Why Not Baptize Infants?

Though most of you have heard the term's covenant theology and dispensationalism. But it's also clear to me that many do not understand exactly what these concepts are all about the some of you work quite well schooled in them to be sure, but these are complex issues and were not going to address them thoroughly and completely in one sermon today, but I think we can be of some help.

But let me tell you the covenant theology emphasizes the continuity between the old of the New Testament swears dispensationalism emphasizes the discontinuity between the old and the new Testaments. And therein lies. I think the heart of the issues in the course many details to be fleshed out and saying that, but the question is, in the two Testaments, the Old Testament, the New Testament, there are obviously some differences but are those differences great or are they small, are they fast or are they slip into and to what extent should we understand the similarities and the differences in that my friends is the dispute between dispensationalism and covenant theology. In a nutshell when it comes to dispensationalism, probably the main thing is the distinction between Israel and the church, concluding that those two are different entirely different between shall never meet that draws certain conclusions whereas covenant theology.

They are very much together and that is an entirely different perspective on Scripture electrics for today is going to help explain to some extent.

These competing interpretations, and I think will reveal weaknesses that are to be found in both approaches are going to begin with, the prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 31 versus 31 to 34 so you want to find that now returning there while I get you ready for that first approach. Then after starting that briefly were going to consider its fulfillment in the New Testament touching upon a couple of passages and spending most of our time in Hebrews chapter 8 after we have done that.

We are going to consider some of the implications for what we have seen so here we are. First of all a new covenant announced in Jeremiah 3131 through 34 behold says God to the prophet Jeremiah. The hold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt by covenant, which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days as the Lord I will put my law in their mind and write it on their hearts. And I will be their God and they shall be my people.

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

I will remember no more.

New covenant announced by the prophet Jeremiah and this is the first time.

In fact, maybe the only time that all of the Old Testament Scriptures that there is reference to this new covenant. The new covenant announced a declaration of versus 30 in verse 31, and a description in verses 32 through 34 declaration is pretty simple. We realize that this is a future event to the time of Jeremiah, behold, the days are coming. This is often the future to Jeremiah. It is a future event and we could accurately say it is a Jewish event that is an Israelite event because the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with here IT identifies with whom that covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah and so in the future. Event coming sometime beyond the days of Jeremiah and those who lived when he was writing this it is a Jewish event in Israelite event described in terms of the house of Judah in the house of Israel.

That of course is keeping in mind the division of Israel into two kingdoms of northern kingdom.

The southern kingdom.

The northern kingdom called it the the house of Israel. The southern kingdom called the house of Judah or the northern kingdom called the kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom called the kingdom of Judah divided after the days of Solomon and sellers declaration that there will be a new covenant that will be coming after the declaration of verse 31. We have a description of this covenant in verses 32 through 34. We could describe it. I think in these following phrases we can describe it number one as a significant change look at that in the moment. We can also describe it as a notable similarity. And thirdly, with several important distinctions that does that distinguish the old from the new, first of all, it is described in terms of a significant change.

Verse 32. This new covenant declared in verse 31.

We are told is not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, not according to the covenant now as the New Testament points out simply by announcing a new covenant that automatically identifies the former one, the only one that they knew at that time as the old covenant that distinguishes the one from the other announcing a new inaugurating a new identifies the other one is old and in fact as passing away, and we read here that there will be a significant change.

The old covenant was inaugurated. We are told here, upon removing Israel from Egyptian bondage. God took them out of Egypt, Jesus took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Speaking of God's tenderness. His love is his power in taking them by his strong hand and removing them from the land of Egypt with great difficulty. But, nevertheless, with great success. A covenant that was inaugurated at that time Moses went up on the mountain he met with the Lord. He received the 10 Commandments on the tablets of stone. He received other laws that were written down with pen and ink, and he brought these down to the people and it was this covenant that they promise that they would keep all yes all that you have commanded. We will do this covenant, which they promise to keep.

They broke almost immediately and then they brought Rick broke repeatedly throughout their history again and again and again and again. Moses, even while he was up on the Mount, what were they doing down below, fashioning a golden calf to worship it throughout their history, God, through the prophets charges them again and again you broke my law, you've disobeyed my covenant, you and in some cases, he says, in effect, you deserve to be set aside but I have made promises to you and for the sake of my son for the sake of David different ones that he mentions in these these statements I'm going to fulfill my promises to you, but you have broken my covenant again and again and again and again even though I was faithful to you in the words of our text for today even though I was a husband to you a faithful husband. You are not a faithful life. You are an adulterous wife straying firmly over and over and over again so I'm gonna make a new covenant, not like this old one that was inaugurated at Sinai and broken by Israel immediately and repeatedly in spite of God's faithfulness, but beyond a significant change we see number two.

A notable similarity there's one thing that we are told is similar between the old and the new that's found at the end of verse 33 I read verse 33, but this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. And then this and I will be their God and they shall be my people. If you are familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures. You recognize that statement as having been sent a number of times in relationship to the government the soul, but it is what makes me your God and you my people could find that statement several times throughout the Old Testament yet we find here it is said, almost really identical language is said to regard to the new covenant.

This new covenant is going to do this. It's going to make a certain people my people, in which you and I will be there God just like the old covenant made a certain people my people, and made me there. God, a notable similarity I will be their God and they shall be my people, because both covenants by their design by their wording by their stipulation, and covenants determine who belongs in that company that are called the people of God, the old covenant covenant defined the people of God in a certain way and identify who belong to the company.

The new covenant defines the people of God in a certain way and defines who belongs to that company. A notable similarity but beyond that similarity we see there are several distinctions that are detailed for us in verses 33 and 34 and I will describe them in these words. Number one, there is the distinction of the nature of compliance in each covenant number two.

There's the distinction of qualifications for membership in each covenant number three there is a distinction in the way of righteousness under each of these two covenants. First of all, in regard to the nature of compliance back to verse 33.

This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, that the Lord I will put my law in their minds and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God and they shall be my people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor and every man his brother, saying all the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin. I will remember no more.

The nature of compliance.

No.

Here he doesn't remind us what the nature of compliance is under the old covenant. He simply tells us what it is. Under the new covenant, but we already know what it was of the ultimate coveted by having read the Old Testament Scriptures and the implication is pretty clear if this is a new covenant, not like the one that I made with their fathers. When I took them out of Egypt, but it's going to have this feature there's going to be different from what they had in the covenant coming out of Egypt and we can see something of what the distinction is in the nature of its compliance. How how the members of the covenant comply with the covenant and, in short, the difference is the difference between external and internal compliance with the old covenant required external obedience.

You did certain things externally. First of all, you were born into the bloodline of Abraham. That wasn't anything you had any choice in that was God's choice of your birth. That was your parent's identity, but that something external you were. You came into the covenant community by way of physical birth, not the new covenant I'm getting ahead of myself here a little bit but not the new covenant for as many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God.

John tells us who were born, not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, not something else. Whatever else is there, but of God. Quite different isn't, but the old covenant, you became a part of the covenant by certain external things birth and then circumcision to the male children on the eighth day again they didn't have a whole lot to do with that their parents did that for them, but their parents did do that because that was the stipulation that was how people came in to the old covenant became members of the covenant community and work identified as such and so the nature of compliance in the old covenant was one of outward compliance doing these things externally. That made one a bona fide member of that covenant community.

In contrast with the new covenant where the terms of compliance are inward earthly. I will put my law in their minds.

I will write it on their hearts something different here.

The something new here.

There's something internal here. This is a way of describing what we call the new birth of what we call regeneration.

This is a compliance that doesn't have anything to do with ceremony or ritual. It has everything to do with the work of the Spirit of God in the heart is an internal internal way of complying inward desire that God gives writing his law in the hearts of the members of this community so that they now have both a God-given ability and a God-given desire to comply with the terms of the new covenant. Unlike the old covenant where the law was and the law was commanded.

The obedience was commanded and people promise to do the had no desire to do it.

They had no willingness to do it. I think John Bunyan summarizes this better than anybody I know.

When he said this to run and work. The law commands but gives us neither feet nor hands. The better news the gospel brings it bids us fly and gives us wing think that through. Because that really summarizes the whole thing in a nutshell so beautifully run and work law commands outward things that you do in order to comply with this covenant to run and work. The law commands but gives us neither feet nor hands. We got something or commanded to do what we are really given the ability to do it the better news the gospel brings it bids us fly that's impossible and gives his wings.

It is, it is possible that God enables us to fly.

We can fly right so the nature of compliance is very different in the two covenants. Secondly related to the qualifications for membership are very different between the old and the new covenant again in the old covenant. The qualifications for membership are entirely external, but under the new covenant. They are internal Havarti touched on it. Really, what was the qualification to become a member of the old covenant be born into the right family and be circumcised and be brought up to keep the law. Follow the dietary code do this do that.

Keep the feast days and you're a member. As long as you do these things and don't do anything flagrant to two renounce any of these things refused to be baptized refused to to keep the feast days refused to to worship on the Sabbath.

And so for two things of the real flagrant continue to do them flagrantly to my get kicked out, of the covenant community but otherwise you're young you're a member and as long as you keep up a reasonable number of these external things remembered for life. What's the qualification for membership under the new covenant. It's the new birth is regeneration. I will write my laws on their heart I will put them in their mind that's a symbolic way of picturesque website. If this can be an inward work of God spirit. This is going to change the inside of this is what qualifies a person to become a member of the new covenant community qualifications for membership number three way of righteousness. These are all interrelated. How does one become righteous. How does one earn righteousness, you might say well under the old covenant. It was by obedience to the law.

I could hear some of the object and say but people were saved in the old testament without perfect obedience to the law, yes, but not under the terms of the old covenant, you will find that in the covenant itself. There were symbols. There were hands pointing forward.

Let me put it this way.

There were people a remnant saved in the Old Testament, but they were saved by borrowing the terms of the covenant, and by the grace of God importing them back into their time by faith. They were saved the same.

We are something we we are by faith in the promises of God. But it wasn't by external keeping of the law. Actually, the Old Testament law promised if you keep this law perfectly. Then you will live and how many did that zero. How many could do that zero. How many had the feet and hands to be able to do that zero.

God didn't give them to them to run and work. The law commands but gives us neither feet nor hands. Nobody kept the law perfectly. Nobody even came close. So everybody was condemned under the law, and there is no terms of salvation apart from obeying the law. So now what thank God there is a new covenant. Thank God for that. So the way of righteousness under the old covenant was obedience to the law because nobody Took nobody was righteous the way of righteousness under the new covenant is justification by grace Marshall everyman teach his neighbor and every man his brother say no. The Lord, for they all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.

I will remember no more grace. That's mercy.

That's forgiveness.

It's not the new covenant people. Even with the wings to fly will keep God's law perfectly keep God's requirements perfectly know they shall not. But God has another provision I'm going to forgive you. I'm going to cleanse you.

I I've got away of forgiving your trespasses and dealing with your iniquity and making you righteous in a way that has nothing to do with your obedience to command's this new covenant sounded pretty good isn't it. Send a better all the time. So that's the new covenant announced in Jeremiah.

Now we move to the New Testament to consider new custom new covenant fulfilled were going to go to Hebrews chapter 8, but on the way. I'm going to take you a couple of other places and then will land in Hebrews 8. Let me say a couple of words about this. First of all, the new covenant fulfilled. When was it inaugurated Lords of Christ. I'll take the ones from the mark from the book of Matt Mark but I could take them from another gospel, but the words of Christ when he when he instituted the Lord's table makes it very clear when this was inaugurated. Mark 1420 to 3 and four and as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said this is my body that he took the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them and they all drank from it and he said to them this cup is or represents the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. What's he saying when I shut my blood upon the cross of new covenant is you inaugurated the old one is God, the new one is in its place. That's what the writer of Hebrews takes up.

In fact, we will find all of this in chapter 8 we would have to move back in chapter 7 and an in the hunt around a little bit in several places in Hebrews tells us is that Jesus is the new high priest who has replaced the Levitical priesthood of the Levitical high priest is not even a priest from the tribe of Levi. He's a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but he is now the high priest represents us to sacrifice which he offered is not the blood of bulls and goats, but himself. So to clear this new covenant was inaugurated when Jesus died upon the cross. The inauguration of the covenant was announced in the upper room as being imminent and it was accomplished when Christ shed his blood upon the cross. That's the inauguration of the new covenant.

Jesus said it is finished.

Old covenant immediately became obsolete. New covenant was now in effect. We also talked briefly about the nature of the new covenant really the only reason I bring this up is just to let you know that there is another passage that deals with this in second Corinthians chapter 3, Paul talks about the old and new covenants.

There because of time.

I'm not going to get into that passage, except just to summarize what he says but he tells us in regard to the nature of the new covenant that has greater benefits than the old covenant because it bestows spiritual life. Paul says in verse six second Corinthians 3, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit. For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The spirit gives life.

This is the greater benefit that the new covenant has over the old covenant the old covenant didn't give life. It didn't bestow life, but the new covenant does what else the new covenant has greater glory than the old covenant and all summarize here the old covenant. Paul tells us in second Corinthians 3 had Gloria great deal of glory at an amazing amount of glory. Don't denigrate the old don't put it down. Don't act like there's something wrong with it. It's not. It was glorious in its place, and for its purpose and up until the time when it fulfilled its purpose. But in comparison to the new covenant. The old covenant was not as glorious. It was glorious but not as glorious as the new covenant, the new covenant has greater glory than the old covenant, and furthermore will told in second Corinthians 3 that the new covenant has greater endurance than the old covenant the old covenant passes away, the new covenant remains verse 11 for if what is passing away was glorious. What remains is much more glorious the verse I was looking for but we are told in the section on verse seven. If the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away. How will the ministry of the Spirit be not much more glorious.

It remains verse 11 for if what is passing away was glorious. What remains we can insert the word forever.

What remains forever.

The new covenant is much more glorious now turn to Hebrews chapter 8 we seen dealing with the new covenant fulfilled. We've seen its inauguration at the death of Christ on the cross, its nature by the discussion of Paul is in a minister of the new covenant in second Corinthians 3 but now it's purpose in Hebrews chapter 8 where the writer of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah and explains how all the supplies in his day to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ its fulfillment.

The new covenant is care. It was promised by Jeremiah.

It has come and here it is. And here's what it means for us today and what was the purpose of the old covenant by the way is found in Hebrews 8 in an extended section versus seven through 13 and then it's found again in Hebrews 10 in a shorter passage verses 16 through 18.

What was the purpose of the new covenant. According to Hebrews 8, number one, two remedy the weakness of the old covenant we've already seen that it was weak, and so we read in Hebrews 87 for if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for second. If the first covenant could have done the job.

Then there would need to be a second. What if the first covenant could have secured salvation there would be no need for second, there was faulted a manner of speaking with the first covenant, but as the Scriptures go on to make very clear the fault wasn't really with the covenant.

It was with the people of the covenant and their sinfulness.

The covenant was fine. Do this and you shall live. Keep these commands and you shall live, but nobody did it because of their sinfulness. So in a sense there was nothing wrong with the covenant except it did not include the elements that gave people what they needed in order to fulfill it.

Didn't give spiritual life and it didn't give forgiveness for sins that wasn't stipulated in the old covenant, and so it was given to remedy the weakness of the old covenant. It was given number two to change hearts. Verse 10 for and now quoting from the passage in Jeremiah Hebrews 810 for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days as the Lord I will put my laws in their mind and write them on their hearts. There's the change hearts. God is going to work by his Spirit in the hearts of his new covenant people and they're going to have a different mindset, a different part. They're going to have spiritual life spirit gives life. They are going to have the life that the old covenant did not give their going to have the wings to fly that all the new covenant provides to change hearts and finally its purpose is to forgive trespasses that's also in this passage was 12 for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness is not saying life I give them will make them perfect so that they don't transgress know they will. But I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their lawless deeds. I will remember no more. There is forgiveness there is cleansing there is justification under the terms of the new covenant that there was, not under the old. It remedies the weakness of the old covenant and changes hearts under the new covenant forgives trespasses under the new covenant, which again is emphasized in that passage in chapter 10, turn one page 2 Hebrews 10 let's look at how the writer refers to the new covenant here. Verse 16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days as the Lord quoting again from Jeremiah but a shorter part of that passage, I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds. I will write them. Then he adds their sins and their lawless deeds.

I will remember no more see the emphasis upon this forgiveness.

The new cut covenant forgiveness. The classes that justifies sinners who have sand, but the new covenant mix provision to cleanse sinners from their sins. Now verse 18 where there is remission of these there is no longer an offering for sin. Why, because the offering has been made once for all, Christ died on the cross. Now that gives me some time to do with implications. As I have done what I intended to do with the text.

The new covenant announced in Jeremiah new covenant fulfilled in the New Testament Scriptures that we have considered no some implications explored the first one is brief and so obvious that I will take time with it, but it is simply that all of this reminds us that salvation is by grace, it is not by works. It is not by external matters. It is not by ceremony of any kind. It is by grace, not works. God promises and provides everything that is necessary for salvation. Under the new covenant. The reason you can't say that of the old covenant. In one sense it's true God provided what was necessary for salvation. Then he gave the laws and keep it. You live, but the reason why no one was saved and it was because of men, sinfulness, and God didn't make provision for man sinfulness and his spiritual inability in the terms of the old covenant. Yes, people were saved. The remnant but they were saved under the promises of the new covenant pulled back into the Old Testament era, but the whole point of this is that salvation is by grace and not works but now here's another implication that you need to understand this means that messianic Judaism endeavors to return new covenant believers to the old covenant. Most of you are not familiar with messianic Judaism for some of you are is growing. There are more and more assemblies of people who are Christians.

I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ at his death upon the cross for salvation, but they have decided that they would rather worship God according to old covenant practices rather than new covenant.

Once there's different names are given to it but I just wrap it all together under the term messianic Judaism.

Some of these peoples are Jews who been sent Jews for Jesus. You've all heard of that organization. I'm sure, but a lot of were Gentiles who who kind of enjoy this. There is there something about it.

That's it's rather intriguing and so rather than worship on the first day like the New Testament indicates these people worship on the Sabbath, but because the Jewish Sabbath. The lease in the first century began at sundown on Friday they go to church on Friday night just like the Jews go to synagogue on Friday night okay with that and seem so terrible. What else. Well, they continue to practice circumcision. They follow the Jewish feast days and holidays lately observe Yom Kippur and so forth. Probably don't even recognize Easter not worshiping on the first day of the week which is the day that Christ rose from the data.

That's why we worship on the first day of most of them follow lease and partly Mosaic dietary code and I learned this week. In researching this a bit. They do not observe the Lord's table. They observe Passover. What is this going back to the old covenant. Why it's gone it's been fulfilled. It's over.

It's obsolete in announcing the new. He made the all obsolete. It's passed away. Why are you going back to a will there's something kind of intriguing about this to some people but intriguing is not the same as being knowledgeable and obedient to Scripture in Scripture indicates that this is not the way that new covenant believers worship God and what it does is drives a wedge between those who follow this practice. These practices and those who worship God according to new covenant practices makes a distinction instead of recognizing the unity of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It drives them apart with these distinctions and it is contrary to what the new covenant. New Testament scriptures teach us, because it is an endeavor to return to the old covenant you find a lot about this in say the good book of Galatians and other places where there were people in Paul's day doing exactly the same thing believers in Jesus Christ going around teaching Christians except to be circumcised after the law of Moses, you cannot be saved got keep the dietary laws and on and on the go.

No, no, God promised a new covenant and the new covenant replaces the old one so get out of the old one and get into the story you Christ and according to the terms of the new covenant, but here's 1/3 one. Fatal baptism has no biblical warrant attractive as it may be fatal. Baptism has no biblical work is what is fatal baptism, baptizing babies, baptizing infants the title of my sermon today is why not baptize infants. My theme is an understanding of the old and new covenants eliminates the practice of infant baptism. Tell the truth the matter is you may not be aware of this. The vast majority people who call themselves Christians throughout the world baptize babies. The Roman Catholic Church baptizes babies the Anglican church Episcopal Church baptizes babies. The Lutheran Church baptizes babies. I don't still true but not too many decades ago, Lutheranism was the largest body of Protestants in the world, not America but in the world a lot of Lutherans in this world they will baptize babies and on and on it goes all the Orthodox churches, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and so forth, baptize babies.

That's a lot of people overlook another part of the world were not so familiar with. There's a lot of them.

The only interesting thing about that is I just have to chuckle the baptize babies but hardly baptize them by immersion. I've seen pictures of it. I would like to actually see one done. They have a bigger bigger what not to sprinkling a little water on the head. They have bigger, and they hold the babies nose and they Lauren feet down into the water and bring it back up is a wide why don't they just go ahead and sprinkle it so much simpler and easier, and I assume it's because you have an awful hard time getting a Greek Greek orthodoxy, getting a Greek who knows Greek to believe that the Greek word that Pizzo means anything that immersion might convince an American of that which are talking to convince a Greek of that he knows the language but he still baptizes babies but he baptizes divers and of course Methodist baptize babies and Presbyterians baptize babies and on and on it goes well, who doesn't Baptists and some of the others and kinda broken away from their heritage.

Most Pentecostals don't baptize babies but they are actually branching out they have branched out from Methodism to traceable the waves back there original theology had them baptizing babies, but they usually don't anymore.

Why see if I can explain at least the presbyterian rationale for baptizing babies and I I have more interaction with Presbyterians and studied presbyterian covenantal theology more than that any of the other forms to go something like this see if I can. I think I laid some of this out. They will say that they may ask you was circumcision design of the old covenant answer yes answers yes you God yes circumcision was the side of the old covenant circumcision marked those who belonged to the old covenant is water baptism. The sign of the new covenant again. Yes, water baptism is the sign of the new covenant.

Water baptism is the mark of those who belong to the new covenant, like circumcision was the site that marked those who belong to the old covenant.

Therefore, here's the conclusion therefore, water baptism should be administered to the children of new covenant believers like circumcision was administered to the children of old covenant believers. Now you see whether strong continuity comes to play.

We carry over because of the unity of the Scriptures. The unity of the old and the New Testament. The gets into a lot of things here the unity of covenant theology. The covenant of works in the covenant of grace. Clear back to the Garden of Eden and most presbyterian covenant theologians won't even call the Mosaic covenant with the covenant made it silent siding like in the new covenant, Christ inaugurated most of them prefer not even call that the old and new covenant, they call that the old and new administration of the covenant of grace with the emphasis upon this being separate covenants, but it seems to make Scripture makes it pretty clear. These are separate covenants and they are supposed to be understood more in terms of distinction, then continuity more in terms of disconnect continuity than continuity.

I pointed out the one thing that is similar. They both mark out, who shall be considered the people of God under each of the covenants, but beyond that, there's more in the Scriptures that distinguishes them then unites them. But if you are willing to look past that and reason in the way that I am describing. Then I can see how you might come to this conclusion that as old covenant believers were commanded to circumcise their children and bring them into the covenant.

Therefore, new covenant believers ought to baptize their children and bring them into the covenant not understanding what we have already pointed out, the distinctions of these come and important distinctions. So I say it again.

Fatal baptism has no biblical warrant attractive as it may be, and it is attractive I must admit it's kind of an attractive fiction that you do something for your child that helps him toward God, other than the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart you baptized in you've done what you can do.

Sometimes Baptists have their own version of these comforting things. If we can get our child to pray and make a decision that we made them safer heaven, not Nautilus itself work of the Holy Spirit in his heart that's regenerated them don't run them down throughout Littlechild's prayer and pronounce them saved and make them think that there there secure for the rest of their lives. That's just the Baptist version presbyterian patent baptism as far as I'm concerned, fatal baptism has no biblical warrant. There is no New Testament command to baptize infants and there is no clear New Testament example of baptizing infants as most honest presbyterian another Bible scholars will admit they have to imagine well in those households where everybody was baptize. Probably there must've been some infants in the cases where it spells it out.

They clearly worked not only says that the household was baptized, but it said they believe and that takes us back to the work of the spirit of the new covenant. I'll write my law in their hearts and their minds. I will regenerate them. I I will do a work so they become believers. So, back to the first baptism of children is not commanded in the New Testament because what this scripture teaches us is that all who belong to the new covenant are regenerated believers.

The new covenant is different from the old covenant by God's design. The old covenant included a mixed multitude because God designed that he would take a human family, and that in the bloodline of Abraham, and would give the writer circumcision and command that circumcision be applied to these unregenerate children who were old enough to believe and to consider all of those who were so marked to be members of the old covenant and they were they were legitimate members of the old covenant because God designed the old covenant different from the new covenant. You understand, but he tells us of the new covenant different in the new covenant. The only ones who are members of the covenant community by God's design for those who have been born again by the work of God's Spirit in their hearts, and therefore the only ones who are legitimately able to receive the mark of water baptism is the sign of the covenant are those who have a good testimony of the new birth, they can give a credible testimony of faith in Christ are the only ones who legitimately made baptized because they're the only ones who don't spoil the mark.is given the mark of baptism is for born-again believers and only born-again believers and all born-again believers.

If you think yourself to be a born-again believer, you have been baptized you are in disobedience. You are to be baptized. That's the mark that God has given me toward that's the mark that God has given light understand why that's what Jesus said to do your follower of Jesus that why don't you do what he commanded why say to me Lord, Lord, do not the things that I commanded you one more thing. I'm almost out of time.

But I got to deal with this. That is to say that in this understanding of Jeremiah 31 in the light of Hebrews 8 and 10. Dispensationalism has a problem as well. In fact I would say dispensationalism has a serious problem. I would call it an unsolvable problem are the people trying to work around it. We got dispensationalism got progressive dispensationalism would render dispensationalism but you see this drive to the very heart to the very fundamental problem in here it is because nothing could be more obvious than Jeremiah's prophecy was made to who the house of Judah house of Israel, the writer of Hebrews says this applies to the quotes.

The same thing.

The house of Judah. The house of Israel right. He quoted finding fault with them, he says, behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel with the house of Judah. But this covenant will also church is fulfilled in the church that the members of the church are the ones that discuss this promise was made to according to the New Testament interpretation.

Therefore, we to accept that the house of Israel and the house of Judah is the church we can't make this distinction between Israel and the church used to make it thought it was necessary and was interesting. I notice a lot of people who are covenant in their thinking. They only read covenant writers and they read with the writer become a writer say about dispensationalism. Therefore, they think they understand dispensationalism with what they understand is what those who don't believe dispensationalism and criticized dispensationalism say about it.

The same thing goes the other way around. Many times those who are dispensationalism only read what dispensationalism right they think they understand covenant theology because they heard with the dispensational officer say about covenant theology and tell him what's wrong with it, never really understand covenant theology and they never come to wrestle with these issues properly understood covenant theology is not replacement theology. It's not replacing Israel with the church. It looks that way to the dispensationalism. It's not replacement theology its fulfillment theology. This is the way that God has fulfilled it. This is the way God tells us he's fulfilled this I don't have enough time but I wrestled through all this many years ago and it's not easy but you gotta come to terms with the church is called the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Members of the church are, therefore, and this is the proper term spiritual Israel, members of the church that is born-again believers are in the words of the New Testament Scriptures, the children of Abraham have the same faith that Abraham had in the Scriptures define the God intended meaning of the terms if it doesn't seem right to you that the house of Israel. The house of Judah in the Old Testament could apply to the church in the New Testament.

It doesn't matter what it seems to you. If the New Testament speaks to the issue and Adonis, so my final lesson is that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture will believe that but doing it is another thing systems must be examined and refined by Scripture.

Godly men must be evaluated by Scripture. I thank God for John MacArthur and many others like him, but God has used that man in my life tremendously but in my understanding of Scripture. He's wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong in his staunch dispensationalism he's missed the boat on but likewise I thank God for RC Sproul. I love that man. I love his books. I love his teaching Presbyterian for those of you don't know and responsible for real revival in Bible believing Presbyterian our day. I love that man. But he's wrong about infant baptism systems must be examined and refined by Scripture. Godly men must be evaluated by Scripture. We must study thoroughly think carefully and refined regularly as we grow in our understanding of God's word.

God help us to do much and pray. Father, help us to be students of your word. Help us to be humble in our study of your word.

Help us to be willing to change with Scripture indicates we should help us not to be guilty of exegetical gymnastics to get around with the Bible is saying so little for our system.

Help us Lord to take what you have given believe it. Client and live according to it. We ask in Jesus name, amen