Even though I am a Baptist, I have tremendous respect and love for Presbyterian theologians and teachers such as John Murray, Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, and Francis Schaeffer. God Bless our Presbyterian brethren!!!!

@FaithfulComforter

10 ай бұрын

Ofcourse we love and respect them. We can’t tolerate false teachings and embellishments. Church is full of milk drinkers. We don’t have enough chewing on solid foods to edify. Must protect the babes in Christ.

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool

9 ай бұрын

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". .

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool

9 ай бұрын

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19

It never hurts Christians to pray for one another. :)

Chapel Library is a ministry of a Reformed Baptist Church here in Pensacola, Florida. It’s neat that you have enjoyed their materials as well

Excellent message. As a southern baptist, I enjoy your content and pray for you as a brother in Christ!

I am a teaching Elder in a reformed Baptist church and spend much time listening to Presbyterian podcasts like the Reformed Forum and so on. We have much to learn from our Presbyterian brothers.

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool

9 ай бұрын

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". .

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool

9 ай бұрын

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19

Chapel Library is a ministry of Mount Zion Bible Church in Pensacola, Florida, and the last time I checked they have about 35 members -- they are an amazing testimony to what God can do with a little.

I appreciate your humbleness, Matt, and challenging us as believers with a great quote from Spurgeon. I love my Presby/Reformed brethren and am more in line with them theologically than most Baptists in my camp. I hope that we can come together on this issue.

@blchamblisscscp8476

10 ай бұрын

Most Baptists I have known in my life were Amyraldians soterically. Or 2 or 3-point Calvinists. Amyraldians are actually more consistent than most Baptists on the SBC whom I've met.

@AmillennialMillenial

10 ай бұрын

Baptists and Presbyterians can’t “come together” on the issue of baptism. If baptists become convinced that infant baptism is right, then they will stop being baptists. Likewise would Presbyterians stop being Presbyterian and become reformed Baptist.

Great video. Also, baptize those babies! PS (post script) I’m praying for y’all 🙏🏻

@Angel_Moronis_Devoted_Follower

10 ай бұрын

@robertstephenson6806 yeah you’re totally right. John the Baptist could not believe in his mother’s womb. That’s just impossible. Obviously the Bible is clearly a false book!

I have a special place in my heart for Chapel Library. During a career in State Prisons, I saw a wonderful ministry to the prisoners (printed, lessons, etc.). I even graded some Bible School lessons at one point (through the mail). Way back when, I became aware that they were running an international ministry with only 34 members in the church (I hope it has grown since then). Their generosity and faithfulness are an encouragement to us all. BTW- I’m a Presby 😊

You're a man of integrity

I love Presbyterian preachers and theologians......

I was raised in the Presbyterian church as a kid from cradle roll until I was nine. Then committed my life to Christ in the Southern Baptist Church when I was 23. Best of both worlds, I can appreciate. Fave Presby was Dr. D James Kennedy, who had a wonderful radio show and always challenged me to grow spiritually. Still miss him!! I try to pray for my brother’s and sisters in Christ no matter the denom. We are one in Christ.❤

The covenantal nature of our relationship with the Triune God as lived out in the covenantal relationship of the believing family has convinced me of the efficacy of padeo baptism. But only if if followed by believing parents who adequately catechize their children.

I love both Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist. We all should love one another no matter what. Matthew 22:37-40, *39. 🤟

As a Presbyterian (PCA) i do admire certain Reformed Baptists, Steven Lawson, James White, Jeff Durbin, Voddie Baucum, Charles Spurgeon, as the men Im familair with. John MacArthur is calvinistic and baptistic, but not a Baptist by confession (doesnt adhere to the 1689 LBC).

Your on, Bro. 👍

Amen!

It is a wonderful timeless thought to imagine that Spurgeon and his peers likely didn't appear much different in their genuine brotherly love than than the MacArthurs and Sprouls of our day.

Here in South Africa in bygone years there was great animosity between the AFM Church (credos) and the Dutch Reformed Church DRC (infant baptizers). The DRC labelled the AFM as a sect/cult and the AFM looked at the DRC as the mission field of the lost/unsaved. Because the DRC was the "State" church there was a fair amount of persecution directed at AFM members from the government and private sector. By God's grace we have all since moved on quite significantly.

Just visited the site and wow they are really awesome.. support began.

This is one of my favorite videos on the discussion of baptism, and I'm a Baptist. Continued love to all our brothers in Christ!

Chapel Library is a blessing and have supported and used that ministry a lot in the last couple of years.

This was a great video brother. Convicting. From a continuationalist, reformed Baptist position I love you brother. Miss being in the same church as you and taking the sermon notes.

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

Innovative, sufficient of scripture... calvinism isn't reformed... there's more than that

Good morning, Pastor. From watching this video, I have just discovered Chapel Library. Wow, what an amazing resource! Thank you. As a new Christian though, it's almost overwhelming in the best way possible. Would you be able to recommend for me a handful of "must haves" from their library?

How could He convince you if God does not speak today any more? Pray that God will convince you AS HE WANTS, not as you expect. I was also raised Orthodox (in Romania) and God convinced me that my baptism as a baby has no meaning before Him (obviously after I had a real meeting with Jesus Christ)

Chapel Library is from Mt. Zion Baptist church in Pensacola Fl pastored by Jeff Pollard a tremendous expositor of Gods Word

I will have to comment, when you were in Florida, I went to a service and the Sunday school teacher gave a pretty lame argument for Infant Baptism :D

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I've studied and prayed out this in my own life probably more than any other theological position I hold. Why? I would honestly prefer to be a paedo-baptist. It would be more consistent with my heartfelt conviction to always be as in step with tradition as it accords with scripture and it is very clear to me that the majority of church throughout time and around the world have and do baptise infants. I have sadly not been even close to convinced by the arguments though. I almost always gain an awful lot from reading books on infant baptism-aside from one notable exception-but I have not (yet been) convinced to cross over. I do still think that credo-baptism is the most coherent view and the one that is more consistent with scripture, but I don't think I'll ever stop studying and praying over the "opposing" side.

@critical_mass6453

10 ай бұрын

I've been credo believing my whole life but in the past 2 years been challenged by paedo believing relatives. Went down the rabbit hole of credo vs. paedo debates, books and sermons, only to realize that I just needed to keep READING THE WORD FOR MYSELF instead of looking for the silver bullet of interpretation by some one or some denomination. God can speak thru his word to anyone who reads it, we just have to block out the noise around us. I like the quote "God wrote the bible so simple that it takes someone else to help us misunderstand it!"

@mortensimonsen1645

10 ай бұрын

How could circumcision include the boy among God' chosen people? Isn't it reasonable that God could do the same to children in baptism? If circumcision is not a pointer towards baptism, then did God create this curious custom for no particular reason? Since you've studied a lot you probably know how to answer, so I am interested to see your response.

I've always felt infant baptism was more as a declaration for the body of Christ to help guide the child in growing to know Jesus. Than at an appropriate age that person needs to declare his commitment to Jesus. I don't believe that a baby is going to hell if not baptized

Love the shirt

This thumbnail just changed my life! 🤣🤣🤣

I love chapel library.

I went through a long journey regarding this issue. I was brought up a Baptist. However, a Presbyterian minister came into my life as I was coming out of the Pentecostal/Charismatic church who was very helpful, & mentored me for a while. I wrestled with this for a long time (amongst other things), but with much prayer (& many tears), studying the Bible & reading books from both sides, I eventually came to wholeheartedly believe the Presbyterians were correct. One thing that got me really thinking was, why would God include the children in the Old Testament, but leave them out in the New Testament (until they got to an age of understanding)? That, to me, was going backwards. I cannot believe He would do that. There was much scripture searching too. It was difficult to not believe what I’d always been taught from a young child, really difficult. Yet I yearned for only the truth - both can’t be right. I was almost there, then read ‘Children of the Promise’ by Robert R Booth. That was what finally allowed me to let go of believers-only baptism.

It's so funny Christians argue each other like forever. Just ASK Jesus about it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lutherans are correct on baptism, we pray for Baptis and Presbys alike.

Fun Fact: In 1925 the Methodists & 2/3rds of Presbyterians invited the Canadian Baptists to join the new United Church of Canada. Not exactly sure how they could have pulled that one off!! Baptists politely declined the offer. As it was the UCC came up with a statement of faith re: election that “God chose an innumerable people to be saved!”

Pastor Jeff Pollard heads up Chapel Library. Their material is excellent.

Oh, I hate the idea of "our theologians" and "their theologians"! It's never once entered my mind to check the denomination of this or that favorite old time preacher or writer. Can't we just be followers of Christ? I had rarely even heard of infant baptism (outside of Catholicism) until I got online. My old church did it once in a while. But they made it very clear that it was not for salvation and that the child had to come to saving faith when he or she was old enough to do so. That's what I'm still not clear on regarding the Presbyterian view. Do they teach that infant baptism saves that child? I'm still confused on that specific point.

The Presbyterian church I attend practices BOTH paedobaptism for infants and credobaptism for older children and adults who desire membership. In most, if not all, Presbyterian churches it’s not a matter of either/or. It’s both. We also do not require that a believer applying for membership, who was previously baptized by immersion, be re-baptized. We do not teach “our way or the highway” regarding the meaning and mode of baptism.

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

Ummm... huh??? That's the standard for all paedobaptism churches

Baptist here living in CRC-land (West Michigan) with strong Baptist and CRC/Reformed roots in both my family (Baptist and CRC) and my husband's family (RCA). I've been immersed as an adult. Husband was sprinkled as an infant and chose to be immersed as an adult (before we met). We had our daughter dedicated in a Baptist church when she was an infant. We then had her baptized in a CRC church when she was 2.5 years because that was the best church option for us. Now we are back in a Baptist church where the norm is, of course, to baptize upon profession which she has not chosen to do. I don't necessarily feel compelled to push her to do so even though it means bucking the expectations of the church of which we are members. I feel conflicted about this because I understand the theological framework of both views and it isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. One of our parents grew up CRC and chose to be immersed as an adult. Another parent was baptized RCA and chose not to join a Baptist church which she really liked because it would have required her to be immersed. She felt (as a strong believer) it would be saying it invalidated her baptism she has had as part of her entire life. I've seen this question from just about every angle over the past twenty years. I am sure we are not alone in this struggle. When the main objective for so many Christians right now is to find a solid, gospel-preaching, faithful church where you live (even if it isn't your preferred denomination), it can cause some challenges. In my experience, how to handle baptism is the big one.

Seems strange for determinists to think a person can freely change their mind to a correct position based on truth.

Here's a question for you Pastor Everhard; If i'm traditionally a Reformed Baptist and looking for a church to serve in, and the only biblically sound church I can find locally is a PCA church, could I join that PCA church even though I believe in Credo-baptism? The reason I ask is because when joining, in my commitment to the church, I affirm that I will submit to the teaching and authority of the church elders. But could I affirm to do that while holding a credobaptist belief since, by agreeing to submit to elders, there would be a doctrinal conflict. I'm stuck on this issue.

@ExNihiloComesNothing

10 ай бұрын

They more than likely would not take you on as a member if you would not agree to paedobaptism. I know I had the opposite problem with a Sovereign Grace church many years ago (though I am now credobaptist). Edit- adding to say though they would probably love it if you worshiped with them.

@simeonyves5940

10 ай бұрын

Given the Extremely close Friendship that existed between R.C Sproul (PCA) and John MacArthur (Reformed Baptist) before R.C went home to be with the Lord, I do not think they would have any issues with you.

@brettmagnuson8318

10 ай бұрын

I would say denying membership to a believer based on baptismal convictions is wrong, however it would be right to deny leadership and teaching positions to one who disagreed on this issue. That’s where I have landed (I’m reformed Baptist). This would be a necessary conversation prior to membership.

I am a Particular (reformed, in my opinion) Baptist and a member of an OPC (Presbyterian) church. There is no reformed Baptist church any where near me. I think there are only one or two in my state. I tell my wife I wish our grandchildren would bring their kids to our church. The doctrines are taught very well. If my great grandchildren were baptized as infants they could certainly be rebaptized as a believer later if they so desired. Reformed theology versus Armenian is a much more important issue than form of baptism. Baptism doesn’t affect our salvation anyway. And certainly does not EFFECT salvation. Better to be baptized as an infant and taught good theology than taught weak theology and be baptized as a poorly taught believer. Charlie D. P.S. I still think the Word of God clearly supports credo-baptism.

As someone who has no horse in this race, I don’t understand why you’d baptize someone who is not a Christian.

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

I agree... your children are heathen

Hardly a nuke

I have flipped flopped on this issue twice (first two kids baptized as infants and next two were not). But the stakes are not too high for me. Ultimately, its up to the kids to make their own decisions. One of the first two was "re-baptized," considering her infant baptism to be of no use. But, the stakes of a pastor are much higher. If you were to be convinced that believers' baptism is the way to go, would you resign and seek a preaching position in a reformed Baptist church? I wonder if there is any precedent for such switches in either direction. Call me a cynic, but I imagine some confirmation bias is at play; we are all sinners after all. It was easy for me to reconsider the matter with the birth of each of my children. But, if my career, reputation, relationships, etc. were at play, I might not keep an open mind when reading opposing views. (Love the channel, by the way. I'm a reformed Baptist, and a member at a PCA church.)

@ExNihiloComesNothing

10 ай бұрын

This reflects my thoughts on the subject as well. I was sprinkled as a baby in the Catholic Church (which a lot of other high church denoms recognize) but was convinced in my soul to submit to immersion Baptism our of Obedience and love of our Lord Jesus. I had often thought of becoming ordained (yes, I know it is a calling) but the thought of what I would have to do if I changed my mind on something like Baptism or the Lord's Supper (or a number of other doctrine) give me great pause. The pressure to remain in your denomination as an elder/ordained are extremely high, not to mention the practical implications.

@brettmagnuson8318

10 ай бұрын

Adoniram Judson went through this struggle (and it seemed his biggest struggle was not being convinced by the scriptures but the implications of changing his belief from paedo to credo). The biography of his ministry is called “to the golden shore”

@bermudasq

10 ай бұрын

​​@@brettmagnuson8318Thanks! Reading his sermon on baptism now. It's really good. "The true partizan of whatever denomination always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party." Ouch

I confess that I am weak and negligent in praying for my Baptist friends. Thank you. It’s so easy to isolate oneself among other paedo-baptists and forget about others. I don’t agree with the denominations that allow for either form as this is a serious issue. Indeed, I respect Baptists who wholeheartedly believe that they are correct from a scriptural basis.

The thumbnail alone deserves a reward 😂

Dr Sam Renihan has a book out which gives a positive presentation of covenant theology from a 1689 perspective entitled The Mystery of Christ ; would you be willing in the future because of your love for us Reformed Baptists , give your thoughts on that book ?

While I'm firmly in the Credobaptism camp being a Baptist I do see it as a secondary issue along with the mode of Baptism etc. because it's not baptism that saves us but our faith in Jesus Christ. It's honestly not an issue that I'd even argue about but may have a reasoned debate about.

Hmm 🤔 admittedly I have agreed to disagree on this and neglected to pray like that. I assume better minds than mine have disagreed for ages, who am I? Lord we want to do your will, please help us🙏

First, let express my respect for all true Christians and beliefs. When it comes to the issue of baptism, we should look at its basic definition. It is a sign, an outward profession of a life consciously and voluntarily surrendered to God. It refers to a life "immersed" - death of the old and raised anew. The Bible gives examples of this. There may be nothing amiss in a representational sprinkling. However, since an infant is incapable of making this commitment, how can we justify baptism before this stage of life? I believe this is the real focal point.

We are so close in doctrine! Our views of baptism have direct implications for ecclesiology.

The Bible nukes it too.

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool

9 ай бұрын

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". .

Certain things will not be settled in this life, so as for me I am not obsessed with converting Baptists to the other side. I will, however, defend the infant baptism position when it is being attacked by over-zealous Baptists. Our church's position allows for the informed conscience of the believer to determine their mode of baptism.

Lots of churchgoers and high-minded Christians construct their own personal Echo Chambers around themselves and their local church. and to the contrary I was looking for a church to call home and I ran smack dab into sets of echo chamber beliefs. these distinctives Are non salvific; they include Baptist succession; altar calls; incessant amening and yes siring, - shouting-yer- sermon, Off-the-Wall (projector) music and "worship teams". however having converted as a paeto Baptist, I understand more and I believe it was a mistake for the Mainline churches to incorporate paeto-baptism as a default position; if a new believer would ask me, I say, " go ahead and get dunked; it avoids controversy in the future".. nine times out of 10 it's best to meet with the Elder and run through your list of irritants with him; it's better than pulling out later on.decisional salvation vs. regeneration??? Covenental Systematic Theology vs Baptist Hermeneutics? Nature of Baptism? Nature of Communion?

OIKOS covenant

I don’t think it’s a salvation issue. No matter what side, baptism has no salvation in it. I really don’t know what the big deal is.

@crushedrighthand3090

10 ай бұрын

totally, "baptism isn't a requirement for salvation, but you gota do it this way or you're wrong!" ??

And I imagined a report of how Spurgeon discredited infant baptism convincingly, whereas your subject is about how to regard brethren having doctrinal differences. May I call your labeling confusing? On the subject of baptism, I submit that the key difference is not the age of the child so much as what baptism is seen to be efficacious FOR. If we understand it as an ordinance presenting a figure (which is what I believe the Scripture teaches plainly), then it makes sense to be received as a believer, signifying that belief, being a step of obedience visible to others, and presenting a figure of death to the old life and commencement of a new life; we would therefore regard it as normative (but not salvific) to a believer, and would see it as an event that might not occur for some believers (e.g. someone having advanced ALS, or the thief on the cross). If we understand it as some kind of sacrament, something administered by some empowered church officer, that "does you something" and is in some way salvific (or perhaps promoting the same), then we are a) closer to the Roman Catholic communion's view (doctrinally questionable to most Protestants), b) arguably better justified in applying it to those too young to understand it, and c) understandable in varying the form from immersion. The problem is that I don't find this view in Scripture. I know there is a lot of nuance among Protestants as to just what we mean by baptism, and also how we represent the parents' proper desire to provide toward the salvation of their children. Above all, Christian parents, regardless of their doctrinal understanding and present spiritual maturity, should have the mind of Job in his concern for the spiritual welfare of even his adult offspring. We in Bible church land often therefore offer baby dedication services, wherein the dedication of the parents (and with the help of the congregation) is highlighted regarding bringing the child to saving faith in Christ. We certainly understand, and applaud, the desires of parents who show forth a similar concern in communions employing infant baptism, though we disagree with the doctrinal underpinning and believe it confusing in respect of salvation by grace through faith.

If you might entertain an impromptu comment, The book of Mormon categorically clarifies that particular concept, towards the end of The book of Mormon you can get clear and irrefutable doctrine on this topic! See the book of moroni, which is the last book, in the book of Mormon. Chapter 8 Clarafies but I would not miss chapter 7 either!

@bigtobacco1098

3 ай бұрын

The BoM is garbage

We will take a simple little verse and show you why it is not addressed to the natural man, Ecclesiastes 3:15: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.” The “natural man” cannot grasp that, for to him reality is based only on the evidence of the senses. The man of reason could justify the verse’s end, saying if it has any meaning then the writer must mean recurrence. The sun comes every day and the moon completes its cycle and the seasons come and go. If we took a picture of the universe today, the scientists can compute how long it will take to return to this point in the picture. So the intellectual man could justify the verse; but that is not what is meant, for it is addressed not to the man of reason or the man of sense, but to the man of Imagination. What is it all about? “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been, and God seeks what has been driven away.”

I don't know about the presbyterian church in the USA, but here in Europe some presbyterian churches don't practise pedobaptism. I guess then that Spurgeon was right in saying that Baptists pray more for us than us for them 😅

There's no age limit with credobaptism. A child could express faith. The point is that the individual expresses faith, not someone else.

I will continue to wrestle with the question of infant baptism. I grew up in the believer's baptism tradition and am now a member of PCA church that practices pedobaptism, so it's a very present issue for me. But to your question regarding prayer of each side for the other regarding this: If the pedobaptists pray less for the credobaptists, it is only because there is no doubt that their practice is consistent with Scriptural example (waiting until the child reaches basic understanding is not a sin). But the reverse is not so sure. Even R.C. Sproul admitted that there are no explicit examples of infant baptism in Scripture, while still arguing that other biblical concepts support the practice. So for credobaptists, there is real concern that the pedobaptists are muddying the clarity of what baptism is by their practice (putting tradition over clear example) and that lack of clarity could become a threat to more fundamental doctrines. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that each one should be fully convinced and hold fast to the author of our faith: Jesus Christ. Baptizing infants is not a sin, but I am not yet convinced that it is what best comports with Scripture. As I study and grow, it's possible I may be convinced, but until then I will pray for clarity and fellowship amongst believers who share so much else in common.

Spurge went straight Oppenheimer with it

Hmm 🤔 Admittedly I have agreed to disagree on this issue. I’ve assumed better minds than mine have wrestled with this for ages. I’ve watched some debates and read some books and remain unconvinced of the paedo view but realize we all really want to be obedient to God which means someone has to be wrong on this. Lord help us🙏

And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately. [Acts of Apostles 16:33] Baptize on the eighth day ❤

@brettmagnuson8318

10 ай бұрын

Great passage! If you’re interested in a Baptist interpretation of this passage here is mine (I had to write on the distinctions between baptist covenant theology and Presbyterian covenant theology). Below is my response to the Presbyterians use of the passage you quoted above. Sorry for the length…. The argument of the Phillipian jailer is admittedly quite compelling. Bryan Chappel points out that the entire household was baptized in Acts 16:33 indicating a plural baptism and then points out that him and his entire household rejoiced that “he had believed” a singular event. Chappel argues that this account supports household baptism to unbelievers by the fact that they are only rejoicing in that “he [the jailer and head of his household] had believed.” Chappel is looking for evidence in support of the ordinance of baptism being applied to unbelievers. But the evidence is not there. The text does not tell us that his household remained in unbelief but submitted to the waters of baptism anyways. Furthermore, the text does not tell us the ages of those within his household. The text only tells that they all rejoiced in “that he had believed in God” (Acts 16:34). While this is an interesting point to make there is another explanation to consider. It is possible that this text supports the idea that baptism can be applied to unbelievers, but it does not conclusively support it. The jailer’s household has ample reason in rejoicing in his belief because in being born again he also became a messenger of the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ to which he naturally, genuinely, and affectionately brought to his own household. The jailer was the one who was privileged to share the gospel to his household so that they might believe and be saved. The jailer was the “beautiful feet” that Paul describes in Romans 10:15 that brought the good news of the gospel. It is quite possible that his household was rejoicing in “his belief” because in his belief he brought the message of salvation to them and they were saved through his preaching of the gospel!

@Kefa...

10 ай бұрын

@@brettmagnuson8318 , why does it only say he believes, when rejoicing means they do? But they don't know what babies believe?

@brettmagnuson8318

10 ай бұрын

@@Kefa... Hello! I'm not sure I understand what you're asking...did you understand my response? It seems like I addressed your first question already. But we may be misunderstanding each other...can you elaborate?

@Kefa...

10 ай бұрын

@@brettmagnuson8318 , people can say that they believe. A baby can rejoice.

@brettmagnuson8318

10 ай бұрын

@@Kefa... 👍

As a Baptist I have a lot of respect for Presbyterians but it’s pretty clear who’s following scripture and who’s following Westminster 😂. Love you guys though

@oracleoftroy

10 ай бұрын

Is it the London Baptist Confession thst is following Westminster? 🤔

@eBibleCommentary

10 ай бұрын

@@oracleoftroy Intentionally mind you. From the preface: “And also to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the Holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring, before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures, they have asserted. Some things, indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed; but these alterations are of that nature as that we need not doubt any charge or suspicion of unsoundness in the faith from any of our brethren upon the account of them.”

@oracleoftroy

10 ай бұрын

@@eBibleCommentary So the LBC is intentionally following Westminster, and Westminster is following scripture! Got it! :) Much respect to the LBC, I do thing it messed up the covenants and thus everything touching them like the sacraments, but I think a lot of the other changes are an improvement. I especially like that they made explicit right at the start something that is found in chapter 1 of the WCF, but you have to piece it together. There are a few other minor word tweaks and additions that help clarify what is and isn't being said.

What about Lutherans? Does anyone read us? 😢

@sierragrey7910

10 ай бұрын

I am Reformed and I do. I don’t agree with the Lutheran position on regeneration but I have benefited much from several Lutheran pastors I follow. I especially love the clear distinction between law and gospel.

How can an infant carry out Romans 10:9?

@oracleoftroy

10 ай бұрын

The same way anyone else does, through the grace of God. Or if you are making salvation contingent on man's capability? Are you saying that infants, mute people and the mentally challenged can't be saved for example? Or are there two paths of salvation? One for a normal adult and one for the young or underdeveloped? I believe there is one God and one baptism, and the promises given in baptism hold regardless of the age the ordinance was held.

As an adult, when I finally decided to follow God for myself, I wanted baptized again.

@robtyler5074

10 ай бұрын

baptized again? i think only believers should be baptized. baptizing children ( unbelievers) creates confusion. In my humble opinion :)

@vashmatrix5769

10 ай бұрын

@@robtyler5074 that's my point

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

​@@robtyler5074professors

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

No rebaptisms in scripture

@vashmatrix5769

5 ай бұрын

@bigtobacco1098 no baptizing babies either.

Wrong title. This is not a nuke, might be a relevant note, but nothing more than that.

Some one is wrong on Baptism. I think that if you call yoursel a baptist you should know what you talking about. Just Saying. 😂

Not a Baptist or a Presbyterian, but a Roman Catholic, and I have a great deal of respect for Reformed theologians despite my disagreements with them.

I lean towards it being a matter of Christian liberty. In the Old Testament commanded them to circumcise their sons. So it would seem strange for God to condemn infant baptism based on that fact alone. Giving infants a sign and seal of the covenant is consistent with what we know about God. On the other hand, baptism is a sign of the washing away of our sins in Christ. And since an infant can’t repent, there’s no true washing away of the sins. Either way, if you were baptized as an infant, the 5th commandment to honor your mother and father should be obeyed when you profess genuine faith. If they baptized you as an infant, you should accept that. If they didn’t, you should be baptized. Since neither position is explicitly commanded or prohibited in the Bible, I say Christian freedom is more important.

Matthew, I gotta say, scripturally, infant baptism, makes no sense to me at all, there isn’t a single place in the Bible where an infant gets baptized, the people we do see getting baptized in the book of acts are those who accepted the message, hard to picture a baby doing that. I don’t see any scriptural indication that infant baptism is equivalent to circumcision under the old covenant, especially since only men could get circumcised, how does it apply to women? Makes no sense, a holdover from the Catholics the reformers didn’t do away with.

@garygraves4252

10 ай бұрын

Yeah, there were a lot of holdovers “from the Catholics the reformers didn’t do away with”. You know, things like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, virgin birth, etc.

@oracleoftroy

10 ай бұрын

But there is also no place in scripture where infants were refused baptism, which you need to establish the Baptist position. Too many Baptists rest on the point of agreement as if that settles it, but it just begs the question. What we do have is infants explicitly given the sign of the covenant at 8 days old in Gen 17. What we have is Peter referencing this very formula but applied to baptism in Acts 2. And the example we have throughout Acts is that when one came to believe, it wasn't just the believer that was baptized, but rather everyone under their household authority in keeping with the pattern God established for Abraham. Does that conclusively prove infant baptism? No, but it sets up a pattern that God shows no sign of breaking. Does it matter that no one in the household has their age given? No, because the baptism isn't based on age but being in covenant with God because of the faith of the believing head. I think Baptists need to show why a break in the pattern is justified, and not just stop where we both agree, that an unbaptized believer ought to be baptized, -he and his household- as scripture teaches.

@completestrangeronline7284

10 ай бұрын

@@garygraves4252 those were biblical teachings

@completestrangeronline7284

10 ай бұрын

@@oracleoftroy”But there is also no place in scripture where infants were refused baptism.” Aren’t arguments from silence weaker than arguments from evidence? There seems to be an echo of Gen 17:9 in Acts 2:39, that’s a good point! This may be that both are entrance rites. But we need to keep reading. Acts 2:41 clarifies by saying that it is those who accepted the message who were baptized. So the promise is for you and for your children who are able to accept the message.

@oracleoftroy

10 ай бұрын

@@completestrangeronline7284 Thanks for acknowledging the silence the Baptist position is based on. Both sides lack an explicit statement. I think that creates a problem where one side can argue for the continuation of existing practice and the other has to assume a radical departure from the norm without any mention or fuss. Just look at how much hoopla there was over circumcision or the ceremonial law and yet no one thought to explicitly mention that baptism, though related and safe and easy to apply to children, actually only applied to adults. That's my motivation for pointing out the parallel between Genesis and Acts, the apostles relate them, and though baptism isn't explicitly for infants, the old sign was, and God had no problem with it because God works in covenant with his people. Acts 2: 41 doesn't say what age those people were, so I see no reason to insert Baptist assumptions into the silence. Given the nature of the event, it is likely a major celebration where the whole family was together, so I look at the silence as being favorable to my position. I'd personally like something more explicit before I assume discontinuity in scripture. Something like Hebrew's extensive treatment of the ceremonial law.

We may never get an answer this side of heaven. What we do know is that the Lord loved his bride (the Church) enough to die for her. We should extend our prayers to those with whom we vehemently disagree that we might treat them with love and respect also in bringing them to the truth of the Gospel! Way to make use of 4:30 brother Matthew life changing stuff!

Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist. C.S. Lewis said. "Calvinism turns Christianity into a form of Devil Worship."

I see it as never bad to Baptize infants nor waiting until people are older older, but Baptism is more of a symbolic work. It's the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that really matters the most, and being invited into heaven, through faith alone, not works like Baptism. It's easy to get bogged down in little differences with people we mostly agree with, but the fact is we have bigger enemies. There are mainline "Christian" Churches, that believe it is good to let people mutilate themselves, to feel better about themselves, instead of accepting how God made them. Or that a woman can choose to end a pregnancy because they do not want a child right now. We can either choose to squabble over a few differences with good Christians, or we could stand together against "Christian" Churches that are out there affirming non-christian ideas and life styles, and find ways to educate those who are listening to these false teachers.

That seems like a lot of talk, and of conceptualizing, for something that could be settled with a simple, "Thus sayeth the Lord" or two. In other words, read the Bible. If there is any baptism in the Bible other than full immersion, adult baptism, then let's see it. Roll it out and put it on display for the world to see and know! If there isn't, then stop whatever you're doing that isn't Biblical, and do it the Biblical way. All this public show of praying back and forth for one another will be thus negated. For why would God answer prayers about an issue that is already pretty clearly answered in the word of God which you carry around day by day? You sound a bit like the Jews if they were to simultaneously ban the reading and studying of certain chapters of Isaiah and Daniel, while praying to ask God for clarification on who their Messiah is and when He could be expected! It's all right there, Man! Be still, and read, and know. And then do accordingly. As Jesus told the Pharisees; Search the Scriptures... for in them you think you have eternal life, but if you believed Moses then you'd believe me, for he spoke of me.

I will be praying for you. Calvin taught, un-elect babies go to Hell if they die. Also, in Calvinism: Only a random pre-chosen some will irresistibly turn to Christ, consequently all others have been arbitrarily preordained to destruction by God's divine decree...so sad. Hope you don't follow that.

@sierragrey7910

10 ай бұрын

Keep watching this channel, Mike, and study more about what we actually believe scripture teaches.

@mikelyons2831

10 ай бұрын

@@sierragrey7910 Will do. Personally, I prefer the verbage "We will simply teach scripture" rather than "What one believes scripture teaches". That's how many have drifted into: Baptismal-Regeneration. Speaking in tongues is THE evidence of one's salvation. Besides accepting Jesus, you must keep the Sabbath & eat Kosher (Jesus + keeping parts of the Law). Anti-trinitarianism. You MUST repent of all sins upon/when receiving Jesus (an impossible work of the flesh). And Calvinism's random/unconditional/no criteria required irresistible regeneration for the chosen & doomed from the womb reprobation for the unelect/not chosen. All causing doubt & fatalism to a certain extent.

@garygraves4252

10 ай бұрын

Straw man. The idea that God does anything “randomly” or “arbitrarily” is antithetical to Calvinist thought.

@mikelyons2831

10 ай бұрын

@@garygraves4252 Calvin & Johnathan Edwards both called God's chosing random. It's unconditional election remember? Without meeting any condition or criteria. It surprises me how many Calvinists haven't read Calvin's Institutes...or at least his more famous passages of his version (not scripture) of how salvation/soteriology works.

@garygraves4252

10 ай бұрын

“Random: Lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern.” (Miriam-Webster). “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Ephesians 1:11. Does that sound like a “random” act to you?

I've never understood infant baptism. I've known it as what believers do after being born again, not before. How could an infant with no understanding of what baptism is and does possibly be a candidate for it? It makes no good sense to me. P.S. I'm praying for you right now😇

@brettmagnuson8318

10 ай бұрын

Furthermore, how can an infant follow the command in 1 cor 11:28 to examine himself prior to eating and drinking the Lords supper lest he do this in an unworthy manner and drink judgment upon himself?

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

Two different things

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

OIKOS covenant