Відео

Thanks for your question and it's a good one. The answer is, no, there is no difference between the children and their destiny is certainly not different if they were to die. In the video I was making a statement about the 'logical conclusion' of where baptist theology must place the children, not where the children are in themselves. The children of both sets of parents are not different because God's promise to the children of believers is not based on baptism itself but on the righteousness that is by faith, just as it was for Abraham and his children. The promise came to Abraham and his children BEFORE he was circumcised (see Rom 4:11), which means the children received the promise of God even before they were circumcised. At the same time, by not baptizing their children, baptist parents are withholding something precious from their children and themselves - they are withholding the sign and seal of God's promise to their children.

@@proclaimingchrist8454 Thank You for the answer. A clarifying question: in what way are the sign and seal "precious" for the children? What does their absence mean for them in practice in reformed theology? In other words: what are they missing out on that really matters to them? And what do You mean by saying that the parents withhold also from themselves the sign and the seal?

​ @MrKristoforos The sign and seal are precious (or should be precious) for the children in the same way that an engagement ring is precious for a young woman. The engagement ring is a sign of the man's promise to marry his bride. The engagement ring does need to be there for the engagement and promise of marriage to be in place but it still is a precious thing for the young woman. She can look at the ring and be reminded of her fiance's promise.

@@proclaimingchrist8454 You are saying that baptism has no salvific effect on an infant. I agree. Why then baptise them? I think we certainly agree that baptism saved its recipients in the mission situation of the early church. The effect did not come from the water or the words that were possibly uttered. The effect came from the fact that baptism was obedience to the apostolic call and also the recognition or the confession of Jesus. Both are linked to salvation. “he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life”. John 3:36. “ to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16. “Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father” Matt. 10:32. You can have obedience and confession even if you have no baptism. So salvation is not necessarily dependant on baptism. But Bible does not say that salvation by faith alone. Only verse where word faith (pistis) and alone (monon) are together is James 2:24, which says that justification is not by faith alone. Baptism of believers and confession unite us to Christ. We are identified as followers of Jesus by them. I find no baby baptisms in the Bible. So I seem as useless. Nor do I see any promises regarding a baptised child. I think baptising babies may be misleading. As far I know church history baby baptism appeared near the year 200 in North Africa. Later some were mislead to think that babies must have inherited guilt because the church baptises them. But that is another story.

What does the WCF say ??

No rebaptisms in scripture

Not a tradition... OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms

No the scripture explicitly teaches that we ARE justified - we have the righteousness of God which is the faith OF Jesus Christ, by faith(Ro 3:22). The attributes of the new creation/new man are - wisdom, redemption, righteousness, sanctification 1 Cor 1:30. The narrator has it wrong by saying sanctification is a process, he didn't demonstrate that at all, it's no where in scripture. It's just Calvinist rhetoric.

????????? 😂

@Fernando Vazquez. The Fathers are unanimous about what? No infant baptism is ever mentioned until about 250 CE.

@@ericcarlson9885 You are so off. Infant baptism is since day 1. “The promise is for you and your children.” Acts 2:39. Baptism is solid and unanimous for sure in the first 200 years. Viva Cristo Rey!

@@INRIVivatChristusRex “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” So, let’s take a look. What promise? The promise to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who believe and repent. For whom? For “you and your children” (the Jews), as well as for “all who are far off” (the Gentiles). In other words, basically everybody. Everybody, that is, who calls on the Name of the Lord in repentance and faith. Therefore, what’s being spoken of? Adult baptism. That’s right, adult baptism. There is not a single unambiguous reference to infant baptism in all of Scripture. And no-that’s right, not any-textual evidence of infant baptism until 250 CE. What on earth do you mean that it was practiced from day one? Based on what? I’ll be waiting….

@@ericcarlson9885 "(the Jews)" is not in the Bible. You added that. "Therefore, what’s being spoken of? Adult baptism. That’s right, adult baptism." That's your interpretation not the Church Fathers' interpretation or the Early Church for that matter AKA Catholic Church.

@@ericcarlson9885 The Bible does not say do not baptize infants either.

All the household that believe. Infants are not capable of believing therefore baptism isn't necessary till a child is at an age to understand what is being taught.

The church

@@proclaimingchrist8454 ? The Church is established under St. Peter and it doesn't come into full effect until Pentecost. The question remains. Who is the New Eve, that cooperated with the New Adam in bringing redemption to the world?

@@INRIVivatChristusRex The Bride of Christ. The church.

@@INRIVivatChristusRex He already had belivers. No need for a building (church). There were already a church. Jesus says your body is church. because belivers are church. jesus's community was church

@Charles Luevano. 1 Corinthians 7 declares my children “holy” without any reference to baptism whatsoever. That doesn’t sound like they are “clothed with Satan. I’m going to go ahead and believe Scripture. You do what you want….

@@ericcarlson9885 These verses are not speaking about baptism so how do you know they were not already baptized? I will follow the teachings of the Church that Jesus founded and who He gave ALL authority to and of whom is spoken as the "...pillar and foundation of truth"; not our own personal interpretation. How do you know you are following the bible? You have no assurance you are correct. I have 2000 years of teachings to follow. . Can you make the same claim that your understanding of scripture are the same since the foundation? If so show us proof that baptism was denied to babies during the earliest days of the Church, even before the bible was compiled. I have Justin Martyr, Origin, Ireaeus, Cyprian, and on and on and on. They didn't have the KJV; they had the teachings of the Apostles handed down to them. From these teachings came the bible that you claim you follow. After the bible was compiled and the Church knew 1 corinthians 7-14, the Church didn't stop infant baptism. They knew the bible as a whole, not bits and pieces of verses like Protestants like to throw out at Catholics. Give me quotes from YOUR ECF's where they taught against infant baptism. Please quote ECF, letter, and date.

@@ogdnaemoc If (in 1 Corinthians 7) the children spoken of were already baptized, wouldn’t they also ALREADY be holy? And if we accept “ex opere operato” sacramentology, they would be holy with or without a believing parent. Furthermore, since I’m sure you accept that household baptisms logically included infants, then I’m guessing you’d have to logically assume here that some of these children were NOT infants (and yet they haven’t been baptized!!) Why not? (If the practice has been to baptize babies from the very beginning, why not? And, if the practice of not baptizing babies in Corinth went AGAINST Apostolic teaching, why weren’t they upbraided for their non-compliance?) Justin Martyr (and Hippolytus, for that matter) speak not of infant baptism, but of the baptism of children…as do most modern-day Baptists! The Catholic Answers website specifically states that Justin DID NOT teach infant baptism!! Both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (second-century writings) make repentance and faith a necessary precondition to baptism. The Didache, a very early manual of Christian practice, covers baptism at some length, but makes no mention of baptizing infants. Irenaeus does not mention infant baptism. Instead, he teaches that Jesus lived through every phase of life, from infant to old age, in order that people of every age might be saved. This is speaking of recapitulation, not baptism. Origen and Cyprian of Carthage are writing 220 years or so after Calvary. That’s like somebody living today writing about the life of George Washington based on oral traditions. (Most scholars believe that both the story of his telling the truth about cutting down a cherry tree…and the one about his throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac are apocryphal. In other words, they are not true.) A veritable hall of fame of early church fathers grew up in Christian households and yet were not baptized as infants, including Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. If you wanted an early voice against infant baptism, there’s Tertullian, written long before any schism on his part. He believes baptism, in most cases, ought to be delayed. Tertullian, On Baptism (Ch. 18), ca. 200 AD: “Consequently in view of the circumstances, will, and even the age of each person, a postponement of Baptism is most advantageous, particularly, however, in the case of children. . . . The Lord indeed says: ‘Forbid them not to come unto me,’ Matt. xix. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught whither to come; let them become Christians, when they have been able to know Christ. Why make the age of innocence hurry to the remission of sins?” You’ll see in many of the early fathers a tendency to slow down the push to baptism if people are healthy (because of the general belief that baptism covered only those sins committed BEFORE one’s baptism) and a tendency to speed up the push to baptism if the person were in mortal danger (because John 3 states that one MUST be baptized-born again by water and the spirit-in order to be saved). They especially suggested that teenagers refrain from baptism due to their natural tendency to “sow wild oats”…and wait till after marriage. Similarly, a sick child was hurriedly baptized to reassure the parents that their child was safe from damnation. Neither of these tenets are still valid within the Catholic Church. The Sacrament of Reconciliation allows one to make amends after any number of post-baptismal stumbles. And babies who die unbaptized are not consigned to hell (or even limbo).

@@ericcarlson9885 Galatians 3:27 “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” We are baptized so that we can clothes ourselves with Jesus. Do we also want our children to be clothed with Jesus? Does a child need to have knowledge and reason that he is to be clothed? Verse 28 & 29 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.” We want to be one with Jesus. We are baptized so that we belong to Christ so that question is: Do we want our children to be one with Jesus? Or do we want them to wait to grow up and then let them decide whether or not they want to be one with Jesus? So that is the purpose for baptism; first to be clothed with Jesus; second to be one with Jesus. Remember Mark 10:13 “And people were bringing children to him that He might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this He became indignant and said to them, ‘Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.15Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.’ 16Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.” Did Jesus ask if they already had reason and knowledge to go to Him? Third, with baptism we are heirs to His kingdom. In Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39For the promise is made to you and to your children… (here it does not specify the age of the children) and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” Yes, adults need to have reason to understand the teachings but we must not confuse teaching of the word with baptism. There are two types of persons: adults and children. On vs 38, adults with knowledge and reason should be baptized. You may say that nowhere in the bible does it say to baptize children. Neither does it say NOT to baptize them. John 3:3+ where Jesus is TEACHING about being born again…What is the criteria to be born again? Did Jesus specify an age, 15, 20, 40, 80? The only criteria is to have been born. Yes, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, an adult, but He IS TEACHING him and telling Nicodemus “everyone: who is born of the Spirit…”; Jesus didn’t give him an age limit Yes, some of the ECF’s you mentioned, Clement of Alexandria was not baptized as an infant. His parents were pagan and he converted later. Tertullian was a pagan until mid life. However, he didn’t forbid baptism of children but discouraged it which is way different. Whether or not the ECF’s were baptized as infants or not is not the issue. There could very well have been a valid reason why the parents didn’t baptize them we don’t know. What we do know is that the early Church was severely persecuted. Infant baptism started becoming the norm once Christianity was allowed. You ask why some were not upbraided for non-compliance. Now, really, that’s a ridiculous question. Did you forget there was no e-mail, telephones, to be in contact with one another? Besides, why do you think people had to worship in catacombs? So naturally, baptisms and in particular infant baptism was not routine. However, so many ECF’s spoke of the need for it. St. Augustine taught that it was from apostolic origin. What is important is what they taught. In their writings, Origen, Cyprian, and others, all seem to be in agreement that infants need to be baptized. Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born. (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]) We do not know the exact date of many ECF’s birth. However, we have this from Hippolytus: “At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children, who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” Newborn, infants, toddlers, all are still considered children. Many of the best-known church fathers underwent such catechesis and didn’t receive baptism until adulthood, even though they were born to Christian parents. We can argue back and forth regarding infant baptism from scripture and never settle anything so we have to look at what the early Church was teaching. You will say you will go with scripture and use your own personal interpretation. I will say that I too go with scripture however; in addition, I also go with Holy Tradition, (not tradition) AND the Magisterium of the Church. I stand on a tripod, Holy Tradition, The Bible, and the Magisterium. You stand on your own personal interpretation of which you have NO guarantee that you have understood correctly. And please, don’t give me this about the Holy Spirit teaching you. If that was true, there would not be thousands of different denominations all saying the same thing with different results. That is NOT the Holy Spirit. Jesus prayed to the Father that all may be one; is thousand of different denominations all arguing they are correct “one” as Jesus prayed? God bless you…

@@timbradson1267 Why would I care that my child can be clothed with Jesus when those robes can be ripped right off his back later on? Why should I care that he can become one with Jesus when “Jesus” might turn right around and turn His back on my child later on? Who cares if my children can easily become “heirs of the kingdom” when they can just as easily lose that inheritance later on? I have very little use for a faithless Jesus. I worship one who is the Good Shepherd of his sheep. And he will stop at NOTHING to hunt them down when they are in trouble, rescue them from danger, and bring them securely back to the fold. Mark 10 says nary a word about baptism. Just the blessing of Jesus on children. Acts 2 promises the Holy Spirit to those who REPENT and get baptized. The promise is indeed unto my children…just as soon as they repent. None of my babies has ever come close to repenting. Has yours? In John 3:4, Nicodemus asks Jesus, “How can a MAN be born when he is old?” Infants, born of the flesh are contrasted with those, born of the spirit. You are correct, nowhere in Scripture does it teach for us to baptize our younglings, which is good because it basically DOES teach us NOT to do so. Baptism is invariably described as being associated with faith and repentance. John the Baptist immersed those who repented for the remission of their sins (thus, no infants). The Essences at Qumran baptized initiates after repentance and a year’s worth of training (thus, no infants). The 3,000 new believers at Pentecost were described as repentant (once again, no infants). Every NT narrative of household baptisms but one (Lydia’s household) speaks of hearing the Word, of faith and repentance (so yes, no infants). The only reason the whole thing is unclear to you is that you approach Scripture already convinced that infant baptism is true. In English the word ‘child’ can include newborns, but Hippolytus was writing in Greek, and I’m pretty sure the word he uses does not include that meaning, but I’ll look it up when I have more time. Children “unable to speak for themselves” could very easily be young children too shy to speak up in public. Just like you, evangelicals go with Scripture, Holy Tradition (the practices and writings of the early church), and their own particular “magisterium” (the confessions and/or catechisms of their church). The Protestant Reformers knew the teachings of the ECF’s backwards and forwards, and quoted from them copiously. By the way, you, of your own personal volition and for your own subjective reasons, chose Rome. Every other believer must do the same. I happen to think you made an ill-considered choice. Many others have chosen equally poorly. I cannot answer for them. There is such a thing as freedom of religion. The greatest impediment to Christian unity is the hubris of believers who take the stance that they couldn’t possibly be wrong about anything. They firmly believe that THEIR church swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all.

Hi Ryan, thanks for your interaction with my video. Just a couple of notes: (1) To be clear, I did not say that baptism pictures faith. Rather, baptism pictures the transfer from Adam to Christ. That’s because baptism is a sign of being united with Christ in his death and resurrection (the thing that is signified). Those who believe receive the thing that is signified but those who do not believe receive merely the sign. One could think of this in terms of Israel’s baptism in the Red Sea (1 Cor 10). All of those covenant people who were baptized received the promise of entering the land of Canaan (including the children). However, those who did not believe did not receive the thing that was promised. Those who did believe the promise (men like Joshua and Caleb) did enter and received the thing that was promised. This is how we view the children of believers. They all have the promise of entering life. However, as they grow up they need to embrace the promise in faith and take care not to have an evil heart of unbelief and so fall short of entering God’s rest (See Heb 3 and 4). (2) I disagree with your statement regarding Ephesians 6. Paul addresses the children all the same. It would be awfully strange if he were only speaking to believing children. (3) You say in your comments, “Covenant connections based on familial heritage are foreign to the NT and a redefinition of NT realities according to ethnic, theocratic Israel.” However, I believe this misunderstands the nature of the OT covenants of promise and also attribute something to those OT covenants which Israel erroneously did to their own downfall. The way of salvation has always been by faith in the promise, both in the OT and the NT. Furthermore, the promise of the eternal inheritance came to Abraham’s children (think of Ishmael and Isaac) because of Abraham’s justification by faith (Romans 4:9-13). So many in Israel made the mistake of thinking that as long as they belonged to ethnic Israel they were okay. The reality was that although they were set apart as God’s covenant people, they still needed to respond to God’s covenant in the way Abraham their forefather did (faith). This is what the NT writers like Paul hammer home again and again.

This is an assumption based on you understanding of the purpose and directivity of the sacrament. In covenant baptism it is understood as a statement of God to his people not a statement from the recipient to God. Compare God's passing through the midst of the pieces as God cuts a covenant with Abraham.