The Sign of the Covenant – Part Two
“Children of the Covenant”
Notes from a sermon given by Dan Thompson on December 7, 2003
at Christ Community Church, Titusville, FL
If you are visiting with us this morning, you need to understand that we are in the middle of a series of messages on the book of Genesis. One of the reasons I work through books of the Bible in preaching is that this forces me to deal with subjects I probably would never tackle if I were choosing favorite passages or just going to various sections of Scripture that relate to a subject I would like to cover on a given Sunday. Paul told Timothy, “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”
(II Timothy 3:16-17). If the Bible really is the Word of God in written form, then there are no irrelevant parts of the Bible. You may not immediately see how some passages are relevant, but God had a purpose in everything that is written. So we can’t neglect or skip over the more difficult or controversial sections of the Bible!
Also, if you’re visiting with us and Christianity is all new to you, the issues we’re talking about this morning may sound strange! If you haven’t discovered this yet, you will find out that while Bible-believing Christians agree on a lot – on the essentials, the core truths, the absolutes of what the Bible teaches – there are issues on which they disagree (that’s why there are different denominations of Christians. They are not, as many people think, different religions. They are associations of churches united around a particular interpretation of one issue or another in the Bible – like baptism).
This is a PCA church – a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America. One of the things almost everyone knows about Presbyterians is that they baptize babies! Some of you grew up in churches that told you over and over again that baptism is only for believers; that it is always wrong to baptize infants and children; that Presbyterians believe baptizing a baby means the baby is saved, etc. There are lots of misunderstandings about why we do this. Presbyterians are not the only protestants who practice infant baptism. So do Methodists, Reformed churches, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans and others. In fact, in the centuries of Church history from the time of Jesus, it is probably safe to say the majority of Christians have baptized the infants of believing parents.
Baptism is one of those issues that Christians have disagreed about for many centuries. There are two questions about baptism on which Christians have disagreed: how much water should be used, and who should be baptized? We are just going to look at the second question this morning: Who should be baptized? We’re probably not going to resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction in a couple of sermons. But I do want you to understand the reasons for the practice of infant baptism, even if you come to the conclusion from your own study of the Bible that you can’t, in good conscience, baptize your children until they profess their own faith in Christ. I won’t hold it against you if you disagree with me on this point! You can be a member of this church and not agree on this point. We believe your views on baptism are not the critical issue when it comes to being a Christian. The important thing is that you agree on the Gospel - how does God save? Baptism fits more neatly under the question, “How does God communicate His promises of salvation to us?”
Last week, we looked at Genesis 17 and talked about God’s command to Abraham to circumcise himself and all the males in his household, including infant sons born into his family. This morning I’m following up on that message with a few more questions and applications. (If you’d like to put it all together, you can order the tape of last Sunday’s message or pick up a copy of the written version we put together this week.)
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the SIGN OF THE COVENANT between me and you. 12 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. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day. 27 And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.
I. The meaning and purpose of circumcision: a summary
A. It was a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises.
God had given Abraham promises, including the promise that He would bless the whole world through one of his descendants. Bottom line, God’s covenant with Abraham was all about salvation by God’s grace, received through faith in God’s promise of redemption. Not only did God communicate these promises to Abraham with words, He chose to communicate His promise of redemption in Christ by means of an outward sign. Circumcision was the outward sign that God used to seal to the heart and mind of a believer the promises of His Word: the promises of His love and mercy toward those who look to Him in faith for grace. It was given as an aid to faith. The sign had no magic or mystical power in itself. It didn’t convey in reality the substance of what was symbolized, like Abraham could not have been saved without being circumcised. God gave Abraham this sign as a way of confirming to his heart the truth of God’s promises! Circumcision was a “means of grace” – something God used to deepen the understanding of a believer in terms of what it means to be saved by God’s grace.
B. It symbolized salvation by grace through faith.
Sinful parents produce sinful children. But God will intervene in grace and cleanse sinners. The “cutting off” of circumcision represented the need for cleansing from the defilement of sin. All this pointed to the coming Savior, who would bear the curse (be cut off from God’s presence) in place of sinners in order that God’s promises of blessing might be realized. It was the sign of God’s promise to save Abraham and those who shared his faith, and circumcision served as the sign of the believer’s obligation to walk before God in faith and godliness.
C. It is an everlasting covenant.
From the New Testament it is clear that circumcision and baptism mean essentially the same thing. They are outward signs of the same covenant of grace. The covenant God made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant. God hasn’t rescinded or revoked His promises to Abraham! The New Testament is very clear on that.
Why did God change the sign of His covenant after the coming of Jesus? Consider this: Circumcision, tied as it was to the reproductive organ, reminded people of the uncleanness passed on from generation to generation and of God’s promise to cleanse, to purify, to wash away the defilement of sin. When the promised child had come and the promise no longer depended on “seed” passed down from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob - on down to Mary, who gave birth to Jesus - the outward sign no longer needed to be tied to the passing on of seed until the promised offspring arrived. He had come! Now the promise would spread through the broader outpouring of the Holy Spirit. So there’s a new sign given: washing with water, which also pictured the pouring out of God’s Spirit on all peoples and nations. The New Testament sign of the Covenant of Grace has less of the distinctive recognition of the connection of child to parent in the promises of blessing. But the substance of the promise is exactly the same.
D. Understanding circumcision is important because everything symbolized in circumcision is symbolized in baptism.
If you want to appreciate the meaning of your baptism, it is important to understand what circumcision was all about!
II. Two more questions about circumcision:
A. Why would God choose a sign that excluded women?
Every male descendant was to be marked with the sign. That means women didn’t bear on their bodies the sign of the covenant. That seems to exclude them. No, it didn’t exclude them! A couple of thoughts:
1. Clearly both men and women were saved under this covenant. That they were not given the sign shows that the sign is not essential for salvation! Though God warned against neglecting it, neither is circumcision so essential that a person can’t be saved without it. Believing women were saved without being circumcised. It was a sign and seal, not the thing that saved!
2. Women belonged to the community of the circumcised. They were to marry within the community of the circumcised. In the sexual union that produced offspring, circumcision served as a reminder to husband and wife that their union produced sinful children who needed God’s grace to be saved. It takes male and female to produce offspring! So they were connected to the sign in marriage. If she never married, she was still part of the community of the circumcised: she was the child of a covenant family that bore the sign of the covenant. Her whole identity was wrapped up in circumcision as much as any male member of that community! The phrase used by the apostle Paul, “We are the circumcision.…” reflects the perspective of the people of God’s covenant promise!
3. Our culture is overly individualistic when it comes to salvation issues. God chose to work through families. Belonging to the family set you apart to God! A woman was included under the headship of her father and later, if she married, of her husband. In either case, she was closely connected to the community that bore this sign of the covenant.
4. I can say that when Jesus came and fulfilled the things symbolized in the outward sign of circumcision (cleansing from sin, bearing the curse in the place of others, etc.) that circumcision was replaced with a sign that could be applied to both men and women. Baptism is a more inclusive sign, because it can be applied to male or female, even though baptism symbolizes essentially the same things symbolized in circumcision. Baptism is a better and more fitting sign!
B. Why would God command Abraham to give the sign of salvation and faith to a child?
1. Arguments against doing this:
a. The child can’t understand.
b. The child doesn’t have faith yet.
c. You’re robbing him of a meaningful experience later.
d. The sign will be easily misunderstood.
Can you imagine Abraham saying, “God, I appreciate the sign of circumcision. It makes sense for me to be circumcised. After all, I believe your promises and I commit myself to you! But I don’t think applying this sign to eight-day-old baby boys is such a good idea! After all, infants are incapable of understanding what is symbolized in their circumcision!”
Of course infants can’t understand the meaning of circumcision. Neither can they exercise faith! And there is no question that circumcision was misunderstood, and still is misunderstood. The outward sign of circumcision has never saved any child! Circumcision never guaranteed the salvation of any child! But, as a sign of the covenant, circumcision was tremendously meaningful! God was saying to Abraham: “I am your God, I will be the God of your children after you!”
If a rich uncle wrote a poor father into his will, that man would be happy! But don’t you think he’d be doubly happy if that rich uncle wrote the man’s children into his will too! God is the richest of uncles. He was saying, “Abraham, you belong to me by my grace. I have set my love on you. But my covenant love will not end with you when you die. I will be a God to your children after you!” And because Abraham’s children were already set apart to God like this, God told Abraham to give them the sign of the covenant! They grew up under this sign, being told what it meant, being encouraged to embrace God by faith so that what was symbolized outwardly would become a reality in their hearts! They had to grow up to embrace the covenant promises in faith or they would grow up to be covenant breakers! Because these children needed the inward reality symbolized in the outward sign, and because only God can create that in them, parents from Abraham and Sarah on down were moved to plead with God on behalf of their children and to trust God for their child’s salvation. They were to urge their children to trust God for themselves!
The outward sign was a means of grace; a tool for driving home the truth of the gospel to the heart!
2. Arguments in favor of doing this:
a. God’s promises include your children.
b. God warned against neglecting this sign.
c. It placed an obligation on parents and children.
d. Obedience to God’s command
Ultimately, the reason Abraham did this was that God commanded it!
III. The connection to baptism
A. Baptism is the New Testament sign of God’s promises of salvation.
1. Baptism replaced circumcision.
“In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done BY CHRIST, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead….When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ” (Colossians 2:11-13).
2. God’s promises to Abraham apply to us.
“[Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit…. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:14 and 29).
3. Converts to Christianity are to be baptized (see Matt.28:19; Acts 2:38), not circumcised (see Gal. 5:2).
“…go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.…” (Matthew 28:19).
“Peter replied, `Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.…’” (Acts 2:38).
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all” (Galatians 5:2). You’ll have to read the book of Galatians to see how circumcision was being misunderstood in the early church I don’t need to defend this point. All Christians agree on this! Baptism is the sign to be given to believers from the time of Christ on.
B. To whom should the sign of baptism be given?
1. Believers
Jesus told his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The New Testament is full of examples of new believers being baptized.
- The children of believers:
This is the point where major disagreement begins. Who should be baptized? Just believers? Or believers and their children? My conviction is that believers and their children should be baptized, following the Old Testament pattern established in Genesis 17!
- An example: Acts 16:33
In several places in the New Testament you read of household baptisms. For example, Acts 16 tells the story of the jailer in Philippi who was converted to Christianity. When he came to faith, “…he and his family were baptized” (Acts 16:33).Another English translation puts it: “He was baptized, he and all his house.” It’s certainly possible that everyone in his household was old enough to come to his or her own personal faith - to believe and then be baptized. But that doesn’t seem to be the idea in the passage. When the Father believed, he gave the sign to his offspring! Why would he do that? I have to assume this is what Paul and Silas were teaching about the covenant promises of God!
C. Arguments against baptizing covenant children:
- The child can’t understand.
- The child doesn’t have faith yet.
The same objections that would be raised regarding giving the sign of God’s covenant to an infant in the Old Testament era can be raised against baptizing infants. Infants are incapable of understanding the meaning of circumcision or of baptism. They are incapable of exercising faith. But, again, can you imagine Abraham telling God, “I don’t think this is such a good idea, God!”
- You’re robbing him of a meaningful experience later.
We live in a very experience-oriented culture. I’ve heard this argument many times: “It would be much more meaningful for the child to be baptized when he can understand what is happening! To give the sign to an infant robs the child of that opportunity to experience baptism when he’s old enough to understand.”
- The sign may be misunderstood.
One more objection can be raised:
- There is no New Testament command to baptize children!
The strongest argument I can think of against the practice of infant baptism is that the New Testament doesn’t command it. No New Testament writer even mentions infant baptism. Those words are never used!
D. Arguments in favor of baptizing covenant children:
1. God’s promises include your children (see Acts 2:39).
In words that echo the words of God’s covenant with Abraham, the apostle Peter tells people to repent and be baptized, and he adds: “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39). God commanded converts to Christianity, who had not received the sign of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to be baptized when they believed…to receive the New Covenant sign! What assumption do you think Jewish converts, steeped in the covenantal relationship of Scripture, would have brought with them as they received the sign of the covenant? They would have asked, “Shouldn’t my children be baptized? What about my family?”
There is no question that the children of believers were once visibly part of the covenant with God. They were given the sign and seal of belonging to the covenant people. Where in the New Testament do you find this covenantal relationship or membership in the Covenant Community for infantsrepealed or voided?
Did Jesus come to put believers and their children into a worse situation than they were in before? If God once cared for the children of believers and graciously included them in the covenant, does He no longer look on the children of believers the same way? Because if our children can no longer have the sign of the covenant, they are worse off than children were before the coming of Christ! A means of grace has been taken away from them!
Baptizing children places an obligation on parents and children: In Romans 1-2, Paul argues the case that both Jew and Gentile are under God’s wrath because of their sin. Jews have God’s Law (the written Word) but they still sin and are condemned by God’s Word. Gentiles haven’t had the written Word, but they sin against conscience; against what is plainly right and wrong. Nobody is righteous before God on the basis of their own works. We’re all sinners. So, someone might argue, what value was there in having God’s Word?
“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God” (Romans 3:1-2).
Though we’re all guilty before God, whether Jew or Gentile, circumcised or not, there is still a tremendous advantage and blessing given to the covenant people! That is still the case! My children don’t remember being baptized, but I certainly remember their baptisms! Some of the most precious times of my life were those times when my wife and I brought our children before God and had the sign of God’s covenant placed on them! They can’t remember being baptized. Does that make it meaningless for them? I hope not! I have reminded them often that this was done for them. We have talked about what it means! It didn’t save them. It didn’t guarantee they would be saved. It didn’t mean we presumed they were God’s elect (How could we know that? We can’t peek into God’s secret councils and know for certain what God has not chosen to reveal).
If it didn’t save them and if it didn’t guarantee their salvation, of what benefit was it to them? I would echo Paul’s words: “Much, in every way…!” My children have had the great privilege of growing up in a Christian home, in the church, with the example and encouragement of other believers. They’ve had the privilege all their lives of hearing God’s Word proclaimed; of hearing about the promises of God symbolized in their baptism. They have been set apart to God. They have been challenged over and over again to embrace by faith what was symbolized in their baptisms – to take hold of Jesus in faith as their Savior and King!
Why would it be any less meaningful for a child to grow up realizing that what was symbolized in his baptism has become a reality by God’s grace? In our church, we have children make a public profession of faith when they come to faith, without being baptized again (they have already received the outward sign of God’s promises of salvation – not part of the promise, but all of God’s promises to those who believed are represented in their baptism. So there is no need to apply the sign again). When the things represented in baptism become a reality in a child’s life - that is very meaningful and rich! God is the focus: He is the one who promises to save sinners! And when a child comes to faith, God is the one who is to be honored and praised!
2. Potential for misunderstanding is no reason to neglect a means of grace! Lots of Christians have misunderstood the meaning of baptism – adult baptism as well as infant baptism. Some misunderstandings: you can’t be saved without being baptized. The water of baptism confers the Holy Spirit. A child who dies without being baptized will be eternally lost. Baptizing an infant washes away original sin. Baptism actually accomplishes regeneration, etc.
But why should we neglect a means of grace just because people have misunderstood it and distorted its meaning? We should get the facts straight, not throw the whole thing out!
------------------
The final argument against infant baptism carries the most weight: There is no New Testament command to baptize infants.
It is true: there is no command in the New Testament to baptize infants or children. The words “infant baptism” are not there! But the idea is there! And there are other things you believe and agree with that are not mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with His twelve male disciples! There is no explicit mention anywhere in the New Testament of women receiving the Lord’s Supper. But nobody would argue that it is only for men! The things symbolized in the Lord’s Supper apply to women too!
The word “trinity” is not found in the whole Bible. But, if you are an orthodox Christian, you believe God reveals Himself as one God in three persons. You believe God reveals Himself as a trinity because He exists eternally as a trinity!
Ultimately, the argument comes down to this: Is the Covenant Community of Abraham and the Old Testament the same as the Church of the New Testament, or are they two completely different things?
3. The Church is not something completely different from the covenant community of the Old Testament (Eph. 2:11-22; 3:9).
“Therefore, remember that formerly you who were Gentiles by birth and called `uncircumcised’ by those who call themselves `the circumcision’ (that done in the body by the hands of men) – remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in the flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which He put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in Him you, too, are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit….through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:6).
Though there may be no New Testament command, there is a clear Biblical command and precedent for applying the sign of the covenant to our children. If we are agreed that the sign of the covenant is now baptism, why should children now be denied the gracious sign of God’s promise?
From the beginning of redemptive history, God has given His covenant people a visible sign and seal of His promises of salvation. The promise has never changed. The sign has changed from circumcision to baptism. God commanded Abraham to circumcise his children. He gave a solemn warning against neglecting to give the sign to their children. The sign has changed from circumcision in the Old Testament to baptism after the coming of Christ. From the time of Jesus on, those who become part of the visible community of God’s covenant (the Church) are to be baptized. And, following the pattern of the Old Testament covenant people, the sign should also be given to their children! Children of the Covenant people are part of the covenant community (though they must grow to believe God themselves and embrace the covenant promises in faith).
IV. Concluding thoughts
A. You are free to disagree, but please base your reasons on the authority of God’s Word.
This is one of those areas of disagreement among Bible-believing Christians in which charity should be exercised. There needs to be freedom to differ. I recently read one of Charles Spurgeon’s sermons on Genesis 17. He did a masterful job of explaining the place of circumcision in the Covenant of Grace. Toward the end of his sermon he explains that baptism has replaced circumcision. While he was clear that circumcision was an outward sign given by God to confirm and seal His promises to Abraham, Spurgeon treats baptism as the sign of a believer’s public commitment to walk with God. Because he sees baptism primarily as the sign of a believer’s profession, he must maintain, as he does, that baptism be administered only to those old enough to profess faith in Christ. I think he missed a lot in terms of the continuity of the Covenant of Grace! He does not explain how the things symbolized in circumcision are also symbolized in baptism. He doesn’t deal at all with what happened to the children of believers under the Old Testament and how that relates to the children of believers now! He just skips over those questions and maintains that baptism is only for believers! My conclusion is that his presuppositions made him inconsistent in terms of the meaning of circumcision and baptism. But I’m not about to reject everything Spurgeon said just because I disagree with him on this point!
Because there is no clear New Testament command to baptize children of believers, the case for infant baptism has to be built on the implications of Scripture, as I have done above. If there were an explicit command in the New Testament - as clear as God’s command to Abraham to give the sign to his children - there would be no dispute. But there isn’t that kind of clear command. So I must give fellow believers some room to disagree and to argue their case for their view of baptism.
But understanding infant baptism doesn’t start with the New Testament. The whole Bible is God’s Word for us. Circumcision was not merely part of the Law given to Israel that passed away as Jesus fulfilled the types and symbols of the ceremonial law. It pre-dated the giving of the Law to Moses. As Paul explains, the giving of the law did not set aside the promise: “For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in His grace gave it to Abraham through a promise” (Galatians 3:18). To see this more clearly, you can read Romans 4 and the whole of Galatians 3. Salvation has always been based on God’s promise – the same promise given to Abraham and symbolized in circumcision.
My challenge to you is that you think through the case for baptism and infant baptism. Ask yourself why you think you should or shouldn’t do this. See if your argument stands to questions like these: Where in the New Testament do you find the covenantal relationship or membership in the Covenant Community for infants repealed or voided? And if God once cared for the children of believers and graciously included them in the covenant, does He no longer look on the children of believers the same way?
Furthermore, if you haven’t baptized your children, before you bring them for baptism, you need to be convinced that this is what God says to do! Don’t do this just because I say you should! To violate your conscience is not a good thing to do! (Christians in America are too prone to do whatever the church they are attending does. They reason: “I’m not sure what I think. But if this church baptizes children rather than dedicating them, I’ll do that. My child can be baptized again later in another church if he wants to anyway! It’s no big deal.”) Don’t have your children baptized just because the church you’re attending baptizes infants! Understand the biblical reason for it. It is not a meaningless ritual! It is not a superstitious routine! There is a biblical line of reasoning behind the practice. We baptize our children because we’re convinced on the authority of God’s Word that this is the right thing to do – and more: that it is a gracious privilege given to us by God!
B. In forming your views on this subject, are you more concerned about what other people will think or what God thinks?
You say, “Ouch! That’s an ad hominem argument! You are saying my reluctance to baptize my children just shows that I’m afraid of other people’s opinion!” No, I’m not saying that is necessarily the case or that failure to baptize your children reveals this kind of fear in you. But in my experience, this is often the reason Christian parents don’t have their infants baptized. They are very concerned about what someone important to them will think: “My parents would just die if I had their grandbaby baptized. Nobody in our family has ever done this!” In some cases, you are too afraid of what your parents or extended family will think and say! You’re afraid baptizing your children will make someone feel like you’ve rejected everything you were taught about baptism when you were growing up. And, you reason, if baptism is not essential for salvation – if it is just an outward sign, not the reality of salvation – then what harm can it do to just wait until my child is old enough to profess faith on his own and then be baptized as a believer?
I challenge you to quit worrying so much about what other people will think and consider what God says! I can guarantee you that many people will not understand your reasons for baptizing your children. But the final authority in what you believe and what you do must be God, speaking in His written word. You will have to explain your reasons to those who are willing to listen.
Consider the richness of God’s promises to Abraham. Consider the way we have become participants in those covenant promises through Jesus Christ. Consider the way God graciously included the children of Abraham and of believers before the coming of Christ. And consider the gracious way God deals with you and with your children. They are set apart to God because of God’s love for you! Why deny them the outward sign of God’s promises? It is a means of grace that can help them understand what it means to trust Christ for their salvation. Don’t neglect something God has given as a means of helping them see their need for Christ Jesus!1 | 
