Sermon Tone Analysis

Now that we have a good, thorough understanding of our union with Christ Jesus from our study in Romans 6, I would like for a moment to pause our study in Romans on Godly Living to deal with some various issues this portion of scripture inevitably brings to the fore on account of the particular word the apostle Paul uses in these verses, particularly in Romans 6:3-4,

Indeed, there are many churches in history, and even today, which teach that this means water baptism.

Some even go so far as to suggest that it is this being baptised by an authority of the church which unites a person to Christ, and that without it there can be no salvation.

And although this thinking is demonstrably wrong, there is still something to be said for baptism here; that is, what we call believer’s baptism.

And I think it only right and appropriate that we address this ordinance of God at the present time.

And I will say at the outset, that this particular doctrine is indeed a subject of great controversy and confusion – there are many who differ on many points in this, some of whom I would not hesitate to call brother in Christ, but also those who I could not embrace in such a manner.

An Ordinance of God

First, let’s be very careful about our language.

We teach and affirm that this is first and foremost and ordinance of God, a clear and specific command given by our Lord Jesus Christ.

However, I am certain you have heard many people who will use the term “sacrament” instead of command.

And so we should understand that the origin of the word “sacrament” is not the same as an ordinance or command, and even of those who call it a sacrament mean the word in different ways.

But in all cases, the origin of the word goes back to ancient Roman religion and law, where the sacramentum was a thing pledged as a sacred bond, and forfeited if the oath were to be violated.

So, when two parties came to settle a legal matter before the judge, each would give a deposit of certain value to affirm they were acting in good faith, and when the decision was made the losing side lost that deposit either to the State or to the State’s religious authority.

But because Rome used sacramentum due to its use in pagan Roman religious rites as a translation for the Greek word μυστήριον, “a divine mystery or secret”.

Further, the Romans used the idea of sacramentum to describe the secret rites for initiation into their pagan religions.

It truly has been harmful, I believe, that this idea of sacramentum was used, as it later gave birth to many ideas not found in Scripture, something Rome has been more than willing at times to admit themselves, in that they hold that it is not

For example, the Roman Catholic church, states that their 7 sacraments (namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony), are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us”.

They believe that grace is contained within the elements of each sacrament, acting ex opere operato, by its own strength and being regardless of the personal quality of those who administer the rite, or of those who receive the rite.

If you recall, we discussed this some time ago regarding the Donatists.

And this is a position which we cannot agree upon, in light of Scripture.

Others say that a sacrament is a “holy sign and seal of the covenant of grace”, as the Westminster Confession puts it.

And to be clear, some who hold to this, I would not hesitate to call “brother”.

For even here, the Westminster Larger Catechism, in answering question 162, “What is a sacrament?”,

says this: “A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace...” So, although those who hold to that confession may call it a sacrament, they look at it in terms of an ordinance.

It is a shame that they did not change their language to match what they said they believe!

We, however, try to be very specific in what we say and what we believe, that baptism is an ordinance, a clear and specific command given by our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is clearly seen in

What He is giving is a command; not a suggestion, not a mystery or secret rite, nor is it a deposit, but a clear and certain command.

In this, there is a clear and definite responsibility and charge given to those who say they believe in Him, to those who are His disciples!

But let me also be clear about this, that although baptism is a command of our Lord, it does not add grace, it is not essential for salvation; none of these things, whether you call them a sacrament or an ordinance or a command, it does not change the fact that it is faith in Jesus Christ alone which saves - surely, this ought to be clear to us by now.

The spiritual union with Christ described in Romans 6 is essential, but the picture of it in water baptism is not.

I don’t know whether we will get to it this time or a later session in order to prove that out, but this is surely the case.

How Did We Get Here?

Understanding how we have arrived at the present confusion is important, so I pray you will forgive me for providing a short history lesson.

During the time of the Reformation, even though there was a great denunciation of certain errors, abuses, and discrepancies within the Roman Catholic Church, many involved in the work of reforming still had a strong and lengthy background, training, and indoctrination into the basic concepts of catholic thought.

And by the time of the reformers, the catholic church had solidly established the concept of infant baptism.

Historically speaking, the earliest reference to the baptism of infants is from 175 AD.

Tertullian, who converted to Christianity around 197-198 AD, in his defense of baptism itself against the attacks of the Quintillians against it in “De Baptismo”; in that work, Tertullian opposed the practice of baptising not only children, but all who had not reached a reasonable maturity, unless that person was likely to die shortly.

He could not establish that infant baptism was taught and practiced by the apostles, despite the increasing use of Luke 18:16 (“Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them”) to support it at the time.

Augustine, born in 354 to a Christian mother, was not baptised as an infant, but after his conversion in his early 30s.

Clearly, in the early centuries it was not a universal practice.

But we should also take careful note that the general trend of “Christianity” in this time period was definingly toward authoritarian institutions, and that those holding to their original Free Church ideals were increasingly branded and denounced as heretics, not for doctrinal positions, but for refusal to accept these sacramental traditions.

So by the time of the Reformation, infant baptism had become the standard and universal practice; baptism was viewed as the critical rite which not only initiates a person into the church, but actually regenerates and cleanses them of original sin, what theologians call baptismal regeneration.

This thinking was so ingrained that the early reformers, such as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli had never really questioned the practice, among the Protestant denominations today, it is the official teaching of Anglicans, Lutherans, and many branches of Nazarenes, Presbyterians, and Methodists.

But in those days, it was baptism that brought a person into the church, and that membership in the church which allowed for various rights in society, such as burial in church cemeteries.

Further, since the time of Constantine, it was membership in the church which gave a person rights as a citizen, and at the same time began persecuting people who were not Christian.

So, the safest way to make certain your child doesn’t get persecuted is to baptize them into membership in the church as early as possible.

The early Reformers, too, carried on this idea.

Need some help defending yourself against the vast church of Rome with access to its many armies?

It’s a lot easier to do that if you have your own nation’s army at your disposal!

And the best way to do that is to make certain everyone in the nation is a part of your church, and so to ensure continued support from the State, so the practice of paedobaptism, or the baptizing of infants, continued in many of the churches that were standing in protest against Rome’s view that spiritual authority was vested equally in both scripture and in the church herself, headed by the Pope.

Did the reformers believe in Sola Scriptura?

Yes!

But they still had all of that training and indoctrination which, even with their newfound focus on sola scriptura, imposed lenses through which they saw even the scripture they were looking to follow.

But even more importantly, they largely retained those traditions which they felt were not specifically condemned or forbidden by Scripture.

Their efforts were still based in reforming what was already in existence rather than truly recovering a fully New Testament view of life and godliness.

It was a later development, under a much smaller sub-sect of the Anabaptists, that the focus shifted toward that of recovery.

Anabaptist minister Conrad Grebel was the first to write of what is now called the Regulative Principle, which was originally applied to worship, but is equally important here.

The Regulative Principle states that in Scripture God has revealed what is acceptable to Himself, and what is acceptable to Him is limited to what He has revealed in Scripture.

In other words, if God doesn’t reveal it in Scripture, it is forbidden, it is not acceptable to Him.

Scripture reveals limits by what it doesn’t say.

Now most honest Paedobaptists do typically point to certain portions of scripture which they claim support their position, I’ve already mentioned one of them.

But if we apply the regulative principle to them, it will greatly help our thinking on this matter of baptism.

Paedobaptist Scriptural Claims

In short, Paedobaptist claims boil down to 4 basic elements:

The command of Christ to allow children to come to Him

The statement of Peter at Pentecost regarding the Promise applying to “your children”

The salvation of households

A likening of baptism to circumcision

The command of Christ to allow children to come to Him

Let’s start looking at each of these in turn, starting with the command of Christ to allow children to come to Him:

Now it’s clear here, perhaps more so than in Matthew 19 or Mark 10, which both simply mention children, that infants were brought to our Lord could touch and pray over them.

It indicates that children can have a relationship with Jesus Himself.

It was specifically about permitting children to be brought to Him for blessing, there is no mention of Baptism!

In fact, if we go to the next verse in Luke, the underlying principal becomes clear:

This incident is more about how we should approach Christ, and that those of us in Christ need to not put barriers in the way of those coming to Him with the trust and hope of a child!

The statement of Peter at Pentecost regarding the Promise applying to “your children”

The second we dealt with some time ago, in Acts 2:38-39,

Now, when we looked at it last February, our focus was more on verse 38 regarding the order of events, that we are baptized for, meaning on account of the forgiveness of our sins which comes on account of true repentance.

In other words, our baptism in water is in response to a change which has already happened within us!

This, surely, helps us understand the place of believer’s baptism in our lives!

But those who believe in paedobaptism, look to verse 39, pointing to where it says that the promise is for you and your children.

But they stop there, for those afar off refers to those far off spiritually, the Gentiles outside the commonwealth of Israel.

In doing so, they miss the context of the verse, that the promise of salvation is not only for those who were immediately there, but for the next generation, for those far from God, and it is important that this promise is not a general one, but a specific one, directed specifically to those who the Lord our God will call to Himself.

The Salvation of Households

There are several accounts the New Testament that households are saved.

Two are found in Acts 16, first speaking of Lydia and her household,

Similar to Lydia, we read in Acts 18:8 that Crispus, “the leader of the synagogue at Corinth, believed in the Lord with all his household.”

And the second, the unnamed Philippian jailer,

The argument is, that because the word “household” is used in all three, there might have been children present, and so since “all means all” they were clearly included.

But, it doesn’t say there were babies or children present.

The household of such people – a successful businesswoman, a commander over a jail, the leader of a synagogue – is certain, however, to include other adults, slaves, servants, perhaps spouses, even grown-up adult children.

But the point I am making is that Scripture does not say, and when taken in full context, lining it up with the rest of the New Testament, I think it would very wrong of us to base our doctrine on something Scripture itself does not speak of.

Further, however, In the case of the Philippian jailer we see the context of the preceding verse, Acts 16:32,

Here, it is clear that those present were able to comprehend and accept the words spoken to them.

They were indeed capable of listening to the truth, they were capable of accepting God’s word.

In other words, they were not without the ability to understand and comprehend the gospel.

Or take, perhaps, the statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16,

And again, even more certain than the household of the Philippian jailer, we see a clarification of the nature of that household in 1 Corinthians 16:15

“Devoted themselves for service to the saints”, huh?