In his sermon titled 'Covenant Theology: Baptism in the New Testament,' Robert Bosley discusses the theological foundation of baptism as derived from the New Testament. He argues for believers' baptism (credo-baptism) based on the continuity and superiority of the New Covenant, which is made with those who have God's law written in their hearts. Bosley explores various New Testament texts, including the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, asserting that baptism is intended for disciples—those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ. He examines household baptisms in Acts, emphasizing that these passages do not support infant baptism (pedo-baptism) but rather show whole households coming to faith and being baptized. He addresses and refutes common arguments for infant baptism, including interpretations of 1 Corinthians 7:14. Bosley concludes by urging careful study of the scriptures and graciousness towards those who hold differing views on baptism.

Well, good afternoon church. As always, it's a delight to be before you. This afternoon we're going to be continuing and finishing the theological foundation study that we've been going through. Today's final session is going to be focused specifically on the issue of baptism and what the scriptures teach about baptism. If you would, take out your Bible and we're going to be looking at a lot of texts.

There are more than I have time to get to today. We're going to try and hit the highlights but we're going to begin in Matthew 28. So if you could open up your Bibles to Matthew 28. Like I said we're going to be finishing this series. The last session we talked about covenant theology and its relationship to baptism.

We made a positive case for a covenant theology that takes seriously what Scripture says both about the continuity of the covenant of grace across all of history but also the reality that the new covenant is a new and better covenant that in the new covenant The people of God the the the new covenant has a people that are, a people that all know the Lord. That the New Covenant is a covenant made with those who have the law of God written in their hearts and on their minds. We saw that the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant because unlike the old, the new is able to save and does save all of its members. It's an unbreakable covenant that perfectly saves those who are in that covenant. And so that being the case, we saw that believers, being the only members of the New Covenant, would be the ones who receive the sign of the New Covenant, that is, baptism.

So that was the covenantal case for believers' baptism, or credo-baptism. Now today, we're not going to be dealing so much with covenant theology as with what the scriptures themselves say about baptism. So we're gonna take a look through kind of a hit the high points of what the New Testament says about baptism because our covenant theology is a It it should be derived from scripture, but is largely a Logical system we're tying all of scripture together. We're putting these points of doctrine together, how they all interact. Your current theology is largely systematic.

You're coming to this system that should be derived from scripture. But now we're going to go even one step further and see what do the actual particular texts of scripture say about the nature and the recipients of baptism. Now obviously as I said I'm not gonna be able to hit every passage that deals with baptism there are far too many but hopefully we're going to hit the main ones, particularly those passages that are often used by our opponents, that are used by the Pato Baptists to support their view. And again, if you weren't here last week or these terms are new to you, Credo Baptism is believers baptism. It comes from the Latin word credo, I believe.

So it's a baptism of those who profess to believe. Pado-baptism is the opposite. It is a baptism of infants. And so we looked at last week how the covenants, the nature of the new covenant seems to necessitate credo baptism, the baptism of believers alone. And I just realized I did not pray when we started so let's let's pray and then we'll we'll turn to scripture Our father we come before you this afternoon and we are so thankful to again be in the in the Word of God God what a gift Your Word is to us.

We thank You for giving us the scriptures. We thank You, Lord, for this time that we can look into them and see wonderful things in Your law. I pray, God, that You would help us to understand it, that we would grow from what we read, and Lord, that you would help us to live in accordance with these words, the very words of life that you've given and preserved for us. In Christ's name, amen. Now when we come to the issue of baptism in the New Testament, most Pato Baptists will admit that there is no direct reference or command to baptize infants in the New Testament.

Lewis Berkoff, for instance, who is someone that we all should read, he's probably one of the most well-regarded and one of the most influential Reformed theologians in the last 150 years. He said, quote, There is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, and there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. Robert Raymond, another respected Presbyterian theologian and pastor said, quote, Reformed Pato Baptists must admit that nowhere in the New Testament can a direct command be found, baptize the infants and children of believing parents, and treat them as members of the Church. And Joel Beeke, who many of us know and love and listen to regularly, in his fourth volume of his Systematic Theology says, quote, it is indeed the case that no express command, command for or example of infant baptism is given in the scriptures. So most pedobaptists will freely admit this.

Now some will argue that the household baptisms in Acts are nonsensical if it doesn't include infant baptism. We'll look at that here in a minute. But these men that I quote that will affirm that there is no direct reference to infant baptism, they will then go on and argue appealing to the idea of good and necessary consequences that these verses we read of in the New Testament about baptism, the nature of baptism, particularly in line with their covenant theology, they will say that infant baptism is a necessary consequence of what Scripture says in light of our covenant theology. That's why when we talk about baptism, we don't begin with the verses about baptism. We begin with covenant theology.

That's why we did this the way that we did it, because as I said last week, we actually agree with the Presbyterians. You baptize members of the New Covenant. The question is, what's the nature of the New Covenant and who's a member of it? That's the problem. But we're going to go through these verses today and look at what the New Testament explicitly says about baptism, the nature of it, and who should receive the ordinance of baptism.

And as we go through these passages I want you to see if you can reconcile what they teach with the idea of what the Pato Baptists want us to believe. Remember what they are fundamentally saying is that you give the sign of the covenant to unbelievers. That is ultimately the position of infant baptism. You give the sign of the new covenant to unbelievers because we would all agree, well let's not say all, most of us would agree that children, infants do not have faith. Even 99% of Presbyterians, I would say, would agree that infant children don't have faith.

They're not being baptized because of their faith, they're being baptized because of the faith of their parents, supposedly. And so as we go through and we see what the New Testament says about the nature of baptism, see if you can reconcile these ideas with what scripture says with the idea of giving the sign to those that you know are unbelievers. And we'll begin with Matthew 28, the Great Commission. Matthew 28, 18 through 20, and Jesus came and spoke to them saying, all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Now the Great Commission, all of us should know it, we should make a great big deal about the Great Commission is the command to go and reach all the nations with the message of our Lord and our Savior.

This commission establishes the necessity of foreign missions. We are commanded to go and make disciples of the nations. But how do we make disciples? What does it mean to make disciples? Well the grammar here I think is very clear.

You make disciples by first baptizing them and then teaching them to obey Jesus in everything He has ever said to do. Now what is a disciple? The word that's translated as disciple literally means a student, one who is learning. It's the noun form of the verb to learn. And so a disciple is one who is learning from a master.

In this case it's a one who is learning to follow and obey Jesus Christ. Clearly this entails an intellectual and spiritual aspect of choosing to follow Jesus that an infant is not capable of. The Great Commission teaches us that we are to baptize disciples. You make disciples. Someone becomes a disciple, they're made into a disciple by first being baptized and then taught to obey Jesus.

And so we disciple, we make disciples by baptizing and necessarily a disciple because it's someone who is learning to follow, it's learning commands. This is someone who is clearly old enough and spiritually aware by God's grace to know that they need to follow Jesus. The fact that we baptize disciples itself is a indication, if nothing else, that Baptism is for believers, not infants. Another passage and we'll look at Galatians 3, 26-27. The Apostle Paul writes, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ he says that you are sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ as many of you as were baptized into Christ have been put have put on Christ what does it mean to be baptized into Christ now this passage is one of the one of the passages in scripture that clearly connects baptism with our identification with Christ and with faith We're baptized into Christ in that our baptism is an outward display of our unification with Him.

You're baptized into Him. It's not merely a reference of you're baptized in His name, but it's You're baptized into him. You are becoming a part of his body. You're becoming a part of who Christ is in the world now You're baptized into Christ In the sense that it is an outward display of our identification with him Now I believe that again, this is an outward display I don't think Paul is actually teaching here that your baptism is what puts you into Christ initially. I don't think he's teaching baptismal regeneration or that baptism is what actually forgives sins.

He isn't saying that baptism is what saves you or unites you to Christ initially. Rather, this seems to be a work reference to the ongoing work of obedience and sanctification. We are to put Christ on through baptism in the same sense in which Paul says in Romans 13 that we are to put on Christ continually in contrast to satisfying the desires of our sinful flesh. Putting on Christ is not simply a one time event, it is a life long event. And your baptism is one way in which you put on Christ because you are baptized into Christ and are identified with him.

But what does Paul tie all this together in verse 26? You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Paul grounds this identification union with Christ. He grounds it in faith. You are first a son through faith and that faith is then displayed in baptism where you are publicly putting on Christ and being identified with Him and being baptized into His name.

Another passage, we're going to go to the book of Acts. I know our elder is preaching through the book of Acts. We're going to start here in Acts chapter 2. We're going to look at a few other passages in Acts. I know that this is going to be a repeat in Acts 2.

It's going to be a repeat later on when we get to the other household baptisms in Acts 10 and 16 and 18. But I figured it's taken us a year to get to Acts 4. It'll be good to have a refresher in five years when we get to Acts 10. So, I love your turn. It's good.

Acts 2, 38-41, Then 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 promise is to you and to your children and to all who are afar 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. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized, and that day about 3,000 souls were added to them. Now the Pato Baptist will come to this passage and this verse almost invariably gets brought up when you discuss baptism.

The promise is to you and to your children as if that's the end of the sentence. It's not. Finish the sentence. To you and to your children and then to all who are far off That's not even the end of the sentence as many as the Lord our God will call To those who are far off that's the Gentiles To you and your children. He's speaking to Israelites The promise of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is for you and your children, Israel, and to all who are far off, the Gentiles.

This is not a promise that's now restricted just to you and your children as the Old Covenant was. It is now for all the nations. But even when it's been expanded, in a sense it's also restricted. It's limited. How is it limited?

As many as the Lord our God will call. The promise is for you and your children and all who are far off to those who God will call. That's who receives the promise. And remember, the promise is not covenant membership per se. It's not the covenant sign.

The promise is having your sins forgiven and receiving the gift of the Spirit. If you want to latch on to this and say, well, the promise is for you and your children, therefore it's children of believers, you have to think that infant baptism regenerates. It's inconsistent to think it's merely giving the sign of the covenant, if that's what you think this verse means. That's obviously not what the verse means. The promise is that anyone from anywhere, Israel or the nations, anyone whom the Lord has called to himself will receive the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And those who received his word were baptized. 3,000 souls. I've heard Presbyterians make a big deal about how many household baptisms there are in Acts, and there's about four, I think, off the top of my head. Well, we've got 3,000 credo-baptisms right here. We win.

But that's what we have. He tells them what the promise is. It's the forgiveness of sins, it's not the covenant sign, and those who receive the word are baptized. This is not a verse for Pato Baptist covenant theology and the inclusion of infants receiving the covenant sign. It simply isn't here.

Move on to Acts chapter 10. Now This is the first of the so-called household baptisms. The argument goes as this, that there are household baptisms in the book of Acts where the gospel is preached and upon the faith of the head of household, the whole household is baptized. That's the argument. And there are numerous issues with that.

First of all, none of these passages say that there are infants in the households. Now yes, it would be very common to have infants in households. Look around at our church. We have a lot of households here. A lot of us have infants.

But also consider how many households we have in this church that don't have infants. It's not wrong to point out that there's no mention of infants in these households. I've seen a meme shared regularly on social media in the baptism debate of, it's a picture of a wife and a husband and their dog and it's captioned, how Baptists view households or something to that effect. As if we're saying a household never includes infants. Obviously that's not what we're saying.

But we're saying that there's no explicit reference to infants here. You're reading it into the text that there are infants in these households. You can have a true household without infant children. And so this is one of the household baptisms. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word, and those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. And then they asked him to stay a few days. Now note what it actually says.

The spirit falls on all those who heard. Now the word that's translated here as heard has a wide, what's called the semantic domain, the range of meaning that a word can have. This one does have a fairly wide range. It can mean you simply hear something passively, That you had a noise or a voice or some sort of sound that was picked up by the ear and that's the extent of it. But it can also mean more than that.

Like when you ask your children, did you hear me? You're not asking if they merely heard a voice speaking. You're asking, did they understand and are they going to obey? This word here can have the same idea. And I think that's The idea of understanding and receiving is really what's communicated here because what happens?

The Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word. Is the Holy Spirit given to unbelievers? Does that happen? Does the Spirit fill unbelievers and cause them to speak in tongues in the New Covenant? We don't see that anywhere.

So it seems that the hearing here is best understood as those who not only heard it passively, but they heard it and they received it. They accepted it, they believed it. The Spirit doesn't fall on and work miracles through unbelievers, rather they heard, they listened, they received the word and so they were filled with the Spirit of God. And Peter asks, can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who've received the Holy Spirit? He doesn't say every...

I don't know how many of the house received the Spirit. It seems like it's everybody. But if it's all the household received the Spirit, all of them received the gospel, all of them heard it and they've believed it. And so he says, should not these who've received the Spirit, can anyone forbid them from being baptized? The answer is obviously no.

It's a rhetorical question to begin with. No, you don't forbid baptism to those who've received the Spirit. Who has received the Spirit? Believers. And so this household baptism is a believer's baptism because it seems that the whole house believed.

This pattern continues, Acts chapter 16, 16, 13 through 15. And on the Sabbath day we went out to the city to the riverside where prayer was customarily made and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul and when she and her household were baptized she begged us saying, if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord come to my house and stay.

And so she persuaded us. Now this is probably the most difficult one for the Credo Baptist position because there's not really much of a reference to her household other than the fact that her household was baptized. But there are a few interesting details here. Many commentators have pointed out that the circumstances regarding their meeting of Lydia and the baptism and where she is evangelized by the Apostle indicates that she was probably an unmarried woman. She's probably some sort of a traveling businesswoman.

She's a seller of purple, purple cloth, purple dye, something like that. And so she's a traveling merchant. That would be very uncommon for a married woman to do. So she's probably an unmarried woman. Possible that she has infants in her home, but unlikely.

Most likely what the the household she's in is these other women that she's meeting with by the river to pray. It would have been very common in the ancient Mediterranean culture that fellow business women, if they were single, would share a home together. They would be roommates as they do not have husbands or families. They would have in a sense a family of fellow associates in their business and that seems to be the case with Lydia. It specifically says that they went down to the riverside and spoke to the women who met there.

Most likely these are women that Lydia is roommates with, that she lives with. This would seem to be her household And it seems that it's there by that river that they are baptized so again, there's No mention of infants. There's no reference to a husband believing, the head of the family believing and children being baptized because of that. It seems that she believed and her household, whatever her household is, likely the women that she's meeting for prayer with at the river are those who hear the word and are baptized. A little bit further down in Acts chapter 16 beginning verse 29, the jailer, then he called for a light ran in and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas, and he brought them out and said, "'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So he said, "'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, "'and you will be saved, you and your household.' then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and all who were in his house and He took them the same hour that night and washed their stripes and immediately he and all his family were baptized Now when he had brought them into the house he set food before them and he rejoiced having believed in God with all his household.

I feel like I don't even need to comment. He rejoiced having believed in God with all his household. This household baptism is a baptism of believers. He believed with all his household. Now it is true, grammatically, with all his household could modify rejoiced instead of believed.

I don't think you'll find many translations that take that because it does seem most natural to translate as he believed with all his household But it could be modifying that he rejoiced with all his household having believed in God Even if we take that translation that doesn't make a difference How many unbelievers rejoice when someone is converted and baptized? I've yet to see it. How many infant children have rejoiced over basically anything because it's not really something that infants do. But how many infants rejoiced that someone was converted and had their sins forgiven? So even if you say the household rejoiced because of his faith and they're all baptized because he believed, they rejoiced.

I've yet to see an unbeliever rejoice when a sinner is saved. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. The obvious implication of what happened here is the word was preached to his whole family and they all believed. And when they believed, they were baptized.

Acts chapter 18, this is a household baptism that's very rarely brought up, we'll see why. Acts 18, beginning of verse 17, and he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justice, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized. This one's not brought up because it's obvious and unambiguous.

There is no debate about how to translate this. He believed in the Lord with all his household. They all believed. The whole household believed. So this household baptism is a baptism of an entire family that believed in the Lord.

The jailer is an entire household that believed and was baptized. Almost certainly with Cornelius, they all believe, they all receive the spirit, they all, there was this work of the miracle of speaking tongues, they all believe and they were baptized. That should be our guiding principle on how to understand the one that's most difficult with Lydia in the beginning of chapter 16. All these household baptisms are not the baptism of an infant or a family with infants on the basis of one person's faith. It is a baptism of the whole household because by God's grace the whole family repented and believed the gospel.

That's why the household baptisms are brought up and why there's not a ton of them but there's a few of them. I think it's their special attention called to them because it's an astonishing work of God's grace that He in His kindness converted whole families at one moment. That is what's significant about the household baptisms. God in his grace poured out an abundance of grace on these families and saved every member of the family and so they were all baptized. You cannot find a defense for infant baptism in the household baptisms.

I just simply don't see it. What's interesting about this infant baptism, or infant baptism, strike that one from the record. What's interesting about this household baptism is it's mentioned elsewhere. First Corinthians chapter one, 13 through 17. Paul rebuking the Corinthians for their schismatic tendencies and their splintering.

He says, is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other." We'll get to the rest of that in a second, but he notes that he had baptized Crispus and Gaius.

Who knows exactly who Gaius is in this context? Perhaps a member of Crispus's household. I don't know. But Paul mentions his own baptism, or he baptized Crispus. And in that, He mentions another household, the household of Stephanas.

I baptize the household of Stephanas, and he just kind of throws it out there and leaves it until the end of 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians chapter 16, beginning of verse 15. I urge you, brethren, you know the household of Stephanas that it is the first fruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints. That you also submit to such and to everyone who works and labors with us." This household of Stephanas, again, we're not given any information about who's in his household, but we are told about what the result of it is. This whole household is devoted to the ministry of the saints.

They are co-laborers with the Apostle Paul. They are considered the first fruits of this new region. It seems obvious that these are, this is a household of believers. They are devoted to the work of ministry. They are co-laborers with Paul.

They are first fruits of the gospel. How could you reconcile what it's saying about this household with the idea of giving the sign to unbelieving children. Then back to 1st Corinthians 1, I do want to make a quick note on this, for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. We have our debate with our Presbyterians and Congregationalists and Dutch Reformed brothers who hold to this form of paedobaptism based on covenant. This is, I think, probably one of the best arguments against those who would hold to some form of baptismal regeneration.

The Apostle Paul clearly says baptism is not the gospel. Baptism is not part of the gospel. I was sent to preach the gospel, not baptize. One can receive the gospel and believe without being baptized. That should not be normative but it is possible.

So he was sent to preach the gospel not to baptize. Time gets away very quickly. Quickly I want to consider 1 Corinthians chapter 7. First Corinthians chapter 7 is a passage that is brought up regularly in the discussion about infant baptism. Which is funny because it doesn't mention baptism and it doesn't mention the new covenant.

But it is one of the go-to passages that the pedobaptists will use to argue for their position. First Corinthians 7, I'll start at verse 10. To the married I give this command, not I, but the Lord. A wife must not separate from her husband, but if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband, and a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this, I, not the Lord, if a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him he must not divorce her.

And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases.

God has called you to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" The phrase in that middle paragraph is what is always brought up. Otherwise your children will be unclean, but now they are holy. Children are holy.

In what way? The argument from the Pato Baptist is, well, they are holy because this is pulling from language of the Old Covenant. They are covenant members. They're set apart. They're made holy.

Therefore, they receive the sign of the covenant. I get the argument, but the problem is that's not what Paul's talking about. The read, the whole chapter, the whole context is a believer remaining in the state in which he was in when he became a Christian. That's the context. And so I think there are two ways that we can understand this holiness or this sanctification.

And when you see sanctified, for example, the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife. The unbelieving wife is sanctified. Your children are now holy. Sanctified and holy sound very different in English. Actually the same word in Greek.

So when we're talking about the unbelieving wife is sanctified, the children are holy, we have to ask the question, well how, how is this, if the Pato Baptists are right and this is a sign of the covenant, then why don't you give it to an unbelieving spouse? Why don't you baptize an unbelieving wife? Or why don't you baptize an unbelieving husband because they are sanctified they are made holy in the same way so how are they made holy how are they sanctified I think there's two ways firstly again the context is a Christian ought to remain in the state in which he is in when he becomes a Christian. The moment you're converted you don't need to become a missionary. You don't need to become an elder when you as soon as you're converted or something like that.

No, stay in the situation you're in in your life and serve God there until he's clearly calls you elsewhere. That's the idea. And that also applies to marriage. Because think about what happened in the Old covenant. Pastor Scott preached through Ezra several years ago.

What happened at the end of Ezra? Ezra told the people to divorce their pagan spouses and to send them away with the children. The covenant community of the Old Testament was structured in such a way that the pagan wives and even the children from those unions were to be sent away as part of the re-sanctification of the land after the return. And the New Covenant scriptures come along and the gospel is going out to these nations and these people are reading the Old Testament and these Christians are, these people are becoming Christians and they're saying do I have to leave my wife and my children? Because I'm a Christian and my wife's refusing to believe.

I've become a Christian, my husband's not repented, do I have to divorce and leave him and my children? And the apostle Paul comes in and he's correcting that. No, the wife is sanctified, set apart. In one sense, she's set apart. The unbelieving wife, even though she's an unbeliever, she's still set apart from all the rest of humanity because your marriage is still legitimate.

Your marriage is no longer a breach of the covenant because it's a different covenant. Your marriage is real. It continues. It is not broken. You should continue.

If the unbeliever is willing to stay, let them stay. Same thing with the children. Your children are not illegitimate if The parent becomes a Christian and the children don't. No, they're still your children. They're still part of your home, your household, your family.

No, care for them, love them, preach the gospel to them. And that's the other sense in which an unbelieving family member is holy if part of the family becomes a Christian. They're holy in the sense that they're still set apart to you as your family. The gospel doesn't come along and destroy nature. The gospel doesn't come along and obliterate the ordinance of marriage, but the gospel also comes along and you are sanctifying your wife through your testimony.

You're sanctifying your unbelieving husband through your obedience to the commands of Jesus. The children are holy, not in the sense that they've been born again, or they're part of the covenant, but they're holy in that they are set apart in a unique situation where they're going to be under the influence of the Word of God. So yes, there is a sense in which the children of believers are holy. They're not pagans because they're not children of pagans. They're going to hear the Scriptures.

They're going to hear the gospel. They're in a different state, they've been set apart from the world in a way, they're in a different situation than the unbelieving family down the street. That's what he means by they're being sanctified and they are holy. They're not pagans, but they're also not Christians. They haven't been born again.

They're not necessarily converted and they're explicitly unbelieving, but they are in a house where they're going to be under the influence of the Word of God. So, 1 Corinthians 7, there's nothing here about children being members of the covenant. There's nothing here about giving the sign of the covenant to this unbelieving child. So what do we make of all this? I think the scriptures are very clear.

Baptism is for believers only. We baptize disciples and disciples alone, those who have committed to following the Lord. That is who should be baptized. And so as I said last week, if you have proclaimed that you are a follower of Jesus, you love the Lord and you want to obey Him, obey Him by being baptized. The command is very clear.

Be baptized and obey all that He's commanded you. Follow, you say you want to follow, follow Him in this outward step. Put on Christ by being baptized. Secondly, I want us to consider how this whole debate is really just a picture of how we ought to be careful with the Scriptures. You can make a very compelling case for infant baptism, but I don't believe it's a biblical case.

We must be careful with how we handle the Word of God. We must be very careful students of Scripture, not handling it in such a way where we can turn it into a wax figure that we can bend any direction we want. We say we believe in Sola Scriptura as a church, we must actually do it then. If we are going to say we believe in Sola Scriptura, we should regulate our beliefs and our practices as individuals and as a church by the Word of God. So be careful with the scriptures.

And thirdly, in all of this, I want to encourage all of us to be gracious with those who do not agree with us. Now over the years, this debate has in many times been minimized in recent history. We shouldn't minimize it. It's a serious disagreement. It's not a third level issue.

It's not what's called a tertiary issue. You can go to the same church with people that you debate eschatology with, for instance, or head coverings or things like that that are a a third level of disagreement you've got primary what's Essential if you disagree with this you're not a Christian And we have secondary agreements or disagreements where we may we're not going to be able to go to church together That's baptism You're probably not going to go to church, except in some circumstances, extenuating circumstances, with those who disagree with you on baptism. It separates denominations. It separates churches. So we shouldn't minimize it.

It is a real debate and it is a real difference. But at the same time, even though we won't go to church together, we will in the end go to heaven together. They are our brothers. So be gracious. Don't minimize it, but also don't make it a matter of heresy or something like that.

There was a time in which, you know, the Baptists would receive a third baptism. You know what the third baptism is? That's where they would dunk you underwater and keep you there because you believed in believers baptism. I'm glad we're past those days. But we don't minimize it.

It's a real debate, but we argue with our brothers not at sword point but over a cup of coffee. So be gracious with your brothers who believe in infant baptism. Love them because they are your brothers. Let's pray. Father, we thank you for your word.

Thank you, God, for this time we've been in the scriptures. And Lord, I pray that As we consider the importance of your covenant and the ordinance of baptism, God, I pray that you would work in the hearts of those who are here, especially those who do not yet know you. As they see people being baptized, as they hear of these things, that they would come to see their need not of baptism itself but their need of Christ and what baptism points to. God I pray as we continue to think through these things and and study your word that you would open up the truth to us and help us to see what you have commanded. Help us Lord to follow you wholeheartedly.

God give us grace to obey you not just in this command but in every command and Lord forgive us when we have not done so. And Lord, by your grace, I pray that you would go with us the rest of this week, help us, Lord, to walk in obedience to all that you've commanded until we come again next Lord's Day. Amen.