Honoring the Lord’s Sabbath

“⁸ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ⁹ Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: ¹⁰ But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: ¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” – Exodus 20:8-11

At Mount Sinai, God gave Moses 10 commandments which the people of God were to shape their day to day life around seeking to live accordingly. Many scholars and pastors of old have understood the first table (commandments 1-4) to speak to our duties before God, and the second table (commandments 5-10) to speak of our duties before man.¹ This is evident by Jesus’ summation of the decalogue in Matthew 22:37-40, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ³⁸ This is the first and great commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ⁴⁰ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”² 

Thus I am led to the point of this post. What did God mean when He commanded that we “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”? The goal of this publication is to show that God intended both the Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New Testament to set aside one day in seven to the sole observance and meditation of God, His laws, His word, and His ways. This will be accomplished by looking at Exodus 20:8-11 which deals with this commandment and by looking at what some of the reformers understood this to teach.

First, notice that the commandment is based upon God’s example when he created all things. Genesis 2:1-3 says, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ² And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. ³ And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Thus, the commandment to set aside on day in seven is not a new command that is being given, but rather this is the proper and right use of the sabbath day as established at creation and reinforced as the 4th commandment of the decalogue. John Calvin in his Harmony of the Law, Vol. 2 agrees saying, “11. For in six days the Lord made. From this passage it may be probably conjectured that the hallowing of the Sabbath was prior to the Law; and undoubtedly what Moses has before narrated, that they were forbidden to gather the manna on the seventh day, seems to have had its origin from a well-known and received custom; whilst it is not credible that the Observance of the Sabbath was omitted, when God revealed the rite of sacrifice to the holy (Fathers. ³³⁴ )”³ Thus, I believe this has shown sufficiently, though by no means exhaustively, that the command for a sabbath to occur each week with a full six days given to labor and all other necessities of this life to be completed during. Now we move on to the extent of the command what exactly is expected by God saying, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

The practice by many professing the name of Christ in this day is to simply go to church Sunday morning and also in the evening if their local assembly has such a practice and providing that the individual decides to attend. Many force others to work either by going to eat or by watching some sports telecast. I will seek to show that what God requires as to the remembrance of His sabbath is that the whole day be spent in meditation on His word and ways. Therefore, all engaging in any activity which causes or supports another’s breaking of the Lord’s day is prohibited. Evidence of this is found in the Israelites forty years in the wilderness when they had to gather manna to eat. God commanded that manna be gathered on the sixth day both for the sixth and seventh which is the Lord’s sabbath. Exodus 16:22-26 says, “²² And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. ²³ And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. ²⁴ And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. ²⁵ And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the Lord: to day ye shall not find it in the field. ²⁶ Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.” In the verses that follow it we read that the people of Israel sought to gather food on the sabbath and behold there was none for God had ordered this not to be done and thus didn’t send food on His sabbath. In speaking of sabbath day observance, the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exod. 20:8, Exod. 16;23, 25–26, 29–30, Exod. 31:15–17, Isa. 58:13, Neh. 13:15–19, 21–22) but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Isa. 63:13, Matt. 12:1–13)”⁴ In Thomas Boston’s An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion Part 2, he tells us that,

“This command respects the time of worship, and is the last of the first table, set to join both together, the Sabbath being the bond of all religion. In the words we have,

1. The command. It is delivered two ways.

1st, Positively, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Sabbath signifies rest or cessation from labour. There is a threefold rest or Sabbath spoken of in scripture. (1.) Temporal. (2.) Spiritual, which is an internal soul-rest, in ceasing from sin, Heb. 4:3. (3.) Eternal, Heb. 4:9, 11 celebrated in heaven, where the saints rest from their labours. It is the first of these, the weekly Sabbath that is here meant. Observe here,

(1.) Our duty with respect to the Sabbath. It is to keep it holy. God has made it holy, set it apart for holy exercises, and we must keep it holy, spending it in holy exercises.

(2.) The quantity of time to be observed as a Sabbath of rest, a day, a whole day of twenty-four hours; and the one day in seven. They must observe a seventh day after six days’ labour, wherein all our work must be done, put by hand, so as nothing of it may remain to be done on the Sabbath.

(3.) A note of remembrance put upon it; which imports, that this precept should be diligently observed, special regard paid to it, and due honour put upon this sacred day.

2dly, Negatively. Where observe, (1.) What is forbidden here; the doing of any work that may hinder the sanctifying of this day. (2.) To whom the command is directed, and who must observe it; magistrates, to whom belong the gates of the city; and masters of families, to whom belong the gates of the house. They must observe it themselves, and cause others to observe it.

2. The reasons annexed to this command. None of the commands are thus delivered, both positively and negatively, as this is. And that imports,

p 187  1st, God is in a special manner concerned for the keeping of the Sabbath, it being that on which all religion depends. Accordingly, as it is observed or disregarded, so it readily goes with the other parts of religion.

2dly, People are most ready to halve the service of this day, either to look on resting from labour as sufficient, or to look on the work of the day as over when the public work is over.

3dly There is less light of nature for this command than the rest: for though it is naturally moral that there should be a Sabbath; yet it is but positively moral that this should be one day in seven, depending entirely on the will of God.”⁵

Thus demonstrating that sabbath keeping is not merely going to church and is then complete. Rather, it is the setting apart and sanctifying of the whole day to the Lord. It saddens me deeply that this is so frequently broken by the Church. By breaking this commandment, the Church becomes double tongued. For how can you say that it is wrong to work on the Sabbath and then you have others work so that you can eat at such and such an establishment or so that you can watch such and such a sport, movie, or television show? Do you not see that to do such things is to have one expectation for yourself and a different one for others? Is it possible to say that you must have to day off to worship and observe God while you require others to work in order to feed you?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. John Wycliff, Thomas Boston, Philip Schaff, and Henry Bullinger to name a few. Contact me if you want the individual works.
2. Luke 10:27 also records this
3. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom04.v.ii.i.html
4. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). XXI.8
5. Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston, Volume 2: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 2, ed. Samuel M‘Millan (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 186-87

Baptism Paper

This is the research paper that I had to write for my Theology 350: Fundamental Theological Issues class. If you would like the actual PDF, simply contact me and I’ll send it to you.

Introduction

Baptism is perhaps the most misunderstood command by God that we find in Scripture. For at least the last four hundred years, baptism has often wrought disagreements and divisions among the Church, and still continues to do so even to this day. These divisions have manifested themselves in at least four ways pertaining to baptism which are; it’s purpose, its merits, to whom it is to be applied, and lastly, its mode. While it may appear at first glance that each of these are independent of one another, the views that one has regarding baptism’s merits, proper recipients, and mode actually all stem from the purpose of baptism as the sign of the new covenant. There are three main views about baptism in the “Christian” world, however, my primary focus will be in comparing and contrasting the paedo (Presbyterian infant baptism) and credo (Baptist adult only baptism) views on baptism. I will, however, briefly bring up the Roman Catholic view in order to show how the Reformed view of infant baptism differs from Rome’s view. Throughout this article, I will first discuss the credo-baptist position, followed by a discussion on the paedo-baptist position. After each paedo-baptism treatise, I will briefly show how this view is inherently different from Rome’s view, thus showing that the reformers did not simply carry over the practice of infant baptism when they forsook the teachings of Rome.

The Anabaptist View on the Purpose of Baptism

In the sixteenth century, a group arose who rejected the traditional, historical, and biblical practice of infant baptism according to the Magisterial Reformers. This group was “called Anabaptists because they believed in re-baptising on confession of faith (the prefix ana means ‘again’), when one was old enough to be able to make a personal statement.”[1] Baptism was often said to be the public declaration of our faith in Jesus Christ. The 2000 edition of the Baptist Faith & Message says baptism is “an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.”[2] Thomas J. Nettles defines baptism as “the immersion in water of a believer in Jesus Christ performed once as the initiation of such a believer into a community of believers, the church.”[3] Hubmaier, who is one of the fathers of the Anabaptist movement as we know it today, believed baptism to be the outward sign of the “inner reality of faith.”[4] Thus, it is safe and fair to conclude that according to the Anabaptist tradition, baptism is a sign that signifies the union between Christ and the baptismal recipient. It is a way for those receiving baptism to say to all, “I (currently) belong to the body of Christ!” Therefore, the purpose of baptism is rather limited in the Anabaptist understanding of baptism to simply union and communion with Christ. In contrast, Presbyterians believe that that baptism also carries with itself a sealing characteristic that is foreordained by God for His elect people to receive as a seal of the righteousness and spiritual blessings that He will give them through faith; faith being a gift that he will give them at His appointed time.

The Covenantal Reformed View on the Purpose of Baptism

One of the greatest differences between Covenantal Reformers and Anabaptists is how each side views the covenants. The reason this is important is because how one understands to whom baptism is to be applied, really comes down to how the covenant with Abraham in Genesis and Paul’s explanation of the children of promise in Romans are to be understood. As Covenantal Reformers believe that the promise made to Abraham in Genesis seventeen applies to us today in light of what Paul said in Romans nine. By Paul saying “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” is taken to mean that God made the promise to Abraham and since Christians are counted as the seed of Abraham, this promise is for Christian households, including the children. In addition to this, the views held regarding the covenants also impacts how the signs of the covenants are understood and what those signs signify.

With the discussion of the purposes for baptism according to the Anabaptist tradition, it was clear that this view generally recognizes two purposes in baptism, namely, union and communion with Christ. Covenantal Reformers, however, acknowledge seven purposes for baptism. Even though each of these seven use (for the most part) different texts of Scripture, they are not independent of one another. These purposes are most clearly spelled out in question 165 of The Westminster Larger Catechism, which says that baptism is “to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, (Gal. 3:27) of remission of sins by his blood, (Mark 1:4, Rev. 1:5) and regeneration by his Spirit; (Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:26) of adoption, (Gal. 3:26–27) and resurrection unto everlasting life; (1 Cor. 15:29, Rom. 6:5) and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, (1 Cor. 12:13) and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. (Rom. 6:4)”[5] In order to demonstrate that these seven purposes are Scriptural understandings of baptism, each of these will be examined with their Scriptural proofs. Also, it is helpful to understand the “sign and seal” to be included in “purpose” as will be seen throughout this section.

The first purpose is the “ingrafting into himself”. When Paul penned this verse, he chose to use the aorist tense for the verb βαπτιζω and also for the verb ενδυω. By using the aorist tense for these verbs, we know that baptism preceded the putting on of Christ. A. Lukyn Williams commented on Paul’s use of εἰς χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε saying, “Christ was the aim and purpose of your baptism, and through it you obtained union with even Him.”[6] He also commented on Paul’s use of χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε likewise explaining that “you appropriated the relation to God in which Christ stands, you received all that Christ is. There is no thought here of putting off the old man of sinful desires (Col. 3:8–12), but only of leaving the previous state of pupillage by union with Christ.”[7] In distinguishing between the sign and that which is signified, Francis Turretin said,

“Our opinion is that the sacraments do not work grace physically and ex opere operato as if they possessed a force implanted and inherent in them of conferring and effecting grace; but only morally and hyperphysically, inasmuch as they are signs and seals which in their lawful use hold forth and seal grace to believers (God by the power of the Holy Spirit truly performing and fulfilling in them whatever he promises and figures by the signs). Therefore a twofold efficacy is ascribed to the sacraments according to us: the one moral and objective by which the sacraments make present to our mind that object, to signify and seal which they are destined (by which means, faith is either excited or confirmed and, it mediating, hope and sanctification are increased);the other covenantal, by which God (sealing by the sacraments his promise or covenant) confers the very things promised upon the believing soul or even a greater sense and perception of these already conferred and produces by both greater operations. Hence the sacraments are rightly called exhibitive, provided a physical exhibition is not implanted in the elements; but a moral exhibition by which that grace is objectively exhibited to the mind and with it, at the same time, really to the believing soul.”[8]

Turretin is essentially arguing that through baptism, the thing signified, the Christian’s union with Christ is sealed. Not meaning that union with Christ is immediately achieved, but simply that the union has been sealed and secured for the time appointed by God. This is important because it reveals that though baptism, the sign, itself does not possess the power nor grace to save Christians, it is through baptism, the thing signified, that they are united with Christ and thus partake in the benefits that come with such a union, at the time appointed by God.

The second purpose from the Larger Catechism question 165 is “remission of sins by his blood.” Thomas Brooks expounded on this most excellently when he said:

“Repentance is a promise of the covenant of grace: Ezek. 36:31, “Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loath yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities, and for your abominations.” It is not only the duty of God’s elect, but their privilege, made over to them in Jesus Christ, purchased by his death, and bestowed on them by virtue of his exaltation, Acts 5:31. And hence, as one of the benefits of that covenant, it is sealed in baptism, Mark 1:4.”[9]

It is because repentance is itself the promise of the covenant of grace that we must recognize it as a purpose of baptism.

Regarding the third purpose, namely, the regeneration by his Spirit, Thomas Boston explains, “The Spirit of Christ purifies the soul, removing filthy lusts that defile the soul, and so renewing and sanctifying it, Tit. 3:5. And unless we be thus washed, we have no part in Christ.”[10]

Paul’s use of διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου[11] is recognized by Patrick Fairbairn to be a reference to regeneration by the Spirit through baptism when he said:

“There are therefore two things marked here—first baptism (as the laver of regeneration), and then the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is but another name for progressive sanctification”[12]

The connectivity between baptism and union with Christ ought to be carefully considered, for if one did indeed separate baptism from union with Christ, then they have so removed the necessity of it and are thus saying that Jesus Christ did not have the authority to institute any practices of the church. However, this is, again, not to say that they are saved by the sign, but that the sign signifies union with Christ and thus baptism, as both the sign and thing signified, cannot be separated from each other.

Although adoption is recognized and loved across Christians denominations, Covenantal Reformers are the primary ones who recognize its affiliation with baptism. Adoption as a purpose of baptism reinforces the idea of Abraham’s seed being spiritual seed and not simply physical seed, and thus the promise give to Abraham in Genesis 17:7 also applies to Christians. Before addressing where this is in Scripture, an examination of the Scripture used by the Larger Catechism on this point will be the first task, and that will lead the way into how Genesis 17:7 applies to Christians. Earlier Galatians 3:27 was looked at regarding our being ingrafted into Christ. Now by looking at the preceding verse more clarity may be granted to see that this is connected to baptism as well, and by looking at the verses that follow the implications of Christian parents being obligated to baptize their offspring are more clearly seen. Paul said, “ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus…And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”[13] This concept of being Abraham’s seed is not a new idea that Paul threw in at the end of this chapter. Indeed, it is rather a theme repeated all throughout this chapter and also in his letter to the church in Rome.[14]

The fifth purpose is “resurrection unto everlasting life.” Thus, this purpose of baptism serves as a reminder the being sealed in Christ and therefore the bodily resurrection when Christ returns. Rev. Francis R. Beattie said:

“These passages do not mean merely death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, but they express facts which are involved in our union with Christ, which is effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Hence, when we are united with Christ we are identified with him in all the experiences through which he passed. Thus we die with him, we are crucified with him, we are buried with him, we are raised up together with him, we live with him, and we are finally raised with him to the heavenly places.”[15]

Rev. Beattie made the most excellent connection of this to both the resurrection from death in sin, and the resurrection of believers at the return of Christ.

In the Old Testament, all males who were either born into or brought into the covenant community had to be circumcised. This was not an option for them, but rather it was something that God instituted in order to set the Israelites apart from the other nations. To not apply this sign of the covenant had grave consequences. In Genesis 17:9, God told Abraham, “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”[16] There is evidence in Exodus that God took breaking of this covenant so seriously that He would strike down those who broke it. Exodus 4:24-26 says, “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.”[17] Thus we can see from the Old Testament that circumcision was the sign of the covenant and to bear that sign meant you were part of the visible covenant family. Since Galatians 3:29 teaches that Christians are Abraham’s seed, and since Genesis 17 shows that the covenant was made with Abraham and his offspring after him for all their generations, Christians ought to be fearful of the consequences for not applying the sign of baptism to their children, which seals them into the visible church.

Lastly, those who have been baptized have entered “into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’ s.”[18] So by having baptism applied to us, we profess to be God’s. The apostle Paul said,  “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”[19]

Distinctions Between the Catholic and Covenantal Reformers on Baptism

One ought not to think that just because Rome practices infant baptism that it is the same practice as the Covenantal Reformers. Likewise, it ought not to be thought that since the Reformers broke from Rome that they simply carried infant baptism with them. Indeed, important differences do exist in practice Covenantal Reformers and that of Rome. The Council of Trent highlighted a key difference. This council said regarding baptism, “If any one shall say, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”[20] Rome believes that you cannot be saved apart from baptism. Covenantal Reformers reject this idea for to accept it is to make Jesus a liar since he told the unbaptized thief on the cross next to Him, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”[21] The Westminster Confession spells out how Covenantal Reformers differ from Rome. “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, (Luke 7:30, Exod. 4:24–26) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: (Rom. 4:11, Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (Acts 8:13, 23)”[22]

Baptism: For Professed Believers Only or For Infants Also

Although, this was touched on briefly, it will be helpful to go into a little more detail. Anabaptists often deny infant baptism as a practice in the New Testament because of the lack of an explicit account of an infant being baptized. However, given the nature of God’s covenant with Abraham and Paul stating in Galatians that our being in Christ makes us the seed of Abraham, the argument from silence is actually a much stronger argument for infant baptism than it is against it. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, (Mark 16:15–16, Acts 8:37–38) but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized (Gen. 17:7–8, Gal. 3:9, 14, Col. 2:11–12, Acts 2:38–39, Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 7:14, Matt. 28:19, Mark 10:13–16, Luke 18:15).[23] Perhaps the primary reason why Christians ought to baptize their children is found in Genesis 17 and Galatians 3. In Genesis 17, God tells Abraham that the covenant will be for him and his offspring for an everlasting covenant. Then Paul tells us in his letter to the Galatians we are Abraham’s offspring. If we are Abraham’s offspring, and the covenant was for Abraham and his offspring, and baptism is the sign of the new covenant, Christians’ children ought to be baptized because God promised to be the God of the parents and the children! Therefore, both professor’s baptism and infant baptism seem to be the biblical application. Meaning, if there is someone not born into a Christian home who gets converted by God’s grace to Christianity, they should be baptized (professor’s baptism). However, after that person has been converted, it is their duty to baptize their children (infant baptism). So professor’s baptism ought to be the practice for those born outside of the covenant community who are converted, but for those born into or converted into the covenant community, the practice ought to be paedo-baptism. Also, those baptized as infants should not be re-baptized as adults. The Westminster Confession explains this by saying:

“The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; (John 3:5, 8) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, 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 (Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:25–26, Acts 2:38, 41).”[24]

In his study on whether or not infants have the right to baptism, Thomas Boston concluded:

“Conclusion IV. All infants descended of parents whereof one only is a visible believer, hath right to baptism before the church; they ought to be baptized, whether it be the father or mother that makes a credible profession. Such are in covenant with God visibly; we are to look on them as probably within the covenant, as to the saving benefits thereof, so that none can forbid water. The apostle plainly tells us, they are not unclean I but holy,

1 Cor. 7:14. and therefore subjects lawfully capable of this ordinance.”[25]

He went on to say:

“The seal of the covenant belongs to all those that are within the covenant; but the infants of all Christian parents are within the covenant; for so runs the covenant, “I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.” Seeing the parents are sealed with the seal, they must needs be within the covenant, and consequently their seed also. The covenant is not made with the root, but also with the offspring; and if so, why may not the seal of the covenant be effectual, not only to the baptized parent if he believe, but also render his seed capable at least of the external sign.”[26]

This is in full support of the comments made previously the seed the covenant being for Christians’ offspring as well.

What is The Proper Mode of Baptism?

Some have said that βαπτιζω means to immerse, and though it does at times have that meaning, it does not always carry that idea.[27] One example of this is The context of any passage must be the primary source for determining how words are translated. Thus, they reject the notion that baptism always means to immerse in the Scriptures.

Covenantal Reformers believe the biblical position on this issue is as the Westminster Standards states. The Westminster Confession informs us that “[d]ipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person (Heb. 9:10, 19–22, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:33, Mark 7:4).”[28] Since Baptism signifies washing, and given that that may be symbolized just as easily with dipping, pouring or sprinkling, and also we are not commanded and thus required to practice one mode over the others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Church and the Last Things (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 36.
2. “Baptist Faith and Message.” Official Website of the Southern Baptist Convention. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp (accessed September 24, 2012).
3. Thomas J. Nettles, Richard L. Pratt Jr., and Robert Kolb, Understanding Four Views On Baptism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 25.
4. Thomas R. Schreiner, and Shawn Wright, eds. Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2007), 200.
5. The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).
6. A. Lukyn Williams, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 82.
7. Ibid.
8. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three: Eighteenth Through Twentieth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), 363.
9. Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston, Volume 6: Sermons and Discourses on Several Important Subjects in Divinity, ed. Samuel M‘Millan (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1849), 387.
10. Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston, Volume 2: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 2, ed. Samuel M‘Millan (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 475.
11. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, With Morphology. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006). Titus 3:5
12. Patrick Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles: The Translation With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1874), 297.
13. Ga 3:29.
14. Romans chapters 4 & 9 are two examples of Paul dealing with the Abrahamic covenant in relation to Christians.
15. Rev. Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, (Richmond, Va.: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1896), 313-314.
16.   Ge 17:14.
17. Ex 4:24–26.
18. The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). Question 165
19. 1 Co 6:19–20.
20. Theodore Alois Buckley, trans., The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Literally Translated Into English With Supplement. (London: George Routledge And Co., Soho Square. 1851), 53.
21. Lk 23:43.
22. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). XXVIII.5
23. Ibid., XXVIII.4
24. Ibid., XXVIII.6
25. Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston, Volume 6. 138-39.
26. Ibid., 140-41.
27. 1 Cor. 10:2
28. The Westminster Confession of Faith. XXVIII.3

Confessions of Faith

In some of my posts, I have referred to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). I do this because as a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I hold to this standard. However, for those who are not familiar with confessions and their uses, I have decided that it would be beneficial to explain what a confession of faith is and where is stands authoritatively in regards to Scripture.

What is a confession of faith? A confession of faith is a summary of the core doctrines that a particular group holds to. For Presbyterians that is the Westminster Confession of Faith along with it’s Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The purpose of the confession is to proclaim in a concise manner the doctrines found within the Scriptures. Some confessions give the Scripture references where they find the doctrine, others do not. Reformed confessions are not some doctrines that men hundreds of years ago pulled out of thin air and tagged them with Scripture. Rather, they are the result of the study of Scripture and a simple stating of what Scripture teaches. In short, confessions are a proclamation of how certain groups understand the Holy Scriptures.

As Presbyterians, we do not hold the WCF above Scripture. We also do not see the WCF as a contradiction of Scripture. Scripture is the highest authority Christians have. The WCF is simply what we understand the Scriptures to teach.

I hope this was helpful for you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Worship in Spirit and in Truth

In a recent discussion I heard that worshipping in spirit and in truth means that we are free to worship how we see fit. There had never been a time when I found myself forced to meditate on what this passage meant. Think about it, often we read something and fly right by it without a second thought. However, if we truly understand the treasure that is Scripture, we would never overlook a single word of Scripture. Thus I have decided to offer what I have concluded based on my initial study of this passage. Also, I have included the proof texts used by the Westminster Confession of Faith in the endnotes under the appropriate notation. First let us begin with the passage itself.

^“23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. ²⁴ God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”  John 4:23-24 KJV

This passage appears to be talking about the main aspects of worship. In fact, I believe this passage gives us the essence of what worship is. The essence is twofold, both internal and external. The internal aspect is the worshipping in spirit, while the external aspect is worshipping in truth.

Before diving into the spiritual and truthful/faithful [1] aspects of worship, let’s look at why we worship. Why worship? It is my opinion that the reason we (Protestant Christians) worship God is because God commands it. Now that is not meant to downplay Him being worthy of worship, for that is in itself a most excellent reason to worship God Almighty. But I believe we worship primarily because God commands it (Ex. 20:3-6; Deut. 6:13). The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) says, “Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone;(c) not to angels, saints, or any other creature:(d) and since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone.(e) [2].

The spiritual act of worship is the part that isn’t seen. It is the worship that our spirit engages in of God who is Spirit. Arthur W. Pink said concerning John 4:23, “To worship spiritually is the opposite of mere external rites which pertained to the flesh; instead, it is to give to God the homage of an enlightened mind and an affectionate heart.“[3] The WCF says that worship includes the “conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence(t)”[4]. Scripture gives us an example of the Bereans worshipping in spirit. After Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in Berea, we read that the Bereans “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). As you can see, “they received the word with all readiness”  (i.e. the conscionable hearing of the Word), and after they had received the preaching of the word they then examined what Paul said to make he was in accord with Scripture (i.e. conscionable hearing of the Word, with understanding).

To worship in truth is basically worshipping according to the prescription that has been laid down by God in His Word. It involves the constant reforming to those statues in order to purify your worship. All throughout scripture we find things that are and are not to be done when we gather to worship God, whether it is private family worship or corporate Lord’s Day worship with our local body of believers. Again the WCF confirms this by saying, “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.(b)” [5] This idea is also seen Deuteronomy 12:32 by God’s statement, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Going back to Pink for some further insight regarding John 4:23-24, we find a definition of what worshipping in truth is. Pink said, “To worship Him truly is to worship Him according to the Truth, in a manner suited to the revelation He has made of Himself; and, no doubt, it also carries with it the force of worshipping truly, not in pretense, but sincerely. Such, and such alone, are the acceptable worshippers.” [6]

Thus to “worship in spirit and in truth” is the giving “to God the homage of an enlightened mind and an affectionate heart” according to the prescription God has given in His Holy Word.

___________________________

[1] Utley, Robert James. Vol. Volume 4, The Beloved Disciple’s Memoirs and Letters: The Gospel of John, I, II, and III John. Study Guide Commentary Series. (Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 1999). 45

[2] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, Paragraph II accessed through http://www.westminsterconfession.org/confessional-standards/the-original-text-of-1646.php Here are the Scripture verses for each point. (c) Matt. 4:10 with John 5:23 and II Cor. 13:14. (d) Col. 2:18, Rev. 19:10; Rom. 1:25. (e) John 14:6; I Tim. 2:5; Eph. 2:18; Col. 3:17.

[3] Pink, Arthur Walkington. Exposition of the Gospel of John. (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1923-45). 206

[4] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, Paragraph  V. (t) James 1:22; Acts 10:33; Matt. 13:19; Heb. 4:2; Isa. 66:2

[5] Ibid. Paragraph I. (b) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9, 10; Deut. 4:15 to 20; Exod. 20:4, 5, 6; Col. 2:23.

[6] Pink, Arthur Walkington. Exposition of the Gospel of John. (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1923-45). 206

“I am the true vine”

This is my paper on the “I am the true vine” statement made by Jesus in John 15. There are three areas that were examined; the Textual Context, the Relation to God in the Old Testament, and lastly, how this statement shows Christ’s deity. Enjoy!

Textual Context

The Context in which we find Jesus’ statement “I am the true vine” is back in chapter thirteen of John’s Gospel. What we have is a series of discussions between Jesus and His disciples which took place the night of their last meal together before His arrest. At the beginning of chapter thirteen, we find the setting to be the Feast of the Passover. There are some speculations as to where Jesus and the disciples were when He began to tell them that He is the vine in chapter fifteen. Dr. Towns mentions four possibilities of what spurred Jesus to make this “I am” statement.

We know that they had left the supper table due to Jesus saying at the end of chapter fourteen, “Arise, let us go hence.” However, speculation as to where this “I am” statement took place is not the purpose of the article, and therefore, we will not spend any time addressing it besides saying that God in His inspiration of Scripture did not tell us and thus it appears to have been of little importance to Him for our well being. What we can confidently say is that this dialogue took place during the time of the Feast of the Passover, and that they had moved from the supper table to somewhere else. It was at this time that Jesus said to them, “ I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.”

This statement is surrounded by discussions between Jesus and His disciples leading up to His betrayal by Judas Iscariot later that night in the garden. Arthur W. Pink most excellently describes for us the spiritual context, he said, “The immediate context is the closing sentence of chapter 14: “Arise, let us go hence. Christ had just said, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” He had said this while seated at the supper-table, where the emblems of His death—the basis of our peace—were spread. Now He gets up from the table, which prefigured His resurrection from the dead. Right afterwards He says, I am the true vine. Christ’s symbolic action at the close of 14, views Him on resurrection-ground, and what we have here in 15 is in perfect accord with this. There must be resurrection-life before there can be resurrection-fruit.”

Thus it could be said that Jesus is preparing His disciples before He is betrayed for the task they will be given after His resurrection.

Relation to God Seen in the Old Testament 

The imagery of the vine would not have been a new concept to the disciples for it was used several times by Moses, by the Prophets, and in the Psalms in the Old Testament. In his exposition of Genesis 49:11, John Gill said the vine is better understood as “figuratively, of Christ’s causing the Gentiles, comparable to an ass’s colt, for their impurity, ignorance of, and sluggishness in spiritual things, to cleave to him the true vine, in the exercise of faith, hope, and love, or to join themselves to his church and people, sometimes compared to a vine or vineyard.”

Thus, as this verse reveals, the vine analogy was used in reference to Christ, and yet was also used to speak of God’s people as in Jeremiah 2:21 which says, “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?”

These are but two examples of how this figure of speech is used in God’s Word, and there are many more examples that could be given to further show this to be true.

When Jesus said, “I am the true vine”, He did not end there but went on to say that God the Father is the husbandman.

This ought to give us great comfort knowing that Christ provides us with life and the Father nurtures that life in us. Arthur W. Pink put it this way, “In the Old Testament the Father is represented as the Proprietor of the vine, but here He is called the Husbandman, that is the Cultivator, the One who cares for it. The figure speaks of His love for Christ and His people…This is very blessed. He does not allot to others the task of caring for the vine and its branches, and this assures us of the widest, most tender, and most faithful care of it.”

This is further evident when we again examine what God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah. He said, “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine.” Thus once again showing us that He alone is the caretaker of His vineyard.

How This “I am” Statement Reveals Christ’s Deity 

This statement is really remarkable as it pertains to the deity of our Savior. By calling Himself the vine and His church the branches, He has pointed us back not only to John 14:6 where He tells us that He is “the way, and the truth, and the life” but more importantly we have been directed back the beginning of the this Gospel where John tells of the creative power of Jesus. Telling His disciples that He is the true vine, that is the source of spiritual life, Jesus has essentially told the disciples that just as He created all physical life in the beginning, He also creates all spiritual life, and has for all eternity. But this is only the start of what this saying tells us concerning the Godhood of Jesus. For this also revealed Christ as the promised Messiah. Because, “Christ was the perfect, essential, and enduring reality, of which other lights were but faint reflections, and of which other bread and another tabernacle,, were but the types and shadows. More specifically, Christ was the true light in contrast from His forerunner, John, who was but a “lamp” (John 5:35 R.V.), or light-bearer.”

Also, Jesus calling himself the “true vine” meant that he was claiming to be the focal of God’s plan for salvation.

This likewise signified the end of the law as the means of Salvation because now the God-Man provided all that was necessary and did away with the mosaic sacrificial system. Thus this statement most beautifully displays Christ deity through Him proclaiming yet again that He alone is the author of our spiritual life just as well as our physical life. There ought to be great joy found in knowing that Jesus, the eternal Son of God, is the source of our spiritual life. For if Jesus was merely a man lacking deity and unity with the Godhead, then we would be in sore need still. However, as a result of John choosing to show us Jesus’ deity in this passage, we need not fear that our Provider of Life will ever run out of that provision.

 

Bibliography

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.

Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009.

John D. Barry, Michael R. Grigoni, Michael S. Heiser et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham,

WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012), Jn 15:1–17.

Gill, John. “John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.” Bible Study Tools.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/

(accessed August 11, 2012).

Arthur Walkington Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot,

1923-45.

Towns, Elmer. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002.

Refutation of the Doctrine of Death in the morality play, Everyman

Ok, so this is the research paper I had to write for my English class. If you are interested, enjoy!

 

The play, “Everyman,” answers several questions regarding spiritual life and death. The most obvious being, to quote the Philippian jailor; “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30 ESV). However, there was also an answer given to the purpose of death, and this is the subject being addressed here. Now, “Everyman” addresses two vantage points of death, namely, God’s purpose in the death of His creation, and Everyman’s eternal plight. The author’s view on both physical and spiritual death can be summarized in a simple sentence. The majority of the play is about Everyman having been called upon to give an account of his life. All those who claimed his friendship had abandoned him by the time he went to his grave and only Good Deeds accompanied him before the judgement throne of God. Therefore, the author portrays Death in two ways: first as God’s servant who does His binding and second as merely the instrument through which God requires “a reckoning of every man’s person,” (Adu-Gyamfi et al. 2011, 265-87) though judgement may be escaped on account of one’s good works.

When Death is first seen in “Everyman,” it is summoned by God to bring people to the judgement throne; “That needs on them I must do justice, on every man living without fear” (Adu-Gyamfi et al. 2011, 265-87). Now the author’s perception of the doctrine regarding eternal damnation or salvation is counter-Biblical. In fact, it is not only counter-Biblical, but heretical. In his article “Doctrine and Dramatic Structure in Everyman,” Lawrence V. Ryan claims “that the theology involved is indispensable, not indefensible” (Ryan 1957, 722-35). This article will seek to show the theology in “Everyman” to be indefensible compared with what is revealed concerning death in God’s Word.

Ryan shows how “Everyman” reflects orthodox theology by comparing what God says in the play with Scriptures addressing similar but different issues. In order to understand the author’s view of death, it requires us to look at the entire play and the theology revealed therein. Only then may one truly understand where the author comes from and what he believes.

 

Doctrine of Death Examined as Seen in “Everyman”

Through God speaking does the author begin to unfold the doctrine contained within this play. The first revelation concerns one’s view of God. There are two overriding conceptions concerning God’s character or lack thereof that influence this play. First is the holiness of God, and second the sovereignty of God, for God’s holiness is what requires payment for sin, and God’s sovereignty which saves man from sin.  God is limited in salvific power, and thus sovereignty, for God said, “I could do no more than I did, truly.” Yet more clearly may this be seen as the emphasis of the following line lies on the people; “And now I see the people do clean forsake me.” Therefore, the author clearly believes man is partially and primarily responsible for their own salvation. One theological aspect that cannot be determined exclusively from the play, namely, the doctrine of the Fall. The messenger does not clearly address this in it’s introduction. What does it matter? The Fall is related to the protestant doctrine of man, so lacking mention to the Fall implies a “good enough” doctrine of man. A “good enough” doctrine of man forms the basis for believing man to be inherently good, whereas the protestant doctrine teaches the opposite.

The author of “Everyman” believes in and thus seeks to communicate universal salvation in this play. Ryan, seeing this, said in his article, “Redemption was intended for all” (Ryan 1957). This he showed is proven by God’s statement,

I hoped well that every man

In my glory should make his mansion

And thereto I had them all elect    (II. 52-54).

This reinforces the idea of God’s universal plan for salvation. This further shows God’s inadequacy to actually save because His salvific plan and desire is tied to the will of man.

Good Deeds was the only companion of Everyman that went with him before God to give his life’s reckoning. The author expressed this belief in salvation from death through one’s good deeds by the Doctor at the end of the play. Based on the whole of the play, the author’s view of death as reflected in this work seems to be one of disbelief in an actual eternal death.  This is evident by the state of Good Deeds when Everyman finds her and Doctor’s remarks as the play ends. His good deeds have been so few throughout his life that Good Deeds could not even stand up. The character Doctor at the end of the play also proves this by sayings, “But beware, for if they (good works) be small before God, he hath no help at all.” Therefore, we can safely conclude that the author believes in physical death, but not at all in spiritual death.

 

Doctrine of Death According to God’s Word

The view given of God in the Holy Scriptures is much different than what we see in “Everyman.” The Bible begins by saying, “In the beginning, God created…” (Gen. 1:1). Thus, God starts His book by making known that He is the all powerful Creator of the universe. In Leviticus chapter eleven God commands His people to “be holy, for I am holy” (v. 44). Solomon proclaims that God will punish the “evil person” and the “false witness” (Prov. 11:21; 19:5) Paul, in his letter to the church at Ephesus, describes God as one “who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). The Greek word ένεργουντος translated here as “works” carries a continuous sense. What this means is that the working of all things is a continuous, ongoing, never ending work. So God is portrayed as sovereign over all that He has made, down to the finest detail, and throughout all time. Peter says God will “judge the living and the dead” (1 Pet. 4:5). These are but a few verses in God’s Word that shows both His holiness and His sovereignty. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that God is holy not letting wickedness slip by Him, and that He is sovereign over all things to the point that He is the one working them how he sees fit.

The salvation message found in God’s Word is one of limited atonement. God has always worked covenantally and generationally with His people (Gen. 17:7; Romans 9). Working in this way means that God has always chosen a select people to be His. Jesus said in the Gospel of John, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44). To further stress that God alone is responsible for a person’s salvation, Paul said to the Church in Rome, “It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). Later on, Paul also points out that some people were created for salvation and others for destruction. Therefore, Scripture is clear that God does not, and will not, save every man who has ever been or will be.

Death, be it physical or spiritual, is inevitable. The author of Hebrews makes this clear by saying, “It is appointed for man to die once, ,and after that comes judgment” (9:27). Paul says God “will render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6), this does not mean that man will be rescued from death because of good works, for salvation comes only through God’s mercy and grace (Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:5,8). Paul states rather emphatically that salvation is “not a result of works” and then again in his letter to Titus, “not by works done by us in righteousness” (Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5). Not only do these verses show that salvation is the work of God, but they also refute the idea that one can come to God based on their works. Fifteenth century preacher Martin Luther said, “There are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden” (Luther 2009, 21). Therefore, Scripture clearly teaches since one is not saved by their works, likewise, one cannot escape death by works.

In “Everyman,” death is portrayed solely as a threat used by God to get His creation to be kind to Him and ultimately straighten his life out. However, contrary to Ryan’s claim that “Everyman” offers “orthodox teaching on the matter of man’s salvation,” this play does not present orthodox teaching on salvation, but rather heresy concerning both salvation and death, since salvation is from death. Louis Berkhof describes eternal death as “the full weight of the wrath of God descending on the condemned.” This is perfectly in line with Scripture, because Paul says in Romans that “the wages of sin is death” (6:23). Thus if God was to not judge one who had lived in rebellion to God all his life, as it seems Everyman had, He would not be the holy God that He called Himself in the Old Testament. John Calvin once said, “We are all so blinded and fascinated with self-love that every one imagines he has a just right to exalt himself” (Calvin 1921, 622). This is evident when one attempts to justify themselves on the basis of their “righteous deeds” (Isa. 64:6). Therefore, to say that man may escape death because of their good deeds is to water down God’s sovereignty and to deny what Scripture teaches regarding death.

 

Bibliography

 

Adu-Gyamfi, Yaw, and Mark Ray Schmidt. Literature and Spirituality. Boston: Pearson, 2011.

(accessed June 29, 2012).

 

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

 

Ryan, Lawrence V. “Doctrine and Dramatic Structure in Everyman.” Speculum 32 No. 4 (1957),

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2850293 (accessed June 29, 2012).

 

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Church and the Last Things. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books

1998.

 

Luther, Martin. A Treatise of Good Works. Rockville, Maryland: Serenity Publishers, LLC, 2009.

 

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication

and Sabbath-School Work, 1921.

 

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996

Why I Believe Paedo-Baptism is Biblical

Several months ago, an issue regarding infant baptism arouse in our church. Since that time I have sought to understand what the Bible says on the issue. Well, I know see infant baptism as a biblical doctrine and wanted to share what I see with you. Hope you enjoy, but most importantly I hope you are challenged to study God’s Word on this issue.

1. God always has and always will work covenantally with His chosen people.

When God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, He made a covenant with him stating; “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7 NASB). Later on we read that circumcision is the sign of that covenant which God made with Abraham. Now there are two things in Genesis chapter 17 that I think are often overlooked. One, God commanded that every male born or bought into his house receive the covenant sign (i.e. circumcision). God also makes clear not every one in his household, though they have had the covenant sign applied, will have God’s covenant established with them. This is why Paul says in Romans,

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants” (Romans 9:6-8 NASB).

Therefore, since the covenant sign of the New Covenant is baptism, and there has been no new revelation stating to whom it must be applied, I believe that we (Christians) are commanded to baptize our children prior to profession. Now, for the new convert, who did not grow up in a God fearing home, they are to be baptized after making a profession, but then the command to baptize their children prior to a profession applies to them.

2. To insist on children of believers making a profession of faith prior to being baptized is an attempt to undermine God’s sovereignty in salvation.

Since Paul says later in Romans 9:16 that it (salvation) is dependent on God and not our will or work, it is most reasonable then for our children to be baptized before they make any profession. This is not to say that their baptism is what saves but rather that as their God fearing parents, we are to trust and believe that our children are “the children of the promise that are counted as offspring.” We are able to believe in them being children of promise because we know that God chooses people before they are born and thus have faith because of the sovereign choice of God. This also does not mean that we know that our biological children are elect of God, however we do know that God has always worked within the framework of His covenant promises. This can be either through birth, such as with Isaac, or through grafting into the covenant family, such as with Ruth and also the Gentiles in the New Testament.