Having come from a Mormon, and then Baptist background coming to believe in infant baptism was a struggle. Rightly or not, I came to see that in the Bible, since we are dealing with the first generation of Christians, most would have been adults. That said, the Bible also speaks of whole households being baptized. I couldn't believe that no infants or toddlers were present. I believe that if you base baptism solely on a profession of belief, you are making it a work of man, and minimizing or eliminating God 's role. This is how I personally came to believe in infant baptism . This is a comment, and one I really don't want to 'chat' about.
There is no reason to think that the household mention in the Bible is also referring to infants. To make the main doctrine out of speculation like that should be considered heresy.
@@keithcambra9760 How on earth is that true? I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but I sincerely do not understand this logic. Even Dr. Duncan in this video states that they do not 'assume' election of that baby that they are baptizing. So how is that putting anything in God's hands? We Baptist are not the judge of anyone's salvation. It is the person who is coming forward for membership (or who has just professed salvation) who tells us they have come to Christ through faith. We honestly can only take their profession at it's word, and attempt to see the evidences of a renewed heart but we are honestly leaving it between the professor telling us the truth and asking some checking questions to make sure they truly understand what they claim to be professing. But we are not the 'judge' of their salvation. We ask then and only then after a profession of faith that they receive the sign of the New Covenant of baptism. I sincerely get confused over Paedobaptism because you are baptizing an infant or toddler, what does that do? Because you still doctrinally believe they have to at a later point come to faith in Jesus for actual salvation? What was the purpose of the baptism? How does this mean it is, 'Putting it in God's hands?' Putting what in God's hands? We Baptist are just saying that we think that model is out of order with how the Bible presents baptism. It is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then be baptized as an outward sign of your inward change by Christ to identify yourself with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (We believe baptism by immersion and for professing believers only best illustrates what Paul was teaching is our spiritual reality in Romans 6). Please do not read into my words any hatred or sarcasm towards you. I mean this in love and out of a sense to advance even my understanding of the heart behind your comment. If you would rather email me directly instead of YouTUbe commenting back and forth you can at theosmatters@icloud.com. Sincerely. I know 'UA-cam comment debates can get blown out of proportion.'
I think that’s a very interesting point. I had never thought of it like that before. Love you sister and am thankful for God’s grace that he extended to all of us who were desperately in need of a savior. ❤️
I have served in both the Presbyterian and Baptist Church and I am so pleased to see these brothers clearly articulate the issues and positions regarding the administration of water baptism and both brothers point us to the scripture and to strive to keep within the principles and practices of scripture.
That shot of Darrin Patrick 😢🙏🏽 praying for my pastoral brothers who get caught in the crossfires and crushed under the many burdens of this killing field of a ministry. May we never become so preoccupied with debating/dialoguing doctrine that we forsake our call to bear one another’s burden. There is a war, and we’re on the frontlines…there is an Enemy and he’s not flesh and blood. Make sure to care for your souls my dear brothers, you are loved and cherished…by others, but most especially by God. Whoever needed to read this, cherish the mercy of God relieving your soul of condemnation and exhaustion…and find rest under His gentle and kind yoke. ❤
Over 40 years ago I attended a Baptist seminary with the intention of becoming a Baptist preacher. After about a year I realize how narrow the Baptist view of the Old Testament was and moved on to one of the mainline protestant denominations and became a preacher there.
As a confessional Lutheran I would argue that your language about "Old Covenant" versus "New Covenant" pits the O.T. against the N.T. When you read both properly understanding Law and Gospel you realize that God works in the Old in the same way as in the New - by grace! When one rightly reads both as containing Law and Gospel you then see Christ throughout. Only then can one understand baptism. Pax.
Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians agree with Lutherans on this. God does work the same way in the OT and NT. But the concept of 2 covenants in redemptive history is right from the Bible. You can find it explained in Hebrews 8.
@@erc9468: Thank you. You are correct that the Bible does indeed speak of the Old and New Covenants. However, my point was that they are commonly taught and preached they are pitted against each other as if God worked one way in the Old and another in the New. Paul is very clear that that is not the case (Romans 4).
My question is, as a former Baptist now Episcopalian, who are we as mere Men to determine whether or not infants are capable of receiving baptism? Baptism is God's work, not Man's whether as an infant or an adult. Baptism marks one as a part of the community of the New Covenant, given to God. Samuel was given to the Nazerite vow, a priesthood, at infancy. Why shouldn't we give children to God in Holy baptism? *I did appreciate this discourse and the respect between the two views
ZSMH_91 St Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
Jason Brower and how exactly is one born again? Yes it’s through baptism just the way the early church and church fathers understood it who were directly taught by the apostles.
Circumcision was not ethnic in the OT either, e.g., Abraham's non-ethnic servants, Gen.17, 34 and those non-ethnics from the Exodus, Ex. 12:38, 44, 48. A whole lot more could have been said on this issue.
IRENAEUS “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). Edit: Born Again = Baptism, sorry Baptist’s
Early Christian catholic practices the whole household. Of lydia stephanus. Household whole members of family.children members of family. Children getting close to God by baptism. Babies original inherited sin. 33ad babtism to now. And change in 1600 by John smith
If Jesus and other fellows back then were circumcised as a child, and which was the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, then why receiving additional sign by baptism when they entered the NT era? Why the exiting sign needed to be replaced by baptism? What does Baptism truly mean? Baptism is an outward sign of the person's Christian dignity. Only a coveted person who put his trust in Christ can get baptized. if an infant can receive a baptism, then anyone without any confession in Jesus can receive it in order to be part of the Covenant community? What is the age limit for children baptism? up to 8? Why can a 7 year old boy get a children baptism but a 9 year old can't? Did God set the age limit or the men did? In OT, the Bible talked about Infant boy must be circumcised when he reached day 8. God's message is very clear about how his command needs to be done, to whom(a boy), at what time(at day 8). It was so important that Good mentioned it in the Bible over and over again. If Infant Baptism was commanded in NT, why can't we find any obvious verses (the "household" in Act16 is an invalid example btw since no mention of infant, true, you can argue there might be, but I can also say there was no infant)?
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.
PROOF OF INFANT BAPTISM “Therefore go and make disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20 All means all, including infants! “Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, EVERYONE OF YOU, in the name of Jesus Christ...For the promise is unto you and your CHILDREN.” The promise is also for our children! Everyone of you also includes infants! Also children are to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:13-15), to enter the kingdom of God one must be “born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5,6) hence children should also be baptized. Infants can also believe (Matthew 18:6). Indeed by their own reason and strength children cannot believe, neither can a grown person (1 Cor. 2:14). But the Holy Ghost can and does work faith in little children as well as adults. Baptism is called a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a washing by which the Holy Ghost regenerates us or works faith in us. The assertion that little children are not conscious of their faith does not prove that they have no faith; neither is an infant conscious of his life, yet he lives. Also adult Christians are not always conscious of their faith, as when they sleep, still they have faith!
all means all nations. Not all ages. Read it in context. Author is making a distinction that the promises of the new covenant are not ethnic, to the Jews only but gentiles as well.
Jon Aman yes you are right about how He is making it to where it’s not just the Jew but to ALL nations. That is, all human beings, young, and old, are to be baptized.
I agree with you . Infants need to be baptized because infants need what baptism gives. Psalm 51 v 5 . Infants are sinners and need forgiveness. Infants can and do have faith. David wrote in one of the Psalms that he had faith at his mother's breast. John the baptizer had faith in his mother's womb. Infants cry and have faith that their mother will feed them. That their father's will change them and protect them .Not baptizing infants put them in real jeopardy. I am so glad my Mother took me to church as a one month old infant to be baptized. Baptism brought me to faith in Christ.
St. Ignatius of Antioch agreed! I was actually against it until I heard the Sproul and McArthur debate. Biblically it’s a mandate & it fits in with the covenant AND in bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth in God’s strength and His will. Amen amen.
We trust in God's grace that he will judge fairly & rightly. Baptism is not a means/part of salvation or eternal life. Therefore she is not required to be baptized.
@@tkleo2006 I don't find that answer sufficient. First of all, she is denied the sign of the covenant, and so is not considered a true MEMBER of the church. She is prevented from partaking of the Lord's supper. If baptism is no big deal, as you want to portray, why bother with it at all? My daughter will remain non baptized, and peripheral to the body. Why WOULDN'T you give her the sign in good faith? Otherwise, you consciously reject her by denying her baptism. No matter what you say, you HAVE to address someone like my daughter. You have 2 choices. Why would you not choose the more inclusive one?
She will be covered by grace just like the thief on the cross. YHWH doesn't command people to do that which they are incapable of. That's not how obedience works.
That was very ecumenical and very charitable. To my Baptist brothers, we should start talking about the federal headship of the new Covenant and the discontinuities between the mediators of every covenant, which God has set up and how the new Covenant has a perfect mediator who is able to make perfect those who draw near to him.
I am the believers baptism. I was baptized and grew UP in a presbyterian Church. IAm now attending a southern baptist Church but I have somE doubts and I know some people that were baptized In the. Baptist Church who are now back in the Roman Catholic Group. If you doubt infant baptism,I also have some doubts about believers or adult baptiism by some baptist Churches which baptize so-called “ adult believers indiscriminately.
Alpha Chaser the fact is the early church Baptised Children. St Augustine a church Father said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
It really comes down to this.. Which Era has more credibility of the early faith.. The reformers or the early church fathers.. Seeing how the reformers could not agree on anything and anabaptist being considered radicals even by the reformers.. Imma stick with the early church fathers.. It's even biblical as the Greek word used in the book of act describes 3 generation of families getting Baptized you would assume there would be children in those homes as well. Furthermore there are writings within the first few hundred years of the church who show the early church did perform infant baptism. Lastly. Why would a child growing up in a Christian home need to profess their faith when their parents should already be raising them as Christian children in the first place..
Marc Marmolejo St Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
Infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved and part of God’s covenant community when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct and to make the decision to be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins! The false doctrine of infant baptism leads people to suppress the truth and to think that they have been forgiven by God when they have not been Scripturally.
Just as we are born with the original sin of Adam through no specific sin or fault of our own, so we can receive the blessing and grace of being reborn in Christ through no merit or action of our own. Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours; yes we can and should baptize infants.
@@kimdanielsen4368 It doesn't... and I sincerely don't mean to malign or be rude to our Presbyterian brothers and sisters. But if you YouTUbe search for the John MacArthur vs RC Sproul debate they did on baptism, it is brought out very clear (by even Dr. Sproul) that infant baptism is not a clear biblical precedent or command. He admits it is a 'logical inference' that they make from certain references of Scripture, the Old Covenant sign being given to infants, and church history as a precedence. MacArthur clearly draws out that infant baptism cannot be defended in a strictly biblical sense. Again I am not criticizing Presbyterians but I do draw a line in the sand if they say it is Biblical. You cannot validate it Biblicaly. You have to make connections and logical arguments to make your case and use a few references of scripture to supplement the view.
I understand that parents want to see their children go to heaven, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that you have the right to play God and baptise your children into salvation, esp. as infants. It is each individuals choice to make when they understand what it means, not the parents or anyone else. I would say that baptizing your unknowing child to get them into heaven is just as bad as the Catholics who pray and pay for the dead stuck in "pergutory". That is not our job. It is the individuals responsibility, again, to come to salvation. The Bible says to study to show thyself approved unto God. The Bible warns us not to add to, nor take away from what is written in the Book! Tread carefully. Study because your life depends on it.
BabyDeer219 Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” When children become adults they still need to believe in jesus christ to get saved. It is ok to baptize children. Jesus does not say anything about not baptizing children. Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
What baptism are we talking about ? - The Baptism of John (the Baptist) [water]? - The Apostolic Baptism (apostles on Pentecost?) [Holy Spirit and fire]? - The ecclesial baptism (in various Christian churches) [water and Holy Spirit]? What Baptism? And what eternal chastisement incur a person baptized as a baby (if indeed pedobaptism is a terrible thing) ?
why argue with this topic. this is not mandatory whats mandatory is when your in age of conversion. this is just a tradition. this is not a sin. if you dont want dont do it. dont fight each other about it. please.. May the Lord have mercy on us.
Infant baptism is almost always done by sprinkling or pouring, not by immersion. The Bible says that baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). A person must go down into the water and come up out of it (Acts 8:38,39; Mark 1:9,10). Bible baptism requires much water (John 3:23). Also, the Greek word for baptism means “to dip, plunge, or immerse.” When baptism is commanded in the Bible by Jesus and His Apostles, they are commanding immersion, because this is what the word means! Infant baptism does not fit God’s pattern on any of these points. The evidence clearly shows that Bible baptism is an immersion, not a sprinkling or pouring.
I wish Dr. Gavin Ortlund was there to share his view as well. His perspective on the cathecumens might be really helpful. Are the cathecumens part of the Church. This might be a grey area for many. For credobaptists, infants and young children of a Christian family are young cathecumens.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household? Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well? Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age. I’m going to be a slight bit facetious here, but mostly for the Baptist’s benefit - if holding onto that stance, you would also need to believe that the moment your dad, or husband (whomever is head of household) accepts Christ.. then you, all those living in your house (besides the unmentioned infants, apparently) and also your slaves… would all need to be baptized then too 🙂 -- Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol. -- In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
The Church does it from the day one in a past 20 centuries... just as Apostles did as witnessed in the Bible. Outside of The Church, there is no Baptism... there is a theatrical show named that way.
If people would study their bibles they would find it is not only unnecessary but impossible. Infants being put through the motions of baptism can't lend their belief to the process. It is the adults doing this who probably need to be baptized by faith.
Baptize your child so that if the child dies before growing old enough to make a profession of faith they will go to Heaven and not Limbo. Limbo is not a bad place---it is a place of great peace and natural happiness----but it is not nearly as good as Heaven.
TravvyTops to bring them into the new Covenant. Jews used to enter the Old Covenant at 8 days old through Circumcision, baptism is the new circumcision
TravvyTops It’s a 50/50 shot, they are or they are not going to follow Jesus. It’s rational to baptize the children into the covenant rather than play this weird psychology game of will you/wouldn’t you follow Jesus
Dáithí Ó Pléimeann peter on the day of Pentecost said Baptism is for you and your children. He also says Baptism now saves us. St Paul says baptism is the the new circumcision that’s how we enter the New Covenant. Jewish boys were circumcised at 8 days old so why would he use this parallel. Best thing to do is research the early church and church Fathers and they all baptised infants.
@@georgeibrahim7945 Peter on the day of Pentecost said Baptism is for you and your children. Then, what it says on the same verse/s? Who is baptized? The 'You' only or the 'You and your children'?
@@georgeibrahim7945 Faith was not required to be a jew in the OT- you were born of jewish parents. Faith is required for salvation in the NT and babies can't believe. Why do you assume that the word 'children' means 'babies' or 'infants' and not 'children who have the capacity of placing saving faith in Christ'?
As I read John 3:5 “Yahusha answered, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Ruach, he is unable to enter into the reign of Elohim. “ I strongly believe that Yahusha is very clear with his word and Elohim is not the author of confusion. Yahusha said we most be born of the “Water” but he never said at what age or How and where we should be immersed.
I believe John 3:5 to be referring to spiritual water of the baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit, see Ezekiel 36:25 (I think!), and Titus 3:5. If it meant literal water baptism then that would mean someone who has not been baptised could not enter the kingdom of God. How would you reconcile that with all the Scripture that says salvation comes through faith alone?
RisingDawn Jesus said we must be born again of Water and Spirit, not just Spirit. It seems that God is kind of predictable in a way since He always starts new things in the same way with “water and the Spirit“. Consider the following: 1) The first creation came from the earth which was covered with WATER and the SPIRIT hovered over the waters and from the water emerged land and man and God’s first creation (Gen 1:1-2). 2) A new humanity was started with Noah through WATER and SPIRIT. The ark went through the water and a dove (representing the Spirit) hovered overhead with an olive branch. Peter said this represents baptism which “now saves us” (1 Peter 3:18-21). 3) The nation of Israel was created through the WATER of the Red Sea (baptism) with the cloud and fire of the Holy SPIRIT overhead - my oh my, again we have water and Spirit (Ex 14). 4) Ezekiel then describes what the New Covenant will look like and he said we will be sprinkled with clean WATER and his SPIRIT will be placed in us (Ez 36:25). Born again, I suspect. 5) Then Jesus, right before saying you must be born of “water and the Spirit” had just gone down into the WATER of the Jordan and the SPIRIT came down and landed on his head. Again, water and the Spirit (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:29). 6) Jesus teaches Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above which is accomplished through “WATER and the SPIRIT.“ 7) When Jesus finished these words what was the first thing he did? He went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). 8)At the first Holy Ghost Gospel Revival meeting Peter stood up at Pentecost and said, “Repent, and be baptized (WATER) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy SPIRIT“ (Acts 2:38). 9) Peter also says “Baptism now saves you“ (1 Pet 3:21), and Paul is told “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and Paul writes that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration (WATER) and renewal in the Holy SPIRIT“ (Titus 3:5).
1) What is the minimum age should a person to be baptized? 2) Till the person gets baptized what religion is he/she? 3) If the person gets baptized at the age 16 and above, what religion will be written in school admission form? Kindly quote Bible verses.
There is no minimum age, the person is not Christian until baptized, there is nothing to fill in the blank for school forms (what school requires religion to be recorded?!)
For those saying "Baptism is God's work not man's" is the Lord's Table God's work or man's? If we are going to parse the means of sacraments/observances let's go for it: why is credo-eucharism ok but paedo-eucharism wrong? Why must the lords table be for confessing Christian's? It's almost as if you think the sacraments are meant for penitent Christians only (the true church).
I am new to this 'debate' (which I frankly find ridiculous) but I arrived at *exactly* that question and have yet to receive an answer. If we are giving one of the sacraments (baptism) to the babies then why privy them from the other (the Lord's supper)? I ask only rhetorically because I am not persuaded that *either* is for babies.
I liked the civility of the conversation. I was particularly amazed at the statement the Presbyterian fellow made, "Baptists have an enviable position with regards to shepherding their flock..." I liken the entire infant baptism thing to arranged marriages. It is as if two fathers meet and they say, "My son will marry your daughter and that will benefit them and us together." Sadly the son despises the daughter chosen for him and loves the younger daughter and she loves him. Now you expect the son and the daughter chosen for him, who actually despises him also, to form a pact with God to "Love, honor and cherish one another till death..." You are forcing them to live a lie that you as a parent placed upon them. It is a small wonder that so many people cannot stomach organized religion. They never received a call from God and to make matters worse, they have something so very special as a relationship with God through His Son forced upon them. It is quite a common and human thing to oppose anything forced upon one's self. I am convinced that failed relationship experience is something the Presbyterian man is speaking to, if not directly, in an indirect sense.
11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christb and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. Col 2:10-11 baptism and circumcision go hand in hand. when do yiou circumcise on the 8th day, when do you baptize? on the 8th day. it is the christinizatiion of the Jewish practice
Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation? Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, as prescribed by the Old Covenant. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony. The conversion process is described below. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant - New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
Baptizing unbelieving babies is totally unScriptural. Only believers were baptized just as Christ himself has instructed. "16 He who believes [who adheres to and trusts in and relies on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] **and is baptized** will be saved [ from the penalty of eternal death]; but he who does not believe [who does not adhere to and trust in and rely on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] will be condemned" Mark 16:16 (AMP.BIBLE) Belief MUST come before baptism. Babies cannot believe neither can they consent to be baptized. Even then they are only sprinkled with water which is not Christian baptism. Full immersion is the true "One baptism". "Buried with him in baptism"....
Earnestly contending for the faith you know the family’s faith is sufficient and there are plenty of examples of this in the bible. In Acts as well Peter is speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering. Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.
To @@georgeibrahim7945 The exact Divinely taught formula for being saved is given by Jesus Christ himself. "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" Mark 16:15-16 (KJV) Without 'belief' even 'baptism, by water immersion is not Scriptural or authentic. For Christ specifically teaches that *belief* must FIRST come before baptism. This is proven most emphatically by : Acts 8:36-37. "As they continued along on the way, they came to some water, and the eunuch exclaimed, See, [here is] water! What is to hinder my being baptized? 37 And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart [ if you have a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah and accept Him as the Author of your salvation in the kingdom of God, giving Him your obedience, then ] you may" Acts 8:36-37 (AMP.BIBLE) Something unbelieving babes in arms, simply cannot do.....
Christ himself has made it quite plain the BELIEF MUST first come before baptism if they wised to be saved. "Jesus said to them, “So wherever you go in the world, tell everyone the Good News. 16 **Whoever believes** and is baptized will be saved". Mark 16:15-16 (GW). It's impossible to for babies to believe... Besides they do not need to be baptized as they are already covered by their Christian parents. "14 For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy." 1 Cor 7:14-15 (NLT)
We must be old I hear them say for one to be baptized Perhaps it is the children then that men now do dispise Have not they heard that from the mouths of babes shall then come prais Hosana in the highest His will on earth be made So suffer then the children to come now to his side and put away the fallicy That's born of human pride. The lord loves best his children that come so swift and free to grace that brings salvation He purchased on a tree.
SO because Jesus said let the children come to Him, that was his approval to sprinkle as a form of baptism babies? And because we baptist are trying to following Scripture examples of baptism being by immersion and only of professing believers (regardless of age) that therefore means we 'despise' children? That's a terrible gross misrepresentation. I try my best to honor my faithful Presbyterian brothers and sisters in Christ by seeing us both trying to serve the Gospel and advance God's Kingdom, while we disagree on matters of polity and baptism. But man this is pretty bad of you, I would never so malign my Presbyterian co laborers in the Gospel. To accuse us Baptists of rejecting children and having our human pride be the birth of baptism of professing believers only is woefully untrue. Yes I can tell this must some sort of poem but it's point is clear. I could easily accuse you of 'hating' children because you sprinkle them and that can cause them as they age to think they are 'ok' with God because they have already received the sign on the New Covenant. But that would be terrible of me and I don't think that.... but it's the same type example of what this poem is saying against us Baptists.
for those who don't believe in infant baptism what is the right age to be baptized and why? what if the person does not get the opportunity to reach that age and yet has already sinned?
@@keithcambra9760 Galatians tells us that we receive the Abrahams blessing through faith alone, there is very little to indicate in the Bible that circumcising has anything to do with infant baptism.
@@keithcambra9760 Colossians 2:11-12 talks in the context of circumcising the hearth (Romans 2:29, Deuteronomy 30:6), and a baptism that comes by faith (read Colossians 2: 12 "...you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God,..."). Also, we know that salvation comes by faith alone, not through baptism alone (Gal 2:16, Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9). Piper: “A true Jew is one inwardly, by the Spirit, not outwardly, by flesh or lineage.
Do what the Bible says to do. Don't make up your own ways. Follow the word of God. Know this... when unanointed yet educated men begin to make decisions about who is converted and who is not, they are LOST. Discernment comes with anointing, not education. I would bet any amount of money both of these gents are cessationists. Men in love with their own minds. Men who place seminary education above Holy anointing. LOTS of pride and carnality. A lovely conversation between two men who have never met the conditions to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is also why they are cessationists. They can be nothing else.
I see Jesus watching this conversation from the sidelines and scratching his head again. So much talk of exclusivity. And yet Jesus never spoke or behave that way.
It is not true that you must be an adult.... Many young children are baptized after they are able to show that they understand the gospel. I have seen many 6 and 7 year olds baptized.
In my Baptist home church, it was quite common for children who grew up in the church to be baptized at a young age. I was baptized at 15 and that was late.
@@juanitadudley4788 Appreciate your comment. I think you would agree that there is a world of difference between an 8 year old and 8 day old.. Eight year olds are capable of fully understanding the gospel.
To come to Christ one must first believe on Him. That is the very first step. Let me know when an infant jumps outta their crib and hollers I repent and believe in Jesus. God gave us freewill to choose to have faith in Him or not. So by baptizing babies one is simply placing their will on that child.
I see people claiming that infant baptism will bring the infants closer to God. You have to understand that baptism was for those who had confessed christ as their saviour. There's no any other way to God other than through our lord jesus christ, claiming that baptism will get you closer to God is wrong and misleading, nothing short of heresy.
_Why do Christians baptize?_ [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16 _Why do Christians baptize infants?_ Infants are included in “the whole creation.” _But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_ Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41. A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16. _But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_ Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16 _But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_ “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is noway to be closer to Jesus than this! _But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_ No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
@@Mygoalwogel i don't think an infant understands anything you tell them let alone the gospel of christ.. next time you see an infant cry just ask them why they crying cause they will shock at how good with holding a conversation!
@@Mygoalwogel john the baptist was filled by the holy spirit while he was in his mothers womb, yes.. why? Because he was a prophet of God who would proclaim the coming of the messiah. And he preached and baptised those who repented, not forgeting he said to jesus that he needed no baptism but jesus insisted.. and jesus was 30yrs not an infant.
It is my view that the Scripture is absolutely clear that believer's baptism is the NT teaching. Any other position must be inferred. Note that I said "believer's baptism", not adult baptism. There is no question that paedobaptism is a holdover from Catholicism. The Anabaptists had it right and ended up being the most persecuted reformers of the 16th & 17th centuries. There is great danger in paedobaptism for a child to construe some special position in the kingdom due to his/her chosenness. Believer's baptism is absolutely clear in its teaching and administration. The only thing that is not crystal clear is the mode, and on that there must be liberty.
'Any other position must be inferred.' Believer's baptism is also inferred, since it infers that the command to administer the covenant sign to children has ceased, despite no explicit teaching of this. All baptism positions are inferred.
Noel Soto no baptism is done once, a infant that has been baptised does conformation when they are a little older. In the Old covenant Jewish boys were circumcised at 8’days old, baptism is how we enter into the New Covenant and are born again.
@@leonotos In response to your second question, this is where the Baptist (who holds to "believer's baptism") would give a different answer than the Presbyterian or the Anglican (who hold to the "paedobaptism" (infant baptism) view). The Baptist would say someone should be baptised when they come to a position later in life when they make an independent profession of faith. They don't believe that infant baptism is a true baptism. An example of this would be Charles Spurgeon who got baptised when he came to believe he had been saved, even though he was baptised as a baby. The Presbyterian (or Anglican, Methodist..etc.), would say no to being baptised again because the individual, now older, has now by faith laid hold of the promises from their infant baptism. I hope that helps!
Akim Oetam St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
Gavin Ortlund described credobaptist position more precisely, which is delaying the baptism until that person is capable to make a profession of faith. This has nothing to do with age. It has more things to do with the profession of faith. To a certain degree, we can see this in how St. Gregory Nazianzen taught people to delay the baptism until the children are about 3 to 4 years old and capable to give answers, even if they are not perfect.
Baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
Not approving infant baptism, was to ensure only EMPLOYABLE PEOPLE BE THEIR MEMBERS ! Christ died for ALL and not for EMPLOYABLE PEOPLE ONLY. When John The baptist, started Baptism it was for forgiveness of sins for jews. A child was circumcised on 8th day to be a Jew ! For christians, its not circumcision but baptism that makes him a christian. That's the reason why St. Paul and Peter said circumcision is not required for a christian. We are saved by FAITH and reasoning power is not required. In fact, these two are opposite ! In OT we see that faith of one person( Abraham, and others) saves MANY ! So FAITH of parent is sufficient to save their child. Why pastors oppose infant baptism, is that, they are not sure if the child would be A EARNING MEMBER WHEN IT GROWS OLD !
Seem pretty obvious to me… ✝✝✝ Epistle of St Paul to the Romans Chapter 3 [23] For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. ✝✝✝ Book of Psalms Psalm 50 [7] For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. ✝✝✝ Epistle of St Paul to the Romans Chapter 5 [12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. ✝✝✝ Gospel According to St John Chapter 3 [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Pack up the babies And grab the old ladies And everyone goes… TO GET BAPTIZE
Say! I know! Let' act like our confessional standards and the historic practice of Christians for 1600 years don't matter as much as playing nice with Baptists. That's a surefire way to strengthen the church in the 21st century! Let's just lend legitimacy to those whose position on baptism effectively de-christianizes the vast majority of the church who happened to be baptized in their infancy.... Yeah... thanks Rev. PCA. That should work brilliantly.
@@americaisajokenow1090 The baptism by fire is actually being burned in hell, if you read the passage carefully. Matthew 3:10-12 V10: Those who bring forth good fruit will be baptized with the Holy Spirit; Those who don't bring forth good fruit will be baptized by fire, and here in v10 it means 'cast into the fire' V11: Two kinds of baptism - with the Spirit, with fire. V12: Gathered wheat into the barn - those who are baptized by the Spirit; Burn up chaff with unquenchable fire = baptism with fire. It's just a question of properly comparing verses
Baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
George Penton yep Peter on the day of Pentecost said Baptism is for you and your Children. St Paul teaches us baptism is the new circumcision and yes that’s right Jewish boys were circumcised at 8 days old.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Matthew 19:14).” Where do you see Jesus saying anything about infant baptism? On the contrary, this passage is saying that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the little ones which means if a innocent child would pass away, he or she would be welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven.
@@leonotos Jesus did not say, the little children are already unto me. He said, let the little children COME unto me, come unto the saving waters of Baptism. Protestants always emphasize that salvation cannot be earned, and that without grace we cannot be saved. They are right about this. Babies need grace, too. That's why they need to be baptized.
George Penton St Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
The question has not been answered. Jesus tells his disciples not to stop the little ones from coming to him and that’s all he said. He didn’t order or recommend infants baptism, but His saving grace would extend to them (the little ones). I must ask another question, how many times does a person needs to be baptized ? Jesus is not interested on mans traditions.
@Fairyprincess, hi! Which is why there is a post-baptismal catechumenate where the child learns the content of the Faith and how to live it. The infant baptism in my opinion is kind of: 1) the parents believed 2) the congregation believed 3) the infant has yet to reach capacity to believe. 4) this is our public declaration that the parents and congregation are responsible for guiding this child in the walk of the christian faith. At least for my church, I'm not sure of the rest, we practice post infant adult baptism (directly translated as confirmation of faith ritual) when the child comes of age (at least 18) where he can profess and believe with his tongue that he is a Christian.
1) First of all, the GREEK verse gives no indication of timing or order. 2) Second, new believers had themselves and their ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS baptized- spouses, elderly parents, slaves, children. There was no requirement that everyone in the household believe at that moment; they were expected to follow the lead of the head of the household.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household? Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well? Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age. Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol. Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday. -- In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
Great Conversation. To me, the idea that baptism is as an adult choice is much easier distilled than baptizing infants. For infant baptism, i have to dig really hard, string multiple passages together, reinterpret, and leap to conclusions. While adult baptism, well it's days in right there in the word of God, multiple times, in the new testament.
So sad to see people forcing babies into the system. Only faith in his grace saves. And only the saved can be then baptized. Infant (false) 'baptism' inoculates children to the real Baptism of faith. To die with Christ and be raised with him. This by repentance and faith.
Jason Brower Peter tells us Baptism saves us but your saying only the saved can be baptised? To enter the old Covenant one had to be circumcised and it was done at 8 days of age St Paul tells us baptism is the New Circumcision so doesn’t make sense with him Using this parallel if he meant excluded infants from baptism. We see in the bible families and their whole house holds get baptised. St Peter said on the day of Pentecost baptism is for you and your Children
The baptism that saved is spiritual it's the new birth in Christ, the baptism that is what happens inside side the believer. The baptism of water which does not save, it's just removal of dirt from the body and is a picture of what has happened already inside us. 1 Peter 21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". In about households in children there is no arguing the children are saved and can be saved I was saved at a very young age but it was at the age where I could believe and understood. The Bible never says infants were baptized. Children can be baptized if they're Believers in Christ and saved.
My biggest issue with Baptists is that they're too individualistic in their thinking (which is why I think they're super prevalent in America and not many other places). As a Presby, I think the covenant is for families and Baptism is a mark of the covenant just like circumcision was.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household? Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well? Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age. Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol. Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday. -- In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
I'm assuming you're limiting this definition of 'no sprinkling' strictly to that of a Baptist's position on New Testament baptism? A general statement that there's 'NO sprinkling in Scripture' would obviously be ludicrous and would have to ignore several instances of Old Testament ritual washing/cleansing by sprinkling..
re: sprinkling- Exodus 24:8 (cf. Hebrews 9:21); Leviticus 14:7, 16:14; Numbers 19; 1 Peter 1:2. Some of these are blood, some are water, but OT cleansing rites included sprinkling. Though baptizo means "immerse," the disciples were chastened in Mark 7 for not "baptizing" their hands before eating, so baptize does not necessarily mean full immersion. If you make the argument that baptism is a continuation of the mikvah (Leviticus 19:18-19, et al), then you have to note that mikvahs were not performed one to another; you mikvah-ed your self.
@@VicLabs "Baptidzo" does not mean immerse. That is utterly false. Even my Baptist professor (now a well-known N.T. scholar) who taught Greek at an SBC university explained that it does not mean that. It includes immerse, but is not limited by it.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household? Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well? Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age. Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol. Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday. -- In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
I have a question for my pedobaptist brothers . In my situation I was saved at 42 from an atheistic worldview and then baptized . How would the pedobaptist deal with someone like that ? Would they perform baptism on them ? I was baptized in the RC tradition but never brought up in it and didn’t consider it as an official baptism in Christ . Thank you for your input .
Great question. How I see it is like the prodigal son. You belonged to Christ when u were united to Him in trinitarian baptism as an infant. You fell away from Christ later on, for various reasons. Then you had repented and returned to Him. That is my story as well. When the prodigal returned he repented and the father embraced him. But he never stopped being his son. Just an unfaithful son. And by Gods grace he repented and came home and was no longer the unfaithful son but the reunited son
Jamie Gallagher I commented above hope its helpful. I was baptized rc wasn't necessarily atheistic but was far from God and had my own amazing repentence experience. I would just add that what makes baptism official is what God does to us in baptism. Which is he united us to Christ. This is the benefit of all Trinitarian baptism rc, protestant, orthodox. What we do with our baptism is the important question. As luther always reminded- "remember your baptism" baptism objectively changes your reality and officially marks us as Christians. Those who belong to Christ. The tragedy is when infants receive this mark as they should, but then are not raised in the faith and fall away. But God is gracious and patient and in the end what matters is how we finish the race. Bless you
Baptism bestows saving grace therefore a child that is not baptised has no saving grace. This is why Catholics had to come up with the idea of "Limbo", a happy place but not along side God. Does God punish the babies of unbelievers for the sins of their fathers? The Bible says no, therefore I believe babies of unbelievers who pass away is with God because they have no understanding between right and wrong and conciquently do not need to be baptised.
Getting water baptize doesn't saved anyone it by simply believe the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 .. You have to hear and understand the gospel to believe and a infant can't understand the gospel to believe... Water Baptism is for believers not for unbelievers.. Infant baptism is not biblical..
@patriceagulu8315 If you believe water baptism saved you then you are in trouble.. And my Bible is the pure and perfect word of God the KJV Bible The blood of Jesus Christ saved you not water baptism..In Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins In Hebrews 9:22 Without shedding of blood is no remission the context is no forgiveness of sins ..In Romans 5:8 Much more then being justified by his blood we shall be saved from the wrath through him..We are justified and saved by the blood of Jesus Christ not water....In 1 John the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin not water...In 1 Peter 3:21 Said baptism doesn't put away the filthiness of the flesh.. You can get water baptize until you blue in the face and when you dead you will end up in a burning hell...In Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is a gift of God 9 Not by works lest any man should boast.. And getting water baptize is of yourselves and anything of yourselves is works...We are saved by faith not by works..
@patriceagulu8315 John the Baptist baptize Jesus for one reason to manifest Jesus as their Messiah in John 1:31 And I knew him not but that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come baptizing with water.... And John the Baptist was baptized Jews not Gentiles Lean how to rightly dividing the word of truth that is a different dispensation... Jesus didn't need to be baptized to be saved...
We were all baptized when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Thinking that getting baptized as an adult does anything to you causes problems. It's not magic. It's a symbol. I was baptized when I was 18 after much thinking. Did it make any difference? I got wet.
Bilbo, How do you support this biblically? I am with you that we are baptized into Christ and his death and his resurrection, but Jesus’ baptism is a separate event from ours. If it wasn’t, why would Jesus institute baptism in Matthew 28? Why would St Paul spend so much space in his letters explaining the promises and benefits of baptism if ours didn’t matter? Why would St Peter command Cornelius and his family to be baptized AFTER they received the Holy Spirit? I don’t see how you get there, Thanks,
Oh dear. You can be so close and yet so far away. Read your bible people. No where in Scripture does it place restrictions on who to baptize. End of story. No biblical support of only baptizing adults.
@@Runner4530 the bible clearly speaks about confessing with your mouth and believing with your heart. An infant can hardly confess or understand what that means or understand believing with all your heart.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household? Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well? Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age. Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol. Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday. -- In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
It’s funny that all the arguments didn’t start till men or parrots started creating their own church 1600 years after the first church was established by Jesus Christ himself. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
@The Batman 1 Peter 3:21 New International Version 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you(A) also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience(B) toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(C)
Baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature in need of regeneration and a proclivity to sinful conduct.The biblical basis for the belief is generally found in Genesis 3 (the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden), in a line in Psalm 51:5 ("I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"), and in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"). -- Wikipedia
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.'” (Gen. 2:16-17) “[The Lord said] ‘Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’ The man said, ‘The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.’ Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.’ . . . To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.'” (Gen. 3:11-19)
Infant baptism is paganism. I am from Eastern Europe and I’m sick and tired of this practice. True reformed are the ones that are always reforming. Why get stuck here?
Michael Hrisca St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
Kimberly Reeves the words an infant is baptized isn't in the Bible. But the Bible does talk about whole households being baptized. Now we don't know their was babies their but most likely their was. Also... when Peter saves the thousands of families at pentacost out of those thousands of families do you think their is a good chance their was ONE baby? I think so.
Rookie Student I still don't believe we should assume scripture is saying anything when it isn't. To ORIGINAL POSTER: Really? Don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? Because of a secondary issue? You should speak with your pastor about this comment you have made, and the accusation you have raised against Christians who do not believe in Pedo-Baptism...
Rookie Student assumptions kill people. Why didn't Jesus get baptized as a child? God could have commanded Mary to do so, but Jesus said it was to fulfill all righteousness. We should imitate Jesus and how others were baptized in the bible and not put our faith in a "probably" "possibly" "most likely" that's dangerous when talking about salvation
Luiz Henrique St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
What a wonderful discourse between two gospel men. Regardless of your position, you have to marvel at the love between two brothers.
I marvel that the the pastor that believes in baptism doesn't say more to the others very dangerous view.
@@jasondbrower Because he believes the Bible and knows how dangerous your view is: Romans 14:4.
@@russedav5 Just a stupid divisive comment on your part brother.
@@franklinbumgartener1323what? How is his comment divisive.
@@thomasthellamas9886 Yeah... I'm not sure why/when I wrote that.
Having come from a Mormon, and then Baptist background coming to believe in infant baptism was a struggle.
Rightly or not, I came to see that in the Bible, since we are dealing with the first generation of Christians, most would have been adults. That said, the Bible also speaks of whole households being baptized. I couldn't believe that no infants or toddlers were present.
I believe that if you base baptism solely on a profession of belief, you are making it a work of man, and minimizing or eliminating God 's role.
This is how I personally came to believe in infant baptism .
This is a comment, and one I really don't want to 'chat' about.
I agree one hundred percent. Credobaptism makes man the judge of ones salvation whereas paedobaptism puts the matter in the hands of God.
shirley goss Amen!
There is no reason to think that the household mention in the Bible is also referring to infants. To make the main doctrine out of speculation like that should be considered heresy.
@@keithcambra9760 How on earth is that true? I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but I sincerely do not understand this logic. Even Dr. Duncan in this video states that they do not 'assume' election of that baby that they are baptizing. So how is that putting anything in God's hands? We Baptist are not the judge of anyone's salvation. It is the person who is coming forward for membership (or who has just professed salvation) who tells us they have come to Christ through faith. We honestly can only take their profession at it's word, and attempt to see the evidences of a renewed heart but we are honestly leaving it between the professor telling us the truth and asking some checking questions to make sure they truly understand what they claim to be professing. But we are not the 'judge' of their salvation. We ask then and only then after a profession of faith that they receive the sign of the New Covenant of baptism. I sincerely get confused over Paedobaptism because you are baptizing an infant or toddler, what does that do? Because you still doctrinally believe they have to at a later point come to faith in Jesus for actual salvation? What was the purpose of the baptism? How does this mean it is, 'Putting it in God's hands?' Putting what in God's hands? We Baptist are just saying that we think that model is out of order with how the Bible presents baptism. It is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then be baptized as an outward sign of your inward change by Christ to identify yourself with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (We believe baptism by immersion and for professing believers only best illustrates what Paul was teaching is our spiritual reality in Romans 6). Please do not read into my words any hatred or sarcasm towards you. I mean this in love and out of a sense to advance even my understanding of the heart behind your comment. If you would rather email me directly instead of YouTUbe commenting back and forth you can at theosmatters@icloud.com. Sincerely. I know 'UA-cam comment debates can get blown out of proportion.'
I think that’s a very interesting point. I had never thought of it like that before. Love you sister and am thankful for God’s grace that he extended to all of us who were desperately in need of a savior. ❤️
I have served in both the Presbyterian and Baptist Church and I am so pleased to see these brothers clearly articulate the issues and positions regarding the administration of water baptism and both brothers point us to the scripture and to strive to keep within the principles and practices of scripture.
That shot of Darrin Patrick 😢🙏🏽 praying for my pastoral brothers who get caught in the crossfires and crushed under the many burdens of this killing field of a ministry.
May we never become so preoccupied with debating/dialoguing doctrine that we forsake our call to bear one another’s burden. There is a war, and we’re on the frontlines…there is an Enemy and he’s not flesh and blood.
Make sure to care for your souls my dear brothers, you are loved and cherished…by others, but most especially by God.
Whoever needed to read this, cherish the mercy of God relieving your soul of condemnation and exhaustion…and find rest under His gentle and kind yoke. ❤
Over 40 years ago I attended a Baptist seminary with the intention of becoming a Baptist preacher.
After about a year I realize how narrow the Baptist view of the Old Testament was and moved on to one of the mainline protestant denominations and became a preacher there.
As a confessional Lutheran I would argue that your language about "Old Covenant" versus "New Covenant" pits the O.T. against the N.T. When you read both properly understanding Law and Gospel you realize that God works in the Old in the same way as in the New - by grace! When one rightly reads both as containing Law and Gospel you then see Christ throughout. Only then can one understand baptism. Pax.
I agree!
Agree,that's the point.
Absolutely Rick!
Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians agree with Lutherans on this. God does work the same way in the OT and NT. But the concept of 2 covenants in redemptive history is right from the Bible. You can find it explained in Hebrews 8.
@@erc9468: Thank you. You are correct that the Bible does indeed speak of the Old and New Covenants. However, my point was that they are commonly taught and preached they are pitted against each other as if God worked one way in the Old and another in the New. Paul is very clear that that is not the case (Romans 4).
wow shai linne was there, what!?!?
My question is, as a former Baptist now Episcopalian, who are we as mere Men to determine whether or not infants are capable of receiving baptism? Baptism is God's work, not Man's whether as an infant or an adult. Baptism marks one as a part of the community of the New Covenant, given to God. Samuel was given to the Nazerite vow, a priesthood, at infancy. Why shouldn't we give children to God in Holy baptism?
*I did appreciate this discourse and the respect between the two views
? What are you even saying. The Word is clear. Do you still believe the Bible over All else?
ZSMH_91 St Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
Yes but Jesus said you must be born again he trumps Augustine.
Jason Brower and how exactly is one born again? Yes it’s through baptism just the way the early church and church fathers understood it who were directly taught by the apostles.
Eric you trash him for being an Anglican but you use Got Questions? Take the log out of your eye before point out the speck in his!
I like the tone of this debate.
Circumcision was not ethnic in the OT either, e.g., Abraham's non-ethnic servants, Gen.17, 34 and those non-ethnics from the Exodus, Ex. 12:38, 44, 48. A whole lot more could have been said on this issue.
Baptists maintain that circumcision is "ethnic", a falsehood they use to dismiss infant circumcision as irrelevant to baptism.
IRENAEUS
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Edit: Born Again = Baptism, sorry Baptist’s
This is the same guy that believed Jesus was over 50 years old when he died 😂
Tim keller at around 4:00
shai linne earlier, too!
And you can see a fuzzy John Piper next to him
Yes for sure! What would his opinion be?
Early Christian catholic practices the whole household. Of lydia stephanus. Household whole members of family.children members of family. Children getting close to God by baptism. Babies original inherited sin. 33ad babtism to now. And change in 1600 by John smith
If Jesus and other fellows back then were circumcised as a child, and which was the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, then why receiving additional sign by baptism when they entered the NT era? Why the exiting sign needed to be replaced by baptism? What does Baptism truly mean? Baptism is an outward sign of the person's Christian dignity. Only a coveted person who put his trust in Christ can get baptized. if an infant can receive a baptism, then anyone without any confession in Jesus can receive it in order to be part of the Covenant community? What is the age limit for children baptism? up to 8? Why can a 7 year old boy get a children baptism but a 9 year old can't? Did God set the age limit or the men did? In OT, the Bible talked about Infant boy must be circumcised when he reached day 8. God's message is very clear about how his command needs to be done, to whom(a boy), at what time(at day 8). It was so important that Good mentioned it in the Bible over and over again. If Infant Baptism was commanded in NT, why can't we find any obvious verses (the "household" in Act16 is an invalid example btw since no mention of infant, true, you can argue there might be, but I can also say there was no infant)?
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.
PROOF OF INFANT BAPTISM
“Therefore go and make disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
Matthew 28:19-20
All means all, including infants!
“Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, EVERYONE OF YOU, in the name of Jesus Christ...For the promise is unto you and your CHILDREN.”
The promise is also for our children! Everyone of you also includes infants!
Also children are to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:13-15), to enter the kingdom of God one must be “born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5,6) hence children should also be baptized.
Infants can also believe (Matthew 18:6). Indeed by their own reason and strength children cannot believe, neither can a grown person (1 Cor. 2:14). But the Holy Ghost can and does work faith in little children as well as adults. Baptism is called a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a washing by which the Holy Ghost regenerates us or works faith in us. The assertion that little children are not conscious of their faith does not prove that they have no faith; neither is an infant conscious of his life, yet he lives. Also adult Christians are not always conscious of their faith, as when they sleep, still they have faith!
all means all nations. Not all ages. Read it in context. Author is making a distinction that the promises of the new covenant are not ethnic, to the Jews only but gentiles as well.
Jon Aman yes you are right about how He is making it to where it’s not just the Jew but to ALL nations. That is, all human beings, young, and old, are to be baptized.
I agree with you . Infants need to be baptized because infants need what baptism gives. Psalm 51 v 5 .
Infants are sinners and need forgiveness. Infants can and do have faith. David wrote in one of the Psalms that he had faith at his mother's breast. John the baptizer had faith in his mother's womb. Infants cry and have faith that their mother will feed them. That their father's will change them and protect them .Not baptizing infants put them in real jeopardy. I am so glad my Mother took me to church as a one month old infant to be baptized. Baptism brought me to faith in Christ.
St. Ignatius of Antioch agreed! I was actually against it until I heard the Sproul and McArthur debate. Biblically it’s a mandate & it fits in with the covenant AND in bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth in God’s strength and His will. Amen amen.
Repent is the key word here. Can babies repent of what they have done?
What about my seventeen-year-old nonverbal daughter who wears diapers and could never make a public profession of faith?
We trust in God's grace that he will judge fairly & rightly. Baptism is not a means/part of salvation or eternal life. Therefore she is not required to be baptized.
@@tkleo2006 I don't find that answer sufficient. First of all, she is denied the sign of the covenant, and so is not considered a true MEMBER of the church. She is prevented from partaking of the Lord's supper. If baptism is no big deal, as you want to portray, why bother with it at all? My daughter will remain non baptized, and peripheral to the body. Why WOULDN'T you give her the sign in good faith? Otherwise, you consciously reject her by denying her baptism. No matter what you say, you HAVE to address someone like my daughter. You have 2 choices. Why would you not choose the more inclusive one?
She will be covered by grace just like the thief on the cross. YHWH doesn't command people to do that which they are incapable of. That's not how obedience works.
@Phil Andrew The thief on the cross clearly contradicts this.
@Marie G 777 We've left the church. Never looking back. What a mess. 30 0000 denominations? But they're all one! LOL
That was very ecumenical and very charitable. To my Baptist brothers, we should start talking about the federal headship of the new Covenant and the discontinuities between the mediators of every covenant, which God has set up and how the new Covenant has a perfect mediator who is able to make perfect those who draw near to him.
I am the believers baptism. I was baptized and grew UP in a presbyterian Church. IAm now attending a southern baptist Church but I have somE doubts and I know some people that were baptized In the. Baptist Church who are now back in the Roman Catholic Group. If you doubt infant baptism,I also have some doubts about believers or adult baptiism by some baptist Churches which baptize so-called “ adult believers indiscriminately.
Alpha Chaser the fact is the early church Baptised Children. St Augustine a church Father said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
It really comes down to this.. Which Era has more credibility of the early faith.. The reformers or the early church fathers.. Seeing how the reformers could not agree on anything and anabaptist being considered radicals even by the reformers.. Imma stick with the early church fathers.. It's even biblical as the Greek word used in the book of act describes 3 generation of families getting Baptized you would assume there would be children in those homes as well. Furthermore there are writings within the first few hundred years of the church who show the early church did perform infant baptism. Lastly. Why would a child growing up in a Christian home need to profess their faith when their parents should already be raising them as Christian children in the first place..
The early church fathers werent infallible. Some of them believed in things you don't.
Marc Marmolejo St Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
What promise does baptism symbolize for a baby that is non-elect?
Infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved and part of God’s covenant community when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct and to make the decision to be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins! The false doctrine of infant baptism leads people to suppress the truth and to think that they have been forgiven by God when they have not been Scripturally.
Scripture for age for baptism please
Was that Shai Linne at 👀 0:56 seconds ?
I didn't realize that was Ligon Duncan until I saw his written name. This is my first time seeing him in casual clothing 🤣🤣🤣
Does Ligon ever let his guests answer a question, without talking through them?
Just as we are born with the original sin of Adam through no specific sin or fault of our own, so we can receive the blessing and grace of being reborn in Christ through no merit or action of our own. Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours; yes we can and should baptize infants.
Rodney Burton What a wonderful symbol of the covenant baptism is. Amen Brother!
Where in the Bible does it state that we should baptize infants??
@@kimdanielsen4368 It doesn't... and I sincerely don't mean to malign or be rude to our Presbyterian brothers and sisters. But if you YouTUbe search for the John MacArthur vs RC Sproul debate they did on baptism, it is brought out very clear (by even Dr. Sproul) that infant baptism is not a clear biblical precedent or command. He admits it is a 'logical inference' that they make from certain references of Scripture, the Old Covenant sign being given to infants, and church history as a precedence. MacArthur clearly draws out that infant baptism cannot be defended in a strictly biblical sense. Again I am not criticizing Presbyterians but I do draw a line in the sand if they say it is Biblical. You cannot validate it Biblicaly. You have to make connections and logical arguments to make your case and use a few references of scripture to supplement the view.
I understand that parents want to see their children go to heaven, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that you have the right to play God and baptise your children into salvation, esp. as infants. It is each individuals choice to make when they understand what it means, not the parents or anyone else. I would say that baptizing your unknowing child to get them into heaven is just as bad as the Catholics who pray and pay for the dead stuck in "pergutory". That is not our job. It is the individuals responsibility, again, to come to salvation. The Bible says to study to show thyself approved unto God. The Bible warns us not to add to, nor take away from what is written in the Book! Tread carefully. Study because your life depends on it.
BabyDeer219 Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
When children become adults they still need to believe in jesus christ to get saved. It is ok to baptize children. Jesus does not say anything about not baptizing children.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
What baptism are we talking about ?
- The Baptism of John (the Baptist) [water]?
- The Apostolic Baptism (apostles on Pentecost?) [Holy Spirit and fire]?
- The ecclesial baptism (in various Christian churches) [water and Holy Spirit]?
What Baptism?
And what eternal chastisement incur a person baptized as a baby (if indeed pedobaptism is a terrible thing) ?
I agree that the ordinance of baptism is a sign of God's promise to Believers and their children and circumcision of the heart is eternal life.
Bible verse please?
why argue with this topic. this is not mandatory whats mandatory is when your in age of conversion. this is just a tradition. this is not a sin. if you dont want dont do it. dont fight each other about it. please.. May the Lord have mercy on us.
Infant baptism is almost always done by sprinkling or pouring, not by immersion. The Bible says that baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). A person must go down into the water and come up out of it (Acts 8:38,39; Mark 1:9,10). Bible baptism requires much water (John 3:23). Also, the Greek word for baptism means “to dip, plunge, or immerse.” When baptism is commanded in the Bible by Jesus and His Apostles, they are commanding immersion, because this is what the word means! Infant baptism does not fit God’s pattern on any of these points. The evidence clearly shows that Bible baptism is an immersion, not a sprinkling or pouring.
I wish Dr. Gavin Ortlund was there to share his view as well.
His perspective on the cathecumens might be really helpful.
Are the cathecumens part of the Church.
This might be a grey area for many.
For credobaptists, infants and young children of a Christian family are young cathecumens.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household?
Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well?
Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age.
I’m going to be a slight bit facetious here, but mostly for the Baptist’s benefit - if holding onto that stance, you would also need to believe that the moment your dad, or husband (whomever is head of household) accepts Christ.. then you, all those living in your house (besides the unmentioned infants, apparently) and also your slaves… would all need to be baptized then too 🙂
--
Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol.
--
In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
4:00 wonder what Kelly is thinking
The Church does it from the day one in a past 20 centuries... just as Apostles did as witnessed in the Bible. Outside of The Church, there is no Baptism... there is a theatrical show named that way.
If people would study their bibles they would find it is not only unnecessary but impossible. Infants being put through the motions of baptism can't lend their belief to the process. It is the adults doing this who probably need to be baptized by faith.
So what's the point of baptizing a child if you don't presume they're part of the elect?
Baptize your child so that if the child dies before growing old enough to make a profession of faith they will go to Heaven and not Limbo. Limbo is not a bad place---it is a place of great peace and natural happiness----but it is not nearly as good as Heaven.
TravvyTops to bring them into the new Covenant. Jews used to enter the Old Covenant at 8 days old through Circumcision, baptism is the new circumcision
TravvyTops It’s a 50/50 shot, they are or they are not going to follow Jesus. It’s rational to baptize the children into the covenant rather than play this weird psychology game of will you/wouldn’t you follow Jesus
What’s the point of believers baptism if you don’t presume they are a part of the elect
@@georgeibrahim7945 Only the boys.
The bible is clear that water baptism is only to be taken by already saved believers not for salvation itself. Acts @-38, Acts @-48, 1 Cor 117-18 KJV
Dáithí Ó Pléimeann peter on the day of Pentecost said Baptism is for you and your children. He also says Baptism now saves us. St Paul says baptism is the the new circumcision that’s how we enter the New Covenant. Jewish boys were circumcised at 8 days old so why would he use this parallel. Best thing to do is research the early church and church Fathers and they all baptised infants.
@@georgeibrahim7945 Peter on the day of Pentecost said Baptism is for you and your children. Then, what it says on the same verse/s? Who is baptized? The 'You' only or the 'You and your children'?
@@georgeibrahim7945 Faith was not required to be a jew in the OT- you were born of jewish parents. Faith is required for salvation in the NT and babies can't believe. Why do you assume that the word 'children' means 'babies' or 'infants' and not 'children who have the capacity of placing saving faith in Christ'?
As I read John 3:5 “Yahusha answered, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Ruach, he is unable to enter into the reign of Elohim. “
I strongly believe that Yahusha is very clear with his word and Elohim is not the author of confusion. Yahusha said we most be born of the “Water” but he never said at what age or How and where we should be immersed.
Is being baptised in water being "born of water"?
RisingDawn I believe so, how about brother ?
I believe John 3:5 to be referring to spiritual water of the baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit, see Ezekiel 36:25 (I think!), and Titus 3:5.
If it meant literal water baptism then that would mean someone who has not been baptised could not enter the kingdom of God. How would you reconcile that with all the Scripture that says salvation comes through faith alone?
RisingDawn Jesus said we must be born again of Water and Spirit, not just Spirit. It seems that God is kind of predictable in a way since He always starts new things in the same way with “water and the Spirit“. Consider the following:
1) The first creation came from the earth which was covered with WATER and the SPIRIT hovered over the waters and from the water emerged land and man and God’s first creation (Gen 1:1-2).
2) A new humanity was started with Noah through WATER and SPIRIT. The ark went through the water and a dove (representing the Spirit) hovered overhead with an olive branch. Peter said this represents baptism which “now saves us” (1 Peter 3:18-21).
3) The nation of Israel was created through the WATER of the Red Sea (baptism) with the cloud and fire of the Holy SPIRIT overhead - my oh my, again we have water and Spirit (Ex 14).
4) Ezekiel then describes what the New Covenant will look like and he said we will be sprinkled with clean WATER and his SPIRIT will be placed in us (Ez 36:25). Born again, I suspect.
5) Then Jesus, right before saying you must be born of “water and the Spirit” had just gone down into the WATER of the Jordan and the SPIRIT came down and landed on his head. Again, water and the Spirit (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:29).
6) Jesus teaches Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above which is accomplished through “WATER and the SPIRIT.“
7) When Jesus finished these words what was the first thing he did? He went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2).
8)At the first Holy Ghost Gospel Revival meeting Peter stood up at Pentecost and said, “Repent, and be baptized (WATER) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy SPIRIT“ (Acts 2:38).
9) Peter also says “Baptism now saves you“ (1 Pet 3:21), and Paul is told “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and Paul writes that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration (WATER) and renewal in the Holy SPIRIT“ (Titus 3:5).
1) What is the minimum age should a person to be baptized? 2) Till the person gets baptized what religion is he/she? 3) If the person gets baptized at the age 16 and above, what religion will be written in school admission form? Kindly quote Bible verses.
There is no minimum age, the person is not Christian until baptized, there is nothing to fill in the blank for school forms (what school requires religion to be recorded?!)
@@shellieperreault6262 you don't Not have to be baptized to be a follower of Christ. Therefore, you Do Not have to be baptized to be a Christian.
For those saying "Baptism is God's work not man's" is the Lord's Table God's work or man's?
If we are going to parse the means of sacraments/observances let's go for it: why is credo-eucharism ok but paedo-eucharism wrong? Why must the lords table be for confessing Christian's?
It's almost as if you think the sacraments are meant for penitent Christians only (the true church).
I am new to this 'debate' (which I frankly find ridiculous) but I arrived at *exactly* that question and have yet to receive an answer. If we are giving one of the sacraments (baptism) to the babies then why privy them from the other (the Lord's supper)? I ask only rhetorically because I am not persuaded that *either* is for babies.
I liked the civility of the conversation. I was particularly amazed at the statement the Presbyterian fellow made, "Baptists have an enviable position with regards to shepherding their flock..." I liken the entire infant baptism thing to arranged marriages. It is as if two fathers meet and they say, "My son will marry your daughter and that will benefit them and us together." Sadly the son despises the daughter chosen for him and loves the younger daughter and she loves him. Now you expect the son and the daughter chosen for him, who actually despises him also, to form a pact with God to "Love, honor and cherish one another till death..." You are forcing them to live a lie that you as a parent placed upon them. It is a small wonder that so many people cannot stomach organized religion. They never received a call from God and to make matters worse, they have something so very special as a relationship with God through His Son forced upon them. It is quite a common and human thing to oppose anything forced upon one's self. I am convinced that failed relationship experience is something the Presbyterian man is speaking to, if not directly, in an indirect sense.
Point me to a study that indicates evidence that arranged marriages are less happy.
@@Mygoalwogel to be fair he did say arranged marriage whilst in love with someone else. The parallel being man naturally loving sin instead of God
11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christb and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Col 2:10-11
baptism and circumcision go hand in hand. when do yiou circumcise on the 8th day, when do you baptize? on the 8th day. it is the christinizatiion of the Jewish practice
Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation?
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, as prescribed by the Old Covenant. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony.
The conversion process is described below.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant - New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
Baptizing unbelieving babies is totally unScriptural.
Only believers were baptized just as Christ himself has instructed.
"16 He who believes [who adheres to and trusts in and relies on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] **and is baptized** will be saved
[ from the penalty of eternal death]; but he who does not believe [who does not adhere to and trust in and rely on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] will be condemned"
Mark 16:16 (AMP.BIBLE)
Belief MUST come before baptism.
Babies cannot believe neither can they consent to be baptized.
Even then they are only sprinkled with water which is not Christian baptism.
Full immersion is the true "One baptism".
"Buried with him in baptism"....
Earnestly contending for the faith you know the family’s faith is sufficient and there are plenty of examples of this in the bible. In Acts as well Peter is speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering.
Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.
To @@georgeibrahim7945
The exact Divinely taught formula for being saved is given by Jesus Christ himself.
"16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"
Mark 16:15-16 (KJV)
Without 'belief' even 'baptism, by water immersion is not Scriptural or authentic.
For Christ specifically teaches that *belief* must FIRST come before baptism.
This is proven most emphatically by : Acts 8:36-37.
"As they continued along on the way, they came to some water, and the eunuch exclaimed, See, [here is] water! What is to hinder my being baptized?
37 And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart [ if you have a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah and accept Him as the Author of your salvation in the kingdom of God, giving Him your obedience, then ] you may"
Acts 8:36-37 (AMP.BIBLE)
Something unbelieving babes in arms, simply cannot do.....
Christ himself has made it quite plain the BELIEF MUST first come before baptism if they wised to be saved.
"Jesus said to them, “So wherever you go in the world, tell everyone the Good News. 16 **Whoever believes** and is baptized will be saved".
Mark 16:15-16 (GW).
It's impossible to for babies to believe...
Besides they do not need to be baptized as they are already covered by their Christian parents.
"14 For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy."
1 Cor 7:14-15 (NLT)
We must be old I hear them say for one to be baptized
Perhaps it is the children then that men now do dispise
Have not they heard that from
the mouths of babes shall then come prais
Hosana in the highest His will on earth be made
So suffer then the children
to come now to his side
and put away the fallicy
That's born of human pride.
The lord loves best his children
that come so swift and free
to grace that brings salvation He purchased on a tree.
SO because Jesus said let the children come to Him, that was his approval to sprinkle as a form of baptism babies? And because we baptist are trying to following Scripture examples of baptism being by immersion and only of professing believers (regardless of age) that therefore means we 'despise' children? That's a terrible gross misrepresentation. I try my best to honor my faithful Presbyterian brothers and sisters in Christ by seeing us both trying to serve the Gospel and advance God's Kingdom, while we disagree on matters of polity and baptism. But man this is pretty bad of you, I would never so malign my Presbyterian co laborers in the Gospel. To accuse us Baptists of rejecting children and having our human pride be the birth of baptism of professing believers only is woefully untrue. Yes I can tell this must some sort of poem but it's point is clear. I could easily accuse you of 'hating' children because you sprinkle them and that can cause them as they age to think they are 'ok' with God because they have already received the sign on the New Covenant. But that would be terrible of me and I don't think that.... but it's the same type example of what this poem is saying against us Baptists.
for those who don't believe in infant baptism what is the right age to be baptized and why? what if the person does not get the opportunity to reach that age and yet has already sinned?
If a child can consciously sin, that same child can consciously profess faith.
Not all traditions were written in bible.
Arnold Maglalang yeah like faith alone
Girls were not circumcised. So why baptize girls in the new covenant??? I don’t get this continuity argument
Good point!
Galatians 3:28-29. In Christ Jesus there is neither Male nor female for we are all one and heirs according to the promise as descendants of Abraham.
@@keithcambra9760 Galatians tells us that we receive the Abrahams blessing through faith alone, there is very little to indicate in the Bible that circumcising has anything to do with infant baptism.
@@kimdanielsen4368 Sure there is. Read Colossians 2:11-12.
@@keithcambra9760 Colossians 2:11-12 talks in the context of circumcising the hearth (Romans 2:29, Deuteronomy 30:6), and a baptism that comes by faith (read Colossians 2: 12 "...you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God,..."). Also, we know that salvation comes by faith alone, not through baptism alone (Gal 2:16, Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9).
Piper: “A true Jew is one inwardly, by the Spirit, not outwardly, by flesh or lineage.
Do what the Bible says to do. Don't make up your own ways. Follow the word of God. Know this... when unanointed yet educated men begin to make decisions about who is converted and who is not, they are LOST. Discernment comes with anointing, not education. I would bet any amount of money both of these gents are cessationists. Men in love with their own minds. Men who place seminary education above Holy anointing. LOTS of pride and carnality. A lovely conversation between two men who have never met the conditions to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is also why they are cessationists. They can be nothing else.
Shouldn't the question be, "Does CHRIST baptize infants?"
Presbys do baptize infants, but this Presby Pastor doesn’t. That clears up that subject issue.
I see Jesus watching this conversation from the sidelines and scratching his head again. So much talk of exclusivity. And yet Jesus never spoke or behave that way.
It is not true that you must be an adult.... Many young children are baptized after they are able to show that they understand the gospel. I have seen many 6 and 7 year olds baptized.
In my Baptist home church, it was quite common for children who grew up in the church to be baptized at a young age. I was baptized at 15 and that was late.
@@juanitadudley4788 Appreciate your comment. I think you would agree that there is a world of difference between an 8 year old and 8 day old.. Eight year olds are capable of fully understanding the gospel.
@@harrellambert7607 I'm credobaprist.
To come to Christ one must first believe on Him. That is the very first step. Let me know when an infant jumps outta their crib and hollers I repent and believe in Jesus. God gave us freewill to choose to have faith in Him or not. So by baptizing babies one is simply placing their will on that child.
I see people claiming that infant baptism will bring the infants closer to God. You have to understand that baptism was for those who had confessed christ as their saviour. There's no any other way to God other than through our lord jesus christ, claiming that baptism will get you closer to God is wrong and misleading, nothing short of heresy.
_Why do Christians baptize?_
[Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
_Why do Christians baptize infants?_
Infants are included in “the whole creation.”
_But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_
Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41. A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
_But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16
_But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is noway to be closer to Jesus than this!
_But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_
No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
@@Mygoalwogel i don't think an infant understands anything you tell them let alone the gospel of christ.. next time you see an infant cry just ask them why they crying cause they will shock at how good with holding a conversation!
@@davismwaniki9899 Are you denying that John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from infancy?
@@Mygoalwogel john the baptist was filled by the holy spirit while he was in his mothers womb, yes.. why? Because he was a prophet of God who would proclaim the coming of the messiah. And he preached and baptised those who repented, not forgeting he said to jesus that he needed no baptism but jesus insisted.. and jesus was 30yrs not an infant.
@@davismwaniki9899 Then your equation [ability to talk = ability to believe] is refuted.
What scripture can I find local church membership?
Why don't we care for the infants to receive the grace of God? God the Father also cared so much for his baby Jesus in Mary's womb!
Very simple!
When did Jesus get baptized?
It is my view that the Scripture is absolutely clear that believer's baptism is the NT teaching. Any other position must be inferred. Note that I said "believer's baptism", not adult baptism. There is no question that paedobaptism is a holdover from Catholicism. The Anabaptists had it right and ended up being the most persecuted reformers of the 16th & 17th centuries. There is great danger in paedobaptism for a child to construe some special position in the kingdom due to his/her chosenness. Believer's baptism is absolutely clear in its teaching and administration. The only thing that is not crystal clear is the mode, and on that there must be liberty.
'Any other position must be inferred.' Believer's baptism is also inferred, since it infers that the command to administer the covenant sign to children has ceased, despite no explicit teaching of this. All baptism positions are inferred.
How many times does someone have to be baptized ?
Noel Soto only one time
Once
So, should a infant that has been baptized be baptized again when their older ?
Noel Soto no baptism is done once, a infant that has been baptised does conformation when they are a little older. In the Old covenant Jewish boys were circumcised at 8’days old, baptism is how we enter into the New Covenant and are born again.
@@leonotos
In response to your second question, this is where the Baptist (who holds to "believer's baptism") would give a different answer than the Presbyterian or the Anglican (who hold to the "paedobaptism" (infant baptism) view).
The Baptist would say someone should be baptised when they come to a position later in life when they make an independent profession of faith. They don't believe that infant baptism is a true baptism. An example of this would be Charles Spurgeon who got baptised when he came to believe he had been saved, even though he was baptised as a baby.
The Presbyterian (or Anglican, Methodist..etc.), would say no to being baptised again because the individual, now older, has now by faith laid hold of the promises from their infant baptism.
I hope that helps!
Yes infants should be baptized
Akim Oetam
St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
George Ibrahim credobaptists be like:
“If they they don’t sin, Jesus died for nothing”
Gavin Ortlund described credobaptist position more precisely, which is delaying the baptism until that person is capable to make a profession of faith. This has nothing to do with age. It has more things to do with the profession of faith. To a certain degree, we can see this in how St. Gregory Nazianzen taught people to delay the baptism until the children are about 3 to 4 years old and capable to give answers, even if they are not perfect.
Yes. Absolutely!
An Infant cannot repent of sin.
Baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
Not approving infant baptism, was to ensure only EMPLOYABLE PEOPLE BE THEIR MEMBERS !
Christ died for ALL and not for EMPLOYABLE PEOPLE ONLY.
When John The baptist, started Baptism it was for forgiveness of sins for jews. A child was circumcised on 8th day to be a Jew !
For christians, its not circumcision but baptism that makes him a christian. That's the reason why St. Paul and Peter said circumcision is not required for a christian.
We are saved by FAITH and reasoning power is not required. In fact, these two are opposite !
In OT we see that faith of one person( Abraham, and others) saves MANY ! So FAITH of parent is sufficient to save their child.
Why pastors oppose infant baptism, is that, they are not sure if the child would be A EARNING MEMBER WHEN IT GROWS OLD !
Seem pretty obvious to me…
✝✝✝
Epistle of St Paul to the Romans
Chapter 3
[23] For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
✝✝✝
Book of Psalms
Psalm 50
[7] For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
✝✝✝
Epistle of St Paul to the Romans
Chapter 5
[12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
✝✝✝
Gospel According to St John Chapter 3
[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Pack up the babies
And grab the old ladies
And everyone goes… TO GET BAPTIZE
Say! I know! Let' act like our confessional standards and the historic practice of Christians for 1600 years don't matter as much as playing nice with Baptists. That's a surefire way to strengthen the church in the 21st century! Let's just lend legitimacy to those whose position on baptism effectively de-christianizes the vast majority of the church who happened to be baptized in their infancy.... Yeah... thanks Rev. PCA. That should work brilliantly.
So for 1,500 years they were a bunch of heretics, got it wrong... Seriously? Then Johnny come latelies got it right? 😂😂😂
Baptism is for everyone, from infants to the elderly!
Are you going to be baptized with fire also?
America is a joke now it’s called confirmation, where the elders lay hands on our parishioners to impart the Holy Spirit on them
@@americaisajokenow1090 The baptism by fire is actually being burned in hell, if you read the passage carefully.
Matthew 3:10-12
V10:
Those who bring forth good fruit will be baptized with the Holy Spirit;
Those who don't bring forth good fruit will be baptized by fire, and here in v10 it means 'cast into the fire'
V11:
Two kinds of baptism - with the Spirit, with fire.
V12:
Gathered wheat into the barn - those who are baptized by the Spirit;
Burn up chaff with unquenchable fire = baptism with fire.
It's just a question of properly comparing verses
Baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
Wrong, the Bible is clear. Faith and indwelling of the Holy spirit precedes the seal of baptism.
Matthew 19:14 is clear: Jesus wants babies to be baptized.
George Penton yep Peter on the day of Pentecost said Baptism is for you and your Children. St Paul teaches us baptism is the new circumcision and yes that’s right Jewish boys were circumcised at 8 days old.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Matthew 19:14).”
Where do you see Jesus saying anything about infant baptism? On the contrary, this passage is saying that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the little ones which means if a innocent child would pass away, he or she would be welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven.
@@leonotos Jesus did not say, the little children are already unto me. He said, let the little children COME unto me, come unto the saving waters of Baptism.
Protestants always emphasize that salvation cannot be earned, and that without grace we cannot be saved. They are right about this. Babies need grace, too. That's why they need to be baptized.
George Penton St Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
The question has not been answered. Jesus tells his disciples not to stop the little ones from coming to him and that’s all he said. He didn’t order or recommend infants baptism, but His saving grace would extend to them (the little ones).
I must ask another question, how many times does a person needs to be baptized ?
Jesus is not interested on mans traditions.
BELIEVE and be baptised ... How can a baby believe? 🤷🏻♀️
@Fairyprincess, hi!
Which is why there is a post-baptismal catechumenate where the child learns the content of the Faith and how to live it.
The infant baptism in my opinion is kind of:
1) the parents believed
2) the congregation believed
3) the infant has yet to reach capacity to believe.
4) this is our public declaration that the parents and congregation are responsible for guiding this child in the walk of the christian faith.
At least for my church, I'm not sure of the rest, we practice post infant adult baptism (directly translated as confirmation of faith ritual) when the child comes of age (at least 18) where he can profess and believe with his tongue that he is a Christian.
1) First of all, the GREEK verse gives no indication of timing or order.
2) Second, new believers had themselves and their ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS baptized- spouses, elderly parents, slaves, children. There was no requirement that everyone in the household believe at that moment; they were expected to follow the lead of the head of the household.
How can you believe when you’re asleep?
@@svnsetsomnia8280 Unconsiously, but there's a difference. How can you truly believe in something without understanding the consequent implications?
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household?
Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well?
Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age.
Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol.
Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday.
--
In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
Great Conversation. To me, the idea that baptism is as an adult choice is much easier distilled than baptizing infants. For infant baptism, i have to dig really hard, string multiple passages together, reinterpret, and leap to conclusions. While adult baptism, well it's days in right there in the word of God, multiple times, in the new testament.
Take 30 minutes and watch the video Baptism the whole truth
So sad to see people forcing babies into the system. Only faith in his grace saves. And only the saved can be then baptized. Infant (false) 'baptism' inoculates children to the real Baptism of faith. To die with Christ and be raised with him. This by repentance and faith.
Jason Brower Peter tells us Baptism saves us but your saying only the saved can be baptised? To enter the old Covenant one had to be circumcised and it was done at 8 days of age St Paul tells us baptism is the New Circumcision so doesn’t make sense with him
Using this parallel if he meant excluded infants from baptism. We see in the bible families and their whole house holds get baptised. St Peter said on the day of Pentecost baptism is for you and your Children
The baptism that saved is spiritual it's the new birth in Christ, the baptism that is what happens inside side the believer. The baptism of water which does not save, it's just removal of dirt from the body and is a picture of what has happened already inside us. 1 Peter 21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
In about households in children there is no arguing the children are saved and can be saved I was saved at a very young age but it was at the age where I could believe and understood. The Bible never says infants were baptized. Children can be baptized if they're Believers in Christ and saved.
My biggest issue with Baptists is that they're too individualistic in their thinking (which is why I think they're super prevalent in America and not many other places). As a Presby, I think the covenant is for families and Baptism is a mark of the covenant just like circumcision was.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household?
Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well?
Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age.
Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol.
Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday.
--
In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
Immerse Ligon. If it’s ok then it’s ok. There is NO sprinkling in Scripture. Just like no tulip.😇
I'm assuming you're limiting this definition of 'no sprinkling' strictly to that of a Baptist's position on New Testament baptism? A general statement that there's 'NO sprinkling in Scripture' would obviously be ludicrous and would have to ignore several instances of Old Testament ritual washing/cleansing by sprinkling..
re: sprinkling- Exodus 24:8 (cf. Hebrews 9:21); Leviticus 14:7, 16:14; Numbers 19; 1 Peter 1:2. Some of these are blood, some are water, but OT cleansing rites included sprinkling. Though baptizo means "immerse," the disciples were chastened in Mark 7 for not "baptizing" their hands before eating, so baptize does not necessarily mean full immersion. If you make the argument that baptism is a continuation of the mikvah (Leviticus 19:18-19, et al), then you have to note that mikvahs were not performed one to another; you mikvah-ed your self.
@@VicLabs boom.
@@VicLabs "Baptidzo" does not mean immerse. That is utterly false. Even my Baptist professor (now a well-known N.T. scholar) who taught Greek at an SBC university explained that it does not mean that. It includes immerse, but is not limited by it.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household?
Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well?
Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age.
Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol.
Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday.
--
In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
I have a question for my pedobaptist brothers . In my situation I was saved at 42 from an atheistic worldview and then baptized . How would the pedobaptist deal with someone like that ? Would they perform baptism on them ? I was baptized in the RC tradition but never brought up in it and didn’t consider it as an official baptism in Christ . Thank you for your input .
Great question. How I see it is like the prodigal son. You belonged to Christ when u were united to Him in trinitarian baptism as an infant. You fell away from Christ later on, for various reasons. Then you had repented and returned to Him. That is my story as well. When the prodigal returned he repented and the father embraced him. But he never stopped being his son. Just an unfaithful son. And by Gods grace he repented and came home and was no longer the unfaithful son but the reunited son
Jamie Gallagher I commented above hope its helpful. I was baptized rc wasn't necessarily atheistic but was far from God and had my own amazing repentence experience. I would just add that what makes baptism official is what God does to us in baptism. Which is he united us to Christ. This is the benefit of all Trinitarian baptism rc, protestant, orthodox. What we do with our baptism is the important question. As luther always reminded- "remember your baptism" baptism objectively changes your reality and officially marks us as Christians. Those who belong to Christ. The tragedy is when infants receive this mark as they should, but then are not raised in the faith and fall away. But God is gracious and patient and in the end what matters is how we finish the race. Bless you
ua-cam.com/video/_LVAEE_Lx_E/v-deo.html
The best answer may be to do a proper baptism, rejected the infant baptism and receive a real baptism in Christ.
Baptism bestows saving grace therefore a child that is not baptised has no saving grace. This is why Catholics had to come up with the idea of "Limbo", a happy place but not along side God. Does God punish the babies of unbelievers for the sins of their fathers? The Bible says no, therefore I believe babies of unbelievers who pass away is with God because they have no understanding between right and wrong and conciquently do not need to be baptised.
Getting water baptize doesn't saved anyone it by simply believe the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 .. You have to hear and understand the gospel to believe and a infant can't understand the gospel to believe... Water Baptism is for believers not for unbelievers.. Infant baptism is not biblical..
@patriceagulu8315 If you believe water baptism saved you then you are in trouble.. And my Bible is the pure and perfect word of God the KJV Bible The blood of Jesus Christ saved you not water baptism..In Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins In Hebrews 9:22 Without shedding of blood is no remission the context is no forgiveness of sins ..In Romans 5:8 Much more then being justified by his blood we shall be saved from the wrath through him..We are justified and saved by the blood of Jesus Christ not water....In 1 John the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin not water...In 1 Peter 3:21 Said baptism doesn't put away the filthiness of the flesh.. You can get water baptize until you blue in the face and when you dead you will end up in a burning hell...In Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is a gift of God 9 Not by works lest any man should boast.. And getting water baptize is of yourselves and anything of yourselves is works...We are saved by faith not by works..
@patriceagulu8315 John the Baptist baptize Jesus for one reason to manifest Jesus as their Messiah in John 1:31 And I knew him not but that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come baptizing with water.... And John the Baptist was baptized Jews not Gentiles Lean how to rightly dividing the word of truth that is a different dispensation... Jesus didn't need to be baptized to be saved...
Jesus, the last blood sacrifice
Simple, maybe. But not convincing.
Why would you baptize a nonbeliever?? Asking for a friend...
Why would you ever have given the covenant sign to a nonbeliever (as is regularly the case throughout Scripture)?
It's so sad to see what has happened to Thabiti going woke and distorting the Gospel.
Yes. There I saved you 7 minutes
We were all baptized when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
Thinking that getting baptized as an adult does anything to you causes problems. It's not magic. It's a symbol.
I was baptized when I was 18 after much thinking. Did it make any difference? I got wet.
IT IS SURE YOU ARE RIGHT, IN YOUR OWN FEEBLE MIND.
Marriage certificate is a symbol. But you don’t get that when you’re an infant
Bilbo, How do you support this biblically? I am with you that we are baptized into Christ and his death and his resurrection, but Jesus’ baptism is a separate event from ours. If it wasn’t, why would Jesus institute baptism in Matthew 28? Why would St Paul spend so much space in his letters explaining the promises and benefits of baptism if ours didn’t matter? Why would St Peter command Cornelius and his family to be baptized AFTER they received the Holy Spirit? I don’t see how you get there,
Thanks,
Baptism makes all the difference if received by a proclamation of faith and symbolize strongly the spiritual rebirth, Christ death, and resurrection.
Infant baptism isn’t scriptural… it’s no where in the scriptures.
Oh dear. You can be so close and yet so far away. Read your bible people. It is no where in scripture. End of story. No biblical support of it.
Oh dear. You can be so close and yet so far away. Read your bible people. No where in Scripture does it place restrictions on who to baptize. End of story. No biblical support of only baptizing adults.
@@Runner4530 the bible clearly speaks about confessing with your mouth and believing with your heart. An infant can hardly confess or understand what that means or understand believing with all your heart.
Hannah Green Read Luke 1:41 where John is in his mother’s womb leaping at the mother of Jesus. Baptism is a work of God, not of man.
I don’t disagree with believers baptism, but one thing I find interesting is that many beholding to that stance want to argue using the statement, “there was no mention of infants in those households,” within the numerous scriptures referring to “you and your whole household..” well, why are we making a big deal about the legitimacy of infant baptism within those households, based solely on the argument that no infants were expressly mentioned, but totally overlooking the fact that this baptism covers slaves, wives, siblings, etc, living in the same household who have not professed any faith on their own, AS AN ADULT, but who’s baptisms were covered due to the faith and belief of their head of household?
Or are we just going to overlook the “you and your household” portion of each verse to argue there were no infants present, but meanwhile the faith of the other adults mentioned in those verses is left unseen as well?
Again, I don’t deny believers baptism, but I believe this is a very weak argument against infant baptism that doesn’t actually support believers baptism either, because you’d be ignoring the fact that some in the household might not have confessed or believed on their own accord either, regardless of age.
Thus.. believers baptism is obviously practiced by the early church and the first believers, via Christ’s example. Let’s not forget they were the first generation of Christians who formed the first church communities too. So… it stands to reason that Believers Baptism still stands for those who come to Christ freshly, as an adult (or comprehending age) and wish to be baptized as an outward expression and symbol of their faith and what Christ has done in their life. However.. what then is the responsibility of already Believing parents and members of a church congregation? Who are already of Christ?? It’s a very slippery slope indeed to separate infant dedication from infant baptism.. as neither are a portion of salvation in and of themselves - but rather, both are an outward symbol.
Thus, I also can’t deny the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism either, as it’s a covenant symbol of a child belonging to the household of Believing parents, members of a church, who all promise to raise a child up to know the Lord of his/her parents - Baptism not being salvation by itself, or any requirement of it, but done in the hope of Believing parents, and the witnessing church, that the child will be raised to know the same God, to make that choice on his/her own someday.
--
In other words… if not compromising the salvation message of the gospel, it is not the hill to die on that many people try to make it. If you believe baptism to be equal to, or necessary for salvation, then obviously this argument just became far more critically important for understanding the gospel message, as souls would depend on it.
It’s funny that all the arguments didn’t start till men or parrots started creating their own church 1600 years after the first church was established by Jesus Christ himself. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
The current Roman Catholic church isn't the apostolic church. That much can be proven.
IMG_1307.PNG
"Baptism now saves you." -- Peter, Apostle of Jesus Christ (1st century)
@The Batman 1 Peter 3:21
New International Version
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you(A) also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience(B) toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(C)
Baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
@@kac0404 Original sin is a doctrine held by every Protestant denomination.
"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature in need of regeneration and a proclivity to sinful conduct.The biblical basis for the belief is generally found in Genesis 3 (the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden), in a line in Psalm 51:5 ("I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"), and in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"). -- Wikipedia
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.'” (Gen. 2:16-17)
“[The Lord said] ‘Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’ The man said, ‘The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.’ Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.’ . . . To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.'” (Gen. 3:11-19)
Infant baptism is paganism. I am from Eastern Europe and I’m sick and tired of this practice. True reformed are the ones that are always reforming. Why get stuck here?
Michael Hrisca
St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
if one can not accept a child baptism, then one can not believe in the power of the the holy spirit
FIND ONE (ONE) TIME AN INFANT WAS BAPTIZED IN SCRIPTURE.
Kimberly Reeves the words an infant is baptized isn't in the Bible. But the Bible does talk about whole households being baptized. Now we don't know their was babies their but most likely their was. Also... when Peter saves the thousands of families at pentacost out of those thousands of families do you think their is a good chance their was ONE baby? I think so.
Rookie Student
I still don't believe we should assume scripture is saying anything when it isn't.
To ORIGINAL POSTER:
Really? Don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? Because of a secondary issue? You should speak with your pastor about this comment you have made, and the accusation you have raised against Christians who do not believe in Pedo-Baptism...
Mel V I respect that! God bless man!
Rookie Student assumptions kill people. Why didn't Jesus get baptized as a child? God could have commanded Mary to do so, but Jesus said it was to fulfill all righteousness. We should imitate Jesus and how others were baptized in the bible and not put our faith in a "probably" "possibly" "most likely" that's dangerous when talking about salvation
No, we shouldn't.
Luiz Henrique
St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”