Rebuttal of Paedobaptism (Sam Waldron)

Introduction: The Paedobaptist Argument from Covenant Unity

0:00 uh old covenant people israel we've said two things basically about that we've said that there is a basic oneness or unity between old testament israel and the new testament church that when we look at those two groups of people what we basically see is not two people but just one however in saying that there's something else that needs to be said not always the bible teaches very clearly in many different places that there's this basic unity between the old testament israel and the church that God has only one people in all ages yet it also teaches that there is a superiority and improvement that has taken place in israel over the Aparth Legend

0:39 in the church over israel and we've been dealing with that new superiority we said it consisted in basically two things there is a new universality about the church the church now includes jews and gentiles as jews and gentiles all men are have the same footing in the church regardless regardless of their nationality. There's a new universality, a new universalness about the church that was not true of Old Testament Israel. There the people of God was limited to one nation. If a person wanted to become a member of the people of God, he had to become literally a member of that nation.

1:17 Now in the new covenant people of God, that is not the case. We are all baptized, whether we're Jew or Greek, male or female, into one body. Now, we've seen that now and then this newness of the people of God consists in a new universality, but it also consists in a new spirituality. This was the time when the new covenant should dawn, when the Spirit would be poured out upon God's people.

1:43 And this new spirituality is consisted in three things. New power for missions, new unity for the body of Christ, and the third thing we're going to deal with this morning is the new character of the people of God. They are a spirit. They are a spiritual nature.

1:58 Now, when we begin to take up this third thing, we take up immediately the question of the argument for pedobaptism from the unity of God's covenant people. What am I talking about? Well, I have two things to say by way of introduction to dealing with the new character of the people of God. In past lessons, I have strongly supported the doctrine or principle that God's people are basically one in all ages.

2:26 This principle, however, gives birth to a problem for me as a Baptist. For it is exactly this unity between Israel and the Church which is the master supporting principle for the doctrine of pedobaptism. What pedobaptism is, is the baptism of infants, of believers.

2:45 They say, those who argue for pedobaptism from the unity of God's covenant people, this. I'll let our friends be seated in the back before I go on. They argue for infant baptism from the fact that God has only one people in all ages. Now, what is the nature of this argument?

3:10 How do these Reformed pedobaptists who believe they can support infant baptism from the unity of God's covenant people in all ages argue? Well, we'll take up first the nature of their argument. It is basically a syllogism or a piece of logical reasoning. Their major premise is this.

3:30 The Abrahamic and Old Covenants included and their outward sign was given to infants. Let me say that again. The Abrahamic covenant and the Old Covenant included and their outward sign was given to infants. Now, that's basically true.

3:47 We would have no problem with that. Secondly, the minor premise of this syllogism, there is a basic unity between the Abrahamic, the Old, and the New Covenants. And that also is true. Very true.

4:02 We've already supported that. And you can see there that the unity of God's people is an essential part of this argument. But this is their conclusion, which we do not agree with and which we do not think is true. They say, since circumcision was given to infants in the Old Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, since there is a basic unity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, therefore, baptism, which is the mark of the New Covenant, ought to be given to infants.

4:29 Let me go through that one more time because it's very important that you understand how some of these great men, have argued in order to support the doctrine of infant baptism. They have said, first of all, the Abrahamic and Old Covenant included infants. Infants were given the sign of circumcision. Secondly, they say, there is a basic unity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant.

4:50 The New Covenant is the logical expression, Galatians 3, of the Abrahamic Covenant. And that's also true. And then they argue from that, they conclude then, that baptism, the mark of the New Covenant, ought to be given to infants because circumcision and the mark of the Old Covenant was given to infants. And there's a basic unity between the two.

5:09 That is how they argue. And you can see that the unity of God's people is very important to those who take this position. If the God's people isn't one in all ages, then they can't argue this way. But if it is, then they can argue this way.

Acknowledging the Biblical Nature and Strength of the Paedobaptist Argument

5:21 Now, not only do we see the nature of this argument, but I want to give credit where credit is due. This is a biblical argument. I'm not saying it's a true argument, but it is an attempt to support infant baptism from the Bible. A reformed pedobaptist must be given credit.

5:38 This is a biblical argument for pedobaptism. Catholics support pedobaptism, the baptism of their infants, by tradition. That's not a good argument at all. It's not an argument that any Protestant could adopt.

5:52 But this is a biblical argument. We have to give them credit for that. The unity of God's people in all ages is a biblical concept which must be incorporated in our theology. We can't deny the Bible teaches that in order to get out of the argument that they're trying to bring to us.

6:09 You see, this makes it impossible for a dispensational Baptist who deny the unity of God's people. We've been talking about the dispensationalists who think there are two people. This makes it impossible for a dispensationalist to refute a reformed pedobaptist because the reformed pedobaptist can prove every time that God's people is basically one, and so they think that they've disproved the dispensational Baptist position. Well, they have proved that God's people is one in every age, but they haven't proved that baptism is wrong because there is a way to support baptism, adult believer's baptism, not necessarily adult, but believer's baptism, from reformed principle and in the context of reformed principle.

6:55 Reformed pedobaptists must also be given credit along another line. Their argument for pedobaptism does not involve either the doctrine of baptism, of baptismal or presumptive regeneration. What do we mean by baptismal regeneration? That is the belief that when a person is baptized, that regenerates him, or he's regenerated at the same time he's baptized.

7:17 What do I mean by presumptive regeneration? Some people believe they baptize their infants on the basis of the fact that they can presume that they're regenerating. No, this argument does not involve that a person believes that. You can be evangelical in the sense that you think your children need to be converted and still be a pedobaptist.

7:35 No, I'm going to come to, to the place where I'm going to tell you I don't think that's consistent. But you can, on the basis of this argument, say that your children need to be converted, that they're not saved, and yet still baptize them. Now, let me say in conclusion, by saying that this argument is biblical, I do not mean that it is truly biblical, but that it is constructed from biblical material. It is an attempt to justify pedobaptism, infant baptism, from the Bible.

8:05 And that is what I mean by calling it biblical. And yet not that it actually does justify it. So you see what we're saying, is that we have to give credit to these people. We're not saying that these people weren't great theologians in their own way, and that they have taught us much and taught me much.

8:20 But what we are saying, and we want to give them credit for this. Now, the third thing I want you to notice about this argument for pedobaptism from the unity of the covenant and circumcision is this. It is absolutely the supreme argument for pedobaptism.

8:35 It is the master argument. It is the crucial argument. It is the supreme argument for a baptizing infant. This argument for pedobaptism is the supreme and crucial argument or support for the baptism of infants.

8:48 With it, pedobaptism stands or it falls. It is the argument used by Charles Hodge. It is the argument used by Pierre Marcel, the French Reformed pastor. It is the argument of Johannes Voss.

9:03 It is the argument of Robert Dabney. It is the argument of John Murray. It is the argument of Louis Bertrand. It is the argument of Peter Koss.

9:09 All of them support infant baptism from the fact that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament and we ought to do it in the New for that reason. Now, there are many others that support us but support this position in this way. But let me just read to you how John Murray supports the doctrine of infant baptism.

9:28 Page 51 of his treatise on this subject, he says, The gospel dispensation is the unfolding of the covenant made with Abraham. The new covenant is basically one with the old. The new covenant is basically one with the old. The new covenant is basically one with the old.

9:40 The new covenant is basically one with the old. The extension and enlargement of the blessing conveyed by this covenant to the people of the Old Testament period. Abraham is the father of all the faithful. They who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

9:52 So you see, he's supporting infant baptism from the Old Testament. We come now to the question which cannot be suppressed or evaded and which cannot be pressed with too much emphasis. If children born of the faithful were given the sign and seal of the covenant and therefore the richest blessing which the covenant disclosed, and if the New Testament economy is the elaboration and extension of this covenant of which circumcision was assigned, are we to believe that in this age, infants are in this age excluded from that which was provided by the Abrahamic covenant? In other words, are we to believe that infants now may not properly be given the sign of the blessing which is enshrined in the New Covenant?

10:29 Is the New Covenant in this respect less generous than was the Abrahamic covenant? And he goes on in his argument for infant baptism to use the New Testament passages that they often quote merely as corroboratory evidence, not as the main evidence. His main support for fetal baptism is the argument I've enunciated before you this morning. If that argument falls, John Murray's argument for fetal baptism falls.

10:54 Not only that, but listen to Lewis Bertholdt under his section, The Scriptural Basis for Infant Baptism. He says, It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children. Lewis Bertholdt said that. And that there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized.

11:23 But this does not necessarily make infant baptism unbiblical. Why? Because he goes on to develop the same argument I've developed in your hearing this morning. That is his basis.

11:32 The Old Testament, the unity of the covenants, the ordinance of circumcision. And then he goes on to conclude this way. Concerning the doctrinal statements of the Christian Reformed and many other Reformed churches. It will be about...

11:45 Observe that all these statements are based on the commandment of God to circumcise the children of the covenant. For in the last analysis, that commandment is the ground of infant baptism. So we see then that Bertholdt supports the doctrine of infant baptism not from the New Testament, not from example of baptism, not from commands to baptize children, only from the argument from circumcision in the Old Covenant. Now, Robert Dabney's statement is classic.

12:15 He says, Yet circumcision was, by God's command, applied to all the infant males of God's people. Let the immersionists, the Baptists, therefore go and turn all the confident denunciations of baby sprinkling against this parallel ordinance of God. We entrench ourselves behind it. You see what Dabney is saying.

12:36 And here you can see his old Confederate nature coming out. Here he is entrenched behind the ordinance of circumcision. And he's saying, let the Baptists come at us. We've got them.

12:44 Those Yankee Baptists won't get over this. Entrenchment. Well, you see, what is his basic entrenchment? It is the fact that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament.

12:55 And if infant baptism is wrong, then that must have been wrong. Well, the argument from Old Testament circumcision and the unity of God's people is the main prop of pedobaptism. If this prop can be knocked out, pedobaptism according to its own best defenders, according to its own best defenders, must fall and must not be practiced by Christians.

The Baptist Rebuttal: The Superiority and Spirituality of the New Covenant People

13:23 Now, what is our argument going to be against pedobaptism? Well, the argument against pedobaptism comes from the superiority of the New Covenant people to the old. How shall this venerable argument by these great men be met?

13:38 Well, it won't be met by denying the unity of God's people. In that way, I'm as reformed as any reformed pedobaptist. But while the unity of God's people must be seen, the equally biblical system, the superiority of the New Covenant people must also be seen. While we see the unity of God's people, we must see the superiority of the New Covenant people.

13:58 There is unity, but there is also superiority in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is a better covenant.

14:07 Now, one of the basic ways in which the New Covenant people is superior and different from the old is this. The Old Covenant people was a physical nation. The New Covenant people is a spiritual nation. Unregenerate infants are, by definition, included in a physical nation.

14:28 But they are, by definition, excluded from a spiritual nation. Let me say that again. The Old Covenant people was a physical nation. The New Covenant people is a spiritual nation.

14:41 Unregenerate infants are, by definition, included in a physical nation. But they are, by definition, excluded from a spiritual nation. You see, in all this, we are assuming that the New Covenant people are excluded from a spiritual nation. You see, in all this, we are assuming that the New Covenant people are excluded from a spiritual nation.

14:53 You see, in all this, we are assuming that the New Covenant people are excluded from a spiritual nation. But they are, by definition, excluded from a spiritual nation. assuming that you're an evangelical pedobaptist, that you think your children need the gospel. Now, if you think your children are regenerate, this argument isn't going to mean anything to you.

15:02 But if you believe with the Bible that your children are by nature children of wrath, if you believe, as David thought of himself, that he was conceived in sin, shapen in iniquity, if you believe that the wicked go astray from the womb, speaking lies, if you believe that foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and only the rod of reproof, blessed by the grace of God will drive it far from him, then you must admit with me, and with Baptists, that infants are unregenerate. Now, there have been miraculous cases where we cannot argue from the exception to the rule.

15:40 Now, again, let me give another way of saying the same argument that we're going to use and try to prove. The Old Covenant people were a physical nation with physical promises, and unregenerate infants, unregenerate people may profit from physical, temporal blessings. But the New Covenant people have spiritual promises from which only spiritual people may profit. Let me illustrate this.

16:05 What I'm not saying is the Old Covenant people had only physical promises. Their promises were like this. There were spiritual promises there, and around these spiritual promises were temporal or physical promises.

16:22 These were the temporal, temporary promises of the land and the blessing of a multitude of physical seed to Abraham. And all these blessings were signed or sealed by the right of circumcision.

16:39 And because infants may participate in physical blessings and may benefit greatly from physical blessings like protection by God and the land, these things were signed to them by the ordinance of circumcision. Now, circumcision also was assigned for spiritual blessings, but it was both of these things. If a person participated in either of these things, he might receive the ordinance of circumcision. But, what is different in the New Covenant people is that now these temporal promises have passed away.

17:09 And we have only spiritual promises remaining, and so the parallel ordinance of baptism may be applied to only those who have a right to inherit the spiritual promises. That is what we are saying.

17:26 Now then, this is the question. All agree that only those with covenant status may receive the covenant mark. All agree that. But Baptists deny that unregenerate infants have covenant status in the New Covenant.

17:45 They believe that the covenant status of infants passed with temporal promises and with a national structure of the people of God.

17:55 When the national structure of God's people passed with the first advent of Christ, when the temporal promises passed with the first advent of Christ, then the circumcision of the covenant of Christ is a sign of the covenant. The circumcision of infants passed with the first advent of Christ. Only the covenant people, and all the covenant people, deserve the mark of the covenant. The question is this. Who are the covenant people?

18:20 Who are the covenant people? Well, you see, in all this argument, one thing we have to prove, that the New Covenant people is a spiritual nation, not a physical nation. And this we are about to do. Before I go on, are there any questions?

Argument 1: The Eschatological Nature of the New Covenant (Isaiah & John 6)

18:37 Are there any questions? Well, we go on, then. Turn with me, for our first argument, to the book of Isaiah. This is the argument from the eschatological nature of the New Covenant.

19:02 What are we going to say? We are going to say so that the Old Testament prophesies of a time when all God's people would be righteous. There wouldn't be a mixture of unregenerate and regenerate people in the people of God. Now, we are going to see that that has its ultimate fulfillment, of course, in the new heavens and new earth, when all the people of God are righteous.

19:23 But we are going to say that that which was prophesied of the new heavens and new earth has already in principle begun to take place. Turn to Isaiah 52.1, the prophecy of the time when Zion would awake. Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion, the people of God.

19:48 Put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city, for henceforth there shall no more come unto thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. Turn to Isaiah 54.13, in a passage which is very reminiscent of the language of Revelation 21 and 22 of the new heavens and new earth. We read in verse 13.

20:15 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children. There shall come a time when all the children of Zion, all those who are members of God's people. Turn to Isaiah 60, verse 21.

20:40 Here again, a passage which is very reminiscent of Revelation 21 and 22, where we read, Thy people also shall be all righteous. They shall inherit the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. Thy people shall be all righteous. Now, the New Testament tells us when this will be fulfilled.

21:07 Ultimately, in Revelation 21, verse 27.

21:13 Revelation 21, verse 27.

21:24 These prophecies have their ultimate fulfillment when John sees the new heaven and new earth. And we read then in Revelation 21, verse 27, And there shall in no wise language identical, or practically identical with Isaiah 52, verse 1, And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that...

21:44 Neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. And then chapter 22, verses 14 and 15.

21:56 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Now, you ask me, what does all that have to do with...

22:17 with right now? That's about the new heavens and new earth. Well, if you've been with us through all these lessons, you've already known that what we've been saying that the genius of New Testament eschatology is simply this. That what is going to take place in totality and ultimately out there has already begun to take place.

22:35 That is the essence of the New Testament eschatology. The new covenant has already been inaugurated. Now, how do I know, though, that this principle has already come into practice in history? How do I know that even now the church must live by this principle?

22:51 All thy people shall be righteous and no one that is defiled shall enter the gates of the church. Well, turn to John.

23:01 John 6. Remember that passage we quoted in Isaiah 54, 13 about all your children being righteous? Jesus tells us that's already begun to take place and to be fulfilled. John 6.

23:19 And verse 44 and 45. No man can be a sinner, no man can be a sinner, no man can come to me except the Father which has sent me draw him. And I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, not only Isaiah, but he's also thinking probably of Jeremiah 31, which we'll get into later.

23:41 It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me present tense. This prophecy of all your children being taught of the Lord has already begun to become into fruition, in history. Jesus is telling us by quoting of that passage here.

24:02 He is saying that already the old covenant people is passing away. Now all those who are taught of God are coming to Christ. And this is the new formative principle of the covenant people of God. They come to Christ.

24:14 When you come to Christ, you're baptized. You're a member of the covenant. Now, I admit that that argument is only suggestive. It's not demonstrative.

24:24 But we come now to arguments that are thoroughly demonstrative of the position we're taking that the new covenant people are coming to Christ. That's the new covenant people are coming to Christ. That's the new covenant people are coming to Christ. That's the new covenant people are coming to Christ.

24:28 The new covenant people are the spiritual nation. Matthew 3.

Argument 2: John the Baptist's Demands for Baptism (Matthew 3 & Luke 1)

24:42 The point is, who is the covenant people? Who have a right to the name of the new covenant people of God? Those people and those alone may be baptized. Well, we'll come to the first Baptist, John the Baptist, and see what he thought about this.

25:00 In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, And repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. See, the eschatological nature of this passage is right on the surface of it. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his path straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his meat was locust and wild honey.

25:32 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of him. In Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come, bring forth therefore fruits, meat for repentance, fitting for repentance, and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father. For I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham, and now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees.

26:14 Therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. But he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner.

26:39 But he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Here we see John and Pharisees and Sadducees, children of Abraham, come to be baptized of him. People who had a right to the ordinance of circumcision, but they do not have a right to John's baptism. They must bring forth fruits, meat for repentance.

26:57 And this is what we are saying. John, first of all, our first point under this argument, John demanded fruits fitting for repentance in order to be baptized. You must be baptized, confessing your sins. Old Covenant status was not sufficient to give you a right to baptism.

27:21 Being a child of Abraham was not sufficient.

27:26 You had to be his child in faith.

27:30 The second thing we must say about this is that John's baptism was Christian baptism. First of all, there's no record of Christ baptizing his apostles when he called them. He called his apostles and he accepted their baptism. There's no record that he ever re-baptized his apostles.

27:46 And besides that, we read that they almost immediately began to baptize others as disciples to Christ, John 4, 1 and 2. Secondly, if John's baptism was not Christian baptism, then Christ himself does not have Christian baptism. And that is unthinkable. And thirdly, the only reason anybody can come up with from denying that John's baptism was Christian baptism is that there were some people who were baptized on the Sabbath, on to John's baptism in Acts 19.

28:18 Well, what shall we say about those people? Well, we read of those people that they didn't even know about the Holy Spirit. Now, did John preach about the Holy Spirit? Yes, it was one of the essential elements of his message.

28:30 The reason they were baptized again is because they didn't even have John's baptism. They had a baptism on to John's baptism, but you can't have John's baptism without having received his message. And they didn't even know John's message as they ought to have known it. They didn't even know there was a Holy Spirit.

28:45 So, we say that John's baptism was Christian baptism. And thirdly, we say that John was preparing a people for the Lord. Look at Luke 1.17.

29:02 What was John doing?

29:05 He was preparing a people for the Lord. What people? Well, the New Covenant people, of course. Luke 1.17.

29:14 Talking of John and his ministry. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias.

29:21 Luke 1.17. To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. And the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.

29:28 To make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

29:32 In his ministry, John was preparing the New Covenant people for the Lord. In John's ministry, the shape of that people was being formed in a preliminary way. And we notice that that shape excluded some who were legitimate members of the Old Covenant. And secondly, it demanded conversion, repentance, as the entry requirement into the New Covenant.

29:55 And secondly, it demanded to the New Covenant people so that a person could be baptized. And that all speaks to the fact that those who have merely physical birth may not have a right to Christian baptism. Turn to Matthew 21.43.

Argument 3: The New Nation Bearing Fruit (Matthew 21)

30:14 Another argument. A passage we've seen before.

30:19 Matthew 21.43.

30:24 If you have any questions as we go along or something isn't clear, please be free to raise your hand. Christ speaking of the new people of God that are going to be formed now and forever. Now that the old people are going to be destroyed and says, therefore say I unto you the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. The new nation was to be a spiritual one.

30:50 One which would bring forth the fruit. You see, it excluded all non-fruit bearers and it included all fruit bearers. But unless you were a fruit bearer, you were no member of the New Covenant people of God.

31:04 That is the argument we've come to from Matthew 21.43. And therefore, unless you are a fruit bearer, you have no right to mark of the New Covenant. John 1.12 and 13.

Argument 4: Spiritual Birth for Adoption (John 1)

31:20 Fourth argument.

31:22 This is a harmless enough looking passage on the surface, isn't it?

31:28 But as many as received him, to them gave he power, the right, the authority, the exousia, to become the children, the tecna, the children of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were both born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God.

31:53 This passage is talking about the privilege of adoption. Those two words, children and right, speak to us about the legal privilege of adoption that is given to all those who are born of God. It's talking about adoption. Now, who was God's adopted people in the Old Testament?

32:11 Well, turn to some passages with me. Romans 9, 3 and 4.

32:25 Romans 9, 3 and 4. Romans 9, 4.

32:32 He's talking about his physical kin. And then he says of them, Who are Israelites? To whom pertaineth the adoption? Who were God's adopted people in the Old Covenant?

32:43 Israelites. Physical Israelites. The physical nation. Who are Israelites?

32:48 To whom pertaineth the adoption? Which were unconverted, interestingly enough. Turn to Matthew 8, 12.

33:02 Maybe you won't see the point of this right now, but I'm going to I think you will see it. Matthew 8, 12.

33:15 Here we read, But the children of the kingdom, and he is talking about the Old Testament covenant people of God who are not yet those who received the Messiah. The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Here we read of children of the kingdom, children of God, if you will, who are cast into outer darkness.

33:40 Turn to Ezra 4, 3. Ezra 4, 22. I'm sorry, Exodus 4, 22. Answering the question, who was God's adopted people in the Old Testament?

33:52 Exodus 4, 22. Who had the privilege of adoption given to them in the Old Testament? That is the question we're asking. Exodus 4, 22.

34:08 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel, Israel is my son, even my firstborn. Now what's Israel? What was Israel? It was the seed, the physical seed of Israel, Jacob.

34:25 It was a nation, a physical nation. Israel was God's son. Turn to Hosea 11, 1.

34:40 Hosea, Joel, Amos.

34:53 Hosea 11, 1.

35:03 When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt.

35:10 As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven, I taught Ephraim also the goal, taking them by their arms, but they knew not that I healed them.

35:26 Talking about the fact that though Israel was God's son, they were not converted.

35:33 Turn to Isaiah 1, 2-4.

35:49 Who were the children of God in the Old Testament?

35:53 Isaiah 1, 2-4. Hear, O heavens! Give ear, O earth! For the Lord hath spoken.

36:00 I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib. But Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. Ah, sinful nation!

36:16 A people laden with iniquity. A seed of evildoers. Children that are corruptors. They have forsaken the Lord.

36:24 They have provoked the Holy One of Israel. Unto anger they are gone backward. Gone away backward. Children of the Lord whom He had nourished and brought up.

36:33 And yet, unconverted. So that is our second point. So what are we going to say? John 1, 12 and 13 tells us that while once a man might become a child of God in covenant status by being born of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, all of which talk about the process of natural birth, yet now you must be born of God to be a man of God.

37:05 You must be a man of God. You must be a member of the covenant people. But as many as received the Messiah when He came to the covenant people of God, the old covenant people, those people, not to all the people, not to them and their children, but to them, to them gave you power to become the sons of God, the children of God, even to those that believe on His name. Adoption, covenant status is not transferred, is not given through physical birth anymore.

37:38 It is given through believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving the Messiah of Israel. John and Paul teach that in the new covenant the privilege of adoption does not result from physical but spiritual birth. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

38:00 Thus the new covenant excludes the physical progeny of Israel or anybody else and accepts only those who are born of God.

Argument 5: The True Circumcision (Philippians 3)

38:13 Philippians 3.3 Again, we ask the question, who are the covenant people of God? In the New Testament, who are the circumcision? Who are those people that have the covenant people of God and who may receive the covenant mark?

38:37 Well, this text answers that question.

38:42 Beware of dogs, evil workers, the mutilation or concision. Beware of those Judaizers, this is what Paul is saying. Don't listen to them when this claims to be God's special people. For he says of himself and of the Philippian church, for we are the circumcision which worship by the Spirit of God and rejoice in Christ Jesus and put no confidence or have no confidence in the flesh.

39:11 What are the qualifications that he gives here for being a member of the circumcision? Worshiping by the Spirit of God. Glorying in Christ Jesus. Putting no confidence in the flesh.

39:27 Unregenerate infants cannot meet these qualifications. They are therefore not members of the new covenant people.

Argument 6: The Defining Characteristics of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8 / Jeremiah 31)

39:35 Our last passage, which is perhaps the classic passage that I want to turn you to, is Hebrews chapter 8, verses 6 through 13.

39:47 We are talking about the new covenant, therefore it is most appropriate that we go to the very passage where this is taught to see what it teaches concerning the new covenant people of God.

39:57 Hebrews chapter 8, verses 6 through 13. Here we have a quotation and a few comments on Jeremiah 31.

40:08 Talking of the mediator, the great high priest who is now in the heavens interceding for all those who come unto God by him. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant. There's a superiority about the new covenant over the old. A better covenant which was established up on better promises.

40:31 Better promises. Of course that first covenant had been faultless. Then should no place have been sought for the second.

40:39 For finding fault with them, the old covenant people, he says, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my covenant. And I regarded them not, saith the Lord, there was a fault. And the old covenant did not secure the heart religion of those people. It offered it to them perhaps, but it did not secure it.

41:14 For this, verse 10, this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law into their mind, write them in their hearts, and it will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. They shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

41:51 In that he saith a new covenant. He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Now we ask the question, what is new?

42:04 What is new about the new covenant?

42:07 Is God's remembering the sins of his people and forgiving them new? Is the forgiveness of sins for the first time taking place in the new covenant? No. David's sins were covered.

42:20 He knew the blessedness of man to whom the Lord would not impute iniquity. No, that's not what's new about the new covenant. Well, is it perhaps now God lights his laws upon his people's minds? No.

42:34 We're reading Isaiah, and throughout, the Old Testament, of individuals who had God's law written in their minds, who delight in the law of God. No, that is not what's new about the new covenant. Or is it perhaps that God says that he will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people? No, this is not it either because that is the continual covenant promise throughout all the covenants of God.

42:57 This is the thing that is characteristic of all the covenants. So what is new about the new covenant? What is new about the new covenant? Simply this.

43:07 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least even to the greatest. What are we saying then? The old covenant people, you could not say that they all knew the Lord. In fact, listen to what God says of them the day he made the covenant with them.

43:30 Deuteronomy 5, 28 and 29.

43:36 Did they all know the Lord?

43:39 No, far from it. No. God had just entered into the covenant with them. Just given to them his laws and they had just sworn fealty to those laws.

43:50 Deuteronomy 5, 28 and 29.

43:54 And the Lord heard the voice of your words when you spake unto me. And the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken unto thee. They have well said all that they have spoken. Then notice what he says.

44:12 Oh, that there were such in heart in them that they would fear me and keep all my commandments always that it might be well with them and with their children forever. But the implication is that there was not such a heart. There was not such a heart. But now we read in great contrast to this old covenant people that there will come a covenant people all of whom shall know the Lord.

44:38 They shall not have to teach covenant members to know the Lord. Because that is going to be the very qualification for the new covenant people. Knowing the Lord. Having this experiential, spiritual knowledge of Jehovah.

44:52 Now then, what do we say? It is not that people did not have laws written on their hearts of God in the Old Testament. It is not that God was not to them a God and they were not His people. It is not that God remembered their sins and iniquities no more.

45:07 He did not do that. What is it? It is that now as a people, now as a corporate nation, the laws of God are written in their hearts. Israel had the law in stone.

45:17 This people has the law in their hearts. It is that now this people's sins are forgiven as a nation. Not merely as some individuals within the nation, a remnant preserved, but now the nation itself. All know the Lord.

45:33 And this is the argument then from the new covenant. This is the new thing about the new covenant. There is this universal knowledge of Jehovah that characterizes all those who are in the new covenant. If there is no knowledge of Jehovah, there is no membership in the new covenant.

45:50 Well, the obvious question is, are we saying then that the church is composed only of regenerate people? No, but we are saying it ought to be composed only of regenerate people. That is not true of the old covenant people. Unregenerate infants were circumcised.

46:04 The very ordinance itself inducted unregenerate people into the old covenant. The very ordinance of baptism is calculated to exclude unregenerate people as much as sinful men can do it. And as much as sinful men can do it, as much as sinful men can do it, as much as sinful men can do it, as much as sinful men can do it, as much as we have discernment. If you believe in your heart, then you may be baptized.

46:22 This is the continual point of the New Testament. You make disciples and then you baptize them. You take people into the church and they profess to be regenerate. We cannot go any farther.

46:31 But you see, this is altogether different from knowingly and calculatingly introducing infants who we know are unregenerate into the covenant people. Altogether different.

46:43 And so we say that the new covenant people is to be composed of only regenerate people. They are to be of evidence that they are regenerate. They have repented when they come in. And when they cease to give such evidence, they are to be put out.

46:58 That is what we are saying about the new covenant people. Now one day, perfection will come. One day the new covenant will usher into a people all of whom know the Lord in the absolute ultimate perfection of that saying. But even now, that principle has come into history.

47:14 Even now, the principle by which the church must govern itself is that all must know the Lord. And we have two conclusions to this argument.

Conclusion: Paedobaptism is Unbiblical and Inconsistent

47:25 Pedo-baptism was unbiblical.

47:29 The argument from circumcision and the unity of the covenants is broken on the rock of the superiority of the new covenant. Infants were members of the old covenant. Yes. And they received the sign of circumcision.

47:42 Yes. But they did that for two reasons. First of all, at that time there was a national structure to the people of God which has passed away. And secondly, at that time the people of God have temporal promises which have passed away.

47:55 Infants were baptized because of those two reasons. But when those reasons passed away, so did the right of infant circumcision and infant membership in the people of God. Both of these, the national structure and the temporal promises, infants could enjoy and participate in. But both of these passed with the coming of the Messiah and the new covenant.

48:16 On the other hand, unregenerate infants are by definition excluded. They are excluded. They are excluded. They are excluded.

48:22 They are excluded. They are excluded. They are excluded. They are excluded from a nation the essential character of which is that it is spiritual.

48:28 You see, and this is the dilemma for evangelical pedobaptists. They do not want to say that their children are regenerate, born that way, or are presumed to be regenerate, or are regenerated by baptism. But you see, the New Testament teaches that only spiritual people may be a member of the church, of the new covenant. Then they have this dilemma.

48:50 Either they cease to practice infant baptism, or they cease to practice or they say that their children are regenerate and they baptize them for that reason. That is what we are saying. If we see that the new covenant people is composed only of regenerate people, only of converted people, then we say either we do not baptize infants or we say that they are converted and regenerate. That is the choice.

49:14 Yes, Russ? Don't they try to buttress their argument by proving that the outward form of the New Testament church includes unregenerate infants? Yes, but they do try to buttress it that way. But see, that is altogether a different thing.

49:31 The New Testament church includes unregenerate people only if they lie to get in. I say that advisedly. They have to say they are converted and believe in Christ to get in. If they lie, they can get in.

49:44 If they say they are regenerate and they are not. You see, they might not know they are lying, but they are lying just the same. They are deceived. That is altogether a different thing from introducing people that everyone admitted.

49:55 They weren't regenerate in the Old Testament. The one scripture that has been used to back that up is the parable of the wheat and pears in Matthew 13. Oh, yes. You see, the field is the world, not the church.

50:11 That is the Christ's own interpretation of the passage. Yes, Mr. Muller? Isn't it a very common idea that we in Christianity have a definition of the symbol of God as a being and a person?

50:25 Yes. Is he a being and a person? I mean, we don't know what the meaning of being is. The meaning of being is that we use the word as a church and we continue to ask because we have to understand what it was that the visible body was not in the world as it really was.

50:53 And that was God Christ and I've been wanting to walk in there. I would say that in the New Testament, in the greatest cooking experience that there has been so far, and I think that brings up a lot of these strategies.

51:15 . Yes, the definition of the visible body of Christ, John Murray himself gives this very clearly. It is those who are called of God, sanctified by God, crucified in Christ Jesus, 1 Corinthians 1, 1 and 2. John Murray himself defines the Church that way.

51:52 So, we say then, yes, Mel? Another thing I can't quite understand is that they will go all the way with the sacrament of Holy Communion, but they don't allow their children to partake of that, so they get made to switch over from Passover to Lord's Supper, all the way, only confessing children can partake of that. Mm-hmm. And yet the others finally have watched the way it was.

52:19 That's a very difficult, confusing thing to say now. Yes, that's a good point. You see, what we're accusing, we're not denying Reformed theology. We're saying they're being inconsistent.

52:31 We believe in the unity and diversity of the people of God. They do, too. But when it comes to baptism, they don't believe in the diversity. They want to make that identical.

52:39 And that's exactly the word that Louis Burckhoff uses, by the way, in his Systematic Theology, identity. Well, we don't believe, in that sense, the identity of God's covenant people. There is difference. There is not identical sameness.

52:54 Yes, Bill. Well, the very understanding of the Holy Communion, because they're the baptismal people, apparently they're the same, but there are several elements invested and popular in the understanding of the faith in the Ordinance. And the argument being that there isn't, it's been ordered for those to follow him. So, in other words, they would baptize the children, and then later on, come to him and take him home, and then the children would go to the baptism.

53:33 Is this common in the Bible? All I've got to say about that is that the basis of baptism is not a person's, perhaps, election. It's not a person's election at all. If we could know somebody was elect, we wouldn't baptize him.

53:46 Not until he was converted. See, the New Testament doesn't make the basis of baptism as a person's election, real or unreal, or perhaps certain or uncertain. It makes the basis of a person's baptism his conversion, his bringing forth fruits to meet for repentance. There are some people that are unconverted now who don't bring forth fruits to meet for repentance, and so don't have privilege to baptism, who someday will.

54:11 And we'll baptize them then. Any other questions? Let me just close by saying this. Not only is paedobaptism unbiblical, but you see, the ironic result of paedobaptism is that you reproduce another Old Testament Israel.

54:28 At least as far as you take it, you do that. You get the same kind of results as Israel got with circumcision. You have a mass of profession, a mass of people who claim to be God's people, the children of Abraham, and they don't have it. You see, that comes because the ordinances are given to us to preach the gospel.

54:47 The gospel is this. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. That's the gospel. And that is what the ordinance of baptism must preach.

54:57 But how does the baptism of infants preach that? That is the question. Shall we pray?