Infant Baptism and The Lord's Supper

Introduction and Prayer for Understanding

0:00 This Adult Sunday School class was held on October 23, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. Now let's once again pray and ask for the Lord's blessing upon our studies of His Holy Word.

0:25 Our Father, again we come into Your presence. We plead with You again this morning that You would draw near to us, that You would bless us with an understanding of the Scriptures. Especially we pray, Father, that You would give light and that You would give grace. And we pray, O God, that as we consider the matter of the sacraments again this morning, that You would draw near to us and by the Holy Spirit that You would shine light upon our hearts and enable us, Lord, to live in the light of those things which come up from the world this morning.

1:00 We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Review of Sacramental Coherence and the Problem of Infant Baptism

1:07 Since there has been a little break since the last time that I have spoken to you, a brief word of review is in order. We are considering the matter of infant baptism, and in particular we're in our third unit.

1:30 Some people, while I was away, told me that they get the tapes and they can't hear when I go to the board. All they can hear is the writing of the chalk upon the board. So I'll attempt to do what I can for the sake of those who may, potentially listen to this by tape to keep myself at least pointed toward the microphone while I'm speaking. Unit 3 has to do with the sacraments and infant baptism.

1:59 The sacraments and infant baptism. After relating infant baptism to the subjects of baptism and then to the significance of baptism, now we must come to consider its relationship to the biblical doctrine of the sacraments. And two weeks ago we considered, the relationship of infant baptism to the biblical concept, the biblical and reformed concept of a sacrament. And we attempted to show that the practice of infant baptism was incompatible with the reformed and biblical definition of a sacrament, that it was incompatible with the effectiveness or efficacy of the sacraments, and also incompatible with the validity of the sacrament, as that has been commonly understood. Now then, having finished with Roman numeral one, I'm going to turn this morning to Roman numeral two, which I've simply entitled, Infant Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Infant Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In particular now, what we are considering is the relationship of the practice of infant baptism to the biblical doctrine of the unity,

3:23 harmony, and coherence of the sacraments. The sacraments form a unity. They are harmoniously related, that is, the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper. They're not incoherent in terms of what they say and how they relate, but they are coherent with respect to their subjects and also with respect to their significance. Now, the foundation of everything that I want to say is the biblical concept of the harmony, unity, and coherence of the sacraments. And this doctrine of the harmony of the sacraments is built upon the great harmony or coherence that is found between the accomplishment of salvation in the person and work of Christ and the application of salvation to the hearts of the people of God in their own life histories. Remember, we saw that's a biblical distinction between the accomplishment of salvation in the person and work of Christ in his life history and the application of salvation in the life

4:34 history of the people of God. Well, the harmony and unity of the sacraments is built upon the harmony and unity of the accomplishment and application of salvation. You see, the point is that participation in the accomplishment of salvation, that is, participation in Christ's sacrifice, participation in Christ's body and blood, is intimately bound up with the experience of the application of salvation so that those who experience the application of salvation are those who participate in the accomplishment of salvation. Now, you see, the Lord's Supper symbolizes participation in Christ's body, the cup which we bless. Is that not the cup of communion in Christ's blood? And the bread, isn't that the loaf which signifies communion in the body of Christ? I'm paraphrasing what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 16 and following.

5:39 So he recognizes that the symbolism of the Lord's Supper is this, that those who partake of the Lord's Supper are symbolizing that they participate in the accomplishment of salvation, that they participate in that which happens when Christ dies upon the cross, they participate in His shed blood and its benefits, they participate in His body given for us.

6:07 And you remember what the significance of baptism was. It signified the reception of the Spirit. It signified washing from the pollution of sin and from the guilt of sin. It signified that the person involved has experienced the application of salvation.

6:24 See that? Remember we saw that from the significance of baptism? So if you put the, the two things together, you can see the harmony and the unity, the coherence of the sacraments. Those who experience the application of salvation are the same ones who participate in Christ's death upon the cross.

6:44 That's the harmony. Those who participate in Christ's body and blood are none other than those who have experienced the application of salvation. Those who have had their sins forgiven. Those who have been cleansed Those who have been regenerated.

7:00 Those who have been given the gift of the Spirit. Those who have been united to Christ by faith and who have repented. Those are the ones who participate in Christ's body and Christ's blood. And so the harmony, unity, coherence of the sacraments resides in the harmony and unity and coherence of the accomplishment and application of salvation.

Three Major Positions on Sacramental Subjects

7:24 Now that's a solid foundation upon which to build the doctrine. And of course, that doctrine has been all but universally recognized. No one wants to argue, basically, with what I've just said. Now, the point is this.

7:44 The question is, how do the major positions then on the subjects of the sacraments square with this biblical teaching on the unity and coherence of the sacraments? Well, there are three major positions on the teachings. First is what I would call our own position, which is disciple-believer baptism and disciple-believer communion. Disciple-believer baptism and disciple-believer communion. Those who are baptized are believers, disciples. Those who receive communion, believers, disciples.

8:46 Those who experience the application of salvation are those who experience participation in the accomplishment of salvation. That's one position. The second position is the position of the, what you could call the standard of evangelical and orthodox paedobaptists, which is infant baptism on the one hand and then believer-disciple communion on the other. Infant baptism, on the one hand, and yet disciple-believer communion on the other. And the third position, the third position, is infant baptism on the one hand and toddler or infant communion on the other. Now those are the three positions. Now the first position, which is the Baptist position,

10:03 is evidently compatible with the unity, harmony, and coherence of the sacraments. And the third position, which is the position of Eastern Orthodox and held in a modified form by the Roman Catholics, also held by the PCUS, I think that's become PCUSA, if I'm not correct, and some others are moving into that position. The third position, which is infant baptism on the one hand coupled with toddler-infant communion on the other, which is being more and more practiced in the United States, and also in other places, and has been practiced for years by the Eastern Orthodox Church. And this is also not incompatible with the coherence of the sacraments. It is at least a self-consistent system. On the other hand, the position that's held by Murray, Birkhoff, Westminster Confession, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, most of Dutch Calvinism, and most of the evangelical paedobaptists, and which has been held for years, which could be called the majority position, is this position of infant baptism on the one hand, and yet, disciple or believer communion on the other hand.

11:26 Now, my concern this morning, and our concern, will be predominantly with this second view. Since that's the position of the majority of the reformed evangelical paedobaptists with whom we would have contact, and since it's the only position out of the three, which is really incompatible with the Biblical doctrine of the coherence of the sacraments. And the point that I would like to make this morning, and I just have this one point to make, and what I wish to show is the incompatibility of this teaching with the Biblical concept of the coherence and unity of the sacraments, is that this position is contrary to the arguments of our brethren, to their own arguments, which are used to condemn believers' baptism, and which are, which are used to support infant baptism. The point is this. Whatever they use to condemn believer baptism also condemns believer communion. And whatever they use to support infant baptism also supports infant or toddler communion.

Incompatibility with the Circumcision-Baptism Analogy

12:45 That's the point. They use their own arguments, the very arguments which they use to support infant baptism, with equal force support toddler or infant communion, and the very arguments that they use to condemn disciple baptism, with equal force condemn their own position of disciple communion. Now that's, in summary, what I would like to say this morning. And what I wish to do is to consider these self-contradictions in some detail, and then after that, to seek to bring a word of application as to how we, as Baptists, should behave in the light of these evident self-contradictions. Right, the first is this. Now this practice of believer communion, believer-only communion, exclusive believer communion, is incompatible with their use of the circumcision baptism analogy. It's incompatible with the use that they make

14:12 of the circumcision baptism analogy. They say that since infants were circumcised and included in the covenant community from the time of Abraham, therefore since nothing has come explicitly to exclude infants from participation in that which symbolizes inclusion in the covenant, therefore now they must still continue to be symbolically included in the covenant. That to stop this practice of symbolizing infant inclusion requires nothing less than explicit revocation. And that point is made by Murray in Christian Baptism, it's made by Warfield especially, pages 399 and 400 of his work on the polemics of infant baptism. It's made also by Marcel, it's made by many others, in their works. They say that infant inclusion, by the symbolism of circumcision, infant inclusion in the covenant of grace is what they call a long settled institution. And this is an initiatory ordinance.

15:24 The participation of infants in this initiatory ordinance is a long settled institution. There's no passage in scripture which explicitly says infants are no longer to be included in the initiatory ordinance. And since it's a long settled institution and since there's no passage in scripture that explicitly says we should stop it, therefore we ought to continue it. That's the argument.

15:53 Now I submit that their practice of believer only communion is totally incompatible with this argument. And that if this argument is applied to the issue of communion as well, not only the issue of baptism, that what results from this argument is undoubtedly and unquestionably the practice of toddler communion. Because there's another long settled institution in the Church of Christ, if you want to call it that way in paedo-baptist terms. And that long settled institution is the commemorative covenantal meal.

16:36 The commemorative covenantal... So you have an ordinance of initiation and you also have a commemorative covenantal meal.

16:52 The commemorative covenantal meal among the people of God was established on the night that they were delivered from bondage in Egypt. And that commemorative covenantal meal is called or was called the Passover. Jewish children participated in the Passover from the moment that they were able to eat the solid food. Toddler participation in the Passover, toddler participation in the commemorative covenant meal is a long settled institution.

17:25 It's an institution which has been practiced for hundreds of years over a thousand years. And the intimate connection between the Lord's Supper and the Passover is obvious enough. What meal were they eating when the Lord's Supper was instituted? It was the Passover meal.

17:46 They took the elements from the Passover meal and obviously the concepts of the Lord's Supper grew out of the context in which they were then eating the commemorative covenantal meal. And the commemorative meal of the New Covenant is intimately related to the commemorative meal of the Old Covenant. Now if we're to use that argument, toddler participation in the commemorative covenantal meal is a long standing institution. And if we're to use that argument, then nothing short of explicit revocation would justify setting it aside.

18:26 And yet there is not a text in the New Testament which explicitly says toddlers are forbidden to come to the Lord's Supper. There's not a text in the New Testament which explicitly says that your children are forbidden to participate in the Lord's Supper as soon as they're able to eat the solid food. You won't find that in the New Testament. That's not what 1 Corinthians 11 teaches.

18:54 1 Corinthians 11 simply says that a man is to discern, and if he's able to discern, then let him eat. But it says nothing in that text about children, does it? That's referring to the case of adults, if I may employ the Paedo-Baptist argument. That's not describing children.

19:09 That's referring to the case of adults, obviously. That's not referring to toddlers. And that text doesn't say anything about toddlers. It simply says that a man is to examine himself, but that's speaking as far as adults are concerned.

19:27 Children are the exception. And that's only speaking as far as adults are concerned. As far as the toddlers are concerned, there's no text that says that they're not allowed to come. Nothing short of explicit revocation.

19:40 That's not explicit revocation. Here's a privilege. Toddler participation in the covenant meal. There's a privilege.

19:53 Where is there an explicit statement in the New Testament that that privilege has been now revoked in the case of children? And yet our brethren have set this practice aside and without one explicit text stating that toddlers are not to participate in the Lord's Supper. Now, some have raised some smoke about this. And they say that infants couldn't have digested the lamb.

20:28 And others say that they had to ask the meaning of the meal before they could partake. And someone as profound and careful an exegete as Professor Murray argues like this on pages 77 to 79 of infant baptism. But really that's only smoke. And it doesn't really isolate the issue.

20:56 And here's the issue. The issue is that a credible profession of faith on the part of Jewish children was not the criterion for admission to the Passover meal. That's the issue. A credible profession of faith on the part of the Jewish children was not the criterion for admission to the Passover meal.

21:20 But simply the ability to digest the food. When they were old enough to eat it, then they came to the Passover. And Jewett, Paul K. Jewett, on pages...

21:33 He has an excellent treatment of this subject, by the way, on pages 193 to 207 of his treatment, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. And on pages 202 and 203 he specifically comes to grips with this point. He says, For our discussion this means that if we can infer infant baptism from infant circumcision, much more can we infer infant communion from the Old Testament practice of giving the Passover to little children. At this juncture, the Paedo-Baptist points out that infants could hardly have masticated the flesh of the Paschal lamb.

22:12 Though circumcised the eighth day, infants obviously could not have eaten the Passover at such an early age. But no one supposes that the Passover was eaten in early infancy. In order to eat the Passover, naturally children had to be sufficiently grown to eat something. And then he quotes from the Jewish rabbinical authority, According to rabbinical authority, all the members of the Passover company, the haborah, are to be in a state to eat at least the equivalent of an olive.

22:46 That's the Jewish requirement. Actually, now he goes on to say, Actually, for our discussion, the physical limitations of children in eating solid food of the Passover has no more relevance for communion than the postponement of circumcision until eight days after birth has for baptism. There is no theological significance in one more than the other, as Paedo-Baptists know just as well as others. The issue is spiritual, not physical.

23:24 It is not a question of the child's degree of physical development at the time he receives circumcision and Passover, respectively, but listen to this. That's not the issue, but the issue is this, whether faith was required in the reception of the one and not of the other. Whether faith was required in the reception of the one and not of the other. The Paedo-Baptists have made much of the fact that the children of the Israelites in Old Testament times were circumcised apart from personal faith.

23:57 However, it is also true that these same children partook of the Passover in Old Testament times apart from personal faith. But, the children of Western Christendom may not eat the Eucharist apart from personal faith. In the light of such disparity, it is more of an artifice than an argument to stress the commonplace that infants who had no teeth were incapable of chewing a piece of lamb. So, I believe that Juitas hit the nail on the head with respect to the effort to throw some smoke through the physical incapabilities of the infants.

24:40 That's not the issue. And he states very clearly what the issue is. And so I say, it is incompatible. The practice is completely incompatible.

Incompatibility with the Preeminence of Covenant Promise

24:52 And the same argument that they say mandates infant baptism when applied to this other ordinance mandates toddler communion. But secondly, second argument, second contradiction is this. The practice of exclusive believer communion or believer-only communion is incompatible with their claim of the preeminence of the covenant promise. It's incompatible with their claim of the preeminence of the covenant promise.

25:30 Now, I'm hard-pressed to know exactly how to explain this. But remember to go back to when we talked about the significance of baptism. They said that what was required was not necessarily a profession of faith. And that infants were not baptized upon their profession of faith, but upon God's promise that they would be saved.

26:00 Do you remember that? They said, look, you Baptists, you say that a profession of faith is the only way that we can pursue that someone is saved or will be saved. But no, that rests upon man. But the covenant promise doesn't rest upon man, but it rests upon God.

26:26 And we baptize not upon a profession of faith, but we baptize upon God's covenant promise. Well, you see, this approach to the matter of communion is incompatible with that whole line of argument. Warfield, on page 390, argued that infant baptism was supported on divine covenant promise. He said profession of faith was not needed to baptize.

26:57 And it was not even as good as having a divine promise. Which is better, to have a profession from man or to have a promise from God? Well, now when we come to the matter of communion, which is better? To have a promise from God or a profession from man?

27:11 Now they say, now we have to have a profession. Well, what about God's promise? If God's promise was sufficient to baptize, why isn't it sufficient for them to participate in the covenantal commemorative meal? There's all this talk about God's promise, God's promise, we don't need a profession of faith, we have God's promise.

27:33 Well, you still have God's promise. Why do we need a profession of faith? Why doesn't that apply now? Why does it now, in the matter of who comes to the table, why does a human profession dwarf the divine covenantal promise?

27:48 Why does it outshine it? Why does a human profession of faith become the vital issue on this question? What about the divine promise that they will be saved? What about that promise now?

28:00 Hasn't God promised that they will be saved if they're raised in accordance with the dictates of the covenant? Then why deny them the covenant meal? If we can give them the symbol that salvation has been applied to them based upon the promise, why can't we give them the symbol that they participate in its accomplishment based upon the promise? Isn't the promise as good as a credible profession of faith?

28:34 So the practice of exclusive believer communion is incompatible as well with this argument about the divine promise. Thirdly, it's incompatible with their argument about expanded privileges in the new covenant. It's incompatible with the argument about expanded privileges in the new covenant. Professor Murray in Christian Baptism on pages 52 and 53 argues this way.

Incompatibility with Expanded New Covenant Privileges

29:06 He argues about expanded privileges and he says this, if infants are excluded now, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that this change implies a complete reversal of the earlier divinely instituted practice. So we must ask, do we find any hint or intimation of such reversal in either the Old or New Testament? More pointedly, does the New Testament revoke or does it provide any intimation of revoking so expressly authorized the principle of that of inclusion of infants in the covenant and their participation in the covenant sign and seal? This practice had been followed by divine authority in the administration of the covenant of grace for some 2,000 years. Has it been discontinued? Our answer to these questions must be that we find no evidence of revocation. And then he goes on.

30:10 Well, everything that he said there applies with equal force and comes down with equal force to the matter of toddler communion, without exception. And finally, he says at the bottom of the page, finally, we cannot believe that the New Testament economy is less beneficent than the Old. It is rather the case that the New Testament gives more abundant scope to the blessing of God's covenant. We are not, therefore, led to expect retraction.

30:45 We are led to expect expansion and extension. It would not accord with the genius of the new economy to suppose that there is the abrogation of so cardinal a method of disclosing and applying the grace which lies at the heart of God's covenant administration. Those are stirring words, words that we ought to take very seriously. But those words apply with equal force to the matter of infant inclusion.

31:20 Inclusion at the Lord's table. We are told that keeping covenant youth from the privilege of baptism is a complete reversal of God's attitude toward them. It is denying them their God-given birthright and privilege. And yet this is exactly what our brethren do to their own children in the case of the commemorative covenantal meal.

31:45 For centuries, toddlers, small children participated in the Passover, the commemorative covenantal meal without being excluded. And now, can we believe that in the new covenant, the age of expanded blessing, that God would exclude the little children from the privilege in which they were included for centuries? See the argument? The very argument with which our brethren wax eloquent and with which they tug at the loving sentiment in the heart of every Christian parent in order to attack the position of believer-disciple baptism.

32:26 That very argument, if it be true, lands with equal force and crushing weight upon their practice of exclusive believer-disciple communion. They tell us we exclude our children from long-standing privileges and that the new covenant is not one of retraction and exclusion of the children from privileges. And yet when it comes to the matter of participation in the commemorative covenant meal, they exclude their children, they exclude their little children from privileges in which they participated in the covenant community for centuries. So if that argument has any weight, it lands with equal crushing weight upon the practice of believer communion. Fourth, the practice of believer communion is incompatible with their assertion that the practice of believer baptism makes us judges of men's hearts. The practice of believer communion is incompatible with the assertion that the practice of believer baptism makes us the judges of men's hearts. Now Warfield uses this argument on page 390 of his work The Polemics of Infant Baptism.

Incompatibility with Judging Men's Hearts and Exegesis of Faith Prerequisites

33:48 And here he says this. He says it's on the basis of the Puritan conception of the church that the Baptists are led to exclude their children from the practice of believer baptism. The practice is led to exclude infants from baptism. For, he says, if we are to demand anything like demonstrative evidence of actual participation in Christ before we baptize, no infant who by reason of years is incapable of affording signs of his union with Christ can be thought a proper subject of the rite.

34:32 Amen. Now listen to this. But here's the point. Now, I feel the credit.

34:37 The vice of this system the vice of this system however is that it attempts the impossible. No man can read the heart. The vice of this system however is that it attempts the impossible. No man can read the heart.

35:00 As a consequence it follows that no one however rich his manifestation of Christian graces is baptized on the basis of a probable knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption. And if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded. And it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body.

35:37 In this state of the case there is no doubt that a fair presumption of inclusion in Christ's body can be erected namely personal profession of faith. Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise. So soon therefore as it is fairly apprehended that it is impossible to believe in the true truth of the truth of the truth of the truth of the truth of the truth of the truth of the truth of the truth of the mind and the soul and that that is ridiculous And if they Curse not more ethical voices and moral slippers which

37:05 in turn will lead us towards the right way to care for communion. Now, in this case, they require a credible profession before a man can be admitted to the Lord's Supper, while they tell us that to require a credible profession for admission to baptism involves us in the vice of trying to do the impossible and reading men's hearts.

37:36 Well, if that's so, then the practice of believer-disciple communion involves them with us in precisely the same sacramental vice, and so we're all engaged in that vice together.

37:51 Fifth, it's incompatible with their approach to the texts that require faith as a prerequisite for baptism. Their approach to this matter of believer communion, their practice of believer communion, is incompatible with their approach to those texts which require faith as prerequisite for baptism. There are, as you know from our studies, and I don't tend to go back over them this morning there are texts which are the counterparts to first corinthians chapter 11 and yet when we come with a text that says whoso believes and is baptized that speaks about they believed and they received the word and they were baptized and added that speaks about make disciples baptizing them we're told again and again that's obviously referring to adults that's as far as the case of adults is concerned yet when we come to first corinthians 11 they say that's as far as everybody is concerned but the consistent exegesis would be simply to say obviously the context in first corinthians 11 which requires faith as a prerequisite to coming to the lord's supper obviously that's only describing adults obviously since children are incapable of being able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to of exercising that faith and discernment they cannot be in view in the passage that's the very same approach that's taken to passage after passage and text

39:19 after text that requires faith as a prerequisite for baptism precisely the same with regard to baptism they say as far as adults are concerned and they dismiss the passages yet they'd have this one text in first Corinthians 11 which requires faith as a prerequisite for the Lord's Supper and they rest the whole thing on that without ever thinking well could we say as far as adults are concerned and of course children are the exception and children don't fit this passage and just move on well some now are beginning to take that kind of an approach and to be consistent and to say well that's as far as adults are concerned obviously since the children are incapable of exercising that faith and discernment they're not included with those condemned in the passage who eat if they do not have that discernment of faith that's and so the practice of believer communion based upon the exegesis of first Corinthians 11 is incompatible with their approach to the texts that require faith as prerequisite for baptism. And sixth and finally, the practice of believer communion is incompatible with their appeal to church history and to the fathers and the practice of infant baptism.

Incompatibility with Appeal to Church History

40:30 In the writings of the church fathers, you find infant baptism and toddler communion hand in hand,

40:39 presented together. Augustine argues for one as well as for the other. And Jewett's treatment of this subject is both masterful and incredible. And he mentions the remarkable fact that he knows of only one book.

40:58 Now, things may have changed since the time that Jewett wrote in 1978, but he knows of only one book which has traced the history of infant communion that was published back in the 1700s and it's still in Latin and has never been translated into any of the languages which we natively speak. It's incompatible. They tell us that we are departing from the practice of the universal church and yet the universal Catholic church practiced infant communion for some 600 years. They tell us that we're departing from it and then they turn about and depart from it too, just like we do.

41:37 And I'm glad they do.

41:41 But this whole argument from church history is incompatible with their appeal, with their practice of believer communion. Well, the bottom line, I would like to just quote from Jewett. I could give some more things, but I'll stop here. Just quote from Jewett, a couple of passages in which Jewett puts his finger upon this.

42:05 He says, When one takes the measure of paedo-baptist reasoning, then in relation to the incongruity of infant baptism and believer communion, he can only conclude that paedo-baptist reasoning is more willing to live with the problem than able to live with the problem. To solve it.

42:25 And he also makes another statement.

42:28 He says, The argument from the covenant for infant baptism, when managed with adroitness, has about it an aura of plausibility. That's true, it does. Let's give credit where credit is due. But, here's his point.

42:43 The more convincingly it is pressed, the more embarrassed is the defense of believer communion. The more convincingly this argument from the unity, the covenant is pressed for the practice of infant baptism, the more embarrassed becomes the defense of believer communion against which that argument screams with equal force.

The "Achilles Heel" and the "Blessed Inconsistency"

43:14 Now, having said that, with respect to the contradictions now, I wish to come to a word of application.

43:24 Now, what's the point of all this? Yes. Can I just take 30 seconds to buttress that last point? Go ahead.

43:30 When we used to have a group, a group of reformed ministers in this area, meeting, we one day discussed the whole matter of confessor's baptism as opposed to infant baptism. And when I pressed a very theologically sensitive young man, on this very point, he conceded it openly, and he said, that's our Achilles heel. And he said, I am moving in my denomination to press for toddler communion because it's the only consistent way to build up a bulwark against the argument. And he said, I am moving in my denomination to press for toddler communion because it's the only consistent way to build up a bulwark against the argument of some of you more articulate reformed Baptists.

44:05 He admitted it. That was frightening. That's a shame. He'd defend an error and fill the church with a desecration of another sacrament rather than question the foundational premise on which he was moving.

44:18 And that's as current and real as something that happened within a few miles of here. Hmm. Well, the force of this, that men have felt the force of this is unquestionable. In his little pamphlet called A String of Pearls Unstrung, which describes the exodus and trek of Pastor Fred Malone from being an evangelical paedo-Baptist to being a reformed Baptist, the key that unlocked the thing and started Pastor Malone on his trek was this very inconsistency.

44:54 He could not in any way, he could not see the compatibility of this. He knew he was working with contradictory principles, and then he began to reexamine the whole matter. But what frightens me about all of this, and this is the note I want to close on, and I want to take the time to do this because it's important, and I'll try not to go too far. But Professor Mary makes a statement which concerns me, and Jewett makes also a statement which concerns me as well.

45:22 Professor Mary says on page 77, he says, At the outset it should be admitted that if the paedo-Baptists are inconsistent, then the relinquishment of infant baptism is not the only way of resolving the inconsistency. And that's true. It could be resolved by going the other way too, namely admitting infants to the Lord's Supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord's Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism.

45:58 Jewett makes a similar statement on page 206. He must feel like he has his opponent on the ropes, and he says,

46:14 A few courageous paedo-Baptists have repented of their inconsistency and advocated the restoration of infant communion, but they have for the most part cast their seed on stony ground. Well, I don't agree with that sentiment at all. And our purpose ought not to be like a boxer to feel we have our opponents on the ropes and to make a point and to be so concerned with consistency and logic that we forget the great issues that are at stake. The great issue that's at stake, brethren, is the edification and holiness of the church of Christ.

46:51 And blessed inconsistency, blessed inconsistency of Jonathan Edwards that was prepared to stand and fight to have a holy church that consisted of only believers coming to the communion table. And blessed inconsistency of this brother from down south who's recently also taken a stand on this issue. Blessed inconsistency. And there's a young man in one of the Presbyterian denominations, and this comes from the Presbyterian Journal, who's recently been defrocked.

47:23 And the reason that he was defrocked was very simple. He was defrocked because he refused to do two things. It says, a minister who moved here from Ireland, etc., in one of the Presbyterian denominations, after it agreed that he was qualified, has recently been removed from his position and barred from all ministerial functions because he declared he could not in conscience participate in the ordinance of women or admit children who have not made a profession of faith to the Lord's Supper.

47:55 Isn't that what I said? No, I meant ordination. He couldn't participate in the ordination of women or admit children who have not made a profession of faith to the Lord's Supper. And because he did that, he was defrocked and barred from all ministerial functions.

48:11 Well, blessed be that man who is prepared to take a stand, so what if it's inconsistent? The point is not logical consistency. The great end that we ought to have in view is the edification of Christ's Church. And far better to be inconsistent and concerned for the holiness and godliness of Christ's Church than to make logical consistency your God and to be prepared to give up something that's fundamental to church discipline and orderliness and a godly community of the saints.

48:44 You see, for all of us, all of its inconsistency and incompatibility with the practice of infant baptism, this practice of believer-disciple communion is vital to the health of Paedo-Baptist churches. Absolutely vital. Because what they have, you see, they have a church within the church. And that church within the church is the church.

49:08 You see, they always have a Reformed Baptist church inside of a Reformed Paedo-Baptist church. No, that's right. That's right, and that's vital. And if they give that up, what's going to come in is formalism.

49:20 Formalism and degeneracy. And those are the things against which this brother's fighting. And that's what Jonathan Edwards fought against. And now this...

49:29 And we as Baptists, we need to be careful that we don't just walk around strutting and point out their inconsistencies as though we don't give a hoot what happens to their churches, brethren. The point is not to win an argument, but the point is for the health and the well-being of the Church of Jesus Christ. That ought to be our great concern. So if I have any appeal to make to my Paedo-Baptist brethren, it's this.

49:49 Whatever else you do, even if you don't listen to me, don't ever give up believer-disciple communion. Don't ever give that up. Don't ever give it up. Yes, it's incompatible with your practice of infant baptism, but do it anyway.

50:02 Don't ever stop it. Because it's vital to the well-being and the health of the Paedo-Baptist churches. Don't ever stop it. Fight for it.

50:10 Stand for it. Don't ever give it up at any cost. And then secondly, if you want to know how to be consistent, practice disciple baptism too. Well, let's pray.

50:32 Our Father, as we come into Your presence, we bless You for Your grace and Your mercy. Oh, we pray, Lord, for our brethren, as they are beset with the logical difficulty of their system. Oh, God, give them the grace. Give them the courage to stand for edification, for righteousness as they have done historically.

50:54 Give them the grace to continue to stand against the voices that would cry out against them, to drive them to consistency at the price of godliness and discipline and order and unity. Give them the grace, oh God, to stand in righteousness and holiness of truth, to be prepared to maintain discipline, to maintain order and holiness in the Church of Christ. Give us grace, oh God, that we may behave toward our brethren concerned not to win, but concerned for edification and for godliness. And grant that Your name may be honored in the Church of Christ.

51:28 Grant that Jesus Christ may be glorified, that He may be exalted, that the Church may be kept from schism, that it may be kept from sin, that it may be kept from every disorder which would beat or hurt, that we may experience a great revival in our day. We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen.