Jewish Circumcision and Infant Baptism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 сер 2022
- To learn more about this video series, The Mass Readings Explained, and the Gospel reading, Responsorial Psalm, and the Old Testament reading for this Sunday's Mass, subscribe today to The Mass Readings Explained:
catholicproductions.com/pages...
For more Bible studies by Dr. Pitre, visit:
catholicproductions.com/colle...
Images used:
Bellini-circumcision-NG1455-fm
Benczúr,_Gyula_-_The_Baptism_of_Vajk_-_Google_Art_Project
Giovanni_Francesco_Barbieri_-_Saint_Paul
Pietro_Longhi_-_The_Baptism_-_WGA13414
Saint_Cyprien_évêque_de_Carthage
Thank you. This has troubled me for many years. I have a clearer understanding of this teaching in favor of baptizing infants. Please pray for me to understand completely. Thank you ❤
Every video of yours I watch, my understanding of the faith grows deeper, and so does my love for others. Thank you
Love it. Baptist have an extremely hard time understanding this concept. Thank you Dr. Pitre.
The concept is according to what God says in His word and not according to what men say, regardless of their religious hierarchy.
Repentance must come first and THEN a person can be baptized. How can a baby repent? (Acts 2:38) Peter said to them, REPENT, >> AND
@@mec325
Read a little farther and Acts 2:38 say "every one of you".
Peter said "Repent, and be baptized", he didn't say "Repent, and THEN be baptized"
True, repentance and baptism are necessary, but not necessarily in that order.
Paul baptized the Jailer's retire household and family in Act. 16:33, Lydia's household Acts 16:15, the household of the centurion in Acts 10, and the household of Stephanas in 1 Cor 1:16.
Household means adults, children, infants, servants, and anyone else who resided there.
But according to your logic, none of these households had any infants.
@@bettyjmj
Baptism does not save anyone it is a pledge of a good conscience to God demonstrating our repentance (1 Peter 3:21). This commitment in question is personal between God and the individual so, it cannot come from someone else's intention.
GBY
@@johns1834
Your comment assumes so many statements that I did not write. A little thought for you to ponder: Was the repentant thief on the cross baptized before Jesus declared him saved? His repentance and faith in Christ was enough. Baptism alone does not save anyone.
@@mec325 Nor does faith alone saves anyone.
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE
[T]he prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable
by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says,
“Unless one be born of water, he has not life”) [Baptism 12 (c. A.D. 203)].
JUSTIN MARTYR
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true,
and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and are instructed to pray and
entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their past sins, we pray and
fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are
regenerated in the same way we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the
name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For
Christ also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven” [Jn 3:3] [First Apology 61 (c. A.D. 151)].
EARLY CHRISTIAN INSCRIPTION
Sweet Tyche lived one year, ten months, and twenty-five days. Received
[the grace of baptism] on the eighth day before the Kalends [the first day
of the month]. Gave up her soul on the same day [Christian Inscriptions,
no. 27 (c. A.D. 250)].
IRENAEUS OF LYONS
For he came to save all through himself-all, I say, who through him are
born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old
men [Against Heresies 2:22:4 (c. A.D. 189)].
Thank you, Dr. Brant.
Thanks for Monday Brant !!!
Thank you Dr Pitre. Very clear teaching..God bless you
Love these "extended shorts" that good speakers are coming out with!! Matt Fradd and you are doing excellent work! Thank you!!
Thank you
Thank you.
Thank you for this, as Augustine said the Old Testament is revealed in the new, now we see that Baptism offers access to God’s covenant, this revelation should be part of every infant baptism.
What gives us access to the new covenant with God the Father is Christ and not baptism.
Hebrews 12:24
Jesus who is the mediator of the new covenant, and of the blood of the sprinkling which speaks better than that of Abel.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - For He has made Him who knew no sin sin for us, so that we become the righteousness of God in Him.
GBY
@@mec325 Baptism was ordered by Christ. It's not Christ _or_ baptism. It's both! We are baptized _into_ Christ's Body, as Paul says. God bless you! ♥️🙏♥️
@@rhwinner
I never said baptism was not ordained by Christ! What I said is that it is not the act of baptism that saves but our faith in Christ that is the only covenant between God and men for our salvation. Baptism without faith is useless since repentance must come first (Acts 2:38).
The crucified thief was saved only by his faith that Christ was God's Messiah for the salvation of men.
GBY
@@mec325 God can choose to save us by any means he chooses. However he ordained baptism as the usual way. Yes, faith is necessary also. Just as God chose to save us by becoming man and dwelling among us, he chooses to use physical things like water to draw us up to Him. It's not that water has any power in itself to save us - it's that God _uses_ water and other physical reality. Just as God uses our physical reality to spread the Gospel, and feed the hungry. When we feed the poor Christ tells us we are feeding Him! How is this? We don't know, but Christ assures us that by doing it we make contact with _Him._ Bless you. ❤️🙏❤️
@@mec325 as James says faith without works is dead, since you are scripture only and refuse or have never taken the time to investigate, Baptism was the first step .
The most helpful argument I have seen yet for infant baptism. Thank you...
Even in the Bible many times house holds were baptised...it's just like usually men were counted in many bible stories doesn't mean women and children were absent. It's just those lazy arguments some protestants give against infant baptism
Well said, many fundamentalist Protestants will argue for a believers baptism only, holding to scripture alone, while ignoring the faith of children, even as were told by Christ to have, for the kingdom of God belongs to such, as well as suffer not the lil children from coming to Christ. We also see John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeths womb at the presence of the Lord Jesus in the womb of the blessed Mother Mary, so even sacred scripture can show this position not holding up, besides, who would not want their children baptized into the holy faith, & being born from above. Christendom, w/ the beauty & fullness of the faith is so much bigger than our intellectual theological minds or lack there of. Otherwise what is the proper age, or honest profession of faith & given that, how many baptisms?..
One LORD, One Faith, One Baptism, is in the holy Catholic & Apostolic Church, peace to the body of Christ
Amen.
Exactly! Infants and little children are more connected to God than adults oftentimes! Just like St. John the Baptist
Best video on justification of infant baptism 👏
Love your explanation Dr Pitre. Thank you so much. Blessings 🕯🕯🕯
I was still baptized on the 8th day in the hospital chapel. This was normal before mother and child were released from birth giving.
I think God chose the 8th day as sign for infinite life with Him.
EXCELLENT
Regarding infant baptism
How to enter or participate in the kingdom by baptism .
Jesus said
Matthew 19,14
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
The misconception is that Jesus taught infant baptism by saying that the Kingdom belongs to young children. (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16) The fact is Jesus was not discussing baptism when he said those words. Instead, he was showing that those who would qualify for the Kingdom of God must be childlike--Meek and teachable. (Matthew 18:4)
Are you saying that Jesus suggested that the children do not need circumcision?
@po18guy in Acts 15, it was decided that one did not have to be circumcised to be saved. That wasn't my issue.
The original comment is about infant baptism and what Jesus says about the children.
So I asked if they are suggest that children are not circumcised.
Because.......
During the time of Jesus, children were most definitely circumcised. 8 days after birth, they were circumcised.
Jesus was circumcised.
My point is that what Jesus said about the children does not mean they do not require baptism.
Paul actually teaches that baptism is the new circumcision.
So if baptism is the new circumcision, then it would suggest that 8 days after birth, the child would be baptized.
It's ridiculous to think infants were not baptized. Those ignorant protestants.
@po18guy what do you mean by Bible as sole rule of faith? Sunny Johnson is correct in his statement.
@@sunnyjohnson992 Infant Baptism:
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized 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). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is TO YOU AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:39, emphasis added).
The apostolic Church baptized WHOLE “HOUSEHOLDS” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention-nor exclude-infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. EVEN ONE BELIEVING PARENT IN A HOUSEHOLD MAKES THE CHILDREN AND UNBELIEVING SPOUSE “HOLY” (1 Cor. 7:14).
In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, WITH HER HOUSEHOLD” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was BAPTISED that night along WITH HIS HOUSEHOLD. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with ALL HIS FAMILY” (Acts 16:33). Acts 16:33-
“At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD were baptized.” And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also THE HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANUS” (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS or FAMILIES were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
The Lord explicitly “called infants” to himself in Luke 18:15-16
Now they were bringing EVEN INFANTS to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,
FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD BELONGS TO SUCH AS THESE.
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.
Colossians 2:11-12 - Baptism replaces circumcision
Genesis 17:12 - Circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
I found Cyprian epistle 58 4 to 6 on the baptism of infants , epistle 64 is what you put on the video is talking about a bishop and deacon
(Philippians 3:2-3)
'Watch out for those mutilators of the flesh (circumcision) - for it is we who put no confidence in the flesh.'
I can’t imagine not baptizing my children. It would be like having a life raft but waiting for your child to be old enough to hold onto.
Obrigado pelas legendas em português (Brasil)
AVE MARIA AMEN
Can anyone explain the “8th day?” Were the infants circumcised eight days after they were born? Or is the eighth day a specific day of the week? If so, is it Sunday? I’ve never fully understood this before as there are seven days in a week🙏
The purpose of the 8th day was to avoid the Sabbath. Children come any time, regardless of the Sabbath or not but the "work" of circumcision could not be done on a Sabbath. So if a child was born on the Sabbath, the circumcision could be done on the 8th day, after the Sabbath had ended (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). There are also some (but few) modern studies showing that there is less pain if done on the 8th day.
Baptism has the HUGE advantage that it's NOT limited to males only!!!! Another good reason for infant baptism asap was that the infant - and child - mortality rates were much higher than today, now that we have antibiotics and skilled paediatricians.
Thanks for the video. However, I am still confused why only male infants, how about female infants?
Female infants get baptised also
@@Dannyboy0202 I meant in the old testament time
@@lucky1rooster I think it was expected for women to conform to the religion of their father and later husband
Hello
Mary Is the Essential Key
Our Blessed Mother is the essential key to victory over the Antichrist.
“On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will conquer through her because He wants the Church’s victories now and in the future to be linked to her…” wrote St. John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
In his homily on Feast of the Assumption in1997, focusing on Revelation 12, John Paul II again said, “And in this spiritual battle her help to the Church is decisive for attaining the ultimate victory over evil.”
The great Pope of Fatima spoke many times of the importance of Fatima and our Blessed Mother. In a way preparing for the end times, Our Lady told the children at Fatima, “You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. It is to save them that God wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If you do what I tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace.”
Of course, one major direction Mary gave in every apparition was a “must” - pray the Rosary every day.
The great Marian apostle St. Louis de Montfort whose book inspired John Paul II had this to say: “Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor” but they would “be rich in God's graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. [I]n union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ.”
Right before him, Bl. Mary of Agreda had a revelation that in the latter days, “the Lord will in a special manner spread the renown of His Mother. Mary began salvation, and by her intercession it will be completed. Before the second coming of Christ, Mary, more than ever, must shine in mercy, might, and grace in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic faith. The power of Mary in the latter days will be very conspicuous. Mary will extend the reign of Christ over the heathens and the Mohammedans, and it will be a time of great joy when Mary is enthroned as Mistress and Queen of Hearts.”
This is just one reason de Montfort stressed, “Devotion to Mary is especially necessary in the latter times.”
Following Mary Assures Victory
De Montfort tells us in True Devotion to Mary why God has her lead the faithful in the latter times, including the time the Antichrist will appear.
“God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer.”
“Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother.”
De Montfort explained from Genesis (3:16) God already gave Mary who was yet to be born ingenuity to expose, and the power to defeat and crush, the rebellious devil. That’s why “Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God.”
De Montfort goes into great detail that abounds in hope and victory in all times. He stresses that in all present and future persecutions “the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will unmask his serpent's cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws.”
Directives for us become clearer and clearer. To win the battle we must be close to Mary. St. John Paul II showed that we have to consecrate ourselves to Mary and her Immaculate Heart and have devotion to her.
About devotees, de Montfort stressed, “They will see clearly that she is the safest, easiest, shortest and most perfect way of approaching Jesus and will surrender themselves to her, body and soul, without reserve in order to belong entirely to Jesus.”
COL. 2: 12. BAPTISM. /. THRU
FATHER, SON, HOLY. SPIRIT.//
The root link of baptism from jewish mikvah purification of the inner man a new spiritual transition anticipation of the jewish ceremonial observance.. Circumcision is a part of national character of jewish identity. Tracing its root christian baptism from mikvah. 8:42
Is it true the ancient Egyptians practised Circumcison years before the Israelites ?
Acts 2 38¶Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Explicit 🙌✌️✌️
Gracias Dr Pitre. On the idea of teenagers deciding their religious fate or Baptism at an age when they’re able to make the decision or choice is utterly unacceptably ridiculous!!! This has nothing to do with freedom of choice at the price of our children being lead astray. The latter is a modern invention and not a traditional concept of FAITH. Our faith is based on a FIRM AND SOLID FOUNDATION. How can we as the keepers of our FAITH let Satan enter via argumentative circles over the issue of a CHOICE left up to OUR CHILDREN? How…? I faithfully believe and know IN MY HEART that there is in fact ONE universal Church and ONE GOD. How can we compromise this grandeur with abominations formed in modern day, worldly influenced, circles and arguments? We have to remain alert and vigilant and know when Satan is in the works versus the priority of faith. A teenager and maturity is a long thing coming to leave it up to them in a questionable stage and identity stricken mindset with wisdom in the lacking. The AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY is a lesser soul state barely entering the spiritual challenges and tribulations of life; on the other hand the state of infancy is a pure state, a beautiful and perfect stage of innocence and love, that is naturally and definitively a yes to the Holy Spirit. I guarantee you Satan had his hand in the cookie jar with the pathetic idea of “How about baptizing them when they’re teenagers?” The whole idea is an oxymoron. Keep a watchful eye out Shepherds of the Flock!
MY. SON. WAS. BAPTIZED. ON. FIRST.
DAY. MY DAUGHTER @ ONE. MONTH.
WE DIED @ RAISED. WITH. CHRIST.//
A. M. D. G.
Then they shouldn't have taken out the exorcism.
Acts 2,38,39
🔎 38 Peter replied, “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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Then why don't you batize like it is done in the bible.? TOTAL IMMERSION!!! Hebrew "MIKVEH".
We do both.
As I got older and as I had children, the whole circumcision thing really became a questionable practice for me. We chose not to circumcise our son. I can’t imagine a loving god asking for such a thing, requiring such a thing. As far as I know, philosophers and theologians haven’t really wrestled with this with any significance. It seems to be taken for granted that it was required by God, but I think we should dig into how God could really have someone do this. Mutilation under any other circumstance seems to be a sin. Just food for thought. Big fan of yours Dr. Pitre.
If you are christian why did you even consider circumcising your children?
And yes, circumcision is self mutilation but before modern medicine it served to protect the mem from infections that were common in the climate of the near east.
Are you obedient or are you your own God?
@@beachphotog2296 what does asking a philosophical (philosophy of ethics) question have to do with your question? Are you implying being thoughtful is a sin akin to idolatry of self? Maybe you should only comment on things like this if you’ve taken some philosophy.
Circumcision was Old Testament Law. A sign of the Covenant (sacred family bond). It only applied to the Jews. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant (sacred family bond with Christ). So long as your children were Baptised, you did the right thing.
I don’t think circumcision is mutilation in any way. Numerous studies have shown that the procedure is safe and has modest medical benefits.
Whether it was safe 2000 years ago, I don’t know. If serious complications were common, it sure was never discussed in the old testament. You can presume that it was safe or else we would have heard about complications in the Old Testament.
Jews do not baptist child it's dedication.
Did Jesus teach this to Paul or is it his own interpretation of circumcision?
Dont send your children to school until they are old enough to decide if the want an education.
Nor force them to brush teeth, until they are old enough to choose whether to brush or not.
That's not even close and you know it.
@@throwawaytrash33
Ok, how about this tredy woke one..
Dont call them he or she until theyre old enough to decide 😅
@@35TheDarkknight Gender is not a choice lol.
@@throwawaytrash33
Now it is😅😅
Maybe circumcision for the ancient Jews was about cleanliness/hygiene/holiness? God had lots of instructions for them to be clean in all ways....food, not touching dead bodies, etc. IDK just a thought
Oh i didn't knew bishops were greater than jesus.
They aren't, who claimed that?
@@tafazzi-on-discord jesus said repent and come..where a baby cannot repent but a bishop said its fine.. The family of a jail guard had been baptised.. Where family doesn't have to mean there should be an infant.. Just a husband and wife can be called a family or they would have childrens of 14 or 15 year maybe.. Some cracked out bishop thought this is an idea to increase the count on the church or to increase the counts of catholics in the planet he just created his own rule that infants can be baptised and the whole set of people just followed his blasphemy.. That means bishops are greater than jesus.
@@yadhukrishna1070 repentance is not a moment, it is a process that extends throughout the whole life of the christian. Children can begin that process if they are correctly educated. Jesus never forbade infant baptism, and since He left the supreme authorithy to the church to bind and loose, bishops always determined infant baptism is legitimate. All evidence suggests apostles did that and taught that. To perform infant baptism is to act in the authorithy Jesus left to the bishops, it does not mean they are greater than Jesus, you however idiotically think that you have been given the authorithy to reject tradition and authorithy: no, you can't do that, it's sinful.
@@tafazzi-on-discord there is a big difference between infant and children. A children may feel repentance but never an infant
search the whole bible and show any one point where it supports infant baptism. NO apostles had done infant baptism.
Circumcision is not baptism (Mikveh in Jewish terms). Baptism of infants is not a Jewish practice. John the Baptist didn't baptize infants. Jesus was 30 years old when He was baptized. The thief in the cross did not appear to be baptized.
Baptism, just like good works, is a response to God's grace, not an action of bribery for salvation. Only a person of age can determine for themselves to respond to God, not an infant. An infant ought to be dedicated unto God, but baptism is not a requirement for infants.
Interesting that Jeremiah said in 31:30 "But everyone will die for his own iniquity"
In the time of Acts where goes the faith of the father so goes every single family member. Even those who had no clue, did not understand. What is interesting is we are given no names and ages, just households.
When people were bringing small children to Jesus, He never told an Apostle to baptize them, the parents wanted Him to lay His hands on them.
Being born into a Jewish Family you were a Jewish baby. Tell me, did the girls receive circumcision, or just the boys? I know, I know,
A Christian is one who comes to a faith in Jesus. All baptisms in the New Testament were faith based. Imagine if all I had to do was go to the local pool and dunk all of the kids under the water. When they came up I would give them the good news.
The Catholic church screams, "we are not saved by faith alone"! That's interesting considering a baby has neither faith or works, but you claim they are saved because you got them wet. If faith and works are not necessary for salvation I am going to the pool tomorrow!
The sad thing is you get a baby wet, tell it it has been baptized so it will go it's whole life never getting baptized. That's love in the eyes of the Catholic church
baptism should be reserved for those who first make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. This view is known as believer’s baptism, or “credobaptism.”
Jesus was baptized by John (Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21) and taught His disciples to baptize those who repented of their sins, believed in Him, and received salvation in His name (Acts 2:4, 38; 9:17-18; Matthew 28:19). Those who hold to believer’s baptism see it as an important initial act of obedience that a person makes after accepting Jesus as Lord-baptism is a public testimony of faith. And baptism by immersion clearly shows one’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (see Acts 2:38-41; 16:29-34; and Romans 6:3-4). Pouring or sprinkling, the method used in infant baptism, fails to illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If your heart is sizzling with Christ & you believe in the truthfulness of Christianity, then you would want your whole family to be in faith, even your babies. It's not about bible knowledge, but about Christ knowledge.
Circumcision made without hands was actually referring to concision of the heart, which only God does and can happen anytime. We have no control over it.
Nothing less than child abuse !
Are you talking about circumcision? I can't imagine you consider sprinkiling a bit of water on a child's head to be "abuse"
I know not baptizing babies is child abuse.
Circumcision is safe and has modest medical benefits. It has no side effects. People who claim otherwise are ignoring lots of data from studies done in Africa of circumcision of adult men, who report no side effects. These were studies done to lower rates of HIV transmission.
@@sliglusamelius8578 thank you for that factual information
3 times in the Bible whole families went to get Baptized. It’s very naive to think there were no children or infants in those families.
Also, Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day. This was the covenant between God and Abraham. This was before the “age of reason”.
Infant baptism is very problematic, often misleading people, including those who have received it. We often see people who were baptized as infants, having belief in Christ & having followed many of the rituals of the church, but they have a disconnect, not truly giving their lives to follow Christ, never actually seeing issue with their sins/behaviors that align with the world & many of their friends within the church. In their minds they've been saved by their belief & by following the proper rituals & often they & their friends agree & feed one another's misunderstanding. Perhaps it would be better if the rituals weren't done until the people are well taught & have understanding of what baptism really is & what it is that Christ desires of them. I speak not from speculation, but from my own experience, which I also see so many others still confused by.
Oh dear! Please read Acts chapter 02, where Peter is preaching to JEWS, circumcised men : note verse 38 - “repent, and be baptized every one of you…etc….”; and note verse 41 - “then they that gladly received his word were baptized..”. So, circumcised Jews could not rely on circumcision, but had to be baptised; and all who gladly receive the word will submit to baptism. And please read Acts chapter 16, where Paul is preaching to GENTILES, uncircumcised men : note verse 32 - “and they spoke unto them the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house”; and note verse 33 - “and..[he] was baptized, he and all his, straightway”. So, all,every one, who were baptised had first the word of the Lord spoken to them, every one; and if one foolishly holds that not-understanding babies were baptised, then one has also foolishly to hold that such babies also had the word of the Lord spoken to them.
Babies do have the Lord's word spoken to them, baptism is performed at mass meaning they are present when the Scriptures are read, and when the credo is recited. They may not understand it but it's foolish to think that even half of the hundreds of gentiles Peter baptized understood essential doctrines like the Trinity.
@@tafazzi-on-discord The record in Acts shows nothing of the preaching of doctrines such as the Trinity. Acts chapter 2 shows clearly what was preached. Verse 37 says that those who heard were pricked in their heart, and asked what they should do; verse 38 requires them to repent and be baptised; and verse 41 says that they gladly received the word, and were baptised : it is quite absurd to apply any of this to babies or infants!
@@alex-qe8qn Yes but we agree that to be an adult christian you need to adhere to some core doctrines like Jesus' divinity or the trinity. We agree that it is not necessary to completely understand and submit to all the doctrines conciously to recieve baptism, in fact eveb though Jesus taught manybthings the people Peter baptized learned just enough to convince them that they should recieve the sacrament.
Infant baptism is not absurd, what is absurd is your stubborn refusal to submit to your elders and display humility. It is absurd to suggest that when entire households were baptized infants were excluded, because concious understanding of doctrine is not a requirement for baptism.
Who omits infants when asked who lives in their household?
Please answer without excuses.
And are you saying Paul is wrong that baptism is the new circumcision?
Because circumcision was done 8 days after birth. So if baptized is the new circumcision, why would anyone have a issue with infants getting baptized 8 days after birth?
If you have any issues, your issues are with Paul.
Good luck with that
@po18guy you don't think you need to believe in the trinity to be christian?
In the old testament every Israelite was an Israelite from when he was born because they were under the theocracy (union of faith and government) of Moses.
In the new testament one has to choose to be a Christian. That is why I dont agree with this video.
The new circumcision is in the heart with the heart.
Israelites were Israelites from childhood, the theocracy under Moses. Union of faith and government.
The old testament was more inclusive because one was an Israelite from when he was physically born. That is why God told them they could not have a king.
The circumcision of the heart can only be accepted with the heart.
Infant baptism is remaining in the old covenant.
All the Catholic sacrament are done as a magic act regardless of our heart. Maybe except for marriage.
Or can the priest marry 2 unconscious people?
I know with all my heart why I left the Catholic Church.
You can't recieve baptism as a monor if your parents and godparents don't have "the heart" to publicly promise to raise you in christ, you can't recieve adult baptism nor confirmation nor communion if you don't go through confession, and you'll have a really hatd time convincing anybody that one can go through confessiom without earnestly accepting Jesus as the redeemer of sins.
You left the church for fake reasons.
@@tafazzi-on-discord
I don't disagree with anything you said.
But you have not addressed what I wrote in my comment.
I was I very devoted Catholic as a young person, I straggled with Catholic doctrines to the point that I could not sleep, from the age of 10.
The priest told me I didn't have to understand but just believe what they would tell me.
That in itself is wrong.
We all have a conscience. The conscience cannot be oppressed.
We must pray, study, grow.
@@medusa210562 "All catholic sacraments are done as magic" That's what I addressed
"Circumcision of the heart can only be accepted by the heart" can you provide scripture for this teaching when the Bible says we cannot know our own hearts? Infant baptism is not staying in the Old Testament. It would be like saying we cannot be kingdom priests because priests are of the Old Testament. You're very wrong.
@@medusa210562 yeah I had the Same experience with catholic doctrine. That's good, remember what scripture says the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and that took me down a path to actually get to know why we have the doctrines that we have and how to backed them up historically and with scripture.
Interesting that very pagan "church that persecuted the ealy believers of Yeshua, who were still keeping His Commandments in the first couple of hundreds of years, suddenly became an inspiration to the apostate " church" and they changed the very things that was from the beginning. 😳🙄
The Bible is very explicit that to be baptized you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Babies cannot do that.
Another person's faith can
The people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning-there were no “cradle Christians.”.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never-not even once-find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
Paul own idea or he get from somewhere? What did Jesus say on this? Only Jesus has authority to give law as God taught him . Paul should not be a law giver, since he wasn’t even a disciple of Jesus, and certainly not a prophet sent by God
Wow so even Paul who wrote many letters in the New Testament which was inspired by the Holy Spirit should be denied? You realize that everything he wrote was through inspiration of and the power of The Holy Spirit who is God. So remember that before you go and speak nonsense.
We can see from reading (Luke 3:3) that John was preaching that people should repent and that was what baptism ultimately meant. Baptism without repentance is only a religious rite. This is the evidence that baptizing babies is only a man's doctrine and has no effect on anyone's salvation.
Many “Christians” practice infant baptism because they see it as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision. According to them, just as circumcision brought a Hebrew into the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, baptism brings the person into the New Covenant of salvation in Jesus Christ. This view is not biblical. The New Testament makes no connection between baptism and circumcision and does not describe baptism as the sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11.25, 2 Corinthians 3.6, Hebrews 9.15).
Baptism does not save anyone. It doesn't matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, if you didn't first believe in Jesus for your salvation, baptism (regardless of the mode) is meaningless. and remains useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be taken after salvation, to publicly confess our faith in Christ and our identification with him. Infant baptism does not fit the biblical definition and does not fit the biblical way of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, an introductory service is appropriate, but even children who have been consecrated to the Lord as they grow up must make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
'Baptism now saves you.' 👍❤️
As for a child professing Christ, that’s called confirmation, which can be done as early as seven but typically by thirteen.
People are saved by baptism, scripture clearly states this, thus children must be baptized as infants, that way, if they die before confirmation they don’t go to hell.
See, you are making the assumption that infant mortality isn’t a thing. Mothers like to have the assurance that their baby was at least baptized before they died though. Especially at a time when a mother might lose three or four or even five babies to premature death.
Ultimately though, whatever the early church did, should be what we do and since infant baptism wasn’t an issue till about 500 years ago, I’m going with the early church and not with the opinion of some Protestant reading the KJV.
@@michaelibach9063 Please show me in the Bible where children were baptized.
@@mec325 when you do your taxes and have to include the social security numbers of everyone in your household, are your children, including infants included in that list or because they aren’t old enough leave them off the list?
Why don’t you Protestants understand what a household is?
Truth & Life App
15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:15 RSV-CE
Truth & Life App
8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Acts 18:8 RSV-CE
Truth & Life App
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 RSV-CE
You can do your taxes and figure out what a household is there but you have this antiCatholic prejudice that keeps you from baptizing your own babies.
Children don’t need repentance, repentance is what makes adults like little children. Little children are already ready for the kingdom and thus can be baptized. God does the work in baptism, not you.
Btw, Jesus was baptized without repentance, just fyi. So, since He’s our example.
Truth & Life App
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized 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.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
Acts 2:38-39 RSV-CE
So the promise of the holy Spirt through baptism is for you and your children but only if they, make it to adulthood, sin, then repent and then they can be baptized?
See, the promise would only be for those that repent then and there wouldn’t be any need to add the words “and to your children” to the verse.
No first century jew would have denied their children any claim to the new covenant. God was going to destroy Moses own son because he refused to circumcise him. Your novel view of baptism took 1500 years to take root, before that, nothing but infant baptism.
Baptism without repentence is useless. Petri has no spiritual wisdom. Peter clearly described the path to salvation in Acts 2:38. Catholics ignore the teachings of their claimed first pope.
Read your Bible Francis.
There is no age requirement anywhere in Scripture except The 8 day ot..
What did St Peter say in acts?
" This is a promise to you and your children".
Peace
@@iggyantiochJesus has already judged the great harlot, the catholic church Revelation chapter 17. Peter said in Acts 2:38 " Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and you shall receive the Holy Spirit." You musrt repent which no infant can do. The fruits of the catholic church from it's beginning have been evil.
Good morning 🌞
Are you sure that infants are excluded?
Verse?
Can another persons faith and witness be a proxy for another Parent for their child"?.
Scripture shows other persons faith and witness healing and getting the grace of Forgiveness for another in need.
As far as harlot goes what about the Orthodox Church or any other churches can they be harlots also, and what about your Church.
Your idea that The Catholic Church is the harlot is wishful thinking an attack from Satan on your cognitive powers.
Pray for deliverance.
Please tell me where Scripture says that Infant baptism is illicit.
Peace
Peter taught repentence, baptism in the name of Jesus and you shall receive the Holy Spirit. Catholics can not even listen to their claimed first pope. They are the Scribes and Pharisees of the new Covenant, following the traditions of men denying the commandments of God.