← Back to sermon library

You can turn in your confessions 
to chapter 29. If you don't have one, you can 
put your hand up. The blue basket's right here. 
Does anyone need a confession of faith? Chapter 29. Looks like 
everybody's good, I think, Steve. Chapter 29 of Baptism. You remember last time we looked 
at chapter 28, a brief chapter. In fact, chapter 29 is a brief 
chapter as well. The shortness of it, not proportionate 
to the importance of it, but nevertheless it is a short chapter. 
I think the clarity of it and the shortness of it, bringing 
into view the clarity of the scriptures at the point of baptism. 
Nevertheless, we will look at the stuff of Chapter 29 simply 
under two observations, the lawful recipients of baptism and the 
proper mode. But I'll read the entire chapter, 
and then we'll have a look at some introductory matters first. 
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 you'll see it's a very brief 
chapter, but what it contains is very important, of course, 
for the proper understanding of the ordinance or the sacrament 
of baptism. Notably, it is shorter than the 
Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration. And it is so because of the contrast 
between paedo-baptistic approaches to the ordinance and credo-baptistic 
approaches to the ordinance. Just by working through some 
of the language here in an introductory manner, notice first at the confession 
the definition of baptism is given. Baptism is an ordinance 
of the New Testament. I think that's a fairly clear 
statement. We noted what the language of 
ordinance is meant to, thank you, is meant to communicate 
here, and it's meant to communicate what follows after this, the 
giver of the ordinance. It's ordained by Jesus Christ. It comes by His dominical authority. It comes by His Lordship and 
Him, He commanding it to His disciples to be for them to observe. Notice as well we have what the 
nature of baptism is or we have the you know, sort of what it 
represents, what it is and what it represents for the person 
who is being baptized. Notice the language, a sign of 
his fellowship, excuse me, to be unto the party baptized, a 
sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection. 
The ordinance of baptism is a little bit different than the ordinance 
of the Lord's Supper in this sense that baptism isn't a communal 
ordinance. It's not one marked by fellowship 
with one another, though we have it in the context of the gathered 
assembly very often, that's where it's given. It's given within 
the context of the church gathered together. But unlike the Lord's 
Supper, it isn't a fellowship or a communion ordinance. It 
is unto the party baptized. There is a specific focus with 
respect to God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the giver of the ordinance, 
and the one who is the recipient, who is a single individual identifying 
themselves with the Lord of glory, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and therein in obedience to him receiving the sacrament or the 
ordinance. So it is unto the party baptized, 
and notice what it represents. It's a sign of his fellowship, 
his or her of course, 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 in newness of life. The significance 
of baptism is such for the believer that it represents and identifies 
or connects to salvific truth. That's why it's so important 
when we get in a few moments time to the proper recipients 
of the ordinance, the reality of what it represents bolsters 
and girds up the reality that it is only believers who are 
to be baptized. Because baptism represents union 
with the Lord Jesus Christ. It reflects an intimate and salvific 
union between the one being baptized, the party baptized, and the Lord 
Jesus Christ and his perfect saving work. As I think it's 
Fred Malone has said, infant baptism does implicit violence 
or does damage to the doctrine of limited atonement because 
it says that one who is baptized by virtue of their covenant inclusion 
can fall away. Therefore, it does violence to 
the doctrine of limited atonement because there is an inviolable 
link between covenant membership, that means unbreakable. There 
is an unbreakable link between covenant membership and the finished 
and perfect work of the Lord Jesus Christ. We'll get to that 
in a number of minutes here. Notice as well that we have the 
lawful recipients in paragraph two of baptism, 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. You see some of the proof text 
given there, the Great Commission, at least the passage in Mark 
where the Lord Jesus Christ gives a command for the disciples to 
go about preaching the gospel and to baptize disciples. We have the Acts 8 passage with 
Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, and some other passages there 
given that we'll get to, but the confession very succinctly, 
in a very concise manner, summarizes the biblical and lawful recipients 
of baptism. They are those who are, again, 
professing repentance towards God, have faith in, and are marked 
by obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. And then finally, the 
proper mode and manner of baptism. How are we to baptize? We are 
to baptize in water, in the name of the triune God, Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit, and it is to be in water by full immersion, 
or dipping of the person in water. That is the due administration. 
of the ordinance. A couple of observations before 
we get into our two-fold focus. First off, in affirming what 
we can call Reformed Credo Baptism, that is, Reformed Baptist Theology 
at the point of this ordinance. Credo Baptism, again, for anyone 
who doesn't know, just simply means believer's baptism. Whenever 
we say credo, it has to do with creed or I believe. So credo 
is believer's baptism. In affirming reformed believer's 
baptism, we uphold first off, we've noted this before. If it 
seems like I'm talking fast, it's probably because I am. Usually 
when we study baptism, we have in the past, I think maybe the 
last three times we've done this, we've done a number of Sundays 
to have a look at this most important doctrine. We're not going to 
do that this time. We're doing it this one Sunday today. So 
if I'm talking fast, hopefully it isn't unto confusion, but 
just unto effective covering of material. All right. A couple 
of things we observe when we affirm Reformed believers' baptism. The first is this. We uphold 
the redemptive continuity of the covenant of grace on the 
one hand, but the reality of a two-fold distinction in God's 
covenantal dealings on the other. Hopefully that'll become clearer 
as we move along, but we do not have as Baptists, Reformed Baptists, 
some sort of dispensational approach to God's redemptive dealings 
with men. We affirm, again, the redemptive 
continuity of the covenant of grace. There is one covenant 
of grace that spans redemptive history. And it is found in, 
as our confession says, it's founded in that promise that 
is given in the garden to Adam and Eve, respecting the seed 
of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. There's 
one redemptive string, there's one promise, salvific promise 
that governs redemptive history, and that is the covenant of grace. 
redemptive continuity of the covenant of grace, we with our 
Paedo-Baptistic Reformed brothers affirm that wholeheartedly. In 
contrast to them, we do not see one covenant marked by multiple 
administrations, so it's not one covenant of grace with multiple 
administrations, the Abrahamic and Mosaic being two administrations 
of the covenant of grace, but rather there is a two-fold distinction 
in God's covenantal dealings with men. There is the salvific 
covenantal layer, or tier if you will, and then there is a 
physical, a national, a political covenantal dealing marked or 
seen evident in the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant, 
and we'll hopefully clarify what that means in a little bit. Truthfully, 
in a treatment of Chapter 7 of God's Covenant, this would come 
out in a little more detail and with a little more substantial 
clarity. Secondly, in affirming Reformed 
believers' baptism, we uphold the proper and inviolable link 
between limited atonement and new covenant membership. We might 
want to modify that and say the proper and inviolable link between 
limited atonement and covenant inclusion in the covenant of 
grace. In other words, it has always 
been the case that a member of the covenant of grace is one 
saved by the Lord Jesus Christ by virtue of his life, death, 
and resurrection. In other words, the New Covenant 
doesn't inaugurate now some sort of redemptive historical epic 
where now it's only believers that are in the Covenant of Grace, 
whereas before, it was believers in their seed. No, that's not 
the case. Always, with respect to the Covenant 
of Grace, members of the Covenant of Grace have always and only 
will ever be those who are saved by the shed blood of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. So we uphold the proper and inviolable 
link between limited atonement, that is the perfect saving work 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, culminating in and perfected at His death 
and resurrection, the link between that and covenant membership. 
Christ's blood is, after all, the blood of the new covenant. 
shed for many for the remission of sins. It's not shed for many 
for the remission of sins and their natural seed. It is shed 
for many in the remission of sins and it is only they who 
are covered by the shed blood of the Savior that are new covenant 
members or members in the covenant of grace. When I say New Covenant 
members or members in the Covenant of Grace, I'm not saying two 
different things. The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace fully 
realized. We could say the New Covenant 
is the Covenant of Grace, but that would take another hour 
just to make sure that we properly dot I's and cross T's. Thirdly, 
in affirming Reformed believers' baptism, we uphold the inviolability 
of the New Covenant, that none of her members are lost. All 
that are New Covenant members, all that are members in the covenant 
of grace, cannot fall away. There is a proper and unbreakable 
link between covenant membership and the perseverance of the saints, 
that P in the Calvinist's tulip. Covenant membership, membership 
in the covenant of grace, means that you can never fall away 
from that covenant. Why? Because Christ Jesus the 
Lord has ratified the covenant by his precious blood, and you, 
by virtue of his saving work and God's appointed, and accepted 
time being brought forth from darkness to light cannot fall 
away because you're kept by that One who holds us in His John 
10 inviolable grip. We cannot be pulled away from 
the grasp of the Father or the grasp of the Son because we are 
perfectly saved by virtue of the work of the Mediator and 
by amazing grace. In affirming Reformed believers' 
baptism, we uphold the Protestant principle of the regulative principle 
of worship. One of the arguments that we'll 
note in a moment, and I promise we'll get there in less than 
two minutes and 17 seconds, is that there is a two-fold front 
on which, and we'll quote Sam Renahan when we get there, a 
two-fold front on which Reformed Baptists or Particular Baptists 
had have fought the good fight of defending believers' baptism. 
That is covenant theology and positive law, specifically arguing 
for the regulative principle of worship that infant baptism 
violates the Protestant principle of the regulative principle of 
worship because there is no explicit command or authoritative precept 
undergirding the practice, and there has to be for an ordinance 
in worship. For an element of worship to 
have divine sanction, it has to be in the Holy Scriptures, 
again, either by explicit command or authoritative precepts, such 
as first-day worship for the Sabbath day. Infant baptism finds 
no joy at that particular Protestant principle. and so should not 
be observed. And lastly, in affirming Reformed 
believers' baptism, we uphold the purity and propriety of the 
ordinance, though, of course, we carry it out fallibly. All 
right. First, then, let's look at the 
proper biblical subjects of baptism. The proper biblical subjects 
baptism that's brought out in paragraph 2 here those who do 
not that it isn't seen here in paragraph 1 but more specifically 
in paragraph 2 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 this is of course where The Baptists 
separate themselves from the Westminsterians and the independents 
of the Savoy Declaration, noting and asserting and affirming that 
it is only believers in the Lord Jesus Christ that are to be baptized. Again, to sort of guide our work 
through this particular first heading, we want to quote Sam 
Rinehan to sort of set the context. What is the foundation or what 
was the argument that the Baptists in the 17th century used in order 
to defend believers' baptism and to debate against those who 
were arguing for infant baptism? What did they, from where did 
they launch their arguments? Sam Renahan, in his article, 
Dolphins in the Woods, in the most recent journal, Reformed 
Baptist Journal, he says this, Covenant theology and positive 
law, those are the two fronts on which the Reformed Baptists, 
the particular Baptists, launched their debate against covenant 
theology and positive law. Remember what positive law is. 
It is specifically a special revelation that it comes from 
the Bible and it is a command by God given that is fixed to 
or attached to a certain covenant era. Again, in the old covenant, 
the ceremonial laws were laws that were given by God by special 
revelation. to govern a particular era of 
people. In this case, the Old Covenant 
people, in the Mosaic era, if you will. In the New Covenant, 
baptism is a positive law. It's a command given by God, 
by special revelation, an explicit command to be observed for a 
particular period of time. So, covenant theology and positive 
law. Concerning covenant theology, 
the particular Baptists argued that only the members of the 
covenant should receive the covenant sign. And since children were 
not members by birth, they should not receive the sign. Complementary 
to this initial argument was the case from positive law. The 
particular Baptist argued that even if the premise were granted 
that children are included in the covenant, Baptism could only 
be administered according to its positive institution, which 
required a profession of faith. It was the same, they argued, 
in circumcision and all ordinances. Circumcision was for males only, 
and only on the eighth day. It was not simply administered 
to all members of the covenant. So even if infants were included 
in the covenant, There was still no command to administer baptism 
to them. So you see what he's saying here, 
these two fronts, covenant theology. It's only members of the covenant 
who are to receive the covenant sign. Since children are not 
members of the covenant, the covenant of grace is what we're 
talking about here, they don't receive the sign. Because it 
is only those who are members of the covenant of grace are 
those saved by the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The second 
stream, positive law. There's no explicit command in 
scripture or an authoritative precept to baptize infants. There is explicit command to 
baptize believers and there is authoritative precept to baptize 
believers and they only. And so that's from where the 
particular Baptist launched their arguments against those who believe 
in infant baptism. All right, so then, that only 
professing Christians or believers are the proper subjects of baptism 
is proven by, first, by the fact that Abraham's seed, according 
to the covenant of grace, are believers. Abraham's seed, according 
to the covenant of grace, are believers, not believers and 
their natural seed. Edward Hutchinson in 1676 wrote 
a treatise concerning spoke these words, "...believers 
only are the children of Abraham, and none but such have an interest 
in the covenant made with him, which unavoidably excludes infants 
from gospel ordinances until they believe in their own persons." 
Not believe in themselves, but until they themselves believe 
in the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, "...believers only are 
the children of Abraham, and none but such have an interest 
in the covenant made with him." You can turn in your Bibles to 
the book of Galatians for a moment. Galatians. In fact, Galatians 
3 and 4, and maybe largely 4, but not to the exclusion of 3, 
Galatians 3 and 4 played large roles in the particular Baptist 
understanding of covenant theology and the proper recipients of 
baptism. Notice in Galatians 3 at verse 
26, First off, Galatians 3 and verse 
26. Notice the language here. For 
you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, 
there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, 
for you are all one in Christ Jesus. and if you are Christ's, 
then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. You see all that language there. 
What is wrapped up in our identification or the identification of one 
as being a seed of Abraham? It is that they are sons of God 
through faith in Christ Jesus and that they are Christ's and 
heirs according to the promise. So, What Paul is saying here 
is that to be Abraham's seed is to be saved by the Lord Jesus 
Christ, born again, justified, adopted, sanctified with the 
inevitable end of glorification. In other words, it is a Christian, 
it is a believer who is Abraham's seed and heirs according to the 
promise. Now, excuse me. One of the texts, 
and maybe in the future when we get into covenant theology 
and that sort of a thing, we can spend more time in Galatians 
4, 21 and following, but it is noteworthy here in Galatians 
4, 21 and following, that there is a two-fold reality to God's 
covenantal dealings with Abraham and with Abraham's seed. There 
is a salvific stream of covenantal dealing that is really not a 
covenant in and of itself to Abraham, but is rather a promise 
to Abraham based on the covenant of grace. And the second is the 
covenant of circumcision, which serves that national, natural, 
and political reality to God's covenantal dealings with Abraham. 
Notice Galatians 4, beginning in verse 21. Tell me you who 
desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it 
is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, 
the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman 
was born according to the flesh, and He of the free woman through 
promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants, 
the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which 
is Hagar, for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds 
to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 
But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 
For it is written, Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear. Break forth 
and shout, you who are not in labor. For the desolate has many 
more children than she who has a husband. Now we, brethren, 
as Isaac was, are children of promise. You see these two covenants 
being spoken of here. One respects the Jerusalem that 
now is, Paul says. And the whole argument, not the 
whole argument, but one of the major arguments in the book of 
Galatians has to do with being under bondage to the Mosaic institutions. The Mosaic institutions were 
given, built upon the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and 
the blessings and cursings attached to it, and it wasn't a covenant 
of grace or an administration of it. It was something whereby 
the people were kept and hedged in until such time as the promised 
Messiah would come when all of that would be brought to an end. 
And so there is this covenant which is connected to this Jerusalem 
from below, the Mosaic institutions, the old covenant, which is put 
in place by God to govern the nation, to govern that national 
and natural nation until such time as the Messiah would come. 
But then there is this covenant of grace. There is the covenant 
of grace built upon the promise of the seed of the woman who 
would crush the head of the serpent, which is attached to this Jerusalem 
which is from above, which is free. In other words, there is 
the covenant of grace, which is this salvific covenant which 
governs redemptive history and there was a temporal, temporary 
covenant that was for the people of Israel that would expire when 
the Messiah would come on the scenes in the first advent to 
usher in and perfect all of the blessings and the realities of 
that first covenant, the covenant of grace. Galatians 4 is very 
important, Genesis 12 and 17 as well. The Paedobaptists, in 
other words, saw a difference, a two-fold reality to the dealings 
of God with Abraham by way of covenant. There was not one covenant 
made with multiple administrations, but a two-tiered reality to the 
covenant made with Abraham. One respected the covenant of 
grace, and the other respected a national and natural covenant. And that's where we have the 
distinction between the seeds. As one man has said, there is 
a begetting Abraham and a believing Abraham, and we are not to commingle 
the two. There is a begetting Abraham, 
in other words, one who begets the national and the natural 
Israel, and there is a believing Abraham who is the father of 
all who believe. And this is where the difference 
is important. The Paedo-Baptists would only 
see the one Abraham, who is both the believer and the begetter, 
but compounded into one Abraham, if you will. And so it's believers 
and their unbelieving seed who are to be baptized, because Abraham 
is, Abraham, or the children of Abraham are believers and 
their seed, whereas the particular Baptists understood that there 
are two realities to Abraham, Abraham the begetter and his 
natural seed, and then Abraham the believer and his spiritual 
seed. And it is only that spiritual 
seed, it is only those who believe, it is only the children of Abraham, 
according to faith, who are to be baptized because it is only 
they who are members of the covenant of grace. All right, now that 
you're sufficiently confused and you're making notes for questions 
afterwards, let's move on. It is very important. I know 
an hour can't do justice to the distinctions and the differences, 
but if you have any questions, that's what I'm here for. That's 
what we're here for. Secondly then, we want to note 
that only professing Christians or believers are the proper subjects 
of baptism is proven by the fact that disciples were baptized. You can turn to the Gospel of 
John for a moment. Disciples were baptized. Those who sat 
under the instruction of a teacher, in this case, of course, with 
respect to Christian disciples, it is only they who were baptized. Notice in John chapter 4. John chapter 4. John 4 beginning in verse 1, Now, you might be saying, okay, 
well, that was sort of quick. Where do we find the justification 
there for what we're saying? Well, notice, therefore, when 
the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
baptized more disciples than John. It is disciples who are 
baptized. It is not persons who are baptized 
and then made disciples. There is a proper and necessary 
order to believing and the administration of the ordinance. And it is that 
order, believe and be baptized. We'll get to that again under 
another head here, but just as far as the Gospel of John there 
in John 4, disciples were baptized. We'll amplify that in a moment. 
That only professing Christians or believers are the proper subjects 
of baptism is proven by the connection that is made between Gospel preaching 
and baptism. and the necessary chronology 
made explicit, placing belief in that gospel in time prior 
to obedience to the ordinance." I'll say that one more time. 
The connection that is made between gospel preaching and baptism, 
the necessary chronology, that is, order in time, made explicit, 
placing belief in the gospel in time prior to obedience to 
the ordinance. For example, in Mark 16. In Mark 
16, in that ending to the gospel of Mark, which should be in our 
Bibles. If you have a Bible other than 
the New King James and the King James, I think, it might be, 
I'm trying to remember the other versions, but it could either 
be in parentheses or marginalized. And there are good reasons why 
it should be in our Bibles. Notice in Mark 16, oh, I'm at 
the end of Matthew. And notice at the end of Mark 
16 what we have there, beginning in verse 14, And he said to them, go into 
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does 
not believe will be condemned. You see there the order of instruction 
respecting this commission by the Lord Christ. There is the 
proclamation of the gospel, go and preach the gospel to every 
creature, and then he who believes and is baptized will be saved. That coordinates well with Mark's 
opening up of Christ's commission in Matthew 28, 18. 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. Now, does 
the narrative of the Bible jive with that reality? In other words, 
after we have that commission given by Christ, does the narrative 
of the book of Acts, for example, follow that instructive pattern, 
that commanded pattern? Yes, it does, Acts chapter 2. Very important to see this, not 
just at the point of the doctrine of baptism, but at the The continuity 
of the Bible, the consent of all the parts, the reality that 
we have these gospels given that record the narrative concerning 
the Lord Jesus Christ, his life and times, his life, death, and 
resurrection, ascension. It connects the commands that 
the narratives of the gospel record. Christ gives commands 
to his disciples to do certain things. He ascends to heaven. after giving the promise of the 
spirit who would help the disciples in their goings about proclaiming 
the gospel. Then we get to the post-ascension 
narrative of the early church, the apostolic church, and what 
do we find? We find the disciples doing what Christ commanded. 
We find the narrative of the Bible, that is the story of the 
Bible, the true story of the Bible, continuing what Christ 
had commanded. prior to his ascension. Notice 
in Acts chapter 2 at our point right now that there is a necessary 
chronological order between the proclamation of the gospel and 
the administration of the ordinance of baptism. Notice in verse 36 
of Acts chapter 2. Therefore, let all the house 
of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom 
you crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, 
they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of 
the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter 
said to them, repent and let every one of you be baptized 
in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to 
you and to your children and to all who are afar off, as many 
as the Lord our God will call." Now, we'll pause there for a 
moment, but we want to read more in a minute. Notice what we have 
here as far as chronological order. Peter heard his master. Peter listened to the post-resurrected 
Christ with regards to the command, and these gathered before him, 
after the proclamation of the gospel, this blessed Christ, 
crucified, raised again, ascended, the recipient of dominion and 
glory in a kingdom, after he preaches him, these people ask, 
men and brethren, what shall we do? Notably these Jewish listeners. Men and brethren, what shall 
we do? And Peter responds, repent and let every one of you be baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ. You see there the order, there 
is the command to believe or to repent. Very often those repent, 
repentance is never absent of faith, faith is never absent 
of repentance. These things are concomitant, 
at the same time, they are at the same time in the believer. 
Faith and repentance, repentance and faith. Repent and let every 
one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. There is 
a necessary order. Notice as well a text abused 
and perverted by Paedobaptists for their cause. Verse 39, for 
the promise is to you and to your children and to all who 
are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." You 
see, there is a necessary understanding there. Actually, in fact, even 
if to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will 
call wasn't there, there is still no ground to stand on for the 
paedobaptist. The promise is to you and to 
your children. There is a promise to these Jewish 
persons and their children that if you repent and you're baptized, 
you'll be saved. There's a simplicity in that. 
This promise is to you and to your children. There is also 
an intimate layer of connection to a previous occasion in the 
life and times of the Lord Jesus Christ there though as well. 
These people prior to this occasion had cried, let his blood, Christ's 
blood, be upon us and our children. They had called down an oral 
curse upon themselves. They had called down the witness 
of God and saying, let the blood of this man, the Lord Jesus Christ, 
be on us and our children, they said. Here in mercy and in grace, 
God through the apostle is saying that curse is not effectual if 
you believe in Christ. The promise is for you and your 
children. You called this curse down upon 
you and your children, but I am saying that this promise is for 
you and your children. If you believe in this one that 
you cursed there on that day of his crucifixion, you will 
have everlasting life. But all of that now to get to 
this then, With this qualifying clause, we have the complete 
rejection of infant baptism, where we have this language, 
as many as the Lord our God will call. There is the reality that 
only the effectually called are the recipients of the promise. 
Only the effectually called are therefore to be baptized. But 
notice as we move along in the narrative, verse 40. And with 
many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, be 
saved from this perverse generation. Then those who gladly received 
his word were baptized. and that day about 3,000 souls 
were added to them. You see there we have an instance 
of what we noted earlier. Baptism, that is believer's baptism, 
is argued after explicit command and authoritative precept. Here 
we have authoritative precept, then those who gladly received 
his word were baptized. In other words, we base our Christian 
practice upon explicit command, and here, authoritative precept. That is, the apostolic practice 
of baptizing those who gladly receive the word of Christ. And 
of course, those who gladly receive the word are believers in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. We have those who are recipients 
of the word who respond in two ways in the Book of Acts. There's 
two cuttings to the heart. These are cut to the heart and 
they cry out, what shall we do? They're convicted by the Holy 
Spirit of their sin and their depravity and they're crying 
out for answer and remedy. And the answer and the remedy 
comes, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized for the 
remission of sins. The other cutting to the heart 
is in Acts 7 when they're cut to the heart and they froth at 
the mouth and they gnash their teeth and they murder Stephen. 
Here, they gladly receive the word. They're cut to the heart 
in that first instance. They're cut to the heart. They're 
convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit and they're brought 
to belief and then are subsequently baptized. All right, that only professing 
Christians or believers are the proper subjects of baptism is 
proven by the prerequisite of receiving the Holy Spirit, as 
stated in the book of Acts. You can just make a note, that's 
Acts 10, 47 and 48. Also by the condition that the 
subject is able to affirm certain propositions regarding Christ. 
And we can turn to Acts chapter 8 for that. Acts chapter 8. Why are believers only to be 
baptized or that only professing believers are the proper subjects 
of baptism is proven by the fact or the condition that the one 
being baptized is able to affirm certain propositions regarding 
Christ. Infants can't do that. Infants can't be an Ethiopian 
eunuch. Notice verse 34. So the eunuch 
answered Philip and said, I ask you, of whom does the prophet 
say this? Of himself or some other man? Remember, it's Philip 
noting that the Ethiopian eunuch is reading from Isaiah 53. the 
prophecy concerning the suffering servant who would give himself 
a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of his people. Philip 
notices that he's reading this, comes to him, and the eunuch 
asks him that question. Then Philip, verse 35, 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?" That question is very important because of 
what we find after it. Remember, he's asking this question, 
what hinders me from being baptized? We could, for our purposes this 
morning, rephrase that and say, how am I to be a lawful recipient 
of the order of baptism? Notice what Philip says here 
in verse 37, and he answered and said, You know, we should have in the 
back of our minds there when we read that, that language from 
Matthew 16. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and 
blood has not revealed these things to you, but my Father 
in heaven. He says that upon the heels of 
Peter confessing thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
God. There's the connection between effectual calling, the work of 
God, the revelation that only God can give to the sons of men 
by amazing and victorious grace. and the confession that I believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And here we have 
the Ethiopian eunuch saying, what hinders me from being baptized? Philip answering, if you believe 
with all your heart, you may. And then this affirmation of 
propositions, that simply means truth statements. Whenever we 
use the word a proposition, that means a truth statement, a statement 
of truth. In this case, that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God. So we have two things in this 
text here. If you believe with all your heart, Ethiopian eunuch, 
you may be baptized. We have that proper order. Belief, 
baptism. And then we have the one being 
baptized affirming a believing proposition, a believing truth 
concerning Jesus that he is most certainly the Son of God. And 
then lastly, That only professing Christians or believers or the 
proper subjects of baptism is proven by the fact and reality 
of what it symbolizes. What does baptism symbolize? It is not to be given those who 
cannot identify with the reality that it symbolizes. One place 
that we can go to first is Romans 6. Romans chapter 6. 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 
Jesus 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. Remember who the Apostle Paul 
is writing the book of Romans to. To all who are in Rome, beloved 
of God, called to be saints. grace to you and peace from God 
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. He then talks about them 
being baptized into death, buried with him, and raised by the power 
of God. There is an intimate connection 
between the ordinance and that salvific reality. It's only those 
who receive the ordinance are to be those who can identify 
with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, who are savingly 
attached to Him by virtue of His perfect saving work. Notice what the Confession says 
in paragraph 1, a sign of His fellowship with Him in His death 
and resurrection, of His being engrafted into Him. of remission 
of sins, etc. As well, that passage that we 
read in the book of Galatians, in Galatians 3. Remember what 
Paul said there, for as many of you as were baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ. This is after saying that they 
are sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. If we know our 
doctrine of Son of God at the point of believers, we know from 
John's Gospel in chapter 1, verses 12 and 13, that they are only 
the sons of God who have been given the right to believe by 
God himself, who are born not of the flesh nor of the will 
of man, but of God. The only sons of God are those 
who are born again by God, by His amazing grace. It's a very 
confusing thing. I believe it's John Murray, and 
I'd have to find the actual quote again, so don't quote me. I'll 
scratch that, it might not be John Murray. But it's a very 
notable Paedo-Baptist Presbyterian brother in Christ from the past 
who said that the children of believers are just as much the 
sons of God as their believing parents. Horrible, horrible statement. 
If they are just as much the sons of God as their believing 
parents, then they have to be born again. They have to be born 
again. By virtue of them, they simply 
being the seed of believing parents, they're just as much the sons 
of God? Of course not. They are sons 
of God, the gospel of John says, who are born again from above. 
and only they. And so it is only they who are 
to be baptized, and that's not Paul's primary point in Galatians, 
but that's an absolutely necessary implication. And then we have 
a passage in Colossians as well. You can turn to the book of Colossians. In Colossians chapter 2, Verse 11, in him, that is in 
Christ. In him you were also circumcised 
with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried 
with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him 
through faith in the working of God who raised him from the 
dead." Notice the connection there again between the thing 
which baptism symbolizes and baptism itself. There is a necessary 
connection between the saving reality of being born again by 
God, saved by the Lord Jesus Christ and through Him, and receiving 
the ordinance. Buried with Him in baptism in 
which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working 
of God who raised Him from the dead. It's, again, that only 
professing Christians or believers are the proper subjects of baptism 
is proven by the fact and reality of what it symbolizes. Well, 
with the six and a half minutes that we have left, if any questions 
afterwards, please fire away. It's good to, if you have any 
questions, to have them answered if I can. But let's look at the 
proper biblical mode of baptism. We've looked at the proper recipients, 
the lawful recipients of the ordinance, now the proper mode. 
Notice back to the confession, what it says in paragraphs 3 
and 4. 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 the ordinance. So the lawful recipients then, 
we've identified who they are. They are Christians, properly 
speaking, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. How then are they 
to be baptized? In what manner? In the language 
of chapter 28, these holy appointments are to be administered by those 
only who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission 
of Christ, if that pertains, and it doesn't have to for the 
sake of our argument, but if that pertains to the manner in 
which the ordinance is to be undertaken, then it comes in 
verses paragraphs 3 and 4 here in water by immersion in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We 
know that baptism is by full immersion in water by virtue 
of the example of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 3 verses 13 
to 17. There, the Lord Christ goes into 
the Jordan and comes out. I love what Spurgeon says with 
regards to Christians having a proper view of the Savior in 
a sermon on in a sermon on the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 
11 passage on the Lord's Supper, Spurgeon, indicts people who 
don't remember Christ enough in their Christian walk by pointing 
them to the waters of the Jordan. And he says something like, we 
have reason to suspect that the conscious water trembled that 
it contained the deity. In other words, Christ went into 
the water. and came out from the water. 
He was fully immersed in the water, and Spurgeon indicts us 
who can so often be marked by a coldness and a languor in remembering 
our Savior, noting that the water itself personified, trembled 
at the reality that it contained the Son of God. Anyway, getting 
back to, that's just a, It's always good to quote Spurgeon 
whenever you can. But the point is Christ went into the water, 
the water contained him, and he came back out from the water. 
So we know that it is an ordinance of full immersion in water by 
the example of the Lord Christ. John 3.24, we know that baptism 
is by full immersion in water by the same baptism of John requiring 
much water. Calvin even notes, and what was 
sufficient to immerse the whole body in. Calvin was honest here 
at the point of the ordinance of baptism as far as full immersion. Gill notes, Arecius, Piscator, 
and Grotius on the place observe and which was agreeable not only 
to the practice of the Jews who used dipping in their baptisms 
and purifications as musculus and light foot assert, but to 
John's method and practice elsewhere. So in other words, he's saying 
that this argues for full immersion because of the language used 
there by John. Acts 8, 34-39, by the baptism 
of the Ethiopian eunuch. Matthew 20, 22-23, by the meaning of the word used 
regarding affliction. The use of the word baptizo there 
with regards to affliction is employed in a manner which cannot 
mean a sprinkling, but rather a full immersion in a trial or 
an affliction. Being fully immersed, fully plunged 
into a thing. There we have John Gill noting, 
James being bathed in his own blood when killed with the sword, 
and John being cast into a vessel of scalding oil. These are fitly 
expressed by a baptism. And then lastly, Romans 6, 1-7, 
we know that baptism is by full immersion in water, by the language 
used connecting our baptism to the death, burial, and resurrection 
of Christ. Christ was baptized in his affliction. He was fully immersed. As a man 
of sorrows acquainted with grief at the point of his crucifixion, 
it was a full immersion. He was fully committed to the 
horrors of his death upon Calvary's tree. Maybe more pointedly with 
regards to the language, burial in the tomb. He's fully enclosed 
in the tomb and then resurrected by the power of God. And so hopefully 
just a brief tour through some of the important things respecting 
baptism. Baptism is to be given to believers 
only, and this is proved by many things, by explicit command, 
authoritative precept, and by what we covered there from the 
Holy Scriptures with regards to those things. And then the 
rightful mode is by immersion in water. And in the name of 
the triune God, let us never forget that. Baptism is in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. There's 
so many instances in the Bible where we have perhaps sometimes 
completely missing the triune reality of things and benedictions 
given and doxologies rendered. The example of Christ himself 
at his baptism, where there we find the triune God and the giving 
of the great commission. Where not only is the name explicitly 
mentioned, but Christ is the one given authority by the father, 
who then empowers his disciples by the spirit to go out and to 
proclaim the gospel to every nation under heaven and to baptize 
in the triune name. And truly we have a blessed doctrine 
in the doctrine of baptism and hopefully as Christians in our 
walk in this lower world, not being marked by a spirit of debate 
against the Paedo-Baptists, but in the joy of the ordinances, 
we understand it's revealed in the scriptures. rejoicing in 
that ordinance where we identify with the triune God of Holy Scripture 
and our blessed Christ. Well, let us pray. Heavenly Father, 
we thank you for this time together studying doctrine. We rejoice 
that we can, by your spirit and for your glory, understand the 
things of your word. Might you ever help us to grow 
in that, to understand your revelation to men. to rejoice in Christ 
Jesus as he's opened up in the Holy Bible and to daily live 
in light of such a glorious Christ. We pray that you go with us now 
into the hour of worship. Might we honor you, might we 
praise you, and might we, by your Spirit, have our souls stirred 
unto a high and reverent worship of the Triune God. We praise you and we thank you 
and we do pray now in the name of our Savior, the Lord Jesus 
Christ. Amen.