The Church 3

And again, we do have a little bit of time.

It would have been about four or five pages shorter because I had not intended really to, the notes from last week that we were now able to address, and I was just going to pass by it and go on and deal with the subject case against pedo -baptism, but in talking to a few people, they seemed to think it would benefit us if I did take the time and go over this matter about what the

Bible says about true fellowship within a local church. And so we want to do that. And then moving on from there, deal with this matter of infant baptism that our congregational and Presbyterian friends believe and practice, but we would take issue with as Reformed Baptists.

I'm going to have to stay pretty close to my notes today, or we're not going to get very far, okay? And so, you know, sometimes, you know, these notes help me to stay on track or else

I could be off in no time. But there is a certain amount of information that we want to be able to impart today, and so please deal with us with patience.

It's important that this gets set forth in one presentation. I think that we would understand the importance of it and the weight of it.

And so in our study of the Bible teaching regarding the Church of Jesus Christ, we've considered what the

Scriptures speak, of course, of both the universal and the local church. Membership of the universal church are all believers throughout history who are saved through their sin, through the redemption that is obtained for us through Jesus Christ.

The church is not all those saved since the day of Pentecost onward, as many teach, but rather all of the redeemed of all of history.

All who are redeemed by Jesus Christ are in the universal church. In contrast to that, of course, the local church, the membership of the local visible church, is to be found in the

New Testament only. And we find that the local church should be comprised of disciples of Jesus Christ.

Now that's the position of Reformed Baptists. This is what we understand the Bible to teach, that only born -again

Christians should be admitted as members of a local church.

Those who have experienced personal salvation through faith in Christ, who have manifested a repentance from sin, turning from sin, and who show forth their faith and their resolve to live for Christ with Christ's people in and through their baptism by immersion.

And so the membership of the local church is to be comprised of regenerate people only, those who have been born anew by the

Holy Spirit, and they've entered into new life in Jesus Christ. Only they have a new heart that God had imparted to them, whereby they desire and whereby they are capable of experiencing and enjoying the spiritual life that should characterize all members of a local church.

Last Lord's Day we considered Acts 2, the passage of when the

Lord brought great increase to that local church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, how

Peter had declared to the gathered crowd in Jerusalem that Jesus Christ, whom they crucified, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven.

And there the Father enthroned Jesus over the kingdom of God, the kingdom that long before had been promised to King David.

And the people responded to Peter's preaching, having come under great conviction. And so again we read in Acts 2 of this account.

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?

And Peter said to them, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promises to you and to your children and to all who are far off as many as the

Lord our God will call. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying,

Be saved from this perverse generation. And those who gladly received his word were baptized, and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

In other words, added to the church, added to the 120 disciples that had already been there.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in the breaking of bread and in prayers.

And then fear came upon every soul and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together and had all things in common and sold their possessions and goods and divided them among all as anyone had need.

And so continually daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising

God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

So we see here in this passage that the only ones the Lord added to the church daily were those who were being saved.

And that underscores what we've been saying. A local church should be comprised only of regenerate people, those who have experienced new life in Christ.

Only converted people, only those who truly know Jesus Christ, having embraced Him in faith, having submitted to Him as their

Lord are to be admitted to the church. Only they are able and willing to participate in the spiritual life of the church.

And again we read about that spiritual life. They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers.

And so continually for continuing daily with one accord in the temple, breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness, simplicity of heart, praising

God, having favor with all the people. Last week we identified from these words three aspects of church life to which these church members gave themselves.

First, they were taught and they embraced the apostles' doctrine. Secondly, they enjoyed

Christian fellowship with one another. And then thirdly, they continued steadfastly in prayers.

And the breaking of bread should be understood as being one aspect of fellowship with one another.

And so we see that a New Testament local church must not only have a right understanding of the truth, they must adhere to the apostles' doctrine, but they must have a proper response to the truth.

They continued in fellowship. And so they expressed this faith in their praying to the

God they have come to know and love. Now I would like us to consider more fully what it is for a true local church to be characterized by fellowship as defined in the scriptures.

It is important that we understand what Christian fellowship is and what it is not.

We had wanted again to address this matter last week, but were unable to do so because of the importance of this matter.

And because I was encouraged to do so, I thought we would take some time to address this this morning.

And so let's answer the question, what is biblically defined fellowship? As we begin to consider what the

Bible says about fellowship, let me ask you several questions just to stimulate your thinking, get you into a right pattern of thinking about this matter.

First question, do you experience fellowship in this church, the First Baptist Church of Leominster?

And after answering that yes or no, after having answered that question, let me ask you this second question, what criteria did you use to answer the first question, do

I enjoy fellowship in this church? That second question is all important. How do you understand fellowship?

What criteria do you have? Is it biblical? I ask this question for oftentimes

Christians base their fellowship, so called, on less than biblical standards. A lot of people don't know what biblical fellowship is.

And this needs to be corrected. And therefore when we speak about the matter of fellowship, we really need to understand the term biblically and define it biblically.

What is biblical fellowship? Just at the outset we may say this, biblical fellowship exists when there is a mutual sharing or exchange and participation with one another in our knowledge and relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

That's what fellowship really is, biblically speaking. Since this is the case,

I would argue that the order of words in Acts 2 .42 is all important. They continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship.

The two go together. But the second fellowship is grounded on the first, doctrine.

You cannot have biblical fellowship unless you have a common adherence, belief, embracing of doctrine, of the apostles' doctrine.

Because true doctrine can result, can lead to true fellowship.

But you cannot have true fellowship unless you have right belief, true doctrine.

However, for many Christians, fellowship as is set forth in God's Word is not understood or even sought after.

Because they do not value or stress biblical doctrine, their concept and practice of fellowship is not biblically shaped or sanctioned.

And there are a lot of professing Christians who do not like doctrine. They will tell you that. They think doctrine is deadening to true spirituality.

They think doctrine is actually deadening to true fellowship. When the scriptures argue that it's actually the basis, the ground on which fellowship takes place.

Knowledge of doctrine precedes enjoyment of fellowship. Sound doctrine is essential and foundational to true fellowship.

Fellowship must be grounded on biblical doctrine, specifically what the Bible says about the common life that we have with God through our salvation that is in Jesus Christ.

But sadly, many Christians don't understand this. They do not see doctrine as having any connection whatsoever with the matter of fellowship.

Their base perception of fellowship, their basis of fellowship is perceived to be on other matters other than doctrine, what the

Bible teaches. So we might make a couple of assertions about this. First, many church attendees of Bible -believing churches do not understand the nature of biblical fellowship and therefore they do not experience it and they don't recognize it when it happens.

Secondly, church attendees of Bible -believing churches commonly make assertions and draw conclusions about fellowship that are based on unbiblical criteria.

Boy, the fellowship in that church is really poor, they would argue. But then when you begin to inquire, what do you understand to be fellowship, you find out they are clueless as to what the

Bible says about fellowship. They believe that fellowship exists where it does not or they may believe it does not exist when it may very well be present.

Thirdly, I suspect that many Christians when faced with the decision to align with church, they do so based upon their perceptions about fellowship, perhaps more than any other factor.

But because so many do not necessarily understand what biblical fellowship is and therefore do not discern when it is present or absent, they make determinations about their chosen church home based on factors other than biblical criteria.

I think this happens all the time. Some mistakenly believe they are experiencing biblical fellowship when they enjoy the company of other

Christians with whom they have common interests or likes or dislikes, which, however, are not central to biblical fellowship.

Biblical fellowship is not based on what we have in common, say as families or as Americans, or the shared interests and hobbies that we might mutually enjoy.

Biblical fellowship is not based on what we have experienced together, say over the years as church members.

In other words, simply because some folks have grown up together in the same church and have served the Lord with one another shoulder to shoulder over the years, that does not necessarily mean that you have enjoyed rich fellowship with them.

Nor is biblical fellowship based on common interests of those of the same age group. I cannot have fellowship there because there is nobody my age.

They do not understand what fellowship is. A true

Christian who is thinking rightly who might be 22 years old ought to have rich fellowship with a lady in the

Lord who is 82 years old, if they are thinking rightly about fellowship. And if you reduce that,

I cannot have fellowship unless I have somebody in my age group who has the same kind of life experience that I have, so I am going to go somewhere where I can experience that.

It just reveals their ignorance and their error regarding biblical fellowship. And yet this is common.

And so you should not assess fellowship based on whether or not other people have the same age, same sex, same social standing, such as being single or married, or education level.

For if they do not perceive they have something in common with others, they wrongly think they are not capable of having fellowship in that church.

And so oftentimes Christians make assertions about fellowship. They choose to associate or disassociate with others based on these kinds of things that are not biblical, and they are actually worldly in nature.

They think they are spiritual in acting and making decisions in this way, but it is not biblical.

Some view fellowship as participation and involvement in denominational sponsored organization activities.

Or again, some think fellowship is when we have activities together with people of my group, my school, my college.

Some Christians think that they can only have fellowship with those who have the same convictions about certain Christian matters, say homeschooling.

Anybody who does not homeschool, you are on the outside. I can only have fellowship with those who homeschool like we homeschool.

Some believe they only can have true fellowship with those who have, say, the same view of eschatology with one another.

So if you do not agree with them about end -time doctrine, you are on the outside. Those who do not belong to my group or embrace my understanding of this particular teaching are not capable of having fellowship with us.

And this is a common outlook or attitude that people have. I suspect that others believe they are experiencing true fellowship when they are among others who have the same love for a particular form of liturgy, perhaps have a common preference of a particular style of worship music.

We can really have fellowship because we love the same kind of Christian music. Scriptures do not speak of fellowship in that way.

Some believe that biblical fellowship is present whenever there is a light, happy, carefree spirit present among professing believers as they gather for some

Christian function of some kind, and they enjoy themselves, and they are happy together, and they think that is fellowship.

All of these things, I would assert, are not what constitutes ground for true biblical fellowship. But because of these things, true biblical fellowship is often obscured and forfeited.

And so, what then is true biblical fellowship? It is not that difficult. True biblical fellowship exists when there is a mutual shared appreciation and application of the truth among a gathering of Christians, those who enjoy a mutual relationship with one another to God the

Father through Jesus Christ. That is a common thing that we have, a common life with one another.

And we are able to enjoy that with one another. Fellowship, koinonia, the Greek word. And so fellowship is present when there is a sharing and enjoying the common spiritual life we have with one another.

And so it may be elementary to say, therefore, that true fellowship may only be experienced and enjoyed by people who have a common belief and common experience of life from God through Jesus Christ.

And I would argue that this is another argument for a regenerate church membership. How can you have fellowship with those that have not been born again?

There is our Baptist polity. We believe a church should only admit to membership those that have experienced new life in Christ.

And they demonstrate that in what they say, what they believe, and how they live. And they join with us because we believe the same things, have the same desires, and this is what we aspire to and resolve to do with one another.

A common life in Christ. Those who are born again are quite different from the unregenerate.

These two groups have little in common, those who are saved and those who are not. Only those who have new life in Christ are able to have true fellowship with God and one another.

Those who have not experienced new life in the Lord Jesus cannot enter into that shared experience.

More specifically, what is fellowship? Well, now let us turn to 1 John 1, and we see it set forth before us in this chapter quite clearly what biblical fellowship is.

The Greek word for the English word fellowship is koinonia, and that word can be translated as fellowship, sometimes communion.

The word conveys a thought of sharing or mutual exchange or joint participation.

And the word koinonia or fellowship is used four times in 1 John 1. It is used twice in chapter 3, once in each of verses 6 and 7.

I want to read this chapter, it is not that long. John the apostle was writing,

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled concerning the word of life.

He is talking about Jesus. That life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and declare to you that eternal life which was with the

Father and was manifested to us. That which we have seen and heard we declare to you that you also may have fellowship with us.

And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another.

And the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

That is all of the first chapter of 1 John. In verse 3 we read about fellowship.

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you that you also may have fellowship with us.

That is other Christians. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

And then again, verses 6 and 7, if we say we have fellowship with Him, that would be with God and walk in darkness.

We are just deceiving ourselves. However, if we walk in the light as He is in the light, in other words, if we are ordering our life according to God's truth,

God's word, then we have fellowship with one another. And what is meant by that is not one another, you and me together, but one another, us and God.

If we walk in the light as God is in the light, we have fellowship with God. We have fellowship with one another.

And so based on these words, we can make an assertion about what biblical fellowship is. Fellowship is present among Christians when there is a sense of shared knowledge about Jesus Christ, which has led them, or us, to have assurance of a relationship with the

Father, and when they are delighting in and receiving comfort from that relationship.

That is what biblical fellowship is. It is not that complicated, is it?

But sometimes it is elusive. What must be present then if fellowship is to be present or experienced?

First, there must be a declaration of truth about the person and work of Jesus Christ. Specifically, the truth must be declared how sinners are reconciled to God the

Father through Jesus Christ. That must be present or you cannot have fellowship. Secondarily, there must be a work of the

Holy Spirit performed so that the hearers of the truth are or have been brought to know experientially the joy and comfort that they personally have a part in the salvation that Jesus Christ has secured.

He is not just the Savior, He is my Savior, and God has validated that to my soul.

And then thirdly, there must be a mutual commitment on the part of the believers to live in obedience to the truth of God that they are hearing and affirming.

And when those three elements are present, you have biblical fellowship present.

This is why a stranger who knows the Lord can come into our midst off the streets, never seen us before, but because he is meeting with us and he hears and understands the truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ that we are proclaiming and affirming among one another, he can enjoy true fellowship with us, even now, presently, though he has never been among us before.

Because fellowship involves an experience of the common life that we have together in Jesus Christ. And other ones who have experienced that common life resonate with us in that, don't they?

And we with them. There is just a resonating of life with that person because we have this common life together.

And so since biblical fellowship is set forth in 1 John and elsewhere, do you see how shallow and empty all other substitutes or grounds of fellowship other than the truth of God and Jesus Christ really is?

If we do see fellowship based on matters other than an awareness of our relationship with the

Father through Jesus Christ, we should recognize those things for what they are. They are secondary. Secondary matters that really have the ability if we allow them to mar and destroy fellowship rather than enhance or produce it.

And we all have interests, other spiritual interests, and other issues in life, too, that we may mutually enjoy.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Even what may be non -churchy things, you know, maybe some common interests in sports or hobbies or work or that kind of thing, and those ought to be enjoyed.

But let's not say that that's fellowship. Because fellowship, biblically defined, is more narrow than that.

Okay, then, when is fellowship experienced? Well, biblical fellowship is experienced when the gathered people of God are put in remembrance of the common relationship that they enjoy with God the

Father through Jesus Christ. Fellowship is enhanced, therefore, through the reading of the

Word, through the teaching and preaching of the Word of God, singing the Word of God, speaking to one another about our common life with God the

Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. And I hope this afternoon, say, at the church picnic, that we experience true fellowship with one another as we're talking about the things of Christ among us.

We'll conclude this matter by considering Galatians 3 .26. Paul wrote, You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, if you are all one in Christ Jesus.

You are all one in Christ Jesus. This is the basis of fellowship. You're all one in Christ.

It's a shared life. And we enjoy that with one another. The first question and answer of the

Westminster Catechism, what is the chief end of man? The end to enjoy him forever?

Fellowship, or communion with God, is the chief means of fulfilling this end.

It was for this purpose that God created man in his image, that he and we might know one another and that he might be glorified in our mutual enjoyment of him as we respond to him in our love to him, our trust in him, our joy of him, and our honoring him.

Really, the goal of salvation is our fellowship with God. And we might add with one another.

Salvation brings about a restoration of fellowship between God and man, a fellowship that was broken through man's sin in the

Garden of Eden. And so let's aspire and experience true fellowship among us by talking it up about Jesus Christ and about what we enjoy in him.

It's really not that difficult, is it? And yet we can be so easily distracted. Well, let's move on now in our study of the local church.

We've got still quite a bit of time, thank the Lord. We've underscored the biblical teaching a local church should be comprised of regenerate people only, that is, those who have been born again by the

Holy Spirit, who have repented of sin, who have embraced and submitted to Jesus Christ as their

King, their Lord, and their Savior. But we've also shown that this understanding of the local church is not held and taught by many, even many among our

Reformed friends. But we would argue that the practice of infant baptism that is practiced by our

Reformed friends really renders a local church impossible to maintain and promote a regenerate church membership.

We believe the Bible teaches that you should only baptize disciples of Jesus Christ. Those who believe on Jesus, who have turned from their sin, are committed to live for the

Lord Jesus among the Lord's people according to the will of God. Only they should be baptized.

And what we're arguing is that the practice of infant or child baptism before conversion mitigates against a church being comprised of born -again people only.

And this is a problem, because in time it results in a church really incapable of experiencing the fellowship that we've been describing thus far.

Because you have a mixed people, those who are truly regenerate, know the

Lord, and those who are not. But they came into membership of the church as infants when they were baptized, and they were affirmed and declared to be members of the church from infancy.

Yes, they qualify that and say they were not communicant members, but they still declare them to be members of the church, and they grow up in the church, oftentimes go through confirmation, and become involved in the church and the leadership of the church, and yet have never undergone the experience of the new birth.

They haven't been born again. And so I thought it would be good for us to lay out a case against paedo -baptism, that is, paedo -baptist belief and practice.

Paedo is just a Greek word for child, child baptism, infant baptism. And so again, and what's foundational here, we have asserted very strongly that a

New Testament local church should only admit into its membership those persons who have given evidence that they have received new life in Jesus Christ.

But as stated last week, this has only been the practice historically of Baptist churches, or Baptistic churches.

Most Protestant churches will say that they examine adults as to their true conversion.

Those who are not raised in church, they make sure that they are converted before they are accepted as members. However, if those adults were raised in churches, having been baptized as infants, those people are regarded and treated as Christians, even though they may only be nominal

Christians. In other words, Christians in name only. It is in this way that their church is to be comprised of both regenerate and unregenerate people.

There is a noted Reformed man, perhaps the foremost Reformed man in the country today, who declared that his church would accept any

Trinitarian baptism of infants, no matter what denomination.

That is legitimate baptism, and he accepts them as members into his church. He is Presbyterian. And Alistair Begg, who was with him on the same speaking platform, was appalled.

Alistair Begg being a Reformed Baptist, of course, it shook him to the core. How could you possibly believe that?

It's because they don't have an understanding of the local church like we are espousing. They don't believe a local church should be comprised of regenerate people only.

They define the church differently. Here in lies the problem. Non -Baptistic

Protestant churches believe that church membership should be extended to believers as well as to their children.

And there is the problem. If your dad is a

Christian and you are a child, you too are qualified to become a member of the church.

Many churches baptize their children in infancy, which they regard as entrance into church membership.

Some declare wrongly that these children are regenerated or born again through their infant baptism. We talked about that last week.

Some denominations, like the Church of England, Episcopalians, even Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics certainly do teach their babies are born again through baptism.

Others, however, like our Presbyterian friends, Congregational friends, would not claim that infant baptism confers salvation, but they do believe that the baptism of the child of a believing parent signifies a special relationship that that child has with God due to the relationship that child's parent has with God.

In other words, the children of believers are to be regarded as members of the church also if I baptize them, have them baptized as babies.

And although these churches will have that child when older go through a process of catechizing and confirmation, nevertheless these children of believers are regarded as members of the church and also citizens of the

Kingdom of God, which is a mystery to me. And they argue the reason is because either one or both of their parents are

Christians. Here's the statement which most Protestant non -baptistic churches believe to be biblical teaching.

And this is from the wonderful Westminster Confession of Faith. The Visible Church, it's a

Presbyterian document principally, the Visible Church, in other words the local church, which is also

Catholic or universal under the Gospel, not confined to one nation as under the law, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion.

I will say amen to that. And then I put in italic, and their children. There's the rub.

And is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, you see, the house and family of God out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

The Lord Jesus said you can't even enter, you can't even see the Kingdom of God unless you're born again. But amazingly these people say these children who are baptized because they're dead and their mom is a believer, they're in the

Kingdom of God. I just find that amazing. Amazing statement. And so with this doctrine of the church, the local church, the practice of baptizing children because of their parents' faith results in the local church becoming a mixed group of converted and unconverted members.

A paedo -baptist church is one generation away from total apostasy. Children are born and raised in these churches.

The children are baptized in infancy. They are told they are covenant children, that they stand in a special relationship with God because of their parents' faith.

Often these children grow up being taught and catechized in the faith. Their lives are characterized by a measure of morality due to the influence of godly parents.

And many may continue in the church. Some may go to Christian college. Others may attend seminary because they aspire to the ministry.

They're ordained and they're called, say, to be a pastor of a church, even though they may have never experienced a life -changing renewal of the

Holy Spirit in regeneration. And although these children of believers may claim that they, too, believe and they may resolve to order their lives according to the

Word of God, they don't have a heart to do so, for they remain in an unconverted state.

And please don't misunderstand. Some of these children, maybe even many of these children who are baptized as infants and raised in a godly home, do become genuinely converted and stay in the church.

Thank God for them. And they grow to be wonderful Christians in their families and churches. But many others, because they are unregenerate

Christians in obedience to the Lord, they're like the unregenerate Israelites who, after hearing the law of God rehearsed before them at Mount Sinai, said to God that they would keep

His law. And forty years later, after the wilderness wandering, God said of them, you know, even after they declared, all that you have revealed to us on that mountain, we will do,

God declared to them in verse 20, they had such a heart in them that they would fear

Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever. They didn't have a heart.

It was just an external religion. And there are many that grow up in the church, baptized as infants, and they have an external conformity to much of what the

Scriptures say. But there's no real heart in them to love God and love His Word, and to love righteousness and hate sin.

And these churches are corrupted because of it. Now, I might interject this at this moment, or at this time.

Pado -Baptist churches here in America, Reformed Baptist Churches, Covenant Pado -Baptist churches in America may not see the full manifestation of this, because we live in a land of the free, where people voluntarily go to church.

But you go to a country where you have a state church, and everybody is baptized as babies.

They're all members of the church, but nobody goes to the church. Two or three percent in Germany attend church on any given

Sunday, but they're mostly all are baptized as infants into the church, because they have this view of the local church.

Believers are to be admitted as members, but also they're children. It's a real problem.

Under the New Covenant that God has brought to His people through Jesus Christ, He's given everyone in His covenant a heart to know

Him and keep His law. Every one of them. Now, again, the

Pado -Baptist church would say these children of believing parents are their covenant children.

They're in covenant relationship with God. But the Bible says that the New Covenant, those in the

New Covenant, every one of them has a new heart given to them by God. Not just some of them, but every one of them.

And yet our Pado -Baptist friends declare the children of believing parents are covenant children. And there's no biblical basis for that whatsoever.

Ezekiel 36 declares or describes the New Covenant that Jesus Christ brought to us. God declared,

I'll give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. I'll take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

I'll put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will keep my judgments and do them.

That's with everyone in the New Covenant. It is wrong to declare an infant or child of a believing parent that he or she is in a covenant relationship with God when he has not experienced the new birth.

This corruption of the local church through the practice of infested in church history over the past 1 ,500 years.

It wasn't long after Christianity became a state religion in the Roman Empire in the fourth century that all children in the empire were required to be baptized.

And most parents desired to have their children baptized for they were taught by that time that baptism washed away sins.

And so there were some that held off baptism until the end of their life. They were right to the last moment because they thought that baptism would therefore wash away all the sins of their lifetime.

But parents would oftentimes want their newborn babies to be baptized because they thought that this washed away the problem of original sin and they were brought into a state of salvation.

But what happens again is that the professing church, the local church becomes infused with these people who have never experienced salvation.

And so down through history you've had entire nations become Christian. Germany with Lutheranism, Switzerland or Geneva with the

Calvinistic theology, practicing paedo -baptisms, Zwingli in Zurich, John Knox in Scotland, Church of Scotland, the

Church of England in England, and then here in America and here in Massachusetts you had congregationalists who escaped

England for the purpose of gaining religious freedom but when they got over here and established themselves they required every infant to be baptized and they required by law every citizen attend their church every week and every citizen pay a 10 % tithe to support the established clergy.

They did not believe the local church should be comprised of regenerate people only. And when the

Great Awakening came along with George Whitefield who was a great man, Church of England guy, and the

Westleys as well, what they did is basically awakened all these church members, these nominal

Christians to what true life in Jesus was. And they revealed to these church members that they were in reality lost in their sin because they had not experienced the new birth.

And so what happens is that the local church becomes corrupted and the doctrine becomes diluted and then there is no true fellowship or agreement among the people of that local church because there is not a common life among them.

And so these churches are beset with problems and defiance and ignorance and rebellion because there is just an inability and a refusal to submit to the word of God, to the law of God.

Well why is it that our Paedo -Baptist friends practice infant baptism? And again, those who espouse it and practice it, they are a who's who of Reformed theology.

They are my heroes. They are my instructors. And yet they advocate baptizing infants.

We would argue of course that this was a practice that gradually came into the churches and then became the universal practice through Roman Catholicism and through the

Dark Ages. And that when the Reformation took place, everybody practiced infant baptism and most of the earlier

Protestant Reformers rather than reforming and embracing baptism by immersion of disciples only, they sought to justify infant baptism and they did so by linking it with their understanding of Old Testament circumcision of male children as we will describe.

And so I want to lay out the reasons why they argue for infant baptism and I also want to reveal in the time we have remaining why their arguments are not biblical.

So how would you respond to a Paedo -Baptist friend?

And I say that with sincerity. Well first we would reason historically

Paedo -Baptism was not practiced widely until the 3rd century. That's historically accurate.

Calvin himself acknowledged that baptism by immersion was the practice of the early church.

Baptism by sprinkling didn't begin to take place until toward the end of the 2nd century. And infant baptism, child baptism, really the earliest written direct account was by Tertullian toward the end of the 2nd century.

And one Tertullian scholar wrote, Tertullian provides the first certain literary reference to infant baptism and that was because he opposed the practice.

He wasn't in agreement with it. He differed from it. That was Tertullian at the end of the 2nd century, around 200

AD. Secondly we would argue there is no direct command in the

New Testament for the church or parents to baptize the children of believers. All the commands to baptize in the

New Testament are to baptize only those who commit themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ.

Consider our Lord's great commission. Jesus came and spoke to them saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.

Go therefore make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them. The Lord did not say baptize disciples and their children but he did command to baptize disciples.

Only a child who is old enough to commit himself to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, only that child should be baptized.

Paedo -Baptists argue there is no command in the New Testament to baptize infants because the practice was so common and accepted it wasn't necessary to be emphasized.

In other words, we would argue show us in the New Testament where it commands to baptize your children and we'll do it and they say it's not necessary to show you that.

It's not dealt with, it's not commanded because everybody did it and it was just accepted. In other words they make an argument from silence and this is a false argument of course.

You can infuse all kinds of things that are not written as an argument. It's a logical fallacy.

One response to this claim is that in many places of the New Testament the matter of circumcision arose a matter of debate.

In other words, how do you answer someone who argues it was accepted practice and that's why it's nowhere commanded in the

New Testament, they all did it. We would respond there are many places in the New Testament where circumcision is addressed.

It was a problem because you had Judaizers that wanted to circumcise Gentiles and telling them it was necessary to salvation.

If in addressing this problem of circumcision why didn't any of the writers say baptism replaces circumcision?

They didn't. The practice is not mentioned in the

New Testament because it wasn't practiced in the early churches. Paedo -Baptism arose later due to the false teaching that baptism itself washed away sins.

Thirdly, there is no record in the New Testament of any young children of believers being baptized by the church.

Again our Paedo -Baptist friends argue otherwise. Counts of households being baptized in the book of Acts would have included the infant and small children of those families.

It doesn't say that but they argue that this substantiates their practice. But there's no place in the

Bible in which there is a command instruction or example of children being baptized. To argue that children of believers should be baptized because of the reference to household baptism in Acts is an argument from silence itself, again a logical fallacy.

There's no clear example in scripture of infants of Christians being baptized.

And we can take each of those examples, Cornelius' household, Lydia's household, the Philippian jailer's household.

None of them, it would appear, had babies, infants, that were baptized. They all believed,

Cornelius' household, they all had the Holy Spirit fall upon them and therefore they were all baptized, is what

Peter argued. Fourthly, the scriptures teach that everyone, again in the

New Covenant, is regenerated. We mentioned this earlier. Paedo -Baptists argue, however, that even children of believing parents who are unregenerate are within the covenant community or family and therefore they should be baptized.

Receiving baptism is a sign and seal of that relationship. Again, they refer to their children as covenant children.

But with the institution of the New Covenant by Christ Jesus, there is no covenant relationship with God possible to those apart from Christ.

Children of believing parents cannot be regarded by the church as in covenant relationship with God until and unless they are in Christ through the regeneration manifested in their repentance and faith.

And Hebrews 8 argues that. Everyone knows the Lord who is in the New Covenant.

But they argue otherwise. Every New Covenant Christian knows the

Lord. Every New Covenant Christian has his sins forgiven. Our Paedo -Baptist friends argue that their children are covenant children.

I was in a meeting last year and their prayer time came about and one man who is a pastor stood up and prayed for so and so.

He is 57 years old and he has been out of the church since he was a child. But he is a covenant child as though that brought some kind of special position or blessing to him.

Fifty -seven years old, living as an unbeliever and infidel throughout his life, yet he is a covenant child. Pray for him.

As though somehow they are in a privileged position and that God is going to have more favor upon them because their dad was a believer.

The Bible does not teach that. Oh yeah, there are blessings and privileges for children of Christians. There are blessings and privileges of a non -Christian being married to a

Christian also. Namely, it would seem that God withholds his judgment and his wrath from that unbelieving spouse or those unbelieving children because of the adverse effects it would have on that child of God who is related to them, tied into them in their family,

I believe. But we would challenge our

Paedo -Baptist friends who argue these children are in covenant relationship with God. The Bible tells us you are either an

Adam or in Christ. There is no in -between. And you are not in Christ until you are born again and you come to faith in Jesus Christ.

How can you call that child who is unregenerate, they would argue they are unregenerate, but because their dad is a believer, their mother is a believer, that is a covenant child.

Are you saying they are no longer in Adam? They would not say that.

And yet there is somehow there is this twilight zone in between. This is not biblical.

You are either in Adam or in Christ. And a child of a son or daughter of Christian parents is in Adam until they are born again.

Fifth, we are running short on time. Paedo -Baptists argue from Acts 2 .38 and 39 that the promise of God's salvation extends to believers and their children.

We read that. Peter said, repent. They said, what should we do? Peter said, repent. Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promises to you and to your children. And it is as though they put a period there.

And they say, see the promise of God was at Abraham and his children. And that carries over to the New Testament. The promise of God is to believers and their children too.

Same principle, same idea. But they leave off the rest of the sentence, which qualifies who the children are.

To all who are far off, that would be Gentile lands, and as many as the Lord our God will call.

And so those who, they do not quote the whole verse, which qualifies which children are included.

They tend to stop by quoting the first part of the verse, for the promises to you and to your children.

They wrongly conclude, therefore, that the promise of God's salvation is to all children of believing parents.

But they leave off the words that qualify the children to be baptized, as many as the Lord our

God will call. God's promise is not to all children of believers, but rather to all effectually called children of believers.

And yet they use this to argue for infant baptism. The bottom line is this.

Baptism is to be extended to Christians only. Ones who have repented of sin put their faith in Jesus as Lord.

6. Pado -Baptists wrongly identify New Testament baptism with Old Testament circumcision.

This really warrants an entire message, but we don't have time. But I do want to get through this this morning before we close, please.

There is no place in the Bible that declares that New Testament baptism is equivalent to Old Testament circumcision, or the replacement thereof.

There is one passage that treats the two subjects in the same context. We addressed it not long ago in our study of Colossians 2 .11

and following. In Christ, in him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.

So there you see circumcision, baptism within the same context. 7. In which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who was raised from the dead.

And you who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses by cancelling the record of death that stood against us with its legal demands.

And so our Pado -Baptist friends say this teaches that baptism is the replacement for circumcision.

But this passage teaches no such thing. Here the circumcision without hands is a reference to the new birth.

It is our regeneration, not baptism. We were delivered from our former way of living for sin by our regeneration.

And so we were spiritually circumcised rather than physically circumcised. In the

Old Testament, God had given physical circumcision to Abraham in order to bring his people into a physical, earthly covenant relationship with himself.

They entered into that covenant through physical birth and physical circumcision. Even Ishmael was circumcised, wasn't he?

They were promised earthly blessings, including numerous offspring, physical health and wealth, a long -blessed life in a land that God had promised

Abraham and his descendants. Their responsibility in keeping covenant with God was to have faith in him as their

God. And later, God declared to his people that their faith was to be manifest in their obedience to his law that he gave them through Moses.

But in contrast to that, the physical circumcision that God commanded them as a sign of their covenant, although it distinguished them as God's people from all others in the world, was not a life -changing experience.

Ishmael wasn't transformed by circumcision, was he? Rather, that physical circumcision served to foreshadow the need for a spiritual circumcision of the heart, which is regeneration, or what the

New Testament refers to as the new birth, or a circumcision made without hands.

And then seventh and last, and this is perhaps one of the most important matters.

Pado -Baptists fail to distinguish God's promises to Abraham's physical offspring with God's promises to Abraham's spiritual offspring.

They confuse this. Here is the heart of the error of Pado -Baptist covenant theology.

Pado -Baptists believe the covenant God made with Abraham is the same covenant that God makes with believers in Jesus Christ in the

New Testament. And they would cite Paul's statement in Galatians to argue their point. Abraham, the covenant with Abraham, was the same as the covenant that God made with us in Christ.

Paul reasoned, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say to seeds, as of many, but of one, and to your seed, who is

Christ. And this I say, that the law, that is the Mosaic covenant, which is four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before God in Christ.

Notice the covenant God made with Abraham in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer promised, but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

And so, here clearly the Apostle speaks of the Abrahamic covenant as the same as the

New Covenant that we enjoy in Jesus Christ. What Pado -Baptists do, however, is reason that just as Abraham's physical descendants were in the

Abrahamic covenant, and the male children were circumcised as a sign of their inclusion into that covenant, so now the physical children of believers are to be baptized to show that they too are in covenant with God in Jesus Christ.

And so they argue that just as all of Abraham's male descendants were circumcised, even though only some of them would be saved, so all children of believers, whether or not they will become