Does Infant Baptism Go Against The Bible?!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- In this video, I respond to Cliffe Knechtle on the George Janko podcast discussing his view on infant baptism.
If you'd like to support this ministry, please consider becoming a patron for exclusive content, behind-the-scenes, group zoom calls and MORE.
patreon.com/Vo...
Social Media:
Tik-Tok: @voiceofreason_clips
Instagram: @voiceofreason_clips
#infantbaptism #baptism #baptize #christianity #christian #catholic #catholicism #cliffeknechtle
Let’s make it happen, Get Alex (voice of reason) on a podcast with George Janko
I agree
I think him and cliffe would be way more interesting
Is he anti-Catholic?
YESSSS WE NEED THIS SALUDOS DESDE MEXICO A.G.S HERMANOS DE DIOS
Yes@@annamanvelian7671
You never know how God will work things out. I was raised Catholic, was nominal, had a big conversion in high school, then left with a crash after struggling with homosexuality. I embraced atheism, rationalized away my faith to make things easier, and lived that life for 15 years.
I was miserable and had trained myself to take atheism for granted. I went from not being sorry for being attracted to men, to still not being sorry for the attraction, but realizing the actions were making me miserable. I was death scrolling and came across Cliffe. He reignited my intellectual interest in Christianity. However I am certain it was my baptism in the Trinity that led me there and brought me in WEEKS back to full communion with the Catholic Church. Cliffe was a part of that. I fervently hope he realizes the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is the clear visible Church founded by Christ on earth.
Beautiful testimony! Have you heard of the channel "catholic recon"? You should offer to be a guest. He is looking for conversion guests!
God bless you brother, we all struggle with sin of every kind, life on earth isn't easy for those who were chosen from the earth
Amen 🙏 I was born and raised Catholic and was Baptized as an infant. Got my first holy communion but opted out of confirmation. Was Atheist for a number of years and hated the world and even cursed at God that I didn’t truly believe existed at the time. Till one day I had a personal revelation and I had a vision of Christ on the Cross and I felt someone inside me pushing the tears out of my body and my tears perfectly imitated Christs tears on his face. That’s when I felt this Almighty presence come down above me from up above. After i had this urge to find my old Cross I had as a child that would hang over my doorway to my bedroom. Guess what I found it AND the rosary and bib that was given to me on my Baptism. I truly believe now if I wasn’t baptized as an infant I would have been hell bound.
Praise God
Amen brother
I give a lot of props to some protestant pastors because they did strengthen my foundation of Jesus, and now, I'm looking into the Catholic Church.
Same here, I feel like the faith in a lot of protestants preachers is great, but when it comes to questions on theology is where Catholics and Orthodox excel in my experience.
@@dameaswolf7804 welcome home friends we've been waiting !!!!
@@ehernan286 Thanks, will be starting RCIA soon.
Stay strong and do not give in to your curiosity about Catholicism. They will lead you astray and into doctrines and traditions that are unbiblical and even antibiblical!
As an example, they do not believe in salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ; even to the point of insult. These same people welcoming you would have considerably less welcoming things to say if you declared you’d never convert!
One of the best examples of the truth of faith alone is directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself: John 3:16 Christ says, “For God so loved the world…whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
More to the point, at one of their councils some centuries back (Trent, I believe), the Catholics declared anyone who believes in salvation by faith alone to be anathema! That word means cursed; if you were Catholic, they would kick you out of the church, and according to them, you would be damned to Hell when you die! And they are wrong about that (Christ decides who gets in, not any man or church) and so many more things. And to this day, no pope or any Catholic has reversed that decree.
Completely nonsense. Protestants helped bring me to Christ. But they're lacking in so many ways only the Catholic church has the fullness of faith. They latch on to one piece of Scripture and throw out anything that contradicts it. Their faith is to shallow @@Halloweendm
I’m Orthodox. The simplest argument for infants coming to faith is St John the Baptist leaping in his mothers womb when the Theotokos visited her: Luke Chapter 1
I also affirm Infant Baptism, but St. John the Baptist was the second greatest human to ever live. I think if we dont think that we as infants can necessarily have faith of our own, we need our parents for that. God Bless ❤️
@@TheLutheranZoomer Well, 3rd/4th depending on which tradition you follow.
Jesus is 1st
Mary Second
and then St. Joseph/ John the Baptist for either 3rd or 4th.
@@Cklert I was really just referencing Mathew 11:11
@@TheLutheranZoomer my point is simply that St John the Baptist was gifted faith by God, we know that infants can be gifted faith.
@@EricAlHarb all i was saying is that faith is gifted as infants because of the faith of our parents
Cliff is a good preacher, it's a shame that he isn't catholic, and knowing how he knows the Bible so well I can't get why he isn't. God bless 🇻🇦
While some Protestants are aware of their pride in thinking they know everything about Christianity , some are unaware
Jesus doesn’t want us to follow a church he wants us to love and follow him
@@boi__7898it's about Jesus. There are lukewarm Catholics, there are lukewarm Christians. Focus on Jesus. Jesus is the saving grace, not how 'perfect' a believer you are.
@@datboiron2549Jesus does want us to follow His Church, why else would He create one?
but church is the body of Jesus and Jesus is the head of church Col 1:18 so who are you to separate church from Jesus@@datboiron2549
Yes, infants can be baptized. Baptism is a free gift to all. Babies, and even disabled people who cannot speak or think for themselves. There’s no where in scripture where it excludes them. And the order of receiving the gift of baptism doesn’t matter. You can be baptized and grow up in faith, or be firm in your faith then be baptized if you were not baptized before in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because baptism washes away our sins.
Babies should NOT be baptised because they don’t even have the ability to REPENT and CONFESS their faith before baptism.
Acts 2:38
“Peter replied, “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.”
It’s the BLOOD of Jesus that washes aways sins.
Baptism symbolises us dying and being resurrected with Jesus Christ into a new life.
@@edward1412 In acts whole families are baptized after the head of household is converted, there is no mention of having to convince everyone or make sure each is of the age of reason or older.
Also it makes sense to say "Repent and be baptized, every one of you" any babies in the crowd would obviously not be who peter was communicating too, since babies famously don't understand speech well enough.
@@edward1412 While infants cannot personally express faith, the faith of the parents and the faith community plays a significant role. Parents and godparents make a commitment to raise the child in the Christian faith, nurturing their spiritual growth until they can make their own profession of faith. Remember the paralyzed man who was healed because of his friends’ faith? When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Jesus also taught that being born of water and the Spirit is necessary for entering the kingdom of God. Jesus emphasized water baptism as an essential act of faith, symbolizing repentance, forgiveness, and the initiation into the life of a disciple. It is a public declaration of faith and obedience to His teachings.
@@edward1412 Amen
The Didache is so precise on all things baptism. If children were not to partake, I am positive that would be included with the instructions.
argument from silence is stupid😢😢
BABIES were not mentioned because they knew that they can’t confess and repent prior to baptism.
@@edward1412 Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.🤣🤣
Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
Luke 18:15 - Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 - Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
By the way, infant baptism is also practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Reformed Church in America, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ (UCC), Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, and others. Together, these constitute over 80% of all those who call themselves Christians.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
By the way, infant baptism is also practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Reformed Church in America, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ (UCC), Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, and others. Together, these constitute over 80% of all those who call themselves Christians
Ireneaus, Hyppolytus, Origen and Cyprian all write that infant baptism was the practice of the church. These men would range from 190-250 AD predating any imperial influence.
@@edward1412 In Acts whole families are baptised because their head of household converted, I dont recall any mention of "his whole family was baptized except his infant children" or "except his daughter because she was unconvinced".
cliff is good when debating atheists, but when it comes to christian theology this non denominational doctrine lacks
This is what we call fight our own fellow christians,we are correcting and expanding our knowledge about Concepts
Cliffe is bringing alot of souls to one true God
He was talking according to his experience that worked for him
baptízō - properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle")
@@GaryCrant gj trying to explain greek to a greek lmao but no thanks (
@@13me5 so you’re saying the word means something else?
@@GaryCrant it also means to wash, the guy in the video literally explains this
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS- For he came to save all through himself-all, I say, who through him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men [Against Heresies 2:22:4 (c. A.D. 189)].
Im a Lutheran and we believe in infant baptism as well
That’s a scary looking rabbit…
Lutherans are essentially Catholic lite
Lucitheran
@@brandonedwards1181 and your papist, Lutheran is the true Catholic Church
Ever thought of coming to the true church and being Catholic
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic CHURCH
A creed created 300 years after Christ by a group of people who never knew him or the apostles. That creed is not biblical. If you think about Jesus's character, and every time he said "woe to you pharisees!" What do you think he would truly say to people who follow this creed instead of Him alone? His stance on this exclusive hierarchy mindset of "only our church does it correctly"
@Gunthusiest so your 1 to 500 yesterday old protestant belief trumps 2000 years of one church created by God himself. Thata called pride my friend and you're littered with it
It's ruined now.
Catholic is another way to say modern heathen.
@Gunthusiest if I thought of Christ and what He said. It think of Luther, Calvin and King James. Oh! And king Henry too.
I’m not Catholic, but I do enjoy listening to Catholics. Appreciate the videos brother.
I whole heartedly agree
Maybe someday you will be maybe God is tugging at your heart
@@joeyrose1245God bless
“Repent” and be baptized? What is repentance and how does it happen ? Can a baby even understand what repentance is? “Believe” ? Can a baby believe? When the jailer and his family (household) are baptized, it doesn’t mention any children. The household could have all been adults who believed and were subsequently baptized.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
@@georgepierson4920 baptize an infant and as soon as he talks and walks cheats and lies, what's next? He doesn't know repentance yet
Babies are innocent. What do they need to repent for? Pooping themselves? Peeing all over dad?
AND... not THEN
Can you or your producer put the verses you are reading from up on the screen so we can read along during your videos?
Google infant baptism catholic answers and the verses will be in them.
This man follows the heresy
"don't follow religion, follow Jesus".
Actually Jesus founded a Church over the apostles with a defined hierarchy 🇻🇦, He taught prayers, rituals, instituted the Sacraments, He ordered his followers to fast, taught a moral code, and behaviour rules...
He also followed the traditions of His nation and He ordered to share the Good News with all mankind.
Definitely Jesus founded a religion.
A lot of protestants follow the same error of this man.
Jesus wants religion because religion is relationship.
Bless you for your wisdom, thank you
It's the Catholic Church that follows religion, you are saved by grace through faith not of yourself, it's a gift of God not of works [ Ephesians 2 v 8-9] No one is saved by baptism as it's obedience after getting saved. Mass going or attending Church or doing rituals or sacrements will not save you. To be a Christian you have to put your trust fully on what Christ done on the cross for us [ 1 corinthians 15 v 3-4] If we confess with our mouth and believe in our heart we will be saved. [ Romans 10 v 9-10]
Jesus said you must be born again to have eternal life [ John 3 v 3-7] By the deeds of the law threre is no one Justified]
@@johnmccaughey36 so many heresies together in a very short space.
Be careful.
Just shows that you are not a believer if you call what I said heresy. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.( John 3 v 36)
It sounds like it’s you that has to be careful.
@@johnmccaughey36 if someone doesn't eat the Flesh of the Lord and doesn't drink His Blood, this person is spirtually dead.
If you don't participate in the Holy Eucharist there is no life in you.
Be careful with the heresies you follow.
Love that he’s tackling this question,I’m a Pentecostal Protestant that’s looking into converting to the Catholic Church I love this.Also cliffe isn’t exactly a good teacher he’s a good speaker but not rlly all that well when confronted
Catholic Calture is a good channel 👍ways of the fathers
That's something that I noticed as well. I'm a Catholic, was born into a Catholic family, baptized as an infant, and allowed myself to choose to either leave or stay in the Church when I was just leaving high school (thank God the Holy Spirit moved me to stay) but I do like listening to Cliffe because he does have some interesting views and rebuttals to objections to Christianity. However I have noticed that when he's challenged with actual intellect he tends to just circle around the question and just preaches rather than address the question.
Prayers for you 🙏🏻 so you may find your way to the one church 🇻🇦✝️
@@GamingxKnightyeah I’m starting to see that too. Great defender of the Faith but not too knowledgeable in the more doctrinal/dogmatic issues
If it helps, the Bible says households were baptized multiple times. Not one verse rules out children being in that household. A household includes every one living in that home, including children.
With that consider this: There is not one verse that says children cannot be baptized. It is an invention that to restrict children from baptism and this invention is not based on a society Biblical restriction.
The Church is the bride of Christ.
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Mark 16:16 KJV
this verse can go both ways. It doesn’t necessarily prove or disprove either side .
Regarding the households. We have to ASSUME that infants were a part of the households. Although it’s very possible, we have no definitive statements in the Bible that say so.
The only thing we know for certain is that believing in Jesus is a requirement for baptism. And if some households were baptized together, then all the members were old enough to express their faith.
Lastly, if the man of the house gets saved there’s over a 90% chance his household will too.
Many Protestants forget that Jesus left us his church not the Bible (Catholic book).
Maybe that’s just a catholic claim
@@isaacakinz2930It’s not a mere Catholic claim. Jesus established his Church the moment he declared Peter to be the rock and Shepard that would lead his Church, giving him the keys to the Kingdom, as well as when he breathed the Holy Spirit into the apostles giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins.
Christ did not leave us the Bible New Testament. His apostles did, sure. But the Church came first and scripture even confirms this.
Also the Catholic Church is who agreed upon the canon of the Old and New Testament books so technically speaking the Bible is from Catholics in a sense. The Catholic Church was also the Church to translate the Old and New Testaments into Latin which later paved the way for the vernacular translations.
@@bobizzle1605 Catholic 💯. Amen
@@isaacakinz2930Show us the Bible table of contents chapter and verse please. Someone chose the books in the Bible. History shows that happened in the 4th century. There is not one 66 book Bible prior to the Reformation.
The problem with this is you represent religion and Catholicism unlike protestants they're on the streets preaching the gospel. I never seen protestants who says "I am proud to be a Protestant".
What if one from your household is against god but one fully believes? Will the whole family be saved?
“Ladies and gentleman, we got em”😂
Bro missed the point. Peter is saying “repent” first. Babies can’t repent they’re unaware of what’s happening. He just said this “promise” which is salvation is for all of us.
No, I don't think Alex (video producer) missed the point. Indeed, he gave props to Cliffe right at the beginning of the video for reading Scripture as he did. It's not that Alex missed the point. That is what Protestants tend to assume when encountering Catholic doctrine on baptism, but what's really happening is that Alex here and Catholics generally are filling in what several branches of Protestantism generally and Cliffe here miss when reading Scripture without the benefit either of revelation being lived out or of authoritative teaching about what the revelation means.
Cliffe is right that an adult pagan, being responsible for his actions, would hear and embrace the gospel before being baptised. What Cliffe misses is that when he does, the grace of salvation which accompanies baptism is not doled out stingily, so that only the hearer receives the grace; but rather is poured out bountifully, so that all those who belong to the hearer and all those for whom the hearer is responsible also receive the benefit of this overflowing grace. This is foreshadowed in Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic on the strength of the faith of his keepers and caregivers. In exactly similar fashion, the children thereafter born to the newly converted benefit from the faith of the newly converted by having the grace of salvation through baptism available to them, in the same way, but now perfected and enlarged, that the children of Israel became members of the covenant household of God in infant circumcision under the old covenant.
@@gregorybarrett4998 I find it funny that even though the Bible says directly that one is to believe and be baptized to be saved, they can think that a child has the ability to do so. And by believing a child has a necessity t be baptized to wash away sins, that a child would have sins on them. If, as the Bible says, baptism is the fore remission, or removal, or forgiveness of sins, then baptism before belief is not "reason"able. You don't wash yourself in preparation of getting dirty, or thinking that washing before getting dirty suitable to wash off what you get on you later. For this to be called "Voice of Reason", this has no reason to it whatsoever.
Moreover, you bring up Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic. Jesus could do that while on earth. Jesus told the pharisees that the Son of man has the power(authority) on earth to forgive sins. Jesus is not here on earth anymore. This is why He gives the command to believe and be baptized.
@@kellytisdale7322 Hi, Kelly.
Thanks for your reply. It represents fairly well the typical understanding of those who oppose infant baptism. There are, of course however, replies which Catholicism is ready to make. Since Catholicism understands the Bible to be a Catholic book, and not a Protestant book, Catholicism understands that everything in Scripture is perfectly consistent with Catholic doctrine. Catholicism therefore has no fear that the content of Scripture can successfully be used to invalidate Catholic doctrine.
-You are correct, Kelly, that Scripture says that one is to believe and be baptised. Further, it is not unreasonable to understand this as a sequence and progression: first, one responds to his natural disposition to seek and know and respond to truth, beauty, and goodness; then one hears the message of the one who is sent; then one believes that the message corresponds with truth, beauty, and goodness; then one responds to the message; then one acts in obedience to the One from whom the message came, including in baptism.
What you're missing is both that Scripture does not say that this sequence is necessary and inescapable; and that Scripture does not say that baptism is to be withheld from those who belong to such a convert. What Scripture does identify is that faith and baptism go together, with the opposite of faith being not unbelief but disobedience. Whether there is a necessary sequence, and whether one is the cause of another or both result from something else is not specified.
These matters bear on the question of baptism of the members of the household of the convert at the time of his conversion, as well as those born into his household thereafter. As Alex pointed out in the video, this was intimated in the proclamation of the gospel and practised with those who responded. Since the Scripture is ambiguous about whether the members of the household included infants or those not (yet) possessed of the faculty of reason, nothing more than indications pro and con can be deduced from Scripture. This is why we need a referee to sort out ambiguous cases. This is lived out in the ruling authority of the Church and explained in the teaching authority of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth. These teachings and practises were operative in the Church throughout the period in which the Church was discerning the canon of Scripture. The same Church which ruled and taught about infant baptism discerned and ruled and taught on the canon of Scripture, and during the same time period. Actually, baptism was settled (codifying ancient practice in 253) long before the canon (ruling on persistent disputes in 382).
-It's not that a child already has the ability to entertain, weigh, and assent to a set of propositions concerning the content of the doctrine of the faith. But the issue at hand is not whether one has sufficient intellectual capacity. In this sense, even the demons believe, and shudder. Rather, unless you become like a little child, you shall not enter the kingdom of God. What a little child does have is the implicit faith of one who needs, who knows he needs, who knows that the supply of his need is available, and seeks the supply of his need. This is true in every dimension of an infant's life.
-With respect to sin, there is a distinction to be drawn. You are right, Kelly, that an infant, and more generally someone not possessed of a properly functioning faculty of reason, cannot consciously and intentionally reject the good and choose the evil. In that sense, baptism would be superfluous. There are, however, further considerations. In the first place, Adam and Eve's transgression cost them the supernatural gifts, including that of sanctifying grace. Since this was a supernatural gift, this did not cause them to cease to be human, but it did mean that such grace was no longer in their possession, and they therefore did not have it to pass on to their children. Since supernatural grace is indispensable for friendship with God and eternal life in heaven, they and their children stood in need of a means by which to become possessed of such grace in order to attain the supernatural ends for which they were created. Baptism is God's supply to meet this need. This is independent of any personal actual sin for which the individual may be responsible.
As a side note, as for sequence with respect to actual personal sin, the Church recognises you to be correct. Just as you don't get baptised in virtue of sins in prospect, in the sense in which you mention, so baptism does not wash away sins committed after baptism. For this, Christ instituted the sacrament of reconciliation, so that even sins committed after baptism have their remedy.
-You're right, Kelly, that Jesus could forgive sins while on earth. The gospel records men wondering that such power could be operative at the hands of men, rather than by God alone. What is striking is that Jesus remains on earth throughout time. This is referenced in the great commission, in Jesus' apparition to Saul of Tarsus, and in Jesus' conferral of this power on His apostles when He explicitly commissioned them to judge men, and provide forgiveness of sins to those they found worthy.
@@gregorybarrett4998 I'm sorry but the totality of scripture does not support infant baptism even working at all. Colossians 2:11-12 tells us that baptism, being a working of God, is done through faith. A child has no faith. They don't know faith because they don't know what faith is. Much what or who God is. A child has no sin to wash off or have forgiven. A child can't repent from sin much less have it removed.
@@kellytisdale7322 Hi, Kelly.
Thanks for your reply. In it you have again represented fairly well the typical understanding of those who oppose infant baptism. I'm wondering, though, whether you have considered any of the matters I proposed for your consideration. It seems to me that reflection on these matters would give occasion for you to pause and reconsider.
-When you speak of the totality of Scripture, that includes those passages which can be used to support a different, or fuller, or more nuanced understanding. The natural inclination is to pit one set of passages against another, and end up saying something like one or both of, "I have more Scriptures, so I win!", or, "I have the more important Scriptures, so I win!" What the Church does instead is say, " 'All of Scripture is inspired of God, and is useful....', so we need to understand the whole of revelation in ways which give full weight to each element, while recognising that they operate each in their own domain(s) with such overlap as they have."
-As I pointed out, Colossians 2:11-12 does not say that infants may not be baptised. It does indicate that baptism in the new covenant lines up with circumcision in the old covenant. Circumcision in the old covenant was explicitly prescribed for adult converts, but it was most often discussed in reference to the infant children of members of the household of existing members of the covenant. The natural expectation, therefore, was that baptism would be applied to infant children of members of the household of existing members of the new covenant. The practice of the Church bore this out, and the authority of the Church ruled on this.
Like all of Scripture, Colossians 2:11-12 is addressed to adult converts and their adult believing children, not to infants, and discusses the situation meaningful to those believing adults, not to other categories of people. Accordingly, as far as the understanding of Scripture goes, what is meaningful for other categories of people is to be inferred from passing remarks rather than from the thrust of the argument. But even this is meaningful primarily in the context of dealing with Protestants who have nothing more than Scripture. In the Church, the household of God, the fullness of revelation resides, and we see from the whole of the life of the Church, including Scripture but not limited to it, what God has provided, including infant baptism.
-You're correct, Kelly, that Colossians 2:12 refers to faith being operative in the context of baptism. It is helpful to remember that faith is not superstition. Faith is not magic. Faith is not a meaningless term which is used only in and applies only to the new testament Scriptures or the theological meditations of Christians. Faith is the willingness to stake your outcome on the kind of trust in someone else which makes decisions, not on the basis of immanently generated knowledge but rather on confidence of the trustworthiness of the one who gives directions. This is why we speak of marriage partners being faithful, to give one example. Another would be military personnel obeying their commander, knowing that they are staking their lives on his commands providing the greatest likelihood of success and survival. This behavioural trust is possible even when the faculty of reason is not (yet) (sufficiently) developed, as is the case with infants. This is called interpretive faith, and is distinguished from such intellectual assent as is found in demons. While it is right and good to know the content of the doctrine of the faith, such knowledge is distinct from the willingness to stake one's outcome.
Beyond this, the basis for infant baptism is rooted in authority. Scripture generally has far greater respect both for authority and for relationship than does modern western society. The teaching of Scripture and the Church holds that members of the household are sanctified in virtue of the believing responsible member of the household.
-One of the weaknesses of Protestant theology is that baptism must necessarily express repentance for personal sin. This is a hindrance for evangelisation, because the Protestant evangelist must necessarily spend his effort trying to convince his interlocutor that his interlocutor is personally guilty of such sin as needs forgiveness. This is disordered on several levels. It is the business of the Holy Spirit to convict anyone of personal sin, not the evangelist, who thereby inescapably becomes rude, invasive, and demeaning. Correct evangelisation instead focuses on the need and supply of the necessarily supernatural nature of grace required for regeneration, friendship with God, and eternal life with Him in heaven. In the process, the interlocutor will with God's help discover for himself and in the privacy of his own soul any sins which are incompatible with perfect love and holiness. Infants indeed have no personal sin, but they do have need of supernatural grace, therefore they are suitable candidates for baptism.
Important question, is there even one example of rebaptism in scripture?
Re baptism absurd..
yes, in Acts 19 a group of disciples who were previously baptized by John the Baptist, were baptized for a second time by Paul
Is John’s baptism the same as Jesus’s baptism? They had to be rebaptized because they didn’t receive the trinitarian post-resurrection sacrament.
@@ChillyMilly908johns baptism was under the old covenant... it was also "for the forgiveness sin"
The only time something like this is said to happen is when John's disciples, who had recieved the baptism of John, were given Baptism in the form prescribed by Jesus.
They were different baptisms, as St John the Forerunner himself confesses, and is the only thing that could even be twisted to create a doctrine permitting rebaptism.
When I first read acts and when it says household I use common sense that a household includes children and even infants which lead me to the conclusion that infant baptism is valid. Though I love the way how you explain it throughout the entire video, especially with the connection of the old testament to the new testament.
You are wrong he said repent and BE baptized NOT GO AND GET BAPTIZED.
He's talking about spiritually not water baptism
The greek doesnt have a be, plus he says to confess to repent, which means confession is rebaptism ?
Water Baptism is Spiritual Baptism 🤦🏼♂️
“Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time.”
Titus 3:9 NLT
It depends what it is your true intentions are.
II Timothy 2:23-26
[23] But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. [24] And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, [25] in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, [26] and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
We have to teach people the truth through God's Word.
salvation is base on personal decision, I cant decide for my family but if a repent and baptize it will open a door that I might also share to them the gospel that's what it means
You cant take protestants serious. They choose to follow their own beliefs instead of the apostles that received the actual instructions from christ himself...why would anyone not want to be part of the apostolic church...
@user-ho6vh3sf9s It’s catholics you can’t take seriously although it doesn’t matter. Are you saved from your sin and have eternal life or are you trying to do some religious rituals or good works to get there.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away ( Isaiah 64 v 6, Romans 3 v 20)
Because the Catholics would burn you alive for having a Bible.
I could ask you the same question.
Why wouldn't you !
So if a father becomes a Catholic and gets baptized even his unrepentant adult children will be saved? You even read out the next verse where the jailer's household heard Paul's preaching for themselves Likewise Lydia's household heard his preaching and were not just saved by Lydia's conversion
baptism is the new circumcision. When do you perform circumcision on a child? on the 8th day right? That means we should baptize infants that are 8 days old. CASE CLOSED.
You should look up what most those people that were circumcised did in the Bible.
That’s under the old covenant. God was very explicit when stating when to be circumcised. Don’t you think Jesus would be with Baptism then too, based on your logic?? Don’t add or take away from His word!
Actually I think chrysostom says don't even wait till the eighth day since the new covenant is better than the old it can happen quicker
@geraldmurphy321 Yeah even tho I don't agree still. His logic means 7-day-old babies or younger are hellbound lol
Water baptism is the new circumcision it is religious fiction no biblical evidence is found . You catholics make up things while you go !
Like you said, “let the children come to me” not, “force the children to me” come to me means at your own will, by themselves. You’ve definitely informed me more of the covenant, but what’s baptism? It’s a sign of public declaration to symbolize one’s faith in Christ and sins being washed away. The baby doesn’t understand what faith even is. When you read the Bible, you don’t just take a couple parts that talk about the new covenant, you take other scriptures and pieces them all together like a puzzle so that way you get the best image of how God wants us to be. One big evidence to why you baptize when you’re not a baby is because Jesus and John the Baptist were never baptized as infants and Jesus and John the Baptist never baptized an Infant, just adults.
Couldn’t have said it better !!!!!! A child cannot repent that’s why it’s very important to read scripture and understand the whole context of it. People tend to get one verse and flip it as they please!!
ST. HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME- The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family [Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Cliff is right you’re lost. How could a baby repent and be born again and be awared if what’s going on
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
@@georgepierson4920 yes but a baby have no knowledge so it’s righteous just like lots in the bible can only be judged of what he or she knows
@@chilichill7252 So, Paul should have written, "for not all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
@@georgepierson4920You mean to say that a baby sins?14. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.If an infant dies that infant goes straight to heaven baptism does not count for infants.certainly you must see the difference between the verse in Romans and what the Lord Jesus taught that this is two different subjects.
@@georgepierson4920 how could a baby confess
Hey Alex and everyone here! First and foremost, I want to say that I appreciate your devotion to the Lord and what your page is striving to stand for. However, I must say that after watching a few of your videos (and enjoying them btw), I find something very alarming in your stance and how you interpret Scripture here in this video 4:05. I know you are a studied man, but anyone who studies Hermeneutics knows that context is very important when trying to understand the word of God. It is improper exegesis to grab any verse and isolate a meaning to fit your belief. I found it very disheartening and honestly concerning when you quoted Acts 16:14-15 and later Acts 16:30-33 to make your point on infant baptism using “household” theory in your explanation. I must start by saying that though household may imply that their could or could not be infants it is not specifically stated in this passage whether they were present at the time of Lydia’s conversion. Nevertheless, I am more disturbed about how you incorrectly stated that the Jailer’s “household” was saved by his faith because the Jailer was at the jail house and his family were not present. This is completely false because when you read Acts 16:31-33 you clearly see the gospel message was shared with him and all who were in his household, “So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” You read these verses, but breezed over them like they were not relevant which can be perceived as disingenuous as it is important to note that each member of his family heard the word and responded with baptism which further reinforces Mark 16:16 and the individual need to believe and respond in faith. In any case, just felt compelled to share since I haven’t seen anyone point that out, but I hope you keep doing what you are doing in your pursuit of Him and may God bless you!
I acknowledge ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. ✝️
one holy catholic church
You forgot apostolic. God bless 🇻🇦
Yes One Holy Catholic Church !
Not the Roman Catholic Church !
Household doesn’t exactly mean “Family” like children or even infants. Household also means people living with you who are not necessarily family (They just live under the same room) There’s no way you can prove that it meant children and infants got baptized with Lydia.
A baby to repent? How can a baby repent if they are innocent.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
@@georgepierson4920 ur misunderstanding what sin it refers to. But Bible has show many time that baby/children are innocent morally and are the one who deserve the kingdom of God. And to be like this children because they’re morally innocent. Mark 10:13-16
@@georgepierson4920 Sin is the will to go against God and doing whatever you want. ignoring God’s law and wills. But baby/children’s can’t think or act on those, cuz they still don’t know what Good or bad. So they haven’t sin against God.
Challenge: name 1 child or a passage of a child (not even just infant) baptized in the bible.
Catholic= universal. CHRIST is universal. Catholic 💯
Sin = universal. Chatolic = universal. Chatolic.
Some Christians are ignorant to the fact that the words "Repent and be baptised for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", means that EVERYONE's sin, including children and infants are remitted. They contest this because they don't understand original sin.
@Galaxygacha-ir5ko So you saying everyones forgiven when they get baptised, then you are wrong. So the Child that goes on to murder or commit all sorts immoral sins is stiill forgiving, no this is false. You are saved when you realise you are guilty before a holy God and accept his sin payment on the cross [ Romans 3 v 10 , 10 v 9-10] and get born again [ John 3 v 7] Infant baptism counts for nothing, baptism is an obediene after getting saved and being immersed fully in water as testimony to the old life being buried with Christ [ Roman 6]
@@johnmccaughey36 It simply proves my point. You don't understand original sin. Lets not argue. If you are a Christian accept that Christ redeemed everyone, through His death and resurrection. Let us continue to be Christian and be at peace. God bless.
Love this video and all that you do. I pray that the Lord Jesus Christ continues to bless you and that you continue to spread His message and the correct teachings of the Church.
Just one point about baptism- the didache said IF you can’t immerse then you can pour over the head three times. Meaning that this is the EXCEPTION not the RULE. And it doesn’t ever use the term “sprinkle”.
Let's get alex tondo an interview with cliffe and John McArthur!
To your first point that Peter said children. He didn’t specifically say baptize children. He said it in a way that says you and your lineage will do this. That’s how I understand it.
When Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," did he say instead as for my and adults in my house, we shall serve the Lod? Or me and my generations after me...?
Why is it that 'protestants' often try to say that the clear words of scriptures meant something else than what it's saying in clear/plian language?
Beware of this trick of the enemy that subverts the truths of scripture.
When Jesus says do this.... do it. Simple
@@tellthetruth6430
We do keep it simple. It says in the scripture that them and their household will be saved, and that them and their household got baptized, that's it. It doesn't say anywhere that children were baptized, a household my compromise of adults only and can posible, you know. You have to add to it, to say that there where children in the household.
Furthermore, on Act 18:8 it talk about someone getting baptized, him and his household, but it clearly states that he and his household believed, it implies that every was of enough maturity to hear, understand and believe (And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Acts 18 : 8)
Another point, if is obvious that children/babies can get baptized, then why doesn't the bible simply state so? Especially since the bible doesn't talk much about children after the Gospels. It would've been stated that children where also baptized if that were the case since it previously was stated that the prerequisite for getting baptized is to believe in Christ and repent for your sins (let your old self died and reborn in Christ), none of this is possible if you are child.
All in all, we do keep it simple. Our believe is simple and consistent with what we our told by the scripture. To believe otherwise is to insert and/or make assumptions that are contrary to the meaning of baptism. God bless.
@ReapeR1793 Your response I'd a typical example of 'tell me you are single/without child without saying it.' Even this saying does not justify your assumption at all because you were once a child in a household!
Where in scripture does it say that a household excludes children?
In that culture, when the head of a family "believes" the whole family believes. They weren't like you guys today scattering in multiple direction in disobedience to the head of your household.
Examples of households in scripture:
Joshua "me and my household will serve the Lord" - doesn't include children?
Abrahams' household of 318 men excludes women and children?
The household of David excluded children? Etc.
Please stop excluding those who Hod includes. Jesus said, "Let children come to me because the kingdom of heaven is like those...."
Above all, Jesus said baptism is essential, and he himself, though without sin, insisted on getting baptised in His case "to fulfil all righteousness."
As baptism is the new circumcision, and circumcision is largely for babies, except if you're converting as an adult, go out and baptise your babies ASAP. Simple!
@tellthetruth6430
First of all, I have kids, also I was making a case of why we believe different and why we don't share your believes, no need to be condescending and if I was condescending to you, I apologize.
I can also make the same case that by saying, "Where in scripture does it say that the household had kids," say what you will, but you are still assuming. And even if it did it doesn't specify that the kids were also baptized, and if thee indeed where baptized then the bible would specify it since one the previously stated prerequisites for baptism is to believe in Jesús and his sacrifice. It would be of great importance to specify it since children cannot fully comprehend that.
I can also make the case that verse "Let the children come to me because the Kingdom of Heavens is like those..." further proves our point by saying that the children are innovent therefore they dont need to be baptized to get to the Kingdom of Heavens, therefore meaning that we need to be like children; innocent, sinless, not abide by the old law, etc. to able to get to heaven, but clearly as more mature and knowing right from wrong we choose sin therefore not worthy of heaven, and only by believing and trusting in Christ can we be redeemed and cleans from our sins. Case in point by Jesus, saying the previous verse means that kids are innocent and sinless since He stated that the "Kingdom of Heavens is like those" and no person carrying sin will ever reach heaven, by default it means kids are innocent and pure and dont need to be baptized.
Also baptism is super important but is not essential for salvation, it stated throughout the New Testament that only Jesus is way, and He purify us from sins and take our place, baptism is a way to solidify our believe and trust in him (being reborn), for example, the thief on the cross was saved and he wasn't baptized, and may say that "well he didn't had time" but in Act 10:34 Peter said that "God is no respecter of persons" meaning that he doesn't value someone's life over others, He treats us and measure us the same, He is a just God. So, that being said, it's clear that baptism is not a requirement for salvation (I'm not saying it is not important). God bless.
@ReapeR1793 Thanks for your responses and respect. I didn't mean to be less respectful.
It is common knowledge that households/ houses /families have children, especially households of the ancient Middle East.
As a matter of fact, there's nowhere in scripture that households excluded children. Non. As a parent, I don't see how anyone can, without bias, assume otherwise. Go to Exodus 12. The passover lamb was for each household of Isreal. Please tell me how there were no children in all of their households.
You clearly, in good faith, CANNOT make that argument. House/households can also mean a whole tribe or nation. Therefore, this argument from silence really does not help.
You have to answer the following questions to yourself:
1) Was Jesus Christ pure and innocent?
2) Did Jesus Christ get baptised?
3) Why did Jesus insist on being baptised against John's protest?
5) If children are without original sin, why were they circumcised on the 8th day of their lives?
6) Is baptism not the new circumcision?
Lastly,
7) What do you understand from Acts of the apostles 2:38 - 39?
My take as a follower of Christ is to do whatever Jesus says and does, which is the example of Jesus - He does what He sees His father do.
There are somany things that aren't explicitly written in scripture, and we defer to the Holy Universal Church authority for interpreted and guidance.
Baptism washes away original sin, makes us children of God, members of His church. Baptism is not a public symbol. You do not need the public for baptism. Those households were baptised in their homes, not in public.
As you have children, go baptise them ASAP, please. I'm sure you aren't waiting for them to grow up to choose their schools, language, clothes, vaccines, medications, bed to sleep in, etc. You make those vital decisions for them as their parent. Like Joshua, choose the God you'll serve, and your children follow suit. That's how it should be. I'll soon start going live so we can have proper conversation as this texting thing isn't effective communication.
Be blessed.
Im so proud of following your youtube channel!
@@CatholicPrayerWarrior this is the correct intent, operate out of love, not the pride of religion.
@@CatholicPrayerWarriorLike for example?
Blessed*
It’s saddens me seeing Christians debating each other about who’s right and who’s wrong. I see Catholics worshipping the Catholic Church and not Jesus and talking down on Protestants and I see Protestants talking down on Catholics. We are suppose to be disciples of Jesus we are suppose to go spread the good news to non believers. We all love Jesus so why are we bringing each other down. Jesus is shaking his head at us with us right now. Romans 14: 1-13. Also how are we suppose to bring people to Christ when we constantly judge one another? Matthew 12:25 we should celebrate and each other not tear each other apart and away from Christ.
Right? Let's let the Holy Spirit guide us and not our pride.
God bless us all!
Catholicism - Christianity mixed with Roman paganism
Source: the devil
Again ..... Thank You Thank You Thank You !!!!!! .... You inspire me with your explanations for sure ..... God Loves You for what you do ...
Great video …
Amen and Amen! Hallelujah!
Glory be to God!!!
I saw a science backed article showing how clotting factors in newborn babies peaks on day 8 which would be the best day to ensure they don’t bleed to death.
They had no way of knowing that back then. That had to be passed to then directly from God 🙏🏻
My boy is grabbing scriptures and digging for justification for infant baptism 😂😂. Those verses in Acts have nothing to do with infant baptism lol stop the cap 🧢
That's a reach for sure.
Disprove it then?
No fr not even using context js using his own interpretation fr.
@@EldenLord00From what I’ve seen of Cliffs standpoint is that him and his son when asked to do baptisms on the baby don’t do the usual ritual of dipping the baby in the water BECAUSE it’s more about the meaning of what’s happening rather than the ritual itself. Not word for word but Cliff said they’d rather have the parents and the church as a community all take up responsibility to raise that baby to follow Christ and to do right by the child.
Also when the child grows older and understands what being saved means they then can choose for themselves
Bro, you said a lot of things but let me mention the few ones down here. The Bible does not mention anything regarding this practice. The baptism of infants was officially practiced and taught by Augustine of Hippo. It then officially became sacrament in the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215. Please look at my argument below and tell me what you think?
1st: From the verse you used, in Acts 2:41 the Bible clearly states: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized..." We see "receiving the word". Why does this matter? Well, because you have to accept, understand your position, recognize that you are of a sinful nature and that you need a Savior, repent and publicly demonstrate through baptism that you now belong to the family of Christ. If there is not believing of the Word, what are you doing?
2nd: In Acts 8:35-38, Philip was talking to the Ethiopian Eunuch. The later asks in verse 36: "...See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized". And Philip answers in verse 37 as this: "..If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest..." Why didn't he(Philip) just baptize the eunuch without asking about believing? Then, don't you think that they had water to drink that Philip could have used to sprinkle on the eunuch for baptism and that would be it? The word itself says: "Immerse". It also means washing. Washing as in a ritual for cleansing oneself. The baptism we do, is not for cleansing. The next point talks about what baptism we do according to Peter. Now if immersion can be a body part, why then is baptism compared to dieing with Christ and raising with Him(Rom 6:4-5)?
3rd: 1 Peter 3: 21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. What good conscience does an infant have ?
4rth: Then you mentioned believing and the whole household was baptized. Do you reckon that in the multiplication of bread and fish miracle that Jesus did women and children were not counted? If this is the case, can we agree that the Luke in writing Act of Apostles could have meant: "All adult in the household believed and were baptized" ?
5th: You also said that if you come to believe, your entire family is also saved. Well, it is natural that if I come to a certain knowledge, I would want those I love to also know it. I would want my entire family to get to this same knowledge, accept the Lord Jesus to be saved in return. It is not like, I believe in Jesus Christ and regardless of my family members beliefs, they automatically are saved. If this is the case, what did Paul mean in Philippians 2: 12 where he said: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." ? Is it only that one person that believed that needs to work on the salvation or all?
What will happen on the day of judgement? Will you stand for your children or for yourself?
6th: If the Bible does not clearly show children baptism but at least hammers on the fact that one needs to believe first and then get baptized, and that only in 1215 that this became a sacrament even though it was taught earlier, what happened before? Why the sudden push to get children baptized?
7th: Baptism is the new circumcision and only infants were circumcised. They did this to infants because although they feel pain, but they would heal quickly as opposed to old people. Remember the story of sons of Jacob how they lured Shechem and his people to massacre them? circumcision is typically done soon after birth, when it's relatively quick and easy. Circumcising an adult male involves significant discomfort and a longer recovery time. Jacob's sons knew exactly what the recovery process is like, and they've planned accordingly. So saying that because we circumcise a child we should also baptism children, that's an issue of understanding Colossians.
8th: Let the children come to me... this is as literal as it can get. Disciple were preventing children to go to Jesus... probably to not disturb Him while He was teaching... Then Jesus said, let them through... "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these", again John 3 explains about this...
9th: Salvation is a free gift, let the children be saved. The Bible already answers this in 1 Corinthians 7:14; "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Paul does not say that we should baptize them for them to be Holy. They are under our tutorship until they grow. The focus here is: "How do we train them? To obey God's way and later believe on their own? Or to do as they will"
With this said, from all examples we see in the Bible, only adult or people having a conscience of what they are about to do were baptized. If you dissociate believing with baptism then you are not being baptized but are simply taking a bath.
You have always made very interesting points. But the argument could be made, going by your logic, that since females were not circumcised, would that mean they are not to be baptised? Can this be clarified?
Galatians 3:26-29 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, *there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.* And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The women weren’t circumcised for obvious reasons that I don’t need to detail. But baptism now because of its nature is easy to perform on both males and females, so now they can truly partake in the new circumcision that they couldn’t in the old law.
I dont see how the book of acts says children should be baptised. It says the promise (referring to the gift of the Holy Spirit) is to you and your children, meaning that if the parent decides to get baptised the Holy Spirit can be poured out over their descendents as well.
I agree. I don't see that in the book of acts at all. This guy can mislead millions of souls.
Where does the Bible ever say not to baptize or give an age limit? The Bible does say that Jesus gave authority to the Apostles. What you bind in earth is bound in heaven.. The Catholic Church is the only Church with authority. It produced the very Bible that you read. So you can't trust the Bible without trusting the Church. If the Church says we baptize infants.. that's FINAL .
How do you know his house hold included infents what if there children were all over 14 years old
Exactly
You are assuming so much. You don’t need that. Household means everyone in the family and not necessarily family members. It could be relatives, servants,slaves etc and that includes infants, children and adults
I was told that baptism is about inviting the holy spirit to work within you, as unbaptised people has the holy spirit but it works externally.
Baptism of infants shows the faith of the adults, this is simple, why would anyone deny the holy spirit to their child?
Good point
@joetookmyvideo
8 hours ago
Baptism of infants shows the faith of the adults, this is simple, why would anyone deny the holy spirit to their child?
So you can prevent the Holy Spirit from descending on your child by not baptizing them?
@@Tyr1345 could you prevent that child from getting measles by not vaccinating them?
Does a baby receive the Holy Spirit when they’re water baptized or when they trust in Christ?
@@onecrispynugget9959 Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is immediate.
I think a better way to phrase what you mean is the faith of a fellow Christian brother and sister can save you. The disabled man that was brought to Jesus by his friends was not saved and forgiven because he had faith, but rather because those around him did. This is the similar concept in infant baltism, your parents' faith in Christ is what redults in the Homy spirit entering and saving you from original sin.
Also reading all these comments with their arguments and watching the video was very insightful and gave me the perfect response to those who reject infant baptism.
how can infant repent??
Like corpses, they just parrot what they have been told. Real life zombies IMHO.
An infant doesn’t repent. For someone who is of the age of reason repents. However through Gods unmerited grace all children if the parents are called to this grace by God should baptize their children. It is the parents who are then leading their child to Christ. And as Jesus said do not keep the children from me.
People who have severe mental handicaps can’t repent. Are you suggesting they can’t be baptized? If you hold that view that’s not biblical at all.
@@catholicguy1073 your answer is out of context. the answer to this is simple, first you have to believe and then repent, thats it. infant cant do neither; you cant go around with your answer
@@yoppateemo again you’re cherry picking. Secondly we all carry original sin from the fall. When someone is baptized it forgives you of your sins. One of them being original sin. Secondly it is necessary for salvation.
You don’t understand the totality of Scripture. All the Early Church fathers and Apostles had baptism open to everyone regardless of age.
But some people like you who don’t know scripture give baseless arguments
It is by Gods unmerited Grace that brings you to baptism whether it is it to you directly or your parents to bring you to the faith. This is why St. Paul said that baptism REPLACES circumcision. And how old a baby when they were circumcised? 8 days old. Not 8 months or 8 years etc.
@@catholicguy1073 There are plenty of verses that states that you have to be conscious (Mark 16:16,Acts 22:16 and so on), how is that cherry-picking?? You said, ''When someone is baptized it forgives you of your sins'' so you are agreeing with me now that you have to be conscious… you are contradicting yourself now.. your last paragraph is man made theory.. nothing about that in the bible. and Paul said baptism replaces circumcision because it is a new covenant. When you baptize you enter the new covenant, it doesnt mean that you have to do it on the 8th day. I know that catholics tend to listen to what church father said, but always look it up in the bible for youself
Perhaps they were implying that the jailer's family would be convinced to believe, the jailer was also the husband and spiritual head of his family, perhaps if your father is saved you reap the same benefits, but if your father isn't saved what then?
It says “repent AND be baptized” do baby’s hav anyway of knowing what repentance is😂do they know of anything you’re talking about😂be foreal. Catholicism is a bunch of nonsense. U really think you can convince people baby’s can repent and turn away from their sins😂children are not necessary baby’s, my child can be 20. This is ridiculous. Repentance is consciously changing ur actions
How are we to treat the severely mentally handicapped? Can they be baptized if they cannot consciously repent and believe? Catholics understand that the church is not just a bunch of atomized individuals, but a communal body. Never dare we say one part has no need of another part. For those who cannot repent and believe on their own like infants, the parents and the church as a whole believe on their behalf, given the child will be raised in the faith, and this is valid for the sacrament of baptism. Why should we withhold the most necessary grace of being born again?
@@killianmiller6107 it’s a conscious decision. What’s the point if they don’t understand? There isn’t one. And I’m pretty sure forcing a severely handicapped individual underwater is abuse lol. Catholics do a bunch of useless nonsense like saying hail Marrys, she’s is no one to be hailed, having secret confessions, Jesus said the vail is torn, having a priest called “father” , Jesus said don’t call anyone father because you already have one in God, having a hierarchy, when Jesus said leaders should not exercise authority over people, the Catholic Church is the opposite of what Jesus had in mind. And I’m 100% sure why it’s riddled with pedophilia when Jesus said you’re better off tying a milestone around ur neck and throwing yourself into the ocean rather than causing his children to sin. Baby’s and those who can’t understand will be with God. You can’t save some else😂 Ur saying God is so unjust he’s gunna look at them and go hmm here it says ur parents didn’t baptize you be gone🤣🤣get a clue buddy
I agree with you. My personal belief is that any baby who passes away automatically is saved by the just God of Heaven who judges fairly. Or is God going to say to this baby: “Sorry, your family didnt baptize you before you passed, you are not allowed in heaven.” This video is a bunch of nonsense but I believe it is well intended. Anyway, make sure to support his patreon😅 I hate it when people do religious things for money.
@killianmiller6107 where is your biblical defense?
Do you seriously think that your opinion can defend God's word better than God's word itself?
I see so many opinions on this video yet none that provide real biblical proof that a Baby should be baptized without its own free will to make the choice.
Mark 7:8-9
[8] For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” [9] He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
Credobaptists deny infants and the mentally handicapped the necessary grace of salvation because of the novel man made doctrine they hold to, it was nowhere found in the early church.
For one, circumcision was how men were initiated into the old covenant, as it says in Genesis “You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring.”
And baptism is how we’re initiated into the new covenant, as it says in Galatians “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
We know there’s a connection because of what Paul says in Colossians “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Infants in the old covenant didn’t have the free will to be circumcised or not. But because they would be raised by their parents, they were initiated as children to be part of the covenant. There is nothing stopping the new covenant from being the same way, not one verse says “do not baptize infants, wait until they’re older to make their own profession of faith”, because Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it and not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away. But on the contrary we see just as Genesis mentions, all in the household are to be initiated from the master to the infant to the slave, and as such the baptizing of whole households in the NT reflects this. If the Bible is silent about it (since all explicit examples are from adult Jews and pagans converting), then we can look to apostolic tradition, and indeed we see wherever there was debate about baptizing infants, it was a question of HOW SOON
If you have the false view of baptism (and ecclesiology by extension), then of course you won’t understand why we baptize infants. Baptism is the ordinary way Christ instituted for us to enter his covenant; it cleans us of original sin and all personal sin, as Acts says “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” When the Bible speaks of baptism, nowhere does it lay out the idea that you are saved simply by faith and baptism is just a sign, because on the contrary 1Peter says “baptism now saves you.” Feel free to turn yourself into pretzels telling me that baptism actually does not save you. If baptism is such a powerful thing, we would be fools to withhold such a necessary grace for our children. If baptism is merely a sign of already being saved by faith, then you fail 1 Peter because you literally treat it as just getting wet, and the question remains “why baptize at all?” Indeed faith leads to baptism, but it’s not the faith that forgives your sins but your baptism.
Furthermore, you must assume the church is merely an invisible body of private believers, when the fact is it is also very visible and public. You must consider the church to be a bunch of atomized individuals, where we genuinely believe it’s a body, and one part helps the other parts. The faith of the church makes the requisite of faith for baptism valid for those who can’t choose for themselves.
So they did baptize as adults believed, So then you can do it that way, Where does it say baptize all nations As infants? I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. And I can tell you what I learned was that the Catholic Church does not want to lose power will do whatever it takes to remain a God for people, And Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life, not the catholic church, So picture a Catholic who is baptized And receives the sacraments But Only goes to church on sunday and then lives life the way they want Monday through saturday, And they get to go to heaven but Protestant who is baptized and takes communion, Who does God's work, Reads their bible, Tell us people about Jesus, feeds the poor God's gonna send them to hell Because they didn't take a host and baptism from a catholic church? Doesn't make God sound like a very loving, appealing. God, does it?.. Is that why I know so many former Catholics who are now atheists?
Very good explanation
One thing I think is pretty clear is that there is some correlation between the old and new covenant. The sacrament of initiation in the old covenant was circumcision while the sacrament of initiation into the new covenant is baptism. St. Paul saw a clear connection between the two, as did the church that received the apostle's tradition. Circumcision was given both to infants and adult converts, and we see the early church doing the same since the beginning. Instead of going on the defense, where did the Protestants get the idea of believer's baptism? That idea is actually pretty new and before you reference guys in the early church like Tertullian, he doesn't disagree with infant baptism the same way modern evangelicals do.
As Presbyterian, I agree you with here and I disagree with cliff in this
As a reformed baptist, I’m so glad you’re a Presbyterian.
Didn't jesus said that children to heaven automatically? So why would baptism be required
If salvation is a free gift why do you even need to be baptized to receive it?
If a parent baptizes their entire family but they are the only ones in that household that accept and believe in Jesus are they all going to be saved?
The only argument that makes sense for a baby to be baptized is to cleanse them of the original sin, the rest of these arguments don’t make much sense to me.
Where in the Bible does it say,
to Baptize babies to get rid of
this Original Sin?
I do believe that any baby who
dies without being Baptized is
automatically goin to Heaven!
Do you really think in sprinkling
a little water on a baby is what
will SAVE them from going to
Hell if they died as an infant?
*STOP FOLLOWING WACK*
*MAN-MADE TRADITIONS!*
This video on baptism is far from accurate. Salvation is a gift- & just as any gift is given or offered, it must be received.
But when we receive, we ought to have an understanding of the gift we receive & value it. In this case, valuing God’s Word by obeying it. To receive the gift, understand it, cherish it.
Jesus says it best “if you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”
John 14:15-17 NIV
I'm genuinely interested in Catholicism, honestly. I just can't see these verses as evidence for it. First off Acts Acts 2 " For the promise is to you and your offspring..." This is saying it's an invitation to all, that something someone must do on their own free choice they CAN be baptised if they wish, not without consent. The Promise is to everyone - how wonderful. Same situation with Lydia's house hold. There's no details who was in her household (Maybe her father, mother, husband), this could of included children but who's to say that on hearing the Gospel the children didn't want to be baptised. We simply can't take that one verse to assume there were babies in there, can we?
Lastly when we read in Acts 10 - Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
Receiving the Holy Spirit is the indicator someone is saved, Peter is stating that they have received the Holy Spirit (Become saved). This is in opposition to the theology that Baptism is essential for salvation.
As someone who is honestly seeking truth in Catholicism/ Orthodoxy I see the same thing when I talk to people of different faiths, they simply look at the evidence through the glasses they already have on. We can all ( myself included) take a random verse and use that to build out bias/ narrative.
But as someone who is seeking, taking my glasses off, I'm not convinced by these bible verses.
I need to finish off saying I love Voice of Reason and my Catholic Brothers and Sisters. I really REALLY do!
Can an infant repent ? 😂
Exactly and in the Book of John only adults were being baptized.
Let me ask you a question, if a baby died, would he/she go to heaven? Sin is inherited right, so a baby is not pure too.
There is no "only" .. children are not sinners..though they are born with original sin's taint. Baptism confers grace by removing the original sin. Besides children have a right to inherit their parents ' faith. They run the risk.of not dying in grace if they die early in infancy..infant baptism is perfectly in place.
@@leonardonifinluri4416What sins do babies commit as infants that don't speak nor walk???
@@theevolutionslayer1772I think you should re read the reply above.
If infant baptism was important, than jesus would of been baptized as a baby. He was baptized later. A baby is sinless and does not know right and wrong. It is a decision one makes to leave your old ways and be born in the new ways of god and accept the holy Spirit. I follow jesus and not no denomination.
baptízō - properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle")
Contemplating coming back to Catholicism as well as checking out Orthodoxy. I was baptized a second time as a Non Denominational Christian and I am worried that it may be a sin.
There are more evidence in the bible that infant baptism is allowed than it is prohibited. In fact, there is no verse in the bible that prohibits infant baptism.
If intellect is a requirement for baptism, then how would people mentally challenged beyond the study of theology ever get baptized? Intellect must not be a requirement for baptism.
The word "children" means people who were born from their parents. I am 20 years old, and I am a child of my parents. This word does not always have to refer to infants.
St Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 1-2 parallel (foreshadow) the crossing of the red sea as being Baptised to Moses. Those who were completely immersed (Pharaoh's soldiers) perished, while those who crossed over(Israelites) sprinkled survived...
Secondly St Paul asserts that children are holy even if one of their parent is baptized in 1 Corinthians 7 14. What authority do Protestants have to deny children from having baptism when clearly the scriptures say they shouldn't be denied the gifts of God.
My problems with the Acts argument: We're assuming that child includes infants and we're bypassing scripture. We're assuming that the household that was baptized had babies in them, which is also by bypassing scripture. Matthew 19:14 adds context, we shouldn't forbid children to come to jesus. This seems pretty clear to me that there has to be some personal choice involved. I'm still confused white cliff Justifies a second baptism when in ephisians 4:5-6 states "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" and 2 Corinthians1:22 shows us we are marked with the Lords seal of ownership and put the spirit in our hearts so to deny his first baptism is to disrespect God and devalue His sacraments.
Yes, in Acts whole households were baptized. No where in there does it say "except for babies or kids"
I think rather than trying to prove infant baptism, prove to Protestants it’s more than a mere symbolic gesture. Using the Bible to prove baptism is literal spiritual regeneration and it is apart of your salvation it will make more sense why baptism isn’t just reserved for adults.
Colossians 2:11-13. Even Paul said infant baptism was necessary
This is a great preacher. Just not complete.
Why not both? Infant baptism is a beautiful tradition. Adult baptism is a beautiful decision. Brothers in Christ nowhere in the bible does it say it has to be one or the other. While it does talk about the importance of baptism there's no longer a "perfect" time, an "eighth" day. Christ will always welcome us with open arms. Amen
As two years old I knew. I was aware. Some kids are aware of so much things. My soul is in actual pain when parents don't know their kids.
The new convent can still be more inclusive and not be applies to babies. Those conditions aren’t mutually exclusive.
Psalm 8:2 says that children and infants praise God, even if we follow the idea that you have to be aware of God and choose him to be baptized, the bible teaches that infants know him and praise him already.
Baptism is not just a ritual or a tradition, you actually get the Grace of the Holy Spirit it opens your heart to God.
I feel like there’s a lot of people misleading themselves because they’re taking what someone else said as the only way to understand scripture instead of going and looking into God’s word themselves.
You can easily run into trouble if this is your mindset, as you’re relying on secondhand faith and not your own.
That’s a part of why I would agree with Cliffe’s stance here. Baptism is not something a child can understand or be changed by. I believe that child baptism is simply flashy nonsense that does not have biblical roots.
Children’s baptism is biblically supported, as entire households were baptized in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 without excluding children. If children were meant to be excluded, the Bible would specify, as it did in Matthew 14:21 when noting 5,000 men were fed, besides women and children. The lack of such a distinction in baptism passages suggests children were included, making children's baptism biblically acceptable.
I need to read the verses referenced here.
It sounds like physical baptism wasn’t required for individual member of the family the way it was phrased in this video.
It sounds like a member is baptized the entire was, with the way it was worded here.
“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
1 Corinthians 4:6 KJV
Scripture must align with scripture. So if you must believe and be baptized as Christ said that means you must be aware and understand who Christ is to submit your life to him. So a child can be baptized not an infant.
This is why it’s important to read the Bible. So you don’t get misled by false takes like this. Ephesians 4:5 there is only one baptism. One means one. Baptism means immersion. Pouring water on someone or sprinkling them from a spoon is not immersion. This is not how Jesus was baptized nor how His apostles baptized people. Scripture is clear that faith is a requirement for baptism. Jesus, as VOR says, affirms faith in baptism. So also do Peter , Paul, Philip. The household baptisms all speak to the faith that members of the household have except for Lydia. All we know about Lydia is she was from hundreds of miles away; she sold goods, she was a believer and she convinced her household to get baptized. Scripture teaches she was already a believer in God, and that the Lord opened her heart so that she “attended unto the things which were spoken of by Paul.” What did Paul tell her to do? Share the Gospel with her house seems likely. Paul himself affirms faith as an essential part of baptism is Colossians 2:10-15. So it seems unlikely to think Paul would contradict himself and baptize a non believing baby.
Yeah, he also stated on one occasion that the King James Bible was an accurate translation without 'ahem' alterations. 😅
Col 2:12 - And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him THROHROUGH YOUR FAITH in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Infants can't exercise faith, that is worth looking into with a Magnifying glass.
Acts 2:38 and 8:37 also show the criteria, which they don't care for. and a Christian imitates Christ -- He was baptized as an adult.
@@tony1685 👏👏👏 excellent observation! If baptism really was intended for infants then you would imagine that there would be more scriptural support as well as examples showing obvious instructions from the Lord as well as the apostles, to baptize innocent infants, yet we don't see that.
@@noraamaro7616 another to focus on Ma'am is Exodus 20:8-11. nowhere in Scripture does it authorize the change of the Holy Command (only Command with 'Holy' in it). in fact, it starts with 'Remember' and most forget, though it has the seal of God in it!
@2:40 * In Acts 2:38 it says: "Repent and be Baptized every one of you..." and verse 39 justifies it by: For the promise is for you and for your children..."how can an infant repent? and understand the Baptism?
* Baptism is for a person who has a clear conscience to God: 1 Peter 3:21 NIV
[21] and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body BUT THE PLEDGE OF A CLEAR CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
* Acts 2:38-39 says: Acts 2:38-39 ESV
[38] And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] 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.”
* For those who clearly knew what Baptism is and are aware they needed it "for ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF" and chosen by God.
If the child comes to the understanding (this part is very important) of God's saving grace and believe and placing his or her full trust in Jesus.
It works because it the same concept/purpose as circumcision. Just like infants can be circumcised as your seal, babies can be baptized as you seal, You can't be unbaptized so being baptized again doesn't matter. 1 Corinthians 7:17-12 best shows this. calling this as in issue just spurs division. The same concerns with circumcision rests on baptism as well. Also the were baptizes with the washing of the word, and not water like Johns baptism.
sigh....good grief. Not a WORD in the NT that infants are to be baptized. You all read into the text what you have been taught to believe,
@4:05 * where in this verse says infant got baptized? Acts 16:14-15 ESV
[14] One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. [15] And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
It says households, it includes everyone inc infants. It doesn't say household but not your babies
@@Luis-vn4ue * what does it prove then? That there may be an infant (assumption) in that household? If that is the case what if there is a dog (which is also an assumption) in that household? Was the dog saved? If we take that assumption, does that prove infant baptism? Where in scripture mentioned about infant baptism? And where in scripture says dog baptism? There are so many problems and conflicts with these assumptions. BTW Catholic here, just seeking truth. Lastly can an infant have a clear conscience and willingness to pledge to God?: 1 Peter 3:21 NIV
[21] and this WATER SYMBOLIZES BAPTISM that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE OF A CLEAR CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
@UnngoyTMTayo there's no point being ridiculous about it with the dog. Did you bother to watch the video with the questions answered?.
Because babies are born with original sin, they need baptism to cleanse them, so that they may become adopted sons and daughters of God and receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the kingdom of God also belongs to children (see Mt 18:4; Mk 10:14). Same as adults with disabilities that mean they can't choose, they still deserve baptism
@@Luis-vn4ue * well if the presumption is there may be infant, can't we say there may be a dog? Anyway where in the Bible can you find that "babies are born with original sin"?
@UnngoyTMTayo dude, are you for real...we are all born with original sin other than Jesus and Mary. Go and educate yourself, Adam and Eve ring a bell?.
Household does not equal infants. You can't establish a fundamental sacrament based on vagueness about what the word 'household' means...
Im a Filipino … catholics in our country practices infant baptism but sad to say even the parents have no idea that Jesus has already saved us…, and that’s why baptism is for those who really understand the Gospel.., and baptism of infant has nothing to do with it and doesn’t make sense
How do young children that don't have or understand free Will repent for something they can't possible understand? Or what exactly are they repenting from? You repent when you fall from God and his Kingdom message. I love you bro! Your child baptism is all tradition and not of John The Baptist. Just my thoughts brother. I guess we will know the truth when we pass on to the Kingdom of God. 🙏