A Scriptural Understanding Of Baptism Week 4

All right. Okay, let's pray. Father, thank you for our time together.

Help us now to think critically and biblically. Help us to do this for your glory, not for our pride.

Help us to do this so that we can more accurately obey what your word says, and we'll thank you in Jesus' name.

Amen. All right. We want to talk a little bit about some critiques today.

You may have heard the case for paedo -baptism and think, man, that is a great system.

It is beautiful. It takes, there's more notes if you need them. Okay. It's beautiful.

It talks about children, it incorporates them, it just seems so cool. And the fact is, it is cool and it is beautiful, but the question is, is it biblical?

I was very much attracted to this when I was much younger. Because it just seemed to be a system that held together so well.

But the issue is, it's not biblical. It doesn't meet that biblical test.

Now, what I want to say is, as we critique this, don't take this as an attack on individuals, not even the ones that I quote.

Because the people that I quote, that I disagree with, I respect them a great deal. Charles Hodges, Presbyterian theologian.

Boy, if you get hold of his systematic theology, you got gold in your hand. Brian Chappell, one of the best guys on preaching today.

So, don't think, if I disagree with someone or it seems like I'm attacking them, it's not them as an individual, it's their views that I think are wrong.

Our unity comes from the gospel, from the fact that we agree that one is justified by grace through faith and some of the most determined and ablest defenders of the gospel are

Presbyterians. So, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Now, I want to critique today, some of its most vulnerable positions, which

I think are some of the easier ones to go after. Next week, I want to go deeper into some of the other more complex issues like a proper understanding of the

New Covenant, a proper understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant. What is the relationship between circumcision and baptism?

So, we'll be looking at those things next week. But this week, we want to go after what

I consider the low -hanging fruit and move to the more complex issues next week.

Here's some of those things. Number one, here are the four things I want to talk about. The idea of the absence of any contrary command since believers' baptism would be too radical an innovation for anybody to accept.

What baptism really signifies? What does it really signify? What about the advantages afforded pedo -baptist children?

Then the last one, which at times looks very convincing, and that's the household baptisms that they refer to in the

New Testament. You remember they talk about the fact that, well, we'll get into that. So, those are the four issues

I want to tackle today. All right. First of all, what about no contrary command?

Remember the argument. Given the fact that the covenant sign was applied to children for century after century after century, believers' baptism is such a radical innovation, it needs a contrary command.

In other words, we need a command that says, you therefore have to have a command that denies the covenant sign to children.

That's the argument. That there is no command that says, don't do it after they were so used to it.

So, again, there it is. You don't see that contrary command. Well, first of all, let's consider these things.

Number one, this is an argument from silence. If you talk to any logician, argument from silence is the weakest argument you can make.

Just because it's not mentioned, doesn't mean it has to be there. Listen, remember that just about every

Pato Baptist writer admits this. This is from Charles Hodges, one of the dyed -in -the -wool, heavy -duty

Presbyterian theologians. Remember what he said? In every case on record of the apostles' administration of the rite of baptism, it was on condition of a profession of faith on the part of the recipient.

Just about every Presbyterian writer who writes on baptism admits that there is no obvious record of any infant baptism in the

New Testament. They had openly admit that. So, I would say the burden of proof does not lie with us, it lies with them.

This is an argument from silence, and that's the weakest argument. Several years ago, when we moved out to our place out in the country, with that big old red barn and everything, the people who owned that before us had a bunch of their stuff in there, and there was this huge pile of clay tiles there.

You know those clay tiles? So, this huge pile of these perfect clay tiles.

I walked into the barn one day, and they were completely smashed to pieces, just utterly destroyed.

So, I confronted my boys about their destructive behavior, and here was their argument.

I'll never forget it. Yeah, Dad, but you didn't say we couldn't do it.

All right? That's what we're talking about here. I think it's the same thing. This is a really weak argument.

We don't, you know, if there could be many reasons why that's not there.

One of the reasons being, children were not meant to be baptized. Right? This is a weak, weak argument.

Now, I also want to ask this, okay? But, pouring water on a baby's head as the covenant sign, isn't that a radical departure?

What was the covenant sign for century after century after century? Circumcision.

Right? Now, remember the argument. Imagine what happens when a

Jewish convert who submits to baptism is told that his children cannot receive the covenant sign contrary to thousands of years of practice.

Okay? Imagine a Jewish convert saying, well, this is pretty radical.

Well, listen. Replacing a bloody knife with pouring water on a baby's head.

I'd say that's a pretty radical change too. Right? That's very radical.

Not only that, and Annie brought this up weeks ago, not only that, we're applying the covenant sign to female babies.

You talk about radical, not one female child had the covenant sign applied to her.

Through the entirety of the Old Testament. So now we're going to say, oh no, no, we're going to pour water and not cut the foreskin, and we're going to pour water on their head, and we're also going to do it to the girls.

Tell me that's not radical. So the idea that this is believer's baptism is just too radical?

Well, I think that's a poor argument. What the Paedo -Baptists propose is radical enough.

Right? That's pretty radical in and of itself. So don't tell me it's radical. Then the baptisms of incense would have been really radical for a

Gentile convert. Here's why. Imagine now, because every argument

I've read from our Paedo -Baptist friends is, imagine the Jewish convert. Well, you remember what happened in the history of the church.

For the first 12 years or so, somewhere around there, maybe eight years, the church was made entirely of, well, not eight years, it wasn't that long, shorter than that, but anyway, the church was entirely

Jewish, right? Then what happened? The Apostle Paul explodes on the scene, and takes the gospel to the

Gentiles, and the balance tips to Gentiles, right? So that most of the people of the church are not

Jewish now, they're Gentile. Now, we're always told, imagine what a

Jewish person would think. Well, let's think about, imagine what a

Gentile convert would think. Let's take their greatest, their most famous example, the

Philippian jailer. He's a Gentile, probably a retired

Roman soldier, because that's what jailers typically were, right? He says, what must

I do to be saved? They reply, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you and your household will be saved.

So, he does believe, and then he's baptized, and now the

Apostles tell him, not only must he be baptized in obedience to Jesus' command, that everyone who believes should be baptized in the name of the

Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but now bring your children too, we're going to do the same thing.

Now, let me ask you, what's this Gentile guy going to do? He's going to say, what are you talking about?

He doesn't know the history of Israel. He doesn't know anything about circumcision signs, or signs of the covenant.

He doesn't know any of that. So, what did they do? The whole household did, and again, I'm speculating and I don't want to do that, because that's not a good way of arguing, but the point is, anything would be radical to the

Gentiles, and I would suggest to you that a believer's baptism would be less radical to a

Gentile believer. It seems to me, you'd have to have at least two months of education before anybody got baptized to tell them all about the covenants, and all that happened in the

Old Testament, and how all this was going on. When you look at evangelism in acts with the

Gentiles, it's you believe, you're baptized. You and your household.

So, when you want to talk about radical, I would suggest that believer's baptism is less radical for the majority of the church who are

Gentile. All right? They didn't need a whole month's education in covenant history in order to understand baptism.

Does that make sense? So, again, believer's baptism is much less radical for the

Gentile convert. So, let's not use the radical argument. I don't think it carries much weight.

We don't need to look for a contrary command. We don't need to look for that. All right.

What does baptism really signify? Now, remember, as it's defined here by the

Westminster Confession of Faith, that baptism of infants is, quote, the visible pledge that when the conditions of the covenant are met, the blessings he has promised would apply.

So, baptism is a sign and seal that God will keep

His promise to save you if you meet the conditions of faith and repentance.

Now, that sounds good, doesn't it? It's not saying that the baptism saves you. It's saying, when you baptize that baby, this is a sign, a pledge of God's promise that if that baby comes to faith, she will be saved.

So, it signifies that, right? Well, let's consider this. I want you to consider this when it comes to that understanding.

First of all, for the paedo -baptists, baptism signifies something that might occur in the future.

It might occur. They regularly assert that baptism does not save, but it makes a promise to the children and to the parents, that if the child believes,

God will save him. By the way, that's a great promise. It is a promise. If you believe,

God will save you. That is a promise. But they also recognize that some will not come to faith.

Some of those covenant children will not come to faith. Some of the members of the church may never be saved.

Okay? Now, here's what Wayne Grudem writes. The only alternative seems to be to say that baptism symbolizes a regeneration that will occur in the future, when the infant is old enough to come to saving faith.

So that in baptism, then, God says, your baptism is a guarantee that you will be justified if, if, sometime in the future, if you believe.

So, for them, baptism signifies what is possible. Right? Do you see the argument

I'm making? Baptism doesn't tell you what is true. Baptism tells you what may happen.

All right? But for us, who believe in credo -baptism, baptism signifies what is true now.

You're baptized to signify that all the things that God promised in salvation is yours.

It tells everyone, this person has believed. This person now is under the new covenant.

This person now receives all the benefits of salvation. It's true now.

Now, I want you to listen to John Murray. John Murray was a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Great Presbyterian guy. I love John Murray. Here's what one of my professors at seminary told me about John Murray.

John Murray fought in World War I. He got one of his eyes shot out. And so he had a glass eye.

And two seminary students at Westminster were talking one day. One's a senior, one's a first year student.

First year student says to the senior, you know, when I'm in class, I cannot tell which is his real eye and which is his glass eye.

And the senior says, oh, that's easy. Whenever you see a glint of mercy, that's his glass eye.

Now, John Murray wrote a book called Christian Baptism. It's a defense of infant baptism. But what's fascinating about this book as I was reading through it is he makes some of the best arguments for believer's baptism

I've ever read. He does. Now, here he is talking about adult baptism, okay?

I'm quoting John Murray. The glass -eyed, unmerciful Presbyterian of Presbyterians.

Who, by the way, wrote one of the best books on salvation that was ever written called

Redemption Accomplished and Applied. If you want to, you can write that down so you can buy it.

But it's a great book. But here's what John Murray writes in his defense of infant baptism.

Now, he's talking about when someone is converted, right? He says, "'Baptism is the sign and seal of membership in the church.

"'It is administered, therefore, "'to those who make the requisite confession "'of faith in Jesus.

"'According to our Lord's institution "'in the Great Commission, "'baptism in the name of the

Father "'and of the Son of the Holy Spirit "'is an integral part of the process "'of discipling the nations "'and is therefore an essential mark of discipleship.'"

Okay? When you come to faith in Christ, you're a pagan and you come to faith in Christ, you need to be baptized because it is an essential mark of discipleship.

You know what? In the margins of the book here, I wrote, wow,

I really agree with this. This is great. This is a great definition. Now, if it's an essential mark of discipleship, then baptism is a sign and seal guaranteeing that you receive all the benefits of the new covenant of which you are now a part.

Right? You believe. Now, here's the deal. Remember what

Charles Hodges says. He says we have to admit that every time we see baptism administered in the

New Testament, it's to professing believers. And so here's the thing.

The New Testament never views baptism as symbolizing a probable future regeneration, rather a regeneration that has already occurred.

Every time you read about baptism in the New Testament, it's not about what might be true.

Every time, it's about what is true. It's essential mark of discipleship.

Every time you read of baptism in the New Testament, not to put too fine a point on it, it's never talking about what might be true.

It's always talking about what is true. And so I would conclude with this. Thus, baptism does not point to future possibilities, but to present realities.

Okay? That's where I think our brothers are wrong. They have baptism, most of their baptisms, pointing to a future possibility and not present realities.

Okay? Okay? All right? Now, when my dear Presbyterian friend,

Sharon Green, came, and I could tell you stories about our discussions on baptism way, way back 37 years ago, she would say to me, but I was baptized as a believer, all right?

So our Pater Baptist friends do baptize people who come to faith, right?

Well, they pour water on them. Okay?

And it's an essential mark of discipleship. And that shows a present reality.

But most of those baptisms, and they discuss it this way, is pointing to a possible, some would say a probable regeneration in the future.

The New Testament never uses baptism that way. All right?

Does Pater Baptism afford their children an advantage? Remember that baptized children are supposed to have the advantage of faithful parenting and the help of the church of which they are now members and exposure to the gospel.

Baptism brings them into the covenant community where they have the advantages of hearing the word of God from the time they're born and be exposed to the truth.

Parents have taken vows at their children's baptism to bring them up in the admonition and nurture of the

Lord. The congregation has also taken vows at their baptism to say, we will help, and we'll be involved in helping you parent, and we will be involved in helping the children.

But let's consider this, okay? Let's consider this. Credo Baptist children can have the same advantages even if they're not baptized.

Even if they're not baptized. And it has more to do with faithful parenting of Christian disciples.

I'm a disciple of Jesus. That means I have to pay attention to my children because that's what

Jesus has called me to. And I'm going to be a faithful parent and bring them up in the admonition and nurture of the

Lord. The church also has the responsibility of looking out for the welfare of the children just because they're faithful disciples too.

And we're always to help one another. The Bible has, the New Testament has 35 commands, one another commands, right?

And so we're to help one another. That's given as members of the church. Listen, and some of you younger parents need to hear this.

Okay, some of you younger parents. When we came here, we were young.

I wasn't even 30 yet. When I assumed the pastorate here. And all these middle -aged, nearing old people that you're looking at, like Andy and Sharon, right?

We were all young parents together. And all of us, the Fries, the

Greens, the Fries, the Hosses, all of us who had our little children. I came here with three children, okay?

We all made a pact with one another. Said if my child acts up, you can spank them if they're with you.

You can deal with it. And we had a solid pact, and we kept it.

And we did it regardless of the fact that our children were not baptized, okay?

Baptism did not bring us into that. We did that on our own. Paul Jewett is a, oh, he was a biblical scholar and theologian from years ago, in the 60s and 70s.

Here's what he writes. We can still bring our children to Jesus. Okay, let me give you the context of that.

In the Gospels, where it talks about parents bringing their children to Jesus, right?

They use that as an argument for infant baptism. We're bringing our children to Jesus in baptism.

Now, I think that's even weaker than, because there's no water there. There's no water there.

So what Jewett is saying is, you talk about bringing your children to Jesus through baptism. Here's what he says. We can still bring our children to Jesus by bringing them to the house of prayer, not just the fount.

Those who minister in Jesus' name can lay hands on children, like Jesus did. We pray for children and acknowledge that they're an inheritance from the

Lord and that their nurture is our trust as parents and as members of the congregation.

Prayer in which we confess our weakness, plead his assistance, is a universal, not a sectarian act.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether you believe in infant baptism or not. The whole church is involved in that.

Therefore, one may say that in all Christian churches, the children of confessing parents belong to the congregation and that the congregation should pray for them and provide for their instruction in the

Christian faith. So you don't have to baptize your children for them to be, not members, but part of a congregation that'll look out for them and that will look out for one another as parents and will be faithful parents, okay?

But you need to heed a warning, and I heard this standing up here a few weeks ago with Pastor Andrew as a few of us were talking, and he sounded a warning, and I thought it was really good.

He says, our Presbyterian friends, because of baptism, are committed, most of them are committed to nurturing their children in the gospel, and they will work hard at that, whereas too often in Baptist circles, we're just looking for a decision.

We're just hoping that they'll decide for Jesus and accept them. We have to be as serious as our

Presbyterian friends about nurturing our children in the gospel, and I think that's really a good insight.

Now, we as Baptists have no excuse. We have the same commandments to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the

Lord, okay? When Beck and I were bringing up our children, we did not just keep hitting them with John 3, 16 and different Bible verses and say, do you want to accept

Jesus? We never did that. What we did was we nurtured them in the gospel. We had conversations.

I remember sitting in our living room one time and saying, you know that people who only have a perfect score get into heaven?

And all my kids are going, what? Well, I guess, what does that do for us?

And I had the opportunity of saying, this is how it happens, right? We all take a test, everyone gets an

F. The test is love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. Everybody gets a big fat

F on that, but someone came named Jesus who also took the test and he gets an A, and when you believe in him, your

F is erased and God gives you his A. Even though you flunked, you get his A, and when you get to heaven, you show the test paper.

They say, where's your test? Right here, A plus, right? But then

I didn't end it with, now come to Jesus. You know what? We just ministered the gospel.

We incorporated it into our everyday lives. We talked about sin and salvation.

We talked about Jesus as a savior. We talked about him as a substitute. We weave that into every part of our lives and expected the

Holy Spirit to work. Some of my kids had decision moments.

Others did not, but they at least could say, my hope is in Jesus, I'm trusting in him, and so we've got to be as serious about this as our

Presbyterian friends, okay? We have to nurture them in the gospel. Now the big one, what about household baptisms?

Here is where many of our Presbyterian friends think, do something with that, okay?

Here's the argument. Infant baptism can be deduced from the fact that, and this is

Dr. Brian Chappell now saying, every person identified as living, as having, as having, if I'm losing it,

I wonder how far, how you guys are doing. Every person identified as having a household present at his or her conversion also had the entire household baptized.

And you know what? They're right. That's exactly what happens. And what's the argument then?

The argument then is that because, remembering that in the

Old Testament, the covenant sign of circumcision was applied to all the members of the household because of the representative head who stands for the household and says, all of my household is going to be circumcised.

That's the nature of the, and I'm going to direct them in the way of the Lord. And so they say, so look, look at the

New Testament. Whole house, whenever that person was baptized, the whole household was baptized. So you see, there were probably, they won't say certainly, there were probably infants there.

And it seems like, at least to me in my younger days, it seemed like a very strong argument. But you know what?

If you look carefully at those texts, certain things start becoming evident.

Let's look at Acts chapter two. Here is the Apostle Peter preaching at Pentecost, okay?

He's preaching at Pentecost. This is the great sermon that was preached 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus.

And so Peter is preaching away. He gets near the end of his sermon, verse 37.

He's finished his sermon. He calls them to believe in Jesus. Now, when they heard this, that is the audience, 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. 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. 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 there were added that day about 3 ,000 souls.

All right. Now they point to verse, they often will point to us to verse 39.

For this promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, okay?

See, it's to you and your children. God is still working in a covenantal way with households. Well, note some things.

What is the promise that they'll receive? It's the promise of the anointing of the

Holy Spirit, right? Of receiving the Holy Spirit.

Repent and be baptized and you'll receive the Holy Spirit. Okay, can I give you a footnote here?

You say, well, when we're baptized, we don't receive the Holy Spirit. It seems like in the

Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, Cornelius, when the different peoples are first introduced to the gospel, the baptism brings the gift of the

Holy Spirit so that they know that what they've preached is the gospel, that it's true. After Cornelius, you don't see that, okay?

But that doesn't change the argument. You're baptized and you receive the

Holy Spirit. Do infants receive the

Holy Spirit at their baptism? You say, no, but that was back then, okay? Notice what else this says.

Look at verse 17. Here's the promise of the Spirit. So Peter quotes the prophet

Joel. And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams and so on.

How many infants prophesy? How many infants have visions that they can communicate to us?

You're baptized, you receive this promised Spirit who will accomplish these things. Note the clause two in verse 38.

Note the clause that explains you and your children and who are far off. How does the verse end?

What is it? Someone read it. I can wait. Yeah, all whom

God will call. This promise is for you and your children and for those who are far off.

For you, Jews, and your children, it's the promises for them too. And for those that are far off, the

Gentiles. Everyone who the Lord calls. Who receives the promise? Everyone whom the

Lord calls. And our Presbyterian friends will admit not all of our children are called.

But wait a minute, right? This promise is for all these who are called.

Finally, you can't ignore verse 41. Who's baptized? All those who believe were baptized.

Now, if you're going to say it's for the household, it certainly wouldn't just be those who believe. They're the ones identified as the subjects of baptism.

They're the ones identified as the ones who were baptized. All those who believe. So I don't think this holds water.

Now, there's the household of Cornelius. The household of Cornelius, Acts 10.

By the way, here's my particular, I won't bore you with that, Acts 10. All right, now again, you remember the story.

An angel appears to Cornelius and says, send for Simon, he's in the Tanner's house by the sea.

He will come and he will bring a message to you. And so, Peter goes.

Before the messengers arrive, he sees a vision of the sheep hung down, hold by a rope on four corners, and there's snakes and pigs and things in it.

And a voice from heaven says, take and eat. And he says, no, that's unclean stuff.

And the voice from heaven says, hey, what I call clean, don't you call unclean. And at that moment, as he's waking up, the people from Cornelius' household come and say, we want you to come.

Now, why did God give him that vision? Because the Gentiles were unclean to the Jews. And he's telling him, you gotta take the gospel to the

Gentiles. And so he goes to Cornelius' house. He preaches the word of God. He preaches the gospel.

And they believe. Now, let's look at 44 through 48, all right?

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed because the gift of the

Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling

God. Then Peter declared, can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people who have received the

Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Then they asked him to remain for some days. Now, drop down to 11 verses one through four.

Now, the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, you went to uncircumcised men and ate with them?

But Peter began and explained to them then in order.

And he tells about his vision and so forth. And then he talks about verses 12 through 18, what happened when he preached.

And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me and we entered the man's house.

And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, send to Joppa and bring

Simon, who is called Peter. He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the

Lord, how he said, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then

God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was

I that I could stand in God's way? When they heard these things, they fell silent and they glorified God saying, then.

So the Gentiles also God has granted, to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.

So Cornelius is a hinge point in this book. They've gone to the Jews, they've gone to the

Samaritans, now they go to the Gentiles, the gates now open for the worldwide expression of the gospel.

But here's what we need to see. First of all, verses 44 through 46.

The Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And what?

Everybody who heard the word, what did they do? What does it say? They spoke in tongues and extolled

God. Is that possible for infants? All who heard the word did that.

Verses 47 and 48. Who is baptized? Those who specifically, those upon whom specifically the

Spirit fell. The ones who exhibited the sign of the Spirit, which was tongues, praising

God, they were the ones who were baptized. Only the ones who did that. And then you look at chapter 11, verses 15 through 17.

Peter's argument against the party of the circumcision is that he had baptized and brought into the church those baptized in the

Spirit who showed the same signs that were evident at Pentecost.

Who was baptized? Those who spoke in tongues. Those who'd received the Holy Spirit. They were the ones who were baptized.

They were the ones who were brought into the church. Now, I want you to look at verse 14.

What the angel said. Chapter 11, verse 14.

The angel sent to Joppa and brings Simon, who's called Peter. He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.

All right? Now, Dr. Chappell says, Paul's words do not mean that the rest of the household would automatically express genuine saving faith in Christ, but his presumption was that the faith of the head of the household would govern the life and faith patterns of the rest of the man's family.

And I look at that and I say, that's not what it says. It says clearly, your household, you and your household will be saved.

And so if you want to, he doesn't say, you will be saved and now you will lead your family in the patterns of godliness.

He doesn't say that. He says, you and your household will be saved.

And so I say, so does the representative principle work for salvation then? Cornelius, if you believe, you'll be saved and so will the rest of your house be saved.

Well, you know, you want to argue the representative principle for baptism, why not salvation?

Because it's clear right here, he's using the same phraseology. You and your household will be saved.

It doesn't say, it doesn't say, and you'll lead them in the patterns of fearing

God. It says they'll be saved. Now, I want you to note carefully chapter 10, verses one and two.

Look at chapter 10, verses one and two. Someone read that for us. Where we're introduced to Cornelius.

What does chapter 10, verses one and two say? Someone read it, quickly.

Here it says that Cornelius' household, he was a Gentile, what they call the God -fearer, which means that he feared

God and was not circumcised, but was following as best he could the

Judaistic religion. But notice what it says, that he and his household feared

God. Can infants fear God?

No. It says something about the makeup of his household, quite possibly.

But his whole household, his whole household were God -fearers. All right, that's

Cornelius. How about Lydia? Acts 16, you remember Paul and Silas make it to Philippi.

Acts 16, verses 11 through 15.

So setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace and the following day to Neapolis and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the

District of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. And on the

Sabbath day, we went outside to the gate, outside the gate to the riverside where we suppose there was a place of prayer and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods who was a worshiper of God.

The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized and her household as well, she urged us saying, if you have judged me to be faithful to the

Lord, come to my house and stay. And she prevailed upon us. Now it clearly says, it clearly says here that she was baptized and her household was baptized.

And so it's deduced that there probably were infants in that household that were baptized.

But I look at that and I say, what's noticeably absent here? No husband.

No husband is mentioned. So you wonder if any infants, you wonder if any infants were present, but again, that's an argument from silence.

Why would not he have been baptized as a representative head? Someone might say, well, you know, he didn't believe,

Lydia did. Okay. Would Lydia then be counted as a representative of the household?

I don't know. Was she a single woman who had a number of employees, all of which might be able to believe along with her?

I don't know. So what would I say about Lydia? Inconclusive. I don't think we can get anything from that.

Baptism or adults. It's just, I don't think you can use it as an argument for infant baptism.

I don't think you can use it to say, well, it's obvious there weren't infants. We can't. It's inconclusive.

So let's leave it at that. But the most favorite one is the household of the

Philippian jailer. This is the biggie. Okay. So let's look at Acts 16.

Okay, remember the Philippian jailer. Paul and Silas cast out a demon from this girl who's making money for these guys.

They get mad. They throw them in jail. They're in the stocks. It's midnight. They're singing.

Remember, they're singing. There's an earthquake. Everybody in the prison is loosened and all the doors fly open.

Okay. And the Philippian jailer comes running in like this is it, I'm a dead man.

Okay. So let's pick up the story then in verse 27.

When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.

But Paul cried with a loud voice, do not harm yourself for we are all here. And the jailer called for lights and rushed in and trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas.

Then he brought them out and said, sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, believe in the

Lord Jesus and you will be saved. You and your household. And they spoke the word of the

Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds.

And he was baptized that way. And he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them.

And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

And so here's the argument. There it is. His whole household is baptized.

Clearly they're baptized, okay? Again, verse 31. 31.

You wanna talk about his household, then you gotta deal with this. And they said, believe in the

Lord Jesus and you will be saved. You and your household. Not talking about baptism.

What is he talking about? Salvation. He's not saying, as Dr.

Chappell says, well, it doesn't mean that everyone's going to express faith. What it means is that he's gonna lead them in the fear of God.

But that is not what the text says. It says you will be saved.

You and your household. So you can't tell me that that verse means that they're telling him, you gotta lead your family in the fear of God.

They're telling him, your household's gonna be saved. Could it be that Paul was saying in verse 31 when he says, what must

I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. You and your household.

Meaning what? If your household believes, then what? They'll be saved. You and your household will be saved.

Okay? Could it, okay, look at verse 32. Paul spoke to the jailer, spoke to the jailer and to all in his house.

That says something to me. He was speaking to people who understood what he was saying. He spoke to the jailer and to everyone.

Everyone in his house. Look at verse 33 and 34.

The entire household rejoiced. And I ask the question, were the infants rejoicing then too?

Because it says his entire household rejoiced. Now here's the pushback. Look, they say at verse 34, if I can find it.

And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

They say, look, it says that the entire household rejoiced because he believed.

It doesn't say they rejoiced because they believed. That's what they would say to us.

And I would say, but they rejoiced. Why? The entire household rejoiced.

Why? Because he believed. Okay? Were there like little kids going, let's sing praises to God because dad became a believer.

No. The entire household rejoiced. And would infants be able to understand that they're rejoicing because their dad was saved?

If there were any children in this household at all, right? Maybe there weren't any children.

We don't know, but it says the entire household rejoiced. Paul says, believe in the

Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. They spoke to the entire household.

I like what Paul Jewett says. Taken at its face value, the account in Acts sets before us a hearing, believing, rejoicing household that received baptism.

I think that's a great summary. This account in Acts sets before us a hearing, believing, rejoicing household.

Okay? All right, another one. Stephanus, 1

Corinthians chapter one. Stephanus. 1

Corinthians chapter one. What's that?

Oh, one more. You guys got it all anyway. All right.

14. I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.

And he goes, wait a minute. I did baptize also the household of Stephanus.

Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. So he identifies two people and he also identifies the household of this guy named

Stephanus. So he remembers baptizing his household. Well now, look at the end of this book where he mentions him again.

Chapter 16, verse 15. Now I urge you brothers, now

I urge you brothers, you know the household of Stephanus. You know the household of Stephanus were the first converts in Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints.

What do we know about the household of Stephanus? The household were converts.

And the household devoted themselves to serving the saints. So if you want to deduce, if you want to go with deducing that infants were there, we can just as easily and more clearly deduce that they were all believers, okay?

All right. Now in chapter one, verse 14, he mentions Crispus. And sometimes our

Presbyterian friends will point to Crispus and say him too, him too.

But we also see, even though household's not mentioned there, Crispus' household is mentioned in Acts chapter 18, verse eight.

This is where we're introduced to him. Acts chapter 18, verse eight.

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household.

So you can't use Crispus, it's clearly stated there, his entire household believed, okay?

Now, so I would suggest that the household baptisms just do not hold water under close examination of the tests.

Someone might say, well, it doesn't actually say that everyone believed.

And I'd say, you're true. We're making a deduction too. But I would suggest to you that ours carries a whole lot more weight than suggesting that they're infants.

Because there's just so much there to indicate that there were not infants, okay?

So, I hope you can see that the Paedo -Baptist edifice is not as impregnable as it seems, all right?

But let me suggest something to you. Don't go out now and start arguments, all right?

Don't go out and start arguments, right? If someone wants to bring it up, if someone walks up to you at work and says, you know,

I really think the Philippian jailer had infants that were baptized, go ahead, all right?

But don't go pick some fights. We don't learn these things for that purpose.

Remember what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians. Knowledge has the tendency to puff us up.

We want to be more concerned about people in our relationships than just the fact that I know more than you do, okay?

All right, questions. Tracy. Was the same three -quarter use for household in all those instances?

Yeah. Yes, Beth. Isn't it more about like the possibility of, like specifically,

I think the Philippian jailer, and he's so worried about it, and Paul's like, hey, and you kind of made that point, but it feels more like it is possible for everyone.

The slaves, it's not just possible for children, and you know, it is possible for children. And it is possible for everybody.

It's not about Paul is saying they are saved just by saying it, and so they can all be baptized, but the possibility is there.

So, yeah, what's the point? I don't quite get it. I guess it's not, they all heard it, they all believe, they all baptize.

The way Paul uses it, I just feel like it's, instead of being like, this shows that children, the infant were baptized, it's more like the possibility.

I don't know, I guess maybe it's just a misinterpretation of the word, not to say that I'm doing it right, but.

No. But it just seems like some of these, the salvation is open to everyone, and salvation is publicly shown by baptism.

Yeah, and the whole household was baptized. Yeah, yeah, because they could be.

Because what? They could be, like, it is possible, but it doesn't mean, right, does that make sense?

I guess I'm kind of trying to figure it out. But, you know, like, it's not that one person believes, and so now it is mandatory baptism.

Everyone believes, and so they are able to be baptized. Yeah, yeah, except for the fact that in the

New Testament, please understand this, in the New Testament, there's no such thing, from my view, as a cradle

Baptist, there's no such thing as an unbaptized Christian. Right, and I don't mean that they have the ability to choose yes or no,

I will get baptized or I won't, but it's more that, that the possibility of salvation is open, and therefore, baptism is possible, you know.

It's not mandatory, in the sense that, like, because you are baptized, now your baby has to be baptized.

It is possible that your child can believe, and therefore be baptized, but it's not just because one person believed, now it is baptized.

It's now able to be saved, and therefore be baptized.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. All right,

Tracy. And I'm arguing with you that.

Go ahead. What about the possible uselessness of the words, the use of terms in common language, such as,

I wonder if the pasma in the whole household had a steak dinner, and then the fire alarm went off, and the whole household went outside because of the household fire.

When those two words, household, obviously mean different things. Do they? Explain how they're different.

And I'm not arguing with you, I'm just, because I know where you're going, but I want to. I'm assuming if the whole household had a steak dinner, the infants probably didn't eat steak.

Right. But if the fire alarm went off, then we did take the infants. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, and that's a very good point. You can do certain things, but you can't do certain things.

That's a good point. That's a good point, yeah. And that's why, I didn't put this in, that's why

Jewett says, Jewett says something like that, and he says, so that's still not an argument for infant baptism.

It's still an argument that people who understood were baptized, and he says, so when we talk about households, let's not make such a big thing about infants, because sometimes household means like, the household,

Pasmo household had steak. Well, you know, baby, baby

Atticus was there and he didn't have steak, right? Yeah, that's entirely legitimate, but it's still,

I don't know, do you think that's a strong enough argument then to say that infants were baptized? I mean, there's so many things in these texts, but yeah, it can be used that way.

I think it can be used that way. I don't know if it's used that way here in Acts.

I don't have an indication like you do when you're in your example. Yeah, so I don't think it, and again, that is a good point.

Tracy's bringing up a good point. Household can be a loose term, right? So if it's a loose term, then don't stake so much on infants being baptized when so much of it says they believe, right?

So, okay. Yes, sir.

What about, you see some churches, like baby educations, not sure of baptism.

Yeah. Thoughts on that? Those of you like the

Greeks who've been here for 37 years know that we've never done that. And what, is it wrong or not?

I think it's up to the church. I didn't get into it because to me, it was just like, it's us

Baptists trying to, trying to show, I mean, not that we're trying to show the

Presbyterians, but we didn't have infant baptism, but boy, they got a really good thing going there when they do that.

So let's us do dedications. That's what I thought when I was younger. So now, I don't want to be a dry

Presbyterian, okay? I don't want to do that. Now, it might be different now, okay?

I might, I might, I might do something different now. I imagine,

I don't know what Andrew would think on that. Yeah, you can ask him. Not like you guys won't.

So is your answer there that you didn't like it because it was like a point of pride? No, I didn't like it because I didn't want it to communicate the wrong thing.

Oh, I see, to what, to the congregation? Yeah, to the congregation, you know?

And then there were some who tried to get around that by saying, this isn't a baby dedication, this is a parent dedication.

You know, at that time, my view was, hey, we're all disciples of Jesus. Let's do what

Jesus says. We don't need a ceremony for everything. You did it once. For young Dutton.

Daniel. Rachel. Rachel, Daniel's already born, yeah. I think I did it once. I was also young and cave in to pressure a little more.

Tracy. One side of the pain of baptism, but the

Presbyterian, but you haven't mentioned Methodists. I haven't heard you mention Methodists. Where do they stand? I don't know, the

Methodists. I know some Methodist pastors. I could probably ask them, but I have a feeling you probably know more than they do about this.

I don't know. You know what? Methodists are squishy. It's really hard to nail it down because they do babies, but they also do immersion.

I mean, whatever you want. Whatever you want. We'll do it. We don't do immersion. What's that?

Yeah, they will. If you ask, they will. Not immersing babies. Oh, now listen.

You, listen. You guys laugh. The Orthodox Church, the

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, that big thing, the Eastern Orthodox Church. You ever seen, is it in my big fat

Greek wedding? Where they baptize a baby? Yes. They actually dunk babies because they're, being

Eastern Greek Orthodox, they say, baptizo means to dunk.

And so they take those babies and do them three times. They do.

So Tracy, I can't answer the question. No water involved?

Well. And if there was water. Okay. So there was two different things and really it depended on the pastor.

It depended on the family and it depended on the bishop of the area. It's just like the honest, you know, it depends on what the old man says.

We were on a circuit. I remember that this church was on a circuit and we always did the dedication when the pastor would come around because we couldn't do it any other way.

We had no baptisms, no nothing until a certain pastor would come around on the circuit.

Okay. But it wasn't a believer's baptism. Yeah, but it probably, from what you're saying,

Steve, it probably wasn't a covenant baptism either. It was just a dedication. Yeah, dedication with water.

Believers, again, were baptized when everyone was available. When I was baptized in the

Methodist church, it was a spring break. And then when I went to my first Baptist church,

I had to get baptized again. Well, actually, we Baptists would say you were baptized for the first time.

I was a believer three years before I was baptized as a Baptist. Okay.