I recently left a Southern Baptist church to join a confessional Lutheran Church. The main reason I did this was over the Sacraments, Baptism and Communion. When I sat down with my Baptist pastor, he had no problem with everything I said, EXCEPT infant baptism. This is a very high hurdle for anyone raised in the reformed tradition. You explain this so well. I hadn't thought of the connection between original sin and the infant's need for salvation, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for your clarity, and for your faithful teaching, constantly clarifying New Testament lessons by their Old Testament antecedents.
Probably because John the Baptist himself practiced multiple mitzvahs it’s something that most non-messianic churches don’t understand because they weren’t Jewish like Jesus. The Bible says believe and be baptized, however, the man on the cross next to Jesus, didn’t believe and hop off and get baptized to go the paradise so disagreeing with your understanding of whole household baptism instead of mikvah mizpah (repeated ceremonial cleansing as an outward expression of relational bond) doesn’t really matter. It’s literally not a salvation issue, and the only problem is if people try to make it one. In the same way, Jesus didn’t take the cup and say once a month whenever you take it, he said, whenever you eat or drink, in many ways, it just goes to prove that almost everyone’s wrong because they’re not actually humbling to what it really says. If you have a problem with someone you’re supposed to not even eat until you’ve resolved that matter. That’s what scripture actually says on this topic.
@@SRose-vp6ew Actually the thief on the cross was baptized by Christ, by His Words and also his water and blood. John 19:31-37, concentrate on verse 34. Again remember for Lutherans, Baptism is an act of God putting to death through his Word and Water our Old adams and raising us in the same instance to new life in Jesus Christ. We do nothing but receive. Baptism now saves you, Jesus states this in John 3:5; Peter recites Jesus Words in 1 Peter 3:21, and John delivers the truth of John 19:34 in 1 John 5:6-8. It becomes obvious when you come to the realization that most christians believe they have something to "participate" in and Jesus says in Genesis 6:5"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The continuation never ends until your death. The law says you're not supposed to eat until you've resolved "matters" but the Gospel says its done, price paid in full. Something to think about that came to my mind and of course I had to research it: When you open your mouth to speak, saliva spreads across your lips and breaks into filaments when your lips part. Airflow from your lungs then stretches and thins the filaments until they rupture and become tiny droplets. This means that Jesus was baptizing everyone he came into contact with. You can thank the covid-19 mask-pushers for this research!
The fact is, nothing this heretic said makes any sense. It only makes sense to those like him who are completely spiritually dead, blind, lost, deceived, and Biblically illiterate. Repent!
Chad, I've been listening to your commentaries for several months now and want to let you know that I appreciate the careful thought and deep perspective that you provide, similar to that of my own pastor but with many additional insights. May God continue to bless your ministry.
That was great! Thanks. I am one who disagrees on this particular point, but I greatly respect and am built up by your ministry. I won't get into why I disagree because it is not important. Keep doing what your are doing and I will keep learning and enjoying. Blessings!
I knew from previous vids that you are Calvinist/lutheran both from Augustinian Gnosticism but didn’t realize to what extent until today. I suppose this means the millions of infants and children and mentally ill that aren’t baptized go to hell which is what Augustine taught. I do think you are sincere but very wrong. The basic premise of total depravity, sinful before we were even born, is the false foundation that all this is built on. Many are seeing through these false, unbiblical teachings and are being set free to worship the God that truly loves all. I would also suggest you do a study on Luther, one of the greatest antisemites who ever lived. Has writings on his hatred of Jews (On The Jews and Their Lies) was used by Hitler to justify his hatred and persecution of Jews. As one of his generals said during the Nuremberg trials said, “I did nothing that Luther didn’t approve of” . There is ample evidence that all these unbiblical teachings beginning with total depravity came from Augustine’s gnostic background not scripture. I am going into detail because I think you are intellectually honest, just wrong. Shalom
@@LarryVinson-l5t ,...You have spoken in completely and total ignorance and have shown yourself to be just another brute beast made only to be destroyed that has been snared into the 100% apostate church and into its antichrist gospel/christianity. Repent!
I was baptized as a baby. I was baptized as an adult. The first was not my choice. The second was. But then the first time the Gospel was preached to me wasn't my choice, but I'm glad I heard it. So with my first baptism I realized that it was promise, an effort, a way to try to guarantee I would stay with God and the church. So I do not fault the parents who made that choice, or the Church that followed that practice. I did not baptize my children as infants, but I did take part in a formal baby dedication ceremony for each of them that was the same as my infant baptism without the water, the intent being the same. So now I respect the intent of the parents, and honour them whether it is a baby dedication or an infant baptism. Because I love them and honour them in Jesus' name.
I think in place of infant baptism, parents should aim to consecrate their baby with oil before the church in order that they be accountable to train that child up in the Lord in hopes the child will one day truly profess faith and be baptized.
Thank you for being careful and thorough. One of the beautiful things about confessional Lutheranism is the trust in God's Word without feeling a need to understand how God does it.
Amen. He is doing the baptizing. He is choosing us and claiming us as his very own in that moment (“marking us”). A lot of churches will teach that baptism is us choosing him. The very opposite.
If it was up to Jesus to choose us, then why did he say " Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Matthew 23:37
@@Soundguydan If He chooses us, then we do not have to do anything. So, we, therefor, do not need to confess with our mouths? Repentance is not needed? If God chooses us, then we have the ability to end our own lives to be with Him, correct? Did He not choose the rich man in Luke 16?
Thanks, Chad. Listen, I disagree. But the older I get, the less I’m willing to get distracted by our differences in these types of issues. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17, and I can’t wait for us all to truly be united in eternity one day.
@jonathang4833 Jesus called all to take up their cross, to count the cost ... luke14 ... Acts 2 Repent and ... Hebrews 5 12ff Repentance ... Faith .... before baptisms Romans 7 ..Paul alive *before* the law ; Jesus : of such is the kingdom if heaven ; Ezekiel 18 children Not guilty for patents sins ... infants are Not guilty ... they fallen bodies not fallen souls There is and was no infant baptism in the nT church .... it was impossible for infants ..... John's baptisn wa a baptism of repentance ...do was Jesus baptism but included faith in Him ...
Υπέροχη διδασκαλία. Ευχαριστούμε, Τσαντ. Σε αγαπάμε. Στον ελληνικό κόσμο, η γλώσσα του οποίου είναι η γλώσσα της Καινής Διαθήκης, πάντα βαπτίζαμε και βαπτίζουμε νήπια. Η βάπτιση είναι δώρο.
Speaking Greek does not mean you authomatically do everything correct accoridng to God's word. You can also apply the same thing to the Jews. They spoke the same language of the old testament, but rejected the Son of God...
@@alexbaptista8150Votre pensée est insane et non biblique, puisque dans les Actes , les Apotres baptisaient des familles entières, les enfants avec ! Dites -moi sérieusement, Où dans la bible est indiqué l’âge auquel l’enfant peut être baptisé ? Nulle part ! S’il n’y a pas de limite, alors les enfants aussi ont droit à leur baptême, c’est un don et le début de la vie chrétienne : dés leur baptême, les enfants reçoivent la communion et fortifie ainsi leur lien au Christ ! Que de temps perdu chez ces mal formés! C’est la pratique normale depuis plus de 2000 ans. Ceux qui ne le font pas, le font simplement par des raisonnements insanes sortis de la cervelle de réformateurs orgueilleux sans lien avec les Apôtres, quelques 1600 ans plus tard ! Folie! Non ?
This is the most irrelevant argument I heard to make a point. I know greek people and they think Christian are stupid. So, they are right and everybody shouldn’t be Christian because it’s just stupid.
This was my last hurdle too! We joined the EPC recently and had been attending for about a year before becoming members and I really had struggles with this. Thank you. I had been gradually accepting it and trying so hard to understand it for a long time.
Thank you for your thoughtful presentation/argument. I still believe only in a believer's baptism. But, again thank you for your clear, and simple presentation.
Thank you for a very timely explanation. I am also grappling with the practice of baptism. I was raised Lutheran in the ALC. I was confirmed at 16. In the late 80s I was in Texas in the midst of the liberal encroachment into what would become the ELCA. My family moved to Utah and through circumstances have ended up in a Southern Baptist congregation. Recently I have started studying and looking into the issue to settle my mind on the teachings. Just thank you. Your insights are very helpful.
This is poor theology - yes it’s an opinion and yes it’s given humbly, so we must reason together and here it is. Acts 2:39 - firstly this is not talking about infants or minors but descendants and offspring. They are two different Greek words. Additionally the promise being discussed is not baptism, but the promise listed in Acts 2:33 - the Holy Spirit, which we have examples of people receiving prior to being physically baptised. Thirdly those who were baptised of the households are listed as those who received this word - clearly these were not infants which is why scripture doesn’t use the Greek word for infants or minors at all here. And again circumcision is a poor example to use as it completely dismantles this argument. Circumcise was performed on the 8th day for newborns - the example is that you had to first be born then you could be circumcised. Now baptism is for those who are born again. You must first be born again to be baptised. Repentance is from the heart and an understanding and conviction of the Holy Spirit for our sins so that we can receive the free gift of salvation from the Lord. Children and mentally disabled (those with a child’s mind presumably) are clearly going to be with the lord no matter if they are christened or not according to the word of the LORD. So again terrible examples and reasoning. Yes John the Baptist leapt for Joy, but was already serving the lord before any baptism. And if Jesus shows us perfection why was his example to us of baptism as an adult, why was he not baptised as an infant? Indeed, you are quite wrong. His heart like John’s were circumcised to the Lord before baptism yet baptism was not done as infants.
Chad, thank you, I too have been raised SBC, and have been wrestling with this doctrine. This has been helpful! Perhaps you could do a video, on your journey from memorial to the real presence in the Lord's supper. This would be of tremendous benefit.
If the PREMISE of the ARGUMENT for BAPTISM is to be able to BELIEVE in Christ Jesus and that Infants and Children have not SINNED yet... Does God/YHWH get upset/angry when Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John while Christ does not need to BELIEVE in Himself or had sinned?.... NOPE, but instead God proudly said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3:17)... Christ does not need baptism like the Infant and Children... In the same way, would God be upset/angry if the CHURCH of God does "Infant/Child BAPTISM" who is not capable of believing and has not sinned?... NOPE... Infant/child Baptism is like Christ Jesus being Baptized by Prophet John at the Jordan River... a SINLESS person (Innocent like a child)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Jesus got baptized at 30 years old an example for every christian. And 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism is done with a good conscience which babies don’t have. So the conclusion is ? baptism is not for babies.
@@EddyRobichaud If the premise is that, Infants and Children do not have SIN or have not committed any SIN yet... Christ Jesus was baptized without any SIN of Mankind... therefore, Infants and Children can also be BAPTIZED as long as their parents were Baptized first... Do Infants and Children Baptism a SIN against God?... Not at all, for God allowed His only begotten Son who is SINLESS to be Baptized... God said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I AM well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3;17). The Entire HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family) was Baptized, which includes, servants, infants, and Children...(ref. Act. 16:31)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@@EddyRobichaud The Biblical TRUTH is that, God would not mind Baptizing the infants and the children of their Baptized Parents... Just like God's Son (Jesus) who was Baptized with no SIN at all... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.
@@EddyRobichaud We should/must not be so STIFF by the book when it comes to Water Baptism just like what the Pharisees and Sadducees did with the Law of Sabbath during the Time of Christ Jesus... the logical question is if the INFANTS and CHILDREN would lose their Salvation if they were Baptized?... Will those person who Baptized the Infants and Children lose their Salvation?... Remember, the CHURCH under the Apostolic Succession has the AUTHORITY given by God through Christ Jesus to Peter, the Authority to "BIND and LOOSE" on Earth and in Heaven... The Bible narrated, that the "Entire Household" (Whole Family including servants) was BAPTIZED by the Apostle/Disciple... (ref. 1 Corin. 7:14)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
I also come from a background opposed to infant baptism and have found myself Lutheran. Through the years I’ve not been totally convinced, but I’m no longer opposed. I found your point about circumcision particularly cogent. Thanks for all you do. You’ve been a tremendous blessing!
If the premise is that, Infants and Children do not have SIN or have not committed any SIN yet... Christ Jesus was baptized without any SIN of Mankind... therefore, Infants and Children can also be BAPTIZED as long as their parents were Baptized first... Do Infants and Children Baptism a SIN against God?... Not at all, for God allowed His only begotten Son who is SINLESS to be Baptized... God said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I AM well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3;17)... The Entire HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family) was Baptized, which includes, servants, infants, and Children...(ref. Act. 16:31)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Acts 16:31 & 18:8... the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family without exemption) were BAPTIZED... the passage never said nor mentioned that only the ADULTS were Baptized in the Household... when we say the English word "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD" means ALL the People in the Household without exemption unless otherwise noted in the passage, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@@passportreadyvibes4131 The word "ENTIRE" means EVERYONE in the Household was BAPTIZED by the Apostles in the 1st Cent. A.D. that was practiced by the Early 7 Churches in Asia Minor (presently Turkey)... When we say the "ENTIRE" Family was slaughtered... that this mean only the adults were slaughtered?
@@passportreadyvibes4131 Christ Jesus who is SINLESS was Baptized ... and God/YHWH allowed it... will the infants/babies and Little Children (Toddlers = 7 years old below) be a SIN against God if they were Baptized?... absolutely not... NOPE...
I would totally agree if you can first show that the household contained an infant. Most importantly, the Bible mentions several baptism, not one included an infant @jvlp2046. I see Sam and Godlogic do exactly what I'm doing to you when debating the Muslims. Show the scripture. You can imply there was a baby as easily as I can imply there wasn't. So we must look for scriptural consistency. All I see is adults or those above the age of accountability, which definitely eliminates babies! I'll wai for the scripture. I thought Christians are to teach what the scriptures says without addition or subtraction. Show me a scripture or a baptism in the Bible where an infant was baptized and I'll believe it. Don't tell me what the early church taught, show me what thus saith the Lord. The reason you guys, including Sam change positions on biblical topics because you are following man made creeds. I'm not sure if Sam referred to me as a Dog because I asked for Bible. With all that knowledge, a simple scripture would suffice. The fact none of you can provide scripture without adding to it or taking away from it should tell you it's a false premise.
@@jvlp2046using your example... the Entire family consisted of the husband, wife and two teenage children.... if there is no infant in the family, does not that mean the Entire family was slaughtered? You could easily add a infant to my example and you would be correct. However, since the scripture doesn't say who was in the household is to add, which is sin. So we must go to the examples that the Bible provides and there is no babies being baptized. There are multiple examples throughout scripture and not one example. Maybe I missed it, show me and I'll change my position.
Repentance and Faith is required in the Scripture before Water Baptism. Also we never see any infants baptized in the Bible. Only an argument out of silence can be made for infant Baptism But I appreciate you explaining your views. Blessings Hal
Those who reject infant baptism are the ones doing so "out of silence." In the video, he highlighted several passages in the New Testament that speak of "whole households" being baptized. That is pretty explicit. How can you read "whole household" and then take it to mean: "only adults who first publicly profess faith in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" were baptized? Also, as he brought up, the covenant promises of God were given to male babies in circumcision. This is is the theological and Biblical antecedent to New Testament infant baptism.
@@pataho4290 Interesting observation, but only partially true, I think. It is true that Scripture does not specifically mention about their baptism, however, later constantly "assumes" it happened. Jesus, in the great commission in Mat.28, makes it clear that baptism is linked to being a disciple. Plus various verses show that at least some of the apostles were first John's disciples, which meant had to be baptised with John's baptism - which was then made obsolete by Jesus' baptism. Additionally in John 4:1-2 we can quite safely assume that they themselves first had to be baptised to be able to baptise others (which seemed to be necessary) while they were still with Jesus.
@@matthewshields8613 Well... actually, the "whole household" usually excluded infants. (Similar would be today, if you went to a wedding with all the relatives, and you said "Everyone enjoyed themselves" automatically ignores the 3 months old baby who slept it through and we have no idea if she enjoyed it or not). Just like when "All Israel said Amen" does not mean the small babies also said amen. Infants do not get counted at conscious acts. --- The circumcision argument is a better one. However.... note that by circumcision was required to be part of Israel. It was nothing to do with salvation (otherwise there would be many Baal-worshipper Jews in Heaven). Circumcision was only a sign of the covenant! It did not substitute faith in JHWH. So you take that (rightly so) as the antecedent (cool word!) of baptism, we end up with faith being needed for salvation, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of an already existing saving faith. However, the big difference between circumcision and baptism is, that the former was explicitly commanded to be performed on infants, while the later is never mentioned in context of infants. I think we should not over-speculate the text.
@@123ppap While I understand what you are trying to say, your argument for "household" is not what the Biblical text is saying. In Genesis 17, when God institutes circumcision, He explicitly states that 8 day old males should be circumcised (17:12). Then, later in that same chapter, Abraham actually has all the males in his "house" circumcised. Again, this explicitly includes infants. In the context of the Bible "household" does include infants. Also, Jesus was Jewish. As was Paul and all of the apostles. They would have all made the direct connection between baptism and circumcision (which included infants). Also, on your comment that circumcision does not substitute for faith you are correct! And neither does baptism. You are actually quite close to Lutheran baptism here!!! Faith is absolutely needed. But then you miss the mark. Baptism is "necessary" (as 1 Peter 3:21) because baptism is a promise that is given to you by God (God's word attached to water - Ephesians 5:26). How can you have faith without a promise to believe in?! Without a promise given to you, personally, you cannot have faith! Which is why Lutherans baptize babies. We are giving the promise to them as Jesus commanded us! (Matt. 28:19).
Likewise, can Christ Jesus be taught by the "WORD of God"?... NOPE... for Christ Jesus is the WORD/SON of God... the same ANALOGY... Infants/babies do not need to be taught of the WORD of God for the KINGDOM of God belongs to them... (ref. Luke 18:16)... However, the question remains... Is it unlawful or a Sin for Infants/babies to be Baptized since they are born sinless?... Absolutely NOT, for Christ made an example that even a person such as Himself (Christ Jesus) who is SINLESS can be Baptized and not sinning against Father God/YHWH... (acceptable act). The Apostles understood about this matter that was why they BAPTIZED the Entire (All of) HOUSEHOLD in the 1st Century A.D. regardless of their age. Who are we to judge and dictate to God on which is acceptable or not to HIM by putting God in the BOX (limiting His Godliness/Holiness and Might)?... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen
I agree! Nobody ever denied baptism to infants till that doctrine was INVENTED after the 1500's! Even Jesus said "Let the little children come to me" (Matthew 19:14) !!
Correct, water baptism means and does absolutely nothing. The Baptism of the Bible is a spiritual baptism that God/Jesus does to the very few who are Gods chosen ones who all have nothing to do with anything called or known as the church.
@@truth-uncensored2426 Baptism is mentioned in verse 12 but I see no further mention in that passage. Are you sure? If so would you kindly identify where?
Thank you Chad. As Orthodox I was baptized as infant in atheistic country and all my childhood I knew to Whom I belong to even though we did not practice prayer or went to the church, and all my unbaptized friends were different somehow, I do not know how to explain how different but different.
I enjoy listening to your comments, but I would like to offer some thoughts. "He places that Word inside the waters of Baptism??" @ 6:30. Where does this idea come from? Seems to be an assertion with no Scriptural backing. It's a nice thought, but is the point Biblical? Also, the use of O.T. circumcision as a pattern of salvation ignores the existence of Gentile believers. What of Jethro, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, the citizens of Nineveh? There's good indication that they were saved believers, but there is no indication that they were circumcised or were otherwise made to convert to Judaism or become part of the Mosaic Covenant.
Chad's reference for the "liquid word" is Eph.5:26 (which I personally think is a weak leg to stand a whole doctrine on). I fully agree with you about inefficiency of the OT circumcision explanation.
@michaelmcfadden6265 Baptism is symbolic of death and rising from the waters new life. Therefore you are correct that the "liquid word" is highly questionable. To be blunt, incorrect. Circumcision was never a pattern of salvation but rather s sign of God's covenant. It represented a cutting off of the flesh to live devoted to God. Obviously not all Jews although circumcised, lived to God or honoured His covenant. Since it was a sign of God's covenant with the Jews to be His people, to occupy that office to produce the Messiah, Jesus Christ, there was therefore no requirement for those you name, or any outside of Israel to undergo circumcision. The Apostle Peter acknowledged salvation to any, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Clearly then any who respond to the Spirit of God in any nation will be saved. They can only be saved through Jesus Christ, but then so too Abram who did not know the details of Jesus Christ but merely responded to God and His call. Baptism is an equivalence for the Gentiles being a symbolic of death to the old life and a raising to a new life, to live anew. There is therefore a very strong equivalence between circumcision and baptism, each being suited to the different people, purpose and times.
@@Must_not_say_that Thank you. I appreciate the comments. It's good to work through these topics rather than avoiding discussion. Otherwise, we will just continue to believe the first thing we ever heard. It seems that the paedo-baptist position in seeking continuity with the old covenant is built on assumptions and "nice thoughts," but not on Scriptural commands or actual examples. Therefore the position is weak. I don't have any animosity toward my fellow believers with this viewpoint, but I think the error should be pointed out just as I've had my errors pointed out to me through the years. The Lord's blessings on you.
@@michaelmcfadden6265 Thank you for your thoughts and response. It seems to me it is an uncertain area and if that is the case then it falls to the individual understanding and conscientious understanding and resole, perhaps a little like one honours a day and another not. If so then either will be accepted if undertaken in sincerity offered towards the Lord. Perhaps there is a better option, there are difficulties each way in deciding. One practical consideration is that if the option that requires faith and understanding is chosen it is in practical terms difficult to decide at what age that might be or when they are either old enough to be independent or mature enough to decide for themselves. How much is parental influence and how much original convivtuion mightr be difficult to assess. Since parents are responsible for their children, they as it were stand in for them and so why not for the baptism of their children? Perhaps a little like the case of an unbelieving parent where the children are holy because of the believing one. The baptizing of a whole family which may include children may also have some bearing on an extremely difficult passage where the Apostle Paul asks, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” There appears to be a suggestion that a person can be baptized for another. I don’t know quite what this means but it may have relevance. As you say it is good to air these matters but at the end of the day we must each follow according to the light we may have been given and it is important for the individual to hear God rather than man. My particular observation is that since baptism is death to the old and rising from the water symbolic of rising to new life, the practical way of working that out is by denying self and taking up our cross and following Jesus Christ. Without any reflection upon baptism it is rather this that we all should concentrate on, not to stop discussion about baptism, but to lead from that to the taking up of our cross.
Since baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins,” a primary question would be, “Is a child accountable for their “sins?” Or, “Can we even say that God even calls the faults of children “sin?” Romans 7:5-9 Deuteronomy 1:39
@kac0404 I also question that you say baptism is for forgiveness of sins. Rather is not baptism symbolic of death to the old and rising to new life? Forgiveness of sins is only through Christ's blood shed for us, His death on the cross. As the blood of the Old Testament sacrifices was poured out at the bottom or side of the altar so Christ's blood was poured out at the foot of the cross.
@sudeepruelpradhan2953 In Acts 2:38 Peter said, “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.” At what point does Peter indicate that one receives “the forgiveness of [their] sins” as well as “the gift of the Holy Spirit?” When he or she is “baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ.”
@@Must_not_say_that The phrase, “for the remission of sins,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. When our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mt.26:26-29), He said these words with respect to the cup: “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (v.27-28). This clearly shows the reason that Christ shed His blood, i.e. the remission of sins. Indeed, the Hebrew writer affirms, “without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Hb.9:22). However, in Acts 2, when the people asked Peter what they must do to be saved, He said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38). Note that we are baptized for the very same reason that Jesus shed His blood. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
@Must_not_say_that The phrase, “for the remission of sins,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. When our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mt.26:26-29), He said these words with respect to the cup: “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (v.27-28). This clearly shows the reason that Christ shed His blood, i.e. the remission of sins. Indeed, the Hebrew writer affirms, “without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Hb.9:22). However, in Acts 2, when the people asked Peter what they must do to be saved, He said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38). Note that we are baptized for the very same reason that Jesus shed His blood. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
Faith doesn’t only have to be present in the individual. Read in The Gospel of Mark 2:4…when friends of a paralytic man made an opening through the roof on a house where Jesus was (they couldn’t get through because the crowd) to lower their friend to be healed by Jesus. Jesus did not ask if the the paralytic man had faith….but Jesus knew that his friends did and that was enough for Jesus to heal this man. When we baptize our infants, the parents and god parents present have faith. This is enough in our Lords eyes. Yes?
I agree in baptism but I also believe you have to find a good church.. the problem is Christianity is messed up there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion how can any one go to a church like that for anything.
Perhaps you have had some bad experiences with churches that cause you to write this. I would urge you, however, to stamp down such a cynical attitude toward Christianity in general. I have been involved in churches my entire life, some good, some better, but never one that would cause me to write, "there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion." I have my own sin to deal with; others have theirs. We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. And we gather in worship as sinners among fellow sinners to hear the Word, to receive forgiveness, and to praise the God of grace in Christ.
@@chadbird1517 all Christian faith is based of Catholic religion if your I the United States there is no church that is safe all churches around here are Catholic tradition based any church that celebrated Christmas or Easter or any pagan holidays is a false religion . There's only one faith I can trust to teach the truth and it isn't an American church
Hi Chad, really enjoy and appreciate your ministry. I have a question however that I will start with an opinion. Having different sects of Christian religions divides us because each one has differences in customs and beliefs about the same God. Why not be an “unlabeled”follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings rather than feeling the need to identify as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ect, ect, I refuse to identify as a particular sect for the reasons stated and prefer to just follow Jesus and his word without the particularities of each “we are more right” sect. Why do you identify within a sect (Lutheran). Again, not arguing, asking.
@@ChericeGrahamhow you ask? Following Christ is called “Christianity” and those that follow are called “Christian’s”. That should be the end of the story in my opinion. Not, I’m Catholic or I’m Lutheran or I’m ….. so, we will agree to disagree.
@@YZEDR500 If there are legit differences between the denominations and those differences matter, which they do, then the "unlabeled" idea doesn't make sense. What, are you just not going to take a stance on these issues? Jesus did and so should we. God has put people down through history into place (starting with His disciples) so that we can learn the truth. Unfortunately, some have wandered from the truth. I'm a Lutheran because I believe it's the most biblical version of all the denominations.
So if the Lutheran church is the most “Christian” church, why does many of my local Lutheran Churches permanently hang 80ft c 40ft LGBTQ flags on their sides? You see, that flag is anything BUT Christian and represents an abomination to our Lord and Savior. Having given that one example, you are still more comfortable in your “Lutheran” faith than if you were just an honest follower of God’s word and subsequent faith? This is the very problem with “denominations” as they lead to variances to the Lords words and laws and then get preached to the masses as “accceptance” and “tolerance” and “loving”. I would argue to say that if you were looking for the most Christ like church, it would be the Orthodox Christian Church if you’ve ever been? Even still, it’s yet another denomination with its own rules, rituals and ideals instead of just a straight Bible based and only Bible based, faith based church.
I like this question, and this is where I believe the big fuss is. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that the dunking of the water is what saves you, and even if you are baptized, you are not out of the water. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that apostasy is a real thing, you can fall out of Gods Grace. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, it regenerates you, it initiates you into the body of Christ. I believe it goes hand in hand with salvation but it’s not the initial act itself that all of a sudden makes you saved. You picking up what I’m putting down? If you have any questions ask me, I’d like to discuss more, and give you more examples or better explanations if needed.
@programmer2565 He was sharing his change of mind and giving his reasons. He did not say infant baptism saved anyone, merely that it was applicable to infants and babies. Baptism does not save you or forgive sins, as you seem to be implying. Perhaps it is reasonable to consider that parents who want their infants baptised would teach those infants the Gospel? The responsibility then would be towards the declaration of faith of the parent(s) rather than the one being baptised. Is not baptism a declaration of death to the old and a new life to be lived by God's Spirit? In which case it is applicable to all. Any objection that an infant could grow up and turn away is equally applicable to an adult who can age and turn away.
Infant water baptism "first fruits " first child. The bible teaches about first fruits, the first rain ,and the latter rain John the Baptist said Jesus would Baptis you with the Holy Ghost.
You seem to have a reasonable understanding of Gods Word. Would you understand the mystery ( mystery Babylon) Revelation 17:5 / and the Harlots daughters, 😢 read the history of the 16th century protestant reformation. ( to have a child you have to have a relationship ). How did I know this ! the word of God the Bible.😊 there is a great blessing in what I wrote here, Get out of mystery Babylon to avoid God's Wrath.
I was raised Catholic, but left the Catholic Church in my early twenties (I align more with the Baptists since then), so I have a different perspective. You say, "When God baptizes someone, He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this? By saying that Baptism is the Liquid Word, you "seem" to be trying to resolve a conflict you are having with who can be saved and how. So when does the "plain" water used in baptism become the Liquid Word? By the prayer of a Priest, a Lutheran minister, or when any Christian decides to baptize someone (or can they)? Since a child has the sin nature from birth, and because they are too young to confess Christ, are you concerned they will go to Hell because they have the original sin still on them? You said "plain" water can't save us, so the assumption would be that you are inferring that the Liquid Word can? If so, you never explicitly said so. I would agree with you if I saw evidence of child baptism in the New Testament and it explicitly mentioned baptism was part of the salvation process, but it does not. You also never did delve into "why" certain churches came to practice infant baptism. Circumcision introduces a male child into the Mosaic Covenant. Water baptism always follows faith in the New Testament. You said, and I quote, "What's happening in baptism is God is taking the word that is preached and he's putting it in water so that instead of the word simply entering into our ears the word is washed onto us....". Where did that come from? Scripture or your mind? So what is it? Is water baptism that you call the Liquid Word essential to saving faith? If so, you never said so. If not, then why did you say it wasn't? If water baptism is essential to salvation, then the thief on the cross is not in paradise. According to the New Testament, Jesus' blood is the only washing that is needed to cleanse our sin.
Yes. And as a former catholic myself, being taught about rituals and "holy water" and some occult practises, I find that idea too "magical", feeding superstition, possibly leading to infant baptism for the wrong motives (of "safety" more than real faith). About John the Baptist as an unborn child, his parents had received the promise he would be filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb... We can't stretch that to any child. Have a good day.
@jamesrmooresr - You say, "He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this?" Matthew 28:19 - Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the promise that is at the heart of baptism. Acts 2:37-41. 2:41 says that those who "received his word were baptized." The preached word is directly linked to baptism. The same happens in Acts 8:34-40. Philip preaches (the word of the Gospel) to the Ethiopian eunuch who desires to be baptized. He clearly see baptism as something essential and it is directly linked to preaching the Gospel (giving the promises of God). The issue is a physical element attached to God's word of promise. This happens all over the scriptures. Gen. 12, 15, and 17 all record God making a promise to Abraham and that promise is finally attached to the physical element of circumcision. The Tree of Life = Word of promise + physical element. The snake in the wilderness that Jesus directly connects to his own "raising up" is a physical element (bronze snake on the pole) + Promise (word) of healing. (Numbers 21:8-9). Those who rejected the physical sign of the snake were also rejecting the word of God's promise of healing (they did not trust the word of God). The cross of Jesus. The promise (death of Jesus is FOR YOU/for your sin) and physical sign (wooden cross). Or Jesus, himself. John 1:1-14. Jesus (physical man) IS the WORD of God. The Word of God is literally "in the flesh/body." (Greek "sarx"). If God puts His Word into and attaches His Word to physical elements all throughout scripture then why not the waters of baptism? But finally: Ephesians 5:25-26. "25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word , 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." God has been attaching His Word of promise to physical elements/symbols/things from the very beginning!
Go research a fascinating study done by a Japanese scientist on the memory of water. The result of the scientist’s study was that water remembers what is said to it, whether words of blessing, or words of cursing, and physically manifests those words. So a priest praying words of blessings over and dedication of the water in the baptismal font for the infant baptism are very powerful indeed-Isaiah 55:11-“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplice that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Liquid Word? That's the command, by Jesus' own Word whilst the water is applied. That makes alot of sense to me as someone whom English is my third language.
@@julieamos86 actually if you use that kind of imagery the death is raised up upon a cross and burial isn't "down" in the ground. His burial was in a tomb. I think it was level not down. The idea of immersion as a symbol breaks down. Rather what baptism does is joins us to Christ..so what happened to him happened to us as a gift. That's why we were crucified with Christ, buried with him and will be raised with him.. because of union with him. Baptism is also a bath, a washing. Titus 3:5
@@Liminalplace1 Titus is talking about the Holy Spirit being poured out, not water baptism. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ROMANS 6,4
@@julieamos86 id agree that Titus isn't referring directly to water baptism...but the word translated "washing" is connected to a bath. Baptism joins one to Christ and with him comes the Holy Spirit. So the imagery of a bath or a washing is an analogy to baptism. If you really think "immersion" is a burial with Christ..where is the cross in the baptism waters? And why do people go "down" into the water when Jesus went into a tomb at ground level? I suggest that it's not a burial but a washing. Because we are joined to Christ we died, were buried and will rise with him. That's what Romans 6 refers to. So immersion isn't essential. What is essential are the words of Christ said over the baptized with water. As Chad said...."liquid word". Saying baptism is a burial is reading our modern practices of funerals into baptism. The Romans would not have thought Paul was talking about that. Romans often cremated their dead or put them into catacombs...not down into the ground like we often do. I hope that explains it. All Christians use the words of Christ and water.
@@Liminalplace1 direction is irrelevant, it's about burial not where the burial is. Christian baptism illustrates, in dramatic style, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, it also illustrates our death to sin and new life in Christ. As the sinner confesses the Lord Jesus, he dies to sin (Romans 6:11) and is raised to a brand-new life (Colossians 2:12). Being submerged in the water represents death to sin, and emerging from the water represents the cleansed, holy life that follows salvation. Romans 6:4 puts it this way: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Very simply, baptism is an outward testimony of the inward change in a believer’s life. Christian baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord after salvation. The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also Acts 16:14-15). (GotQuestions. org)
I don't know if this helps, but the deciding factor that led me to change my mind on the credo/paedobaptist divide, stems from reflecting on God and His attributes: Most Christians would agree that God is steadfast and unchanging, as according to His Word. Obviously children (males) in the Old Covenant were welcomed into the covenant upon receiving the mark of circumcision. Considering this, after Christ implemented baptism as the sign that essentially replaces circumcision, how can the New Covenant be less inclusive than the Old? God's greatest and most gracious gift of his Son, and the salvation through him, is more limited and smaller in scope in terms of who is and isn't included in God's covenant? Surely God is steadfast.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Lack of belief is what hinders someone from being baptized. A baby with no knowledge of God does not believe Jesus is the son of God or anything else. They do not meet the requirement. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." The logical implication of this question and answer, is that If thou doth not believe, thou mayest not.
It is unsafe to draw a general conclusion from a specific example. Philip was addressing the Ethiopian only, not as for example the baptism of Lydia and the Philippian jailor and their households. For an example, when prompted, Christ said to the rich young ruler, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." It would be unwise and unsafe to enforce that upon all Christians! Phip was ascertaining that the Ethiopian had faith. Normally that would apply to any seeking baptism but in the case of infants, under the care of their parents it would apply to the parents whether they had faith.
Water baptism is not necessary for, and has nothing to do with salvation. Those who baptize babies are those who are Biblically illiterate and are not Christians.
Thank you for this video Chad. I would love a follow up to this video speaking of, if you’ve been baptized as an infant should you be baptized as an adult. I know the answer. Yes! Of course. But I would love to hear you explain it out. With regard to the belief that you should only be baptized once. Thanks again. I hope this makes sense! :-)
I do not disagree with infant baptism, but I disagree with your explanation of what baptism by water “does” or means. The very last scripture you used-does not legitimize your case of the comparison between circumcision and baptism. It actually shows that what was done in the physical in the Old Covenant is now all completed in Christ symbolically in the New Covenant. It’s a symbol of being raised to life in Christ because of what he has done and the child being born into a covenant believing family-with the responsibility of the parents to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The liquid word and salvation in and through that liquid teaching is not supported by scripture.
See, I am the exact opposite regarding initial arguments for infant baptism, accepting the scriptures teaching about predestination: That it is an act of faith by the parents that God's calling of their child will be revealed in the proper time, thus validating the sign applied in infancy. However, I am still CREDO baptist because, while I do acknowledge you make some plausible arguments for PEDO, your supporting passages seem to have other reasonable interpretations also. But when I read in 1 Pt "baptism now saves you, not the washing of dirt from the body, but the appeal of a good conscience toward God," that seems to be more clear that the one being immersed is assumed to be making a confession. Which also seems to correlate with Philip's statement to the Ethiopian in Acts. How do you deal with those verses?
I'm a Baptist who enjoys you videos very much. I always learn something from watching. I think infant baptism is okay as an ordinance of dedicating a child to God's service. If parents are inclined they can ask for this type of dedication and I am not opposed to churches who see it as an ordinance. But to say that there is a mystical quality added to the water that infuses the infant with faith just sounds bizarre. In that case, faith comes before belief. I stand firmly on believer's baptism because I believe that faith should precede the ordinance which is predominantly an outward demonstration or exhibition of the faith that has already been professed in the heart.
The 1st Century A.D. HOUSEHOLD, it means more than just 1 Family, it was composed of at least 3 Families or more in 1 Household... namely, the Master's Family, his Relative's Family, and his Servant's Family... surely, there will be infants and little children (toddlers) every 1st Cent. A.D. HOUSEHOLD... The Bible narrated that the "ENTIRE" (no exemption) Household was Baptized by the Apostles/Disciples... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Do you recommend taking an adolescent say age 8-12 and have them baptized if they have not yet received salvation by confessing their sins? Would the baptism save them the same way that the baptism will save the infant?
The belief in infant baptism leads to a misunderstanding of God's love and power among us. Why do some Christian churches bastardize the word 'baptism'? If people want to dedicate their child to God, then call it that instead of downgrading Christ's perfect example of baptism, which He performed as an adult and then commissioned us to follow. Infants are alive in Christ and need no baptism. Encouraging infant baptism is promoting dead works.
I'm now a confessional Lutheran (ELS) but one of the things that helped to change my mind about baptism was the prominence of the belief in infant baptism prior to American evangelicalism's rise, and especially when reading Calvin and John Wesley. I attended both Calvinist and Wesleyan churches prior to converting to Lutheranism, but even though the Calvinists and Wesleyans advocated for a Zwinglian (symbolic) view of the sacraments, both Calvin AND Wesley believed in a degree of sacramental efficacy. True, they did not subscribe to Luther's understanding of it (although Wesley was far closer to Luther's position than many modern Wesleyans realize), but they also rejected a flatly symbolic understanding of the sacraments as well. Truth be told, a purely symbolic view of the sacraments is a relatively recent doctrine in church history. You don't find it in the first 1500 years of the church at all.
You quoted Acts 2:38, Peter said repent and be baptised. In infant is born with a sinful nature however it hasn't trespassed against God, yet. The child lacks understanding of the gift of saving grace. We can't force our will on anyone, that's the Holy Spirits job, we can only plant seeds. Acts 19 in Ephesus is a clear example to me of lacking baptism understanding and only just going through the "movements". That's my view anyway. I can see yours but I humbly disagree. Baptism isn't a pretreatment oil for your engine before it's ran yet or a metal conditioner for a prefired firearm.
Dear brother, I love your passion and zeal for Lord. In fact I watch your videos regularly because I found them beneficial. Specifically when you make parallels between old and new testament. But about this video when I look at the bible, I don’t see it as you mentioned as well. Also we know about age of accountability (as you mentioned). But look at Bar-mitzvah. As you know before age of twelve, boys were not accountable for what they were doing. Their father was accountable. Also when I look at 2Sam ch12 v23, I see that David is saying “But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me. Here he’s talking about an infant who died. So David is confirming that infant/babies are not going to hell but heaven. Isn’t salvation free gift for everyone who deciding to accept and follow Jesus? Doesn’t that means that people who are accepting Jesus are knowing what they do? Does a baby have ability to make decision? Does the babies who were baptised, wanted to accept and follow Jesus by their own decision? When you talked about picture of circumcision, and Israelite boys were brought in to covenant, that was old covenant. New covenant is faith in Christ. Question: what about Israelite girls? Because infant baptism is for boys and girls. Even though we may not agree on this subject, you’re still great teacher on my eyes and I love your work for Lord brother 💐
I must respectfully disagree as I believe the baptism of water doesn't wash away sin. John said he indeed did baptize with water but one coming after him (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This is the baptism required to wash away sin. If not, then where do you see the millions of babies who were aborted without being baptized? I am very confident they are with Jesus, who said we must come as little children totally trusting Him for our salvation.I do enjoy your teaching and as a Southern Baptist find we are in agreement on most issues.
Hi Chad Bird. My testimony is basically one of Proverbs 22:6. My mother had me (and two years later my sister) baptized as infants at the First Methodist Church of Wichita Falls, TX (back in the days before that denomination gave way to blatant acceptance of sin). Into our mid teens mom made sure we participated in worship and activities of the churches we lived among military moves. In time, as is common, I simply strayed away. I always knew God was real and felt a bit of guilt by ignoring Him. Until I met the woman God brought into my life during my mid 30s. One of criteria to seriously dating me was that I be baptized. I said I'd been baptized, but later went to have a private submersion baptism just to satisfy the seeds inside and my conscious. But I still lived a worldly business style life until I was in my 50s and Christ confronted by baptism in His Holy Spirit. It changed my life. My point is in the truth of Proverbs 22:6. It does not tell what may occur 40 years until that child returns and receives the ways of the Lord and had no intention of departing from it. As a born again believer I pray my experience is a positive example for you and others. Now, let's all go be a blessing.
I appreciate your Lutheran view on this subject but there are a few points that I would considering lacking regarding this presentation. The main issue is regarding the approach to handling the sin issue. It is very true that we are corrupt sinners from the start (Ps 51:5) and Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sin. You quoted Acts 2:38 to explain the promise was to our children, but you didn't put any emphasis on "Repent". You addressed the Holy Spirit and baptism but left out repentance. Repentance comes as a result of the Holy Spirit working in our life revealing to use that we are a sinner and we need to put our trust in Christ, thus changing our minds. Jesus preached repentance and the Apostles in Acts mentions it in 8 verses, not including verses relating to John's baptism of repentance. Repentance seems to require a personal acknowledgement of sinfulness, not based on age necessarily, but is an new born baby capable of doing this? Also I have read Luther's view which is similar to yours regarding John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb. He likened this to a type of infant baptism by the water in his mother's womb. I believe we have to admit that allegory was a very popular form of biblical interpretation, that we need to be cautious of, regardless of the person promoting it. Finally, my experience with over 30 years of ministry has shown that people that were baptized as baby's and coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ later in life, almost without exception desire to be rebaptized, without coercion. Their standard comment is usually; "I was baptized as a baby, but it didn't mean anything to me". I would liken infant baptism to the same as baby dedication in other traditions. Just my opinion and thanks for the great clip. Have a great day!
exactly about the promise. The promise of repentance bringing personal salvation applied to their children, same as the words "and your house" spoken to the Philippian jailor. The instruction he received on how to be saved applied to him and to anyone else in his household. He couldn't believe on their behalf
@jamessizemore6180 A good comment with perspective. Repentance is certainly required for those who are sensible of it. But is it not something separate from baptism? In which case it is not required of infants and those not sensible of it. It is not only infants who may not be sensible of repentance. Is baptism equivalent to circumcision? Both address the cutting off of the flesh, death to the old life that the life may be devoted to God. Baptism is more explicit. One addresses the specific Old Testament people of God, the other the general New Testament people of God. Baptism is a ceremony that declares a cutting off of the flesh and a new life but the real and vital requirement that can be said to be essential, is to deny self and daily take up our cross and follow Jesus Christ. Yet we rarely hear about this while there is much debate over baptism. You see where I am going with this? Surely baptism should merely be the start, just the very start, of denying self and taking up the cross? Baptism is normally undertaken by people as a step of obedience in that it is a declaration of the truth of God and its application to the person. It is symbolic rather than, how shall I say, effectual. It can be said it is not necessary, since the thief on the cross was not baptised but it is something that is normally undertaken. There can be problems for some as to ability, availability, where to go and who may perform. Since it appears it is not essential although desirable, does that not impact upon the infant baptism question in that it is accepted/acceptable whether infant or adult? The real need is for an effectual denying of self and taking up our cross and following Jesus Christ. If only as much attention were given to this as baptism, in fact if only far more attention were given to this, since this is far more important. How say you?
Seems to me like pan[en]theistic rather than theistic argument. Like our Catholic friend said, "wellcome back to Mother Church" But thanks anyway Chad. Good reflection.💙😇🤝✍
Thank you! As I said in the video, the purpose is simply to explain why we believe what we believe (along with the vast majority of Christians worldwide since the days of the early church, I might add :-)
Hi Teacher I couldn't understand how God's word get inside of the water baptism? Can you please provide biblical bases referencing for God's liquid word? Thank you.
@tijuanafricana I agree with you. That does not make sense and appears to be a kind of invention. As far as I am aware there is no Scriptural basis for that. Perhaps he knows there is something in baptism but has not been able to define it and so has come up with something in its place? Baptism represents death, death to the old and rising from the water, new life. The two answers to your question saying we cannot understand are less than helpful and really absurd because it is necessary to understand fundamental, first principles of doctrine - Heb 6:1-3. God never calls for blind obedience but rather obedience to what He has revealed and if He has revealed something that means we understand. The two answers simply do not understand the first principles.
@@Foggybottom45543 The Word is Jesus Christ and He created all things. There is nothing difficult about that and is the easiest thing to grasp, as you put it.
Hi Chad. I am confused about the liquid word part. I can't find a clear reference in Scripture about the Word being put into water. The part about circumcision really was amazing. Through it, I can understand how baptism is like saying: God, I now belong to You. You are my God! What an amazing grace!
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
1 Peter 3:21 ESV [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, How can an infant have a good conscience?
All infants/babies are 100% unsaved and baptizing them will in no way whatsoever change their unsaved, evil, corrupt, Godless state. It is only a sign of the ignorance and unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state of the baptizer.
As you say but do not the parents take responsibility for that? If baptism is a type of the Flood being death to the old and being carried through to a new life out of that death, then it is certainly not cleansing but death. It is a very pertinent citation concerning what baptism is. Parents are responsible for their children, even one beliving parent santifies the children. This is the case infant baptism or not. If they are responsible they can stand in for the children until they are able to stand for themselves. Surely that fulfils the answer of a good conscience toward God?
Brother, there is no teaching that I’ve read in scripture which say that baptism is infused with the word of God. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone then how is that administered through water? I’m open to being shown in scripture where. With a believers baptism the person is saved through faith and then they are baptized. By your reckoning then an unbeliever can be saved by being baptized.
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517 Surely the passage in Ephesians does not refer to baptism but rather sanctification by word and prayer? As for example 1 Tim 4:5. The church is cleansed by taking heed according to God's word just as the young man in Psalm 119, Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. Since baptism is not cleansing but death, it has no connection with that passage. Peter likens baptism to the Flood which is death and judgement upon the old. He expressly says not the putting away of the filth of the flesh which would be cleansing. Baptism serves us as death, death to the old. This is not to deny infant baptism but rather to better understand its symbolism and the answer of a good conscience toward God.
So, if baptism is necessary to wash away the infants original sin, what happen to that baby that dies before birth, from premature birth, death before the baptism? What is the status of a person that is baptized as an infant, but later turns away from God and lives a sinful, non-repentant life? Are they still accepted into heaven for eternity?
Baptism is not necessary for salvation and it does not wash away sins anyway. Only the blood of Christ washes away sin. The thief on the cross was not baptized. Baptism is simply a declaration of the truth of God, death of the old life and rising from the water, rising to new life. Baptism symbolises death, death of the Old Creation to bring in the New Creation. I would suggest that probably they are saved because how can sin be imputed to them when there was no law? By law we mean no prohibition that they could be sensible of to go against. Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. If you look at Jer 31:15-17 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border. Quoted in Mat 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. .. which identifes them as the babies spoken of in Jer. The Jeremiah passage suggests they afr saved - shall come abain from the land of the enemy. The status of the one baptised but who later turns away from God's salvation, His Saviour, would surely be lost. They would appear to fall into the category of those who do not believe. There are no works, or perhaps better, no works of God, to testify of belief. We cannot be certain since we do not know all of God's dealinga with the individual All we can do is enforce the need for evidence of salvation in terms of God's work manifested in or through the individual.
Chad, what happens to babies who die in the womb? And should someone who was baptized as a baby but grew up not believing be baptized again when they become a believer?
That all said - which Church is the right one to be baptized in? Does it matter? And what if one is baptized in a Church and leaves that one for another, whatever the reason? As in your own situation. I was baptized as a baby in the Roman Catholic Church and left that religion 60+ years ago and now am simply a professed Christian that does not attend any particular church. I've been to many different churches over the years, but never was comfortable in any - including Judaism. So is my baptism "valid"?
I’m a life long (no infant baptism, but yes for baptizing children who want to be baptized) Christian. We “dedicate our infants” before God and the congregation pledging to raise them “in the Christian faith” (or words to that effect). That effort leads them to the point where they can accept Christ and follow him in believers baptism. That dedication is made by the parents to God and before the congregation. It is also a “parent dedication” as much as a “infant dedication” but it is (like baptism) willingly made by people able to make that level of commitment (the parents). The church also dedicates themselves to helping the parents and their child to be raised “in the Christian faith.” It looks like a lots of “dedications” but with NO WATER involved. However, you describe “infant baptism” as just and only that. I heard no mention of a dedication of the parents or the church, “just the water baptism.” I would think if there were any commitment made by the parents or the church you would have mentioned it. (Please clarify if I missed it or if that was an oversight.) Therefore, here is my question: How is “infant baptism” (as I understand you describing it) better than “baby dedication (as I described it) insofar as “promoting the likelihood that the infant will come to a saving faith” on his own later in life? Asked another way: How is “infant dedication” inferior to “infant baptism?”
Almost thou persuadest me. Seriously, though, thank you for the explanation! I've never seen it Biblically, but never thought about the connection with circumcision.
I will check to see if you video library on UA-cam includes a video on Jesus dying for the whole world. My question is if all the sins of everyone were atoned for on the Cross then why do any go to hell?
The guy in this video is not a Christian and is completely Biblically illiterate. He is the seller of a 100% counterfeit (antichrist) christianity. Jesus did NOT die for the whole world. Jesus came for, and died for ONLY the very, very few who are Gods chosen ones. These few make up less than 1% of the worlds population and 0% of the churches population.
Quite simply because it is rejected or refused or neglected. The heart needs to be changed and that can only be done voluntarilly and for two reasons - forcing anyone is not consent and they then are no better than slaves or robots. And the work God has to do upon the individual requires willing co operation. Permit me an illustration. A man needs a life saving operation and the surgeon is willing to perform, but he cannot perform a delicate life saving operation upon someone who is not willing and will not submit to the procedures. He cannot perform such an operation upon someone who is kicking and screaming, or who is occupied with doing something else or who forgets to turn up. There are scriptural illustrations such as Matthew 22 and Luke 14. As to Jesus dying for the whole world, John 1:29, 3:16, 6:51, 2Cor 5:19, 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9 and 1 John 2:2 should be helpful.
Thank you for this explanation. I’ve heard most of the points you’ve given except the infusion of the Word with the water of baptism. Could this be explained further and some scriptural references given? Thanks again
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" (λουτρόν). The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
After you repent, believe, trust Jesus for you salvation, then get baptized, not to do it as a work, or a salvationary thing, its obedience, it doesn't matter in salvation whether its as an infant or adult, its not a sacrament, you don't get to participate in your salvation, God is a jealous God, don't turn it into idolatry,
@jasono6315 I already do trust in Jesus, to get baptised or receive the eucharist is an act of faith, by living a sacramental life means to live for him and not ourselves, getting baptised isn't part of a checklist and doesn't mean anyone who is will be saved, it's down to God's grace whether or not anyone is.
Thank you for a well articulated explanation on infant baptism. My question is this, if a child was baptized as an infant let's say Catholicism and becomes a believer, should they be "re-baptized, now as a conscious, outward confession of faith in Christ?
The validity of one's baptism is dependent on two things. (1) Was the sacrament administered by a church that "preaches another gospel?" If yes, then the baptism is invalid. (2) Was the baptism done, in the name of the Trinity? If not, then the baptism is invalid. So, the baptism that the Catholics receive as an infant, though done in the name of the Trinity, is invalid on the basis that they have long anathematized the pure Gospel of Christ.
Chris, thank you for sharing this. I went a complete 180 from you. I went from Lutheran to Southern Baptist. In my opinion, many of your arguements are s stretch...until you spoke about John the Baptist and also circumcision. Thank you for sharing!
(Not a Lutheran but seeking to understand) Summary of the argument: Our problem-inherited sin from Adam at conception. God’s solution-the Word of God (2nd Person of the Trinity), in liquid form applied to the body (contrasted with preaching where the Word of God In audible form is applied to the ears). Unclear from presentation-must the infant have faith before the “liquid form of the Word of God” ‘works’ or must the infant actually personally possess faith. --- Check on hypothesis: In the case of adults…
The getting wet nor the hearing save you but the second Person of the Trinity working in the water and the preaching save you (if I’m understanding you correctly)
Thanks for putting yourself out there on this controversial topic. I’ve been an Anglican pastor most of my working life, and also believe in infant baptism, though for slightly different reasons. Things I found tricky in your reasoning, that I’d love to hear more from you about: the idea that the ‘word is in the water’ idea. I understand a little about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper - consubstantiation. Is this an echo of that view in some way? Yes, God used water to save his people in the OT - but my understanding is that it was not to convey the word, but as a physical instrument to fulfil his word, as he also used the physical world to fulfil his promises to bring plagues upon Egypt, or fire and storm and tempest to convey the terrible awesomeness of his presence on Sinai, and so on. But connecting that to baptism, as if the water somehow saves in itself seems, to my ears, odd - given 1 Peter 3b. The passage about John leaping in the womb reflecting what happens in baptism feels like a bit of a stretch. On one hand, I’ve never heard of anything similar with anyone else, in scripture or outside of scripture. On the other hand, this is an utterly unique moment in world history- with the conception of the God-Man standing before the one appointed to go before him. A unique sign for a unique moment, isn’t it? There are a few questions. I’m sure you’re busy. If you do happen to get a moment to respond, that would be wonderful. If not, I understand. Thanks again, dear brother
Regarding Word in the water: The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
I went to a community church that tried bringing together Christians who believed in infant baptism and those who didn’t. The pastor had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism so he believed in infant baptism. Ultimately I don’t think the idea worked for it asked people to live in cognitive dissonance. I ultimately left that church but not because of the baptism issue. That said, the experience did introduce me to some of these ideas. I don’t find the circumcision argument compelling because the ancient Jews never had arguments over when to circumcise. The scripture gave explicit instructions yet no instructions exist in the NT, it is only implied at best. It also seems strange to me that the controversy over circumcision in the early church wasn’t dealt with by explaining the new role of baptism. I was circumcised as a baby, for non-religious reasons, and I can see for myself that this is so every time I take a shower (sorry for being crude). But an infant that is baptized has no memory of it. Personally I am grateful that I was raised in a tradition in which I experienced my baptism. I would hate to take that away from a young person just to satisfy some parent’s unwarranted fear that their child will end up in hell if they don’t received Christ in some way through a sacrament. And this is the other reason why I reject infant baptism, I reject infant damnation.
The big question is then, how does this affect the misscarried child, or the thousands of abhorted foetuses, who cannot recieve baptism? Are they hellbound just for being unwillingly conceived?
I have never met a single person who believes that unbaptized babies are damned. It is the REJECTION of Christ that damns, not the absence of baptism. We commit unbaptized babies who die into the hands of our good and gracious heavenly Father.
According to the New Testament nobody is going to perish unless they committed an active act of sin and rejection of Christ's forgiveness. So I think it is clear that unborn babies, infants, those born with such mental deficit that they simply could not respond to the Gospel, are "automatically" Heaven-bound.
I suspect you would say you believe in 'sola scriptura'. Infant baptism is one topic which absolutely fails to be found to be supported in any way, shape, or form in scripture. You keep saying 'biblical arguments'. But they don't exist. It is all spin created by guys like you through the centuries.
Since historic presbyterian and Lutheran believes infant baptism and the salvific nature of it, can you make a video what the difference between the two tradition?
@@alexowens59 This is because Presbyterian nowadays depart from it's historic roots due to influence of Baptist, you can read Scott's confession and align it Westminster Confession. You cannot separate the Sign and the thing signified. The Thing signified is the one that saved you and the sacraments is the sign. John Knox and Calvin hold this view. Baptism saves if you have faith.
@@alexowens59 If you would like to really know the view of Presbyterianism when it comes on baptism you have to go back to it's founder not Presbapterian theologian today like ligonier.
@@GencenFide Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism" WCF I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8] II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9] III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10] IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12] V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15] VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17] VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]
I’m assuming “liquid word” is referring to Eph. 5:26? “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,” Also, as one that doesn’t adhere to infant baptism I was curious if you believe that every infant that is baptized is now saved? I ask because I’ve known many people who have been baptized as infants and gone on to live very ungodly lives. If such a person were to be saved later on in life would they need to be baptized again? Blessings.
Yes, the Ephesians text is part of the argument, as is the connection between the Word and water in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). Regarding the Eph. 5 text, I find it compelling that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple. Yes, every baptized child is saved. As Peter says, "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). Sadly, some who are baptized do go on to lead ungodly lives. The Scripture warns against falling away (Heb. 6 and 10, e.g.) which happens to some believers (I reject OSAS). Regarding being baptized again, no, that is an impossibility: ua-cam.com/video/z0wWHhDSZww/v-deo.html
@@chadbird1517thanks for your response. I was baptized as a baby (in a Lutheran church). I was Lutheran only in word not really in practice. As I grew up I was left to take care of myself at an early age, 14. At the age of 18 I became a Christian by the grace of God and was baptized without any consideration of my previous baptism. I actually forgot that I was baptized as a baby….lol. I’m assuming no harm no foul? Still not convinced about infant baptism but enjoying the conversation. Half way through, “The Christ Key” your new book will be next.
Because I once wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox church, I'm always willing to be persuaded that infant baptism is a biblically sound practice. It was a sticking point I just could not reconcile. I heard lots of different arguments and ideas -- and I WANTED to believe. I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. But the arguments fell short when I studied the text. I remained in my nondenominational Body, still sympathetic to the liturgical faiths. I was hoping for something, but the liquid Word rang hollow in light of participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It just sounds like a work-around theological position taken in order to be all in on your desired denomination. If I could have done that, I'd be in the Eastern Orthodox church. But I couldn't.
The Acts 2 verse you quote, in my opinion, must be understood in light of the fact that it is directly related to the calling of God. I find that most who use this passage never finish the rest of what is being communicated. The promise is ultimately rooted in and upon the basis of “as many as the Lord shall call”. It’s also clear that the category of folks who were baptized that day were “those who received his words… “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Acts 2:39-41 ESV Having said this, I do understand how you arrive at your position which is by using an OT paradigm to shed light on a NT interpretation. I would point out that baptism is the ONLY major doctrine in which this type of hermeneutic is utilized by those who baptize infants. Why not stay consistent and use the NT to teach us who is in the NC? It’s the book of Hebrews ,for me, that clearly teaches and defines the parameters of the NC. However, I appreciate the gentle spirit you exhibit on your channel and see no reason for not having unity in Christ. I actually attend a church that practices and allows room for both credo and paedo.
Likewise! Arguments against pedobaptism are usually a fusion of the following: 1) a preference towards a symbolic reading of God's Word, 2) an appeal to reason fostered by Western Enlightenment ideals, and 3) a hermeneutic that isn't entirely consistent with the manuscripts or their traditional preserving through church history. So, Scripture is referenced and cited but symbolically read (in places it wasn't before) or argued for a radically anti-historical interpretation (because throwing babies out with their bathwater is preferred over anything remotely seeming "Catholic") or flies in the face of Western Enlightenment reasoning. In the end of it, one's bias inevitably plays a large part in resisting a plain reading of the text because breaking personal biases is difficult.
Respectfully, the first assumption is where I disagree. "Sinful from the time we are in our mother's womb" is not correct. The entire argument falls apart after that assumption is removed. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die:" What sin is a child in the womb capable of? The first century church baptized believers only - those old enough to make the conscious choice. The promise "to your and your children" is simply a generational statement, i.e. this promise is for you and all who come after you.
You would be right about the first "assumption" (which I would call an argument), were it unbiblical. But I would hope, even if you disagree, that you are familiar with the historical, biblical teaching regarding original sin, based on passages such as these: -Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." -Eph. 2:3, "[You] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." -Romans 5, in its entirety, about the spread of sin/death due to Adam's sin. You ask, "What sin is a child in the womb capable of?" But our problem is not just sinful acts. We sin because we are sinners; we are not sinners because we sin. In other words, our problem is much deeper than outward acts. A child never *becomes* a sinner by a conscious act; they are conceived that way. This is the first argument. On the basis of that anthropology, children are in need of salvation, forgiveness, etc. which God gives in baptism.
@@chadbird1517 Ps 51:5 is the repentant statement of one man, David, in confessing his depravity when convicted by Nathan. Surely if it applied to all mankind it would be, "Behold, we were brought forth in iniquity, and we are conceived in sin". It was never a doctrinal position in the Early Church, and doesn't appear until the 3rd century and defined by Augustine. My belief: Because of Adam (and Eve) all humans have the propensity to sin (sinful nature), but not all are sinners at birth. That is, there is no specific sin such as murder, adultery, coveting, rebellion, disobedience, and so on, that can be applied to a newborn. We will all eventually sin, but at birth a newborn has not sinned. And what of the unborn? Are they condemned for their sinful nature just for existing? They cannot be baptised (if that is the way to save them). They cannot repent (if that is required). They surely cannot be condemned by a loving God who is just and merciful. What of them?
Your spirit was gracious but your evidence for infant baptism was weak. In short, infant baptism is NOT New Testament baptism. Only believers are baptized in the NT. Baptism is always an informed decision believers make and are later baptized. Babies cannot exercise faith or make faith informed decisions. Come on, they're babies! Household passages in the NT speak to family solidarity and the fact that several in the household came to saving faith. Babies and/or infants are never mentioned. That leads to the next reason that arguments for infant baptism are weak: infants are never baptized in the NT. You can at best say that it may have happened in the households that were baptized but it's still an argument from silence. It's amazing that denominations have made infant baptism into an essential of the faith when there's not one example in the NT that it ever happened. Not to mention the massive blood letting that occurred over baptism because men and women could no longer subscribe to the unbiblical doctrines of infant baptism. That's a black eye that the historic church will always have. God help us...
Thank you for taking the time to explain your journey through this topic. For myself, I have never believed in infant baptism. This is mainly because my understanding of it has the prerequisites of confession and repentance; a conscious now inclined to the things of God. None of the arguments convinced me of anything until you hit on circumcision, which almost got me. The reason I say almost is because, though I agree that there are many things that find their root in the OT, not everything has a direct connection such as you're saying here between circumcision and baptism. Many of the requirements of OT law, ones that could get someone "cutoff from their people" simply aren't there anymore, circumcision being a major one. However, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that connects baptism to circumcision, and certainly lacking baptism isn't punishable by death or under a threat of being cutoff from your people. Also, circumcision was only possible to males. Are females forever cutoff from their people because they cannot be circumcised? Are infant males who are baptized now better off than females, since there is no OT precedent for their particular baptism, based off your logic here drawing a connection between baptism and circumcision? I listened with an open mind, because this is not a pillar of the faith doctrine. I really appreciate your point of view, and love you for sharing it. I've been blessed by most all of your videos this far. I just can't follow your particular path of acceptance on this one. I still have questions and can't reconcile it in my mind, but thank you dearly for your explanation. I wish we could sit down together and break this down over coffee or something, and really sharpen some iron. Just know that's where my heart is with this. I disagree, but respectfully and most importantly lovingly. Grace and peace.
I recently left a Southern Baptist church to join a confessional Lutheran Church. The main reason I did this was over the Sacraments, Baptism and Communion. When I sat down with my Baptist pastor, he had no problem with everything I said, EXCEPT infant baptism. This is a very high hurdle for anyone raised in the reformed tradition. You explain this so well. I hadn't thought of the connection between original sin and the infant's need for salvation, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for your clarity, and for your faithful teaching, constantly clarifying New Testament lessons by their Old Testament antecedents.
Probably because John the Baptist himself practiced multiple mitzvahs it’s something that most non-messianic churches don’t understand because they weren’t Jewish like Jesus. The Bible says believe and be baptized, however, the man on the cross next to Jesus, didn’t believe and hop off and get baptized to go the paradise so disagreeing with your understanding of whole household baptism instead of mikvah mizpah (repeated ceremonial cleansing as an outward expression of relational bond) doesn’t really matter. It’s literally not a salvation issue, and the only problem is if people try to make it one. In the same way, Jesus didn’t take the cup and say once a month whenever you take it, he said, whenever you eat or drink, in many ways, it just goes to prove that almost everyone’s wrong because they’re not actually humbling to what it really says. If you have a problem with someone you’re supposed to not even eat until you’ve resolved that matter. That’s what scripture actually says on this topic.
@@SRose-vp6ew Actually the thief on the cross was baptized by Christ, by His Words and also his water and blood. John 19:31-37, concentrate on verse 34. Again remember for Lutherans, Baptism is an act of God putting to death through his Word and Water our Old adams and raising us in the same instance to new life in Jesus Christ. We do nothing but receive. Baptism now saves you, Jesus states this in John 3:5; Peter recites Jesus Words in 1 Peter 3:21, and John delivers the truth of John 19:34 in 1 John 5:6-8. It becomes obvious when you come to the realization that most christians believe they have something to "participate" in and Jesus says in Genesis 6:5"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The continuation never ends until your death. The law says you're not supposed to eat until you've resolved "matters" but the Gospel says its done, price paid in full.
Something to think about that came to my mind and of course I had to research it: When you open your mouth to speak, saliva spreads across your lips and breaks into filaments when your lips part. Airflow from your lungs then stretches and thins the filaments until they rupture and become tiny droplets. This means that Jesus was baptizing everyone he came into contact with. You can thank the covid-19 mask-pushers for this research!
The fact is, nothing this heretic said makes any sense. It only makes sense to those like him who are completely spiritually dead, blind, lost, deceived, and Biblically illiterate. Repent!
@@mulkster39 ,..You have spoken absolute unbiblical ignorance. Repent, and learn what the truth of the Bible actually is.
@@SRose-vp6ewthe thief was under the old covenant
Chad, I've been listening to your commentaries for several months now and want to let you know that I appreciate the careful thought and deep perspective that you provide, similar to that of my own pastor but with many additional insights. May God continue to bless your ministry.
That was great! Thanks. I am one who disagrees on this particular point, but I greatly respect and am built up by your ministry. I won't get into why I disagree because it is not important. Keep doing what your are doing and I will keep learning and enjoying. Blessings!
I knew from previous vids that you are Calvinist/lutheran both from Augustinian Gnosticism but didn’t realize to what extent until today. I suppose this means the millions of infants and children and mentally ill that aren’t baptized go to hell which is what Augustine taught. I do think you are sincere but very wrong. The basic premise of total depravity, sinful before we were even born, is the false foundation that all this is built on. Many are seeing through these false, unbiblical teachings and are being set free to worship the God that truly loves
all. I would also suggest you do a study on Luther, one of the greatest antisemites who ever lived. Has writings on his hatred of Jews (On The Jews and Their Lies) was used by Hitler to justify his hatred and persecution of Jews. As one of his generals said during the Nuremberg trials said, “I did nothing that Luther didn’t approve of” . There is ample evidence that all these unbiblical teachings beginning with total depravity came from Augustine’s gnostic background not scripture. I am going into detail because I think you are intellectually honest, just wrong. Shalom
Repent of your ignorance and of your fake christianity.
@@LarryVinson-l5t ,...You have spoken in completely and total ignorance and have shown yourself to be just another brute beast made only to be destroyed that has been snared into the 100% apostate church and into its antichrist gospel/christianity.
Repent!
What is your point here?@@LarryVinson-l5t
Thankyou brother Chad..i disagreee too-but am always blessed by your kindness and love for Christ and the brethren.
I was baptized as a baby. I was baptized as an adult. The first was not my choice. The second was. But then the first time the Gospel was preached to me wasn't my choice, but I'm glad I heard it. So with my first baptism I realized that it was promise, an effort, a way to try to guarantee I would stay with God and the church. So I do not fault the parents who made that choice, or the Church that followed that practice.
I did not baptize my children as infants, but I did take part in a formal baby dedication ceremony for each of them that was the same as my infant baptism without the water, the intent being the same. So now I respect the intent of the parents, and honour them whether it is a baby dedication or an infant baptism. Because I love them and honour them in Jesus' name.
No rebaptisms in scripture
I think in place of infant baptism, parents should aim to consecrate their baby with oil before the church in order that they be accountable to train that child up in the Lord in hopes the child will one day truly profess faith and be baptized.
@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 good for you.. I'll stick with OIKOS covenant baptism
@@bigtobacco1098
What is that?
@@bigtobacco1098
Infant baptism is not biblical
Thank you for being careful and thorough. One of the beautiful things about confessional Lutheranism is the trust in God's Word without feeling a need to understand how God does it.
Exactly!
Beautifully said. I agree totally.
Too often, people try to take the credit away from the Lord, when it is the Lord who chooses us.
Amen. He is doing the baptizing. He is choosing us and claiming us as his very own in that moment (“marking us”). A lot of churches will teach that baptism is us choosing him. The very opposite.
If it was up to Jesus to choose us, then why did he say " Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Matthew 23:37
@@fcastellanos57videos on this
@@Soundguydan If He chooses us, then we do not have to do anything. So, we, therefor, do not need to confess with our mouths? Repentance is not needed? If God chooses us, then we have the ability to end our own lives to be with Him, correct? Did He not choose the rich man in Luke 16?
It's cause "MEANS"
Thanks, Chad. Listen, I disagree. But the older I get, the less I’m willing to get distracted by our differences in these types of issues. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17, and I can’t wait for us all to truly be united in eternity one day.
I disagree as well. A child can't repent of what the child doesn't know he did wrong.
@@lagapa3661 Yes they can. Adults don't repent either. What's the difference? NONE!
@@jonathang4833of course they do.
@jonathang4833 Jesus called all to take up their cross, to count the cost ... luke14 ... Acts 2 Repent and ... Hebrews 5 12ff Repentance ... Faith .... before baptisms
Romans 7 ..Paul alive *before* the law ; Jesus : of such is the kingdom if heaven ; Ezekiel 18 children Not guilty for patents sins ... infants are Not guilty ... they fallen bodies not fallen souls
There is and was no infant baptism in the nT church .... it was impossible for infants ..... John's baptisn wa a baptism of repentance ...do was Jesus baptism but included faith in Him ...
@@lagapa3661children weren’t required to repent when they were circumcised either…
Υπέροχη διδασκαλία. Ευχαριστούμε, Τσαντ. Σε αγαπάμε. Στον ελληνικό κόσμο, η γλώσσα του οποίου είναι η γλώσσα της Καινής Διαθήκης, πάντα βαπτίζαμε και βαπτίζουμε νήπια. Η βάπτιση είναι δώρο.
❤ yes! Nai!
Speaking Greek does not mean you authomatically do everything correct accoridng to God's word. You can also apply the same thing to the Jews. They spoke the same language of the old testament, but rejected the Son of God...
@@alexbaptista8150Votre pensée est insane et non biblique, puisque dans les Actes , les Apotres baptisaient des familles entières, les enfants avec ! Dites -moi sérieusement, Où dans la bible est indiqué l’âge auquel l’enfant peut être baptisé ? Nulle part ! S’il n’y a pas de limite, alors les enfants aussi ont droit à leur baptême, c’est un don et le début de la vie chrétienne : dés leur baptême, les enfants reçoivent la communion et fortifie ainsi leur lien au Christ ! Que de temps perdu chez ces mal formés! C’est la pratique normale depuis plus de 2000 ans. Ceux qui ne le font pas, le font simplement par des raisonnements insanes sortis de la cervelle de réformateurs orgueilleux sans lien avec les Apôtres, quelques 1600 ans plus tard ! Folie! Non ?
This is the most irrelevant argument I heard to make a point.
I know greek people and they think Christian are stupid. So, they are right and everybody shouldn’t be Christian because it’s just stupid.
@@alexbaptista8150sure and your sect that started yesterday knows best 😂 humble yourself and study history
This was my last hurdle too! We joined the EPC recently and had been attending for about a year before becoming members and I really had struggles with this. Thank you. I had been gradually accepting it and trying so hard to understand it for a long time.
Thank you for your thoughtful presentation/argument. I still believe only in a believer's baptism. But, again thank you for your clear, and simple presentation.
What he presented is 100% false, manmade, unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
Thank you! This is very helpful. I'm working my way through Luther's Catechism at the moment and wrestling with this very issue.
Blessings,
Rob
Thank you for a very timely explanation. I am also grappling with the practice of baptism. I was raised Lutheran in the ALC.
I was confirmed at 16. In the late 80s I was in Texas in the midst of the liberal encroachment into what would become the ELCA. My family moved to Utah and through circumstances have ended up in a Southern Baptist congregation.
Recently I have started studying and looking into the issue to settle my mind on the teachings.
Just thank you. Your insights are very helpful.
Thank you for your guidance brother.
Thank you. I love the connection between infant baptism and infant circumcision.
This also help explain Psalm 51:5 for me.
Where in scripture does it say that God places His Word inside the water of Baptism? Nowhere!
Ephesians 5:26
Thank you for sharing Pastor!
Same thing for me, former Baptist now Lutheran!
This is poor theology - yes it’s an opinion and yes it’s given humbly, so we must reason together and here it is.
Acts 2:39 - firstly this is not talking about infants or minors but descendants and offspring. They are two different Greek words.
Additionally the promise being discussed is not baptism, but the promise listed in Acts 2:33 - the Holy Spirit, which we have examples of people receiving prior to being physically baptised.
Thirdly those who were baptised of the households are listed as those who received this word - clearly these were not infants which is why scripture doesn’t use the Greek word for infants or minors at all here.
And again circumcision is a poor example to use as it completely dismantles this argument. Circumcise was performed on the 8th day for newborns - the example is that you had to first be born then you could be circumcised.
Now baptism is for those who are born again. You must first be born again to be baptised.
Repentance is from the heart and an understanding and conviction of the Holy Spirit for our sins so that we can receive the free gift of salvation from the Lord.
Children and mentally disabled (those with a child’s mind presumably) are clearly going to be with the lord no matter if they are christened or not according to the word of the LORD.
So again terrible examples and reasoning.
Yes John the Baptist leapt for Joy, but was already serving the lord before any baptism. And if Jesus shows us perfection why was his example to us of baptism as an adult, why was he not baptised as an infant?
Indeed, you are quite wrong. His heart like John’s were circumcised to the Lord before baptism yet baptism was not done as infants.
Chad, thank you, I too have been raised SBC, and have been wrestling with this doctrine. This has been helpful! Perhaps you could do a video, on your journey from memorial to the real presence in the Lord's supper. This would be of tremendous benefit.
If the PREMISE of the ARGUMENT for BAPTISM is to be able to BELIEVE in Christ Jesus and that Infants and Children have not SINNED yet... Does God/YHWH get upset/angry when Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John while Christ does not need to BELIEVE in Himself or had sinned?.... NOPE, but instead God proudly said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3:17)... Christ does not need baptism like the Infant and Children...
In the same way, would God be upset/angry if the CHURCH of God does "Infant/Child BAPTISM" who is not capable of believing and has not sinned?... NOPE... Infant/child Baptism is like Christ Jesus being Baptized by Prophet John at the Jordan River... a SINLESS person (Innocent like a child)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Jesus got baptized at 30 years old an example for every christian. And 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism is done with a good conscience which babies don’t have. So the conclusion is ? baptism is not for babies.
@@EddyRobichaud If the premise is that, Infants and Children do not have SIN or have not committed any SIN yet... Christ Jesus was baptized without any SIN of Mankind... therefore, Infants and Children can also be BAPTIZED as long as their parents were Baptized first... Do Infants and Children Baptism a SIN against God?... Not at all, for God allowed His only begotten Son who is SINLESS to be Baptized... God said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I AM well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3;17).
The Entire HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family) was Baptized, which includes, servants, infants, and Children...(ref. Act. 16:31)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@ your comment is not based on biblical facts or teachings.
@@EddyRobichaud The Biblical TRUTH is that, God would not mind Baptizing the infants and the children of their Baptized Parents... Just like God's Son (Jesus) who was Baptized with no SIN at all... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.
@@EddyRobichaud We should/must not be so STIFF by the book when it comes to Water Baptism just like what the Pharisees and Sadducees did with the Law of Sabbath during the Time of Christ Jesus... the logical question is if the INFANTS and CHILDREN would lose their Salvation if they were Baptized?... Will those person who Baptized the Infants and Children lose their Salvation?...
Remember, the CHURCH under the Apostolic Succession has the AUTHORITY given by God through Christ Jesus to Peter, the Authority to "BIND and LOOSE" on Earth and in Heaven... The Bible narrated, that the "Entire Household" (Whole Family including servants) was BAPTIZED by the Apostle/Disciple... (ref. 1 Corin. 7:14)...
Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Your Fusion Water Bible study gets at the water soaking the Sacred Scriptures with this Baptismal understanding. Thanks, Chad...
I also come from a background opposed to infant baptism and have found myself Lutheran. Through the years I’ve not been totally convinced, but I’m no longer opposed. I found your point about circumcision particularly cogent. Thanks for all you do. You’ve been a tremendous blessing!
The last one is the best point I’ve personally heard, thank you.
Wow! It makes so much sense! Thank you very much! I live in Puerto Rico and I would really like to visit a Lutheran congregation!
If the premise is that, Infants and Children do not have SIN or have not committed any SIN yet... Christ Jesus was baptized without any SIN of Mankind... therefore, Infants and Children can also be BAPTIZED as long as their parents were Baptized first...
Do Infants and Children Baptism a SIN against God?... Not at all, for God allowed His only begotten Son who is SINLESS to be Baptized... God said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I AM well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3;17)...
The Entire HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family) was Baptized, which includes, servants, infants, and Children...(ref. Act. 16:31)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Thank you Brother Chad,I really Love the Teaching. I feel That this is True brother.
What he presented is 100% false, manmade, unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
Acts 16:31 & 18:8... the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family without exemption) were BAPTIZED... the passage never said nor mentioned that only the ADULTS were Baptized in the Household... when we say the English word "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD" means ALL the People in the Household without exemption unless otherwise noted in the passage, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
That is to imply infants were in the household. There are no examples in the Bible of infants being baptized, therefore it's a man made practice.
@@passportreadyvibes4131 The word "ENTIRE" means EVERYONE in the Household was BAPTIZED by the Apostles in the 1st Cent. A.D. that was practiced by the Early 7 Churches in Asia Minor (presently Turkey)... When we say the "ENTIRE" Family was slaughtered... that this mean only the adults were slaughtered?
@@passportreadyvibes4131 Christ Jesus who is SINLESS was Baptized ... and God/YHWH allowed it... will the infants/babies and Little Children (Toddlers = 7 years old below) be a SIN against God if they were Baptized?... absolutely not... NOPE...
I would totally agree if you can first show that the household contained an infant. Most importantly, the Bible mentions several baptism, not one included an infant @jvlp2046. I see Sam and Godlogic do exactly what I'm doing to you when debating the Muslims. Show the scripture. You can imply there was a baby as easily as I can imply there wasn't. So we must look for scriptural consistency. All I see is adults or those above the age of accountability, which definitely eliminates babies! I'll wai for the scripture. I thought Christians are to teach what the scriptures says without addition or subtraction. Show me a scripture or a baptism in the Bible where an infant was baptized and I'll believe it. Don't tell me what the early church taught, show me what thus saith the Lord. The reason you guys, including Sam change positions on biblical topics because you are following man made creeds. I'm not sure if Sam referred to me as a Dog because I asked for Bible. With all that knowledge, a simple scripture would suffice. The fact none of you can provide scripture without adding to it or taking away from it should tell you it's a false premise.
@@jvlp2046using your example... the Entire family consisted of the husband, wife and two teenage children.... if there is no infant in the family, does not that mean the Entire family was slaughtered? You could easily add a infant to my example and you would be correct. However, since the scripture doesn't say who was in the household is to add, which is sin. So we must go to the examples that the Bible provides and there is no babies being baptized. There are multiple examples throughout scripture and not one example. Maybe I missed it, show me and I'll change my position.
Repentance and Faith is required in the Scripture before Water Baptism. Also we never see any infants baptized in the Bible. Only an argument out of silence can be made for infant Baptism
But I appreciate you explaining your views.
Blessings Hal
We also never see any of the 12 apostles baptized. They were present at the a
Jordan with John the Baptist but does not say they were baptized.
Those who reject infant baptism are the ones doing so "out of silence."
In the video, he highlighted several passages in the New Testament that speak of "whole households" being baptized. That is pretty explicit. How can you read "whole household" and then take it to mean: "only adults who first publicly profess faith in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" were baptized?
Also, as he brought up, the covenant promises of God were given to male babies in circumcision. This is is the theological and Biblical antecedent to New Testament infant baptism.
@@pataho4290 Interesting observation, but only partially true, I think. It is true that Scripture does not specifically mention about their baptism, however, later constantly "assumes" it happened. Jesus, in the great commission in Mat.28, makes it clear that baptism is linked to being a disciple. Plus various verses show that at least some of the apostles were first John's disciples, which meant had to be baptised with John's baptism - which was then made obsolete by Jesus' baptism. Additionally in John 4:1-2 we can quite safely assume that they themselves first had to be baptised to be able to baptise others (which seemed to be necessary) while they were still with Jesus.
@@matthewshields8613 Well... actually, the "whole household" usually excluded infants. (Similar would be today, if you went to a wedding with all the relatives, and you said "Everyone enjoyed themselves" automatically ignores the 3 months old baby who slept it through and we have no idea if she enjoyed it or not). Just like when "All Israel said Amen" does not mean the small babies also said amen. Infants do not get counted at conscious acts. --- The circumcision argument is a better one. However.... note that by circumcision was required to be part of Israel. It was nothing to do with salvation (otherwise there would be many Baal-worshipper Jews in Heaven). Circumcision was only a sign of the covenant! It did not substitute faith in JHWH. So you take that (rightly so) as the antecedent (cool word!) of baptism, we end up with faith being needed for salvation, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of an already existing saving faith. However, the big difference between circumcision and baptism is, that the former was explicitly commanded to be performed on infants, while the later is never mentioned in context of infants. I think we should not over-speculate the text.
@@123ppap While I understand what you are trying to say, your argument for "household" is not what the Biblical text is saying.
In Genesis 17, when God institutes circumcision, He explicitly states that 8 day old males should be circumcised (17:12). Then, later in that same chapter, Abraham actually has all the males in his "house" circumcised. Again, this explicitly includes infants. In the context of the Bible "household" does include infants.
Also, Jesus was Jewish. As was Paul and all of the apostles. They would have all made the direct connection between baptism and circumcision (which included infants).
Also, on your comment that circumcision does not substitute for faith you are correct! And neither does baptism. You are actually quite close to Lutheran baptism here!!! Faith is absolutely needed. But then you miss the mark. Baptism is "necessary" (as 1 Peter 3:21) because baptism is a promise that is given to you by God (God's word attached to water - Ephesians 5:26). How can you have faith without a promise to believe in?! Without a promise given to you, personally, you cannot have faith! Which is why Lutherans baptize babies. We are giving the promise to them as Jesus commanded us! (Matt. 28:19).
I thank God for how He is using your ministry. Would love to talk to you face to face one day. A very powerful presentation.
Absolutely correct Chad. Thank You.
Likewise, can Christ Jesus be taught by the "WORD of God"?... NOPE... for Christ Jesus is the WORD/SON of God... the same ANALOGY... Infants/babies do not need to be taught of the WORD of God for the KINGDOM of God belongs to them... (ref. Luke 18:16)...
However, the question remains... Is it unlawful or a Sin for Infants/babies to be Baptized since they are born sinless?... Absolutely NOT, for Christ made an example that even a person such as Himself (Christ Jesus) who is SINLESS can be Baptized and not sinning against Father God/YHWH... (acceptable act).
The Apostles understood about this matter that was why they BAPTIZED the Entire (All of) HOUSEHOLD in the 1st Century A.D. regardless of their age.
Who are we to judge and dictate to God on which is acceptable or not to HIM by putting God in the BOX (limiting His Godliness/Holiness and Might)?...
Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen
I agree! Nobody ever denied baptism to infants till that doctrine was INVENTED after the 1500's! Even Jesus said "Let the little children come to me" (Matthew 19:14) !!
Repent of your complete ignorance and of your unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state.
The circumcision made without hands is reference to the baptism also made without hands, meaning Spirit!!!
Correct, water baptism means and does absolutely nothing. The Baptism of the Bible is a spiritual baptism that God/Jesus does to the very few who are Gods chosen ones who all have nothing to do with anything called or known as the church.
Nope, if you continue in the same passage, there's reference to baptism.
@@truth-uncensored2426
Baptism is mentioned in verse 12 but I see no further mention in that passage.
Are you sure? If so would you kindly identify where?
Thank you Chad. As Orthodox I was baptized as infant in atheistic country and all my childhood I knew to Whom I belong to even though we did not practice prayer or went to the church, and all my unbaptized friends were different somehow, I do not know how to explain how different but different.
The water of baptism a conduit of the word of God that gives us faith? How did you get to that point? Scriptures to back it up?
I enjoy listening to your comments, but I would like to offer some thoughts. "He places that Word inside the waters of Baptism??" @ 6:30. Where does this idea come from? Seems to be an assertion with no Scriptural backing. It's a nice thought, but is the point Biblical? Also, the use of O.T. circumcision as a pattern of salvation ignores the existence of Gentile believers. What of Jethro, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, the citizens of Nineveh? There's good indication that they were saved believers, but there is no indication that they were circumcised or were otherwise made to convert to Judaism or become part of the Mosaic Covenant.
Chad's reference for the "liquid word" is Eph.5:26 (which I personally think is a weak leg to stand a whole doctrine on). I fully agree with you about inefficiency of the OT circumcision explanation.
@@123ppap Thank you for the response. Your parenthetical comment is dead on.
@michaelmcfadden6265
Baptism is symbolic of death and rising from the waters new life. Therefore you are correct that the "liquid word" is highly questionable. To be blunt, incorrect.
Circumcision was never a pattern of salvation but rather s sign of God's covenant. It represented a cutting off of the flesh to live devoted to God. Obviously not all Jews although circumcised, lived to God or honoured His covenant. Since it was a sign of God's covenant with the Jews to be His people, to occupy that office to produce the Messiah, Jesus Christ, there was therefore no requirement for those you name, or any outside of Israel to undergo circumcision. The Apostle Peter acknowledged salvation to any, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
Clearly then any who respond to the Spirit of God in any nation will be saved. They can only be saved through Jesus Christ, but then so too Abram who did not know the details of Jesus Christ but merely responded to God and His call.
Baptism is an equivalence for the Gentiles being a symbolic of death to the old life and a raising to a new life, to live anew. There is therefore a very strong equivalence between circumcision and baptism, each being suited to the different people, purpose and times.
@@Must_not_say_that Thank you. I appreciate the comments. It's good to work through these topics rather than avoiding discussion. Otherwise, we will just continue to believe the first thing we ever heard.
It seems that the paedo-baptist position in seeking continuity with the old covenant is built on assumptions and "nice thoughts," but not on Scriptural commands or actual examples. Therefore the position is weak.
I don't have any animosity toward my fellow believers with this viewpoint, but I think the error should be pointed out just as I've had my errors pointed out to me through the years.
The Lord's blessings on you.
@@michaelmcfadden6265
Thank you for your thoughts and response.
It seems to me it is an uncertain area and if that is the case then it falls to the individual understanding and conscientious understanding and resole, perhaps a little like one honours a day and another not. If so then either will be accepted if undertaken in sincerity offered towards the Lord.
Perhaps there is a better option, there are difficulties each way in deciding.
One practical consideration is that if the option that requires faith and understanding is chosen it is in practical terms difficult to decide at what age that might be or when they are either old enough to be independent or mature enough to decide for themselves. How much is parental influence and how much original convivtuion mightr be difficult to assess.
Since parents are responsible for their children, they as it were stand in for them and so why not for the baptism of their children? Perhaps a little like the case of an unbelieving parent where the children are holy because of the believing one.
The baptizing of a whole family which may include children may also have some bearing on an extremely difficult passage where the Apostle Paul asks, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” There appears to be a suggestion that a person can be baptized for another. I don’t know quite what this means but it may have relevance.
As you say it is good to air these matters but at the end of the day we must each follow according to the light we may have been given and it is important for the individual to hear God rather than man.
My particular observation is that since baptism is death to the old and rising from the water symbolic of rising to new life, the practical way of working that out is by denying self and taking up our cross and following Jesus Christ. Without any reflection upon baptism it is rather this that we all should concentrate on, not to stop discussion about baptism, but to lead from that to the taking up of our cross.
Since baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins,” a primary question would be, “Is a child accountable for their “sins?” Or, “Can we even say that God even calls the faults of children “sin?”
Romans 7:5-9
Deuteronomy 1:39
Baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins...You are wrong... "Only through the work of Jesus Christ our sins are forgiven".. Read 1 Peter 3:21
@kac0404
I also question that you say baptism is for forgiveness of sins. Rather is not baptism symbolic of death to the old and rising to new life?
Forgiveness of sins is only through Christ's blood shed for us, His death on the cross. As the blood of the Old Testament sacrifices was poured out at the bottom or side of the altar so Christ's blood was poured out at the foot of the cross.
@sudeepruelpradhan2953 In Acts 2:38 Peter said, “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.” At what point does Peter indicate that one receives “the forgiveness of [their] sins” as well as “the gift of the Holy Spirit?” When he or she is “baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ.”
@@Must_not_say_that The phrase, “for the remission of sins,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. When our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mt.26:26-29), He said these words with respect to the cup: “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (v.27-28). This clearly shows the reason that Christ shed His blood, i.e. the remission of sins. Indeed, the Hebrew writer affirms, “without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Hb.9:22). However, in Acts 2, when the people asked Peter what they must do to be saved, He said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38). Note that we are baptized for the very same reason that Jesus shed His blood. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
@Must_not_say_that The phrase, “for the remission of sins,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. When our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mt.26:26-29), He said these words with respect to the cup: “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (v.27-28). This clearly shows the reason that Christ shed His blood, i.e. the remission of sins. Indeed, the Hebrew writer affirms, “without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Hb.9:22). However, in Acts 2, when the people asked Peter what they must do to be saved, He said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38). Note that we are baptized for the very same reason that Jesus shed His blood. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
Faith doesn’t only have to be present in the individual. Read in The Gospel of Mark 2:4…when friends of a paralytic man made an opening through the roof on a house where Jesus was (they couldn’t get through because the crowd) to lower their friend to be healed by Jesus. Jesus did not ask if the the paralytic man had faith….but Jesus knew that his friends did and that was enough for Jesus to heal this man. When we baptize our infants, the parents and god parents present have faith. This is enough in our Lords eyes. Yes?
That is a good point.
I don't think God parents are Scriptural if there are parents, but certainly parents
I agree in baptism but I also believe you have to find a good church.. the problem is Christianity is messed up there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion how can any one go to a church like that for anything.
Perhaps you have had some bad experiences with churches that cause you to write this. I would urge you, however, to stamp down such a cynical attitude toward Christianity in general. I have been involved in churches my entire life, some good, some better, but never one that would cause me to write, "there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion." I have my own sin to deal with; others have theirs. We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. And we gather in worship as sinners among fellow sinners to hear the Word, to receive forgiveness, and to praise the God of grace in Christ.
@@chadbird1517 all Christian faith is based of Catholic religion if your I the United States there is no church that is safe all churches around here are Catholic tradition based any church that celebrated Christmas or Easter or any pagan holidays is a false religion . There's only one faith I can trust to teach the truth and it isn't an American church
Hi Chad, really enjoy and appreciate your ministry. I have a question however that I will start with an opinion. Having different sects of Christian religions divides us because each one has differences in customs and beliefs about the same God. Why not be an “unlabeled”follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings rather than feeling the need to identify as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ect, ect, I refuse to identify as a particular sect for the reasons stated and prefer to just follow Jesus and his word without the particularities of each “we are more right” sect. Why do you identify within a sect (Lutheran). Again, not arguing, asking.
How is an "unlabeled" follower of Jesus not a sect of 1?
@@ChericeGrahamhow you ask? Following Christ is called “Christianity” and those that follow are called “Christian’s”. That should be the end of the story in my opinion. Not, I’m Catholic or I’m Lutheran or I’m ….. so, we will agree to disagree.
@@YZEDR500 If there are legit differences between the denominations and those differences matter, which they do, then the "unlabeled" idea doesn't make sense. What, are you just not going to take a stance on these issues? Jesus did and so should we. God has put people down through history into place (starting with His disciples) so that we can learn the truth. Unfortunately, some have wandered from the truth. I'm a Lutheran because I believe it's the most biblical version of all the denominations.
So if the Lutheran church is the most “Christian” church, why does many of my local Lutheran Churches permanently hang 80ft c 40ft LGBTQ flags on their sides? You see, that flag is anything BUT Christian and represents an abomination to our Lord and Savior. Having given that one example, you are still more comfortable in your “Lutheran” faith than if you were just an honest follower of God’s word and subsequent faith? This is the very problem with “denominations” as they lead to variances to the Lords words and laws and then get preached to the masses as “accceptance” and “tolerance” and “loving”. I would argue to say that if you were looking for the most Christ like church, it would be the Orthodox Christian Church if you’ve ever been? Even still, it’s yet another denomination with its own rules, rituals and ideals instead of just a straight Bible based and only Bible based, faith based church.
If "Infant" Baptism saved me...why would I ever need the Gospel later ?
Are not all my sins already forgiven ??
Can you lose salvation ??
@OutWestRedDirt all jews were saved?? And then they all lost their salvation ??
I like this question, and this is where I believe the big fuss is. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that the dunking of the water is what saves you, and even if you are baptized, you are not out of the water. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that apostasy is a real thing, you can fall out of Gods Grace. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, it regenerates you, it initiates you into the body of Christ. I believe it goes hand in hand with salvation but it’s not the initial act itself that all of a sudden makes you saved. You picking up what I’m putting down? If you have any questions ask me, I’d like to discuss more, and give you more examples or better explanations if needed.
@programmer2565
He was sharing his change of mind and giving his reasons.
He did not say infant baptism saved anyone, merely that it was applicable to infants and babies.
Baptism does not save you or forgive sins, as you seem to be implying.
Perhaps it is reasonable to consider that parents who want their infants baptised would teach those infants the Gospel? The responsibility then would be towards the declaration of faith of the parent(s) rather than the one being baptised.
Is not baptism a declaration of death to the old and a new life to be lived by God's Spirit? In which case it is applicable to all.
Any objection that an infant could grow up and turn away is equally applicable to an adult who can age and turn away.
Infant water baptism "first fruits " first child. The bible teaches about first fruits, the first rain ,and
the latter rain John the Baptist said Jesus would Baptis you with the Holy Ghost.
You seem to have a reasonable understanding of Gods Word. Would you understand the mystery ( mystery Babylon) Revelation 17:5 / and the Harlots daughters, 😢 read the history of the 16th century protestant reformation. ( to have a child you have to have a relationship ). How did I know this ! the word of God the Bible.😊 there is a great blessing in what I wrote here, Get out of mystery Babylon to avoid God's Wrath.
I was raised Catholic, but left the Catholic Church in my early twenties (I align more with the Baptists since then), so I have a different perspective. You say, "When God baptizes someone, He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this? By saying that Baptism is the Liquid Word, you "seem" to be trying to resolve a conflict you are having with who can be saved and how. So when does the "plain" water used in baptism become the Liquid Word? By the prayer of a Priest, a Lutheran minister, or when any Christian decides to baptize someone (or can they)? Since a child has the sin nature from birth, and because they are too young to confess Christ, are you concerned they will go to Hell because they have the original sin still on them? You said "plain" water can't save us, so the assumption would be that you are inferring that the Liquid Word can? If so, you never explicitly said so. I would agree with you if I saw evidence of child baptism in the New Testament and it explicitly mentioned baptism was part of the salvation process, but it does not. You also never did delve into "why" certain churches came to practice infant baptism. Circumcision introduces a male child into the Mosaic Covenant. Water baptism always follows faith in the New Testament. You said, and I quote, "What's happening in baptism is God is taking the word that is preached and he's putting it in water so that instead of the word simply entering into our ears the word is washed onto us....". Where did that come from? Scripture or your mind? So what is it? Is water baptism that you call the Liquid Word essential to saving faith? If so, you never said so. If not, then why did you say it wasn't? If water baptism is essential to salvation, then the thief on the cross is not in paradise. According to the New Testament, Jesus' blood is the only washing that is needed to cleanse our sin.
Yes. And as a former catholic myself, being taught about rituals and "holy water" and some occult practises, I find that idea too "magical", feeding superstition, possibly leading to infant baptism for the wrong motives (of "safety" more than real faith).
About John the Baptist as an unborn child, his parents had received the promise he would be filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb... We can't stretch that to any child.
Have a good day.
@@thereseservais924 Well said.
@jamesrmooresr - You say, "He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this?"
Matthew 28:19 - Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the promise that is at the heart of baptism.
Acts 2:37-41. 2:41 says that those who "received his word were baptized." The preached word is directly linked to baptism.
The same happens in Acts 8:34-40. Philip preaches (the word of the Gospel) to the Ethiopian eunuch who desires to be baptized. He clearly see baptism as something essential and it is directly linked to preaching the Gospel (giving the promises of God).
The issue is a physical element attached to God's word of promise. This happens all over the scriptures.
Gen. 12, 15, and 17 all record God making a promise to Abraham and that promise is finally attached to the physical element of circumcision.
The Tree of Life = Word of promise + physical element.
The snake in the wilderness that Jesus directly connects to his own "raising up" is a physical element (bronze snake on the pole) + Promise (word) of healing. (Numbers 21:8-9). Those who rejected the physical sign of the snake were also rejecting the word of God's promise of healing (they did not trust the word of God).
The cross of Jesus. The promise (death of Jesus is FOR YOU/for your sin) and physical sign (wooden cross).
Or Jesus, himself. John 1:1-14. Jesus (physical man) IS the WORD of God. The Word of God is literally "in the flesh/body." (Greek "sarx").
If God puts His Word into and attaches His Word to physical elements all throughout scripture then why not the waters of baptism?
But finally: Ephesians 5:25-26.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word , 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."
God has been attaching His Word of promise to physical elements/symbols/things from the very beginning!
Go research a fascinating study done by a Japanese scientist on the memory of water. The result of the scientist’s study was that water remembers what is said to it, whether words of blessing, or words of cursing, and physically manifests those words. So a priest praying words of blessings over and dedication of the water in the baptismal font for the infant baptism are very powerful indeed-Isaiah 55:11-“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplice that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Liquid Word? That's the command, by Jesus' own Word whilst the water is applied. That makes alot of sense to me as someone whom English is my third language.
As an Anglican, I AGREE with you. Understanding what baptism is helps the shift.
"Liquid word"
You explain it well.
Baptism is the dying of the old self and being buried with Christ, then being raised up with him into new life. That's why it's immersion.
@@julieamos86 actually if you use that kind of imagery the death is raised up upon a cross and burial isn't "down" in the ground. His burial was in a tomb. I think it was level not down. The idea of immersion as a symbol breaks down.
Rather what baptism does is joins us to Christ..so what happened to him happened to us as a gift. That's why we were crucified with Christ, buried with him and will be raised with him.. because of union with him.
Baptism is also a bath, a washing. Titus 3:5
@@Liminalplace1 Titus is talking about the Holy Spirit being poured out, not water baptism.
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ROMANS 6,4
@@julieamos86 id agree that Titus isn't referring directly to water baptism...but the word translated "washing" is connected to a bath. Baptism joins one to Christ and with him comes the Holy Spirit. So the imagery of a bath or a washing is an analogy to baptism.
If you really think "immersion" is a burial with Christ..where is the cross in the baptism waters? And why do people go "down" into the water when Jesus went into a tomb at ground level?
I suggest that it's not a burial but a washing.
Because we are joined to Christ we died, were buried and will rise with him. That's what Romans 6 refers to.
So immersion isn't essential.
What is essential are the words of Christ said over the baptized with water.
As Chad said...."liquid word".
Saying baptism is a burial is reading our modern practices of funerals into baptism. The Romans would not have thought Paul was talking about that. Romans often cremated their dead or put them into catacombs...not down into the ground like we often do.
I hope that explains it.
All Christians use the words of Christ and water.
@@Liminalplace1 direction is irrelevant, it's about burial not where the burial is.
Christian baptism illustrates, in dramatic style, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, it also illustrates our death to sin and new life in Christ. As the sinner confesses the Lord Jesus, he dies to sin (Romans 6:11) and is raised to a brand-new life (Colossians 2:12). Being submerged in the water represents death to sin, and emerging from the water represents the cleansed, holy life that follows salvation. Romans 6:4 puts it this way: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Very simply, baptism is an outward testimony of the inward change in a believer’s life. Christian baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord after salvation.
The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also Acts 16:14-15). (GotQuestions. org)
I don't know if this helps, but the deciding factor that led me to change my mind on the credo/paedobaptist divide, stems from reflecting on God and His attributes:
Most Christians would agree that God is steadfast and unchanging, as according to His Word. Obviously children (males) in the Old Covenant were welcomed into the covenant upon receiving the mark of circumcision. Considering this, after Christ implemented baptism as the sign that essentially replaces circumcision, how can the New Covenant be less inclusive than the Old? God's greatest and most gracious gift of his Son, and the salvation through him, is more limited and smaller in scope in terms of who is and isn't included in God's covenant? Surely God is steadfast.
Could you please give your verses that discuss "the liquid word of baptism"?
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Lack of belief is what hinders someone from being baptized. A baby with no knowledge of God does not believe Jesus is the son of God or anything else. They do not meet the requirement. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." The logical implication of this question and answer, is that If thou doth not believe, thou mayest not.
It is unsafe to draw a general conclusion from a specific example. Philip was addressing the Ethiopian only, not as for example the baptism of Lydia and the Philippian jailor and their households.
For an example, when prompted, Christ said to the rich young ruler, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."
It would be unwise and unsafe to enforce that upon all Christians!
Phip was ascertaining that the Ethiopian had faith. Normally that would apply to any seeking baptism but in the case of infants, under the care of their parents it would apply to the parents whether they had faith.
Thank you Chad. Lutheran always believe in the word of God . That is why I'm Lutheran.
I do agree baptism is necessary for salvation, this baptism is of the Spirit, not all who were circumcision were saved,
Water baptism is not necessary for, and has nothing to do with salvation. Those who baptize babies are those who are Biblically illiterate and are not Christians.
Thank you for this video Chad. I would love a follow up to this video speaking of, if you’ve been baptized as an infant should you be baptized as an adult. I know the answer. Yes! Of course. But I would love to hear you explain it out. With regard to the belief that you should only be baptized once. Thanks again. I hope this makes sense! :-)
I have explained in this video that one should never be rebaptized: ua-cam.com/video/z0wWHhDSZww/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
I do not disagree with infant baptism, but I disagree with your explanation of what baptism by water “does” or means. The very last scripture you used-does not legitimize your case of the comparison between circumcision and baptism. It actually shows that what was done in the physical in the Old Covenant is now all completed in Christ symbolically in the New Covenant. It’s a symbol of being raised to life in Christ because of what he has done and the child being born into a covenant believing family-with the responsibility of the parents to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The liquid word and salvation in and through that liquid teaching is not supported by scripture.
See, I am the exact opposite regarding initial arguments for infant baptism, accepting the scriptures teaching about predestination: That it is an act of faith by the parents that God's calling of their child will be revealed in the proper time, thus validating the sign applied in infancy. However, I am still CREDO baptist because, while I do acknowledge you make some plausible arguments for PEDO, your supporting passages seem to have other reasonable interpretations also. But when I read in 1 Pt "baptism now saves you, not the washing of dirt from the body, but the appeal of a good conscience toward God," that seems to be more clear that the one being immersed is assumed to be making a confession. Which also seems to correlate with Philip's statement to the Ethiopian in Acts. How do you deal with those verses?
I'm a Baptist who enjoys you videos very much. I always learn something from watching. I think infant baptism is okay as an ordinance of dedicating a child to God's service. If parents are inclined they can ask for this type of dedication and I am not opposed to churches who see it as an ordinance. But to say that there is a mystical quality added to the water that infuses the infant with faith just sounds bizarre. In that case, faith comes before belief. I stand firmly on believer's baptism because I believe that faith should precede the ordinance which is predominantly an outward demonstration or exhibition of the faith that has already been professed in the heart.
The 1st Century A.D. HOUSEHOLD, it means more than just 1 Family, it was composed of at least 3 Families or more in 1 Household... namely, the Master's Family, his Relative's Family, and his Servant's Family... surely, there will be infants and little children (toddlers) every 1st Cent. A.D. HOUSEHOLD...
The Bible narrated that the "ENTIRE" (no exemption) Household was Baptized by the Apostles/Disciples... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
What is the Scriptural reference for “The liquid Word in and with the water”
Do you recommend taking an adolescent say age 8-12 and have them baptized if they have not yet received salvation by confessing their sins? Would the baptism save them the same way that the baptism will save the infant?
The belief in infant baptism leads to a misunderstanding of God's love and power among us. Why do some Christian churches bastardize the word 'baptism'? If people want to dedicate their child to God, then call it that instead of downgrading Christ's perfect example of baptism, which He performed as an adult and then commissioned us to follow. Infants are alive in Christ and need no baptism. Encouraging infant baptism is promoting dead works.
I'm now a confessional Lutheran (ELS) but one of the things that helped to change my mind about baptism was the prominence of the belief in infant baptism prior to American evangelicalism's rise, and especially when reading Calvin and John Wesley. I attended both Calvinist and Wesleyan churches prior to converting to Lutheranism, but even though the Calvinists and Wesleyans advocated for a Zwinglian (symbolic) view of the sacraments, both Calvin AND Wesley believed in a degree of sacramental efficacy. True, they did not subscribe to Luther's understanding of it (although Wesley was far closer to Luther's position than many modern Wesleyans realize), but they also rejected a flatly symbolic understanding of the sacraments as well.
Truth be told, a purely symbolic view of the sacraments is a relatively recent doctrine in church history. You don't find it in the first 1500 years of the church at all.
Actually you find it in the early church. See Romans 6:1-4. 😊
You quoted Acts 2:38, Peter said repent and be baptised. In infant is born with a sinful nature however it hasn't trespassed against God, yet. The child lacks understanding of the gift of saving grace. We can't force our will on anyone, that's the Holy Spirits job, we can only plant seeds. Acts 19 in Ephesus is a clear example to me of lacking baptism understanding and only just going through the "movements". That's my view anyway. I can see yours but I humbly disagree. Baptism isn't a pretreatment oil for your engine before it's ran yet or a metal conditioner for a prefired firearm.
Heretical... original sin is Christian
Dear brother, I love your passion and zeal for Lord. In fact I watch your videos regularly because I found them beneficial. Specifically when you make parallels between old and new testament.
But about this video when I look at the bible, I don’t see it as you mentioned as well. Also we know about age of accountability (as you mentioned). But look at Bar-mitzvah. As you know before age of twelve, boys were not accountable for what they were doing. Their father was accountable. Also when I look at 2Sam ch12 v23, I see that David is saying “But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.
Here he’s talking about an infant who died. So David is confirming that infant/babies are not going to hell but heaven.
Isn’t salvation free gift for everyone who deciding to accept and follow Jesus? Doesn’t that means that people who are accepting Jesus are knowing what they do? Does a baby have ability to make decision? Does the babies who were baptised, wanted to accept and follow Jesus by their own decision?
When you talked about picture of circumcision, and Israelite boys were brought in to covenant, that was old covenant. New covenant is faith in Christ.
Question: what about Israelite girls? Because infant baptism is for boys and girls.
Even though we may not agree on this subject, you’re still great teacher on my eyes and I love your work for Lord brother 💐
I must respectfully disagree as I believe the baptism of water doesn't wash away sin. John said he indeed did baptize with water but one coming after him (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This is the baptism required to wash away sin. If not, then where do you see the millions of babies who were aborted without being baptized? I am very confident they are with Jesus, who said we must come as little children totally trusting Him for our salvation.I do enjoy your teaching and as a Southern Baptist find we are in agreement on most issues.
Chad, is there a biblical reference where scripture states that God's word is present in baptismal waters?
Hi Chad Bird. My testimony is basically one of Proverbs 22:6. My mother had me (and two years later my sister) baptized as infants at the First Methodist Church of Wichita Falls, TX (back in the days before that denomination gave way to blatant acceptance of sin).
Into our mid teens mom made sure we participated in worship and activities of the churches we lived among military moves.
In time, as is common, I simply strayed away.
I always knew God was real and felt a bit of guilt by ignoring Him. Until I met the woman God brought into my life during my mid 30s. One of criteria to seriously dating me was that I be baptized. I said I'd been baptized, but later went to have a private submersion baptism just to satisfy the seeds inside and my conscious. But I still lived a worldly business style life until I was in my 50s and Christ confronted by baptism in His Holy Spirit. It changed my life.
My point is in the truth of Proverbs 22:6. It does not tell what may occur 40 years until that child returns and receives the ways of the Lord and had no intention of departing from it.
As a born again believer I pray my experience is a positive example for you and others.
Now, let's all go be a blessing.
I appreciate your Lutheran view on this subject but there are a few points that I would considering lacking regarding this presentation. The main issue is regarding the approach to handling the sin issue. It is very true that we are corrupt sinners from the start (Ps 51:5) and Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sin. You quoted Acts 2:38 to explain the promise was to our children, but you didn't put any emphasis on "Repent". You addressed the Holy Spirit and baptism but left out repentance. Repentance comes as a result of the Holy Spirit working in our life revealing to use that we are a sinner and we need to put our trust in Christ, thus changing our minds. Jesus preached repentance and the Apostles in Acts mentions it in 8 verses, not including verses relating to John's baptism of repentance. Repentance seems to require a personal acknowledgement of sinfulness, not based on age necessarily, but is an new born baby capable of doing this?
Also I have read Luther's view which is similar to yours regarding John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb. He likened this to a type of infant baptism by the water in his mother's womb. I believe we have to admit that allegory was a very popular form of biblical interpretation, that we need to be cautious of, regardless of the person promoting it.
Finally, my experience with over 30 years of ministry has shown that people that were baptized as baby's and coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ later in life, almost without exception desire to be rebaptized, without coercion. Their standard comment is usually; "I was baptized as a baby, but it didn't mean anything to me".
I would liken infant baptism to the same as baby dedication in other traditions.
Just my opinion and thanks for the great clip.
Have a great day!
exactly about the promise. The promise of repentance bringing personal salvation applied to their children, same as the words "and your house" spoken to the Philippian jailor. The instruction he received on how to be saved applied to him and to anyone else in his household. He couldn't believe on their behalf
@jamessizemore6180
A good comment with perspective.
Repentance is certainly required for those who are sensible of it. But is it not something separate from baptism? In which case it is not required of infants and those not sensible of it. It is not only infants who may not be sensible of repentance.
Is baptism equivalent to circumcision? Both address the cutting off of the flesh, death to the old life that the life may be devoted to God. Baptism is more explicit. One addresses the specific Old Testament people of God, the other the general New Testament people of God.
Baptism is a ceremony that declares a cutting off of the flesh and a new life but the real and vital requirement that can be said to be essential, is to deny self and daily take up our cross and follow Jesus Christ. Yet we rarely hear about this while there is much debate over baptism. You see where I am going with this? Surely baptism should merely be the start, just the very start, of denying self and taking up the cross?
Baptism is normally undertaken by people as a step of obedience in that it is a declaration of the truth of God and its application to the person. It is symbolic rather than, how shall I say, effectual. It can be said it is not necessary, since the thief on the cross was not baptised but it is something that is normally undertaken. There can be problems for some as to ability, availability, where to go and who may perform. Since it appears it is not essential although desirable, does that not impact upon the infant baptism question in that it is accepted/acceptable whether infant or adult?
The real need is for an effectual denying of self and taking up our cross and following Jesus Christ. If only as much attention were given to this as baptism, in fact if only far more attention were given to this, since this is far more important.
How say you?
@@Must_not_say_that What say me? Philippians 2:12 Have a great day and Keep Pressin' On!
@@jamessizemore6180
Thank you for your reply and reference and encouragement.
We do indeed press on.
Seems to me like pan[en]theistic rather than theistic argument. Like our Catholic friend said, "wellcome back to Mother Church" But thanks anyway Chad. Good reflection.💙😇🤝✍
Hmmmm idk about this. I have learned so much from you but I feel you're stretching on this one. I still appreciate you tho!
Thank you! As I said in the video, the purpose is simply to explain why we believe what we believe (along with the vast majority of Christians worldwide since the days of the early church, I might add :-)
Hi Teacher
I couldn't understand how God's word get inside of the water baptism? Can you please provide biblical bases referencing for God's liquid word?
Thank you.
@tijuanafricana
I agree with you. That does not make sense and appears to be a kind of invention. As far as I am aware there is no Scriptural basis for that. Perhaps he knows there is something in baptism but has not been able to define it and so has come up with something in its place?
Baptism represents death, death to the old and rising from the water, new life.
The two answers to your question saying we cannot understand are less than helpful and really absurd because it is necessary to understand fundamental, first principles of doctrine - Heb 6:1-3.
God never calls for blind obedience but rather obedience to what He has revealed and if He has revealed something that means we understand. The two answers simply do not understand the first principles.
The word created the world. It’s not something we can grasp
@@Foggybottom45543
The Word is Jesus Christ and He created all things.
There is nothing difficult about that and is the easiest thing to grasp, as you put it.
Hi Chad. I am confused about the liquid word part. I can't find a clear reference in Scripture about the Word being put into water. The part about circumcision really was amazing. Through it, I can understand how baptism is like saying: God, I now belong to You. You are my God! What an amazing grace!
Might be the verse in Ephesians 4 I think where Christ washes His bride with the water and word
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517 Thank you. That clears things up a lot. I'll look and re-read the references again. I'm a slow learner and will take time to digest.
1 Peter 3:21 ESV
[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
How can an infant have a good conscience?
All infants/babies are 100% unsaved and baptizing them will in no way whatsoever change their unsaved, evil, corrupt, Godless state. It is only a sign of the ignorance and unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state of the baptizer.
As you say but do not the parents take responsibility for that?
If baptism is a type of the Flood being death to the old and being carried through to a new life out of that death, then it is certainly not cleansing but death.
It is a very pertinent citation concerning what baptism is.
Parents are responsible for their children, even one beliving parent santifies the children. This is the case infant baptism or not. If they are responsible they can stand in for the children until they are able to stand for themselves. Surely that fulfils the answer of a good conscience toward God?
Brother, there is no teaching that I’ve read in scripture which say that baptism is infused with the word of God. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone then how is that administered through water? I’m open to being shown in scripture where.
With a believers baptism the person is saved through faith and then they are baptized. By your reckoning then an unbeliever can be saved by being baptized.
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517
Surely the passage in Ephesians does not refer to baptism but rather sanctification by word and prayer? As for example 1 Tim 4:5.
The church is cleansed by taking heed according to God's word just as the young man in Psalm 119, Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
Since baptism is not cleansing but death, it has no connection with that passage. Peter likens baptism to the Flood which is death and judgement upon the old. He expressly says not the putting away of the filth of the flesh which would be cleansing. Baptism serves us as death, death to the old.
This is not to deny infant baptism but rather to better understand its symbolism and the answer of a good conscience toward God.
He's for it. 1:33. Not sure why he didn't just get to the point.
So, if baptism is necessary to wash away the infants original sin, what happen to that baby that dies before birth, from
premature birth, death before the baptism?
What is the status of a person that is baptized as an infant, but later turns away from God and lives a sinful, non-repentant life? Are they still accepted into heaven for eternity?
Baptism is not necessary for salvation and it does not wash away sins anyway. Only the blood of Christ washes away sin. The thief on the cross was not baptized. Baptism is simply a declaration of the truth of God, death of the old life and rising from the water, rising to new life. Baptism symbolises death, death of the Old Creation to bring in the New Creation.
I would suggest that probably they are saved because how can sin be imputed to them when there was no law? By law we mean no prohibition that they could be sensible of to go against.
Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
If you look at Jer 31:15-17 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
Quoted in Mat 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
.. which identifes them as the babies spoken of in Jer. The Jeremiah passage suggests they afr saved - shall come abain from the land of the enemy.
The status of the one baptised but who later turns away from God's salvation, His Saviour, would surely be lost. They would appear to fall into the category of those who do not believe. There are no works, or perhaps better, no works of God, to testify of belief. We cannot be certain since we do not know all of God's dealinga with the individual All we can do is enforce the need for evidence of salvation in terms of God's work manifested in or through the individual.
Chad, what happens to babies who die in the womb? And should someone who was baptized as a baby but grew up not believing be baptized again when they become a believer?
That all said - which Church is the right one to be baptized in? Does it matter? And what if one is baptized in a Church and leaves that one for another, whatever the reason? As in your own situation. I was baptized as a baby in the Roman Catholic Church and left that religion 60+ years ago and now am simply a professed Christian that does not attend any particular church. I've been to many different churches over the years, but never was comfortable in any - including Judaism. So is my baptism "valid"?
John the Baptist said I indeed baptise you in water but the one who comes after me, He will baptise you in fire and Spirit.
Good reference.
Thankyou! I really understand now !
I’m a life long (no infant baptism, but yes for baptizing children who want to be baptized) Christian.
We “dedicate our infants” before God and the congregation pledging to raise them “in the Christian faith” (or words to that effect). That effort leads them to the point where they can accept Christ and follow him in believers baptism. That dedication is made by the parents to God and before the congregation. It is also a “parent dedication” as much as a “infant dedication” but it is (like baptism) willingly made by people able to make that level of commitment (the parents). The church also dedicates themselves to helping the parents and their child to be raised “in the Christian faith.” It looks like a lots of “dedications” but with NO WATER involved.
However, you describe “infant baptism” as just and only that. I heard no mention of a dedication of the parents or the church, “just the water baptism.” I would think if there were any commitment made by the parents or the church you would have mentioned it. (Please clarify if I missed it or if that was an oversight.)
Therefore, here is my question:
How is “infant baptism” (as I understand you describing it) better than “baby dedication (as I described it) insofar as “promoting the likelihood that the infant will come to a saving faith” on his own later in life?
Asked another way:
How is “infant dedication” inferior to “infant baptism?”
Almost thou persuadest me. Seriously, though, thank you for the explanation! I've never seen it Biblically, but never thought about the connection with circumcision.
I will check to see if you video library on UA-cam includes a video on Jesus dying for the whole world. My question is if all the sins of everyone were atoned for on the Cross then why do any go to hell?
The guy in this video is not a Christian and is completely Biblically illiterate. He is the seller of a 100% counterfeit (antichrist) christianity.
Jesus did NOT die for the whole world. Jesus came for, and died for ONLY the very, very few who are Gods chosen ones. These few make up less than 1% of the worlds population and 0% of the churches population.
Quite simply because it is rejected or refused or neglected.
The heart needs to be changed and that can only be done voluntarilly and for two reasons - forcing anyone is not consent and they then are no better than slaves or robots. And the work God has to do upon the individual requires willing co operation.
Permit me an illustration. A man needs a life saving operation and the surgeon is willing to perform, but he cannot perform a delicate life saving operation upon someone who is not willing and will not submit to the procedures. He cannot perform such an operation upon someone who is kicking and screaming, or who is occupied with doing something else or who forgets to turn up.
There are scriptural illustrations such as Matthew 22 and Luke 14.
As to Jesus dying for the whole world, John 1:29, 3:16, 6:51, 2Cor 5:19, 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9 and 1 John 2:2 should be helpful.
Thank you for this explanation. I’ve heard most of the points you’ve given except the infusion of the Word with the water of baptism. Could this be explained further and some scriptural references given? Thanks again
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" (λουτρόν). The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517thank you Chad, your videos and teachings are always a blessing to me
What of someone baptized as a baby, but in early forties now and yet to believe?
Im yet to be baptised but i am planning to early next year, i think its extremely important to live a sacramental life.
After you repent, believe, trust Jesus for you salvation, then get baptized, not to do it as a work, or a salvationary thing, its obedience, it doesn't matter in salvation whether its as an infant or adult, its not a sacrament, you don't get to participate in your salvation, God is a jealous God, don't turn it into idolatry,
@jasono6315 I already do trust in Jesus, to get baptised or receive the eucharist is an act of faith, by living a sacramental life means to live for him and not ourselves, getting baptised isn't part of a checklist and doesn't mean anyone who is will be saved, it's down to God's grace whether or not anyone is.
Thank you for a well articulated explanation on infant baptism. My question is this, if a child was baptized as an infant let's say Catholicism and becomes a believer, should they be "re-baptized, now as a conscious, outward confession of faith in Christ?
The validity of one's baptism is dependent on two things. (1) Was the sacrament administered by a church that "preaches another gospel?" If yes, then the baptism is invalid. (2) Was the baptism done, in the name of the Trinity? If not, then the baptism is invalid.
So, the baptism that the Catholics receive as an infant, though done in the name of the Trinity, is invalid on the basis that they have long anathematized the pure Gospel of Christ.
I address that here: ua-cam.com/video/z0wWHhDSZww/v-deo.html
Chris, thank you for sharing this. I went a complete 180 from you. I went from Lutheran to Southern Baptist.
In my opinion, many of your arguements are s stretch...until you spoke about John the Baptist and also circumcision.
Thank you for sharing!
(Not a Lutheran but seeking to understand)
Summary of the argument:
Our problem-inherited sin from Adam at conception.
God’s solution-the Word of God (2nd Person of the Trinity), in liquid form applied to the body (contrasted with preaching where the Word of God In audible form is applied to the ears).
Unclear from presentation-must the infant have faith before the “liquid form of the Word of God” ‘works’ or must the infant actually personally possess faith.
---
Check on hypothesis:
In the case of adults…
The getting wet nor the hearing save you but the second Person of the Trinity working in the water and the preaching save you (if I’m understanding you correctly)
Great video! Now can you edit it and add bible verses to the screen?
Thanks for putting yourself out there on this controversial topic. I’ve been an Anglican pastor most of my working life, and also believe in infant baptism, though for slightly different reasons.
Things I found tricky in your reasoning, that I’d love to hear more from you about: the idea that the ‘word is in the water’ idea. I understand a little about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper - consubstantiation. Is this an echo of that view in some way?
Yes, God used water to save his people in the OT - but my understanding is that it was not to convey the word, but as a physical instrument to fulfil his word, as he also used the physical world to fulfil his promises to bring plagues upon Egypt, or fire and storm and tempest to convey the terrible awesomeness of his presence on Sinai, and so on. But connecting that to baptism, as if the water somehow saves in itself seems, to my ears, odd - given 1 Peter 3b.
The passage about John leaping in the womb reflecting what happens in baptism feels like a bit of a stretch. On one hand, I’ve never heard of anything similar with anyone else, in scripture or outside of scripture. On the other hand, this is an utterly unique moment in world history- with the conception of the God-Man standing before the one appointed to go before him. A unique sign for a unique moment, isn’t it?
There are a few questions. I’m sure you’re busy. If you do happen to get a moment to respond, that would be wonderful. If not, I understand.
Thanks again, dear brother
Regarding Word in the water:
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
I went to a community church that tried bringing together Christians who believed in infant baptism and those who didn’t. The pastor had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism so he believed in infant baptism. Ultimately I don’t think the idea worked for it asked people to live in cognitive dissonance. I ultimately left that church but not because of the baptism issue.
That said, the experience did introduce me to some of these ideas. I don’t find the circumcision argument compelling because the ancient Jews never had arguments over when to circumcise. The scripture gave explicit instructions yet no instructions exist in the NT, it is only implied at best. It also seems strange to me that the controversy over circumcision in the early church wasn’t dealt with by explaining the new role of baptism.
I was circumcised as a baby, for non-religious reasons, and I can see for myself that this is so every time I take a shower (sorry for being crude). But an infant that is baptized has no memory of it. Personally I am grateful that I was raised in a tradition in which I experienced my baptism. I would hate to take that away from a young person just to satisfy some parent’s unwarranted fear that their child will end up in hell if they don’t received Christ in some way through a sacrament. And this is the other reason why I reject infant baptism, I reject infant damnation.
The big question is then, how does this affect the misscarried child, or the thousands of abhorted foetuses, who cannot recieve baptism? Are they hellbound just for being unwillingly conceived?
I have never met a single person who believes that unbaptized babies are damned. It is the REJECTION of Christ that damns, not the absence of baptism. We commit unbaptized babies who die into the hands of our good and gracious heavenly Father.
@@chadbird1517thank you for clarifying your on stance this.
According to the New Testament nobody is going to perish unless they committed an active act of sin and rejection of Christ's forgiveness. So I think it is clear that unborn babies, infants, those born with such mental deficit that they simply could not respond to the Gospel, are "automatically" Heaven-bound.
I suspect you would say you believe in 'sola scriptura'. Infant baptism is one topic which absolutely fails to be found to be supported in any way, shape, or form in scripture. You keep saying 'biblical arguments'. But they don't exist. It is all spin created by guys like you through the centuries.
Since historic presbyterian and Lutheran believes infant baptism and the salvific nature of it, can you make a video what the difference between the two tradition?
Presbyterian’s believe in infant baptism but not that it imparts salvation. Rather it is a sign and seal.
@@alexowens59 This is because Presbyterian nowadays depart from it's historic roots due to influence of Baptist, you can read Scott's confession and align it Westminster Confession. You cannot separate the Sign and the thing signified. The Thing signified is the one that saved you and the sacraments is the sign. John Knox and Calvin hold this view. Baptism saves if you have faith.
@@alexowens59 If you would like to really know the view of Presbyterianism when it comes on baptism you have to go back to it's founder not Presbapterian theologian today like ligonier.
@@alexowens59 sign and seal of what?
@@GencenFide Chapter XXVIII
"Of Baptism" WCF
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]
I’m assuming “liquid word” is referring to Eph. 5:26? “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,”
Also, as one that doesn’t adhere to infant baptism I was curious if you believe that every infant that is baptized is now saved? I ask because I’ve known many people who have been baptized as infants and gone on to live very ungodly lives. If such a person were to be saved later on in life would they need to be baptized again? Blessings.
Yes, the Ephesians text is part of the argument, as is the connection between the Word and water in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28).
Regarding the Eph. 5 text, I find it compelling that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Yes, every baptized child is saved. As Peter says, "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). Sadly, some who are baptized do go on to lead ungodly lives. The Scripture warns against falling away (Heb. 6 and 10, e.g.) which happens to some believers (I reject OSAS).
Regarding being baptized again, no, that is an impossibility: ua-cam.com/video/z0wWHhDSZww/v-deo.html
@@chadbird1517thanks for your response. I was baptized as a baby (in a Lutheran church). I was Lutheran only in word not really in practice. As I grew up I was left to take care of myself at an early age, 14. At the age of 18 I became a Christian by the grace of God and was baptized without any consideration of my previous baptism. I actually forgot that I was baptized as a baby….lol. I’m assuming no harm no foul? Still not convinced about infant baptism but enjoying the conversation.
Half way through, “The Christ Key” your new book will be next.
@@chadbird1517 so yes, the WORD washes us from our sin the way water washes physical things - again figurative language
Because I once wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox church, I'm always willing to be persuaded that infant baptism is a biblically sound practice. It was a sticking point I just could not reconcile. I heard lots of different arguments and ideas -- and I WANTED to believe. I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. But the arguments fell short when I studied the text. I remained in my nondenominational Body, still sympathetic to the liturgical faiths. I was hoping for something, but the liquid Word rang hollow in light of participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It just sounds like a work-around theological position taken in order to be all in on your desired denomination. If I could have done that, I'd be in the Eastern Orthodox church. But I couldn't.
Please look into Reformed Baptist theology. Particularly the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
The Acts 2 verse you quote, in my opinion, must be understood in light of the fact that it is directly related to the calling of God. I find that most who use this passage never finish the rest of what is being communicated. The promise is ultimately rooted in and upon the basis of “as many as the Lord shall call”. It’s also clear that the category of folks who were baptized that day were “those who received his words… “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
Acts 2:39-41 ESV
Having said this, I do understand how you arrive at your position which is by using an OT paradigm to shed light on a NT interpretation. I would point out that baptism is the ONLY major doctrine in which this type of hermeneutic is utilized by those who baptize infants. Why not stay consistent and use the NT to teach us who is in the NC? It’s the book of Hebrews ,for me, that clearly teaches and defines the parameters of the NC. However, I appreciate the gentle spirit you exhibit on your channel and see no reason for not having unity in Christ. I actually attend a church that practices and allows room for both credo and paedo.
Likewise! Arguments against pedobaptism are usually a fusion of the following: 1) a preference towards a symbolic reading of God's Word, 2) an appeal to reason fostered by Western Enlightenment ideals, and 3) a hermeneutic that isn't entirely consistent with the manuscripts or their traditional preserving through church history. So, Scripture is referenced and cited but symbolically read (in places it wasn't before) or argued for a radically anti-historical interpretation (because throwing babies out with their bathwater is preferred over anything remotely seeming "Catholic") or flies in the face of Western Enlightenment reasoning. In the end of it, one's bias inevitably plays a large part in resisting a plain reading of the text because breaking personal biases is difficult.
I suggest you listen to Dr. Michael Heiser on his podcast about baptism. He has a much clearer teaching and reality concerning the subject.
Respectfully, the first assumption is where I disagree. "Sinful from the time we are in our mother's womb" is not correct. The entire argument falls apart after that assumption is removed. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die:" What sin is a child in the womb capable of? The first century church baptized believers only - those old enough to make the conscious choice. The promise "to your and your children" is simply a generational statement, i.e. this promise is for you and all who come after you.
You would be right about the first "assumption" (which I would call an argument), were it unbiblical. But I would hope, even if you disagree, that you are familiar with the historical, biblical teaching regarding original sin, based on passages such as these:
-Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
-Eph. 2:3, "[You] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
-Romans 5, in its entirety, about the spread of sin/death due to Adam's sin.
You ask, "What sin is a child in the womb capable of?" But our problem is not just sinful acts. We sin because we are sinners; we are not sinners because we sin. In other words, our problem is much deeper than outward acts. A child never *becomes* a sinner by a conscious act; they are conceived that way.
This is the first argument. On the basis of that anthropology, children are in need of salvation, forgiveness, etc. which God gives in baptism.
@@chadbird1517 Ps 51:5 is the repentant statement of one man, David, in confessing his depravity when convicted by Nathan. Surely if it applied to all mankind it would be, "Behold, we were brought forth in iniquity, and we are conceived in sin". It was never a doctrinal position in the Early Church, and doesn't appear until the 3rd century and defined by Augustine.
My belief: Because of Adam (and Eve) all humans have the propensity to sin (sinful nature), but not all are sinners at birth. That is, there is no specific sin such as murder, adultery, coveting, rebellion, disobedience, and so on, that can be applied to a newborn. We will all eventually sin, but at birth a newborn has not sinned.
And what of the unborn? Are they condemned for their sinful nature just for existing? They cannot be baptised (if that is the way to save them). They cannot repent (if that is required). They surely cannot be condemned by a loving God who is just and merciful. What of them?
Your spirit was gracious but your evidence for infant baptism was weak. In short, infant baptism is NOT New Testament baptism. Only believers are baptized in the NT. Baptism is always an informed decision believers make and are later baptized. Babies cannot exercise faith or make faith informed decisions. Come on, they're babies! Household passages in the NT speak to family solidarity and the fact that several in the household came to saving faith. Babies and/or infants are never mentioned. That leads to the next reason that arguments for infant baptism are weak: infants are never baptized in the NT. You can at best say that it may have happened in the households that were baptized but it's still an argument from silence. It's amazing that denominations have made infant baptism into an essential of the faith when there's not one example in the NT that it ever happened. Not to mention the massive blood letting that occurred over baptism because men and women could no longer subscribe to the unbiblical doctrines of infant baptism. That's a black eye that the historic church will always have. God help us...
Thank you for taking the time to explain your journey through this topic. For myself, I have never believed in infant baptism. This is mainly because my understanding of it has the prerequisites of confession and repentance; a conscious now inclined to the things of God.
None of the arguments convinced me of anything until you hit on circumcision, which almost got me. The reason I say almost is because, though I agree that there are many things that find their root in the OT, not everything has a direct connection such as you're saying here between circumcision and baptism. Many of the requirements of OT law, ones that could get someone "cutoff from their people" simply aren't there anymore, circumcision being a major one.
However, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that connects baptism to circumcision, and certainly lacking baptism isn't punishable by death or under a threat of being cutoff from your people.
Also, circumcision was only possible to males. Are females forever cutoff from their people because they cannot be circumcised? Are infant males who are baptized now better off than females, since there is no OT precedent for their particular baptism, based off your logic here drawing a connection between baptism and circumcision?
I listened with an open mind, because this is not a pillar of the faith doctrine. I really appreciate your point of view, and love you for sharing it. I've been blessed by most all of your videos this far. I just can't follow your particular path of acceptance on this one. I still have questions and can't reconcile it in my mind, but thank you dearly for your explanation. I wish we could sit down together and break this down over coffee or something, and really sharpen some iron. Just know that's where my heart is with this. I disagree, but respectfully and most importantly lovingly. Grace and peace.