← Back to sermon library

You can turn in the copy of the confession there to chapter 29. I'm going to read the four paragraphs again. And this last study on baptism, this is our third study in the doctrine of baptism. For those of you who received the email, we're going to look at some pato-baptist arguments, treat some pato-baptist arguments this morning in the first 30 minutes. And then in the last 30 minutes, we will look at some questions that have a period of question and answer. There's some pre-submitted questions that I have that we can we can look at and deal with and then any others that come up then you can you can fire away.

So this is I'm going to read paragraphs one to four and then a portion of the appendix on baptism that was included in the 1677 and 1689 publications or distributions of the confession. It wasn't included in later confessions after that. A late edition in the 1690s excluded it, and there are very few editions that do include it today, but it's a very valuable tool on baptism.

So chapter 29, paragraph 1, baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into him, of remission of sins, and of giving up into God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Immersion or dipping of the person in water is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

And this is a couple paragraphs from the appendix on baptism, and it highlights the spirit of the particular Baptist, not being one of strong contention and obstinacy, but one in It's presented in a spirit of affirming the affinity that they have with the essential Christian doctrines that their Paedo-Baptist brethren held also, but also to express where they differ in a matter that is true to the truth and to their consciences, and this is what they wrote.

And although we do differ, from our brethren who are paedo-baptists in the subject and administration of baptism and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification and discharge of those duties and services which we owe unto God and in his fear to each other, Yet we would not be from hence misconstrued as if the discharge of our own consciences herein did any ways disoblige or alienate our affections or conversation from any others that fear the Lord. Let it not therefore be judged of us, because much hath been written on this subject, and yet we continue this our practice different from others, that it is out of obstinacy but rather, as the truth is, that we do herein, according to the best of our understandings, worship God, out of a pure mind, yielding obedience to his precept, in that method which we take to be the most agreeable to the scriptures of truth and primitive practice. Yet we do heartily propose this, that if any of the servants of our Lord Jesus shall, in the spirit of meekness, attempt to convince us of any mistake, either in judgment or practice, we shall diligently ponder his arguments. It's a wonderful statement on the approach that they had to their Paedo-Baptist brethren.

On the one hand, upholding vigorously the truth as it concerns baptism, but on the other hand, not doing so out of obstinacy, but having a spirit of submission to correction if it is deemed that they are in error. And it's, I think, a very good spirit that we ought to maintain in our own day. So the first thing we're going to do this morning is handling some Pato Baptist arguments. And I've got six of them here. These doesn't exhaust all of them, Paedo-Baptist arguments against Credo-Baptism, but I think it captures some of the more significant ones.

And the first argument from the Paedo-Baptists is the argument from the Abrahamic Promise and the Covenant of Circumcision. The argument may go like this, God made a promise to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed and gave him circumcision as the sign of inclusion in that covenant of grace. So the argument is, since infants were given, and we won't qualify that right now, but infants were given the sign of what they would say is inclusion in the covenant of grace, therefore in the new covenant, infants should also be given the sign of inclusion in the new covenant, which is baptism, which is another error, the mistake that baptism is somehow the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision. But what do we do with this? The argument from the Abrahamic promise and the covenant of circumcision.

First of all, a response would have to be that circumcision was not an ordinance of the covenant of grace. It's vital to say that from the outset. The Pato Baptists would, well I wouldn't say they'd go crazy, but they would have some firm responses to that statement and object with a certain measure of strength. Circumcision was never an ordinance of the covenant of grace, and we can see that by the nature of the command to circumcise itself being a command that was given with certain blessings and cursings.

It is, in essence, a covenant of works, not a republication of the actual covenant of works, but in its style and in its flavor, a covenant of works that was pointing forward to, or was that in somewhat of an embryonic fashion, the Old Covenant, before the Old Covenant was actually ratified, and it is not an ordinance of the covenant of grace. So what they do, the Paedo-Baptists, is they conflate the Abrahamic promise and the covenant of circumcision as one covenant, so that you can have then circumcision being that which confirms the covenant of inclusion of children in the covenant of grace promises. This is Nehemiah Cox on this particular point, arguing against it, and indeed, that which hath been of late affirmed, and he's talking about Pato Baptists in the 17th century.

And indeed, that which hath been of late affirmed, that the covenant of grace always had an outward sign or seal added to it, is so wide a mistake, that on the contrary it may be affirmed, that although the efficacy of its grace did reach believers in all ages, yet it was not filled up with ordinances of worship proper and peculiar to itself until the times of Reformation. So the times of Reformation is the first advent of the Lord Jesus Christ and the ratification of the new covenant.

So what he's saying is, is that the covenant of grace always had its promises held forth and the efficacy of those promises communicated to the elect in all ages, but there were no ordinances of the covenant of grace until the covenant of grace was itself ratified in the first coming of Jesus Christ.

And we've noted that before, that a covenant, or there can be no administration of a covenant until the covenant is actually concluded and ratified. And the covenant of grace was not concluded or ratified until Christ came and shed his blood for guilty sinners, ratifying the covenant in that precious blood. So the Covenant of Circumcision was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it was not an ordinance of the Covenant of Grace, because the Covenant of Grace was truly not yet a covenant. It bore the nature of a promise. It was covenantal in the sense that God determined First of all, in the covenant of redemption to in time save the elect perfectly through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it was given to Adam in time and in history as a promise, not yet ratified and not yet truly a covenant administered and formally concluded. until Christ came. So all that to say, circumcision is not an ordinance of the covenant of grace, so we can just stop the study right now and get to the question and answer period. But no, we'll continue.

Secondly, with regards to this argument, the covenant of circumcision was rudimentarily the Mosaic Covenant or the Old Covenant. That is, it was in its founding stages, it was foundational, it was growing up into the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Cox, again, we must further observe that this covenant of circumcision was the foundation on which the church state of Israel after the flesh was built. That's very important. The covenant of circumcision had to do with Abraham's posterity according to the flesh, not those who were according to Abraham as the father of the faithful. In other words, it bore fleshly realities, not spiritual realities, and so therefore cannot be anything to do with the covenant of grace except for being a shadow of it that points forward to the spiritual realities that are held forth in the covenant of grace. Just to start this quote again, because there's more, we must further observe that this covenant of circumcision was the foundation on which the church state of Israel after the flesh was built.

In the covenant of circumcision were contained the first rudiments of the one in the wilderness, that is the Mosaic or Old Covenant, and the latter was the filling up and completing of the former. So the covenant of circumcision being separate from the Abrahamic promise, not conflated into one covenant, has more in relation to and is rudimentarily the Mosaic Covenant, which itself, as we noted before, is not an administration of the covenant of grace, but rather bears a substantial difference to the New Covenant. It is physical, it is typical, and it is temporary, while the new covenant is spiritual, it is realized, and it is eternal. The Abrahamic promise, a further revelation of the covenant of grace and the covenant of circumcision is, just to conclude this argument, a protopraxis, that is a beforehand practice of what would become the practice in the new covenant, and they're two distinct realities. the Abrahamic promise, and the covenant of circumcision, though there is overlap and simultaneity as God is growing up Israel unto the time of the Reformation, the first coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lastly, under this point, the Pedobaptists must separate the Abrahamic covenant from the Mosaic covenant, in order to maintain some measure of continuity between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant. In other words, in order to have this circumcision equals baptism, or circumcision sort of grows up into baptism argument, they need to detach the Abrahamic covenant from the Mosaic one, so it's not really, or the covenant of circumcision, it's not really connected to the Old Covenant in that sense, there's more of this sort of skipping the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant since they conflate the Abrahamic promise with the Covenant of Circumcision, saying that the Covenant of Circumcision is actually an ordinance of the Covenant of Grace, and it is not, it cannot be.

So there might be some questions later that come up from all of that, because we just did that in a very brief period of time. The second argument, the argument from the inclusion of children in the covenant community. And the argument could go something like this. There is a you and your children motif to the old covenant community, and so there should be also for the new covenant community. Or children were included in the Old Testament Israel, and so they should be included in the New Testament Israel.

We would want to note first off that just from recollection that there is a difference with regards to the substance of the Mosaic Covenant, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant. We just noted that. Remember, the Paedo-Baptists argue that the substance is the same, but that it's just a different administration. And we've noted before that the substance can't be the same because there are blessings and cursings attached to the obedience inherent and demanded in the Old Covenant, whereas the New Covenant is unconditional because it's ratified by virtue of the perfect work of Jesus Christ. So again, children, the argument goes, children were included in the Old Testament, Israel, so they should be included in the New, and an additional response to that would be the obvious typology of circumcision and the Old Covenant as a whole.

We, you know, we don't, the Church isn't to create ordinances or administrations based on shadows and copies and signals. The shadow is not also the substance that casts it. The copy is not also the true. The signal is not also that which signifies and the thing signified. And so we cannot bear or create ordinances or administrations based on shadows.

Pointing to, so the, Old Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision points to an internal spiritual reality and to Christ's substitutionary obedience. And just on the point of circumcision here for a moment, circumcision itself typologically points to an internal spiritual reality first, and secondly, it signifies and typifies the substitutionary obedience of Jesus Christ. You can turn in your Bibles with me to Philippians for a moment. First off, on the point of circumcision in the Old Covenant, circumcision even in the Old Covenant, God specifies its typological nature or its non-spiritual nature.

In Deuteronomy, for example, in Deuteronomy 10, God gives the command to have them circumcise the foreskins of their hearts. He gives this command, circumcise the foreskin of your heart. So already in the Old Covenant, there is this promise of the actual substance of what the shadow of fleshly circumcision was. It was, it is, the circumcision of the heart. Later on in Deuteronomy, I think it's 32, God gives the promise of the new covenant saying, I will circumcise the foreskin of your heart. And later on, as we see, as revelation continues, we get to a book like Ezekiel, and we see even more revelation piled upon previous revelation that speaks to the true reality of what circumcision pointed to. That is the circumcision of the heart. But notice in Philippians 3, at verse 2, Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation.

For we are, that is Christians, for we are the circumcision. Now notice, the further qualification, or rather the further definition of who the circumcision truly are, who worship God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have, notice, no confidence in the flesh.

Now, that would have specific and contemporaneous application to the Judaizers who were boasting in the circumcision of their proselytes, who were having confidence in the flesh that the cutting off of foreskins would somehow commend them to God. But also we would want to speak to the reality that those who would baptize infants have a measure of confidence in the flesh, that is, confidence in the fleshly descendency of their children from either believing or unbelieving, quote unquote, covenantal parents. But all of this, to come back to this, who are truly the circumcision? It's those who worship God in the Spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, who have no confidence in the flesh. And then if we were to move forward to verses 7 to 11, it's those who have the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Those are the circumcision.

So if baptism, and it isn't, But if baptism is the replacement for circumcision, then it should be given to those who worship God in the Spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, who have no confidence in the flesh, and who are the recipients of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ laid hold of by faith. So the obvious typology of circumcision in the Old Covenant, the fleshly act pointed forward to or even signified the existing internal reality of those who have received the circumcision of the heart, those who have been regenerated, born again by the power of God that they might behold the riches and glories of Jesus Christ. Also, there are two posterities. with respect to the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant of circumcision, there are two posterities, a fleshly seed and a spiritual seed. Circumcision was given to the fleshly seed that pointed forward to the true circumcision of the new covenant, And in the New Covenant, only the spiritual seed is to be baptized.

This is Nehemiah Cox on the two-seeds reality of the Abrahamic revelation. Abraham is to be considered in a double capacity. He is the father of all true believers, and the father and root of the Israelite nation. God entered into covenant with him for both of these seeds, and since they are formally distinguished from one another, their covenant interest must necessarily be different. and fall under a distinct consideration. The blessings appropriate to either must be conveyed in a way agreeable to their peculiar and respective covenant interest, and these things may not be confounded without a manifest hazard to the most important articles of the Christian religion."

So it's the two posterities of Abraham that are clear from the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, specifically Galatians, which we'll see in our exposition when we get to there finally in 2027. But it's clear that Abraham has two posterities. Thirdly, and we need to move along here quickly so we can get to some questions and answers, but thirdly then the argument from Well, just very briefly because we didn't touch on it.

Circumcision also points to the obedience of Jesus Christ substitutionarily in his bearing of the act of obedience demands of God in the stead of all who believe in his name. So he perfects the covenant of circumcision according to the flesh, and the Mosaic covenant as well, as well as the demands of the law that all sinners bear before a God who must be obeyed. And so circumcision points forward to not only Christ's act of obedience, but also the circumcision of his crucifixion. He's cut off. He's sanctified, he's consecrated by virtue of his own circumcision, if you will, that is, his crucifixion upon Calvary's cross. The third argument is the argument from the presumed tradition, excuse me, the presumed transition from circumcision to baptism.

Since children were circumcised in the old covenant as a sign of their covenant inclusion, and that's not exactly true, though they would use that language, they were included in the covenant even before they were circumcised. And remember, it's only the males at eight days that are circumcised. The females are also included in the covenant, but let's just use the language anyway. Since children were circumcised in the old covenant as a sign of their covenant inclusion, so too should children be baptized in the new covenant as a sign of their covenant inclusion. First off, though, we would want to note, then, in response, the non-transference of circumcision rules to baptism. There's an obvious inconsistency, because in the New Covenant, it's not only males that are baptized at eight days.

It's males and females that are baptized at whatever time works for the parents and for the elders of the Paedo-Baptist churches. So there's already a rule that is transgressed, and it's interesting because they say, the Paedo-Baptists say yes to the cloudiness of baptism's connection to circumcision, but they say nay to the clarity of what circumcision already demands in the Old Covenant. And what I mean by that is if they saw the Old Covenant as that which dictates New Covenant practice, and they actually say that themselves, that we look to Abraham in the Old Covenant with regards to how we do a New Covenant ordinance, which is wrong already, but they don't take the clarity of what circumcision demands and transfer that to baptism in the New Covenant. They change it arbitrarily and do according to man's tradition and the dictates of their own minds. So the non-transference of circumcision rules to baptism. And then the inconsistency of the principle when considering the administration of Passover.

In the Old Covenant, children received Passover. In the New Covenant, with the exception of some fringe pedobaptistic movements, in the New Covenant, they don't give the Lord's Supper to children. until they bear a proper profession of faith. It's an obvious sacramental inconsistency that does take a number of very elaborate, coordinated somersaults to get out of.

The argument from Christ's welcoming of the little children, just very briefly, the point of those passages is, of such is the kingdom of heaven. The point isn't, and first of all, the inconsistency or the folly of arguing for an ordinance from a narrative that has nothing to do with it. As Pastor Butler has said before, quoting Dr. Gary Crampton, who's with the Lord now, but reformed paedo-baptism is a practice searching for a theology. and they have to bring up passages like this, that Christ welcomes the little children to them and blesses them, to argue for something that is nowhere there in the narrative itself. But the point of that passage is, those that are not obstinate, Those that are not hardened against the truth, but those that are like little children, who are open to the truth, who welcome it, and who come with a measure of humility and simplicity, such are, or of such is the kingdom of heaven. Not children literally, though children are included in the kingdom of heaven by virtue of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather figuratively in the sense of those who are like little children, of such is the kingdom of heaven.

The argument then, fifthly, the argument from the presumed federal holiness of children, and arguing from 1 Corinthians 7, 12 primarily, where the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife and then in like manner, in a sense, and this is simplifying it, then the child or the children are also. This is the appendix on baptism from 1677 speaking to that. As for those, our Christian brethren, who do ground their arguments for infants' baptism upon a presumed federal holiness or church membership, we conceive they are deficient in this, that albeit the covenant holiness and membership should be as is supposed, that is, he's saying, granting that it is the case that that's true, he's not submitting in truth that it is, but granted that that's the case, in reference unto the infants of believers, Yet no command for infant baptism does immediately and directly result from such a quality or relation.

All instituted worship receives its sanction from the precept. That is, all ordinances in this argument, all sacraments, receive the legitimacy, their veracity, and their propriety by a direct command from God. Yet no command for infant baptism does immediately and directly result from such a quality or relation. All instituted worship receives its sanction from the precept, from a clear institution, and is to be thereby governed in all the necessary circumstances thereof.

Of whatsoever nature the holiness of the children mentioned, 1 Corinthians 7.12b, yet they who do conclude that all such children, whether infants or of riper years, have from hence an immediate right to baptism, do as we conceive put more into the conclusion than will be found in the premises.

So they're putting more into what is concluded by virtue of a faulty logic than into those things which proceed to arrive at that particular conclusion. This may also be added that if this, in other words, they're presuming, they're already beforehand having sacramental pre-commitments to infant baptism before they engage in the argument. This may also be added that if this birth holiness do qualify, all the children of every believer for the ordinance of baptism, why not for all other ordinances? For the Lord's Supper, as was preached for a long time together.

For if recourse be had to what the Scriptures speak generally of this subject, it will be found that the same qualities which do entitle any person to baptism do also for the participation of all the ordinances and privileges of the house of God that are common to all believers. So in some responses, just in summary, granting that covenantal holiness a command to baptize does not follow. If it was a common apostolic practice for believing parents to baptize their children, then the holiness of Corinthian children would never have been a question needing an answer.

And then Christ's giving of his life for the church, and this is important, Christ's giving of his life for the church cannot mean the giving of his life for some external covenant principle. You see, there's sort of a twofold approach to church membership in most paedo-baptistic context. You have those who are internally the children of God, or those who are internally covenant members by virtue of the spiritual reality of their own salvation, and those who are externally covenant members and included by virtue of their descendancy, confirmed and sealed by their baptism. And many call the unbelieving children of believers the very children of God, that they should also be considered as such, John Murray, and that they are members of Christ's church.

Well, if we think of a passage such as Ephesians 5.25, that Christ gave himself for the church, His perfect saving activity is then rendered in a nuanced sense imperfect for those who are externally members of the church because they can ultimately and finally fall away. And so that's why Fred Malone says it does danger to the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption because to say one can be a member of the church in whatever way you qualify that, internally or externally, but that an external member of the church who is... definitionally a child of God, can ultimately fall away from the covenant and not ultimately be regenerated or be a Christian, is to cast aspersions upon and to sully the finished and completed work of the Lord Jesus Christ. One final argument, and then we'll get to some questions and answers.

The argument from the narratives concerning household baptisms. The argument from the narratives concerning household baptisms, the argument could go as such. The New Testament records household baptisms. Babies are in households. Therefore, babies should be baptized. I think it's a faulty logic already. The New Testament records household baptisms. Babies are in households is really a false premise. Are babies in some households? Yes, babies are in some households. Therefore, babies should be baptized.

So let's just look at some proper responses and some observations here quickly so we can get to some questions and answers. First off, the narratives of household baptisms make no mention of infant baptism. first, and connected to that, the narrative silence on the specific exclusion of infants cannot imply their inclusion. So, you know, that's one of the arguments of the Paedo-Baptists, an argument from silence. The narratives don't specifically exclude infants, so therefore that implies their inclusion, which again is silly.

Secondly, the narrative records the necessity of personal faith. The language of the book of Acts, first in Acts 11 with regards to the household of Cornelius, is that the apostle will speak words by which you and all your household will be saved. So first of all, the preaching of words, the preaching of the gospel, by which gospel you and all your household will be saved. So the clear communication here by that statement is that the preaching of the gospel is being completed. fulfilled, and that everyone who hears it in the household will be saved by hearing the gospel and, of course, believing in that gospel.

You can turn to Acts chapter 16 with me, then to one quick passage in 1 Corinthians, and then we'll get to the questions and answers. So this is Acts 16. You can notice here what happens in this narrative concerning a household baptism. So the narrative records the necessity of personal faith, Acts 16, and another passage we'll look at. And then the narrative does make mention of the members of households believing before baptism.

Notice the jailer and his household at Acts 16.31. So they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them, and he rejoiced, notice again, having believed in God with all his household. So not only is there an exclusion of infants being baptized or any mention of the doctrine itself, but there is positively the obvious narrative force of these receiving the gospel, believing, and then being baptized.

You could also note Crispus and his household in 1808, but just briefly, let's just look at 1 Corinthians 16, and then I promise it's question and answer time. 1 Corinthians 1, well, first of all, yeah, 1 Corinthians 1, 16, and then we'll go to 16, 15, and 16. Notice 1 Corinthians 1 at verse 14, I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. Now turn to 1 Corinthians 16.

So he baptizes the household, he says he baptizes the household of Stephanus, and now look at 1615, I urge you, brethren, you know the household of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia. Now that's important already. The first fruits, this always pertains to gospel success, by God's grace in bringing dead sinners to life. And that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints. The household is devoting themselves to the ministry of the saints. That you also submit to such and to everyone now notice who works and labors with us. So the household that's being described there, they are all in the household able to hear the word to believe the word as they who are the firstfruits, they're also engaged in ministry, and they are to be submitted to those who teach the same gospel, and they are also working in the ministry of that same gospel.

So that That concludes very quickly some of the Pato-Baptistic arguments and some of the responses to them. If any questions come out from that, you can ask them here shortly, but I do have a set of pre-submitted questions that I can work through here and answer. But maybe we can take one question first from that machine gun firing through Paedo-Baptist arguments and Credo-Baptist responses. Does anyone have a quick question before we answer some ones that were submitted?

All right. An argument from silence to continue with the questions that were submitted. The first question, on the point of rebaptism, the question is, do I need to get baptized if I was sprinkled or immersed as a baby? And a second related question, what if I was immersed as an adult but wasn't a true believer yet?

So, first, with regards, well, even first, before even answering the question, I think we need to acknowledge with a lot of these the cultural and familial weight connected to infant sprinkling. It's obviously a very sentimental and emotional matter with families who believe in infant sprinkling. So I don't want to belittle the weight and the strength that it has culturally and familially with families. And so hopefully none of my comments beforehand, now, or forthcoming come across as belittling the sentimentality and emotional weight that's connected to it. Though, we must, of course, attend to truth.

Now, with regards to, do I need to get baptized if I was sprinkled or immersed as a baby? Thanks, Steve. First of all, with regards to the language of need, we'd want to say baptism obviously doesn't save, nor does obedience to the command save. So the language of, do I need to get baptized? I just wanted to make that qualification if I was sprinkled or immersed as a baby.

But to answer the question more clearly than now, the answer would be yes. And sprinkled as a baby or sprinkled as an adult is improper baptism. But of course, infant baptism itself is no baptism at all. So should you get baptized if you were sprinkled or immersed as a baby? Yes, you should. What if I was immersed as an adult but wasn't a true believer yet? The answer to that also is you should be baptized again, and that's even incorrect language because the first baptism wasn't baptism.

Paragraph two of the confession, chapter 29, those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. So yes, now there is a, I mentioned in our first study that there is this language historically of lawful and valid baptism. two different terms that are used. The only exception where an unlawful baptism is valid and accepted by particular Baptist churches is in the case where it was not administered by one lawfully ordained. Any other situations didn't really bear the validity nor the lawfulness of baptism. I could be corrected by James Renahan if that finds him somewhere out in the ether of the internet, but in reading some of his stuff and some of the stuff from Nehemiah Cox and the history of the particular Baptist, it seems that that's the case. There are some differences among some Baptist churches in some unique cases, but largely the only asterisk is if someone was baptized by someone who was not lawfully ordained. For example, Chapter 28, Paragraph 2, these holy appointments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ. If someone was baptized by a defrocked minister or someone who was not a believing minister or was involved in some sort of a scandal, their baptism was deemed unlawful but valid.

How do I communicate my decision to be baptized to my family who are still firmly attached to paedo-baptism? And, you know, this touches upon what we noted at the outset, the very, the sentimentality, the cultural and familial weight of infant baptism. How do I communicate to your parents, to my parents?

First of all, the disposition in communicating it graciously and patiently. I think it's very important. You don't want to come with guns firing. You want to come with a measure of graciousness and patience because man, you were their little baby who they baptized as they sensed a commitment to the tradition and insofar as they understood the validity of Christian practice. And so there's a heavy weight of sentimentality connected to that and emotionalism. So approaching it with grace and with patience is key. I think communicating the convictions for the decision demonstrating that you're not doing it in haste, but upon the full persuasion concerning biblical baptism. I think you can even communicate or demonstrate appreciation for their parental nurturing and care, for commitment to a tradition, but just to patiently and graciously state the reasons why and demonstrate that it's not a hasteful or superficial decision, but you become convinced by virtue of God and his divine revelation. Jim, experientially, according to knowledge and dealing with it, anything to add or any anecdotal stuff? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And once I've finished with these, you can fire away with follow-ups to them and that sort of a thing.

But similarly, how do I go about, but a little bit more difficult for me, I think, in answering it, how do I go about communicating about baptism with the eldership at my church who strongly believe in infant sprinkling? They can be hostile and very reluctant to have a conversation about it. Yeah, I think the same disposition You're dealing with an elder in Christ's church, so the same disposition of humility and patience, not coming out, firing away at them with arrogance and pride. There are gonna be some that you're not gonna be able to communicate with because of that reluctance and hostility. It's gonna be very difficult.

I think, though, it's very helpful to diffuse not with everybody, because some people might just be beyond it. But it's very helpful to diffuse hostility and reluctance by the way that you approach it, the manner and your disposition in approaching and broaching the subject.

So I think that is the first thing that goes before then the communication of the reasons why you were convicted of credo baptism. And I think it's good to be well-informed before going in. If you become convicted of the reality of creedal baptism, that's fantastic, but then with that and after that, I think you need to be sort of well-informed as to the reasons why. The theological reasons why, the reasons in the Bible that speak to it, and that sort of a thing, so I think that's very important.

Jim, anything to add there? that it's not your duty to convict and convert a paedo-baptist church into a baptist church. If you're struggling and you can no longer continue with good conscience in a particular environment, I think your expectation to get the elders on your side or the church on your side is a bad move.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, no, that's good. Communicating with your elders, one thing is because you'd want to let them know where you stand with respect to a significant doctrine in their tradition. But yeah, you don't want to go about, you know, grabbing everybody that you can find and trying to force them into the Credo Baptist stream. So yeah, you have to handle it very carefully and ecclesiastically. And just, you know, for the good of church order and peace, there's certain ways that you ought to go about it.

Yeah, Jim. in terms of their commitment to it. I mean, if somebody in our church was, you know, going toward paedo-baptism, I would think they would get the best presentation from the other side, if it came to the point where they were convinced of paedo-baptism.

I mean, you know, people change awkwardly. I have not witnessed that the other direction. It's an affront, it's an attack, and I mean, there's just a strange commitment to it. Strange may not be the best word, emotional, whatever it is, they're convinced from Scripture that this is the way it is. I think knowing that, I mean, in a Baptist church, typically, If somebody wants to become a paedo-baptist, they're not going to get excommunicated. They're not going to be disenfranchised. They're not going to be condemned. Where, you know, that tendency, at least in my experience, seems to be more present on the other side. Good. Yeah. Very helpful. Yeah. Yeah, thanks, Jim.

Once someone has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what are their requirements to get baptized? Do they need to take a course, read a book, etc.? ? There are no biblical prerequisites other than believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, first off. So requirements or prerequisites to get baptized, we see in the Bible the narrative clarity of, for example, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. You know, what hinders me from being baptized? Do you believe with all your heart that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

Yes, I do. And then they go find water. And so that's vital and that's important to understand. This isn't, I put but in my notes, but I should probably remove it because I don't want this to seem as a super qualification, but I believe the Bible does afford us with narrative and comment that suggest a Christian prudence prior to administering the ordinance. So yes, the only prerequisite is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. There is also, though, for example, narrative evidence that suggests that the officers of the church navigate according to a Christian prudence. For example, Acts 8 in Simon the Magician. His profession of faith was born out of a desire for power and not out of a humble accepting and receiving of the Lord Jesus Christ in saving faith. And so assessing and discovering the motives for baptism, I think, are very important.

Also, 1 John 2.19, remember the language there, they went out from us, but they were never of us. For if they were of us, they would not have gone out from us, but they went out from us and demonstrated that they weren't obviously part of the Christian covenant community, properly speaking.

Yes, and the next question will sort of answer this to a further degree, but simply saying no, other than belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, there are no other biblical prerequisites. Is there a minimum age to be baptized? The simple answer and only answer is no. There is no minimum age to be baptized. Those who have been taught the gospel, received it, and believed in Christ, those who present a credible profession of faith, should be baptized, and so there is no age.

Our confession is clear, the Bible is clear. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. So there is no minimum age. Four things to observe here that the particular Baptists considered in navigating the proper subjects of baptism according to the simple believe on the Lord Jesus Christ principle. First off, doctrinal understanding, not that they need to be Nehemiah Cox, but the candidate must demonstrate a grasp of essential gospel truths.

Jesus Christ came into this world, sinners to save. I'm a sinner. I believe that Christ died for me, rose again for me, and that in him I have everlasting life. So, doctrinal understanding, evidence of repentance, a public confession that the willingness to declare the faith before the church.

So a public confession and then a sober and thoughtful disposition, not an impulsive or superficial decision. A child, bless their little heart, who just wants to be like mommy and daddy, That's fantastic, but that may not be a genuine profession of faith. But a child who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and can say, you know, to the degree that they are five years old, that I'm a sinner, Christ came into this world, he died for me, I believe in him for everlasting life. But that could be articulated, of course, according to a five-year-old's grammar, vocabulary, and understanding, not according to mine.

So doctrinal understanding, evidence of repentance, a public confession, and a sober and thoughtful disposition. But that's not to somehow heap upon the child additional qualifications. Those are just good things to navigate by in order that we administer rightly to someone who should lawfully receive the ordinance.

Lastly, Before you may ask any others, if I was baptized as a believer by sprinkling or pouring, is that enough?

My answer is, not really, no. The old guys would say the sign must answer the thing signified. So that means that the reason we do baptism by immersion is because that sign signifies the very death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the one in whom we are in union with. And so if you were baptized by sprinkling or pouring, is that enough? Not really, no. You should be baptized by immersion. There may be historical exceptions, because the language of the confession, if you notice here in paragraph four, if you're still in there, immersion or dipping of the person in water is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. Some may have historically seen language, the due administration, so kind of like ordinarily one must be immersed, but you know, If there's no pool and you're providentially hindered from a water source whereby you can be fully immersed but you want to be baptized, then God's gracious and there's an ordinance there for you. But ordinarily speaking, the sign must answer the thing signified. Death, burial. resurrection and union with Christ. So those are some of the answers to the submitted questions. Any other questions? Yes, James.

Yeah, I'd just like to add with reference to children. I don't think there's any problem with parents letting fruit ripen either. I think the younger a child gets, the more difficult it is to assess with that sort of four-fold approach that you gave. I think, you know, the Malachi 4, the ministry of John the Baptist, I think the primary in the context of family or parents. So, yeah, I've always operated under a case-by-case approach to, you know, children.

Yeah, yeah, very good. Thanks, Jim. Yes, Grant? Yeah, not such a question, but more of a... and infants must be baptized as well. The only problem with that is it's self-defeating because, for example, ones that you mentioned as well, Acts 18, verse eight, it says, Christmas, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, so the word there is believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, Paul, that's an important word, hearing Paul, believed and were baptized. Now, according to their own confession of faith, Westminster, and we have the exact same wording, Westminster, chapter 10, verse 3, it says, elect infants, die in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth them.

So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry who are hearing, to be able to hear, you know, it's to be outwardly called. You know, it's the ministry's proclamation. And in order to understand these buildings, Yeah, yeah, very good. Yeah, no, very good. The hearing of the word, the receiving of that word, and the believing in it is emphasized already in those narratives and in Paul's recollection in 1 Corinthians. So yeah, no, very good point. That outward calling, exactly. Anything else? Got a minute and 39 seconds. Okay, well just in closing then, and if you have any questions afterwards, feel free to approach me.

I think it's important to see the inviolable link between covenant, salvation, and ordinance. In other words, those who are to receive baptism and those who are to receive the Lord's Supper are those who have been, before the foundation of the world, decreed to be in time saved by the doing, the dying, and the rising again of Jesus Christ. And all of those elect equal sign all of those who are in the covenant of grace, equal sign all of those who are in the new covenant, because the new covenant is the covenant of grace ratified. The covenant of grace is the new covenant promised. So every member of the covenant of grace Equal sign is everyone who has been decreed by God before the foundation of the world to be saved in due time by the perfect work of Christ. And only they are those who are to be baptized, members of the covenant of grace, who are members of the new covenant, who are the blessed yet undeserved recipients of the perfect and finished work of Jesus Christ and the applicational power of the Holy Spirit.

Well, let's pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for your truth. We rejoice in your goodness to us and giving us your spirit that we may understand the things you've revealed. We pray that you'd help us to approach this subject with humility, with grace, with patience, that we would love your truth yet not be zealous for it without a proper order and peace. And we do pray as we speak with those who are not of the same persuasion that you would help us to have the proper disposition that we would speak according to that humility and patience, and yet with the strength of the truth of your Holy Word. So go with us now into worship, be with Pastor Butler as he prepares to preach, be with those who come in, that our spirits might be lifted to a proper worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we pray in Christ's name, amen.