Baptism Debate: A Paedobaptist Position with R.C. Sproul
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2020
- Christians agree that adult converts are to be baptized upon making a profession of faith in Christ. Where we disagree is whether or not the infant children of believers are also to be baptized. In this message, Dr. R.C. Sproul makes a case for the practice of paedobaptism, the view that baptism is to be administered to professing believers and to their infant children.
This is the second of two messages in a debate between Dr. Sproul and Dr. John MacArthur on the biblical meaning and mode of baptism. See the entire debate: • Baptism Debate with R....
To think we're down here still learning, listening to such a great man, who is very much alive, but just in a different place that is far more exquisite than our minds could even fathom. I wonder if he is building a house right now, or singing, or bowing, etc, at this very moment, and how he felt when he saw Christ. Can you imagine?
Brother, I think he is just looking at the face of God without feeling a single desire of doing anything else
@@raphaelaugusto4529 Amen.
From this perspective it is difficult.
@huh what no.
we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
- 2 Corinthians 5:8
A beautiful reflection on a precious man of God.
I love Mr. R.C. but I'm with Mr. John on this one... that was a good debate. Good insights from both. At the end of the day, we are saved from God, by God, for God alone. By His wounds we are healed! Thank you Jesus!
They’re both great. RC makes a lot of good points. There are references outside of the Bible to paedobaptism, but no condemnation of it within the Bible. I think the honest answer is that nobody looked at this as a defining issue.
Long-live RC! The greatest theologian of our time!
@@danejensen7269 hey just a heads up the dedache, one of the earliest church catechisms teach credobaptism, while church tradition did turn into pedobaptism that was because they thought baptism itself saves.
@@Jondoe_04 The Didache, also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is an early Christian document that outlines various teachings and practices of the early Church. While it does mention baptism, it does not specifically address the issue of infant baptism.
There is some debate among scholars as to whether the early Church practiced infant baptism. Some argue that there is evidence to suggest that infant baptism was practiced as early as the second century, while others maintain that it was not a widespread practice until later.
The Didache emphasizes the importance of baptism, stating that individuals should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, it does not provide specific instructions on who should be baptized or at what age.
Overall, the Didache does not provide a clear answer to the question of infant baptism, and the issue remains a topic of debate among scholars and theologians.
@@hush8009 the didache makes it clear the person must profess Jesus
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
Also if an infant were to fast for today's I'm fairly curtain they would die.
I have been a Reformed Baptist for very long now and here I am looking into Paedobaptism, and reconsidering so much about what I believe.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
.
@@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool Thank you for the verses, very encouraging, though I didn't see how the last 2 had anything to do with this.
I'm currently exploring becoming a Protestant. More specifically a Reformed Baptist. I was under the impression RC Sproul was a Calvinist? Can a Calvinist adhere to infant Baptism?
@@JustGeorge86RC Sproul was a Presbyterian which is a sect of Christianity that adheres to Calvinism :)
I was raised in the Baptist tradition. My children all professed faith at an early age and were baptized soon afterwards, as I was. Doug Wilson is the first person I heard on this subject (recent debate between Wilson and James White - Canon Press) and so my awareness is piqued. R.C. Sproul is so compelling and winsome - how can one not be pulled over by his arguments?! What we are receiving right now from the Reformed perspective is incredibly challenging and edifying!
I agree my friend. I think, coming from a Reformed Church and going against the baptism of infants, I am not happy with parents who are not willing to dedicate themselves to their newborns and the teachings of the Church, with or without water, as a form of a baptism of an infant. However, With or without John MacArthur's or R.C. Sproul's baptism I am really strong on the dedication with or without water as a symbol of dedication, sanctification, or the setting apart of a child to Christ and the Church.
Please be careful with Doug Wilson. There are many ways in which he will mislead and I'm fairly confident Dr, SSproul would agree wh me if he were here today.
@@BrazosEyrieDoug Wilson is a solid brother in Christ. Don’t believe the slander.
How old are your children and are they still in the faith?
(If i may ask)
@@danystana6245 my children range in age from 22 to 31 and are in various places of their journey... from very solid and seeking God to more cynical and hard. My biggest prayer is that they would have a sincere faith and know and love the Lord with their whole heart. I would say they all have a deep-down tenderness, even the ones who aren't walking with the Lord as they should, so I continue to pray. And sometimes I gently remind them of their baptism and the choice they made to follow the Lord. Amy Carmichael said, "It is a safe thing to trust the Lord to fulfill the desires that He creates." 🙏🏻 I have no greater desire than for my children to know and walk with Him.
I love how he describes John in the beginning. JMac really is a blessing.
I agree. I would love for Johnny Mac to debate Dr. Michael Brown on the Continuation of the gifts.
@@ryandawson2877 In my opinion if Dr. Brown got routed by Dr. White, JMac would mop the floor with him.
We all must surely miss our gifted and cherished RC. I say the same of our beloved Jmac too. What great gifts these two among a large number of gifted men teaching us the scriptures and greatly helping us on our way to join the presence of our Lord. I hold dear these two men, we should often listen to them and be thankful to God for them and all those who faithfully share their hard work to enlighten and encourage. I’m a Scot living in Glasgow U.K. but feel so much at home with the great reformers of our past and present but especially these two teachers. Thank you our dear Lord God for these, your rich blessings & for the great gift of salvation.
These two men are giants of the "word" and possibly 2 of the best pastors there have ever been. They have taught me a lot and brought me closer to Jesus Christ without a doubt. The Holy Spirit truly has spoken through these men. The combination of great faith and intellectual debate is precious.
I listened to both debates and it's a blessing to know that circumcision of the heart saves and Baptism is a sign of redemption and a sign of God's Holy people and a sign of Gods blessings so God's sign of his promises are reiterated to believers and their Children.
That is not automatically true. Good kings had bad children and bad kings good children in the old testament. Circumsision said NOTHING about the spiritual state or outcome of the children. That is one huge step too far and playing god creating false security.
@@heidjemeidje7189 that's my point, according to the Apostle Paul, the sign does not show the state of a person.
Romans 2:28
[28]For [s] no one is a Jew [t] who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Cross-references
[s]: Rom 9:6-8; Gal 6:15
[t]: Rom 2:17
(ESV)
Romans 2:29
[29]But a Jew is one [u] inwardly, and [v] circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. [w] His praise is not from man but from God.
Cross-references
[u]: 1 Pet 3:4
[v]: Deut 10:16; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; Acts 7:51; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11
[w]: 2 Cor 10:18; 1 Thess 2:4; Gal 1:10
(ESV)
Scripture clearly shows whole households being baptised as soon as only the father/husband begin to be believe
Beautifully done! I miss RC . So thankful his ministry continues. Soli Deo Gloria!!!
I had to write a paper for school about this and this was very helpful :)
I was baptized as a baby and I had my son baptized as a baby... I am still indecisive on the subject but this makes me feel better thank you
To God be the Glory, but, if you're indecisive, you should watch the video of John, and you'll have a good position... You have to meditate about that a lot ❤️
Infant baptism is true don't worry
It's a Blessing your children recieved a sign of God's promise and are part of his Covenant
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 amen
In Who's name are we all baptized....
I have listened to both sides of this discussion. I am settling into the Paedobaptist beliefs. I think it is very important to always view both sides of the discussion, to spend quiet time with God, study His word, and pray for clarity in the scriptures. Everyone should do this, and research all they can before making a decision. I’ve seen so many reasons why Credobaptism makes sense, and I understand why people believe it. But I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures do no back that up, and that Credobaptists tend to put God in a box in saying that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. I believe The Holy Spirit is present in the water in baptism and it is not said in any scripture to be a symbol. Knowing the difference between John’s baptisms and Jesus’ baptisms is important. When I hear people say that no infants were baptized in the New Testament, I would say that there are no accounts of someone professing their faith and using a baptism to show others that, using it as an outward and symbolic profession. I think both sides have reason to believe what they do. And I think it’s important to remember to act how Christ would act and have love and compassion for others who might not believe the same as you. At the end of the day, we choose to believe in God and will all have faults in our interpretation of scripture. Our sinful, human minds will never be able to fully understand or interpret it. Thanks for reading, God bless! :)
I couldn't agree more. I was baptized as an infant and 2 years ago was baptized in the Holy Spirit. This after 60 years of life with the last 30 making God a part of my life. I can only go by my experience but this happened after I put God as my number one love in my life. I have a 29 year old son that I loved more than anything. After a falling out I felt alone. But I wasn't. God got me through and I realized that real love has to come through the Father. By putting God in His rightful position the miracle of the Holy Spirit came to me. I fall deeper in love with my triune God each day. I feel totally protected by the Passion of Christ on the cross. Thank you Jesus, my King of kings, Lord of lords!
The Holy Spirit present in the water is Roman Catholic theology
In “the end” we don’t choose! God does
It is important for anyone listening to this debate to remember that the ENTIRE church taught infant baptism as long as we have history regarding it. I appreciate RC Sprouls willingness to forego the historical arguments for John’s sake, but it’s worth considering that the universal church practice was infant baptism up until POST reformation. Even Luther, Zwingli and John calvin aggressively defended the practice. So while in debate format, BOTH positions appear to have strength, when you read Christian writings as a whole on the topic the Baptist position is not merely non-existed in Christianity for the first 1500 years but is still held post reformation by a majority of Protestantism
Infant baptism cannot be defended simply by what history has taught, regardless of what the historical church believed. The authority can only come from what God has declared in His Word alone. That is the standard.
@@samzelmer5482 yes! But do you not find it concerning that your beliefs are at odds with the universal church’s opinion OF the teaching of the word of God? It’s not tradition VS scripture, but scripture AS BELIEVED by all the great Saints and martyrs of our faith. These men studied the scriptures (and many knew more honestly and carefully than most likely any of us (including me) within this comment thread, and they died to ensure that faith was passed forward. And to disregard them and their faith is arrogant and dangerous in my opinion.
@@alexanderderus2087 my friend, though a large gathering of early church believers may have endorsed infant baptism, i find no Biblical authority for siding ones beliefs to the majority vote, as the old proverb goes; birds of a fearher flock together. The authority comes down to what is explicitly taught in the Word of God. As far as finding it concerning; no, it does not surprise me that some secondary doctrines didnt forgo the intesnse scrutiny that other doctrines recieved due to the prominant attacks on more important doctrines of that time
Universal church is the catholic church the mother of all harlots, her harlots being the Lutherans, methodists, Presbyterians etc. Catholuc church is NOT a christian church.
You have no Scripture for your statement "the ENTIRE church" unless you are calling catholicism " the ENTIRE church. Please study and rightly divide HIS word.
I thank God for these gentlemen who adhere to the infallible word of truth, and we know it is for this reason we are to search the scriptures diligently in prayer. God has provided a great teacher the Holy Spirit of whom these men are lead. Tradition is a real thing as we find throughout the gospels especially among the teachers of that time. Tradition blinded them, we know this because the great teacher walked among them, and they received him not. God bless his word to us all through such men.
Both sides of the debate are interesting to listen to.
Very good reflection on baptism. After all, we ought to do our best to obey our Lord Jesus Chrit, by doing what He commands us to.
If infant baptism is a sign of the new covenant, how come NO ONE in the NT practised it, preached it or referred it to old testament covenant of circumcision. The new testament covenant is in the blood of Jesus and the circumcision of the heart.
Whole households were baptized in the New Testament just like in the Old.
Col 2:11-12
@@edeancozzens3833 whole households were baptised in the OT? Lol they weren't all circumcised either. And guess what, the whole household wasn't saved simply because 1 man believed
Lol Romans?
People accept infant baptism as a form of dedication. And I’m sure the Lord will award it to them according to their faith. But the danger is in thinking infant baptism is the literal baptism. Scripture says REPENT and be baptized. What exactly is a baby repenting of at 4 months old? When they aren’t even sin conscious? When they can’t even identify with the death and resurrection? People must be very careful what they promote because they will be called to account for misleading the church.
I come from a baptist tradition. I always thought baptism was an outward showing what God has done inside, but there is no verse that I know of that explicitly states that. I have become more understanding of the paedobaptist position. The believers baptism position is more individually focused and the paedo position is more corporate and covenantal (households).
the paedo argument seems more biblical, but if we only understand the covenant as merely regarding salvation, and not including our families, as the sign of the covenant clearly points to, then the credobaptist argument makes sense. but clearly the fact that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his household, shows that the sign of the covenant (if not the covenant explicitly) absolutely belongs to the entire household. the sign of the covenant is not the covenant itself. who are we to say who God should include in the sign of the covenant? the apostles told the new converts to baptize their household. it doesn't get much clearer than that
This is 100% correct. So much to be said. But all points are valid.
R.C Sproul nailed it , he saw continuity in the Bible , not only does Baptism point to God's adoption,promises and covenants (Rom 9:4) for his Holy people and included 8 day old Babies.
R.C Sproul also understand circumcision of the heart(Rom2:29).
It did not include all children but obviously only male children.
@rosemaryrojahn584 according to the bible, God's assembly or Churches need to have sanctification throughout the Bible. God always had a Holy people throughout the Bible which would include the household.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Sproul makes some great arguments here.
I presume if you're articulate enough, anyone can convince people of ANYTHING! My goodness even "flat earthers" have good arguments but we have to look to scripture and scripture ALONE! We shouldn't be assuming that infant baptism is okay just because the Bible DOESN'T tell us to NOT do it. That's the worst argument ever! Jesus himself gave us a great example and command of what we're to do regarding baptism. And here is man, changing it. OYY!! When will we learn to not change what scripture says??🤦♀️
No he does not, he compares apples with pears and describes them as being the same. Circumsision is not a promise or covenant of redemption. It was Gods way to show the world His plan and ways through a stubborn nation which stood as a metaphor for all of us and was set apart for that specific reason. Hebrews specifically tells us that Circumsision does not safe and even brings us back to the law and away from Christ.
@@heidjemeidje7189circumsision doesn't save and neither does baptism. The Jews had to be circumsiced in obedience to GOD.
Christians had/have to baptized in obedience to GOD
RC winning me over on second listen.
Me too
And I love you on both sides.
It's a sign of faith for the parents but not for the child. It was not Ishmael's or Isaac's faith but Abraham's as to why they were circumcised. Isaac's faith was shown in the circumcising of Jacob and Esau. It was their looking forward to the Child of Promise born from the seed of Eve who would crush the head of the serpent. We no longer look for Christ to come from our children but from heaven.
I side with John on this one but you made a very good point.
@@arreola891 Oh, I should have been more clear in my post. I side with John too in that we should practice believers baptism. Circumcision was a sign of the parent's faith as opposed to the child's faith as they looked for the promised son. Since He has fulfilled that promise, we now we show our faith in baptism rather than circumcising our children as we identify with Christ's crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection.
I have to admit that R C.Spruol makes a compelling argument for Infant baptism. This gives me much food for thought.
Thank you, RC.
R.C is in a different level than John... there was no one in History who denied infant baptism until the reformation.. even Lutherans kept infant baptism.
Do we get truth from history or from scripture?
You do acknowledge that people have held to all kinds of heresies for thousands of years but that doesn’t make it correct.
@@swtor20bingo.
@swtor20 have you had the pleasure of discussing with other evangelist about whether a Christian must repent? So called Free Grace vs Lordship salvation? I quoted Scripture but they still held that a Christian must only believe, regardless that they are not abiding in Christ and carrying their Cross
@@swtor20what a silly false dichotomy. Those are not opposites. Orthodoxy is interpreting Scripture in a way that is faithful to the historical witness of the church. "no creed but the Bible" combined with private interpretation is the basis of every cult that ever existed.
Also it's hardly true that people have held heresies for thousands of years. For starters people generally don't live that long 😂. Heresies arise for short period , and then through God's providence, church councils, creeds, confessions, church discipline, proper teaching, and persecution, etc...they tend to die out for a while. They may reappear again, but my point is that orthodoxy is something that doesn't change, it's what God's people have always believed throughout history. Whereas heterodoxy is much more localized and novel.
So yeah, I'm real suspect of anyone who says, that 1500 years worth of interpretation is all wrong, but ' I have the right interpretation'
@@longllamas I actually would contend with that cult comment at the end. When groups abandon the scriptures and go with tradition and their own ideas is the basis of every cult that has ever existed.
But as for my main comment I did not mean it as a dichotomy, such as choose either history or the Bible. You can have your history that’s all well and good. But when you exalt historical orthodox over plain reading of the Bible you get the pagan mess that is the Catholic Church.
Just because people have held to an idea for a long time does not mean that it’s true… that’s not how we decide truth
So true show one person who came from parent of new Testament who were beleivers then i would become a cridobaptist. Early church were all examples of new converts coming to faith. As R.c said he practices believers baptism too as ALL DO!
SPOT ON SERMON!
So why won't he baptize an adult without signs of repentance and a profession of faith but will baptize an infant who can show or do neither?
@@benjaminsteele4640 Idk for the same reason as in Old covenant ? that include entire families ?
The Didache never mentions paedobaptism, despite its lengthy portion on baptism. Additionally, the requirements for those being baptized include tasks impossible for infants to perform (prayer, fasting).
You cannot tell me that my baptism didn’t count. I was 8 days old. If you ask me when I converted, I wouldn’t be able to answer that. I have always believed because I was raised since infancy in the church. Children of believers are not the same as the children of the world, the sign of the covenant belongs to them just as much as it belongs to people with deficiencies
Amen
I think you don't quite understand what it means to believe. Not just believing something is true, but believing, trusting, having faith in Christ. That doesn't happen in baptism. It happens when God regenerates the heart- the circumsision made without hands.
Great video
Against baptism justification: You can have the sign without the faith but can not have the contents of the sign without faith. There are abudant records of baptism (12 NT references) and circumcision being given to adults upon confession/ joining the covenant people. This is what we agree with.
But should the child of the NT receive the covenant just like the OT. Yet there are differences.
> OT sign focuses on men, but NT focuses on both
>NT labours that the new covenant is better because it includes a radical expansion
> We can't find references to baptism until 3rd century, with not one single complaint. There is no divide or arguments as one would find in theology. Not one single word of practice. Argument from silence, but it is a screaming argument.
Sanctify means to also be set apart, to "be holy as I am holy, and God sanctified a nation for himself", yet not everyone in this sanctification and consecration is saved. The husband sanctifys the wife, meaning the wife is set apart from the ordinary or different situation. The children benefit from this sanctifying, "else the children would be unclean, but now they are holy." The primary reference for unclean is to outside the covenant. This is covenant language, used consistently throughout the Bible.
In the OT, circumcision doesn't convey redemption, it is the sign of redemption. Baptism doesn't zonvwy redemption, it is a sign of cleansing, regeneration, sanctification, of baptised in holy spirit, buried with Christ and raised with Christ. It is a sign of the content of salvation. The sitn does not automatically communicate the reality by the outward sign. But it commubciate the promise of God, that they would recieve the fullness of redemption in the gsopel. The sacrament of baptism is a radical sign of the spoken promise.
Wouldn’t it be inconsistent to adhere to the regulative principle and promote infant baptism? Thank you.
I am a Reformed Baptist. I believe in believer's baptism as it is written in the Bible, and I may disagree with Sproul on this, HOWEVER, listen to me, HOWEVER...I must, MUST, MUST say that this man was nothing short of a living LEGEND. And knowing that I will see him in Heaven after the day of Judgement, I am extremely proud and excited.
Truthfully, the Bible only really speaks of conversion baptism and not believer baptism. Churches that practice infant baptism also practice baptisms of new believers in Christ.
Historically, during the times of the Bible, if the father received a sacrament, such as baptism, the entire family would as well. Naturally, this would include children AND infants.
It speaks of household baptisms of converts.
and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
- Acts 11:14-18
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
- Acts 16:14-15
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
- Acts 16:31-32
@@joshuatheo1419 1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
@@joshuatheo1419 Did you watch Jmac's portion of this? He goes through each of the households and breaks down what occurred.
@@jamessheffield4173 a baby doesn’t even know his right hand from his left, they can’t desire the Word. The understanding of that verse is to show how that a newborn baby craves the nutrients needful for his body and we should crave the spiritual nutrients of the Word because it is needful and will cause us to grow
@@logangilmore9544 Matt 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
I am a catholic convert, and I love RC. I wish he was on our team.
I am one who was Credo only but have come to accept covenant baptism as the correct position.
When the children of Israel ate the Passover meal and crossed through the waters of baptism, what did they do with the children?
What are you talking about? Lol
He made some pretty good points, especially about the "screaming silence" of history. But here's my problem: John said rightly that infant baptism CAN be misleading. R.C. could only say that it MIGHT be fine. So why not err on the side of caution and wait until they're old enough to make a profession? Their salvation doesn't depend on this unless John is right and it actually hinders them.
I think Exodus 4 might address your problem. This is where God comes near to killing Moses because his son was not circumcised. If God has not changed the practice of giving the sign to infants in the new covenant, then it would be displeasing to him not to baptize infants. It would be negative not neutral. Therefore, we should try to find the correct answer to the question, so that we can please him.
But God explicitly commanded that infants be circumcised. There is no such requirement for baptism. If God was displeased with us for not baptizing them, I feel like He would've said so at least once. The sign of circumcision is a physical mark, but the sign of baptism is a physical act, which is why I can't see any spiritual benefit to it at all, even if it's not sinful.
@@Anthony-ig6ds If baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of Circumcision, ought we to not baptize females?
@@MaD-hp9hq we also baptize female, and this what makes the new covenant as the better covenant. Hebrews 8-10, Gal. 3:28
@@MaD-hp9hq when i finally get this figured out, someone like you with a point like that will no doubt come along, i haven't figured it out yet, but here you are ahead of schedule!
Do a dub into Spanish please, it would be a great blessing!!
Hagan un doblaje al español por favor, sería de mucha bendición!!
I believe and am filled with the Holy Spirit. My husband also is. My children and our grandchildren. Water baptism. My parents were strong believers. My grandparents. Are you telling me John, that they are not in heaven? Will I not be?
Define"filled with the Holy Spirit"
I’m new at this but I’m with John on this one.
Why? I think baptism is an outward sign where a child of God is marked as a member of the community of believers. With this foundation, infants of believing parents would have every right to this sacrament.
If the New Testament is a better covenant and more inclusive, and thus infants should not be excluded from Baptism, why are they excluded from participating in the Lord's supper? I've always wondered this and am truly seeking an answer.
I don't have an answer to this. I actually have the same question, and am looking for the answer But I know pastor Doug wilson speaks on this. Id look up Doug's stance on this if I was you.
@@Jacki_Morris Thanks!
@@jonathanvickers3881 you're welcome. If you find anything worth sharing, please do. I'd like to learn more
Bc they cannot consent. God doesnt force himself on people. Raise the child well and when he/she grows up they'll say yes to baptism.
And children can participate in the lord's supper, they are innocent.
With all due respect RC, Col 2:11 is not referencing OT circumcision. It’s referencing the NT version of circumcision which has to do with regeneration or conversion
I believe RC is right in this. I got my babies baptized and that pushed me to teach them the scriptures believing God to bring them to Himself. He has been faithful
You are right
You are wrong.
That's how I was raised. I was baptized as a baby, grew up in the church but I didn't receive the Holy Spirit until I was 25. Even though I went astray for some time, my parents were always praying for me and always reminding me of God. Always. Until finally the Lord saved me, at 25. Such great faith shown by my parents for years, YEARS. It was a great test of faith for my parents but God is faithful. My parents believed and left everything in God's hands. And God did it. God saved me.
If I ever have children, I will surely baptize them and instruct them in the Lord's way, just as my parents did. Our lives belong to the Lord. Everything does, even our children.
@@leonnakof9034 But how does your testimony stand against someone who wasn’t bought up in church didn’t know that Jesus was the Son of God until age 27, and is indeed a born again believer and follower of Christ and one of His elect?
What does infant baptism have to do with your journey, especially if baptism doesn’t save?
Honest question..
How old are they and are they still in the faith?
(If i may ask)
I would have thought that Macarthur’s position on the future of Israel in the millennium as distinct from this church age, would have tended to maintain the idea that circumcision being the sign of the old covenant might be replaced by infant baptism as of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Wheras Sproul is not a premillennialist (I think) but maintains infant Baptism. (I was infant Baptised in the Evangelical C of E but glad to be believer’s baptised at the age of 19 when I found faith, in a Baptist church). if one believes so strongly, as dispensationalists do, that many sections of scripture are addressed exclusively to future ethnic and national Israel then it seems inconsistent to abandon a sign of the covenant for infants.
I agree. although i've been pretty swayed to believe that infant baptism in this case makes total since and isn't heretical or wrong, if I have kids someday (fingers crossed, prayers prayed) I would probably want to do both kinds of baptism. when they're infants and then later on when they make their confession.
There are enough ad stops in this video to drown a man
Before you start the video run the red dot thru each commercial and it will erase them. 9 times out of 10 it won't even play them.
Thank you Benjamin!!! That tip worked!
RC uses the same type of "Theology By Inference" that is used by John McArthur to contrive a "Pre-Tribulation" rapture.
Neither doctrine is Sola Scriptura.
I know this is off topic but does anyone know much about the mennonites? Are they good people with bad theology on secondary issues or are they heretical?
I was homeschooled with Mennonite curriculum. I would lean towards the former, that said, they can be REALLY bad on the secondary issues haha
Google it.
It depends on the sect I believe. I was raised Mennonite (not horse/buggy/dresses/bonnets type) and went to a Mennonite high school & churches. The church has now gone non denominational but lots of Mennonite families attend (again, more modern ones).
I’d stay away from the Church of God Mennonites.
Is it hard for you to find a bible to read?
Wouldn't it be useful to find out "for yourself" what Jesus and his apostles said about baptism, mentioned over 50 times?
Have you, personally, ever wanted to understand for yourself why Jesus wanted to be baptized?
If you discovered something about baptism different from what you were taught, would you act on it?
So it doesn’t say not to do it or to do it but neither is right or wrong
Our reformed fathers had an easy answer to all this ado about household baptisms: Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism said this.'......while we do not concede the natural meaning of the word (household), the command is to baptize all nations.' John Calvin referred to Col 2:11-12 as the 'death knell passage to all arguments against infant baptism'. To answer John Macarthur's declaration that though he is a spiritual child of Abraham he is not a Jew, the Scripture says 'Therefore, brethren, we are after the manner of Isaac, children of the promise'. (Gal 4:28)
This came across randomly but I’m more concerned with children and communion. Referencing Passover in the OT
Honestly i think John won but what a beautiful friendship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus said in Luke 22:20
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. end quote Baptism is never called a covenant
The justification of faith alone was taught by a man in the 1500s. And he changed the scriptures to fit his few which then opened Pandora’s box and we now have each man interpreting the scriptures according to how they see fit and now over 40,999 denominations when JC last words were to be United - one church he founded. I was a protestor for 60 years until I read researched and humbled myself to be open and willing to see the truth no matter where it led me. I cannot thank GOD enough for raising me up from the deadness in protestism
So are you Catholic or Orthodox ?
Although Abraham circumcised Ishmael, he and his descendents did not become part of the Covenant
(Gen 17^20-21;26).
⏺... what doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
Ac 8^36-37
R.C. said that because there is an absence of explicit teaching in Scripture, both sides of the debate are therefore obliged to go the second mile and work from what is inferred.
He also said that for the purposes of the debate, they were obligated to work with Scripture alone.
If we take to heart his first statement, we must surely realize that there are many inferred passages where new believers are commanded to be baptized, and those making disciples are commanded to baptize those new believers. What it must come down to, therefore, is the inferred meaning of 'baptizing new believers.'
The phrase 'believe and be baptized' infers credobaptism. One must first believe, in order to express outwardly what has just happened inwardly.
The entire idea of baptism is that it is an outward declaration of the new believer.
Jesus' command to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them, infers that first, they hear the message of the gospel and are discipled into Jesus, in that they hear enough to believe. Second, they are baptized, showing that they have believed, have died to their old self, and are reborn to a new life in Christ. Third, after they have believed and have been baptized, the life-long journey of teaching them begins. There is no logical reason to re-arrange the order of Jesus' command.
From the apostles and writers of the New Testament, who planted churches and made disciples, there is no other inferred message. One must believe, be baptized, and then be taught. How can an infant believe and make those kinds of decisions? They simply cannot. Thus, we must learn to entrust our children to the goodness of God, and teach them as they grow in ability to understand our words and observe our modeling what a follower of Christ lives like.
The overwhelming inferences in the New Testament, are on the side of credobaptism.
However, it also behooves Reformed theologians to look back into their history, and see where pedobaptism first came into the church culture. That was clearly during the time of papal dominance. Therefore, history is also not without inference on this point. The overwhelming evidence shows that this teaching of pedobaptism is a leftover from Roman Catholicism. The Reformers did well. But there were some things left undone. This was one of those things.
Well said. I love RC, my favorite sound biblical teacher, but i am very surprised that he didn’t see that this view of pedobaptism simply isn’t supported by scripture, and therefore should probably just be avoided.
circumcision is the sign of the OC & spiritual circumcision is the sign of the NC
How can one argue that there was no controversy regarding the sign given to infants in the New Testament when there was a very big argument about Gentile believers being circumcised? That does not make sense to me. It is not an argument from silence.
Full disclosure: I grew up on John's side, but now attend an OPC church. I am now 99% convinced of infant baptism. But, I have often shaken my head in wonder at some of the arguments used to justify infant bsptism. This is one of those arguments that make me shake my head and say, "How do you prove that?"
John the Baptist baptism was refered to as the baptism of repentance because the baptism was after repentance.
I'm with john macarthur on this
15:00 but only after Faith!!!
Old gone forever......new covenant our Lord already did this for us ,yes he was circumcised already did it for us the proclaimed the new,not including circumcision. Our Complete in completion has done for us all. The father being the head blessing of his family, not the church. The head of a family carried the blessing for the whole family, the baby......
Infant baptism makes no sense and produces nothing but confusion.
Only to the small-minded or spiritually lost. I'm not confused at all and can see it plainly all the way back to Abraham.
Sola scriptura is a very serious handicap in getting this matter clear. Discounting the apostolic tradition whilst appealing to reformed theology is a strange way to go about it. If you're going to discount the early church tradition, then, logically, you shouldn't enter the reformers into the mix either - this is simply another tradition, just a much more recent one.
Beautiful! I also believe in childbaptism
You didn't listen to John's sermon then?
@@adamcraig1468 read some Calvin
The 1 Corinthians verses (that I keep misattributing to Peter) is the crux of why I find paedobaptism more compelling than No infant baptism.
If you attribute Corinthians to Peter, then you need to get on the Bible, you’re far from giving your opinion on this matter
@@OnlyTop10ss the specific verse I keep looking for in Peter. I don’t attribute Corinthians to Peter.
I’ve been studying scripture for decades. I’ve memorized a great many verses. But I am no scholar, I am not a teacher, and those I study with have no patience for my nerdiness (until recent company). So such skills of recalling verse to book, chapter, verse is not something I have cultivated until recent times.
I believed these verses to be located in 1 or 2 Peter. That is all.
@@OnlyTop10ss this response is not necessary and is not kind.
So he won't baptize an adult without signs of repentance and a profession of faith. Yet he will baptize a baby?
Yeah ot weird I don't know to much about it to make an argument but R.C sproul is a great theologian
Not just any baby. But babies of Christian parents.
Key point - is baptism the sign of the new covenant? And if so what is promised of the new covenant?
Only babies who are the children of Christian parents - i.e. those Christian parents who display that same sign of repentance and a profession of faith that you mention. You're attempting to identify an inconsistency in the position that isn't there (you don't have to agree with it, of course, but it is internally consistent).
Benjamin, you are spot on!!!! Infant baptism was nothing more but of pagan roman catholicism doctrine in origin. Never such teaching found in the bible. Circumcision is nothing to do with infant baptism. In fact, Paul stated let it be accursed for adding circumcision as another requirement to salvation.
Will not getting baptized prevent a sinner from entering the kingdom of God?
No
"It's a screaming silence." RC! Did we just completely forget about Tertullian and the fact that he expressly argued against infant baptism at the end of the 2nd century? I know he can't defend himself, but that alone tells me he did not do much research before speaking. Tertullian was one of the main quoted church fathers by the 17th-century Baptists. The nature of infant baptism is so radically different theologically than traditional credobaptism that the fact there is no mention at all of it happening or being explained for hundreds of years is what I would call a "screaming silence". It's not until the idea of original sin starts developing in Cyprian and Augustine that references to it start to appear.
Rev. 22:18
Sproul seems to believe infant baptism is simply different than adult baptism and that adult baptism requires faith and repentance. He seems to believe there is a layer of meaning to baptism that it is a sign of covenant and that adult believers then have parental authority to bring their children into the covenant. Sounds like infant baptism is merely a dedication.
"I agree with Calvin that the preferred method of baptism is immersion" at 38:26
T.U.L.I.P. is the pat-answer and pat-reasoning for ALL these doctrines.
Unfortunately, for the debater, Jesus spent about three years with "grown" men,
demonstrating the purposes of God, and unfolding the Father's heart to them.
As He was empowered by the Spirit at His baptism (what age?) He expected them ALL
to pick up His ministry when He ascended. The RCC and the Reformers missed this point.
Each of them have their own little "pocket-guides" to help them along. Jesus, instead,
promised Another Comforter to dwell with them forever. The Reformed begin to get nervous
when you mention the Book of Acts - especially 2.38-39. They shouldn't! He's there for our
constant reminder and help. Today, we need people of faith to overcome the works of the devil
in our world - for he's quite busy. We receive a "dynamic" connection at baptism - not just
"being saved." We overcome by the Word of God and OUR testimony. Did you hear that?
WE OVERCOME!
The absence of express forebadence against infant baptism is not the same as the so-called absence of requiring infant baptism.
In Other words, all of scripture clearly displays baptism after a credible profession of faith.
That is a clearly false parallel of absences.
The typology, as well as the clear expression of baptism is after believe in Christ
Also, Acts 8:37 KJV clearly requires faith.
Baptism is the repentant ritual introduced by John the Baptist!
A bit of an unfortunate name for the concept
Haven't finished listening to this, but with regards to circumcising infants analogy, we baptized "infant" believers (born again new believers).
Circumcision was for the physical children/adults of God's old covenant, and baptism is for the spiritual children/adults of God's new covenant (spiritually born again), *those are my personal thoughts on this.* Willing to change sides (to infant baptism side of the debate) as long as it's proven Scripturally to be so. And not here for senseless arguments either, so if that's what you're looking for go somewhere else. God bless
Did you ever finish listening to it?
@@magnumsacramentum Oh, I forgot if I ever did. I think I did, but if I did I would've changed my comment to say that I did (but maybe I forgot to change)? So, I don't know.
What did you think about the video/debate? God bless
Oh, I realize the term I used "infant" believers might be confusing. What I mean is new born-again Christians. Not physical infants.
Hmm- as a Credobaptist, I never heard your point- a great one!!
@@jamesburkhart1658 It just came to me as I was listening to that part. God bless
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.
Are you seriously using this to support paedo baptism?
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Matt 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Pastor John covers this doctrine of baptism so well, the paedobaptism position looks like a straw man on fire, looking for water to dunk himself.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith 1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
@@jamessheffield4173
Using a foreshadow to justify your position? The old covenant was merely a foreshadow of a better covenant. Read Hebrews. Pastor John gave the clear position on why infant baptism is not biblical. If you wish to argue, I would encourage you to listen to Pastor John's message. Have a great day.
RC RIP 🙏🏻
He certainly is Rejoicing In Paradise!!
OIKOS OIKIA οικία οικογένεια . Oikogenia means family in Greek and explicitly includes children
There is a big difference between the old and the covenant. In the old, the people were born in the covenant and whether they believes or not (an many didn't) they had no chose and were circumcised in the tradition of the state religion. The new testament is faith based and faith is a requirement to be baptized. Even when the word all his household is used it says as prerequisite believed on the Lord with all his household.....Here are a few verses to that, nowhere is it said that you can be baptized without believing.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
"In the old, the people were born in the covenant" - yes, and tell me, what *was* that covenant, exactly? Just some arbitrarily chosen ethnic identity? What exactly was the covenant and what was its basis?
I think you completely missed the point to which relation the New Covenant is new. It's new to Moses, and the NT makes that clear, Isaiah makes that clear. But it's not new in relation to Abraham because Abraham was a FAITH COVENANT. The gospel was preached to him, to him was the promise of the spirit given and the sign for that was circumcision.
Now ask yourself if the sign circumcision was the seal for the righteousness Abraham had by faith as Paul in Romans 4,11 says, why did his children get that sign even though the fulfillment what that sign signified was not there in his children yet?
Explicit command not to baptize babies is not mentioned in the NT, because it was not practiced at the time. It was a later invention of the church. can you find explicit command not to have a boy or girlfriend relationship before marriage in the Bible? no! it's because the culture invented later in the future. I respect Sproul a lot. but this argument on explicit command not to baptise babies is simply chronological misunderstanding of the text. :D
You are 100% incorrect about the historical practice. Covenant (infant) baptism has always been practiced in the Christian church , which is why there was never any controversy over it during all the old councils. Had it been a new innovation, there would be much literature in history of resistance to it, especially as it spread across nations during whatever periods you believe it was introduced.
They basically believe the same thing.
MacArthur's position on so many issues is unscriptural from Dispensationalism, to Lordship Salvation to credobaptism.
Thank you for pointing that out. MacArthurites are a hard-headed bunch of brothers and sisters, slow to research and learn on their own.
What Was the Purpose of Water Baptism?
Foe the Jews and their “gospel of the kingdom,” water baptism was a required expression of believing faith.
We see in Luke 7:28-30 those that were baptized with the baptism of John, justified God, and those that chose not to be baptized, rejected the counsel of God.
Luke 7:28-30
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
John’s baptism was a symbolic baptism. God tells us in Hebrews 9:22 that there is no “remission of sins” without the shedding of blood. At this time, Christ’s blood had not yet been shed.
Jesus spoke in Matthew 26:28 about His blood being the blood of the New Testament which is shed for “many” for the “remission of sins.”
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
We see in Acts 2:38 that on Pentecost, Peter preaches repentance and baptism for the “remission of sins.” Christ’s blood had been shed, so “remission of sins” was available for those who by faith obeyed and were baptized.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We see in Mark 16:16 where Jesus speaks of believing faith accompanied by obedience.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
In I Samuel 15:22 we are told “behold to obey is better than sacrifice.” Christ is the Lamb of God. He willingly sacrificed Himself upon the cross. Those under the “gospel of the kingdom” who believed in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, possessed obedient faith and were baptized.
Sproul makes good points but doesn't prove it biblically. Love Mr RC Sproul's book Holiness of God.
Why CredoBaptism?
Because
1. In the New Testament no explicit record of infant Baptism.
2. Infants who are baptized may not necessarily be among the elects and so giving them the sign won't help at all in any way.
3. In the Old Testament, failing to have circumcised would lead them to be cut off from the commonwealth of Israel whereas in the New Testament no such rule is laid out to be followed.
Wow, you really clinging to these weak-minded arguments. Are you not capable of learning deeper things in scripture yet?
If it was a covenant of redemption why was only for the Jews? They were the only ones told to do it. I do not believe it was a covenant but a sign for a set apart as a nation
Olga Burgos: Any non-Israelite wishing to convert and became identified with the nation-state of Israel was required to be circumsized, along with all the males in their households. The covenant and sign were made with Israel directly, but Israel was commissioned to take this message to the nations and proliferate the Kingdom with it, but they failed, which is why Christ came and fulfilled this duty by bring the offer of salvation freely to all who would believe. Blessings.
regeneration (not baptism) = circumcision. after the water dries there is no sign. also, the NC is NOT like the OC,
I wish people would reference the book of Acts and see they were baptized in Jesus name. after repentance of course./
That contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 28, 19-20... in the name of Jesus was just referring to the Apostles baptism authorized by Jesus
Did you hear nothing in this video? We all believe in "Credo" baptism of new adult believer's but after becoming believers, they were commanded to baptize their entire households, with no mention of their repentance being necessary.
@@cigardawg can you give me the reference of the Scripture where they were commanded to baptize the entire household? Thank you in advance.
@@semper_reformanda
Acts 10:48
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
1 Cor 7:14
As RC states, no verse is explicit, for or against, but the implicit case is easy to make. And while he tried mightily to avoid arguing from tradition, I wish he hadn’t because that is a non-biblical self imposed hoop to jump through.
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
1 Cor 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
The early church practiced infant baptism, not because they dreamt it out of thin air. It was sacramental to them and puts the verses above into clear context. They firmly believed it was scriptural and based in apostolic tradition, which is also scriptural.
It wasn’t until the late 1500s, well after the reformation, that infant baptism was looked down upon. Since it took 1500 years to come to this conclusion it can be argued that the opposition to infant baptism is not only wrong, but a newly arrived at tradition of men that flies in the face of the historic understanding of scripture and holy tradition.
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 1a. That is absolutely right: there is no explicit command to baptize babies. The only explicit verses that have to do with baptism are connected to people to whom the Gospel has been preached and who reacted with repentance and faith. So baptism of babies - even if it is mere tradition - is by way of being tradition in no way in line with Christ‘s teaching or the Apostles teaching. Tradition with no backup from Christ and no backup from his Apostles is very dangerous and not to be seen biblical BECAUSE it is tradition. What is it that renders it good tradition? It can be bad tradition also! So who decides infant baptism to be good tradition?
1b. It coule also be true that credobaptism was the rule until bad tradition entered the church until it has been rediscovered and restored years later (no matter how long it took time).
2. Can you show me how Paul taught others how to discern between right and wrong traditions? This is an important question *because Paul foretold that falseness would emerge from men within* the church. So just to be clear: if Paul foretold that false doctrines and traditions would emerge from among those you are viewed as Christians - otherwise it would be impossible for them to do it »unnoticed« (Jude 1,4) and »secretly« (2.Peter 2,1) - how do we discern between right and wrong, holy and unholy, true and false, edifying and destructive? How can I know that?
Question. Maybe this was conveyed in R.C.’s message in an indirect or maybe even direct way, but for those who practice infant baptisms, do the same people who were baptized as babies/infants get a second baptism after they are old enough to repent and have full faith in Jesus? I ask because I did not grow up with the tradition of infant baptisms. I have always practiced MacArthur’s teachings.
No only one baptism. The practice in the Roman Catholic and Anglican church (maybe others but I can’t speak for them) is for those baptised as infants to be catechised (taught the faith) and confirmed by a Bishop, often as a young adult.
Thank you. I’m considering going to a Presbyterian Seminary and that’s a topic I know they believe in. I’m not quite convinced this practice is necessary in the church, but I have a lot to learn still.
@@johnmitchell4357 it’s essentially based on the idea that infant baptism is a consecration and separating out of people for the church, but faith is needed too which is “confirmed” following catechism and the laying on of hands of a bishop as a successor of the apostles.
This is often a confusing thing to Credo Baptists. I grew up SBC so I had to study this deeply. I'm solid paedobaptist now for many reasons. Study historic Covenant theology and it will become clear to you... not the retwizzled CT Baptists have had to create, but the historic position. Dr. R. Scott Clark had a series called I Will be a God to You and your Childrem that is very helpful.
Tradition often blinds us. So many Baptists wrongly believe that Reformed folk are saying baptism saves.... but that is not true. Our children are given the promises in the covenant of grace in baptism..... that they will grow up in the church, be nurtured in the gospel through thr preaching of God's word, observing but not partaking in the holy sacrament of communion, etc. Most of our children are older when the promises of the covenant are realized in their hearts, when they profess saving faith, are examined by our elders for assurance they understamd the faith, to finally becoming communicant mermbers in the church and able to receive communion.
Having lived in both traditions, paedobaptism is beautiful. How I wish as a young mother I could have experienced the comfort of understamding these promises for my children.... that the promises are for you and your children. I absolutely do not regret leaving the baptistic world for reformed theology....not reformed Baptist, but historic, confessional reformed theology. Paedobaptism is a gift from God to his beloved people. Btw, the reformed absolutely believe in adult believers baptism.
@@BrazosEyrie thank you for the detailed response in answering my question. I’m actually a student now of Dr. Clark. I’m enrolled at Westminster and am learning about Covenant Theology so I should have a decent grasp of it all by graduation, Lord willing.
R.C makes one big mistake: the nation of Israel were a physical nation, to show Gods plan and purpose, that was what the circumsision was for, to appoint them that special people in the physical. The new testament church is a physical people who are born again, and by that becoming a spiritual nation. In Christ we don't judge by the flesh but by the spirit. Baptism is not a covenant sign in the sense of a promise, it is a sign of the person who becomes a spiritual child in the household of God and shows that its old life is buried. We don't need baptism for infants to give them the promises of God. Also, if a stranger wanted to become a Jew, he not only was cicumsized but ALSO needed to be baptized, or else the conversion didn't count. R.C puts too much emphasis on circumcision being a sign of being saved, or the promise of redemption, this is simply not true. Many Reformt theologie is very good, but on baptism, Israel and endtimes they think too flat. They spiritualize what should be taken literaly, and take literaly what should be taken spiritual. John McArthur's lecture on this is far better argumented and profiund where R.C Sproul's is far fetched and also immature. Sorry to say, because I do love much of R.C's teaching, as I do John's.
Jesus said to the man on the cross next to him "today you will be with me in paradise". (Luke Chapter 23 Verse 43). Had this man been water baptized???
Water baptism happens because someone has been saved. Water baptism doesn't save.
The recent coronation did not make Charles the King. Charles became the King when his mother - Queen Elizabeth the Second - died. The coronation happened because Charles is now the King.
A coronation for William or George would be nonsense as neither of them are King.
Babies are born with Original Sin. Jesus saves us from Original Sin once we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. We baptize a life asap in case of death and to fill that life with The Holy Spirit. It’s the sin of presumption that you will have time to get baptized or receive other Sacraments before you die. Why would we risk this? Why would we deprive a baby of receiving The Holy Spirit for years? When they are old enough to understand their faith, they can confirm it with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
John 3:5 Jesus responded: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
***Acts of the Apostles 22:16 And now, why do you delay? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, by invoking his name.’
***Matthew 3:11 Indeed, I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who will come after me is more powerful than me. I am not worthy to carry his shoes. He will baptize you with the fire of the Holy Spirit.
***Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is valid for adults that accepting the fact that they are sinners want to be washed forgiven and be born spiritually clean , again in the faith of the promise of salvation. Baby or infants cannot comprehend any of these and is not capable of sinning and in need of forgiveness. The circumcision is not done for the forgiveness of sins and that is why when they become old enough to understand what is the meaning of babyish they are baptized.(eve if they are circumcised).circumcision was done por a body Purificación not for sin elimination. It was a Jewish institution to also distinguish them as the chosen people that believed in God Creator and Savior. Now, in our days we still circumcise the babies for medical and physical benefits not spiritual ones, and we adults are baptized for spiritual ones understanding the important meaning for doing it.
NO, children have always been included in God' covenant community and were given the covenant sign. There is nothing that teaches us Christ changed that. The sign was never an indication of any works from the recipients of the sign, but was the seal of God on them pointing to His faithfulness to fulfill his promises and complete the building, protecting and perfecting of his Church.
@@cigardawg Baptism is not a covenant community it is an individual acceptance of Jesus as Savior, circumcision was a community covenant.
R.C goes against his own confessions RPW in 21:1 of the confession.
The general spiritual approach is to dedicate Children to the Lord in Christianity. Now when children have grown up and reaches the age of accountability to understand the scriptures to receive salvation and Baptism with immersion in water is the general accepted spiritual process.
We cannot compare Circumcision and Baptism one is an act of obedience in a covenant to God the other is a testimony of being saved Grace through faith.