Infant baptism - simple and clear explanation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2024
- This instructional video seeks to give a simple and clear explanation of infant baptism. A lot more could be said about the topic of course, but I wanted to give a simple explanation to help people understand why Reformed churches baptize infants. If you find this video helpful, please consider sharing it with others.
If you are interested in Reformed Theology then a good place to start is the Heidelberg Catechism. Here's a great website with some fantastic resources: www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/
To read some Reformed sermons check out the following: theseed.info
Here is the federation of churches I belong to: canrc.org
Here is the seminary I went to: canadianreformedseminary.ca/
Here is another video I made about justification and sanctification: • Justification and sanc...
Feel free to also check out my blog: proclaimingchrist.ca
Judging by the comments I don't think everyone made it to the end of the video before making their comment
Yes! Children born to believers are children of the flesh and thus in slavery to sin and death until they are saved through grace by faith in Christ alone!
Trump 2020!!!!
Correct, that is in Romans 5:12
Correct
The Bible gives us this answer very clearly.... even those of us born to pastors, deacons, choir members you name it are born in sin and lost with out a personal relationship with Christ. The Bible is bold and clear on this.
Listen to what you said. Saved through GRACE by FAITH ALONE. Not through or by baptism.
An excellent book to read is Water Word and Spirit: A Rrformed perspective on Baptism by Dr. JV Fesko
Perfectly pictured, thanks, God bless you and every one around you!
We are born in sin, we do not belong to tge family God unless we are born again. So therefore baptism is for those who are born again! We do not decide which side children are on.
@danandnaomisayers7828 huh?? God decided and had the covenant sign administered in the old testament... Peter repeated the same promise in Acts 2
Very well done. I will add that is not only the reformers but the Roman Catholic and the eastern orthodox that have done infant baptism for 2000 years. The Bible says repent and be baptized , they are two separate things and don’t have to be done at exactly the same time. Baptism is a physical and spiritual cleanse of the body away from the curse, in preparation to receive the holy spirit which is in our body as a temple. The Holy Spirit presents a tention to be Christlike. Why would we deny this to out children. I have observed spiritual gifts in children that were baptized after they have chosen to make Christ their true Lord and King. And not in those who were not.
For the Baptist to say that infant baptism is nothing and they cannot be saved, they need to read revelations 5,7, 9 and 11,
Romans Catholic church orthodox church was not baptism infant for 2000 years the Catholic church was starting in 500 AD and the early church didn't baptize infants there is no scripture in the Bible says that they baptism infants.. And water baptism doesn't saved anyone believed the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 saved...If you want to go to heaven when you dead you have to go through this gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 given to Paul..If you are not trusting the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 you are not saved and you are not a Christian either..
@robertmarkiamonlyakjvbible3739 I would direct you to research Tertullian's book De Baptismo, written sometime around 160-225 A.D. He mentions that infant baptism was widespread in the church already. His view was that Christians should restrain from baptizing a child too early because they haven't gotten their egregious sins out of the way. It's a weird theology he holds to, but it is the first historical account of opposition to something that was widespread in the church in the 2nd-3rd centuries. Not to change your mind on Baptism, just some historical context on the debate.
So I'm a Roman Catholic. Personally I didn't necessarily like the setup of your theological perspective, even though I see where you're getting at and agree with the point. But I did appreciate the Ephesians 6 perspective.
I think it's important to distinguish that all persons belong to God, but some are still ensnared or enslaved to the prince of this world and his dark kingdom. By Baptism, they don't belong anymore or less to God, they were always his, but their souls and spiritual conditions are delivered, set free, and transferred to God's Holy Kingdom of Light in the banner of the Cross and Christ Crucified and Risen!
Short and sweet to the elect, to whom God has given grace to understand child baptism.
Error. A child doesn't need to be baptized. This is a lie. Many have false doctrine
Luke 16:18 let the children come to me do. It hinder, for such belong to the kingdom of God. Withholding your children from baptism is hindering them from coming to God. Baptism is the new circumcision and infants should be baptized to bring them under Christ by the faith of the parents. The church fathers baptized infants and they were taught so by the disciples. When people were concerted it stated they, and their Whole house we're baptized. Baptize your kids
@@triciaperry2234so deep
There is nothing in Scripure to indicate the young children of believers are on either side of that divide. They aren't believers OR unbelievers.
I already didn’t like the argument being laid out, but if you’re going to choose a passage, at least choose Jesus’ let the children come to me for theirs is the kingdom of of heaven; which is what I thought you were going to do as you laid out this convenient argument for something like this to fit
Appreciable video!
Great video in many ways. However, I believe Ephesians was misinterpreted. The imperative and the indicative of the statement were confused. The only statement concerning the indicative was to declare that IF the children obeyed the imperative, it would go well with them in an antitypical fashion as it was typologically in the children of the Old Covenant. In short, the imperative is not only a command to obey the law, but to do so IN the Lord. Hopefully, this is helpful to anyone.
That’s some logical gymnastics to affirm a belief shown no where in scripture
Great job and well done . I’m baptizing my granddaughter in 2 weeks . 👍 ❤️🙏🏼
min 3:22. Book of Act reference to believe then being baptized, but Sacred Scriptures reads. "Be baptize because the promise is for you and all your household."
All the household that believe. Infants are not capable of believing therefore baptism isn't necessary till a child is at an age to understand what is being taught.
Great video, quick question. What white board program did you use to create this? Thank you for your time.
Doodly. I purchased it through a Facebook deal and it was quite a bit cheaper.
@@proclaimingchrist8454 Thank you for the reply. Peace and blessings to you.
What do we make of 1 Corinthians 7 in regards to children being sanctified through a believing parent?
“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.”
1 Corinthians 7:14 NIV
It is straight forward from a covenant perspective. The root meaning is set apart. In the OT we see the implements in the temple being sanctified or holy in that they were set apart from similar day to day utensils by being set apart for a special use.
One of the ways to show we need to baptize our children, great video!
What really struck me a few years ago was when someone asked why infant baptism wasn't used as a counter-point to refute the need for NT circumcision in Galatians. It's absence seems rather glaring.
As always - we shouldn't look at any text in isolation though. This is a good resource to make the point that there is no reason to exclude children from the NT sign of the covenant : www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/
The absence of that argument does seem rather glaring...at first. But we have to understand what Paul saw in the Judaizers’ argument. The problem to Paul was not simply that the Judaizers were demanding the wrong sign. If that was the problem, then the easy solution would be to correct the sign. However, the problem was much different in nature, and it struck at the very heart of the gospel. Paul wisely discerns that the Judaizers were attacking *justification.* If Paul would have simply told the Judaizers to switch signs, this would in no way have addressed the fundamental problem. Paul would have demonstrated an extreme *lack* of discernment and clarity. Fortunately, Paul understood the root issue, and knew he had to correct that. His priority was not at all the outward sign. His priority was the very good news itself.
Judaizers: “You need to add circumcision in order to truly be justified...”
Paul: “No no no...you need to add [baptism] in order to truly be justified...”
Yeah, no. Paul never said this. Paul had found the true problem, and had addressed it.
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 switched signs??? attacking justification in galatians??? are you on some kind of religious drug trip??? you must be
@@WEBest-tl5dn Could you explain what your questions are for me? I'll try to answer your objections, if I can. I thought I was pretty clear in my initial comment.
Paul rightly discerned that the issue he addressed in his letter to the Galatian church was justification, not the covenant sign.
@@WEBest-tl5dn lol justification is the theme of the whole epistle
What happens to babies who aren't baptized and die?
The video was very understandable. I have one question though. At the end, you said that if a person rejects God after he is baptized, he would go back to “Adam’s side”. Does that mean that he is no longer God’s? Does this act of rejection make the baptism meaningless?
Hi Sam, this is a great question. I promised my wife I wouldn't spend too much time answering questions on UA-cam but this one deserves a reply.
Think of covenant members in terms of Scriptural images like the vine and branches image in John 15 and the Olive tree and branches image in Romans 11. The branches on the vine/tree belong to God in a covenantal sense. Each individual branch is a covenant member and belongs to God in that sense (this doesn’t mean they have the Spirit by which they cry out Abba Father - see Romans 8:9). However, when a branch is grafted to a vine/tree there are two outcomes. Either the graft “takes” and there then exists a living union between the vine/tree and the branch grafted onto it. Or the graft does not take and there exists no true union between the branch and the vine/tree. For children growing up, they can either believe in Jesus Christ and then there is a living union between them and Christ by the power of the Spirit and they also begin to bear fruit. Or they do not believe in Jesus Christ and then there is no living union between them and Christ and they eventually die and are cut off. In that sense they are no longer God’s.
However, this does not make their baptism meaningless if they are cut off. Baptism is about what God promises but at the same time it includes the threat of judgment if the children grow up and do not believe. The baptism has a message of judgment for those who refuse to believe just as Israel died in the desert because they refused to believe after their baptism (See Numbers 14/1 Cor 10/Hebrews 3&4). All those Israelites had the promise of God to enter the land but many failed to enter due to unbelief. Baptism is also not meaningless in those circumstances because if someone does initially reject God, they have broken the covenant but God’s promise to them still remains that if they repent and believe they will be brought back again because God is able to do that. Think of it like God being able to graft back into the olive tree the branches which were broken off due to unbelief (Romans 11:23)
@@proclaimingchrist8454 The way I understand what your saying is essentially that Christ's sheep can just wander off or leave the flock if they feel like it. If that's true it doesn't make him a very good shepherd.
Maybe they can remove themselves from his hand if they want too.
@@id744I think what proclaimingchrist8454 is explaining is more like what we see in the parable of the the sower & the seeds. Look at Mark 4 where Jesus says that the seeds sown on rocky ground receive the word “with joy,” and “endure for a while.” This teaching does not go against the doctrine of perseverance/preservation of the saints, but shows that humanly speaking, we will see those who abide in the faith for a time leave it.
I found that churches who believe that baptism should not happen before personal faith do it for some the following reasons: -Acts 8:37 state that faith is a requirement for baptism.
-They believe that babies are under grace (not under the Adam side as you suggested).
- Infant baptism inevitably leads to sacremental salvation (Catholic heresey).
- There is only one way to God given in the new testament and that is through personal faith in the completed work of Christ , and baptism(a work) should not become the counterfeit way.
-All the baptism examples in the new testament show faith before baptism , where infant baptism require assumptions or typology to be applied.
Baptism is not a work of men, but a work of God. If it is a work of men, how come we cannot baptize ourselves?
@@MissingTrails Do you refer to God baptising a person with the Holy Spirit or water? Do you believe that the HS is imparted at waterbaptism? The point that I want to highlight is that no middle man or ceremony(sacremental ritual) is required for God to give you the HS (just look at the clear examples in the New Testament).
No age of accountability in scripture
You should really do more videos!!!
If the Church allows the children of born-again believing parents not to be baptised as infants, and allowed to take baptism when they become born-again believers & then allowed to take part in Lord’s supper, what is the issue ? I myself from born Christian background was infant baptised, attended confirmation classes and then took part in Lord’s supper at my teens but not saved & was under the power & dominion of sin ! At the age of 42, I have been saved by His grace and being sanctified. So, before I was saved, I am sure, if I would have died, even though I was baptised as an infant and took Lord’s supper, I would be in hades/Sheol with the rich man ! Please clarify ! Because I was a born Christian in a Christian family and given infant baptism & participating in Lord’s supper after confirmation at my teen age, I was thinking that I am going to be in heaven when I die, but it was otherwise ! No one including my own parents & my spiritual parents told me that I have to be born-again. It was like a religious custom in the Church. Today, many in Churches think that they are Christians because they were born as Christians, baptised as infants & taking Lord’s supper after confirmation in their teens like I was, but they are deceived ! So, instead of teaching the children in their teens to be born-again & to take baptism on each individual will/ decision to follow Christ and then to participate in Lord’s supper, the Church do this as a ritual & many think they are Christian without being born-again like the foolish virgins in St. Matthew 25:1-13. Why do churches inculcate this ! What a deceit & lie of the devil today against The Word of God ! St. Matthew 28:18-20 !
Your experience is not to be solely related to being baptized as a child. Many adults are baptized, are accepted into the church, and take communion, BUT have never been saved.
So, your personal experience does not disprove infant baptism anymore than Esau's rejection of God disproved infant circumcision.
The fact that you realized your need of God at 42 speaks of God's faithfulness to His Covenant. He never gave up on you.
Like the prodigal son, the rebellious child is still a part of the family even when he goes far away, but can only enjoy the intimate benefits of it, when he comes near to the Father.
"Ye must be born again". Jesus told those words to someone who was already in covenant with him, circumcised and partaker of the Passover. The same is true for the NT church.
God bless you.
jl tc Lord Jesus Christ only baptize a person into the Universal Spiritual unseen Church which is The Body of Christ according to St. John 1:12&13. St. Matthew 3:11.
Andrê Visser Very True. I believe baptism means baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned in St. Matthew 3:11, St. Mark 1:8 & St. Luke 3:16 which is done to a believer by none other than our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ Himself !!!
Andrê Visser Even it can happen before water baptism also !!! Acts 10:44-48.
But you didn’t die, God kept you in the game and entered your life at a time of His choosing based on His will for your life. Thus making good on the promise He made to your parents at your baptism.
Man a video just told me To my face in sub 8.5 min that I am sin and only sin in Adam bc I am not baptised
So easy to understand !
It's really not! This video is the most complicated explanation I've ever heard! Baptism is for tge born again. Many non believing but church going parents have their babies baptised so what does that mean?
@@danandnaomisayers7828 and all adults who are baptized are true believers 😶
The question what raised in me after seeing this explanation: are all infants who die, ( the one who are not in the covenant) lost?
A tricky question.. what needs a clear answer.
I would say no because God showed mercy to all men in preaching the gospel to the dead. Since He shows no favoritism, it's safe to assume at some point everyone gets a chance.
However, since He gets to do as He pleases and is never wrong in His decisions, seeing as also we are held accountable for our decision and in what we know, it would be important to treat every child as though this is their only chance.
You didn't really explain its benefit though.
Ephesians is written to the “faithful saints in Christ.” Could you make the argument that Paul was talking to children who are Saints in Ephesians 6?
Would you say that when a person who was baptized as an infant needs to be re-baptized when they accept Christ as their Lord and Savior?
Calling the Sacraments pictures does not do justice to the depth of what they actually do
Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Romans 10:17
The only problem is Paul could not have talked to babies. You can't tell a baby Godly concepts because he cannot understand them, so Paul was clearly having a dialogue with an infant that can understand what he's being told to do. A baby doesn't listen to his parents. He is forced to do whatever the parents want. There is no age limit put on baptism in the Bible, but Peter sais that baptism represents the confirmation of a clean conscience in front of God. So how can a baby confirm his clean conscience towards God in his heart when he can't even confirm into words that he just made a poop in his diaper? You had me until you jumped into the presumption that Paul talked to babies in his letter. God bless you, brother!
So no saved children
Do you cross the line in the middle by faith or by birth? Because why wouldn't christians have faith in the ability for God to safe their child if he saved them already? Doesn't he know that parents needs to raise their child first before the child will make his own decision?
What about:
1 Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
Wouldn't this be a better verse than the one about honouring parents? If children of only 1 believing parent are considered holy then the child of 2 is holy too no?
Im really struggling to understand infant baptism, what especially makes it hard for me is the fact that baptism like you said always comes after conversion. And I don't understand why that isn't more compelling to hold to as a doctrine. Why infant babtism?
Any help and friendly dialogue would be great 😊
This video is very helpful. Thank you!
@@cybervoyager8668 Can I have what your smoking?
@@jdubo1998 probably crack
@@joshuatheo1419you're the seller
that the process of salvation involves the following steps: In order from 1-6
One must be properly taught, and hear (Romans 10:14-17);
One must believe or have faith (Hebrews 11:6, Mark 16:16);
One must repent, which means turning from one's former lifestyle and choosing God's ways (Acts 17:30);
One must confess belief that Jesus is the son of God (Acts 8:36-37);
One must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38); and
One must live faithfully as a Christian (1 Peter 2:9).
Honestly, this is so absolutely convoluted one really hardly knows where to begin. Mans tradition over scripture always winds up twisting scripture. Just exegete all the nt verses on infant baptism. Should be quick easy work. Theres not any. Not sure why this is not sufficient for Bible believers.
No scripture for 21 year old baptisms either... or (insert age here) baptisms 😮😮😮😮😮😮
Augustine and Luther believes they were saved, regenerated, had faith, and had repentance.
Please make more videos like this explaining different aspects of reformed theology. This was very well done. I grew up Reformed Baptist and never understood this before.
You grew up having a Baptist name, but did not really understand? Nowhere in the Bible the infant baptism is. I'm a Baptist and from his viewpoint I can see what's wrong.
1. Romans 5, especially verse 12. He doesn't know that.
2. They are doing rhantizo, not baptizo.
3. Faith comes first before water baptism. That FAITH is a personal FAITH not the faith of your parents.
@@elijahlingbanan1430 I understand the Baptist position as well. I just was told that infant baptism was left over from the Roman Catholic Church. It turns out most denominations have a different view of baptism. I enjoy hearing how people come to different conclusions after reading the same Bible.
@@libbyanna9646 Nope, this infant baptism teachings is from Roman Catholic only and from the protestants that came out from them like Luther, Zwingli, etc.
Baptists on the other hand are killed by RCC and the protestants because of adult or believer's baptism which is biblical.
@@elijahlingbanan1430 Actually, the Roman Catholic point of view on the sacraments is different. I'm not going to argue with you about it. I don't know you. You don't know me. It's a fruitless thing to engage in. Have a good day.
@@libbyanna9646 Actually, if you know the original you will know the counterfeit. So many different teachings about baptism.
I am saying to you that many Baptists are already in the right way, but doesn't fully understand the way, leading them to be astray. God bless!
God then by His power gives this couple a child??
Does that make salvation hereditary?
according to Augustine and John Calvin sure... just sprinkle a little water on the infants head and their a christian.. its the old lie that still fascinates religious degenerates who think they can ADD someone to the covenant of grace by their work of baptism.. but where pray tell is an infant baptised in the new testament by Jesus Christ or the apostles or anybody else.. its just not in the entire 27 books of the New Testament, no wonder BAPTISTS left the presbyterian ranks.. for good reason.. John Calvin was a heretic Judaiser and yes he believed in baptism regeneration..he said so in his Institutes.
@@joshh.2541 ABRAHAM was justified by works and was the evidence of his already saved believing obedience life.. James epistle tells us this clearly.. but did offering up Isaac his son of promise justify him before GOD? NO, obviously not.. it was to PROVE HIS FAITH.. in the same way christian water baptism does not impart spiritual life or grace to a sinner but it sure is the evident witness of that spiritual life.. its just blows my mind after 400 years of reformed and protestant history how these same old augustinian heretical lies keep being peddled in the name of man made religion.
@@WEBest-tl5dn clearly you did not watch the video with an open mind. It clearly says that infant baptism does not mean Salvation. It symbolises a promise. That is what baptism is: a symbol.
Presbyterians need to be confirmed as a communicant member before taking communion. This is a personal decision one makes when he is mature enough to decide. Inferring that he now has faith in Christ as his savior.
@@joshh.2541 Wow, I've never heard anyone so perfectly convolute the simple doctrine of baptism! 😳
@@joshh.2541 Well said Josh 👏
So question, when they grow up and accept Jesus, are they baptized again to show their faith in Christ? Or is it only when they are little?
Thanks for your question. It's only when they are little. In most Reformed churches when they do come to faith they will profess their faith before the church but are not baptized again.
@@proclaimingchrist8454 Oh ok, so another thing Im confused about, adults who wish to enter the church are baptized if they haven't already been baptized correct? So is that done through sprinkling, like an infant, or through immersion? And is baptism required for salvation? Thanks.
@@kadorialgaming7553 (1) baptism is not required for salvation. (2) Adults who want to join the church are baptized if they haven't already been baptized (3) They could be baptized by sprinkling, immersion, or pouring.
@@proclaimingchrist8454 ok thanks
It’s important to understand the infant baptist position clearly before one tries to show how it is not biblically correct. This video does a great job of that. No straw man arguments. Another helpful video would be to start with the word “Baptism” and define that clearly. Doing that makes is easier to decide whether or not to do it with our infants. 🙏
I agree its important to understand Baptism as we see in Rom 9:4 , it is God's adoption,promises and a sign of God's Holy covanant people and is ..NOT.. circumcision of the heart.
It's a blessing that 8 day old babies are included in God's covenant and promises in the old testament but their also had to be circumcision of the heart. Believers and their Children should also be included in God's promises in the NewTestament by Baptism.
Or the fact that we’re not authorized nor is it anywhere in the Bible or practiced by the apostles and it’s heretical
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
So this then begs the question, what do you do with the example that you're a Christian, someone that belongs to a denomination that holds to paedobaptistm, have baptized you infant children and your children grow up and die as unsaved unbelievers? It happens all the time. Explain that please.
Yes, it does happen often. Those children are like dead branches that are cut off. There was never any living union between them and the saviour, Jesus.
@@proclaimingchrist8454 how can you unknowingly make a sacrifice?
wait is baptism necessary for salvation or is it just a symbol?
Why did Jesus baptize being already righteous? (Without sin)?
Good question.
Christ is the sinless and the perfect Saviour.
He was baptized because he identified himself with us, sinners. He did not commit any sin. He did all this on our behalf because He came as a substitute. Careful there are some false teaching that teaches Christ has to be baptized because he is a sinner.
Nope, he is not a sinner rather he came to save sinner.
Thank you I am aware of this teaching but was never adopted by any of the seven churches in the ecumenical council that existed until the great schism in 1054. There is a route to all other teachings out of the ecumenical council like not believe in the trinity
Also ideas that Mohammed adopted were talked about in the church
I like that this is explanatory rather than accusatory. I sometimes find, sadly, that a non-believing scholar on Christian theology is a better teacher rather.
So, just some friendly pushback. The children of believers receive the promise of “I will be your God” when the are born but they don’t receive the promise of “I will pour out my spirit upon you” ?
How do they received a partial covenant? And scripturally, why should I believe that the New covenant can be divided up into these two parts given to individuals at two separate times?
It seems more likely that the new covenant is given to those who have faith, as you said in the video. The old covenant was corporate and national for the purpose of protecting the seed of the messiah and bringing for the Word of God. But the new covenant is not tied to a nation, nor a select group. It is an collection of individuals who have been placed into the body of Christ by faith. The infant receiving half the covenant does not make sense with the nature of the covenant nor is scripturally supported with examples of it or even allusions to it. The most evidence is the household baptisms but that doesn’t necessarily include infants.
if infant baptism serves only to mark which side you are , and does not effectuate any efficacy in salvation and certainly does not preclude one from going to the side of satan, then the practice is simply symbolic and should be pronounced as such, rather than serve as a basis to denounce anabaptists in the present, and execute them in the past. In other words characterize it correctly. It is non-imperative to the faith. Miring it in rigamarole doesn't help Lutherans and the Reformed depart from their decline into a relic of the past.
Lutherans actually do believe baptism saves.
Children who repent of their sin and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ must be baptized. If that’s what you mean, then I agree wholeheartedly. But the term children in Eph 6:1-3, seems to suggest two things: 1) the ability of children to hear the command to obey their parents; and 2) the ability to obey it. Infants are incapable of doing either one.
I am sure all children whom God commanded to be circumcised in the OT also did not have those abilities. :)
@@miriam3700 Exactly
@@miriam3700 i was baptized as an infant but it had no impact on me. It was my parents decision and my parents were not believers, they just did it. So what does that say in itself? As an adult, I chose Jesus as my savior, repented, and then was obedient in baptism. My baptism was an outward symbol of an inward change.
@@cybervoyager8668 our family is actually going to a Lutheran Church right now. We're in the process of learning about it, and this is one of my questions for the pastoral staff. I'm interested as to what they say. There are many things I appreciate about the Lutheran Church, I don't think any church is perfect, but yes, I'm still confused on this one.
@@miriam3700 i didn't know that God required those people in the old testament to repent before circumcision. Please don't compare baptism and circumcision, read ur bible.
The speaker does not know Romans 5, especially verse 12.
And perhaps you don't romans 4 especially verse 11
@@kharimcharleslyonga7371 What' are you implying in Rom.4:11?
@@kharimcharleslyonga7371 Regarding Romans 4:11, richeousness was attributed to Abraham when he believed NOT when he was circumcised.
@@cybervoyager8668 Don't take my word for it, that is EXACTLY what the Bible says but you can't see the truth for all your high-sounding arguments that don't amount to a hill of beans! Carry on!
@@cybervoyager8668 I don’t think Luther would disagree with you idk why you went at him.
And where is any of this biblical?
The bible is not the only source of information try the early church fathers. Around 200 years after Christs birth one of the church fathers explained the process of bringing in children and claimed this is what was taught going back to the apostles.
It is not a 100% sure thing as it is not in the bible itself however notice that every church that can truthfully claim that thier organization was founded by the apostles baptisms infants. The only churches that don't date there founding to after the reformation.
Truth is truth, whether in the Bible or not. Answer me this; why does it have to be in the Bible in the first place? Part of the problem protestants have is they have a deep lack of knowledge on the history of the Church. In the early stages of Christianity, we were in more of an evangelical mode combatting the pagans. Once Christianity was legal, and the external threat of persecution died out, the tradition of infant baptism was practiced, for multiple reasons.
@@Greasy__Bear the answer is Acts 16:31-34
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved -you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God-he and his whole household.
When Paul baptized the whole household, did he not baptize any children as well, even infants, with the hope that the family would raise them in the faith? Why not allow God’s grace be given to children? Look at Matthew 19:14-15
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
@@josephjackson1956 I can say that those accounts may bolster the early church fathers, but on thier own they will never convince anyone.
In order for that to be definitive you need to prove that the households mentioned included young children.
@@Greasy__Bear what household does not have children?
Why did John the Baptist leap in his mother's womb if was not filled with the holy spirit? being filled with holy spirit was a sign of baptism ,this must be the first case of baptism to be recorded within a bible, John the Baptist Andrew Elizabeth were baptized by holy spirit as they were filled with holy Spirit
Infant baptism is one of the best things you can give your children.
So it’s just for show, for salvation must be personal.
Why did not writen in the bible?
So what you are saying is.... Children are also regenerated???
I don't quite get what this Calvinist video is saying, but Lutherans believe infants are regenerated upon being brought to Jesus.
Isnt everyone born under wrath and thus on Adam's side?
ഇത് മലയാളത്തിൽ കിട്ടുമോ ?
So what is the difference between an infant born to baptist parents and thus not baptised and a baby of reformed parents who was baptised after birth? If they both suddenly die is their destiny different? Is the unbaptised baby condemned to hell because he is under Adam? Is this what was taught? Or what?
Thanks for your question and it's a good one. The answer is, no, there is no difference between the children and their destiny is certainly not different if they were to die. In the video I was making a statement about the 'logical conclusion' of where baptist theology must place the children, not where the children are in themselves.
The children of both sets of parents are not different because God's promise to the children of believers is not based on baptism itself but on the righteousness that is by faith, just as it was for Abraham and his children. The promise came to Abraham and his children BEFORE he was circumcised (see Rom 4:11), which means the children received the promise of God even before they were circumcised.
At the same time, by not baptizing their children, baptist parents are withholding something precious from their children and themselves - they are withholding the sign and seal of God's promise to their children.
@@proclaimingchrist8454 Thank You for the answer. A clarifying question: in what way are the sign and seal "precious" for the children? What does their absence mean for them in practice in reformed theology? In other words: what are they missing out on that really matters to them? And what do You mean by saying that the parents withhold also from themselves the sign and the seal?
@MrKristoforos The sign and seal are precious (or should be precious) for the children in the same way that an engagement ring is precious for a young woman. The engagement ring is a sign of the man's promise to marry his bride. The engagement ring does need to be there for the engagement and promise of marriage to be in place but it still is a precious thing for the young woman. She can look at the ring and be reminded of her fiance's promise.
@@proclaimingchrist8454 You are saying that baptism has no salvific effect on an infant. I agree. Why then baptise them?
I think we certainly agree that baptism saved its recipients in the mission situation of the early church. The effect did not come from the water or the words that were possibly uttered. The effect came from the fact that baptism was obedience to the apostolic call and also the recognition or the confession of Jesus. Both are linked to salvation.
“he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life”. John 3:36.
“ to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16.
“Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father” Matt. 10:32.
You can have obedience and confession even if you have no baptism. So salvation is not necessarily dependant on baptism. But Bible does not say that salvation by faith alone. Only verse where word faith (pistis) and alone (monon) are together is James 2:24, which says that justification is not by faith alone. Baptism of believers and confession unite us to Christ. We are identified as followers of Jesus by them. I find no baby baptisms in the Bible. So I seem as useless. Nor do I see any promises regarding a baptised child.
I think baptising babies may be misleading. As far I know church history baby baptism appeared near the year 200 in North Africa. Later some were mislead to think that babies must have inherited guilt because the church baptises them. But that is another story.
What does the WCF say ??
Children do not need to choose sides if they do not have the capacity to differentiate right and wrong. They belongs to God.
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
- Matthew 19:14
Can you give me any example of infant baptism in the New Testament?
Robert Hepple No need to. The command to administer the sign of the covenant to covenant children was never abrogated. And Matt. 28 clearly says to "disciplize" the nations by means of both baptizing and teaching. Since Jesus never re-defines what a disciple is, but only clarifies it, it is proper to regard our children as the young, maturing disciples in the faith they are-just as God had set up in the OT.
John Any who are truly regenerate are, yes. Infants can be brothers and sisters. But just as I regard all the members of my church in good standing as Christians, even though I may be wrong, I regard the infant members as growing Christians too.
Can you give an example of where faith alone is used in a positive context?
there are no examples and anybody on this thread who claims there is, is talking out their sphincters with hot air directed by their religious ego and no sound biblical teaching.
Sure, the book of Acts. When Peter preached his first sermon in Acts 2 he gave the abrahamic covenant promise. The original audience understood that in one way, that God is expanding the Abrahamic covenant to them their children, and the gentiles nations. The exclusion of children was never the issue, it was the inclusion of all the nations. We as gentiles now share in the covenant promises and the commonwealth of israel with all its implications.
Extrapolating upon false dichotomies will only lead one to incorrect conclusions
If the infant was on the right side, why would baptism be needed to bring them over to that side? But that wouldn't be very biblical to say that their child belongs to God, just because their parents do...
Infant baptism is not biblical. Jesus Christ started His preaching and baptised by John the baptist when He is 30 years old. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
One of the requirements of baptism is written in the book of acts
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 8:37 And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart", thou mayest. "And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.(Jesus Christ)
I mostly agree with you but I wouldn't use Jesus baptism as a point here since Paul rebaptised those who were baptised by John.
Jesus preached against your heresy.
Truth & Life App
Matthew 19:13-14
13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
14 but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Circumcision of the heart saves and Baptism is a sign of redemption and a sign of God's Holy people and a sign of God's promises which is reiterated from the old testament to believers and their Children.
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
This person is confused…
In Ephesians 6: 1-3, how can infants obey and honor their parents. These are volitional acts that are impossible for infants and therefore using it as evidence of your position is ill-conceived.
How are children of believers in Christ, on the right side of the line, when you yourself say at the end of the video that their not regenerate. They’re “born with a sin nature”, “Christ isn’t in their hearts” and “they don’t have the same connection their parents do”… so, if baptism is the outward symbol of an inner work (that you defended at the outset of the video), that infants have not believed, then it seems like you’re justification for this practice falls short. Even worse, you’ve contradicted your own position. I hope you’ll reconsider your opinion
Is it so Adam belong to Satan? Who created to Adam and Eve? Was Satan create Adam ?
Yes, God created Adam. However, Adam chose to obey Satan instead of God. Thus, he put himself and his descendants (Rom. 5) under Satan's authority. He suffered the consequences of his disobedience and passed that along to all the human race. John 8 says he whom we obey is our master. Adam was created by God, but chose Satan as his master.
yeah, that was real simple and clear
We are save by faith in Grace
Our batism is not water..because we are new creatures in Crist.. celestial creatures...the spirit of Jesus batize US
And the holy spirit rest sealed in us until the day of redemtation
We don rneed water. Our body dies with Jesus in cross
What's your take on Hodge? "They, therefore, sin against God and their own souls who neglect the command to be baptized in the name of the Lord and those parents sin grievously against the souls of their children who neglect to consecrate them to God in the ordinance of baptism. Do let the little ones have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life, even if they afterwards choose to erase them. Being thus enrolled may be the means of their salvation"
in one short word HES A HERETIC.. I don't care how good the rest of his theology sounds.. what is this rot about LETTING the little ones names be be written in the lambs book of life, when ONLY GOD DOES THAT>. we have nothing to do with that.. so what in the blazes is HODGE even talking about? and erasing them from the lambs book of life?!?!?!? what??? like I said HODGE IS A HERETIC
Question. Adam didn't sin alone. It was Adam and Eve; therefore with Christ the New Adam, who is the New Eve?
The church
@@proclaimingchrist8454 ? The Church is established under St. Peter and it doesn't come into full effect until Pentecost. The question remains. Who is the New Eve, that cooperated with the New Adam in bringing redemption to the world?
@@INRIVivatChristusRex The Bride of Christ. The church.
@@INRIVivatChristusRex He already had belivers. No need for a building (church). There were already a church. Jesus says your body is church. because belivers are church. jesus's community was church
“They too need to repent and believe” why shouldn’t they be baptized when they grow up and believe then! Or will they be re-baptized?
The families Faith is enough and yes adult concerts to Christianity should repent and believe. At Pentecost The apostles and Peter are speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles, of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering.
Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.
Not rebaptism, but when they grow up and repent & believe then they can do confirmation of their faith
The Sacrament of Confirmation.
This video really does explain your position quite well. I disagree with your position though.
Do you really believe Paul was writing letters to INFANTS?
You misunderstand. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." How old are the children Paul is addressing? They could be any age that can be called "child" while being old enough to understand Paul's command. Kindergartners can generally understand that verse in a basic sense. Does that mean that Paul was specifically addressing children ages 5-maturity who had "made a decision for Christ" and been baptized? It's possible, but it's a more clunky interpretation. The maker of the video seems to believe that Paul's words imply that children of believers are being brought up as members of the Christian community, the Church. If baptism is what brings you into the Church, well then, the logic flows. If not, then maybe that is where the real disagreement lies: what brings you into the Church?
Pls bro go on
Please read it
✔️💯References About the last prophet Muhammad In The Holy Bible
1. Jesus foretold about Muhammad : " …he shall give you another comforter…” (John 14:15-16)
2. Jesus said: “I have many things to say unto you, but you can‟t bear them now…he will show you things to come...(John 16:14).
Gospel of Barnabas : “…Muhammad is his blessed name.”(Ch. 96-97)
🔵 The message of Jesus was incomplete. Another prophet was needed to guide mankind.
Songs of soloman 5.16
👉👉 last prophet name Muhammadim name
Why would we believe Jesus' words here in the Gospels ('Injil') supposedly pointing towards Muhammad, when Islam clearly teaches that the Injil has been corrupted. It can either be trusted, or it can't.
thanks for the explanation, but still team credo tho!
I mean, even Christ said for as these belong the Kingdom of God
Since water baptism replaced circumcision, why baptize female infants when only males can be circumcised?
Jesus was not baptized as an infant and the apostles weren’t either. What does God’s Holy Word say…..
Romans 4:8
King James Version
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 3:20
King James Version
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
1 John 3:4
King James Version
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
The Bible clears up the religious confusion.
1 Corinthians 14:33
King James Version
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
There is no scripture in this video. ... this is worrying. The bible doesn't state any of the things that was said in this video
Yes hes using hes own understanding that's scary. 99.9% of this video is not biblical
He actually did quote one Scripture passage, Ephesians 6:1-3
@@tolotonga69 No, he was using systematic theology. It's also how we get the doctrine of the Trinity. With some doctrines (including extremely important ones such as the Trinity) there's no clear-cut, nice, neatly packaged verse that teaches us. Instead, we have to use systematic theology to come to the conclusion that God is one being but three persons.
The same is true with infant baptism
@@skalapunk thank you! Baptists pretend that the onus is on us when it's actually on them to show where Scripture teaches that the sign of faith and the covenant should no longer be applied to infants
Korinthians and other letters of Paul discuss this topic.
Infants. Are incapable to believe the gospel or repent of sin infants are not sinners now if the child desires to fallow christ he may baptism must be by total immersion.not sprinkling or pouring
Do you think that if an infant is baptized that they should be baptized later in life when they understand? I’m just wondering because it makes sense to me.
What's interesting, is how ardently my Baptist friends and brethren believe their credo-baptist position to be the plain reading of Scripture (and the paedo-baptist position to be not found therein), which seems fair enough on the surface... only to then immediately maintain that baptism must then be by submersion (or as you have worded it, 'total' immersion), which is, surprise surprise... not in Scripture.
All man made theology, sorry, the Bible teaches something quite different.
Your teach surface level garbage, one little scratch below the surface shows scripture teaching the exact opposite of what you are saying.
Truth & Life App
Matthew 19:13-14
13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
14 but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
You enter into the new covenant through baptism, it is the door to the kingdom of heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ. This promise is to the repentant sinner and his children.
Truth & Life App
Ezekiel 36:25-27
25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.
Sprinkled, full emersion, pouring, God doesn’t care and your insistence that it be this way and not that isn’t Gods will, it’s yours.
Here is another simple and clear explanation:
"8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach-repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins."
-Moroni 8 (Scripture we have thanks to the *restoration* of the fullness of Christ's gospel and church)
Eisegesis at it’s finest. Now explain why they sprinkle them when the word baptism is a transliteration of a Greek word which also means full immersion.
The pouring out of the Holy Spirit is called baptism. Paul alludes to the people being baptized into Moses in the Red Sea, but the only people who were immersed were the Egyptians.
I have wrestled with this issue a lot over the past decade. I get that the OC people of God was always based on faith. I get the Covenant Sign being given to the children in the OC and the continuity of doing so in the NC. However I see the disconnect between the image and your statement at 7:15. You place the child under the federal headship of Christ and say he doesn't belong to Satan, yet you state he needs Regeneration. If someone is in need of regenerate he is in Adam. He is a child of wrath. Dead in trespasses and sins. However, you seem to place children of a believing parent on a separate track to salvation based on physical generation. This is why I see the 1689 Federalist view of the Covenant of Grace more biblically consistant than Westminster.
Furthermore, if I may add one point, this adding a category for the physical children of believers in the NC as of there previously was a category of children of believers receiving the Covenant sign seems to me to be erroneous. I'll explain. Circumcision was not for believers and their seed. It was for Abraham and *his* seed. Who does the NC describe as the seed of Abraham but those of faith belonging to Christ? Heirs are heirs according to the promise by faith and union with Christ. Not the result of physical generation. As such the children of believers have no right to baptism. Only the seed of Abraham has right to the Covenant Sign.
I thank god every day I am not a protestant.
It was helpful in how the ROPC thinks. But I totally disagree with their presumption and miss use of baptism. I believe that is overstepping with the Bible has put in order. As a believer is right and obedience baptism is done after we leave or have faith in Jesus Christ and it is an individual’s choice. If the parents stood up and did a dedication in front of the church that they were going to raise their child to know Jesus that’s a whole different thing they could change the baby baptism to that and then I would go to that church.
It's interesting to hear this, but I don't understand the logic. Even if children of believers are on the right-hand side of your diagram, that does not mean there should be a new kind of sacrament invented for them, which was not practised in the early Church. I don't find that logical or in line with Scripture's teachings. I found your use of Eph 6 as an attempt to justify a particular traditional practice unconvincing, to be honest. This is a genuine question - If children of 'reformed' parents grow up, hear the gospel and respond, wanting to become disciples, and they then ask their local church to be baptised as believing young people or adults, do reformed churches prohibit them from being baptised again, or do they welcome this and provide baptism by immersion (or some other method)? Thanks. Your video is helpful in trying to explain a tradition and how it's justified by those who practise it; but I am scratching my head a bit and am surprised by the explanation.
No rebaptisms in scripture
Not a tradition... OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
you imply Adam burns in hell; does the vbible say that?
So the law and the 10 commandments doesn't apply to the gentiles? It only applies to Israel (believing and disbelieving) and to believing gentiles (but not unbelieving)? This makes no sense as all will be judged by the law.
Jesus comes to save us from the judgement of the law. We all fall short. Its either we try to save ourselves by abiding by the laws (which we surely cannot do) or have Jesus as our representative and payment before God. Keep the faith!
You yourself said that Baptism pictures Faith (the transfer from Adam to Christ). But you then redefine what baptism is to fit your theology. To give a covenant sign to one who has not yet experienced that covenant is a dangerous error that misunderstands the beauty of what that sign represents.
What does it mean to be in the church? -> it means to be united to Christ who is head of the body (eph 1:22-23). It follows then that if children are not united to Christ (aka do not have faith) they should not receive the sign of entrance to the church. It’s that simple! (And you admit that this indeed was the practice of the church in Acts)
Ephesians is written to “the saints” (1:1) and there is nothing in Eph 6 that necessitates Paul’s address to all children without the prerequisite of faith.
Covenant connections based on familial heritage are foreign to the NT and a redefinition of NT realities according to ethnic, theocratic Israel.
“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
Romans 9:8
“Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.”
Galatians 3:7
I am a Reformed Baptist. I confess 2nd London and maintain all the beauty of the Reformed Tradition without this fatal flaw. I would encourage everyone to seek out that position and understand how it rightly seeks to understand Scripture and reform the church away from unbiblical practices such as infant baptism that were introduced by Catholicism.
Hi Ryan, thanks for your interaction with my video.
Just a couple of notes:
(1) To be clear, I did not say that baptism pictures faith. Rather, baptism pictures the transfer from Adam to Christ. That’s because baptism is a sign of being united with Christ in his death and resurrection (the thing that is signified). Those who believe receive the thing that is signified but those who do not believe receive merely the sign. One could think of this in terms of Israel’s baptism in the Red Sea (1 Cor 10). All of those covenant people who were baptized received the promise of entering the land of Canaan (including the children). However, those who did not believe did not receive the thing that was promised. Those who did believe the promise (men like Joshua and Caleb) did enter and received the thing that was promised. This is how we view the children of believers. They all have the promise of entering life. However, as they grow up they need to embrace the promise in faith and take care not to have an evil heart of unbelief and so fall short of entering God’s rest (See Heb 3 and 4).
(2) I disagree with your statement regarding Ephesians 6. Paul addresses the children all the same. It would be awfully strange if he were only speaking to believing children.
(3) You say in your comments, “Covenant connections based on familial heritage are foreign to the NT and a redefinition of NT realities according to ethnic, theocratic Israel.” However, I believe this misunderstands the nature of the OT covenants of promise and also attribute something to those OT covenants which Israel erroneously did to their own downfall. The way of salvation has always been by faith in the promise, both in the OT and the NT. Furthermore, the promise of the eternal inheritance came to Abraham’s children (think of Ishmael and Isaac) because of Abraham’s justification by faith (Romans 4:9-13). So many in Israel made the mistake of thinking that as long as they belonged to ethnic Israel they were okay. The reality was that although they were set apart as God’s covenant people, they still needed to respond to God’s covenant in the way Abraham their forefather did (faith). This is what the NT writers like Paul hammer home again and again.
Things have changed. Adam is in christ.
Who is the federal head of every baptized, unbelieving child? The answer is Adam.
If infants are in the Covenant of Grace through baptism, then how can they be saved and not saved at the same time?
Also, Ephesians 6:3, do you think Paul was talking to a toddler? Do you seriously think Paul was telling a 1 year old - to obey their parents in the Lord? I'm sure that if the toddler was able to understand "obey your parents in the Lord", this toddler is also able to understand "for by grace you have been saved through faith (ephesians 2:8-9).
The speaker in the video never said they were simultaneously "saved and not saved". He was simply saying that the bible categorizes children of believers on the side of God's visible people. That doesn't mean they are saved. It means they are just in the visible church (as opposed to the invisible church) The same way circumcision marked out Israel as being God's visible people. Many Israelites were not saved, but nevertheless they were part of God's visible people.
I'm not sure what perspective this video is coming from, but I believe in infant baptism but I have never seen a Presbyterian teach it this way. Children of believers are covenant children but we don't believe that they're saved just because they got baptized we believe baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant and they now as a member of our family have access to that benefit as they partake in church life and Christian devotion with us but we still pray and raise them up to follow the Lord unto their salvation
@@rafiqulbhuiyan704 He affirmed what you just said but in different words. He never said infant baptism was akin to baptismal regeneration
Bottom line is that infant baptism is not in the scriptures. Also your example is in error because Ephesians 6:is speaking to children, fathers, slaves etc who could hear and understand what he was writing. There is absolutely no reference to infants or infant baptism. This is a man made invention that nullifies believes baptism.
Yes I dont know why people think it's in the bible hhhh
Household baptisms are. Only a few households were mentioned in the bible but there would've been so many more that included infants. There is no way that Jesus excluded the children of believers.
Truth & Life App
Matthew 19:13-14
13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
14 but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus taught infants and children are already ready for the kingdom, ready for baptism.
Christ said they believe
I feel this is making baptism into something it is not, “ By virtue of this covenant, God has promised to be their God.” Baptism and Salvation are closely tied although baptism is not the same as salvation nor does it pave the way for salvation it is merely and outward sign or professing of our being born again. We cannot make it into something else. It is almost as if you are saying that just because someone is a part of your family either by blood or law they are a part of the people belonging to God and thus can be conferred baptism?
VERY IMPORTANT
The Person who’s taking Baptism,, Must know the Meaning of Baptism … Everyone who Born through the relationship Of Man and Woman are Sinners .. We can Dedicate Our Child But 🙏Please not a Baptism.. for Baptism every single Person needs to fully understand what He or She’s Doing .. Bible is So Clear about Baptism so 🙏 Please don’t make Confusion..their is not a single verse in the Bible about infant Baptism .
This is an assumption based on you understanding of the purpose and directivity of the sacrament. In covenant baptism it is understood as a statement of God to his people not a statement from the recipient to God. Compare God's passing through the midst of the pieces as God cuts a covenant with Abraham.
It's amazing to me the theological gymnastics people have to go through in order to support a practice that has absolutely no biblical basis. BTW--infant baptism had NOTHING to do with the reformation. It's simply a holdover from Roman Catholicism. The anabaptists were reformed in their theology, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession is a reformed document. The pillars of the reformation are that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone. God is sovereign over ALL who were CHOSEN from before the foundations of the earth. To say all babies are elect from birth is actually counter-reformed. Not only does it have no biblical support, it implies that those who are not saved as adults, lost the salvation they possessed at birth.
The video points out that we are all born under a curse of death because, we were born from a fallen man - Adam. The penalty for Adam's sin was death and this passed onto all flesh. The only way to resolve the penalty of death is to complete the sentence by dying. Unfortunately, waiting to die physically to resolve the death problem is too late, it must be resolved while we are still alive and before judgement day. How do we deal with being born under a curse of death separated from God?
Well, that is why the Father sent his son to be the perfect spotless Lamb for the sacrifice for the curse, also known as the sin of the world, also known as DEATH. Yes folks, death is the curse of this planet and we MUST be converted from DEATH to LIFE. Jesus said we are to follow him through the door that he opened and we do this by death burial and resurrection which takes place in baptism.
In the old testament this curse of death was covered by the high priest once a year but the curse was never removed. In the new testament the curse of death can be removed and we can be converted from death to LIFE. So, what happens when we are baptized? Romans 6:3 Paul explains the process, he said when we are baptized and under the water we are dead and Jesus is with us. This satisfies the death sentence now and we send it before to be judged and it doesn't follow us to judgement which would be terminal. Does God leave us in a state of death? NO. When we come out of the water we receive a gift from the Father, the seed of LIFE called Christ. This converts us from a death state to a state of being alive in Him. Unless you have the Holy Ghost in you, you are none of his and you have no life in you. You MUST be baptized into Jesus Christ to be saved. There is no other way to be saved - none!
After we are converted from DEATH to LIFE we now have a relationship with the Father and the Son. We are in the body of Christ (dead and cursed people cannot enter his body nor will they enter God's kingdom). You also become the Church. You are the Elect. Your name is written in the book of LIFE. You are sons of God. You are a royal priesthood. You are a new creature in Christ.
You cannot refuse baptism to babies, they must be converted asap. Removing the curse of death is mandatory and the sooner you do it the better. The babies will be marked by God by circumcision of heart. The curse is remitted at baptism as it states in Acts 2:38 called remission of sins. The curse is the only sin you cannot pray for to receive forgiveness - you must resolve the penalty of death - a death curse we are all born with. DO NOT live a life for Christ without removing the curse or all your efforts and good works will be in vain. You don't want to hear these words; depart from me for I never knew you.
Baptism into Jesus Christ redeems you back into the Father for the Father is the giver of all LIFE. Receive the seed of the Father at your new birth and you will become the good seed and the children of the kingdom. Time is running out for salvation. SalvationJourney.com
NOTE: Two baptized people do not produce a converted child. That child MUST be baptized and receive the seed of the Father as well. It doesn't even have to know or even confess - it's a sin you are born with and it must be removed. Everyone one of us must receive the family name of Jesus at our spiritual rebirth.
30 questions according to bible 📖 jesus is not God, Jesus never said jesus is God with christ words
(1) If Jesus was GOD, then why Mark 15:34 says "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice; "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"-
which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me❓"
(2) If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 8:28 Jesus said "I do nothing of myself"❓
Can't GOD do anything he wills❓
(3) If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I"❓
(4) If Jesus was GOD, then why in Luke 23:46 Jesus said "Father
(GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit"❓
or is Jesus a Baby-God❓
(5) If Jesus was GOD, then why in Mark 10:18 Jesus said “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”?
(6) Also in Luke 18:19 Jesus said only GOD Almighty is Good: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-
except God alone."
(7) If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 20:17 Jesus said "Do not
hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
(8)If Jesus was GOD, then how comes his own disciples in Matthew 16: 13-14 only knew him as one of the Prophets.
(9) If Jesus was God how comes he was seen sleeping in Matthew 8:24 yet God never sleep as reported in Psalms 121:4.
(9) If Jesus was God who forgives sins then how comes when we was wronged in Luke 23:34 he said that Father forgive them since they don't know what they are doing.
(10) If Jesus was GOD , then why in John 17:3 Jesus said that eternal life is believing in one God and believing in Jesus Christ who was sent by God.
(11) If Jesus was GOD, then why in Acts 2:22 it is stated that Jesus was a mere man from Nazareth and all miracles and wonders were made by God through him.
(12) If Jesus was GOD, how comes in Hebrew 2:9 he was just made a little lower than angels. Can God the creator of the universe be lower than his creation.
(13). If Jesus was GOD, how comes in Luke 22:43, he was strengthen by angels, Can God be strengthened by his creatures, how can God be this weak.
(14) If Jesus was GOD, then why in Luke 4:8, he said that it is written that worship and serve only God. How come he did not say that worship only me but made reference to God.
(15) If Jesus was God, how comes in Revelation 1:1 it is reported that this is the revelation of Jesus which God gave him yet he (Jesus) himself is God as you claim.
(16) If Jesus was God how comes in Luke 4:13 he was tempted by Satan yet in James 1:13 God cannot be tempted by evil.
(17) If Jesus was God, then how comes in Luke 2:21 he was circumcised . Do you really want us to believe that God was circumcised, do you believe that the man who circumcised Jesus was holding God by his penis !!!. Isn't this the greatest blasphemy.
(18) If Jesus was God then how comes in Mark 11: 13, he was very ignorant that he did not know that it was a season of figs. How can God be ignorant to this level.
(19). If Jesus was God, then how comes in Mark 11:12 he was hungry, How can God be hungry, isn't this blasphemy to God.
(20) If Jesus was God then how comes he said in Matthew 24:36 that he does not know the last day and hour. How can God be this ignorant and fail to know the last day of judgement.
(21). If Jesus is God how comes he had a tribe as stated in Revelation 5:5 that he was a Jew from the tribe of Juda. Can God have a tribe, does it make sense to you if you start treason.
(22) If Jesus was God then why did he say in Matthew 15:24 that he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Can God be sent in the first place and can he be so tribal like this.
(23) If Jesus was God then how comes in Luke 11:37-38, he was seen eating food, he even forgotten to wash his hands before he ate because he was very hungry. Imagine God eating food . if Jesus ate food, the end result is that the food had to be digested meaning that he visited the toilet, imagine God on a toilet !!! . let us start reasoning please.
(24) If Jesus was God, then how comes in John 18:22, he was slapped by one of the officers. Can God be slapped by a mere man. Jesus cannot be God.
(25) If Jesus was God, then how comes it is mentioned in Luke 2:40 that Jesus while still a child grew and filled with wisdom and the grace of God was with him. Which grace of God was with him if he was himself God.
(26) If Jesus was God, how comes that in Mark 1:35, He used to pray, which God was he praying to if he was himself God.
(27) If Jesus was God ,then why is it written in 1 Timothy 2:5 that there is one God and one mediator between God and men who is the man Jesus.
(28). If Jesus was God, then why did Paul say in 2 Corinthians 1:1 that I Paul I am an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.
(29). If Jesus was God, how comes in Acts 2:36, it is mentioned that GOD has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Which God made Jesus Christ if he (Jesus) himself was God.
(30). If Jesus was God, then how comes in Hebrews 5:7, Jesus prayed while crying in strong tears so that God saves him from death and God heard his prayers by saving him from death.
Wrong.God has no grandchildren.
Just because someone is born into a Christian home doesn't make them a Christian just like going to church doesn't make you a Christian.. Getting water baptize doesn't saved anyone it by simply believe the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ... You have to hear and understand the gospel and believe the gospel and a infant can't understand and believe the gospel..