Infant Baptism and Concept of Sacrament/Ordinance

Introduction and Sermon Series Overview

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on October 2nd, 1983 at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey.

0:11 Now let's begin by seeking the Lord's enablement, asking for His help and presence as we study again this morning. Let's pray. Our Father, as we come once again into your most holy presence, we thank you for your word. We thank you for all of the means of grace which you have given to us.

0:46 We thank you this morning for the sacraments. We thank you for those visible emblems of your grace which you have deposited in your church until the end of time. We pray, Lord, that as we come to consider the sacraments this morning, that your spirit would be poured out upon us. That he would teach us, write the truth upon our hearts.

1:08 We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Now for those who may be here for the first time this morning, I would just like to give a brief word of review in order to help to put the class this morning into perspective. Some time ago I was asked by the elders to consider the biblical teaching.

1:39 With respect to baptism, particularly as it impinges upon the error, the erroneous practice of infant baptism. And in attempting to think our way through this subject, I have sought to relate infant baptism to five lines of thought. First of all, to relate it to the biblical teaching. Respecting the subjects of baptism.

2:15 And then secondly, to relate it to the biblical teaching concerning the significance of baptism. Then I said thirdly, that I would seek to relate it to the biblical teaching about the sacraments. And fourthly, the biblical teaching concerning the church. And then fifthly, the biblical teaching concerning the covenants.

2:36 Now this began back in June. And up until now, it's been a long time. It's been a long time. It's been a long time.

2:40 It's been a long time. And now we've considered infant baptism and the subjects of baptism. And also infant baptism and the significance of baptism. And now we come to begin the third unit this morning.

2:57 Infant baptism and the biblical teaching concerning the sacraments.

Outline of the Sacraments Unit

3:06 Now with respect to this subject of infant baptism and the biblical teaching concerning the sacraments, I've determined to divide it into three parts. First of all, infant baptism and the significance of baptism. Secondly, infant baptism and the concept of a sacrament. Secondly, infant baptism and the concept of the Lord's deliquence.

3:26 And thirdly, infant baptism and the practice of Jewish circumcision. Firstly, infant baptism and the concept of a sacrament. And secondly, infant baptism and the concept of a revered loi. Thirdly, infant baptism and the Lord's lump sum ministry Roman numeral 2

3:44 judgment and circumcision heeft vision. I think that it should be somewhat evident. The hardest thing is trying to know how to arrange and organize all of this material. And with respect to the historical or dogmatic discussion of infant baptism as it relates to the sacraments, these have been the areas of concern. How it relates to the concept of the sacrament, how it relates to the other sacrament, the Lord's Supper, and then how it relates to the Old Testament practice of circumcision. Follow that. Those are the three major areas of thought under this rubric of the doctrine of the sacraments. See, because we begin with the first circle, which is the ordinance of baptism itself. And right at the heart of that is the matter of the subject

4:46 of baptism and then the significance of baptism. That comes next. Then the next circle, in which the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is the ordinance of baptism itself. The whole issue has to be considered is the doctrine of the sacraments. Baptism is a sacrament and is therefore part of the doctrine of the sacraments. And so we're moving now from the most immediate biblical discussion of the matter of baptism to a broader biblical category within which discussion of baptism is found, namely the doctrine of the sacraments. So first of all, we have to ask, what is a sacrament? And then if there are two sacraments, baptism and baptism, what is a sacrament? And then if there are two sacraments, baptism and baptism and the Lord's Supper, how does baptism relate to the Lord's Supper? And specifically, how does infant baptism relate to the Lord's Supper? And the thing that ties these together is the whole matter of the unity and the coherence and harmony of the sacraments. And then, of course, the final concern is, how do these sacraments of the New Testament, which is baptism and the Lord's Supper, how do these relate to those symbolic ordinances which were instituted in the Old Testament? And in particular, how do these relate to the

5:53 ordnance of circumcision? And in particular, of course, the crucial one in this discussion is, how does baptism relate to the ordnance of circumcision? So that's where, hopefully, we're going to go. Now, I don't know how far we'll get today. I really don't know.

Defining a Sacrament: Reformed Perspective

6:10 And so we'll just simply start out then by coming up with Roman numeral one. You have to begin by figuring out what you're talking about. Because if you don't know what you're talking about, you're not going to get very far. So the first thing that we need to consider, if we're going to consider infant baptism and the doctrine of the sacraments, is to consider what a sacrament is. Now, I'm not going to ask you to just throw it out to the class and ask you to define a sacrament. I think, rather, I'll do that, because that's part of doing my homework. Now, with respect to this, I have three points under this first Roman numeral, an A, a B, and a C.

6:58 First of all, we're going to consider the definition of the sacrament, secondly, the efficacy, and thirdly, the validity. Definition of the sacrament, the efficacy of the sacrament, and the validity of the sacrament. Okay? Number one, or A, definition. What is it?

7:29 Now, Hodge, in Systematic Theology, Volume 3, page 485, says that, a sacrament, of course, comes from the Latin word sacramentum, and he goes through a, both he and Berkhoff go through a detailed derivation of the usage of this term, which I'm sure you're not interested in. But in any event, some of you may be interested in that, but the precise relevance of it, I'm not sure. But in general, the word simply means something sacred. Sacrament is simply something sacred. Now, of course, that has, it has a general use. It has a general use. It has a general use. It has a general use. It has a general usage, and throughout history has had a general usage. But then it also has come to have a very specific theological usage. A sacrament has come to have a very specific theological usage. And I would like to begin by quoting to you Berkhoff's definition of a sacrament.

8:30 After he goes through the fact that the word sacrament is not found in Scripture, that it's derived from the Latin, and goes through all of the various definitions, he goes through all of the various meanings of the word, he says, the following definition may be given of a sacrament. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ, in which, by sensible signs, the grace of God in Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to, to believers. And these, that is, believers, in turn, give expression to their faith and allegiance to God. Now, there's Berkhoff's definition of a sacrament. And there are certain common denominators which, first of all, since it's a theological term, I don't feel too guilty about using the theologian's definitions. But he says it's a holy ordinance instituted

9:46 by Christ. He says that it's a sensible, by which sensible sign, which, sorry, excuse me, in which, by sensible signs, that is, by things that we can see, tangible signs, or emblems, the grace of God in Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. So that some, it's symbolic, and it's symbolic of grace, that is, of salvation,

10:30 both in its accomplishment and in its application. Furthermore, it is also declaratory, because it's in the sacrament that believers give expression to their faith and allegiance to God. And also, the object of the sacrament is believers. That the intention of the symbolism, with respect to the sacrament, is to seal and represent and apply to believers. And

11:13 finally, the grace of God in Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace to believers. Now, that's Verhoeff's definition. Hodge also defines a sacrament in a very similar way. Systematic Theology, Volume 3, page 485, and following. After he also gives the general usage of the word sacrament as generally meaning something sacred, he goes on to mention the fact that there are two sacraments in the New Testament, baptism and the Lord's Supper. And then he opens up the characteristics, the distinguishing traits of these ordinances, which place them in a category all of their own. He says we should then exclude from this category all other ordinances, human or divine, in which those characteristics are not found. They are baptism and the Lord's Supper are admitted to be sacraments. They are first

12:35 ordinances instituted by Christ. Amazed with that? They are in their nature significant. Baptism of cleansing and the Lord's Supper of spiritual nourishment. So, they're symbolic of salvation. Baptism of the cleansing, identified with salvation, and the Lord's Supper of the spiritual nourishment identified with participation in the benefits of the accomplishment of salvation in Christ. Third point, they were designed to be perpetual. Now there he has something else that is they are intended to continue until the Lord comes. They were designed to be perpetual.

13:29 And fourthly, they were appointed to signify and to instruct, to seal and thus to confirm and strengthen, to convey or apply and thus to sanctify. Now here's the key phrase, those who by faith receive them. In other words, these sacraments are intended to confirm and strengthen, to instruct and to sanctify. And those who receive them by faith, believers, are again said to be the specific object of these sacraments. Now then, after laying these things out, Hodge says, on this principle, the definition of a sacrament given in the standards of our church is founded. And then he quotes from the Westminster Standards. He says, a sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by the church.

14:30 It is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein by sensible signs Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. End quote. It is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein by sensible signs Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. End quote. It is a holy ordinance instituted by presented, sealed, and applied to believers. And then he also quotes from various other of the Reformed symbols or confessions and indicates that they are in agreement in their definition of a sacrament. So you find these various dimensions or distinguishing traits of a sacrament which then are grouped together into the definition given by the leading Reformed theologians. That a sacrament originated and was instituted by Jesus Christ, that it is symbolic of the salvation wrought by Christ and applied to his people,

15:45 that it has as its specific object those who exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and as Hodge also indicates, it is perpetually, instituted to be observed as long as this world remains until the Lord Jesus Christ returns.

Biblical Basis for the Definition of a Sacrament

16:07 Now, basically, this definition, as far as I am able to determine, is indeed scriptural and is in accordance with the biblical witness, that the ordinances of the Lord's Supper and baptism were instituted by Jesus Christ personally is very clearly indicated in the Word of God. We've already studied the ordinance of baptism, and we saw that Jesus Christ instituted baptism in John chapter 4 and that he perpetuated it in Matthew chapter 28, verses 18 and following. With respect to the Lord's Supper, of course it's obvious that the Lord Jesus Christ personally instituted the Lord's Supper. In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, chapter 11, the Apostle Paul explicitly asserts this, as you well know, and as we read month after month in the observation of this ordinance, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and then, when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, this is my body, take and eat. And so, he also says there, concerning the Lord's Supper, that as often, as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death.

17:34 There it has a declaratory significance. You are proclaiming as a church the death of the Lord. It is declaratory. And he says, you proclaim the Lord's death until he come.

17:47 It is perpetual. So you find in the passage which describes its institution, that it is symbolic, that it is instituted by Jesus Christ, that it is perpetual, and that it is declaratory. And also, with respect to the purpose of both baptism and the Lord's Supper, that they were given to confirm and strengthen those who believe, to instruct those who believe, to sanctify those who believe, and that they are intended for those who receive them by faith. Now, that is, indeed, a biblical definition of a sacrament.

Incompatibility of Infant Baptism with the Definition of a Sacrament

18:29 And what now I would like to say with respect to the definition of a sacrament is this, that the definition of a sacrament as given both by Hodge and Berkhoff in their systematic theologies, which reflects the biblical tradition of Reformed theology, that this definition of a sacrament is incompatible with infant baptism. Infant baptism does not square with this definition of a sacrament. It is incompatible with infant baptism. It is incompatible with infant baptism.

19:02 Notice, first of all, that it is instituted personally by Jesus Christ. There is clear record that disciple baptism was instituted personally by Jesus Christ, and that the Lord's Supper was instituted personally by Jesus Christ. But there are no indications anywhere in Scripture that Jesus Christ ever baptized an infant or commanded his disciples to baptize an infant. There's no command as we saw.

19:31 There's no example as we saw. There is no scriptural indication that Jesus Christ personally instituted infant baptism. We also looked last week when we considered the significance of baptism, both at its symbolic and declaratory dimensions, and we saw that infant baptism is incompatible both with the symbolism of baptism, and also with the declaration identified with baptism. You notice that Varkoff in his definition even makes this explicit, that a sacrament involves a declaration on the part of believers.

20:14 He says that it is a Holy Ordinance instituted by Christ. The benefits of the covenant of grace in this ordinance are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. And, these, in turn, Welcome back to Double Change. that is, believers in turn give expression to their faith and allegiance to God.

20:36 Now, is that, again, is that what happens in the Lord's Supper? Yes, it is. Is that what happens in disciple baptism? Yes, it is.

20:45 Is that what happens in infant baptism? No, it is not.

20:50 Infant baptism is not an ordinance in which believers receive it. Those who receive it are not giving expression to their faith and allegiance to God. And we saw all of the circuitous routing by which people in their attempts to get a declaratory dimension into infant baptism last week seek to go around this issue. And yet it cannot be evaded that in the very definition of a sacrament, essential to that definition is those receiving the sacrament giving expression to their faith and allegiance to God.

21:29 That's not my definition. That's Berkhoff's definition. And yet Berkhoff's practice of infant baptism is incompatible with his own definition of a sacrament. Certainly that is not true of infant baptism.

21:44 Also, with respect to the purpose of the ordinance, the purpose of the sacrament, once again, it's incompatible with the purpose of the sacrament. It says, that the benefits of the covenant, of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. Represented to believers. That's fine with the Lord's Supper.

22:11 Sealed to believers. That's fine with disciple baptism. Applied to believers. That's fine with disciple baptism and the Lord's Supper, confessor's communion.

22:23 However, that's not fine with infant baptism.

22:28 That's not what's happening in infant baptism. If he had just said, represented, sealed, and applied to believers and their infant seed. But that's not how he defines a sacrament. He defines a sacrament as a visible sign in which the benefits of the covenant of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to believers, and Berkhoff is not alone in taking that approach.

22:54 It is recognized that a sacrament has reference to believers in its very operation. It is recognized that a sacrament has reference to believers in its very operation. And for that reason I say also that infant baptism is incompatible with the reformed and biblical definition of a sacrament. Now then having looked at the definition of a sacrament we come into the second place on being efficacy of a sacrament. Now what is meant by the efficacy of a sacrament? Once again The Reformed theologians, in describing the sacraments, have defined the efficacy of a sacrament as consisting of three things.

Efficacy of a Sacrament: Reformed View and Incompatibility with Infant Baptism

24:03 First of all, the efficacy consists in the fact that a sacrament is a real means of grace. A sacrament really is a means of grace. Hodge makes this point in discussing the efficacy of a sacrament on page 499. Secondly, the source of the efficacy of the sacrament is the Holy Spirit operating in and with those visible symbols of redemption.

24:43 That the source of the efficacy of the sacrament is not the sacrament itself, nor is it bound to the person who administers it. But the source of the efficacy of the sacrament is found in the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. Pages 499 and 500 of Systematic Theology. And then also, Reformed theology has been careful to say to whom the sacraments are efficacious.

25:17 They are efficacious only to believers. They are efficacious. They are efficacious only to believers.

25:29 And Hodge makes this point in Systematic Theology under the efficacy of the sacraments. He says, There is therefore a strict analogy according to the Reformed doctrine between the word and the sacraments as means of grace. Both have in them a certain moral power due to the truth which they bring before the mind. Secondly, neither has in itself any supernatural power to save or to sanctify.

26:11 Thirdly, all their supernatural efficiency is due to the cooperation or attending influence of the Holy Spirit. Fourthly, both are ordained by God to be the channels or means of the Spirit's influence to those both are ordained by God to be the channels or means of the Spirit's influence to those who by faith receive them. Both are ordained by God to be the channels or means of the Spirit's influence to those who by faith receive them. And then he goes on, and then he goes on to point out that nothing is said in the Bible to place the sacraments above the word as a means of communicating to men the benefits of Christ's redemption. On the contrary, tenfold more is said in Scripture of the necessity and efficiency of the word of God in the salvation of men that is said or implied of the power of the sacraments.

27:28 All right, so Reformed theology has recognized, shall we say, the primacy of the word of God. But having said that, it also recognizes, that indeed the sacraments are really a means of grace and that they are indeed the channels by which God brings his gracious, sanctifying influences to bear upon the souls of men and that the power which resides in those channels is not in the channels themselves, I should say in the use of those, is not in the channels themselves, but it is in the Holy Spirit presently applying, applying the means of grace to the heart and also that the efficacy of the sacraments is not, I should say, is not given to all who receive them indiscriminately as the Roman Catholics teach, but it is given only to those who receive them in faith.

28:33 Only to those who receive them in faith. Yes, were you going to ask for this?

28:46 Okay. Efficacy means that when something is efficacious, it accomplishes its intended purpose. Okay? That is, it's a success.

29:01 It's effective, right? It achieves what it wants to achieve. Right? And the purpose is to confirm believers and to strengthen them and to make them more holy.

29:15 You follow? You follow? And that this is indeed, the sacraments do indeed accomplish this God-ordained purpose. But they don't have power in themselves to make anybody holy, but they only make someone holy when the Holy Spirit is present in that observance of the sacrament.

29:35 And they don't make anybody holy or confirm them or strengthen them apart from the exercise of faith on the part of the person who receives the sacrament. Now, do you see that? So they are, they are really a means of grace and yet what Reformed theology has said is that they are only a means of grace when the Holy Spirit attends and blesses them to that end and they are only a means of grace when they are received by faith on the part of the person who receives them. See that?

30:14 There's no grace apart from the Spirit and no grace apart from faith. The grace of the sacraments is bound up to the Spirit and faith. See that? Now that's what's being clearly, explicitly taught in Reformed theology.

30:32 Now what I submit to you is that that is also inconsistent with the practice of infant baptism.

30:41 Because if infant baptism is to be effective, how then is it effective when the Holy Spirit is present? There is, as far as we can tell, who dares to assert that there is no reason to believe that there's any exercise of faith on the part of the infant who receives the ordinance. Who dares to assert that there is?

31:11 Well, how then can we assert that infant baptism is efficacious if we cannot assert that infant baptism, that the infant exercise exercises faith? I cannot see how there can be any efficacy in that ordinance or if there is any, how in the world it can be consistent with the Reformed definition of the efficacy of the sacrament. Now it is true that Reformed theology, generally speaking, has wished also to assert that infant baptism is efficacious and there is an effort made to get around this pressure. It's not as though no one recognizes the pressure of which I am now speaking. They certainly do recognize the pressure and they attempt to get around the pressure. Professor Murray, in Christian Baptism, indicates that infant baptism is just as efficacious as what he calls adult baptism.

32:17 And so also the Westminster Confession asserts the same thing. However, there is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths.

32:23 There is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths.

32:23 There is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths. There is division among the faiths. These are Reformed theologians at this point.

Circumventing the Efficacy Problem: Delayed Action

32:26 And Cunningham, in his historical theology, admits that we have a problem and that we cannot assert the efficacy of infant baptism in exactly the same way that we can assert the efficacy of disciple baptism. But the way that generally this has been circumvented and the Westminster Confession is a living example of it, look in the Westminster Confession Confession of Faith, page 687 and paragraph 6.

33:21 Now here's the way that this problem or tension with the efficacy of baptism is circumvented. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.

33:35 Yet notwithstanding by the right use of this ordinance, the great, the grace promised is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such, whether of age or infants, as that grace belongs according to the counsel of God's own will in his appointed time. So what they're saying, if I understand it correctly, and admittedly part of the 17th century language may be somewhat confusing, but what they're saying is that the Holy Ghost is not only conferred, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost. It is true that we don't know and we can't assert that the baptism is efficacious for the infant at the time that he's baptized, but that the efficacy of the baptism is not bound to the time of its administration. It can be, what's this? Delayed action, right. Delayed action.

34:33 And it can be efficacious, say, 15 or 20 years later after it was administered. And of course what they're saying is that the efficacy of the baptism is bound up with the exercise of faith, but not bound up to the moment in which the ordinance is administered. And so later on, so many years later, if and when the child exercises faith, then indeed it is efficacious, so that it's not bound up with the moment of its administration. And it's by that route that this difficulty is attempted to be circumvented.

Validity of a Sacrament: Reformed View and Incompatibility with Infant Baptism

35:12 All right, then. The final point, the definition of baptism, the efficacy of baptism, and then also the validity, the validity of the sacraments.

35:29 Now here Hodge speaks very clearly about how you can tell a valid sacrament when you see one.

35:36 And he speaks to this issue on page 523 and 524 of his systematic theology. He says, thus, if baptism is a washing with water, then it is necessary for the child to be baptized. It is necessary that water should be the element employed in its administration. If it is a washing with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then those words or that form must be used.

36:08 And the ordinance must be administered and received in the faith of the Trinity. The general faith of the Church has been in favor of the validity of heretical baptism. But heresy was made to include other departures from the standard of faith than the denial of the essential doctrines of the gospel. So he's here getting into the question as whether or not a heretical baptism is valid.

36:40 And that's not really the issue I want to come to. The final point is this. Baptism is a Christian ordinance. A Christian ordinance.

36:50 It involves on the part of both the administration, the administrator, and the recipient, the profession of the Christian religion. It involves on the part of both the administrator and the recipient, the profession of the Christian religion. It is perfectly evident that the same service as to matter and form performed by a heathen to a heathen who attacks the church, attached an entirely different meaning to what was done, could not be regarded as a Christian ordinance.

37:40 And then he says, if a man receives the ordinance of baptism, he must intend to profess his faith in the gospel and to accept the terms of salvation therein presented. And the administrator must have the purpose to initiate the recipient, in the number of the professed disciples of Christ. A sacrament therefore administered by an idiot or a maniac or in sport or in mockery is utterly null and void. It has no meaning and is entirely worthless. Now, the principle with respect to the validity of the ordinance that Hodge is articulating recognizes both the element in which the ordinance is performed, but also the structure of the ordinance. the purpose for which the ordinance is performed, the authorization of the administrator to perform it, and also whether or not the recipient ought properly to receive it. And he says it involves on the part of both administrator and recipient a profession of the Christian religion.

39:04 He said if this were performed by a heathen to a heathen who attached an entirely different meaning to what was done then it could not be regarded as a Christian ordinance. Now that is precisely the problem that we have with infant baptism.

39:23 It may well involve a profession of faith and of the Christian religion on the part of the person who performs it, but does it involve a profession of faith and of the Christian religion on the person? Who receives it?

39:43 Is the child professing faith and the Christian religion in the ordinance of baptism? And it is precisely because we would completely agree with the reformed perspective on the validity of the sacraments and precisely because we are convinced that the reformed perspective on the validity of the sacraments is incompatible with the practice of infant baptism that we do not regard...

40:11 We do not regard infant baptism as a valid administration of the ordinance.

40:17 It's not valid. Why isn't it valid? It's not valid because, as Hod says, that if it were performed apart from a profession of faith on the part of both recipient and administrator then it is not a Christian ordinance.

40:37 And to say that the parents are the ones who receive the ordinance of baptism is totally... to miss the point, the water is not sprinkled onto the heads of the parents.

40:47 And how can they be regarded, though they may indeed make their profession of faith, how can they be regarded as the recipients of the ordinance? Nor is the water poured onto the heads of the sponsors. And though they indeed declare the child's faith in the baptism, how can they be regarded as the recipients of the ordinance? No.

41:06 The recipient of the ordinance is that infant who personally, unless we're prepared to go to the absurd and teach the child, teach the flipside of transubstantiation, as no one is, thankfully, who personally does not make a profession of faith and therefore the ordinance is not valid.

Summary of Incompatibility and Q&A on Validity

41:28 So with respect to the definition of baptism or the definition of a sacrament, the efficacy of a sacrament, and the validity of a sacrament, the practice of infant baptism is incompatible with the biblical and biblical practice of baptism. So with respect to the definition of baptism, there is no reformed teaching concerning the definition, the efficacy, and the validity of a sacrament. Now I know that what I had to say this morning was theological rather than exegetical. And for some it may have been going around up in the stratosphere.

42:10 And I didn't know what exactly to do about that. I didn't have any real choice, I don't believe, because of the fact that the matter of a sacrament, it's not so much the words not used in scripture, it's defined in the theological books and the categories come out of those theological books. So I've done what I could. But if you have any questions about what we've seen this morning, please ask them now.

42:40 Rich? Concerning the validity of a sacrament, the last reference made the statement that the administrator must also profess the validity of a sacrament. You must profess and believe. Must profess faith, right.

42:59 Must profess faith. Right. Now, is that necessarily true for it to be valid and efficacious, seeing that the pulpit is often filled by men who, in fact, are not believers? All right, see, now there's a distinction.

43:18 Hod chose his words very carefully. That's a good point. Long ago there was a controversy in the church called the Donatist controversy. And in that controversy there were certain people who said that baptism was not valid unless indeed the person was saved.

43:35 But Hod is not saying that the person who administers it has to be saved. All he says is that there has to be a profession of faith. Now, suppose that, well, let's just put it in the concrete. Suppose it turns out later that one of the pastors of this church apostatize and fall away from the Christian faith and don't think that that's beyond the realm of possibility.

43:57 Well, that's a good point. That's a good point. That's a good point. Would that mean that all the people whom we've baptized over the years have an invalid baptism and must be rebaptized?

44:05 No. Follow the point? Now, that's the point that Hod is making.

44:14 All right? That there must be profession of faith on the part of the person baptized. That it must not be somebody just out there fooling around. It's got to be somebody who indeed is intending to go ahead with the ordinance of Christian baptism in the name of the Lord.

44:31 There must be that sincere profession of faith at the time in which the person is baptized. In which it is done. So that if one of us were to turn out not to be a true Christian, it wouldn't mean that everybody's baptism whom we had baptized was invalid. That would be the Donatist position.

44:47 If you were a Donatist, you'd have to say, well, if that guy was really a hypocrite, then we'd have to rebaptize all these people.

44:56 Perhaps an illustration that will help is where kids are all the time role-playing and imitating. They observe baptisms. I can conceive in someone's backyard pool in the summertime, a bunch of our kids when they're in the backyard, they're in the backyard, they're in the backyard, they're in the backyard, they're playing together saying, let's play baptism. And one of the kids said, I'll be Pastor Nichols.

45:14 You'd be one of the things. And so he'll get a little piece of cotton and darken it with his felt-tip pen and stick it on his lips or mustache. Then he'll ask some questions and then he'll dunk one of your kids. And he'll do it with the right formula and all the rest.

45:30 So as far as the wording, we could say the kid was baptized. But none of us would regard that valid baptism because there is no profession of the Christian baptism in that context. It would be like idiots doing what they know not, even though the kids are conscious of what they're doing. So perhaps that illustration works.

45:49 Yeah, I found that very helpful.

Q&A on Consistency and the Term 'Sacrament'

46:03 Any other questions?

46:13 Yes, John.

46:24 Do not do the baptism on the basis of being graceful or being a Christian. Why do they withhold the Lord's table? Why don't they do that on the same date? Or are there some future dates when seeing that grace truly didn't belong to them and we get the history?

46:51 Why can't they also receive the other section for the same reason? All right, that's Roman numeral 2, John. And we'll come, hopefully, the Lord willing to read Roman numeral 2 in the immediate future. All right?

47:07 Jim?

47:23 Yes? Yes.

47:30 Do we have to leave a job or fail that job? No, they don't. They know better than that. Absolutely not.

47:52 They don't teach that at all.

47:57 Pastor Martin? That's the very tension they feel and why in all of their standards they're so careful to say that the efficacy is not tied up automatically with the sacrament. They were conscious that they were rejecting Romish sacramentalism. Right.

48:13 So they've got their sword at the throat of the Pope and Rome and all of that system continuing. While trying to build up a fabric of baptismal theology that still has the grave cloths of Rome. So they're rejecting the man, they're killing him, but they've got his grave cloths and they're trying to fill it up with something else other than Romanism. And that's precisely the problem.

48:36 That's why they continually reject that because they don't want to be sacramentalists that say the grace is automatically conveyed in the sacrament. Right.

48:47 Yeah.

48:52 Doug? I have just a general question. I was thinking about the term sacrament. Okay.

48:58 I've been in other churches and met many people who the connotation of sacrament to them is something Roman Catholic, many Baptist churches don't use it. It's called baptism and fordance. So is sacrament just a holdover from the Roman Catholic church? And if it is, why do we use it?

49:23 No.

49:31 You want me to enlarge upon that? No, I don't believe that the word sacrament is just a holdover from the Roman Catholic church and that's why we use it. That's why I use it. That's why I believe also Reformed Theology uses it.

49:45 It means something sacred and it's come in Reformed Theology to have a very specific and clearly defined theological meaning. And that's why, well, to be quite frank with you, that's the reason why I was so careful to define it because of the fact that it often does have that connotation in people's minds. And I think that's why I wanted to make sure that it didn't have that connotation in anybody's mind so you didn't think that that's what I meant by it. Exactly right.

50:13 Because that's a real danger.

50:16 Exactly. Michael? There are other words that you use. Term, right.

50:24 Okay. Yeah, that's a good point. Trinity is also a theological term. So it's one of those theological terms which it comes out of, yeah, it does come out of the history of the Latin church.

50:35 I don't think there's any question about that. But which has been taken over by the Roman Catholic church. By the Reformation and given a very specific and clear theological meaning. Mr. Clark?

50:49 Just to add to that, many of the terms that we use, justification, sanctification, many of those terms, the theological terms that we use, have their origin in the Latin language that come to us from the Latin language.

51:05 And some of them have their origin in the Latin Vulgate. Yes. The Latin New Testament. It was translated by Jerome.

51:18 And to add to that, at the time of the Reformation, Latin was the common language of Western Europe. So that when Erasmus in Rotterdam, a Dutchman who lived later on in Switzerland, or an English writer, or Martin Luther in Germany, or John Calvin in Geneva, when they would write their books, their Reformation books, they would write them in the Latin language. And so much of that terminology that we use now in theology is a holdover from the Latin, which is not a holdover, but is presented to us from the Latin language. That's it.

Closing Prayer

52:06 Thank you. Our time is gone, so let's commit our thoughts this morning to the Lord in prayer.

52:15 Our Father, as we come into your presence again this morning, we give you thanks for your Holy Word. We thank you especially this morning, Lord, for those symbols that you have given to us of salvation that have become for us means of grace whereby you have been pleased to work by your Spirit blessing our faith and making precious to faith the sight of Christ and of the spiritual blessings which you have given to us in Him. And Father, as we look forward to the observance of both of these sacraments today, we pray that you would be pleased to bless them, that you would be pleased to bless the baptism this afternoon, and that it would indeed become something upon which all of our faiths could be strengthened and confirmed. We pray also for your blessing upon the observance of the Lord's Supper tonight, that you would draw near as well in that time, that you would pour out of your Spirit upon us, that we may feed upon the Lord Jesus Christ, by faith. For we ask all of these things in His name. Amen.