According to the Holy Scripture... the Early Christian Churches in the 1st Century A.D. had practiced INFANTS and LITTLE CHILDREN Baptism, by Baptizing the "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD." The Entire Household in the 1st Century A.D. was basically composed of the Master of the Household, his Spouse, his Infants/children, hIs own parents, and relatives, including his Servants with their own family members (infants/Children)... In those days, FAMILIES were very Close-tight (compact), they all lived in one big PROPERTY, called the HOUSEHOLD... not like today, in our time... BIG Difference between the HOUSEHOLD of the 21st Century with the 1st Century HOUSEHOLD... Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John even though Jesus is SINLESS... just like Infants and Little Children (Toddlers)... If God/YHWH allowed His Son/Word to be Baptized, would not be possible to Baptize Infants and Little Children (Toddlers) as well?... Christ Jesus said, "For the Kingdom of God belongs to such of them (Infants/Toddlers)"... (ref. Luke 18:16). Facts and Truth of the Matter... Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
With all due respect, this is a poor explanation. There’s nothing biblical about the water baptism of an infant. If you want to do it, to welcome the infant to a believing community, I mean, I guess so, but it’s certainly not biblical, you’re grasping for straws. I’m still not sure what you’re trying to accomplish, by baptizing an infant, if you could respond, I would greatly appreciate your insight. Thank you.
We (True Christians) who worship God in Spirit and in Truth, believed in the Original APOSTLES CREED professed and written by the early Churches in Asia Minor in the 1st Cent. A.D., when the Apostles of Christ were still alive at that time... Christ Jesus prophesied to His Apostles that many "AMONG" the Disciples (Apostle's Students) from the Church would go astray/abandon the Original Teachings of the Apostles after they were all dead and gone... No Apostle will be able to rebuke and correct them after they are all dead and gone... just like when St. Paul rebuked and corrected the teaching of the Apostles Peter and James regarding the Physical Circumcision of the Gentiles... This prophecy was fulfilled starting in the early 2nd Cent. A.D. onward... through Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (130-145 A.D.) a former disciple of Apostle John after John died at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D.... Bishop Ignatius taught the Doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION... miraculously turning the BREAD & WINE into Literal/Physical Flesh and Blood of Christ... and not a SPIRITUAL REPRESENTATION of the "Flesh and Blood "of Christ which the Apostles believed... Christ Jesus revealed to His Apostles that the WORDS He had Spoken were "FULLY SPIRITUAL" (in context and meaning), for the SPIRIT gives life, and the Literal/Physical FLESH does (counts) nothing... (ref. John 6:63)... logically, that includes the Literal/Physical BLOOD as well... Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
If the PREMISE of the ARGUMENT for BAPTISM is to be able to BELIEVE in Christ Jesus and that Infants and Children have not SINNED yet... Does God/YHWH get upset/angry when Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John while Christ does not need to BELIEVE in Himself or had sinned?.... NOPE, but instead God proudly said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3:17)... Christ does not need baptism like the Infant and Children... In the same way, would God be upset/angry if the CHURCH of God does "Infant/Child BAPTISM" who is not capable of believing and has not sinned?... NOPE... Infant/child Baptism is like Christ Jesus being Baptized by Prophet John at the Jordan River... a SINLESS person (Innocent like a child)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@@bigtobacco1098 You are maybe entitled to your own OPINION, but not with the Biblical TRUTH of the Early Churches in Asia Minor in the 1st Century A.D. ... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
@@bigtobacco1098 I pray to God that the Holy Spirit will open your Eyes to the Biblical TRUTH practiced by the early Churches in the 1st Cent. A.D. while most of the Apostles were still alive at that time... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.
It's a good video. like all of the others I've watched. I disagree wholeheartedly with infant baptism but I love that you give such a good, clear explanation.
Hey Pastor my journey to infant baptism was not easy but im there through great study and prayer. Its a matter of contistant continuity between the Old covenat and the New covenant
I really enjoyed listening to this series, thank you for your polite tone and good explanations! It is such a tricky doctrine, but thankfully it isn’t primary (of first importance). It is encouraging that Baptists and Presbyterians are brothers and sisters in Christ whether you want to dunk or sprinkle! Thanks again
Oh, he has a very polite tone. But so do most wolves in sheep's clothing..see, what Matt here is doing - is going against what Paul the Apostle said. It isn't right to baptize babies. For as much as Matt knows, this sure flew over his head.
@@slamdancer1720 No. The commenter above you is correct. What is the point in baptising an infant? You only go to heaven by faith and by your personal decision to follow Christ. It's all a choice. Also, Paul said we are saved through faith not works or tradition. What this does is just replaced cutting of foreskin with dunking in water. It's tradition not something that the infant has a choice over.
Acts 16:31 & 18:8... the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family without exemption) were BAPTIZED... the passage never said nor mentioned that only the ADULTS were Baptized in the Household... when we say the English word "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD" means ALL the People in the Household without exemption unless otherwise noted in the passage, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Matthew: Have you ever done a video on your views on paedocommunion? My denomination (OPC) does not practice it, but several members of our congregation are in favor of it. Currently, I am reading "Children and Communion: A Presuppositional Analysis of 14 Views" by Phillip Kayser to understand the various views. Would love to see a video on this (for or against).
Love the videos and appreciate the consise nature of these explanations. Very helpful. As a 1689 Federalist, I think the underlying difference between us is the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. By identifying baptism as sign of "the covenant" in similar fashion to how previously circumcision was seen as the sign of "the covenant" sneaks in the assumption the New Covenant and the Old Covenant share the same substance. Or, put another way, it assume the Abrahamic Covenant is an admin of the Covenant of Grace, rather than it (Abrahamic Covenant) containing the promise of a future covenant in Christ -- the Covenant of Grace / the New Covenant.
Galatians 3 is great at showing that the covenant made with Abraham and is an everlasting covenant for all generations and the covenant of grace is a continuation of God’s covenant with His people but is now broaden to all peoples and nations through the administration of baptism
One time I met a brother who told me he was re-baptized 4 times! : re-baptized as an adult, re-baptized by submersion, re-baptized on his own personal faith, re-baptized in Jesus' name. That's a lot of water....
As a reformed Baptist and someone who is also covenantal , I really love your content brother . In the interest of understanding the other side , have you been able or willing to read Dr Sam renihan book on covenant theology or Dr pascal denaults book on the distinctions between the Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology? I’m speaking of actual covenant theology and not new covenant theology.
Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
Nice try , baptism is not for Jews or Gentiles , male or female , it is for BELIEVERS ! Acts 8 : 36 , 37 , 38 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 ? 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 . 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 . The BIBLE teaches , believing with all your heart is a requirement for baptism . Seminary teaches something different . And they sure know how to explain something different than what the bible says , using the bible of course , to say what the bible does not say . Now we have a choice BIBLE teaching or seminary teaching ?
The sign of the covenant is for believers and their households, that is abundantly clear from the old testament, keep in mind the clearer passages in this case the old testament dictate what we believe not the unclear
If Baptism was pointing back to the cross, why was John baptizing people before Christ's crucifixion? How long had that been going on? Were Jews being circumcised and baptized before the crucifixion? I've always had difficulty understanding baptism Biblically.
John the Baptist was paving the way for Christ , Water 💦 is symbolic for the Holy Spirit as well as fire 🔥, it’s important to be baptized it is about giving us the Holy Spirit
Wade, the mission of John the Baptist was to prepare a people for the Lord. To prepare them he preached to them of the coming Messiah, and those coming to be disciples were required to repent, confess their sins, and be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins (Mk.1:4-5). Those who submitted to John's baptism were granted entrance into the kingdom when it came on Pentecost. These "prepared" disciples were beneficial to the apostles baptizing the 3000. In Acts 2:40-41 we read those who "saved themselves" by being baptized, in water of course, were "added" to them, the apostles and disciples making up the church. Notice that Jesus did not add the 3000 to the church until after they were baptized. This is undisputable, baptism is essential to our salvation.
Baptize done by John is Jewish Baptism. Jesus changed Baptism and Believers are baptized by Christian Baptism and not Johns. Baptism is only done by immersion. You have to understand there is different types of Baptism in the Bible.
The ordinance of Baptism points to Christ and is a sign of his Holy covenant people which would include 8 day old babies. Baptism is a sign of Christ's promises and eternal life is circumcision of the heart.
Not that church history has anywhere near the authority Scripture does, but the earliest known usage was in the 2nd or 3rd century. Most of early church history up until the 4th century is very spotty though. We really can't say we know what the Apostles did for certain. However, using Scripture with good hermeneutics is the best way to get as close as we can. We're all wrong about some things, but we don't know what it is. Otherwise there wouldn't even be any debates. However, I think what matters most is that all things are done in faith.
I'm not catholic. But I did like the explanation.... however, this doesn't apply to children. Yes, I can see how he got there. Since he got to circumcision. But.... in the times of baptism in the biblical events. John proclaim to those that acknowledge their sins. And they came to repent. An infant can't do that. The bible can't go against itself. Matthew 19:14 *Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”* If you baptized a child.... would this mean you don't trust the biblical truth from a child belonging in heaven without being baptized. Mark 10:15 *Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”* We know this is more on the spiritual side. But as we know it. We must become "like" a child in order to enter heaven. A child all medically receives salvation. There's a reference story that shares that king david had a child who died. 2 Samuel 12:18-23. And towards the end king david affirm this: *"....Someday I will go to him, but he cannot come back to me.”* David son wasn't baptized nor circumsized. And the reason for being circumcised back then was an act as an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people. However in the new testament Pual teaches us this; that a person can't be justified by the works of the law. So, you can't parallel circumcised to baptism. If this was so. Females would get circumcised in the old testament as well. So baptism can't be for them in this case. This wouldn't make since. This video is a fit in.
baptism is not for forgiveness of sins ,it is for enlightenment to fully understanding the truth of gospel by receiving the gifts of holy spirit such as wisdom, knowledge ,fear of God and so on.. children are not excluded from receiving such gifts(in Genesis we read that ...the darkness was over the face of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of water and god said let there be light and there was light) this pre figured the baptism, chidren are born in state of Grace and within a covenant provided they are born in a Catholic family ,they are born within the church that is a body of Christ, they are baptized for enlightenment not for forgiveness of original sin as we are told
Matthew, you are easy to listen to. But I think your arguments here are not good. You presented no Biblical support for them and even the verses in Colossians 2 that you referenced, when one reads them, they speak clearly of spiritual circumcision, i.e., "made without hands" (v. 11). They do not speak of physical circumcision. And then these same verses go on to speak of the union of the believer in baptism with Christ (v. 12). So, in my understanding, Colossians 2 speaks of the reality of the Colossian Christians having been regenerated (spiritually circumcised) and baptized. They say nothing of physical circumcision and infant sprinkling.
There are no verses explicitly demonstrating either modern credo-only Baptist practices, or paedo-baptist practices. So such a question doesn't give us an answer either way.
@@JovenGalleno So, based on what I've just said, you believe all water baptisms performed by both credo-only Baptists and paedo-baptists to be an invention? Because that's the point I just made and that's the point you just agreed with.
It's fun to be a believer of Bible and God of Bible with Agustinian, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Wesleyan brothers or Calvin and even modern scholers like C.S. Lewis, J.I Packer, A.W.Towzer etc. Forgetting Jesus and Apostles taught. These are the most important factors to consider in Christianity. Be born again, Be baptized, Be filled in Holy Spirit, Be partakers of Lord's Supper, and Be faithful to all practices in continuing of all other general teaching of apostles. Apart from the holy scripture we adopt nothing. God raised many people who were really from God in time of need apostasy, inflation, spiritual death. Half truth is not the whole truth but we have a whole truth called Bible!! Now, end times challenges like LGBT Transgender in the churches need to get rides. Watch, there's a remnants in fearful and watchful on these times. . Pastor Habel Joseph.
Do you all see why we Baptists are the best and obviously the only ones who have it right???? I hope so. It's a shame women can't help out more in a church. It seems I know more than most men. I know more than any woman I've ever met too. I wouldn't ever learn from a woman, they don't know half as much as me and men don't know as much either. I mean read your Bible. Don't baptize babies. That's sick.
The Bible specifically used the word "ENTIRE" (household) which means "No Exception" unless otherwise it is not ENTIRE... logically speaking...
According to the Holy Scripture... the Early Christian Churches in the 1st Century A.D. had practiced INFANTS and LITTLE CHILDREN Baptism, by Baptizing the "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD." The Entire Household in the 1st Century A.D. was basically composed of the Master of the Household, his Spouse, his Infants/children, hIs own parents, and relatives, including his Servants with their own family members (infants/Children)...
In those days, FAMILIES were very Close-tight (compact), they all lived in one big PROPERTY, called the HOUSEHOLD... not like today, in our time... BIG Difference between the HOUSEHOLD of the 21st Century with the 1st Century HOUSEHOLD...
Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John even though Jesus is SINLESS... just like Infants and Little Children (Toddlers)... If God/YHWH allowed His Son/Word to be Baptized, would not be possible to Baptize Infants and Little Children (Toddlers) as well?... Christ Jesus said, "For the Kingdom of God belongs to such of them (Infants/Toddlers)"... (ref. Luke 18:16).
Facts and Truth of the Matter... Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Thank you for this biblical treatment of Infant Baptism. I hope many will be blessed by this resource.
Nope. It isn't Biblical.
It's a biblical concept. Thank you Sir.
OIKOS covenant
With all due respect, this is a poor explanation. There’s nothing biblical about the water baptism of an infant. If you want to do it, to welcome the infant to a believing community, I mean, I guess so, but it’s certainly not biblical, you’re grasping for straws. I’m still not sure what you’re trying to accomplish, by baptizing an infant, if you could respond, I would greatly appreciate your insight. Thank you.
Were OIKOS covenant baptism done in scripture ??
Was this covenant EVERLASTING ??
We (True Christians) who worship God in Spirit and in Truth, believed in the Original APOSTLES CREED professed and written by the early Churches in Asia Minor in the 1st Cent. A.D., when the Apostles of Christ were still alive at that time...
Christ Jesus prophesied to His Apostles that many "AMONG" the Disciples (Apostle's Students) from the Church would go astray/abandon the Original Teachings of the Apostles after they were all dead and gone... No Apostle will be able to rebuke and correct them after they are all dead and gone... just like when St. Paul rebuked and corrected the teaching of the Apostles Peter and James regarding the Physical Circumcision of the Gentiles...
This prophecy was fulfilled starting in the early 2nd Cent. A.D. onward... through Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (130-145 A.D.) a former disciple of Apostle John after John died at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D.... Bishop Ignatius taught the Doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION... miraculously turning the BREAD & WINE into Literal/Physical Flesh and Blood of Christ... and not a SPIRITUAL REPRESENTATION of the "Flesh and Blood "of Christ which the Apostles believed...
Christ Jesus revealed to His Apostles that the WORDS He had Spoken were "FULLY SPIRITUAL" (in context and meaning), for the SPIRIT gives life, and the Literal/Physical FLESH does (counts) nothing... (ref. John 6:63)... logically, that includes the Literal/Physical BLOOD as well...
Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Thank you for being a great teacher.
Started to rethink my position on infant baptism
If the PREMISE of the ARGUMENT for BAPTISM is to be able to BELIEVE in Christ Jesus and that Infants and Children have not SINNED yet... Does God/YHWH get upset/angry when Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John while Christ does not need to BELIEVE in Himself or had sinned?.... NOPE, but instead God proudly said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3:17)... Christ does not need baptism like the Infant and Children...
In the same way, would God be upset/angry if the CHURCH of God does "Infant/Child BAPTISM" who is not capable of believing and has not sinned?... NOPE... Infant/child Baptism is like Christ Jesus being Baptized by Prophet John at the Jordan River... a SINLESS person (Innocent like a child)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Debunked repeatedly
@@bigtobacco1098 You are maybe entitled to your own OPINION, but not with the Biblical TRUTH of the Early Churches in Asia Minor in the 1st Century A.D. ... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
@jvlp2046 yes... the church Jesus didn't start 😅😂😂
@jvlp2046 kinda like the pentecostal claiming the montanists 😅🤣😂
@@bigtobacco1098 I pray to God that the Holy Spirit will open your Eyes to the Biblical TRUTH practiced by the early Churches in the 1st Cent. A.D. while most of the Apostles were still alive at that time... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.
It's a good video. like all of the others I've watched. I disagree wholeheartedly with infant baptism but I love that you give such a good, clear explanation.
Have you changed your mind yet?
@@gdot9046 No, still not baptizing babies. I doubt I'll ever change.
OIKOS covenant
Hey Pastor my journey to infant baptism was not easy but im there through great study and prayer. Its a matter of contistant continuity between the Old covenat and the New covenant
I really enjoyed listening to this series, thank you for your polite tone and good explanations! It is such a tricky doctrine, but thankfully it isn’t primary (of first importance). It is encouraging that Baptists and Presbyterians are brothers and sisters in Christ whether you want to dunk or sprinkle! Thanks again
Oh, he has a very polite tone. But so do most wolves in sheep's clothing..see, what Matt here is doing - is going against what Paul the Apostle said. It isn't right to baptize babies. For as much as Matt knows, this sure flew over his head.
@@hekeepshispromises2507 or, as is the case, you are mistaken.
@@slamdancer1720 No. The commenter above you is correct.
What is the point in baptising an infant? You only go to heaven by faith and by your personal decision to follow Christ. It's all a choice.
Also, Paul said we are saved through faith not works or tradition. What this does is just replaced cutting of foreskin with dunking in water. It's tradition not something that the infant has a choice over.
@Mapspalo your last paragraph is odd... was circumcision a choice ?
@@Mapspalowhat is the sign of the new covenant ??
Acts 16:31 & 18:8... the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family without exemption) were BAPTIZED... the passage never said nor mentioned that only the ADULTS were Baptized in the Household... when we say the English word "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD" means ALL the People in the Household without exemption unless otherwise noted in the passage, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Matthew: Have you ever done a video on your views on paedocommunion? My denomination (OPC) does not practice it, but several members of our congregation are in favor of it. Currently, I am reading "Children and Communion: A Presuppositional Analysis of 14 Views" by Phillip Kayser to understand the various views. Would love to see a video on this (for or against).
Clear, calm and rationale discussion
Love the videos and appreciate the consise nature of these explanations. Very helpful. As a 1689 Federalist, I think the underlying difference between us is the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. By identifying baptism as sign of "the covenant" in similar fashion to how previously circumcision was seen as the sign of "the covenant" sneaks in the assumption the New Covenant and the Old Covenant share the same substance. Or, put another way, it assume the Abrahamic Covenant is an admin of the Covenant of Grace, rather than it (Abrahamic Covenant) containing the promise of a future covenant in Christ -- the Covenant of Grace / the New Covenant.
Galatians 3 is great at showing that the covenant made with Abraham and is an everlasting covenant for all generations and the covenant of grace is a continuation of God’s covenant with His people but is now broaden to all peoples and nations through the administration of baptism
I’m a baptist but you got a thumbs up for this video solely for the “that’s why we have a youth pastor” comment lol
One time I met a brother who told me he was re-baptized 4 times! : re-baptized as an adult, re-baptized by submersion, re-baptized on his own personal faith, re-baptized in Jesus' name. That's a lot of water....
Also Baptism now saves us. Infants are sinners and need Christ’s salvation too.
I have to say, you really did a good job in this series.
As a reformed Baptist and someone who is also covenantal , I really love your content brother .
In the interest of understanding the other side , have you been able or willing to read Dr Sam renihan book on covenant theology or Dr pascal denaults book on the distinctions between the Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology? I’m speaking of actual covenant theology and not new covenant theology.
What scripture shows that Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant?
You will never find it, we just do a careful theological maneuvering to get to tht point. 😁
Thanks for a great explanation!
Good job ... so far.
Love your shirt! Is there an online “line” of Sola5 stuff?
Steve Van Keulen II missional wear dot com.
Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
Cause it's either sink or swim now, baby.
Nice try , baptism is not for Jews or Gentiles , male or female , it is for BELIEVERS !
Acts 8 : 36 , 37 , 38
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 ?
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 .
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 .
The BIBLE teaches , believing with all your heart is a requirement for baptism .
Seminary teaches something different .
And they sure know how to explain something different than what the bible says , using the bible of course , to say what the bible does not say .
Now we have a choice BIBLE teaching or seminary teaching ?
What about the numerous household baptisms?
Christian baptism is for saved people.
Infants can't become saved
The sign of the covenant is for believers and their households, that is abundantly clear from the old testament, keep in mind the clearer passages in this case the old testament dictate what we believe not the unclear
Yup, those who “believe and are baptized.”
Frank Pichardo Marcian theology
Evangellyfish Life It’s actually Mark 16:16. When in doubt, go back to Scripture. 😉
Frank Pichardo This is just more mercian theology God does not change children have always been members of the church check your Greek old testament
If Baptism was pointing back to the cross, why was John baptizing people before Christ's crucifixion? How long had that been going on? Were Jews being circumcised and baptized before the crucifixion? I've always had difficulty understanding baptism Biblically.
WadeOhWells I just learned that the Qumran (Dead Sea scrolls) community baptized 200 years before Christ.
John the Baptist was paving the way for Christ , Water 💦 is symbolic for the Holy Spirit as well as fire 🔥, it’s important to be baptized it is about giving us the Holy Spirit
Wade, the mission of John the Baptist was to prepare a people for the Lord. To prepare them he preached to them of the coming Messiah, and those coming to be disciples were required to repent, confess their sins, and be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins (Mk.1:4-5).
Those who submitted to John's baptism were granted entrance into the kingdom when it came on Pentecost.
These "prepared" disciples were beneficial to the apostles baptizing the 3000.
In Acts 2:40-41 we read those who "saved themselves" by being baptized, in water of course, were "added" to them, the apostles and disciples making up the church.
Notice that Jesus did not add the 3000 to the church until after they were baptized.
This is undisputable, baptism is essential to our salvation.
Being baptized by in water does not give you the Holy Spirit.
You get the Holy Spirit at the moment you get saved/born again.
Baptize done by John is Jewish Baptism.
Jesus changed Baptism and Believers are baptized by Christian Baptism and not Johns.
Baptism is only done by immersion.
You have to understand there is different types of Baptism in the Bible.
OIKOS covenant... they are part of the visible church
If it is possible, can I ask what are the basic differences between the Coptic Orthodox Christians and Lutherans?
The ordinance of Baptism points to Christ and is a sign of his Holy covenant people which would include 8 day old babies. Baptism is a sign of Christ's promises and eternal life is circumcision of the heart.
What did the earliest church fathers write about infant baptism?
Not that church history has anywhere near the authority Scripture does, but the earliest known usage was in the 2nd or 3rd century. Most of early church history up until the 4th century is very spotty though. We really can't say we know what the Apostles did for certain. However, using Scripture with good hermeneutics is the best way to get as close as we can. We're all wrong about some things, but we don't know what it is. Otherwise there wouldn't even be any debates. However, I think what matters most is that all things are done in faith.
We can rightly deduce that OIKOS covenant baptism was the practice as we read no apologetics against nor any significant writings noting the change...
cool shirt
Why? Because we are Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterians and the Westminster Standards say to do it! That’s why!
Those are works. Paul was against that. Duh.
I'm not catholic. But I did like the explanation.... however, this doesn't apply to children. Yes, I can see how he got there. Since he got to circumcision.
But.... in the times of baptism in the biblical events. John proclaim to those that acknowledge their sins. And they came to repent. An infant can't do that.
The bible can't go against itself.
Matthew 19:14 *Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”*
If you baptized a child.... would this mean you don't trust the biblical truth from a child belonging in heaven without being baptized.
Mark 10:15
*Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”*
We know this is more on the spiritual side. But as we know it. We must become "like" a child in order to enter heaven. A child all medically receives salvation.
There's a reference story that shares that king david had a child who died. 2 Samuel 12:18-23. And towards the end king david affirm this: *"....Someday I will go to him, but he cannot come back to me.”*
David son wasn't baptized nor circumsized.
And the reason for being circumcised back then was an act as an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people.
However in the new testament Pual teaches us this; that a person can't be justified by the works of the law. So, you can't parallel circumcised to baptism. If this was so. Females would get circumcised in the old testament as well. So baptism can't be for them in this case. This wouldn't make since.
This video is a fit in.
5:50, that is why there is no correlation!
For the satisfaction of parent ONLY.
baptism is not for forgiveness of sins ,it is for enlightenment to fully understanding the truth of gospel by receiving the gifts of holy spirit such as wisdom, knowledge ,fear of God and so on.. children are not excluded from receiving such gifts(in Genesis we read that ...the darkness was over the face of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of water and god said let there be light and there was light) this pre figured the baptism, chidren are born in state of Grace and within a covenant provided they are born in a Catholic family ,they are born within the church that is a body of Christ, they are baptized for enlightenment not for forgiveness of original sin as we are told
Matthew, you are easy to listen to. But I think your arguments here are not good. You presented no Biblical support for them and even the verses in Colossians 2 that you referenced, when one reads them, they speak clearly of spiritual circumcision, i.e., "made without hands" (v. 11). They do not speak of physical circumcision. And then these same verses go on to speak of the union of the believer in baptism with Christ (v. 12). So, in my understanding, Colossians 2 speaks of the reality of the Colossian Christians having been regenerated (spiritually circumcised) and baptized. They say nothing of physical circumcision and infant sprinkling.
Is there one verse that a baby was baptized?
There are no verses explicitly demonstrating either modern credo-only Baptist practices, or paedo-baptist practices. So such a question doesn't give us an answer either way.
@@Mic1904 so if it isnt in the bible...then it is just an invented teaching, not of God's, but men.
@@JovenGalleno So, based on what I've just said, you believe all water baptisms performed by both credo-only Baptists and paedo-baptists to be an invention? Because that's the point I just made and that's the point you just agreed with.
@@Mic1904 Yes. And that infant baptism is not in the bible, therefore it is stupid to practice it.
@@JovenGalleno Nor are the credo-only practices of modern Baptists. Hence my point. Neither position you take is in the Bible.
It's fun to be a believer of Bible and God of Bible with Agustinian, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Wesleyan brothers or Calvin and even modern scholers like C.S. Lewis, J.I Packer, A.W.Towzer etc.
Forgetting Jesus and Apostles taught. These are the most important factors to consider in Christianity.
Be born again,
Be baptized,
Be filled in Holy Spirit,
Be partakers of Lord's Supper, and
Be faithful to all practices in continuing of all other general teaching of apostles.
Apart from the holy scripture we adopt nothing.
God raised many people who were really from God in time of need apostasy, inflation, spiritual death.
Half truth is not the whole truth but we have a whole truth called Bible!!
Now, end times challenges like LGBT Transgender in the churches need to get rides.
Watch, there's a remnants in fearful and watchful on these times. .
Pastor Habel Joseph.
Do you all see why we Baptists are the best and obviously the only ones who have it right???? I hope so. It's a shame women can't help out more in a church. It seems I know more than most men. I know more than any woman I've ever met too. I wouldn't ever learn from a woman, they don't know half as much as me and men don't know as much either. I mean read your Bible. Don't baptize babies. That's sick.
Saying that's sick is a stretch mate, just cool it down hey.
Too many are going back to Rome.
It's NOT Biblical. There's NO Biblical reason to baptize a baby.
wrong