← Back to sermon library

Thank you. Thank you very much. 
All right, for Dr. Renahan, I think this is right 
in your wheelhouse. How do the Reformed Baptists 
from Scripture, in light of their covenantal theology, arrive at 
the conclusion that only a believer should be baptized? Yeah, that 
is a good question and it deserves a thorough answer. Let me summarize 
by saying that historically in Christian theology, there's been 
a recognition that the Bible itself speaks about two kinds 
of law. There's moral law, which is a 
law that is written on the heart. It's in general revelation. It's 
available to all people at all times. And that is the standard 
by which all people will be judged at the last day. The moral law 
of God. Even those who never have the Word of God, the moral 
law is written on their hearts. But there's another kind of law 
that's called positive law, or what my son Sam calls plus law, 
meaning it's added to the moral law. It's not the same thing. 
There is a relationship between them, but it's something that 
is not in force until it's revealed. Positive law requires special 
revelation, and it is an obligation that God gives to his people 
to follow certain patterns, to obey certain actions. So that, for example, Abram was 
99 years old and uncircumcised when God comes to him and says, 
circumcise yourself and all the males in your household. Had 
Abram broken any of God's laws prior to that? No, of course 
not. He was a Gentile, and he was perfectly fine as a Gentile. It's when the Lord came to him 
and added that law to say, you must do this, that now there's 
a requirement for all of the males in Abram's family, who 
becomes Abraham, and they must be circumcised in order to maintain 
their participation in the community. So that's an easy example of 
positive law. Now, what we believe is that 
positive law belongs to, not only does it require special 
revelation, but it belongs to specific historical covenants. So that circumcision was in place 
from that revelation in Genesis 17, all the way until the coming 
of the New Covenant, where Paul is able to say to us, circumcision 
is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments 
of God is everything. That's 1 Corinthians 7. Paul there is making a clear 
statement that there's a distinction between a moral law, keeping 
the commandments of God, and circumcision or uncircumcision. 
At that point, because the New Covenant has come, they're nothing. 
So, we would argue that baptism is to be defined by the New Covenant 
itself. I think a neglected verse that 
deserves some thought is Mark 1.1, where Mark says, the beginning 
of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And he's not saying, here's where 
I'm starting my account of Jesus. He's actually using language 
that refers back to the original creation, but now he's speaking 
in new creation terms, the beginning of the gospel. And what's the 
first thing that you read as he does that? John came baptizing. You see, John comes as the herald 
of Jesus as one who baptizes because the new covenant is being 
inaugurated in the person of Christ. You know, a question 
you might ask is, when is the New Covenant inaugurated? Well, 
I would argue that there isn't a moment, but rather there's 
a period of time that begins with a text like Mark 1.1 and 
runs all the way to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So you 
have a whole generation in which the New Covenant comes. Of course, 
it's focused on the cross and the resurrection. No doubt about 
that. But everything in the Gospels 
is leading up to that and is part of the anticipation of the 
New Covenant. So, John comes baptizing. So, 
our argument is, in Scripture, it's illegitimate to take principles 
from the Old Covenant, which is done away with, and transfer 
them over to the New Covenant and make the recipients of baptism 
the same as the recipients of circumcision. Baptism needs to 
be defined in terms of the New Covenant, and when it's defined 
in terms of the New Covenant, it is a baptism that's given 
to believers. John didn't baptize babies. And interestingly enough, 
when you read some of the pedo-baptist writers, John Murray for example, 
John Murray wants to make John's baptism something different than 
Christian baptism. And the reason for that is he's 
too good of an exegete. And he knows that John's baptism 
was a baptism of repentance and faith. We could talk about why 
faith is involved in John's baptism. And so he recognizes if we let 
John's baptism stand as a Christian baptism, then we have a real 
problem in terms of baptizing infants. So he tries to separate 
it off, where someone like John Calvin doesn't. Calvin recognizes 
that that's Christian baptism. Those who were baptized by John 
or in the gospel period, there's no record of them having a second 
baptism after the day of Pentecost or anything like that. So, that's 
the argument in a nutshell, that it's positive law that is defined 
by the New Covenant, and the New Covenant only admits those 
who are professors of faith in Jesus. Great. I have a follow-up 
question because your forte is historical theology. When did 
that argument sort of become the way to define or the way 
to defend paedo-baptism, specifically because Abraham circumcised his 
babies, therefore we must baptize our babies. As I understand it, 
I doubt the fathers were baptizing based on that approach to covenant 
theology. That seems to me a more Reformational 
time? Yeah. Well, you just answered 
your own question. Yeah. Prior to the Reformation, 
really, infant baptism is what we would call sacerdotal, meaning 
that it gives grace. The application of water to the 
body allows grace to enter the heart. And remission. The priest 
who does that. So, the baby then is a Christian, 
and the baby is on the pathway towards heaven. The Roman Church 
developed the seven sacraments as the system by which that baby 
who has received grace and baptism, original sin being washed away, 
now is to pursue the sacraments in order to be saved. Well, when 
you come to the Reformation, that's a real problem because 
the Reformers no longer believe in a sacerdotal system. A sacerdotal 
simply means something that gives grace. It's related to sacramental, 
but it's not exactly the same. Sacer, grace, dotel, from the 
Greek word to give. Connected with the priesthood, 
specifically, as the vehicle. Yes. So, they recognize that 
justification is by faith alone, and that the application of water 
to the body does not bring grace into the heart. So, something 
had to be done. That's right. And Zwingli, Zurich 
was the first one to begin the process of arguing that it's 
not a sacerdotal act based on the priesthood, but rather it's 
that baptism is something that belongs to the covenant. And 
so you have this development of that argument that's worked 
out in the 16th century and then codified, well, in many confessions, 
but especially in the Westminster Confession in the 17th century. 
Great. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate 
that.