Overview of Infant Baptism Series, Part 2

Introduction to Sacraments and Series Overview

0:00 Come in the outline here in the second part of the lecture to Unit 3, the sacraments.

0:13 Before we begin this second hour, two things I ought to tell you that were mentioned to me over the break. First of all, Pastor Chantry's paper is not currently available. However, good news. That paper, the Lord willing, is being put into booklet form and should be available, hopefully, in a couple of months from Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle.

0:41 Second thing is if anyone has any questions about receiving the tapes, which would be the full expression of these things and full exposition, it is not necessary to buy the whole series of tapes. Perhaps you'll notice here that Unit 3, the sacraments, encompasses lectures 16 to 21 and 23. Suppose that...

1:03 Suppose, for example, that you only wanted that section. Well, then you would order from Roger Philbrook 16 to 21 and 23. Okay? So those were two things that I thought I should mention before we begin.

1:18 All right. Now, with respect to the sacraments, I've broken this up into three fundamental issues around which discussion always seems to revolve. And sooner or later, we're back to one of these three things on the subject. So I've tried to organize it around these three things.

1:35 Infant baptism and the concept of a sacrament. Infant baptism and the observance of the Lord's Supper, namely believer-only communion. And infant baptism and the Old Testament practice of circumcision. Now, those really, with regard to the whole doctrine of the sacraments, are the three focal points of discussion.

2:01 So I have three major points. So I've attempted to break it down to those three things. All right. Now, we'll take them one at a time.

Critique of Infant Baptism and the Concept of a Sacrament

2:08 With respect to the concept of a sacrament, we have to look at the definition of a sacrament. What is it? Secondly, the efficacy of a sacrament. And thirdly, on page five, the validity of a sacrament.

2:24 Those are the three issues. What is a sacrament? How and why is a sacrament effective? And how do you know if a sacrament is valid?

2:35 Now, again, infant baptism. It has to be related to the Reformed doctrine on those three things. Now, the biblical, Reformed, and Paedo-Baptist doctrine on the bottom of page four of the definition of a sacrament, and this is taken from a combination of Hodge, Birkhoff, and the Westminster Confession.

2:58 The origin of the sacrament is that it's instituted by Jesus Christ personally and perpetually until he comes again. Secondly, it symbolizes salvation accomplished, and applied, and it always includes a declaration by believers. Now, I'm saying this comes from Hodge, Birkhoff, and the Westminster Confession. This is not from Strong or Dagg.

3:22 Thirdly, the objects of the sacraments are to confirm and strengthen those who believe in Christ. That's what they're all about.

3:33 Now, that's the Reformed definition. Now, I submit to you that the practice of infant sprinkling or baptism is incompatible with the Reformed doctrine. It's incompatible with the Reformed and Presbyterian definition of the sacrament. There's no record of its institution by Jesus Christ personally, like the Lord's Supper and disciple baptism.

3:53 It's incompatible with symbolizing the application of salvation and the declaration of believers. And it's incompatible with the purpose and objects of the sacrament to confirm and strengthen the faith of those who receive them unconditionally. So, there's a tension between sprinkling infants and defining a sacrament the way they do and then saying that infant sprinkling is indeed a sacrament. Secondly, the biblical and Reformed and Paedo-Baptist doctrine and the effectiveness of the sacraments has to be related to infant baptism.

4:38 And this comes from Hodge in his systematic theology.

4:44 What does it mean that the sacraments are effective? It means that the sacraments are a real means of grace to those who receive them. That's the effectiveness of the sacrament. The sacraments are a real means of grace to those who receive them.

5:07 In other words, it should be a real means of grace to the infant. The source of their efficacy is the Holy Spirit, and the ones who receive their effectiveness are those only who believe. Great. Now, I submit to you that infant baptism is incompatible with this perspective on the efficacy of the sacraments.

5:34 And the Paedo-Baptists face what, to me, is clearly an insoluble dilemma. Is it efficacious without faith, or is there no efficacy to infant sprinkling? And again, here, Cunningham articulates the problem that they face. Very well.

5:54 When he admits, in essence, that they do not know what infant sprinkling does. He says, with believer baptism, disciple baptism, it's clear how it strengthens the faith of the one who receives it. But with respect to infant sprinkling, how it's effective is a mystery. Indeed, it is.

6:19 And either it's efficacious without faith, or it's not efficacious at all. And then they have an attempt to solve this dilemma in their thoroughness. And that's found in the Westminster Confession. And that's the concept of delayed action.

6:36 The concept of delayed action. In other words, when and if the infant comes to believe, then this event, of which the infant was not conscious, supposedly becomes effective in his own life years later, if and when he comes to faith in Christ. How that happens is a mystery. A mystery.

7:03 But apparently, it does. That's the effort that they make to solve it. And you can see that explicitly in the Westminster Confession. Then thirdly, the validity of the sacrament.

7:15 Again, this is taken from Hodge. And Hodge says, and this is a quote, a valid sacrament involves, quote, a profession of faith on the part of the administrator and the recipient, end quote. Now with that, we heartily agree. And I say that infant baptism is incompatible with that perspective and definition of Hodge.

7:43 It is not a valid sacrament because there is no profession of faith by the recipient, the infant. Not that the recipient of infant baptism is not the parents, and it's not the sponsor, it's the infant. And there is no profession of faith, therefore it is not a valid sacrament. Right.

Infant Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Incompatibility of Positions

8:05 Now there. So we come to the doctrine of the concept of the sacraments. Then we come specifically, number two, to the Lord's Supper. The unity, harmony, and coherence of the two sacraments is really the issue at stake.

8:20 And the unity and harmony and coherence of the Lord's Supper and baptism is rooted in the harmony of the accomplishment and application of salvation. The Lord's Supper signifies participation in the accomplishment of salvation. Baptism signifies experience. The Lord's Supper signifies the experience of the application of salvation.

8:42 Those who have experienced the application of salvation are those who participate in the accomplishment of salvation. There's the harmony and coherence of the two sacraments. Now there are three positions. First of all, disciple baptism and communion, which is a reformed baptism.

9:01 Secondly, infant baptism and disciple communion, which is the standard paedo-baptist view. And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism. And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism. And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism.

9:10 And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism. And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism. And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism. And then thirdly, infant baptism and toddler baptism.

9:14 And then fourthly, infanticide communion. And then fourthly, infanticide communing, which is what I've dubbed, and they might not like this, I don't say it to be mean, but it's ultra-paedo-baptist. I don't know what else to call it, except an ultra-paedo-baptist view. I didn't wanna use the word consistent.

9:23 I thought that perhaps would be too charged. Now, secondly, my point here is that the standard paedo-baptist position of infant sprinkling and disciple-only communion is really incompatible. Incompatible. with the harmony and coherence of the sacraments.

9:46 Those two things are incompatible.

Six Reasons for Incompatibility of Infant Baptism and Believer-Only Communion

9:50 And then I have six reasons why, and I'll just summarize them for you. The first reason, they attempt to establish a precedent from infant circumcision and the circumcision-baptism analogy. Infants were included, they say, in the ordinance of initiation. Circumcision.

10:18 And since there's no biblical testimony now that infants are excluded from the ordinance of initiation, therefore, they're still included. Now, argue that way concerning the Passover and see where you get. Infants were included. Toddlers, let's say, toddlers, were included as soon as they could eat.

10:42 They participated in the commemorative covenantal meal, Passover. And the same precedent, therefore, is created for their participation in the commemorative covenantal meal, the Lord's Supper.

11:02 Now, that's the very same argument,

11:05 but they use it in one case and they reject it in the other.

11:10 Second, incompatibility. Believer-only communion is incompatible with claiming that the divine covenant promise is sufficient without a profession of faith.

11:25 You see, God's promise to save is sufficient ground to symbolize the application of salvation in baptism. Well, if God's promise to save them is sufficient ground to symbolize that they will experience the application of salvation, why is God's promise to save them not sufficient ground to symbolize that they will participate in the accomplishment of salvation? Why not?

11:56 There's another incompatibility.

12:00 Thirdly, believer-only communion is incompatible with their claim of the expanded privileges of the new covenant. And Professor Murray argues this way.

12:13 If keeping covenant youth from baptism is a complete reversal of God's attitude to them, why isn't keeping them from the commemorative covenant meal in which they participated for centuries a complete reversal of God's attitude to them?

12:32 Fourth, believer-only communion is incompatible with the notion that believer-only baptism involves us in becoming the infallible judges of men's hearts, as Warfield says in his polemics. No man can read the heart. Believer-only baptism attempts the impossible.

12:53 Now, if that's true, why doesn't believer-only communion attempt the same impossible feat?

13:02 Doesn't that involve reading the heart, which no man can do?

13:07 Doesn't that attempt the impossible, too? So, with that, with believer-baptism, we are attempting the impossible, which is no good. With believer-only communion, they are attempting the impossible, which is okay. And that's not acceptable.

13:22 Number five, believer-only communion is incompatible with their hermeneutical approach to the texts which relate faith and require faith for baptism. And the argument that's often used there is to say that these texts obviously refer to adults and say nothing about infants. Now, then, they come to 1 Corinthians 11, which is approached completely differently, which says, let a man examine himself and so let him eat. But isn't that obviously referring to adults and say nothing about infants?

13:51 Can an infant examine himself? So, therefore, that's obviously referring to adults. Why not approach that text the same way? No.

14:00 That's, again, that's an inconsistent and incompatible hermeneutical approach.

14:07 And finally, believer-only communion is incompatible with their emphatic appeal to church history to strengthen the case for infant baptism. Toddler communion, as Jewett convincingly shows, has the same historical pedigree.

14:22 And yet, they reject it.

14:27 So I say that there is much inconsistency in that practice. And you can see why certain paedobaptists in our day are being driven to the practice of toddler communion. And it is becoming more and more widespread, particularly in the southern part of our country. In fact, when I was doing these, the studies, I ran across an instance of a godly young Presbyterian pastor who was in great trouble and was eventually, I believe, defrocked because of his refusal to admit toddlers to the Lord's Supper.

Pastoral Warning Against Toddler Communion

15:09 Now,

15:12 I want to close with the danger that we face of wrongly exposing and correcting this inconsistency.

15:22 Some good men, both Baptists and paedobaptists, do not see the danger and they make frightenings statements about toddler communion. Mary makes one and Jewett makes one. And he says, it's much better to be consistent than to have toddler communion. Now, that's not so.

15:43 A godly church is more important than logical consistency or winning an argument. And my appeal that I make to any paedobaptist brethren who hear the sound of this voice is don't ever forsake believer-only communion under any circumstances. Don't ever forsake it. If that means you have to plug your ears and don't listen to anything I said about how inconsistent you are, then plug your ears.

16:13 But don't ever forsake believer-only communion and adopt toddler communion. Never do that. If you must be inconsistent, then be inconsistent. Don't ever forsake it.

16:27 Now, I also would say, carefully guard the Lord's table at all costs because the purity and health of your church is at stake. But then, the best road to consistency as well as purity is to practice disciple baptism. And I have a warning to give to you, my Baptist brethren, and it is this. In polemics, this is a nuclear weapon.

16:55 Therefore, handle it with caution, discretion, love, and humility. Don't forget that it's not more important to win an argument than to have a pure church. Don't forget that. All right, then, the final thing with regard to the sacraments is the subject of circumcision.

Circumcision and Baptism: A Scriptural Survey and Critique

17:24 Circumcision, and I just have here, number one, a survey of the scriptural testimony, that's a capital A, and then an attempt to deal with the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Now, in the survey of the scriptural testimony, we have the Old Testament teaching. Ten texts were considered together, and the major ones were underlined. The New Testament teaching, 25 texts, and the major ones were underlined.

17:57 Now, then, to summarize this Biblical witness, what is circumcision? An initiatory rite which distinguished Abraham and his posterity from the rest of mankind, which consists of a change in the privy member or the secret place. Now, there were two distinct circumcisions mentioned in the Biblical teaching above. Number one, a change in the external secret place, the secret place of the body, circumcision of body.

18:29 And number two, a change in the internal secret place, the secret place within, circumcision of heart. And there are two distinct aspects of Abraham's posterity taught also. And these two form two covenantal communities revealed in order in redemptive history, the old and the new. And these two communities are distinguished and marked out by these two circumcisions.

19:01 The old covenant community has as its distinguishing trait circumcision of body, not circumcision of heart. But the new covenant community has as its distinguishing trait circumcision of heart. We are the circumcision, he says, he says the one who is a true Jew is the one who is a Jew inwardly, who has circumcision of heart. And Colossians 2.11 says that you were circumcised, accomplished fact. Speaking of the church, your distinguishing trait is that you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, a circumcision of the heart. Now, both aspects of Abraham's seed, the ones whose bodies have been circumcised and the ones whose hearts have been circumcised, both of them come to concrete covenantal form in the unfolding of redemptive history in fulfillment of the promise that he would be a God to Abraham and to his seed. It's fulfilled first in redemptive history to those circumcised in their bodies.

20:18 That was the distinguishing trait of the old covenant community. And second in redemptive history to those circumcised in their hearts, that's the distinguishing trait of the new covenant community. Now then, having said that, then we come to the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Now here really is very important.

20:41 This analogy is their second argument then from the analogy. And they once again at this point take the offensive in the polemic. And to present their perspective, I give the following references that you can see where this is made, this is an extensive polemic on the part of the paedo-baptists. To summarize it, there are three texts upon which this perspective rests.

21:10 They argue that infants were to be circumcised as an indication of their inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant. They argue that this circumcision has a spiritual significance and not a purely natural significance and therefore can be replaced by baptism which has spiritual significance. And they say then that according to Colossians 2.12, baptism has now replaced circumcision as a sign of inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant and therefore should be applied to the infant seed of those who are believers and by virtue of the fact that they are believers are therefore children of Abraham.

21:48 Now to critique this, I say don't forget that this perspective exerts equal pressure for toddler communion. But now I say two things. It involves a faulty exegesis of Romans 4.11 and a faulty exegesis of Colossians 2.

22:08 And what they miss in Romans 4.11 is the statement that Abraham's experience was uniquely designed to suit Abraham to be the father of all who believe. And that for him, circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith which he had in his uncircumcised state. Now that it emphatically is not for him.

22:37 It is for his infants or for our infants. It was never a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith which Ishmael had in his uncircumcised state or which Isaac had in his uncircumcised state. No, it was certainly never that for them. It had a unique significance for Abraham because of the unique role which God had designed for Abraham in redemptive history.

23:05 And again, the perspective involves a faulty exegesis of Colossians 2.11. The circumcision made without hands is not baptism. Baptism is not made without hands.

23:20 No one yet, be he infant or disciple, was ever baptized without hands. The circumcision made without hands is not baptism. It is the circumcision of the heart. So there's the issue.

23:37 The recipients of that circumcision are those who believe in Christ who have been raised from the dead in their sins. Look at the context. And the connection between circumcision of heart and baptism is that baptism is a symbol of the fact that your heart has been circumcised. Now that's what the text teaches.

24:02 And circumcision of heart is distinct from and yet intimately related to Christ's baptism. Now, how are we then biblically to define this relationship? If the Paedo-Baptist definition is in error, what is the true definition? Well, circumcision of body pointed to the need for circumcision of heart by the Old Covenant community.

24:35 Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts. He says, all the nations are uncircumcised and the nation of Israel, my people, are uncircumcised in heart. That was their trait as a people. Not that there were not individuals in Israel who had circumcised hearts, certainly there were.

24:58 But the point is that the community was not distinguished as having a circumcised heart and they needed it. And their circumcised bodies pointed them to the fact that they needed circumcised hearts. That what determined right standing with God was a change in the secret place. The necessity of a change in the secret place.

25:21 And baptism does not point to the need for a circumcision of heart, but it points to the possession of circumcision of heart by the New Covenant community. That's what Colossians 2.11 teaches. Not, you must be circumcised, not circumcise yourself that you are uncircumcised in heart and ears.

25:41 That's not what he said. He said, you were, you have been circumcised. Accomplished fact. Blessing possessed as the distinguishing trait and it points to the fact that circumcision of heart has been possessed.

Critique of the Argument from the Continuity of the Church

26:01 Now I say that these things are nothing new. If you read a book called Isaac Bacchus, the writings of Isaac Bacchus on church, state and Calvinism, old Isaac Bacchus said this a couple of hundred years ago. Right now finally then unit four and unit five to come quickly to these things and I'll just probably just give you the heads. Now this Pato Baptist first of all, the Pato Baptist perspective on the argument from the continuity of the church has these lines and this comes especially from Hodges argument in systematic theology.

26:39 I've taken his eight points and tried to collate them. It begins, they and they begin by noting that the church was established in the time of Abraham. Then they note secondly that the old and new testament church is the same institution. Then they assert that infants were included in the old testament church.

26:55 Then they say there's no hint of their exclusion in the new testament and therefore they have the right to the initiatory ordinance of the church namely baptism. Now I think that's a fair summary of their teaching. I don't believe that's a misstatement of it. Then I have only taken here a selective response.

27:15 I don't want to get involved in a semantic battle about the word church but just notice Matthew 16, 18 that Jesus Christ himself personally founded the church and not Abraham. I will build my church. Secondly, we should confess the unity of the people of God in all ages. Thirdly, we should admit and concede that infants were included in the nation of Israel.

27:48 Fourthly, we should not concede that they were included in the kahal of Israel. You could study kahal. It consisted of the adult males, the formal kahal that was numbered in the book of Numbers and that was numbered and that met in the days of Solomon and that was numbered again from the return from exile. That consisted of the adult males of the nation.

28:08 It didn't include the women and it didn't include the infants. And kahal, of course, is the word that's translated by ekklesia in the Septuagint again and again. And it didn't include infants. So I'm not ready to concede that they were present in the Old Testament and that they were included in the Book of Numbers.

28:23 I'm not ready to concede that they were included in the Book of Numbers and that they were in the Book of Numbers and that they were present in the Old Testament kahal because they weren't. Fourthly, and this is the point that we should contend in detail, and infant inclusion in the New Testament church is incompatible with the Biblical witness. And then, fifthly, even if they're right, it proves too much because what it proves is if they have the right to the ordinance of admission, they have the right to all church privileges. All right.

28:50 Now, three points. Infant inclusion is incompatible with the Old Testament because it is incompatible with the New Testament because it is incompatible with the Old Testament because it is incompatible with the biblical descriptions of church growth. Infant inclusion is incompatible with the biblical descriptions of church membership. And infant inclusion is incompatible with the biblical descriptions of the spiritual experience of the church.

God's Covenants and Their Application to Infant Baptism

29:19 And then we just open those up. Pages 9 and 10. Now we come to page 11, God's covenants. Now, just two points here.

29:40 Compendium of the biblical teaching and then the application of this to infant baptism. Now, the compendium, the full treatment of this is given in the academy and many other places as well, by the way. But from our point of view, in the academy, soteriology part two, eight or nine lectures. So I can't go into all of that now.

30:04 But simply to say some things. Number one, God's covenants have determined the structure of our Bibles. God's covenants have a foundational place in the doctrine of salvation. And then to uncover the important questions and categories, and then finally to give a survey of the biblical revelation.

30:25 And then you come to the major points. The identity of a covenant. It is an oath-bound promise. The nature of God's covenants.

30:33 They manifest plurality, duality, and unity. And then the two major covenants, the covenant of redemption between God and his incarnate Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the covenant of grace between God and the people of Christ. Now I just, in summarizing what I say here about the application to infant baptism. First of all, we must maintain the harmony and coherence of organic and symbolic unity.

31:08 But now secondly, the principle of organic continuity must be scripturally identified for each covenantal conflict. And there are two means of generation described in Scripture. There's the doctrine of a spiritual seed and the doctrine of a natural seed. And then what is the biblical method?

31:34 Well, I can't go into that. That'll take too long. But just to come to the conclusion, number three, the identity of the proper principle in each instance. The Noahic covenant is organically perpetuated through successive generations by natural generations.

31:48 The millennial covenant is the Mosaic covenant through natural generation. But the covenant of grace by spiritual regeneration, not by natural generation. And infant baptism confounds the organic and symbolic unity and it misconstrues the principle of organic generation in the new covenant community. The new covenant community is Jesus' seed.

32:18 He shall seed his seed. And whatever seed Jesus has, it is not a seed which propagates through its successive generations by natural procreation and generation, but rather by spiritual regeneration. Then finally, in an effort to do one of the things that I said, and I won't go into this in detail because it really isn't on the subject, we had an appendix which is included here on page 12 and 13. And that's a biblical acronym and that's a biblical attitude toward our minor children.

Concluding Admonitions and Dangers in Controversy

32:53 An attempt to address that issue. A biblical attitude toward our minor children simply opening up general principles, major responsibilities, and then some of the differing perspectives that are held among evangelical Christians, presumptive regeneration, presumptive innocence and easy believism, presumptive wickedness, and what I have dubbed moralistic and optimistic uncertainty. Now then, finally, I would like to just say some things and then we'll conclude and we'll have about eight, ten minutes for questions if you desire to ask them. Brethren, beware of the dangers of entering controversy. Please beware of those dangers that I outlined to you. Secondly, whenever you get involved in these things, keep the biblical goals before us, what they ought to be. We ought to try to defuse this issue by emphasizing the fact that our Paedo-Baptist brethren should start baptizing disciples, not by emphasizing the fact that they should stop sprinkling infants.

34:07 We need to recognize that the really important thing is not winning an argument but seeing the purity of Baptist and Paedo-Baptist churches maintained and therefore be cautious in the use of our nuclear weapon. We need to keep this controversy in its proper place and manifest a proper love in our disposition to our Paedo-Baptist brothers. We need to beware of allowing and encouraging an extreme reaction to Paedo-Baptism among our people and we need to do that by underscoring these things and also by underscoring, I mean, the true continuity that exists in God's revelation in the Old and the New Testament and also by giving our disciples proper teaching concerning the raising of their children. And then finally, we need to beware lest we slip into the very tendencies which our Paedo-Baptist brethren face. We need to beware of toddler baptism, of easy believism, and of anything which will bring us to formalism and to the ruining of the purity of our churches. Well, that's what I have to say to you on the subject.

35:30 Do you have any questions which you would like to address?