Subjects of Baptism, Part 4

Introduction to Indirect Evidence for Infant Baptism

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on July 10th, 1983 at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey.

0:09 Now let's once again pray and ask for the Lord's blessing upon our study of his holy word. Lord our God, as we come into your presence again, we pray that you and your grace would draw near to us this morning, that you would help us, that you would strengthen us, that you would give to us light and understanding as we seek to consider your holy word together. We pray that you, by your spirit, would take these passages of scripture and write them upon our hearts,

0:48 that their impress and their teaching may have an impact upon us, upon the way we think and upon the way we act, that we may think and act and speak biblically. In the light of your holy word, we pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Now we come this morning in our considerations of the subject of infant baptism to consider the subjects of baptism, part four.

1:24 Now the first major Roman numeral, I don't have it on the board here, but the first major Roman numeral under the subjects of baptism was the, direct evidence of the word of God, that is, those passages in the New Testament which directly identify and describe explicitly the subjects of baptism. And having completed that two weeks ago, then we came to consider in the second place, Roman numeral two, those passages which are often put forward by Paedo-Baptists as constituting indirect evidence and support. For the cause of infant baptism.

2:09 And there are four of these passages which are generally used in that way. The first one is Matthew chapter 19, verses 13 and 14. And this is the incident where Jesus takes the little children up into his arms and blesses them and prays over them. Of course, the parallel passages are found in Mark 10 and in Luke chapter 18.

2:34 And the second passage is in Acts chapter 2, verse 39, which states, the promises to you and to your children and to such as are afar off. And we'll get into that passage. The third passage is 1 Corinthians 7, 14 and following, 12 to 14, which states, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. And then the fourth passage is Ephesians 6, 4 and 5.

3:03 And then the parallel passage. In Colossians chapter 3, which says, children, obey your parents in the Lord. Children, obey your parents in the Lord. So these are the various passages which are used as indirect evidence in support of the subject of infant baptism.

Review of Matthew 19 and Paedo-Baptist Interpretations

3:25 Now, last week, we began to consider the first of these, Matthew chapter 19, Jesus and the little children. And hopefully this morning, perhaps this is a rather ambitious goal, but hopefully this morning we'll be able to complete our consideration of Matthew 19 and also to consider together all of these other passages so that we can complete the indirect evidence this morning. I think it would be improper to dwell upon this inordinately because it is, after all, simply indirect evidence and it's not really the major argument. It's not really the argument that's used by the Paedo-Baptists in defense of their position.

4:08 I dwell more upon this passage because this passage has a great prominence and is very widely used in that regard. The incident of Jesus and the little children is almost universally employed, as Jewett said last week from his study, almost universally employed in the liturgies associated with infant baptism and is commonly used in defense of the practice. All right. Now, last week, let's turn then to Matthew chapter 19 once again.

4:47 6-1 and following. Thank you.

5:06 Matthew chapter 19, verses 13 through 15.

5:21 Then there were brought to him little children that he should lay his hands on them and pray, and 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 heaven. And he laid his hands on them and departed from there. Now, over to Luke chapter 18,

5:51 a parallel passage,

5:56 beginning in verse 15.

6:08 And they were bringing unto him also their babes, that he should touch them. The word could be translated infants. They were bringing also their infants, babies still nursing, that he should touch them. But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

6:31 But Jesus called them to him and said, Suffer the little children to come to me and do not forbid them, for to such belongs, or it could be translated, of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a law, as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.

6:58 Now, we saw last week that Professor Murray, in his exegesis of the passage, draws two conclusions from the text. He concludes that Jesus teaches that little children, even infants, are members of the kingdom of God. He says that this indicates that they are rejoicing and regenerated and that they belong to Christ, that they are members of his church, and that they are to be received and treated as such. And then on page 66, when he deals with the question, what little children are these, he says it cannot possibly mean all infants

7:41 and all little children who are to be regarded as regenerated and already in the kingdom of God. But he says that it only is to refer to such, as come within the compass of a covenant relationship analogous to the one described here. Now, we'll consider that a little bit more in detail this morning. But the key phrase here, which has caused division among interpreters for centuries, is this phrase, of such or to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Interpretation 1: Childlikeness as a Metaphor for Spiritual Dependence

8:18 Now, there are two classic and historic understandings of this phrase, of such or to such belongs the kingdom of God. And the first is that this refers to the childlike, to those who are childlike. In other words, then the force of the passage would be that men's little children and infants are a picture of God's little children and infants. And that what Jesus is saying is, do not forbid men's little children to come to me because the kingdom of God consists of little children and infants.

9:02 That is, it consists of God's little children, God's infants. And the tie between the two is that men's little children, men's infants, are a picture of God's little children, of God's infants. Now, that the disciples are referred to as little children, that the disciples are referred to as infants, is patently clear from the word of God. No one debates this.

9:32 For example, Peter says, as infants, as newborn infants, newborn babes, the same word that's used in Luke chapter 18, long for the sincere milk of the word. There's no question that the people of God are likened to newborn infants who are, who are supposed to long for sincere milk. And that milk is the milk of the word of God. There's no question that the disciples are likened to children.

10:03 In Hebrews chapter 2, Jesus says, Behold, I and the children whom thou hast given me. Jesus had no natural children, but he did have children. That's why we read in Isaiah, He shall see his seed. He shall prolong, He shall prolong his days.

10:22 Isaiah 53. Jesus shall see his seed. What does that mean? He doesn't have any natural, physical little children, but he does have children.

10:34 He does have offspring, but they're spiritual children. And Jesus refers to his disciples as little children, and he refers to them as his little ones. And so we find that this is one historic interpretation of the passage. That Jesus here is giving an object lesson.

10:59 That an object lesson is taking place. He saw people bringing little children and even infants, babes in arms to him. And the purpose of this was that he would touch them and that he would pray over them and bless them. That was the only purpose that's stated anywhere in the passage and all agree on that.

11:22 And the disciples, the disciples were forbidding this. No one knows why they were forbidding it. The scripture does not say why they forbade it. All it says is that they wanted to stop it.

11:32 And Jesus said, no, don't stop this. Don't forbid this. Because this is a picture of people coming to me. The kingdom of God is composed of infants and little children.

11:49 He's not talking then about men's little children. He's talking about spiritualness. Spiritual infants. God's infants and God's little children.

11:58 And that is one, as I say, historic interpretation of the passage.

12:05 Now, of course, there are those who do not agree with this. There are those who object and who argue against it. They say it says, four of such is the kingdom of God, etc. But in favor of it is the explanatory word which Jesus uses to explain the kingdom of God.

12:23 which Jesus uses to underscore the point of the object lesson. And this explanatory word is not recorded in Matthew. Apparently, Matthew didn't think that it was necessary to record the emphasizing of the point of the object lesson. But both Luke and Mark do underscore it.

12:43 And I'd like to read that explanatory or emphasizing word as it's found in Luke chapter 18.

12:56 Now, notice, in chapter 18, of Luke, you have in verse 16,

13:03 Jesus' statement to the disciples relative to their forbidding of the little children. He called the disciples and he said, suffer them to come to me. Don't forbid them. There is his prohibition.

13:21 He's saying, stop doing what you're doing. You are forbidding these little children and these infants to be brought into my presence that they might come up into my arms, that I might hold them and that I might pray over them. You're forbidding this. Do not forbid this.

13:38 Then you have his explanation. And the explanation is this, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. For to such belongs the kingdom of God. You're not to forbid them to be brought into my arms that I may pray over them because this is a picture of sinners coming to me.

14:01 And now in verse 17, Jesus with a verily, one of his verilies, underscores the point of the object lesson. He's given them a prohibition, stop doing what you're doing. Then he's given them an explanation because this is an object lesson. Now if that's true, then verse 17 makes sense.

14:21 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 let's suppose for a minute that he's speaking about literal little children here. What does that mean? The implication would be that a person cannot be saved, he cannot be born again, and he cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he comes into the kingdom of God in childhood.

14:51 Whosoever will not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, that is in childhood, he shall in no wise enter in. Now could that possibly be what Jesus is teaching? No. That's not what he means to teach.

15:05 What he's saying is this. The kingdom of God is composed of little children and none but little children. And unless you are childlike, you will not enter the kingdom of God. That's what he's teaching.

15:21 You see, he's underscoring the truth of the object lesson. Whosoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child, he will never enter. Enter into it. The kingdom of God is composed exclusively of those who are little children.

15:40 If you are not a little child, you are not in the kingdom of God. That is, if you are not God's infant, if you are not God's toddler, then you are not in God's kingdom. It's just that simple. Now that's what Jesus said in verse 17.

15:54 Why did Jesus say that? Why did Jesus say, if you are not God's infant and you are not God's toddler, you are not in God's kingdom? Why did Jesus say that? Jesus said that in order to underscore the object lesson which was given in this instance.

16:09 There's an intimate connection between the underscoring of the point in verse 17 and the statement of verse 16. So, nevertheless, all would still not agree with this. All would still not agree. But what he's saying is that you must be infantlike and childlike.

16:33 Childlike. Now, what does that mean? Well, it refers to the fact that an infant is completely dependent. A little baby is totally dependent upon its mommy and daddy for sustenance and for provision and for life.

16:50 To be infantlike is to be in a posture of complete dependence. What about to be childlike? What are the characteristics of childhood and toddlerhood or infancy which are paralleled in the spiritual experience of the disciples of Christ? Well, first of all, credulity.

17:13 Children believe what they are told, whether it has to do with Jesus or whether it has to do with Santa Claus. That's why there are children that will seriously debate whether or not Santa Claus exists. Because of their childlike credulity, it is very often difficult for them to distinguish between the reality of the characters in a fairy tale and the reality of the characters in the Bible. You'll find that little children tend to group them both together.

17:45 Then also, humility and submission. Jesus points out in Matthew 18, whosoever shall not humble himself like this little child. Children are under authority. They are in submission to parental authority.

18:02 So you have these three characteristics. Credulity, humility, submission, and complete dependence. And whoever will not receive the word of God, whosoever shall not become like a little child in terms of dependence, in terms of credulity with regard to the word of God, and in terms of humility and submission to the authority of God, whosoever will not manifest these characteristics will not enter. But the kingdom of heaven cannot be.

18:36 Now I say that this is the most likely and evident meaning of the passages. The parallel passages make it clear that this is the point which Jesus attempted to underscore.

18:50 However, there is a second interpretation of the passage, and I would say with respect to this first interpretation that it is one which is held by both Baptists and Pado-Baptists alike. For example, I would commend to you B.B. Warfield's articles on this passage.

19:12 First of all, he has an article entitled Childlikeness. Childlikeness in Faith and Life, page 65 and following, especially pages 69 and 70. I won't take the time for quoting of it. And then also in Selected Shorter Writings, volume 1, he has an article entitled Christ's Little Ones, which is a book that I'm going to read to you today.

19:36 It goes from pages 234 to 252, in which Warfield essentially gives the position on the passage which I have outlined to you this morning. So also you could find this in Plumer's Commentary, page 262, Tasker, page 185, Quensal, page 264.

19:57 Now, however, all would not agree with this position. Now, if this is the proper understanding of the passage, then obviously, it has nothing whatsoever to do with infant baptism. But the other position also must be addressed. Now, Hendrickson and Murray acknowledge that the passage at least speaks about childlikeness.

Interpretation 2: Infants as Literal Members of the Kingdom and Regeneration

20:20 They do not seek to deny this, but they say that more is contained in the text. They say that of such is the kingdom of God means not only the childlike, but the infants themselves. Of such is the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God refers to the infants themselves. Now, it is not only the paedo-baptists who take this view.

20:43 Some Baptists would say amen to the fact that this is what Jesus meant to say. For example, Beasley Murray and his avowed follower, David Kingdon, in their respective books, Baptism in the New Testament and Children of Abraham, take this position. They take the position that Jesus meant to say that the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God belongs to little children, that is, toddlers.

21:12 Now, there are two crucial issues that have to be faced if you're going to take this position on the passage. And the first position is this. What does this say about the spiritual state of these children to whom the kingdom of God supposedly belongs? And secondly, which infants and which children is Jesus talking about?

21:34 First of all, if the kingdom of God consists of little children and infants, what does this tell us about the spiritual state of these little children and infants who are in the kingdom of God? And secondly, if it's true that the kingdom of God consists of little children and infants, which infants are included in it, according to Jesus in the passage? Now, on the first issue, Professor Murray is very clear. And because some were not here last week, I'll read again what he says.

22:05 What does it mean about the spiritual state of these, infants? He says, one,

22:15 that little children, even infants, are among Christ's people and are members of his body. Two, that they are members of his kingdom and therefore have been regenerated. That they are members of his kingdom, of such as the kingdom of God, and therefore have been regenerated. That, they belong to the church in that they are to be received as belonging to Christ.

22:50 That is to say, received into the fellowship of the saints. The force of all this is greatly enhanced when we remember the occasion of Jesus' assertion of such is the kingdom of God. They are members of his kingdom, all right? What does that tell us about the spiritual state of these infants or little children?

23:14 Therefore, they have been regenerated. Not, therefore, they probably will be regenerated when they come to years of discretion and are able to hear and understand the word of God. Not that.

23:34 Therefore, these infants of whom Jesus is speaking have been regenerated, have already been, have been regenerated. That's what he says. Now, it would seem that this conclusion which Mary is not embarrassed at all to draw, if this is the meaning of the passage, that this conclusion would be mandated by John chapter 3,

24:09 which says, except a person is born again, he cannot see and he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Now, if that's true, if a person must be born again before he can enter the kingdom of God, and of these little children and infants are in the kingdom of God and have already entered it, then it is inescapable that these little children and infants must have already been born again. And it's exactly what Mary concludes.

24:47 It's inescapable. Inescapable. I do not see how it can be escaped.

24:54 And this is the essence at least of presumptive regeneration.

25:00 They are to be accounted as belonging to Christ. Whoever these infants are, they are to be presumed regenerate because in fact Jesus said they are regenerate.

25:13 They are to be accounted members of the kingdom because in fact Jesus said they are in fact members of the kingdom.

25:24 They are in Mary's words to be accounted and regarded as regenerate and they are to be received in this capacity. Now how is this not presumptive regeneration? If we regard and account these infants as regenerate, if we receive them as regenerate, how are we to treat them as unregenerate? That does not make any sense.

25:54 Receiving someone as regenerate means treating them as regenerate. And then that's how we must treat these children. Whoever these infants are, we should not evangelize them and tell them that they must, they need to be born again because they have already been born again.

26:16 Evangelizing them would be in an inappropriate way to treat regenerate people. People who already have new hearts and who have already been regenerated and born again but need not be told you must be born again.

26:33 So if Mary is correct, then presumptuously presumptive regeneration must necessarily result. Whether Mary would have concluded that or not, I cannot say. How he treated his infant children, I do not know. But the driving force of his theology is such that treating them as regenerate is the necessary implication of regarding them as regenerate.

27:04 And if it teaches what he says, then it teaches that we must regard receive and treat all the infants Jesus is speaking about as regenerate persons who belong to Christ and who are already in the kingdom of God.

Critique of the 'Infants in the Kingdom' Interpretation

27:24 Now here, Beasley Murray and David Kingdon part company, at least they try to part company with Professor Murray. You can see Beasley Murray's treatment of this if you wish on page 328. Now he attempts to say that when Jesus says of such to such belongs the kingdom of God, that this does not tell us that these children have been regenerated. Because he says that what it means is that this refers to a future kingdom.

28:02 And that what Jesus is teaching is that these infants whom he took into his arms and blessed and prayed over were the destined heirs of heaven. Now how were they to come to receive their inheritance? Well, they were to come to receive their inheritance when they came to Jesus and received the word of God. But Jesus didn't say theirs will be the kingdom of heaven.

28:28 He said theirs is the kingdom of heaven. And it is difficult to understand how we can assert that the kingdom of God belongs to anyone but those who have been born. Born again.

28:45 Now this then leads us to consider the second issue. Which infants is Jesus talking about? Which infants? Let's assume that he is saying that there are some infants who have been born again and who are included in the kingdom of God.

29:02 Which infants is Jesus referring to?

29:07 Now Beasley Murray and Kingdon say that the infants and little children spoken of here are those who came to Jesus of their own accord. Those who came to Jesus Christ in their childlike little faith in response to the word of God. See Beasley Murray Baptism in the New Testament page 328 or Kingdon Children of Abraham pages 82 to 87. And then Beasley Murray goes on to say that we cannot tell whether or not any little infants were brought to Jesus upon this occasion.

29:44 Now here however I believe that Beasley Murray and Kingdon both are mistaken. It may be true that some of these little children toddlers paideia and it may be true that some of these little children came willingly. I'm not about to debate the fact but that is not the whole explanation of what transpired upon this occasion. Luke makes it abundantly clear that babies were brought passively to Jesus.

30:21 And it can't explain that away by saying that these babies came of their own accord in response to the word of God with their own personal faith in Christ. It simply will not do to deal with the passage. It can't be that only children old enough to hear and understand were involved.

30:47 Now then what does it do? What does it mean? Well does it mean that all infants have been regenerated and born again? Is that what the text teaches?

31:00 Let's see what Murray says about this. He says on page 66 obviously this does not apply to all little children. 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. Any universalizing of the assertion would violate the most elementary canons of proper interpretation.

31:45 Do you follow that statement? He says it is not right to conclude from our Lord's words that all little children are in the kingdom of God that all infants are regenerated and in the kingdom of God. We can only apply it to those in the covenant situation in which Jesus spoke and to an analogous covenant situation which of course would be the new covenant situation. Now what does this mean?

32:17 Does this mean that Jesus said that all of the infants born in covenant homes are regenerated and in the kingdom of God? Is that what it means? All the infants in covenant homes? I say that proves way too much.

32:36 It proves more than Mary would wish to prove. And it's not true. Jesus could not possibly have meant to say that all Jewish children were regenerated and in the kingdom of God. And it would be wrong to conclude from that that all the children of Christians were regenerated and in the kingdom of God.

33:01 And that is the fatal flaw in Mary's logic right there. That's the fatal flaw. So the passage in no way says do not forbid minor children, men's minor children and infants to come to me because the kingdom of God is composed of all men's minor children or all the minor children

33:45 of men born in covenant of parents in the Jewish covenant or all the minor children of parents in the new covenant. The text doesn't say that. The text if it says anything it simply says do not forbid men's minor children infants included to come to me because the kingdom of God includes men's infants and minor children. And it does not say that it includes all the infants of the Jews or all the infants born to Christians.

34:23 The text simply does not say that and the words of the text do not in any way bear that interpretation. All right, so let's then draw by way of conclusion. The passage does not say that all infants and minors are included in God's kingdom. Not all infants and minors, not all the infants of the Jews who are in the covenant relationship Jesus was speaking in, and not all the infants of Christ's disciples who are in the new covenant.

34:58 It does not assert that it includes all the minors and infants of any group of parents whatsoever, whether it's Jews, Christians, or all men. And secondly, the passage does not tell us how to discern which infants are included. It does not tell us that we can discern which are included and which are not included. And it does not give us any warrant to conclude that we can discern if any given infant has been born again or is included or is not included in God's kingdom.

35:37 It tells us nothing about being able to discern it. And therefore, the passage, whether even if it means, even if it means that the kingdom of God includes infants who have been regenerated, even if it means that, which to me is very unlikely, it in no way provides a warrant for our asserting and affirming with conviction that any given infant or toddler is saved, regenerated, or a member of the kingdom of God. And it gives no warrant whatsoever for asserting and affirming that all the infants and toddlers of Christ's disciples are regenerated

36:22 and members of the kingdom of God. Now, having said that, what then is the point or impact of the passage? What's the point of the passage? And I think it's necessary not simply to be negative about the text.

Positive Teaching and Pastoral Application of the Passage

36:46 We have to enter into polemics because the text has been used polemically. But it's not right that we should simply be negative because the text was not presented at all in a negative context. It's presented to give us positive teaching. And it teaches several things.

37:02 First of all, it teaches clearly, and all would agree, that men's little children are a picture of God's little children. It pictures, it teaches that men's little children in respect of their dependence, credulity, and submission, dependence, credulity, and submission, men's little children are a picture of God's little children. Now, it teaches us more than that. It teaches us more than that as well.

37:32 It teaches us in the second place that Jesus loves men's little children. It teaches us that Jesus loves men's little children. Jesus was a lover of people. He loved old people.

37:50 He loved rich people. He loved poor people. He loved big people. And Jesus loved little people too.

37:57 He loved little children. And he manifested that love to the little children by granting them an audience into his presence. He manifested that compassion and love to the little children by taking them up into his arms and holding them, or cuddling them in his arms. And he manifested that love to the little children by praying over those children.

38:23 He had good will to those children. He was kind. He was tender. He was receptive.

38:30 He took them into his lap and he showed them physical affection. He loved them. And he had good will to them. Now you may say this is an expression of common grace.

38:43 Very well. Nevertheless, it was there. It was real. And secondly, or thirdly, the third thing that it teaches is that Jesus prays for men's little children.

39:02 He had good will toward them. And that love and good will was expressed in the spiritual exercise of prayer. He prayed for them. That's exactly what the parents wanted him to do and that is exactly and precisely what he did.

39:18 He prayed for those little children. The concerns of their lives and their well-being throughout life was upon the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ and it was upon the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of good will and concern. There was no cursing of them, but whatever he prayed, his prayer was a blessing of them. They wanted their children to be blessed and Jesus complied.

39:50 Now why did the disciples want to forbid this? Well, the scripture doesn't say. And many explanations are given. And you can read the explanations in the commentaries if you're interested.

40:02 I would just like to say one thing that obviously Jesus was willing to take a risk. Whatever the disciples, perhaps the disciples thought there was some risk involved in what Jesus was doing. You don't know. Could it be that they were afraid that people were going to turn this into some kind of a mystical and superstitious ritual?

40:32 I don't know. But Jesus took a risk, didn't he? Certainly he could have foreseen the usage of this passage to develop into ritualism and all the rest, but he took a risk. Why did he take that risk?

40:49 He took the risk for one reason because he was concerned that he be forever displayed as one whose heart was full of compassion toward little children. And that involved some risk. But the Lord Jesus was willing to take that risk. It was more dangerous, that he be presented as one who was uncaring, austere, distant, and cold to little kids who didn't have enough time to be interested in them and didn't care enough about them to pray over them.

41:24 That was a greater risk than the risk of having this forever implanted in Scripture and then become the occasion for mysticism and for... I can't think of that word.

41:38 No. Superstition. You know, the superstitious idea that you just have to bring your children to the holy man and as long as they're brought to the holy man, no matter what else happens, the holy man says the holy words and your kids will be all right. That's a danger, isn't it?

42:04 Sure it's a danger. That's superstition. That's superstition. And there's the great fear that if the holy man has not done and said the right things about your children, it may not be well with them.

42:17 That's superstition. Can't you see that this could be the seedbed for superstition? Could the disciples be saying, wait a minute, Lord, don't do this. People will start some superstitious rituals about you.

42:32 I don't know. But he did it anyway. He did it anyway. And if people are going to build this into a superstitious ritual, Jesus says I'm going to do it anyway because it's more important that an accurate picture of my character be conveyed that I am one who has compassion upon little children, that I'm one who cares about them.

42:54 I'm one who prays for them. So brethren, we have no warrant in the word of God to be austere, to be distant, to be unconcerned, to be unprayerful, unprayerful with regard to the welfare of our little children and the little children of others. If you can conclude anything from the passage, you can conclude that. Well, perhaps my ambitions were a little bit unrealistic.

Questions and Discussion on Infant Salvation and Baptism

43:26 It's now 20 minutes after 10. That's all that I wanted to say about that passage. And I think that I would be prepared now to go on to the next passage, but I think I don't have as much to say about the rest of them as I had to say about this one. Perhaps there are some questions before we move on.

43:53 And if there are some questions, then we'll have to stop here for today. If there aren't any questions, then I'll go on with my unrealistic ambitions. And in the next seven minutes, we'll go as far as we can with the next passages. Yes?

44:07 It seems that it would have been for this Cato-Baptist argument, it seems that you said something about your sins are forgiven, as you said on the other end. And is that, you know, the lack of saying that when you pointed out in some of your passages about, earlier about baptism, your children were not specifically mentioned. Uh-huh. Since you've left them to pray for them, I wonder if the fact that you stopped short of actually saying those words would be even more supportive for baptism.

44:41 Well, I suppose it could, but I think it would have been more helpful for their argument if he had baptized them.

44:52 And that's really the issue at stake. Because when he says that such is the kingdom of God, I mean, if they are in the kingdom of God, then it is true that their sins are forgiven. And it is true that their, you know, that their eternal condition is already decided and their sins are forgiven. They have been justified.

45:18 They have been sealed. If they're in the kingdom of God, all those things are true. So in a sense, he did say the equivalent of that if that's what the text means. Concerning this passage, it's a very common belief teaching among Arminians that all people who die in infancy are saved.

45:41 That all children are saved. So that all children who die in infancy automatically are saved and go to heaven. Right. And of course, as they get older, they can fall away.

45:51 Yes. They're not meant to get saved again. That's right. Then there are some Calvinists that also would teach that all who die in infancy are saved because all who die in infancy are elect.

46:02 Yeah. That if children survive in infancy and die in infancy, they are saved because all who die in infancy can begin to sin actively that they were not elect in the first place. But all who die in infancy are elect. So we have that argument too.

46:18 Yes. All right. The trouble I have in deducing that from the passage is that Jesus is not at all speaking about those dying in infancy but those living in infancy. And we have no record whatsoever as to the future of any of these children.

46:33 So there's no basis for drawing any such conclusions from the text. Yes. How would Murray and others of this camp explain covenant children who are covenantly baptized who show no interest in spiritual things throughout their entire lives? How may he answer that?

46:56 Well, Murray would say that receiving baptism does not mean or prove that you have been regenerated whether you are an infant or whether you are an adult. And he would turn to Acts chapter 8 which says, And Simon also believed and was baptized. And then he would quote later on where it says, You have no part nor lot in this matter but your heart is not right before God. So he would say that baptism does not automatically guarantee that the person baptized is regenerated.

47:34 He said baptism does not guarantee that the person is regenerated.

47:53 No, I understand. I understand what you're saying. What I think is, if I may give my opinion, I think he proved more than he intended to prove from the passage. If what he says is true, he would be, he would have Jesus asserting that all the infants of Jews and Christians are regenerated and are to be regarded as regenerated.

48:16 He doesn't mean to teach that but that's what he, that's the unavoidable implication of what he said in the passage. So I don't think he meant to, he would, he's, I don't think he would mean to hold to what he said there. That's my opinion about Professor Murray. It's the best I can say.

48:34 Pastor Martin. Hodge went as far to say at least let us inscribe their names in the Lamb's Book of Life though later on they may choose to erase them by their own unbelief. So here you have Hodge, such a champion of the truth of the doctrines of grace using that very language, having their names inscribed in infancy. But later on having them obliterated if they opt out of faith in the Lamb's Book.

49:03 Yes, that's, Hodge does say that. That's true. And that's not a misrepresentation of Hodge. Hodge writes that.

Infant Blessing, Superstition, and the Regulative Principle

49:09 Jim. You depicted bringing children from a holy land. Are you saying that that should have been reserved only for the Lord Jesus because sometimes in this day and age you do see people bringing their little children to the so-called holy land where they can't see God? Well, I wasn't explicitly reflecting upon that at all.

49:38 I was simply speaking in a generic way about superstition and how superstition manifests itself. As long as you brought it up, I had some, I had written some things here and I'm glad you jogged my memory, Jim, because I had forgotten to mention them. If you had seen my notes you could probably understand why. But the point that I was going to make is that there's this subject that goes around among the Baptists of infant blessing or infant dedication.

50:10 In a sense, I'm thankful that I only have two minutes to deal with it. But in T.E. Watson's little book called Should Infants Be Baptized?

50:22 after dealing with this passage he actually goes so far in an appendix in the back on page 104 and following to suggest a service of infant blessing which should be, which could be carried on by Baptist churches. And apparently the basis for this is that the birth, marriage, and death of people are events which are generally observed by holding a church service for which, however, there's no expressed scriptural warrant. So he seems to say that birth, marriage, and death are those events which ought to be in some way involved

51:06 and that's clear. And the regulative principle is that we have no warrant for doing anything in the worship of God which is not commanded or required by God of us. And for that reason a funeral is not a stated meeting of the church and a wedding is not a stated meeting of the church either. And then what then does the birth of a child include in the stated meetings of the church?

51:41 Now on the other hand we ought to say that in private obviously there's nothing that forbids us from dedicating our children to God. As a matter of fact there's everything to encourage us to do it. There's everything to encourage us to love our children and to pray for our children for the rest of their lives. And there's nothing that forbids an intense season of prayer for our children identified with their entrance into the world.

52:20 Who's going to say that parents are forbidden to have an intense season of prayer for their children when their children are born? Who would dare forbid a parent to do that? Certainly not I. I hope not you.

52:37 Special seasons of prayer for our children are coming up in the next few years. And I suppose you ask the minister to pray for the child. Well, I don't see great difference although I'm ready to be instructed on the matter. I don't see great difference between solemnizing a marriage, praying over a marriage and being involved in some way or another.

53:13 Why can't you pray for a baby without turning that into a sacrament or associating it with superstition? Jesus evidently took those children up into his arms and openly prayed for them. If that's a sin then he sinned. If he fell into the sin of leaving people open to superstition then he sinned.

53:46 He was not a prophet but was a prophet in the world. The Bible states that if someone was a prophet then he would be a prophet in the world. If someone was a prophet then he I do not see personally any sin involved in praying over a child privately, praying over that child that the child would be blessed.

54:31 I don't see a sin involved in that. If that's infant blessing, then that's what Jesus did.

Closing Prayer

54:40 Does that answer the question? Yes, sir.

54:48 Yes, I believe his mother did it. Now our time is gone. Our God, as we come into your presence, we give you thanks for the children that you've given to us. We thank you, Lord, for these precious little ones that you have committed to our care.

55:15 We pray, our God, that as we seek to raise them in your fear and as we seek to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you would give us grace to be faithful in teaching them. Give us grace to be faithful in praying over them. Give us grace, O God. To be reflective of the heart of the Lord Jesus Christ and his compassion and his love.

55:40 And, O Lord, we pray that this would not be turned as an instrument for superstition, that it would not be turned as an instrument for sacramentalism or anything else. But we pray, O God, that such fears would not keep us from expressing love as Jesus did to little children. We ask these things in his most holy name. Amen.

56:03 Amen. Amen.