Mark 10:13-16

Mark 10:13-16

1. Let us learn how much attention the souls of children should receive from the Church of Christ.
2. Let us learn how much encouragement there is to bring young children to be baptized.

"They are never too young to receive religious impressions. They think in their childish way about God, and their souls, and a world to come, far sooner and far more deeply than most people are aware."

"No church can be regarded as being in a healthy state which neglects its younger members, and lazily excuses itself on the plea, that "young people will be young," and that it is useless to try to do them good. Such a church shows plainly that it does not have the mind of Christ."

"...Christians who do not use every means to bring children to Christ are committing a great sin."

"The baptism that it concerns us all to know, is not so much the baptism of water, as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thousands are washed in baptismal waters who are never renewed by the Spirit."

Questions:

1. Could it be said that we are using every means available to us to point our own children, and the children in the church around us, to God? Have we said, or thought, such things as “children cannot understand” or “kid’s will be kids?” and justified our actions on that basis instead of God’s Word?

2. We see here some brief statements on the position of infant baptism, and convinced of believer’s baptism, I have a few comments of my own.

a. Ryle is right to say this passage carries an indirect argument for infant baptism, and therein lies the problem, as the direct arguments are missing, but not only from this passage, but from the whole NT, which he goes on to prove. If there was even one direct reference or strong biblical argument showing that baptism replaced circumcision, there would be a direct argument and no Baptists! Paul talks much about circumcision in his letters but never says circumcision is not required because baptism has replaced it, but he does say that if you pursue circumcision you nullify the cross of Christ! Here, in the cross of Christ, is where circumcision finds its true fulfillment, not in any physical act, but in a new creation, which is then expressed in baptism. This leads to the second point:

b. It seems to me that the weakest part of his argument is that infants may be elect and chosen of God unto salvation. Yes, but not without first calling on the name of the Lord, and understanding their need for Jesus as their Savior, something Ryle has been so clear in His expositions! How can that be a weighty argument?

c. So much more can be said, but a more pressing question needs to be asked: which ever side of the argument we find ourselves, are we quick to reach over the fence of this divide and eager to shake hands with all who love the Lord Jesus and hold fast the Word of life? Are we willing to cause harm to the gospel for the sake of an important, but secondary issue as this?