As a Reformed Baptist who is in the process of planting a church in a town which has a few Presbyterian churches, all of which are very woke in their theology and practice, I have personally been considering how I will handle this issue. After much consideration, this is exactly the position that I have decided to take on this matter. Is it ideal? Not at all. But given the current state of the church in our culture, I believe it is the best option that we have as we aim toward God's glory in the unity and edification of Christ's church. Great discussion. Thank you, brothers.

@RightResponseMinistries

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

I was raised in the EFCA, essentially Baptist. But in reality it was more Anabaptist. Seeking a faithful church after Covid, we ended up in a CRC church, and rather than debate I decided to try to understand the paedo arguments. Most of my apologetics regarding baptism had been based on strawman arguments. Good on you to allow your people the benefit of conscience!

I'm curious about some aspects of this decision: first, are the children of your members (who are baptized as adults) members of your church? or, second, do they become members upon their own baptism? third, when you facilitate the baptism of an infant, does the infant become a member of your church as like those adults and children who have been baptized? or, fourth, do you expect that infant to be baptized again upon profession of faith for membership?

@Psalm119-50

22 күн бұрын

An infant cannot repent! Nor can they hear the gospel!

@j2kp0t

22 күн бұрын

@@Psalm119-50 not what I asked. What I asked is in response to specific content in the video, which means you don't have the answers, since you aren't the one who made the assertions to which I am responding.

This is encouraging. Thanks for uploading this video!

Can these little babies who get baptized elsewhere receive communion at your church?

It sounds like you have a sort of valid but illicit distinction. But what would you say to the infant baptized who sought baptism anew? Surely you would have to withhold it?

Aw snap It's getting real!! 💪 #DatPostMil

When did Jesus get baptized?

As a Reformed Baptist who has also embraced a theonomic view of Christ's Kingdom, as well as an optimistic eschatology, I unreservedly agree (under the present conditions of our corrupted culture and impotent and pietistic American evangelical church) with this idea. I would be honored to team up with any Godly and reformed paedo Baptist church (as a member, if necessary) to take up the battering ram to burst open the "gates of hell". Non pietistic, theonomic, postmillennial and Kuyperian...I think that denominates this reformed immersionist.

This hermeneutical error, thus stated, inevitably leads to a twofold distortion of the relationship between the two testaments of the Bible. Paedobaptists simultaneously “Christianize” the Old Testament (read the Old Testament as if it were the New) and “Judaize” the New Testament (read the New Testament as if it were the Old). In thus “Christianizing” the Old Testament, paedobaptists restrict the significance of circumcision to purely spiritual promises and blessings, while neglecting its national, earthly, and generational aspect. In thus “Judaizing” the New Testament, paedobaptists import Old Testament concepts of “covenantal holiness,” “external holiness,” “external members of the covenant,” “external union to God,” “covenant children,” etc. into the New Testament, even though these distinctions are entirely abolished by the New Testament and completely foreign to its teaching. By now it is clear that the traditional arguments for paedobaptism, including the widely-accepted “Reformed argument from the covenant of grace,” are greatly mistaken. As was stated at the outset, the traditionally Reformed version of covenant theology needs to be subjected to a more careful biblical scrutiny. Paedobaptists commit a fundamental and therefore fatal hermeneutical error with respect to the historical administrations of the covenant of grace. In doing so, they overlook significant discontinuities in the meaning and function of the covenant signs, misuse key biblical texts, raise insoluble but inevitable difficulties for their practice of paedobaptism, and (at times) make a degrading and unworthy sentimentalism masquerade in the place of genuine Scriptural argument.

"As it currently stands, the 1689"! You know you like the Westminster!

Reading a book about hospital chaplaincy. What about miscarriage baptisms.... I understand the theology behind baptism as a 1689er too. But how should a hospital chaplain handle this issue.

Obviously outward ceremonies of baptism have been a dividing issue, and should not be. Col.2:8-13 intertwines the one everlasting covenant 'in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism...' Paul shows in Rom.2:28,29 that the internal reality is being symbolized 'in the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God' alone. You have my vote, although "outward" ceremonies seem superfluous, for the most part...if it matters.

Is it sinful to baptize infants?

@johnking9161

Жыл бұрын

It is sinful not to baptize infants. Believers baptism is a grievous error that first started in the 1500s with the anabaptists.

@paulpowell6418

Жыл бұрын

No.

@njasmus

Жыл бұрын

Was it sinful for parents to have their male infants circumcised? No! God expected parents to do this! Moses was in very dangerous territory because he had not! If you want to read truly scholarly writings on the topic of infant baptism, I suggest these by Joachim Jeremias: Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries And The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland

@Federalist-mj7xj

11 ай бұрын

Yes it is

@paulpowell6418

11 ай бұрын

No it is not.

Baptism ,though not salvific, is important and according to scripture is for believers only and is by immersion as seen in Acts 8:37 and other places in scripture. I attend a reformed Baptist church and we had several members who came from a Presbyterian background and they had to be baptized before they could join. They were told from scripture why we didn’t believe their baptism was valid. They agreed to be rebaptized and there was no issue. I am all for unity but important doctrines such as baptism shouldn’t be taken lightly. Hebrews 6:1 lists baptism as well as repentance from dead works and faith in Christ as the elementary principles of the faith. We should seek to teach what the scripture says even if it will cause divisions in the body of Christ.

@oracleoftroy

Жыл бұрын

How does Acts 8: 37 support either _"believers only"_ baptism or _"by immersion"_ exclusively? (I'm not sure which of those doctrines, if not both, you mean that verse to prove.) That passage as written supports the Presbyterian doctrine that when an unbaptized person comes into the faith, we baptize them and their entire household. A eunuch doesn't have a very big household for reasons that are hopefully obvious. To show believers only baptism, the verse would need to more explicitly show that the rest of his household was refused baptism for not believing, but the Bible never shows that. If Acts 8 supports immersion, I take it that's because they went "down" to the water and "up" from the water? But it says both Peter and the eunuch went "down" to and "up" from the water, so baptists are baptizing wrong if the pastor isn't also being fully immersed if they want to be consistent with their claims about the meaning of the passage. I'd suggest that "down" and "up" have more to do with gravity than immersion. Water tends to collect into basins and troughs that are physically lower than the walkable path, so "down" is the direction one moves to get closer to a source of water suitable for baptism and "up" puts you further away from such a water source. To be honest, it sounds rather irregular for a Reformed baptist church to demand re-baptism for a member of Presbyterian convictions unless they had come to reject that understanding of Baptism. I'd have assumed it would be seen as irregular, but still valid. Neither Presbyterians nor confessional Reformed Baptists hold to re-baptism, so I'd think the church would have a major problem on their hands if the recipient viewed it as a re-baptism.

@jesussaves3741

Жыл бұрын

@@oracleoftroy Acts 8:37 along with other verses support believers only baptism because the Eunuch said "what doth hinder me from being baptized" to which Phillip responded with " If thou believest with all thine heart" showing the requirement for baptism is believing in Jesus Christ. As far as baptism being by immersion the greatest example of baptism is the Baptism of Christ by none other than John the Baptist in the river Jordan which unless you really twist the greek rendering of the text was stated as being by immersion. The greek word "baptizo" means to submerge and was used by historians to describe the sinking of ships. Paul says we are "buried with Christ in baptism" showing that when we are immersed and come up from the water it is a picture of being dead and buried and being raised to walk in newness of life. Paedo baptism is a catholic doctrine that should have died after the reformation but has lingered until our day. I respect the reformers like John Knox or Martin Luther but I recognize that they weren't entirely right on everything. They lived in a darker time when information was more limited now I believe it is time for christians to cast aside these manmade traditions and seek to be "Biblical"not "Confessional." Scripture alone should be our guide not creeds or confessions.

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 the Holy Spirit came 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 (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various 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 .

The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms said in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as valid. Infant baptisms are also recognized so long as they are supported by the parents(father). The intention of the provider (father) and his intention to give his child into Gods protection is crucial. Thus a father can baptize his own child. IMO unbaptized children are more affected by demonic influence and there are many unbaptised children in these modern times.

@johnsambo9379

Жыл бұрын

Lol. Sprinkling water on a baby is not being baptized.

@MegaVincenzo13

Жыл бұрын

@@johnsambo9379 Doing the baptism as described in the New Testament is valid as long as the childs providers the parents desire it. The parents (father) have authority over their children.

When I was born again coming from catholic background it Holy Spirit opened my eyes and I understood right away many thing without anyone telling me. I understood why so many things in Catholic Church are wrong. One of the the very first things was baptism of little babies. It was very clear. Yet here you have Calvinists who need to take you in this gigantic loop to explain the whole bunch of complex nonsense BS to make you believe in baptism of children. This guy on here can hold himself so holy and he can talk like the Pope himself in fact he reminds me Justin Trudeau. And don't forget this guy us more Calvinist the Calvin.

@oracleoftroy

Жыл бұрын

I mean, when the head of a household believed, the whole household received the sign of the covenant, and this is the consistent pattern established in Gen 17, reaffirmed in Acts 2 for the NT era, and seen practiced throughout Acts. Simple and explicitly scriptural. It's the Baptist who has to spin in loops explaining why God works differently now or is a different god from the OT or no longer cares about children or how household doesn't mean household and no one was an infant or everyone believed even though the Bible is silent on that. It is so indefensible that most Baptists don't try to defend it, they just insist they are right and make everyone else defend what the church has always held, which Presbyterians are more than happy to do, but at some point, Baptists ought to show where infants or other members are excluded from proper NT baptisms. Since they can't, they shouldn't arrogantly assume their position is right.

Infant baptism is just a roman catholic tradition that has carried over. No babies were baptised in bible. They can be dedicated to Christ, but not baptised.