I was baptised as a child and walked away from the faith as a young adult for a time. I have since returned and have been serving the Lord in Christian ministry for over 20 years. I live in Southern Baptist land and have absorbed many of their beliefs without trying to which made me doubt the efficacy of my baptism for a time. This is clear and concise teaching which is necessary. I am filled with gratitude towards my parents for raising me in a Godly manner and baptising me as a child.

@michael75884

9 ай бұрын

you isnt serving Jesus by being a priest in a church building God Jesus Christ's true children and His true disciples are not apart of a religious group you serve the false church and possible even the world or yourself you don't serve Jesus pray for the truth to be revealed to you and pray for help from Jesus would be wise of you to do before it is too late God Jesus Christ's true children and true disciples they serve Jesus exactly like the 12 apostles of Jesus's did not in a church like the pharisees and hirelings serve themselves, there church and pagan practices you are a pharisee and or a hireling you isn't a true child/disciple of God Jesus Christ pharisees and hirelings serve a church and do church service worship etc not true children/disciples of God Jesus Christ's the Holy Spirit will lead people out of the false church not into it church building congregation organizations = the false church the church Jesus built isn't a physical church building in the earthly world

@JenniferoftheSea

5 ай бұрын

How beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

@Jalmeida95

Күн бұрын

Amen.

This is one of the more even-handed discussions I've seen on the topic. He doesn't address every possible objection but he does a good job of showing the differences in background assumptions and explaining the Reformed covenantal view.

Much desired video for myself as I intend to know the full argument of paedobaptism as a baptist. I now see that the credo- side is inconsistent, and paedo- is consistent. Thank you for this resource.

@INRIVivatChristusRex

Жыл бұрын

Read the Church Fathers.

@joshjay6765

11 ай бұрын

You could read the church fathers, or you can read the bible 🤷‍♂️

@YESHUASlave

6 ай бұрын

Lol-) ah, may GOD Bless both of You. This is an issue of presuppositions. Indeed, everything is affected by them, but this controlled to a point that one can read both the Church Father's and Holy Scriptures and truly still not be convinced (that 'Thats' what's being said). We must address Foundations (Covenant etc. [ref. list given]).

@ernst_junger

17 күн бұрын

You watched a single video on youtube and switched to paedobaptism?

🙏🏼 Fantastic videos, keep em commin’! 🙌🏼

Thank you for such a thorough explanation . This was very informative.

Wow nicely done as a Catholic I approve

We’re waiting for a similar approach and explanation on the Sabbath.

@ChristKirk

Жыл бұрын

Here you go: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dI6L15Syf5iYqc4.html

Excellent! Thankyou!!! Baptist upbringing here.... and you've got household 'converts'! So much more imagery swirling through my mind 🎉

Now this is very persuasive! According to this appeal to scripture if I personally were to continue to hold to Credobaptism then I would not be fully innerrant, due to the biblical evidence supported in this video. Very persuasive indeed; well done.

You cannot complete the square because there is no directionality within a square. One could move from physical circumcision to physical baptism to spiritual baptism. Which is exactly what Paul was arguing against.

Very helpful. Thank you brother.

Thank you for doing this content

It's finally making sense to me, thanks in large part to Doug's book. This is a helpful summary. Thanks. I was never satisfied with the typical debates because they always seemed like they were talking past eachother. RC vs JM for example.

@INRIVivatChristusRex

Жыл бұрын

Read the Church Fathers

@Heidibell20

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean by talking past each other ?

@vinciblegaming6817

2 ай бұрын

I think RC had the upper hand in that debate. It seemed to me JM wasn’t engaging with the most salient of RC’s arguments.

I believed ( as I was taught) in believer baptism. Yet I gave my kids the Lord's supper as soon as they could hold a cup. Never even thought about it. It seemed right. Now, I see more clearly. As always, thanks, Doug.

@LovelyReba

Жыл бұрын

Well, that is what Christianity is all about...doing what *seems right* you. Wait...what?

@thomasthellamas9886

11 ай бұрын

@@LovelyRebalet’s be nit picky today eh?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

​@@LovelyRebadeep rebuttal

Thank you so much!

I was raised Baptist and have been going to a Presbyterian church for 25 plus years. I appreciate both views and think there is value in both. Excellent teaching.

@Postmillhighlights

Жыл бұрын

I understand that your intent is most likely to be charitable. However, both positions cannot be correct. Certainly one (at least) must be wrong. How can there be value in a position that is in opposition to the scriptures?

@darylherlick2344

Жыл бұрын

Even John Calvin said we should not get overly hung up on Baptism.

Excellent!!

1 Corinthians 10:1‭-‬5 convinced me of infant baptism. If all of Israel were baptized into Moses that automatically included the children. I also hold to infant communion. We should not exclude our children from the covenant. Also many early church fathers were pro infant baptism. Cyprian even claimed it washed away the sin of Adam. Which is an interesting argument I've never heard before.

@darylherlick2344

Жыл бұрын

Tradition is a issue at times , even John Calvin said we should not get hung up bapyizam.

@DannyLoyd

2 ай бұрын

First, we are not baptized into Moses, and I simply encourage you to keep reading......a baby cannot eat and drink and raise up to dance or worship Idols......

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Yet they received the covenant sign

@ronfeledichuk531

Күн бұрын

In fact, baptismal regeneration was taught by all of the Church Fathers. If there is one doctrine that is taught unanimously it is baptismal regeneration.

@pipinfresh

Күн бұрын

@@ronfeledichuk531 I've studied a lot more since this post and I agree.

Question: Would not a boy who had been circumcised in 30 AD, if his family would have come to Christ in 35 AD, need to be also baptized into the covenant?

@oracleoftroy

4 ай бұрын

Yes, as would his younger brother born in the same year (AD 35) and circumcized on the 8th day, and the next brother born two years later, regardless of if the parents chose to circumcize him.

In the Methodist church, we also practice both infant baptism and paedocommunion ❤ 🍷 I love the point about we don't see women being communed in the NT but they are surely not meant to be excluded from the Sacrament of the Altar

"All who are bread, should get bread." (Pr Wilson) ❤❤❤ Discussion of chikdren as having status of saints, differs from Pr. Baucham's "vipers in diapers" 😂 Love both teachers but it shows this distinction between views of Ref Presby and Ref Baptists interesting

Sincere question: practically speaking, if God invites a non-believer into the Church after a profession of faith and a true repentance, and at the same time if a child of believers in the Covenant Church grows up and proves himself to be a non-believer, then what practical difference does understanding the Covenant make in our walk with Christ, in our decipleship and in our evangelism?

@Recruit128Vids

10 күн бұрын

As someone working through this debate myself, it would seem the biggest impact is on the raising of children. I think for an adult converting to Christianity the baptism experience will be the same either way.

Why would one say a person could be a partaker of the covenant apart from faith, and what does it mean to partake of it apart from faith? Also, what would the difference be of baptism and circumcision?

If children of at least one believing parent are considered a saint (holy), what is the status of a child still living at home when one parent later believes? Is that child automatically "holy"? And, by "saint" or "holy" in 1 Cor 7:14 is this a status that yields eternal life? If so, wouldn't that mean that his/her children are also holy? So many questions!

Should the unbelieving spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:14 be baptized?

@ryankapalczynski748

Ай бұрын

No, If the other spouse is a believer, then that makes their marriage holy and their children holy.

Infant baptism is one of the most important gifts a parent can give his child.

Such a great explanation! I was baptized in Catholic Church as an infant. I am now in a Protestant church and have been rebaptized as an adult. I look at my life in Christ and see how God has carried me through my life. I must say this argument is compelling and I am thankful my children were also baptized.

@INRIVivatChristusRex

Жыл бұрын

Come back home! Read the Church Fathers

@Mr_Gabbles

10 ай бұрын

Why be re baptized though?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

No rebaptisms in scripture

@MrMonchis04

3 күн бұрын

So such thing as re batisim

The Reception History of the Apostolic texts is an important aspect of coming to clarity concerning whether the Apostolic Teaching was ever understood as including or excluding infants from Baptism. Considering that there never was a major or minor controversy over the matter (and no, Tertullian recommending the deferral of Baptism because he didn't believe post-Baptismal sin could be forgiven does not qualify as a controversy or as a point in favor of modern Credo Baptism) and that infants were never known to be excluded, that the practice of infant baptism was universal, both inside and outside the Roman Empire, and that infant baptism is known with certainty at the latest in the 200s, this gives clear testimony to how the Apostolic Word was universally understood and applied, which settles the case in favor of infant baptism unless one is willing to affirm that Christ's Promise that the Church would not fail was broken from the beginning and only fixed by Calvinist Baptists in the 17th Century.

As a former paedo baptist, I find the "why was there no uproar" argument to be one of the worst arguments in the paedo baptist arsenal, and think that the lack of uproar over the "exclusion" of children from "the covenant" is not really hard at all to explain. If bearing the "covenant sign" is the way in which we are viewing "covenant inclusion", as Doug seems to present it, girls didn't bear it in the first place. So you've already cut the people over whom there would have been uproar in half (Note how the paedo baptist always just calls those who were circumcised "children" rather than specifically recognizing the male only nature of the "covenant sign", which is a bit dishonest) . So all you have to answer for is the male children, who we know Paul permitted the Jews to continue circumcising! So what great change had taken place? For the Jews, every practical matter remained the same. Their boys still got circumcised, their girls did not, and then they got baptized when they were old enough to confess Christ. And the Gentiles had no expectations of a genealogically oriented covenant, so would they not have needed specific instruction on how this would work?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Acts 2:38

Question: So, many credobaptist churches will have baby dedications which seem to me an attempt at having infant baptism while denying the covenantal relationship. So, here's the controversy. A pastor I know was asked to do a baby dedication. But he refused because one of the parents was not a Christian. As it was explained, a baby dedication was more for the parents and one of them could not in faith commit to the oaths required. So, the pastor's refusal resulted in a church split with the pro-dedication group leaving and forming their own congregation. As Doug stated, the faith of one parent makes the child clean in the eyes of the Lord, whereas this pastor was demanding that both parents be of faith. Was he wrong, or is that a differnece between a credo versus pedo stance and whatever is opposite to covenantal theology? For myself, i do think "baby dedication" is merely an attempt to do an end run around the credo position while at the same time claiming to be only credobaptist. Does Aplogia Church practice baby dedications and if so why, given Jeff's and James's vehement opposition to infant baptism?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

No dedication in scripture

@blchamblisscscp8476

10 күн бұрын

@bigtobacco1098 No pro se dedication. No dedication versus baptism. Thus my question, why have a dedication when there's no Scripture warrant explicit, but at the same time and for the same reason deny baptism? Is dedication a lower order sacrament than baptism?

@bigtobacco1098

10 күн бұрын

@@blchamblisscscp8476 dedication isn't a sacrament...

@bigtobacco1098

10 күн бұрын

@@blchamblisscscp8476 I would never deny baptism

13:15 So, to remain consistent, do we baptize the unbelieving husband or wife along with their infant?

Um didn't Jesus say "let the little children come to me, for it is to THEM that the Kingdom of heaven belong"? Also didn't he also say "If you do not become like children, you will not enter into the KOH"? Why in the world are protestants complicating this matter? Infant baptism has been accepted and practiced for 1500yrs. Luther comes along and tries to undo all that with his ludicrous solas. If you truly want to follow scripture those verses I mentioned settles it. Period.

Something I'm interested in hearing a paedocommunion perspective on is 1 Cor. 11. If we are commanded to thoughtfully discern Christ's blood and body in the sacrament in order to properly take communion and not be held responsible for His blood how can we expect a young child to do so?

@vinciblegaming6817

2 ай бұрын

It’s easier for a child to believe the bread is Jesus than an adult. A child isn’t hung up on what he can logically justify or the limitations of what God would do. They just believe it and trust.

You say "why would we remove children from the community of believers?" Well, not even adults are "brought into the community" without coming to faith in Christ. Nobody is brought into the community through baptism, so, how do you expect to bring a child into the community (of believers) by baptizing them? Circumcision of the flesh (circumcision done by human hands) was a foreshadowing of the circumcision of the heart (done not by human hands). So, even the adult must have their heart circumcised before entering into the community. This is not done through baptism, because that would be baptismal regeneration. God regenerates us, and brings us into communion with Himself and with other believers.

As a Baptist, I find this argument very helpful for understanding the Paedobaptist view. I see how the square finds its completion, but I’m left with this question: When should the physical sign be applied to a child of the covenant? If the sign of circumcision was not applied until the eighth day, would it follow that the child should receive baptism on the eighth day? The eighth year? What’s our means for measuring the “when” since we don’t have a definitive text as with circumcision? The Passover had a specific time for observation, but the Lord’s Supper is however often we eat of it. Is there the same leeway with the sign of baptism?

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

Yes.. some give and take... but not neglect

Paul was baptized after his conversion. (As well as through Moses as you infer from 1 Cor 10;1-5)

I don't remember if it was John or Jesus who told the people to bring forth fruits of their repentance. infants are not yet able to do that.

@INRIVivatChristusRex

Жыл бұрын

Read the Church Fathers

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Irrelevant

Christians today are the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29) ONLY because they are in Christ, who is THE SEED of Abraham (Gal 3:16), and it is only by faith that one becomes part of Christ's Body, the Church. One can not be born into the New Covenant, the Kingdom of God; he can only be REBORN into it (John 3:3-8).

@asitiswritten

Жыл бұрын

Amen, unfortunately Doug doesn't believe that's how it works.

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

And you unfortunately think this faith is merely a product of the adult mind. You would have to believe then that everyone who dies under the age of understanding is hell-bound. What then does "let the children come unto me" mean then? Your soteriology is so limited. Like the Roman Catholic's strict dependence upon the sacraments, your dependence is upon the faculty of the mind. Christ salvation is much more expansive than that.

@asitiswritten

Жыл бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter Of course faith is the product of the adult mind, why would faith being a product of the adult mind necessitate a belief that anyone who dies "under the age of understanding is hell-bound"? I am told by 2 Samuel 12:16-22 that children under a certain age go to heaven.

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

@@asitiswritten If you could show me where heaven is in that passage? All there is in that passage is a dead infant. If there was, the Pharisees could have easily put down the Sadducees argument against the afterlife without Jesus' help. Even if it did, what age? 10? 20? 30? You've got a lot of holes to fill there.

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

@@asitiswritten You are basically making an argument from silence. There is no "age of accountability" in the Bible. Only Jesus explicit statement to the parents who brought their children to Him saying "do not hinder them." Why do you hinder them?

Had a question. When Doug says an infant was baptized was a true branch on the covenant tree, what does he mean by this? Is this infant saved? Is there any consideration of what his/her parents status is?

@rorydiane6728

8 ай бұрын

Doug makes a very brief distinction about this very subject at 6:10 . The tree of the covenant is *not* election, or salvation. Their status in the covenant tree is simply their church status as a part of the covenant family. They are either elect (saved later in life) and bear fruit on the tree, or are not elect (not saved) and therefore their branch is cut off from the tree.

Buried with Him in baptism. Immersed

@AnUnhappyBusiness

Жыл бұрын

Orthodox dunk babies.

@richlopez5896

3 ай бұрын

The Church only needs to use water and a Trinitarian formula. Immersion, Sprinkling, Pouring are all used by the Church.

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

They entombed people back then... please

I'm a Sovereign Grace Baptist and when I obeyed the Lord in Baptism I came up filled with the Holy Spirit God gives the Holy Ghost to those who obey him. ex Arminian Calvinist.

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

We all are

Question. Who gave the Westminster Confession of Faith authority to say anything or determine anything?

@ChristKirk

Жыл бұрын

Not sure I understand your question. The Confession is a document written by men, attempting to summarize the teaching of Scripture.

@INRIVivatChristusRex

Жыл бұрын

@@ChristKirk Exactly. So in a way a tradition outside Sacred Scripture. So why to reinvent the wheel, when the Catholic Church has provided since day 1 the guidance to Christian doctrine? Thanks, but no thanks. I stay in the Catholic Church.

@oracleoftroy

6 ай бұрын

​@@INRIVivatChristusRex ?? And what's wrong with traditions per se? Do you have a false understanding of sola scriptura? You might want to read WCF chapter 1 and especially the last section to hear the doctrine from a primary source. The major difference is, WCF places itself below scripture, Rome places itself above scripture.

The puritan differences between paedo and credo came down to an understanding of the covenants. Thus in either camp, if someone wants to get baptized, they should understand covenants as Doug said, and study more of scripture rather than just he word baptism and all the NT instances of baptism. With a more robust understanding of the New Cov (when was it inaugurated vs promised, who are its members, who should receive the sign, etc) in addition to all the NT descriptions and prescriptions for baptism, it would surely lend optimistically towards a Credo view. I think we only think Presbyterians as Paedo baptists and Dispensationalists as Credo Baptist, which is unfortunate. In regards to Paedo communion - 1 Cor 11 speaks of partaking in an unworthy manner and that a man should test himself... i'm not sure how infants do that. I appreciate the logical conclusions that Wilson makes and admits are logical ("all who are bread should get bread"), but unfortunately it overlooks Scripture as final authority. The commands Paul gives are to the Church, and thus those whos sins have been washed away by the blood of the New Covenant should be partakers of communion. And if we can prove Credo Communion, than w/Dougs logic we should employ Credo Baptism (though I wouldnt advocate from that angle). The paedo proponent will argue not all israel is true israel, and yet all israel received the sign of covenant, which brings us back to where we started... the differences are historically in how we understands the Covenants, namely the Covenant of Grace. I'm still learning and I know I may have misrepresented either side(s) so please forgive me in advance. Like you, I'm here to learn, and hopefully do so humbly.

@ChristKirk

Жыл бұрын

Nick, thanks for watching! Good thoughts. One area to better understand paedocommunionists would be their interpretation of 1 Cor. 11: smpaterson.com/2021/07/13/child-communion/. Blessings!

@NickNunez

Жыл бұрын

@@ChristKirk thank you! I will definitely be checking that out. much appreciate it!

@SpotterVideo

11 ай бұрын

@@ChristKirk Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 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. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order. (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

​@SpotterVideo you post a book

Jesus said, " He that believes and is baptized shall be saved"... a baby cannot believe. Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized..." a baby cannot repent. In Col 2:12-14 it says " we are buried with Jesus in baptism and raised with him through FAITH in the working of God......removes the sins of the flesh". First baptism is a burial, not sprinkling. Second we are raised up, not raised up when sprinkle and it is done through faith, a baby cannot believe. And Lastly, a baby does not have sin. In Acts it talks about Saul persecuting the church, he went house to house dragging out MEN AND WOMEN........believe an infant boy is not a man, nor a little girl a woman.

To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40). A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.

I’m disappointed that Jesus being baptized was not even mentioned in this video. Or did I miss it? Please let me know if I did.

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Christian baptism wasn't around yet

I thought, finally, someone who can make it clear to me why infant baptism is biblical. Now it’s as clear as mud. 😵‍💫

@jacquelynperales3761

6 ай бұрын

Read why we baptize infants by Bryan chapell, helped me with questions I had

Also, how were the children included in the covenant for 1800 years? Was it because they were baptized?

@nonameguy4441

10 ай бұрын

They were circumcised

In 1. Cor. 7, 14 and 16 we read that the unbelieving husband or wife is "sanctified" through the believer but NOT saved. Where exactly is the difference between the sanctified husband or wife and the sanctified child? And how long will the child remain sanctified?

I've just watched this, and it's very insightful. Thank you very much for putting it together 👏🏿👏🏿🙏🏿 However, I must say that the response to question 12 isn't convincing, and I think to some extent, Biblically inaccurate. This is because the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:14 also referred to the unbelieving husbands and wives of saints as sanctified/made holy by their marriage to them. Same original word, 'hagios'. Do we then call these unbelievers "saints"? If we wouldn't call them saints, why should we automatically call their children 'saints'? How should we better interpret 1 Corinthians 7:14? Could it be better interpreted in light of verse 16 (paraphrased), "...wife/husband, you might be able to save your unbelieving husband/wife if you don't give up and leave them?" From where I stand, seems more likely that Paul's encouraging believers not to divorce their unbelieving spouses because they might be able to lead them to Christ because we've got them in our lives. And in the same manner, our children. We have the ability (by proximity) and power (by the Holy Spirit) to showcase the life of Christ in Us by the way we live with and treat our unbelieving spouses and children, which God could use to inspire faith in their hearts and snatch their souls from hell - adult and child, alike. What do you think of this? 🤔

Salvation isn’t a gene 🧬 now. This type of baptism is for show until/if confession and repentance for personal salvation. Otherwise it negates the choice.

Question 5 is not entirely accurate. It is in fact why I remain a Baptist though I love my Paedobaptism brethren DEARLY! The New Covenant is clearly defined as those who have their sins remembered no more. That's what it comes down to. In Adam or in Christ.

@AnUnhappyBusiness

Жыл бұрын

Lol yes that’s James White’s argument but of Jesus describes His own Church as containing both wheat and tares

@skyred2

Жыл бұрын

@@AnUnhappyBusiness Jeremiah 31 specifically says there are no tares.

@AnUnhappyBusiness

Жыл бұрын

@@skyred2 Isaiah 54 says your children will all be taught by the Lord.

@AnUnhappyBusiness

Жыл бұрын

@@skyred2 also, lol, so Jesus lied?

@skyred2

Жыл бұрын

@@AnUnhappyBusiness lol? Not sure what i said that you think is so amusing. Is this how you discuss biblical topics with your fellow church members?

To be sanctified is to be made holy. To make holy is to sanctify. Are the unbelieving spouses who are sanctified through their believing mates baptized, too? How can you conclude that holy children should be baptized, but not their one sanctified (yet unbelieving) parent? I try to accept paedobaptism (and I am a member of a paedobaptizing church). But, the exegesis of the prooftexts always lose me in the argument. It does not make sense to me how you can baptize holy children and refuse sanctified (unbelieving) parents.

@stevensandberg1959

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I thought the same thing, sounds like an inconsistency in Doug's exegesis to me.

@MadagaskarTyp

2 жыл бұрын

I was also pondering about this.. I think the answer is in the bible text, because it only explicitly says that the children are HOLY but not the spouse. So I guess this is what makes the difference in how Doug is referring to them and applying the satus of being a saint only to the children. One has to go on and think what the sanctifying of the spouse means in this context.

@dws2313

2 жыл бұрын

@@MadagaskarTyp The text says the spouse is sanctified. To sanctify is to make holy. If we baptize children because they are holy, then we should baptize unbelieving spouses because they are holy, too, through their believing spouse. I do not advocate such a practice. I am merely pointing out the inconsistent logic. Sorry, but your explanation merely restates the inconsistency.

@paquitojhs

2 жыл бұрын

@@dws2313 But the child is "a branch of the olive tree" still by virtue of being born from a Christian parent, whereas the unbeliever has cut himself from the tree by denying the faith. The infant would not need to reconcile with the church, whereas the unbelieving adult, even though sanctified by his/her wife, would need the baptism since all saints are to be baptized.

@MadagaskarTyp

2 жыл бұрын

@@dws2313 I get your point. But the baptizing of children finds its main argument in the covenant relation as Doug argues. I was just wondering why the bible verse makes a difference between the spouse (sanctified) and explicitly stating that the children are holy. So if it would be the same then why the difference and not just spouse + children are sanctified through the believer. Generally those differences are meaningful in exegesis. In the context of 1.Cor those referred to as holy are only the believers... I was surprised by the use of this verse aswell actually. My response to your question was basically my rationale for why Doug used it and what I think how one could draw the destinction between the spouse and the children. Shalom

How does one immerse an infant? I don't hear of that happening. The command is to immerse; no one can argue the language. I appreciated listening to this, and always wondered the details of how one argues for 'baptism' but never baptizes infants, but sprinkles them (a different word). I can understand the arguments, yet again one has to not read the text as understood by the recipients. Seems like for every paedo sided argument, there is a credo argument that also makes sense; and to me it sounds like the hermeneutic for paedo carries a decidedly symbolic use of language. I take the literary sense here as literal and so end up credo.

@trenthobson2756

8 ай бұрын

Immersing infants is actually a lot easier than immersing adults because they are a lot lighter and you can hold them. You just take the baby and dunk him in the baptismal font/ river or wherever you are preforming it. The process looks pretty much the same as baptizing an adult, but you are physically carrying the baby whereas for most adults, you meet them in the water and then hold them and baptize them.

@oracleoftroy

6 ай бұрын

Look for videos of infant baptism in eastern orthodox churches. You should find plenty of examples.

@richlopez5896

3 ай бұрын

I'm Byzantine Catholic and we immerse the baby 3 times in the water. In the Roman Rite the use pouring or sprinkling.

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

The immerse argument has been debunked repeatedly

@craigchambers4183

3 ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098I've not heard it debunked once from the language used. Just saying has been debunked doesn't work, brother. Myself, I've spent ... let me think through the math...36 years beyond my basic and advanced Kione Greek courses doing the language for teaching and preaching, not a scholar but pretty experienced, and nothing has changed. One can wash it through 'covenant' and all the other words but it still meant immersion to the speakers in those days.

Proverbs 18:17 "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." Doug I love you but talking quickly and presenting verses without context, can seem to support your presuppositions, but each example does have a different explanation, if allowed to be presented. This has more to do with "the one Covenant of Grace with two administrations." This also, is an argument from silence, in that, of all the stated covenants in scripture "The Covenant of Grace" does not occur. It is a term invented by Covenant Theology. John 15, branches abiding must produce fruit to remain. How do we abide in Christ? Faith? Romans 11 The olive tree is the remnant of Israel (i.e., believers in Christ). All branches broken off for unbelief. Galatians 3:6-9 We are made sons of Abraham through faith in Christ, not by someone else's faith. Relationship of circumcision and baptism: Born - circumcision, Born again - baptism (circumcised or not). Colossians 2:6-14 Addressed to those who have "received Christ." The circumcision of heart is symbolized by baptism, in dying (putting off the body of flesh v.11) and being "raised with him through faith (v12)." Through infant faith? Women receiving communion argument: "Whoever" (1 Cor. 11:27). "Anyone." (v29) Also, anyone who does not discern the body of Christ eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:29). Including children? 1 Corinthians 7, Status of children with one believing parent: Unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made holy). Are they members of Christ's Church? Should they be baptized too? On and on and on I could go.

Paul makes clear circumcision is for the jews , and it stays for the jews even after Christ. Baptism is something else entitely. The story in Acts 8 with the Etheopian chamberlain explain clearly the only obstacle for a human to be baptized, is believing in the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart. Otherwise no baptism. Clear enough I'd say and therefore the church didn't have commotion about it bc it was all so clear and simple. No difficult pick and plug theories with Abraham needed to explain anything.

Could you address the issue of circumcision being a sacrament that only applied to male Israelites but baptism applying to both male and female believers? If these are parallel, why wouldn’t it be only male infants baptized?

@nonameguy4441

10 ай бұрын

Equally ingenious is their cavil, that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the rite could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them, partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect. John Calvin in “Institutes”

I've seen both sides turn to scripture. The difference of interpretation is a hermeneutic one.

Baptise means to immersed.

@hudjahulos

Жыл бұрын

Is Hebrews 9:13 talking about immersion?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Debunked repeatedly

Yes.

Very sympathetic Reformed Baptist here…I find paedobaptism more compelling typologically than credo, but how can we maintain (as I think Presbyterians do) that baptized children ARE covenant members at baptism, even without faith, BUT still have not been saved at baptism? Heb 8:12 (citing Jer 31) seems to connect New Covenant membership with the forgiveness of sins, but Presbyterians don’t affirm baptismal regeneration. What gives? Lutherans would say that baptism imparts saving faith to the infant yet that salvation can be forfeited, but as far as I can tell Phil 1:6 and a host of other texts make Perseverance a hard doctrine to contend with……I can’t find a consistent answer to this in any tradition

@juanjulianamanriquez15

Жыл бұрын

I am barely coming into the infant baptism camp, so 🐻 with me if my answers are not adequate enough. How I read these texts is in conjuction with texts that teach that Christ's church will have both believers and unbelievers: "Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he *said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”" Matthew 13:24‭-‬30 NASB1995 This is from the Lord's mouth Himself; thus, how we understand it is that the New Covenant promises all of its members to be regenerate but that is not true as of now per our Lord's parable since there are wheat and tares. Elsewhere, we find the term "false brethren" and "false teachers" because these are those tares that are sown among the wheat. Thus, what of the Jeremiah 31 promise? Just like eschatology and our sanctification the Church of the New Covenant matures not just in doctrine but ultimately until all who are in the visible community truly are regenerate when Christ's comes in His consummation of the Kingdom. Someone once explained to me that the coming of Christ's kingdom had 3 phases: the Inauguration, the Continuation, and the Consummation. The same can be said of our sanctification and of the New Covenant People's maturity or holiness (only regenerate in the New Covenant). This is the best understanding I've been found so far and it makes sense in light of all Scripture and not just cherry picking. I hope this blesses you Blake! Soli Deo Gloria! 😁

@INRIVivatChristusRex

Жыл бұрын

Read the Church Fathers

@oracleoftroy

6 ай бұрын

That the children of believers are in the covenant is a very obvious and objectively observable thing in my mind. Don't Christian parents disciple their children in God? Don't they teach them to pray, to praise God, to sing hymns, to read scripture? Don't they bring them to church to worship together? They are obviously visibly in the covenant by any metric a human can apply outside of partiality based on age. Being in the covenant is being in the visible church. Now what puzzles me is the people who baptize, not on the visible signs any human can observe, but on the invisible things only God knows, the heart and the truth of their new birth in Christ. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can discern such things to such a degree that we make it a requirement for baptism. It puts human feeling above God's purpose in the sacrament, so much so that I've heard the statistic that the average baptist is baptized 2 1/2 times in their life.

@blakewolford8903

6 ай бұрын

Yeah I’m actually Catholic now, so needless to say I’m totally onboard with children in the covenant :) Turns out I was wrong about Calvinism, so once that was corrected and I realized we CAN (and tragically DO) fall from grace, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism fit perfectly and I could take all the scriptures for what they said

@oracleoftroy

5 ай бұрын

@@blakewolford8903 I see. Well, as a Reformed (non-Baptist) Christian, I think we have better answers to those issues than Baptists (even Reformed/Particular Baptists) with our understanding of the covenant in its visible and invisible forms. It makes sense to me that you would see contradiction there given your previous beliefs, though I can't say I like that you went over to Rome. If you are still interested, even just for knowledge sake, I'd suggest looking into how the Reformed approach those answers differently from Baptists. You might still have other objections, but I doubt the same issues arise regarding covenant children and falling away.

So, where in Scripture that shows there is a 'continuation of the covenant' that transfers from circumcision to infant water baptism?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Acts 2:38... and look it up... plenty of videos and articles

@soulosxpiotov7280

2 ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098 Acts 2:38 says: "Peter said to them "REPENT, and each of you be baptized (Aorist in the passive voice) in the name of Jesus for the forgivenesss of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - SOOooo, can you tell me how babies change their minds, repenting, prior to being water baptized? And where does it say "continuation of the covenant" or something like that, in this verse?

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

@@soulosxpiotov7280 you intentionally left part of Peter's call out... shame

@soulosxpiotov7280

2 ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098 Wait, I didn't faithfully quote the verse? Where did I leave out "Peter's call out" ? And why are you afraid to answer my questions? For shame, for shame.

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

@@soulosxpiotov7280 "and to your OIKOS"... was he repeating something ??

Exactly

So... our children are considered "saints" without partaking in the either sacrament, so why bother baptizing them? The assumption is a gracious one, but seem trivial.

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

Because baptism is the sign of the covenant? Why baptize believers if they are already saved by failth? Dont you see your own argument applies the same? Why partake of the Lords Supper for that matter? You're already saved.... People forget that salvation is a past/present/future thing.

@PatternSon

Жыл бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter to answer your question: we partake in both ordinances b/c God 👉commands us👈 to do so. But an infant child cannot obey that yet. So no, it doesn't follow.

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

@@PatternSon I'll remind you the word ordinance is not in the Bible. So just like a child cant obey circumcision? Doesn't follow. Also pay attention to the verb tense in scripture. The verb is passive. BE baptized. Not DO the baptism work. The covenant signs have more to do with reflecting the grace of God which is a work done by Him-not by you. Covenant signs are seals of Gods favor towards you. Please don't make them into acts of obedince. That's hardly what they are. You're turning signs of grace into human works.

@PatternSon

Жыл бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter I understand what you are saying with regards to baptism, but is there a passive verb for communion, too?

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

@@PatternSon No you are right that esthio and pino are active verbs. However, you would agree that they are verbs that are passive just as much as believe/faith is passive? They are still in that sense only receptive, correct? And it is also important to note that there is no commandment to do this. So you are not obeying a command to receive. The only real commands we have are given to the disciples to perform them: To baptize. To "break bread" and distribute.

I find is interesting that paedobaptists draw parallels from the circumcision of the flesh in the old covenant to baptizing infants in the new covenant. Does this not wander into Judaizer territory from Galatians?

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

Obviously Paul had no fear of that. Galatians 3:27: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." Maybe you think Paul should have been more careful?

@nonameguy4441

10 ай бұрын

No. The judizers we’re trying to use circumcision as a tool to exclude people from the covenant. This is giving the sign to include people in the covenant

"There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," I Peter 3:21 NKJV So in this passage we see that baptism is the "answer of a good conscience" how could an infant answer anything? The clear teaching in the scripture is that baptism is something that only believers do. Baptism is not a sacrament that someone incapable of deciding for themselves should engage in.

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

The parents are making the appeal. You are bringing in American individualism into the Bible. The Bible is covenental you dont seem to grasp this.

@asitiswritten

Жыл бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter oh I do, you don't seem to be able to read what is clearly written.

@juanjulianamanriquez15

Жыл бұрын

Well the answer is straightforward, it is by faith that we are saved and not by baptism. Thus, when an infant is baptized, he is not saved if there is no faith, but when he grows up and looks back to his baptism by faith, he is saved. The common denominator is and must be faith.

In Acts of the Apostles, the Bible narrated that the ENTIRE (Whole) HOUSEHOLD was BAPTIZED... In those times, when you say HOUSEHOLD, not EXCLUSIVELY to family members only but include their distant relatives, servants, and a small close family community (approx. 50 people or more)... Therefore, when the Bible narrated the Entire (Whole) HOUSEHOLD, this includes the infants and children... I firmly believe that God accepted INFANT BAPTISM as long as the Biological PARENTS or GUARDIAN or FOSTER (Adopted) PARENTS are also Baptized as Christians... Apostle Peter was still alive when the Entire (Whole) Household was Baptized... Christ Jesus said to Peter, I give to you the KEYS to the Gate of Heaven, that Whatsoever/Whomsoever you bind/accept on Earth, will be bound/accepted in Heaven, and Whatsoever/Whomsoever you lose/reject on Earth will be lost/rejected in Heaven." (Matt. 18:18-20/Paraphrase)... Amen.

Wasn’t Paul writing repentant believers, if so, how does this apply to non-repentant persons?

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

Paul is writing the church, not the elect...

@BibleStudywithVernon

3 ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098 The church consists of those who are those in Christ, not just people who attend.

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

@@BibleStudywithVernon "not just"???

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

@@BibleStudywithVernon the "visible" church is a mixture.. tares and wheat...

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

@BibleStudywithVernon for baptists it just doesn't have any children...

I appreciate the content, and the calm approach to these topics. At this point I think Augustine did everyone an extreme disservice with his diaper viper theology, and the resulting theological drift. So much debate could be settled by looking more closely (than even this video has done) at the historical precedents and culture of Biblical Hebrews. Fallacious ideas like a child’s age of accountability, etc are a direct result of Augustine’s ignorance of biblical culture. Biblically a child does not have an age of accountability. A man does, but only after reaching 20 years old +. Until that time, his father covers him and thus he was considered in the household of Israel, ie the household of faith. Sins of the son are never imputed until 20 years old, with the only exception being if the son is rebellious and his father removes his covering by presenting him to the assembly for stoning. Until that point, the father is his mediator and the one who stands in the doorway and gives account to the Judge for everything done under his covering. In early Christianity, (the first two hundred years) this is the case as well and never is mentioned paedobaptism, though household of faith terminology is used. However I have found one instance where children of those alienated were considered to have sin nature or something similar. There are multiple instances that speak of infants or young children who die to be cared for by angels without any faith caveats. Thanks As best I can tell, paedobaptism is redundant and entirely unnecessary for a household of faith, and is ridiculous for a child who is not of the household of faith. On the subject of paedocommunion, I’d say that this should be determined by the father, but I’d suggest it’s the norm in a Melchizedek priesthood as every believing man is king and priest over their own home. In a Levitical priesthood, only the Levites and their family may partake. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that any child baptism is necessary to participate in the family communion other than the water baptism when they left the womb and entered the family. To make a Long story short, single baptism and paedobaptism are a direct result of Roman Catholicism, among a whole host of other “Christian”issues. Just my .02.

I am an Indian Lutheran baptised as a baby year 1958 but after having complete understanding took immersed baptism 1981

Does this mean that there are unregenerate saints?

Yeah

The biblical, as well as linguistic gymnastics Doug Wilson goes through to make his case is astonishing. The key question is not, whether or not babies should be baptized. This is irrelevant. The pertinent question is... does being baptized as an infant satisfy the command to be baptized, once that infant becomes a true believer? Scripture clearly teaches that is does not. Jesus commanded us to make disciples and baptize them. Even prior to Christ, baptism signified spiritual cleansing, not covenantal identification. Romans 6 tells us that baptism testifies to our identification with Christ in His resurrection that we "might walk in newness of life." In addition, every credobaptist I know affirms that the Old Testament applies to us, except where the New Testament says it does not. It should be a huge red flag when someone must mischaracterize the views of his opposition in order to make his argument. Nowhere does Scripture equate circumcision with baptism. This is a false equivalence.

I’m still not convinced but thanks for sharing

Was Jesus a Christian for years?

@amaledward2147

Жыл бұрын

Bruh

What about communion for babies?

What age did Christ get baptised?

@PurePuritan

Жыл бұрын

The age to become a priest

@nonameguy4441

10 ай бұрын

Then it follows by your logic we should only be baptized in our thirties

@mjack3521

10 ай бұрын

@@nonameguy4441 It's called a believers baptism. Christ did it as an example. He was baptised and then started His ministry. When someone believes is baptised, they start ministry. It's a confession of faith to the world that you are now on the Lord's side.

➨INFANT BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE: ● The apostles baptized ENTIRE FAMILIES (ALL family members means children too) ● ACTS 16:33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he AND ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD were baptized. ● Also Acts 16:15 & also 1 Cor 1:16. ● 1 Peter 3:20,21,8 souls were saved by WATER. 21 unto even Baptist doth also now SAVE us. ● Acts 2:38-39 38 Peter replied, (this one is n the Catholic Bible) "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. ● 39 👉THIS PROMISE IS FOR YOU, AND YOUR CHILDREN 👈 and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call

How about the Church Fathers? Especially the Apostolic Fathers. Baptism and infant baptism were unanimously accepted.

If children are included in the covenant with Abraham de facto, at what point could it be considered they are ever lost? Never? So all children of at least one believing parent is considered forever saved?

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

They are lost in Adam, just as Paul says in Romans 5. Why is it important to you for them to be lost? That's not what Paul points to. Why are you looking backwards instead of forwards? Paul points to incorporation, to faith, to life. Go forward.

@danielnosuke

Жыл бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter Maybe because knowing how to define salvation and whether one is bound for heaven or hell is kind of important...? To be included in the covenant or not in God's eyes is no small matter.

@juanjulianamanriquez15

Жыл бұрын

@@danielnosuke The difference lies in who are the members of the New Covenant, you would argue only regenerate believers so obviously having a baby baptized and say he is part of the NC is a big issue. Nevertheless, we argue as Jesus teaches in the tares and the wheat that there are both believers and unbelievers in the NC. Thus, whether the baby has faith is not the issue. The real issue is covenant headship. Who is the covenant head of the child? Is it a believing or unbelieving husband? If unbelieving, is the wife believing so that the husband can be accounted for as set apart to God so that the child can also be accounted for as set apart to God per 1 Cor. 7? That is the issue Paul was explaining, who is the covenant head of your child? By nature they are in Adam, but by birth they are in Christ. If they break covenant or don't exercise faith throughout their lifetime they are judged by Christ the Covenant Head of the NC. If they believe, then it was all only by God's grace and the baby's baptism is confirmed by faith and they can praise God for His intervention even in who was the covenant head of him/her as a baby.

They are using these videos to track me.

It is called the baptism of repentance. How can a baby repent? Just because circumcision and baptism are similar does not make them the same. Circumcision leaves a permanent reminder of the Abrahamic covenant whereas baptism leaves none. Circumcision is the reminder to cut off unclean flesh, this was fulfilled in the new covenant. Also 1 Cor 7:14 is talking about sanctification, not salvation and I don't believe that you can be part of the new covenant without justification (salvation). You can baptise a baby if you want, but it is meaningless. The baby is not saved by this act just as the unbelieving spouse or child is not saved because of the believing spouse.

@joshuajudkins47

Жыл бұрын

You aren’t saved by the act of believers Baptism either. It is just as meaningless. It just is an outward sign of an inward change and ultimately it is a call to accountability and discipline inside the church.

Actually Pastor Wilson the instance of the Phillipian jailer and his whole household being baptized does in fact answer the question without an infant being found in his household simply because any and all members of his household were baptized whether they believed or not. Therefore it needs to be understood that the members of his household were baptized on the basis of God’s covenant with the jailer on account of his faith. I think I’m on the right track here, open to correction.

So, since Scripture doesn't discuss infant baptism, therefore its true? Since Scripture doesn't say Elvis didn't reincarnate, then since Scripture is silent does this mean Elvis has reincarnated?

I can respectfully disagree with infant baptism while understanding that position when both credobaptists and paedobaptists agree that baptism doesn’t confirm salvation. However my experience in both the USA and Russia is that those who practice paedobaptism (Catholics and Orthodox) do it because they believe they are saving their child.

@nonameguy4441

10 ай бұрын

Which is not what reformed theology believes. Grace alone through the gift of faith alone saves. This is a sign of the covenant applied to the children of parents within the covenant

Arguments from silence should always be taken with a grain of salt. If it was something God explicitly wanted us to do, like adult baptism, He would have made it clear rather than forcing us to derive this practice from problematic readings of disparate passages.

@oracleoftroy

6 ай бұрын

Amen! That's why I dont find the baptist presumption against infant baptism based solely on silence convincing. The model I see in Acts is that when the head of the household believed, the whole house believer, and age didn't seem to matter at all or they would have brought it up. They just baptized based on being in the household. Peter makes an interesting parallel in Acts 2 to Gen 17, which gives a pretty clear and rather broad view of who is considered a part of the household.

Females were never included in circumcision. I’d like to hear the argument that they should be included in baptism, if it’s a continuation.

The top of the square is the most doubtful.

You have to do some serious hermeneutics gymnastics to hang on infant baptism; a solid study of Acts will land on believers baptism by submersion.

@toddcote4904

Жыл бұрын

This is not the point, and sadly why the debate is so useless really. Arguing about how wet you get isn't even in the peado argument.

@ChristKirk

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment, Clarke. Often the argument against infant baptism is this: Show me where a baby is baptized in the New Testament or when Jesus or the Apostles commanded us to baptize babies. And the honest reply is to acknowledge there are no explicit prooftexts for this practice. However, nor are there explicit prooftexts for other doctrines and practices we hold to. Instead, they are inferred from many texts and themes in Scripture. But if we were to take into account only the New Testament texts concerning baptisms, there is certainly not a conclusive case for anti-paedobaptism, but instead a solid case for household baptisms which would naturally include children. With eleven cases of Christian baptism recorded in the New Testament, two were individuals: St Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch, neither of which had children. Of the rest of the baptisms, five were of large crowds (one of the crowds including the apostate Simon the Magician). And whenever a household is present, they too are baptized along with the head of the household. We see this with Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-34), and Crispus (Acts 18:8). The faith of the head of the household is mentioned, but not the faith of the household (except for Acts 18:8). It is clear that the New Covenant sign was being applied the same way the Old Covenant sign was applied, with the faith of the head of the house representing the entire household. This is the position we hold and teach at Christ Church in conformity with the Westminster Confession of Faith. That said, please know that we love our Baptist brothers and they are most welcome to be members in our church (of which we have many!).

A person is part of Christian faith when he is baptised. In OT, we see that all Jewish boys are circumcised on the 8th day ! When a few ex Jewish Christians were demanding circumcision, *the Apostles met and decided that circumcision is not required, its obviously because , circumcision was replaced by baptism* So child baptism is the norm for the past 2000 years. Protestent pastors , though they claim Sola Scriptura, added a condition which is not mentioned in the Bible. TO BE A CHRISTIAN , ONE SHOULD HAVE REASONING POWER. Why did they introduce this condition ? Its because they didn’t want unemployeable members as their members- the aim is THITHE.

Cain and Abel, Jacob & Esau are examples of ones a believer one is not. Baptizing them as infants means nothing. It’s that persons faith and obedience to their God and it’s their ”get to” follow their Lord in obedience and profess their faith. It’s not the parents “get to”. Don’t take that from them!❤️

There is not a single scripture for this. As a Sovereign Grace Baptist I'm more reformed than the Reformers and thank God for them but this is a tradition of men Ex Arminian Calvinist.

Oh I see. The Westminster confession is his ultimate authority.

We are born with Original Sin due to Adam and Eves disobedience. Jesus saved us from Original Sin if we are baptized with The Holy Spirit. There’s no age requirement in The Holy Bible saying babies can’t be baptized. They should be baptized asap, to be filled with The Holy Spirit and in case they die before getting baptized when they are older.This is the sin of presumption. Why would we deprive a baby of The Holy Spirit for years? Why would we risk their souls? They can confirm their faith when they are around 12 years old. John 3:5 Jesus responded: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Acts of the Apostles 22:16 And now, why do you delay? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, by invoking his name.’ Sins committed after Baptism have to be confessed, absolved and penance served to be forgiven by God. That’s why He instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:18 But all is of God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:19 For certainly God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not charging them with their sins. And he has placed in us the Word of reconciliation. John 20:21 Therefore, he said to them again: “Peace to you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them. And he said to them: “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:23 Those whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and those whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” Matthew 16:17 And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter(Rock in Aramaic) and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” Matthew 28:18 And Jesus, drawing near, spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have ever commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age.”

Believe and be baptised. Believers in Christ. I think the biggest problem is that there isn't the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Children are sanctified by their parents.

Problem that I have is I do not think babies can be baptized because ACTS 2 gives instruction on baptism. Just like the OT on circumcision with all Jews, baptism has different instructions and not all things in the law apply today. It is simply just not in scripture because belief is the point of baptism not because of tradition. I think baptism with babies is built on tradition and not on scripture. 1 Corinthians is referring to Jews whom thought you needed to be circumcised but baptism replaces this. Going to ACTS 2 gives clear instruction on baptism. We can’t build a theology based on assumption, but based on instruction. I respect with the video teaches, but it clearly ignores the instruction of acts 2 and the reason Jesus got baptized in the first place. But Paul was rating because of false teaching that was going on back in those times that can actually be proven with history. I just think because of tradition we assume that he is talking about something entirely different. I think this gives clear contradictions to a lot of the Presbyterian theology, and I think, as we understand, more history, and as history reveals itself in time. I think the Westminster confession is not the truth, but provides a clear understanding of most scripture. Since I don’t really see a clear instruction on baptism, other than you have to believe to be baptized. I don’t think other scripture can justify tradition over what the Bible actually teaches on baptism specifically. I think infant baptism is very much tied to Catholic beliefs and traditions that Catholics created. We just don’t have any evidence of babies being baptized, and we have more evidence of reformers, admitting to the fact that there’s no history that supports infant baptism. Matter-of-fact if you denied infant baptism, you would’ve been killed due to heresy. So that’s why infant baptism has creeped into Christian circles. There’s a lot of history I think people need to understand and go to scripture to see why infant baptism is unbiblical. I think the problem that some people have is well if a baby dies then what happens after that? I think the question itself is the answer of we really don’t know what God does with people who die. We assume that people go to heaven, but we don’t know the ultimate judgment people get towards the end of their life. This is why we focus on sanctification of ourselves, and not the sanctification of others. I hold to reform viewpoint, but this is the one of the viewpoints. I don’t agree with, just simply due to the fact that God‘s word does not include it in his word. If God intended infant baptism to be in his word, he would’ve put it there. I think that because of the instruction on circumcision that all infants after being born to be under a covenant. This covenant towards the Jews is clear instruction on what God wanted from his people. Now that God has expanded his kingdom outside of Israel, the instruction can change, because God changed it And the way God changed it is Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. That response to believe is in the form of baptism, which is part of the sacraments, of which most churches did back then. I don’t consider myself a reform Baptist mainly because I don’t hold to Baptist traditions, but consider myself a non-denominational reformed Christian. I just don’t hold to the tradition of infant baptism. However, I do respect my brothers in Christ on a secondary issue because this is a secondary issue. I would just say, look at the scriptures, and if you cannot definitively show that what your belief is, we need to defined tradition versus what is true. And the church likes to hold onto a lot of tradition and not focus on what the Bible actually teaches to be true. I was baptized as a kid, and didn’t understand a single thing about religion or God. It was just something that my mom wanted me to do because somehow it would’ve helped me fit in the church. to me, that’s not a real baptism built on a covenant with God because I didn’t mean to build a covenant with God. I did not make that choice because God at the time didn’t save me because I was baptized. Later on, I was convicted by scripture to get rebaptized. The instructions on baptism was to get baptized to build that covenant with God. The Jews didn’t do circumcision because of tradition they did it because God told them to so that they could abide in faith. The Bible teaches that this is why circumcision was a covenant by God. It was too Faith. Romans teaches that the Jews were not all saved, even though they were circumcised and Jewish. That’s why circumcision was a big controversial topic back in the New Testament era, many Jews felt that people needed to be circumcised because that’s what the law taught. Now that Jesus died for our sins. We are to be baptized Out of our faith, and what Jesus died for. It’s to be circumcised from the heart and represent that circumcisions by getting baptized to make that covenant with God. This conviction had led me to be baptized for second time, but really it was more of a first time, and the only time I’d be baptized because now I understood what baptism was. I was not circumcised by the heart when I was baptized the first time. So how could I call that baptism, an actual act of faith when it was more of an act legalistic ideas built on tradition?

@oracleoftroy

5 ай бұрын

I think going to Acts 2 as an argument against infant baptism is interesting. In Gen 17, God gives instructions to Abraham on who was to receive the sign of the old covenant, and the instructions were that the whole household was to receive it, and was quite clear that "you" (Abraham), your children (even the 8 day old son), and those who were from far off (all the servants of the house, even those from other nations). Peter seems to be directly referencing these instructions when speaking of the New Covenant sign, and so it isn't a surprise to me that when Acts speaks of who receives baptism, it isn't in terms of personal belief or age limits, but households, anyone under a believing head of house was baptized. I see a strong interconnectedness between the OT and NT, and this is one of them. I know my Baptist brothers disagree on these things, and I think it is fine. I like that Christians can be examples to the world of how to have strong disagreements and heated debates and still embrace each other as brothers in Christ at the end of the day.

There is no dispute about baptism in the scriptures. We have the book of Acts. Infant baptism is UNBIBLICAL. Also baptizing people who have not demonstrated a clear profession of faith and basic understanding of what they are doing is UNBIBLICAL. FINALLY, ITS BY IMMERSION. END OF DEBATE.

Credo 🤚

Sorry, I didn't understand.