Baptizing Babies

February 9, 2011 in Covenantal Living, Ecclesiology, Sacraments

This is a meditation on some baptisms from this past summer:

Not ten years ago I would have recoiled from that which I rejoice to do in just a few minutes – baptize some babies. And I know that for many of you this practice will seem, at the least, questionable, if not positively absurd, or radically unbiblical. Since this is the first infant baptism we have had as a congregation in a while, I thought it fitting to explain briefly why we baptize babies.

In Ephesians 2 Paul writes to the Gentiles declaring that though at one time they were strangers and aliens from the covenants of promise, they have now been brought near by the blood of Christ. Jew and Gentile alike, in Christ, are heirs of the covenants that God has made throughout history. So, for instance, we who are members of the Church are called “sons of Abraham” because we are the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant; we are called a “royal priesthood, a holy nation” because we are the heirs of the Mosaic covenant; we are called “kings and priests to God” because we are the heirs of the Davidic covenant. We are no longer strangers and aliens but are the rightful heirs of all God’s covenantal promises throughout redemptive history.

So what does all this have to do with infant baptism? Exactly this – in every one of these covenants that God made with our fathers, He promised to be a God not only to our fathers – not only to Abraham, not only to the twelve tribes in Moses’ day, not only to David – but to their children and their children’s children. In every single instance the covenants included both believers and their children.

In the Abrahamic covenant, for example, God speaks of His calling of Abraham this way: “For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.” God established his covenant with Abraham that Abraham might disciple his household, might bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and pass on to them the faith that had been entrusted to him. Consequently, the sign of the covenant with Abraham – the rite of circumcision – was applied not only to Abraham but to the members of his household, including infants. Circumcision declared to Abraham and to these children – I am the Lord and you are my people, so love Me, fear Me, serve Me, and worship Me all your days.

In the New Testament, this emphasis upon household identity continues with the children of believers being accepted, blessed, and brought into the community of God’s people along with adults. When Paul writes to the Ephesians and Colossians, for example, he addresses his exhortations to the households in the congregation – to husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves. And in these exhortations he freely applies the promises of the covenant made with Moses to the children of believers – Honor your father and mother that it may go well with you and that you may live long on the earth. God continues to act not only with believers but with believers and their children.

Why does God act this way? Because it is a reflection of His own nature. God works from generation to generation among His covenant people. When God passed in front of Moses and revealed His Name to him, this is what the Lord declared:

And the Lord passed before [Moses] and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin…” (Ex 34:6-7a)

God declares that it is His nature to keep mercy for thousands – and our question is this, “Thousands of what?” The answer is thousands of generations. As Moses declares later in Deuteronomy: “Therefore, know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments” (Dt 7:9).

So why do we baptize infants? Because God has promised to be a God not only to us but to our children and our children’s children. So our calling is to believe Him, to trust His Word, and to bring our children before Him. For these are His children not ours, given to us in trust, to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. God has revealed Himself to us “in order that [we] may command [our] children and [our] household after [us], that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.”

Membership Vows

February 7, 2011 in Covenantal Living, Ecclesiology

Acts 16:31-33 (NKJV)
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

This morning we have the privilege of welcoming a number of households into membership at Trinity Church. At such times it is always profitable to recall why we do this membership thing. This morning I would like us to consider why we administer membership vows to the Head of Household rather than to each individual member of the household. Why do this?

The point is certainly not that only the Head of Household is important; nor is the point that in order to be a member of the church you have to be an adult. May it never be! It is important to remember that the Head of Household is taking a vow not only for himself or herself but for his or her entire household. In other words, if you have been baptized and you are part of a member household, then you individually are a member of this congregation. You receive the loving care of Christ, the kindly fellowship of the covenant community, and the gracious accountability of the elders and deacons. You are part of the body, an integral member of the covenant community, and to be treated as such. So as we bring these families and individuals forward, all those who have been baptized join us as members of the church.

If they are all individually members of the congregation, then why have just the Head of Household take the vows? The reason is this: to emphasize that God has created the world in such a way that not all the decisions which affect us personally and legally are decisions that we ourselves make. All of us were born to parents that we did not choose; we were born into a country we did not choose; we were born subject to laws and statutes we did not choose. Not only is this the case, we all were born in sin, subject to the wrath of God, because of the rebellion of our father Adam. He was our representative, the one whose sin determined the course of our lives. God created the world in such a way that not all the decisions which affect us personally and legally are decisions that we ourselves have made.

And praise God that this is true – for were it not, none of us could ever be saved. Why not? Because we are saved not because of anything we have done but because of Christ. We have His righteousness credited to our account. Though we have not personally been righteous, God in His grace and mercy looks upon us in Christ and treats us as holy and beloved. Because we are part of His house, under His loving headship, we receive innumerable blessings.

So household vows emphasize three things: first, the critical role that the head of household has for the spiritual vitality and health of the entire household. Second, the incredible blessings that come to the entire household when that household is subject to the Lord Jesus Christ. And third, the need for faithfulness from every member of the household so that, in the future, additional healthy, robust, and godly households can be established to the glory of God.

Beware the Fate of Zedekiah

February 7, 2011 in Bible - OT - 2 Chronicles, Church History, Covenantal Living, Meditations

“[King Zedekiah] did evil in the sight of Yahweh His God, and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of Yahweh. And [the king] also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear an oath by God; but he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to Yahweh the God of Israel.
2 Chronicles 36:12-13

The text before us today speaks of the sad legacy of King Zedekiah, last of the kings of Judah. Heir to a dwindling kingdom, Zedekiah hastened its slide into oblivion. Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, had conquered Judah in fulfillment of God’s just judgment. Rather than submit to God’s hand, however, Zedekiah sought to weasel out by soliciting the help of Egypt. The result was disastrous. Zedekiah watched his own sons slain before his eyes before being blinded and forced to end his days in chains and slavery.

The transgressions of Zedekiah stand as warnings to those of us who, like him, partake of Adam’s sinful nature. There are three admonitions which we can gather from this text.

First, Zedekiah failed to humble himself before the Word of God. When confronted by the prophet Jeremiah, Zedekiah spurned his counsel. He chose to follow his own wisdom instead. And what of you? How do you respond to the Word of God preached? Do you listen and heed? Or do you harden your heart? Or perhaps just conveniently forget? Then beware the fate of Zedekiah.

Second, Zedekiah broke an oath which he had sworn in God’s name. He swore on oath in the name of Yahweh to remain loyal to King Nebuchadnezzar. However, when Egypt came soliciting his loyalty, he forsook his oath. So what of us? Are we faithful to our oaths? In baptism, we have sworn in the name of the Triune God to love Him and serve Him as our Lord and Master – are we? In marriage, we have covenanted to be faithful, heart and soul, to our spouse unto death – are we? In our membership vows, we have sworn to support the ministry of this church, to submit to her leadership in the fear of God – are we? Beware the fate of Zedekiah.

Third, Zedekiah’s largest failure was that he failed to turn to Yahweh. When he entered upon the great responsibility of kingship, he relied upon his own strength rather than Yahweh’s. This was his most critical failure. So to whom are you turning in your difficulties? Perhaps there are new pressures at work or at home? The children are not behaving as you have hoped? A friendship is under strain? To whom are you turning? Have you turned to God, prayed to Him, asked Him to intercede on Your behalf? If not, beware the fate of Zedekiah.

These warnings serve as a reminder that as we come before the Lord to worship, we must confess our sins and transgressions to Him, beseeching Him to forgive us for the sake of Christ. As we do so, we will have a time of private confession followed by the corporate confession found in your bulletin. Let us kneel together as we confess.

No, Mr. President

March 9, 2010 in Abortion, Covenantal Living, Ten Commandments

During Lent our congregation is making special mention of the abortion massacre in our country – both confessing our national toleration and petitioning the Lord for deliverance. John Piper’s excerpt below is a stirring and passionate reminder why such prayer is needed.

Playing in the Streets

December 1, 2009 in Bible - OT - Zechariah, Children, Covenantal Living, Meditations

Zechariah 8:3-5 (NKJV)
3 “Thus says the Lord: ‘I will return to Zion, And dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, The Mountain of the Lord of hosts, The Holy Mountain.’ 4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Old men and old women shall again sit In the streets of Jerusalem, Each one with his staff in his hand Because of great age. 5 The streets of the city Shall be full of boys and girls Playing in its streets.’

Two weeks ago we remarked that one of the lessons taught by toddlers is the universality of sin and foolishness. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child. Consequently, as parents we need to be diligent to train our children so that the foolishness is driven out and wisdom is put in its place. Permissive parenting, we saw, is no biblical virtue.

Our text today reminds us that foolishness is not the same as childish joy and fun. Driving foolishness from the hearts of our children does not mean that we need to make them into dour, sour, grumpy kill-joys. Zechariah was prophesying at a time when Jerusalem was in ruins, at the beginning stages of being rebuilt. There was much pain and sorrow, much labor and toil. So Zechariah comforts the people and provides for them hope for the future. What will Jerusalem be like in days to come? In what way will God bless the city? One of the things that Zechariah promises is that once again there will be boys and girls playing in the streets – and that this will be something pleasing to God.

So children, note today that God loves your play, loves your joy, loves your delight, your freedom. What doesn’t please him is when you play in such a way that you steal others’ delight, others’ joy. And notice another thing, children. Just as Zechariah promises that children will be playing in the streets, he promises that the old men and women will be sitting around enjoying the scene. So don’t grow impatient when older folks don’t run quite as much as you.

And parents, note today that God loves joy and rejoicing even while he hates foolishness. Learn, like your Heavenly Father, to distinguish the two. Do not discipline your children when they are appropriately exuberant and joyful; discipline them when they are sinful. Likewise, the members of our community who no longer have children, who like to sit around and have serious conversation – enjoy the joy of the young ones in our midst and delight that they reveal the playfulness of our God.

Reminded that our Lord loves to see children playing and promises to bestow this gift upon His people as they repent and acknowledge His authority, let us kneel and seek His forgiveness.

Children in the Covenant

May 18, 2009 in Book Reviews, Covenantal Living

In preparation for my sermon on Mark 10:13-16 and Jesus’ blessing of the children, I read Lewis Bevens Schenck’s book The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church. P&R Publishing did us the inestimable service of reprinting this in 2003 and Frank James, one of my instructors at RTS Orlando during my tenure there, wrote the Introduction.

Throughout the book the contention of Schenck is that the questions of the lawful mode and recipients of baptism have sidetracked us from considering a much more important matter. Namely, what does baptism mean, what is its significance? Particularly when infants are baptized, what is the significance of that baptism?

Schenck’s book, as the title suggests, surveys Reformed opinion on this very question. Its purpose is not to build a biblical case for infant baptism but to consider theological reflection on its significance within the Presbyterian tradition. He begins with Calvin and ends with the confusion that predominated in Presbyterian circles following the rise of revivalism in America. His survey is trenchant and thought provoking, showing the remarkable uniformity among the early Reformed thinkers on the matter as well as the large scale abandonment of that teaching in 19th century Presbyterianism.

Schenck argues forcefully in the first chapter that the predominant opinion among Reformed thinkers, beginning with Calvin and proceeding through the Westminster Assembly, was that infant baptism was applied to children as members of the Kingdom of God. The children of believers were to be reckoned presumptively regenerate based on the promise of God to be God not only to believers but also to their children. Consequently, the children of believers are to be reckoned as believers themselves; not out of any infallible knowledge of their actual status, but based on the promise of God in the Scriptures. As Calvin remarks, “It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the Church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise.” (Institutes IV.25) The children of believers belong to God and therefore are to be brought into the visible church via baptism.

As I remarked in my sermon this past Lord’s Day, Calvin’s contention correlates precisely with the words of our Lord Jesus as He welcomes the children into His presence and blesses them. When the parents (most likely) come bringing these little children (all of whom or at least some of whom were nursing infants – Lk 18:15) and the disciples rebuke them for bothering our Lord, Jesus is indignant, angered at the behavior of the disciples. He delivers a dual imperative to the disciples, insisting that he desires little children not simply tolerated or permitted to come to Him but ushered unto Him. He then explain why – “for of such is the Kingdom of God.” Jesus does not commend the action of those bringing the children – “Don’t forbid them because every righteous parent should be bringing his children to me” – rather, He comments on the status of the children themselves. Jesus insists that these children should be brought to Him because they are part of the Kingdom; not that they one day shall be part of it but that they already are. These parents were right to bring their children to Jesus not in the hope that their children would one day belong to Him but because they already belonged to Him.

Given that our children belong to God, what is the purpose of Christian nurture, Christian education, training, discipline, etc? The purpose is to train God’s children to be ever more faithful disciples of Christ, to love and cherish Him all the more, to serve Him faithfully and truly. God freely, graciously has brought these children into His Kingdom by giving them to believing parents. So when we speak to our children, how ought we to speak to them? Ought we to speak to them as though they are over there, unconverted, unbelieving, separate from Christ, non-Christians? No! This is precisely what our Lord forbids. We are to speak to them as believers, exhort them as believers, treat them as members of Christ, as inheritors of the Kingdom of God. Why? Because God in His grace and mercy has promised to be their God and has testified to it in His Word. They are not over there; they are in here.

Schenck substantiates that this approach to children was the predominant position of the Presbyterian tradition leading up to the Great Awakening in America. As a result of the Great Awakening, however, this conviction was undermined. In the place of Christian nurture and education as the normal pattern of discipleship came the camp meeting, the conversion experience. The Great Awakening insisted that the only legitimate sign of an interest in Christ was a measurable conversion experience. Conversion included first a period of conviction and then an abiding “sense” of relief in Christ. Schenck’s explains:

It was unfortunate that the Great Awakening made an emotional experience, involving terror, misery, and depression, the only approach to God. A conscious conversion from enmity to friendship with God was looked upon as the only way of entrance into the kingdom. Sometimes it came suddenly, sometimes it was a prolonged and painful process. But it was believed to be a clearly discernible emotional upheaval, necessarily ‘distinct to the consciousness of its subject and apparent to those around.’ Preceding the experience of God’s love and peace, it was believed necessary to have an awful sense of one’s lost and terrifying position. Since these were not the experiences of infancy and early childhood, it was taken for granted children must, or in all ordinary cases would, grow up unconverted.

Schenck’s critique of the Great Awakening is subtle and powerful, exposing its deleterious effects upon the training of Christian children.

He continues this critique in the next chapter in which he highlights how the Great Awakening made inroads into Southern Presbyterianism and undermined the consensus within Presbyterianism over the significance of infant baptism. Thornwell and Dabney, two of the greatest Southern Presbyterian theologians, insisted that children are not baptized because they belong to Christ but only because they reside in a privileged position of instruction. Baptism in the case of an infant, therefore, did not signify his regeneration, which was assumed not to have occurred yet, but only the spiritual blessings that one day he would receive, provided that he believed. “Children in the covenant then were classified with the offenders and ‘enemies of God.’ They were to be regarded as presumptively unregenerated.” (96)

The consequence of this position was the recommendation by certain men to revise the Book of Discipline in order to remove baptized children from the possibility of church discipline unless they had made a personal profession of faith. Schenck’s analysis of this suggestion is compelling. He utilizes the voice of the Princeton Theologians to critique the novelty of these positions. Taking up such central concepts of original sin, sanctification, the covenant, and the church, Schenck demonstrates the departure of many Presbyterians from the historic position of the church and the Scriptures.

His comments on the conditionality of God’s covenant with His people are excellent. “Man earned nothing by meeting the demands of the covenant. All the requirements of the covenant were covered by the promises of God; that is, God promised to give man all that he required of Him. The covenant of grace, as its name infers, was a covenant of the unmerited love and favor of God.” (121) Consequently, if “in Israel many entered into an outward relation with Israel, who did not enjoy the inward covenantal relation, this only showed that the true conditions of the covenant relationship had not been met.” (123) In other words, external membership among the people of God in the Old Testament was not real membership and could by no means classified as faithfulness. Likewise today.

He closes his book by contrasting in a number of significant ways the Reformed principle of training children with the revivalistic principle. “The principle of the Reformed faith, that the child brought up under Christian influence should never know a time when love to God was not an active principle in its life, was displaced by an assumption that even the offspring of the godly were born enemies of God and must await the crisis of conversion.” (153) His discussion of the centrality of the Christian nurture and training of covenant children is trenchant as is His insistence that apart from the power of the Holy Spirit all these efforts are for naught. In this his critique of Horace Bushnell’s notions of covenantal nurture is edifying.

The largest inadequacy of Schenck’s book is his treatment of Calvin’s rejection of paedo-communion. He takes up the issue in only one paragraph and fails to interact sufficiently with Calvin’s inconsistency. As Paul Jewett substantiates in his critique of infant baptism, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, paedobaptism and paedocommunion go together. If infants truly are presumptively regenerate, members of the household of God, members of the Kingdom of God, then why would we withhold from them the sacrament of the Supper? Why would God refuse to feed those whom He numbers among His people? Schenck does not address this matter at all – though given the scope of his study that is excusable.

On the whole, Schenck’s book is a valuable resource for understanding the deleterious effects of the Great Awakening on the nurture of covenantal children. In many ways, Schenck’s book is a helpful corrective to Iain Murray’s otherwise excellent book Revival and Revivalism. It seems to me that Murray is himself an advocate of the “conversion pattern” as the normal method of God’s dealings with his people. Schenck demonstrates it inadequacy and encourages us to love and train our children in faith and hope.

Hezekiah’s Folly

May 5, 2009 in Bible - OT - Isaiah, Covenantal Living, Meditations, Responsibility

“So Hezekiah said to Isaiah, ‘The word of the Lord which you have spoken is good!’ For he said, ‘Will there not be peace and truth at least in my days?’” Isaiah 39:8

Hezekiah is appropriately remembered as one of the great heroes of the Old Testament era. Last week we mentioned that Sennacherib, the King of Assyria, surrounded Jerusalem with his armies and attempted to destroy the city. In this emergency, Hezekiah entrusted himself to the Lord and the Lord delivered Jerusalem in his mercy. But like all biblical heroes other than our Lord Jesus Christ, Hezekiah had his noticeable faults; and these faults became more pronounced with age.

The text before us today illustrates one of these faults. Hezekiah had just committed a severe sin by kowtowing to the envoys who arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon. Rather than once again placing his trust in the Lord and treating the envoys with appropriate discretion, Hezekiah placed his trust in his riches and gave the envoys a royal tour of the entire palace – including the treasury. For his folly, God announced through Isaiah the prophet, the same Isaiah who wrote the book by that name, that due to his folly the kingdom of Judah would fall into the hands of Babylon.

“Hear the word of the Lord,” Isaiah declared, “‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,’ says the LORD. ‘And they shall take away some of your sons who will descend from you, whom you will beget; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’”

What type of response should we expect from a godly man who received such a pronouncement of doom from the voice of the Lord? Would we not expect contrition, repentance, sorrow, confession of guilt? Even unrighteous Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, knew the importance of contrition when hearing a rebuke from the Lord. When told that he would witness the destruction of his own family, Ahab humbled himself and went about in mourning. As a result, God mitigated the punishment, delaying it until after the close of Ahab’s life.

But how does Hezekiah respond? “Hey – that’s good news. Your words, Isaiah, imply that these things are not going to happen while I’m alive, so what does it matter?” Hezekiah response indicates how self-centered his attitude was. Rather than repenting in sackcloth and ashes, and perhaps averting the judgment of God on his posterity, Hezekiah rejoices that he doesn’t have to worry about it personally.

How often our culture thinks and acts and we ourselves think and act in this same self-centered fashion. The current national debt is approximately nine trillion dollars – and yet our representatives are passing additional “stimulus” packages to tax us into prosperity, money going through their hands faster than water. In addition to the skyrocketing national debt, average household debt has reached unprecedented proportions. But our self-centeredness is reflected in more than our pocket books. It is reflected in our attitudes as well. How often do we consider the way in which our actions today will impact the next generation – especially the next generation of our own family? Adultery and covenantal unfaithfulness are rampant, the educational failure is acute, understanding of God’s covenant blessings and curses is all but lost. And yet we comfort ourselves, reasoning, “Will there not be peace and truth at least in our days?”

As we come into the presence of our Lord today, let us not act like Hezekiah. Let us bow before him and confess that we have often failed to consider the way in which our actions will have ramifications for the next generation. Let us kneel together and ask him to forgive our transgression and grant us godly repentance.