism 1:33
- The Lack of New Testament Evidence for Infant Baptism 6:06
- Refuting Household Baptism Inferences 11:23
- The Paedo-Baptist Covenant Argument: Circumcision and Baptism 16:14
- Challenging the 'Natural Expectation' of Infant Baptism 19:12
- The Four Propositions of the Covenant Argument 23:44
- Analyzing the Paedo-Baptist Reasoning on Covenant Continuity 26:27
- Critique of Confessional Statements on Infant Baptism 29:54
- Critique of the Canons of Dort and Liturgical Forms 38:00
Key Quotes
“I say, without any hesitation, and it may sound dogmatic, I say there is not one iota spread of evidence for instant baptism in the whole Bible.”
“Louis Burckhoff says in his Manual of Reformed Doctrine, there is no explicit command in Scripture to baptize children, nor is there a single instance in which we would say, there is no such instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized.”
“If I can establish that circumcision in the Old Testament was the covenant of grace, and that baptism in the New Testament takes the place of circumcision in the Old Testament, then you show me we're prohibited.”
“It cannot be substantiated on a command. It cannot be substantiated on a predefined example. It has to be defined on Old Testament grounds.”
“And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them.”
“How anybody can say that this doesn't teach that every child who is baptized will of a necessity be saved I don't know and yet most of you don't believe that.”
“if you didn't believe that you had no business telling baptized you had no business to say that prayer there's this let me reason this out now let me restate this this is the reasoning now let me sum up all that shortly here's the reasoning number one covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant and had circumcision as its sign and seal”
Applications
All listeners
- Do not treat any of God's ordinances lightly, including infant baptism, as it is tremendously important to those who believe it is biblical.
- When disagreeing on issues like infant baptism, but agreeing on other core doctrines, put the disagreement aside and continue on common ground, avoiding fussing and sniping.
- Understand that Reformed theology and believer's baptism are not mutually exclusive; one can be a good Baptist and hold Reformed theology.
- If trying to establish the doctrine of infant baptism, it is your place to irrevocably establish that infants were present in household baptisms, not for others to prove they weren't.
- If you do not believe that every child of a believing parent is elect, or that their sins are forgiven through baptism, then you have no business baptizing your child or saying the associated prayers.
A full transcript is available on the tab. 101 paragraphs, roughly 46 minutes.
The Importance of the Infant Baptism Debate
Now tonight we take up the subject of infant baptism, and although there may not be an agreement on it, and though we may smile and agree to disagree, which I think we should if we don't agree, yet at the same time I don't think that any of God's ordinance should ever be treated lightly. A person who is really convinced that infant baptism is biblical, he also feels that he sins against God and against his child in not having the child baptized, therefore it's tremendously important.
Likewise, if one feels as I do that this is not biblical, then he feels just as strongly that it is a great error in the church that such has been practiced, so that neither person, whether he believes it or disbelieves it, can take it lightly and say, well, it doesn't make any difference. But at the same time, when those who disagree on this issue...
...and agree on all other issues, have laid out both sides and said we can't see the same, then it behooves them to put that aside and continue on those things that they do, and never keep fussing and sniping at each other, and I think that you who have come here for six months, I think that we have tried to do this, and we continue to, because we do not make an issue of this.
The Presumed Link Between Reformed Theology and Paedo-Baptism
Remember we came to it in our confession, and we covered last week. We talked about the positive aspect of baptism, of what we felt the New Testament taught on the subject, and now tonight we take the negative side, to the Lord Jesus Christ by non-reformed people, most rabid Armenians in the world, and I was trained in a non-reformed seminary. But my first contact with the doctrines of grace as a Christian was really not from a reformed person, but rather was from a non-reformed person. But as soon as I started to read...
the Puritans, and as soon as I started to read solid biblical literature, I soon discovered that nearly all of those who were paedo-baptists, and paedo-baptist means infant baptizing, those who baptized babies, I found nearly always reformed, and I also found that nearly every reformed writer which I ran into, or every person I ran into who believed in reformed theology, he also baptized babies, and I also talked that when... I also discovered that many men went off to seminaries like Covenant, or Calvin, or Westminster, and they were Baptists in their background, and Arminian in their background, if they became convinced
of the doctrines of grace, almost invariably they became Presbyterian, or Christian reformed. And I at first assumed what everybody else assumes, and that is that paedo-baptism and reformed theology are like this, it's a kind of a package deal. You take one, you take the other. And if you...
If you can't take them both, you can't take either, because they go together inseparably. And I find that this is embedded not only in the people who are Presbyterian and Christian reformed, but also the people who are Baptists. And it never dawned on me until this week, really, how entrenched this idea is. I was speaking at chapel at the Wesley Roberts College this week, and the man who introduced me said that Mr. Riesinger is a real anomaly, he is a person that I've never met any like,
and he liked him before I met him. He said he was a little bit foreign, but he is a reformed theology and is a Baptist. And it's horrified him that this just couldn't be. Now this isn't just the reformed people who feel this way, this man is thoroughly reformed, but it's also the way the Baptists feel.
And the idea is you really aren't a very good Baptist, or you really don't believe the doctrines of grace. And everybody seems to feel this way. And I think that this is a tragic mistake. And the thing that I was convinced about this week is this.
Of course, if you were a Christian, you would normally be a Christian. And I was convinced that it was a very good idea, and it was very good. With this so deeply embedded in the minds of people that you can't have the one without the other, then anybody who is convinced of one is automatically convinced of the other. Any person who really believes in the Reformed theology, he automatically says infant baptism is right.
And the person who believes that baptism by immersion of believers only, he's convinced of that. He says, therefore, Reformed theology can't be right. And a person who really believes in baptism by immersion, he can't objectively look at Reformed theology because in his mind, and not only in his mind but also in his mouth, he says, I could never baptize babies. And he thinks that if he adopts Reformed theology, he has to.
And likewise, the person who is Reformed, when he says, you're taking the foundation out from under my Reformed theology, or you're cutting off one of my arms or something like that, because to him, it's an integral part. So, I have to say, both sides are wrong. When you say that infant baptism and Reformed theology go hand in hand, let me tell you, that is not the case. You can be a good Baptist, and I consider myself a halfway Baptist, and you can hold Reformed theology and baptism by immersion and understand and believe them both.
Believe me. And you can hold Reformed theology without being any infant baptizing, and also there are many who hold infant baptism. There are many who hold infant baptism, such as Methodists who don't believe in Reformed theology, and those people don't have a leg to stand on. History shows that both are wrong, because the Baptist creeds and the Presbyterian and Reformed creeds are identical, except on baptism and on church government.
The Lack of New Testament Evidence for Infant Baptism
You take the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which is Baptist, it is identical word for word to the Presbyterian Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg Confession of Faith. Men like Charles Haddon Spurgeon and evangelists such as him, and preachers such as him, certainly ought to prove that baptism and covenant theology are not opposed to each other, because who was a greater preacher of the doctrines of grace than Charles Haddon Spurgeon? And then I think the early church certainly proves this, because I believe that they were, not because they didn't have any words, they were just Christians, but I believe that they baptized only believers by immersion, and I think the Bible clearly sets forth that these two things are not opposites of each other.
Last week we took the meaning of the word baptizo, and then we took the instances in the New Testament surrounding every baptism, then we took the instances of baptism in the New Testament, some of them, certainly not all of them, we took the prepositions which were used with this, we took the symbolism which baptism conveyed, and I came to the conclusion, and some of you didn't agree with my conclusion, that the New Testament teaches baptism of believers by immersion. The obvious question that people ask is, if this is so clear, why is it that sincere men haven't seen it, and why is it that they reject it?
Well, I think it's because of the reason that most people believe most of the things that they do because of tradition, because of the same reason of Roman Catholicism, and because of the same reason that maybe I may believe some things purely on the basis of tradition. People say to me, but have you examined the evidence of instant baptism in the New Testament? I say, without any hesitation, and it may sound dogmatic, I say there is not one iota spread of evidence for instant baptism in the whole Bible. Now, don't get mad at me yet, I say I believe that, and I want to try to show why I believe that tonight.
To me, instant baptism is identical to evolution. If you believe the theory of evolution, you look at everybody else and say, man, you're crazy, look at all the evidence, it's on every hand. If you believe the theory. You do not believe the theory, and you say to the man, produce the evidence which establishes the basic theory.
Then he runs around in circles looking for his missing links. And the problem with evolution is not a missing link, it's a whole bunch of missing links, and I think the same thing is true when it comes to instant baptism. What would be necessary for a person to prove that the Bible teaches the baptism of babies? Well, the first and easiest way to do would say that the Bible in the New Testament commands us to baptize babies.
The evidence which would be just as legitimate would be to produce one instance, in the New Testament, where a baby was baptized. Now, I must say, in all credit and all fairness to those who are believers of instant baptism, and who are honest and sincere almost without exception, they admit that there is no such evidence for either one of these. Louis Burckhoff says in his Manual of Reformed Doctrine, there is no explicit command in Scripture to baptize children, nor is there a single instance in which we would say, there is no such instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized.
He goes on to say, this does not necessarily make infant baptism unbiblical, and then he gives his reason, the covenant, certainties, and so on. But he makes the statement, in all fairness, there is no command, nor is there a plain illustration where we say, there, that proves there was a child who was baptized in the New Testament. So he admits there is no command, he admits there is not a single instance, that we are plainly told about, and he said this does not necessarily, that that means that it does, meaning that we have to look elsewhere for the evidence. The Banner Magazine, which is the organ of the Christian Reformed Church, in May 12, 1967, in an article entitled, What Does the Bible Say About Infant Baptism?,
it is appropriate for us to recognize that we have no, thus saith the Lord, for the baptism of infants, but that our practice is based on inferences from Scripture. Now, after looking at two shows, two statements like that, you would think that the question of looking in the New Testament for instances of infant baptism, or for a command to baptize babies, that they have said, that argument is dead. Let's not use that. But the same article that makes this statement, goes on to say, this is the first inference.
Most certainly, in some of these groups of household baptisms, there were children. Well, he has just now said, that doesn't carry any weight, and his first inference is, that there must have been children, which fact, the inference becomes a fact, would yield an inference that the infant children of believers have a right to be baptized. Now, he says that we have an instance that proves it, but it must have been, because there were so many household baptisms, therefore we infer that there were children. So, just to turn around the circle and say, you don't have it, but you do have it.
Refuting Household Baptism Inferences
So, because of that, you'd think you wouldn't have to touch the subject of instances in the New Testament, but because of such circular reasoning, you have to look at every household baptism. Go with me to Acts chapter 16, and this is the first instance of a household baptism in the New Testament, and this is one of those which, chapter 16, And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized in her household, she besought us, saying, If you've judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there.
And she constrained us. Now, the text does not mention that there were any infants. The text does not infer there were even any children. In fact, the text does not even infer there was a husband.
The circumstances involved in this case would infer, if you took it by inference, that there was no husband. I do not know of a Bible commentator, when he is not talking about infant baptism, but when he is just expositing the Scriptures, does not always say that, in all probability, Lydia was a businesswoman. And in verse 40 of the end of the chapter, And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia. And when they had seen the brethren, he comforted them and departed.
This was 400 miles from Lydia's home, and she was a seller of purple. And no New Testament situation in the Eastern country would speak of a woman as the head of the house, and the woman saying, If you judge me faithful, and would speak of it as her house, if she was married and had children. Everything in this instance points to the fact that here was a single businesswoman. And to use this text to say, maybe there were children there, is a weak, weak indeed inference, it seems to me.
Acts 16.33 is the next one. The dwellers said, What must I do to be saved? And he said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou should be saved and thy house.
In verse 33, And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized he and all his straightway. And again the inference is, there must have been some children there. In verse 34 we read, And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all of his house. Again, no children are mentioned, no infants are mentioned, and it is mentioned that those who were baptized believed.
He believed with all of his house. And the clear inference here is that again it was the baptism of believers, and to infer that there may have been infants here is indeed, it seems to me, purely an inference. 1 Corinthians 1, verse 16 is the other instance of household baptism, and this one probably is the closest thing to a possibility of an inference. 1 Corinthians 1, verse 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas, besides I know not whether I baptized...
And again the same thing, we have no assurance that there was children here, let alone infant children. And when we come into the end of the book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 16, verse 15, he mentions again this household of Stephanas, and in chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians, verse 15, he says, I beseech you, brethren, you know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, or they have set themselves to the ministry of the saints. And here again you could infer if they had set themselves to the ministry of the saints, the inference would be stronger that they were adults and not infants.
So these instances, if there is a probability, it's not established. But even if there would be a strong probability in each case, you cannot build a case of a Bible doctrine on a probability. And it seems to me that if you take all the facts into consideration, in the case of Lydia, and in the case of the jailer, and in the case of Stephanas, if you take each individual fact and look at them and say, now, as you look at these facts, is it probable there were or were not infant children in each case? In each case it's more probable to infer that there wasn't, although you can't prove either way.
So somebody often says, will you prove to me there weren't any infants there? I'm letting them try. I don't have to. If you're trying to establish the doctrine of infant baptism, it is not in my place to prove there weren't any infants, it is in your place to irrevocably establish that there were infants in this household.
The Paedo-Baptist Covenant Argument: Circumcision and Baptism
You say that's a point that's gained. Well, it's really given up before it's gained, as I said, because Berkhoff says we have no command, nor do we have a single instance. This doesn't bother a paedo-baptist who really understands covenant theology. In fact, many paedo-baptists reject any attempt to try to find an instance of paedo-baptism in the New Testament, because they feel that not finding any is the thing that strengthens their position.
They said the fact that there are none is the thing that really proves it is a complete carryover of circumcision into the New Testament. And we don't need any instance. You have to show us a prohibition. If I can establish that circumcision in the Old Testament was the covenant of grace, and that baptism in the New Testament takes the place of circumcision in the Old Testament, then you show me we're prohibited.
And they think they have a tremendously strong argument. So all that's said in the beginning, if you're a paedo-baptist and you never heard those arguments taken apart, don't lose confidence, because most people who believe in covenant theology or paedo-baptism don't even use those arguments. They say they mean nothing. Nothing at all.
A man named H. M. Carson recently wrote a book about six or seven months ago called Farewell to Anglicanism, in which he left the Anglican church after a struggle of conscience for some five years. He was thoroughly reformed in his theology, and one of the chapters in the book is on baptism.
And he mentions these arguments, and then he says this. On the basis of the covenant arguments, I had contended that there was no need for any command or illustration baptizing infants in the New Testament. The early disciples were Jews with an Old Testament background. With their existing practice of infant circumcision, they would naturally have expected to baptize infants, unless they had been specifically forbidden.
So the challenge was passed back to the Baptists. It was not for us to practice infant baptism to produce a command to baptize infants. It was for them to produce a prohibition. They could not do.
Infant baptism seemed to be strengthened. And so this idea that there's no command or no example does not bother whatsoever in any way a man who holds paedo-baptism. He says the New Testament proves neither. The approach to the New Testament is you cannot find your basis for baptism nor con in the New Testament.
My friend, that's the very argument that this confession issues with. I refuse to...
...concept my belief in baptism in the Old Testament and completely ignore everything I said last week.
Challenging the 'Natural Expectation' of Infant Baptism
I cannot do that. Let's imagine that the above is true. Let's imagine that the Jews, the early disciples were Jews, and that they understood circumcision. The New Testament has the whole family and baptized babies with them.
Let's imagine for a moment that's true. Over to the Gospel of John, chapter 3. Now keep in your mind that baptism in the minds of the people has now taken the place in John, chapter 3, verse 22. We read this, And after these things came Jesus into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
And John also was baptizing Edea near to Salem, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. Chapter 1, When therefore the Lord, who knew how the Pharisees had heard, that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not but his disciples. Now if John baptized, and we read in Mark it says that all the country of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem, they came out and were baptized of him in Jordan, and if Jesus baptized even more than he did, this thing wasn't very secret.
What they did and what they did would have been pretty widely known. That they baptized 10 souls for household baptisms. There were children included. If that's the case, then when we come over to the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, which is a text which is used by those who baptize babies, in Mark, chapter 10, beginning to read at verse 13, now keep in mind what we've said.
The people are thoroughly familiar that when the man became a Christian, he was baptized and his children were baptized. And this was quite a familiar sight. And not just one instance, but many. His disciples asked him the matter.
He said, I think I have a wrong reference here. Maybe I'll let Matthew, chapter 10, 10. Beginning to read at Mark 10, 13. You are 10, 10.
Mark 10, 13. And they brought young children to him, and that's different from infant, by the way, that he should touch them, and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. Well, why did they rebuke them? What were they upset about?
This was quite common. This was the accepted thing. Why would they be upset? Why would this not be the normal thing?
Why would this not be accepted? Why were they upset? I suggest to you the reason that they were upset, that because of everything we said last week was true, that they baptized believers. They baptized people upon confession of faith.
And this was completely out of the ordinary. And they were upset because this was completely different. If this whole business was so widespread and so noised abroad, then there's no explanation for the disciples' behavior. So that doesn't hold any water.
Do you see what I mean? They were upset because this was something that wasn't done. Besides, when I look at this text and I see this in the Catechism, I just get furious because I don't find anything in this text about infant baptism. Anyhow, he laid his hands on them and blessed them.
Well, I find here that the disciples were objecting to the bringing of children. Now, if this whole concept that the Jews incorporated their idea of circumcision into baptism, then they would not be horrified at all. They would have accepted this without any difficulty whatsoever. And so the assumption that this was a practice that everybody did falls down when you look at this particular text of Scripture.
Do we believe in infant dedication? Yes. Do we believe in dedicating children to God? Yes.
Do we believe in dedicating parents to God? Yes. But this text has nothing to do with baptism. He laid his hands on them and he blessed them.
The Four Propositions of the Covenant Argument
Well, the real argument then that comes down to it when people disagree in the subject of baptism in Reformed circles, the real argument is the argument of circumcision. The text of Scripture that is the most debatable and the one that settles the question if you understand it pro or con is the book of Colossians 2.11 and the book of Acts 2.39.
Colossians 2.11, this is the text which nearly everybody uses and this is really probably the text in the whole argument. Colossians 2.11, In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are raised with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead.
Look at this argument of circumcision and let's look at what the Scripture says. And as I say, it's not a question of proving one point. It's a question of proving a series of four propositions. And if any one of the propositions break down, the whole theory breaks down.
It cannot be substantiated on a command. It cannot be substantiated on a predefined example. It has to be defined on Old Testament grounds. It's not just one thing that has to be proved.
Exactly what is the argument of infinite baptism based on circumcision? First of all, it's this. The Bible is a unity. The Old Testament and the New Testament are not opposites.
But the Bible is a unit. And that the unifying factor of the Bible is God's everlasting covenant of grace. Up until this point, we all agree. Up until this point, I have no difficulty.
My Baptist friends who are Arminians, they might. But I don't. The Gospel in the Old Testament that came to Abraham is the Gospel that comes to us in the New Testament. That the Spirit of God and the salvation and the election and the redemption in the Old Testament is the same as in the New Testament.
And the one unifying factor is God's eternal love for His people whom He chose in Jesus Christ, whom He redeemed by the blood of His Son, and whom He calls to that grace in the power of the effectual Christ. No difficulty with that whatsoever. However, I think that the Paedo-Baptists don't believe that. I think that's the word of the part.
Analyzing the Paedo-Baptist Reasoning on Covenant Continuity
Now, I'll come up with that later. I think I'm wowed. This man Carson in page 66, he sums up the Paedo-Baptist reasoning. And if this is unfair, you raise your hand.
Abraham, who had been graciously accepted by God, was given the sign of circumcision as a sign of his justification. It is also to be applied to his child Isaac and also Ishmael in his infancy. Isaac had himself to accept, and I think that you would probably and I would probably rather use the word ratify, ratify the terms of the covenant when he came to the years of understanding or discretion. But from infancy he had the seal of justification.
Now the New Testament with its message of fulfillment could not be more restricted than the old. Surely if it was right to incorporate the child of a believing Israelite into the covenant people by divinely given sign, it was only right that the child of the Christian under the richer provisions of the new covenant should be given the sign of that covenant which is baptism. And I think that's a fair statement. Abraham was called justified by faith.
It was a divinely given faith. There was instituted the sign and seal of that faith, circumcision. Then this is carried over into the New Testament. Since this is really the heart of the matter, we do two things.
Let me say and clearly establish what's being said in this statement. What's being said in covenant theology that goes back to Abraham and the covenant of circumcision and secondly the ground that is used to prove it. Now it seems to me that the basis of this statement and the basic point is this. The children of believing parents, even though they are totally depraved, and every confession of faith always puts that in, that we believe our children are totally depraved, is said to the credit of both sides.
The argument and the basic thing that's trying to be established is that the children of believers, even though they are totally depraved, they are not looked upon by God in the same sense, in the same way, in the same category, as the children of unbelieving parents. But rather they are, by virtue of their parents being believers, they are in a covenant relationship with God. And so far I've asked five people what that covenant relationship is and got five answers. Covenant children.
And they are looked upon by God in a different sense, a different category. That's the heart of the matter. And the thing that establishes this is not the New Testament, but the Old Testament circumcision in Abraham. And the thing that really establishes this is the unity of the covenant.
Is it correct that that's the real issue? He says yes. Let me see if that really means, and see that we understand what we're talking about. In the Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Confession of Faith, in the article under holy baptism, read this.
Critique of Confessional Statements on Infant Baptism
We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has made an end by the shedding of his blood, of all other sheddings of blood, which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin. And that he having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead, thereof by which we are received into the church of God and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to him whose mark and ensign we bear and which serves as a testimony to us that he will forever be our gracious God and Father.
Then in the fifth paragraph, it says this. Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists. That's me, by the way. I'll identify myself.
We are not content, who are not content, with the only baptism that they have once received and moreover condemn, that is the Baptists condemn, the baptism of the infants of believers who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant as the children of Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them.
Now let me read that statement to you again. The baptism of infants is based on the certainty that Jesus Christ died for them. Certainty upon which infant baptism is administered. Let me read that again.
And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ suffering in death shortly after they were born, so on and so on, and for this reason saint circumcision of Christ. Now he says here the covenant of circumcision is the covenant of grace. Abraham's children were in this covenant and were signed and sealed in it, therefore the New Testament covenant is the same, therefore the children of believers
should be signed and sealed in it. Christ shed his blood no less for the parent than he did for the child and therefore since they are in this covenant of grace, since they are redeemed by his blood they should receive the sign of the same covenant. And baptism takes the place of circumcision therefore this should be done. Now the catechism.
In the 69th question of the catechism how is it signified and sealed unto you in holy baptism that you have part in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross? Christ has appointed this outward washing with water and added the promise that I am washed with his blood and spirit from the pollution of my soul that is from all my sins as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away and I say Amen. That's what I testified when I was baptized. I believe that.
I have no question here. I'm testifying that this is what has been done. What is to be washed with the blood and the spirit of Christ? What is it to be washed with the spirit and blood of Christ?
Have the forgiveness of sins from God through grace for the sake of Christ's blood which he shed for us in sacrifice on the cross and also be it renewed by the spirit sanctified and everything as straight as an arrow can be. So there's no difficulty here. Now in the next question he deals with a subject which is altogether different. He deals here in verse 69 and 70 really what he's talking about is that my baptism testifies to my election and redemption and calling in Christ and that my baptism testifies that God loved me and that Jesus Christ redeemed me and he's effectually called me and I am washed away by his blood from all of my guilt
and from all of my sins. Now in these next couple in verses number 71 to 73 I want to read the questions and the answers to you and I want you to notice as I read that there is no thought in any of these questions of an if. There is no if and or but. But it is a settled fact that Christ assured us that we are washed with his blood and spirit as certainly as we are washed with the waters of baptism.
...baptism which reads though he is baptized in Mark 16 he that believeth in him is baptized and so on.
Question 72 is then the outward washing with water itself the washing away of sins? And they're saying is this baptismal regeneration? And they say no. God speaks thus not without great...
No, for only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanses us from sin. And don't ever accuse the Christians of wanting to believe in baptismal regeneration. The statement of faith talks like that but really they don't. I've never met an Orthodox Presbyterian or a Christian Reformed who understood his confession who believes in baptismal regeneration.
...believe in it in practice and in fact.
Now you may disagree with me but that's all right. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the washing of regeneration and the washing away of sins? God speaks thus not without great cause. To wit, not only to teach us thereby that as the filthiness of the body is taken away by water so our sins are removed by the blood and spirit of Jesus Christ.
But especially to assure us by this divine pledge and sign that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really as we are outwardly washed with water. Well then the next question is are any things to be done? Now, now, now keep in mind everything that they've said. No ifs, ands, or buts.
This is the certainty that we are washed from our sins and we testify this in baptism. Up until now I say that's exactly what I believe. And that's exactly what I testified of in my baptism. Is baptism also to be baptized?
Yes. Yes. For since they as well as adults one are included in the covenant and the church of God two since both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit the author of faith are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to the adults. But they must also by baptism as a sign of the covenant being grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the New Covenant or Testament by circumcision instead of which baptism was instituted in the New Covenant.
How anybody can say that this doesn't teach that every child who is baptized will of a necessity be saved I don't know and yet most of you don't believe that. But I don't know what kind of logic you can use to take those first ones and then say yes but you're baptized and grafted into Christ and have the benefits of Christ but when you come to the years of discretion it's up to you whether you want to receive this or not. I cannot see how you can juggle this back and forth but such is what some people do. Now the Canon of Dort the Canon of Dort under the first head the 17th article it says this Since we are to judge of the will of God
Critique of the Canons of Dort and Liturgical Forms
from his word which testifies that the children of believers are holy not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they together with the parents are comprehended the parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in infancy Genesis 17, 7 Acts 2, 39 and 1 Corinthians 7, 14 Now here again there is no question of if, ands, or buts The child is looked upon and called elected of God and holy by virtue of his being in the covenant of grace with his parents There is no if, ands, or buts
and you cannot take that and then in the same breath say that when he gets to the age of discretion he can jump out of this covenant or when he gets to the age of discretion he has to ratify this covenant No, you can't use this language and say he is in it and holy You can't have it both ways and by the way the Synod the Canon of Dort here is not talking about infant salvation it is talking about the certainty of the salvation of believers and their salvation is certain because we should not doubt the election and salvation of children who die in infancy Well if we don't have to doubt the certainty of a child who died in infancy
because I know he was elect because he was born in my home and signed and sealed with baptism why should I doubt the salvation of any children who were born in my home and signed and sealed with baptism one is as good as the other what difference does it make? Well I think here is a fair statement at least I have tried to make it fair of what is believed in this Let me give you one more thing from the forms in which is used when an infant is baptized the liturgical forms of an infant being baptized that we with our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore children of wrath and we need to enter into covenant
with God for forgiveness and there is no question here we signify the second one deals with the benefits of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost we signify the Father's benefits in election we signify the Son's benefits in redemption we signify the Holy Spirit's benefits no difficulty here the third one whereas in all covenants there are contained two parts thereof are we by God through baptism admonished of and obliged unto new obedience namely that we cleave to this one God Father, Son and Holy Ghost that we trust in Him and love Him with all of our hearts with all of our soul with all of our mind with all of our life and if we sometimes through weakness fall into sins we must not therefore despair of God's mercy nor continue since baptism is a seal
and indubitable testimony that we have an eternal covenant with God now the first question is what about my children who have been signed and sealed in the covenant of grace also have an indubitable testimony with God that I am to believe they are saved and the next lines is this children do not understand these things we may not therefore exclude them from baptism since they are without their knowledge partakers of the condemnation in Adam and so again are received unto grace in Christ as God speaks to Abraham the father of believers and again Genesis chapter 17 verse 7 this Peter also testifies
and again Acts chapter 2 verse 39 and when the prayer is made and this is the prayer we beseech thee that thou wilt be pleased of thine infinite mercy graciously to look upon these thy children there is no question as to whether this is one of the election of grace he is called thy child he is treated as thy child he is signed and sealed in the covenant of grace and to do that you are signing and sealing that he is elect that Christ died for him that the spirit of God will regenerate him and if you aren't signing and sealing that because you don't know whether he is elect then on what ground do you sign and seal him then he wasn't in the covenant
then you really have no promise from God you can't have it both ways and on the address to the parents beloved in Christ the Lord you've heard that baptism is in the ordinance of God to seal unto us and to our seed his covenant and then you answer these questions first do you acknowledge that our children though conceived and born in sin and therefore subject to all manner of misery yet to condemnation itself that despite it are sanctified in Christ and therefore members of his church on what basis? because they're my children and I'm a believer and God entered into covenant with Abraham and his seed and that has been passed over into the New Testament and then they're baptized in the name of the Father's Son Almighty God and merciful Father
we thank and praise thee that thou hast forgiven us and our children all our sins he's forgiven a child who was baptized by a believing parent his sins were forgiven that's what that prayer is saying now somebody's going to say to me but I don't believe that I don't believe that every child of a believing parent is elect I don't believe that when I had my child baptized that that signified that I was believing his sins were forgiven if you didn't believe that you had no business telling baptized
you had no business to say that prayer there's this let me reason this out now let me restate this this is the reasoning now let me sum up all that shortly here's the reasoning number one covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant and had circumcision as its sign and seal I'm quoting Burckhoff verbatim that's true the covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the new covenant of present dispensation the children shared in the blessings of the covenant in the Old Testament and therefore received circumcision as its sign and seal and it is inconceivable that they wouldn't be excluded in the New Testament orally
in the New Testament baptism is substituted as the sign and seal of entrance into the covenant of grace well if the New Testament does not teach baptism and if the New Testament does not teach that baptism takes the place of circumcision then really that's enough to collapse the argument see this whole thing is based on four points and each one of them has to be established the first one that has to be established is that baptism is a New Testament ordinance which corresponds to and takes the place of circumcision in the Old Testament and that's not what the New Testament teaches if I believed that
I would be a complete baptized Christian then Peter would believe I could even be a Christian that saved two lives that saved two employees an employee and now I want toilo for all my daily stimulus and I have to believe that wilted and I must believe
This transcript was generated by automated speech recognition and may contain errors. It is provided for study and reference only; the audio recording is the authoritative source.
Passages Expounded
Martin expounds on the household baptisms in Acts 16 (Lydia and the jailer) to demonstrate the lack of evidence for infant baptism.
Martin analyzes the household of Stephanas, arguing that the context suggests adults, not infants, were baptized.
Martin uses this passage as the central text for discussing the relationship between circumcision and baptism, which is the core of the paedo-baptist argument.
Texts Expounded
Also Referenced
More from the archive
If this spoke to you, hear also…
-
-
-
-
Requirements #3: Discipleship Baptism Part 1
Matthew 28:16-20
layers Living Together in the Father's House
-
-