Covenant Theology pt3- Laborers' Podcast

Cling to the cross then put both arms around it hold to the crucified and never let him go. Come afresh to the cross at this moment and rest there now and forever. Then with the power of God resting upon you go forth and preach the cross.

Welcome to Covenant Theology, Part Three

Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the laborers podcast. We are thankful that you are with us tonight. We are going to be discussing this is gonna be part three of Covenant theology looking at some of the different perspectives and the different outworkings of Covenant theology from those different perspectives.

Stick around. Welcome to the laborers podcast, which is a part of the truth in love Network. Join us as together. We strive to grow up together in all things into Christ. Subscribe and follow the truth in love Network on Facebook YouTube rumble Spotify and iTunes.

Now, let's join our laborers for tonight's broadcast.

Welcome back. The comment line is open. Let us know that you're watching. Ask a question and we'll try to answer it. Gentlemen, how are you doing? Doing good. Blessing. Highly favorite. I am so glad to be back with all of you tonight.

Let's jump into the conversation. I'm thankful for those who were able to fill in for me while I was not able to be here. I'm thankful for your faithfulness and your service to the Lord and to your commitment to the Laborers podcast and through the love Network.

I love and appreciate you guys so Covenant the ology Presbyterian Reformed Baptist New Covenant theology I Know not everybody is represented here. So we don't want to Misrepresent but we can represent for the best of our ability and we can yet Share share our views and what knowledge we have the of these different applications and outworkings of covenant theology.

Differing Views on Baptism and Covenant Theology

So I think we're on question number six a really big one when it comes to covenant theology. Let let me read the question and then you guys can jump in and and don't be afraid if Not everybody's represented here.

So if you want to you guys want to chime in and kind of fill in the gaps and the blanks for those other Perspectives, please do so. So question six is what are the differing views on baptism and its connection to covenant theology and Presbyterian Reformed Baptist and New Covenant theology who's going first?

How do you want to start with that one since you're kind of the lone wolf here?

Sure, okay, I will preface this by saying that I am definitely not the expert on Pedo baptism. I'm I'm not a confrontational type. I'm not much of an apologist for infant baptism and the like but I will I will do my best and The bare-bones.

I think of the difference between What we call credo baptism and pedo baptism when we get into the covenants and all that. Because we are coming from very similar places. We're talking about the Covenant of Grace.

We're talking about the faithfulness of God. Now we have a lot of the same starting points then where the bulk of the difference comes in is With the relationship between the family in the Old Covenant versus the New Covenant.

Because Isaac was circumcised as As an infant and that was a sign of God's Covenants part of part of a sign. Then that was a sign of part of what was going on with God's Covenant with Abraham. That it was that his faithfulness was being sustained through generations.

Even though Isaac did not make a profession of faith when he was a baby. He was counted as being under that covenantal Blessing if you will. And where I would I would be really careful about saying in the Covenant versus under the Covenant, but that's that's just me.

But with the New Covenant where we differ is on whether or not that idea Continues that those blessings are sustained through families so with a more Presbyterian background they do contend for Baptism as the Covenant sign of the New Covenant being administered to the infants of believers.

Not indicating that they are saved. But that they are being brought up in a home that is under the covenant that they are in a Christian home that has The gospel in it and that the promises of God in some sense benefit them in the hopes that someday God will call them to himself.

Yeah, if I could chime in just on the tail end of that I'll kind of I'll play the Presbyterian for tonight. The understanding that God's Covenant is not It's not individualistic right in the Old Testament God never made covenants with one man alone.

But his that man's children an entire household, so we're talking wives. Slaves were all understood to be party to that covenant if God if when God came to Abraham He didn't. Abraham didn't circumcise himself, but he circumcised every male in his household and that that was the Default understanding from the beginning of God's explicit Covenant dealings with men and and The Presbyterian viewer or the kind of broader Pato Baptist view.

Would be that that understanding is continued in the New Covenant. Is that fair to say Tyler? I.

Would think so. I think that was probably more eloquent than what I had stated. But yeah, no you did fine.

You did fine. I just wanted to I just wanted to make that that one point explicit.

Let me apologize to you Tyler. I know we talked about this before we went on and it slipped my mind to put you in front and center. When you had the mic there, let me ask you and you know.

I'm not gonna be mad about you putting not putting me in the spotlight.

Let me ask you this question, um. So I kind of see the Presbyterians on one end of the spectrum. Maybe New Covenant theology on the other end and Reform Baptist may be more in the middle. And it do you think the difference is the The the Presbyterian see more of a continuity between old and new where the new New Covenant theology sees less continuity between the old and the new and that's why they.

They lean more towards Pato baptism. I.

Think that might be fair kind of like the phases of the moon. I think one way of looking at it might be just how much of the moon is covered because you've got the dark side and the light side and. So I think with a more traditional Presbyterian view of the Covenants.

There's a bit more overlap. Like something closer. I wouldn't say a full moon, but maybe like a three-quarters. Because there are things that are done. I would say in Presbyterian Covenant theology, they were not still stoning people.

So there there is a component to where things did end. But there's a certain degree of overlap and how much overlap depends on these different views, I think. Yeah, I think.

It's really about continuity versus discontinuity, right. Covenant theology everybody agrees, right. Whether New Covenant theology reform Baptist Presbyterian, whatever it might be. We all agree. There's a certain amount of discontinuity and a certain amount of continuity between the Old Covenant in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The debate really isn't. Is there continuity discontinuity. We would all agree there is the different the debate is on how much of it there is. I Personally kind of fall into like this weird. Mostly reformed Baptist, but I'm somewhere between the reformed Baptist and Presbyterian believe it or not.

Isn't every reformed Baptist somewhere between the Baptist and the Presbyterian?

Well, I said between a reformed Baptist and a Presbyterian. Because while I don't believe that the children of believers are in the New Covenant, whereas a Presbyterian would say they are They are in the New Covenant.

Therefore, that's why they they baptize them. They put the sign of the Covenant on those their infants be there in the New Covenant. I Don't believe that but I would at children of believers do partake of certain Advantages blessings if you will for the sake of their parents, so when you read in Acts 2 239 the promises to you and to your children.

I You know Presbyterians point to that one a lot. That's strange. I thought I heard him.

My hearing a printer or something. Yeah, you heard something. Go ahead.

While while Presbyterians They would point to that text and acts. I think it's acts 239 X 238 238 excuse me where it says repentant be baptized and The promises to you and to your children as many as the Lord will call all those who are far off.

Might be misquoting it, but you kind of get the idea. They would say so you see the promises to us and to our children. Therefore just as we are in the covenant so too Charlotte. So our children be in the covenant, too.

I would say well the prom It continues right like as many as the Lord will call to himself. As many as he will call right or as many as far off are far off, excuse me. So I have no problem with reading that and saying that doesn't automatically mean that children are in the covenant.

But I would say there is something to be said about the fact that the promise is to us and to our children. Right, so I would say That when Ordinarily right not in every circumstance and I'm not gonna go into This too much because I know it's derails from the conversation.

But what I would say is that ordinarily when parents are faithful The Lord works on their children's hearts so that they would be saved not in not without exception. Not in every circumstance. But I think that there is a covenant blessing of faithfulness and a covenant curse of unfaithfulness so if if a Parent if I as a parent never teach my children to gospel if I never teach them the Word of God.

If I never am faithful to God in those things then it's more likely that my children will not be saved. From a human standpoint obviously, you know. But with the exception being big John here everybody else here is Calvinistic and so we agree that The Lord will save whom he will right but I would say that because God works through ordinary means.

And one of the promises of the new covenant is the promises to you and to your children as many as the Lord will call to himself. So on and so forth. I do believe that through our faithfulness ordinarily The Lord will save chill Children of believers not in every circumstance not in every period of time even I would say we live in a particularly dark time right now with the Forces of Satan if you will are really working towards taking away the children from from believers.

But I would say I think this also Steeps a little bit into my eschatology. And so that's a later question. So yes, so I'm gonna hold off on that for now. But all of this to say that there is some Blending of both sides, right?

Or even three sides. I think new covenant theology is something else entirely I think they would say there's even more discontinuity even though at the end of the day Reform Baptist and new covenant theology times probably would be Baptist as well.

So credo Baptist. But yeah, essentially that's that's really what it comes down to. Do we baptize our children or Do we just just as they were circumcised in the Old Testament? Or is there something different to this new covenant as a reformed Baptist?

I would say there is something different in this new covenant. It's that it's not the children according to the flesh. But children according to promise who are the sons of God who are the ones that are to be baptized to apply that to have Covenant sign applied to them.

So hopefully that I know I rambled but so I don't know much about the the topic.

But I so as I was listening to y 'all discuss it, I think. So I suppose that I would fall into the latter of them the new covenant theology, is that right brother Rob?

It's possible. Yeah depends on how you see things. So I.

Don't know that I see a discontinuity at all for starters the circumcision as Tyler was talking about Was something that separated Abraham and his children from the rest of the world it was something that was that made them that set them apart and I Guess made them they were signifying that they were followers of the one true God by adhering to this to the circumcision, but in a sense The the way it's why I treat it.

When you get to Genesis 12 3 and I'll bless those who bless you and the one who curses you I will curse. This is God talking to Abram and To all the families of the earth will be blessed now if if we're looking at it in a sense of what is the I suppose the The intent behind the the covenant that he's making.

Not only is Abraham and to his children to be blessed. But the whole earth is going to be blessed. And and and we would understand how the whole earth is to be blessed. And that's obviously because through the seed of Abraham is going to come the Savior of the world, right?

Don't come the Savior not a Savior. Let me go and get that right the Savior of the world the but then later on. During this Savior's ministry we hear a early testimony by a prophet in the wilderness who tells the children of Abraham.

You don't tell me that you have Abraham. To be the reason you're blessed God can raise up. These were children of Abraham out of these very rocks. So yeah, I think that if we're talking about what is the the real meat and taters of the of the covenant?

It's it's found solely in the personal work of Christ. And the intention of the Covenant was for to bring about the salvation of the world and and and doing so I think that the Reading the Old Testament With the understanding that comes from the Holy Spirit Living inside of us as we're reading the word is how we understand The intents and the and the purposes behind even the things that were given in the very earliest portions of Scripture.

And and and I haven't given zero time to think about it because I'm a terrible at planning for these things. I think about the wine skins in Mark 2 and 22 maybe if somebody's got that pulled up maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm right Jesus is referring to how the the old wine skins. Or for holding the old wine and people preferred the old wine. But you couldn't put new wine into the new and the old wine skins that would burst.

Just like you couldn't put an unshrunk garment on to an older Shrunken garment without the the tear being worse that you can't you can't mix the two because they're not Diametrically opposed to one another but because the hindrances of the older one can't be contained in the newer one right.

Is that I don't know if I got I don't know if I got ahead of the questions just so you know.

Big John, I think you're you're using argumentation. That sounds like It could be reformed Baptist Covenant theology or I. I don't want it's getting closer.

He's getting closer to 1689 federalism, but here's here's the thing.

I don't know and I want to be fair to somebody who might hold new covenant theology. Is there really a difference in how they understand who belongs in the new covenant? I think. Probably not. I think the reformed Baptist might be a little bit more comfortable with saying you know baptism replaces Circumcision, but it's not applied in the exact same way because the nature of the new covenant is different.

Whereas I think somebody from new covenant theology would say no, it's not just like it replaces circumcision. It's just something altogether different like there's no connection between the two.

And I would say you're right on that because it's if if I didn't use Baptist I didn't use baptism at all when I was explaining that so much as I was talking about The mark of circumcision being the thing that set apart the Israelites from everyone else.

Right in so much so that they called some the circumcision and those of non circumcision right or the uncircumcised. They referred to themselves in those terms to differentiate themselves from unbelievers throughout all of Scripture.

And Paul would tell us later on that the circumcision that mattered was of the heart in the first place. Right, right and and the outlets we would agree with that as reformed. Sure. So I in I don't see as where you can bring the concept of the circumcision in any way shape or form as being a Definitive grafting in of your children into the relationship you have with God this in the same way that I think I hear the Presbyterians speaking about it because according to Paul That outward that outward marking isn't What made any difference at all so much as it was the heart behind who done it the reason that you did it?

And if I were going to use baptisms. And I would never use baptism and circumcision as being anything that are analogous in one way or another to one another even though we do baptize people as an outward sign of An inward change is what it was.

I was raised to be taught. I don't know that I Don't know that somebody who saw you four days after you got baptized will be able to look at you and tell that you had Been baptized, but if you've been circumcised four days later, they could tell you I'm saying Yeah, I would say that a baptism and a public confession are eerily synonymous with one another whereas a Circumcision is far more than an outward sign of circumcision I think would be something more akin to live in a holy life a life that is according to Paul a living sacrifice and reasonable for service.

Yeah, I think I think that we've kind of been tiptoeing around the conversation on baptism. Only because we've been having an internet work discussion on baptism amongst brothers when it when it comes to the differences between Presbyterianism Anglicanism Reformed Baptist and and other perspectives.

Unfortunately, not all of us were are here tonight.

Yeah, they weren't able to be with us tonight and and but I think it's okay if we continue the conversation on that. Sure, I think it's important for us to. This type of conversation gets out different perspectives, you know, we're not we're not attacking one another.

No right, right, so we're just getting out the different perspectives and. Two of the one of the differences that that I see that I wanted to bring out was. From what I've gathered in our conversations that from the the Presbyterian view I know some of the language that was used earlier was that there's a.

They baptize their their infants their children because they're and that puts them in The New Covenant and therefore there's benefits that they receive from being in a new covenant. I think that they they would use the term there.

There's efficacy in baptism and. And that puts them in the New Covenant. And so they receive covenant blessings from being in the covenant whereas on the Baptist side we. Do not we do not baptize children or infants, but they receive benefits so.

Some Baptists do baptize children.

As long as they profess faith. Yeah, that would still be considered believers baptism, right? Yeah. Yeah, that would be yeah credo baptism. So credo baptism. Believers baptism and they would. Some Baptist do baptize children as long as they make a profession of faith.

But sure those who can't and I also say to they make a profession of faith, right? So the Presbyterian would use the word efficacy where the Baptist would use the word receive benefit, but they're not Receiving the benefits of New Covenant because they're in it.

They're receiving the benefits of New Covenant because their parents are in it because they're professed believers. And that's kind of a distinction that we've been having a conversation about.

Between the two perspectives and that's one nuance where I kind of Differ with the traditional Presbyterian view I'm Like Jays the the weird Baptist. I'm the weird Presbyterian Because I wouldn't say that they're in the Covenant and this is where Jay and I actually line up That I would say they're under the Covenant.

Because I would agree that they're under the Covenant. But I wouldn't say that's my two-month-old is in the Covenant in the sense because going back to you. Not all Israel is Israel. Not all of Abraham's descendants are his offspring.

That's what I keep getting that man. I think the the real difference is therefore so. Would you would you? Would you baptize your children because they are under the Covenant not necessarily in it?

Yes, but um, I'm not of the Baptismal efficacy vein. Okay, so if they felt that in their walk with Christ it was Beneficial to them to be baptized as a convert. I Say go for it.

Really that's interesting if I could jump in just for a second and ask just a clarifying question. Rob and Tyler and maybe Jay when you guys use the word efficacious What do you mean by that? What what how are you defining?

Efficacy, of course. So the idea with baptismal efficacy is essentially that there's something Something significant that happens at baptism. I think it's the Scots Confession that says that baptism is our in grafting into the body of Christ that they kind of tied it into membership not just into a local church, but into the Big C spiritual reality that is the church the church visible.

It's the church Visible but also invisible. I think with the Scots Confession that you're not just becoming part of our congregation. But this is your. This is your in grafting in to Christ. And so the idea with Baptismal efficacy is what we mean.

Is that there's some kind of spiritual Action that takes place when a person is baptized that is That is effective. To the point that oftentimes with Presbyterianism, they don't re-baptize. Because you were baptized the first time so that is efficacious.

That is that it accomplished What God set out to do?

Quote unquote. Sure. Yeah first time. Yeah. No, that's good. Joy. Go ahead. Oh, well, I was uh, I.

Was just gonna point out something that as we've talked and has become pretty Apparent whenever we start to talk about baptism and and the way that we view it through covenant theology and So that each person with when Tyler was open to or when Tyler was asked to kind of kind of kick it all off and then as it's flowed from Big John and from J is that we have seen repeatedly Talk about Abraham and the covenant with him that has to do with circumcision and so really whether people are Consistent or not in their in their covenant old theology, right a lot of times it won't Precisely matter like there are many a Baptist that just adhere to classic covenant theology.

But I believe just from previous conversations with with brother Tyler up here That you would hold more similar views to like what John Owen Congregationalism. Absolutely. Okay. Okay. Okay. I actually have the Savoy Declaration pulled up here and that is very very very similar to 1689 federalism like from the from the book where Nehemiah Cox and John Owen go through together.

And kind of lay out the different Separations of the covenants one under covenant of grace and one under covenant of works and How they chalk up the individual covenants. I think the only difference would be is That you would see the Mosaic Covenant as works, right?

Yes. Okay, but I do think that 1689 federalism. We would say that there was Part of the Abrahamic Covenant as well that is also a covenant of works and I think that is the two things that if you're boiling it down to you know, you're picking through through it with a fine-toothed comb is that you would see circumcision as a work not necessarily as as part of the you know, the the grace itself, right you would see that it implies you need to have a Circumcised heart right like you need to yes in body with you the picture of it.

Yeah.

Do you get what I'm saying? And well as with baptism, it's not the work that saves. But it's a picture of what God does what he has done in many of us. What he will continue to do in the future is a picture of God's faithfulness in Such a way that the the pain sign has been replaced with a washing sign.

Did that make sense?

Yeah, I think I don't want to jump ahead. But I think this really gets to. Because part of this is how we understand the Covenant, right? What what is the Covenant objectively? But we also have to ask what baptism is.

Is baptism like Big John Illustrated. Is baptism an outward confession of faith. Is it is it something that says it's a proclamation of our personal faith or is it something That God has given to his church.

Like Tyler kind of described that that does have a spiritual significance, right? It's not Regenerative but but there is something there and I I point this out fairly often, but the key to catechism. Along with the Westminster larger catechism both describe baptism as effectual means of salvation.

Which is why I asked for definition earlier. Because there's there's a bit of a spectrum but in this regard the the Reformed Baptist view traditionally and the West Westminster Ian view are aligned and that they both recognize that there is something significant and efficacious in the act of baptism whether that is to an infant or to somebody who has professed faith.

I.

Continue to want to make a distinction and and let me let me know guys If if you if you think I make it on the right track if you see this distinction. But I see it in the New Testament that there is the distinction there.

There's two different Baptisms described in the New Testament. There's a baptism of the Spirit and And There there's a spiritual baptism and then there's water baptism by immersion. Sure. I agree and Yet we consider ourselves to be of one baptism.

Mm-hmm, right. Right, and and I would say that refers to if you had two columns then you know You could put your different state like that would be me under spiritual baptism. That's in the spirit and Here here's a verse that I was looking at earlier 1st Corinthians chapter 12 verse Verse 13 for by one spirit, which is the Holy Spirit.

We were all baptized into one body. That's right that some I do not see water baptism being described there. And it says whether Jews or Greeks whether slaves are free we are made to drink of one Spirit so so we were baptized in the spirit.

We were baptized For by one spirit. We were baptized into one body so I Can't read water baptism into that that's something that I just can't do I Tell you why you can't do that because water baptism is the same thing That we refer to in the Lord's Supper or in the Church of God we would also include foot washing in this.

It was called a sacrament right and Sacraments are administered by by people. Salvation is wrought by the Lord and only by the Lord and can only be wrought by the Lord. So a baptism That we're talking about we're talking about water baptism is In is in memorandum is is an outward sign because you can't you can't Save anyone, right?

You can you can show everyone a body that you've been saved. You can tell everybody that you've been saved, but you can't save anybody and I know that there's a hang-up about this this one baptism thing in terms of like Tyler were saying that he would allow his son or daughter if they were baptized as a child to also be baptized upon or Accepting Christ.

So I would say amen to that, right? When you read in Hebrews chapter 6 Starting in 1 therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ. Let us press on to maturity. I Don't want to come off when I'm what I'm fixing to say is as being either condescending nor arrogant or any of the sort but I wanted to preface what I'm fixing to read by saying it appears that getting hung up on these things is a sign of some kind of immaturity if you'll look Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ elementary teaching about the Christ.

Let us press on to maturity. Not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God and of instruction about washings seeing zings plural, right we would at least in this version its plural and the laying on of hands and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment this would do if God permits then there's there's more scripture than that that that would can go with it, but as a Pentecostal believer if a man professes or woman professes faith in Christ Then it's it's normal and we would consider it obedient to be baptized baptized in the name of the Father Son the Holy Spirit and If that man were to later Backslide or prove that he wasn't saved whatever the case you want to use I'm not gonna get into an argument about about that on here, but for whatever reason should should be proven to be of The unsaved at another time and Would later profess his desire to be saved again and have a testimony that he was Either saved again or rededicated his life, then it would be asked of him to be baptized again.

That would be totally within actually, it's a hundred percent within the realms of what's expected and But but at the very least when I read Hebrews and it says ritual washings I've been baptized more than one time.

Having after having been saved. And if I were to ever Be fortunate enough to take a trip to Jordan. I've often said I'd probably be baptized again in the Jordan River. I've always thought that would be really neat but So I see that that sacraments Some sacraments people do every Sunday and then some sacraments people only do one time.

It seems Kind of uneven to some degree if you view baptism as being something that you do in response to salvation. To me if you don't if you view baptism to be something more Than an outward sign or something that you've done as in a response to having been saved.

Then to me you're saying that that baptism does something and if that baptism does something then you're saying that that baptism is somehow effective in working your salvation and not have a problem with that in terms of my understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let me jump in here because I have to say my friend. I do believe baptism does something but Number one it is not salvific and actually before I even get into that I want to clarify one thing in defense of the Presbyterians that are not here.

Okay, I don't think that. As far as I know I don't think any of the Presbyterians in our group would say that. They affirm baptismal regeneration.

Well, they are over this one. We went over this one time with brother Dan and brother Dan would say that the the baptism that one undergoes Either is Effective as a means of grace by God saving them after they were after they surrendered to Christ Or is a means by which they're condemned if they never do Similarly to the way Paul would describe the Lord's Supper in and Corinthians.

Okay, but as far as I know, he's never said like yes, I do believe in baptismal regeneration, correct.

Just not those words in that order. Okay. All right.

So we might be sometimes we mean certain things with the words that we use and we might Understand and mean two different things. That's possible as far as I know. As far as I know I could be wrong. But as far as I know, none of the guys that are pedo-baptists in our group Believe in baptismal regeneration again could be wrong, but I just want to clarify that.

Sure. Sure.

With I don't want to paint them in a bad light either. You don't I mean and if I've seen if I've been if I have a wrong idea.

Then I would prefer that you correct me publicly. Sure. No, I mean again, I don't know so I'm not going to Say definitely like no, you know, or yes, but I don't think so so with that said I Would say that baptism does something In the well, let me clarify baptism does nothing.

But God works through baptism. All right. Now when what I mean by that is for those who have faith, that's again I'm not speaking for everybody, but I do believe that baptism is a means of grace not in a salvific sense.

But in a sense in which God uses your baptism in order to strengthen your faith. So let me give you an example. Baptism we can all I think we can all agree is a symbol of our being born again. Yes, yes, we would all agree with that, okay.

So when we are in times of doubt Because it happens right we can all doubt, you know, my truly saved Christ really died for me. I think that the Lord can use the baptism that we had As a reminder that like hey.

You know look back to that baptism of yours. Remember that that commitment that you made to Christ because he drew you in you are saved. Right. I think the Holy Spirit can give that conviction. I do believe that because it is a means of grace God uses our the our baptism in order to to reassure us and strengthen our faith.

Just as he does with the Lord's Supper and isn't that and I know that there's different different Opinions on that and I also know that that doesn't necessarily have to do with covenant theology. But I didn't know that so there's that I mean it's it's tied to it, but it's not it's not directly about covenant theology, so.

So everything is tied to covenant theology, I mean that's fair so.

Like I said in fairness to at least let me know. Let me not even speak for Presbyterians in our group just Presbyterians in general. You go to the regular. You know average PCA attendant. I don't think most of them would say.

That they affirm baptismal regeneration. So just want to clarify that I think that it's just for them. It is a sign and seal of.

Someone's entering into the covenants. So let me let me bounce this off of you then and just give you a little kickback and more more than to be Argumentative I wanted to kind of hear your take on it.

So it's not uncommon in any Protestant denomination Baptist or Pentecostal Included in this to have an infant Dedication and one where we would brought We bring a child our children to church and stand before the church and say as a Christian man and as my Christian wife We're going to raise this child in the fear of the Lord.

We're going to teach this child the ways of the Lord all the days of our life and I'm going to expect that this church be the church to this child that this church be an extension of the family and And I expect whenever you see him or her get out of line that you in love would correct them and bring them back To me and things like that.

We would refer to that as an infant dedication to the Lord and Under no circumstances whatsoever would I ask that child when he was 12 or she was 12 years old if she remembered the time that she was or Give her or him the Bible that was that they were gifted that day and say see you were raised.