Mark 10:13-16 - Part 2

Let's take your copy of God's Word.

Turn to the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 10.

Mark 10 · chapter mention

For those of you who haven't seen us all summer, yes, we are still continuing our verse-by-verse

! exposition of the Gospel according to Mark, and we have made it to chapter 10. We have seen

the conclusion of Jesus' Galilean ministry and His public ministry at large, and He's

begun to travel kind of halfway through chapter 8 with the disciples towards Jerusalem, and

His attention has turned towards them. There's lots of Pericopes here that are specifically

poignant and challenging to those of us who claim to be in Christ. And last week we came

to Mark 10, verses 13 through 16. Let's pray together first, and then I'll read that to

Mark 10:13–16

you. Father God, I have no good that is mine apart from you. In the preaching of your Word,

there is no wisdom that's been given to me that wasn't given to me by you. There's no degree

of slickness of presentation that could possibly change anyone's heart apart from your work in their

lives. And so I plead with you today. Help me. Empower me to speak with clarity and with conviction.

And help, Father, all of us to believe and to follow Christ as we should. And it's in His name I pray.

Amen. So Mark chapter 10, beginning in verse 13. And they were bringing children to Him that He might

Mark 10 · chapter mention

touch them. And the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them,

Let the children come to Me. Do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly I say to

you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. And He took them in His arms

and blessed them, laying His hands on them. And last week we spent some time talking about what it is

that this text does mean. And we see that we are meant to have a childlike faith. And we came to

understand together that this is not an ignorant faith, but that this is a faith that recognizes we

have nothing to offer the kingdom of God. That we have nothing to add to the equation of our salvation

because we are like children. But we also talked about some things that this text does not mean.

And we did this because I ran across in a commentary that I've been using in my study

of the Gospel of Mark by J.C. Ryle, who was a 19th century Anglican bishop. He wrote this,

Of course, it is not pretended that there is any mention of baptism or even any reference to it in the

verses before us. All we mean to say is that the expressions and gestures of our Lord in this passage

are a strong indirect argument in favor of infant baptism. It is on this account that the passage

occupies a prominent place in the baptismal service of the Church of England. This fascinated me

as John MacArthur would say, this is a dry passage. There's no mention of baptism in it anywhere. And

yet it is used by Anglicans as a central text for the baptism of infants. And so in brief last week,

I made the point to you that this text does not mean that there's some sort of special salvific category

for children, although I would make a case there is from other biblical texts, but not this one. Or that

this text is a case for infant baptism. And I promise you that we would look at that at greater length

today. So we're starting kind of as a jumping off point, Mark chapter 10, but we're going to look at some

Mark 10 · chapter mention

selected texts today. Now, as I don't typically do, we're going to be dealing thematically. I want to encourage you to

try to turn and try to keep up with me, but I'm afraid I have a lot of info to cover.

My normal 45-minute sermon is about four and a half pages. This is seven, so I'm going to move and try to get us

through, because I know you guys are already all hungry.

There are a number of categories of what people believe about baptism, and there are some various

erroneous views that we won't even address in any degree today. But the two more common categories that we

would find people that we would fellowship with that believe are paedo-baptists and credo-baptists.

Now, paedo-baptism or paedo-baptists is derived from the Greek paes simply means child. It's a simple term,

sounds really fancy. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, more erroneous

views like the Catholic Church are paedo-baptists. We are, our church, I can't speak for every individual

here, we are, I am, what's called a credo-baptist, which is from Latin, credo, I believe.

Now, for the sake of simplicity for this sermon, I'm going to use the terms paedo-baptist and

Presbyterian interchangeably, and let me tell you why. I'm going to paint with some extremely broad

brushstrokes over the coming 45 minutes or so, but we find ourselves most theologically aligned

with the Presbyterian Church, and specifically the branch of the Presbyterian Church known as the

Presbyterian Church of America, the PCA Church. I am thankful for our PCA brethren. I want you to hear me

very carefully. Please let this flavor everything else I say today. I am thankful for them. In fact, I discovered

that every commentary I'm using for Mark right now was written by a Presbyterian. Isn't that fascinating?

They have offered so much to the Kingdom of God. We have a PCA church in our town, which I love,

and I am thankful for. I consider the pastor a friend, although we have had trouble finding time

to get together and to know each other at a deeper level. We'll continue to work on that. I am thankful

for their partnership in the Gospel in this community. Glad that they are here.

However, we need to know why we believe what we believe. Not simply because it's another flavor,

it's another idea concerning baptism, but because we have conviction about it. Some would have us just

amiably disagree and fellowship with one another. I read a sermon this week from a pastor who was

celebrating that he had both Credo Baptist and Paedo Baptist in his congregation. To say that this is a

secondary issue, which I agree, it's not central to the Gospel. Baptism is not necessary for salvation,

but it is an important doctrine. Baptism is not only given as an individual commandment to you and to me,

but it is granted to the church, to the local church, as an ordinance. An ordinance or a sacrament. We tend to not,

in Protestant churches, use the term sacrament because Catholics believe that the sacraments

actually administer grace. They go in your good person list. We don't believe this is the case. So we tend to use

the term ordinance. That is, it was ordained by Christ. An ordinance is a Christian right with particular

significance. There's two of them. In the case of baptism, it's the Christian right that grants

admittance to the covenant community. Paedo and Credo Baptists agree on this. The Lord's Supper is the

other, which renews our commitment to the covenant community. It's part of the reason we do it every

Sunday here in our congregational meeting. Convictions ought to be held. I recently overheard a PCA pastor,

one that none of you would know, say, well, we're pretty much a Baptist church.

And it wasn't my place in the conversation to scream, no, you're not. You're not, right? In fact,

what you believe about baptism stands in antithesis to what Baptists believe about baptism.

Now, I, with you, wish there was no denominationalism. What a wonderful world that would be, where we all

could agree on all things in the scriptures. But what I will say as a benefit, as a value of

denominations, is that it means that we believe things, that we have convictions, that we stand firm

in, and that collectively, as a local congregation, we hold those things together. It matters what we

believe about baptism. I don't think it's okay that it's a non-issue in our churches. I do believe

we should hold the same convictions, and I'll show you why in the coming moments. Now,

paedo-baptists do not contest that a believer ought to be baptized if that person makes a profession of

faith, and they have never been baptized. If you were not baptized as an infant, and you make a

profession of faith, you should be baptized, right? Our point of contention is whether or not an infant

should ever be baptized, right? So, paedo-baptists believe in believer's baptism, which is why I think

it's important that we clarify that we're credo-baptists. We believe in believer's baptism alone, and not

infant baptism in any case. We don't have to look long or make a very long, challenging argument for

baptism of a believer. We see baptism as expression in the scriptures of repentance and faith. We see

this in Acts chapter 2, verse 37 through 38 and 41. Now, when they heard this, they were cut to the

Acts 2:37–38

heart. This is the conclusion of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, and said to Peter and the rest

of the apostles, brothers, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, repent and be baptized, every one of you,

in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. Repent and be baptized, and it's expression of our repentance. And then verse 41,

so those who received this word, received the word, were baptized, and there were out of that day about

3,000 souls. We will address verse 39 in a moment. Colossians 2, 11-12, Paul also expresses

baptism as a response of repentance and faith. Verse 11, chapter 2, Colossians,

in him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh

by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised

with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead. So we have,

those of us who have believed in Christ in the symbol of baptism, we've been buried with him,

and we've been raised with him, past tense, through what? Our faith. It's an expression of a thing that

has occurred. Our faith. It's commanded to us to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the

Holy Spirit in the Great Commission, Matthew 28, 19 and 20. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.

See people come to repentance and faith and baptize them.

We don't have to look hard to make this argument, and no one, no one disagrees on this point.

To my knowledge, it has never been debated in the history of the church.

I looked long and hard this past week for the history of infant baptism, and there is a lot of

disagreement about it. Some say that it existed from the first century. Some say not until the third,

which is the place that I'm arriving at. It would seem that it came about as part of state control of

religion. It was a way to include all of the citizenship in the church so that they could be

ruled over, but it's difficult. Boy, is it difficult. There's no lack of writing on the topic. I have read

and read and read this week trying to to get all the education I could possibly gather on, and I have to

tell you, I still feel a bit ignorant on the history of it all. Create some challenges for us. We want to

look at the church past and understand how we should operate now. Like we want to stand on the shoulders

of giants, and we have giants to stand upon their shoulders. Men that have contributed so much to our

faith. This is a case, it would seem though, that we need to just look at the scriptures, because there is

so much disagreement on the matter. Let me read to you from the Westminster Confession, 1646.

Chapter 28 of Baptism. Now hear me, this is what the Presbyterian Church holds to in this day. This is

their confession of faith. Section 1. Baptism is a sacrament, or ordinance, of the New Testament,

ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible

church. So it grants admission to the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the

covenant of grace, or his engrafting into Christ, right? It's a picture, it's a symbol of what has

happened. A sign, a seal of covenant grace, and engrafting into Christ of regeneration, the changing

of our hearts, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness

of life. Okay? We all agree upon this. Boy, I read that and I say, that is beautiful. However, the Westminster

Confession, chapter 28, section 4, says not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience

unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

Now, I'm aware of all the arguments. If you sit in this room as a paedo-baptist, I'm completely aware

of them, but when you read the Westminster Confection, it is contradictory. Not only in tone, but in reality,

it is contradictory. Right? What did they just say baptism was about? Not only for the solemn admission

of the party baptized into the visible church, right? But also as a sign and seal of covenant grace,

and engrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to

walk in a newness of life. All of this is present moving forward. Not a future hope. The language

doesn't say that at all. And so we find ourselves in a place of confusion. And there are three ways,

I think, that the doctrine of infant baptism confuses the church. Isn't it interesting that as we've come

to chapter 10, we have dealt now with the three stories so far with issues that are really contentious

in the church that have been challenged in so many ways. A couple of weeks ago, we talked about divorce

and remarriage and all of the views. And we started a process that our church is going to need to go to

resolve what we believe about divorce and remarriage. We've come to this text, which on the surface doesn't

seem to have anything to do with anything that would cause any contention whatsoever. However, it's been

misused, I believe. And next week we get to talk about money, wealth, what's become of that in the church.

We need clarity in our day. This has never been untrue. We need the Bible to communicate to us how it is

we're to live our lives in every respect. I find this issue particularly frustrating because I love you guys.

Again, broad strokes. I'm not upset at any one individual. I think that people who hold the doctrine of infant baptism

do so with a clear conscience, with good motivation. But I just think they're wrong. I think they're confusing

the church of God. I think that the reformers didn't go far enough. They took giant steps. We owe them so much,

but they didn't press on into the truth. And that's what I want for us. And that's what I want for you as an

individual. To submit yourself in every way to the Word of God. Three ways it confuses us. Infant baptism

confuses our belief in the sufficiency of Scripture. It confuses our belief in the sufficiency of Scripture.

I believe that the Scripture is a perfect guide to holiness. Psalm 19, 7-13. Listen carefully.

Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless and innocent.

God's law is perfect to deliver us to this point that we might be blameless if we could keep it.

Right? We're given that blamelessness in Christ. But the Word of God is sufficient for this. We don't need to appeal

to history. We don't need to appeal to tradition. All we need is the Word of God.

This is why I've been saying to you all summer long after reading our text, this is God's Word to us.

Written for His glory and for our good. Right? Our good. Our eternal good.

We would all do well to listen to it in order to believe its promises and obey its commands.

Presbyterians find many of their roots in the Reformation, as do we as a Protestant denomination.

Men that threw off the false teaching of the Catholic Church waved a banner called Sola Scriptura.

By Scripture alone. We will not allow the history or the traditions of the Catholic Church to define for us what it is we should believe.

You remember Martin Luther, the great Reformer, nailed his 95 feces on the door, 95 reasons that indulgences were not biblical.

And he was summoned to the Diet of Worms in 1521.

And he said this,

The Reformation, the Reformers, had a principle they called the regulative principle of worship.

As defined by John Calvin as follows,

God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.

Not fascinating.

Now they would say expressly sanctioned would be that it's given as a command or example,

or that it could be deduced by good and necessary consequence,

which was a way of the time simply to say plain reason or plain logic.

This is all I want.

Show me in the Scriptures.

Show me where the Scriptures say it and use plain reason.

Don't get fancy on me.

Just show me with plain reason and the Scriptures that something is true,

and I'll believe it to be true.

A good example of something arrived at that's not expressly taught,

but that it has arrived at by plain reason or logic,

is the doctrine of the Trinity.

The term Trinity is nowhere used in the Scriptures.

However, the Bible speaks of the Father as God in Philippians 1-2,

Jesus as God in Titus 2-13,

and the Holy Spirit as God in Acts 5-3-4.

So by plain reason, we can arrive at God being three in one.

I don't believe this is the case for impton baptism.

Infant baptism is nowhere taught in the Scriptures.

Pato Baptists agree that it's nowhere expressly taught.

They would just say that it can be inferred by plain reason.

One of their primary defenses is that while it's not found anywhere expressly in the Scriptures,

that it's also not anywhere expressly prohibited in the Scriptures,

which I find fascinating.

Again and again and again you'll read this type of reasoning.

The Bible nowhere prohibits us from physically abusing our children, does it?

Yet we know with plain reason, right?

This way of treating our children is contradictory to the way in which we are guided to treat our children.

The Bible nowhere expressly prohibits heroin use.

However, we know that we're to honor and worship God with our bodies,

not destroy them.

These are plain reason.

These are things that we can arrive at simply and easily.

Infant baptism is not that way.

And the argument of household baptisms is often made by paedo-baptists.

Right?

Places like Acts 16, 14-15,

we see a woman named Lydia and her household is baptized.

Acts 16, 30-34,

and if you'd like to turn with me to this one, you can.

Paul and Silas are in a Philippian prison.

They're praying and singing hymns.

You remember there's an earthquake and all the doors open up.

And the Philippian jailer,

the man that was in charge,

feared for his life because he thought they had escaped.

He was actually about to kill himself.

In verse 30 of chapter 16,

they told him,

don't kill yourself, we're here.

It says,

It doesn't say anything about infants.

In the text at all, does it?

In fact,

likely, a Philippian jailer who was in charge would have been a much older man.

It probably wouldn't have had infants in the house anyway,

but it doesn't say.

It says nothing at all.

It's an argument from silence.

Are we to presume then that there's a doctrine we should practice in our churches

because maybe?

I could just as easily teach to you that there were teenagers in this house,

as anyone else can make the case that there were infants in the house.

1 Corinthians 1.16,

Paul here mentions baptizing the household of Stephanas.

Again, no mention of infants,

those who were unable to profess faith in Christ being baptized.

Now, I mentioned that we were going to look at Acts chapter 2, verse 39,

Acts 2:39

that I would come back to it.

Now, remember verse 37 and 38.

Now, when they heard this,

they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles,

Brothers, what shall we do?

And Peter said to them,

Repent and be baptized,

every one of you,

in the name of Jesus Christ,

for the forgiveness of your sins,

and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Verse 39.

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off,

everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

Verse 40.

And with many other words,

he bore witness and continued to exhort them,

saying,

Save yourselves from this crooked generation.

So those who received his word were baptized,

and they were added to that day 3,000 souls.

So you see in a sandwich,

and I intentionally presented it to you in that way,

verse 37,

verse 38,

response of faith.

Verse 31,

response of faith.

And then we see verse 39,

speaking of a promise for you and your children.

But don't miss that it's also for all who are far off,

everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

Peter is broadening the scope of the gospel.

The gospel is now available to all people who respond in faith.

Not just you who are here on the day of Pentecost,

but you can go back to your house,

and you can preach the gospel to your kids.

And they can receive it.

And you can go far off and preach the gospel,

and they can receive it.

If our logic stays consistent with the Pato-Baptists,

the promise being for you and for your children,

but wait,

and all who are far off,

it would seem that when I become a Christian,

my kids are automatically granted that as well,

and everyone else,

as long as I can call them far off.

So you guys should run as far from me as you possibly can.

It doesn't hold water.

Pun intended.

Turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 7.

1 Corinthians 7 · chapter mention

There's a new issue in the church now.

What happens if a believer is married to an unbeliever?

This is now suddenly a new issue.

Not people who are of the same lineage,

not an Israelite married to an Israelite,

but what happens now that there's a status change in a marriage?

And Paul addresses that.

Chapter 7, beginning in verse 12.

To the rest I say, I, not the Lord,

that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever,

and she consents to live with him,

he should not divorce her.

Stay together.

If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever,

and he consents to live with her,

she should not divorce him.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife,

and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.

Otherwise, your children would be unclean,

but as it is, they are holy.

It's interesting language, right?

Verse 15.

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so.

In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved.

God has called you to peace.

For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?

Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Now, firstly, the point of the text is speaking of unbelieving spouses, right?

You see that.

It wraps back around to that with this interesting little interjection

that the children are made holy.

Verse 16 says,

Remain with them.

If they're willing to remain with you, remain with them.

Because verse 16 says,

How do you know?

Maybe in your living out the gospel

and your presentation of the gospel to your spouse,

they may become saved.

What a glorious thing that would be

if both of you would be regenerate

and your marriage could better reflect the glory of God.

So if they're willing, stay with them.

That's the point of the text.

This is what he's trying to communicate to us.

So what does he mean for the unbelieving husband is made holy?

Another way of translating that word is made sanctified or set apart.

And all Paul's communicating here

is that the blessings of the gospel are made available to these people.

If they're willing as an unbeliever to stay in your house,

just as your children are going to stay in your house,

let them stay.

It's good for them to be in the presence of someone who is redeemed.

They are in a sense then set apart,

given the blessings of God through your faith.

This is all Paul is communicating to us here.

Now the Pato-Baptist argument draws a lot,

and I think rightly this is the best possible case for it,

through the covenants,

through the covenant of grace specifically.

Now Presbyterians are what we would call

covenant theologians or covenantalists.

They're on one end of a spectrum

of how it is that we understand

the ages and the covenants of God.

I find that covenant theology

is over-reductionary.

It's almost too simple.

And it is that it looks that there are two

overarching covenants in the scriptures.

There's a covenant of works

which was given to Adam and Eve pre-fall.

They broke that.

They broke the fellowship as a result.

And ever since then,

everyone else who has lived

has lived under the covenant of grace.

Whether or not they responded to it

and were the people of God,

they live underneath it.

And in an over-simplification,

that means that every promise

given to the Israelites of the Old Testament

is a promise that directly correlates

to the church in our day.

I just don't think it's that easy.

The other end of that are dispensationalists,

the whole left-behind crowd,

if you're familiar with that.

I'm also not on that end of the spectrum.

I'm somewhere in between.

It's very difficult to sort it all out

and to figure out

where does God make a promise

to the Old Testament people of God

that carries forward

to the New Testament people of God?

How do these things find their mark?

There's not possibly enough time

to work out all the intricacies of that.

There wasn't enough time in this week

to work out all the intricacies of that

and the way God's covenants manifest

in the New Testament

versus the Old Testament.

But this is the draw that they make,

the connection that they make,

that the Old Testament Abrahamic covenant

found in Genesis chapter 12

Genesis 12 · chapter mention

and the mark of it,

which was circumcision to the males,

which was just for infants eventually,

once all the men had been circumcised,

new men were circumcised,

is found in Genesis chapter 17.

Genesis 17 · chapter mention

So there's a mark given to the people of God,

specifically men of the people of God,

and that now baptism is the direct correlation

of that in our day.

Now rightly, right, again,

respect these men,

valuable biblical theologians.

Rightly, Romans chapter 9,

Romans 9 · chapter mention

second half of 6 through 8,

for not all who are descended from Israel

belong to Israel,

and not all are children of Abraham

because they are his offspring,

but through Isaac shall your offspring be named.

This means that it is not

the children of the flesh

who are the children of God,

but the children of the promise

are counted as offspring.

We see this to be true in the Scriptures,

that we are children of Abraham.

We can sing that ridiculous song,

Father Abraham,

and turn in circles

and kick our legs around

because we are children of Abraham

because of the spiritual blessings

that have been brought to us.

But the covenants have changed, right?

There was a physical birth,

a physical birthright granted,

but now it's a spiritual birthright

that we have.

I believe that some of the promises

of God still apply to the nation,

the actual bloodline of Israel

in this day,

but not all of them do.

Romans chapter 2,

Romans 2:28

verse 28 and 29,

Paul writes,

For no one is a Jew

who is merely one outwardly,

nor is circumcision outward and physical,

but a Jew is one inwardly,

and circumcision is a matter of the heart

by the Spirit,

not by the letter.

His praise is not from man,

what man can do,

what man can accomplish,

but from God,

because God has circumcised our hearts,

made us clean in that way.

In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology,

which I would commend to you,

he writes,

We should not be surprised

that there was a change

from the way the covenant community

was entered in the Old Testament

through physical birth

to the way the churches entered

in the New Testament,

which is spiritual birth.

There are many analogous changes

between the Old and New Covenants

in other areas as well.

There's a few for you.

While the Israelites fed on

physical manna in the wilderness,

New Testament believers

feed on Jesus Christ,

the true bread that comes down

from heaven,

John chapter 6.

John 6 · chapter mention

The Israelites drank physical water

that gushed from the rock

in the wilderness,

but those who believe in Christ

drink of the living water

of eternal life that he gives,

John chapter 4.

John 4 · chapter mention

The Old Covenant had a physical temple

to which Israel came for worship,

but in the New Covenant,

believers are built

into a spiritual temple,

1 Peter.

Old Covenant believers

offer physical sacrifices

of animals and crops

upon an altar,

but New Testament believers

offer spiritual sacrifices

acceptable to God

through Jesus Christ.

1 Peter and Hebrews.

Old Covenant believers

receive from God

the physical land of Israel

which he had promised to them,

but New Testament believers

receive a better country

that is a heavenly one.

Hebrews chapter 11.

Hebrews 11 · chapter mention

In the same way,

in the Old Covenant,

those who were the physical seed

or descendants of Abraham

were members of the people of Israel,

but in the New Testament,

those who are the spiritual seed

or descendants of Abraham

by faith are members of the church.

And how do we know?

How do we know?

If you were a member,

if you were a seed of Abraham

unless you have professed faith in Christ.

Furthermore,

the Bible nowhere makes such a connection

between the Old Covenant sign

and the New Covenant sign.

Doesn't it seem like a pretty important thing

to connect if it was meant to be connected?

As baptism is an ordinance of the church,

it reasons,

it reasons that this would follow.

Recall John's baptism,

Mark chapter 1, verse 4.

Mark 1:4

It was a baptism of what?

Repentance.

It was a baptism of repentance.

Recall John the Baptist's response

to the Pharisees and the Sadducees,

the religious elite,

those who had a bloodline heritage

to the people of God.

Verse 7, Matthew chapter 3,

Matthew 3 · chapter mention

he says,

But when he saw many of the Pharisees

coming to his baptism,

he said to them,

You brood of vipers,

who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Bear fruit in keeping with repentance

and do not presume to say to yourselves,

We have Abraham as our father.

For I tell you,

God is able from these stones

to raise up children for Abraham.

We are those stones

that have been raised,

professed faith in Christ,

and are baptized

with the baptism of repentance.

He refused to baptize

those who didn't bear

fruit of repentance.

Now here's an argument for you

from silence.

Acts chapter 15,

Acts 15 · chapter mention

the Jerusalem council.

Paul and Barnabas

are currently in Antioch,

and we see,

starting in verse 1,

but some men came down from Judea

and were teaching the brothers,

Unless you are circumcised,

according to the custom of Moses,

you cannot be saved.

Unless you take this sign,

the Jews,

you cannot be saved.

And after Paul and Barnabas

had no small dissension and debate,

I love that record,

no small,

a large dissension and debate with them,

Paul and Barnabas

and some of the others

were appointed to go up to Jerusalem

to the apostles

and the elders

about this question.

Do you recall this story

that the gospel has been expanded

to the Gentiles,

and Paul and Barnabas

are on missionary journey,

and they are bringing people

to faith in Christ,

and there's this constant nagging

of the Judaizers.

We see it in Galatians.

That's what the book of Galatians

is all about,

is telling them that

they can't be saved by their works.

They don't have to be circumcised.

Don't be circumcised.

It doesn't matter anymore.

It's no longer the sign.

It's no longer the mark.

And so they go,

and they have this recorded conversation.

This council decides

to send letters out

to all the Gentile churches

to tell them not to worry about it.

You're okay.

You don't have to be circumcised.

Why did they not record here

by the hand of Luke,

baptism's the new thing.

Don't worry about the circumcision.

Don't worry about the circumcision more,

but be sure you're baptizing

because that now is

this new sign of the covenant.

They don't mention it anywhere.

Baptize your infants.

Baptize your infants.

Baptize your infants.

It's not in the scriptures.

Can you get your head around that?

I can't.

I have a really difficult time

doing so.

And I have to say,

the whole matter seems to be

a way of reconciling

the doctrine of original sin

and the need to repent and believe

concerning children who die

prior to such confessions.

Isn't that a challenging thing?

If we're to believe

that we have a father

who was Adam

and his sin,

the original sin,

passed to us,

that we have the same guilt,

isn't that a challenge

that we're born in iniquity,

the Psalms say?

What happens to our young ones?

We're not able to respond.

We don't get that.

How can we possibly reconcile

these things?

There are some that just argue

against the doctrine of original sin,

stating that children are inclined

to sin by their nature.

They're born with a propensity

to sin by their nature,

but they're not guilty of sin

until they knowingly sin.

My kids knowingly sin all the time.

I've got a four-year-old

and a two-year-old.

This is where we get the concept

of the age of accountability

found nowhere in the Scriptures.

As a church,

we hold to the doctrine

of original sin.

Our statement of faith says,

we believe that man was created

in holiness

under the law of his Maker,

but by voluntary transgression

fell from that holy and happy state.

This would be Adam.

In consequence of which

all mankind are now sinners,

not by constraint,

but choice,

being by nature

utterly void of that holiness

required by the law of God,

positively inclined to evil,

and therefore under just condemnation

to eternal ruin

without defense or excuse.

We believe this to be true.

What happens to children

who die in the womb?

To our young ones?

To children who are mentally,

or adults for that matter,

who are mentally handicapped

and don't seem to be able

to understand and conceptualize?

The truth of it is

that I don't know.

I throw myself on the mercy of God

for the matter.

I lean on his character

to say, surely,

surely they're not being

eternally punished.

Surely not.

There are some instances

in the Scripture.

We see David has a young one

that dies,

and he says that one day

he'll be with him.

Speaking of glory.

We've got some hints

and some clues to that,

but the Scripture

don't speak clearly to it.

And it puts us in a place

where we ought to just say

we believe that God

knows what is best.

We trust him in that

because he's good,

sovereign ruler.

Now I'll say that

modern Presbyterians

don't believe that infant baptism

is salvific.

They do not believe that.

Again, broad brush,

maybe some do.

As far as I know,

PCA Church does not believe

that it is salvific,

salvific.

Although they do use

the terminology that it's

a sign of covenant promise,

which is hard for me

because it seems that if God

makes a promise,

he necessarily fulfills

that promise.

And the Westminster Confession

seems to give some hint to that.

Again, chapter 28,

this is section 6.

The efficacy,

or the effect,

of baptism

is not tied to that

moment of time

wherein it is administered.

Right?

So they're not saved

at the time of baptism.

Yet,

notwithstanding,

or nevertheless,

by the right use

of this ordinance,

the grace promise

is not only offered,

but really exhibited

and confirmed

by the Holy Ghost

to such,

whether of age

or infants,

as that grace

belongeth unto

according to the counsel

of God's own will

in his appointed time.

It seems to say

that they will.

That they will

be saved.

They have another section

that says

not necessarily.

It's fascinating.

It seems very confusing

to me.

I found on the website

for the Orthodox

Presbyterian Church,

not PCA,

so to be very clear

and fair about that.

This gentleman wrote,

Moreover,

I personally believe

that when believing parents

sometimes experience

the tragedy

of an infant

miscarried from the womb

or dying soon

after birth,

we may cling

with reasonable hope

that our little one

is in heaven

with the children's Savior.

Worldlings,

that is those

who are not believers,

have no such hope.

That's the inference

he draws.

In the fourth century,

Augustine,

who we love,

wrote this.

If you wish

to be a Christian,

do not believe,

nor say,

nor teach

that infants

who die before baptism

can obtain the remission

of original sin.

If you wish

to be a Christian,

how dare you

say,

believe,

or teach

that kids

that are not baptized

can be saved.

That's what he's saying

here.

So the baptism

then,

in some way,

extends grace to them.

And again,

whoever says

that even infants

are vivified

or brought to life

in Christ,

when they depart

this life

without participation

in his sacrament,

that is baptism,

both opposes

the apostolic preaching

and condemns

the whole church

which hastens

to baptize infants

because it

unhesitantly believes

that otherwise

they cannot possibly

be vivified

in Christ.

Right?

No church

that hastens

to baptize them

because if we don't

they can't possibly

be vivified

in Christ.

So it would seem

that early

church leaders,

Augustine of Hippo

believed that there was

grace administered

to baptism.

There's much confusion

over this

where the Bible

does not give

clarity.

We should simply

not try

to define it.

So it confuses

our belief

in the sufficiency

of Scripture.

Point one.

These are going

to move faster now.

Foundation laid.

It confuses

the nature

of the church.

It confuses

the nature

of the church.

What is the church?

We believe

in a believer's

church.

Ephesians 5.25

says Christ

loved the church

and gave himself

up for her.

Every New Testament

reference concerning

the universal church

or the local church

rather,

whether it's past,

present,

or future,

is always speaking

of those who are

in the faith.

Not those outside,

not those that we

question,

not our kids,

but those who are

in the faith.

Remember the

Westminster Confession?

Baptism is a sacrament

in the New Testament

ordained by Jesus Christ

not only for the

solemn mission

of the party

baptized in the

invisible church.

We believe that

to be true,

but we just believe

that somebody

must be saved

for that to be

the case.

From our own

document,

from our bylaws,

those seeking to

become members

of Christ's family

church must meet

the following

conditions.

Number one,

such persons

must profess

who have been

born again

of the Holy

Spirit,

having believed

in the power

of God Almighty

in Jesus'

death,

resurrection,

and ascension

to save them

from the bondage

and penalty

of their sins

and bearing fruit

of their new

life in Him.

You must be

a Christian

and you must

be giving

some evidence

of that,

that you are

a Christian,

that you are

a good tree

bearing good fruit.

And secondly,

such persons

must have been

baptized by

immersion or

expressed intent

thereunto,

right,

when we get

the tank out

to make that

happen as soon

as we possibly

can.

That we agree

upon this,

that we are

believers and

we are united

in this together.

To be clear,

the kids in our

church that

haven't professed

faith in Christ

and been baptized

are not members

of our church.

They don't sit

in our meetings

and vote.

Right?

We don't hold

them to the

same standard.

Please don't

hold my kids

to the same

standard you

hold me to.

They're not

yet members

of our church.

What a wonderful

opportunity to

not give our

kids a false

sense of

their salvation.

Does it not

confuse that

matter when you

say to a child

you were baptized,

therefore you're

part of the

covenant community

because you

have received

the covenant

sign of

promise.

Oh, but wait.

You must repent

and believe.

After the fact,

you must respond

in faith from

the symbol of

the baptism that

was originally

given to you

as a child.

In our church,

failure to be

baptized would

constitute a

matter of church

discipline.

If you want to

join our church

and you've never

been baptized or

you were baptized

as an infant

and you don't

see the case

for believer's

baptism and

you refuse to

be baptized as

a believer,

we would say

that we can't

fellowship together

in this way.

It's a plain

case in the

scriptures made

here.

If you were to

be obedient to

the call of

Christ, you

need to be

baptized.

You say,

no, I

totally disagree.

If we allowed

you to be a

member of our

church, there

would be an

immediate case

for church

discipline.

Would there

not?

We'd be saying

repent of your

sin of not

being baptized.

And the

proper repentance

would be to

be baptized.

And if you

didn't, we

would have

to excuse

you from

the church.

So we

just prevent

that altogether

by not allowing

it to begin

with.

Listen again,

the Westminster

Confession,

chapter 28,

section 5.

Although it

be a great

sin to

contemn or

treat with

contentment or

neglect this

ordinance, yet

grace and

salvation are

not so

inseparably

annexed unto

it as that no

person can be

regenerated or

saved.

without it.

Or that

all are

baptized are

undoubtedly

regenerated.

So catch

what they're

saying.

It's a

great sin

to hold the

position I

have.

To treat

infant baptism

with contempt.

Will not do

it.

Will not

baptize my

children.

Yet, again,

broad stroke,

in many,

many, many

Presbyterian

churches, if

you hold

different

convictions,

you're not

required to

have your

child baptized.

What kind

of a

conviction is

that?

And about

an ordinance,

no less.

My personal

conviction

concerning

alcohol is

that I

don't.

I don't

drink alcohol

because of

my position,

because of

the culture

in which we

live in.

I think that

the possible

negativity of

doing so

far outweighs

any short-term

benefit of

doing so.

It just

makes no

sense to

me.

But the

scriptures

nowhere prohibit

you from

doing so,

and therefore

I'm not going

to teach you

that you

cannot.

Right?

This is the

type of

gray area

conviction that

we can

disagree on.

Somebody,

I know many

of you do,

enjoy a good

glass of wine

with your

meal,

go ahead.

No problem.

We can

fellowship

together on

that.

We can be

a church

together around

that matter.

This is one.

How could we

possibly disagree

on this?

Right?

A conviction

about an

ordinance given

to us as a

church.

How it is

that we

define the

community of

faith.

And you say,

nah, don't

worry about it.

I say a

conviction treated

that way is no

conviction at

all.

Thirdly,

it confuses

the meaning

of believer's

baptism.

Infant baptism

confuses the

meaning of

believer's

baptism.

Again, let's

just remember,

what is it that

we believe

baptism means?

It's a symbol,

right?

It's not

salvific.

It doesn't

bring to us

any type of

grace.

It's a picture

of the grace

that's already

occurred in

our lives.

Romans chapter

Romans 6 · chapter mention

6.

Again, notice

the past tense

language.

You not know

that all of us

who have been

baptized into

Christ Jesus

were baptized

into his

death.

We were

buried,

therefore,

with him

by baptism

into death

in order

that,

just as

Christ was

raised from

the dead

by the glory

of the

Father,

we too

might walk

in newness

of life.

Our old

selves have

been put

to death,

and we are

now a new

creation.

This is the

picture of

baptism,

right?

It's showing

everybody,

I have

believed in

Christ.

The old

Nathan is

dead and

gone.

The new

Nathan is

here.

I want

to be in

fellowship

with you.

I want

to be held

to that

standard.

Please help

me to do

so.

Michael

Green,

Presbyterian,

in his

book,

Baptism,

its purpose,

practice,

and power,

says this,

and I just

want to tell you

up front,

I completely

disagree with

him.

Infant

baptism

stresses the

objectivity of

the gospel.

It points to

the solid

achievement of

Christ crucified

and risen,

whether or not

we respond to

it,

not that we

gain anything

from it unless

we repent and

believe.

I agree with

that.

But it is the

standing

demonstration that

our salvation

does not

depend on our

own very

fallible faith,

it depends on

what God has

done for us.

Infant

baptism

stresses the

initiative of

God and

salvation,

should it be

attached primarily

to man's

response or

to God's

initiative?

That is the

heart of the

question.

For the

Baptist,

baptism primarily

bears witness to

what we do in

responding to

the grace of

God.

For the

paedo-baptist,

it primarily bears

the witness to

what God has

done to make

it all

possible.

Wrong!

That is not

what we do when

we baptize

somebody.

We are not

applauding the

person baptized.

Good for you.

You chose

faith in

Christ.

Exalt you.

Exalt you.

Not at all.

We are praising

God for what

He has done,

what He has

accomplished in

that person.

We know you are

a Christian.

You have

professed faith.

Let's see what

that looks like.

Let's get our

minds around it

by burying

you and

raising you

once again.

Michael Green

needs to sit

down with me.

This is a

horrible explanation

of what we

believe baptism

to emphasize.

Now as a

separate but

really inextricably

tied issue is

the confusion

about the

mode of

baptism.

I will tell

you, this

is not a

hill I am

going to

die on.

I would

not do

it.

However, we

baptize by

immersion and

we do so

for two

reasons.

For what we

believe the

ordinance of

baptism

represents.

That is our

death.

I have said

to you before,

I will say

it to you

again.

If our

culture as

a whole begins

laying people

out on the

ground when

they die and

tossing a

handful of

dirt in

their face and

walking away,

this is the

way we expose

of dead

people, we

may reconsider

the way that

we baptize

people.

Maybe.

Wait till you

get to my

second point.

But just by

this one point,

maybe we would

consider that.

But what do we

do with dead

people?

They are buried.

Even if they are

not buried,

they are in

tomb.

You keep

dead bodies

away from

animals.

Let them

decompose at

their own

happy rate.

This is the

way that people

are dealt

with when

they die.

I've got to

tell you,

we've got a

cattle trough.

If you haven't

been here long,

we have a

cattle trough we

bring out and

we put it

right here.

It is a

pain in the

rear.

I've done

it each

time.

I have

flooded our

stage twice

and spent

hours cleaning

up the

water.

It's a

pain.

It really,

really is.

It's heavy.

I had to

devise a

complicated hose

system to

fill it.

We've got to

spread plastic

out all over

the place.

It is worth

the trouble

though.

It is worth

the trouble

because of the

picture and

what it

represents.

That's the

first reason.

Secondly,

though,

the Greek

word from

which we

derive our

English,

baptize or

baptist,

is baptizo,

which means,

catch this,

which means

not to

wash.

Not to

wash.

It means to

dunk repeatedly

and in a

number of

cases it's

used for

drown,

immerse,

go underwater.

Now,

you see a

couple of

cases in

the Bible.

We see

Jesus,

Mark chapter

Mark 1 · chapter mention

1,

goes down

into the

water when

he comes

back up.

It's

possible,

and many

paedo-baptists

argue,

that he

simply walked

down to

the water.

That's where

the water

was at.

He walked

down to

it.

He walked

back up.

Maybe he

was standing

in the

water.

Possibly

it was

a little

bit easier

to sprinkle

in that

way.

But the

word

baptizo

means to

dunk,

dunk

repeatedly,

or to

drown.

And to

add,

to heap

upon that,

Martin

Luther,

again,

our famed

Protestant

Reformer,

said,

in the

primitive

church,

baptism

was a

total

immersion,

or burial,

as it

were.

John

Calvin,

Presbyterian,

says,

baptizo

signifies

to

immerse.

And it

is certain

that

immersion

was the

practice

of the

primitive

church.

Philip

Sheff,

a 19th

century

Presbyterian

theologian

and church

historian,

said,

immersion

was

unquestionably

the original

form of

baptism.

So somewhere

along the

way,

somewhere

throughout

history,

someone

figured it

out and

got it

right and

got it

better than

the early

church,

seemed to

understand it,

even apart

from what

the very

word

itself

means.

So I

think it

confuses our

belief in

the sufficienting

of scripture.

I think it

confuses the

nature of

the church.

I think it

confuses the

meaning of

believers'

baptism.

I think for

all these

reasons,

while it's

not the

gospel,

it's an

obedient

response

to the

gospel.

What are we

commanded to

do in the

Great

Commission?

Go and

make

disciples of

all nations,

baptizing them

teaching them

all that I

have commanded

you.

This is no

different.

This is a

doctrine that

should not

be neglected.

This is

something that

you should

find out

what you

believe.

Search the

scriptures for

it.

I hope I've

made a case

for you to

be a

credo-baptist

today.

Wrap your

hands around

it.

Fellowship

with those

who agree

with you

because we

honor the

gospel when

we do so.

why would

we believe

in a

doctrine

that's not

anywhere

explicitly

taught in

the

scriptures?

As I've

argued,

cannot be

arrived at

by plain

reason and

that confuses

so much.

It is a

precious

ordinance.

If you

have not

been baptized

as a

believer,

you should

do so.

What a

wonderful

thing to

celebrate in

with the

church of

God.

What God

has done

in your

life.

His

initiative,

His

work,

His

accomplishment,

if you

don't know

where you

stand on

this,

if you're

shaky on

the matter,

study your

Bible and

pray that

God would

reveal the

truth to

you.

If you

come out

at the

end of

that as

a

paedo-baptist,

I will

give you

a big

hug.

We can

fellowship

with one

another in

reaching this

community.

We can

preach the

gospel side

by side.

I will

link arms

with you

in so

many

respects,

but you

shouldn't

be part

of a

Baptist

church.

You

just

shouldn't.

Let's

pray

together.

Let's

pray together.

Let's

pray together.

Let's

pray together.

Let's

pray together.