Calvin vs. The Baptists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Many have discovered that John Calvin was a faithful expositor of God's Word in terms of God's sovereignty in salvation, but they believe he and the rest of the Protestant Reformers were blind to their traditions when it came to the baptism of their children. This program examines who is really blind to their traditions. This is a production of Christ Presbyterian Church in Magna, Utah (www.gospelutah.org).
This channel is SO based. Keep making more videos, particularly Protestant apologetics
You found the secret kino finally.
Does the OPC reject the Scott's Confession?
@@joshuajohansen1210 they don’t “reject” it, they just don’t officially hold to it
What a great comment hope you get big one day
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Best reformed Systematic Theology?
Love your channel, brother.
The Lord saved my family and me out of the WOF/prosperity gospel 4 years ago, and your channel has been a blessing and a tool the Lord used in that. We are now members in a wonderful PCA church and our youngest daughter received covenant baptism. 🙏🏻
Praise God! And thank you!
@@ancientpathstv Prosperity gospel is one of the most dangerous and disgusting perversions of Christianity in church history. In my opinion, we need to take the gloves off and stop pretending like it's somehow less dangerous than old heresies like Gnosticism.
If anything, prosperity gospel is far more dangerous because of how easily it tricks people who otherwise might be very close to accepting the authentic gospel.
@@JustAskingQuestions8571I don’t disagree
@@JustAskingQuestions8571 We deal with the Prosperity Gospel here. ua-cam.com/video/W5UTAtDl0cE/v-deo.html
@ancientpathstv I saw this one, it's excellent. It's one of the reasons I feel confidently to proclaim this.
Keep up the good work. I became Baptist when I first became Christian, but thanks in part to your channel, I'm starting to realize how unrooted in history it might be and the dangers of completely separating from sound tradition.
I love these kind of documentaries, very informative, lots of history and quotes to back their claims.
As a Reformed Baptist, I lol’ed appreciatively at your thumbnail.
I thought it would be attention grabbing. 🙂
@@ancientpathstvis that supposed to be c h spurgeon?! 😂
@@DropOfABucket nobody warned him to never meet your heroes
@@joshuadonahue5871 wdym? i don't personally see spurgeon as a hero but i do like his sermons.
@@DropOfABucket Not you lol. Spurgeon saw Calvin as a hero
Mcarthur is confused and i never understood why he is so popular
He literally preaches a losing gospel on earth
Makes no sense
He is preaching the logical conclusion of dispensationalism. sad but true.
@@zandrello I'd agree with that for sure
I understand John's popularity because I followed John for a APX5 years. I believe to some degree that John's wrong. Yet worse I believe he uses unpeaceful, unkind, unforgiving, uncharitable, unGodly arguments against his Brethren-you&I. A run of the mill Pentecostal is just ignorant: using an eschatological analogy; being unable to see the color green so he yells his argument at his Brethren. John dresses his extraordinary argumentative skills with anger, vituperative and emotion elevated close to hysteria. His disagreement is directed solely against the Reformation; but subtly attacks orthodoxy. In other words, the Reformation is illegitimate and BAPTIST SUCCESSIONISM is true as the river is long. I speculate THE BAPTIST SUCCESSION folks were quite attracted to Pre Millennial dispensationalism; as BOTH required an end time apocalypse. Logically I can see Baptist Anabaptist shifting. to pre mll's dispensationalism in the 19th century. This "PreMil-Dis system" is comforting. to the Hodgepodge of other Baptist "beliefs'. I do not see ancient paths- JW Acting nearly a negative and vituperative as John is.
Because he has a different eschatology that automatically negates everything else he teaches?
@michaeldorsey4580 if you are that wrong in your eschatology, everything else you are teaching becomes far more subject to scrutiny.
A dispensationalist preaching a losing Gospel is someone to be avoided
Another excellent video. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to promoting reformed piety and practice against the errors of much of the church today.
Thank you!
Baseball players include their children into baseball before they can spell "baseball."
Martial artists include their children in their martial arts before they can even walk.
Musicians include their children into music before they can read any music.
But us Christians? God's promises? "Nah kid, this aint for you."
The promises of God are greater than the aforementioned subjects. For the life of me, I can not understand how people can fight so hard to exclude their children from a good thing. Ever.
Don't even Paedobaptists say to the children, 'Nah kid, this ain't for you' when it comes to communion? Ya gotta draw the line somewhere; we Baptists are consistent, we draw it with Baptism as well as communion.
@@baptistgirl2uthat's because a restriction is given for communion, find me that same restriction for baptism
Baptist here who loves your videos! Very well produced and researched, will be giving this a watch.
Edit: Okay have patience with me, I got some good things from the video and have some questions
Right off the bat, I will say a lot of the critiques here sound like critique of those individuals and the excesses of the early movement rather than the official documents that bind reformed baptists. I definitely agree with the reformed critique of the excesses of charismatic and pietistic views, sectarianism, of the sloppy dispensationalism of MacArthur, of the trail of blood types, and of the anabaptists like the Müntzerites/ Michael Servetas.
Okay, the section at 1:01:00 was more of the substantive critique I was looking for. Not to discount the historical critique, of course, but I am less worried about personal beliefs vs confessional documents.
I think your idea that presbyterians baptise infants for the same reason we worship on Sunday is interesting, that we are keeping the spiritual realities of the old covenant signs but under greater forms. I could say that is the same for reformed baptists, that we baptize spiritual infants rather than infants in the flesh as a fulfillment of the sign given to Israel, but I will do some more thinking on this.
What would you say to someone like Gregory Naziansus who argued for delaying baptism not on the basis of the unforgivability of post-baptismal sins but rather for the benefit of the baptized to understand something of the mystery being given to them? I think this is my current view, not to deny the validity of baptisms done without the knowledge of the baptized, but to wait until the baptized can be able to experience the grace firsthand and have something to look back to for comfort.
I would also say that it is not denying children coming to Christ to have baptism be a later part of the process of faith, just as it is not denying a catechumen to make them wait for that part of the process as well. We do not deny a catechumen baptism in order to keep them from coming to Christ, but rather out of love that they may come to Christ truly. You could, of course baptize everyone immediately who is enrolled in the catechumenate, whether by their own volition or by a parent that has authority over them, but I think there are good reasons to give them some instruction first.
Minor clarification: Would you say that there are two covenants in Israel, one of the flesh and one of the heart? I am not sure if I am getting you right on that. That way, one could be a member of the true New covenant only if one is regenerate, but is part of the covenant community regardless of ones status spiritually?
I think I agree with some of the issues you have with the baptist movements, and I am appalled by a lot of what I see from evangelicals, especially people who are baptized multiple times because they "didn't mean it" or "didn't understand it" the first time. I agree with my fellow reformed brothers on the language of sign and seal of grace for baptism, but I wonder if it is wise to separate the sign of faith and regeneration from the thing itself. In reformed Baptistism, Lutheranism, and (some) Anglicanism I can see a clear link between sign and thing signified, but in presbyterianism it seems like there is a great gap between the sign and thing signified for those born in the church and not for those brought in from outside it. I worry that this divides the sign and thing signified unnecessarily. I do remember some reformed teachers like Peter Martyr Vermigli spoke about presumed faith in infants, so I might be more amenable to that view.
Thank you for your videos brother, hope the comments are cordial and produce good fruit :)
The main issue I have with credobaptism is the way it views Christian infants and young children as unbelievers until they 'convert' for themselves. Your description of infants as catechumens makes much sense, as it neither denies the necessity or ability of infants to believe in Christ. My rebuttal to this parallel between credobaptism and the catechesis of converts would probably be that there is a difference between someone born into the church and someone coming into it from a pagan background. Of course you're going to want to de-paganize someone before bringing them into the church. This isn't neccesary for an infant already born into the teaching of the church and of Christian parents.
You should read St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures to get an idea of the seriousness of the sacraments in the mind of Early Church. These lectures are probably the oldest record of catechetical instruction for those about to be baptised.
@@christophergrant6989 will do! I have read a few of them but not all of them for sure.
Brother I had the same issues with the historical section of the documentary. It cast a lot of shade but didn't deal with the doctrine at stake directly. Great rhetorical value but little substance. However, if it is to serve as an inoculation against certain uncritical, rose-colored Baptist mythologies, then fair enough.
@@joshuadonahue5871 Yeah that's how I took it, that key parts of the baptist movement were swept up in theapocalyptic fervor of the day but not the movement as a whole. It is interesting, but unlike with the second great awakening cults in other videos it was not the a key part of the founding documents of the denomination.
I'm an Anglican and I throroughly enjoy this channel. Thanks a lot for the hard work!
We have more in common than with Baptists
(assuming you’re a monergist Anglican who’s consistent with the 39 articles and the Anglican tradition)
Thank you! We used to share the Westminster Confession. 🙂
This was eye opening. I had no idea the 1689 signers were so similar to the anabaptists.
Gotta love Dr McArthur's continual misrepresentation of the Reformed/ Presbyterian position. He was friends with Dr Sproul for years and they even debated the issue. Surely he could represent our position just a bit better than that.
Jason Wallace missed his calling as a Documentary producer! Well.. that is if he weren't called to preach the Gospel and shepherd the church. His Documentary prowess is part of that higher call! Thank you pastor Jason!
Thank you!
I have never seen a better video on this subject, nor have I read any book which is as well-researched and yet compact as this video.
I was educated in a Baptist school and my mother was non-denominational and as such I've implicitly head baptist beliefs.
This video has convinced me that Baptists are not protestant and has firmly convinced me to baptize my future babies.
God speed!
Hail to the memory of the Lord Protector!
Long live the reformed tradition!
Christus Est Rex!
Nice , now I’m a Presbyterian.
Good man!
Read the Westminster confession of faith, you’ll shed off some more of your baptist theology that remains
(Look at the Scriptural references as well)
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool I have already started reading Westminster confession , have gone through the shorter and longer catechism
Amen
Amen
this channel convinced me to become a Presbyterian, the longer i think about the Baptist position it's just incoherent and contradictory
I saw Brian Hendrix pop up for your name. My great-grandmother was a Hendrix from Bulloch County, Georgia. 🙂
😂
Every Denomination that cherry picks and quote mines everything is contradictory
@@JIGAK1 Unless you can show misrepresentation, accusations of "cherry-picking" and "quote-mining" are just name-calling.
same tbh
"Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the **infants** of one, or both, believing parents, **are to be baptized."
-WCF, Chapter 28: Of Baptism, Section 4
"Although it is a **great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance**, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
****-WCF, Chapter 28: Of Baptism, Section 5
Breaking news, pedobaptists believe in pedobaptism
@@joshuadonahue5871so true!!
I love that you not only show scripture, but also show the history
Too many people have a history that trumps others' exegesis. You have to tell the whole story to get them to listen.
My husband and I have recently come to the Paedobaptist position. Looking forward to this!
His arguments are terrible. Hopefully I can find time to do a rebuttal video. I say that as a staunchly Calvinistic Baptist.
Praise God. My wife and I came to the same conclusions. God's grace is amazing.
I just discovered this channel and watched a couple of videos, i am impressed, thank you for such a insightful works, keep it going my brother, God bless you.
Thank you!
Great channel and content. Your video on Orthodox church was fantastic
Thank you!
Excellent video 👏👏👏May the Lord shine his face upon you.
This guy's posts/videos are ingenious
Thank you! Soli Deo Gloria!
I'm struggling spiritually between these 2 positions right now. I can appreciate that there are true bible believers on both sides, and people who understand their own position on both sides also. It seems to me that for those who understand the nature of the new covenant as being actually salvific, there are 2 basic positions on baptism. Either baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality, or it is a sign of the power of God to save, should that person (or any person) be regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit.
I was born into a Dutch Reformed family and church, and so was baptised as an infant, but it was gospel preaching from many faithful Reformed Baptists (like Voddie Baucham, James White, Steven Lawson etc) which the Spirit finally used in order to break me from the bondage of my sin and of my legalism to actually put my faith in Christ as my only Saviour. I see that for many paedobaptists, the major problem is that we assume a person is regenerate by being born of believers, and so we don't preach the gospel to them personally and are surprised when they fall away. On the other side I see the issues with Baptists that you have laid out in this video.
So I need to know, and this is the task I have set myself, what is the nature of baptism? What does Baptism do, does it merely instruct its adherents, or is it meant to display what is happening inside? I believe that the reason most of the early church until the reformation practised paedobaptism was because they held to baptismal regeneration, so I don't see historical arguments holding much weight either way. I need to know what the scriptures teach about what baptism is and what it does.
We deal with this issue much more here: ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
It's important to recognize that baptism isn't new. The writer to the Hebrews uses the same term for ceremonial washings in Numbers 19 and New Testament baptism. Proselytes to Judaism were routinely baptized. John was calling for all Israel to be baptized.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me. My number is on the church website.
For what it's worth, I've been privileged to work with Dr. White for over 25 years. Despite our strong disagreement in this area, I consider him a faithful brother and great gift to Christ's church.
@ancientpathstv thank you very much, I'll definitely watch that also. I'm interested in agreeing with the best argument for either position, and also disgreeing with the best argument. I feel at this point that I understand the reformed baptist position better than my own as so many the the paedobaptist camp don't understand their own position. I actually disagree with my own church's form for baptism of infants which states that children of believers are necessarily children of God, and on that basis we baptise babies, though the bible only gives the right to become children of God to those who believe. Perhaps that is also the source of my trouble in this area, the baptist position seems closer than a position which seems to suggest either presumptive regeneration or baptismal regeneration while simultaneously denying both of those.
Appreciate the question. However, having been in the PCA for 30 years, I have never once heard any minister or member assign salvation to the ordinance of baptism either adult or infant. I think it was Phil Johnson in the video (heard his voice, didn't see his face) that asserted Presbyterian doctrine is that baptism is saving. From John Gerstner, R C Sproul, my own pastors Frank Barker and Harry Reeder (both friends and students of the former) they have never said baptism is saving anyone. We are not sacredotalists.
@blchamblisscscp8476
Thanks for your comment. I've been a member of the Free Reformed Churches (think Dutch Reformed, but in Australia) since birth (29 years), and I even went to a private school run by church members. I've received biblical instruction as long as I can remember as well as specific catechism instruction. My church is one which traces its roots back to a split in 1944 where we rejected the doctrine of presumptive regeneration, and we certainly don't believe baptismal regeneration. I say this because I know exactly what you are saying and have experienced that myself, and then I read our liturgical form for the baptism of infants, which is read every time a child is baptised. That's pretty often, which you'll appreciate if you know Dutch families.
This comment is getting quite long already, so perhaps I'll make a second one for clarity, but I just wanted to affirm that, yes, my church also doesn't teach those things, at least not explicitly from the pulpit.
@blchamblisscscp8476
From the Free Reformed, Canadian Reformed, and I believe United Reformed form for baptism:
"When we are baptised into the name of the Father, God the Father testifies and seals to us that He establishes an eternal covenant of grace with us. *He adopts us for His children and heirs,* and promises to provide us with all good and avert all evil or turn it to our benefit.
When we are baptised into the name of the Son, *God the Son promises us that He washes us in His blood from all our sins and unites us with Him in His death and resurrection.* Thus we are freed from our sin and accounted righteous before God.
When we are baptised into the name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit *assures us that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us **_what we have in Christ,_** namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives* till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God's elect in life eternal."
Now, when I read those 3 paragraphs about what the triune God promises that he will do and has done for those baptised, it seems clear to me that our church teaches that we believe that children of believers are actually regenerate people. There seems to be a little ambiguity to me as to whether these things are actually applied already to the one being baptised or whether they will be applied at some point to those children, should they possess true saving faith, but as I read that it seems that my church says God has already adopted those children. John 1:12 says that only those who actually believe are adopted as God's children and heirs. It also seems to say that Christ died for those receiving baptism, though the New Testament is clear that Christ died only for the elect.
And then anecdotally, and this could simply be a quirk and a failing of my local church, but I have spoken, particularly to parents who's children have left the faith, and their biggest comfort is almost always "well Johnny or Suzy was baptised, and so I have faith that God will bring them back to right fellowship with Himself and His Church." That doesn't always happen, in fact it seems that more often it doesn't happen. So yes, on the one hand, we profess that we don't believe either presumptive regeneration or baptismal regeneration, and then on the other hand we seem to live like we believe one or both of those 2 things. And so I need to work out what the bible actually says that baptism does, because I'm fairly sure that most of the professing and also most of the believing church is confused about it.
Excellent video as always brothers, very insightful. Crazy thing about those who hold the position of Ethnic Israel inheriting the land as a fulfillment of the those promises is that the nation Israel wasn't just Ethnic Israelite's, it included sojourners who were part of the covenant community as well, to whom those promises were to as well. They were just as a native Israelite. The nation was always multi ethnic not just Jewish. P.S I never noticed the word Ekklesia was in Acts 7:38. You just gave me a nugget to add to my knowledge there. Thank you!
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation.
-John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, First decree of the Fifth section
Clarification: This is Calvin’s reaction to the Roman council of Trent, which is a council condemned by all Protestants
Does this apply to the non-elect who are baptized or to the elect only?
@@joshuadonahue5871the elect only
@@joshuadonahue5871 I would argue that regeneration applies to all in the covenant not just to the elect. Consider the parable of the sower one seed falls onto rocky ground and sprouts up immediately but withers away.
@@thatguy5474 Something like Hebrews six where they taste of heaven but then fall away?
@@thatguy5474 That being said, is that regeneration an effectual result of the baptism? And does the Spirit regenerate any who have not received this sacrament?
I have a friend who promoted Dispensationalism to me. I had never heard the term before. I've been doing lots of research on it. There's so much church history, that I didn't know, and was never taught in school or church. This is Very interesting. Thank you.
He has a video on the dispensationalist error
Tremendous quality in these documentaries! I go to a Baptist church that is broadly in the 1689 tradition of theology. There is no Presbyterian churches in my country but I have found much loving and sanctifiyng fellowship in the Church i belong to now. Even if the question of baptism for me is difficult, the reformed covenantal view seems more reasonable. But thank you brother for your work, God bless!
I love my Baptist brothers and seek to challenge them to be good Bereans.
I cannot wait to watch this - pls don’t stop ancientpaths!
Pls post videos more often.
The video is very well done. I’m struggling through this topic right now. Do you have any resources or recommendations on the topic?
Look up the Free Church of Scotland on infant baptism
You might find this helpful. ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
@@elitecaosuk3141 You assert that I'm making a false connection, but I documented the connection. The Fifth Monarchists were not identical with the Particular Baptists, but they definitely overlapped in men like Knollys and Powell. As I pointed out, Kiffin was denounced by more radical Particular Baptists. It's you who are trying to make the Particular Baptists more unified than they really were.
Read the Bible. Ignore books from “experts” or “giants of the faith”. Read the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom.
I have enjoyed listening to this video. Strict and Particular Baptists in the UK do not regard Smyth as their founder because of Arminianism. Historically they don't use the term Reformed because historically it belongs to Geneva and Zurich. It is interesting to notice that Strict Baptists will worship in Presbyterian churches when on holidays in Scotland. Many changes did take place among Strict Baptist after the Methodist revival and in Victorian times. They are mainly a millennialists, few Historical postribulational premillennialist but all awoved opponents of dispensationalism particularly of American Scofield.
Fantastic video sir. Is it possibile if in the future could you make a video in the defense of sola scriptura?
Thank you! I'm currently working on one. 🙂
@@ancientpathstvmake a video on oriental orthodoxy
@@ancientpathstv fantastic!
@@Joshua12w2o It's on the list. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv nice!
As a person who believes in baptismal regeneration, I will never understand why people who believe baptism is only a sign have such a massive problem with infant baptism.
To admit that Israel is the church means you don't get to redefine the faith. By making nominalism the only danger, you can fully excuse your schism and perfectionism.
@@ancientpathstvCan you explain your view of baptism in regard to grace and regeneration to me or reccomend me to some books? I'm a reformed baptist. Naturally many of the reformed books one can read are from Presbyterians so I have a deep respect already. I've been reading John Murray on Romans. I'm getting ready to commence a reading by him and Kline on monergism. Please let me know, I'm open to changing my views if its scriptual and God glorifying.
@@LC-jq7vn I see baptism as analogous to circumcision. It's a real sign of a real covenant, and a means of grace, but the relation between the outward sign and spiritual reality is not as clear as Rome or the Baptists try to make it.
Murray is a good source, but I'm not a big fan of Kline.
If you haven't seen it yet, please watch this. ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
Feel free to call me. My number is on the church website listed in the description.
@@ancientpathstv OK, thank you very much. As of right now I live in Va. Are you aware of any websites that list reformed churches specifically around a certain area? I've been looking, but its mostly imitation of mega churches, or women pastors.
@@LC-jq7vn What part of Virginia?
To loosely paraphrase Paul in Galatians 6:15 - “Neither believer’s baptism nor paedobaptism means anything; what counts is a new creation.”
Another video Let’s go!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I always had this deep internal sense that Baptism was just... off... even if I don't have many major disagreements.
First of all, I greatly appreciate your work. Love this channel. I will not claim to have come to a conclusion as of yet with where I stand regarding the understanding of covenant theology, be it presby or federalism. In fact, having watched a lot of pastor Patrick Hines for the last ten years, I find myself agreeing in many ways with his presentation of nature of the covenants. That said, I find myself hung up on one thing. Infant Baptism. It's not that I cannot understand the arguments for it, but that I cannot see it being explicitly taught in scripture. Given that circumcision and everything surrounding it is extremely clear in the scripture, I would expect the parallel sign of the covenant to be just as clear, if not more so. To raise up my children in the Lord is explicit in the scripture, and doing this makes your children members of the visible church. When they make a profession of faith, be it early in childhood or late in life, they get baptized. It seems to me that one can hold to much of presby cov theology, and also baptize only professing believers. Sorry for my ramblings. Still working through all this. Note that I am much like James White, Jeff Durbin, and Joel Webben in my eschatology and thoughts surrounding Christ being Lord of all, including our culture and government (and they are much like many presbies that I greatly appreciate).
Thank you! When you recognize it's the same church, everything else falls into place. The burden of proof is on those insisting on discontinuity, not continuity. The natural branches have been broken off, and we've been grafted in. Membership is still a conditional covenant, because the new covenant isn't the same as the visible church. Hebrews 8 mentions nothing about infants, baptism, or even the church. Please be sure to watch this: ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
@@ancientpathstv I certainly will. Thanks for the reply.
When is the release of your Filioque video?
Been anticipating it!
Hopefully soon. My volunteer video editor has been swamped with starting a new business.
Excellent as always!
Thank you!
I am greatly blessed by MacArthur's teachings but since he's not confessional and a 'leaky' Dispensationalist, doesn't espouse Covenant theology, is he really Reformed ?
Seems like he's missing a few key doctrines. 🤔
The "Presbyterian Church" (PCUSA) is having their General Assembly here this summer. Their Overture 1 is on excluding those who don't affirm homosexuality from ordination. I've had men in my own denomination denounce me as no Christian, while James White has been an extraordinarily gracious brother. All that said, I don't try to draw too tight a circle around the label "Reformed."
I greatly appreciate some of the things Dr. MacArthur has done, but I believe his theology is deeply flawed. It's dealt with more in our video The Church Impotent.
I watched it twice now, and I think I need to watch it for a another time.
I was triggered by The CH Spurgeon in the end. (The guy in the headlock in the thumbnail). I knew verry little about the annabaptists only Jantje van Leyden from munster is a Dutch proverb. Very good documentary, voice acting and images.
Thank you for the kind words. Spurgeon was a faithful brother for whom I'm very thankful. I love his sermons. I only put him in the title screen, because so many of my Baptist brothers assume his powerful preaching vindicates all his doctrines.
Saludos, me encantaría tener los subtitulos para traducirlo al español, lo vi con la traducción automática de UA-cam pero no es la mejor. Es realmente genial el contenido!!!
Thank you! Email me at jasonopc@aol.com. and I'll send you the storyboard. If you can translate it, I'll try to get the subtitles added.
This is really helpful presentation, and I appreciate your great work. As a constructive critique, it would be easier to listen to the materials presented if you speak up a bit so that your voice does not sound so gravely. Thanks for putting this together!
At the age of 59, that's as good as my voice gets.
@@ancientpathstv fwiw I find it quite calming. Good documentary voice
The Internet has not been kind to Baptists claims and doctrines
I personally don’t hate individuals within the baptist movement.
But the Baptist movement is worrying if paedobaptism is true.
My Reformed Fathers even thought so too.
Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples, as much as in him lies, upon the blood of Christ, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore, just punishment follows the contempt of the sign, in the privation of grace; because, by an impious severance of the sign and the word, or rather by a laceration of them, the covenant of God is violated. To consign to destruction those infants, whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in superstition. But that the promise belongs to such children, is not in the least doubtful. For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of Gods or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.
-Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 17:14
Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
-Genesis 17:14
From all these things it is clear that the denial of infant baptism is no trifling error, but a grievous heresy, in direct opposition to the word of God, and the comfort of the church. Wherefore this and similar follies of the sect of the Anabaptists should be carefully avoided, since they have, without doubt, been hatched by the devil, and are detestable heresies which they have fabricated from various errors and blasphemies.
-Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the heidelberg Catechism
ANABAPTISTS: We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Whey should those who belong to God and are in His Church not be initiated by holy baptism? We condemn also the Anabaptists in the rest of their peculiar doctrines which they hold contrary to the Word of God. We therefore are not Anabaptists and have nothing in common with them.
-2nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter 20: Of Holy Baptism, Section 8
thank you jason, this production was excellent, but very hard for Baptists to abide by, most just want to sway to the music and hold their hands in the air. not talk about HOW they got where they are.
Where do you find so many talented and appropriate voice actors? Truly marvellous voicing of history.
Thank you! We have a few volunteers, and I use Fiverr.
2 Corinthians 5
18: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19: "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
Great work Pastor Wallace! I‘m new to the Reformed faith and don’t know where I stand yet on this very issue. I’ve been brought up with a Baptist way of thinking in regards to baptism, but I’m open to being wrong. Have you and Dr White ever talked about having a debate on Baptism (Baptist vs Presbyterian)?
Really enjoy your channel!
James White is a faithful brother. He has been an extraordinarily gracious to us for over 25 years. We have "picked at" each other that whole time, but never fought over our differences. I remember 20+ years ago dragging him outside before a debate at the University of Utah to see a rainbow. He said, "Yeah, a rainbow." I said, "It's a sign of the covenant! Would you rather have been one of the ones sprinkled or one of the ones immersed?" He rolled his eyes and went back inside.
We both believe this to be an important topic, but he's never challenged me personally on it, and I've purposely avoided directly engaging him. If he asks me, I'll discuss it with him publicly, but I honestly would prefer to see him spending his time doing what he ordinarily does.
James is a gift to Christ's church and does some things better than any Presbyterian I know. Sadly, I think credobaptist convictions about the new covenant defining the visible church make it harder for his fellow Baptists to appreciate him as much as we do.
The current attacks over his not going beyond the 1689 in articulating divine simplicity mystify me. As shown in the video, I'm not in awe of the authors of the 1689. They were simply copying the Westminster Confession, and we don't require what some Baptists seem to want to require on the issue.
Youre the best man! Praise the Lord that He leads his church in truth. Which documents do you read to find all of these historical anabaptist events? Having a hard time finding good sources. Thanks for your time.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Calvin And the Anabaptist Radicals by Willem Balke is an excellent resource. Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness is a first-hand account of Munster, and The Radical Reformation by Williams is a good resource, though I think it's too biased.
Could you recommend resources for reading more on Biblical Paedobaptism? Im closer to Reformed Baptist, but when i look into things, I just don't understand the Paedobaptist insistence and why you couldnt just have the church and parents agree to raise up the child in the fear and admonition of the Lord vs. having to baptise a child whom we have no guarantee will be a believer.
Nothing has brought me past the White vs. Strawbridge debate, where Dr. White just absolutely made the better case, in my opinion.
The best paedobaptism book I've learned from on the subject is "To the Thousandth Generation" by Wilson.
Thank you.
Please check out our earlier video: ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
It lays out the Biblical case much more than the Calvin video.
Be careful of Wilson. He's not solid. Call me if you want more information on why. Strawbridge is likewise CREC. The CREC doesn't represent the historic Reformed faith.
I also thought James won that debate, not because his is the right position, but because Strawbridge made bad arguments.
John Murray's Christian Baptism and Chaney's William the Baptist are also helpful resources.
@@ancientpathstv Thank you. Oddly enough one of your arguments in that video was the one expressed from the book I had mentioned. I'll have to look into the books you mentioned.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the CREC and will probably need to follow up on that. I'm visiting a nearby one and I always find their people warm and their services refreshing to my soul compared to the contemporary style that is closer to me.
Great video!
Thank you!
The category "Baptist" is so broad that it seems a bit intellectually dishonest to make it seem all of them are stuck with these problems. Even the modern Baptists in this video are diverse. Some affirm the doctrines of grace, but some don't. Some are dispensational, but some aren't. Some are confessional, but some aren't. Some are charismatic, but some aren't. Where I think we can agree is that an overemphasis on eschatology and rejection of biblical catholicity are harmful to the Church.
The same can be said for infant Baptists. They cross a broad range of people, some heretics, some aren't. Such as Anglicans, Roman Catholics and PCUSA. It would be wrong to lump all infant baptists in the same group and it is equally wrong to lump all Credo Baptists into the same group. Baptists do have men like Furtick but they also have men like Bunyan, Spurgeon, Mueller, Gill, Payson, PInk, Martin Lloyd Jones, and Washer.. Infant Baptizers have men in their camp like Wilson, the Eastern orthodox, RC's, and the PCUSA but they also have men like Whitefield, Fergusson and Sproul.
I agree that an overemphasis on eschatology and a rejection of biblical catholicity harm the church, but so does name-calling. It's "intellectually dishonest" to use a label people apply to themselves? 1689 Baptists may insist they're Anabaptists weren't Baptists, but many others, like Spurgeon, insist they were. We differentiate, but we also show that though a rejection of infant baptism comes in a host of flavors, it's all fundamentally restorationist in its approach.
@@user-hr6qw9lx2c We only address Furtick and others because men like Mark Dever try to lump all paedobaptists together. The point is that's it's unfair and the arguments need to be heard on their own merit.
@@ancientpathstv I assure you my intention is not name-calling. I appreciate your channel and have used it as an educational tool for my children. I plan to continue doing so. I said what I said because I believe it's true.
I agree Dever shouldn't lump all paedobaptists together so loosely. That doesn't mean you should respond by making the same error regarding credobaptists.
I don't think choosing certain signatories of the 1689 LBCF and then applying their personal eccentricies to all is helpful or intellectually honest. Where is the proof that the majority of them were like that? You only selected a few names and then presented their eccentricies as if most Baptists agreed with them.
I don't think lumping people like Sam Renihan, Joel Webbon, John MacArthur, David Jeremiah, Rick Warren, and Steven Furtick in the same category is helpful or intellectually honest either. There is obvious and vast diversity of belief among that group, and Furtick shouldn't even be considered an orthodox Christian. I question Warren's orthodoxy as well.
I don't see 1689 federalism as restorationist movement any more than reformed paedobaptist federalism. They are two ways of understanding covenant theology. You can disagree on the biblical merits of the system, as you attempted to do at one point, but that doesn't justify lumping it in with other systems like dispensationalism or the Anabaptist movement. As a 1689 federalist, I see myself as having far more in common with conservative Presbyterians than any of these other Baptist groups. Every 1689 church of which I have been a part thought the same way.
@@johnathanbrown1035 My explicit point in pointing to Furtick and Warren was to show the unfairness of what Mark Dever and others regularly do, and appeal for fairness. I fail to see how that's "intellectually dishonest." Liars have their part in the lake of fire. I may not have been as clear as I intended, but I have worked very hard to be honest and challenge real dishonesty.
Please recognize that I didn't choose "fringe" figures among the authors of the 1689, but their leaders. Kiffin was the author of the First London Baptist Confession and a signatory of the second. Keach is the father of Baptist hymnody, and Knollys was the namesake for the Particular Baptist publication society in the 19th century. The whole history of the Particular Baptist movement centers around the "3K's." What I presented weren't simply a few "eccentricities," but widespread beliefs that went to the heart of their theology. I could have painted an even darker image, but I didn't.
I understand that you disagree with points I've made and may have legitimate criticisms, but please refrain from labeling them "dishonest." It's slanderous.
Heresy lore is fascinating
Thank you!
I love your videos. I love John MacArthur too; God used him to teach me the gospel. I still listen to a lot of his stuff, but not his dispy stuff.
I love MacArthur too. I'm a Calvinist, so I'm not looking for perfection, but his Dispensationalism is a serious error that hurts him and the church. The same holds for credobaptism. I stand with my Baptist brothers on a host of issues, but the idea that the new covenant redefines the church is destroying them.
As usual, a very well produced documentary! I don't understand the relevance of most of the historical material though. There was a lot of suggestive eyebrow waggling and gesturing ("Look! Here's someone who held to credobaptism who did bad things! Makes ya think. . ."). I don't see a logical connection between believer's baptism and puritanism, sectarianism, or anarchism even if there are historical juxtapositions.
Do paedobaptists and credobaptists not agree that visible communions will have hypocrites and pretenders among honest believers? Do they not agree that regeneration will produce genuine fruit? Do they not agree that nevertheless the elect will sin in thought word and deed every day? What's the difference in principle at play here beyond a disagreement in exegesis?
As for separatism, you can find a variety of attitudes among credobaptists and pedobaotists. Maybe historically thats more represented among Baptists (thinking of landmarkians in particular, but that depends on a theory of valid ministerial succession and a particular identification of the marks ofthe church, which included believers baptism, but didn't logically necessitate it.) But confessional Christians if all stripes have to draw the line somewhere. I believe you're in the OPC; was it culpably schismatic of Machen to separate himself from what he saw as a structure that had irrevocably capitulated to unbiblical values?
Lets grant everything you said about the baptists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and assume that what you showed was a representative sample. What would follow for baptists today? To the degree that they have kept certain doctrines and rejected certain excesses, is this not biblical reformation in action? Again, between two communions that believe that previous tradition is revisible and reformable the only effective arguments can come from what can be demonstrated to be the teaching of the apostles, either by scriptural or historical demonstration from the primitive church (which you attempted, so cheers for that).
In short, I think the argument that church has always practiced pedobaptism has value, as well as the scriptural exegesis--the rest frankly comes off as Presbyterian propaganda. I appreciate your deconstructing popular strawman and baptist historical myths, but I'm left wondering if the picture I'm given to replace it isn't also severely unbalanced.
"Presbyterian propaganda"? I didn't resort to name-calling, so why do you?
"Suggestive eyebrow waggling and gesturing"? We didn't deal with fringe Baptists. William Kiffin was the author of the First London Baptist Confession. Benjamin Keach is the father of Baptist hymnody. The 19th century Particular Baptists published their works under the name of the "Hanserd Knollys Society." These were the fathers of the Particular Baptist movement and signers of the Second London Baptist Confession.
You keep ignoring the difference between legitimate separation from heresy and illegitimate schism. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church separated from the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) because they kicked out men who stood for the historic faith. They weren't claiming some new or novel understanding of the faith, but calling the church to the faith of the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession. The Particular Baptists on the other hand argued for a great apostasy and claimed they were restoring the one, true church in preparation for the last days. They were wrong in their eschatology and failed to create the "truly holy church" they declared as their purpose.
@@ancientpathstv I chose the word propaganda intentionally. It's not a slur, it's a precise description of the feeling I get when one side of a divide is placed in the worst possible light and other side in the best. Showing progressive modern Baptists while ignoring progressive modern Presbyterians, showing all the anarchism and charismatic fury of early Baptists interspersed with quotes about how sublime and pristine Geneva was. All well and good, maybe that's actually perfectly accurate, but I still fail to see the logical connection to credobaptism. If you believe baptism is a declaration of personal faith and you believe that you must personally repent and trust in Jesus to be regenerated, then you will believe in credobaptism. If you don't believe in either of those things, you may believe in pedobaptism.
@@ancientpathstv As for schism, I'm not ignoring the difference but trying to suss it out. You clearly believe that there was a principled difference between what the original Baptists were doing and what the original Presbyterians did. Was separating from Rome to start a new faithful and biblical communion not technically a schism? If the Baptists thought that the Presbyterians were not sufficiently biblical and separated further, is that in principle a different thing? To me it seems like a difference in degree. Everyone assumes that at one point the ancient/medieval church dropped the ball on many issues, but they disagree on how late that happened, and how much work there is to do to return to the primitive church.
And, ignoring the origins of various protestant denominations, is it schismatic to remain separated over irreconcilable differences in confession? In other words, if you find yourself born into a schism, but are genuinely convinced of your own confession contra someone else's, does the question of who originally schismed from who really matter?
@@joshuadonahue5871 You should check your dictionary. Calling something "propaganda" is an insulting slur, no matter how it makes you feel.
John Calvin separated from Rome. The OPC separated from the PCUSA. We don't ignore these things, but we point out that there is a fundamental difference between legitimate separation and modern prophets creating a "true church" for the last days, based on eisegesis.
What's the logical connection? John Nelson Darby's history and theology don't invalidate Dispensationalism, but they do shed light on its errors. The same hold true for the Particular Baptists. They were modern prophets who insisted they were creating a pure church for the imminent millennium. They failed on both counts.
The burden is on those who want to reinvent the faith. Baptists assert theirs is an obvious reading of the Scripture, but ignore that no one read the Scriptures the way they do for 1500 years. The Old Covenant is specifically the one given at Sinai, but Baptists say what's really meant is the whole Old Testament. That's not what it says.
@@ancientpathstv Are you saying that Baptists have reinvented the faith?
I would love if you did a video in the tone of “An appeal to the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement”. It seems there are some serious errors in Wesleyan Theology, and I would like to see your work on it vs the reformed faith.
Have you seen this? ua-cam.com/video/W5UTAtDl0cE/v-deo.html
@@ancientpathstv I will watch it tonight! Thank you
Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples, as much as in him lies, upon the blood of Christ, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore, just punishment follows the contempt of the sign, in the privation of grace; because, by an impious severance of the sign and the word, or rather by a laceration of them, the covenant of God is violated. To consign to destruction those infants, whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in superstition. But that the promise belongs to such children, is not in the least doubtful. For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of Gods or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.
-Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 17:14
Wait... Am I a Presbyterian now?
Yes. Yes you are my friend. Welcome to peace. Now baptize your kids and listen to "The Unfolding" album by Timothy Brindle and fire up a cigar or pipe. It's an enjoyable ride ;-)
@@zandrello I already smoke cigars and pipes, my kids were baptized at age 8 and 10. Looks like I was just late to the party.
The excesses of the early Anabaptists are well known, and deserve to be remembered. But this video (and Presbyterians in general) seem to view credobaptism as some sort of quixotic & unScriptural quest for a perfectly pure visible church. Please understand that a mad pursuit of impossible perfection is NOT the driving motive for us credobaptists. We know very well that there will always be tares growing with the wheat. We are credobaptists because we can't find any clear commands or examples in the New Testament of baptism being administered to anyone who has not first made a profession of faith. We've read Calvin's explanation of paedobaptism, based on the covenant sign of circumcision, but it's just not sufficiently clear from Scripture that this was Apostolic practice, much less plainly commanded by the Apostles.
Yes, we've read of the baptism of households (this is the weakest of all the Scriptural arguments for paedobaptism), and of the grafting in to the Old Testament olive tree (a little better), and of the circumcision made without hands (this is the strongest argument, but still not sufficient). We credobaptists may indeed be mistaken about this, but it's not because we aim for a perfect church; it's because we aim to abide by the Scriptures.
Acts 2:38-39 take scripture at the plain meaning of the text. Not through baptist traditions of man.
@@abbottdietrich I'm surprised that any paedobaptist will use the phrase "plain meaning" about Acts 2:38-39. The great Presbyterian commentator J.A. Alexander only went so far as to say the text "favors" infant baptism, but does not require it. I don't believe that Acts 2:38-39 "plainly" states that children should be baptized because their parents have believed. The passage is capable of a very different construction, and certainly doesn't amount to a "plain" command or example of infant baptism. I notice that Acts 2:41 limits those who actually were baptized to "those who gladly received his word," which is the precedent that we Baptists strive to follow.
If one was baptized in a baptist church would that be held as a true baptism if done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
That was my baptism, and yes. 🙂
@ancientpathstv Thank you for answering so quickly. I really appreciate these videos.
@@chiukid Thank you!
Thank you for this documentary which unmasks the lies of many Baptists who wrongly used the title "Reformed baptists". Would you consider doing a documentary on JW ? (An earnest plea to the Jehovah Witness)
It's on the list. My working title is Jehovah's Witness Against the Watchtower. 🙂
Hello, thank you for your video.
First I want to say that I don't know much about the all baptist/reformed debate. I come from a EO background.
I would like to ask something.
According to you, correct me if I am wrong, but baptism and circoncision are two external signs of the same covenant of grace. The baptism is just the new form of the circoncision.
But the faith that led the patriarch to be circumsized is the same faith that led Christian to be baptized today, the form of the ritual is accidental but it's substance still remains.
OK, with that being said I kind of have hard time to understand why jews, at the time of Christ (so people that had been circumsized) had to be baptized again (so recircumsized).
Example, with Nicodemus wich is a pharisian, so he is circumsized, and Jesus told him to be born again of water.
So this is my remark, sorry if I was mislead or if I didn't understand the problem correctly.
Thank you for your kind note.
Hebrews 6 uses the same term for New Testament baptism as Hebrews 9 does for Old Testament ceremonial washing. This was the scandal of John the Baptist. Gentile proselytes were all baptized, but Jews only under special circumstances. John's call for everyone to be baptized meant that they were all unclean.
We deal with this at much greater length here: ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
But though all these things are said of baptism, and are truly attributed unto it as to the Holy Ghost's instrument to work these things, and that therefore all which are baptized are truly said to be made and to be such sacramentally-yet we believe that it is not indeed and really performed but only in the elect, which are endowed with Christ's Spirit, since they only do believe rightly and do truly belong unto Christ and to His mystical body. And therefore, [that all are baptized indeed with water, the elect only with the Spirit; and all do receive the sign, but not all are made partakers of the thing signified and offered by baptism, but the elect.]
-Girolamo Zanchi, Confession of the Christian Religion, Chapter XV, section II
Girolamo Zanchi is a reformed minister
Ahh this answers my earlier question, if Calvin indeed made the same qualification
@@joshuadonahue5871I recommend looking up Presumptive Regeneration.
I have a question regarding your eschatology: Do you hold to a (theonomic) postmillenial or to an amillenial position? Both seem to be present within reformed circles and your Video on Dispensationalism (which was very good!) you seemed to lean towards either positions at certain moments in the Video.
God bless and greetings from Germany!
I'm an optimistic amillennialist. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv thank you for your response!
So would you adhere to theonomy and partial preterism then? And where would you disagree with the postmill Position?
ANABAPTISTS: We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Whey should those who belong to God and are in His Church not be initiated by holy baptism? We condemn also the Anabaptists in the rest of their peculiar doctrines which they hold contrary to the Word of God. We therefore are not Anabaptists and have nothing in common with them.
-2nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter 20: Of Holy Baptism, Section 8
This is a Reformed confession
A quote you could have used for this video:
“It was characteristic of Spurgeon when away from home to show a preference for the Presbyterian worship when there was no Baptist chapel” (G. Holden Pike, The Life and Work of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 5:25).
As a Spurgeon fan, Calvin in his frailty never could have taken him in a fight.
Do you have any books that cover the history of the anabaptists you would recommend?
Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals by Willem Balke focuses more on Calvin's reaction, but it was revolutionary for me and shaped this video.
Anabaptists and the Sword by James Stayer is excellent. He shows how fluid the lines were between militants and pacifists.
Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness is a great contemporary account of Munster.
I hope these help
@@ancientpathstv Thank you!
There was evidently a lot of work that went into this video. So, the Southern Baptist, the gold standard for baptists, now has the possibility of admitting women as pastors, though Rick Warren's church was expellled, and Steven Furtik (please, see Pirate Christian Radio's videos about him) was not expelled. There was even a motion from a messenger at the most recent SBC convention to ban Calvinist teachings. Wouldn't that motion mean the teaching of 1) depravity of man necessitating a saviour; 2) assurance of salvation; 3) election according to God’s purposes and not man's will, also be banned as those are central to the TULIP? So the SBC would be Arminians who are also credo-baptists, like UMC lite. Also, Phil Johnson mentioned Presbyterian bishops. There is no such thing. The PCA congregation has ruling elders and teaching elders, of whom the pastor is one (if the size of the congregation warrants) but there are no bishops in a Presbyterian church.
At 29:35, you have a picture which should portray Tertullian. I did a google search with that picture, and it says that it portrays an unknown man, but not Tertullian. Because right now I am searching for pictures of Tertullian besides that black-white one everyone knows, but I can’t find more. I know he became a montanist and is considered a heretic by the Catholic and Orthodox Church, but imo Tertullian was a very important and great apologist. I love his based writings a lot.
There are no contemporary images of Tertullian, so all we have are artistic imaginations, often made 1000-1500 years after his death. The image in the video is from a first or second century Egyptian funerary mask, so it's much older, but not of Tertullian.
I agree that he was brilliant. Cyprian called him "the master," but like a lot of brilliant men, it became his downfall. I believe the perfectionism that led him into restorationism was rooted in his arrogance.
I know enough to know I don't know much. That keeps me in the Word, on my knees, and in fellowship with imperfect Christians. 🙂
The Israel of God is Christ and all this who are in Christ are the Israel of God
Do you intend to make a video regarding the relationship between church and state?
I'm currently trying to finish a video on the filioque. That will deal at length with the dangers of a state church. My hope is that in dealing with heresy and schism, the middle ground will become more clear.
Lord willing, I can try to deal with the issue more constructively, but there's a whole lot in front of it, and I make these in my "spare time," trying to minister to three churches scattered over nearly 300 miles. 🙂
Thanks for your video.
A question: Do you want to have Sodomy Laws really restored in the US? If so, do you want them to prohibit PUBLIC manifestations of homosexual behaviors and the LGBTQ ideology (which I definitely support), or to entirely proscribe all homosexual activities even in PRIVATE (as the original Sodomy Laws did - and I do not want to go that far)?
I think there is a difference between making an act illegal (whether it was done publicly or privately), and violating privacy to try to sniff out illegal acts. One can have a strong desire for law and order without wanting those laws to stray into fascism or stateism or a police state or any other form of totalitarianism.
To make it real obvious and non-controversial: lets look at murder. I don't think private murder should be legal and public murder illegal, all murder should be illegal. But unless there is real good cause to think someone might murder another person, their privacy should not be violated. There should be an actual body or a reasonable threat to one's safety before police action is taken.
There is a small category of crimes that are contextual, like public decency laws. Even then, it only applies at your house or at particular places with permission to be indecently dressed, like a bathroom, changing room, a friend's house, etc. (not just any private residence). But the cops shouldn't stop you in a private place without a complaint or otherwise solid evidence. Having the law doesn't trump other laws and rights.
So too, if sodomy is illegal, it should be illegal always, but that doesn't mean we need to do so in a statist way that disregards private property rights. If they flaunt it and become a public nuisance, arrest them. If they keep it hidden, I don't see why it is the state's job to pry before it does become a public issue.
can you guys try making video on black hebrew isrelights
They're on the list, but I make these in my spare time. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv amazing, God bless you man!
St. Gregory Nazianzen gave us a clear prescription for this issue:
Unless there is a grave danger, let the baby be baptized when they are older (about 3 years old) when they are capable of giving answers about the sacrament.
He actually said, "But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more, or less, when they may be able to listen and answer something about the Sacrament; that even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration" (Oration 40, Ch. XXVIII).
His position is clearly not the credobaptist position, nor (as shown in our other video on baptism) the consensus in the early church. ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
@ancientpathstv
You are correct in pointing that Gregory's statement has never been considered as credobaptism. It is somewhere in the middle. It accomodates the essential component of profession of faith (credo) at least normatively in normal condition. At the same time, it opens room for baptism of those under 3 years old (who aren't capable of professing), provided that there is a grave danger. This is an oikonomia that Gregory, a patriarch and a theologian, has prescribed for us who are questioning this paedo-/credo-baptism issue.
Now, I am truly convinced of the doctrine of baptismal efficacy. I believe that even paedobaptists are validly baptized, although improper. And we should be careful in saying that there have been any ecumenical teaching on age for baptism or when exactly it should be exercised. Even the doctrines behind paedobaptism vary for various denominations. The same thing applies to the credobaptist camp. Many historical and modern credobaptists like John Bunyan would affirm the validity of infant baptism, although it is considered improper.
@@Presbapterian Every doctrine has had a range of opinions in church history, but there's a mainstream opinion from which Gregory was clearly departing. When Cyprian's Council met in 253 (long before Gregory was born), they were unanimous that baptism should not even be delayed until even the eighth day (to better display its connection with circumcision).
Can you please make an "Earnest plea to secularists" video?
Have you seen this? ua-cam.com/video/zocVwJ66Zms/v-deo.html
@@ancientpathstv Ah, so you talk about it there. I will watch it. Thanks! :)
@@ancientpathstv And thank you for the great work you are doing! :)
@@BorisDzelajlija Thank you! Soli Deo Gloria!
The history is interesting, and it seems the early Baptists were in some cases akin to Pentecostals of Quakers and were quite flaky in doctrine which I find amusing as someone who now attends a Reformed Baptist church after being saved in a Pentecostal church. Regardless scripture alone should dictate what we believe not history or tradition. I've never had confidence in the Southern Baptist Convention or any of their leaders. I'm more than an hour in now and you haven't got to the point where you make a biblical case for your position. That people through history have acted impulsively and sinfully or misinterpreted prophecy does nothing to either prove or disprove the doctrines they held to. I have read books making the case for pedobaptism and remain unconvinced. I don't feel any less Reformed for rejecting it either. The same goes for PostMillennialism. I'm historic Premillenial and I don't think Postmillennials do particularly well dealing with and exegeting Romans 11 or Revelation 20 to name but two passages. What Postmillennials do well is to critique other viewpoints and engage in polemics but they don't make a strong case for their own position from scripture in my opinion.
As a historic Premil I don't object to people saying that the Christ is already reigning since his ascension. I don't see any explicit promise that Christianity will keep getting stronger and continue to grow either in numbers or in influence right up until Christ returns. That the millennium occurs after the physical return of Christ however, I have little doubt. Personally I think it's possible the stage is set for the antichrist, the great tribulation and the mark of the beast. You could argue we have recently experienced the falling away in the last 150 years or so. Real Christianity in Europe is now a very small minority and even professing Christians make up a much smaller percentage of the population compared to previous centuries.
Baptists generally have a historic narrative in which persecution trumps exegesis, but Hebrews 8 doesn't redefine the the visible church. Children who were in that church for 2000 years weren't put out.
Credobaptism was birthed in a perfectionistic millenarianism. The end times prophecies may have been abandoned, but the perfectionism still undermines real unity.
BTW, you might enjoy this: ua-cam.com/video/W5UTAtDl0cE/v-deo.html
Fantastic work here, I learned a lot of important things about Baptist history that’s not covered anywhere else hardly. Likely counter to your intention, I remain a staunch Reformed Baptist. While the tradition is undoubtedly shaky from the start for a number of reasons, for me it always comes back to the confession. Key early Particular Baptists were poor at adhering to their own confession, which caused a split and weakening of the early churches. But it’s a solid confession, even if you would disagree on the covenant theology. I would add to what was covered here that the first Particular Baptist church did come out of Congregationalism, and while unfortunately Anabaptist influence was a problem early on, thankfully by the 18th century this seems to have disappeared in PB practice. It’s undoubtable that faithful, confessional PBs in the modern era are far closer to their Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Dutch Reformed brothers, rather than other General Baptists. And definitely not Anabaptists.
Please watch this: ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
As stated in this video, the George Whitefield video makes the Biblical case far more extensively. Reformed Baptists tuned out because it dealt with Spurgeon's claims to Baptist Successionism. They told me, "Baptists didn't come from Anabaptists," and ignored the rest. Now many are stung by Particular Baptist history they've never heard, but ignore that this video points them to the fuller case.
Ananaptists and Particular Baptists rejected 3/4 of Christian historical understanding of the church to create a "pure church" for the end of the world. They did so largely by insisting the new covenant redefines the visible church. It doesn't. It describes the better tabernacle, better priest, and better sacrifice Christ has brought. The substance of the shadows has come, but the idea that the visible church includes only those who profess faith finds no support in Hebrews 8.
Please watch the Whitefield video and let's talk.
Bunch of nonsense! Why quote MacArthur when his not reformed?
If you watched more than five minutes, you'd see it's explained. The focus is on Particular Baptists.
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.”
As a 1689 baptist, Im currently doing an intense study on Baptist theology vs Presbyterian Theology, you are my first source of lesrning the argumentation. But i will be reading Calvin, Bavinck, and Turretin on it.
Your videos have helped me reconsider my position, but im not fully conviced yet, its far too soon. I want to also learn the Baptist argumentation as well, and I think the best source for that is obviously James Whites 16 part series on it.
Do you have any further in depth resources that are contemporary? I plan on listening to Bahnsen and Strawbridge on it aswell. Do you think this is enough resources for me to learn the Presbyterian side?
I'm glad we've been able to help. Please be sure to check out George Whitefield's Plea to Baptists on this channel. Christ of the Covenants by Palmer Robertson should also be helpful.
My great encouragement is to be careful in focusing on the systems. I believe they allow Baptists to confuse themselves and default to their prejudices.
Try to walk through Hebrews 8 exegetically. Every Baptist I've ever heard try quickly abandons the text and asks questions like, "Well who's really in the covenant of grace?" The term, like "Trinity" is extremely helpful in understanding the overall teaching of Scripture, but it's not biblical, and for Baptists, it allows abstraction that blinds them to the "elephant in the room" that Hebrews 8 says absolutely nothing about infants, baptism, or even the church.
Hebrews 8 is the great argument for discontinuity, but from what? We still have a temple - - the church. We still have a high priest, who has made a better, once for all sacrifice, but we still offer sacrifices (Roman 12:1; 1 Peter 2:5).
Feel free to call me at the number on the church website. As a former Dispensational Baptist and former Reformed Baptist, I believe we need to be good Bereans and recognize that restorationism is corrosive to Christ's church.
@ancientpathstv For sure, thank you for the insights.
Regarding Hebrews 8, I haven't really studied that chapter yet. I have John Owen's commentary on Hebrews, but I will be sure to go to Hebrews 8, it seems pretty important regarding this debate given the fact it has been mentioned in every infant baptism video I've watched on here. (I did watch the one with George Whitefield).
When I became a Christian nearly 3 years ago at age 16, my default position was Baptist theology, memoralism and an abrogated sabbath, and I was in this echo chamber for my entire Christian walk, it wasn't until I became presuppositional that I left that echo chamber and started researching these topics.
I will probably give you a call one of these days, thank you for all your work.
Waiting for the Dividing Line on this one :)
James White is a gift to Christ's church. He has been extraordinarily gracious to us over the years. I believe that Baptists' insistence that the new covenant defines the visible church makes many of them incapable of appreciating him as much as we do.
James is great friends with Doug Wilson and the 'Moscow Mood' so he is much closer to an ally than an enemy
@@toolegittoquit_001 James isn't merely an ally, but a faithful brother. Doug Wilson on the other hand was formally warned against by our presbytery over 20 years ago. If you desire more information, please contact me directly.
@@ancientpathstv Greetings. I do desire more information. How would one go about contacting you directly?
@@H.R.DanversIII My phone number is on the church website mentioned in the description.
@ 2:05 was glad to hear that JMac finally agrees with Lutherans that baptism regenerates - saves
1:01:19 is this supposed to be an example of a Baptist error from Dr. Barcellos? It sounds like Reformed teaching to me
The new covenant isn’t newer and better than the Abrahamic covenant, but explicitly the covenant given at Sinai.
@@ancientpathstv I could keep pestering you in the comments with questions, but could you recommend a good representative source that spells out the covental theology you have in mind?
@@joshuadonahue5871 Baptists inevitably try to abstract the issue and cloud it with various systems. How about dealing with the Biblical text and stop ignoring the "elephant in the room"? Hebrews 8 is not redefining the visible church. It mentions nothing about infants, baptism, or the church. The new covenant is newer and better than the one made at Sinai. It's only by adding to the text that it can be claimed to be newer and better than the Abrahamic Covenant. Baptists keep trying to make the "Old Covenant" that whole Old Testament, but that's not what it says, and once you recognize that, the whole Baptist system collapses.
@@ancientpathstv Interesting. I'll look into that passage. But I wonder how can something be newer than the covenant at Sinai but not newer than a covenant that came before it?
@@joshuadonahue5871 Did you watch the video? The Abrahamic covenant is explicitly everlasting and is expanded in the New Testament.
The Great Commission
Make disciples (obviously adults) Learning of the commitment
Baptize them (obviously adults)
Accepting and deciding to commit
Be Faithful (obviously adults and faithful)
There is not one recorded New Testament Infant Baptism
Marriage between adults is not done in infancy.
Did you watch the video? You engage none of its content.
@ChurchOfKentucky If you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing, the main exegetical arguments go from roughly 1:01:00 to 1:17:00
From the time my children were born, they were discipled under me. Exegetically speaking, since they are disciples under me and I'm teaching them all that Christ commanded, they naturally will be given the sign of the covenant and "entrusted with the oracles of God" Romans 3:2 ESV
All 1 hour and 35 minutes? 😮 Have mercy on the poor sinner!
Where in the Bible does it say to give women communion?
the urge to dislike when McArthur is talking, but then I remember it's a video rebutting him
We Presbyterians need to stop quoting Spurgeon, and keep quoting (most of all) the Scriptures, fathers, and reformers.
We need to keep quoting Calvin,Turretin,Knox,Augustine,Chrysostom,Vermigli,Beza,Bullinger,Luther,Ireneus,Cyprian,Lloyd Jones. Spurgeon was out of line when he kept saying “baptists” were the waldensians trying to find a historic connection for his group.
That you fridge?
I mean, we can quote him when he said something worth quoting 😉 Let's be charitable brother.
@@thatguy5474who art thou?
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool guess
Can you make another document about atheism?
Have you seen all the ones here? www.atheism.video
@@ancientpathstv Yes, brother in Christ Beniamin Zabój translates your's videos to polish, i watched them, they are really great, you should do more content about atheism.
@@Bogudarz I'll try. 🙂
Thanks for the video! Some things definitely got clearer for me regarding the Baptists. But can I ask a silly question: why cannot the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox blame the Reformers of the similar mistake - schism because of desire to have a more perfect Church? What can we answer here?
Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have abandoned the Biblical faith, not just as the Reformers understood it, but as the early church understood it as well. Please watch the other videos we made.
ua-cam.com/video/utIAnY5I8CU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/3AplWYXFiCA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_yQBY2lPWUc/v-deo.html
@@ancientpathstv thanks for the answer! I've already watched two of them - about Eastern Orthodoxy and Cyrill Lucaris, haven't watched about the RC yet (I'm less exposed to it because I'm from the Eastern Europe, EO is dominant here).
Don't get me wrong - I'm just trying to figure out for myself, but actually that's similar to what the radical Baptists or other guys blame the Lutherans or Presbyterians - that they've not conducted the 'full reformation' and still hold to 'traditions of men' and not the simplicity of the pre-Constantine Church and all that jazz. Believe me I've seen lots of discussions between EO apologists and protestants here in my area, EO insist we cannot know what Biblical faith and the historical teaching is unless we're in the historical Church. They say things like 'how come the Church failed for 15 centuries and then came Luther and Calvin' and so on and so forth. I believe you know that type of debating strategy better than I do.
@@ancientpathstvAre Rome and the East not true christians to you?
@@KerbalProductions777 Please watch.
ua-cam.com/video/3AplWYXFiCA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_yQBY2lPWUc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/utIAnY5I8CU/v-deo.html
@@Michael-ed5fsthe 15th century argument is lame btw
1:26:00 whoah is that Sinclaire Ferguson?
I wish. 🙂 It's someone I hired from Fiverr.
I'm listening to your recent youtube video on Calvin and the Baptists... I'm at the part where you said that we still have a temple (a spiritual temple) and we still have the spiritual substance of circumcision (baptism) and a spiritual substance of the passover ie; the Lord's supper. You made the argument that children were included in those substances and so they should also be included in the spiritual substance when it comes to Baptism. I'm wondering why they are not included in the spiritual substance of the passover then? Did not children partake of the passover too? Is not the spiritual substance of the passover, communion? Why do you exclude the children from the one but not from the other? I'm not trying to be argumentative here but just trying to see the continuity.
Unlike the Passover, there's a specific warning attached to the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. As inconsistent as Baptists and the folks in Moscow think us, Protestants and Catholics have held that position for a very long time and with good reason. I hope to deal with the errors of paedocommunion in a later video, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to debate them here.
@@ancientpathstv I agree it's for good reason that you don't allow paedocommunion but the fact that you do not allow children to the table destroys your argument as to why children should receive baptism. Either there is continuity between circumcision and the passover or there is not but it can't be a continuity on some things and not on others. It's inconsistent.
@@user-hr6qw9lx2c Your gratuitous assertion of inconsistency doesn't make it so. I don't have the time or energy to debate you here, but the entire West wasn't wandering in blindness. Paedocommunion doesn't trump all the arguments in the video against 17th century schismatics nor force us to embrace the position of 20th century schismatics. I hope to address the issue in a future video. You would do well to read other perspectives on the subject.
@@ancientpathstv Gratuitous? Really?
@@user-hr6qw9lx2c Gratuitous! Really!
Interesting. Same views as James White, yet you don't have him behind the pulpit.
This video is well put together and has shaken my confidence in the credobaptist position
But why can I not simply follow after faithful Particular Baptists like John Bunyan instead of falling into others' errors?
I don't think it's safe to leave baptistic views (my view doesn't call itself Baptist and is Plymouth Brethren) because of the errors people have fallen into
I also disagree that the Church is distinct from the New Covenant, because the Church is Christ's body; we've died with Him so how can there be unregenerate people in the visible Church?
Thank you! Please watch these and let's talk. My phone number is on the church website.
ua-cam.com/video/Zj8GXw-gbg0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/v-deo.html
@ancientpathstv I watched these videos before but am now listening to them again.
My biggest problem with Covenant Theology is that John 7:39 says that the Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not glorified. I take it to mean that there is a real greater presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, while the prophets and other men of God before were moved by the Holy Spirit, but were not necessarily indwelt by Him. I hope to call you during the day, Lord willing, after I finish relistening to the second video, if that is possible.
@@BenQ.-ys4kp Calling's not a problem. Monday is my one day off.
There was a pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost and manifested in the miraculous signs of the apostles, but to the end that the apostles' testimonies became the foundation on which the church was built. The cessation of those gifts not only shows the specific nature of that outpouring, but lays bare that the New Testament church is not some qualitatively better "eschatalogical Israel." It's an expanded Israel that still needs to press into the Promised Land.
@ancientpathstv does that view of John 7:39 hold up to the reading of v36-38, where Christ promises those who believe will have living water flow out of their bellies? This seems to describe not only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost with signs, but also the renewal of the Holy Spirit that we receive through Christ.
We also must note that some doctrines which we both reject are also ancient and were at some point nearly universally held:
- Prelacy aka "Episcopacy" (which is often said to have a witness in Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle himself)
-The giving of "the Lord's Supper" to infants
-Baptismal regeneration
What a well produced and conscious attempt to blur the line between anabaptist and particular baptist. Those who want to believe this will love it.
And those who want to disbelieve will ignore the millenarianism, the anarchism, and the women prophets of the Particular Baptists and hate it.
@@ancientpathstv Every group has their radicals, but you don't smear the group by those who depart from the group's beliefs.
I've enjoyed this channel and benefited from it over many years, and I am grateful for your work. Thank you.
@@Scrubjay001 Thank you. Please recognize that I wasn't focusing on the radicals, but on the acknowledged leaders of the Particular Baptists - - the "Three K's." They didn't represent a radical fringe, but the mainstream. Kiffin was denounced by other Particular Baptists for not being radical enough. If I'd wanted to focus on the radicals, I could have painted a much darker picture.
These men are regularly put forward as having seen through the "traditions" that "blinded" the Reformers. My hope is that hearing a fuller presentation of their positions, the exegesis can be fairly evaluated. Hebrews 8 says nothing about infants, baptism, or even the visible church. It's a millenarian perfectionism that insists it does, and in spite of all that insistence, has yet to create a better church than the Reformers.
@@ancientpathstv Funny you bring up Hebrews 8/Jeremiah 31/Ezekiel 36. There is perhaps no clearer passage explaining that members of the new covenant have their sins forgiven, they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, walk in obedience, and they all know God from the least to the greatest of them. This categorically precludes unbelievers, and the federal head of sprinkled, unbelieving children, is Adam, not Christ.
Again, I appreciate your channel. Thank you.
@@Scrubjay001 Did you watch the whole video? Why would it be funny that I bring it up? John Calvin said the new covenant only includes the elect. Baptists think this somehow redefines the visible church, but that's not what Hebrews 8 says, and you've failed to create a church better than the Reformers.
Just because Dispensationalism is wrong dosent make paedobaptism right! Calvin and Luther simply had too much catholic influence on some of their thinking and teaching.
If you watched more than 5 minutes, you'd know that the focus is on responding to Particular Baptists, not Dispensationalists.
@@ancientpathstv Sure, but in the first 5 minutes you truly insinuate the point: Look Dispensationalism is stupid ergo credo baptism is stupid!
@@ausonius100 The introduction is meant for the many who have recognized the errors of Dispensationalism and think they've found something qualitatively better in 1689 Confession. They haven't. The plea is that just as they held Dispensationalism to the light of God's Word, so they would do with credobaptism. Instead of complaining about the intro, please engage the specific arguments against credobaptism.
Great that youve made this! I'll study it tonight. Your stuff on Orthodoxy was instrumental on me now attending a local Baptist church! Doesnt Paul say the true circumcision is of the heart and interior? How can a baby undergo such a thing? Baptism is cheap grace at many ceremonial churches, an excuse to call a child a Christian, a form of cheap Grace. Surely done later, it is a firm decision, marking true discipleship and incipient maturity? I'll watch your video. But if one cant find a decent local Presbyterian church, then im not going back to the Orthodox over this one!
I'm thrilled to hear that you've left Eastern Orthodoxy. Credobaptism is an overreaction to such errors. I love my Baptist brothers, but in trying to avoid heresy, they've swerved into schism. Watch this video and George Whitefield's Plea to Baptists and feel free to call me. My number is listed on the church website.
I'm 20 minutes in and I have to get back to work I wanted to ask and I will try to watch the whole video do you believe in baby baptism?
@@michaelponziano2108 definitely watch the whole video. It will explain Paedobaptism and the support for it, and the errors of anabaptism.
@@ancientpathstv how do you understand schism? Surely you understand the value of separation from liberalism and standing for orthodoxy, or you wouldn't be in the OPC right?
@@joshuadonahue5871 Like Calvin, the OPC stood for an understanding of the historic faith that could be supported with extensive documentation from the history of the church. The Particular Baptists promoted the idea of a great apostasy and an understanding of the historic faith that depends more on conspiracy theories than reality. That's why they threw out not only infant baptism, but congregational singing.
4:59 False prophecy
5:25 False prophesying by various Christian authors
Dubious exegesis, indeed!
/St. George of Hyperlink ☦
Acts ch 8 DESTROYS INFANT BAPTISM. That's why calvinists listen Rush Limbaugh on the work, not christian radio. Because unlike baptists, they don't study their Bibles.
One sin of calvinism leads to other sins. Ultimately to dead religion. Presbyterianism - is what Epistle of Hebrew says in ch 5, who stuck in milk doctrines. So, why then need to study Bible further more, just bring your butt to the church, listen all the same of 5 points, and go home.
@sergey .... you did not watch the video at all... did you...
The baptist position is Restorationist
How is it that you quote these early church fathers to say that baptism is the new circumcision, yet ignore that they all also said it is regenerative?
Did you watch the video? Did you hear what Augustine said?
Yes I did. Augustine taught baptismal regeneration as did all of the early church fathers(I know, I've read them) Did I mishear you say that Calvin did not believe in baptismal regeneration? It is my understanding that Calvin and Presbyterians do not hold to baptismal regeneration.
"For what your Fraternity asserts that they preach, that infants can be endowed with the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism, is excessively silly; for unless they shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, they shall not have life in themselves”…Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, says that infants have not life without Christ’s baptism, and without partaking of Christ’s body and blood. If he should say, They will not, how then, if they do not receive eternal life, are they certainly by consequence condemned in eternal death if they derive no original sin?" (Augustine, Two Letters Against the Pelagians, Book II, Chapter 7)
@@erichhershey2308 We don't hold to baptismal regeneration, and as demonstrated in the quote from Augustine, he didn't believe what you insist he did.
You really don't think Augustine taught baptismal regeneration? I've never heard someone make such a claim. This is widely known by any theologian or scholar who has actually read his work. Here are just a few of dozens and dozens of quotes.
Whom, not long after our conversion and regeneration by Your baptism, he being also a faithful member of the Catholic Church, and serving You in perfect chastity and continency among his own people in Africa, when his whole household had been brought to Christianity through him, You released from the flesh….
And although she [St. Augustine’s mother Monica], having been “made alive” in Christ even before she was freed from the flesh had so lived as to praise Your name both by her faith and conversation, yet dare I not say that from the time You regenerated her by baptism, no word went forth from her mouth against Your precepts. (Confessions, IX)
And this fault indeed through the laver of regeneration the grace of God has already remitted unto the faithful; but under the hands of the same Physician nature as yet strives with its sickness. But in such a conflict victory will be entire soundness; and that, soundness not for a time, but for ever: wherein not only this sickness is to come to an end, but also none to arise after it. … He becomes propitious to our iniquities, when He pardons sins: He heals sicknesses when He restrains evil desires. He becomes propitious unto iniquities by the grant of forgiveness: He heals sicknesses, by the grant of continence. [This] was done in Baptism to persons confessing. (On Continence)
And who among us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted, and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the laver of regeneration? … But between the laver, where all past stains and deformities are removed, and the kingdom, where the Church will remain for ever without any spot or wrinkle, there is this present intermediate time of prayer, during which her cry must of necessity be: “Forgive us our debts.” (On the Proceedings Against Pelagius, chapter 28)
I say that baptism gives remission of all sins, and takes away guilt, and does not shave them off; and that the roots of all sins are not retained in the evil flesh, as if of shaved hair on the head, whence the sins may grow to be cut down again. (chapter 26)
And this very concupiscence of the flesh is in such wise put away in baptism, that although it is inherited by all that are born, it in no respect hurts those that are born anew. And yet from these, if they carnally beget children, it is again derived; and again it will be hurtful to those that are born, unless by the same form it is remitted to them as born again, and remains in them in no way hindering the future life, because its guilt, derived by generation, has been put away by regeneration; and thus it is now no more sin, but is called so, whether because it became what it is by sin, or because it is stirred by the delight of sinning, although by the conquest of the delight of righteousness consent is not given to it. Nor is it on account of this, the guilt of which has already been taken away in the laver of regeneration, that the baptized say in their prayer, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors;” Matthew 6:12 but on account of sins which are committed, whether in consentings to it, when what is right is overcome by that which pleases, or when by ignorance evil is accepted as if it were good. (chapter 27)
Many baptized believers are without crime, but I should say that no one in this life is without sin, however much the Pelagians are inflated, and burst asunder in madness against me because I say this: not because there remains anything of sin which is not remitted in baptism; but because by us who remain in the weakness of this life such sins do not cease daily to be committed, as are daily remitted to those who pray in faith and work in mercy. (chapter 28)
Still, indeed, they alike [i.e. Manicheans and Pelagians] oppose the grace of Christ, they alike make His baptism of no account, they alike dishonour His flesh; but, moreover, they do these things in different ways and for different reasons. For the Manicheans assert that divine assistance is given to the merits of a good nature, but the Pelagians, to the merits of a good will. The former say, God owes this to the labours of His members; the latter say, God owes this to the virtues of His servants. In both cases, therefore, the reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to debt. The Manicheans contend, with a profane heart, that the washing of regeneration- that is, the water itself- is superfluous, and is of no advantage. But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no sin; and thus in the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament(Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk II.3)
“For once,” he [i.e. Pope Innocent] said, “he [i.e. man] bore free will; but, using his advantage inconsiderately, and falling into the depths of apostasy, he was overwhelmed, and found no way whereby he could rise from thence; and, deceived for ever by his liberty, he would have lain under the oppression of this ruin, if the advent of Christ had not subsequently for his grace delivered him, and, by the purification of a new regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of His baptism.” What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See? … But among other things which had been uttered under his [i.e. Celestius’] name, the deacon Paulinus had objected to Celestius that he said “that the sin of Adam was prejudicial to himself alone, and not to the human race, and that infants newly born were in the same condition in which Adam was before his sin.” Accordingly, if he [i.e. Celestius] would condemn the views objected to by Paulinus with a truthful heart and tongue, according to the judgment of the blessed Pope Innocent, what could remain to him afterwards whence he could contend that there was no sin in infants resulting from the past transgression of the first man, which would be purged in holy baptism by the purification of the new regeneration? (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk II.6)
“And they who maintain this [i.e. eternal life] as being theirs without regeneration, appear to me to wish to destroy baptism itself, since they proclaim that these have that which we believe is not to be conferred on them without baptism.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk II.7)
Spiritual regeneration is one, just as the generation of the flesh is one. And Nicodemus said the truth when he said to the Lord that a man cannot, when he is old, return again into his mother’s womb and be born. He indeed said that a man cannot do this when he is old, as if he could do it even were he an infant. But be he fresh from the womb, or now in years, he cannot possibly return again into the mother’s bowels and be born. But just as for the birth of the flesh, the bowels of woman avail to bring forth the child only once, so for the spiritual birth the bowels of the Church avail that a man be baptized only once. (On the Gospel of John, Tractate 12)
I can post 20 plus more if you are interested. I think I made my.point. not only did Augustine believe in baptismal regeneration as ALL of the early church fathers did, he believed infant communion as my first post showed. I hope that you will read and learn from the church fathers yourself, especially if you are trying to educate others.
@@erichhershey2308you should see what the early Reformed say about elect infants and baptism
1 John 3:15
“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”
John Calvin is most likely in that place down there.
Sounds like you hate John Calvin. Uh oh.