Amen.. Love it

Infant baptism has been Recorded since the first centuries AD.

Beautiful ❤️

Really well done and excellent arguments

I just prayed for this child!

Households both in the OT as in at the Exodus, and in the NT as in the Philippian jailer, were baptized. God is interested in saving households.

@danandnaomisayers7828

4 ай бұрын

Not necessarily babies were in those households, the members of those households are said to have rejoiced, they believed, they received the Holy Spirit etc

@danandnaomisayers7828

4 ай бұрын

After hearing the word of God spoken to them!

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

Not necessarily but possibly

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

OIKOS covenant

@steverentfrow2415

3 ай бұрын

​@danandnaomisayers7828 Are you so sure babies can't believe and receive the Spirit? John the Baptist heard the greeting of Mary and was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. So he heard and believed and was given the Spirit; and yet he didn't understand a word. Lazarus heard Jesus' command to come forth, and he believed and obeyed that command, though he was dead four days. The word brings the repentance (The turning) brings the faith (The believing) brings the obedience. It gives the new heart that belives God and gives a new mouth to confess Christ. Because in baptism we are made a New Man, new in Christ. There we call upon the Name of the Lord. And all who call on the Name of the Lord are saved.

Wow, I agree with Infant Baptism 100%. It is refreshing to hear non-Catholics following the truth. God Bless you all..

@RGTomoenage11

5 жыл бұрын

Little by little they will come back to the true faith.

@barrybaker9173

5 жыл бұрын

How do you agree with something that is NOT biblical??? Infants cant be baptized until they have an understanding of what Jesus Christ did. Read and study scripture. You have been decieved.

@RGTomoenage11

5 жыл бұрын

Barry Baker You have, how is it not scriptural? The disciples baptized entire families. The children receiving the faith of their parents. By the way, we didn’t have a Bible until 382 and they were baptizing children already. “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭16:15-16‬ ‭KJVA‬‬ “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:38-39‬ ‭KJVA‬‬ BY THE WAy, the Bible was put together by Catholics. So if we are deceived why did we declare which books are inspired?

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

Angel, the reformed believe they are the true Catholics and Romanists are schismatics. They baptize their children because children I've always been part of God's Covenants. They reject the Roman view the baptism somehow regenerates a child.

@RGTomoenage11

5 жыл бұрын

Nomos Nomosowicz They didn’t reform anything but created a mess.

The Covenant of Grace, from Genesis to Revelation, always includes believers and their children. This pattern of a covenant was established in the Old Testament and the New Testament never changes this pattern. Since the New Testament never says children are no longer included in the covenant, they are still included in the covenant. Also, Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 7, and household baptisms indicate the pattern continues. RC Sproul once said that if children were no longer included in the covenant, there would have been an uproar among the Jews. But we never read of any controversy over this issue. Even though this is an argument from silence, it is a silence that speaks very loudly.

If I may so respectfully disagree and seek an answer to this question:If God in Genesis 17 makes the covenant to Abraham and his offspring in which the covenant sign is to be given throughout their generations thus following the same model to the children of believers in the New Covenant, does it also follow that those who do not give the sign of baptism to their children are to have them cut off from the family like those who would not give the sign of circumcision to the uncircumcised males in Genesis 17:14?

@wnburroughs4082

6 жыл бұрын

John Bot Good question

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

John, yes, those who refuse baptism do so because of unregenerate hearts. If children are not covenant members, from where does their sin come?

@gamewizdom

Жыл бұрын

God is the one who cuts off anyone who refuses to be sealed in His covenant. How can a parent cut off their child for not being baptized when it's the parent's job to baptize? They'd be cutting off themselves! Ridiculous question.

@khristalalpensepai9439

3 ай бұрын

YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER! INFANT BAPTISM IS SAME AS BAPTIZING THE STONE OR WOOD....

I was 2 months old when I was baptized. I was baptized Easter Sunday of 1997. 1/17/1997 was when I was born.

@dr.alanhales544

6 жыл бұрын

Danielle Stark, You weren't baptised, as every Greek meaning for baptism, Is by Total immersion, The saying in Rom 6: 4, "Buried" with Christ in baptism", should have given [you and the Biblically ignorant man who baptised you] A clue.

@nomosnomosowicz7379

4 жыл бұрын

@@dr.alanhales544 that is false and no lexicographer would support that definition. In fact, most uses of that verb and its derivatives in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament Septuagint, indicate immersion would be impossible.

@micahmatthew7104

4 жыл бұрын

There is only one baptism

Do you remember the huge controversy in early church history that was caused by the change incorporating baptism for infants? Me neither! Because it has always been done.

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Acts 8:9-24 For the credobaptists

@QuisutDeusmpc

8 жыл бұрын

@Rezur Rexion This should be good. How does the encounter between St. Peter and Simon Magus disprove infant baptism?

@RezurRexion

7 жыл бұрын

I didn't post it to disprove infant baptism. The fact that many received water baptism, but have not received spiritual baptism, with the Holy Spirit. Simon apparently believed, was baptized with water, and yet Peter had the following to say to him, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." This means water baptism does not fit the baptism doctrine of those who profess "believer's baptism"

@QuisutDeusmpc

7 жыл бұрын

***** I'm not sure I understand, from what you have posted thus far, exactly what your point is. Are you saying that baptism with water is invalid? Or are you saying, that there are two 'baptisms' (one with water and the other with the Holy Spirit; which I would be prepared to disprove)? I am not sure I understand you. 'Nota bene': i.) There is a distinction made in the New Testament between St. John the Baptist's 'baptism of repentance' (which was an adaptation of the OT ritual bath of purification known as the 'mikvah' and was WITHOUT the Holy Spirit; "John came baptizing with water for repentance" (cf. Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16) and which the Apostles participated in and practiced / continued (cf. John 4: 1-3). St. John the Baptist taught and Jesus Christ PROMISED that the baptism practiced in the Church would not be merely with water for repentance but would INCLUDE ("water and the Spirit"; cf. John 3: 5) 'baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire' (Luke 3: 16). So, AFTER, the Holy Spirit was poured out into the Church at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2: 1-4), ALL of those people baptized with St. John the Baptist's baptism of repentance with water, He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him WERE to receive. There was, of course, NO SPIRIT YET, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. cf. John 7: 39 So ANY baptism prior to Jesus Christ's glorification / ascension into heaven, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit into the Church was merely for repentance, and it was through the 'laying on of hands' that THEIR 'baptism of repentance' from John the Baptist was brought to completion and the Holy Spirit communicated, "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit." cf. John 8: 14-17 This isn't the 20th century charismatic movement's 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' replete with speaking in tongues, etc.. It is an incident where these disciples had NOT been baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", but ONLY "in the name of the Lord Jesus' prior to Pentecost, by Jesus Christ's disciples in the Jordan in Judea, "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples), he left Judea and returned to Galilee." cf. John 4: 1-3 This baptism by the Apostles 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost needed to be completed by the laying on of hands by the Apostles.

@RezurRexion

7 жыл бұрын

Let me clarify myself. First, I'll have you know that I hold the position of infant baptism, or pedobaptism. Just to clear all confusion, in that regard. I am not saying that water baptism is invalid, or needless. I am saying it does not do what Holy Spirit baptism does. I am, in fact, highlighting the distinction between the two, and that Holy Spirit baptism has the power, that can not be ascribed to water baptism. Holy Script clears up the distinction, on the power that differentiates between the two. Very little is said about water baptism. On the other hand, the baptism that is spoken of, that includes spiritual characteristics, cannot be ascribed to water baptism. Water baptism, being a symbolic rite or ordinance, similar to the Lord's Supper, is an ordinance administered because that is what Christ commanded. That is what makes it important, because Christ said "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and then "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" Which is also why I am fully persuaded by the position of pedobaptism. And Scripture speaks to the believing father, and says "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.", which is in line with the Great Commission. To make anything more out of it, is mainly the act of stretching it. Which is why I pointed to Acts 8:9-24. To say that water baptism is equal to Holy Spirit baptism leads to a problem in Acts 8:9-24. You can be water baptized, and still be unsaved. But that is not the case with Holy Spirit baptism. Simon was clearly baptized with water. But yet he remained condemned. This definitely strikes a hard blow for "believer's baptism".

@QuisutDeusmpc

7 жыл бұрын

***** Thank you for the clarification, the dialogue, and the Christian fellowship. I also believe that Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught the necessity of baptism and that it includes infants. However, I must disagree that baptism does not include the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, while ALSO agreeing with you that there is a strengthening or 'confirmation' of the Holy Spirit which is associated with the charisms or 'gifts of the Holy Spirit'. i.) In Tanakh / the 'Old Testament' there was a divinely prescribed ritual bath for purification for those among the People of God of ancient Israel who had become ritually unclean for one reason or another (coming into contact with a dead body, women's menorrhea, sexual intercourse, leprosy, etcetera). This was called a 'mikvah' or 'mikveh' bath (I don't recall the OT references but you could Google it). It seems it was this that St. John the Baptist adapted as his 'baptism of repentance' in the wilderness near the Jordan to 'prepare the way of the Lord; make straight His paths'. John the Baptist foretold that the baptism Jesus Christ would institute would be with "the Holy Spirit and fire", "I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the holy Spirit." cf. Mark 1: 8 It is worth mentioning, however, that, during the dispensation of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic Torah / "Law" that the Holy Spirit was not shed abroad liberally to everyone indiscriminately. There were only THREE 'messianic' or 'anointed' offices in Judaism: priest, prophet, and king. The 'spirit' with which they were anointed was the 'spirit of wisdom' (cf. Deuteronomy 34: 9; Numbers 27: 12-23) and it was strictly associated with the holder of that office while in office. ii.) Since Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, it is worth looking at His OWN baptism to see what happens there as a model for our own. St. John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ with WATER and the FATHER with the Holy Spirit and His blessing, "It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” SO, St. John the Baptist's statements link "baptism" (WITH water) AND the Holy Spirit ("...he will baptize you with the holy Spirit"), AND Jesus's OWN BAPTISM (as the exemplary witness 'par excellence') links "baptism" AND the descent of the Holy Spirit. "Water" and "Spirit are linked together. iii.) In Jesus Christ's dialogue with Nicodemus, He expressly links "water" (baptism) AND "the Spirit", "Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.'" cf. John 3: 5 Again, Nicodemus is a first century AD Jew. He knows of the ritual bath of purification known as the 'mikvah' bath, and the anointing the holders of the 'messianic' offices in Judaism had so Jesus Christ is telling him of something new which would not be limited, but indiscriminately given to ALL in "the kingdom of God", a regeneration ("born from above"; John 1: 12) of "water and the Spirit". iv.) After Jesus Christ's ascension into heaven, what happens in the early Church? "Peter [said] to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.'" cf. Acts 2: 38 The same preached message ("Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), the same baptism and the same linking of baptism (water) and "the gift of the Holy Spirit". Even more explicitly than St. Peter's testimony in that example, is St. Paul's testimony to Titus, "...because of his mercy, he saved us through the BATH OF REBIRTH and RENEWAL BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life." cf. Titus 3: 5b-7 Again, the tying together of baptism (water / "bath of rebirth") and the Holy Spirit. So for all of these reasons, I must disagree with your statement that baptism and the Holy Spirit do not go together. At baptism we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, regenerated, "born from above". The same Holy Spirit who descended and remained upon Jesus Christ in His own baptism, indwells us in our baptism. Since this post is already rather long, I am going to separate my response to what you are calling the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as well as your objection regarding the problem of Acts 8.

And the covenant is Acts 16:31 American King James Version And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

@danandnaomisayers7828

4 ай бұрын

And your house shall be saved if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

He appealed to Colossians 2 but didn't read it. The truth is, Colossians 2 destroys the argument of infant baptism. It explicitly connects baptism to the reality of being circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, which is not present in infants. Also, in the cause of the household baptisms, Scripture is clear that hearing the gospel and responding with faith preceded baptism for all those who were baptized.

@mr400meter

7 жыл бұрын

Lydia's isn't specifically mentioned of the entire household having faith, however, it is implied at the end of Ch. 16 as describing her house as "brethren" which to me implies they believed the Gospel. One thing my Presbyterian brothers have not answered is this: Is the baptized infant their brother or sister in Christ? They treat them as such though deny them the ordinance of the Lord's supper. Yet in Israel's time, you HAD to be circumcised to eat the Passover meal (which is more parallel to the Lord's supper than baptism is to circumcision). Never anything about faith has to be expressed to eat the Passover meal.

@griffinb2008

6 жыл бұрын

It says having been buried with him in Baptism, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands - so since you believe this is talking about spiritual circumcision, you must believe in baptismal regeneration. Right?

@davidparker6334

5 жыл бұрын

Mark Reimer i dont think so he is argument about it he is just explaining us what is the meaning of water beptism .

@bigtobacco1098

6 ай бұрын

​@griffinb2008 we don't know who is regenerate ... bad hermeneutic

How do you emerse the child under water?

@Mic1904

Жыл бұрын

Who said anything about 'under water'. Immersion is not submersion.

I never understand why anyone would assume that baptism is the sign of the new covenant. If anything, holy communion is.

When Men's opinions become doctrines

Gods always true to his word though, if anyone at all has faith they will be saved so whats the difference here? I think more is promised? Especially since saving faith is a gift

Well explained

Protestants who claim that infant baptism is not biblical never bothered to find out if it is historical. If they did, they would have no argument to the death against infant baptism.

@TheChristianImperialist

4 жыл бұрын

History is not a hermeneutic

@lp4544

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheChristianImperialist Then why has a 150 year old tradition become one. *think*

@TheChristianImperialist

2 жыл бұрын

@@lp4544 simple. People wanted assurance that their dead children would escape Adam's imputed unrighteousness and receive Christ's imputed righteousness. Times were much harsher back then, not saying infant mortality isnt a reality today, but there was clearly a pastoral decision to bring assurance to early Christians. In fact if infant baptism supplanted circumcision, Paul would have been able to shut down the Judaizer movement INSTANTLY, instead of having to address them in numerous epistles. "We dont need circumcision because Christ has instituted the new covenant baptism instead" - things Paul never said.

@keithpritz1347

Жыл бұрын

Believe, repent, be baptized.

@bigtobacco1098

6 ай бұрын

​@TheChristianImperialist no three legged stool ??

It's very distressing, if you have been baptised as a child, and you fully beleive in the validity of the baptism, to be told that you have to be re-baptised. It's like stamping around on something very precious and a spiritual reality.

@suzie_lovescats

8 жыл бұрын

That's rubbish. I'm glad I was baptised as a baby, otherwise I wouldn't of felt like a true Christian growing up. I made my choice as an adult to make a commitment to God by getting myself confirmed. I didn't need to be re-baptised.

Complete confusion of covenants. He is applying to the new covenant conditional promises that concerned only the old covenant. The new covenant is not to be seen as another administration of the one covenant of grace. This is because the new covenant is itself the one covenant of grace.

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

All covenants have conditions, that's in part what makes them a covenant. But Abraham and Moses weren't saved from their sin because of their works. God provides the means to meet those conditions. What does Jesus say about those who do not obey His commands in John 14?

Sounds like a good baptist. Mr Chapell states (01:40-02:05): when the conditions of the covenant are met, that is faith, God pledged that He would honor the pledge, He would call that child His own. Amen! Oh wait! He's baptising babies? I'm confused.

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

Children are baptized upon their parents faith, just as children were once circumcised for the same. It's that dispensational hermeneutic that chops up redemptive history into isolated pieces.

1 Corimthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." How could the children of atleast one child of God be holy or set apart? This is covenant language. To reject this would be to not grasp the extent of the good news of the gospel. Now does this mean that we must baptise babies? Well, if you believe baptism is a sign of the covenant, then yes. If you believe baptism is a sign of conversion, then no. But whether or not you baptise babies, you must understand that the baby of a child of God is a covenant baby. Does this mean they are saved by being born to believers? No. But it means God will save the baby in time. So, baptism is an expression of faith that God will be a God to me and to my children. One of the promises of God to Abraham is, "I will be a God to you and to your children." And Paul said all of God's promises are yes and amen in Jesus Christ.

100 %

okay so what is baptism do for the infant.

@takmaps

4 жыл бұрын

Baptism is a spiritual work. Baptising an infant gives the infant saving grace. Grace Through which the child as they grow will be drawn to God why? Because the Spirit Himself baptises during baptism and gives grace.

@YeshuaisLord524

3 жыл бұрын

@@takmaps Faith come by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ

Well if we're being consistent then the circumcision was only administered to the male child. So if baptism replaced circumcision then only male child should be baptised, isn't it?

@rodolfolopez1286

Жыл бұрын

There is differences for sure but one of them being what you mentioned and much more. But dont miss the main point that both are the sign of the covenant, look it it as if we are upgrading to something better which we are babtism now is not only for boys but girls aswell , either way you look at it with all the differences it still serves the same purpose of bieng a sign of the covenant old or new, so why cant this new covenant which we see is for everybody know which is better not include infants like the old one, it doesnt make sense that girls can also have the sign of the covenant but all the sudden infants cant no longer have it???

@gsp8489

26 күн бұрын

Newer, better, expanded, gentiles can be included (good for you, i assume), women included too. You want a specific verse to include women? First, cite the verse that permits women to partake in the other sacrament, Communion.

@renlamomtsopoe

26 күн бұрын

@@gsp8489 because the entire household could partake in the Passover meal during exodus that will preempt the inclusion of women in communion. Circumcision was an entire different thing altogether. My initial comment still stands!

The circumcision was only for the males while the baptism is for all believers. Then, how do you connect the two under God's Covenant/Covenant Theology? All the NT verses indicate that only those who heard the gospel and received were baptized. Also, the OT says, "If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word (Num 30:2 ESV)." Do all the parents understand the significance of making a vow at their babies' baptism? I don't think we can take this matter lightly. Lastly, the Great Commission says that we should make disciples first and then baptize. I appreciate your explanation but this position doesn't seem to have a sufficient biblical support. Thank you.

@lp4544

2 жыл бұрын

The point is that the ignorance of the parent doesn’t negate the promise of God. But you’re right, parents need to take this event much more serious.

@rodolfolopez1286

Жыл бұрын

Matthew 28:19-20 commands to babtize and teach everything God has commanded to them, which proves they can be babtized and then be taught

@rodolfolopez1286

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely nothing wrong with babtizing them first but yes you have made a point about the parents

@1theology

Жыл бұрын

@@rodolfolopez1286 Great point! But, grammatically speaking, "Make Disciple" is the main verb and "Baptizing" is a participle. In the order of things, one must believe Jesus to be baptized (e.g., Acts 2:37 - 42; 8:12 - 13; 16:32 - 34, etc.). What do you think?

@rodolfolopez1286

Жыл бұрын

@@1theology when its an adult convert yes they must first believe in order to be babtized, they need not to know everything but certainly believe, in the case of infants born from already believing parents or in that case just one parent they can also be sanctified therefore through the faith of there parents be baptized and be taught about God. 1corinthians 7:14

The bible is clear God releases salvation only by faith. how can he release it to a infant when a infant doesn't know what faith is. Nowhere in the bible is infant baptism mention.

@George040270

7 жыл бұрын

Can you historically prove your case?

@marklim6452

7 жыл бұрын

Tray King you can only be saved through grace. Why are you putting a condition to infants? Why are you requiring infants to do something to be saved?

@George040270

7 жыл бұрын

Mark Lim The doctrine that infants and children are forbidden to be saved is a post Reformation doctrine. Nobody before the Reformation forbade it. None of the Reformers forbade it. It was not until John Smyth came around in 1609 Amsterdam was it forbidden. Therefore, anybody who forbids salvation to infants and children are following John Smyth and not God.

@marklim6452

7 жыл бұрын

George Pierson Protestant's are contradictory bunch. I mean, they keep on saying, Salvation is a gift/grace, no works is needed. No need to do anything, and yet, in baptism, they are requiring infants to do something. WORSE, for infants to do something they cannot even possibly do.How cruel.

@George040270

7 жыл бұрын

Mark Lim Yep.

Everything that Pastor Bryan explained about infant baptism was not taught until Zwingli the reformer began to teach it himself in the 1500's. Zwingli himself admitted that every Dr. of theology got it wrong about infant baptism up until his time. Zwingli had to admit this because between the time of Apostles and up until the 1500's there was no record whatsoever of the teaching of presumptive regeneration. ( Zwingli concocted the teaching of presumptive regeneration which teaches that the infant is already regenerated by the faith of the believing parents. It is to be presumed that the child is already born again. This is the basic orthodox teaching of Reformed theology or Presbyterianism/OPC.) The only kind of record of infant baptism prior to the reformation was the roman catholic teaching of water bapitsmal regeneration - which taught that the water itself gave faith and the new birth to the child. If you go back further even before the roman catholic teaching you find only records of infants being baptized because they were about to die. This was referred as a clinical baptism. Clinical baptism was administered to the infant or child as a last resort because it was preferred that infant mature first to make a conscious act of baptism. St. Augustine himself had a clinical baptism because his mother thought he was going to die as a young child due to sickness (which Augustine survived and became a very blessed and godly man.) So what's the bottom line to all this. You have a very weak case for a biblical warrant to baptize an infant. You have a much more sound, reasonable, and solid biblical case for a believer's or adult baptism. You have very clear and direct New Testament teaching on believer's baptism. A lot of people don't know about this because when you hear someone like Pastor Bryan explain it you think that's it's biblical and that's not really a big deal. I use to think that for a long time until I finally cared enough to check it myself - to see if these things were so like the Bereans of Acts. But the most troubling thing I found out was that not only was Roman Catholics putting thousands to death during the Protestant Era but also the Presbyterians as well. The Presbyterian heritage is darkly stained with a genocide of wiping out for a century of those who held to the belief of believer's baptism only. Those who believed in believer's baptism eventually had to flee Europe and come to America. They had to come to America to worship freely without the European state legislating infant baptism in the new land.

@BruceBlitzHasTits

9 жыл бұрын

the word "household" must bother you. i suppose infants are not people

@nsxanders

9 жыл бұрын

Gerard Limtiaco Your comment about Zwingli isn't even remotely valid. Additionally, you can't ignore the fact that baptism by immersion doesn't become an acceptable practice until the Reformation when Zwingli and Anabaptist champions began to teach it.

@thisisnotmyname4700

9 жыл бұрын

Amen! The Anabaptists got killed by both sides, and all because they wanted to follow Christ and His word, which didn't include infant baptism!

@dikaioskyrios

5 жыл бұрын

אוורט, Follower of Yahuah The anabaptists we’re also extremely violent. Hahahah you read history that you like, but not history which scares you!! Hahahaha.

@dikaioskyrios

5 жыл бұрын

Gerard Limtiaco Sorry mate but long before Augustine infant baptism was practised and not as a clinical thing. Origen writes on infant baptism not just some sort of clinical necessity, but with a whole theology around it.

Why would jesus get baptized as an adult then?

Infant Baptist according to his view is just msinterpretation, not the explocit Bible point of view.

Infant baptism is the coherent theological conclusion if, and only if, the Abrahamic Covenant is considered to have the same substance than the New Covenant. In other words, that the Covenant of Grace was established (important word) in Genesis 3:15 and that every biblical covenant since then, are "dispensations" of that same Covenant of Grace. The main problem with this paradigm has to do with the result of a double federal headship of the believer and unbeliever under the New Covenant, where you have an unregenerate person (in Adam) being at the same time in Christ as mediators. If the Bible teaches that in the New Covenant you are either in Christ or in Adam, infant baptism cannot be a faithful biblical position in relation to the Gospel.

@robertcampbell1343

Жыл бұрын

I really want to understand this could you explain it differently for me please?

Amen.

This brother has a lot of good books and a lot of good sermons but I believe we get a clearer view of what the scriptures teach concerning the covenants and baptism if we interpret them from Christ backward, not Abraham forward. Circumcision isn't replaced by baptism but heart circumcision. Baptism is the external sign of internal heart circumcision. It is the outward sign of the New Covenant promise God gave to remove a heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh. Only those who have experienced this change are to be baptized. W

@iightning2018

9 жыл бұрын

Nick you are a moron Circumcision isn't replaced by baptism but heart circumcision

@pacafour

6 жыл бұрын

I suppose we should delete Galatians 3:24 to meet your concept??? Say it isn't so!

@RGTomoenage11

5 жыл бұрын

No, the Bibke says that bauptism is the new circumcision and that the apostles bauptised entire families. Lidia was bauptised and her entire house hold.

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

The modern day ana-baptists would have us believe Jesus came and kicked out all of the 1st century children that were in covenant with God.

@Collidedatoms

5 жыл бұрын

It's really funny too because the verse he appealed to to connect them together refers to the circumcision not by hands.... i.e. baptism connects to regeneration, not circumcision. The answer to his query about a verse that abrogates it is John 1:12-13, where we are told that the ones who believe are entered into the covenant family. Peter included "your children" because they wished the bloodguiltiness of Christ's murder upon them and Peter is now preaching Christ to them that they would know Christ. Paul presumes that unbelieving adult family members are also "holy" in the same way. Why? Because of the believing family member's sanctifying influence not because of them being in some mystical covenant aparatus that doesn't save them but does everything else but. Ultimately presbyterianism has an imperfect and impotent covenant that cannot save all its members; the Particular Baptist has a perfect covenant.

Gal 5:9 1 Cor 5:6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Based on the initial patterns of Abraham with Issac, and at the first Passover and Exodus, I believe children of believing households should be included. "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is the first commandment with promise." I believe that if a child trusts in and obeys their parents in doing these acts, God honors that as saving faith, which of course will mature over time. Both the taking of Communion and Baptism. Train up a child in the way they should go. Fathers, bring up your children in the nurture of the Lord, which would include the plan of salvation as symbolized in the table and the baptism.

5.16+2.37 1.77+1.50+2.85 2.28+254.87 2.00

LOOKY ACTS 16: 22 Then the multitude rose up together against them [Paul and Silas]; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. 23 And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely. 24 Having received such a charge, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. 25 But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here." 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. 😃 HIS WHOLE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED AND WERE THEN BAPTIZED. biblehub.com/acts/16-34.htm

@bigtobacco1098

6 ай бұрын

Any other OIKOS baptism in the NT ??

You have quoted no verse to back any baby baptism

@arnoldmaglalang5522

4 жыл бұрын

Household of Lydia household means the whole family including children and babies. Household of stephanus. Children and babies have original sin.

@arnoldmaglalang5522

4 жыл бұрын

Watch why catholics baptised babies. Not all traditions were written in bible. The early Christians baptized babies and children. As part of the family. Jesus said do get the children near him. Baptism of children gets them near to Jesus . Baptized children makes them children of God. There is no verse either in bible not to baptised them. John Smith invention not baptizing children

@arnoldmaglalang5522

4 жыл бұрын

Baptize them in the name of the father son holy spirit. That is the bible way

@arnoldmaglalang5522

4 жыл бұрын

Where in the bible it says baptize in Jesus name. If you baptized in the name of the father son holy spirit you already have the son Jesus why do you have in Jesus name.

@arnoldmaglalang5522

4 жыл бұрын

And baptised them in the name of the father son holy spirit. The whole household.

The idea of "I do then God does" is not an accurate hermeneutic. There is definitely a dispensational approach in the Presbyterian church.

He keeps saying the children were given the sign of the covenant…..it was the boys. So why do baby girls get baptized?

@lp4544

2 жыл бұрын

Because the Abrahamic covenant was set through being saved by faith. It was always by faith. Not the outward sign of circumcision.

Baptism is part of the conversion period Not the covenant

See how Irenaeus (130-202) wrote how the Eucharist and the Church’s teaching are consistent with each other and they confirm one another. But all these modern born again neo-montanist messianic judaizers attach no importance to the Eucharist in contrast to the early Church (Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) just to same a few of its pillars.

@lcs-salam

3 жыл бұрын

Name the Fathers, sure, but we Protestants want to primarily hear from our Lord Jesus, the apostles, and other writers of Scripture. Sola Scriptura - Soli Deo Gloria.

@reformedcatholic457

3 жыл бұрын

@@lcs-salam You do know the reformers in Calvin and Luther believed infants should be baptized and believed Sola Scriptura, right? And you don't believe infants should be baptized someone is not holding to Sola Scriptura correctly. Here are Scripture passages that prove infant baptism Matt 18:6, Acts 2:38-39, Baptism replaces circumcision Col 2:11-13. The earliest reference to infant baptism is St. Irenaeus which was about 190 AD (born 130 AD) a generation away from the Apostles, this is very early.

so children are saved until they are accountable. WHen that child does... we dont know if he will come to faith.... so basically, infant baptism leads to the same result of new converts.. God keeps his words. There is no benefit to infant baptism. it makes people think they need not repent or come to the Lord.. they will think they are good as they come.

@eliyadziubek3853

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t know what your experience is, but ironically, it seems to me that those who are baptized as infants are also those who understand original sin and their need for a savior.

Baby baptism was not Christ teaching but a roman tradition that can be trace back to idolatry' MARK 16:15 And He said unto them, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. .. Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What doth hinder me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. now its clear here how the new testament do baptism 1. Preaching of the word 2. convictions of the Holy Spirit that leads to repentance 3. Decision made by the individual and not by the one preaching( in the case of baby ,they cant even choose ,we force baptismm into their lives without them knowing it) 4. The preach baptise the person according to his faith

I wish my parents had have baptised me as a child. I hate being the centre of attention, so it was a HUGE thing to be baptised as a twenty-something in front of a church audience. It's a prominent memory and marker of publicly proclaiming my faith and love in such an exposing, outward act.

@lilacDaisy111

5 жыл бұрын

(emotionally exposing)

@RIDE_26

2 жыл бұрын

You are lucky your parents didn't baptise you, and exactly as you say it should be a huge thing, you took the wright decision to express your faith publicly. Well done. It is crazy to think how this pastor is twisting the word of God. Did John the Baptist ever baptised a child? It's unbelievable what is going on.

Imagine explaining the Abrahamic Covenant as having “conditions that need to be met”… 🙄🙏 This is the most basic error ever. The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional and unilateral. God alone keeps His covenant with Abraham. He ratified and confirmed this through the cutting ceremony where He alone passed through the pieces, while He put Abraham to sleep doing nothing… So-called “covenant theology” even gets the Biblical covenants wrong… Not saying they are not our brothers and sisters in Christ - they are - but they have created a big complex error around all of this. Love is patient, love is kind. Speak the truth in love. 🙏❤️

covenant is done under the blood not water and circumcision symbolize conversion not baptism( col 2: 11 and in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. 12 Ye are buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye also are risen with Him through the faith wrought by the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. note the word ,corcumcision made without hand -that salvation and Buried' which is baptism. They have twisted the word or maybe used the word without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and he is using the word of peter out of context 'Peter was refering to the Holy Spirit not baby baptism

infant baptism is biblical.

@thisisnotmyname4700

9 жыл бұрын

How? Please share.....!

@BruceBlitzHasTits

9 жыл бұрын

bible says entire households were baptized. you don't think babies are people? lol

@thisisnotmyname4700

9 жыл бұрын

BruceBlitzHasTits Really? Explain this then....... bible.com/114/1sa.1.21-23.nkjv Now the man Elkanah and ALL HIS HOUSE went up to offer to the Lord the yearly sacrifice and his vow. BUT Hannah DID NOT GO UP, for she said to her husband, “ Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the Lord and remain there forever.” So Elkanah her husband said to her, “Do what seems best to you; wait until you have weaned him. Only let the Lord establish His word.” Then the woman stayed and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

@BruceBlitzHasTits

9 жыл бұрын

Evert Frankincense you can not explain away that christians have been baptizing babies. read "early church history". it's biblical and historical

@thisisnotmyname4700

9 жыл бұрын

BruceBlitzHasTits Hmmm, yeah but where is it in the Bible? Anyway, getting into a discussion with a guy/girl? With a name as yours, don't think so... But this may interest you.... bible.com/114/pro.10.8.nkjv The wise in heart will receive commands, But a prating fool will fall.

Many wrongs but one of them here. You are quoting without details Colossians 2. Here it is: COLOSSIANS 2:11 -12 » 11 † In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: » 12 † Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. 1. So you cannot say that circumcision is water baptism, or maybe you can say it but then you lead the blind being blind yourself. 2. Now we see clearly that the circumcision from Christ is without hands. Baptizing baby is with hands. 3. And we have no example of this funny catholic infant baptism in the Bible. You might be wrong for yourself and your kids. But to preach this all over the world... I am sorry but I have to condemn such an HERESY. It is not doctrine of the church, it is Baptist denominational Jezabel doctrine! REPENT! 4. Because you prevent these children to take their OWN VOWS through baptism when grown up since they were already 'baptized' by your tyranny when they had no way to oppose your WRONG DOCTRINE. 5. Circumcision is for males, baptism is for both males and females. 6. WATER BAPTISM OCCURS AFTER REPENTANCE AND BABIES HAVE NO SINS! 7. The true circumcision is the true baptism of the Holy Spirit which is much more than speaking in tongues or healing the sick. I think you should circumcise yourself instead of bothering babies.

@timhodgins6031

10 ай бұрын

How do you figure babies have no sins when David said he was sinful in the womb? Ps51 Or what about Romans 3:23 (All have sinned) if you don't like OT scriptures!

@philipvalentino3004

10 ай бұрын

@@timhodgins6031 I love the Bible more than you think. To quote it is just proving that you know how to read. You must believe it and obey the voice of God. John the Baptist or the 12 apostles never baptized any children. Do you place yourself above the Bible? Psalm 51:5 NIV [5] Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Please just quote me one sin David did commit as a baby? God is the righteous judge and you cannot condemn anyone with no grounds or solid evidence. We come in this world with the capacity to sin and to do good as well. Baptism or circumcision do not prevent anyone to sin again. The Jews that crucified Jesus were circumcised. Ananias, with Sapphira were baptized and lied to the Holy Spirit. So out of the Ten Commandments which one could a baby break any? On the contrary Jesus said we should become like children. Proving that children have faith before they get polluted by religious doctrines lying to them like yours and so many others. Luke 18:16 NIV [16] But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Baptizing babies is raping their free will. They cannot confess any sin and take any vow. You are deeply in error. Matthew 3:5-6 NIV [5] People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. [6] Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. … People. Not babies with diapers.

@timhodgins6031

10 ай бұрын

@@philipvalentino3004 I'd read these (and other) verses and see an invitation to the household including minors, servants and people not present at the conversion of the house leader... I can see we won't agree; but don't you think there'd be some indication in scripture that the household didn't include minors? Do you think the household only meant the people who came under the sound of the gospel as it was preached? Or in dribs and drabs over the years as people came to faith? I wonder, and I'm not being sarcastic, but I wonder if you think the promise was a hypothetical thing rather than a literal thing? Btw, you don't believe in original sin? Are you even a calvinist?

@philipvalentino3004

10 ай бұрын

@@timhodgins6031 dear Tim Thanks for your reply First of all I’m not Calvinist and don’t even know what it means I know some thing. Christ died for me chief of sinners. If you see an invitation for toddlers and infants in one scripture to be baptized with adults it’s not my fault. The Bible is not subject to private interpretation. I have you many other scriptures to prove that baptism of water is for grown up AFTER they confessed their sins. 1 babies have no sin 2 they cannot speak or repent 3 nowhere in the whole Bible will you find one baby being baptized. So you should reconsider your vision with the Bible eyes drops. What I think do not matter since these three points could be understood even by unbelievers. It’s biblical and logical. As I said before David could not confess any sin when he came to this world and God cannot condemn a child to go to hell because he is not baptized because a child has no sin. Maybe COVID could help you to understand what INCUBATION means? And truly speaking sin is UNBELIEF 2 Thessalonians 2:12

He consistently refers to circumcision that it applies to all children in the OT. This is not true. It applied to the male children only.

By watching this video, i realize that Catholic baptism is SO beautiful

Baptism in this churches is just "a naming ceremony"

it contradicts to non believers and not infant baptize people. argument should stop if a family doesnt want infant baptism its fine. dont fight for it christian. we need to saved lives not to fight about your religions traditions. parents should learn to have a big responsible to their child through jesus.

Falsehood, baby hasn't even sinned and cant consent. Its traditions of men

@George040270

7 жыл бұрын

Can you historically prove your case?

@bieckaymbwalala2343

7 жыл бұрын

we are all sinners through Adam, we are all born sinners, by through Christ we all Upright. "baby hasn't even sinned and cant consent" are you sure Jazz ? a baby is born a sinner !

@George040270

7 жыл бұрын

Mbwalala Kallex Protestantism has a problem telling the difference between being born with a sin nature and actually committing sin.

@bieckaymbwalala2343

7 жыл бұрын

George Pierson i understand, remember in Adam we are all sinners and dead, but through Christ we will live again. i don't think there is any verse in the Bible that says Children should not be baptized but i know Cornelius baptized with all his household and Jesus said let infants come to him, not one must stand in their way. i believe that infants should be baptized and taught how to be christian, just very sad that churches no more preach how someone should be a christian but only read few verse in the bible and misinterpret. parents don't talk to their children about God and Christ thus why they are now being atheists. something must church for sure,

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

Babies were born with the original guilt inherited from Adam along with the corruption of sin, a disposition the only do what is evil in the sight of the Lord. Once you are old enough to have children, that realization will come all too quickly.

The Promise the Apostle Peter referred to was the promise of the Holy Spirit and not the promise of Baptism. Baptism is not a promise but a sign of regeneration. He said in verse 38-39 of Acts 2 that "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy spirit. The promise (of the Holy Spirit) is to you and your children... In Luke 24:49 Jesus Said to His disciples "Behold, I send the Promise of my Father upon you; but tarry in the city until you are endued with power from on high. The preaching of Peter in Acts 2:14 - 40 to devout men from Jerusalem and every nation under heaven was as result of the fact that the Promise of the Holy Spirit had come on the 120 disciples. Thus, the context was about the Holy Spirit falling on the 120 disciples and not Baptism.

Sigh. the promise in Acts 2 is not circumcision/baptism of children. It's the Holy Spirit. You don't have to be a scholar to see how clear the context is. Paul then says "the promise" that would come in the new covenant to both Jewish and Gentile believer is "the Holy Spirit." (Galatians 3:14) Ironically, Paul says that this - the Holy Spirit - is the "blessing of Abraham," the very person covenant paedobaptists appeal to (Genesis 17) for baptizing infants. Bryan, I love your book on preaching, but this is special pleading, not biblical exegesis or exposition of any text (e.g. referring to Colossians 2, but not really showing the connection). Moreover, to say that every baptism in the NT was accompanied by the family may be true, but it is clear in every one of these accounts but one (the account of Lydia is neutral) that the "household" had believed in the gospel. Look up oikos in Bibleworks or Logos (and not just its usage in Acts). You'll be very surprised what the Bible says about "household" and salvation (and not presumption).

"After 2000 years...every NT example of an adult baptism after the resurrection, the Bible says not only was the adult baptized. Who else was baptized? He or Her and their household. Every time. With one exception. The Ethiopian eunuch." WRONGThis is stated during minute 5 of the video. I am just pleading with all teachers to give an honest representation of what the Bible says. Please. Acts 2:38 he commands them to repent and be baptized, don't you think it's safe to assume that they were? I suppose that maybe they ran home and got their families at this time as well, but it doesn't say that. Acts 2:41 says about 3000 were baptized8:12 ...baptized, both men and women8: 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized.9:18 Saul got up and was baptizedI could go on.Do your own word studies with a concordance. CovenantFaithBaptismSignSealYou will likely not baptize your infants if you do an honest study from the bible.

Infant baptism is not based upon scripture.

@micahmatthew7104

4 жыл бұрын

atestring100 neither is faith alone

@YeshuaisLord524

3 жыл бұрын

@@micahmatthew7104 "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, " Ephesians 1:13 "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God," Ephesians 2:8 "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:16-18

This is a dedication not a baptism. Stop deceiving people.

No such thing as a denomination Presbyterian in the Bible.

@Mic1904

Жыл бұрын

There's no such thing as the word 'Bible' in the Bible either, and yet you had no problem deducing such a concept from the pages of Scripture and have no issue using an English word and term to describe something you see therein.

It's impressive how great expositors of the Bible are able to teach such an error

@jakeabbatacola5092

2 жыл бұрын

You’ve been brainwashed. American evangelicalism is not all they’ve told you it is.

What a sad commentary on Christianity ... an infant, innocent child incapable of intentional sin, would be denied salvation by baptism.

infant baptism has sent millions to hellfire down through the centuries and still today.. Water baptism is never part of the gospel and Paul made this clear when foolish baby Christians were exalting water baptism and those who baptised them over the gospel.. Paul with a righteous anger rebuked them explaining that he wished he had baptized none of them and that only the gospel is the power unto salvaiton to all that believe. The gospel is the "death, burial and resurrection of Christ, " and no water is mentioned..1 Cor 15:3-4 KJV Water baptism is something a Christian should receive after salvation.. Acts 8:36-38, Acts 10:47-KJV but its never a requirement for salvation.. 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 King James Version (KJV) 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. Romans 1:16 King James Version (KJV) 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

@dikaioskyrios

5 жыл бұрын

Eternal Security Defended Water Baptism is part of the gospel. That’s ridiculous you don’t think so. There is one baptism no? Or are there two? There is one, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, by water and the Spirit. One baptism

We cannot baptize unbelievers. Dedication is enough for children.

@Mygoalwogel

2 жыл бұрын

Why do you assume children are unbelievers? The Bible gives specific examples of infant believers. It also tells when we can consider infants to be believers.

Infant baptism is nothing but leftover romanism! Baptism is an outward sign of inward belief. And so baptism must be sought by the believer himself, not put upon him by other persons.

@binusamuel8935

5 жыл бұрын

Circumcision too. Read romans 4:11

@micahmatthew7104

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you have a Jesus icon, that’s “Romanism” too!

@lp4544

2 жыл бұрын

Titus 3:5 tramples on your statement

@ausonius100

2 жыл бұрын

@@lp4544 It does not. "washing" in Titus 3:5 is not outward bodily baptism with material water. Its the power and life of God the Holy Spirit renewing and regenerating the soul/inner man of the believer.

@lp4544

2 жыл бұрын

@@ausonius100 regeneration happens before profession. Just ask Peter in Matthew 16

I am an Anglican but I think this is a wrong teaching.

No such thing in the Bible on baby baptism. No verse about it! False preacher on this subject.

Infant baptism is completely false. Not one documentation in scripture. A person cannot be baptized until they have an understanding of who Jesus Christ is and done on The Cross. Just another wolf.

@RGTomoenage11

5 жыл бұрын

Actually, the disciples baptized entire families.

@binusamuel8935

5 жыл бұрын

Barry Baker you have no idea of how covenants in bible works.

@lilacDaisy111

5 жыл бұрын

Wolf? That's going a bit far. Even John MacArthur says he knows he must be wrong on some things -- this side of eternity -- he just doesn't know what. However, does "all in the household" *have* to include children/babies? Their houses back then had rooms built on for the son and his wife. So, I think their "household" was all the adults -- a man's wife, his elderly mother or father, unmarried daughter, grown sons, daughter-in-laws, etc. I can say, "all the Russel family were at the wedding," but I meant all the adults, not the kids. The fact that "believe" is associated so strongly with baptism makes me see it this way pretty clearly.

infant baptism is historical. If your theory is not historical its not based on reality.

@tulubahorspiel3048

8 жыл бұрын

+jerkojovic Infant baptism is not biblical. The New Testament teaches that personal faith in Jesus comes always before baptism.

@jerkojovic

8 жыл бұрын

Tuluba Hörspiel give me the verse if it says that it will be talking about grown ups. They cant go back to their mothers womb.

@jerkojovic

8 жыл бұрын

Where does it exclude babys? If you want to ignore historical facts, that is your choice. That proves again, that bible alone christianity cant account for historical practices of the fist christians . But even in the bible, Paul Baptised stefanus his whole household.

@jerkojovic

8 жыл бұрын

***** that is the whole problem. If you have historical data, that confirms what the catholic church believes. Then it is false data, not because of the data, but because of your interpretation of the bible. you can say that you dont want to do things that are not in the bible, the bad thing is that you were not there 2000 years ago. and you try to reconstruct the teachings of the early church, without accepting the first church and accepting the data outside of the bible. i can make the assumption because we can show historically that they baptised babys. So if you baptise a household, that might ring some bells. i know that the catholic church their interpretation of the bible is true. because: 1. we can demonstrate historically that the first christians thought catholic doctrine and mentioned the word ''catholic church''. 2.We are the ones that binded the bible in 393 AD in hippo. 3.All the successors of the apostels (ignatius of antioch, polycarp etc) were all 100% catholics.

@jerkojovic

8 жыл бұрын

***** that is a common lie. could you just do yourself a favour and google: history catholic church. ''Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC. Church. -(ignatius of anthioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 87, 70 AD)'' Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the church (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), during the council of nicea. in holland were i come from. you have 1 bishops in around 1.000.000 catholics. where did all these people of of a sudden come from? constantine was born in the late 3th century. how come the successors of the apostles said this about infant baptism: "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Irenaeus,Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189] "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

GracePres, Dr. Bryan Chapell, Nowhere doe the Bible teach infant baptism, God's way is, Believe, Mk 16: 16 and repent, Acts 2: 38. Infant baptism is white witchcraft Imposing one's will on another.You Cannot compare the New Covenant baptism with the Old Covenant circumcision.Household salvation doesn't include infants, as the cannot choose to, Believe, repent, or be baptised.As for your "Every baptism included households, You have overlooked Paul and the disciples in Acts 19, and you have overlooked the words of Jesus, He that BELIEVETH then is baptised, How can an infant believe.And besides all that, You DIDN'T baptise the infant, You dabbed water on his head, and That's NOT baptism, As every Greek meaning for baptism, Is by, "Total immersion".

@Tinaylili

5 жыл бұрын

Amén

@nomosnomosowicz7379

5 жыл бұрын

The reformed do not believe in "household salvation" and baptizo does not mean immersion. There are a plethora of examples in the Septuagint where it clearly contradicts that position. Do you really believe the Pharisaical tradition was to immerse their tables as the practice of "baptizing" them is referenced in Mark 7.4?

So sad. This pastor is authorizing the disobedience of his flock, all of whom should be baptized upon individual saving faith, not a historical ceremony. If this child is obedient to the Lord, she will have to be properly baptized once mature. It also robs the church from hearing her personal testimony of saving faith. My conscience was offended by this video.

@micahmatthew7104

4 жыл бұрын

Sarah Diaz Credobaptism is the illusion of choice

@lp4544

2 жыл бұрын

150 year traditions should offend you more than 2000 year old ones.

@timhodgins6031

10 ай бұрын

Can't someone share a testimony without it being a baptismal service??

His view makes God' s pledge so weak because only if the baby when adult becomes a Christian, then God will promise that his words will be applied to him. What insecure and weak God!

lie ,lie and another lie may God forgive you for not corectly handling the word of truth