Baptism Views

Thanks for being here. I'm glad you're here. Caleb's coming around and giving out just a simple handout that has a couple of words on one side of it, some space for notes, and then a similar drawing to what I put up on the board, which I know is hard to see, but hopefully the one on the back of this will serve you better and maybe look something like mine by the time we're done together this evening.

So, baptismal views. I have three goals for this evening. Number one, I want to bring some clarity to the two orthodox views of baptism.

There's a lot of varied views, little nuanced things out there, but big views understood by those that we would call faithful Christians.

That's number one. Just bring a bit of clarity to that.

Secondly, I want to show that hermeneutics, or the way that we read the Bible, drive the varying understandings of baptism.

So, we're going to back up a bit from the issue of baptism itself to help us see why the conclusion has come to.

Thirdly, to defend in brief the position that our church holds.

So, I just, I find it impossible to present an entirely fair and balanced view.

I'm hoping that you will see that Presbyterians are not insane.

So, Ty's here. Ty's the reason we're having this class tonight.

Although, I think it's a good thing to do anyway.

I want to help you see, there is a, or reasons that Ty has come to the conclusion that he's come to.

Because we want to wrap our minds around, how is it that people who believe a lot of the things that we believe

might differ on something that we also hold to be true.

So, I want to give a little defense of credo-baptism, but I'm not even going to spend a ton of time on that.

So, those are my three goals.

I have two hopes for this evening.

Number one, that tonight will be the beginning of many fruitful conversations.

And that's the clarifying word there, that we actually have conversations that are helpful to us and our faith.

Concerning the ordinance of baptism, tonight will not be enough.

There's much, much more that could be said.

But perhaps we'll spark and engage you in some great Bible conversation concerning these ordinances.

Secondly, tonight, that I can help you to disagree agreeably.

So, wherever you end up landing on this issue, just that you'll see there's reason for us to extend a lot of grace to one another

as we're trying to navigate matters that aren't always as simple as we'd like for them to be.

So, those are my three goals.

Those are my two hopes.

I've got some caveats, but I want to pray that the Lord would help us with those things,

and then we'll proceed together.

So, let's pray together.

Father God, we do thank you for today, for the opportunity to gather together with the church this morning,

and the way that you blessed our time together as we prayed and sang and heard your word preached this morning.

We're glad now to be back together.

And Father, I am grateful that we have any concern at all about what your word says about anything at all,

and we recognize that this is a work of the Spirit on our behalf.

You have made us alive.

We were once dead, cared nothing about the things that most concern you,

and you have saved us.

And we are so glad this evening that we have any reason at all to open up the word and to think about it

and think about how we can be obedient to it and to please you.

And so, Father, I pray you'll help me to be clear that we'll have minds that can comprehend this evening,

that you'll help us to be those who disagree agreeably,

that there will be something distinct about your people when we find ourselves not seeing eye to eye,

that we do so in a way that even embraces those difference,

and that we would do that for the glory of Christ.

And we pray this in His name. Amen.

Okay, so two caveats for this evening.

So first, and I mentioned this in brief already,

but everything I will cover this evening could be given much more attention.

Really, when approaching stuff like this, it's not really the way I like to teach.

I'd much rather have the text and just tell you everything the text says and move on.

But when you're coming at something like this, there's so much that could be said in the matter of it all.

So I just thought it best to make every effort to handle it in a single evening,

just because I know that our schedules are packed,

and many of you don't really need to spend weeks on the matter.

You don't need books and books presented to you.

So I've tried to distill it down.

I've tried to make it as simple and presentable as possible.

I'm confident I won't do the best job of that.

So just so you know, there are better people who could do a better job of this.

But maybe because you know me, this will be good.

Secondly, I'm going to do my best to fairly represent each view.

But again, I'm just not an expert on the matter.

So do ask good questions.

Feel free to ask me questions.

I'll do my very best to answer them.

Do study on your own.

Yeah, let's work toward the truth together and keep us moving.

I do know the question has been asked if this could be recorded.

I do think it's being recorded, but we're going to be doing some things on a whiteboard,

so that may not be super helpful.

So you might be able to be helpful to others.

And I would encourage you to engage people in conversations about this very matter.

Be wary of teachers and leaders who want to keep you from entertaining ideas and exploring truth.

It's good, I think, for leaders to warn people like,

hey, be careful with that, you know, that thing you're listening to or that doctrine of entertaining.

There are certainly some very dangerous things that need to be shut down.

But things like this ought to be encouraged.

Like, yeah, take your time with it.

Really consider it.

We're confessional people.

Confessionalism, I will ongoingly argue for.

I think it's good for us to say what we think the Bible teaches about things

and to summarize what we think the Bible teaches about things.

It's a way to help us be faithful and continue to be faithful.

And so I would rather have people in our church who are confessional.

They believe something and they know why they believe something.

I'd rather have that and go through the process, although it can be painful at times,

of weeding through and disagreeing and finding ourselves, I hope, at some agreement at the end.

I'd rather go through all of that process and have people know, for example, in this case,

why you're a Baptist versus just kind of going along with it because it's how you grew up

and it's what you know and you just kind of boop-a-doo.

And there's peace because you don't say anything at all, but you don't really know what you believe.

I think it's important for us to know what we believe and to be able to defend what we believe.

And, of course, to do so with a great deal of charity.

So, all right.

So let's begin with some definition of terms.

Now, I regret I had already pressed copy on this thing and realized,

uh-uh, that's not the best way to do this.

So there's three things I want to define for you just in brief.

Pado-baptism.

Credo or credo, you'll hear some people say.

And some people also say pedo-baptism, which just irks me.

So, pedo-baptism.

I'm going to say credo-baptism.

And then I realized that covenantalism, I made it look like this is a third view of baptism

and it's not.

We're going to talk about covenantalism to help us understand the other two views.

So I just regret that looking like it's not a baptismal view.

So I just want to be clear on that as we start to get into this.

So, pedo-baptism.

First, it's derived from the Greek pais, child.

So it means child baptism specifically.

Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians.

There's a lot of faith traditions that are pedo-baptist.

Not my intention to denigrate any practitioners of pedo-baptism.

Some of the aforementioned denominations do so, though, merely for tradition's sake.

They don't know why they do what they do.

Some do so erroneously, believing doctrines like baptismal regeneration.

There's some really, like, off-the-wall baptism stuff.

We're not addressing every single view of baptism tonight.

There's no scope for that this evening.

So if you came for that, I do apologize.

We're not going to be addressing the heretical pedo-baptist views this evening.

Those that deny justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.

The view I want to explain this evening is a wide-held view.

Many who hold it do so out of an earnest desire to please the Lord by being faithful to His Word.

So, I do think pedo-baptism is an error.

But there's some comfort in the fact that it's an ancient error.

There's been faithful Christians throughout time who have believed this,

but also believe that we're justified by grace through faith in Christ alone.

That's who I'm talking about this evening when I say pedo-baptists.

It's those whom we agree with on primary doctrine.

So that's who I'm talking about.

But do know that when you use that term,

there's also a lot of other stuff going on in that bigger and broader category.

Now, to be clear, the name can be a little misleading

because all pedo-baptists, that I know of.

You may correct me. I may be wrong.

But I believe all pedo-baptists believe in believer's baptism.

That is to say, they believe that if a person was not baptized as an infant,

comes to faith in Christ as an adult, then they should be baptized.

So, it's a little misleading because it would make you think that they only baptized children.

But that's not the case.

If you come to faith as an adult and you were not baptized as a child,

they all agree that you then should be baptized.

The distinguishing factor is whether or not a child should be baptized.

Who is the proper recipient?

They would say those adults who profess faith in Christ and their children.

So, there's the term.

Pedo-baptism.

Or pedo.

Credo-baptism comes from the Latin credo or I believe.

So, as a church, as a whole, we are credo-baptists.

I want you to know that there are credo-baptistic practices that I do not agree with.

So, again, we have this broad categorical term,

and there's things that happen under that banner that I do not agree with.

An example of this that's happening in the Southern Baptist Convention right now

is called spontaneous baptism.

And they will just set up the tank,

and all you have to do is line up,

and they'll put a cool t-shirt on you with their church logo on it

and film the whole thing to be broadcast on the internet

and count the numbers and then write the books and do all the other things.

I think this is not a good practice at all.

And I'm not defending that kind of a practice.

Just because somebody claims to be a credo-baptist

doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what they're up to.

We hold that the only proper recipients of baptism

are those who have made credible professions of faith in Jesus Christ.

And there's a lot that could be debated and talked about.

How do you determine that?

We won't get into that this evening.

But just simply put,

we believe that those who should be baptized

are those who make credible professions of faith in Jesus Christ.

And so this evening, when I say credo-baptist,

it is to those with whom we agree closely on the doctrine at hand

that I am referring to.

So not the erroneous stuff out there at the edges.

So those are the two positions that we're going to look at this evening.

You're probably in some measure familiar with them already.

However, to help you, particularly when it comes to pedo-baptism,

to understand the position,

we need to talk a bit about covenantalism.

So that's where covenantalism comes into this conversation.

So covenantalism can be set against dispensationalism.

And I'm not going to explain all of that to you,

but we are not, as a church, dispensationalists.

Dispensationalists believe that people were saved in different ages.

That's what a dispensation is, in different ways.

And that's an over-reduction of the terminology.

But we distinguish ourselves from dispensationalists,

and that's kind of the water we swim in in American Christianity,

just so that you're aware.

A lot of stuff, a lot of understandings come out of dispensationalism.

But we, instead, are covenantalists.

Our church, as a total, as a whole, we're covenantalists.

But there's some different types,

some different varieties of covenantalism.

So three, I want to share with you, briefly.

The first is Westminster federalism.

Westminster federalism.

And that is to say, this is from the Westminster Confession,

federalism just speaks to the fact that Adam was our federal head,

and now Christ is our federal head if we're found in him.

This is also often called Reformed Covenantalism.

And that's probably the term I'll use this evening.

Westminster federalism is a mouthful.

So is Reformed Covenantalism.

But, Reformed Covenantalism.

So it's been rightly said of Baptists

that it's difficult for us to use the term Reformed.

And I agree.

I honestly don't think it's the best term for us.

Often what we'll do is we'll call ourselves Reformed Baptists

because we're making that distinguishing point there.

But largely, the covenantalism of the Reformation

was what we call Westminster Federalism

or Reformed Covenantalism.

Covenantalism.

We're going to get into it.

That's what this diagram here is going to look like.

So we're going to go there here in just a minute.

So it's all stemming out of 17th century writing

Westminster Federalism.

The second one is 1689 Federalism.

1689 refers to the Second London Baptist Confession.

1689 Federalism.

And yep, that's the official term for it.

They have not come up with anything

catchier than that.

And that is a Baptistic Covenantalism.

And then the third,

which we're not going to talk about in detail tonight,

but it's Progressive Covenantalism.

Progressive Covenantalism is not really

too far apart from 1689 Federalism.

This is a thing I've been discovering

as your elders are having a lot of conversations

about 1689 Federalism versus Progressive Covenantalism.

And I'm finding only in some small applications

is there really much difference at all

between the two views.

So both Baptistic,

so we're going to talk 1689 Federalism tonight.

I may make some,

this is not all noted,

so I may make some off-the-wall comments

addressing Progressive Covenantalism as well.

But that's where we're coming from

as a Baptist church,

is at least one of these two

covenantal views.

So ways that we read the Scripture.

Okay?

So Westminster Federalism,

1689 Federalism,

Progressive Covenantalism.

I'll stop there for just a quick second.

Does anybody have any questions

that are not like,

what is 1689 Federalism?

I set the trajectory for you already,

I hope.

So,

anybody have any,

am I flying over anything

that anybody's repeated?

Or,

yes, my love.

Well, I'm worried about asking it

because the example you just gave

is similar to the question

I'm about to ask,

but is there a way

to like just really quickly

define Progressive,

I know that the last one you said,

like,

because I know that's very similar

to what you just said.

Is there anything that like,

just if you ever try to write

like a little bit of a definition,

like a quick one,

that would set it apart

from the other two?

Like,

no taking any.

No.

Okay.

They're,

they're,

they're real similar.

So,

I'll,

the,

I actually think

that they're so similar,

except in a couple of applications,

they,

they just use language differently.

Okay.

So,

it's not,

it's not something

to be too fussed about.

In fact,

in my notes,

I've got 1689 federalism

and then as a,

as a sub,

as a sub category,

I have Progressive Covenantalism

just as like a,

also this.

Yeah.

I,

I think,

I think we'll find

that they agree

on just about everything.

So,

okay.

Anything else?

Yes,

Lynn.

Do you think

you just have to do

the tie-in

to the

part of?

Yes.

Yeah,

I said that super fast,

but I said,

how we read the Bible.

Yeah.

So,

so how,

as covenantalists,

which we should be,

right?

It's good,

good for us not to think

that people were saved

differently at different times,

right?

So that's,

the big,

the big overarching,

and again,

it's more complicated

than,

than I'm making that out to be,

but is that,

that people have

always been saved

the same way.

There's not

multiple ways

in which

people are saved.

there are dispensationalists

today that still believe

that ethnic Jews

are going to be saved

differently than the rest

of the world.

My father was sharing with me,

I was talking a little bit

about some of these views,

and my dad,

when he worked at the

North American Mission Board,

was making the case,

just the really good,

honest case,

that we ought to be doing

more evangelism

amongst Jewish people.

And he said,

I kept getting just

odd answers,

and I just never,

like,

it's like they didn't,

it felt like they didn't

like Jewish people,

but it's like they were weird

about whether or not

we should share the gospel

with Jewish people.

I said,

that was dispensationalism,

that play.

They were going,

I don't know

that we're supposed to.

I think we're supposed

to leave them alone

because God's got

a specific way

that he's going to save them

different than

through faith in Christ.

And we would just

flatly reject that.

Like,

no,

no,

just read the book

of Romans,

right?

Like,

we would just reject it.

So,

yes,

but the way

you understand,

and I'm going to show you

the difference here

in a moment,

brings you

to some conclusions,

whether

Paedo or

Credo Baptist

conclusions.

yeah.

So,

I found,

and I've

studied this

to some degree,

but especially

in starting to have

good conversations

with Ty,

going,

oh,

okay.

Because for a lot

of years,

I was very frustrated

by the Paedo Baptist

argument.

And I'm going,

okay,

like,

I get why you get there.

And that's what my hope

for you tonight

is to kind of give you

like my version of it.

Like,

oh,

okay,

I get why you get there.

It makes more sense

to me now,

although I still disagree,

but it makes more sense.

So,

yeah.

Okay,

so let's launch into it.

Are you ready?

All right,

so,

I feel like,

this is not a thing

I normally do,

so bear with me

as I try to write

and talk

and pull this off

at the same time.

I have never been

a seminary professor,

so we're going to try

to make this happen.

So on the back of your sheet,

you have the two things

that I've drawn

minus a couple

of little details.

And so,

I'm just going to let you

write in

and keep up

with what you want

to pull off

as you do it.

Okay?

So,

we're going to talk

specifically about

Westminster Federalism,

Reformed Covenantalism,

which is this top line

up here

first.

And what

this view sees

in the Scripture

is two

overarching

covenants.

Okay?

So just real quick,

when I say the word covenant,

what pops in your mind?

Marriage.

Sure.

Did Abraham a covenant?

What else?

Agreement.

An agreement.

An agreement.

Okay.

Yep.

Maybe you have a deep,

a deep promise

kind of an agreement.

Yeah,

sure.

But you're popping on those,

there's things in the Bible

where you're like,

oh,

that's a covenant,

that's a covenant,

the Abrahamic covenant,

the Noahic covenant,

the Davidic covenant,

those types of things.

Covenantalism,

particularly,

the two we're going to

talk about tonight,

see two overarching

covenants.

There's the covenant

of works.

So this,

this is my creation line

right here.

This is my fall

line there.

And here you have the

covenant of works.

Okay?

So,

Adam and Eve,

right,

created both able to sin

and able to not sin.

We're given commands,

right?

So Adam's put in the garden

to work it and to keep it.

He's told one thing

that he cannot do

that we have a record of.

This is Genesis 2,

Genesis 2:15–17

verses 15 through 17.

The Lord God took the man,

put him in the garden of Eden

to work it and keep it.

And the Lord God

commanded the man saying,

you may surely eat

of every tree of the garden,

but of the tree

of the knowledge

of good and evil

you shall not eat

for in the day

that you eat of it

you shall surely die.

Right?

So there's the covenant

of works,

right?

He could have,

he could have stayed

in good condition

with his God

in the place

in which he lived

had he done

what he was supposed

to do.

Right?

So this is the covenant

of works.

And it all falls apart,

right,

when Eve and then Adam

disobey.

Right?

So Westminster

federalism starts

with Adam

as our representative,

right?

all of us now

guilty in him

for his sin.

Okay?

After this,

so everything

from this line,

so I'll draw it up here,

and on,

it's called

the covenant

of grace.

everything

happening after this,

the covenant

of grace.

And we find

the expression

of this covenant

in Genesis chapter 3,

Genesis 3:15

verse 15.

Anyone just know

off the top of their head

what that verse is?

It's a big one.

often called

the proto-euangelion.

I will put

enmity

between you

and the woman

and between your

offspring

and her offspring.

He shall bruise

your head

and you shall

bruise

his heel.

Right?

This is the very first,

right,

shadowed

proclamation

of the

coming of Christ.

He's going to come.

He's the snake crusher,

right?

We use that language

with our

kiddos

quite a bit.

Right?

So the covenant

of grace

is given

in Genesis chapter 3

Genesis 3 · chapter mention

and verse 15

in this view

and then

ratified.

So a covenant

needs blood

to be ratified

either

in Genesis

3.21

or

anybody

tell me

what happens

in Genesis

3.21?

Yep.

That's right.

He clothes

Adam and Eve

so there's

the sacrifice.

This is the

first physical

death.

An animal

dies in order

to be made

into clothing

for Adam

and Eve.

Okay?

So either

ratified

Genesis

3.21

or

in Genesis

Genesis 15 · chapter mention

chapter

15

after that

first giving

of the

Abrahamic covenant

and then

Abraham

sees God

he split

animals in

half

and he

makes the

covenant

and passes

between them

the smoking pot.

Okay?

So there's

some variance

in what

holders of this

view

when they

think exactly

this was

ratified

but either

way

early in

Genesis

ratified.

Okay?

So there's

the covenant

of grace

given

here.

Okay?

Then you

have

so I've

drawn little

arrows

because these

are just

pointing us

along.

Right?

These are

all covenant

of grace.

So people

here

are saved

by

believing

that somehow

as this is

being revealed

somehow

God by

his grace

is saving

them.

Don't have

the full

realization

yet of the

cross of

Christ

but it's

moving them

in that

direction.

So you

have the

Noahic

that's

Genesis 8

you have

the Abrahamic

Genesis 15

and 17

you have

the Mosaic

Exodus 19

and 20

you have

the Davidic

2 Samuel

7

you could

put in

here

the

Aaronic

not

ironic

Aaronic

the promise

that there

would be a

lineage of

priests that

come from

Aaron

you could

insert that

one in

there

but these

are the

typical

significant

covenants

that are

made

right

pointing

in this

direction

so

moving

toward

covenant

and then

Christ

Christ

comes

okay

now

what

the

holders

of this

view

this

reformed

covenantalism

will say

is that

there are

there's

one

covenant

covenant

of grace

under

two

administrations

okay

under

two

administrations

so I'm

going to

write that

up here

and then

I'm

going to

read to

you

from the

Westminster

Confession

so

this

would be

pre-Christ

would be

your first

administration

so

from the

fall

and this

ratified

promise

in Genesis

315

you have

the

first

administration

and

after the

cross of

Christ

you have

the

second

administration

the

first

administration

!

called

the

old

covenant

that's

where we

get our

term

old

testament

from

and then

here

the

new

covenant

can

somebody

tell me

a sign

of the

old

covenant

the first

administration

that would

pertain to

our

conversation

tonight

circumcision

okay

so that's

going to

matter here

in just a

second

I'll

show you

okay so

here we go

this is from

the Westminster

Confession

chapter 7

section 5

and I do

for a moment

want to

want to

commend the

Westminster

standards to

you

really helpful

in a lot

of ways

disagree with a

few things

contained within

but largely

agree with a

lot of it

here I find

myself disagreeing

so heads up

there but

they say

chapter 7

section 5

this covenant

so referring to

the covenant

of grace

was differently

administered in

the time of

the law and

in the time

of the gospel

under the law

it was administered

by promises

prophecies

sacrifices

circumcision

the paschal

lamb and

other types

and ordinances

delivered to

the people of

the Jews

all for

signifying

Christ to

come

which were

for that

time sufficient

and efficacious

through the

operation of

the spirit

to instruct

and build

up the

elect in

faith

and the

promised

Messiah

by whom

they had

full remission

of sins

and eternal

salvation

and it's

called

the Old

Testament

that's

everything

I was just

saying

right

chapter 7

section 5

the Westminster

confession

so everything

that's going

on

right

from

Genesis 3

15

all the way

to the coming

of Christ

is all

types

shadows

under

this

idea

of

an

administration

section 6

so the

following

section

chapter 7

section 6

under the

gospel

when Christ

the substance

was exhibited

the ordinances

in which the

covenant

is dispensed

are the

preaching

of the

word

and the

administration

of the

sacraments

of baptism

and the

Lord's

supper

which

though

fewer

in

number

and

administered

with more

simplicity

and less

outward

glory

yet in

them

it is

held

forth

in more

fullness

evidence

and

spiritual

efficacy

to all

nations

both Jews

and Gentiles

and it's

called

the

New

Testament

there are

not

therefore

two

covenants

of grace

differing

in

substance

but one

and the

same

under

various

dispensations

and they

don't mean

dispensationalism

they just

mean

ages

right

they're

just

saying

look

different

administrations

of the

same

so

of the

covenant

of grace

they see

a lot

of

continuity

between

the

old

and the

new

testament

!

covenant

whatever

word

you like

to insert

there

there's

a lot

of

continuity

between

the two

so

you

could write

this

and this

is fair

and I'm

going to

get

Ty to

confirm

or deny

this

for me

in just

a second

you could

write it

like this

old

testament

israel

equals

new

testament

church

and I'll

explain

church

in a

moment

but

Ty

fair

I'm not

arguing

against you

right here

I'm helping

them understand

lots of

continuity

is what's

seen though

between

old

testament

israel

and the

new

testament

church

specifically

in this

way

right

so

again

they're not

all consistent

but the

consistent

paedo-baptist

right

the

westminster

paedo-baptist

is going to

argue for

both a

visible

church

and an

invisible

church

now as

baptists

we use

that same

language

and we

would use

that language

of invisible

like

throughout

time and

space

so we

would say

the church

invisible

like the

church

that met

all over

the world

this morning

on sunday

we can't

see them

they're

invisible

to us

right

they're not

using that

terminology

the same

way

so perhaps

you have

read

presbyterians

before

and maybe

gone

I'm confused

about what

they're

talking about

that's why

they're using

the terms

differently

than we

tend to

use those

terms

so what

they mean

is

old testament

israel

israel

was a

nation

state

right

there's an

ethnic

so all

throughout

the old

testament

we've just

done a bunch

of dealing

with this

in romans

9

through 11

right

and there

paul talks

about a

remnant

who's

saved

throughout

that time

that would

be

presbyterians

are using

the term

invisible

church

so those

those who

are actually

by faith

right

believing

believing in

these types

and signs

and promises

that this

covenant

of grace

is effectual

for them

they are

actually

converted

and saved

right

so there's

the nation

there's

the

visible

nation

and that

nation

takes what

sign

in the

old testament

they take

the sign

of

circumcision

right

the boys

right

which is

a sign

for the

nation

right

the sign

of the

covenant

for this

nation

they take

that sign

but within

that

there are

those jewish

people who

actually believe

right

who have

placed their

faith

signs

types

they're

believing

they're

believing

that somehow

it's going

to be

saving

for them

in that

in this

I'll use

their language

dispensation

right

of God's

redemptive

work

so yes

John

yes

yep

yeah they

certainly

would

I mean

all the

evidence is

here for

it

right

yeah

for sure

yeah

okay

so

they will

argue

that today

there is

a

a visible

church

which was

made up

of all

those

adults

who profess

faith

in Jesus

Christ

and their

children

so they

bring

that language

over

so I've

argued to

you before

that I

think

paedo-baptism

confused

because I'm

going what

are you guys

doing that

really

confusing

the

nature

of the

church

what I

didn't

realize

is we

actually

believe

something

different

about the

nature

of the

church

of course

it does

because we

actually believe

something

different

about the

nature

of the

church

so there's

going to

be a

visible

church

right

it's

those

who

are

who

are

baptized

but there's

going to

be a

subset

of that

church

who

have

placed

believing

faith

in

Christ

now

for me

something

that was

helpful

right now

your elders

are thinking

a lot

about what

we want to

do with

young people

who are

professing

faith

in

Christ

so we

want to

be so

careful

that we

don't give

false

assurance

to young

people

professing

faith

in

Christ

right

Baptists

have been

bad at

this

in this

past

generation

right

I love

Jesus

like

tally

the number

right

and it's

the common

it's the

common

testimony

of young

people who

come here

and are

baptized

that they

were baptized

when they

were

seven or

eight

pretty

pretty

typical

they

come to

later

believe

they

weren't

actually

Christians

at that

time

and I'm

not saying

that young

people can't

be saved

I believe

young people

can be

saved

I think

I was

saved

at a very

young age

let the

children come

to me

we're not

arguing that

but we

are we

we do

want to be

really careful

about that

peace that

credible

profession

of faith

in Christ

we want to

be really

careful

about who

who we

bring in

and call

church

okay

so that's

the perspective

that we're

coming from

we intend

to bring

this to

you

have a

big

old

conversation

about

what we

think we

should do

and present

it to

the church

to

affirm

or deny

you could

disagree

with us

we're okay

with that

I think

so

I'm trying

to think

really carefully

about that

Presbyterians

do this

in various

ways

with a

different

ordinance

they do

a process

of confirmation

that goes on

and again

I'm arguing

good

good

orthodox

pedo-baptist

churches

that's where

they're

primarily

concerned

because

they say

you can't

inspect

yourself

you can't

approach

the table

carefully

if you're

not in

Christ

and so

they go

through a

process

at that

point

to be

careful

about

who

gets

to receive

that

now

there are

some

out there

Doug Wilson

who

practice

pedo-communion

too

and they

have their

kids

eating

and I

just

get

I mean

frankly

it's more

consistent

but I

get real

uncomfortable

with that

but

I

digress

so

that

helped

me

go

okay

we're

we're

both

being

careful

baptists

are being

careful

with a

particular

ordinance

rather than

the

we're

careful

with the

other

one

as

well

but

we're

really

careful

on the

front

end

of

that

equation

so

yes

Jim

why do

you think

that Doug

will see

what you

point

as

ordinance

!

because

he's

equating

the two

things

he's

saying

that

they're

part

of

a

church

therefore

they should

be

able to

receive

the

sacraments

of the

church

it's

more

consistent

with the

Westminster

language

honestly

before it

gets there

yes

tie

yeah

sounds like

pedo

communion

to me

that's a

very

very

very

baptist

thing

to say

okay

yes

yes

yes

it is

okay

so

this

is

this

this

is the

thing

for me

like

this

is why

I'm

backing

you

way

up

to

covenant

theology

to

reform

covenant

theology

to go

this

is my

case

like

I

don't

think

it's

crazy

that

they

get

there

again

I

don't

agree

I

do

think

it's

an

error

but

this

is

how

they're

getting

to

this

place

so

I've

heard

R.C.

Sproul

say

if you

read

the

Bible

from

the

front

to

the

back

you'll

be

a

paedo

baptist

if you

read

it

from

the

back

to

the

front

then

you'll

be

a

credo

baptist

that's

what

he

means

he's

just

basically

saying

you

have

to

bring

all

of

the

Old

Testament

data

to

the

New

Testament

and

there

would

have

been

this

understanding

amongst

this

is

the

way

he's

reading

the

Bible

and

he's

really

studied

it

too

feel

free

to

try

to

punch

holes

don't

wear

them

out