Baptism in 6 Minutes: Paedobaptism vs Credobaptism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2014
- Why do people baptize babies? Why do others only baptize believers? We look at the real issue behind these differing views, namely covenant theology.
Subscribe to the Reformed Pubcast on Itunes, or your favorite podcast catcher!
You got to keep on making animation, down on earth, doctrine clarifications like this. It is really helpful and will be a blessing for many. Thank you.
I've spent the past few weeks studying credobaptism versus paedobaptism. This is an excellent and concise summary of each side's arguments. Well done.
This was way more clear and accurate than the vast majority of other presentations about baptism.
If this is accurate, I understand this is the first time I've felt I've ever understood Infant Baptism...
We need this in ebook format!!! Would be so helpful.
Love this video! Very helpful
You are a great teacher, but I am very frustrated and distracted by the background music; not sure of it's purpose, as it was certainly thwarting my comprehension of your presentation, necessitating me replaying it a number of times. Perhaps you would consider publishing a copy without the accompanying music.
I agree.
Thank you for this basic explanation. Was reading through Romans 4 and it got my gears turning. Was referenced to this video by a friend, and you explained very well some of the thoughts that I was trying to wrap my head around.
Clear and accurate presentation of infant baptism
Very good, thanks.
Thanks for making both sides of baptism clear. Would it be possible for the music in the background be turned down or better yet not used. I felt it was loud and distracting
MUCHAS GRACIAS!
Yes, Josh, there is.
Good Video!!
video helps me understand a few things a little more. I'm working on a show (I run a show on my channel) on infant baptism, in particular if it saves a person, but also want to touch on the non salvational reasons that people do that. I'm coming from the position that only believers are baptized, but this video gives me a few more ideas of things I could add to what I want to say. thanks!
Just so you know, the makers of this video are now believers in Paedobaptism lol
+Joel Rodriguez if true that's unfortunate. I never really started working on my study yet as I got sidetracked with other projects but it's still there to be done.
+pursuing222 Sure, well if you want to know more about their journey just listen to the podcast called The Reform Pubcast, you'll love it :)
Anyone know the background music? Thanks!
1 Corimthians @ "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."
How could the children of atleast one child of God be holy or set apart? This is covenant language. To reject this would be to not grasp the extent of the good news of the gospel. Now does this mean that we must baptise babies? Well, if you believe baptism is a sign of the covenant, then yes. If you believe baptism is a sign of conversion, then no. But whether or not you baptise babies, you must understand that the baby of a child of God is a covenant baby. Does this mean they are saved by being born to believers? No. But it means God will save the baby in time. So, baptism is an expression of faith that God will be a God to me and to my children. One of the promises of God to Abraham is, "I will be a God to you and to your children." And Paul said all of God's promises are yes and amen in Jesus Christ.
“But it means God will save the baby in time.”
Are you saying that eventually God will bring to faith all children of believers?
Just trying to understand your statement made.
@@studentwork700 Yes. But you must understand that there are false believers among the sheep. Their children may not necessarily inherit this promise.
@@rtineigrihms8422 What about David’s sons Amnon & Absalom?
@@studentwork700 2 Corinthians 1:20 All His promises are yes and amen IN CHRIST. The fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to "be a God to you and your children" is fulfilled maximally in Christ.
@@rtineigrihms8422 Yes God fulfilled his covenant both old and new, but you see over and over a rejection of his promise.
David’s son are a perfect example. Scripture gives no indication that they received salvation even though they were part of the covenant.
We have wayward offspring of believing parents who reject Jesus even up to their death, this is tragic, but happens all the time.
Which Baptism is most important for salvation?
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
I disagree that in he new covenant, circumcision is replaced by circumcision of the heart, becaus even in the Old Covenant, circumcision is really a symbol of circumcision of the heart, or killing the flesh. Plus, regeneration is not a sign but a reality. But the sign for regeneration is baptism, i.e. we have died to the flesh (circumcision) and alive to Christ. If anything, the Old Covenant only had a sign for dying to the flesh, i.e. circumcision but not for being raised to newness of life. In the New Covenant, baptism is a sign for both dying to the flesh and being raised in Christ.
Another difference is that in the OC, the covenant status of Israel was determined by the Law, but in the NC, our covenant status is determined by faith in Christ. So, any Israelite who rejected the covenant is cut off, i.e. although he was circumcised as an Israelite, he nevertheless was cut off from the covenant if he rejected it. So also, in the NC, every believer will raise his children in in faith in Jesus. But, if somehow that child rejects Jesus, then he is cut off or excommunicated from the fellowship of believers. But even here, we must trust the promises of God made to Abraham, "I will be a God to you and to your children." And we must under stand that all of God's promises are yes and amen in Christ Jesus.
Question then... for CredoBaptists... if the sign of the New Covenant is now no longer circumcision, but a new heart... a circumcised heart... were Old Testament believers not to have a circumcised heart because Christ hadn't come yet? I find numerous places in the Prophets where God is upset with the people for not having a circumcised heart.
Credoaptist here (although not fully Reformed). The answer is yes, they were to have a circumcised heart, but a circumcised heart was not a requirement for entry into the Covenant. In the New Covenant, the circumcision of the heart is guaranteed to all members.
Old Testament believers were saved by faith not by the external sign. Likewise, baptism in the new covenant doesn’t save a person.
@@kennethmick-evans6600 All those of true spiritual Israel both OT and NT have a circumcised heart. All physically circumcised persons in the OT era were not truly circumcised in heart, but all those who were true spiritual Israel did. Today - in the same way - all baptized persons do not have a circumcised heart but all real believers do. Both circumcision and baptism are external signs of what we need - new birth. Just seems like the signs are ultimately the same and thus PaedoBaptists would have justifiable grounds to apply the new symbol, now with richer meaning, in the same way, to converts and believers' children.
@@justinnelson63 Amen brother!!
@@ChristopherColegrove1983 what is baptism as sign of, though? The NEED for regeneration, or regeneration? If the former, shouldn't we baptize the whole world, then?
The background music is very distracting. Otherwise it’s a great presentation.
I'm sure your content is good, but I cannot hear it properly because the background music is too loud and distracting - Probably because I wear hearing aids. Sorry.
Question, is it pronounced "pay doe" or "pee doe"? I think "pay doe" seems right to me but I've heard others pronounce it "pee doe".
But in the church there are those that have been baptized and confess but aren’t true believers. So then the credobaptists position is inconsistent.
Is it not the same for paedobaptists?
In TRUE Reformed theology, circumcision is blood letting and that was fulfilled by the work of Christ who shed His blood. But, the promise is the same as unto Abraham where it was unto him AND his seed/children. True believers believe that God not only saves them, but they believe that God is faithful to keep His Promise that their seed will inherit the earth. Thus, Paedobaptism is TRUE Credobaptism because their baptism isn't merely for themselves, it is for their seed/children/household as well. Why do you think there were mostly household baptisms in the New Testament? The only two exceptions were single men who were set aside to not have children, i.e. Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch.
It is written "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."
TheWhatdoesthatmean Who believes that they are justified (apart from the Catholics)?
Sanctified means to be clean.
***** But not saved!
yip, holy need not be redeemed.
+Rezur Rexion These passages are speaking about marriage and family, not eternal salvation. The sanctification/cleanliness/holiness spoken of here is in the context of a marriage that is pleasing in God's sight. That divine pleasure extends to the whole family unit. If this were regarding eternal salvation then one would have to understand that an unbeliever can vicariously inherit heaven through the faith of their spouse. The Bible does not teach this type of Inclusivism as one of the prescriptive means of inheriting demerited eternal life outside of the individual's God-given faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. :)
Circumcision of the heart is accomplished in Baptism. Rom. 6:3-9. Regeneration is also accomplished in Baptism. Titus 3:5.
1. Did the thief on the cross see Jesus in Paradise?
2. Are we saved by faith plus works, or by faith alone?
3. What is a euphemism?
This is incorrect. Regeneration is only accomplished by the Spirit for salvation is of the Lord. Therefore baptism is only a sign of one being united to Christ. I'd love to discuss this further with you if you're willing. Blessings.
Tbh the more i subscribe to covenant theology the less i can hold to credobaptism, i was raised evangelical and still attend evangelical churches but i feel more and more i am edging towards being a paedobaptis, or closet shall we say, 3, 2, 1, cue the credobaptists and paedobaptists fighting in the comments section xD i guess i just view it that paedobaptism aligns more with my christian experience, along with the theology i hold, and i do struggle to fit credobaptism into that line of thinking
The ending is so unsatisfactory. So what is the "biblical" position?
Haha, that's part of being a Christian. We do our research and pray about it, then we agree to disagree.
Credo-baptism, of course.
team credo
Team Credo.
Sorry but your groups admins disagree. Your group's admins would refer to the latter as "not reformed"
I've learned that nobody in the Pub is "truly Reformed" 😂
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
What's this annoying music in the back? I can't concentrate on what you're saying.
*Laughs in baptismal regeneration*
Solid video ! but if what you said about credo-baptism is true - then faith alone is false for them to preach. In faith alone its your faith in Christ that brings you to the New Covenant and NOT a regenerative heart as you describe.
+Nathan Vani Only the truly regenerate (born again) individual has true saving faith. It is the Spirit, through the Word, that brings regeneration, to those called by the Father, by replacing their hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, which results in faith and justification. So it still stands that we are saved by faith alone... the question is, who has faith? The answer: the regenerate believer. :) Rom 8:28-30, Eph 1:3-14
+Zachary Bader exactly !! :) and as a Roman Catholic we teach that exact same doctrine. To say that the regenerated heart is required to have a saving faith actually goes completely against the reformers.
Which reformers did not believe that regeneration and saving faith go hand-in-hand? If you agree with the biblical doctrine as I described, then you'd also agree that regeneration leading to faith brings one into the New Covenant?
+Zachary Bader the heart of the Reformation was the separation of Justification and Regeneration - that it is only through Faith alone a believer is declared righteous before God. That a regenerated spirit is merely a consequence of this declaration, that Regeneration while linked is still very much a separate and interior process. The Catholic view is that we don't split Justification and Regeneration - we consider a man to be declared righteous before God both by his regenerated heart WITH his faith in the merits of Christ. While the reformers taught that only the latter is required.
To learn a little more about this you can watch The Doctrine of Justification Lie on UA-cam - haha it is quite long ! But it can be quite an eye opener - even if you don't agree it definetly teaches quite a bit - recommend it :)
Which reformers believed that regeneration is the result of faith? When a reformed person speaks of faith alone, regeneration is already assumed because you cannot have faith without regeneration. The hearing of the Gospel is also assumed since that is where the Spirit does His work at the proper time. God's sole-giving act of grace that replaces a heart of stone with a heart of flesh IS the act of regeneration. It happens first and faith comes as a result.
One does not keep repeating the transformation of regeneration; once one has been made a new creature it does not become an issue of presenting regeneration as an item to pair up with faith, because being regenerate is not something one HAS but something one IS. It is accurate to say that a regenerate person has faith, and THAT faith saves. It would be less accurate to say that a person has regeneration and faith and that regeneration coupled with faith saves. The reformers didn't believe that a person could have faith without regeneration.
The heart of The Reformation is that justification is based on Christ alone, received by faith alone, and given by grace alone. Rome does not agree with what reformed folks believe to be the biblical definitions and therefor doctrines of justification and grace. It's that difference that continues to this day. :)
So, basically paedo has nothing to do with getting baptized as a way to publicly proclaim faith. It’s like salvation insurance.
I believe he made a critical error in there that is actually the source of much confusion within the debate itself. It confuses both paedo and credo Baptists.
That error is this: he refers to circumcision as the sign of the old covenant and baptism as the sign of the new covenant. This is not so. Circumcision was instituted as the sign of the covenant of grace. With Abraham and his household. Baptism was instituted as a replacement of the sign of the covenant of grace… a change instituted by Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19. According to all conventional protocols at the time, Jesus ‘should’ have said …circumcising. He didn’t, thereby institution a change. A change, incidentally (actually not so incidentally) that did not involve a change in the recipients of the sign.
Hebrews 8 makes clear that when the old covenant is referenced(8:9, 9:1) it is clear that the Mosaic covenant is in view. And it is the Mosaic covenant that is rendered obsolete. 8:13. I believe Galatians 3:17 (actually, all of Gal 3) has import here as well… indicating that the law of Moses does not annul a precious covenant. The Mosaic (old) covenant was added as a temporary codicil.
Really, I find the debate deflates when these simple things are seen and acknowledged. We baptize infants of believers because God has told us to. (Through Abraham and Jesus)
And that's the catch, go read your Bible, and you'll find no instruction from God to baptize an infant, you'll find no example of baptism of an infant, and you'll find a total of 0 passages thag reference baptizing an infant.
Those who were baptized heard the word, and understood the price that had to be paid.
Infant baptism is meaningless, and you'll see that if you actually read your Bible 🤷🏻♂️
And that's the catch, go read your Bible, and you'll find no instruction from God to give the Lord's Supper to a woman, you'll find no example of Communion of a woman, and you'll find a total of 0 passages thag reference Communing a woman.
By your logic, Female communion is meaningless, and you expect us to see that if we actually read your Bible.
But I understand the main thrust of your argument is that moderns believe that infants can't have true faith, but that's unbiblical.
*John the Baptist had and professed faith from his Mother’s womb.*
_And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41
*A psalmist had faith from birth.*
_For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_
_You are my trust from my youth._
*_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_*
_You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6
*David had faith from birth.*
_[You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י while on the breasts of my mother._
_I have been dependent on you since birth;_
_from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God._ Psalm 22:9
*Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy.*
_From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms] you have known the holy message._ 2 Timothy 3:15
*David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith.*
_And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16
_Why do Christians baptize?_
[Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
_Why do Christians baptize infants?_
Infants are included in “the whole creation.”
_But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_
Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41. A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
_But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16
_But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is noway to be closer to Jesus than this!
_But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_
No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “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." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
What absolute BS. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
You've said nothing to explain what your problem is. What are people supposed to take from your comment?
I cringed when the narrator said that "credobaptism" was also a Reformed position because it is inherently anti-reformed!
The Reformed Baptists and 1689 Confession would like to have a word with you...
@@42elliott Oh, those plagiarizers of the WCF taking out those Anabaptist bits that they don't like?
@@logosnomos3794 more like the reformers who kept reforming
Gave a thumbs down just because of the ungodly music.
Carpe Diem paedobaptist doesn’t mean Romans catholic. There are so many doctrinal differences
Gave a thumbs down to your comment just because of the legalism.
LOL XD