Q and A

Introduction to the Q&A on Baptism and Paedobaptism

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on December 18th, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey.

0:13 Now, for those of you who are visiting with us, just a word of explanation of what we are doing in our adult class this morning. For a number of weeks, Pastor Nichols, who has been the regular teacher of the class over the past several months, has been leading us in a study of the Word of God with respect to the subject of baptism. And the framework of this study has been one in which, for the first time in the 17 years that I've been a part of this work, from its very inception, we felt the time had come when we needed to open up the Word of God as it comes to bear upon a practice that has been very much...

0:58 a practice of large segments of the Church of Christ for centuries, namely, that of placing water upon little infants, or placing the infants in water, as they do in the Greek Orthodox Church, the whole subject of infant baptism. So, our examination of the subject of baptism has not only been a positive, exegetical, theological study of the subject of baptism, but it has also been polemical. That is, it has been carried on with a view to exposing what we regard to be the unfounded basis, or so-called basis, for the practice of infant baptism. Now, if you are here as a Presbyterian, or one who is identified with a church that practices infant baptism, let me assure you that we have not unchristianized those who practice infant baptism. We have not sought to poke fun. We have not sought to exaggerate or misstate the position of those who practice it, so you need not feel psychologically defensive this morning. In fact, I have never heard the subject dealt with in a more gracious way.

2:14 I have often been on the other end of things, where I have been very ungraciously dealt with by my Paedo-Baptist friends, just as recently as a week ago. I had an elder in a Paedo-Baptist church come up to me with a very knowing, look on his face, and I have had this done to me many, many times in many parts of the world, and said, well, you know, it is amazing. You can be so right on so much, and wrong on the covenant, and on baptism. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

2:40 And God has always given me grace just to smile and say nothing, just to nod and walk away. So, I am not unaware of what can be done to the human spirit when a position one holds is dealt with in an accommodating, condescending, unchristian way, and I do believe that God has kept Pastor Nichols from that spirit, and has kept us as a people. So, I say that to set at rest the minds of any Paedo-Baptist friends who may be with us, but nonetheless, either the Bible does teach that we ought to put water upon, or put infants in water, or it does not teach it. And so, the ultimate question is not my feelings or yours, but what sayeth the scriptures.

3:25 And Pastor Nichols has been leading us in a study, in which we examined every passage in the New Testament, for it's only in the New Testament that you find any explicit references to baptism. Looked at every passage in which it is said certain ones were baptized, and we considered the subjects of baptism, the significance of baptism, baptism in relationship to the sacraments, baptism in relationship to circumcision, and then there is yet one section to be covered, baptism in relationship to the biblical doctrine, and then there is yet one section of the covenants. Now, all along the way, periodically, Pastor Nichols has promised you opportunity for questions and answers. And alas, as he's gotten into his material, the clock has taken wings, and the time has flown away, and there has been very little opportunity for questions and answers. And so, as I said Wednesday night, he's left all his dirty work to me. He's gone off today at the direction and encouragement of his elders, as well as the invitation of the newly formed church in St. Louis to be present on the occasion of the ordination of Mark Sarver, one of the young men who graduated from the academy.

4:39 And so that explains Pastor Nichols' absence from us today, and why I am here to hopefully answer questions that have arisen in your minds in the course of the study on baptism. So we want to give precedence and priority to questions arising out of all of the weeks of material that Pastor Nichols has covered with us. And then if there are no questions in that area, or if those questions are answered and time is yet left to us, then we'll have what we generally call our open forum for questions on any matters pertaining to biblical thought and practice and the Christian life, any of the other ministries that perhaps you have been subjected to in the past weeks and months. Well, let's again seek the face of God and ask his help in our study of the word, and then also pray for special blessing to rest upon Pastor Nichols out in St. Louis today. Let us together seek the face of God.

Prayer for Illumination and Blessing

5:45 Our Father, we are grateful that we have your holy word, this book given to us to be a lamp unto our feet and a light to our pathway. And we thank you, not for the gift of this infallible book, but for the gift of the Holy Spirit given to us in order that we might understand your word. And we pray that he may be present today directing our thought, guiding the questions that are raised and the answers given, that we may have our minds illuminated by the pure light of Holy Scripture. We ask, O Lord, that every thought that is contrary to your word may be purged from our minds and that every thought of ours may be brought captive to the obedience of Christ. And then we do remember your servant, our dear brother and pastor, and pray that you would be with him today. We thank you for this joyous opportunity that he has to see his own brother and one-time fellow student, Mark, set apart for the oversight of the congregation that has come to birth under his labors. Oh, give these brethren great joy in each other's fellowship, great mutual encouragement, and above all we ask that Christ himself

7:11 will be exalted in that new congregation there in St. Louis, Missouri. Hear our prayer and be with us, we plead, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Refuting Paedobaptist Interpretation of Abraham's Seed in Romans 4

7:28 Am I right in assuming that some of you have been disappointed that you've had no opportunity to ask questions as the material has been opened up? If so, now is your opportunity to ask them. I have my notes of the lectures before me, so if necessary I can refer to these where necessary. All right, questions on any of the material that we've covered thus far on the subject of infant baptism?

7:59 All right, yes, Steve? Yes. Could it be right to consider the Paedo-Baptist position in the argument to be their seed? Would it be right to say that that's incorrect and we should correct it to it's Abraham and his seed?

8:26 Yeah, all right, very good point, yes. Open up a little more fully, I think I'm following where you're coming from, but the assertion that our Paedo-Baptist friends do make, Steve, all right? All right, the promise which lay at the foundation of the practice of circumcision. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed, Genesis 17.

8:53 All right, our Paedo-Baptist friends say, okay, that the fulfillment of that now is to believers and to their seed, and your question or assertion or observation is absolutely, absolutely, that the promise is to Abraham and to his seed, not, not after the flesh, but as Paul makes very plain in the Romans 4 passage, all who are believers, whether they are the literal seed of Abraham, circumcised, or not the literal seed, uncircumcised. Let's go to that Romans 4 passage, and perhaps I can amplify a little bit more what some of you may have wondered, well, what's the point? Because you've not read deeply into Paedo-Baptist literature and polemics, perhaps you didn't catch this, but one of the passages that our Paedo-Baptist friends use again and again, in fact, generally, they will make a straight line between Genesis 17, the record of the institution of circumcision in the case of Abraham, they'll make a direct line to Romans chapter 4, saying, this is what circumcision signifies generically, not specifically to Abraham,

10:16 but generically, and then they go a straight line to Colossians chapter 2, verses 11 and 12, the passage that Pastor Nichols will be opening up, God willing, next week, and show that because there is a linguistic affinity between circumcision and baptism, and that's all there is in Colossians 2, they immediately make this great theological and sacramental affinity and say that circumcision is replaced by baptism. Well, Colossians 2 no more teaches that than it teaches that I'm a goonie bird and that you're a Boeing 747. I mean, literally, literally, the passage no more teaches that than it teaches any other ridiculous thing, as we'll see. But it's a forced exegesis that ties together Genesis 17, direct line, Romans 4, with Colossians 2. Now, the point that Steve is making is a vital one. Pastor Nichols demonstrated last week that according to the language, verse 10, back up to verse 9, in this chapter he's showing that justification by faith alone has always been the divine will, the method of justification. And he takes Abraham before the giving of the law, David after the giving of the law, and demonstrates that they were both justified the same way, that is, by grace through faith.

11:41 All right? Verse 9, Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision or upon the uncircumcision also? Is this blessing only for Jews or for those who are non-Jews? For we say to Abraham, his faith was reckoned for righteousness.

11:59 Now, he's going to answer that question. Does this blessing come only to the literal seed, the circumcision, or does it come to those who are not the literal seed but the spiritual seed, that is, uncircumcised but elect Gentiles? And he's going to demonstrate from Abraham's own experience what the answer is. How, then, was it reckoned, that is, to Abraham, when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision?

12:30 When did God say Abraham's faith was reckoned to him for righteousness? After Genesis 17 or before Genesis 17? He said it before, in Genesis chapter 15. Abraham had not been circumcised.

12:45 He believed God. It was reckoned to him for righteousness. So before the man Abraham had circumcision, God reckoned righteousness. So at one point, Abraham was in principle what?

12:59 A Jew or a Gentile, according to the circumcision? What was he? He was a typical Gentile, uncircumcised. Now, notice, how, then, was it reckoned when he was in circumcision or uncircumcision?

13:14 Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Now, notice, and he, Abraham, received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision. To Abraham, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith, of the righteousness of faith which he had while he was, in principle, like a Gentile. Now, why did God so arrange that?

13:49 Why didn't God have him circumcised in Genesis 12, have it reckoned to him for righteousness? Genesis 15, and then Genesis 17, something else. Why did God sovereignly arrange Abraham's personal history in relationship to uncircumcision and circumcision? The verse tells us.

14:09 All of this happened, and that's what Pastor Nichols meant when he said last week, then you have a hena, that's a clause of purpose in the Greek, in order that he, not all believers, and their seed, but that he, Abraham, might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them, and the father of circumcision to those who are not of the circumcision only. In other words, there is no spiritual progeny, simply according to fleshly bloodlines, but who walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision. So you see his point? Abraham can be called father of all the believing seed, Jew and Gentile, because he had righteousness when he was, in principle, like a Gentile, uncircumcised. He had righteousness, while, like a Jew, he had circumcision, so he can be the father of all those who have his faith unto righteousness, because he has, as it were, the marks of that spiritual father.

15:36 Uncircumcised, circumcised, but a believer. And so the passage does not teach at all that that promise to Abraham in Genesis 17 means that all believers and their literal seed are heirs of the promise of spirit, a spiritual blessing. It is contrary to the Holy Spirit's interpretation of Genesis 17 to put any such construction upon the passage. And then if you turn over to Galatians chapter 3, you find exactly the same point, and we're still now with Mr. Cowden's question, or point that he's making, a vital point. Yes, Galatians chapter 3, and perhaps we can back up to verse 6. Genesis 17 says, And when this Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness, that's quoting from Genesis 15, know therefore that they that are of faith the same are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham,

16:55 saying, in thee shall all the nations be blessed. They that are of faith, not they that are the seed of those who have faith. There's no, God has no grandchildren. God has no grandchildren, only children.

17:14 No grandchildren, only children. Don't forget that. So Abraham is, they that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, for as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, everyone who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Now that no man's justified by the law before God, it is evident for the righteous shall live by faith.

17:41 The law is not of faith. He that doeth them shall live in them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree, now notice, that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham, where? In Christ Jesus, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

18:11 So the blessing of Abraham is found only in Christ and men are only in Christ by the operation of the Spirit in conjunction with faith. And you dare not take the concept of Abraham's seed in terms of spiritual blessing, and ever put it outside of the context of faith, the gift of the Spirit based upon the appropriation of the work of Christ upon the cross, because that is the circle within which God the Holy Ghost has interpreted the Abrahamic covenant. And now we can go on to the end of the chapter, notice verse 26, for you are all sons of God, how? Through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ, there can be neither Jew nor Greek, bloodlines don't matter, good ones or bad ones, there can be neither bond nor free, social status does not matter, there can be no male or female, sexual differences don't matter, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Now notice, and if you are Christ's, then are you, Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. No one is an heir of that promise in Genesis 17

19:40 as it pertains to spiritual blessings, who is not in Christ, and no one is in Christ except by faith, not by bloodlines. And so these two passages, Romans 4 and Galatians 3, should forever settle the issue. If there were not, as far as I'm concerned, a tremendous prejudice of one kind or another influencing a person's handling of the Word of God. Because these passages explicitly deal with the Abrahamic covenant, and the promises made to Abraham, and rather than suggest that they mean that the promise of spiritual blessings is to believers and their literal seed, it teaches just the opposite.

20:24 That literal bloodlines have nothing to do with whether or not we are the recipients of the spiritual promises made unto Abraham. All right? Jeff, you had a question? No, all right.

Reinforcing the Spiritual Seed in Galatians 3

20:37 Steve, have we addressed ourselves to the area that you were concerned to open up in? Yes, absolutely. Exactly, exactly. You see, our people Baptist friends say, well, in the administration of grace, which the theologians call the covenant of grace, it's a theological term and a good one, that God's way and method of operating is believers and their seed.

21:18 Abraham, the father of believers and his seed, and now believers in the New Testament and their seed, well, they're making an equation that they have no grounds to make. No, God says that it is Abraham, yes, and his spiritual seed to whom the promises are made, and that one seed ultimately is Christ and all who are in him. And that's why in the book of Galatians as well, Paul says, to whom was the promise made? To Abraham and to his seed.

21:45 Seeds, plural, or to his seed, singular, and goes on to say that spiritually understood, that promise is to his seed who is Christ and only those then who are in Christ by the living bond of faith. So you have these clear passages, and this is why perhaps some of you scratch your head and say, well, Pastor Martin, I can't see why you and Pastor Nichols get so excited about these things, it seems so plain to me. Well, if you had read the hundreds of pages that he's read and I've read, seeking to support this, and had interacted with good and godly men, who we're not worthy to unloose their shoes in many areas, you'd sense something of the frustration and say, why in the world can't they see the issue? It's so plain in the pivotal passages. All right, yes, Johnny? Yes, yeah, this is why often the Acts 2.39 passage is brought in, one of the early ones that Pastor Nichols dealt with.

Critiquing Paedobaptist Use of Acts 2:39

22:49 If you will look at almost any proof text given for the practice of infant baptism, you will find it given like this, Acts 2.39, and these words will be quoted. For to you is the promise, and to your children, the word children will be written out, there's the N, and then you usually find dot, dot, dot, dot, end of quote. Now, that's not caricature, and if there's a paedobaptist friend here sitting this morning, oh, you're caricaturing our position, all I ask you to do is take out your own literature and look at it.

23:23 I've seen it. Dozens of times. The promise is to you and to your children, dot, dot, dot, end of quote. You and your children.

23:32 Because there is a verbal, a verbal affinity between promise made to adults and children, people say, aha, there it is, there's the principle of infant baptism. But as Pastor Nichols brought out so clearly, first of all, to whom were these words spoken? They were spoken not to believers. They were spoken to unbelieving Jews who a few days earlier had crucified Jesus.

23:58 All right? He had said, you have taken him, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain him, but God raised him up. Verse 37, when they, these killers of Christ, heard this, they were pricked in their heart and said, brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, repent and be baptized.

24:17 Every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, under the remission of your sins, you shall receive the gift of the Spirit, you shall receive the gift of the Spirit, the promise is to you. All right? Who is the you? Unbelieving Jews.

24:28 And the promise is what? The promise is that if they will repent and believe implicit and demonstrate that in baptism, they will receive the gift of the Spirit. There is regeneration unto faith, and then there is the gift of the Spirit to faith, and with remission of sins, they shall receive the gift of the Spirit. And he says, to you is this promise, but not only to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off.

24:59 Here's the qualifying phrase, as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him. So if the words, to you and to your children is the promise, form the basis of baptizing the children of those who embrace the promise, then we ought to baptize those that are afar off as well. But no, we're to baptize only those who are called. And how do we know that they are called?

25:27 When they declare themselves penitent believers, prepared to be identified with Christ in his appointed way, and that's exactly how they understood it, for verse 40 says, with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, save yourselves from this crooked generation. Then they that received his word were baptized, and they didn't bring their little kids to get baptized with him. People say, you don't argue from silence. Well, wait a minute.

25:57 You do argue from silence. This describes who was baptized, and they are limited by this phrase, they received the word. No others were baptized. Crows, nightingales, reptiles, snakes, and dogs were not baptized that day.

26:16 You say, don't argue from silence. Well, can't I argue when it says they that received his word were baptized, that snakes and snails and canaries who have no ability to receive the word were not baptized? Isn't it right for me to assume they didn't baptize any snakes and squirrels and toads on that day? Why?

26:34 They have no capacity to receive the word, neither do infants. So when it says they that received the word were baptized, it was only such as who received the word were baptized. And the subsequent history demonstrates it. In that day there were added unto them about 3,000 souls, and they, the ones who were baptized, continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching.

26:56 Now, I don't mean to be unkind. Can you imagine these little toddlers, eight months old, precocious little children, continuing steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in the prayers? But this passage says all who were baptized continued in all those things. I can put my bifocals on backwards, and I still see that that's what the passage says.

27:24 So if infant baptism is taught, this is an awfully poor text on which to rest the practice, and yet it's one of their pillar texts. Yes, Pastor Clark. To sustain the argument, we really would need to add something to verse 39. Even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him and their children.

27:44 Exactly. That's it. That's right. And if we had that phrase, but you see, it's reading in.

27:53 It's finding, it's having a desperate longing to find some justification for a cause that's already been, you're already committed to. And where you find any language, it sort of looks, it's like the Jehovah's Witness, you see. He's committed to the premise, Jesus Christ is not God. He looks at his Bible, and he says, aha, the Father's greater than I.

28:13 See it? Now, isn't that what Jesus said? Did Jesus say the Father's greater than I? Yes or no?

28:18 Did he? See, he's not God then. Now, you see the point I'm making? I am not saying that my paedobaptist friends are to be put in the category of a Jehovah's Witness.

28:29 Don't anyone say that? I'm not inferring that. I'm not asserting that. What I am saying is, like the person who is committed to a principle or to a perspective that is unbiblical, yet wants to claim to find his tenet of belief in the Bible, he looks through the Bible for what I call just some kind of verbal proximity between his tenet and the language of the Bible.

28:56 The Father's greater than I? I can mean only one thing. Jesus is less than the Father as to his so-called deity. He is not equal to the Father.

29:05 There is no such thing as the doctrine of the Trinity. Well, I'm afraid my dear paedobaptist friends do this because the cause is so weak in terms of real exegesis, whenever there's something that seems to have a semblance of support, they latch onto it. But looking at their pillar text, such as the Romans 4 text, such as you'll see, God willing, next week, the Colossians 2 text, such as the Acts 2.39 text, they simply will not stand up under the scrutiny of just a very cursory contextual linguistic examination of what God the Holy Ghost has said.

29:46 Okay? Further questions? Can we lay that one to rest, Steve? Yes, okay.

Further Context for Acts 2:39 and the Paedobaptist Hermeneutic

29:53 All right. Yes, Santali?

29:58 That they have not exempted themselves from the promise of forgiveness. It's a very good point. Excellent point. Yeah.

30:14 Very good point. Remember at the crucifixion, they said, his blood be upon us and our children, that perhaps having just charged them with the death of Christ, some of them might assume, well, look, we have imprecated our unborn children for generations to come. Implicated then by our taking upon us and our children the blood. Perhaps Peter, as a wise preacher, was encouraging them, look, what you said in your unbelief will not cut your children off from the offer of mercy.

30:42 So the promise is not only to you who killed the Son of God, but even to your children upon whose head you've brought his blood by your own vow and by your own, what's the word we use when someone, what's the proper word for that, Pastor Clark? When we implicate someone else. Like they did. His blood be upon us and our children.

31:02 Killed by apostiation. Oh, yeah. Maybe. There's a word somewhere in the subterranean depths of my cranium here, but it won't come up.

31:10 And I shouldn't make you liable to draw it up. That's not your response. But be that as it may, I think we all see the point that's made. And I had never thought of that.

The 'Church Within a Church' and Covenant Confusion

31:17 I think that is, could well be, that as Peter's applying, he realizes that and brings that special word of application. All right? Yes, Pete? Last week, Pastor Nichols read from the statements of Dutch Calvinism.

31:34 And am I correct in understanding that the Dutch Calvinists and those who hold the pale Baptist position confuse the two covenants and following Israel's church? That's the way it sounds to me. Well, yes, some make, again, the point that Pastor Nichols was making, and again, and I'm sure some of this sort of sailed over some of our heads, and not because he was not clear, but simply because we've not wrestled and our minds have not been conditioned to think in that way. There are two extremes with regard to the relationship between the nation of Israel, all right, and the church. One is the error of an extreme dispensationalism or dispensationalism in any of its forms, and by their own admission in a book such as Dispensationalism Today by Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary, he defines a dispensationalist in this way, as one who sees that these two things never meet. Israel operates down here as the earthly people of God, and then here is the heavenly people of God, the church,

32:52 and the twain never meet, there is no organic relationship between them at any point in redemptive history. Now, on the other end of the spectrum, dispensationalism are those who simply go like this and say that the church is nothing basically but Old Testament Israel with some adjustments made in the light of the cross in terms of the ceremonial law, the civil law, etc., but basically Israel is the church, the church is Israel. They flatten out the relationship.

33:22 Dispensationalism fits a big wall between them, this breaks down every wall and identifies them, whereas the teaching of the word of God is that the people of God, who now constitute the one people of God, are found in every age of redemptive history. We don't have two peoples of God, there is one general assembly and church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and in ancient Israel there was an Israel within Israel. Romans, alright, they are not all Israel who are of Israel. And out of this true Israel, the remnant, comes the church in its New Testament full-blown form, so that there is an organic connection, but there is some radical change in the administration of God's gracious dealings with his elect of all ages. And so some of the Dutch Calvinists in particular, and some of our Puritan forefathers, they made too much of an equation. They came, some of them, to these shores to institute really what would virtually have been a Palestinian America.

34:40 To institute a new Israel, a theocracy, a community in which you would have basically here on these shores what you had in the days of Solomon and David in Palestine, because they did not see, as we believe the scriptures teach, that there is this new Israel. A dynamic, this change in the dynamic of the history of redemption, so we must neither put a big brick wall between the two, nor must we flatten them out and just put an equal sign. And this is basically, you see, what happens, you have in paedobaptist practice, you have a church within the church. The infants who are baptized, and here is where paedobaptists differ. The rubric in the Our Own Hymn book says, because they are members of the church by being born of Christian parents, they ought to be baptized. Their membership is the basis of their baptism. Now, I didn't bring that up. That's in the rubric. Let's look at it.

35:45 So, some of you think that, say, how can that be? Well, let's see it with our own eyeballs. Okay. Page 667. Here are the forms for public profession of faith.

36:04 Now, if this were an Orthodox Presbyterian church, and we were using the forms prescribed by the denomination, this is how we would do it. Notice the paragraph in italics, second paragraph down, okay? Before the baptism of an infant, the minister shall require that the parents acknowledge the duty of believers to present their children for holy baptism, and that they assume publicly their responsibility for the Christian nurture of their children, notice it doesn't say for the conversion of their children, but the Christian nurture of their children, proposing the following or similar questions. One, do you acknowledge that although our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are holy in Christ, now notice, and as members of his church, ought to be baptized, so their baptism rests upon the fact of their baptism. When did they get their previous membership in the church? Well, when did they get members?

37:14 In the delivery room at the hospital. That's right! In the delivery room at the hospital. Because they were born of that Christian woman, member of the church, why now at two months are they brought to the front of the church?

37:33 Because they're already members of the church. The little baby's already in the church, now ought to be baptized. But, he is called the non-communicate member. within the church, made up of those who have come to years of discretion, have made a personal profession of their own personal faith, have personally ratified the covenant, and they are now communicant members. What you really have is a church within a church. Communicant and non-communicant members. That's why Pastor Nichols made that moving appeal, though it's terribly inconsistent. He said to his pedobaptist friends who might be listening to the tapes, please, please continue to insist that no one become a communicant member and therefore a voting member eligible for office unless they get positive evidences of conversion. Though it is terribly inconsistent with the theology, it at least keeps the viable possibility of a pure church where there is discipline, where there is a standard of holiness. But

38:36 you see, the New Testament knows nothing of a church within a church. Every description of the church in the New Testament knows nothing of a church within a church. Every description of the church in the New Testament knows nothing of a church within a church. The New Testament, and I've challenged my pedobaptist friends to do this. When Paul writes to the churches, how does he describe them? To the saints that are in Christ Jesus at Corinth, at Rome, in Thessalonica. He knows of no two levels of those who are federally and covenantally in Christ, but not vitally, pneumatically, experimentally, savingly in Christ. That bifurcation is total.

39:11 Totally unfounded in New Testament exegesis. You did have Israel within Israel in the Old Testament, and you had it by divine appointment. God was determined to have a nation called the nation of Israel. That's why he didn't let them have a choice as to whether they'd be circumcised. They were so hard-hearted that if they had a choice, most of them would have told the rabbi, don't come near me with that flint. I'll punch you in the mouth. That's right. God was so determined that he made the decision they'd become Israelites before they had any choice in the matter.

39:41 So he did have a nation, but by and large, that nation was uncircumcised in heart. But there was an elect remnant according to the election of grace. There was an Israel within Israel. This arrangement, where you had two circles of Israel, was not because someone introduced a silly notion that babies ought to be, male babies ought to be circumcised and called Israelites. No. It was by explicit divine mandate. In fact, God says, every male that is not circumcised shall be cut off from the nation. So you had this two-level thing by divine arrangement, but you don't have that in the New Testament. In fact, the forerunner of this, John the Baptist, basically excommunicated the whole nation. And when the Pharisees came out, what did he say to them? Don't think to say within

40:30 yourself, we be Abraham, see? We have the covenant sign in our flesh. Uh-uh. In this new community, Messiah is forming. Only one thing tells us. Fruits meet for repentance.

40:41 And he becomes the forerunner of the constitution of a church that doesn't have two levels, only those in Christ. And whenever they manifest that they're not in Christ, they're rebuked, reproved. If they don't repent, what does 1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 18 say? Cast them out. Because this community must be a community of those who manifest vital union with Jesus Christ. And as we saw when we looked at every passage, where the significance of baptism is opened up, what is its significance? That those who are baptized actually possess the blessings of redemption in Christ Jesus. Not hopefully they will one day possess them. See, that's the pedobaptist view. The evangelical pedobaptist

41:30 view. Lutheran says when they get baptism, they get the blessings. Sins are washed away. Some of our Calvinistic Dutch friends as well as Presbyterians say, well, we presume they are regenerate.

41:43 But our evangelical pedobaptist friends say, no, they're signed with the sign of the covenant, with the hopes and prayer that eventually they will be in Christ, vitally, personally, by their own faith. Well, the Bible knows nothing of a baptism that is a pledge of something you hope and pray will yet happen. It is always a pledge of something that's already happened. That's why Paul can appeal to people to say, don't you know the significance of your baptism?

42:13 You have what your baptism means. You have what your baptism means. You have what your baptism signifies. Now live in the light of it. Whereas in the Old Testament, God can say you have circumcision of the flesh, but get inwardly what you have outwardly. Nowhere in the New Testament do you find such an exhortation. Get inwardly what you have outwardly. It says you have what you've declared. Now live in the light of it. See the difference in the exhortation? Romans 6. What? Don't you know? As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. He doesn't say, don't you know you were baptized, now put on Christ. He doesn't say that. That's what the paedobaptist has to say to his children. You'll find in paedobaptist literature some of the passionate preachers who are preaching to their unconverted covenant children saying, look, you were signed and you were sealed with the covenant sign. Now improve your baptism. Lay hold of the realities that you had in sign. Now have them inwardly in your experience. Well, they have to make up their language for exhortation.

43:12 They can't find that in the Bible. They can't read that. They can't read the Bible. They can't read the Bible. Are they asking for the same pelagic verse or the same theology?

43:19 Am I making sense? You see the difference between those two? Okay. Well, we've got just 6 minutes left. All right. Yes, Doddy? Well, that is a problem.

Infant Baptism and the Doctrine of Election

43:38 And that's a problem that many of their theologians wrestle with. Doddy's question was, how do they get this to come in with the doctrine of election? If election is the free, unfettered, sovereign, gracious choice of God of certain sinners unto life and salvation, how do we parallel that with what does matter to the people today as they believe that God has been chosen? Because if God has been chosen, right, so we have to come in with the doctrine, teaching with the notion that I can presume my children are elect simply because they're my children and it would be simplistic to say that an inaccurate to say that there's one answer to that question and it's one of the embarrassing questions that a Peter Baptist who holds to the doctrine of election as we understand the Bible to teach it it's one of the embarrassments of his position and I don't find many of them answering the question the same way as you can see and that's why I said that one of the things that I believe presses people to the doctrine of infant baptism is the emotional desire on the part of a Christian parent to want to believe that with regard to his offspring God's election is prejudiced I want to believe that every Christian parent wants to believe rather than to embrace what Scripture says God's election is not prejudiced by bloodlines and he made that so plain at the beginning that, if you don't believe that you'll be hanged for many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, million years.

45:01 of his covenantal administrations oh that ishmael might live before thee no no no in isaac shall i see be called then the next covenant head or the next head of the patriarchs of the covenant line who is it isaac the children not yet born twins in a womb jacob of i love he saw him two covenant children one elect one non-elect can it be made more plain i mean how does how how much more does god have to say to get through our thick skulls so that is a real problem daddy and there is no simple answer to it because they wrestle with it and try to come up with answers in different ways and i again you see from a pastoral standpoint i'd hate to i'd hate to be in their position and have someone in my congregation ask the question you just asked pastor how do you recognize reconcile all that we teach about the doctrine of election with the notion that because they're our seed we can believe that god has entered into a

46:02 inks i think chick i think so i join to that their is a р معерж

46:47 case in the text of psalms i have a question in the back and the devil and the giving up of oneself to Christ, the definition in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Excellent definition on baptism. To be unto the part he baptized, the sign and the seal of his engrafting into Christ, of his forgiveness of sins, of his giving up of himself to walk in newness of life. Well, as Cunningham says, he says, that definition applies only in the case of adults.

47:17 And it's a different thing when applied to infants. And you see that they have to have two different sets of directions for the administration of baptism because it does not signify the same thing to them. All right? Now, time for one more question.

Circumcision in the New Testament

47:33 Yes, Jim? Where does this leave circumcision as a religious ceremony? According to the New Testament, that's a matter of indifference. Now, it's not a matter of indifference if a person views circumcision as attaching him to the whole Old Testament law.

47:55 That's the argument of Galatians. Paul says, if you are circumcised with a view to giving yourself over to the Mosaic system, with a view to attaining life, Christ will profit you nothing. See? But then he says in another place, are you circumcised?

48:14 Don't seek to be uncircumcised. Are you uncircumcised? Don't seek circumcision. It's a matter of indifference.

48:19 In Christ, uncircumcision, circumcision, doesn't mean anything. So that it all depends what the intention is. And if, for some reason, someone's circumcision meant handing oneself over to Jewish ritual and ceremony, even with a view that therein one might anticipate Christ, that's a negation of the whole book of Hebrews. Christ has come.

48:41 The middle wall has been broken down. The veil in the temple has been rent. So there's no way, and this is one of the problems in the so-called messianic movement in evangelizing Jews, the whole idea that people can maintain the whole baggage of the old covenant while having, the light of New Testament revelation and just call all that cultural. Well, a lot of it is not simply cultural.

49:04 It pointed forward to Christ and now that Christ has come to maintain the institution is to despise Christ. The reality has come. But simply as a matter of hygiene or as a matter of culture or, as in the case with Timothy, as a matter of expediency to take away offense in ministering in certain situations, circumcision, no problem. But when those people were prepared to say that it was necessary for salvation, with Titus, Paul said we gave place to them not for a moment, we refused to let Titus be circumcised, lest we should relinquish the truth of the gospel.

49:42 He said for me to have taken Titus to the local rabbi would have been a denial of the gospel. Because there they were saying unless Titus is circumcised, he can't be a true Christian. With regard to Timothy, nobody was looking over their back saying Timothy must be. Paul was saying, now Timothy, we're going to go out and evangelize.

50:00 We'll be in the presence of a lot of Jews. One of the first questions they'll ask is, are you circumcised? Rather than cause offense, let's go down to the local rabbi, take care of this matter, and then it won't be an offense. So that, in a nutshell, is sort of a summary of the New Testament doctrine of circumcision as a religious practice, as a matter of expediency, and then, of course, as a matter of culture or a matter of hygiene and the rest.

50:24 Those are matters of indifference. Well, our time is gone. Is this a quick question, John? All right.

The Danger of Presuming Salvation: Paedobaptism and Easy-Believism

50:31 I just want to say, the danger which expresses itself in the evangelical theological experience,

50:38 parental desire to see our children saved, therefore, be baptized in the hope of these original promises. The same danger of the parents, I haven't seen it in this church, but we need to remember it's baptized. In the past hundred years, we've had a poor track record of easy believers baptized in the midst of young children just to know you say, if you want to go to hell, they say no. If you're going to believe in Jesus, then they're baptized and they have the same promise.

51:05 Exactly. They believe in an unneccessary baptized individual who's become a leader in the church and has the same promise. We've all been able to hear the point that Mr. Roberts has made, that the desire to want to feel our kids are safe is just as much in us as it is in our pedobaptist friends.

51:22 And in Baptist circles, the way it's manifested itself is in precipitating decisions from kids and when they've made, they've made the decision, get them baptized and then parents can breathe easy and say, well, they're in. Now they're in. They may live like the devil, but they're discarnate Christians, they're in. And if they die in that state, we can still have comfort.

51:42 They made their profession, they're trusting in Jesus, they're in. But then if they live long enough, it's the point that Mr. Roberts made, they're members in good standing of the church, that they're respectable, they're nominal Christians, they have enough knowledge to appear reasonably nice people, but then they, they're not. They become unspiritual and many of them unconverted church leaders and then our churches are corrupted just as much as pedobaptist churches are corrupted by means of their false view of the two levels of the church.

52:13 Well, we've got more questions. Fire away at the man who raised them next week. I hope that this has been helpful as we continue to wrestle with these matters before the Lord. Let's pray together.

Closing Prayer

52:28 Our Father, we thank you for your holy word. And as we prayed at the outset of this hour that we might understand it, that we might be gracious in our handling of it, we would plead again. If there has been anything in our words, our thoughts, the disposition of our hearts, contrary to truth or to grace, cleanse us from the blood of your Son. We would be bold to pray for some of our dear friends who hold to what we regard to be so evidently in our hearts an erroneous position on this matter.

53:05 We pray that you would, in your own gracious way, lead them to the knowledge of the truth, that their churches might reflect a biblical doctrine of New Testament church membership. We pray, Lord, that the ordinance of baptism may be restored to its apostolic purity, because we believe that you have instituted it for your glory and for the good of your church. Here, then, I am blessed with words that we have studied together. We ask you, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

53:40 Amen.