Subjects of Baptism, Part 3

Opening Prayer and Sermon Introduction

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on July 3rd, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. Let's pray and ask for the Lord's blessing upon our study this morning.

0:18 Our God, as we draw near to you, we come confessing, O God, our great frailty. You know, Lord, that we are made out of the dust, and you know that the corruption that cleaves to us is particularly stirred up when we go through times which are unpleasant and uncomfortable for us. We thank you, Lord, for the comfort of the air conditioning of this building. We thank you that we can study in a climate in which our minds are not distracted by the stifling heat.

0:49 We praise you for this blessing and grace which comes from you. We pray, Lord, that as we study your word together this morning, that we may know the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon us, that he would bless us throughout this day with the presence of his own graciousness and nearness. We pray, Lord, that you would feed our souls upon your holy word, that you would bless us in accordance with the multitude of your tender mercies. For we ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen.

1:24 Amen.

Review of Apostolic Baptismal Practices and Corrections

1:27 Now, this morning we come to consider the subjects of Baptism Part 3. In Part 1, we considered the practice of Jesus and Jesus' perpetuation of that which he practiced, namely, disciple baptism. Then last week, in Part 2, we considered the practice of the apostles. And we saw that the apostles' practice could be arranged in four categories as we look through the book of Acts.

2:03 We saw that there were multiple or group baptisms which occurred in the context of multiple conversions in Acts chapter 2 and Acts chapter 8. Then we saw the record of isolated baptisms, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch and the baptism of the apostle Paul. Then we saw the household baptism. There were multiple baptisms which occurred in the context of household conversions, the conversion of Cornelius' household and of Lydia's and of the jailer's and the household of Stephanus.

2:36 And there was one other passage that we didn't look at which has to do with re-baptism, the re-baptism of those who were baptized unto John's baptism, who then were re-baptized by the apostle Paul when they came explicitly to faith. Faith in the Son of God.

2:58 Now, before we go on, I need to bend over some nails and I need to straighten out some other nails. You know, sometimes nails, when they get driven in, they don't get driven in straight the first time. You've got to take them out and you've got to straighten them out and drive them in again. Well, there's a nail that needs to be straightened out, so I want to take the time right at the outset this morning not only to bend over what needs to be bent over, but also to straighten out.

3:25 What needs to be straightened out. Now, first of all, with respect to John's baptism, I said that most paedo-baptists would admit that John did not baptize infants. So I think that that's true, but I want to underscore the fact that not all paedo-baptists would admit that, especially that's true of those who live in recent times. Because in recent days, and I didn't go into this, I determined not to, I think I should just briefly, for the sake of completeness, in recent days, a good number have contended that John did baptize infants and they have used the practice of Jewish proselyte baptism to prove or to support this contention. Now, obviously, the scripture says nothing about Jewish proselyte baptism, so that this whole discussion is one in which we are dependent, upon sources outside of the word of God. And for that reason, I was going to leave the whole thing unsaid and untouched. But if any of you are interested in hearing something about this discussion, I would commend to you the following work, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul K. Jewett.

4:48 And in this work, on pages 65 through 68, he gives an overview. This is a Ph.D. dissertation, which he did, I believe, under Professor Murray at Westminster Seminary.

5:01 And Jewett is a Baptist, and on pages 65 to 68 he deals with the subject of Jewish proselyte baptism. So if any of you think you simply have to hear about it, I would suggest to you P.K. Jewett's work on the subject.

5:17 And he says three things. First of all, there was no proof that the Jews practiced it before Christians did, from history. Second, there was no proof that the Jews practiced it before Christians did, from history. Second of all, that the Jews only baptized Gentiles who were coming into the covenant community, not those already in it.

5:34 And the third and most telling point is that they did not baptize the infants of those who were already in that covenant relationship, because they regarded them as already holy. In other words, apparently the practice was, when a convert to Judaism came, he was baptized, as well as all of his household and his family members and his children. However, once that had taken place, if he had additional children, those children were not baptized, because they were regarded as already holy, because they were born within the covenant relationship. So that's Jewish proselyte baptism in a nutshell. And it is true that some paedobaptists are today using this practice to contend that John the Baptist practiced infant baptism. Now the second nail, that one I just bent over, this one I think needs to be straightened out. I made reference to this last week in the worship service.

6:41 I said last week when I quoted F.F. Bruce with respect to the baptism of Lydia's household, that F.F. Bruce was a paedobaptist, and then afterwards I learned that he was involved with the Brethren. So that needs to be corrected. Now the reason that I said that was in order to underscore the idea that he had no prejudice in the text when he was saying that Lydia was the head of the household. Now the fact that he's a Baptist, of course, does not mean that he was prejudiced just because he was a Baptist and that his exegesis grow out of prejudice.

7:16 I still don't believe he was prejudiced. Nevertheless, the point that I was making is thereby invalidated. However, there are other paedobaptist commentators who say exactly the same thing. For example, Lenski.

7:31 And I have no doubt in my mind that Lenski was a paedobaptist. Lenski says the same on page 657. And I knew this last week, but I only quoted Bruce because Bruce was more clear than Lenski and more thorough in what he said. But Lenski does make the same point.

7:49 He says the following, Lydia dealt in purple goods of all kinds, and it is not necessary to add all kinds of other goods. The sale of purple was a business that required a large capital. Let us take it that Lydia was a widow and was carrying on her dead husband's business by importing from Thyatira and selling in Philippine. So he also indicates that Lydia was the head of the home.

8:22 And he says here that she was carrying on her dead husband's business. Of course, the other possibility, as Bruce pointed out, is that she was a single woman and was never married. But in any event, they would tend to agree that the language is such that Lydia was the head of the home. So it doesn't grow out of prejudice if someone takes that position on the passage.

8:44 That was the only point that I was seeking to make last week by quoting from Bruce in the way that I did. All right. So much then for bending over and straightening out nails. Now we come today to finish up where we started last week, and that is the final passage that mentions baptism on the part of the apostles.

Re-baptism of John's Disciples in Acts 19

9:07 And that is the passage in Acts chapter 19. Acts chapter 19. And it came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples. And he said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? They said, We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was. And he said, Into what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

10:09 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied, and they were all in all about twelve men. Now one thing is clear from the passage, and that is that those that were baptized were all disciples, first of all.

10:53 Second of all, they had all been previously baptized by John's baptism. That's also clear from the passage. So that here, the objects of Christian baptism were disciples who had previously been John's disciples and those who were baptized by John's baptism. Now there doesn't seem to be any question about the fact that these people had already, upon their profession of repentance from sin, undergone a symbolic water rite.

11:30 And yet Paul said that they must still undergo another symbolic water rite, namely being baptized in Jesus' name. So therefore, some could say that Paul was the first Anabaptist. Now Anabaptist simply means to be baptized again. Now if that is not what Paul did on this instance, then I do not know what other construction could conceivably be placed upon these words.

12:04 Nevertheless, there are some who are not willing to admit that the Apostle Paul baptized these people again. They say, and you may check out John Calvin because he is one that says this, both in his commentary on Acts 19, and also in his Institutes in dealing with baptism, his commentary on Acts 19, 5, he says, when they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. He says this is not a reference to Christian water baptism. This is a reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

12:40 This is not a reference to Christian water baptism, but it is rather a reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, that is not in keeping with the analogy of Scripture, and it is not in keeping with the context at all. First of all, it says they were baptized in Jesus' name. Now in all of the other instances where that phrase is used, Acts 2.38, Acts 8.12, Acts 10.48, 1 Corinthians 1.12-16, there is no question, there is no possible question about the fact that this refers to Christian water baptism.

13:27 And evidently, that is what it refers to here. Again, the context indicates that this is what is being spoken about. There is a parallel established between verse 4 and verse 5. It says, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, and when they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

13:53 And then a distinction is made between this baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit. And verse 6, when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. So a parallel is established between John's baptism and the baptism in Jesus' name which they underwent, and a distinction is established between the baptism in Jesus' name and the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, in the special redemptive historical manifestation of speaking with tongues and prophesying which occurred when Paul laid his hands upon them. So it seems to me on the surface of the text to be patently clear that these people were baptized in water and that Paul, baptized them in water. Now why did Paul do this? Why did he do it? Wasn't it sufficient that they had been baptized with John's baptism?

The Significance of Re-baptism: Defective Teaching vs. Different Significance

15:08 If they had been baptized with John's baptism, why did they need to be baptized again? Well, that question has divided commentators, exegetes, preachers, both Baptists and Paedo-Baptists, alike. Some believe that it was because of something defective in the teaching to which they were exposed, and that this is implied by verse 2. Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?

15:44 Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was. In other words, it is contended that if what they had been exposed to was a sound exposition of John's preaching and baptism, then they would have heard concerning the Holy Spirit. But that can be answered in various ways. First of all, this could be a reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit in redemptive history.

16:13 For example, similar terminology is used in John 7, 37 to 39 to refer to the redemptive history as the historical coming of the Holy Spirit. And they may be saying nothing more than the fact that they were ignorant of the coming of the Holy Spirit in the history of redemption. And also, there may be something in the passage that indicates that they were exposed to an accurate exposition of John's baptism, but that that was as much as they knew concerning the redemption of the people of God. Acts 18 and verse 22 at least may point us in this direction.

16:58 It speaks about Apollos, and it seems that in the development of thought there's an intimate connection between Apollos' ministry at Ephesus. It sets the background for what happened here when Paul got to Ephesus. And it says about Apollos in verse 25, this man had been instructed in the way of the Lord, being fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.

17:32 Knowing only the baptism of John. In other words, what he knew, he knew right, but he didn't know all that was appropriate to be known at that point in redemptive history. Now it may well be that since he was there in Ephesus, now here comes conjecture, that it was through Apollos' ministry and preaching that these men were brought to be disciples of John. That was all that Apollos knew.

18:04 And then you see, Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him to them and expounded to him the way of God more accurately. They told him that more had happened since that which he had learned, which was significant in the exposition of gospel truth. Then when Paul comes to Corinth, he apparently finds people who knew nothing more than what Apollos knew, namely the baptism of John and who had been baptized. Would I say Corinth?

18:33 Thanks. When Paul came to Ephesus, he ran into people who knew nothing more than what Apollos knew, namely the baptism of John. And then he expounded to them the way of God more accurately and baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus. So although it could be that they weren't exposed to Apollos' teaching, they were exposed to something defective, yet the context at least makes it plausible to assert that they were exposed to an accurate exposition of John's baptism and that there is in significance a difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism and that that difference in significance, though it is not a major one, yet it is enough to warrant rebaptism. It is enough to warrant rebaptism when they come to Christ in the explicit redemptive historical revelation of the apostolic preaching. Now, what then would the difference be? Well, John baptized unto repentance, but these were baptized in Jesus' name.

19:48 Notice verse 4. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him that was to come. John? Who did John baptize?

20:10 He baptized John's disciples. Who did Jesus baptize? He baptized Jesus' disciples. Certainly a parallel.

20:26 What was the significance of John's baptism? Well, the emphasis was repentance, but it had a Christological dimension. It was an expectant repentance. It was expecting the one who was to come.

20:48 Now, what was Jesus' baptism? Well, the emphasis is upon faith, saying that they should believe on the one who is to come. Baptism is identified again and again with faith and with those who believe. Of course, it is also identified with repentance.

21:03 That is true, because it is a penitent faith. So there's not much difference. But here, the emphasis, the emphasis is not that they are baptized into an expectant repentance in which they wait for the one who is to come. But now, Jesus has come.

21:25 If I may use the Pastor Martin stick figure. Jesus has come. It's not that he will come. He has come, and they are exercising a penitent faith in the Christ who has been manifested.

21:42 They are now united with him in his life, specifically in his burial and in his resurrection. And so there is the difference between an expectant repentance and a penitent faith. And that's the progress of redemptive history with respect to John's baptism prior to the public manifestation of Christ in the midst of the people of God, and Christian baptism, which occurs once Christ has been publicly manifested in redemptive history. So the one is preparatory and expectant, and the other occurs in the context of fulfillment and conscious reception of the person of a manifested and present Christ. That's the difference, if there is a difference. And that difference was significant enough to say that this is not this. So in principle, if that's a true exposition of the passage, then a previous experience of a symbolic water rite of a different significance

23:04 does not exempt from Christ's disciple baptism. Or, if the other is accurate, then a previous experience of an abnormal or improperly administered water rite does not exempt from Christ's disciple baptism. But in any event, there is little hope that infant baptism could be established from this passage. Now, it may be that there are a lot of questions that people have at this point, because we have now considered all of the passages in the New Testament in which either Jesus or the apostles are said to have instituted or to have practiced the ordinance of baptism. And that's the end, then, of Roman numeral I. So are there any questions which come to your minds at this point before we move on to consider the indirect evidence which is often used? Yes.

Addressing Questions on Jewish Proselyte Baptism and Baptismal Terminology

24:30 Could you speak up, please, brother? Yes? No. That is what paedobaptists often contend.

24:48 However, according to Jewett, in his Ph.D. dissertation, there is no historical evidence which mandates that contention. It is an open question as to which came first, Christian baptism or Jewish proselyte baptism.

25:08 And there is no historical evidence, according to Jewett, to prove the fact that Jewish proselyte baptism came first in history. Okay? Although paedobaptists do contend that it did. Yes, Wayne?

25:26 Yes? Yes. Acts, chapter 2, verse 38. There is a very parallel phraseology found in Acts, chapter 8, in verse 12.

25:47 You have to read the context. Acts, chapter 10, in verse 48. 1 Corinthians, chapter 1, verses 12 through 16. Oh, it is the very use of this terminology which has caused controversy among some Christians.

26:06 Some people say you must baptize in Jesus' name and not in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And there is some difference of opinion as to whether if you have baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is the same as baptizing in the name of Jesus only. And people debate this back and forth. Okay?

26:27 But those are the passages. Yes. I see. Yes.

26:50 I didn't mean to say that every single one without exception would believe that. I think that would be the consensus of paedobaptist opinion. Those who use that passage argue from the priority of Jewish proselyte baptism in time. Right?

27:08 That is the way it is commonly used as the consensus of opinion. But it is only used that way by those who use it. That has been something that has been a relatively recent development in the polemic of the issue. Yes.

27:23 Well, the Scripture doesn't explicitly answer that question. Doesn't explicitly answer it. You might be able, if the exposition is true, that this was a misconceived baptism and when it, or let me put it differently, if the exposition is true that there was defective teaching, then that wouldn't necessarily be implied. It would be strongly implied or it could be implied if the exposition is true that this is due to a different significance. But the Scripture does not explicitly address the issue one way or the other to my knowledge. All it says is that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John. It doesn't explicitly address the subject anywhere in the Gospels that I know of as to what happened when one of John's disciples converted and became one of Jesus' disciples.

28:31 Whether he was baptized then again or whether he wasn't, I don't know of any passage that explicitly addresses that issue. Yes. I do not know of any, of anyone who would do that. All right.

29:05 Then I can only give a hypothetical answer. I don't know. I would have to, I would have to, I would have to view it, have to judge the case on its individual merits. Yes.

29:21 Okay. First of all, that we're talking now, Louise, about the difference between redemptive history, and someone's own personal experience. Let me put it to you a different way. I would not be able to say that Moses was a Christian because the disciples were not called Christians until the time in Antioch in Acts chapter 11. I would not have any problem, though, with saying that Moses was a true believer and a saint and that he went to heaven. You follow? So what we're talking about here is not someone's own personal experience of salvation.

30:19 We're talking about someone's incorporation into a group at a given point in the history of redemption. And there's progress in redemptive history. To be identified with this group in redemptive history is not necessarily the same as to be identified with this group in redemptive history. Although I don't doubt that if a person truly repented with an expected repentance, that that person, if he had died, would have gone to heaven to heaven.

30:46 Okay? Second question about Jewish proselyte baptism is that the Jews made converts from among the pagans. When they made those converts, we are told by extra-biblical sources that they not only circumcised the males, but that they also baptized the entire family. That is, they were symbolizing the fact that this entire group of people had now come to be washed.

31:18 And so they washed them. Right? Now that's the practice that's being referred to. It's not known for a fact exactly when that started or which started first, John's baptism, Christian baptism, or this Jewish practice.

31:34 Now, okay? Now once these pagans came into the Jewish community, if they continued to have children, those children were not baptized because it was felt that they were already clean because they were born in a covenant family. And so they didn't continue to baptize the children born within the covenant family. That's an interesting question.

32:12 You would think that an argument could be made from that verse that according to the Jewish practice, because the children were holy, they would not need to be washed. That would be the way the Jews would have argued from a text like that. They would have said, because the children are holy, they don't need to be washed. They're already holy.

32:31 So you don't baptize them. Whereas the paedo-baptists would use the text exactly the opposite and say because the children are holy, therefore they ought to be baptized. So I don't know of any Jews who would appeal to that text in the very nature of the case. But an argument could be made out that it would be consistent from their point of view to use that text against the practice of infant baptism rather than for it.

32:57 That's right. That's exactly how they, that would be consistent with their position. Okay. Let's move on then to Roman numeral two.

Jesus Blessing the Little Children: Introduction to Indirect Evidence

33:17 Most passages which offer some indirect evidence with respect to the subject of infant baptism and which are often employed in this connection. Now the first of these passages is found in Matthew 19, parallel passage Mark chapter 10, parallel passage Luke chapter 18. So some of you can turn to Matthew, some to Mark, and some to Luke. But the passage fundamentally has to do with Jesus blessing the little children. Well let's look at the one in Matthew.

34:34 Then there were brought unto him little children that he should lay his hands upon them and pray. But the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer the little children and do not forbid them to come to me for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Or it could be translated for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

34:58 And he laid his hands on them and went away. Now let's look briefly as well at the passage in Luke chapter 18, parallel passage, beginning in verse 15. And they were bringing unto him also their babes that he should touch them. But when the disciples saw it they rebuked them.

35:36 But Jesus called them unto him, saying, Suffer the little children to come to me and do not forbid them for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Verily I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. Now the word that Matthew uses for little children could refer generally to a toddler. But Luke is much more explicit.

36:13 He uses the word for babies and it's rightly translated babies. It means infants who are still suckling infants. So that Luke makes it very clear that the children involved were not those who were old enough to make a personal and intelligent profession of faith in Christ openly before men. However, he makes it very clear that the children involved were little babies.

36:46 Little babies who would not come of their own accord to Jesus, who could not hear with understanding as far as we know, or express intelligently to our comprehension their faith in Christ if they have any. So that it is very clear in the parallel passage that those referred to are babies and they were brought to Jesus. The disciples would have forbidden it and Jesus said, no, allow it, permit it, for the kingdom of God either consists of or belongs to such as these babies. Now that's the passage. Now let me quote to you from Judith. On page 55 and 56 of his treatise he deals with this text.

Historical Interpretation and Paedobaptist Use of Jesus Blessing Children

37:54 Eclipsing all other references to children in the New Testament so far as the argument for infant baptism is concerned is the gospel pericope in which Jesus blesses little children, lays his hands on them, and assures his hearers of their interest in the kingdom. Then he goes on to speak about the fact that this passage has become a very important one and a very dear one to paedobaptists. And then he speaks about the history of interpretation with respect to this passage and he says the following. It appears that as early as AD 200 some appealed to Jesus' act of blessing the children as constituting a basis for infant baptism. And he arrives at this from the remarks of Tertullian who was the first person explicitly to mention infant baptism in church history as far as we have record and who also argued against the practice and Tertullian in his remarks quotes those who mention this text. In any case, such an appeal is frequently made in the subsequent centuries of ancient and medieval church history. With the advent of anabaptism

39:22 at the time of the Protestant Reformation, appropriation of this scripture passage in the interest of infant baptism in no way diminished but rather increased. Zwingli in his treatise on baptism alludes to the incident and Calvin denotes a page and a half in the Institutes the Jesus receiving and blessing these little children. In Richard Baxter's celebrated treatise Plain Scripture Proof of Infant Church Membership and Baptism the words, Suffer the little children to come to me are the very first which meet the eye. These words have been quoted or summarized in virtually every order of worship for the giving of baptism to infants ever prepared under Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregational or Methodist auspices. And they have been intoned as frequently as the triune name of God himself in the administration of the sacrament to infants. Charles Spurgeon once preached a sermon on Jesus blessing the children. It's on Mark 10, 13 to 16 entitled Children brought to Christ, not to the font.

40:42 He testifies he testifies that he chose this text because of all the passages cited against him for his views on infant baptism none occurred more frequently than this one. And he says in modern times even men like liberal critics seek to use this text to promote the cause of infant baptism. So we must recognize and I don't think that Professor Murray if it's true that he studied under Murray would have given him his degree if that were a false statement of the historical situation that this text has played a very prominent role in the paedo-baptist polemic for the practice of infant baptism. Now it is also true of men for whom we have great respect as exegetes and as theologians and of course leading all of those today would be Professor Murray. And so I must then quote from Professor Murray's work on the subject because Murray does make use of this passage. And he says three things with respect to his conclusions on the passage in his work

Critique of John Murray's Argument for Presumptive Regeneration

42:08 Christian Baptism. Now first of all he says this on page 62 and 63. He says that the text teaches that the kingdom of God consists of infants. And he makes the following statement to conclude these two assertions.

42:45 Number one that little children belong to the kingdom of God and that they are to be received in Christ's name. Now then he says and he admits that this does not offer stringent proof of infant baptism and it does not provide with an express command to baptize infants. However, it does supply us with certain basic principles which lie close to the argument for infant baptism and without which the ordinance of infant baptism would be meaningless. And here are the principles which Murray derives from the text. First of all that little children even infants are among Christ's people and members of his body. That's the first one. That the kingdom of God consists of little infants.

43:52 Now Murray perceives that someone will say well doesn't this then refer to all little infants? And he says no it doesn't. He says on page 66 the following statement. Obviously this does not apply to all little children.

44:09 And it does not settle the mooted question of the fate of infants dying in infancy. The statements of our Lord with reference to the membership of infants in the kingdom of God can be applied only to such little children as come within the compass of a covenant situation analogous to that in which our Lord's words were spoken. Do you follow that? In other words he says you can't apply that to everybody.

44:40 The Lord spoke these words about children whose parents were in covenant relation to God. And so it only applies to infants whose parents are in covenant relation to God. But it does apply to all infants whose parents are in covenant relation to God. They are members of the kingdom of God.

45:04 Little children, even infants, because Luke says it's clear it's infants, are among Christ's people and are members of his body. Now someone says wait a minute Professor Murray. Doesn't the scripture say except a man, except a person, it doesn't use the word for man there, it just uses the general word for a person. Except someone be born anew, he cannot see, he cannot enter the kingdom of God?

45:35 And doesn't that imply Professor Murray that if these Jewish infants were in the kingdom of God that they were regenerated and born again? Wouldn't that tend to be the conclusion? Say Murray wouldn't say that. Well yes he does say that, brethren.

45:55 He makes a second statement, first statement, that he admits the inference that it's true. Little children, even infants, are among Christ's people and are members of his body too, that they are members of his kingdom and therefore have been regenerated. They are members of his kingdom and therefore have been regenerated. He admits the implication that they belong to the church in that they are to be received as belonging to Christ. That is to say, received into the fellowship of the saints. Now you see Murray's point? Jesus is saying these little children, because their parents are covenant parents, have been regenerated and are in the kingdom of God.

46:56 We exist in a similar covenant situation, therefore our little children have been regenerated and are in the kingdom of God. And he also says that these things supply us with certain principles which lie close to the argument for infant baptism and without which the ordinance of infant baptism would be meaningless. Well, what troubles me about this is Professor Murray, with all of his theological acumen, is going in the direction of presumptive regeneration. You see, because he believes that the church should consist of the regenerate, he believes that the significance of baptism is such, and we'll get into this, that it signifies that a person has been united to Christ, has been forgiven, has been washed, and he says, unless we can say that these infants are regenerated and in the kingdom of God, it's meaningless to baptize them because of the significance of baptism.

48:23 You see, his theological acumen, I'm giving my opinion now, and his love for theology as a systematic theologian drove him and was driving him toward preaching presumptive regeneration. And from what I have known about Professor Murray, this does not mean that Professor Murray would have taken offense if the gospel were preached to covenant children, they were urged to study their state, doesn't mean that. He wouldn't have taken offense to that at all. But it does mean that there's a driving force in his theology toward the error of presumptive regeneration. And it grows out of his exposition of this passage. Well, time has come. We need to stop here.

49:18 And the Lord willing, we will consider in some detail next week the conclusion of our exposition to this passage and of the witness of the New Testament. Let us pray. Our God, we give you thanks for your grace. We thank you for your kindness which is shown to us.

49:44 We thank you especially for the kindness of the Lord Jesus shown even to infants and to babies and to little children. We pray, Lord, that we may be given grace to reflect the heart of our blessed Lord, that we may be given that grace of compassion and kindness toward all, especially to the weak and to the helpless. Seal your holy word to our hearts. Write it upon them.

50:09 We ask it in Jesus' name. Amen.