← Back to sermon library

Our great God, we come to you 
in prayer now in this time before we engage in the learning from 
the Holy Scriptures and the study of doctrine. We thank you for 
this new day. We thank you for this Lord's 
Day. We rejoice in this one day out of seven that you've given 
to us in a special and a unique way to come from out of the world 
and into the house of God to worship our blessed God, Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit. And we do just pray that you 
would bless this day unto your honor and praise, that we would 
rejoice in you, our God, that we would rejoice in Christ, our 
Savior, and that we would sing the praises of amazing grace. 
We thank you for the forgiveness of sins, for the blood of our 
Savior, for His righteousness, for the perfection of His work, 
and for the fact that you have, in your timing, brought us forth 
from darkness to light to behold the glories of our God and the 
riches of Jesus Christ. Do be with us now as we study. 
Help us by your Spirit to be illumined according to truth, 
and that we would lay hold of truth with an unswerving grip. And we pray in Christ's name, 
amen. You can turn in your confessions to chapter 29. We're continuing 
our study in the doctrine of baptism. I'll read all four paragraphs, 
and then we'll continue looking at who are the lawful recipients 
of baptism, who are those who should be baptized, and what 
are the theological arguments that support credo baptism and 
that would negatively then reject the practice of infant sprinkling. 
So I'll read these four paragraphs, and then we'll continue with 
the study. 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. So our study has been in the 
theology of credo-baptism to explore why Reformed Baptists 
administer baptism only to professing believers, and in so doing, examining 
some key theological arguments, and at times comparing those 
to paedo-baptistic arguments. Last time we looked at the argument 
from covenant theology, noting that it was important to the 
particular Baptist to answer first the question, who is a 
member of the covenant of grace? before they answer the question, 
who is to be baptized? And the answer to both of those 
questions is the same, it is believers only. Those who have 
been brought forth from darkness to light, a member of the covenant 
of grace is one who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. And 
so therefore, the one who is to receive the sign of inclusion 
in the covenant of grace is only those who believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ. And we examine some things with 
regards to covenant theology. The fact that the old covenant 
is not an administration of the covenant of grace, but is a subservient 
covenant, a physical temporal and typological covenant that 
points to the riches of the Covenant of Grace and anticipates and 
prepares for the New Covenant. So the Old Covenant, contrary 
to most of the paedo-baptistic schemes, the Old Covenant is 
not an administration of the Covenant of Grace. And therefore 
it does not contain the same substance as the Covenant of 
Grace or the New Covenant. That substance being not physical, 
temporal, and typological, but eternal, realized and fulfilled 
in the Lord Jesus Christ. And spiritual, of course, as 
in contrast to physical. So who are the members of the 
covenant of grace? And then, therefore, who are 
the members of the New Covenant? Because remember, the Covenant 
of Grace and the New Covenant are essentially the same. The 
difference is that the Covenant of Grace is the promise of the 
New Covenant, while the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace ratified. And so they are the same, but 
prior to the coming of Christ, the covenant of grace was properly 
promissory. It bears the nature of a promise, 
and then when Christ come, that covenant is ratified. And so 
therefore, the administration of baptism in the new covenant 
is given to those who are members of the covenant of grace, who 
can only be those who have been decreed to believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. We also 
talked from the argument from federal headship. How can we 
baptize one that is under the federal headship of Adam and 
not Christ? And also, one cannot be at the 
same time under the representative and federal and covenantal headship 
of Adam and Christ. Therefore, we baptize only those 
who are to receive the sign of one represented by their federal 
head, the Lord Jesus Christ, and they are believers only. 
So now we're going to pick up with Thirdly, these are five 
theological arguments we had first from covenant theology, 
second from federal headship, and now thirdly, the argument 
from the doctrine of salvation. the argument from the doctrine 
of salvation. The argument is simply this, 
baptism is directly connected to the perfect finished work 
of Christ and the application of the benefits of that work 
to those for whom he lived, died, and rose again, and for whom 
he ever lives to intercede. It is only they who are to receive 
the sign of union with Christ, because it is only believers, 
those for whom Christ lived, died, and rose again, and for 
whom he lives to intercede, it is only they then who are to 
receive the sign of such union and such salvific connection. 
This is John Owen drawing a connection between the covenant theology, 
and those who are included in the covenant of grace, and those 
who then have their sins pardoned. And remember, John Owen was a 
paedo-baptist. but he is, was, you know, closer 
to the particular Baptist scheme than any other Paedo-Baptist. 
Indeed, this is the excellence of this covenant, and so it is 
here declared that it does effectually communicate all the grace and 
mercy contained in it. to all and everyone with whom 
it is made. And with whomever it is made, 
his sins are pardoned." And so we see a direct connection between 
those who are in the covenant of grace and those who are covered 
by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and receive the forgiveness 
of sins. We would draw an equal sign between 
members of the covenant of grace, and those who are saved by the 
Lord Jesus Christ. There is an equal sign between 
those two. Those who are in the covenant 
of grace, or we'll say the new covenant promised, or again, 
the new covenant ratifying the covenant of grace, those who 
are in that covenant are those who are saved by the Lord Jesus 
Christ. And so baptism, being directly 
connected to the perfect finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
it is only those who are the recipients of that perfect work 
who are to receive its sign. What is the biblical basis for 
this? You can turn with me to Romans 6. Romans 6. And as you're turning there, 
what we're going to see here is that baptism signifies union 
with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. So Romans chapter 
six, and this is in the midst of the Apostle Paul arguing for, 
blessedly setting forth the doctrine of justification by faith alone 
in Christ alone. And he's answering some objections 
that arose in the course of articulating and preaching and proclaiming 
justification by faith alone. And he uses the language with 
respect to baptism, the language of Christ's perfect work and 
its connection to our salvation and to our baptism. So notice 
in Romans 6, beginning at verse 1, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that 
grace may abound? Certainly not. How shall we who 
died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as 
many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his 
death? Therefore, we were buried with 
him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life. You see the language there, baptism 
and salvation connected to the death, burial, and resurrection 
of Jesus Christ. If you think about the picture 
of baptism for a moment, what takes place in baptism, the worthy 
recipient of baptism, and when I say the worthy recipient, not 
that they earned it, but the one who is lawfully to be baptized, 
the one who is the proper subject of baptism, they go down into 
the water, signifying their death and burial with Christ, and they 
come up from being immersed in the water, connected then to 
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so Paul draws 
this this picture, the fact that you 
cannot separate baptism from the doctrine of salvation, this 
blessed picture that in salvation we are crucified, buried, and 
raised with Christ by virtue of the perfection of his work, 
and therefore our baptism connects and signifies that very blessed 
reality, that we died and were buried with him and are raised 
with him. Only one who is in union with 
Christ in this saving manner is to receive the sign of that 
very union. This is Fred Malone with regards 
to the the problem of the Paedo-Baptist 
position with regards to baptizing the physical infants of believers 
and how it does violation to the doctrine of particular redemption. Malone writes, another problem 
with the Paedo-Baptist position that all physical infants of 
believers are in the New Covenant is that it does violation to 
the doctrine of particular redemption, that Christ died for the elect. Every New Covenant member has 
Jesus Christ as his effectual mediator. As Ritterbos says, 
God's people are those for whom Christ sheds his blood of the 
covenant. They share in the remission of sins brought about by him 
and in the unbreakable communion with God in the New Covenant 
that he has made possible. To call unregenerate infants 
God's people and members of the new covenant for whom Christ 
sheds his blood of the covenant violates particular redemption 
simply because no one can be in the new covenant without the 
effectual mediatorial sacrifice that establishes the covenant 
with every member. And so it's almost as if to say 
then that infant sprinkling is covenantal Arminianism, because 
the one who is the head of the covenant can't retain and can't 
keep those who are in the covenant. because they do have the possibility 
of ultimately falling away from covenant inclusion. The argument 
then is, of course, Christ does not lose any. There is a direct 
and inviolable connection between inclusion in the new covenant 
and the perfect death of the Lord Jesus Christ, who saves 
from first to last, midst and throughout, all for whom he died. And so there is a blessed equal 
sign between those who are covered by the blood of Christ, who are 
the recipients of the definite and particular and limited atonement 
of Jesus Christ, and those who are in the covenant, and then 
therefore those who should be baptized. Nehemiah Cox, The granddaddy 
of the particular Baptists in the 17th century writes this. And this communion that believers 
have with Christ in his benefits through the faith of the operation 
of God is in a lively manner held out and signified to them 
in their baptism, wherein they are said to be both buried and 
risen together with him. The immersion of the body into 
the water bearing an analogy to his burial, as the railing 
of it again out of the water, excuse me, the raising of it 
again out of the water doth to his resurrection. This the apostle 
intends that even their baptism upon their first receiving and 
profession of the Christian religion did reach and oblige them to 
live upon Christ alone and to join no other thing with him 
in the foundation of their hope. And we would also want to connect 
the fact that baptism is a means of grace. It's very interesting 
at this point because the Paedo-Baptist confessions that preceded ours, 
again, we bear a great measure of affinity with our Paedo-Baptist 
brethren. In these confessions of faith, 
the particular Baptists were very adamant and repeatedly expressed 
the fact that they were not being obstinate in their doctrine of 
baptism, but in the publication here, they're first showing their 
affinity with their fellow Reformed brothers and sisters and their 
confessions of faith, and then for conscience's sake, and for 
the clear declaration of what they believe the scriptures teach, 
there's just a couple places where they disagree with their 
Paedo-Baptist brethren. And it's interesting, though, 
that in chapter 14 and paragraph 1, Chapter 14, paragraph one. The Baptists reworded it a little 
bit, but not that it's theologically different. There's just some 
subtle rewording, but the doctrine is the same in the Westminster 
Confession of Faith and also the Savoy. Notice the language 
of 14.1. The grace of faith, whereby the 
elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, 
is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. and is 
ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also and 
by the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, prayer 
and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened." 
And so I think this demonstrates a measure of the paedo-baptistic 
inconsistency Because here, baptism is a means of grace which can 
only be given to those who are the recipients of grace. They 
had been saved by the proclamation of the word and the power of 
the Holy Spirit, and then in the goings forth of their Christianity 
within the context of the church, they received the Lord's Supper. 
they're baptized first, which is a means of grace by which 
their faith that already exists is increased and strengthened, 
and then they are given the Lord's Supper and engage in the other 
elements of worship. But bringing it back to baptism, 
There is an inviolable connection between the doctrine of salvation 
and the doctrine of baptism. Simply, those who are saved by 
God are such as who are to be baptized. Turn to Acts 9. We have a picture of salvation 
here as one, blinded by scales, receives his sight and upon such 
a blessed reality is then baptized. Notice the account with respect 
to the Apostle Paul, Acts 19, and we'll pick up reading at... 
Let's see here. Verse 13. Then Ananias answered, 
Lord, I have heard from many about this man, that's Saul, 
how much harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And 
here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who 
call on your name. But the Lord said to him, go, 
for he is a chosen vessel of mine to bear my name before Gentiles, 
kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many 
things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went 
his way and entered the house. And laying his hands on him, 
he said, Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on 
the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your 
sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Immediately there 
fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received 
his sight at once, and he arose and was baptized." You see this 
wonderful and clear and obvious order to salvation, and baptism. Where does baptism lie in the 
order of things in the life of anyone, in the life of a believer? It falls after them having believed, 
after them having had those scales, as it were, removed from their 
eyes, and they rise and they go forth and they follow Christ. 
I love that line from that hymn, my chains fell off, my heart 
was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee. In fact, of 
all portions of a stanza or of all stanzas that has to be in 
my top five. It's a blessed thing. Our chains fall off. in the power 
of God and by His amazing grace bringing us forth from the deadness 
in sin to life and light in Christ, our hearts are free and we rise 
and we go forth and follow Christ into the waters of baptism. And 
as we'll see in a moment, something with regards to the very life 
of Christ establishes this as well. You can turn with me to 
1 Corinthians 10. 1 Corinthians 10. Notice the language here with 
regards to Old Covenant members being baptized into Moses. 1 Corinthians 10, verse 1. Moreover, brethren, I do not 
want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea. Israel is redeemed from out of 
bondage and then immersed in union with their covenant mediator, 
in this case Moses. And hopefully you can see the 
connection here. All of Israel were baptized into 
Moses, their covenant mediator. In the New Covenant, all Israel, 
that is, true Israel, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, are 
baptized into Christ, our covenant mediator. And so it is only those, 
then, that are to receive the very sign of that spiritual baptism, 
those who are in union with Jesus Christ, their covenant mediator. 
Gill writes this with regards to this particular passage. This, 
their baptism in the sea, was after their coming out of Egypt, 
and at their first entrance on their journey to Canaan's land, 
as our baptism is, or should be, after a person is brought 
out of worse than Egyptian bondage and darkness, and has believed 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and at the beginning of his profession 
of him, an entrance on his Christian race. The descent of the Israelites 
into the sea, when they seemed as buried in the waters, and 
their ascent out of it again on the shore, has a very great 
agreement with baptism as administered by immersion, in which the person baptized goes 
down into the water, is buried with Christ therein, and comes 
up out of it as out of a grave. or as the children of Israel 
out of the Red Sea. And as they, when they came out 
of it, could rejoice and sing in the view of their salvation 
and safety, and of the destruction of all their enemies, so the 
believer can and does rejoice in this ordinance, in the view 
of his salvation by Christ, and safety in him, and for all his 
sins being buried and drowned in the sea of his blood. Witness 
the instances of the eunuch and the jailer. It's a blessed thing 
that our baptism links and is inviolably linked to our spiritual 
baptism, that we have been buried with Christ, we're raised with 
Him, and we avail of the perfection of His saving excellencies. We 
want to turn to Galatians 3.27, and then we'll move on fourthly 
to the argument from the clarity of the New Covenant. But before 
we do that, notice in Galatians 3, And Galatians is a wonderful 
book that, among other things, it's not its primary thrust, 
but has wonderful arguments for the baptism of believers only. 
connected to covenant and connected to the saving work of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Notice in Galatians 3 at verse 
26, for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Now, just pause there for a moment. 
A very famous Pado-Baptist, John Murray, said something like this, 
that the children of believers should be, or actually, the children 
of believers are children of God, and should be treated as 
such." Which is a very strong, and I think we would have to 
say a terrible statement, because the children of God are only 
those who are brought forth from darkness to light by the power 
and the grace of God, and who have faith in Christ Jesus. And 
that's what we read here. For you are all sons of God, 
through faith in Christ Jesus. We are Christians, those who 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are only those then who are the 
sons and daughters of God. But notice verse 27, for as many 
of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And so there's this connection 
between our baptism and the fact that we have been clothed with 
the Lord Jesus Christ. We bear his blessed robes of 
righteousness, not our righteousness, but the imputed blessed righteousness 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we are, as it were, clothed 
with that. We're clothed with the saving 
perfection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And notice that connection 
to baptism. as many of you as were baptized 
into Christ have put on Christ. And so there is this wonderful 
connection. We could think of the language 
of clothing throughout the Old Testament. Remember, Paul is 
an expert in Old Testament revelation. He is inspired by the living 
and true God, of course, but he's well-educated in the scriptures, 
and he's pulling language from the Old Testament, Genesis 321, 
and God's provision of coverings for Adam and Eve. Exodus 28, 
the clothing of Aaron in his priestly garments. Isaiah 61.10 
reads, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, 
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness. And then, of 
course, Zechariah 3.1-5, and the removal of those filthy garments 
and the giving of clean garments. As many of you as were baptized 
into Christ, have put on Christ. So we are only to, just some 
conclusions here before we move on, we are only to be baptized 
in the name of the triune God, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit, upon the event of our conversion, or ordinarily 
soon thereafter, both by explicit command, and as we'll see in 
a moment, because of Ephesians 1. And before we move on, think 
about the doctrine of baptism connected to the doctrine of 
God and salvation by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When Christ says that, gives 
that great commission to go forth and disciple the nations and 
to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Spirit, we're not just to think loosely of of the 
disciples, the apostles, simply baptizing in that name, but I 
think we're to draw a direct connection between those who 
are the recipients of the saving perfections of the Triune God. 
If we look at Ephesians 1, for example, Ephesians 1 is a benediction, 
a doxology, a glorying in the perfect work of the triune God. It's blessing and honor is given 
to the Father, and then with respect to his predestinating 
perfection, that we are in Christ Jesus as adopted sons and daughters, 
predestined unto that sonship and that daughtership. The Son 
of God redeems us perfectly by his precious blood and the Holy 
Spirit seals us unto the day of redemption. So one who receives 
that triune baptismal formula and one who receives baptism 
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 
can only be one who is the blessed yet undeserved recipient of the 
saving predestinating, redeeming, and sealing power of the triune 
God. And so to baptize in that name 
one who is not the recipient of the saving perfections of 
that name, the one who bears it, is unlawful. This is Gregory of Nazianzus 
drawing that sort of connection. He says, remember your confession. 
And in the context here, he's arguing against basically radical 
Aryans, and he's calling upon believers to whom he's giving 
an oration to remember their confession. And so listen, remember 
your confession into what were you baptized? The father, good, 
but still Jewish. The son, good, no longer Jewish, 
but not yet perfect. The Holy Ghost, very good, this 
is perfect. Was it then simply into these, 
or was there some one common name of these? Yes, there was, 
and it is God. You see the connection that he's 
drawing here. He's calling upon believers to 
remember their confession, and then into what were you baptized? And so there's this link between 
a believing, a saving confession of the triune God, and then the 
baptism into the very name of that God, Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. Well, moving on then to the argument 
from the clarity of New Covenant or New Testament revelation, 
we want to say the argument here is the following. The New Testament 
is clear and explicit when it first provides explicit command 
that believers be baptized, containing no such command for the sprinkling 
of infants. Second, provides narrative stating 
the believing prerequisite for baptism, providing no narrative 
account of any other prerequisite. And third, provides narrative 
instances and summary reports of believing preceding the administration 
of the ordinance, and provides no such instances and reports 
of any other type of administration. So let's see these three things. 
You can turn with me to Matthew 28. This is what we have just 
noted perhaps here more than once. But just to see the first 
thing, that the New Testament provides explicit command that 
believers be baptized. And notice the clear order here 
at Matthew 28, 18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, 
saying, all authority has been given to me in heaven and on 
earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples 
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe 
all things that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, 
even to the end of the age." So we have a a clear order to 
the command given by the only lawgiver, the Lord Jesus Christ. 
And that's the language that the Confession uses, for example, 
in chapter 28, at paragraph one. Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper are ordinance of positive and sovereign institution 
appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued 
in his church to the end of the world. So Jesus Christ commands 
the baptism of those who have been made disciples through the 
proclamation of the gospel, attended by the glory and the power of 
the Holy Spirit. And so there's a clear command 
to baptize believers. In this language of positive 
and sovereign institution, we'll note when we get to the argument 
from the doctrine of worship, But it's important to see here 
that first, explicit command is given to baptize believers 
only, and there is no such command for the sprinkling of infants. You can turn with me to Acts 
8. Acts chapter 8, because here 
we see, secondly, narrative providing statements for the believing 
prerequisite for baptism. That simply means that believing, 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is to precede baptism. And there 
is then, coordinately or contrarily, no account, no narrative account 
of any other prerequisite other than faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. So this is Acts chapter 8, and 
it's the occasion that you know well, Philip with the Ethiopian 
eunuch, and the eunuch is reading Isaiah 53, and he asks in verse 
34, I ask you, to Philip, of whom does the prophet say this, 
of himself or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, 
and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as 
they went down the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch 
said, See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? 
Then Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. 
Then he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God. So he commanded the chariot to 
stand still, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into 
the water, and he baptized him. So we see here the clear reality 
of narrative accounts showing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
showing the act of believing as preceding baptism, and also 
something of a conditionality with regards to the receiving 
of the sign of baptism in verse 37. If, there's an if-then statement. If you believe with all your 
heart, then you may. And so we see it clearly stated 
in the New Testament that belief precedes baptism. And then thirdly, you can turn 
to Acts 2. Pastor Butler preached from this 
not too long ago, Acts 2. And we see here, thirdly, the 
New Testament providing narrative instances and summary reports 
of believing preceding the administration of the ordinance. So not only 
do we see the New Testament stating the prerequisite in the narrative, 
but summary reports of the very order of conversion preceding 
baptism. So notice, Peter's preaching 
on the day of Pentecost will pick up at verse 38, then Peter 
said to them, repent and let every one of you be baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promises 
to you and to your children and to all who are afar off as many 
as the Lord our God So there's two things here. We see the order 
at verse 38, repent. and let every one of you be baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." So there's a conspicuous 
order to salvation and to baptism. And then we see this summary 
report that captures the doctrine of Credo baptism well. Verse 
41, then, those who gladly received his word were baptized. And so 
we see clearly in the New Testament, we see explicit command for believers 
to be baptized. We see in the narrative the believing 
prerequisite stated, and we see that order and that prerequisite 
captured in summary reports. So the New Testament is quite 
clear. The carrying out of the commission, 
demonstrated through preaching and narrative summary, is such 
that the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ goes forth. By the power 
of the Holy Spirit, many from every tribe and tongue and people 
and nation are brought forth by gospel and that powerful spirit, 
and then they are commanded to be baptized as a signal, as a 
symbol, as an emblem of their union with Christ in that salvation. And there is no other order, 
and there is no other baptism. So a religious practice, if we 
were to just summarize, and we'll move on to the doctrine of worship, 
a religious practice should be built upon explicit divine command. In fact, Paido-Baptists saw that 
and write about that, and we'll see that in a moment. Another 
inconsistency on the part of our Paido-Baptist brethren is 
that they argue for express, explicit, express divine institution 
for the elements of worship and the Lord's Supper, but at the 
point of baptism, they deviate from that principle of the regulative 
principle of worship, and we'll see that in a moment, but a religious 
practice should be built upon explicit divine command. The 
New Testament gives us this and also provides narrative examples 
of obedience to the command and the proper order of its administration. So the argument then finally, 
fifthly and finally, the argument from the doctrine of worship. 
what does the doctrine of worship have to do with baptism? Well, 
of course, baptism, as we see in chapter 14, paragraph one, 
and as we see in chapter 22 of the doctrine of worship, baptism 
is an element of worship, a means of grace wherein those who have 
been brought forth by the power of God in salvation are fed by 
the ascended Christ through the spirit, they grow and they increase 
in their faith. And so the doctrine of worship 
is intimately connected to the doctrine of baptism. Just to 
introduce it here, this is from the appendix of the Second London 
Confession of Faith. We noted before that it's not 
included in any copies, and I think moving forward, whoever we get 
ours from, we should include it. Because when we get to a 
study of Chapter 29, it's absolutely, I'm not gonna say vital, but 
it's so helpful. And we'll read a little bit from 
it next time, the next session in January, two weeks from now. 
We'll read a bit from that appendix and see what it says, because 
we're going to be dealing with paedo-baptistic arguments that 
time. But connected to worship, this is what the appendix says, 
and connected to baptism. All instituted worship, and instituted 
is a very important word that we'll see in a moment, all instituted 
worship receives its sanction from the precept, so from the 
direct positive command of God, an express command given by God. All instituted worship receives 
its sanction from the precept, and is to be thereby governed 
in all the necessary circumstances thereof, and consequently, that 
it depends purely upon the will of the law-giver, that is, the 
Lord Jesus Christ, to determine what shall be the sign of his 
covenant, unto whom, at what season, and upon what terms it 
shall be affixed. So what the appendix is saying 
is that anything done in worship, any elements of worship, so in 
our case, baptism, is to be given by a direct and positive and 
express command by the lawgiver, by the Lord Jesus Christ. And 
the only thing that we have in the Bible with regards to that 
for the New Covenant sign of union with Christ is the command 
given by the Lord Jesus Christ, our only lawgiver. And so worship, 
the argument is simply this. The regulative principle of worship 
requires that ordinances or sacraments be observed as instituted by 
Christ, the lawgiver, with no additions, with no subtractions, 
and with no substitutions. The regulative principle of worship 
rejects elements of worship that are not explicitly commanded 
by God. Infant baptism is not explicitly 
commanded by God, and not only that, but believer's baptism 
is explicitly commanded, and so infant baptism is contrary 
to the express commands of God regarding how he is to be worshipped. This is John Owen, again a paedo-baptist, 
and inconsistent with his doctrine of baptism when he writes these 
very helpful words. That which before lay hidden 
promises, in many things obscure, was now brought to light. And 
that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of promise, put forth 
its efficacy under types, shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, 
and confirmed in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had 
before the confirmation of promise, which is an oath. It had now 
the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. And now he connects 
it to worship. that which before had no visible 
outward worship and proper and peculiar to it is now made the 
only rule and instrument of worship to the whole church, nothing 
being to be admitted in that respect but what belongs to it 
and is appointed by it. So what he's saying is when the 
new covenant comes and when the Lord and champion of that covenant 
institutes and expressly commands things connected to the worship 
of that covenant, New Testament or New Covenant worship, only 
those things that are commanded are to be admitted. As well, 
we have this from Matthew Henry. Just listen to Matthew Henry, 
again a Paedo-Baptist, He's talking here with regards to the Lord's 
Supper, but notice, if you can, when we track with this, the 
inconsistency. A sacrament must be instituted. That is, it must be positively 
and expressly divinely commanded. We can't, paedo-baptism, the 
infant sprinkling, is not instituted, it's not expressly commanded. 
And what the argument here is, even by paedo-baptists, is that 
anything done in worship must be expressly instituted and commanded 
by God. And the simple argument is, since 
infant sprinkling is never commanded by God, it cannot be included 
in worship. And also, and we'll see in a 
moment, that the Paedo-Baptists cannot arrive, actually we should 
just say any Christian, cannot arrive at doctrines of worship 
through the principle of good and necessary consequence, or 
simply the doctrine of consequences, which we'll talk about in a moment. 
Not punishments, but those things that are logically drawn out 
from a thing. Notice what Henry says here. 
A sacrament must be instituted. It is no part of moral worship, 
nor is it dictated by natural light, but has both its being 
and significance from the institution, from a divine institution. It 
is his prerogative, who established the covenant, to appoint the 
seals of it. Hence the apostle, in that discourse 
of his concerning this ordinance, that is the Lord's Supper, all 
along calls Jesus Christ the Lord, because as Lord, as Lord 
of the covenant, Lord of the church, he appointed this ordinance. Now hopefully you see the inconsistency 
here. He's arguing perfectly for the 
regulative principle of worship, for what can lawfully obtain 
within the context of worship at the point of the Lord's Supper, 
saying it must be clearly, expressly, explicitly instituted by the 
covenant maker, God, or the covenant champion, the Lord Jesus Christ, 
the only lawgiver. It must be clearly instituted 
by that covenant head. infant sprinkling is nowhere 
expressly declared. It's not even logically deduced, 
but the principle here is that it's nowhere expressly declared, 
it's nowhere explicitly laid out, it's nowhere divinely instituted, 
and in fact, what is divinely instituted is obviously clear, 
and that is that believers only must be baptized. And so again, 
the argument is that nothing, no additions, no subtractions, 
and no substitutions can be admitted into the worship of God, and 
only those things that are explicitly commanded by God are to be included. Now there's some important concepts 
in terms with regards to this argument, two of them, there 
are more, but two of them that we'll look at. Remember when 
we talked about credo-baptism, the argument for it from covenant 
theology, we talked about substance and administration. Those are 
two very important words. What is the substance of a covenant, 
and what is an administration of a covenant? The paedo-baptists 
see the old covenant and the new covenant, the substance being 
the same, and they simply being administrations of the covenant 
of grace. The particular baptists, with 
a more robust and biblically faithful covenant theology, see 
that the old covenant was of a different substance. And so 
here, with regards to the doctrine of worship, there are two terms 
or phrases that are important. The first is express commands, 
and we can include in that, in brackets, express examples. But more largely, express commands. And then secondly, consequences. So these two terms, express commands 
and consequences. Express commands, hopefully, 
is clear. Whatever is clearly commanded within the pages of 
Holy Scripture. What has God expressly, that 
is explicitly, clearly commanded? Thou shalt not kill. that's an 
express command. Repent and be baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that's an express command. The 
Great Commission, go therefore, disciple the nations, and then 
baptize those disciples, that's an express command. A consequence 
are those things that by logical inference or logical deduction 
are derived from the scriptures. And we'll see here in a moment 
that those things that could be logically deduced from the 
scriptures are not to be such things that are to be included 
in the worship of God, but only those things that are explicitly 
commanded. And Paido-Baptists, we'll see 
here, speak the same way, in fact, and are inconsistent at 
that point, nevertheless. You can turn with me to Deuteronomy, 
just to see the principle of express commands in worship. Deuteronomy 12. Deuteronomy 12. Simply one verse, 
32. Whatever I command you, be careful 
to observe it. You shall not add to it nor take 
away from it. a very clear and simple express 
command. Whatever I command you, be careful 
to observe it. And so if we just use our Christian 
minds to get those wheels spinning here for a moment, is infant 
baptism ever, in any place, commanded in the Holy Scriptures? No. Whatever 
I command you, be careful to observe it. So we're to do what 
God expressly commands in worship, and because He is God, because 
He is the very Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, the Upholder of 
all things, who condescends by way of covenant to bless His 
people, we're to do that worship carefully. were to attend unto 
the worship of God with care. So there's this two-fold weight 
that comes strongly against the practice of infant sprinkling. 
Not only is it not commanded by God, but engaging in it is 
to not tend with care to the proper worship of God. And so 
the doctrine of worship connected to baptism is absolutely vital. You can also turn to Leviticus, 
Leviticus chapter 10. Leviticus 10, notice at verse 
1, and this is the occasion of Nadab and Abihu. So fire went 
out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the 
Lord. Notice that simple language there, which he had not commanded 
them. were not to do in worship what 
we have not been commanded to do. It's a very clear principle. A couple of quotes here in a 
moment from notable Paedo-Baptists will demonstrate that and show 
their inconsistency, but just listen here for a moment with 
regards to God's commands in worship that they must be followed 
exactly as prescribed. Notice here, Benjamin Cox. This is actually Cox, Knowles, 
and Kiffin that produced a document against Pato Baptist. 32 years before the publication 
of the Second London Confession of Faith, so 1645. That religious 
worship for which there is no command nor example in the scripture 
of truth is will worship and unlawful. but your infant baptism 
is a religious worship for which there is no command nor any example 
written in the scripture of truth. Ergo, your infant baptism is 
will worship and unlawful. And we can simply note again 
with respect to the doctrine of worship that Christ commands 
baptism for his disciples, those who believe and those who are 
taught. So what's the theological implication 
here? Infant baptism lacks explicit 
warrant in scripture and introduces a practice that Christ did not 
institute. And so it is of very serious 
matter for anyone within the context of worship to do that 
which God has nowhere commanded. Listen to Benjamin Keech for 
a moment. That doctrine that reflects upon 
the honor, care, and faithfulness of Jesus Christ, our blessed 
mediator and glorious lawgiver, or renders him less faithful 
than Moses and the New Testament in one of its greatest ordinances, 
nay, sacraments, to lie more dark and obscure in God's word 
than any law or ordinance of the Old Testament did, cannot 
be of God, ergo, infant's baptism cannot be of God. You see what 
he's saying here? Do we introduce a practice into 
the worship of God that is somehow laid dark and obscure and almost 
unexplorable and undiscoverable within the pages of Holy Scripture? 
To do exegetical gymnastics and to wrongly draw principles from 
a physical covenant? to that which is spiritual and 
eternal, to suggest that something that is to obtain in the worship 
of the triune God must be arrived at through terrible logical deduction, 
so non-logical deduction, and lies dark and obscure, and we 
have to come with a fine-toothed comb to somehow find a warrant 
for a practice that is nowhere commanded. Hopefully you can 
see the weight of Keech's argument here. And listen to Calvin, a 
Paedo-Baptist, and the language that he uses here. Remember we 
talked about expressly commanded. Notice what Calvin writes here. 
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves 
of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The advocates 
of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colors. And 
Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom, 
but as God values obedience more than all sacrifices, it ought 
to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship that it 
is not sanctioned by the command of God. We have to ask the question, 
then, why are you sprinkling infants? The express command, he says, 
of God connected to rejecting any mode of worship that is not 
sanctioned by the command of God. And then Owen here as well. another Pado-Baptist with regards 
to the language of expressly. Once more, therefore, what is 
commanded in the worship of God is lawful, yea, is our duty to 
observe. All particular instances of this 
sort that are to have actual place in the worship of God were 
easily enumerated and so expressly commanded. And why, among sundry 
things that might equally belong thereunto, one should be commanded 
and another left at liberty without any institution, no man can divine. In other words, no man can discover 
or understand why anybody would institute anything in worship 
that is not expressly commanded. we ask Owen as well, then why 
do you sprinkle infants? Just a couple more quotes to 
sort of wrap this up, and it may be just a summary. The practice of sprinkling infants 
deviates from the biblical command and pattern of baptizing professing 
believers, and so violates the regulative principle of worship. 
And we would want to add to that, Not only does it deviate from 
the biblical command to do what you're supposed to do, but it 
introduces an element of worship that you are not supposed to 
do because there is no express command. This is Cox, Nehemiah 
Cox, again, the grandpappy of the particular Baptists. For 
in matters of positive right, that is, positively instituted, 
divinely instituted, expressly commanded worship elements, We 
can have no warrant for our practice but from a positive precept, 
an express divine command connected to a covenant arrangement. For 
things of this kind fall not within the compass of common 
light or general principles of natural religion, but have their 
original, that is their origin, from a particular distinct and 
independent will of the lawgiver. and therefore inferences, that 
is consequences, so logical deductions from or seeking to engage in 
logical deductions from the scriptures built upon general notions may 
soon lead us into mistakes about them if upon such inferences 
or consequences we form a rule to ourselves of larger extent 
than the express words of the institution do warrant. Now that's 
a lot of words and a lot of language, but simply he's saying that we 
can only do in worship what has been expressly commanded and 
instituted, and only those things warrant obedience in the exercise 
of worship. And then lastly, Listen to this 
quote from Calvin. Now, in reading this quote, I 
am in no way drawing a connection to what is in the background 
of his comment and infant sprinkling. What's in the background of his 
comment here is on Jeremiah 7.31 and the casting of babies into 
Moloch's arms. I'm not drawing a connection, 
that's not what paedo-baptism is doing, but I'm reading this 
from a paedo-baptist to see how strongly the paedo-baptists argued 
against what should not obtain in worship, and yet did those 
things which should not obtain. And we'll close just after this 
quote. So with regards to this throwing 
of babies into the arms of an idol, which I commanded them 
not, and which never came to my mind, that's God in Jeremiah. This reason ought to be carefully 
noticed. For God here cuts off from men 
every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one 
phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument 
needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded 
by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their 
own fancies and attend not to his commands, they pervert true 
religion. Were they to admit this principle, 
that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, 
they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The 
prophet's words then are very important when he says that God 
had commanded no such thing and that it never came to his mind, 
as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they 
devise what he never required, nay what he never knew. Now, 
paedo-baptism falls under that particular, that particular judgment, 
that it never entered into the mind of God, it was never required 
by him, and he never knew it. And so Christians are not to 
engage in an element of worship that lacks express command, and 
that is actually exercised in contrariness to the explicit 
command that believers only are to be baptized. And so hopefully 
we can see the weight of all of these arguments, the argument 
from covenant theology, only those who are members, or those 
only are members of the covenant of grace who believe in the Lord 
Jesus Christ, who before the foundation of the world were 
decreed to be in union with Christ, that in the appointed time they 
would be brought forth by saving efficacy and perfection, by virtue 
of the perfect work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only they are in 
the covenant of grace. The argument from federal headship, 
only those who are then under the federal headship of that 
covenant, the covenant of grace, are to receive the sign of inclusion 
in that covenant. infant, the unbelieving infants 
of believing parents are under the federal headship of Adam 
and therefore should not receive the sign of the federal headship 
of Christ. And then we saw today the argument 
from the doctrine of salvation. There's a blessed equal sign 
between all those whom Christ saves and then those then who 
should receive the sign of that salvation. the clarity of the 
New Testament with regards to explicit command, with regards 
to narrative example. And then from the doctrine of 
worship, we're to only do in worship that which God has expressly 
commanded. Not only has he not expressly 
commanded infant sprinkling, but he has expressly commanded 
the baptism of believers only. And so, to close, we rejoice 
in the affinity and the familiarity and the camaraderie that we have 
with our Paedo-Baptistic brothers and sisters in Christ. We share 
so much in common with the confession, with our theology, the doctrine 
of God, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of salvation, so 
many things. But at the point of their doctrine 
of baptism, we would plead with them simply to stop it. Don't 
do it. God has commanded, God has not 
commanded it. God has commanded the baptism 
of believers only. We ought to do humbly, knowing 
that we're fallible, knowing that we're still marked by remaining 
corruption, we ought to humbly approach the scriptures to see 
what they say, to see what God says, to see what God commands 
in the worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by that 
only proceed and by no other rule. Well, let's close in prayer. 
Heavenly Father, we thank you for this truth. We thank you 
for what the Bible says with regards to baptism. We thank 
you with regards to how it connects us to our Savior, that we're 
in union with him, that we were buried and that we're raised 
with him in baptism. And we thank you for salvation. 
Go with us now into worship. We would worship the one into 
whom we were baptized. Help us to approach you with 
that proper reverence and awe as we go into the worship of 
our blessed God. And we pray in the name of Jesus 
Christ, amen. If you have to go you can go, 
but if there are any questions, I know it's we're just past 1030 
here I apologize, but any any quick questions comments Yeah 
Yeah When you had Aunts came, and then you had 
fried chicken, and turkey, and baptismal gifts, and everything. 
It was a beautiful thing. But behind the veil of that, 
they believed that in the event of this child, something would 
happen to them. He would die in the present. 
The child would be lifted up and taken into God's arms. Now, we know. What do I say to my Roman Catholic 
friends? I say not to fear that a child, 
still in original sin, not yet known to be saved by the grace 
of the Lord crucified, didn't dare to lose again. That you 
should release, not practice. Something important to say is 
that in the Roman Catholic context, infant sprinkling is a saving 
ordinance. So it confers the grace that 
removes the stain of original sin in their view. That's why 
it's so strong. But I think we'd want to say 
first that infants can be, there are elect infants that are in 
the covenant of grace that do not reach an age whereby they 
profess faith, but God in his mercy saves those infants and 
regenerates them and brings them into glory. that is separate 
from the ordinance which is prescribed by God to be given to believers 
only. So, I mean, I think you would 
say to them, first off, there's a satiriological problem, a saving 
problem. They believe that that ordinance 
converts that child or washes away the stain of original sin. 
So there's error theologically, but also I think just the explicit 
commands of scripture you could approach them with and say, look, 
you know, there's no command to baptize infants. but there's 
every command and narrative example that only believers are to be 
baptized. It's touching. Yeah, it is. Well, there's a 
lot of sentimentality and emotion connected to it, and I think 
that's the hardest thing to crack through. I think because of the 
sentimentality and the emotional attachment, that almost trumps 
the theological argument in the minds of those people. I mean, 
the parents, the godparents, the number of godparents, they 
think, you know, sometimes doesn't want parents to help raise this 
child in a homogaphic way. They believe in a saving aspect 
of the child. The child, of course, lives. Like I said, this is one of the 
hard things. Yeah, that's difficult. Joy? So while you're talking, 
I was thinking that I think We always want to put ourselves 
in God's jaw of determining who is saved and who is not saved. That's just sort of one more 
way of doing it. It's not given to us to know 
necessarily, and yet we I don't know why, but that's just the 
way humanity is. Yeah, no, you're right. We navigate 
our Christianity and our walk in the life of the church, you 
know, by love believing all things, that when someone professes faith 
in the Lord Jesus Christ, they're owning him as their savior, they're 
a believer. But yeah, we're not God and we 
don't know who is perhaps engaged in false profession and that 
sort of a thing, but we know them by their fruits. You'll 
know them by their fruits, Christ says, and so we can with confidence, 
though fallibly, see when someone professes faith that they're 
a believer. With children, yeah. That's different. Yeah, that's much different. 
And in that, we just lean on God. I mean, in chapter 10, it 
talks about effectual calling, and that elect infants dying 
in infancy are regenerated by God and will enter into heaven. So we're not saying no infants 
can be saved, we're just saying the sign of salvation of the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ should only be given 
to those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But that 
doesn't mean that infants, and as they would say, the handicapped 
are those who cannot outwardly express faith. Those who are 
elect are regenerated and brought to heaven, even though they don't 
express faith.