Household Baptism Without Faith?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- We continue our series on baptism.
You can get more at apologiastudios.... Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video. #ApologiaStudios
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy. In our Academy you can take a courses on Christian apologetics and much more.
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Twitter: ap...
Instagram: www.instagram....
Do you want more exclusive content from Apologia Studios? Subscribe to Apologia All Access for that, and more! From podcasts to live shows, seminary training to behind-the-scenes, All Access has it all! Click here for more info!
This sermon is consistent with the word of God. May we be willing to examine all our traditions. Semper Reformanda.
No it is not, see my comments on this video.
@@jeremybamgbade
It certainly is….Anyone that says it isn’t is an infant baptizer. lol
Amazing word today! I am Glad I was able to be there is person. Sadly Pastor Jeff wasn’t there today. Our family truly enjoyed the service. Hopefully I can speak to Pastor Jeff one day, I have a friend who is a Mormon in Salt Lake City. I would love to help him. Great experience! Thank you!
You could reach out to Wade who is going to be planting Apologia Utah with them ✝️
Thankyou for this very sound teaching
Off subject. But was Paul actually knocked off a horse or donkey? Or is that a tradition we hold to, like the "3 wise men"
Never mind. Question answered.
none of the Israelites who circumcised had faith. So, there you go. Understanding of the truth is not necessary in that case for receiving the sign and the seal. Likewise, what the problem in the other case, paedobaptism? Remember Knox, Luther, and Calvin opposed the Anabaptist who refused infant baptism. I think the argument for me is that a case of giving a sign a seal to infants exist; and in that case, though they had no understanding, the same seal and sign that was given to Abraham after his confession,, was given to infants who did not believe God.
@Scribeintheink Why do we go to church on Sunday? Where does it say that shall worship on this day? Where does it say thou must use the words of the consecration to set apart the signs and the seals? Where does it say thou shall meet in a building for worship? Where does it say that the church must use instruments for praise and worship? Yet, we have an example where infants received the sign of righteousness in circumcision though they did not believe as Abraham. What do you do with down syndrome people and other mental disorders do you deny them the sign of baptism because they cant reason properly? If I had a child with down syndrome I would baptize them. They need that sign.
@Scribeintheink baptism is a seal of righteousness. The infants didn't have that righteousness, yet they received it.
Seems to me that Dr White is the one that has to do the ‘assuming’. In every instance of a baptism, the Presbyterian can say ‘amen’.
Only the Baptist has to say (in the case of household baptisms), ‘wait a second’.
Thats not an argument
@@menknurlan I’m not making an argument but it sure is relevant. The common charge against the paedo position is that we are making an argument from silence here. I’m simply pointing out it’s the other way around. We can amen either situation. A Baptist MUST assume faith by the household when the text doesn’t bite faith by all in the household. You can see that right?
Except that none of the NT baptismal references to households implies the presence or inclusion of infants.
AFAIK, credobaptists generally allow children who have been discipled and have expressed a desire to be baptized to be so. The Great Commission, after all, only envisages _disciples_ being baptized.
Given Jesus' restriction on who can be baptized and early church writings affirming that stance, it is not an argument from silence that infants were not baptized in the NT church.
The _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4), for example, reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before.
Similarly, Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61).
Even the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) restricted to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15).
@Scribeintheink my brother, since we’re talking about being a member of something or belonging to the group, it’s better to use an analogy that fits more properly than a murder investigation.
No analogy is perfect and they all break down but it’s more like a train ride. The Presbyterian says well you bought a ticket and went through the turnstile - you belong in the train. The baptist is checking tickets.
Where the analogy is weak is that it doesn’t account for the fact that no matter how hard the baptist wants to verify the ticket, they can’t actually know the ticket is legitimate.
Does the Bible say to guard the baptistry in the same way as we guard the table?
Augustine. He is the 300s and he talks about baptism of infants. So Calvin has copied Augustine.
Video wouldn’t play.
So this church is Reformed Baptist and believes in the believer's baptism and not infant baptism?
Nominally "Reformed"
You should debate him
@@mariocoronado3110 I am not a big fan of James. On the one hand, I appreciate what he does for conservative protestantism. On the other, he has a short fuse and is impatient and arrogant with his interlocutors. And I am a partisan: I am conservative Presbyterian. I can't imagine how his attitude appears to Arminians or Catholics, for instance.
What is your point, can you expand your thought?
@@tricord2939 His point is asking a genuine question on baptism and what they hold as their belief system. lol
Do Dr. White or Jeff Durbin have any books on fatherhood?
The jailer: even if he wasn't a godly man, with the earthquake and sudden danger of being executed for the loss of the prisoners, the fear of God had come into his heart, or else he wouldn't have gotten saved. And maybe, because of the earthquake, his household came running to see if he was okay, so they were already there to hear.
By the way, what the jailer asked, and what the apostles told him, was pretty much what Jesus said in John 3:16, etc. And honestly, it's pretty "prescriptive," isn't it? So when people believe John 3:16 as the way to be saved, revealed by Jesus, they are believing much like the Phillippian jailer did. There is nothing wrong with seeing John 3 as Jesus revealing the way of salvation. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Household is Biblical. There is just no mandate to exclude children who are in a household. 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. Exodus 2:10
But none of the NT baptismal references to households implies the presence or inclusion of infants.
AFAIK, credobaptists generally allow children who have been discipled and have expressed a desire to be baptized to be so. The Great Commission, after all, only envisages _disciples_ being baptized.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Many households have children. Matthew 18:3“And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
@@jamessheffield4173 That many households have children is hardly the point - and you know it.
As for Matthew 18:3, all that refers to is the state of innocence in which infants are born. It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a pernicious doctrine of Original Sin was invented to support the practice. Early church writers believed infants were born innocent.
Before Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent.
The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 & 24. See also Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Paedobaptists like Mr Sheffield often point to various 'household' texts (e.g. Acts 10:2-48; 16:14-15, 25-33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16) to justify paedobaptism, arguing that 'household' includes children and infants and, hence, those children and infants obtained baptismal remission of their sins. When we examine the 'household' accounts closely:
• Acts 10:2 portrays Cornelius as a devout man who feared God _with all his household,_ implying everyone in that household was mature enough to 'fear God';
• Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) is not said to have been married, so there is no reason to suppose infants or children were part of her household;
• Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-33) that salvation was available to all in his household who believed, and all of whom are said to have been baptized and to have rejoiced in their belief Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord;
• Crispus (Acts 18:8) believed in the Lord, together with all his household. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; and
• Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) and his household were baptized but 1 Corinthians 16:15 clarifies that his whole household had been converted. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to convert to Christianity.
All of which leaves paedobaptists with zero zip nada for evidence that infants could have been included...
@@jamessheffield4173Well you’re using scripture wildly out of context here…. Mathew 18 is talking about being like little children in the way they are willing to listen and obey.
Be good if these were named in a consistent form. I'm assuming this is #3????
Think it's number 5
Wanting to start listening to the whole series on baptism, but find it hard to know where to find all the sermons. Do you have playlist where they are all to be found, or do I need to just guess and try?
Ditto. Please make a playlist for this group of sermons.
All of the sermons have been preached in the past 2 months or so. If it struck your fancy, you could probably make a playlist.
@@micahdriesner6011
Just to be clear, I really didnt mean to be complaining. I was trying to find the start of this series, but genuinly found it difficult to know where it started off. Would be nice to have a clear and ordered playlist for others to find it easy aswell! Great stuff, really thankful for these sermons.
@@patrikahlberg3710 Understood, brother! I have the advantage of having been subscribed to Apologia for longer than the series has been going on. I apologize if it seemed like I was patronizing you! I can definitely do better about communicating tone with my internet messages.
@@micahdriesner6011 No worries brother, I could have framed my question better to avoid sounding like I was whining. The topic is important and I am so thankful we have people like Dr. White. God bless!
Is this a call for a debate? :)
There is nothing in Acts 9 (or any of the other accounts in chapters 22 and 26) that suggest Paul was riding on a horse or anything else... not a big deal, just saying... but otherwise great sermon!
It's a logical inference. He wouldn't have walked all the way to Syria...
@@Shiloh3498 You making this up, or you know what you're talking about? :)
I don't know if he would have walked or not. What would be your argument as to why there is no way he would have walked?
Also, I'm not sure how strong of an argument this is, but the verse says that the men who were traveling with him "stood" speechless. So unless that word means something other than the literal meaning, (which I'm open to; I don't speak greek) it would appear to suggest that at least some men weren't on horses. Thoughts?
@@chrisctlr he wouldn't have walked and he for sure wasn't driving a car. You okay?
That’s what reformers do. They only use sola scriptura when they want
The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen. He used a horse. Duh.
James i love you, but you never fully explain what the paedo view is of going down into the water. Of course the Baptizer didn’t immerse himself as well, which would be your assumption if they both came up out. If you saw your sons standing in the river up to their knees, and one poured water on the others head, and they both came up out of the water, you could still describe that as coming up out of the water.
I’m credo, but your point on this specific aspect is always laughed at and never explained, you always do your work, so this is surprising to see from you
The most reasonable interpretation relates to the meaning of the Greek verb βαπτίζω (baptizó) itself, which is 'to submerge, immerse' or, more literally 'to dip under'. For example, a sinking ship (not a floating one) would be baptized. The word was also applied to the dyeing of fabrics, which quite obviously entails their full immersion in the dye. Merely pouring is not envisaged, otherwise καταχέω (katacheó) would have been used, as at Matthew 26:7. James White has a whole sermon on just the meaning of the Greek word:
ua-cam.com/video/YPNq2F6EWrQ/v-deo.htmlsi=fkd5fiuj7bFsG9EO
That said, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150) did allow for water to be poured onto the person concerned _if_ insufficient water was available for immersion.
Good sermon. But I think you as baptist should not fellowship with presbyterianss since baptism is a part of the fundamentals of Christ teaching according to Hebr 6:1-2.
You’re not going to talk about priesthood authority?
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants" -Origen
If the entire early church for hundreds of years claimed it was apostolic teaching, then we should do so as well.
We shouldn't hinge on our personal interpretation of scripture, but on the intepretation of those who received it.
Lol well many of the church fathers disagreed with each other on baptism, so you’d have to arbitrarily pick and choose which father you think is “faithful to the apostolic withess” if you wanna go the whole “lets stick to what the original church believed” route (I mean this in the sense that Roman Catholics use this argument)
This a common problem Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox ppl don’t get. They ascribe far more authority to the fathers than the fathers claimed for themselves. And besides that, they cherry pick what is in the fathers - (for Roman Catholics, they seem to imagine that only the Fathers in the WEST are to be regarded - as if primitive Christianity didn’t spread EASTWARD as well LOL) - that they find agreeable to their own dogma, and say the fathers as a whole supported the total sum and substance of their tradition. Absolute nonsense.
The fathers, like all men who were not the apostles/prophets -erred in some of what they taught-James even warned us that all men who seek to teach will err (James3:1-2). Even if one could prove perfect unanimity amongst the fathers concerning baptism or anything else, that ALONE would not ispo facto prove their doctrine correct - (faithful men can be “united” in their error/John14:8-9 notice the plural “us”) - as the bible testifies to the fact that men, even converted men, can quickly depart from the truth once accepted (compare the national repentance of Israel in Nehemiah 8-9 to their quick moral backsliding in Nehemiah 13 -also see Galatians 1:6)
Thus we are to test everything by scripture (Isaiah 8:20) as even the Apostle Paul message was not accepted by some, until they were convinced from scripture. And those who consulted the scriptures FIRST before accepting Pauls word, were called “more noble” for doing so (Acts 17:9-11)
Tertullian, who came before Origen says in the chaplet that we should deal with issues of baptism using tradition:
"If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism."
In his book, "On Baptism" he states:
"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary - if (baptism itself) is not so necessary - that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred - in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom - until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation."
@@davidlronald Yeah tertullian is wrong here. He denied that infants were guilty of or sharers of original sin. His unbiblical and flawed anthropological views -consequently informed his flawed views on baptism.
@@jeremybamgbade regardless, the original claim was the appeal to tradition; not who was right.
I don't think this debate over infants will ever be solved tbh, but the OP cited Origen so I cited Tertullian. The men disagreed with eachother no doubt.
@@davidlronald It is solved when one has a proper view of the covenants.
Doesn't someone have to be old enough to eat and partake of the supper?
There is no supper. Jesus and the disciples were having the last passover
@@aletheia8054 Read the Scripture. Christ said differently.
@@deniseadkins2901
Luke 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the *passover* , that we may eat.
Luke 22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the *passover* with my disciples?
Luke 22:13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the *passover*
@@aletheia8054 Christ was the perfect Passover lamb that was slaughtered. The Passover, like it was in Ancient Israel, changed. The true sacrifice was among them. After Christ died, there was no need for sacrifices. Passover pointed to Christ. Type and shadow type of thing.
@@deniseadkins2901 Yeah that’s true but they weren’t having “holy communion” They were eating the last Passover
Not prophecy spirit, pithon spirit
Whaaat
i like the way White puts it, to paraphrase, "baptism is an equalizer."
How ironic is it for Baptists to affirm the so-called “5 points of Calvinism” and then maintain that baptism is INHERENTLY (or more properly-PRIMARILY) a sign of individual faith. Or more precisely considering whites take on Acts 2:39, apparently baptism is to be restricted to the elect.. The issue with this method of reasoning, is that there are baptized persons who will assuredly apostatize (1John2:19). Does this not suggest that in the credo Baptist framework, baptism is a sign of a geuine faith, that might be lost? Doesn’t this conflict with their avowed Calvinism, wherein such a scenario is impossible?” This cognitive dissonance is what results when you make baptism to be a sign of personal faith, (credo) as opposed to a sign of Gods’ covenant (paedo)
At this point, the credo baptist, will likely back track and say “Well we don’t presume to know that all baptized persons are elect, we baptize on the grounds of charity and that charity is predicated on a ‘credible’ profession of faith” (I would expect this reply from a baptist well versed in the 1689 LBCF) . Now, of course -if the baptist has a right to baptize on the grounds of charity, (not objective knowledge) then charity ought not be denied to the parent who baptizes on the ground that their child is considered “holy” (1cor7:14) and will be raised in such way that one may reasonably assume that the child will eventually come to faith (Prov22:6)… Thus, the charity upon which a parent baptizes their child is objective, based on the promises and pedagogical writings of scripture (again 1Cor7:14) while the baptists charity is predicated on no objective foundation at all (concerning the 👉🏿recipients👈🏿ACTUAL faith-of course we baptize those who profess because we are commanded too ) seeing that some professors of faith, may well be devils (pslam62:4) but returning back to the issue…
At this point (considering the previous baptist presumed backtrack) if our baptist brother still insists on the “but we only see converts receive baptism” argument, he must now ignore this insoluble problem. Namely, that a profession of faith, for a converted pagan gentile, (which WE as gentile Christians all were, mind you) under the old covenant, was LIKEWISE necessary in order to receive the sign of the covent (the sign of conversion at that time- thus this practice is not new) as even baptists commentators will admit concerning verses like exodus 12:48.
Even John Gill, the great Baptist, says concerning exodus 12:48 “for by this means he (the gentile convert) would become a proselyte of righteousness, and in all respects as an Israelite, or son of Abraham.... enjoying all the privileges"
.
Who here does not see the
correspondence, to “believers’ baptism”? Consider the term “proselyte of righteousness”. This was so called by the Jews (the bible really/Acts 13:43/acts17:4/luke7;5) because they regarded gentiles, who converted to Judaism, as those who have turned from wickedness to righteousness...This methinks, sounds a lot like how credos view baptism (all Christians are proselytes of righteousness) with the inconsistency being, that the sign that made one to be PUBLICLY REGARDED as a “proselyte of righteousness” (cough cough what baptism does now) was applied to infants and now all of the sudden, Baptists cry foul when the paedobaptist simply wishes to remain consistent with this principle!! If the Baptist is right to argue that it is inappropriate to apply the sign of the covenant to infants (when the parent of the infant received it after conversion) why wasn’t the Circumcision of infant males (who belonged to gentile proselytes) delayed until they also made a profession of faith? Sure they would’ve been regarded as foreigners in the land, but that is (effectively) what Baptist regard their children as until they profess faith anyways!
Guys more could be said, and yes, James White knows his stuff when it comes to refuting false religions, defending the Trinity, and showing how mistaken Roman Catholic theology is (I suppose this a tautology seeing as this is covered by my first point) but he has severely flawed understanding of covenant theology/reformed ecclesiology.
For an ACTUALLY reformed perspective on baptism, please check out pastor patrick hines video, and his UA-cam channel, here:
ua-cam.com/video/6MCV15rx9ys/v-deo.html
May I ask your denomination Sir?
@@jasonrichards7230 I am a member of a conservative PCA church in Maryland.
I am recently saved and want to honor and worship God rightly! I never knew there were such conflicting ideologies and theological views! What’s a man to do? I read my Bible and read, but sometimes I believe we need help in discernment on God’s word. At this point I don’t know where to turn or what denomination is going to be sound doctrine. I’m looking for a church for my family now where we will get the Gospel and God’s truth. I’m finding it difficult. Thank you so much for your time and help. May God direct your paths! God bless!
@@jasonrichards7230 Baptists are Christians, just as Presbyterians are, but I have been utterly persuaded that the baptists are wrong when it comes to baptism.
@@jasonrichards7230 If you have ever never read it, I would encourage you read the Westminster Confession of faith. In my humble opinion, it is one of the best, if not THEE best systematic summarization of Christian doctrine.
James White World - where every hill is worth dying on.
*yawn*
So is that where the phrase, “… It’s going to kill me when they find out” came from? From the Roman jailer. “Oh crap, the boss is gonna kill me. Ah well, might as well save him the effort.”