we have the joyful privilege this evening to meditate upon the doctrine of baptism. And when I think about baptism, I have to admit that there are few practices in the church that are more wonderful, more ancient, and more contentious than baptism, particularly in the last 500 years. During the Protestant Reformation, a minority party of believers known as the Anabaptists rejected the practice of infant baptism. This trend expanded to the Baptist movement in the following century. Meanwhile, the majority party of the Protestant Reformation affirmed infant baptism, but reexamined the doctrine in light of the scriptures. Of course, both sides argued that their view was the biblical view. And of course, both sides have fought vigorously about it ever since. The majority of Christians today practice infant baptism. But the majority of Protestant Christians today practice adult or believers-only baptism. Now, why all the ruffled feathers? And what is baptism about anyway? Baptism is about the gospel, and it is crucial to a biblical understanding of baptism that we keep the gospel central when we talk about it. God gives baptism to the church to be a visible display of the gospel. That is why it is so vital that we understand the doctrine of baptism rightly. Get that doctrine wrong, and we threaten the gospel itself. If we make baptism about the recipient, then we have undermined the gospel. Make baptism merely a cultural rite of passage, like graduating from high school, then we have missed the gospel altogether. Make baptism a mark of maturity for established Christians, and we again miss the point of the gospel. Treat baptism as a magic formula for getting saved, or an infallible mark that you are saved? And we still have missed and undermined the gospel. Tonight we are going to look at the Presbyterian doctrine of baptism. In my estimation, I have not found a more robustly biblical articulation of the sacrament. Long before I was a Presbyterian, I looked to its theology to supplement my own. I hope that I provide a winsome case for the Presbyterian position and that, at minimum, the gospel would be a point of unification where there may be otherwise contention. I should also say that the occasion for this address is the celebration of our first baptism as a church, as First Presbyterian Church of Norway. beyond that and even more excitingly. As far as we know, this is the first Presbyterian baptism to ever be performed in Norway. So in all of Norwegian history, as far as we know, there has never been a Presbyterian baptism that has occurred on Norwegian soil. So these are wonderful, exciting moments to be here, to be planting this church, and to be celebrating such a wonderful sacrament. But in light of this occasion, I think it's particularly important, as we set out, to make sure that we are crystal clear about what we mean by baptism, and by extension, what we believe about the gospel, too. After all, the gospel is what baptism is all about. So we will study baptism by asking three questions tonight. As we consider this doctrine, I would like to focus on the points that unite Protestants together. But I will do my best to mention those points of contention along the way. So the first question is, what is baptism? What is baptism? The Presbyterian doctrine concerning the nature of baptism can be grouped into three main points. Number one, baptism is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. The reason that we practice baptism is that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted it. These words of institution come to us in the Great Commission. There Jesus says to his disciples, go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now baptism is conducted by the washing of water in the name of the Trinity. Thus far, we have universal agreement among the three major branches of Christendom. We practice baptism because Jesus told us to do it. Further, there is widespread agreement that baptism is central to discipleship. Again, the first thing that comes from our Savior's lips about making disciples in the Great Commission is that we are to baptize them. We should say that for the majority of church history, the mode of using water has not been a point of contention, except for the Anabaptists and Baptists beginning in the 16th century. From the beginning, Christian churches have used sprinkling, pouring, or immersion While some argue that the Bible clearly teaches one position or another, the witness of church history is that this should not be a point of contention. Why it should not be a point to argue about is because of what baptism signifies in the first place, which we will come to in a minute. Another reason that this should not be a point of contention is that the Bible uses the Greek word baptize in the New Testament and the Greek version of the Old Testament which is known as the Septuagint in several ways. For example, in Hebrews 9.9 this Greek word baptism is used to describe various washings to summarize the sacrificial duties of the priests in the Old Testament. These various washings or baptisms included dipping, sprinkling, and pouring. Second, baptism is a sign and seal of the gospel. We said at the outset that baptism is about the gospel. To that end, the Bible teaches that baptism is a sign and seal of it. This usage of the word sign and seal comes from Romans 4, 11. In this passage, Paul says that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was uncircumcised. The sign of circumcision pointed to God's covenant with Abraham. It also served as a seal that Abraham was indeed made righteous by that covenant, that is righteous before God. So circumcision pointed to the covenant and attested to Abraham's standing within the covenant. Now, when we go to a place like Galatians, we see that God's covenant with Abraham was, in fact, the gospel in Old Testament form. Paul says in Galatians 3, 7 and 9, who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, and you shall all the nations be blessed. So then those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Let me read that one more time so that you can see the gospel connection to the Abrahamic covenant. Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham and the scripture for seeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. Hear this. preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying, and now this is a reference to Genesis 12, three, when God makes his initial covenant and promise with Abraham saying, and you shall all the nations be blessed. And then Paul goes on, so then those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Therefore, this physical act of circumcision functioned as a sign and seal of the gospel. It pointed to it and testified that Abraham was made righteous by it. But can we say the same for baptism? Many authors have written on the subject. I will simply say that the two most significant sacraments of the Old Testament are circumcision and the Passover, and that they parallel the two sacraments of the New Testament, being baptism and the Lord's Supper. As a case in point, Paul demonstrates the parallel of circumcision and baptism In Colossians 2, verses 11 and 12, when he writes, So both the sacraments of the Old Testament and New Testaments function as great signs and seals of the gospel. Again, baptism is about the gospel, and it bears witness to the righteousness that we have by faith in the gospel. If you would like to learn more about the various elements of the gospel that baptism signifies, you can read chapters 27 and 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as the corresponding questions in the larger and shorter catechisms. Now, number three, baptism is a visible mark between the church and the world. Baptism's Old Testament parallel of circumcision put a visible mark between those who were members of the covenant people of God and those who were not. Indeed, as we saw there in Genesis 17, any male among the people of Israel who were not circumcised were called covenant breakers. They were to be cut off from the community. Circumcision was the entrance sacrament to the covenant. Again, circumcision put a visible mark between those who were members of the covenant people and those who were not. Indeed, if a sojourner from outside the community wanted to become an Israelite and an heir of the promises bound in the covenant, well, if they are male, he would need to undergo circumcision. Now, we can be thankful that the New Testament sign is not quite so painful, especially if you are baptized as an adult. But nevertheless, baptism functions in the same way of placing a visible mark, as it were, between the people of God and the world. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, for in one spirit we were all baptized into one body, Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, and all were made to drink of one spirit. Here we see that baptism in the New Testament. is a way of marking out disciples from the rest of the world. So these are three ways that the Presbyterian doctrine of baptism speaks of the nature of baptism. One, baptism is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. Two, baptism is a sign and seal of the gospel. And three, baptism is a visible mark between the church and the world. Now we need to turn to our second question. Who should be baptized? Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 28, 19 that the starting point of discipleship is baptism. In fact, as my New Testament professor, D.A. Carson, would regularly say in class, there is no concept in the New Testament of an unbaptized Christian. The implicit assumption in the New Testament, whenever the apostles write to the church, is that they are baptized. We just cited an example of that in 1 Corinthians 12, 13. There are many other places where the tacit assumption of the apostles is that they are baptized, because at that time all Christians were baptized. So to answer the question of who should be baptized, we can simply say two things. Number one, all believers should be baptized. In every age of the church, until some odd exceptions in recent years, baptism constituted the beginning of the discipleship process. Or in other words, to be a church member, you had first to be baptized. These ideas of church membership and baptism were synonymous. The more recent notion of unbaptized church members is unheard of in respect to church history. Here we must note a fundamental problem in shifting views of baptism, which undercut the gospel. In some circles, people treat baptism as a mark of spiritual maturity. You may know someone who desired to delay their baptism till they progressed further in their Christian walk. But this undercuts the gospel. We do not become Christians by making ourselves more worthy or able. We become Christians when God rescues us in our weakness and inability. We should also note that many delay baptism because they view it as primarily a certification that the person is genuinely saved. That is that they are somehow, we are certain somehow that they are regenerated by the spirit. Now we should, of course, expect repentance and faith to precede baptism. for we find that in the New Testament. All Protestants affirm this point. Repentance and faith should precede baptism. When the crowd asked Peter what they should do to be saved, he replied, repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. We see that in Acts 2.38. Likewise, Paul says in Galatians 3.26 and 27, for in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. So the New Testament is clear that repentance and faith should precede baptism, but it never indicates that it is an automatic sign of regeneration. There is no indication whatsoever in the Bible that the apostles examined the validity of those who wanted to be disciples before they baptized them. That is, we never see, if you will, a regeneration test given to a baptismal candidate to see if they are ready for baptism. There is no evidence in the Bible that the apostles tried to discern if a person was genuinely saved before baptizing them. The only requisite in the Bible is that they repent and believe. In the New Testament, disciples are considered innocent until proven guilty, rather than, as many treat it today, that a disciple is guilty until proven innocent, and when they're proven innocent, then we will baptize them. Beloved, we need to understand that baptism is not church discipline. It is not a litmus test to see if someone is truly a believer. In fact, as church discipline has been rejected from most churches today, they have had to use baptism to fill the void, to make sure that you're only letting believers in. But baptism is not church discipline. Baptism is the initiation rite of a disciple who repents and believes. In the New Testament, those who repent and believe are baptized without undue delay. In fact, with the Ethiopian eunuch, they immediately baptized him. This biblical principle does not prohibit something like a baptism class, but it does speak against making people prove their salvation before allowing them to be baptized. We should expect nothing more than what the Bible requires in repentance and faith. But what about the children of believers? Here we see number two. The children of believers, should be baptized now we arrive at the most controversial point i should just say as a bit of personal biography i myself was a held a baptist view of baptism for most of my life This is certainly a controversial point and I have wrestled deeply with it myself before becoming a Reformed and Presbyterian infant Baptist. So, as I said, this is a very controversial point. Nothing will quite get people stirred up like talking about infant baptism. There are many legitimate reasons to be concerned about infant baptism because of how it is taught, the theology behind it, and how it is practiced, how it is used. Likewise, there are many legitimate concerns for a credo baptism or believer's baptism position and what that does. And I'm going to give you the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, which I believe is really cogent, really based squarely in scripture, and is also squarely rooted in the gospel. I should say that the fact that infant baptism is such a controversial point is somewhat surprising from a historical point of view. For 4,000 years, the people of God have given their children the sign of the covenant. As we find in Genesis 17, which we read for our scripture reading this evening, Abraham believed that gospel covenant per our discussion above from Galatians 3. Abraham believed the gospel covenant and God commanded Abraham to give his children the sign of his faith, not the sign of their faith, the sign of his faith. That the sign and seal of the covenant is expected to be given to the children of God should not be surprising in light of such a clear and explicit command in Genesis 17. And as we argued above from Galatians 3, the Bible says that the covenant that God made with Abraham was in fact the gospel in Old Testament form. Abraham believed God and God credited it to him as righteousness. And therefore circumcision is not something that came with the law later on, the law that is later abrogated. circumcision came with the gospel covenant that preceded the law with Abraham and transcended the law as we move into the New Testament period and as that sign is converted to baptism. In response to that faith in God's covenant promise, God commanded Abraham to give his children the sign of circumcision as an everlasting covenant. An everlasting covenant. And everlasting means everlasting. It then should be no surprise that we see the same command and promise at Pentecost when Peter tells the crowd, for the promise is for you and your children. Acts 2.39. This principle, which we can call household solidarity, is found in both the Old and New Testaments. We find it rooted in Genesis 17, though the principle of household solidarity actually goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, which is why we are all guilty of sin in Adam. We also find the principle of household solidarity in someone like Joshua who declared, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. This principle is also in the New Testament. When Jews brought their children to Jesus, even infants, he declared that to such belong the kingdom of heaven. And Jesus is not merely speaking hypothetically here. We can't twist his words and say, well, he was just merely saying that this is the kind of attitude that a disciple should have that enters the kingdom of God. No, he says, to such, referring to infants, to such belongs the kingdom of heaven in fact jesus rebuked the disciples who tried to prevent the parents from bringing the disciples or bringing the infants to him it was the parents faith that brought them to jesus in luke 18 15 to 17 Likewise, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7.14 that children are made holy by the faith of the parent. Further, we know that of at least five cases of household baptisms in the New Testament, Acts 10, Acts 16 twice, two occasions there, Acts 18, and 1 Corinthians 1, we know of five cases of household baptisms in the New Testament. Now, we don't know the ages of those who are baptized. That's often a contention point. But the point is that the whole house, which probably also included servants, was baptized. And at minimum, the disciples surely could not have had enough time to discern if every member of the house was a legitimate Christian. Nevertheless, in respect to the faith of the head of the household, the whole house was baptized. The Old and New Testaments, as well as 4,000 years of biblical and church history, attest to the principle of household solidarity. In the Old Testament, they were circumcised. In the New Testament to the present, they are baptized. We call the children of believers covenant children, and of the families of believing parents, a covenant family. Again, we should be like Joshua saying, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Now, before we leave this principle, we should say something about the salvation status of covenant children. This is vital. Please make sure that you hear me clearly on this point. This point is essential to having a proper and theologically correct view of the salvation status of your covenant children. Circumcision was no guarantee of salvation. Israel was a mixed people. Just look at Abraham's son, Ishmael. Now if circumcision was to guarantee the salvation of Abraham's children, certainly God would have known about Ishmael. But nevertheless, Ishmael too was to bear the sign of the gospel covenant. Though he was circumcised, he proved to be outside of the covenant. And many in Israel followed suit. They proved by their actions that they were in fact not Israelites at all. We call them covenant breakers. The same problem occurs in the New Testament. The apostles got it wrong with Simon the Magician. Though he was baptized, his actions proved that he was not yet a believer. John declares in first john 2 19 of other christians that as per our discussion already we can presume that they were baptized as all christians in the new testament were john declares there in first john 2 they went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. The New Testament church had many baptized disciples who later proved to be false Christians. In this way, the New Testament church as well as today is a mixed people too. We greatly deceive ourselves when we think of all the members of a church as surely being Christian. That is a false hope and it's dangerous and can be spiritually lethal to many in the church. The church is a mixed people. Although they all should be baptized, there's always going to be weeds among the wheat. Baptism never was and never can be a silver bullet to ensure your salvation. That's not what it's for. Baptism points us to the gospel, but it cannot make us believe the gospel. So today, when believers baptize their children, it is a commitment to raise them in the faith and to challenge them to persevere in the faith. Baptism is a call to persevere by faith in the gospel. This call to perseverance leads us to our third and final question. How can we improve our baptism? Now that sounds a bit like a funny question, doesn't it? How can we improve our baptism. A significant contribution to the history of Christian thought on baptism is the Presbyterian theology of how Christians should improve their baptism. This improvement of our baptism is in respect to reflecting on our own baptism as well as when we see others baptized. Now what does that mean? How is our baptism to be improved by us? You can read about this doctrine in full in question 167 of the Westminster Larger Catechism. There you'll see many proof texts from the Bible concerning this practice. But I will point to one significant way here. We can improve our baptism by living and persevering in a life of gratitude for the gospel. Let me say that again. We can improve our baptism by persevering in a life of gratitude for the gospel. The Catechism states that we can improve our baptism, quote, by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it. And of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein." And here they cite Romans 6, 3, and 5. 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 newness of life. It's Romans 6, 3 and 5. In baptism, we are buried with Jesus in death and raised to new life by the glory of the Father. Baptism is all about the gospel. As Paul exhorts the church in Rome, this baptism is given to us that we might walk in newness of life. This call that we have in baptism is a call to persevere in a life of gratitude for all that is ours in the gospel. We can significantly improve our baptism by living a life of thankfulness for the gospel that was given to us when we were dead in our trespasses and sins. Beloved, baptism is not a mark that signifies our spiritual maturity. It is not a litmus test to prove our regeneration. Baptism is not about what you have done for God. Baptism is about the gospel. It's about what God did for you. when you were dead and helpless. Baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant that goes back to Abraham. It displays all that God has done for you in Christ. It reminds us of all that is ours in Him, both in this life and the life to come. Though rooted in the Old Testament, baptism began with our Lord in the Great Commission when He declared that we make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And baptism will not end until that great day when He comes in glory to raise us from the grave. Until that time, may God bless our covenant families. May we and our children persevere in the faith. May we improve our baptisms in lies of thankfulness. May we never cease to look upon them with gratitude for all that Jesus has done for us. Beloved, let's keep the gospel central in baptism. For baptism is not about what we did for God, It is about what the Lord of the gospel did to save you and me.