Conclusions Drawn from this Biblical Evidence

Introduction and Review of Previous Sessions

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on July 24th, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Mottville, New Jersey.

0:11 Now let's begin by asking the Lord's blessing upon our study of His Holy Word.

0:24 Our Father, as we come into Your presence once again, we thank You for Your grace. We thank You for the Scriptures. We thank You for Your mercy and kindness shown to us as we have studied them together. We pray, Father, that as we come this morning to seek to wrap up things and to bring them to a conclusion, that we may know the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon us, that He may help us and teach us, that the Word may be written upon every one of our hearts by Your grace and by the power of Your Spirit.

1:01 We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, originally I had hoped. That we would be able to cover the subject of infant baptism together in seven messages, or seven Sunday school sessions.

1:27 However, it now turns out that the seven sessions which were allotted prior to my trip to South Africa have merely been concerned with the first of the various topics that we were going to consider, the subjects of baptism, then the significance of baptism, then the relation of baptism in the church and baptism and the covenant and the unity of the sacraments, and those various things. Now, of all of those, we've only so far considered the first. We had one general introductory session, and now the last six sessions have been spent with the first major area of concern,

2:07 the biblical witness regarding the subjects of baptism. And, in a sense, I don't feel too guilty about that because that's where most Baptists stop anyway. Most Baptists never go any further than just simply opening up the biblical data on the subjects of baptism, look at it, study it, and draw their conclusions and don't bother to go any further. So the fact that we have spent so much time on this issue is really not inappropriate because of the tremendous importance of the biblical data with regard to the subjects of baptism.

2:42 Now, first of all, we looked at the direct evidence. That is, we looked at all of those passages in which baptism is mentioned, in which the subjects of baptism are in any way defined or described. And then in the last couple of weeks, we've been looking at Roman numeral 2, which was the indirect evidence. That is, those passages which say something about children.

3:11 That's what all those passages had in common. They said, something about children, whether it was Matthew 19 with Jesus blessing the children or Acts chapter 2, the promises to you and to your children, or whether it was that passage in 1 Corinthians 7, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, or Ephesians 6, children, obey your parents in the Lord. All of those passages have as their common denominator that they have something to say about the subject of children. And about the relationship of children to Jesus, to his people, to blessings, to promises, all of these things.

3:52 And so, it is for this reason that this second category of indirect evidence from the scriptures has been considered. But now, having looked together at both the direct evidence and at the indirect evidence, we come this morning to say, what can we conclude from looking at the biblical data, with respect to the subjects of baptism?

Stating the Two Main Conclusions on Baptism

4:20 Now, the conclusion is, first of all, I have two conclusions, and then we're going to consider the second one this morning. The first conclusion,

4:33 the obligation of all Christians to baptize their infants is not established. The obligation of all Christians to baptize their infants is not established. And second conclusion, the right and obligation of all disciples to disciple baptism is established. The right and obligation of all disciples to disciple baptism is established.

5:04 Now, I, in a sense, I feel sorry for anyone visiting this morning, because that conclusion is hung upon a sky hook. But it would be utterly impossible for me to go back and go over the previous six messages and go into all of the data. But nevertheless, we are come this morning to that place where we reached the conclusion. And the first conclusion is more of a negative one.

Paedobaptist Admissions Regarding the Lack of Direct Biblical Evidence for Infant Baptism

5:27 It is that the obligation of all Christians to baptize their infants is not established. In other words, there's nothing that we've seen in the direct evidence or in the indirect evidence which mandates the conclusion that all Christians are obligated to baptize their infants. Now, the Paedo-Baptists, by and large, would agree with that statement. They would say that it is not from those passages where, or many of them would say, that it's not from the passages which directly address the subjects or even the indirect evidence of the New Testament with regard to children that we derive our doctrine of infant baptism.

6:11 Rather, it must be deduced from good and necessary inference arising from the unity of the covenants, specifically the Abrahamic covenant, the unity of the church. So, let me just quote from some men that would indicate that this is the case. First of all, from Hodge in Systematic Theology, page 540 and following. The question,

6:52 who are the proper subjects of baptism is determined by the design of the ordinance and the practice of the Apostles. It has been been shown that according to our standards, the sacraments and, of course, baptism were instituted to signify, seal, and apply to believers the benefits of the redemption in Christ. The reception of baptism, so far as adults are concerned, is an intelligent, voluntary act from which its nature involves, one, a profession of faith in Christ, and two, a

7:37 promise of allegiance to him. This is clear, first, from the command of Christ to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. A disciple, however, is both a recipient of doctrines taught and a follower. Two.

7:59 This is further clear from the uniform practice of the apostles. In every case on record of their administering the rite, it was on the condition of a profession of faith on the part of the recipient. The answer of Philip to the eunuch who asked, what does hinder me to be baptized, if you believe with all your heart you may, discloses the principle on which the apostles uniformly acted in this matter. However, that is not, of course, the end of the story for Hodge, although for many it is.

8:40 But nevertheless, in his addressing later on the subject of infant baptism, he says, on page 546 and 7, the difficulty on this subject is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith. It is the way in which, by the ordinance of Christ, he is to be confessed before men. But infants are incapable of making such confession, therefore they are not the proper subjects of baptism, or to state the matter in another form. The sacraments belong to the members of the church, but the church is the company of believers.

9:25 Infants cannot exercise faith. And therefore, are not members of the church, and consequently ought not to be baptized. In order to justify the baptism of infants, we must attain and authenticate such an idea of the church as that it shall include the children of believing parents. You follow that?

9:52 So Hodge is basically and fundamentally admitting that with regard to the direct and indirect evidence, that the obligation of all Christians to baptize their infants is not established. That rather it must be established from considerations relating to the doctrine of the church. All right, again, Berkhoff speaks the same way. I'm quoting from Hodge and Berkhoff because these are the two most recognized of systematic theologians, both in the school of Dutch Catholicism.

10:30 Calvinism and also in the Presbyterian school.

10:40 And here he begins to deal with the scriptural basis for infant baptism on page 632. He makes the following statement. It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, that there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. But this does not necessarily mean that we are not baptized.

11:08 This does not necessarily mean that we are not baptized. This does not necessarily mean that we are not baptized. We make infant baptism unbiblical. The scriptural ground for it is found in the following data.

11:16 Number one, the covenant made with Abraham. And then he goes on. This covenant is still in force. Infants shared in the Abrahamic covenant.

11:25 In the new dispensation, circumcision has been substituted for baptism. As was pointed out in the proceeding, the New Testament contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism in the days of the apostles.

11:52 Then also Professor Murray in Christian Baptism, page 72, makes a similar admission. And I'll, for the sake of time, I won't quote Murray. I'll simply come right to Warfield. We quoted from Warfield at the beginning.

12:09 Remember in the very first week, I said we'd eventually come back to him. Well, here we've come back.

12:16 Warfield. Warfield. Warfield in Studies in Theology on the Polemics of Infant Baptism, page 399, says,

12:25 It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. That is no good and necessary inference. Neither when you're considering the subjects of baptism. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we should have to leave it incompletely justified.

13:04 But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the right, and if the continuity of the Church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, when the Church was instituted, and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it now in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now.

13:43 He goes on, he has said in another place here that the matter of infant baptism is built upon a previous question. Namely, what is the identity of the Church of Jesus Christ? So I trust you can see from these quotations from some of the most respected of the advocates of paedo-baptism that they are seeking to establish their practice not based upon the direct or indirect evidence of the Word of God to the subjects of baptism, but based upon their reasoning from the Old Testament writings.

14:27 They are seeking the light of circumcision, and their reasoning of the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant, and the inclusion of infants in the community of the Abrahamic covenant. That is the way that the reasoning proceeds. And that's why as Baptists we need to go further than simply to look at the subjects of baptism, say it's not there, and just forget about it. But before we go on, before we go on.

The Established Right and Obligation of Disciple Baptism

14:56 Having established the first conclusion that the obligation of all Christians to baptize their infants is not established, now we must come to the second. And that's where I want to spend our time this morning, because before we go on to deal with the subject of the Church and the sacraments and the covenant and all of those things, we need to stop right here and say it's not enough simply to say that the New Testament does not teach, or that the subject of the New Testament does not teach, or that the biblical data to the subjects of baptism does not mandate infant baptism. That's not enough. There's another conclusion which must be drawn, and the other conclusion is this.

15:37 It is that the right and obligation of all disciples to disciple baptism is established. The right and obligation of all disciples to disciple baptism is established. Now, if we need to go on further to the Abrahamic covenant, and to all the other sections of baptism, it's not enough simply to say that the right and obligation of all disciples to testament passages and all the rest to continue to discuss infant baptism well and good but let's stop right here and find out what the clear patent biblical witness to the subjects of baptism it says nothing about this infant question but what does it say about disciple baptism what does it tell us about that what does the direct evidence tell us concerning that it tells

16:20 us this it tells us that the right and obligation of all disciples to disciple baptism is established so i have some propositions two propositions to lay out to state this clearly this second conclusion and the first is this disciple or believer baptism is a symbolic right instituted that is practiced and perpetuated by jesus christ john 4 1 and matthew 28 18 to 20 passages we've already considered

16:58 and universally implemented by the apostles as they willingly admit both in the case of jewish and gentile christians acts 238 acts 8 12 and 13 acts 10 48 disciple baptism is a symbolic right disciple or believer baptism is a symbolic right disciple or believer baptism is a symbolic right disciple or believer baptism is a symbolic right instituted and practiced and perpetuated by jesus christ and universally implemented by the apostles both in the case

17:37 of jewish and gentile christians now that is what the biblical data on the subjects of baptism warrants us to conclude it is clear it is on the surface of those texts now growing out of this is the following statement unless scripture exempts or prohibits a new disciple from this ordinance unless scripture exempts or prohibits a new disciple from this ordinance either by statement of exemption or by some example of a disciple who was exempted from being baptized

18:20 or by some good and necessary influence that a disciple was prohibited to be baptized or exempted from baptism, then no disciple of Jesus Christ has any scriptural grounds to conclude himself exempt, claim himself exempt, or no disciple of Jesus Christ has any scriptural grounds to prohibit any other disciple from the ordinance of disciple baptism.

18:54 Jesus Christ instituted it. He practiced it. He perpetuated it. And the apostles universally implemented it in the case of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

19:09 Therefore, unless the scripture says somewhere that some disciple is exempt from this ordinance of disciple baptism, either it states it outright or you have an example of it, or there's some good and necessary inference that some disciple is exempt, then every new disciple of Jesus Christ, Christ is under solemn obligation to submit to the ordinance of disciple baptism. That's what the biblical data warrants us to conclude. Second proposition is this.

No Alternate Direction for Those Nurtured in the Covenant Community

19:49 No alternate, separate, additional, or different, command it from all ways, no alternate, separate, additional, or different direction originating from Jesus, and implemented by the apostles concerning the practice of disciple baptism in the case of those nurtured in the covenant community from birth, is recorded in scripture.

20:26 No alternate, separate, additional, or different direction is recorded in scripture as to what to do in the case of those who have been nurtured in the covenant community. community from birth. You don't find it. Now, I would like to quote from Watson, page 29, in which Dr. Wall, in his famous history of infant baptism, makes this admission,

21:01 speaking about the Great Commission. And the enlargement of that commission among all the heathen nations is set down in such brief words that there is no particular direction given what they were to do in reference to the children of those that received the faith. In other words, they did not have any special, particular direction, a different direction, any special direction, any alternate direction, different direction, special direction, given.

21:43 As to what they were to do with the children of those who were converted. Now, how does this then apply? The second, these principles, the first and second proposition, the fact that disciple baptism is a symbolic right instituted by Jesus Christ, and that you have nothing else in scripture indicating that you're supposed to do anything different coming from the lips of Jesus or the apostles in the case of those, who have been nurtured in the covenant community from birth. How does this then apply to those who have been nurtured in the covenant community?

The Application of Disciple Baptism to Those Nurtured in the Covenant Community

22:22 Those who have been born to parents who are church members. How do these two propositions apply to them? Well, first of all, the simplest and most obvious explanation of these facts is that no alternate, separate or different direction pertain to them. Rather, disciple baptism is both their privilege and their obligation.

22:51 And secondly, this simple explanation is supported by the practice of Jesus prior to the perpetuation of the ordinance of disciple baptism in John 4. And this explanation is supported by the practice of the apostles after the perpetuation of disciple baptism in Acts chapter 2. In other words, Those who were nurtured in the covenant community from infancy and who were marked with the sign of the covenant were baptized by Jesus and the apostles when they became disciples of the Lord.

23:35 The people who were baptized by Jesus when they became disciples of Christ had been nurtured in the covenant community from infancy and they had been marked with the sign of the covenant. And when they became disciples, they were baptized by Jesus Christ. And the same thing was done by the apostles on the day of Pentecost. The 3,000 who heard the word of God, who received it and were baptized, they had been nurtured in the covenant community from birth.

24:06 They had been marked with the sign of the covenant. What are we to do in their case? Well, there's the example of Jesus and his apostles when they became disciples of the Lord. They received that word of God.

24:20 They were baptized. And they were added then unto them, 3,000 souls. And therefore, the Scripture gives us explicit examples of how disciple baptism relates to those nurtured from birth within the covenant community and marked with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. And this nurture and marking did not exempt them from the duty rather than from the duty Cenaeus gave the Britney small daughter, Cruciatebrahi, to be established according to the covenant rob them of the privilege of disciple baptism when they became disciples. And this nurture and

24:58 marking did not automatically entitle them to disciple baptism if they did not become disciples.

25:10 Now, therefore, in the next place, this is the clear teaching of Scripture, and it establishes a precedent for our handling of those who have been nurtured in the covenant community. And unless this scriptural precedent and practice can be shown either by some commandment of Scripture or example or good and necessary inference from Scripture to have been rescinded or altered, we must follow it. In other words, we must ask ourselves, how did Jesus relate discipleship? baptism to those who were nurtured in the covenant community? How did the apostles relate

25:55 disciple baptism to those who were nurtured in the covenant community? The answer is clear. John 4.1, Acts 2.38, when they became disciples, they baptized them. Now that establishes a

26:10 precedent. It's a clear scriptural precedent. And unless there's some scriptural evidence that this precedent, this long-standing precedent set by Jesus and the apostles of how disciple baptism relates to those nurtured in the covenant community and marked with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, unless something can tell us and show us from Scripture that this precedent has been rescinded or altered, then we must follow the very same practice that Jesus instituted and which the apostles implemented. John 4.1, Acts 2.38, when they became disciples, they baptized them. Now that establishes a

26:46 of those who were raised and nurtured and marked in the covenant community. And here, the burden of proof lies with the paedobaptists who would, and here's what they do, they deny disciple baptism to those who have been nurtured in the covenant community when they become disciples.

27:10 They violate that precedent established by the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. And you see, this is the proper application of the argument from precedent.

Addressing Paedobaptist Arguments on the Unity of Ordinances and Covenants

27:25 And if, therefore, as paedobaptists claim,

27:30 infant baptism is one and the same ordinance as infant circumcision, and you can read Reams to seek to prove that to you, Warfield, page 400, Berkhoff, page 638, etc., etc.,

27:46 then since infant circumcision does not exempt from disciple baptism, neither does infant baptism because it's one and the same as infant circumcision.

27:58 And since infant circumcision does not automatically entitle to disciple baptism, then neither does infant baptism because it's one and the same as infant circumcision. If infant baptism is the sign and seal of inclusion in the covenant of grace which has come in the place of circumcision having the same significance, doing the same thing that circumcision did, then, those receiving infant baptism are included in the covenant of grace from infancy just like those receiving infant circumcision were included and nothing has changed. So the paedobaptists argue, well then, since nothing has changed, then they too, like the others who were included,

28:43 are not exempted or prohibited from the ordinance of disciple baptism when they become disciples and they're not entitled to it unless they become disciples. Now, people could seek to argue and get around what I've just said and I would like to seek to address some of the objections that will no doubt be raised.

29:07 Someone says, well, the mechanics of infant circumcision forbid its being performed more than once and so baptism should be performed only once.

29:20 Well, the point is, why should we be such sticklers about the mechanics of circumcision in areas in which they evidently do not apply to the mechanics of a water rite? There is obviously nothing in the mechanics of infant sprinkling that forbids disciple baptism.

29:43 Obviously. So that just doesn't apply.

29:49 And it misses the point. I'm not asking that you should sprinkle an infant more than once. I argue, I argue that you should baptize everyone who becomes a disciple even though he or she has been sprinkled as an infant.

30:06 You see, because infant sprinkling and disciple baptism are not repeating the same thing twice. In the one, you're sprinkling water on an infant. In the other, you're submerging a disciple in water. Do each but once.

30:22 And the mechanics, the mechanics would obviously allow either sprinkling or immersion to be done repeatedly. It would not be a physical impossibility as it is in the case of circumcision. The physical limitations of the one simply do not pertain to the other. God has so ordered it in his providence and no argument can annul or alter reality.

30:49 So let's face reality. Here, God has evidently made circumcision and baptism to differ. Can that credibly be denied?

Refuting the Lack of Examples Argument

31:02 But now, another argument. Another argument.

31:09 And that's this. Some would say, we have no examples. We have no examples of the baptism of children who were raised in Christian homes in the Bible.

31:23 And we have no examples of the baptism of children who were included in the covenant and church from infancy and marked with the sign of the covenant in Scripture.

31:39 Now, some actually argue this way. See, Bannerman, and also Burkhoff, do you follow the argument that they're making? They're saying, we don't have any examples of the children of church members who, when they grew up and became disciples, who were baptized. So, therefore, all of this is wrong and something separate and different must be done with regard to them.

32:13 That's the argument that I've read used in various places. Well, you could just take my word for it. If they use this, I don't want to take the time to quote it. See Burkhoff, page 634 and 637.

32:26 See Bannerman on the Church of Christ, volume 2, page 92 and page 103. I think, perhaps, I'll just read the section from Bannerman on page 92 or is it 103 where he gets into it?

32:47 Oh, yes. All right.

32:50 Now, he's attempting to get us on our own principles. This is what he says. Third, in reply to the objection against infancy, drawn from the absence of any separate authority for the practice, it might be enough to challenge the anti-patal Baptist, he won't call us Baptists, upon his own principles to prove his own practice to be scriptural and show an explicit precept or a precedent for baptizing the child of a church member, not along with the parent in his infancy, but afterwards when the child has grown to manhood. The inspired history of the Christian church

33:33 contained in the Acts of the Apostles embraces a period of more than twice the number of years required to allow the infants of a baptized convert themselves to grow up to years of discretion when they might have been accountable to make a personal profession of faith as their parents had done before. And yet, there is neither precept nor example in Scripture giving express authority for baptizing the children of Christian parents after they had grown up to years of maturity apart from their parents. In the case of adult converts, which forms common grounds to both parties in this controversy. Do you follow what he's saying?

34:12 Yes or no?

34:15 Well, in any event, of course there's such an example because when a paedo-baptist argues this way, he demolishes the very fortress which he has labored so arduously to build. Do you see what he does? The whole thing is built upon the assumption that the church is one and the same church and the covenant is one and the same covenant and baptism, infant baptism and infant circumcision is one and the same ordinance. See Bannerman's answer of himself and he does answer himself really on pages 75 and 76 where he argues the unity of the church

34:59 in amazing ways where he says that these Jews were members of the same church that we are members of. Well, then why does he need an additional example? If they're members of the same church, he has his example. If they're members of the same covenant, he has his example in John chapter 4 and he has his example in Acts chapter 2.

35:23 And if infant circumcision and infant baptism are the same ordinance, he has his example in many who received infant circumcision and then became believers and were baptized when they believed. What more example does he need?

35:40 If it's the same church and the same covenant and the same ordinance, the examples are abundant. So you see, the Pato Baptist labors. He tries. He works.

35:52 He builds. And he tries to establish that infant circumcision and infant baptism are one and the same ordinance and that the Old Testament church and the New Testament church are one and the same church and that the Abrahamic covenant is one covenant that embraces the old and the new administrations or dispensations and it's one and the same covenant, one and the same church, one and the same ordinance. Very well. Now he turns around and he says, give me an example.

36:20 Oh no, wait a minute. It's one and the same covenant. You have your example. One and the same church.

36:25 You have your example. One and the same ordinance. You have your example. You can't have it both ways.

36:32 Either you have your example or it's not one and the same covenant, not one and the same church, not one and the same ordinance.

36:42 So what must God do? Must God give us examples in the Bible of those who were baptized both as infants and disciples before my paedobaptist friends will embrace disciple baptism? Now this is a tall order. Because first God must give us examples of those baptized as infants.

37:01 And would that there were those.

37:04 Because, well that's what they're saying. If God doesn't give us an example of someone baptized as an infant, we can't practice disciple baptism. Wait a minute. That's a strange requirement, but that's what they ask.

37:24 God's already given us examples of the disciple baptism of those included in the covenant from infancy and marked with the appropriate sign. What more can be required? And I believe our brethren are being unreasonable at this point. They demand of us, Baptists, an example of infant baptism in order to justify our contention that infant nurture in the covenant community does not preclude or prohibit disciple baptism.

37:54 They themselves cannot produce an example of infant baptism, but they come to us for one. They say one is not necessary to justify the practice. It's justified because it is the same identical institution as infant circumcision, which is the sign and seal that infants born in the covenant community are included in the covenant of grace. It's justified because infant baptism, and infant circumcision are one and the same.

38:24 And the church is one. And the Abrahamic covenant is one. Very well. Hear their own argument.

38:31 They are the same. They are the same. Is that right? So then, did the fact that infants were included in this one covenant and one church and marked with the appropriate sign preempt their disciple baptism?

38:46 Was disciple baptism forbidden to those who were included in this one covenant from infancy? When they became disciples? No. Acts 2.38 and 41.

38:55 Why then is it forbidden then by our paedo-baptist friends? Their very argument, which is so convincing to them, is the very argument to which I now appeal.

39:07 And if any paedo-baptists are listening, dear brother, hear your own argument. Face the implication of your own argument. Apply it to this question and you will be kept from neglecting and forbidding disciple baptism. That's all I'm talking about now.

39:26 I'm not saying face it and you'll go and give up sprinkling your children. I'm not talking about that. I say if you face the implication of your own argument, you will be kept from neglecting and forbidding disciple baptism.

39:43 Here's the principle stated very clearly, very calmly.

39:47 Disciple baptism, when they become disciples, of those included in the covenant from infancy was included in the covenant from infancy. It was instituted by Christ and practiced by the apostles and is a standing ordinance. Nothing short of forbidding it now would justify dispensing with it. Infant baptism, you say, is not a different institution but the same as infant circumcision.

40:15 Partaking of this initiatory institution did not preempt or exclude a disciple from disciple baptism, a change, a change in this established pattern must either be shown by an example or a command or a good and necessary inference or the pattern stands. And I do not see how, if infant baptism and circumcision are an identical ordinance, as you contend, that you can use the practice of infant sprinkling to forbid your covenant youth the privilege of disciple baptism when they become disciples.

The Greater Privilege: Disciple Baptism vs. Infant Sprinkling

40:55 And the exact same, applies with three-fold force to inclusion in the same covenant and the same church. You see, the climate is not the issue. Either forbid the privilege or exempt the duty, but I feel I need to say that because it's so often thrown at us that we forbid our children the privilege of infant sprinkling. But you also forbid your children a privilege, don't you?

41:28 You forbid your children the privilege of disciple baptism. That's right. But that, somehow, doesn't get said, so I think I'll say it. Now, you can present it like a duty if you want to.

41:42 It is also a privilege. Now, I would like to say, which is the greater privilege to deny your children, infant sprinkling or disciple baptism? Now, I'll quote from Cunningham, and I have it written out here, in Historical Theology, Volume 2, page 150. Now, here's what he says.

42:08 He says, in the case of the baptism of adults, we can speak clearly and decidedly as to the general objects and ordinary effects of the administration of the ordinance. The adult receiving baptism is either duly qualified and suitably prepared for it, or he is not. If he is not duly qualified, his baptism is a hypocritical profession of a state of mind and heart that doesn't exist, and, of course, it can do him no good, but it must be a sin, and, as such, it must expose him to the divine displeasure. If he is duly qualified and suitably prepared, then his baptism,

42:50 though it does not convey justification and regeneration, which he must have before received through faith, it impresses on his mind, through God's blessing, their true nature and grounds, and strengthens his faith to realize more fully his own actual condition, as an unworthy recipient, a recipient of unspeakable mercies, and his obligations to live to God's praise and glory. Now, that's what disciple baptism does for a person, and that's what the children of these paedobaptist brethren and friends are denied. That's what they're denied. But now, listen to what he says.

43:33 We are unable to put any such clear and explicit alternate in the case of the baptism, of infants, or give any very definite account of the way and manner in which it bears upon or affects them individually. That's what our children are denied, nothing. We are unable to put any such clear and explicit alternative in the case of the baptism of infants, or give any very definite account

44:15 of the way and manner in which it bears upon or affects them individually. What does it do for them? We don't know. What are we denying them then, brethren?

44:28 You don't know.

44:31 Then it can't be too bad to deny it to them. If you don't know what it is, you know what it is that you're denying your children. You don't know what it is that we deny ours. You don't know what it is you give yours.

44:45 I'm not making that up. Now, that's one of the great champions of historical theology, one of the great champions of paedo-baptism, who comes right out and states it in bold language, that he does not know. He's not prepared to go into baptismal regeneration. He's not prepared to go into presumptive regeneration.

45:08 And when he faced reality, he said, I don't know. I do not know what this gives to my child. I do not know what it does for my child individually. He doesn't know.

45:20 So what are we denying our children? You know not what. And then he goes on to say, men have often striven hard in their speculations to lay down something precise and definite in the way of general principle or standard as to the bearing and effect of baptism in relation to the great blessings of justification and regeneration in the case of infants individually. But the Scripture really affords no adequate materials for doing this.

46:01 In other words, the Scripture gives us no adequate grounds for determining the significance of infant baptism, the effect of infant baptism upon that individual who is baptized with regard to the specific things symbolized according to the Bible in that action. We have no idea how it relates. We have no idea how it relates to them individually.

46:24 Then I say that it is really not right to use the emotional argument that we are denying our children something. That's an emotional argument. You are denying your children.

46:42 That's an emotional argument. But when they come to theological honesty, they face the fact that this thing that we're denying our children, and we wondered about it, what are we denying our children? We don't want to deny our children anything. What are we denying our children?

46:56 Well, we don't know. We don't know. Well, let me tell you, I do know what you're denying your children. You're denying your children disciple baptism because they've been included in the covenant from infancy.

47:09 And read, read William Cunningham. He makes it very clear as to exactly what you deny your children as paedobaptists who have your children sprinkled in infancy to give them you know not what. And yet when they come up to age, they make profession of faith in Christ, then you deny them something that everybody, everybody knows what? Disciple baptism.

47:33 It's not the Baptist who deny their children something tangible. It's the paedobaptist.

47:40 Deny their children disciple baptism.

Disciple Baptism is Not Anabaptism: Different Significance

47:46 Well, I could go on,

47:50 but I think that's the obvious conclusion that must be drawn from the biblical data.

47:58 The only objection that is constantly raised is that if we baptize our children when they become disciples, this is the same. It's the same as being anabaptists. It's the same as doing it over again. And you're not supposed to do it twice.

48:16 Alright, that's true. You're not supposed to do it twice under ordinary circumstances. I grant that point. But the point is this.

48:25 Infant sprinkling and disciple baptism are not the same thing. Infant sprinkling and disciple baptism are not the same thing. Disciple baptism signifies the salvation of a disciple. Infant sprinkling.

48:42 Let's take the best case situation. Let's take the best case in which it's exactly the same as infant circumcision. In such case it signifies infant privilege. Not infant salvation.

48:52 Not presumptive salvation. Simply infant privilege. That this privilege is given to this infant of being raised in a Christian home. And hopefully by the grace of God and God's ordinary blessing, this infant will grow up and be converted through the parental training and sitting under the ministry of the Word.

49:12 That's the best case that you can put on. That it's the same as circumcision. Infant circumcision. But you see, that's a different significance than disciple baptism.

49:22 Disciple baptism does not signify privilege. Maybe in the future some blessing will come. It signifies that the blessing has already been received. It signifies that the person has been saved.

49:38 Has been united to Christ in his burial and resurrection. It signifies that he has been washed in the blood of the Lamb. It doesn't signify what may happen through the blessing of God using his privilege in the future. It signifies what has happened through the grace of God already applied to him in the past and to be continually applied in the present and to be consummated in the future.

50:10 That's what it signifies. So you're not doing the same thing twice. It signifies two different things. It signifies two completely different things.

50:26 You see, that's why because John's baptism and Christ's disciple baptism signify different things, that they weren't doing the same things twice when John's disciples were re-baptized or baptized again when they became Christians. And infant baptism is even more diverse from Christian disciple baptism. than John's baptism was. It has different subjects.

50:49 Infants versus disciples. A different mode. Sprinkling versus immersion. And a different significance.

50:56 Unless someone is prepared to teach and assert that the infants born to Christians characteristically possess faith in Christ from the womb or have been given a believing heart and have been saved. Infant baptism does not symbolize as disciple baptism does that the infant has been united to Christ or that the infant's sins have already been washed away and cleansed or that the infant has been delivered from guilt and pollution. In the very best case, all it could possibly signify is that the infant will be nurtured in a climate in which she or he

51:40 is exposed to the Abrahamic spiritual blessings in a very privileged way and that this exposure is ordinarily what God in His sovereign grace will use to their salvation. Isn't that what infant circumcision symbolized as far as the spiritual blessings were concerned? But that is not the significance of disciple baptism. And for that reason we are not Anabaptists.

An Appeal to Paedobaptist Friends

52:06 We are disciple Baptists. Because we're not doing the same thing twice. Now if I were to make my appeal to my Paedo-Baptist friends, I don't have much time to appeal to you. I have like one minute.

52:25 If I were to make my appeal, I believe that Baptists and Paedo-Baptists are too far apart to hope for unity in one big giant step. Too far apart. I believe that some of the Paedo-Baptists whom I know, whom I regard are good men, would not even seriously and honestly consider ever forsaking infant sprinkling. Would never even consider it.

52:53 I don't ask you even to consider it. Because I think I'd be wasting my words. But what I'm asking is this. Consider.

53:05 Not forsaking infant sprinkling, although I assure you I have no love to infant sprinkling or any desire to see it perpetuated. I just don't think it's realistic that people are going to stop doing it. But I ask you this. Consider beginning to baptize anyone who becomes a disciple.

53:27 No longer forbid those who have made profession of faith in Jesus Christ the privilege of disciple baptism. Even your own arguments, even your own strongest arguments to prove infant baptism, if they prove anything, they prove that you have no Biblical grounds to deny disciple baptism to someone who has become a disciple. That's all they prove. So I'm not going to appeal and argue and everything to get you to stop sprinkling infants.

54:02 I believe that would be wasting my words. But simply begin to practice disciple baptism. You say, that would mean doing both. All right, if that's what it means for you, then do both.

54:13 Better, better to do that than not to do what Jesus Christ has ordained. Namely, disciple baptism of everyone who has become a disciple without exception. Whether it's someone converted from the pagan world or whether it's one of our own dear children. Let us pray.

Closing Prayer

54:47 Lord our God, we thank you for the great privilege that you've given to us of symbolizing our salvation in the waters of baptism. And we pray, oh God, that you would take your word this morning and if there are any who have heard it, and their conscience are pricked because they have not submitted to disciple baptism. Because for whatever reason they felt they could not avail themselves of this privilege nor comply with the command. Oh Lord, be pleased to take your word and grant that they may stay away from the privilege no more.

55:21 That nothing may keep any of your disciples away from this privilege that you have given to them. That they may be symbolically united to Jesus Christ who has saved them and washed them them in His precious blood. Hear our prayers. Be pleased to answer them for His sake.

55:39 Amen.