Ge 17:1-14; Ro 4:1-17. Dan Kroon. A question that has baffled the church for many hundreds of years. A question that has divided us right down the middle. A question even the most convicted of people continue to wrestle with. It's not the most important question out there. It's not a matter of life or death. But it is a question of practice and unity that can't be left unaddressed. We are commanded to baptise – so we need to do so, acting in good faith and seeking to understand what the Bible says. So, why does the Reformed church do what it does? Why do we baptise infants instead of practicing believers' baptism? That's the question for this Sunday evening. MISSING INTRO: Why do we practice Infant Baptism and not Believer’s Baptism? That’s the question we’re considering tonight. And let me say thanks to the person who raised it for us; because while we give a brief introduction to baptism each time we have one, and while we might discuss it amongst ourselves, it’s probably been a long while since we’ve dedicated a chunk of time to the question itself, like we’re doing now. As always, in these somewhat controversial topics, I feel I need to make a couple of comments before starting. The first is the admittance that I am no guru in this area and I certainly do not intend to resolve the baptism debate once and for all. It’s a question that has divided the worldwide church down the middle for many centuries, and I’d be arrogant to try and undo that. The second is that we need to be clear what we’re actually considering tonight. We’re not pitting infant baptism vs. adult baptism. The Reformed church is just as happy to baptise adults as it is to baptise babies. The question we’re actually considering is this: is Infant Baptism valid or invalid? Because if it’s not, we shouldn’t be doing it. And if it is, why wouldn’t we do it for children who are born into the church community? And the third comment is that we can’t be exhaustive tonight. We can really only skim the surface and we can’t, for example, dive into related questions such as sprinkling vs. pouring vs. immersion, etc. My hope is that tonight can be a reminder of the theology and scripture behind our practice and perhaps can answer some burning questions or encourage some different angles from which to look at the issue. Hopefully it goes without saying, but this is not a salvation issue. Even the the lack of any baptism we don’t believe is a salvation issue, though it is an obedience issue. And while we don’t demand subscription to infant baptism for church membership, we do for eldership because we consider it a potential unity issue. We believe infant baptism is valid, so we will actively and humbly (not passively or arrogantly) encourage it. So, in a second we’re going to pray and then get stuck into it. We’re going to consider four points together, hopefully squashing some misconceptions along the way. Firstly, baptism covenant. Secondly, baptism faith. Thirdly, baptism church. And fourthly, baptism scripture. So let’s pray and then Neil's going to read for us. PRAYER. READING (Genesis 17:1-14; Romans 4:1-17). 1. Safe to say, our theology of baptism hinges on covenant theology. It is the main difference between what we do and what the Catholic church does (or the high Anglican church, or even Lutheran church for that matter). And if we’re ever teaching Infant Baptism without teaching covenant theology, we are not doing our job properly. Because it’s essential.
