As I mentioned at the beginning of the service, I'm going to ask your indulgence to change the passage this morning, and I recognize it represents a break in our survey of John, but it's been a while since we have turned to anything outside of the Gospel of John, and so I imagine we'll be able to re-engage next week. Romans chapter 4, and also I'll be reading from Romans chapter 9. There will be a number of other passages that I will be bringing forward for your attention and for your consideration, but primarily I would like to begin our study by reading from Romans 4, and then also from Romans chapter 9. Beginning at verse 7 and Romans chapter 4, I am reading from the English standard version, which is a literal translation, and I commend that to you. It certainly is in the pew, should you desire to read along in that same translation. I do ask that you keep your scriptures open before you that we might study them together. Romans chapter 4, beginning at 7. Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin. Is this blessing then only for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believed without being circumcised so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised, who are not merely circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Romans chapter 9, I begin at verse 1. I am speaking the truth in Christ. I am not lying. My conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit that I have a great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart for I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ, for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, and the giving of the law, the worship and the promises, to them belong the patriarchs and from their race according to the flesh is the Christ who is God overall blessed forever. Amen. The Lord bless the reading of his word and the hearing of his people. Let's begin by simply stating what our Westminster Confession records for us is celebrated in baptism. I'll read only the first paragraph of that. In chapter 28 it says clearly, baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ. Not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace and of his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is by Christ's own appointment to be continued in his church until the end of the world? Here we would focus on the church's recognition that a sacrament of the church is one that is instituted by Christ. It is one that Christ commands the church to continue to observe down through the ages, and so we recognize too the Lord's Supper and the sacrament of baptism. We do not recognize seven as the Roman Catholic church would observe because while certainly marriage is an ordinance of the church, it is not a sacrament for it was not instituted by Christ and commanded to be observed by all people who are members of Christ church down through the ages to the end of the world. We also would recognize that in our confession of faith it reflects the biblical teaching that the sacraments are signs and seals. A sign is not the means of regeneration in the case of baptism, it is not by baptism that one is saved. A sign is something that points to another, and a seal is a mark of a guarantee. In other words, as if I would sign at the bottom of a contract, if I had sent you on an errand and I had the authority to do so, and I was to send you to collect money or to repossess an automobile, perhaps in our own culture or our home as it would be, then if you had a piece of paper and it simply had the instructions on it, you might be insecure in presenting that to the one that you would repossess from. But if you had the signature of the one under whose authority you were proclaiming that you needed to perform this legal act, you would have great confidence in what you were doing. And so, when we see baptism together as a church, we see it as a seal, God's seal, not upon the baptism itself, but upon the promise of regeneration, and our being en grafted into Christ. Our being made a part of Christ, our being made to have life which flows from or through Christ. Now just very briefly, historically, has the church practice infant baptism or has it not? The earliest record of infants and baptism was by Arneas, which is towards the last half of the second century, and he only mentions it in a matter of factly. He's not mentioning it as a new teaching, and so historians have, I believe, rightly presumed that this was a practice that had been going on, he is only mentioning it in passing. When he's speaking about Christ, he's not teaching on baptism, he says this. He came to save through means of himself, all who through him are born again unto God, infants and little children, and boys and youths and old men, church fathers considered term baptism and regeneration to be interchangeable. When they spoke of baptism, they might also be speaking of regeneration, and if you read a little more extensively in the early records of the church, you'll see where they rarely distinguish between these two terms. In the days before the Reformation, baptism became more of a right of initiation to join the church. It was connected to forgiveness and newness of life and infants, and then with adults it was connected with their profession of faith, but over time the practice began to move not to the exclusion of infants because of the profession of faith, but it began an error to move more from the attitude towards the infants to that of adults, where baptism simply became a right of initiation into the church regardless of faith. In practice it seems that baptismal regeneration sometimes seemed to be assumed or implied, and so the practice of the church began to morph into baptismal regeneration, where when people came to be baptized they thought wrongly so that by receiving baptism they were receiving salvation. It became accepted to receive only one baptism which was right as long, however, as it was administered in the name of the Triune God, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Infant baptism is recorded simply again, matter of factly, not as a new instruction in the days of a region and Tertullian. These were our early church fathers who again spoke of it simply as occurring. They didn't mention it as something new or something novel. After the second century, baptism took on more of a magical atmosphere. It became something that was a little more superstitious, even Augustine considered baptism absolutely necessary for salvation and felt that an unbaptized child would certainly be lost. Gradually this belief became applied to adults as well, and the traditional Roman church belief was born. So it was from this attitude that without the church's sacrament of baptism a soul could not be saved, that we find what came to later be called christening which is not the same as what we have celebrated today in baptism. At the time of the Reformation, the Lutheran Reformation didn't completely reform the doctrine of baptism. It didn't completely break free of Roman superstition. Luther didn't hold the water to be common, but instead he viewed it as something that was special and could affect salvation. The anembaptist, however, began the first movement of breaking completely free and denying of baptism. This was the first time that we have recorded in church history the breaking away from a practice of baptism. That all who had been baptized already would have to be rebaptized. Children had no standing in the church at all except simply as objects of evangelism. Their participation in the church implied no blessing of God, it implied no being holy on the count of the faith of the Father or the Mother. It simply was that they were there to be objects of evangelism. Calvin, however, and reformed theology as a whole, which was the majority theology of its day, saw children of believers as children of the covenant and heirs of the promise of salvation. Baptizing is not christening, as I've already said, and often those terms when we are speaking of inputs can be confused but there couldn't be any more difference between the two. A christening is a Roman tradition where in a child is brought forward, sometimes if there's any delay, the priest will make haste to get to the hospital, less the child perish and die without having it so saved by the washing away of original sin in christening. So the Roman church makes a distinction between two kinds of sin, the original sin and the sense which we commit. And so they believe that baptism washes away original sin, thus making the child innocent only guilty for the sins that that child commits in his own life. That is not at all what is implied or what is practiced in reformed churches, indeed in any church outside of Rome, which practices infant baptism. How is it that we are to understand the word baptism then? Well, depending on who you ask, there are some who say clearly the word baptism is to be translated as immersion and yet find me a translation of the Bible that is reputable where it has been translated that way. There is not a translation of the Bible where the word baptism has been translated as immersion. If it was that clear that that's what the word means then why in all of the excellent translations we have hasn't even the Holman standard Bible which is of the Southern Baptist church which would only practice believer baptism even there. The word baptize is not translated as immerse. Why is that? Why would there be such hesitancy to so clearly translate the word baptism if it was so clearly to be implied that it is immersion? What we have in the word baptism is what's called a transliteration. A transliteration is where you take a Greek word baptizzo and you simply make it English, you anglicize it. I'm losing the word I'm supposed to use anywhere. You make a Greek word sound English and you transliterate that word so we don't really translate the word at all. The baptizzo is the Greek word baptize is what we call it in English but what is the equivalent in English? What is it that baptism means? Uncertainty of a single word like immerse causes us to translate it because Greeks use the word in classical literature from 400 BC not to indicate immersion but to indicate a change of identity or change of substance. The classical Greek example in the Greek Septuagint that is the Greek translation of the Old Testament from Isaiah 21 is my heart staggers, har has appalled me and that word appalled is baptizzo translated into the classical Greek. The writer in Isaiah is simply meaning to indicate that he is changed within himself from a state of quiet rest and trust in God to a state of fearfulness and seeing a great wickedness and knowing that judgment is to come so it's a change of state moving from a state of rest to a state of unrest. So baptism is a sign. Baptism is not magic. Baptism is not something where we understand that because water has been applied salvation is therefore guaranteed it is a sign not of my testimony not of the faith already born in me but a sign of something in God and Romans 4 as we were reading today. Concerning the sign of circumcision the Old Testament corollary and New Testament baptism we understand through this reading that Abraham had a faith leading to righteousness before he was circumcised is the sign then an indication of Abraham's faith or it is a sign of the saving work of the grace of God. Circumcision was always something pointing to God's work not Abraham's work less he saved by works and certainly Abraham was not it was by faith but not faith in his own belief faith in the promise of God and so the circumcision was a sign of God's promise of salvation. If we will see as we explore this a bit further a sign of God's redemption it's not just a way of describing our style or tradition it's not simply a tradition which we observe it is a sign of redemption. Baptism again I'll repeat again is not the means of regeneration but it is a sign. In Romans 4 11 Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised if we were to turn to Colossians 2 11 and I commend your reading of Colossians 2 11 and 12 we would there also read in him also you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the flesh. By the circumcision of Christ baptism is Christian circumcision that's the clear teaching of Colossians it's the teaching of Romans that baptism is Christian circumcision and it replaces Jewish circumcision circumcision was a sign to show what was missing as God initiated covenant with Abraham as God initiated a sign of that covenant. There was a shedding of blood that was required in redemption and so circumcision was a reminder each and every time that redemption would require the shedding of blood. I'll survey that covenant with Abraham in just a moment. Circumcision is a sign to show what was missing but now we enjoy the indwelling of the spirit because the blood once and for all has been shed and the dwelling of the spirit so often signified by water is now represented in baptism. And so we enjoy an inward circumcision a circumcision of Christ which is a circumcision of the heart but circumcision was always meant to be a circumcision of the heart ultimately it was never intended to be a political symbol a symbol of national identity as we might say it was meant to be a symbol of identity as the people of God but not politically as it came to be. In Deuteronomy 10-16 circumcised therefore the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stubborn circumcised therefore the foreskin of the heart of the heart. Colossians 2, 11 and 12 the circumcision of Christ is a circumcision of the heart and so we find that even in the early stages of Israel's history circumcision of the heart was what they were to be observing as they practiced the circumcision of foreskin Deuteronomy 30-6 and the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart. Again God will do the circumcising of the heart and the people John Calvin the great theologian on whom we owe to whom we owe so much says God did not favour infants with circumcision without making them partakers of all those things which were then signified by circumcision. Even Calvin recognizing that circumcision and baptism were indicating again the same condition concerning the covenant one with the other. Circumcision and baptism are we to believe that infants in the Old Testament who received the sign of circumcision were somehow cognitively or spiritually superior to the children who were born today. That somehow there was a righteousness of God that they possessed by virtue of their persons in the flesh that the infants born since Christ have lost. Is this a part of the gospel where there is a losing of righteousness that was apparent and visible in the Old Testament? Surely not. No that is not even the way in which we would describe baptism under the new covenant the sign of baptism is not conferred without the promise of what it represents. You see the baptism doesn't represent the child or the adult baptism represents the covenant of grace and the salvation and redemption offered by God. Genesis chapter 17 verse 7 and I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and to your offspring after you. In Genesis 1711 Abraham is instructed that circumcision is to be a sign of the covenant. He is not instructed that circumcision would be a sign of his belief. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant of the covenant. In Acts 1615 we are told Lydia believed and was baptized and then her entire household was baptized with her. In Acts 1-3 of the recorded baptisms in the New Testament are described as household baptism. It certainly would be a stretch to say that in these households there were no children. Why would it then be described as a household instead of she and her spouse with her or her husband with her or he and his wife along with him? They are described as household baptisms. In Acts 2-39 again we read for the promises for you and your children and for all who are far off everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. The purpose of a sign is to confirm the promise in our mind. It adds nothing. It is confirming the promise in our mind. Does God need the sign in order to honor his covenant? Surely not. But do we need the sign as a confirmation of this promise each time we come to the Lord's table, each time we come and celebrate baptism? Once again it is confirmed to us the washing away of sin in Jesus Christ. We are reminded of God's not leaving us without these signs of His covenant of grace. But then once an infant is baptized is there any promise in Scripture or is there anything in Scripture to indicate that there is any activity of God in the life of that child? First Corinthians 7-14. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of the wife and the unbelieving wife is holy because of her husband otherwise your children would be unclean but as it is they are holy. And so there is a sense in which in a household and God has always worked through household through the family structure. There is a sense in which in that household that a believing individual in that household has a sanctifying effect upon the whole household and because of the presence of that individual there is the presence of the gospel and the testimony of Christ and that alone is enough to count them as blessed. Because they have access to the testimony of God so in one sense like one who has been born in a country and is considered a citizen of that country or this country, one born in the church is given the sign of citizenship in that church. And while a country conveys the rights to its citizens it conveys protection by its armies to the citizens it has no message of salvation to give from God but Christ has died to save the church. And so the church has a message of salvation and by being in the proximity of the church and in the worship of God with the families of God an infant as that child grows up is blessed by God by access to those. As we were reading in Romans chapter 9 just a few moments ago as Paul lamented the condition of the Jews as he lamented and said I would even give my own salvation if I could save my brothers. He said there is real lights and to them be long adoption glory the covenants the giving of the law the worship and the promises he's saying they had access to all of these things. They had access to everything God could give them that they might believe and be blessed and yet they have failed to follow the Lord. Ephesians 5.25 Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her having cleansed her by the washing of the water with the word. Christ gave himself that his church would live and that is according to the covenant of grace. Let me very quickly I just want to summarize the covenant the Abrahamic covenant which we draw so much of these these things from. In Romans 9, 4 and 5 privileges of Israel are set forth let me just mention a couple adoption the covenants the promises. Paul is still answering the charges in Romans 3, 1 through 2 where basically it was asked of what advantage is it to the Jew and of what value a circumcision. And he says well a bunch in every way to begin with Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Here we would say of what value is it that we have baptism of what uses it we would say it's of use in every way for us to the church that has been entrusted the oracles of Christ for salvation the word of God. And baptism has been given as a sign and a seal not empty ceremony but a sign and a seal of regeneration and engranting in Christ. And so we have been blessed with the oracles or the word of God. So we are blessed in every way here in Romans 9 he's reiterating that same thing what advantage was it to the Jews to go through circumcision if now we're going to open it up to the Gentiles and they don't have to be circumcised. And he says in every way because all of these pointed forward for the Jews and they had the covenants and the promises they had adoption the Old Testament drama of redemptive history is centered on God's adoption of Israel into a special relationship with himself Isaiah 43-21. The people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise so they were a special people in special relationship and they had a special destiny in Christ. Abraham had demonstrated his confidence in God when he defeated the four kings and it refused to keep anything for himself list anybody say that they had made Abraham rich. Abraham's testimony that only God would receive the glory for his status and for his progress and for his success. And so immediately God appeared to him in Genesis 15 to announce that he is Abraham shield and reward and Abraham told God that he was childless at that time. And so God told Abraham to look up and that he would have more children than there are stars in the sky and sand in the sea. And God added that he would give Abraham a land for his inheritance as well. Abraham wondered what sign he would receive as evidence that the Lord that he would give him the land of the earth and the childees that this land would be his. And God confirmed his oath with a blood sacrifice. In ancient times a splitting of an animal and the animal was not split into horizontally the animal would be split into vertically from head to tail along the spine. And in that time the splitting of an animal and walking around and through it in a figure eight was the most solemn form of oath taking. And the keeping of the oath is required under threat of death Jeremiah 34 18 the man who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of my covenant that they made before me. I will make them like the calf that they cut into and pass between its parts. And so the penalty for breaking covenant is that just as well just what you saw happened to the calf when it was split into that will happen to you if you break covenant with God. In this covenant with Abraham he's not allowed to take part however Abraham observes and it is God alone who makes the covenant. Abraham watches while God initiates the covenant of grace it's not an agreement between two parties. It's not an agreement between us and Christ for our salvation the promises begin and they end with God. And so Abraham as he is there he sees these symbols of Christ a blood sacrifice. He sees an oath by God a smoking furnace that passes between them which is a symbol of God's presence at Sinai and also he sees there a burning lamp. And we know from our studies in John that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. And so baptism is not a statement by man of what we have done. It's not our profession of what we pridefully believe that we have done to give credit or attribute to our own rationality and ability to do something. It is just as Abraham covenant was a spiritual covenant mentioned in Galatians 3.8 where we are where it's called the gospel and then we are called the seed of Abraham. Our salvation represented by baptism which is a sign of God's church for what he has done to secure the salvation for his church. Baptism is applied to each individual as they belong to Christ's bride. It testifies of God's promise in the past of his present work in the church and of a future hope. If I were to come and say there will be no baptism until I initiate it, I might be saying that God's promise of salvation cannot be active until I activate it and allow God to give to me salvation. But that has never been the purpose of God that has never been the way of God for those God's promises always been to take a rebellious and dead people and to make them alive to circumcise their heart. And so circumcision is a sign of that which is a promise to believers that God would cleanse away the old dead flesh and also it is a sign for those who are outside of the covenant that that flesh will be cast away. And so baptism is for us also a sign of God's washing away of sin and the redemption which is in Christ. Is it actually washing away the sin and an infant no more than it is an adult? No sin is actually washed with water. It is a sign of God's saving action in Christ. Let's not confuse in our own mind. The sign and that which is symbolized. If we protest against him for baptism, are we then saying that my faith is what saves me and therefore the baptism is a sign of my salvation which is my testimony? Are we saying that my baptism is simply an initiation into the church as if we would brand cattle when they come in to show that they belong to us? Or are we saying that baptism is for the church? That each and every time even as we present the most helpless of God's children who are born in a household of faith we would see that a child can do nothing to save itself even from falling if the parents drop it depending totally upon the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. And so as we bring an infant we have before us the symbol of God's salvation to the most helpless and the most needy among us and also that it tends to that God's promise that he will bless those who serve him and walk in righteousness. Baptism is not salvation in itself but it is the sign and the seal of our regeneration and our ingrafting into Christ.