This sermon is from the Rev. Charles G. Dennison sermon archive, part of the “Christians & Their Vows” series, and was preached at Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA, during a worship service on Sunday, February 11, 1990.

So we are reading, first of all, from Deuteronomy, chapter 6, and then we will be turning to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Deuteronomy, chapter 6, verses 1 through 15. Hear the word of God. These are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, so that you may do them in the land to which you are going to possess it.

That you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command you, you and your son, and your son’s son, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it, that it may be well with you, and that you may increase greatly, as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you, in the land that flows with milk and honey. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

These words which I command you this day shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. It shall be when the Lord your God has brought you into the land which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you, great and goodly cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and wells dug which you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, when you have eaten and are full.

Then beware: thus thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you. For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you, lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Then, turning to Ephesians, chapter six, verses one through four: Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise: it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The contemporary practice of infant baptism can hardly be regarded as anything short of scandalous. Now, the person who made this remark spoke against the background of European neopaganism, citing the fact that most of the neo-pagans in Europe had been baptized when children, when infants, but had been baptized in the name of what he called cultural custom, in the name of social amenities.

In America, we are not strangers to the force, the power of cultural customs. There are people here, as there are in Europe, who present their children for baptism because it is the expected practice. Because that is the way things have been done in their family, with their ancestors from generation to generation. Social amenity, cultural custom in the old world, Europe, and also in the new America. In America we also have added challenges, not that these are completely absent in Europe, but they seem to be in full force here in our land.

The enemies of baptism’s significance are ignorance and superstition. People submit to the rite, offering their children, hardly having any understanding of what is involved or what they are doing. They have little grasp of the significance of the sacraments. Others offer their children, infants in their arms, out of superstitious fear.

We must have Nelly Dunn, unless something unfortunate happens to her. As if the sprinkling of water were going to ensure the child’s health and well-being. And it is particularly now, in such a setting as faces us—where the force of social custom is increasing, religious ignorance is reaching epidemic proportions, and foolish superstition is growing in influence and strength, especially with regard to conscience and its impact on our actions.

In such a setting as this, is it any wonder that there is often confusion about vows and oaths, about promises made? In the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, as far back as I have been able to discover, there has always been the practice of making and taking vows in connection with the sacrament of baptism, whether for adults or infants. Carlos’ name. The question that is asked now, of course, and I believe you are aware of the direction I have been taking in my messages on this subject, is whether there is not also a great deal of perjury?

Not many parents perjure themselves when a child is offered and submitted to the sacrament of baptism. Just a few words this morning about baptism itself that may be helpful. A few words to address the matter of our ignorance, if it still persists, or to confront the matter of superstition, if indeed we are its victims.

First of all, baptism is not magic. It is not a magical rite. Christians do not believe in magic, despite C.S. Lewis. We believe in sacraments. We believe in a God who is active in the life of His people. We are not those who claim that God has maintained a witness for Himself among those who believe in magical rites. Belief in magic, and submission to it, is the hallmark of paganism, pure and simple.

You must not mix magic with the mysteries of the sacraments. Of course, there are those who do. Baptism itself does not save anyone. Baptism itself does not save anyone. This sacrament does not confer salvation on any individual, whether adult or infant. The sacrament conferred upon an individual does not save.

This means, of course, that one can be saved without it. As important as we believe it to be, one can be saved, redeemed by God, and rescued by Him. This is true apart from the sacrament. In fact, we believe that the sacrament itself represents and seals the saving work of Christ to the community of faith. This is how it functions.

The element used, water, speaks to us of cleansing. We hear about water in relation to cleansing through John the Baptist, when he says, “I baptize you with water. There comes one after me who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,” intensifying the cleansing work within you, as it moves from one form of cleansing to another. The water itself is indicative of cleansing. It is a cleansing rite, signifying cleansing with respect to the people of God as they are sealed under the saving work of Jesus Christ in the community of faith. Now, we also recognize that baptism is brought into relationship with the death and resurrection of Christ, and appropriately so, because that is the ultimate cleansing. Death to the old, life to the new. Cleansed from the old, cleansed for the new.

Those who are in the community of faith, whether by profession of faith or by birth, are welcome to the sign and seal. They are part of the community of faith. Therefore, the sacrament of baptism is not magic, nor is it a magical right in itself; it does not save anyone by its own power. Rather, it is the sign and seal of the saving work of Christ, applied to the community of faith. Those who belong to the community of faith by profession or by birth are welcome to this sign, since they are already part of that community. And finally, the sacrament is joined to them without my involvement.

God himself makes a promise to the community of faith for Christ’s sake, signifying and sealing this promise in the act and in the community itself, which pledges to live a life consistent with the sign, the meaning, the cleansing, and the reality of what is indicated. As the community is included in Christ and is in union with Him, these are the various elements and aspects of baptism. In considering the vow and oath, there is an oath that God takes toward His people and a vow that the people take toward God.

Covenant, bond. Now, it has been the aspect of the sacrament related to the vow or pledge that we have been focusing on, in order to remind ourselves of our own pledge. The pledge that was pronounced over us is a pledge that we ourselves have taken. Our focus thus far has been on the promises made in infant baptism.

This is what we have found. We have found that in the Orthodox Presbyterian sacrament, two questions are asked. The first one is: Do you acknowledge that although our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are holy in Christ and members of His church? This is magnificent. It is nothing short of sublime. It is compact, and it holds together so well, and it addresses so many important aspects that are essential for our consideration as we bring our children for baptism.

This is the first question, an oath of acknowledgement, or, if you will, an oath that functions as a subordinate public confession. It is a confession of our faith. It is not a full-blown confession of faith, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is not even a full-blown confession in the sense of the Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, or the Nicene Creed. It is a confession of faith that is narrowly focused with respect to the sacrament in view, the sacrament of baptism, specifically the baptism of children. It is focused upon the relationship of our children to Christ and to the Church.

Therefore, as you examine it, you can make a list of the doctrines that are present. Let me make this as clear as possible: confession, insofar as it is a public declaration, a public acknowledgement, an oath in its own right, is a declaration of party agreement. In such a confession, not only the mind is active and engaged, but the heart as well. You are emotionally attached to the truths that you are confessing. Is this not plain from Deuteronomy 6, where the Israelites are called upon to confess the oneness of God, that they are to love Him with heart and soul and mind? This is the kind of confession, this open acknowledgment, that is in view.

How is it possible for us to sleep through our vows? To go through them as if we were sleepwalking, as if they meant nothing, as if they made no impact upon us at all? It is not a matter of God doing it all. It is not His fault if He does not stir my spirit while I am making these vows. He is not to blame. As you go through this list, you are compelled to give hearty assent to the doctrine of original sin. You agree with it. It is correct. Original sin is a true doctrine of Scripture, and I confess it openly as I present this child. This means the whole matter of infant innocence is wiped out. It is erased from the board. It is no longer a viable option. It certainly receives no support from Scripture.

You know what David confessed in the fifty-first psalm: “In sin my mother conceived me. In iniquity I was brought forth.” So you give a part of yourself to these doctrines. You recognize that God and His justice can condemn even this infant. They are subject to condemnation. That is how the vow reads. Then the question goes on to express hope and confidence that these children are children of the covenant, and as such, holy. That means separated, not perfect, not sinless, holy in Christ. That means separated unto Him. And that they are members of His church, of His household. And as such, being members of this community of faith, they are to receive the sign and seal of life. Amen. Amen.

So things start out bleakly, it seems, at the beginning of the question, but they end gloriously. And as you move from one part of that question to the other, it is as if you have moved from condemnation to justification, from condemnation to glory, from condemnation to the gospel. Why is the block? My reading of all the questions I surveyed—quite a few from churches in India to the church in Scotland to the churches of this country—leads me to believe that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has the best formulation in this respect. It is a question that does not sit well with many in our time, I understand that. The question to which many cannot give their assent, in part.

But that does not diminish its significance. That is the first part. Now, what about the second question? Do you remember it? Remember the second question? Do you promise to instruct your child in the principles of our holy religion as revealed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and as summarized in the confession of faith and catechisms of this Church? And do you promise to pray with and for your child, to set an example of piety and godliness before him, and to endeavor by all the means of God’s appointment to bring him up in the virtue and the admonition of the Lord? Oh, truly, the ear that listens to this hears sweet music. Sweet.

The question has two parts, and you surely noticed what those parts were. First, there is the promise to instruct. Second, there is the promise to live. There is the promise to teach, and there is the promise to live. These two parts of the question can be considered under three headings. We have finally reached the third point. I intended to preach to you today. The first point of reference regarding the various parts of the second question, the first factor in writing, is this:

Who shall teach? But we all know who shall teach. The Sunday school, right? The Christian school. Let us hand them over to the state and let the state educate them. Each of these institutions has its place. The unbelieving world has the right to educate their children in whatever way they choose. That is the principle that governs the public educational system. They have chosen humanism, they have chosen secularism. That is their choice.

And the objective in view is honorable: that the young people committed to that system might be functional in the society in which they are a part, and functional in the community in which they are a part. The Christian school, I believe, has the same prerogative in an environment that demands education for our children, demands mandatory education. We are obliged, then, it seems to me, to look toward education that is honoring to our God and that holds to the principles of the community of faith of which we are a part. Again, that our children might be educated so that they might play a role of service unto God and devotion to Christ in the world in which they live.

The Sunday school. We will delay that for a moment. What I want you to see, however, is this: if you read through Deuteronomy 6, do you see it as you read through Deuteronomy 6? Do you see it as you read through Ephesians 6, 4? The kind of education, the kind of instruction that is in view in this matter, in the baptism ceremony, is an instruction, a teaching that parents cannot delegate.

You cannot give it away. You cannot hand it over to someone else and tell them to do it. In this sense, you see, the Sunday school has become a burden if it does not recognize its role as enforcing and reinforcing what parents are already obligated to do under the covenant. If the Sunday school displaces the parents, you cannot surrender this obligation that is laid upon you. No one else can fulfill it. You cannot even say it is the minister’s job to do this, for I have been commanded to do it in Deuteronomy 6 and in Ephesians 6.

I remember candidating in a congregation in New England. It was one of those circumstances in which they had open season on the candidates. So the entire congregation gathered on a Sunday afternoon, and I was seated in front of the church, and anyone could ask me questions.

The first question and the dominant question that was asked was, “What will you do for our youth?” I had a consistent answer: “What are you going to do for your youth? You are a parent. They did not like it, and they did not call me. America is finished with youth.” As an aside, something I found last week, one of Oscar Wilde’s epigrams: “The youth of America is their oldest tradition.” It has been going on now for over 300 years.

Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 place the obligation upon the parents, an obligation they cannot transfer and cannot abdicate. It is your responsibility to train your children with respect to the matters of the covenant and the issues of their faith. There is something remarkable, I think, that emerges here as an aside when you consider the construction of this question. If that is correct, it testifies to the fact that there is a harmony underlying the Old and New Testaments. They have a parallel structure and a symmetrical unity. Whether you are in an Old Testament environment or a New Testament environment, the responsibility to instruct children in matters of faith is firmly placed upon the shoulders of the parents.

It may be that you cannot instruct your child regarding their future livelihood or future employment, and thus the necessity of schools as we have them today. But in no sense can you transfer that responsibility—the moral and religious responsibility that is yours—to instruct your children. The first question is, “Who shall teach?” The second question is, “What shall be taught?”

Taking this oath, you have committed yourself to the word of God. We are going to instruct them in the scriptures. Do you know the scriptures? Do you hear them? Are you growing in your knowledge and understanding of what the Bible says? Do you take advantage of the many opportunities given to you from birth to hear the word of God? Do you read the word? Now that Gutenberg has given us the printing press and we all have our own copies, do you read the word?

You have also promised to instruct them in accordance with the summary of faith that you find in the confession of faith in the catechisms of this church. Do you know the confession? Do you know the catechisms? Do you truly believe that they are a faithful summary of what is found in Scripture? Are you committing yourself to this? This is your obligation.

Who shall teach? What shall be taught? Teaching our children the Reformed faith is not an option. And finally, how are we to teach? Are we to teach only with words? Only with doctrines? Only with theories? Only with abstract ideas? Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the dead on the third day—this is enough. Should we simply feed them the right information? Is instruction merely an information-dominated concept? Not on your life. Not on your life. The question here wonderfully blends doctrine and life together. You have promised to instruct, but you have also promised to live in such a way that reinforces and exhibits that teaching.

And that is always the case in Scripture. Those who truly hear are those who obey, those who are striving after what the Lord requires. The Apostle Paul, in his understanding of doctrine, does not leave out godliness, because proper doctrine conforms to godliness. Truth is always unto purity, order, and life. When Paul expresses the doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, he incorporates himself in the process.

For me to live is Christ. What does this mean? It means to give oneself over in an act of conformity to the doctrine that is proclaimed. As Christ gave Himself, I give myself. As Christ died, I die. As Christ was raised to life, so I become an instrument of life for the sake of others.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, and so on. Doctrine is thus blended with life, so that life confirms what we say. Jesus does nothing less. His words perfectly conform to His life, and His life perfectly conforms to His words. Is this not what is intended in Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians? When you sit down, when you rise up, when you are going out the door, when you are coming in, live with a whole-life vision.

It is not only what you tell your children, but how you act in front of them, what you do. What about our children when our homes are torn apart by discord, hatred, and bitterness? When there is more viciousness than love, more argumentation than prayer, when a father’s sins are known to his child before the child is four years old, and the mother is utterly compromised? And her daughter knows it.

How are we to teach, moving from Deuteronomy 6 to Ephesians 4? In conclusion, it is not merely a matter of knowing doctrine, nor even a matter of striving for a good moral life, but a matter of knowing God intimately. What is operative in Ephesians 6, verse 4, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger”? Is it not the example of God the Father Himself, who does not provoke His own children to wrath? It is the very presence of God Himself mediating through the parent in the work of instruction, so that the parent acts, lives, behaves, and thinks as God Himself.

And in that operation, it is as if you have been translated. I mean this literally. You are no longer understood merely as a creature of this creation, but as one who has been made part of the new creation. You have entered into heavenly realms and into glory, and the very person of God is now molding and shaping you as you live and act in this world.

How do you know how to behave as a parent? I learned it from Ephesians. I learned it from one verse in Ephesians. God Himself is your standard, and you know Him. The grace of God has now included you in Him, Jesus Christ. Therefore, all the power for a righteous life is available to you.

I have made much of two questions. You may wish to have your own copy of these questions so that you can review them again and again. Dearest God, may those who have received the right of baptism, the sacrament, live in the covenant as members of the Church, bound to Christ. And also, Lord, may those who have made vows regarding their children honor those vows. May we live in the power of our God through Jesus Christ, so that the power of His righteous life is available to us as we seek to give instruction and live before our children.

The sermon text provided above is derived from the sermon audio recording making use of generative tools. It has not been manually edited. While transcription tools have a high degree of accuracy, the output may include generative textual, punctuation, and/or formatting errors.