@@TheMaineSurveyor Well, I must say I understand the biblical support for this position. Personally, my conscience would be clear attending a FAITHFULL pedobaptist church or a FAITHFULL credobaptist church, as I see biblical support for either position.
@@sphtu8 Same here. I’m still solidly a credobaptist. I understand the paedobaptist position; I don’t see it in Scripture at all, but I understand it. I could still comfortably attend a faithful Presbyterian church, if that’s all that was available to me.
While household can mean children, the text gives no clue that there were children who did not believe who themselves were getting baptized. Household could also mean older members, such as grandparents, or slaves as you mention who were capable of reasoning and believing. At best this is an argument from silence and therefore would not be appropriate to build doctrine upon. On the contrary, we do specifically have believers getting baptized. However, their baptism is pointing to their death, burial, and resurrection with Christ and identity as a new person hidden with Christ in Jesus (Col. 3:3-4). I love you as a brother in Christ and listen to your sermons. You have been an inspiration to me and I love to hear you stick to the Word. I do disagree on this point, but I'm a Baptist, so I guess that was coming :)! I am grateful that we do not disagree on the gospel and most everything else. Keep up the good work with your channel. P.S. You need to do a video on the best smelling bibles!!! Spiritual Glue Huffing! LOL!
Matt Haywood, then there definitely should be Scripture excluding infants if an argument form silence is unfit to build doctrine on, simply because converting Jews would need to be told not to mark their infants with a sign as they did in the old covenant. 😛
Actually brother, in the case of the philipian jailer and his household being baptized there is no mention of his household members individually believing in Jesus before being baptized. Therefore it follows that they were baptized on the basis of the jailer’s faith and that the household was an extension of himself, similar to Abraham and his entire household including slaves being circumcised. 38Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2 :28 f baptism is covenantal not
Hello Pastor, I am a woman from Central Europe and in my country, it is extremely hard to find a church that would be truly biblical. I have been searching for the right one for years. I grew up in an atheistic family and as a child, I did not believe in God. Later on, at about the age of 16, I started believing but I had no clue where to search for Him. I was a confused teenager trying to find God in Buddhism, Catholicism, and my latest "addition" was the Apostolic Church which I left this spring because I realized that they were not biblical at all. And now I belong to no church; however, I would love to. The problem is that I would like to become a member of the Presbyterian Church. There is one in my country - but... it is about 6 hours drive away from my house. I would need to cross the entire country every week! (Twice - there, and back). Which is not possible... Can you please tell me what to do? There really is not a church nearby I could say about at least something like: "Well, this is not a church that lives 100% biblically, but 75% need to be sufficient for me..." I just don't want this. I don't want to compromise and then every Sunday listen to something that is a heresy. Even if it was only occasionally. Do you know what to do?
No church is 100% accurate on anything. There is no such thing as a perfect church. I know this was at least 2 years ago, but I think it's important for everyone to know this. We are all wrong on some things, but we don't know what. That said, I hope you have since found a good church that isn't heretical and at least holds to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. God bless.
Hi Mathew! Thanks for another great video! Quick question: Is it fair to say that circumcision and baptism are ultimately the same sacrament, expressed differently on either side of the cross?
Jacob Solis in that they are both the sacrament of initiation into the covenant people, yes. In the same way, Passover parallels the Lord's Supper as the sacrament of covenant renewal, repeated regularly.
The context of the Philippian Jailer looks to me like his family was saved, not just him. *Acts 16:* _ESV_ 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Who needs to believe in order for the household to be saved? Is it saying the jailer's faith will save the household? Or is it saying that everyone in the household who believes will be saved? I think it is saying the latter: everyone in the household who believes will be saved. *Acts 16:* 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. To whom was the word of the Lord preached? All who were in the jailer's house. Who was baptized? The jailer and all his family. *Acts 16:* 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. Who rejoices that the jailer believed in God? The jailer's entire household rejoiced. If his household, at this point, contains unbelievers, why would unbelievers rejoice that the jailer believed in God? Does the passage make more sense if the entire household believes in the Lord Jesus and is then baptized? I would say, yes. This is why I think the context points to everyone in the household believes, then they are all baptized. In all the other scenes of baptism in the other chapters of Acts, we see people believe, and then get baptized. What about Lydia? There's not much to go on in Lydia's account. But what do we see in the preceding chapters of Acts? People believe and then are baptized. We never explicitly see the baptism of unbelievers.
Matthew Everhard what about an unbelieving wife, would a husband have her baptized, or would she first have to profess faith? That’s one thing kind of tripping me up on this topic
Not forcibly of course! That's a crime in some states, lol. As head of the household, he could if she were willing. Of course, more often than not, the wife follows the faith decision of the husband, especially as he leads by godly example, prayer, and obedient life.
I think your second argument based on Paul is stronger than the "households" argument which is the more common argument put forth. I noticed however, that you needed to use the word "drift" to describe the biblical support. I realize you are assembling an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. So ... I'm still hanging in there with you. Good job so far.
If you would actually read the Bible you would know that in order to get baptized the person would need to understand why they were being baptized and until they understood the reason why they were not to be baptized.
We can't "assume" that children were actually in the house, they might not of had any, if that's the argument we can also baptize the dog and cat as they were part of the household
I find the both the credobaptist and paedobaptist positions to have good arguments, although this isn't one of them. However, I've noticed when the debate of baptism modes comes up, Baptists have a lot more assumptions than actual evidence that immersion is the only acceptable mode. Such as "baptizo" meaning to immerse, while that is partially true it also has many different meanings that are even expressed in the Bible. Also, immersion is never once described in Scripture. The real truth is, based on Scripture alone, we simply don't know what mode of Baptism was used.
@@toolegittoquit_001 The Bible never once says animals don't have souls nor does it say they do. This is an assumption you're making. Don't make an argument against an assumption with another assumption...
The "entire household" is further defined in v34 where it says "he had come to believe in God with his entire household". To suggest that infants were baptised also means they had to believe in God. Maybe my infants weren't as eloquent as everyone else's, but they certainly weren't able to make such a confession.
The call to repentance and the call to faith in Christ go hand in hand. They are considered two sides of the same coin (see Acts 20:21). I don't think Matthew was off base here.
So you're saying that the household of the keeper of the prison were FORCED to convert?....or rather after they heard his testimony they believed in Christ?.....no one is forced into the kingdom of God, rather all must choose, BY FAITH to believe in Christ. When it was said, "and thy house" it was a prophetic statement that his family and servants would believe when they heard of the miracle. It says nothing of infants believing in Christ and being baptized.
No sir, I am not saying that. I am saying that when the jailer converted to Christ by faith, he began to openly identify his entire family with the Christian faith, by taking upon them the covenantal sign of baptism (in a similar way to Jews taking on the sign of circumcision). When a father begins to lead his family in the faith, he is not forcing converts, but discipling his family in obedience. This begins with the covenantal sign of baptism, and continues while all children are under his authority in the home - teaching, praying, guiding, leading by example. This man is acting as a godly father by baptizing his children in the Lord. :-)
Matthew Everhard what about an unbelieving wife, would a husband have her baptized, or would she first have to profess faith? That’s one thing kind of tripping me up on this topic
Closer, but I think you are still thinking of the upward aspect (what man is promising to God in the event of baptism) instead of the downward aspect (what God promises to man through the Gospel). But yes, baptism is the first step in a life of discipleship. For children, the first step in a life of being raised in the faith. For adults, the first step of public obedience to Christ. However, again, the promises of God are viewed as greater than whatever statements of would-be obedience man makes to God. Hope that helps!
New Testament Church did not infant Baptize. Catholics did it for a long time from Presbyterians. The Churches of the Apostles did not do it. Baptize for Christians is Only for believers. Infants and babies can't be believers so they should not be baptized.
The thumbnail always brings a smile to my face.😊
I'm credobaptist, but I'm carefully considering your arguments. ✝️
Have you arrived at a conclusion based on Matt's arguments?
@@TheMaineSurveyor Well, I must say I understand the biblical support for this position. Personally, my conscience would be clear attending a FAITHFULL pedobaptist church or a FAITHFULL credobaptist church, as I see biblical support for either position.
@@sphtu8 Same here. I’m still solidly a credobaptist. I understand the paedobaptist position; I don’t see it in Scripture at all, but I understand it. I could still comfortably attend a faithful Presbyterian church, if that’s all that was available to me.
While household can mean children, the text gives no clue that there were children who did not believe who themselves were getting baptized. Household could also mean older members, such as grandparents, or slaves as you mention who were capable of reasoning and believing. At best this is an argument from silence and therefore would not be appropriate to build doctrine upon. On the contrary, we do specifically have believers getting baptized. However, their baptism is pointing to their death, burial, and resurrection with Christ and identity as a new person hidden with Christ in Jesus (Col. 3:3-4). I love you as a brother in Christ and listen to your sermons. You have been an inspiration to me and I love to hear you stick to the Word. I do disagree on this point, but I'm a Baptist, so I guess that was coming :)! I am grateful that we do not disagree on the gospel and most everything else. Keep up the good work with your channel. P.S. You need to do a video on the best smelling bibles!!! Spiritual Glue Huffing! LOL!
Matt Haywood, then there definitely should be Scripture excluding infants if an argument form silence is unfit to build doctrine on, simply because converting Jews would need to be told not to mark their infants with a sign as they did in the old covenant. 😛
Actually, your argument is one of assumption. It is FAR more likely that households DID include children.
@@slamdancer1720 not children that are infants though which is the issue
@@amazingjablesOIKOS means everyone... no exclusions
Actually brother, in the case of the philipian jailer and his household being baptized there is no mention of his household members individually believing in Jesus before being baptized. Therefore it follows that they were baptized on the basis of the jailer’s faith and that the household was an extension of himself, similar to Abraham and his entire household including slaves being circumcised. 38Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2 :28 f baptism is covenantal not
Hello Pastor, I am a woman from Central Europe and in my country, it is extremely hard to find a church that would be truly biblical. I have been searching for the right one for years. I grew up in an atheistic family and as a child, I did not believe in God. Later on, at about the age of 16, I started believing but I had no clue where to search for Him. I was a confused teenager trying to find God in Buddhism, Catholicism, and my latest "addition" was the Apostolic Church which I left this spring because I realized that they were not biblical at all. And now I belong to no church; however, I would love to. The problem is that I would like to become a member of the Presbyterian Church. There is one in my country - but... it is about 6 hours drive away from my house. I would need to cross the entire country every week! (Twice - there, and back). Which is not possible... Can you please tell me what to do? There really is not a church nearby I could say about at least something like: "Well, this is not a church that lives 100% biblically, but 75% need to be sufficient for me..." I just don't want this. I don't want to compromise and then every Sunday listen to something that is a heresy. Even if it was only occasionally. Do you know what to do?
HI sister, have you found a church yet?
Hello. Have you found a church yet? May Jesus help you with this. ✝️
No church is 100% accurate on anything. There is no such thing as a perfect church. I know this was at least 2 years ago, but I think it's important for everyone to know this. We are all wrong on some things, but we don't know what. That said, I hope you have since found a good church that isn't heretical and at least holds to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. God bless.
Bro u explained very good theologically nd biblically I agree with u thanks God bless u
Hi Mathew! Thanks for another great video! Quick question: Is it fair to say that circumcision and baptism are ultimately the same sacrament, expressed differently on either side of the cross?
Jacob Solis in that they are both the sacrament of initiation into the covenant people, yes. In the same way, Passover parallels the Lord's Supper as the sacrament of covenant renewal, repeated regularly.
Is that set of green books on the left side of the screen on the shelf Spurgeon's sermons?
lornaz1975 yes and there's more also off camera!
The context of the Philippian Jailer looks to me like his family was saved, not just him.
*Acts 16:* _ESV_
30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Who needs to believe in order for the household to be saved? Is it saying the jailer's faith will save the household? Or is it saying that everyone in the household who believes will be saved? I think it is saying the latter: everyone in the household who believes will be saved.
*Acts 16:*
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
To whom was the word of the Lord preached? All who were in the jailer's house. Who was baptized? The jailer and all his family.
*Acts 16:*
34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.
Who rejoices that the jailer believed in God? The jailer's entire household rejoiced. If his household, at this point, contains unbelievers, why would unbelievers rejoice that the jailer believed in God? Does the passage make more sense if the entire household believes in the Lord Jesus and is then baptized? I would say, yes.
This is why I think the context points to everyone in the household believes, then they are all baptized. In all the other scenes of baptism in the other chapters of Acts, we see people believe, and then get baptized.
What about Lydia? There's not much to go on in Lydia's account. But what do we see in the preceding chapters of Acts? People believe and then are baptized. We never explicitly see the baptism of unbelievers.
Now do the Greek
Matthew Everhard what about an unbelieving wife, would a husband have her baptized, or would she first have to profess faith?
That’s one thing kind of tripping me up on this topic
Not forcibly of course! That's a crime in some states, lol. As head of the household, he could if she were willing. Of course, more often than not, the wife follows the faith decision of the husband, especially as he leads by godly example, prayer, and obedient life.
I think your second argument based on Paul is stronger than the "households" argument which is the more common argument put forth. I noticed however, that you needed to use the word "drift" to describe the biblical support. I realize you are assembling an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. So ... I'm still hanging in there with you. Good job so far.
If you would actually read the Bible you would know that in order to get baptized the person would need to understand why they were being baptized and until they understood the reason why they were not to be baptized.
No
Command ??
We can't "assume" that children were actually in the house, they might not of had any, if that's the argument we can also baptize the dog and cat as they were part of the household
Good point .
Animals have no soul nor were they created in the image of God.
This isn’t even an argument
I find the both the credobaptist and paedobaptist positions to have good arguments, although this isn't one of them. However, I've noticed when the debate of baptism modes comes up, Baptists have a lot more assumptions than actual evidence that immersion is the only acceptable mode. Such as "baptizo" meaning to immerse, while that is partially true it also has many different meanings that are even expressed in the Bible. Also, immersion is never once described in Scripture. The real truth is, based on Scripture alone, we simply don't know what mode of Baptism was used.
@@toolegittoquit_001 The Bible never once says animals don't have souls nor does it say they do. This is an assumption you're making. Don't make an argument against an assumption with another assumption...
At about the 2:30 mark, you say that the Philippian jailer is told to "repent of his sins".
That is a lie.
The "entire household" is further defined in v34 where it says "he had come to believe in God with his entire household". To suggest that infants were baptised also means they had to believe in God. Maybe my infants weren't as eloquent as everyone else's, but they certainly weren't able to make such a confession.
The call to repentance and the call to faith in Christ go hand in hand. They are considered two sides of the same coin (see Acts 20:21). I don't think Matthew was off base here.
There's no THEN... it's AND
Did they baptize the family dog and chickens too?
Drivel
So you're saying that the household of the keeper of the prison were FORCED to convert?....or rather after they heard his testimony they believed in Christ?.....no one is forced into the kingdom of God, rather all must choose, BY FAITH to believe in Christ. When it was said, "and thy house" it was a prophetic statement that his family and servants would believe when they heard of the miracle. It says nothing of infants believing in Christ and being baptized.
No sir, I am not saying that. I am saying that when the jailer converted to Christ by faith, he began to openly identify his entire family with the Christian faith, by taking upon them the covenantal sign of baptism (in a similar way to Jews taking on the sign of circumcision). When a father begins to lead his family in the faith, he is not forcing converts, but discipling his family in obedience. This begins with the covenantal sign of baptism, and continues while all children are under his authority in the home - teaching, praying, guiding, leading by example. This man is acting as a godly father by baptizing his children in the Lord. :-)
Matthew Everhard what about an unbelieving wife, would a husband have her baptized, or would she first have to profess faith?
That’s one thing kind of tripping me up on this topic
So you are saying that baptism is synonymous with discipleship and not regeneration?
Closer, but I think you are still thinking of the upward aspect (what man is promising to God in the event of baptism) instead of the downward aspect (what God promises to man through the Gospel). But yes, baptism is the first step in a life of discipleship. For children, the first step in a life of being raised in the faith. For adults, the first step of public obedience to Christ. However, again, the promises of God are viewed as greater than whatever statements of would-be obedience man makes to God. Hope that helps!
New Testament Church did not infant Baptize.
Catholics did it for a long time from Presbyterians.
The Churches of the Apostles did not do it.
Baptize for Christians is Only for believers.
Infants and babies can't be believers so they should not be baptized.