Again, we're going to go back to the Westminster Confessions this week, chapters 25 and 28. You want to keep your hymnal handy this evening. But again, I want to read chapter 25, paragraphs 1 through 3. You can find that on page 935. Chapter 25, paragraphs 1-3, page 935. The Catholic or Universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all. The visible church, which is also Catholic or universal under the gospel, not confined to one nation as before under the law, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there's no ordinary possibility of salvation. Unto this Catholic visible Church, Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life to the end of the world, and does by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. And then from chapter 28, which is over on page 936, I'm going to read paragraphs 1 and then 4 through 6. Paragraph 1, 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, of His engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of 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. In 4-6, Not only those who do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized. Although it's a great sin to neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it. or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time wherein it's administered, yet notwithstanding by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such, whether of age or infants, as the grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, and his appointed time. Well, you know, as I mentioned, these are the same confessional references we read last week because they're crucial for understanding why it is that Presbyterians baptize babies. Now for time reasons, I can't do much of a review, but I do want you to keep this in mind because we'll explore this more, some in this evening's sermon and then next week. We do need to make the distinction between the visible and invisible church, and it's something that By and large, the evangelical world, even the conservative Baptist world, doesn't see this distinction. So it's important because we do see it. And it matters in how we understand the administration of baptism. The visible church is made up of all those who profess faith along with their children. Another way to describe the visible church is the covenant community. The invisible are all those who are regenerated in all times and all locations. And another way to describe the invisible church is the elect. Obviously one group is visible because we can see them. The other group is invisible because we can't see their hearts. Again, we'll address that distinction more, but I want to keep building that into you so you're thinking about that. And by the way, this will have important information for us, this visible and invisible distinction, next week on the Lord's Day in the morning as we move forward in our study of Romans, right? Because one of the things Paul is going to say is throughout Israel's history, there's been a remnant saved by grace. In other words, there was a visible Israel, And there's an invisible Israel. Again, coming attractions. Then we read that the ministry, the oracles, and the ordinances are given to the visible church. That includes baptism. And let me say, because I got this question last week, the Reformed community generally holds that the ordinances are the preached word, the sacraments, and prayer. But I want to zero in on two things, and this is going to take a couple minutes. First, just in general, what is baptism? And let me begin by saying this up front. Presbyterians and historically the Reformed community, we don't have two definitions of baptism. There's not one definition for babies and another one for adult professing believers. Baptism is baptism and generally means the same thing. So, what is it? Well, if you glance there at paragraph 1, it tells us it's a sacrament. Now, I defined a sacrament last week. It's a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace. A sign points us to something. Namely, to Jesus Christ as he's offered in the gospel, and a seal. authenticates the promises of the gospel, those promises that belong to the person baptized. And it not only declares the persons in the covenant community, it is a sign and seal of being united to Christ and all the attending benefits, regeneration, remission of sins, walking in the newness of life. It's a sign and seal of union with Christ. Not union with Christ, but a sign and seal of union with Christ. It's a means of grace. That's typically how the Reformed have understood baptism. To understand how baptism is a means of grace, and what we mean by that, I need to take a couple minutes and dig a little deeper, I guess, to help us understand sacraments and how the Reformed community has understood sacraments differently than other Christian traditions. And while what I'm about to say is definitely a bit of a broad brush, The sacraments can generally be understood in three ways. There's the Roman Catholic view, and their view of the sacraments is that they communicate grace by virtue of being sacraments. They have power in and of themselves to communicate grace. Now, we could call that a sacrodotal view, and it's something that reformed. were vehemently opposed to. Then there's actually the opposite extreme of that view that's really characterized by most of our evangelical brothers and sisters. And that view says that sacraments don't communicate grace at all. They really have no power at all. It's simply a way of memorializing what the person already believes. That's all they are. And we could call that a memorialist view. Now again, I'm simplifying this, but Catholics or sacerdotalists focus on the sacrament. In fact, the Catholic religious system is based on the sacrament. The memorialists view, they actually focus on the person. How have they responded to the gospel? It's purely subjective. The Reformed view is focused on the work of the Holy Spirit. That's what makes a sacrament savingly efficacious. It's not grounded in the sacrament itself. It's not grounded in the person. It's grounded in what God does. See, that gets to why we baptize infants, based on God's promise. We don't believe they're regenerated little ones. We believe that's where God's promise to work and the covenant promises really and truly belong to our children. And so we place the sign on a little child or an adult and it's a means of grace. It's a means of grace utterly dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit. And since it's a sacrament, and it's a means of grace, it actually communicates a real spiritual benefit. Now this is the question you might want to ask. Pastor Bird, are you saying when we baptize a little one, there is real spiritual benefit? not knowing anything about their future, is there real spiritual blessing for them? The answer is yes. Are you saying that means the little one is regenerated? The answer is no. Now something I had intended to cover this week, but just didn't have time to do it, will have to do it next week, is that there are real spiritual blessings within the covenant community, real spiritual blessings to everyone in the covenant community, those who will come to Christ by faith, and even those who never exercise saving faith. Again, that's going to have to be next week, though. Now, I know that's a lot to digest, but stick with me because I actually want to take this one step further. When a person is baptized, infant or adult, does that mean at that point that grace is necessarily conferred? At that point. And that's an important question and it's addressed in paragraph 6 there on page 936. Look at this because this is an important part of our understanding of baptism. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it's administered. Yet notwithstanding by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such, whether age or infants, as that grace belongs unto according to the counsel of God's own will in His appointed time. Now this is important because since we don't limit the efficacy of baptism to the moment of administration, it's not wrong to say it will communicate grace according to God's sovereign will. He's going to have compassion on whom He has compassion. And He's going to do it at the time He appoints, because the Spirit blows where the Spirit will. In other words, the grace that's conferred upon the elect will happen at exactly the right time. And sometimes we miss this, but this is true of all the means of grace. The Reformed churches preach the Word because they understand that to be the primary means of grace. But the power to communicate saving benefits, even in the Word proclaimed, is altogether dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit. And you know what we know about the Word going forth? When it's preached, it's always going to bring a number of different results that we can't see. According to the parable of the seeds, sometimes when the Word goes forth, it's just going to be dismissed out of hand. Sometimes people will hear it, they're going to get all pumped up initially, but then because of persecution, they're going to fall away. Others will hear the Word of God, they're going to seem to be on board, but the world will have such a stranglehold on them that they end up falling away. Still others will hear it and they'll have a heart that's been plowed by the Holy Spirit and they persevere and they'll bear great fruit. The point is in every instance, all four of those examples, the words and means of grace, in every one of those instances spiritual benefits are communicated And only in one instance is it saving. And that's when the Holy Spirit works. And you know what we know? We don't know at all when it works, right? We can't see that. How many people do you know who sat in churches two, three, four decades? In churches where they heard the gospel taught. They were called to repent and believe. And they did it for 40 years. Was it not a means of grace the first 40 years? Of course it was. It was effective to salvation when the Holy Spirit determined it would be effective unto salvation. Baptism, to use the language of Augustine, is a visible word and ultimately its saving advocacy isn't attached to the time it's administered. The grace is conferred by the Holy Spirit according to the counsel of God's own will in His appointed time. I hope some of that sticks. For now, let's continue praising the Lord. Scene 194. Well, I'd like to tell you what I hope to cover this evening and the next Lord's Day. I sort of tweaked this from last week, and I'll tell you why I tweaked it. I had three different conversations with three different people, and they all had different kinds of questions. And frankly, I'm interested in what we need to know as a body of believers rather than what I think We need to know. So I'm going to try to address some of those things over the next couple weeks. So here's what we're going to do this evening. First, we're going to go back to Genesis 17, and there's going to be a brief review. Then I want to look at some of the things we looked at last week, specifically the promises that God made to Abraham. But I want to come at it from a slightly different perspective. And third, I want to explain something of the language or why I think, I want to explain why I think the language we use of baptism and sacraments can be challenging to the broader evangelical community and how the Reformed try to deal with sacramental language. And then next week, We're going to look more specifically at the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. We're going to try to wrap our minds around the biblical teaching that even unbelievers can receive spiritual blessings. And I hope to wrap up next week by dealing with this objection, which is a legitimate question. if we baptize babies why don't we invite babies and the youngest to the Lord's table. We have lots to do and I want to say up front that I'm going to be borrowing heavily from three sources. One is Cornel Venema, the other is Ligon Duncan, and the third is Brian Holstrom. So I'm not going to quote them, but I'm borrowing from them. So if I happen to arbitrarily say something that's wise, it probably came from them. So let's pray and then get to work. Father in Heaven, we thank you for this opportunity to study this. Indeed, it is an important matter. Who is to receive the covenant sign of baptism? We pray that you give us wisdom, that you help your servant to speak and teach clearly, that our hearts would be open to receive truth, our minds would be attentive to these things, that all things Christ might be glorified. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Well, let me ask you to open your Bibles to Genesis 17. We're just going to read verses 1-14. I had intended to read a bit more, but we'll save that for next week. We're going to read verses 1-14, and please do keep Your Bible's handy. We're going to be jumping around this evening. Genesis 17, verse 1. This is the Word of God. When Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, I am Almighty God. Walk before me and be blameless, and I'll make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, And I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also, I will give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession. and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham, as for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised, and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your forestands. And it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations. He who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with money must be circumcised and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people. He's broken my covenant. Well, there ends the reading of God's holy and inspired Word. May He bless it to our hearts this evening. Well, dearest congregation of our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the things I focused on last week is the continuity of the covenant God made with Abraham and the new covenant. In verse 7, the Lord said to Abraham, I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you in their generations. for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and your descendants after you. And of course, the sign of this covenant was circumcision. And one of the things I emphasize is that this is an everlasting covenant. This covenant with Abraham is everlasting. It extends into the New Covenant. And one of the places we see that continuity unfold in the New Testament is in Galatians 3, verses 27-29, where we're told, for as many as you were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There's neither Jew nor Greek, there's neither slave nor free, there's neither male nor female, for you're all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Now B.B. Warfield, who was known as being somewhat long-winded, was uncharacteristically brief when he explained the Presbyterian view of baptizing little ones. He writes, the argument in a nutshell is simply this. God established his church in the days of Abraham and he put children into it. They must remain there until he puts them out. He's nowhere put them out. They're still members of his church and as such are entitled to his ordinances. And just about everything I've said or could say about infant baptism flows from that. Under Abraham, the little one's got the sign from eight days old and older. And if there isn't something in the new covenant that says they're not included, than the Presbyterian view, the Reformed view, the Dutch Reformed view as well, as then they should be included. And this is an important issue because as we read in verse 14, the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people. He's broken my covenant. So we have to take this seriously. I remember many years ago, now probably not that many years ago, eight or ten years ago, Mark Dever wrote an article on why he thought it was sinful to baptize infants. I totally disagree with him. But you know what? I actually appreciated that he took baptism seriously. because it has to be taken seriously. Now, as I said, I want to comment the promises that God made to Abraham in a slightly different way than I did last week. Even though I'm going to use some of the same text, I want to come at it from a slightly different perspective. Now, I trust you know God first called Abram in Genesis 12, and God made promises to Abram when he called him. Then in chapter 15, Abram was experiencing a faith crisis. The Lord appeared and reiterated the promises to Abram And then in chapter 17, once again, Abraham is having a faith crisis. The Lord appeared, reiterated the promises, and gave him the sign of circumcision. The point is there's sort of a three-peat of the promises in Genesis 12 and 15 and 17. And here in chapter 17, we're told the sign of the promise is circumcision. So keep this in mind. Circumcision. is the sign of these promises. So now with that in mind, I want to ask you to go back to Acts chapter 2. Again, we were there last week. So turn in your Bibles to Acts chapter 2. You'll remember that Peter preached this Pentecost sermon. The people heard it. And many of whom Peter addressed were Israelites, were told that, as Peter preached, that the people were cut to their heart, and they wanted to know what to do. Now look there at Acts 2, verses 38 and 39. Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Now what's the rationale that Peter uses to tell them to be baptized? Look at verse 39. The promise is to you and to your children and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call. Now we have to ask an important question here, and this is where we're sort of coming at this from a different angle than last week. What promise does Peter have in mind? And the obvious answer is this, well Pastor Byrd, it's the promises to Abraham, you've already taught this. Of course that's right, but I want us to be a little more specific about this promise. And when we're interpreting the Bible, We always want to read the Bible in context. So one of the questions we might ask is Luke, who wrote Acts, has he talked about the promise anywhere near these series of events? Something that we can look to and help us understand what he might mean specifically by the promise. It just so happens that he has. So let me ask you to turn back to Luke 24. Remember, Luke and Acts are sort of two volumes of his gospel account. Luke, Acts. Turn to Luke 24, right down near the end of the chapter. This is after the whole Emmaus Road conversation. Luke 24, verse 49. Look what Jesus says. Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you're endued with power from on high. Now, that ought to really catch our attention, right? Because if nothing else, that's odd language, don't you think? I'll send the promise of my Father upon you? Now, again, This is sort of volume one. Now let's turn to volume two. Dealing with the same series of events. Turn over to Acts chapter one. Acts chapter one. I want to pick up at verse four. and being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which He said, you've heard from Me. For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, Not many days from now. So again, we have the promise of the Father. And I want you to see the three things that are brought together here. You have the promise of the Father, baptism, and the Holy Spirit, all connected. Now remember, we want to understand what Luke has in mind in regards to this promise. So now, look at Acts chapter 2. Acts chapter 2. And I want to read the first four verses. When the day of Pentecost had fully come, They were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly, there came a sound from heaven of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Here we have the promise of the Father being poured out. Right? That's what this is. And it's the Holy Spirit. And what's happening to them, according to Jesus, they're being baptized by the Holy Spirit. So again, we have promise, baptism, and the Holy Spirit all hanging together. Keep that in mind. Now let's go back and look at those verses at the end of chapter 2. Acts 2 verses 38 and 39. Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you, the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Here we can begin to get at the issue. What is the promise? It's the Holy Spirit, right? So Jesus, Luke, and Peter are talking about the promise. It's the promise of the Father. But we need to ask, and this is important, when did this promise get promised? When did this promise of the Holy Spirit Get promised. And the Bible tells us it was actually Genesis 12. And we know that because Paul makes this crystal clear in Galatians 3. I'm not going to look at Genesis 12. I want to look at Galatians 3. Galatians 3. Galatians 3 Paul is explaining just what the Lord's death accomplished, and I want to look at verses 13 and 14. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it's written, cursed is everyone who hangs on the tree. that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. I don't miss it. The promise that God made to Abraham way back in Genesis 12 is the Holy Spirit. And that's not my opinion, that's the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now, this helps us understand why Peter said, the promise is to you and to your children and all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call. This mirrors exactly what we read in Genesis 17 around the covenant of circumcision. The promise, this was told to Abraham, the promise is to you, your children, and all the foreigners who dwell in your tents. Let that sink in. Now, Peter is saying, the promise is to you and your children and all those who are far off. Now don't miss this. What Peter is saying is baptism. Baptism is a sign of the promise God made to Abraham. So baptism is a sign of the promise of the indwelling of the Spirit for all who believe. And it's a sign that was to be given in the Old Testament to believers and their children, and if I'm understanding Peter correctly, it's a sign to be given in the New Testament to believers and their children. As I said, this is coming at it from a slightly different perspective than last week, or certainly fleshing it out a bit more. But it leaves us with the same question I asked last week. Remember, Peter's preaching this on Pentecost. He was preaching specifically with Israelites in mind. Surely, there were people from all over the world gathered, but he identified at least three times in the sermon that he was preaching to Jews. And as he's preaching this sermon, you've got to ask this question, what happened? Before Pentecost, like say at 8 in the morning, The children were in the covenant, then by three in the afternoon they're out. It just doesn't work. The sign of the promise is baptism. They're not excluded. Again, did you notice that Peter said, I'm using the language of Genesis 17. He's preaching. He's saying the children, those who are far off, just the language he used. And if somehow Peter didn't think children should be included in this, he would have said this, this promise is to you, repent and be baptized. It's for you and for your children, but don't let them get wet. He didn't say that. Again, I know, as I said last week, this is an argument from silence, but what was one of the most pressing theological issues in the New Testament times, particularly for the Apostle Paul? Who should be circumcised? In all of his ministry, wouldn't there have been at least one Jew that said, what about the kids? Wouldn't there have been at least one? And wouldn't Paul have addressed it since he addresses just about every objection he ever got in his ministry? Again, that part is an argument from silence, but I think it's very compelling. That brings us to the next point that I want to cover this evening. And it connects to this. I want to explain something of why the language of baptism and the sacraments can be challenging. and how the Reformed community deals with it. You see, I think some evangelicals, and even some in the Reformed community, have an allergy against the sacramental language of the Bible. They just think it sounds too much like Roman Catholicism. I mean, I just said baptism is a sign and a seal of the promise, which is the Holy Spirit. And you might wonder if I'm afraid that that might lead people to believe in baptismal regeneration. Truth is, I'm not worried at all. And I won't shy away from what I believe the Bible teaches, because it could be misunderstood or misapplied. I've shared this with a few of you, but I think it bears repeating. Many moons ago, when I was in seminary, I was preaching at a church in Indiana, and my text was Joshua 24. And I ended the sermon with the exhortation from Joshua 24, 15, Choose you this day whom you will serve. Lickety-split after the service, I had a guy come up to me and say, you know, we don't use God. I said, yeah, I know that, but I feel free to use biblical language. And I think that mindset invades us when we talk about the sacrament and especially baptism. And here's the problem, the Bible uses language that I'm guessing some evangelicals might find uncomfortable. But we need to understand what the Bible teaches about sacraments. So I want to draw your attention to what our confessions say on sacraments. Again, I don't normally do this, but let me ask you to look in the back of your hymnal to page 936. And this is chapter 27 on the sacraments. It's at the top there of the page on 936. And I want you to look there at paragraph 2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified when it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. Now I want you to think about what this is saying. there's such a close relationship between a sacrament and what the sacrament signifies that sometimes the language used to describe the sacrament and the biblical language of the thing signified will be identical. And if we get this, if we understand sacraments correctly, then to quote Dr. Chad Van Dixon, it becomes a manual for right reading of scriptural terminology. What I'm getting at is we have to use biblical language when we're talking about biblical ideas and biblical thoughts. And sometimes there's such a close connection between the thing, excuse me, the sign And the thing it signifies, that the language is indistinguishable. Think about what the Lord said to Abraham in Genesis 17, verses 9 and 10. And God said to Abraham, as for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you, throughout their generations. This is my covenant which you shall keep. between Me and you and your descendants after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised." Did you hear that? God didn't say circumcision is the sign of My covenant. He says circumcision is My covenant. That's God speaking. Right? Not Calvin, not Chip, that's God speaking. Now, we've got to read the whole Bible. Can the sacrament of circumcision save? Of course not. Both the Old and the New Testament testify what's needed is a circumcised heart. Remember? The work of the Holy Spirit. But the language of the Bible sees such a close relationship between the sign and what's signified that often they're spoken of in a way that sounds identical. Think about how the Bible speaks of baptism. Romans 6 verses 3 and 4, Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death. In order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in the newness of life. If you can remember the way the Confession describes and explains baptism, it has a lot of echoes from that language. Well, let's see what Peter writes. In 1 Peter 3.21, there is also an antitype. He had been talking about how Noah was saved through the waters of the flood. There's also an antitype which now saves us. Baptism. Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think how the Holy Spirit's regenerating work sounds, quite purposefully I believe, like baptism in Titus 3. God saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord. Again, dear ones, I can assure you I have a robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the necessity of regeneration. And the only way a sacrament can have saving efficacy is by the Holy Spirit's power. But the Reformers wanted to use biblical language and they weren't allergic to sacramental language because it's in the Bible. So let me put this together. Does baptism equal regeneration? No. Does baptism equal being united to Christ? No. Does baptism equal the remission of sin or the walking in the newness of life? No. But it is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of being engrafted into Christ, of regeneration, of the remission of sin, and of giving up our lives to God and walking in the newness of life. And you might wonder, how does all this connect then to infant baptism? Well, this is part of it. One of the things, and this isn't true of some of our Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters, but one of the reasons a lot of the evangelical community is uncomfortable with the language Presbyterians use to speak of baptizing babies is because they simply don't have a place in their biblical vocabulary to understand sacraments. And when Presbyterians speak of it being a sign and seal of engrafting into Christ, they're not trying to keep one foot in Roman Catholicism. They're trying to make sense of what the Bible says. Now, here is where I do see one of the distinctions that we have with our conservative Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters. Again, I'm going to keep saying this. I'm very thankful for that. But they make much of sacramental language in regards to the Lord's Supper, but they get a little bit squeamish to use sacramental language in regards to baptism. And I'm just saying, this is biblical language. So I'm going to end here and give you an opportunity to ask questions about these matters. As I said, we'll be coming back next week, and we'll see how some of this fits together when we talk about the visible and invisible church, and then deal with some of the other things in terms of real spiritual blessings for everyone in the covenant community. But I'll give you a moment to ask any questions you might have for now, if you have any. the difference between how they use sacramental language and how they use the word sacramental. Remember what I said, it's got the closest possible relationship to the sign and the thing signified? Think of the language of Jesus. Take, eat, this is my body. That's sacramental language. Or, when He said, this is the blood of my covenant. That's sacramental language. Most of our Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters would say, okay, I can see. It's okay to use that language that's so close. We talk about the Lord's Supper. But when you get to baptism, they're going to be a little bit more squeamish to sort of adhere to that sacramental language. Yeah, and I didn't notice that until last week when you mentioned it. Yeah, I didn't notice that. I do know that, for example, and this is important, This is next week, but they don't make the distinction between visible and invisible church, because basically when you're baptized you participate in what we might call a visible church, but it's assumed that you're part of the invisible church. It's interesting, and again I don't think any of the Reformed Baptists like Jeff Riddle, the guys I know, they would never say this, but one of the things it said, you've got to be careful about baptismal regeneration. But there's a sense in which that's their view of adult baptism. Because they're saying they're part of the invisible community. I don't say that whether you're a baby or an adult. I don't say you're part of the invisible community, I say you're part of the visible community. I didn't quite follow you. The point you made about baptism on the one hand Genesis 12, the Apostle Paul, the content of the promise of Genesis 12 on the other, what was the connection? And I have the same question too, and just maybe to tag on to that, because you mentioned the promise in Genesis 12, and before you were talking about the promise, ultimately the promise of the Holy Spirit. Is that correct? Because That's a great question. That's the reason I didn't go back to Genesis 12 because there's not a specific verse in Genesis 12 that that says that, but Galatians 3 looks back and Paul is quoting from Genesis 12 when he says the promise is the Holy Spirit by faith. Does that make sense? So the point I'm trying to make is what Peter is saying is the sign of baptism is the sign of that promise from Genesis. Let me sort of come at this from a different angle and this will either help or confuse more. Ephesians 1 Let me try to say it this way, because maybe I'm not being clear, and that's my problem. Let me go to Ephesians 1. I'm going to begin in verse 11. In Him we've obtained an inheritance. having been predestined according to the purpose of Him, who works out things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were first in the hope of Christ might be in the praise of His glory. In Him, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in it, you were sealed with the promise of the Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance, until we require possession of the praise of His glory." The inheritance goes back to all the promises of the Bible that might not have been in this example. Here's how you, I'm trying to make this connection and see if I can say this slightly different. The promise to Abraham, ultimately, that all the promises would be inherited would be brought through the coming of the Holy Spirit. That's what Peter's addressing. And he's saying the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in the Holy Spirit. Again, Galatians 3 says that, and it's connecting to Genesis 12. The point is Peter is saying baptism is a sign of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is the promise God made to Abraham. And if the promise involved children in the Old Covenant under circumcision, It must necessarily belong to children in the New Covenant. Is that helpful at all? I should have brought my notes down. I could have followed them better. It makes sense when I'm writing it out. It's like all biblical doctrines. You can't really teach a biblical doctrine from one or even two texts. You've got to put the Bible together. You've got to see how these themes unfold in the history of redemption. And this is certainly one of those. Any other questions? Any other ways I can confuse you? Well, let's pray. Father, we thank You for Your goodness and mercy to us. We thank You for Your Word. We thank You for sacraments that they are indeed a condescension. We're thankful, Lord, that they speak to us of the way You save. And when the Holy Spirit works, they have a way of conferring saving grace to Your people. Help us to understand these things. We ask all this in Jesus' name, amen.