Believer's Baptism (Part 2)

Welcome to Have You Not Read and the Purpose of the Podcast

Welcome to Have You Not Read, a podcast seeking to answer questions from the text of Scripture for the honor of Christ and the edification of the Saints. Before we dig into our topic, we humbly ask you to rate, review, and share the.

Podcast. Thank you. Welcome back to You May Have Not Read. With me is Michael Deere and Andrew Hudson. And I'm Dylan Hamilton. We have Andrew with his book Believers Baptism and he's going to start off with a chapter that is.

Particularly dense, right? That's true. This chapter represents probably, it is the largest chapter of the book. So this is chapter number four, Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants by Stephen Willem.

Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, and Biblical Covenants

Where we left off last time was in Baptism in the Epistles, and I think one of the last things that we talked about was how this Baptism in the Epistles was not a third-party, hopeful, this-might-stick type of Baptism.

It was a Baptism performed by disciples upon disciples who were hope-filled themselves by the Spirit. So going into this fourth chapter, you're immediately confronted with old, or is he talking about, so between the Relationship Between the Covenants, is he talking about old versus new?

And the answer to that is yes. However, in Covenantal Theology, you have another type of categorical distinction. It's really a theological category. You will not find the wording listed in Scripture as in the Covenant of Works opposed to a Covenant of Grace.

That doesn't mean that there are things that we believe and have a name for it that are not, you know, necessarily derived from the teaching of the Scripture. One of those would be the word Trinity. I think that's a classic example.

But what is the difference between the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace? Michael, could you help us to understand that? Right, so these are sometimes referred to as theological covenants, meaning that these are terms that you would find in a systematic theology.

And the ideas that these terms express are biblical ideas observed from a variety of different passages, and they're put together in a certain way to provide something of a hermeneutic, a way of reading the Bible.

So Covenant of Works pertains to the arrangement God had with Adam and Eve in the garden when he made all things very good and gave them instructions to live by. Somebody who holds to the Covenant of Works would find in this original state of man a live expression of God's eternal moral law, later on expressed as the Ten Commandments.

And they would see Adam and Eve abiding by these Ten Commandments, abiding by God's eternal moral law in the garden, and that he's called them to live in righteousness so as to maintain all manner of blessings and bounty that he has set before them.

And then readers of Scripture notice that even after Adam and Eve sinned and their lives are filled with separation from each other and from God and so on, sin brings death, right? Nonetheless, God mercifully spares their lives and gives them coverings, animal skins for coverings, and begins to deal with them in merciful and gracious ways.

And so the interpreter will then say, well, we've moved now from the Covenant of Works where Adam failed, and now we're in the Covenant of Grace where we have the promise from Genesis 3 .15 about the seed of the woman, the second Adam, the last Adam to come, who will be the Redeemer.

So the promise, right. And the intervening period, a period of forbearance. Yes, and so the Covenant of Grace, they would say, pertains to everything, you know, past the fall all the way through all the different covenants.

So if you're reading about the covenant of Noah with Noah, or the covenant with Abraham, or with Israel, or with David, or the New Covenant in Christ, any one of those covenants which we would call biblical covenants, meaning that you find those covenants expressed in passages in the Bible, those would all be subsumed under the theological term, the Covenant of Grace.

Okay, so you're using that theological term, or the proponents of this are using that theological term to draw a circle around these biblically derived covenants. Yeah, and they'd say that each one of those biblically expressed covenants is an expression of the Covenant of Grace in a variety of ways.

Some of them, it kind of in the shadow, and of course the New Covenant being, you know, the Covenant of Grace in, you know, in its high noon, full majesty. Okay, now a lot is said about the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants.

Old Covenant and New Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity

Is that expressed in Old versus New, or how is that expressed in Covenant of Works versus Covenant of Grace, as far as there's a lot going on in these two differing types of terms here. Yes, so that's a good observation.

So when we think about continuity versus discontinuity, this is usually a question not between Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, which are theological terms, but between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, or the First Covenant and the Second Covenant as Hebrews expresses it.

And depending on your reading of the text, many would say that the Old Covenant prefers only to the covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and that there is a clear discontinuity between that covenant and the New Covenant, in that Christ is fulfilling the sacrificial laws and so on and so forth, and you see a real big change with Christ as our High Priest, as Hebrews talks about it.

Others would see the covenants that God made with Noah and Abraham and Moses and David, all as expressions of that Old Covenant, that they are sometimes referred to in the New Testament as the covenants, plural.

Sometimes they're referred to as the Old Covenant. Sometimes in the contrast that Paul will make between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, he'll talk about the Old Covenant in terms of circumcision, or he'll talk about it in terms of sacrifices.

So it depends on who you're reading, but the main question about continuity-discontinuity is, how much has changed? And if so, what? Sure, so what of the old is of the old, and what of the new is new?

Yes, how big of a change are we talking? Okay. And so those on the far end of discontinuity say, well, you know, everything's changed and there's not much relating the two. And then somebody on the other side is saying, well, it's not really an Old Covenant and a New Covenant, it's simply an older administration and a newer administration of the same covenant of grace.

So you can kind of hear how they're maximizing continuity. They're not saying that nothing has changed, but they're trying to maximize the continuity. I think one way that I found helpful to talk about this, John Reisinger was famous for saying that there is perfect continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

And what is he referring to there? He's talking about promise and fulfillment. Perfect harmony, perfect agreement. And then he says, there's perfect discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

So he's playing with those terms, Testament, right, in the Bible, and covenant, which of course are talked about in the Bible. But what he's trying to point out there is, in the promise and fulfillment, there's perfect harmony, but a lot of things have changed.

So that's what folks are trying to figure out, and it pertains, therefore, to the question about baptism. Right, that's the reason why, I believe, Stephen Whelan introduced to the readers these concepts initially, is because these concepts have implications if you affirm or deny covenantal theology.

Yes. If you affirm covenantal theology, it leads to things like, specifically, the question that was asked that led us down this, is the implication is that household members of the newer administration of the Covenant of Grace would receive a sign that they are under that covenant.

Just like in previous covenants, there was a sign or a seal of members of that covenant. Why is that such a big deal to understanding how that inference from Covenant of Grace and works leading toward household infant baptism, without the testimony of faith, how does that come into biblical category for someone who's reading the New Testament and they see all of what's happening in the book of Acts, that people are being born again, and yet there are plausibly members of a household that are not of believing age.

Yeah, so I think one of the main concerns for somebody who ascribes to baptizing infants, a pedobaptist who is trying to work out consistently their covenantal theology, is that in the Old Covenant, even the children were part of the covenant, and it was the responsibility of the parents to see that the male infants were circumcised and therefore taking upon the sign of the covenant, and that their daughters would marry those who were circumcised and not be given away to foreigners outside the covenant.

So the covenant that you're referring to right now is the Abrahamic covenant, as we see in like in Genesis 17, you're talking about circumcising members of the household. Yes, and then it's important I think to see how the covenant God makes with Israel at Sinai builds very strongly upon the matrix that he laid out with Abraham, so that the two are very difficult to separate one from the other, especially when you begin to read the instructions that God gives to Moses and all the Israelites about circumcision given in the Sinaitic covenant.

And so there was great concern that they circumcised their children as God commanded them, and this was very very important. So the concern is that when you come to the New Covenant, we instinctively know as Christians, that the New Covenant is bigger, better, brighter.

And so the argument very often comes down to simply this, well if the Old Covenant is lesser and the New Covenant is greater, then it doesn't make sense to eliminate the children from the covenant, because that wouldn't be going to the greater, that would be making the New Covenant the lesser.

Exactly. And that is very often a concern for those who are trying to be consistent with their covenant theology. Another reason is that given the importance of circumcising children and coming into the New Covenant passages that talk about the promise of forgiveness, the promise of salvation, the promise of the New Covenant is for you and for your children as we read in Acts and so forth, they would see that there's no instructions that they can find that says, oh and by the way, even though you have heard it said of old, circumcise your children, but I say to you, don't baptize your children until they profess faith.

And they don't see any of that argument, sure, specifically. So after reading this section, in fact, the covenantal theologians or those who advocate for paedobaptism would definitely say they would need a scriptural prohibition from doing so because of the necessary implication or that which was derived from the reading of the scriptures.

Yeah, the idea is that the early church being made up of so many Jews right there at the very beginning, that they wouldn't have any other thought other than the fact that their children would be right in the New Covenant with them just as it was in the old.

And so that is an argument for continuity, saying, you know, this is just going to be a one-to-one connection. I would say that there are passages in the New Testament that direct the believers' expectations, even as Jews, away from such an idea, even back as far as John the Baptist's preaching and say, you know, don't say to me that you're Abraham's children.

God can raise up children from these stones. So there's a systematic downplaying of the genealogical aspect. Physical lineage. Yes, in the preaching of the New Covenant. Okay, now I'm gonna go ahead and read from Jeremiah 31.

So I'm gonna begin in verse 31. Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers and the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

My covenant, which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my people.

No more shall every man teach his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.

Jeremiah 31 and the New Covenant Promise

Is that of the same type of character that we see with those who are of that covenant that they would, from the least to the greatest, know them? Is that consistent with a continuity of the covenant of grace or a discontinuous idea from an older to a newer administration?

Yeah, so what's the big difference, right? Right. What's the big change? And so when God says he's gonna make a new covenant, the way that he emphasizes the difference is that it's not going to be like when he brought him up, brought them up out of Egypt and forged this covenant with them at Mount Sinai, says there's gonna be a new thing.

Before, it was required that all of Israel be faithful and compel one another to fear God, to know God and to fear him, because the covenant blessings and cursings God promised were dependent upon Israel as a whole.

How well did they keep covenant or how much did they break covenant? Later on, the performance of the nation was consolidated into the consideration of one, the king. When God made his covenant with David, he began to talk about the promises to David's son, his heirs, and he talked about the king the way he used to talk about the whole nation, and it was all gonna be riding on him.

And so in this case, God says in the new covenant, now all of them, from the least to the greatest is a way of talking about all of them, all of them are forgiven of their iniquities, all of them are forgiven of their sins, all of them know God because his word, his law, his instruction that the wise man meditates on day and night so that he flourishes as a tree, you know, not like dead chaff, but he's really, really genuinely alive because the word is in his heart.

That's going to be characterizing all those who are in this new covenant, and that makes a big difference. In the old covenant, you can have all sorts of members of the old covenant who were not born again, regenerate, alive from the inside out, who knew the Lord.

You certainly had some of those. You certainly did, and God's grace was operative there, the Holy Spirit was active there. However, the difference in the new covenant is every single last one of them, from the least to the greatest, are going to be completely his.

And so those who baptize infants would say that there is a difference between being a child of the covenant and someone who has had their sins forgiven, a saved child of God, but this reading of the text doesn't support that.

Right, so there's not a category given in this passage or in the passage, this is quoted in full as the longest Old Testament quotation in the New Testament. It's quoted in full in the book of Hebrews, and we are not given a category anywhere that says you can be a member of the new covenant and have yet to have your sins forgiven, yet to have your heart renewed, yet to know the Lord.

There's no category of an unregenerate new covenant member that we can find. Well then what about the passages in Hebrews chapter 6, warning those against apostasy? Now I would, if I were to say, to take up the other side of this argument, I would say, well this is obviously pointing me towards people who are part of the community that lacked faith or went back on their faith.

Hebrews 6, Apostasy, and the Warning Passages

Yep, there's a couple of ways that people have thought about this chapter, Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 and so on, and one of the ways is that the warnings themselves are a means of grace for the perseverance of the saints.

This is not talking about the genuine possibility, but this is a warning to the saints that actually ensures their perseverance. A surprising number of interpreters throughout church history have taken it that way.

I also think it's compelling when reading Hebrews 6, the terms being used. So when we read in Hebrews chapter 6 and verse 4, it says,. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, you see that term enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to an open shame.

Now when we read that, first of all, some of those terms, like well that's, these are descriptions of Christians. Now they can certainly be used to describe Christians, but these are not terms that are exclusive to Christians.

In other words, people can have positive spiritual experiences being around the saints who are filled with the Spirit and see the realities of the New Covenant and Christ's kingdom, and have, in other words, have their socks blessed and yet at some point walk away as the seed that was sown on shallow soil, or the seed sown in thorny soil, as Christ once told us.

Now why is it that if they fall away, it's impossible to renew them again to repentance? Well again, think of the context, the writing to the Hebrews. So what he's warning his audience, he's warning them from going back to the Old Covenant.

Consider the superiority of Christ in the New Covenant. Don't go back to the Old Covenant. If you do, what's going on in verse 6? He says, if they fall away, meaning if they go back to the Old Covenant, who are actively rejecting, what are they doing?

They're joining, they are giving an amen to those who crucified the Son of God and put him to an open shame. They crucify again for themselves, meaning calling him a liar. Yeah, in themselves and of themselves, they give a hearty amen to all of those who said crucify him.

Yeah. So what Savior do they have if they reject Christ? Well there's only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Now as we keep on reading though, we read the following, for the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated receives blessing from God, but if it bears thorns and briars it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

So there's two different types of soil. Now we've heard that before in a parable somewhere. Okay, but verse 9 says this, but beloved we are confident of better things concerning you, yes things that accompany salvation though we speak in this manner.

In other words, the stuff that he's just talked about, he is confident of things far better than those things concerning those to whom he's writing, things that actually accompany salvation. So in other words, here's the case of people who have tasted this and tasted that and experienced this and yet return and end up giving the Amen to the crucifixion of Jesus, but however we're confident of better things concerning you, things that actually accompany salvation.

To me that's more compelling reading of the text. I would say that if you hold to an idea of there being unregenerate members of a new covenant, then you would read this passage with that hermeneutic and it would fit nicely, but this passage doesn't actually teach that hermeneutic.

Right, it doesn't actually have to be imported into the reading of this, specifically this passage. And that's why they talk about how this baptism is not some type of magical, and I know we talked about it previously, it's not some type of magical wand, the waters didn't do something magical.

However, it's also not regenerative in and of itself and nor is it presumptively regenerate. And that's why, you know, this category of the covenant community really comes into play and that's where they see it in this text as well.

All right, so moving on from that, the blessings and cursing. So I think you could probably go to, what, Hebrews 10 for another warning. Yeah, Hebrews 10 verse 26. Yes. Then, for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

Blessings, Cursings, and Union with Christ

So in that context, the blessings and cursings that are part of a covenant, is this a demonstration of what would be consistent with the cursings of the New Testament? Well, I think when God spoke to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12, he said that those who bless him and his seed will be blessed, those who curse him will be cursed.

And Paul in Galatians says the promises were to Abraham and to his seed who is Christ. We find that to be true in the New Testament, that those who are in Christ are blessed, those who bless Christ are blessed, and those who curse Christ are cursed.

We see that in spades in the New Testament. And in the blessings and cursings listed in terms of the covenant God made with Israel in Deuteronomy, right, and in Leviticus, God was saying that if Israel was faithful, a faithful son, they would be blessed.

If they were an unfaithful son, they would be cursed. Now when we come to the New Testament, everything that the New Testament says about Christ, the Old Testament said about Israel. So here is a faithful son who does everything the Father says for him to do, and he is greatly blessed, and so all who are in him.

Though he bears our curse, those for whom he dies, he bears their curse, and all those who remain outside of him, they are cursed by God. But what is the nature of that? It's blessing and then judgment or salvation and judgment.

Those who are outside of Christ, outside of the faithful son, who do not have his blessed merits speaking for them, obviously they're under the judgment of God. Those who are in Christ are blessed and receive all of the blessings that he earned by his own righteousness.

So the template that God put into place, the picture, the type that God put into place with Israel is fulfilled in Christ. So the question really just comes down to are you in Christ or are you out of Christ?

Okay, so moving into the in versus out, in Romans chapter 4, I'll start at verse 9, does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.

How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised or uncircumcised. Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised.

That he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised. That righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

So we have consistently maintained that this being part of, united to, in Christ is a matter of faith. Abraham was faithful. I'm gonna go back to this covenant with Abraham because it comes up so much.

He was faithful. He did as his faith led him. He believed God, right? But it also manifested in objective signs. Their circumcision was one of those signs that we see objectively, his faithfulness as he was commanded.

How does that relate to the New Covenant then? Is there no sign of the New Covenant? So when we see what happened with Abraham, he believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness as Genesis 15 6.

And then he was circumcised, well that's Genesis 17. So after he believed and was justified by faith, then this sign was given to him afterwards. And so we see that this clarifies that the promise, the eternal plan of God, that he would have been promising salvation from the days in the garden, that this promise of salvation that he kept on talking about in new ways, either to Noah or Abraham or Israel or David and so on, this promise of salvation to come that he gave to Abraham.

Abraham believed and thus he was justified by faith, not by works, not by taking a sign. And so when we come to the New Covenant, what relationship does this have to the New Covenant? Right. That is there no sign of the New Covenant?

Right. What about those who believe and are united to Christ by faith? By faith, just like Abraham. Exactly. So what is, well Abraham, when Abraham believed, I think some people will conflate the work of the Spirit.

When Abraham believed, did he believe of his own merits, his own accord, his own abilities? No. We understand biblically that the only people who believe are those who are given that by the Holy Spirit.

Their hearts are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So the regeneration of hearts is not the sign of the Holy Spirit, but the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant that we see in Acts chapter 2 moving forward.

The Spirit of God filled the tabernacle in the Old Testament. He filled the temple in the Old Testament. And occasionally we see the Spirit coming upon certain servants who were anointed for various special works, people like prophets and priests and kings.

But now Christ as Messiah, who was prophet, priest, and king, has sent forth his Holy Spirit to indwell, to fill all of the members of the New Covenant who are now called the temple, the living stones of the temple.

And this is why the Spirit's indwelling is the sign of the New Covenant. Well the Spirit himself, he's called a sign, he's called a seal. He's the sign of the new covenant when the Holy Spirit comes. That's what Peter said to the critics on the day of Pentecost.

You know, you think these guys are drunk. No, actually this is what Joel prophesied about the New Covenant, that the Spirit would show up in this way and he has. So that that would be like the visible people of God, those that were demonstrably born again.

Yes. So well, born again, again, so Jesus says to Nicodemus, you must be born again. And then he uses language from Ezekiel and so on. And he's like, you're the teacher of Israel, you don't know this.

You know, this is how you see the kingdom of God, is that you have to be born again. And the fact of the matter is, that was true, the need to be born again was true, whether you're in the Old Covenant or in the New.

That's the same. I mean Moses talked about, you know, what you all need is have your heart circumcised. You know, the problem is that internally you're wrong. You know, you're not right with God on the inside.

And we have lots of language like that in the Old Testament. The difference in the New Covenant is that now the Holy Spirit actually indwells the people of God, which is what Jeremiah was talking about.

Now, not only all the members of the Covenant now are born again, that's a change, that all members are born again, not just some. But that even this, that you have the law of God, the instructions of God, God Himself having His words written on your heart so that you know God directly.

You're not being told to know God. How is this? This is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. How did Jesus talk about the ministry of the Holy Spirit as another comforter who would bring to mind all the things that I have taught you?

You don't need a teacher, you have an anointing which is from God. These are the expressions that we have about the Holy Spirit which makes a vast difference between the new and the old. And this is the sign that accompanies the New Covenant.

Why Baptismal Debate Is Really About Hermeneutics

So why are these distinctions such a big deal between Baptists, Credo Baptists, and Paedo Baptists? Is there really something that separates the two as to why does this even matter? Why do we keep asking this question about is Paedo Baptism correct?

Is it biblical or is it Credo Baptism? Who has the right answer here? Yeah, and it's not really about how much we love our children, you know, and it's not really about how serious we take church. You know, sometimes the conversation is going to go that direction.

It's not about how serious we take ordinances or sacraments, you know, how we talk about those. It's not really about those topics. It's really about hermeneutics. It's about the way we interpret the Bible.

How do we understand the story? How do we see that story progress? What changes have come about because of the life, death, and resurrection, and ascension of Jesus? That's why there are these differences.

So if we have, for instance, it makes a big difference if you have a framework given to you by a treasured confession such as the Westminster or even the 1689 Second Lenten Baptist Confession. If you're given a framework of covenantal theology and then you begin to read your Bible with that framework in your mind, then you're going to say, ah, this is how it all fits together, right?

And we all need to recognize that we come to the Bible with some kind of hermeneutics, some sort of connective matrix in our mind about how this all fits together. None of us come like with a blank slate when we do that.

So we just have to recognize that the differences are hermeneutical. And so if I come expecting to find there to be a covenant of works and a covenant of grace and an overarching covenant of redemption, then I'll find it because I know it's there.

You see what I mean? Yeah. Or if I come to the text and say, I'm going to find a progression of covenants from the Garden all the way through Christ, as Stephen Wellam does in his many works, you're definitely going to be seeing that.

The question is, which hermeneutic can be best supported by the scriptures themselves? And so we have to always call into question our creeds and confessions and see whether or not they're being consistent.

So I guess in the final estimation of all things, I think we would both agree, the covenantal theologians and non. Michael, who does need to submit to the gospel? Well, everybody. What is it that they need to submit to?

Jesus said, if anybody wants to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. And so that means everything. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me, Paul says. So the person in the work of Christ must be all-encompassing.

You know, I'm still me when God saves me, but it's not me anymore. That's the language of the Bible. It's something of a mystery, but it's true that I'm still who God made me to be. But in Christ, his glory eclipses everything else.

So I'm to be entirely about him. So everything has to be submitted to him because of who he is in all of his glory, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, as my righteousness before God, my only reason why I am a child of God through his adoption, because of his satisfying the wrath of God upon the cross, propitiating the wrath of God, and then expiating my guilt, taking my guilt away into his tomb, into his death as far as the east is from the west, and his resurrection from the dead, so that I may have eternal life with him ever eternally at the right hand of the Father interceding on my behalf, and coming again to raise the dead and set all things right.

So because of who he is, everything about me has to be submitted to him. Thank you for that, Michael. I'm gonna wrap it up there and just, and the reason why I was introduced to this book, it really had to do with, is this biblical baptism?

Is is credo baptism biblical? And I came away, I'm a little bit of a spoiler, I know we're not through with the book, but I came away reading this with a reminder that all things need to be submitted, and that I need to come to the text willing to submit, and to follow Christ wherever he goes.

So I thank my dear elder who recommended this book for me, to me, to help me with that, and it's been very enlightening using this book as a jumping-off point to get involved into the text of Scripture on specific topic like baptism.

So I'm also very grateful for the opportunity to answer the baptism question whenever it comes to credo versus pedo. So just wanted to say.

That before we wrap this up. A couple of clarifying questions from someone who hasn't read the book, and both of you have. In light of this book, Believer's Baptism, I don't think it's gonna hurt us to say it over and over since we're recommending it.

In light of Believer's Baptism, you have a child who professes belief. How would you explain the importance and meaning of baptism? Having gone through this book, has it colored it differently now for you, or is it is it the same?

Have you landed in the same area, or would you explain it a different.

Way to them now? You know, maybe it has, and in just telling them the truth of the good news of the gospel, the kingdom, if they believe, and I really don't know a reason to withhold baptism from them because of this book.

I'm convinced that I can't know if someone is truly elect, and I'll put those in air quotes, I know you can't see, but I can be faithful. I can be faithful to the Word. I can be faithful to Christ to tell the truth about who Christ is and what he's done, and it's a work of the Spirit after it.