← Back to sermon library

Well, you can turn in your confessions 
to chapter 29. Chapter 29 of baptism. If anybody 
needs a copy, Roger is maybe heading to the blue basket of 
dogma for you to avail of a copy if you need one. So chapter 29 is the doctrine 
of baptism. If you were here last time, you'll 
remember that we looked at chapter 28, which is called Of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, that being more of an introductory chapter 
on the nature and the purpose of ordinances and how they are 
properly administered. Now we have individual chapters 
dedicated to each of those topics. So, 29 of baptism and then 30 
of the Lord's Supper. So, chapter 29, now it's very 
short, it's very concise, but the weightiness of it in the 
context of the Reformed confessions is, it's very noteworthy. And so, I'll read the four paragraphs 
and then we're really going to get into a study of the proper 
subjects of baptism, who is to be properly of his fellowship with him in 
his death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into him, 
of sins and of his giving up unto 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. 
So we have first in paragraph one a definition of baptism, 
what it is, and in there we do have something of who the lawful 
subjects of baptism are, but paragraph two properly represents 
that. Paragraph two answers the question, 
who are the proper recipients, the lawful recipients of the 
ordinance or sacrament of baptism? Paragraph 3 is the elements to 
be used in baptism, and then paragraph 4 is the proper manner 
by which baptism is to take place. Of course, here by immersion 
or dipping, not by sprinkling, but by immersion or dipping. 
Significantly, with regards to Reformed Christianity throughout 
history and up to our own day and including our own day, the 
doctrine of baptism is obviously a very significant one. So the 
objective of our study is going to explore why Reformed Baptists 
administer baptism only to professing believers. So we're going to 
do that, and in the course of doing that, examine some key 
theological arguments, and at times compare those to paedo-baptistic 
arguments. Just to set or frame our minds 
regarding the spirit of the study, this is a quote taken from the 
appendix to baptism in our confession of faith. I don't know if sadly 
is the word, but sadly, our copies of the confession of faith here 
don't include the appendix on baptism, but in the original 
and in other printed editions, there's an appendix on baptism, 
and it has some wonderful language and arguments expanding upon 
the stuff of chapter 29, and actually a lot to do with the 
stuff of chapter 7 on the covenants. But this is a quote to the spirit 
of our study, not one of hard polemicism, but one of defending 
the truth and speaking according to conscience. And although we 
do differ, this is the Baptist, from our brethren, that is the 
Pato Baptists, and although we do differ from our brethren, 
oh, they say it, who are Pato Baptists, in the subject and 
administration of baptism and such other circumstances as have 
a necessary dependence on our observance of that ordinance, 
yet we would not be from hence misconstrued as if the discharge 
of our own consciences herein did anyway disoblige or alienate 
our affections or conversation from any others that fear the 
Lord. We do not want to make the distance between us and our 
Paedo-Baptist brethren more wide. For it is our duty and concern 
so far as possible for us, retaining a good conscience towards God, 
to seek a more entire agreement and reconciliation with them. 
So the idea wasn't to be, as they would state elsewhere, to 
be obstinate in the face of what is so-called the truth and with 
respect to their Paedo-Baptist brothers, but rather to engage 
in a collegial reflection and rejoicement on the fact that 
they have so much in agreement and where they do differ to express 
calmly, to express firmly, but to express in the measure of 
Christian liberality and freedom where the disagreements were. 
One, just very briefly, just because it touches upon this, 
what are the Baptists doing with the publication of their confession 
of faith? And this helps with the discussion 
on baptism and where we differ with our Paedo-Baptist brethren. 
What are the Baptists doing in publishing their confession of 
faith after the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists in 
the 17th century? Well, first, they're simply faithfully 
expressing what the scriptures teach. Secondly, they're demonstrating 
their fidelity to a received theological heritage. So they 
want to show, and they are showing, that we're not deviating, we're 
not schismatics, we're retaining and upholding the faith that 
was once for all delivered to the saints. Thirdly, they're 
demonstrating their affinity with their fellow Reformed contemporaries. So with the Paedobaptists, with 
those of the Presbyterian and Congregational persuasion, and 
those of the Church of England, they're expressing their fidelity 
to or their affinity with the doctrines that they likewise 
hold. Fourthly, they're distancing 
themselves from the Anabaptists and other schismatics. So while 
they're showing their affinity to the Reformed, they're also 
negatively wanting to distance themselves from the Anabaptists 
and the Sassinians, in fact, because there were charges being 
laid against them in the 17th century that they were, in essence, 
just like the Anabaptists and the Sassinians, especially at 
the point of the rejection of certain points of covenant theology 
and the rejection of infant baptism. Fifthly, they're asserting for 
fidelity to truth, and so for conscience's sake, where they 
differ from their Reformed contemporaries. And then sixthly, to use the 
language of Nehemiah Cox, they're confuting the heresies and gross 
errors of those outside of Christian truth. So at the points of baptism, 
specifically for our study, demonstrating affinity while also asserting 
where they differ from their Reformed contemporaries. So the 
first thing we want to do is look at why Reformed Baptists 
administer baptism only to professing believers, first from the argument 
from covenant theology. Our particular Baptist forefathers 
saw the answer to the question, who are the members of the covenant 
of grace, as coming necessarily before the answer to the question, 
who should lawfully be baptized? So, I don't know if I want to 
say a more important question, but a more primary or necessarily 
preceding question is, who are the members of the covenant of 
grace? And so the Baptists then, of course, differ. At the point 
of covenant theology, the Baptists affirm the doctrine of the covenants 
that God, in his communication and in his dealings with men, 
has condescended by way of covenant in order to communicate and to 
deal with men. We would say that the Baptists 
have a more robust and a more biblically, more fidelity to 
the biblical record approach to covenant theology than the 
Paedo-Baptists, and they would certainly love us for saying 
that. So, firstly, under the argument from covenant theology, 
just some things that we affirm and deny with regards to our 
approach and the Pado-Baptists' approach. So a list of things 
to help us through the study, what do we affirm and what do 
we deny at the point of covenant theology. And just before we 
list these things, a definition of language that's very important 
in this discussion, a definition of two words that are very important 
in this discussion, and those two words are substance and administration. Substance, with respect to covenant 
theology, pertains to the core essential theological doctrines 
inherent to a particular covenant. The core theology, the essential 
theology of a covenant. What is the substance of a covenant? Administration pertains to, or 
refers to, the rights or ordinances associated to a particular covenant. So the administration of the 
new covenant is seen specifically with regards to the sacraments 
in baptism in the Lord's Supper. The administration in the old 
covenant would be those ceremonies, those sacrifices, the ceremonial 
law, circumcision, Passover, those sorts of things. So substance 
is with respect to the essential and unchanging theological or 
doctrinal core, the core matter and reality of something. Administration, 
distinct from substance, refers to the temporary, outward, and 
typological manner by which a covenant is managed, simply how it is 
administered, what are the rights and ceremonies associated with 
it. What do we affirm and deny with 
regards to covenant theology? We affirm, first, with the paedo-baptists 
that only members of the covenant of grace should be baptized. Just for everybody's sake, though 
most of you would know this, paedo-baptism simply means the 
practice of baptizing infants. So we affirm with the paedo-baptists 
that only members of the covenant of grace should be baptized. We deny, secondly, against the 
Paedo-Baptists that the children of believing parents are members 
of the covenant of grace. So we differ very essentially 
at who those covenant members are. Who are they? They are believers 
only. They are those who are the recipients 
of the blessings of the covenant of grace, which are, as we'll 
see, those blessings perfectly executed and won for us by the 
covenant mediator, Jesus Christ. And so we affirm that only members 
of the covenant of grace should be baptized, but we deny that 
children of believing parents are members of the covenant of 
grace, and we'll see why. Thirdly, we affirm the unity 
of the covenant of grace, seeing it as a progressively revealed 
covenant, formerly concluded by the life, death, and resurrection 
of Jesus Christ. You can turn back to chapter 
seven in the confession to see this. So we're affirming the unity 
of the covenant of grace. We don't deny the unity of the 
covenant of grace. As we'll see in a moment, we'll 
note what we do deny with regards to unity and discontinuity. But 
notice that the covenant of grace is a progressively revealed covenant 
formerly concluded, executed, and ratified by Jesus Christ, 
His life, death, and resurrection. Paragraph 3 of chapter 7. This 
covenant, previously noted as the covenant of grace, is revealed 
in the gospel. first of all to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterward by farther 
steps, progressively revealed, until the full discovery thereof 
was completed in the New Testament, that is, formerly concluded by 
Christ in his life, death, and resurrection. And it is founded 
in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and 
the son about the redemption of the elect. And it is alone 
by the grace of this covenant that all of the posterity of 
fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed 
immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with 
God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. Notice some of the key aspects 
here with regards to who are members of the covenant of grace. We see, and it is founded in 
that eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and 
the son about the redemption of the elect. So the covenant 
of grace is founded in the covenant of redemption, that eternal covenant 
transaction between the Father and the Son, and it is about 
the redemption of the elect. The covenant of grace concerns, 
as its covenant members, and they only, those who are the 
elect in Jesus Christ. So we affirm the unity of the 
covenant of grace, and then fourthly, we deny the view that holds to 
one covenant under two administrations, the old covenant and the new 
covenant. So while the Paedo-Baptists hold 
that view, that what we see with respect to the covenant of grace 
is that it's administered differently in the old covenant and then 
differently in the new, but those differently administered covenants 
nevertheless have the same substance and they are constitutively then 
the covenant of grace properly speaking. This is just a couple 
quotes here on this approach. First off, by Pascal Deneau. He's got a wonderful book on 
the distinctiveness of Reformed Baptist covenant theology. He 
says, and he's quoting Owen here, a Pato Baptist. Now, Owen John 
Owen was one of the few Paedo-Baptists that rejected the primary Paedo-Baptist 
view of the 17th century and the centuries before that. There 
were a handful of men who were really on the same level as the 
Baptists with regards to covenant theology, but they just didn't 
conclude properly with regards to the sign of the covenant baptism. 
So this is Deneau, he says, Owen rejected the model of a covenant 
of grace under two administrations. While other Paedo-Baptists saw 
the Old Covenant as being different in circumstance, but identical 
in substance to the New Covenant, Owen considered that the Old 
Covenant was different from the New Covenant, both in circumstance 
and in substance. In other words, not only is it 
two different administrations, But it has to do with, the two 
covenants have to do with completely different substances. That is, 
one is earthly, temporal, typological. The other is heavenly, eternal, 
and realized or fulfilled. And so how can one covenant that 
has a completely different substance be administered and given to 
those who really bear the marks of those under a covenant with 
a different substance. Or we could say that someone 
cannot receive a sign when they are not the beneficiaries of 
the substance of that covenant for which that sign is given. 
An infant who is not the beneficiary, we would say an unbelieving or 
an unregenerated infant, a non-believing child, whether or not they are 
the child of a believing parent, they cannot receive the administration 
of a right that signifies something that they are not the beneficiaries 
of. And we'll see this when we get 
to the argument from the doctrine of salvation and Christ as mediator. So moving along then, That was, 
we deny the view that holds to one covenant under two administrations, 
the Old and the New. Fifthly, we affirm the unity 
of the substance of the covenant of grace from the fall of man 
to the end of the world, and so across the entirety of the 
revelation of God in the books of the Old and New Testaments. 
So we ought not to conflate the old covenant identically with 
the revelation of the New Testament from Genesis to Malachi. Because 
we affirm, as Reformed Baptists, Reformed Credo Baptists, that 
salvation has always been and will always be by Jesus Christ, 
his perfect life, death, and resurrection. Everyone who believes 
in that, whether they fell before the coming of Christ or after 
the coming of Christ, I don't mean fell as in fall in Adam, 
but whether they lived and breathed prior to the coming of Christ 
or after, everyone has been and always will and ever will be 
saved by the perfect work of the Lord Jesus Christ by believing 
in him and his blessed work. Sixthly then, we deny that there 
is the same unity between the substance of the Old Covenant 
and that of the New Covenant. The substance was different, 
and we'll see more of that. But this is Cox, one of the Grand 
Poobahs connected to our Confession of Faith. The Old Covenant and 
the New do differ in substance and not in the manner of their 
administration only. So the Baptists did recognize 
that, of course, they're administered differently. In the New Covenant, 
we don't offer up sacrifices. We don't engage in those ceremonial 
various washings and ceremonies that obtained under the Old Covenant. 
We no longer have Passover. We no longer have circumcision. 
We no longer have all of these rites of Old Covenant holiness 
and religion. So we deny that there is that 
same unity between the old and the new. And we'll see, how can 
there be a substantial unity between a breakable covenant 
and an unbreakable covenant? And that's not the only argument, 
but how could there be parity? Owen writes, here then arises 
a difference of no small importance, namely, whether these, the old 
and new covenants, are indeed two distinct covenants as to 
the essence and substance of them, or only different ways 
of the dispensation and administration of the same covenant. And he 
answers with the Baptist that the difference is indeed due 
to the essence or the substance of them. Owen also writes this 
more clearly with respect to the substance argument. We may consider that scripture 
does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments or 
covenants and distinguish between them in such a way that what 
is spoken can hardly be accommodated to a two-fold administration 
of the same covenant, the covenant of grace. If reconciliation and 
salvation by Christ were to be obtained, not only under the 
old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same 
for substance with the new. But this is not so. For no reconciliation 
with God nor salvation could be obtained, this is important 
language, by virtue of the old covenant. or the administration 
of it, as our apostle disputes at large in the book of Hebrews, 
though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved by virtue 
of the promise while they were under the covenant. Now, let 
me try and sort of distill that. When Owen says no one was saved 
by virtue of the old covenant, he's not saying that nobody in 
the old covenant was saved. but they were not saved by virtue 
of what the old covenant held forth or promised, they were 
saved upon what the covenant of grace or the new covenant 
promised held forth, life and salvation by Jesus Christ. And 
so, again, there is a substantial difference between the Old Covenant 
and the New Covenant. And with that said, then, we 
can't import things and principles from the Old Covenant into the 
New with regards to who are the members of the Covenant, nor 
who should receive particular covenant signs. The substance, 
again, of the old covenant was earthly, temporal, and typological. The substance of the new covenant, 
by strong contrast, is heavenly, eternal, fulfilled, and realized. Now, what's some of the biblical 
basis for this? Let's turn to our Bibles here. 
You can turn to Jeremiah 31 with me. Jeremiah 31. All members of the new covenant are saved. And we'll see that here in a 
moment. And we must say this before we read this. The covenant 
of grace is the new covenant promised. This is important, 
the covenant of grace. So it's different than saying 
that the new covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. Again, 
one of two administrations, but much rather there is an identicality 
between the covenant of grace and the new covenant. The covenant 
of grace is again, the new covenant promised. If we flip that language 
around, the New Testament is the covenant of grace fulfilled 
or realized. Now, notice in Jeremiah 31, beginning 
at verse 31. Many of you will be aware of 
this passage as it connects to this topic, as well as what Paul 
does with it in the book of Hebrews, which we could say is the book 
of the Baptists. if I may say, with regards to 
this particular argument. It's a book for the Paedo-Baptists 
as well, of course, because it holds forth Christ and his perfect 
substitutionary atoning work, his glory, his superabounding 
excellence, his splendor. But with regards to covenant 
theology and the implications for baptism, it is the Baptist's 
epistle. Jeremiah 31, beginning at verse 
31. Now, pause. Just by virtue of it being a 
new covenant, that would mean it is substantially different. Moving on, verse 32. Not according 
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that 
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, 
my covenant, which they broke, though I was a husband to them, 
says the Lord. Pause for a moment. The New Covenant 
has to obviously then be substantially different because this New Covenant 
is first, not according to that Old Covenant, and secondly, it 
is unbreakable. By contrast, the Old Covenant 
was breakable. So we move on, verse 33. But 
this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel 
after those days, says the Lord. And now here marks substantial 
differences between the new and the old. Not just differences 
in administration, but differences in substance. Notice, I will 
put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts, and 
I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No more shall 
every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 
Know the Lord. For they all shall know me, from 
the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I 
will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember 
no more. That's a strong statement with 
regards to not just an administrative difference, as if the new is 
just that, it's just administratively different, but the same in substance. No, the weight of the matter, 
it's already been introduced in verses 31 and 32, but now 
in 33 and following, the substance is significant. All those in 
the new covenant are those who are saved, who have the law, written on their hearts, not 
just creatively, not just by virtue of their creation, as 
in Adam and Eve, and as it's marred by virtue of the fall 
and original sin, but it's redemptively written upon the heart of those 
who are given these new covenant benefits. There is no requirement 
to engage in evangelism properly speaking to those in the covenant, 
because they've already been saved through evangelistic efforts 
by the attending spirit of the Most High God. Now, the gospel 
being preached to those in the new covenant is absolutely vital 
for our food, for our strength, for the recommitment and reconfiguration 
of our minds back to the one who bought us from out of slavery. And then, of course, the forgiveness 
of sins. They all shall know me, and they 
all shall receive the forgiveness of sins. And so, the connection 
of the substantial reality of the new covenant, which is the 
same as the substantial reality of the covenant of grace, it's 
just now the new covenant, or the old covenant of grace, ratified 
or fulfilled, the substantial reality is such that with regards 
to baptism, we cannot give the sign of these new covenant blessings 
to those who fall outside of the efficacious giving. of those 
new covenant blessings. And so hopefully you can see 
the connection between covenant theology and the administration 
of the rite of baptism. You can turn to Hebrews for a 
moment because this is where the Apostle Paul brings Jeremiah 
31, 31 to 34 into the argument for a better covenant. and he sets the old covenant 
in contradistinction from the new covenant in such a way that 
it really betrays intelligence, or lack thereof, or perhaps, 
you know, just honesty to the reality of the text to say that 
that's only a difference in administration. Notice first of all, and we're 
gonna pick up at Hebrews eight at verse six, But now he has, 
that is Christ, obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch 
as he is also mediator of a better covenant, which was established 
on better promises. And that's an important twofold, 
before we read on, that's an important twofold emphasis there. First off, well actually, threefold. We've obtained a more excellent 
ministry. a more excellent ministry. If 
it was just a difference in administration, I don't think the Apostle Paul 
could use that language, a more excellent ministry, but it's 
compounded or it's gloriously amplified by the next set of 
clauses. Inasmuch as he, Christ, is also 
the mediator of a better covenant. Not the same covenant differently 
administered, or not another covenant which character is only 
that, it is differently administered, but a better covenant. And then 
again, which was established on better promises. And we'll 
have a couple quotes here in a moment that speak to the very 
important connection of promise to the substance of a covenant. Notice verse seven though, for 
if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would 
have been sought for a second, because finding fault with them, 
he says, and then he quotes Jeremiah 31 to 34. Now notice at the end, 
because we just read that, in that he says a new covenant in 
Jeremiah, he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming 
obsolete is growing old and ready to vanish away. So just a couple 
comments there on that. I realize as we're moving along, 
and I knew this would happen, that we won't be able to get 
through all five points. But hopefully it's OK that we 
slow down a little bit and entertain at length the study of this because 
not that no other topic in the confession is important because 
they all are, and there are some more important than this. The 
doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of justification 
by faith alone. But in our context, in Chilliwack 
uniquely, and in our context in this modern Reformed world, 
I think it's good for us to understand why we are Credo Baptists. Not 
just to say that we are, not just to engage in the rite of 
baptism, but also to be well informed as to why we can say 
we are Reformed, on the one sense and Baptist on the other, because 
this expression of covenant theology terminating in a proper approach 
to baptism is emphatic and vital. So a couple things on this text. 
Notice at verse 7, if the first covenant had been faultless, 
then no place would have been sought for a second. Now, that 
language of not being faultless doesn't mean that the onus is 
somehow on God because he failed in the giving of the covenant. 
It just has to do with the very substance of the covenant. The 
substance of the covenant, it didn't hold forth First of all, 
it didn't hold forth eternal life, but secondly, what it did 
hold forth, those to whom it was held forth, failed in their 
covenantal obedience. They incurred the curses of the 
covenant, and that necessitated and pointed forward to the reality 
of a needed mediator, of one who did, perform covenant obedience 
and who brings many sons to glory through the perfection of covenant 
obedience and covenant curse bearing. So the language of the 
first covenant being not being faultless, but the second one 
being faultless, that language of course brings to the fore 
the reality of a substantial difference between the old covenant 
and the new covenant. Now notice, if you turn with 
me to 2 Corinthians 3, what we're doing here is we're establishing 
the biblical reality that there isn't just an administrative 
difference between the Old and the New Covenants. but much rather 
a substantial one. And so, we cannot apply the principles 
of circumcision that obtained in the old covenant as somehow 
relevant to the rite of baptism in the new covenant. They were 
substantially different. Notice in 2 Corinthians 3, we'll 
pick up reading at verse 2. You are our epistle written in 
our hearts, known and read by all men. Clearly, you are an 
epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, 
but by the spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, 
but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. And we have 
such trust through Christ toward God, not that we are sufficient 
of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but 
our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as 
ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter, but of the 
Spirit. For the letter kills, but the 
Spirit gives life. So there's a contrast being made 
there between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. And clearly, 
as we can see, the language is one of a significant, substantial 
difference. The New Covenant, it's not of 
the letter, but of the spirit. The Old Covenant is the letter 
that kills, but the New Covenant brings the spirit that gives 
life. And so we see there something 
absolutely vital. The New Covenant is defined by 
its spiritual reality. All members are regenerate, forgiven, 
and know the Lord. The Old Covenant held forth promises 
connected to the land, not to eternal life. So land, not life. The Old Covenant held forth blessings, 
yes, but it held forth cursings for disobedience. And so we cannot 
say then that there is a substantial unity between the Old Covenant 
and the New Covenant. And lastly, under the biblical 
basis, though it doesn't exhaust that, Covenants established on 
different promises cannot have the same substance. How could 
covenants established on different promises, as Paul clearly brings 
forth in Hebrews, have the same substance? You can turn back 
to the book of Hebrews for a moment. This time, Hebrews 7. Hebrews chapter 7. Notice in 
Hebrews 7 at verse 18, for on the one hand, there is an annulling 
of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness. For the law made nothing perfect. 
On the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, 
through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as he was not 
made priest without an oath, for they have become priests 
without an oath, but he with an oath by him who said to him, 
the Lord has sworn and will not relent. You are a priest forever 
according to the order of Melchizedek. By so much more, Jesus has become 
surety of a better covenant. We see this language here of 
the former covenant being weak and unprofitable by virtue of 
the fact that it could not make anything perfect. And then we 
have that followed up by the new covenant ratified in Jesus 
Christ on an oath and this language of by so much more. in relation 
to the Melchizedekian priesthood, and those things wrapped up in 
its typology, and with relative comparison to the old covenant, 
by so much more, Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. And so I think the substantial 
reality is clear, but one more text, Romans 9, Romans 9, the Apostle Paul again, 
this time in his epistle to the Romans, speaking about an effectual 
difference between those who are truly the people of God, 
believers in God, and those who are outside of covenant blessing, 
yet still part of the same covenant. and that being the old covenant. 
So notice in Romans nine at verse six, but it is not that the word 
of God has taken no effect for they are not all Israel who are 
of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of 
Abraham. But in Isaac, your seed shall 
be called. So this, the seed connection, 
with regards to covenant doesn't have to do with physical descendency. And so therefore, those who are 
the recipients of covenant blessings are not those who are of physical 
descendency, but rather those who are spiritually Israelites. In other words, those connected 
to the covenant of grace, connected to Abraham, not by physicality, 
but by faith. They are in the seed, that is 
the capital S seed of Abraham Christ, by virtue of faith in 
him. As Paul would say in his epistle 
to the Galatians, that all those who are of faith are the sons 
and the daughters of Abraham. Not all those connected by a 
physical linkage or descendancy, but rather those who are of faith. 
So some concluding points here regards to this point, the argument 
from covenant theology. And then we'll have a look at 
the argument from federal headship. Some concluding points here first, 
the importance of seeing the difference between the promissory 
nature, that is the nature of a promise, the promissory nature 
of the covenant of grace given to Adam, and the actual establishment 
of that covenant, and so the administration of it. Let's put 
it this way. The covenant of grace cannot 
be administered until it's ratified. Because you can't have an administration 
of a covenant that has yet to be fulfilled and realized and 
formally concluded by the action of a thing. In the giving of 
the covenant of grace to Adam in the garden, there is no blood 
ceremony. There is no sprinkling of blood. There is no sacrifice given. So the promise of the covenant 
of grace is exactly that. It's a promise. It's not formally 
a covenant until the covenant is ratified by blood. Remember 
the words of Christ in the inauguration of the Lord's Supper. This is 
the new covenant in my blood, given for many for the forgiveness 
of sins. So when the covenant of grace 
is ratified in the new covenant by the life, death, and resurrection 
of Jesus Christ, peculiarly his death, Only then, then and only 
then, can the right connected to that covenant be given, which 
is baptism. And so that, it's an important 
thing and we'll see that next time as we look at the doctrine 
of worship and how commandments concerning worship are to be 
obeyed by those engaging in worship. So the importance of seeing the 
difference between the promissory nature of the covenant of grace 
and its fulfillment in Christ. This is Owen on this point. It lacked its solemn, on the 
covenant of grace, it lacked its solemn confirmation and establishment 
by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged to it. Before 
this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal 
nature of a covenant or a testament as our apostle proves, Hebrews 
9, 15 to 23. For neither, as he shows in that 
place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had 
it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. To that 
end, the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant. As many have said, it's amazing 
that John Owen wasn't a particular Baptist. Secondly, the importance 
of the substance of the New Covenant, which is the covenant of grace 
ratified by Christ. So the importance of the substance 
of the New Covenant as different from that of the Old Covenant. This is, first off, a quote by 
John Toombs. who was a Credo Baptist in, mysteriously 
enough, the Church of England. And then a quote by Samuel Renahan, 
Dr. Sam Renahan. So this is on the 
promise reality. How can one be given the sign 
of a promise when that particular promise differs completely from 
another promise where that sign is properly given? A covenant 
being essentially a promise, differs essentially from another 
promise when the things promised are different. So this is why 
the Old Covenant is substantially different, is because not only 
does it have a different substance, but it promises different things. 
So how can it be an administration of the covenant of grace and 
then Therefore, how could Old Covenant members, whether believing 
or unbelieving, whether believing or unbelieving children, be given 
a sign of a promise for which that covenant is not connected? Put another way, the New Covenant 
is, this is still tombs, or excuse me, as the promise of land in 
the Old Covenant differs essentially from the promise of life in the 
New Covenant. The New Covenant is not the old 
renewed, but they differ specifically in the essentials and not only 
in rites, such as circumcision and baptism. Sam Renahan says, 
covenants are distinguished in substance when their promises 
are different. Promise of land in the Old Covenant, 
promise of life eternal in the New. When their promises are 
different or when they produce different effects. The Old Covenant 
produced different effects. than the New Covenant did. The 
Old Covenant provided temporal blessings for obedience, but 
did not confer eternal salvation. The Old Covenant revealed sin, 
but offered no power to overcome it, leading to condemnation for 
those who failed to keep its demands. The Old Covenant left 
Israel under the curse of disobedience and pointed to the need for a 
better covenant. Now the New Covenant. Again, 
not just a different administration, but very close to the old. The 
new covenant, as far as effects, secures the salvation of the 
elect, bringing them into a restored relationship with God, brings 
eternal life and the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, produces 
inward transformation, enabling believers to obey God from the 
heart, is unconditional in its establishment and effectual in 
its application, guaranteeing salvation for all its members, 
accomplishes what the old covenant could not, true reconciliation 
with God. And so hopefully we can see here 
that because these covenants are so different, to transfer 
a principle of believers and their seed, believers and their 
children, from a covenant which is substantially different, from 
a covenant which offers and sets forth completely different promises 
and those that are earthly and temporal, to transfer that principle 
to a covenant which is substantially different, which promises are 
infinitely and gloriously better, is a transgression of administration 
and outside the will of God for a proper exercise in the Christian 
church and is just bad theology. Thirdly, let's just observe here 
just a simple question. How can an unbreakable covenant 
be broken? Remember, it's the argument within 
most of the galaxies of the Paedo-Baptists that those in the covenant can 
fall outside of the covenant blessings. So those baptized 
who are called members of the covenant of grace and members 
of the church, strangely speaking, that they can ultimately and 
finally fall outside of the covenant because they are not truly believers. They're just the children of 
believers with a promise held forth regarding the possibility 
of redemption. But when God announces that the 
covenant is an unbreakable covenant, unlike the covenant that preceded 
it, We cannot have those who can break the covenant in the 
covenant because the covenant is unbreakable. To wrap this 
up regarding just the argument from covenant theology and then 
we'll look at something from federal headship. When we look 
at the covenant keeping of the Lord Jesus Christ. When we look 
at covenant theology, let's just say the biblical reality of God 
dealing by way of covenant, and we connect that to baptism with 
regards to only those in the covenant being baptized, we need 
to just Consider for a moment the incarnation and work of the 
Lord Jesus Christ connected to the covenant. What do we have 
in the incarnation of Jesus Christ using the language of covenant? 
We have the covenant maker taking on the form of covenant breakers, 
So that gloriously, by being the covenant keeper, substitutionarily, 
and being the covenant curse bearer, substitutionarily, he 
might bring a multitude of covenant breakers to everlasting salvation. And so why then would we give 
the covenant sign to those who fall outside of the perfect work 
of the covenant maker who became the covenant keeper by taking 
on the form of covenant breakers to bring those covenant breakers 
to glory? Secondly then, the argument from 
federal headship. The argument from federal headship 
directly connected to covenant theology Federal headship asserts, 
and federal simply means covenant, agreement, pact. Federal headship asserts that 
all of humanity is represented by one of two federal or covenant 
heads, either Adam or Christ. So we are either, A, outside 
of grace, and according to the curse of the covenant of works, 
dead and fallen in Adam, or B, by the grace of the covenant 
of grace, alive and redeemed in Christ. No one can be, at 
the same time, under the federal or covenant headship of Adam 
and Christ. And so, what does this have to 
do with baptism? Since baptism signifies union 
with Christ as the federal or covenant head of the one baptized, 
it... has a very significant and directly 
applicable connection to this principle. How can one who is 
under the federal headship of Adam, an infant or a child, an 
unbelieving infant or a child, under the federal headship of 
Adam as their representative, be given a sign that reflects 
union and connection to Christ, who is not their federal head. 
Or, if the paedobaptists are to say that in some way, Christ 
is the federal head of unbelieving children, that must mean that 
Christ fails as the federal head of unbelieving children who do 
not believe, who do not believe during their life and are cast 
into the lake of fire. So the question is, can Christ 
fail as a federal head? Can Christ fail as a representative 
for his people? Is there some third class of 
individual within the rubric of humanity that is somehow under 
two representatives at the same time, though dead in Adam, they 
are still somehow represented by Christ? The answer has to 
be an unequivocal no. Since the unbelieving infants 
or children of believing parents are under the federal headship 
of Adam, for under what other covenant headship could they 
be when dead in trespasses and sins, and so not under the representative 
headship of Christ, they are not to receive the sign of union 
with Christ, the federal head. And just to see that we do have 
this connection, this reality in the Bible, you can turn with 
me to Romans chapter five. Romans 5. You can make a note 
also of 1 Corinthians 15, 22 and 15. 43 to 49-ish, speaking of, in Adam 
all die, in Christ all are made alive. But notice in the language 
of Romans 5, we could say the entirety of verse 12 through 
to verse 17 and then what follows, but let's just pick up at verse 
18. So Romans 5, 18, therefore, as 
through one man's obedience, Therefore, as through one man's 
offense, judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, 
even so through one man's righteous act, the free gift came to all 
men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's 
disobedience, many were made sinners, so also by one man's 
obedience, many will be made righteous. So there are two representatives 
for humanity. In Adam, all die. In Christ, 
all shall be made alive. And should we give a right of 
the new covenant that's connected to the man who performed perfect 
obedience substitutionarily to those who very well may not be 
the actual recipients of that blessed saving act and efficacy. The answer is an unequivocal 
of course not. So a simple explanation here, 
only those united to Christ by faith are in the new covenant 
and under his federal headship. Infants cannot exercise faith 
and therefore cannot be properly baptized as covenant members. The next time that we gather, 
we'll finish this off and we'll look at the argument from the 
doctrine of salvation or the argument from the doctrine of 
the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ. Hopefully we've seen 
that a bit already from the doctrine of the covenants. and the doctrine 
of federal headship just briefly touched upon, that it is only 
those who are the blessed yet undeserved recipients of the 
finished work of the covenant keeper and the covenant perfecter 
who are to be the actual recipients of the right of the same. And 
so we'll close with that. I'll close with prayer. And then 
if there's any questions, you can ask away. God, we thank you 
for this time together studying a significant topic. We thank 
you we can speak of such things that we can engage in these sorts 
of contexts where we can, by the Spirit, know our precious 
Christ and seek to be faithful to the doctrines and the ordinances 
given and commanded by him. We do pray that you'd help us 
in this study to understand a right to approach with that proper 
spirit of collegiality, yet a strong and firm adherence to those things 
most surely revealed. And we pray in Christ's name. 
Amen.