All Sermons

John the Baptist: The Silence that Breaks the Silence By David Kingdon

Carey Conference Cassette

who should be baptized and why is part of a wider debate concerning the nature of the church.
Is the church to be defined in terms of believers and their children or as composed of believers only, whether adults or children?
And the debate about the nature of the church is part of a yet wider debate as to the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments.
How is this to be understood?
Is there such a fundamental continuity that the New Covenant is but a new administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, Genesis 17, nine to 14?
Or is it really new in such a way that administration,
a term commonly used by paid Baptist theologians,
is it really new in such a way that administration
is woefully inadequate to describe it
because it does not do justice
to its radical eschatological newness?
It is unfortunate that the key issue of the relationship
between the Testaments is often not addressed
in the debate over baptism.
Too often the relationship is assumed
without being considered as an essential preliminary
to the debate itself.
Yet how the relationship between the Old and New Testaments
is understood will inevitably influence the exegesis
of particular texts and determine the shape
of any theology of baptism that lays claim
to be considered biblical.
John S. Feinberg is surely on the right track
when he states, evangelicals agree that God has spoken
and that the Bible is his word,
but God has not revealed all of his word at once.
How are we to relate?
What he said through the prophets of old
to what has been revealed through his apostles?
Without an answer to this question,
it is difficult to know how to use both Testaments
in formulating either doctrine or practice.
An example of a doctrinal issue he says
that hinges on this question
is one's understanding of the Church.
Are Christians to formulate their concept of the Church
on the basis of both Testaments,
claiming so much continuity between the people of God
that one may see the Church in the Old Testament?
Or is there such a discontinuity
between Israel and the Church
that one's understanding of the Church must be formed solely
on the basis of the New Testament?
Now, although Feinberg, it seems to me,
overstates the issue in terms of an either or continuity
or discontinuity, without allowing
that there can be continuity and discontinuity
within a schema of promise and fulfillment,
in his basic contention, he is surely correct.
One's doctrine of the Church is related
to how one understands the relationship
between the two Testaments.
This is recognized by Robert L. Raymond
in his recent systematic theology.
It is clear, he says, that both anti-Paedobaptists
and Paedobaptists argue by way of inference
from more fundamental theological premises,
focus largely on the relationship between the Testaments
with the former stressing, that is, Reform Baptists,
a dispensational discontinuity at this point
in the Covenant of Grace, the latter stressing
the continuity of the Covenant of Grace,
respecting this matter.
How fundamental the assumption of continuity is
in the debate over Baptism can be seen
from the proposition of Charles Hodge.
Quote, if the Church is one under both dispensations,
if infants were members of the Church under the theocracy,
then they are members of the Church now,
unless the contrary can be proved.
Now, it is this assumption that enables Reformed Paedobaptists
to jump so easily from the circumcision
of Abraham's household, Genesis 17,
to the Baptism of the infant seed of believers now,
and to be so untroubled by the lack of positive evidence
of the Baptism of infants in the New Testament.
Indeed, the very silence of the New Testament
as to the Baptism of infants is seen
as a positive virtue by Pierre Charles Marcel.
I quote, in reality, the silence of the New Testament
regarding the Baptism of infants militates in favor of,
rather than against this practice,
to overthrow completely notions so vital,
pressed for more than 2,000 years on the soul of the people,
to withdraw from children,
sacrament of admission into the covenant.
The Apostolic Church ought to have received
from the Lord an explicit prohibition,
so revolutionary in itself that a record of it
would have been preserved in the New Testament.
So Marcel, you see, sees the silence of the New Testament
as to the Baptism of infants to be compelling evidence
in favor of the practice.
And so the typical dispensational Baptist approach won't do.
There was a track that used to circulate in my time
in Northern Ireland.
On the front, it was just folded on the front,
what does the New Testament say about infant baptism?
And you opened it up, and there was just a blank.
Now, that won't do.
Now, the question that needs to be put is this.
Is there a reason to believe that Reformed Baptists
have overlooked a key element in redemptive history
that calls into question their common assumption
that it is possible to jump from circumcision
using a giant theological pogo stick
to the Baptism of infants?
Now, I believe there is.
And it is the ministry of John the Baptist
to a consideration of which we must now turn.
So we come to my first main point,
the place of John the Baptist in redemptive history.
It is significant, as F.F. Bruce observes,
that all four gospels preface their narrative
of the ministry of Jesus with a brief summary of John,
that is the Baptist, and the evidence of Acts
suggests that this reflects primitive Christian preaching.
Mark's gospel indeed sees the ministry of Jesus
as marking, quote, the beginning of the gospel
about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mark chapter one, verse one.
In the beginning of the, sorry,
the beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
I will send my messenger ahead of you
who will prepare your way,
a voice of one calling in the desert,
prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.
And so John, that is John the Baptist,
came baptizing in the desert region
and preaching a baptism of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins.
The Apostle Peter 2, in the household of Cornelius,
emphasizes the place of John in redemptive history,
Acts 10, verses 37 and 38.
You know, says Peter, what has happened throughout Judea,
beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached,
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and power.
The Apostle Paul also recognizes the pivotal significance
of the Baptist ministry when addressing the synagogue
at Pisidian Antioch.
Quote, before the coming of Jesus,
John preached repentance and baptism
to all the people of Israel, Acts 13, verse 24.
Now it's clear that in the early church,
the ministry of John the Baptist
is seen as marking the boundary
between the age of the promise of the kingdom of God
and the arrival of that kingdom
in the person of Jesus Messiah.
This is true according to the testimony of Acts
for both the key apostles,
for Peter the apostle to the Jews
and Paul the apostle to the Gentiles.
It is also clear that neither Peter nor Paul
were the originators of this view
of John the Baptist's place in redemptive history.
The gospels uniformly trace this view of John
back to Jesus himself.
It is he, Jesus Messiah, who assigns to John his place
in the unfolding of the story of redemption.
When we examine the four gospels,
we cannot but be struck by the space and attention
that are given to John the Baptist.
From this testimony, we may extract a number of features.
First, he is the forerunner of the Messiah.
He is the forerunner of the Messiah.
John, according to Jesus,
is the one about whom it is written,
I will send my messenger ahead of you
who will prepare your way before you.
Matthew 11 verse 10, quoting Malachi three verse one
and compare also Exodus chapter 23 and verse 20.
In Johannine terms, he, that is the Baptist,
came as a witness to testify concerning that light.
He himself was not that light.
He came only as a witness to the light.
John one versus seven and eight.
Arthur prophets before John spoke of the grace
that was to come, 1 Peter one verse 10.
But only John the Baptist had the privilege
of being the forerunner of the promised Messiah.
So that's the first point then.
He is the forerunner of the Messiah.
Secondly, he is more than a prophet.
He is more than a prophet.
In what sense is John the Baptist designated by Jesus
as more than a prophet?
Matthew 11 and verse 10.
Read from verse nine.
Then what did you go out to see?
Our Lord asks the Pharisees.
A prophet?
Yes, I tell you I'm more than a prophet.
This is the one about whom it is written
I will send my messenger ahead of you
who will prepare your way before you.
Why is John singled out from the rest
of the Old Testament prophets in this way?
C.A. Carson supplies us with the answer.
Not only was he like other Old Testament prophets,
he writes a direct spokesman for God
to call the nation to repentance,
but he himself was the subject of prophecy.
The one who according to scripture
would announce the day of Yahweh.
John had borne witness to Jesus.
Matthew three verses 11 to 12 and John one verse 29.
Behold the lamb of God that takes away
the sins of the world.
Jesus now bears witness to him.
To no other prophet does Jesus bear such witness
for only John has the unique relationship
to Jesus that he does.
Thirdly, John is the climactic point
of all Old Testament prophecy.
He is the climactic point of all Old Testament prophecy.
Verse 12 of Matthew 11.
From the days of John the Baptist until now
the kingdom of God has been forcibly advancing
and forceful men lay hold of it.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Until could include or exclude John.
But the following verse makes it clear
that John is to be reckoned among the prophets.
For he is the Elijah who was to come.
The whole prophetic corpus reaches its climax
in John the Baptist.
He is the last in the sequence that cumulatively builds up
to the advent of the Messiah.
All the prophets before John say that Messiah is coming.
John is able to say that he has come.
Behold the Lamb of God.
John 1 29.
It is clear then that John occupies a unique place
in the biblical story.
As unique in its way as that occupied by Mary
the mother of Jesus.
As she was highly favored, Luke 1 28.
So too was John the Baptist.
For did not the Lord Jesus declare as much
prefacing his testimony with a solemn amen.
I tell you the truth.
Among those born of women there has not risen anyone
greater than John the Baptist.
Matthew 11 11.
It is then apparent that John is the climactic point
of all Old Testament prophecy.
And yet our Lord immediately adds,
he who is least in the kingdom of heaven
is greater than he.
With these words our Lord underscores the radical,
epical disjunction that there is between the kingdom of God
now arriving with and in Jesus Messiah
and the whole prophetic period that preceded it.
John may be the climactic point
of all Old Testament prophecy.
But the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Now this does not mean that John is excluded
from the kingdom as an individual,
no more than any of the Old Testament saints were.
What it does mean is that with respect to the development
of God's redemptive plan, John in his role as forerunner
is outside the kingdom of heaven.
He is the last of the old order
as the subsequent identification with Elijah,
verse 14 will make clear.
Thus even the least in the kingdom of heaven
is greater than John.
Unlike John, who at this point is in prison,
awaiting his end, he or she would see the kingdom
coming in power and thus be able to point to Jesus the King
without the ambiguity which John experienced at this point,
Matthew 11, two to three.
When John heard in prison what Christ was doing,
he sent his disciples to ask him,
are you the one who was to come
or should we expect someone else?
Fourthly, John calls out a remnant people for the Lord.
He calls out a remnant people for the Lord.
John called upon Israel to repent
in view of the soon coming judgment of God
when his wrath would be poured out
upon a disobedient nation.
He calls for a radical turning to God,
a returning to God from their rebellion
back to true covenant obedience.
This is the burden of his preaching.
Repent for the kingdom of God is near,
Matthew three verse two.
And this call is terribly urgent
for the ax is already at the root of the trees,
Matthew three verse 10.
To those who responded to his message,
John administered baptism in the Jordan River.
Those who were baptized confessed their sins.
Matthew three verse six.
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him
in the Jordan River.
They confessed their sins, they were baptized
and they were committed by their baptism
to produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Chapter three verse eight.
And the nature of that fruit
is further elaborated by Luke in his account.
John's baptism was a radical innovation
for it was administered to Jews,
not to proselytes from among the Gentiles.
And it was a once only right.
So it is marked off from the repeated lustrations
or washings of contemporary Judaism in general
and from those practiced in the Qumran community
in particular.
And it was administered to persons already circumcised.
According to John, descent from Abraham,
status as members of the covenant community
were of no avail unless there was genuine repentance
issuing in real moral fruit in one's life.
Verses eight to nine.
I'll read verse seven.
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to where he was baptizing,
he said to them, you brood of vipers.
That was a welcome, wasn't it?
Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance
and do not think you can say to yourselves,
we have Abraham as our father.
I tell you that out of these stones,
God can raise up children for Abraham.
According to John, descent from Abraham then,
status as members of the covenant community
were of no avail unless there was genuine repentance
issuing in real moral fruit in one's life.
Not only may God narrow Israel down to a remnant
as he did more than once in the course of Israel's history,
but he may also raise up true children of Israel
from these stones, perhaps as Carson suggests,
stones lying in the riverbed.
And both Hebrew and Aramaic have a pun
on children and stones.
When John baptized Jesus,
he associated the Messiah with the remnant people of Israel.
Jesus underwent baptism at the hands of John,
not because he had sins to confess,
but because in undergoing the rite,
he identified himself as a suffering servant
with those he came to save.
In so doing, both John and Jesus
fulfilled all righteousness, verse 15.
Note the word us there in verse 15.
Jesus replied, let it be so now.
It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.
The us refers to John and Jesus.
They were together obeying God's righteous will.
John's baptism then was a baptism for a remnant,
the baptism of a people from within the nation of Israel
who were preparing the way for the Lord,
Mark 1, verses two to three.
And the baptism that Jesus permitted his disciples
to administer, John 4, verse two,
seems to have had much the same significance
I'll just read those passages
because they're quite important.
John chapter four and verse two.
Read from verse one.
The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining
and baptizing more disciples than John.
Although in fact, it was not Jesus who baptized
but his disciples.
And then verse 22 of chapter three of John.
After this, Jesus and his disciples
went out into the Judean countryside
where he spent some time with them and baptized.
Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim
because there was plenty of water
and people were constantly coming to be baptized.
It would seem that there is no substantial difference,
this point at least, between the baptism
that John administered and the baptism
that our Lord permitted his disciples to administer.
Well this brings me to another main point and it's this.
The significance of John's baptism
in the continuing debate.
The significance of John's baptism
in the continuing debate.
As we've already noticed, the baptism of John
does not figure very much
in the continuing debate about baptism.
Reformed paid-to-baptists simply ignore it
in their concern to establish the proposition
that the circumcision of infants
is now replaced by the baptism of infants.
I do not know of a single Reformed paid-to-baptist
argument for infant baptism
that notes the significance of John the Baptist.
You may enlighten me.
Reformed Baptists have responded to their position
by arguing that the anti-type of circumcision
in the flesh is the circumcision of the heart,
that is regeneration.
Typical of their response is that of C.H. Spurgeon
in a sermon on consecration to God
illustrated by Abraham's circumcision.
He said, it is often said that the ordinance of baptism
is analogous to the ordinance of circumcision.
I will not controvert that point
though the statement may be questioned.
Supposing it be, let me urge on every believer here
to see to it that in his own soul he realizes
the spiritual meaning of both of circumcision and baptism
and then consider the outward rites.
For the thing specified is vastly more important
than the sign.
Well, said one, a difficulty suggests itself
as to your views for an argument is often drawn
from this fact that in as much as Abraham
must circumcise all his seed,
we ought to baptize all our children.
Now observe the type and interpret it
not according to prejudice but according to scripture.
In the type the seed of Abraham is circumcised.
You draw the inference that all typified
by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized.
And I do not caval at the conclusion
but I ask you who are the true seed of Abraham?
Paul answers in Romans 4.8.
They which are the children of the flesh,
these are not the children of God
for the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
As many as believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
whether they be Jews or Gentiles are Abraham's seeds.
Whether eight days old in grace or more or less,
every one of Abraham's seed has a right to baptism.
But I deny that the unregenerate whether children or adults
are of the spiritual seed of Abraham.
The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham
is by the confession of everybody the believer.
And the believer ought seeing that he is buried
with Christ spiritually to avow that fact
by his public baptism in water
according to the Savior's own precept and example.
Spurgeon is a good model to follow
which I did in my children of Abraham.
However, further reflection has brought me to see
that simply to respond to the circumcision baptism analogy
so fundamental to the paid a Baptist case
for infant baptism fails to do justice
to the place of John the Baptist in redemptive history.
As far as it goes, Spurgeon's reply is adequate
but it is a response to an agenda
set by reformed paid a Baptist.
And in effect, it allows them to skip over the ministry
of the Baptist as if it had no significance
for the ongoing debate about the subjects of baptism.
But it has, as I shall now attempt to show.
First, John's baptism is an innovation.
It is an innovation.
This point has already been made
but it now requires further consideration.
When in the temple courts, the chief priests and elders
questioned Jesus' right to cleanse the temple,
Matthew 21, 12 to 13,
asking him, by what authority are you doing these things?
Jesus puts them on the spot with a counter question.
Jesus replied, I will tell you by what authority
I am doing these things.
John's baptism, where did it come from?
Was it from heaven or from men?
Verses 23 to 25.
Now the dilemma of Jesus' opponents is obvious.
If John's baptism was from heaven,
then they should have believed the message he preached
and submitted themselves to the baptism
that he administered.
If they admitted, on the other hand,
that John's baptism was from men,
they faced an explosion of popular wrath.
For the people, verse 26, all hold that John was a prophet.
That is, he is a God-sent messenger
whose authority is to be a prophet.
Whose authority is from heaven.
In the light of this interaction between our Lord
and the leaders of the Jews,
it seems right to conclude that John's baptism
is an innovation.
It is John's baptism.
Not an ancient right with its roots in Jewish lustrations.
It is not proselyte baptism.
Assuming that it was being practiced at the time,
which is a big assumption.
Because proselyte baptism was administered
to Gentile converts to Judaism.
John's baptism of repentance is a radical innovation
instituted on his own derived authority
as a prophet sent by God.
It marks a new development
in the unfolding history of redemption
for John baptizes Jews
who are willing to enter God's remnant people
through a baptism of repentance.
It is therefore rightly described as John's baptism.
Further point is to be noticed.
We've already remarked on the connection
between the baptizing ministry of John
and that of the disciples of Jesus.
Here in the dispute in the temple courts,
Jesus links his work with that of John the Baptist.
His assumption is that they both act
upon the same authority.
Their commission has a common source.
It is from heaven.
Thus as Floyd V. Filson points out, quote,
Jesus knows that his work and John's are connected
and that the Jewish leaders in failing to see
that God had sent John had forfeited their right
to judge John's successor, end quote.
The importance of this point will become evident later.
Secondly, John baptizes already circumcised people.
Again, we've already noticed this fact,
but now we need to draw out its implication.
In baptizing people who had already been circumcised,
it is very likely that John does not see baptism
as replacing circumcision,
but as being a new right that comes in alongside of it.
This new right is appropriate as a sign of entry
into the remnant people of God
in a way that circumcision is not.
Whatever the spiritual reality
that circumcision in the flesh points to,
the circumcision of the heart,
the fact remains that it is the identifying sign
of the Jewish nation,
not of the remnant within that nation.
One is only to compare what was required for circumcision
with what John looks for in those he baptizes
to appreciate how different the two rights
are from each other.
Quote, for the generations to come,
every male among you who is eight days old
must be circumcised,
including those born in your household
or bought with money from a foreigner.
Those who are not your offspring,
whether born in your household or bought with your money,
they must be circumcised, Genesis 17, 12 to 13.
When we read the following statement,
the contrast is very stark indeed.
Confessing their sins,
they were baptized by him in the Jordan River,
Matthew 3, verse six.
A baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,
Mark 1, verse five, not circumcision
is the appropriate sign of the remnant
called out through the preaching of the Baptists.
If the two rights, circumcision and baptism,
differ so markedly from one another
and in where they are placed
in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan,
it is not surprising that John should not have seen baptism
as replacing circumcision.
Nor is it surprising that in the early church,
Jewish believers practiced circumcision
and administered baptism.
There is not a hint in the New Testament
that Jewish believers
ceased to have their male children circumcised.
Indeed, the evidence is that even Paul,
who so strongly resisted any attempt
to impose circumcision upon Gentile believers,
agreed that it should continue
among his fellow Jewish believers.
Acts 21, verse 21,
mentions that a false report about Paul
had been spread among the many thousands of Jews
who had believed in Jesus Messiah.
This was what he was alleged to be teaching.
All the Jews who live among the Gentiles,
he was alleged to be teaching
that all the Jews who live among the Gentiles
should turn away from Moses,
telling them not to circumcise their children
or live according to our customs.
That was the report that had reached Jerusalem.
At the suggestion of James
and the elders of the Jerusalem church,
Paul publicly demonstrated the falsity of the report
by joining in the purification rites
of four men who had made a vow.
He also paid their expenses.
The intended result is made plain.
Then everybody will know
that there is no truth in these reports about you,
but that you yourself
are living in obedience to the law, verse 24b.
In continuing to have their male children circumcised,
believing Jewish parents
clearly took their cue from John the Baptist,
who did not see his baptism as replacing circumcision.
Now, if this is the case,
why should we expect that two rites
were administered to male infants,
circumcision and baptism?
Circumcision, certainly.
But not baptism.
Douglas Wilson, a former Baptist,
now a strong paid Baptist,
rightly perceives the problem faced
by those who continue to advocate
the classic reformed case for infant baptism.
He observes that when the Baptist claimed
that there are no examples of infant baptism
in the New Testament is challenged,
quote, it is challenged
with inadequate arguments from silence.
Most interesting admission.
The purported babies,
he says of the Philippian jailer being one example.
If we only produce examples in the New Testament
where maybe they baptized infants,
we may legitimately conclude that maybe we should too.
This, he says, is hardly a solid foundation
upon which to build a basic parental duty,
if duty it is.
All too often paid of Baptists
grant that the New Testament
offers no examples of infant baptism
and then seek to establish their case
on grounds of continuity with the Old Testament, end quote.
Now, while I do not find Wilson's arguments
for infant baptism convincing,
his admission of the inadequacy
of the classic case is significant,
as also his recognition that, quote,
the transition from the older administration to the new
took almost half a century, end quote, pardon me.
However, Wilson fails to notice the significance
of John the Baptist's place in redemptive history.
Had he have done so,
he would have begun to appreciate
that there are other weaknesses in the classic case
for infant baptism.
Thirdly, John did not baptize infants.
He did not baptize infants.
The evidence seems very clear
that John did not baptize infants.
His baptism is administered to those
who confess their sins.
By its very nature,
as the identifying sign of a people turned again to God,
a remnant people, it requires repentance.
It is a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark one, verse four.
Both Matthew and Mark emphasize the element of confession.
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him.
John the Baptist in the Jordan River, Matthew three, six.
Nothing in the text suggests that they confess
the sins of their infants
or that their infants were baptized.
William Hendrickson, a paider Baptist, comments,
without confession of sins, no baptism.
For those who truthfully repented of their evil state
and wicked conduct, baptism was a visible sign
and seal of invisible grace.
Compare Romans four, verse 11,
the grace of forgiveness and adoption into God's family.
This is a statement to which all Baptists
could give hearty assent.
Those who are capable of confessing their sins
are clearly not infants, cannot yet talk.
As Francis Turritine recognizes,
he writes, John admitted none to baptism,
but those who confess their sins
because his business was to baptize adults.
But then he goes on immediately
to argue the case for infant baptism.
We've already noticed that the disciples of John
administered a baptism that was identical,
sorry, that the disciples of Jesus administered a baptism
that was identical with that practiced by John,
a baptism of disciples who commit themselves in baptism
to the lifestyle of God's remnant people.
We've also noticed that our Lord acknowledged
that his work and that of John are intimately connected.
He averts to the Jewish religious leaders
that John's baptism has behind it the same authority
as his own dramatic act in cleansing the temple,
it is from heaven.
Clearly then, he was endorsing a baptism
that was not for infants,
but only for those capable of confessing their sins.
An important implication follows from this.
If John the Baptist only baptized those
who were capable of confessing their sins,
and if the disciples of our Lord
followed the same practice with his approval,
why, I ask, should it be so difficult to believe
that the apostolic church did not practice infant baptism?
Concluding observations.
Shall now draw together the threads of my argument thus far.
My hope is that my paper this morning
may help to move the debate over the subjects of baptism
onto new and more fruitful ground.
First, paid of baptism need to do justice
to the place of John the Baptist in redemptive history.
To go on maintaining that it is possible
to make a simple move from the circumcision of infant males
to the baptism of infants male and female
is to ignore the significance
of the ministry of John the Baptist.
However, as I've attempted to show,
responsible biblical theological exegesis
will not allow us to do so.
Given the way in which the gospel writers
see John the Baptist as the pivotal figure
in the transition from the old dispensation
to the new eschatological dispensation,
and given the clear endorsement of his ministry by our Lord,
it is no longer helpful for paid of Baptist
to argue for infant baptism
as if John the Baptist never existed.
He did.
And so proper weight needs to be given
to his role in redemptive history.
For their part, reform paid of Baptists,
if they give proper weight to John's role
in redemptive history,
need no longer allow their paid of Baptist friends
to set the agenda as they've done in the past.
In the light of John's ministry,
the neat schema of circumcision baptism is to be questioned.
For in baptizing only those capable
of confessing their sins,
John clearly abandons the principle of you and your seed
after you, Genesis 17, 10.
Furthermore, our Lord in endorsing John's baptism
clearly did the same.
According to the paid of Baptist argument,
John should have baptized infants as well as adults
since he would, as a Jew,
have accepted the principle of thee and thy seed,
yet he did not baptize infants.
How do paid of Baptists account for this?
I suggest that on their own premises,
they are caught in a very difficult position.
They could maintain, firstly,
that since John did not baptize infants
without a clear command not to do so,
he'd acted without divine authorization.
This is unthinkable.
In the light of baptism should not apply
to Christian baptism,
which is also, among other things, a repentance baptism.
To insist that the principle of thee and thy seed
is meant to continue in force
beyond the ministry of John the Baptist
is to assume that the clock of redemptive history
can be turned back
and the principle of thee and thy seed reestablished,
having for a time been set aside.
But this would be without precedent in Holy Scripture,
for the movement of redemptive history
is progressive and cumulative,
not retrogressive.
The repentance baptism of John
leads on to the repentance baptism
of the first disciples of Jesus
and of his apostles, not away from it.
A further point needs to be made.
It is this.
Paid of Baptists accuse their Baptist brethren
of a lack of generosity toward infants,
and we are made to appear a very hard-hearted bunch indeed.
Typical is Professor John Murray,
whom I had the privilege of knowing
and whom I greatly admire.
If children born of the faithful
were given the sign and seal of the covenant,
and therefore the richest blessings
which the covenant disclosed,
the New Testament economy is the elaboration
and extension of this covenant,
of which circumcision was the sign,
are we to believe that infants in this age
are excluded from that which was provided
by the Abrahamic covenants?
In other words, are we to believe that infants
may not properly be given the sign of that blessing
which is enshrined in the new covenant?
Is the new covenant in this respect
less generous than was the Abrahamic?
This ungenerous, hard-hearted Baptist
would reply that he's no less restrictive
than John the Baptist himself.
In other words, if due attention is paid
to the practice of John the Baptist,
the paid of Baptist appeal to our emotions
loses much of its force.
Secondly, the silence of the New Testament
as to the baptism of infants
can be given a more convincing explanation
than is the case in reformed paid baptism.
When challenged by the average dispensational Baptist
about this silence, the instructed paid Baptist
is of course unfazed.
He replies the silence is just what one would expect.
In the absence of a clear command in the New Testament,
rescinding the giving of the covenant sign to infants,
we would expect that that sign, now baptism in water,
should be given to infants both male and female.
But is not there, I ask, a more convincing explanation
of the silence of the New Testament as to infant baptism?
And does not this do justice
to the history of redemptive revelation
in a way that traditional paid Baptist apologetic fails to do?
I submit that the silence of the record of John's ministry
as to the baptizing of infants is a far better explanation
of the silence of the New Testament about infant baptism.
The silence is eloquent testimony to the fact
that the principle of thee and thy seed
was set aside by the baptism of John,
a baptism which being from heaven
had divine authorization behind it.
As such, it required no specific command
for the authorized practice and the confession of sins
that was demanded was command enough.
In short, the silence of the Baptist
is the silence that breaks the silence.
This recording is brought to you
by thechristianlibrary.org.au.