Time Stamp Map 0:00 - Introduction 1. 1:11 About BibleThinker 2. 2:46 What is baptism, what does it do, and what does it declare? 3. 5:23 Is baptism purely a symbol, or is there something spiritual that happens when a person is baptized? Does baptism affect salvation? 4. 6:35 When a person makes a profession of faith, should they be baptized right away, or should there be a waiting period for their leaders to observe their conduct before allowing them to be baptized? 5. 8:02 Is pedo-baptism (infant baptism) biblical? And is it biblical to draw a parallel between circumcision and baptism? 6. 13:51 When studying Scripture, what is the difference between a descriptive text and a prescriptive text? 7. 14:55 Time stamp #5 continued (circumcision vs. baptism) 8. 16:09 What does the New Testament say is the parallel we should draw from the Old Testament practice of circumcision? 9. 18:14 What passages of Scripture do pedo-baptists refer to in support of their belief? 10. 24:22 What is the difference between infant baptism and infant dedication? 11. 26:00 Even though baptism isn't salvific, is there any harm in baptizing infants just as a blessing? And do some people believe infants can, in fact, have saving faith already? How can we respond to that claim? 12. 30:53 What happens to infants when they die? Are baptized infants more likely to go to Heaven? 13. 32:11 Refuting the most powerful argument commonly used to defend infant baptism 14. 44:59 Should believers now who were baptized as an infant be re-baptized after truly coming to saving faith in Christ? 15. 49:10 Is it correct to baptize "in the name of Jesus," or "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? And should a person be re-baptized if a different formula was used during their baptism? 16. 53:56 Who can baptize people? 17. 59:00 Closing thoughts
@@fredastire208 from my experience shadow banning comes from the UA-cam bots. Why they do it, I don't know. In my case, I know that anytime there's a link in my comment, it's automatically shadow banned.
This video reminded me of a good joke. Enjoy. A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who’s best at his job. So they each go into the woods, find a bear, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together. The priest begins: “When I found the bear, I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his First Communion.” “I found a bear by the stream,” says the minister, “and preached God’s holy word. The bear was so mesmerized that he let me baptize him.” They both look down at the rabbi, who is lying on a gurney in a body cast. “Looking back,” he says, “maybe I shouldn’t have started with the circumcision.” :)
My husband got saved in December 2018 and passed away February 2019. The pastor and doctor said it would kill him with all his tubes to get baptized. His family disagreed with me but the pastor and doctor both told him it was fine. He made a public profession of faith.
This may bring you comfort, The most important thing about the word "baptism" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. What did John the Baptist say below about two different types of baptism? 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: This truth is confirmed below by Peter. Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 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. The master teacher was promised to New Covenant believers in the verse below. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Christ confirms the promise below. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. The following verse is ignored by most today, but it is confirmation of the fulfillment of the master teacher. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Jesus told Nicodemus a person must be "born again" of the Spirit of God in order to inherit the kingdom of God. See Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16, and Ephesians 1:13. Based on Ephesians 1:13, believers receive the Holy Spirit when they come to faith in Christ. No other baptism is necessary for salvation.
@@SpotterVideo thank you for your kind words. I know the thief on the cross went to heaven and I assured my husband before he passed. God blessed him with a good pastor and a christian doctor who would come in and pray with us. Again, thanks.
When I went to the Presbyterian Church, the pastor made a strong statement at infant baptisms that this was not a baptism as a declaration of faith, but the promise of the parents and church to help this child grown in faith. If the child eventually has faith in Christ, they will confirm it during confirmation. I appreciated this clarity, but saw no reason for calling it baptism when a dedication of the child would have sufficed.
I don't think you understood what he said. We are not dedicating, we are acknowledging God's work already. We are not dedicating, we are acknowledging our commitment to carry out what God has told us to do. Perhaps we are dedicating ourselves, but not our children.
@@karentaylor5739 I genuinely don't understand the distinction. Is there a way you might be able to rephrase to give me another shot of understanding? I think I understand that you're saying that the parents and congregation are dedicating themselves to the task of raising the child in the church, but in that commitment aren't they dedicating the child to God? It seems contradictory if they're not because...like if an Olympic coach has dedicated their life to training up Olympians, but they're not committing the athlete TO the olympics, then what was the point of them saying that they're dedicated if they're not actively set on the athlete representing their country? I think if a parent is dedicating their life to a specific purpose for their child, they've dedicated their child to that purpose. An Olympic coach dedicates their life to training up their athletes. The athletes are dedicated to their country to serve a purpose. But being thus dedicated doesn't mean they've already won a gold medal (salvation). So if the parents and congregation are the coach, the child is the athlete, and the gold medal is salvation, the medal is the goal, but it's not granted to the athlete as soon as they've been committed to the competition. Lots of things can falter and go wrong between the dedication and gold medal, but the group surrounding the athlete dedicated themselves anyway. When my nephews were baptized it was the same thing that OP described, "This is not salvation; this is showing our commitment to God that we intend to raise this child in the faith. All who are willing to commit to this before the eyes of God please rise." So the baby was dedicated to God in the Church with his parents and congregation all promising to raise the boys in the church toward God. They called it baptism, but it wasn't a baptism because it was about us and our commitment--not the child. I know that when clarifying a previous post it's harder when someone writes a lot of words the way I just have. I don't even know if you'll get a notification that I commented on your post or if you'd be able to try to reword it in another way, but please don't get frustrated or overwhelmed or feel like you have to correct misconceptions I have about what you meant and my understanding of things if you do come back and try to reword what you said. I genuinely didn't understand but would like to, and my long rambling was to further explain my understanding (whether it makes sense or not or is accurate or not), so that you could hopefully see my perspective and make it (hopefully) easier for you to communicate with me in a way we can both benefit. But anyway. Have a good week 🙌
@@karentaylor5739 I think we dedicate ourselves to raise a child to love the Lord and we dedicate that child to God's service as Hannah dedicated Samuel.
I was baptized this past Saturday! Praise God! If anyone here is a born again in Christ and hasn’t gotten baptized yet, I encourage you to get baptized! It’s an amazing way to show your obedience to Christ publicly and will strengthen your faith! Thanks Mike for your discernment. -Jakob
Baptism is not about an act of obedience. Faith is NOT a work. It is the gift of God. Baptism is a sacrament. It is given to build our faith and for the forgiveness of sins. I was baptized as a baby and do not need to do it again. I am already in God's family.
Great video. I was baptized December 1, 1995 as an adult in my church. As a former Roman Catholic I was baptized as an infant according to the Roman Catholic rite. I was not saved until I was 30 and this a work of the Holy Spirit. Once I understood the biblical teaching and under the leadership of godly people I was baptized and I believe God was glorified and the church edified. Keep up the good work.
I appreciate your views on this important topic. One thing that I struggle with in the explanation here is the use of the word and idea “symbol.” While I understand why some consider baptism to be a symbol, I’m not convinced that the Bible backs this up. Here is a quick explanation of why: Acts 2:38 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. On Pentecost, Peter tied the idea of baptism to salvation. Not that you can’t mess it up with sin later, but Peter placed priority on repent (change) AND baptism and tied this to the gift, which is salvation. 1 Peter 3:21 backs this up - Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I am not saying that baptism is what provides salvation, but there is a clear priority expressed that make baptism more than just a symbol. Then there is this: Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Not a symbol. A priority. And when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer, was that a symbol? God’s response seems to indicate it was more important: Matt 3: 16-17 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” The best argument for baptism being a symbol is actually scripture that seems to argue that baptism is actually a cleanser, 1 Peter 3:21. I appreciate that the words in this video place importance on baptism and I don’t question your knowledge or your hunger for spiritual knowledge. But baptism is not like a wedding ring and there is strong Bible evidence that it is much more than a symbol.
Mike has another video (4 hours long) where he goes over probably all of what you're saying. I'll just chime in on a couple verses you pointed to. And note, the key issue here is Jesus is the only thing that saves us. Communion, Baptism, other public signs and symbols aren't a requirement, but they are things a believer should do. The problem occurs when you think its a requirement. Like Catholics will say you need to do like 6-7 things or you're going to Hell. Romans 10:9 (and many other verses in my last paragraph) prove otherwise. "Acts 2:38 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This verse seems to imply that the Holy Spirit (which seals us with salvation) is received upon Baptism, however: John 7:39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. -Holy spirit comes from faith Galatians 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? -Holy spirit comes from faith (read the full chapter! 3:6, 7, 9, 11 etc all mention FAITH very specifically) Galatians 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. -Holy spirit comes from faith This is where the famous Ephesians 2:8-9 comes in; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. ----------------------------- Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. -Very simply, it does not say, "whoever does not believe AND is not baptized will be condemned." or "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." Simply that belief, aka faith, is the requirement for salvation here. We should go and do good works and get baptized, but those things don't save us. ----------------------------- Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. -We're sealed with the Holy Spirit upon faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. As Mike points out in the video Baptism means Immersed. So it is fair to say we're BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit as soon as we put our faith in Jesus (Romans 10:9-13, John 3:1-16, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:15-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 4:30, 1 John 4:15, Colossians 1:27, etc) The Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in us the moment we believe.
“You and your offspring” sounds to me like whenever you are blessed by God with offspring, bring ‘em. Bring ‘em right on. Then teach them to cooperate with their baptismal graces as they grow.
You are going to really confuse your children by doing this. Please let them decide to follow Jesus on their own. Children need to develop their own faith. They need to make their own choices or else they are not saved.
I generally disagree with Mike about baptism but I think he is right about this. You and your offspring means future generations. Acts 1: 37 and the next few verses reinforce this interpretation. This passage is on Pentacost right after Peter's sermon.
42:. . It's not only repeating. Depending on the one teaching. I was personally preached by a children's missionary. When he asked if I wanted to pray for forgiveness I said no. Butt several days later I did hit my younger brother, then I knew I had sinned, so I went to my room, asked fort forgiveness, Andy asked Jesus into my heart. Then went and told my mother, who reassured me and taught me from there. I was 3 1/2 years old. So small children can believe. I'm so glad my parents believed me and discipled, nobody could have imagined how sick I would get immediately after, when I was near death at least no 3 times,. Had 6 surgeries and this terrible infections. I loved the stories of my Bible with the questions, and talked all day long about heaven, all this before I was six.
As a Lutheran I don't agree with your views on Baptism, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your opinion and share it :D It seems like the assumption was that Baptism is a work we do, but I think the biblical position is that Baptism is a work that God does to us. 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" Galatians 3:27 "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" Matthew 28:19 "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" Matthew 19:14 "Let the children come to Me and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these"
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr because they’re not mature enough to recognize the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread & wine. I think.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Different sacrament, different requirements. First, "babies" sounds like you are talking about humans that aren't even weened yet. They wouldn't have eaten at the passover table, so I don't see how it makes any sense to feed them solid foods at communion. That aside... 1 Cor 11: 28 says one is to examine themselves before taking communion. If a child is old enough to do that, by all means they should, but if not, then they should refrain. But the practice of baptism as found in the Bible was to baptize the entire household when the believing head came to faith. This follows from the Abrahamic practice in Gen 17 which was reaffirmed in Acts 2 where not just Abraham, but his children and his servants, even those servants from far off places, were all to be circumcised into the covenant. Infants are clearly members of the covenant, not even Baptists leave their children at home when they go to church, and so should be given the sign of the covenant. And a closing point, I really don't understand why Baptists think this line of reasoning makes sense, that is, if X is true for one sacrament, therefore X should apply to another. The Bible describes what we do for the sacraments, and they are not all the same. We don't baptize by eating bread and wine. We don't take communion by getting wet. Why isn't it obvious that different sacraments have different elements and requirements? Yet I've heard many Baptists try to infer that something only said of one should apply to both even though they don't actually apply that for their own position.
@@oracleoftroy It was the priests that ate the sacrifices in the old testament wasn't it? So to be a parallel it should be the priests eating of Jesus now. Good thing the bible makes it sound like we're ALL priests!
Great conversation. I think you should invite a well studied lutheran to weigh in on infant baptism, there were many assumptions made about what people believe about infant baptism that were not completely accurate. Faith as a gift from God is a major component driving that belief, not necessarily relating it to circumcision. Why not talk about this with someone who holds the opposite viewpoint?
As a Lutheran, seconded! Our view was not represented at all and I feel as though Luther's is a compelling argument for infant Baptism as well as Baptismal Regeneration. Some bigger Lutherans in the YT space to potentially consider would be Dr. Jordan Cooper, Rev. Bryan Wolfmueller and Rev. Jonathan Fisk.
I truly believe your faith is stirctly between GOD and us as individuals, I love GOD with all of my heart and I truly know that I do NOT deserve Eternal Life wih HIM but only through HIS Mercy, I will be with HIM in Heaven and GOD help those who don't believe that I will reach Heaven because that is like unto those of the Pharisees and Saducceees. I truly love your work Pastor Mike! GOD Bless you all, as you are about saving Souls and not about religion. Love from your sister in Christ, Julie. Merry Christmas and a Happy new year to you all!🙏
Mike, dear brother, I hope you are well. I want you to know that I respect you deeply and your biblical teachings. I admire your willingness to seek to think as biblically as possible. That’s why it’s hard to write this note. (and I ask your grace and that of any others who might read it and your forgiveness if I slight you unjustly in any way) Essentially, I think that the “think biblically” goal is being missed when it comes to this discussion on baptism. The New Testament is replete with references to baptism- all of which give clear insight and solid context for understanding those insights. But the discussion seemed to revolve around ideas about baptism instead of focusing on the myriad New Testament references. Also, I was dismayed to hear your definition of what baptism is, your belief that baptism is symbolic, and that you reject baptism's connection to salvation. At minute 2:46 you answer “What is baptism?” Yet, in answering it, you use no scripture to uphold your definition. Instead, you use words like “identify” with Christ and ideas like “to become a part of a church.” (not only that but Jeff’s discussion about a person needing to go through a time of testing before it is decided they are ready to be baptized- minutes 4-5- is not thinking biblically. In the New Testament people were baptized right away, without consideration of their “seriousness” in making the decision) Then, when you speak at minute 5:23 of baptism being a “symbol” and jump right into the idea that baptism has nothing to do with salvation the “think biblically” realm has been left and the “think traditionally” realm has been entered. The argument you make about a wedding ring is a wholly manmade idea to explain baptism instead of thinking biblically about it. How can I say that? Well, first of all, in your answer, you give no definitive scriptural references to baptism being “symbolic,” (like a wedding ring) and this is because there are none. Nothing explicitly nor implicitly says that baptism is symbolic. Second, it isn’t biblical thinking because the clear NT teaching on baptism is that it is something that has actual consequence in the life of a believer, it is connected to salvation. Here are a few examples relative to baptism as symbol and its connection to salvation (and of course these are limited because of the forum). First, Acts 2:38. Peter preaches and is listeners are “cut to the heart.” And in response to their heart conviction (and along with it a faith that Christ is as great as they are hearing He is), they say, “What should we do?” Peter’s response is clear and concise, “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of sin and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” There is no ambiguity in this- Peter connects repentance AND baptism to forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit. There is no way around this, except if one starts to refer to tradition. But if one thinks biblically, it can’t be missed that in no way did Peter think baptism to be something symbolic or disconnected from salvation but, on the contrary, something that is intricately involved in the act of faith, repentance, forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit. (I would to also note that Josh did mentioned Acts 2:36-39 and paraphrased it, but missed an essential part- the direct connection of forgiveness of sin, receiving the Holy Spirit, and baptism. I’m not sure why he did that.) Another place that can enlighten us to think biblically about baptism in Romans 6. You know the passage well, I’m sure. Paul says, “Don’t you know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The thing is, while this text is used by people as a way to say that baptism is symbolic of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, Paul’s language isn’t like that. He doesn’t say “baptism is a symbol of these things.” He says that when you were physically baptized it was a “literal” (not symbolic) baptism into Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. And, conversely, it could be said that *without baptism* the actual work of Christ wouldn’t be happening in one’s life. There is something “real” about what happens when a person is baptized by faith in Christ, not something symbolic. We don’t find symbolism in this Romans text but we do find symbolism in the tradition that grew from the text. Another text is with Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8). Philip explains Christ to him through Isaiah. And clearly, the eunuch gets it and believes it. Once having done so, water is seen and the eunuch himself exclaims, “Here is water, what keeps me from being baptized?” And they stopped and the eunuch was baptized. Now, there’s no “theology” being taught here necessarily but there is something so “real” about the reality of the connection of baptism and the new life that comes with faith in Christ that the eunuch couldn’t wait to get it done. I think it’s because Philip has taught him of baptism's essentiality, something he didn’t see as “symbolic” but literal, something that, if not done, would keep one from the fullness of salvation. One more example (although there are many more) is found in 1st Peter. In chapter 3 Peter writes about Noah and his family being “safely brought through the water.” And then Peter says this, “Corresponding to this, 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.” Now, there *is* some theology going on here. Something deep and abiding and literal, not symbolic. But my point here isn’t to make a rule “everyone who gets baptized is saved.” My point is to show that biblical thinking requires us to *deal with* this text and to admit that far from being symbolic, baptism plays an essential and intricate role in our “safely being brought” to God’s desired destination for us, salvation and eternal life. My dear brother, I do not expect that many will listen to what I have written. But I hope that it can be seen that this short explanation is far closer to biblical thinking than many of the explanations being used in this video. God bless you in your ministry and may we ALL continue to do the hard work of humbly arriving at a place where we find agreement, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in chapter 1. God bless you!
I came to the comments to touch on the same kinds of thoughts & Scriptures. Thank you for already having done so! I would love to hear Mike’s thoughts on this comment, because your points are straight from Scripture.
Thanks Karl. In case your readers aren't getting it: Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son. Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven. Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching. Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.* Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous. Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.* John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism. Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.* Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism. Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that. Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.* Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.* 1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism. 1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead. Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality. Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh. Colossians 2:12 In baptism, God raised you with Christ through faith. Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.* 1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you! Baptism = assurance* of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@Mygoalwogel Matthew 28v19 does not say make disciples By baptising them... It reads 'make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
I may be wrong (if I remember to, I’ll ask Jesus when I see him), but I feel like I’ve always had faith in God, possibly even as an infant, idk. But the point when I asked Jesus into my heart, I was 4 and I remember it very clearly. I’m Baptist (though I don’t agree with 100% of Baptist theology) and my whole family went to one of those “hell” plays at my grandma’s church. That was the night when I first felt the fear of God. When they had the altar call at the end, I was bawling because I didn’t want to go to hell, and my mom tried to stop me, but I ran up to the altar by myself and there asked Jesus into my heart. I don’t necessarily know if the sinners prayer is biblical or not, but I was very sincere nonetheless. I have always looked on that moment as the day I got saved. I didn’t get baptized until I was 10 because my mom and preacher wouldn’t let me, and when they finally did, I think it was partly because I had pestered them about it for years lol. At 27, I look back on that night and know that the Holy Spirit was working on me even back then. In my teen years and most of my twenties, I strayed from the path and lived more for my flesh than God, but I always believed. I had my doubts, and about the time I was 18-19, what I learned in school didn’t match up with the Bible, and I had a crisis. This led me into studying more and more about creation, and the Lord greatly strengthened my faith through it. My twenties so far could be summed up as periodic highs and very low lows. But about a year and a half ago something changed, God convicted me of my sin and though I bucked it for a long time, He ultimately led me to a life where now I feel much more secure in my relationship with Him, like when I was a kid. I’m so thankful to God, He’s given me so many confirmations and really has shown me he loves me, bless Him. I don’t deserve any of it, and can’t praise him enough. He uses the foolish to confound the wise, my life is a living testimony of His grace, mercy, and love. I owe more than I could ever achieve in all eternity to God. Every ounce of me isn’t enough, and I thank him for his gift in being my savior, and also my greatest friend. When my fiancée ghosted me after our 5 year anniversary in August 2023, it ripped my heart out. I still haven’t fully healed from it. But though the one person I thought would never do it abandoned me, He was still there. My relationship with Him has strengthened significantly, and I have realized that Jesus truly is the only person who has never hurt me. Everything He has done in my life has been in my best interest. Me, a filthy wretch. Makes me wanna bawl all over again. How great is our God!?!
I was raised a member of the Salvation Army and so was raised with the presumption that nonadherence towards baptism was a-okay. I was then baptized in a calvinistic southern baptist church when I was 20 years old. Fourish years later, I'm an Anglican who is completely for paedobaptism. I would never say that the household argument is the strongest, personally, I think it is the weakest by far. The New and Greater Covenant argument and the Baptismal Regeneration angle is much much stronger in my opinion. When I flipped from credo to paedo on this, I spent several days praying, fasting, and writing out all the verses on baptism and tried to argue both sides before finally landing on the infant baptism perspective. I love your content here on UA-cam Mike Winger, but I really wish that you would have a dialogue with a Lutheran or an Anglican to better demonstrate the other side.
I've been listening to Jordan Cooper on the Lutheran side. It seems even crazier of an argument when to you're claiming that your baptized baby is regenerated, given faith, given repentance, and is now saved (implying other babies are not). Salvation is now of the will of earthly fathers.
The great commission also says to go to all nations baptizing them. It does not say adults. I would also say the household argument does hold weight because it speaks to how the early church that had the most exposure to Jesus's teachings handled baptism.
@@run4cmt Infant baptisms didn't start until the 300's, not sure the exact date. Also, I propose we just go baptize all kids and teenagers that we find on the street so that they are given faith, repentance, and are regenerated. We can save a lot of people!
Mike, I really hope you don't ever feel the need to change the thumbnail. It's hilarious. That aside, love your content. I really get a lot from your channel
How young can a child be to really 'believe'? My morher listened to the 15 or 30 minute Back to the Bible broadcast daily and I heard this solid Bible teaching and invitation to Christ as a preschooler. At 4 or 5 I understood that Jesus died for me because I wasn't always good and I wanted to be obedient to please Him. I believe i was saved then with a child's concept of Savior and Lord which matured with my age and understanding. I made recommitments to following him over the years and was baptized at 17. Mike, your Bible based teaching is a blessing ans sooo necessary these days. God bless you.
Some children mature and have greater self-awareness from a younger age than others. One of my best friends came to Christ when she was 4 or 5, and neither her father nor her nor I have any doubts that she was saved that night. There isn't a specific year, day, hour, minute, second, and moment kids universally become able to understand; it's person-to-person
Acts 2:38-39 - “Repent and be baptized... this promise is for you and your children.” Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16 - household baptisms suggest baptism of children Jn 3:5; Rom 6:4 - necessity of baptism Col 2:11-12 - OT circumcision replaced by NT baptism as sign of the covenant (OT circumcision was performed on infants, see Gen 17:12)
Beyond they discussed all of these passages and shown how that’s not accurate. Especially acts 2:38-39, babies aren’t old enough to understand repenting
@@juliannaodubajo6211 have you seen all the verses I sent? Baptism replaces circumcision. If a Jewish father was told that his kids had to be a certain age he would’ve left and said, “I thought this was a new, stronger covenant how come I can’t baptize my children when I can just circumcise them?” Because the church is not a club you’re born into it or if you’re a convert same thing, baptism means you are born again through water and spirit. Why wouldn’t you want to bring your children into the new covenant of God. Baptism just replaces circumcision, the old law. Also every human that has lived and will live is stained from Adam and eves fall so when we are baptized we are washed from original sin and are welcomed into the kingdom of God which is here and now.
@@juliannaodubajo6211 Everyone needs to pray seriously about baptism and communion in Jesus Christ name! And search the scriptures in Jesus Christ name! God bless you all and keep you.
Baptizo does NOT mean immersion. Why does baptists always say this? I often hear this spoken of like it is an unquestenable fact. But just look in a good greek dictionary and you will see that it does not mainly mean immersion. Yes often when something is baptized it’s also immersed but what sepperates the word bapto(often translated dipping) from baptizo is not that something that is dipped is not fully immersed. The thing you want to state by using the word baptizo instead of bapto is that the dipping caused a permanent effect. For example: The Romans called spears and arrows with poison, baptized spears. The whole spear was off course not dipped in the poison, just the tip. But the dipping caused the spear to change from normal to poisonous. The clearest and best example if you want to understand the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. Baptizo is also used in a non-immersion way in NT. Mark 7:3-4 Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. 4And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash(baptizo). And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining. it is not likely that all the pharisees and the jews got fully immersed every time they came home from the market. Most people did not have conditions for that. In fact we know that these cleansing acts was made by pouring water, often from large pots. (see John 2:6) Luke 11:37-38 As Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee invited Him to dine with him; so He went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised to see that Jesus did not first wash(baptizo) before the meal. Same here. Do we actually asume that the pharise expected Jesus to “fully immerse” before having a lunch? No, he expected Jesus to do the ritual washing from the “tradition of the elders”. Why is the word baptizo used in these 2 texts? Because they speak of a ritual washing. Where the one being washed went from unclean to clean. The washing produced a change just like Nicanders vinegar. This is why it was no big deal for christians to baptize by pouring water like didache speaks about. Immersion was still norm but was never seen as a question of validity. Didache is believed to have been written before tha last apostle died so it confirms that this pracitce existed extremely early. . Summery: Stop saying baptizo means immersion and never question someones baptism because they were not fully immersed.
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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 ESV Baptism is how you receive forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
@@cendallitak8140 faith includes baptism. There was no unbaptized believer nor baptized unbeliever in the Bible. But now, since men divorced the two that God put together, there are plenty of both. It’s time to repent and be obedient to the Word of God. Whoever repents, should be baptized immediately in the name of Jesus, like the Bible commands us.
@@an_nie_dyc1386 agree. We should. But if there is someone on theor death bed who accept jesus chrost as their attonment and is birn again but he doed before we get water baptised, his going straight to heaven. We should get baptised 100% but if we doe on the way to get baptised or whatever, we don't go to hell.
@@cendallitak8140 that’s my opinion, too. I believe whoever puts all his trust in Jesus and not in himself, and has an obedient, loving heart, will be saved; even when he or she is taught wrong in certain points. Nevertheless we have to search the scriptures (and not the writings of the early church or whatever) to find out Gods perfect will for us, and I believe He chose to save us this way - through the name of Jesus ( e.g. His identity) that we put on in baptism. Romans 6; Acts 2,38; Mark 16,16; Galatians 3,27 „Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.“ Revelation 3:2-3 ESV
I've always considered infant baptism to be one of those things God allows us to do. It is neither right nor wrong. If it is a conviction that you hold you must do or not do it. I think the Bible gives us justification that it can be done but that it does not need to be done at that age.
I think we must do things as God says not follow our own convictions. The Bible gives us the examples to follow. We must have faith first, then be baptized. Babies have no faith so they can not be baptized.
@@sarahbishop-jones2841 God works covenantally. God's covenants have covenant signs. The covenant with Adam had the covenant sign of the tree.: "And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,’" (Gen. 2:16-17). The covenant with Noah had the sign of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:9-17). The Covenant with Abraham had the sign of circumcision: "And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” (Gen. 12:7). There are other covenants and covenant signs.. The Abrahamic Covenant included infants and the sign of their entrance into that covenant was circumcision. The fact is that infant males were included in the Abrahamic covenant via the sign of circumcision. Females were included in the covenant via federal headship, the doctrine that the male head of the family represents his descendents. Heb. 7:7-10 is a good example of this. "The federal headship view considers Adam, the first man, as the representative of the human race that generated from him. As the representative of all humans, Adam’s act of sin was considered by God to be the act of all people and his penalty of death was judicially made the penalty of everybody."1 The Abrahamic Covenant is called the gospel in Gal. 3:8 "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect. Since the covenant is that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed and that is called the gospel by Paul, then the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect. To say the Abrahamic covenant is not in effect now, is to contradict what Paul said when he called it the gospel. Remember, God's covenant promise was to bless all nations in Abraham. This is a reference to the coming Messiah in whom we have redemption. Infants were included in the Abrahamic Covenant which is still in effect. Whether or not infants understood what was occurring in their participation of the covenant sign is immaterial since it was God who ordered that the infants be included in the Abrahamic covenant. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect -- by being equated with the gospel - infants should still be included in that same covenant. Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect? There is no command at all to exclude infants from the same covenant that is still in effect. Baptism is the New Testament covenant sign and is to be applied to infants. Finally, many epistles were written to correct error. Why do none of the epistles include a restriction of infants being included in God's covenant via baptism? Why? Because theologically, infants were included in the covenant of God and since the Abrahamic covenant is equated with the gospel,
@@sarahbishop-jones2841 Mark Driscoll just taught this weekend about Romans 14 and about convictions, and I think it relates to this really well. I'm still thinking on it, so I can't summarize, but I recommend it and it may help you hone your perspective into something really precise
@@e.t.h.559 Not one commandment for Infants not to be you say? Why would you think that there has to be a Commandment? Scriptures plainly say, Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved..." and Acts 8:36'37 "... here is water, what hinder me to be baptized? If thou believeth with all thine heart thou mayest." One Must Believe in order to be Baptized in order to have their sins remitted (Acts 2:38) to be Saved. How can an infant Believe, how can they understand that that they even have sin? One must understand that they are a Sinner first and need the Lord's redemption. Acts 2:37, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
@@mikeeagan1307 first of all, we as reformed Christians do believe that adults who were not Christians previously should be baptized, after all baptism is the sign of the covenant, and adults also need to receive baptism because it symbolizes that they are part of the visible church of God here on earth, secondly there are also accounts in the book of acts of entire households being baptized, for example, see Acts 16:15, and acts 16:31, I would like to hear your interpretation of these passages, you may say that this did not include children, but This is true only if you assume that of all the households in Israel that were baptized, none included infants. This is an assumption that is without substance especially since we know that good Jews were to obey God's command to multiply and replenish the earth. notice, that the apostles were to make disciples of every nation, that means that they weren’t followers of Jesus Christ, and thus had to be baptized because they had to receive the sign of the covenant, also many of the accounts of baptism in the book of acts speaks of mass conversion from pagan religions to Christianity, so of course the majority would be adults lastly, you are presupposing, that the order of faith and baptism in the book of acts is always the same, however that is not the case, since the order of faith and baptism clearly varies from one account to another, for example: in Acts 10:44-48, the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles before they are baptized, while in Acts 19, there were a number who knew only the baptism of John and who were first baptized and then received the Holy Spirit. This is why in the Reformed tradition, we instead connect the work of the Holy Spirit with baptism as that of sign-seal [the application of water] and thing signified [regeneration], as we can see in a text such as Titus 3:5
Not one child was ever baptized in the bible. Not one. Every time, it was a choice and it was by someone who understood their sin and need for a savior. So, if you baptize a child before they understand etc, not only are they just getting wet, they will need to be re-baptized once they do understand.
I think Jeff's point about having new believers demonstrate their faith and take it seriously makes sense when it comes to children raised in church. In that environment, a child would just be outright pressured to get baptized and may not have sincerity. (Not saying to never do it. But be wary). What Mike was saying about baptizing right away seems more applicable to adult/teenaged converts. So, yeah, I'm saying they were both right. 8 minutes in and this video is already great 😁
Thats my view is im not against kids doing it but I want it to be sincere and kids can't comprehend most things that deep and id feel better if my kid waited and understood cause I can understand they'd feel pressured like well they are doing it so I guess I will
I got baptized when I was a baby ( was raised orthodox) but not for salvation. I think was presumed that you bring your child to God and because you are God's people that your child will then become God's people. And was considered the child was blessed and PROTECTED When I got saved as an adult I wanted to get baptized again but my church (not orthodox) said it is not necessary as I was already welcomed in God's family with the first baptism. And that will make me kind of reject the first one which was done in faith and from the heart. Although I was disappointed I realized I don't need another one (doesn't mean I can't) and I am grateful I had that one even if I don't remember I know now that God saw the heart of my family and welcomed me and loved me anyway
I was baptized at 7 and rebaptized at 24. In the same church and the same baptismal tank. My childlike faith at 7 was lost in my teen years and was basically in outright rebellion. When the Lord showed up in my life in a profound way, (through a dream) the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and I feel to floor in tears and repentance and immediately seen the world in a new lens and put away my old selfish ways. This moved me to get rebaptized and recommit my life to the Lord with full acknowledgement of my sin and need for a saviour and the cost involved in wearing the name of Christ. Was it necessary to get rebaptized? You could argue all I needed to do was repent and believe, however my decision and public profession meant so much more as an adult than as a child. I am saved by his Grace and forgiveness, my baptism was an outward act of obedience and acknowledgment of his lordship over my life. PS: this was in a Church of Christ that holds to a theology that you need baptism in order to be saved. I disagree with that theology based on scripture but still consider them brothers and sisters and still attend that church.
1 Peter 3:21, NIV: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
Ho kai hymas antityypon nyn sozei baptisma... that now saves you... Its right there in the text. The symbol is the OT type. Baptism is the thing that saves. New Covenant.
The water baptism symbolizes baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit is what saves. We receive baptism of the Spirit when we place our trust in Jesus.
If you interpret it as "water baptism saves you," then it sounds like the text is saying, "water baptism symbolizes water baptism," which is nonsense. Things don't symbolize themselves. My wedding ring doesn't symbolize my wedding ring, it symbolizes my vows.
I didn’t grow up in church. I went some with my grandmother. So, I didn’t know much about what it meant to be a Christian. My dad would watch Christian broadcasting and I would watch with him. One day we were watching CBN and at the end of the broadcast there was an invitation to pray. I was around 12 years old. I decided to hold hands with dad and prayed to accept Jesus. I didn’t know much about baptism at all. I would read the Bible on my own, listen to Christian radio and watch Christian broadcasting. I would go to church with friends here and there. I gave into peer pressure as I moved into my teens, around 16, because I wanted to be accepted by someone. I went on to date a man 5 years older than me. I would tell him that we needed to go to church. We went one time. We later slept together and became pregnant with our first child. Years later I got us into a church and decided to change the way we’d been living. I remained abstinent until we could be married by the church. I learned about baptism there and asked to be baptized one day and married the next. So, that was almost 10 years between praying to accept Jesus and baptism. As I look back, I struggle to know if I am right with God.
Baptizing Households Acts 16:15 After she [Lydia] and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. Acts 16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him along with everyone in his house. 33 He took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds. Right away he and all his family were baptized. 34 He brought them into his house, set a meal before them, and rejoiced because he had come to believe in God with his entire household. 1 Corinthians 1:14 I [Paul] thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. 16 I did, in fact, baptize the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t recall if I baptized anyone else. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect. 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. Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:22:4, A.D. 189 Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. Hippolytus The Apostolic Tradition 21:16, A.D. 215 The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. Origen Commentaries on Romans 5:9, A.D. 248 If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another. Cyprian of Carthage ibid., 58:5 Entrance Into A Covenant Colossians 2:11 You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive with him and forgave us all our trespasses. 14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Genesis 17:26 On that very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his household-whether born in his household or purchased from a foreigner-were circumcised with him. As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born. Cyprian of Carthage Letters 58:2, A.D. 253 When Believers are Baptized Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, each 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 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Mark 16:15 Then he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Forgiveness of Sins Acts 22:16 And now, why are you delaying? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” Call to Repentance 37 When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, each 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 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, "Be saved from this corrupt generation!" 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added to them. Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) The Stromata Book 6 Salvation Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, 5 he saved us - not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy - through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge l of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Maybe all those who could hear and understand and repent were born again and in those cases they all were so got baptized. Maybe that's what households means.
All the earliest Christians became disciples as adults, therefore adult baptism. But did the sign of baptism mean that they were all faithful to the end? Did it mean that they understood everything about discipleship when they were baptized? What about those who were saved across time without baptism (e.g., the thief on the cross, those under the old covenant, the believers before Abraham)? What about OT believers who were dedicated to the Lord at birth (Samuel, Samson)? In the end, it's about an outward sign of inward faith, even if the sign precedes the faith by a period of time. In God's time, childhood to adulthood is nothing. This is one of those things that it is not worth berating each other over. What matters is faith in Christ and what he accomplished at Calvary. Raising children to seek that relationship with Christ is the important thing. After that, we all must ask forgiveness for the many times we are wrong about many things.
Baptism is not the only means to faith, it strengthens faith, forgiveness sins and brings us into the family of God. You can have salvation without Baptism.
@@run4cmt Yes. Some people are baptized, while true understanding and faith come later. The two should as much as possible work hand in hand. Baptism is ultimately the outward confession of an inward faith that Jesus is Lord.
I am relatively "new" at this, but from all.i have seen, heard, and read, i am with you here. Baptism certainly isn't the way to salvation. I personally know many right now who have been baptized earlier in life and are now atheists. We need to remember what THE way to salvation is. I also know many very obviously saved people who have not been baptized..i also know some saved but not YET baptized, because most churches that I've been to, will set this up, not while one needs to be baptized but at least a few. So, in other words, one must wait. My issue is, any one of them could leave this earth tomorrow. What happens then, for those who believe it is tied to salvation?? I don't see ANY works as being necessarily tied to salvation. I believe salvation brings with it good works. So in my view, there is certainly good reason to baptize. However we certainly should not claim those who haven't been won't get salvation. Or that they aren't "truly saved". First off, who are we to even say that? We are not God. We need to always remember that. All this being said, it is definitely not worth picking at each other over, and it also isn't worth the division in the body and church of Christ, the way it seems to be.
Love your stuff, Mike! First of all, I'm not arguing for paedobaptism. I don't believe that can be biblically supported very well. However, I do have a question/challenge. At 11:32, you ask, "Where in the NT does it say the sign of being in the new covenant is baptism?" However, here's my pushback. Romans 2:29 (which you reference later) says, "circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit-". And Colossians 2:11-12 says "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." I don't believe this to be eisegesis, but rather to be a proper interpretation of two statements made on the same topic by the same author. While it does not explicitly say baptism is the new sign of the covenant, it does seem to suggest an intense link between circumcision and baptism here. Many of our doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture but are inferentially exegeted. Why is that not the case here? There are SO many passages (like the ones above) which suggest what God accomplishes in us through baptism is more than a public confession of our faith, but rather something deeply spiritual and powerful. My main concern is that we might be ignoring what Scripture says on baptism in order to reinforce our understanding of Sola Gratia. In seeking to make sense of all Scripture, I feel trapped between one camp that says, "Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that accomplishes nothing" and another that says, "Baptism is necessary for salvation." How are we to make sense of all that the Bible says on baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, etc.)? Again, I love your stuff and am trying to think biblically through everything (see what I did there?)! I hope you know how much God blesses me through your kindness and carefulness with His word. Keep on preaching, bro.
I don't know about Mike, but I would say that the Col 2 passage relates baptism not to physical circumcision but to spiritual circumcision (Deut 10:16 and 30:6). This would go along well with Mike's idea that the transformation (regeneration, initial sanctification) by the Holy Spirit is the sign and seal of the New Covenant. Now, I am one of those weird "baptism is necessary for salvation" guys because I would say Col 2 says that it happens at the time of baptism, along with the implications of the other texts you mention there and some others like Romans 6.
Sure, baptism could be considered a sign of entrance into a new covenant. We enter into that new covenant through circumcision of the heart i.e. accepting Christ. Baptism is an external representation of that internal change.
@@peterfox7663 Thank you for your reply, Peter! I really appreciate it. Understand that I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I have another objection... Haha! So, I agree that baptism could be considered a sign of our covenant with God. But I'm not yet convinced that the Bible teaches baptism to be "an external representation of an inward change." Further, doesn't your statement, "We enter into that new covenant through circumcision of the heart i.e. accepting Christ" seem to conflict with Colossians 2:11? It seems to me this passage is clear that circumcision of our heart occurs by baptism "through faith in the working of God" (vs. 12). Again, I'm just trying to work through all of this as biblically as possible. I appreciate your willingness to hear my ramblings out.
@@peterfox7663 Baptism is a sign of the promises of God (Gen12, 15, 17, Acts 2), and our need to be cleansed as water washes away dirt from the body. Baptism is something that is done for us, not something we do. Simon the magician was baptized but he didn't have internal change.
I think that we shouldn't be surprised that John the Baptist (whose mission was ordained before his birth and foretold by the angel Gabriel!) leapt in the womb, when in the presence of the Messiah (!!!), and might consider that a special case. I mean, we had angels showing up *all over the place,* delivering messages about the events unfolding.
St Augustine: “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic.” Hippolytus: ““Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Exactly is realy good that you mention this, so every body can see that it's not in the bible. We are certain that it was the perfect formula to perpetuate the catholic church existence, if they where convertion based, they would either not exist or be barely known. Blessings!
@@salvadorgomez1834 if this is only a Catholic teaching, then why did Lutheranism come to hold to it as well within the Reformation? Further, if you continue to read the Fathers on Baptism further than these two quotes, you'll find that there are also Biblically derived arguments within them
@@matthewbless3335 simple Luther was a forced out catholic, the main practices that he question, are documented in his 99 tesis, about the bible there is not a single verse that supports baptizing babies, if you do a serious study, you'll find that people will baptize after the gospel was delivered, and there was repentance, a baby has not the cognitive requirements to understand, repent or request to be baptized, children can to a point, I would let the age open, it most be done willingly. Blessings!
@@salvadorgomez1834 Being a "forced out Catholic" didn't stop the likes of Calvin and Zwingli from radicalizing the Reformation. Luther retained these things because they were good, right and salutary practices, and the Lutheran teaching developed far further than the 95* Theses. I'd look into why the Lutheran Confessors never stopped baptizing infants, even in the midst of a long back and forth against Catholicism. On a Theological level though, God is absolutely capable of creating faith and repentant hearts in those without "cognitive understanding," which, by the way, really just plain misunderstands how humanity works, not only God. Even if one cannot necessarily confess with the mouth, it doesn't preclude God from changing the heart. As for Biblical texts, Matthew 19 is a simple start "but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven," but further the simple charge to baptize "ALL nations." There is no distinction made there. Further still, in the book of Acts we find entire households being baptized with no distinction of age. My suggestion to you is to dig deeper into the Fathers and into Luther to find out *why* they argued these things. They often quote Scripture as well so you can double check. Doing this rather than just dismissing them as "too Catholic" would be a great start!
Understand your point, I know it's been argued a long time, my position is simple ,if it is not in the bible I won't make it up I 'll rather to say I don't know, Ihave study some of the arguments, still I'm not convinced that it applies to babies, blessings!
Thanks for covering this. I was raised United Methodist and I had been “baptized” (sprinkled) as a baby. I wish my parents never would’ve done that. Once I was a senior in high school I was saved and deeply wanted to be baptized. The UMC would not allow me to be “re baptized” but I could do a “remembrance of my baptism” by touching holy water in a special ceremony. That seemed odd to me since I was an infant when I was baptized and there was no way I could possibly “remember” that. I remember feeling so discouraged. I few months later at a youth group pool party, I was telling my new minister about my frustration and he baptized me right then and there. It was a beautiful moment! Now I have two children of my own and my husband and I go to a church that doesn’t do infant baptisms. Instead we did a baby dedication and stood in front of our church family and they all prayed over our children and our family. It was a mutual agreement with my church family in return committing to love and guide us as we raise our children. It was beautiful.
So glad you are discussing baptism. It’s so important as some denominations believe that not only baptism but baptism in Jesus name is a matter of salvation. Acts 2:38 actually does say believe and be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dear Lucy I invite you to read and study carefully what I am about to write. There is not one single gentile Christian in Acts 2:38, these were all former Christ-rejecting Israelites (whom Christ forgave at the cross; „Father forgive them...“) who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to be saved from „this wicked generation“. Read the text again. Jesus commands the Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20 to go to all gentile nations and to baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In Mark He says the following: „He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.“ Mark 16:16 KJV (Notice that the emphasis is on believing, not BELIEVING leads to damnation) Also, did you think about that not one of the Apostles was waterbaptized to receive the Holy Ghost? We are born again when we believe that Jesus Christ died for all our sins and accept Him as Lord and Savior, and we could do absolutely nothing to get saved on our own (including water baptism). Its very crucial to get this right! The ethiopian in Acts 8 was only allowed the get baptized in water when he believed in Jesus Christ. „And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.“ Acts 8:36-37 KJV The Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his family in Acts 10 before they were baptized. The gentiles are saved by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. Im sorry, but if you count on your water baptism as part of your salvation, you are wrong!
Check out Matthew chapter 28 verse 19. Jesus talks about baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is an argument I have heard too where people say you have to be baptized in the name of Jesus, but Jesus in Matthew says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe in Acts it's Peter talking to the Jewish people saying to be baptized in the name of Jesus. He is really pushing Jesus name in Acts because the Jews already believed in the Father but they did not believe in the Son, Jesus.
My thoughts on this ... As I read the Bible, I see Baptism as a public declaration of an individual's belief and commitment to God. It is similar as to what is stated in James 2 in that one can say they have faith but real authentic faith is "shown" by what we do. Salvation is assured when we have faith in Christ and repent of our sins. Baptism is our public declaration.
I find it interesting that this hour-long video was posted only 45 minutes ago, yet it already has a few “dislikes.” Seems like some people are not taking time to watch and carefully consider what is being said.
Is there a video of a discussion with someone who disagrees with your position? I feel like videos that create an echo chamber are not super helpful just because we don't see different perspectives 🤔 It just ends up reinforcing what everyone already believes
"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."- Matthew chapter 19 verses 13 to 15. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."- Ezekiel chapter 36 verses 25 to 28. “I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou my God from my mother's belly.” - Psalms chapter 22 verse 10. You are forgetting John the Baptist leapt in his mothers' belly as well FROM his mother's belly. But pray on it in Jesus Christ name! You should pray on it and search the scriptures.
Lots, all you have to do is look it up on UA-cam. Ten Minute Bible Hour talks to different denominations; the host is basically a golden retriever and is very excited to just listen to people explain their own traditions, and those who practice infant baptism explain it in some cases. He generally does a Wally-through of their church building and then has a theological interview with them to get a better understanding of their perspective on their own doctrine. Since Winger's mission is to help people think Biblically--not to interview lots of denominations, spotlighting people and stuff really isn't his thing, but Ten Minute Bible Hour guy thrives on the kinds of things you're probably interested in. No one can do everything, but we luckily live in a world where there are many options for information so each person can focus on their skill set. Winger is a good researcher and communicator. Ten Minute Bible Hour guy is a good interviewer. Hope you find the answers you're looking for ❤️❤️
Thank you for sharing, I've been trying to solidify a biblical view of ordinances vs sacraments. I would have loved to have seen more time spent on if baptism saves, especially while looking at 1 Peter 3:18-22 which so far I've seen as the strongest biblical argument for baptism being an active part of salvation.
I agree with a lot of what is being talked about right now in the video. I'm around the 32 minute mark. One of the hosts just said that sin is intentionally disobeying God or "missing the mark". Sin is not simply trying to sin. Whether you are aware of the law or not, you can still break it. I find that statement of intentionality incorrect and not biblical.
The Jewish practice of Baptism for Jewish converts was the point of change so much so that it was the point where the Gentile would be given new clothes. The Didache reveals much the same frame of mind as the Jewish practice. I do believe that Baptism is much more than just a sign - Acts 2:38 and Romans 6 declare that baptism is much more than just a symbol. The early church clearly practiced baptism as being much more that just a symbol.
50:30 - Renewal of Baptism. I did so as an adult because when I was originally Baptized as a kid, I wanted to go swimming in church like everyone else who got baptized. Yes, I believed but didn't want to say it out loud in front of everyone because I was too shy. But I eventually went swimming in church for all of 60 seconds and I was happy. My renewal was to acknowledge that I understood why I needed to be Baptized and the serious nature of Jesus's command for us to follow Him in Baptism.
Gal 3:27 (nkjv/ esv) For as many of you as we're baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Personally I loved being baptized.. putting my old self put to death in Christ. Blessings 🕊.
The Church of Christ preaches you are NOT saved until you are baptized. If you accept Christ as Lord of your life and live according to his will but are not dipped in water for baptism, you will NOT receive the eternal kingdom. So thankful I began to study the scriptures for myself and stop taking their word as absolute authority. They cannot be corrected as many of my family members still belong, and are not subject to new ideas or instruction. Proverbs 1:7 rings a bell here somewhere... thank you @Mike Winger!
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. 1 Peter 3:18-22
I'm ex catholic and have been baptised as a Christian since. On twitter there is a continuous debate going on between catholic and another Christian where he is saying it has to be full body immersion is this true? I was fully immersed but I thought crucial thing was repentance before baptism? Thanks Niamh
A pocket lexicon to the new testament βαπτίζω, lit. I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping (whether immersion or affusion), I baptize; when the preposition εἰς with a noun in the accus. follows, it appears to indicate that through this ceremony the baptized person becomes the property of the person indicated after εἰς: met. Mk. 10:38. A concise dictionary of the words in the greek testament and the Hebrew bible 907. βαπτίζω baptizō, bap-tid´-zo; from a der. of 911; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, espec. (techn.) of the ordinance of Chr. baptism:-baptist, baptize, wash.
Nkjv Mark 1:10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Check out Mathew 3:16 also Jesus comes up out of the water which implies He was submerged in the water. Repentance and genuine saving faith for sure. Then baptism should be on the heart and mind of the believer.
@@PsalmChapter117 Just to be clear, the sisters initial thought toward the end of her comment in this thread is that repentance comes before baptism(submerged in water). Yes one must believe and no baptism doesn't mean a person is saved. I've read both verses that you have referenced. Allthough the verses differ with one verse spoken by Jesus and the other verse by Paul, both verses are good news. Making sence so far.
46:00 that is exactly the case with me. I was born again recently and I want to be baptized again. The one when I was seven doesn't really count in my mind because I didn't know why it was important.
I actually find it a bit insulting to God to have a do-over. Jesus does not die again. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, giving the Holy Spirit, and bringing into the family of God. It is not an act of obedience since faith is not a work or an emotion.
I completely agree with you. They are young men who have much to learn. They at remnant radio have been led astray by false doctrine of the NAR . Bethel is an apostate church that denies the divinity of Christ. Hyper charismatics that are preaching a false Christ and false kundalini spirit. False prophets and fake “ apostles”.
@@Oana404 I'm always disappointed when I see Michael Brown of the phony Brownsville Revival on Mike Winger's show. I won't watch the show when he's on.
@@carlyerekson2035 look into Bill Johnson’s book” Physics of Heaven” . The book is new age occult blasphemy. Bethel is preaching a false Christ and false Holy Spirit.
I think it’s interesting that you focused on the idea of households being baptized but never addressed 1John 3:21 “baptism now saves you “ it’s hard to make the argument that baptism has no salvivic effect when the Bible literally says the opposite. I also disagree that you can separate the question of “does baptism save” and “should we baptize infants” if baptism does save then we absolutely should baptize infants because why would we deny our children that effect of baptism. To you point about baptizing infants is equivalent to baptizing people who don’t believe in God/Jesus. Similarly we would not perform surgery on an adult who does not consent to the procedure but we would never deny a life saving surgery to an infant on the basis that they don’t consent to the surgery, we allow their parents to consent on their behalf TO SAVE THEM.
Sorry, I tried to look up the verse, but it's the wrong reference. I looked up 1John 3 and John 3. If you get notified of this comment would you mind double checking the reference or sending the full verse so I could have two ways of finding it?
She’s talking about 1 Peter 3:21. Though, if you interpret it this way, you’d have to say that water baptism isn’t something we do, but something that God does to us. That would also mean that in order for one to be saved, there must be another believer present who is willing to do the baptizing. How can this interpretation be reconciled with John 1:12-13? I don’t think it can be. The gospel is what saves. Faith and trust in the finished work of Christ. Mercy is extended to all, grace is given to those who believe.
She is right. That is just taking the text as it is. Babtism now saves you. Jesus also said that you have to be born of water and blood. Babtism is the work of God and it brings you Christ. You shouldn't twist all scripture on babtism if it doesn't fit your theology. Regeneration, salvation and forgiveness of sins are continually linked to babtism in scripture. There is no doubt that
I was saved at the age of 4 months through my baptism, I often have a ‘born again experience’ before the blessed sacrament, but I was born again in the bible sense through my baptism. My baptismal response was given by parents (may they by gods mercy rest in the eternal,peace of Jesus). I came back to the Catholic Church to repent and say my baptismal renewal each year for myself. It’s odd that baptists don’t take baptism that seriously, when scripture actually says we are saved through it. We are also being saved through gods grace and am I saved? God will have the answer on my last breath. The church has taught this for 2000 years until ex-Catholics went into schism and formed Protestant churches which (schism) is warned about in the bible! God bless all.
What about the scriptures that speak about when the whole house was baptized (Acts 16:15, 33). I don't agree with infant baptism but I always wondered about these scriptures.
They actually talk specifically about that in the video... :-) I agree with Mike's conclusion that they probably just don't reference babies present (if they even were present). In each text with household baptisms, the same group that is baptized does something that would not apply to babies (believe / have faith, rejoice, speak in tongues, etc.).
@@christophekeating21 Babies and children, brought up in the knowledge of the Lord can praise God. My children have been learning songs of praise in church and in the house since they were able to speak. They recite Scripture and talk about things they learn from the Bible. However, this does not mean that they have the faith and repentance that are prerequisites for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; etc.). In fact, I know that they don't have that level of maturity. I also don't believe that children who are too young to understand the concept of sin and responsibility to God have their sin counted against them and, thus, don't yet need salvation. In the text in question, the household of the jailer didn't do just general praise but rather "... And he rejoiced along with his entire household *that he had believed in God*." (Acts 16:34)
I hope you comment in your video about Colossians 2:11-12. (I'm only 19 minutes in.) It speaks of circumcision and baptism, but in a way that, to me, indicates that we, through baptism, take part in the circumcision of Christ who was cut off from God because of our sin (circumcision was a ceremony illustrating what would happen if the covenant they were entering into with God would be broken - they would be cut off). Our sinful nature dies and we are raised with him to newness of life. Circumcision seems an interesting term to use here as it seems another term that could be used is the crucifixion of Christ. Perhaps this is where people get misled, but to me this verse has nothing to do with when people should be baptized. You can't just go reference the OT because it makes your age mandate sound scriptural.
@Jill Domschot some babies get dunked in that water in very extreme ways..they get hit.. Even the parents step in and stop it eventually.. Not the ones you have seen I assume
Baptism has two critically important requirements. 1) The individual being baptized, must have made his/her OWN decision to give their life to the Lord (be born-again). 2) You must be fully immersed in water. Baptism is a symbol of your old life dying and your new life being born into Christ.
I know Mike loves seeing Jesus revealed in the OT. I think there’s a meaningful point not mentioned in this video. Jews were practicing baptism at the temple during the time of Christ (as demonstrated by the discovery of mikvehs at the Temple Mount). The significance of baptism was the symbolic washing of sins and coming before God with spiritual purity. But the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ gives new meaning to baptism that was hidden before His coming. Symbolically we are buried with Him (Colossians 2:13/Romans 6:4) and are raised to new life. And even more than that Baptism points forward to the literal resurrection of our mortal bodies.
33:22 "and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, “‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?” Matthew 21:16 ESV So if you don't think infants and nursing babies can fear God and praise him, take it up with Jesus and with the psalmist.
That text is not saying that babies can 1) REPENT, 2), BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Babies cannot have a faith towards God. As they just proved with all the texts they quoted throughout. Therefore, babies CANNOT be baptized as an outward act of obedience to the gospel command. Before quoting texts of scripture it’s wise to have a right and proper understanding of it’s context. Otherwise, we just end up twisting scripture and doing eisegesis when we should be exegeting the text. That passage of scripture is about Jesus validating His divine nature. He is using that Old Testament passage to do so as the psalmist was saying that the Lord sees infants and children’s utterances as praise, though they do not have the capability to comprehend such things.
@@talyahthekingsdaughter37 you say they can't. I'd rather believe the Bible saying they do and that the way you enter the kingdom of heaven is by becoming like little children.
@@christophekeating21 The Bible never, nowhere states that infants come to faith, can have faith. The scripture you use is being taken out of context. You are eisegeting the text when you are to be found diligent exegeting the text. Eisegeting text is what scripture describes as *perversion*, *twisting* God’s word. You are adding your own personal interpretation instead of working diligently to understand the text as God has intended it. We are not to haphazardly handle scripture. We are held responsible for how we choose to learn and understand what God is revealing to us by the inspiration of His Spirit. Not only that, it’s also common sense and a biological fact that infants do not have the mental capacity as like an adult. You can find those studies anywhere on the web, if you only look. To dig your heals in to what you are claiming, is not somehow exemplifying “piety”, rather a clear indication that you do not have a teachable spirit and are unwilling to be taught the truth of the matter. We are here to learn the truth. Not win debates. An unwilling and unteachable spirit cannot grow in wisdom or maturity. If we buck against the clear teachings of scripture to “win” our way, we do ourselves a great disservice and we are not helping the body of Christ. I pray that you will consider (re consider) examining your study method and come to studying the text with a teachable spirit willing to learn the truth, instead of personal viewpoints. God speed. 😌🙏✝️⚓️🕊🤍
Check out Col 2:9-11. Paul draws significant parallel between Circumcision and Baptism. Should make make Mike reconsider some of his statements about not seeing direct parallel between these two.
If the babies are not being immersed they are not getting baptized... If the babies have not repented of their sin and placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ they are not getting baptized they are just getting wet... Babies do not need to be baptized...
A couple inconsistencies here that really need to be addressed. 1. You all start by pointing out the word baptism literally means “to immerse” and then go on to refer to infant baptism. What is called infant baptism today isn’t baptism (immersion) at all. What is performed is pouring or sprinkling which by definition isn’t immersion/baptism. 2. Act 2:38 was misquoted several times in this conversation. Peter did not say “repent and believe”. He said repent and be BAPTIZED. The full quote is “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. Paul also wrote in Galatians 3 “for as many of you that have been BAPTIZED have clothed yourselves with Christ”. He connects baptism (not confession or repentance) with the idea that when God looks at us He no longer sees us in our sin but rather He sees the perfection of Jesus. Baptism is the completion of our acceptance of Gods free gift of salvation and is no more or less important that confession, repentance, faith, belief, and continuing to live a new life in Jesus.
Again too wishy washy. This is simple. Jesus said “ if you love me keep my commandments.” What did he command? Believe and be baptized. Belief saves and baptism washes away sin. It is a spiritual washing . When Paul came to believe what was he told? “ Rise be baptized for the remission of sins.” There must be faith and there must be obedience. It is NOT “works” it is the act of accepting the gift of salvation.
1 Peter 3:21, NIV: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
@@LtDeadeye "Peter said to them;...'be Baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ...and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost...For the promise is to you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all'..." The Acts 2:38-39 Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." John 3:5 - "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Acts 16:30, 33 - "what must I do to be saved? ... he and all his family were baptized" 1 Peter 3:21 - "baptism which saves you now." See also: - Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:15 Commanded by Christ and taught by the Apostles Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore ... baptizing them in the name of the Father ..." Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" John 3:5 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit) Acts 2:38 - "Peter [said] ... repeat and be baptized" Acts 2:41 - (Those accepting St. Peter's message are baptized; 3000 members are added.) Acts 8:12 - (Once they believed Philip's teaching, men and women were baptized.) Acts 8:38 - (Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch) Acts 10:48 - "he [Peter] ordered them to be baptized" See also: - Mark 10:38, John 3:22, Acts 9:18, Acts 16:15, Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, 27; Galatians 3:27 Jesus sets the example for us. Matthew 3:16 - "After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water" Mark 1:9 - "Jesus came ... and was baptized in the Jordan by John" Luke 3:21 - "and Jesus also had been baptized" Is regenerative. John 3:5, 22 - born of water and the spirit; Apostles begin baptizing Romans 6:3-4 - So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father’s glorious power, we too should begin living a new life Acts 2:37-38 - repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit Acts 22:16 - And now why delay? Hurry and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name 1 Corinthians 6:11 - "now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God" Ephesians 5:26 - "cleansing her by the bath of water with the word" Colossians 2:12 - "burned with him in baptism .. raised with him [in] faith" Hebrews 10:22- So as we go in, let us be sincere in heart and filled with faith, our hearts sprinkled and free from any trace of bad conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Titus 3:5 - saved us through bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit 1 Peter 3:21 - "It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now - not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" See also: - Romans 4:23-25, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 1:23 Takes away all sin. Mark 1:4 - (John the Baptist preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.) Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Luke 3:3 - (John the Baptist still preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins) John 1:33 - (John testifies that Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit) John 3:5 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit) Acts 2:38 - "be baptized ... for the forgiveness of your sins" Acts 22:16 - "have yourself baptized and your sins washed away" Colossians 2:13 - "you were dead [in] transgressions ... he brought you to life Not to be repeated. Ephesians 4:5 - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Hebrews 6:4-6 - (After the "enlightened" [baptized] fall away, they cannot be enlightened again.) Hebrews 10:26 - (No sacrifice for sins after deliberate sin after knowing the truth) To be administered to children "Infant Baptism" Joshua 24:15 - "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" Matthew 8:5ff - servant healed because of centurion's faith Matthew 15:21ff - daughter healed because of the Canaanite woman's faith Matthew 18:14 - (It is not the will of God that children be damned.) Matthew 19:14 - "Let the children come to me" Mark 10:14 - let the children come, for such is the kingdom of Heaven Luke 7:1ff - just say the word, and let my servant be healed Luke 18:15-17 - people were bringing even infants to him ... whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." John 3:5; Mark 16:16 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit) Acts 16:15 - (Paul and Silas baptize Lydia and her whole household) Acts 16:30-33 - (Paul and Silas baptize a prison guard and his whole family) Acts 18:8 - (Crispus, his family, and other Corinthians are baptized) Romans 5:18-19 - all are born with Adam's sin and need baptism 1 Corinthians 1:16 - "I baptized the household of Stephanas" Colossians 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision See also: - Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15, Acts 2:39, 1 Corinthians 15:22
@@LtDeadeye “Symbolizes” is a very bad translation. And it’s also badly out of context. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,† 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,† 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. -1 Peter 3:18-22 Antitype: something that is represented by a symbol Baptism is the full Truth symbolized by Noah’s ark. The ark SAVED Noah and his family, just as baptism saves the Church.
I was brought up as a very young child, four years old, in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and started out by attending Sunday school, and then my parents sent me to church school of the same church. But, even from a very young age, I didn't really understand why babies got baptized. All of the baptisms that are recorded in the Bible are done because the person being baptized wanted it to happen. It appeared to me, and still does, that the public confession and the fact that a person publicly is baptized is a very huge part of the action. I would agree completely that the Holy Spirit does the work. There is no biblical record of an infant being baptized. But in addition to all this, I cannot recall ever seen an adult being baptized during a church service. I've been to thousands of them. Why is that? It is almost as though a person has to be an infant to get baptized? And of course that's obviously not true. Yet, I've never seen an adult get baptized. I remember attending a service not too long ago where the pastor asked the congregation, "Who here remembers their baptism?", and no one raised their hand. That was not the response he was seeking, and he let out a little half chuckle, and corrected himself and said of course you wouldn't; you were an infant at the time. But as I sat there, it dawned on me that that's a pretty important thing, isn't it? Shouldn't I absolutely remember getting baptized? All of the baptisms that are recorded in the Bible are ones where the person getting baptized would absolutely remember it. I think that when Luther made the break from Catholic, infant baptism should have also been left behind. But I'm still a Lutheran. I also got rebaptized in another church.
Some Lutheran's believe it washes away original sin of Adam I do not believe that,but I go to Bible believing wonderful Lutheran Church thay believe that to and they also say because the households were baptized and that we should all be baptized if we parents believe, I don't agree but we get along and have talked about these issues we kindly disagree
Martin Luther preached against the false teaching of original sin. We inherited Adams fallen nature, but we do not inherit the sins of Adam, nor of our parents.
In the PCA (I was a member of one for several years and got to have discussions on denominational issues with pastors and elders) they do not believe that baptism saves, but rather that it is one's entrance into the church family physically, but not spiritually. To them it is a declaration that this infant is born into a family of believing parents and by baptizing them they are being brought into that world with the hope that they will accept Christ on their own when they grow and mature. Functionally, and according to their "Book of Church Order" the infant is a non-communing member. In many ways infant baptism in the PCA is functionally similar to a baby dedication in non-pedobaptist traditions.
Mike is a little less than honest when he talks about the early church history of baptism (or anything else that doesn't line up with his broken-clock theology). The early church practiced infant baptism. The first debate about when to baptize was to *delay* baptism. Some argued that water baptism wiped away sins and therefor should be delayed to later when there are more sins to be wiped out. None of them had a clue about Mike's baptism doctrine.
Well, maybe it would have been more of a debate if you had someone who had a different opinion - you all seem to kind of not see the point of child baptism :P So, as a Christian Orthodox - though I am not a theologian, I'll do my best: we believe that baptism actually does something, but is not the final act, so to speak, it's the first of the Sacraments, that opens the way to the rest of the Sacraments - children fully participate in church life in the Orthodox Church. About "accepting" God: Children have no sin, they have the image of God in them, like all humans - but in children, the image of God it is not marred by sin. They belong to God, there is no need to "accept" Him - it would mean the Devil has an equal claim to us, and we have to make a choice between Satan and God. Well, he doesn't have a claim, he corrupts us, but we are God's children, not Satan's, and as children, he has not corrupted us yet. Being baptized in childhood, I never felt the need to be baptized again and never heard of anyone having that need. Because we are not confused about church life, we know that we have to cultivate a relationship with God continuously - through confession and Eucharist, fasting, prayer etc. Baptism is the beginning, not the end. It's like ... you can be nostalgic when looking at photos of your first birthday, but why would you want to recreate it ? I mean, it's nice, but you are in a different time of your life, you don't actually need diapers anymore, or being in a baby chair, or having someone feed you. Why it's not mentioned ? Because, unlike the Old Testament, Jesus was actually there, and He had direct disciples, He didn't communicate with them in writing. He taught them, and they taught others etc. There are plenty of references to childhood baptism in the first 2 centuries, and no refutal of the practice. You do know that in the first years, the Church functioned without Scriptures, because people first with direct link to Jesus, then with very close link to the Apostles, were still there. The Church compiled the Scriptures, and it seems a bit strange to say that they put forth a valid work that can be trusted, but they themselves were heretical or very confused in their practices.. That is, by the way, the idea of the Holy Traditions in the Orthodox Church - you learn from the Scripture, but also from interpretation of the scriptures from people who were taught by people who were taught by people etc. who had a direct link to Jesus. Otherwise, you can interpret anything in almost any way you want - as shown by the thousands of new Churches in the world today, some of which are just .... purely heretical, and that is putting it mildly.
I am still working through this so bare with me if it is answered in the video. What is the response to the understanding that the church fathers near universally taught that baptism saves?
In short, the early church writers were correct on that. Mike is incorrect here saying that baptism is not necessary for salvation. In Mark 16:15-16, Jesus directly states, "...Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Belief on its own is not sufficient. Acts 2:38 and 2 Peter 3:21 (as well as many other passages) also support that. Feel free to ask if you want more information on this; I'd be happy to oblige. While the early church writers (outside the Bible) can be a good source of getting some insight into how people understood the Bible in the first couple centuries of the church's existence, they are only supplementary evidence. The authority is only in the Bible, and the early church writers sometimes made mistakes, just as everyone does.
@@sirtarin Yeah see I don't feel that, that interpretation sticks. I feel if baptism was absolutely necessary it would have been repeated in the next sentence but seemingly belief is sufficient because it is only those who do not believe that is condemned. Nevertheless I don't know enough about how the church Fathers approached the topic theologically and I am interested to know. I know these videos are not theological studies but I feel Mike and team are just too sure of themselves while isolating themselves in their own little echo chamber. And that would be fine for a Sunday school class but it is not appropriate for the internet I should think.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 There are two things I would like to address in your comment. First is a cautionary point about how you phrased that, which may well be an accurate description of how you approach things (it is, at least, how many people approach things, both among those who attest to Christianity and those who reject it): Be very careful of accepting and/or rejecting things based on how you feel. Feelings are an extremely unreliable foundation to plant your beliefs on, given how quickly they can change and how easily they are manipulated (as an example of this, think of a really good movie you've seen, and think how many different emotions you felt throughout it. You can have your emotions pushed and pulled all over by a story in just an hour or two.). The Bible gives some warning about this in Jeremiah 17:9-10 and Proverbs 28:26 (like we fairly commonly do, the Hebrews often referred to the heart as the figurative seat of the emotions). Secondly, you said that " I feel if baptism was absolutely necessary it would have been repeated in the next sentence but seemingly belief is sufficient because it is only those who do not believe that is condemned." There are several things mentioned throughout the New Testament that are tied directly to salvation (Faith, grace, confession, repentance, baptism, being faithful until death, among others.). Many people in the denominations (and some non-denominational ones, too) like to latch onto one or some, and then say the rest really aren't necessary. But they're all necessary, even if they aren't all listed out in one convenient passage. As for why Jesus didn't mention baptism in the negative side of the statement in Mark 16, baptism without belief is useless and, in general, a person is not likely to submit to being baptized unless they believe, and even if they did, it wouldn't be for the right reason. Let me illustrate with the idea of manufacturing a part. There are several steps that go into the process. For instance, with a hypothetical sheet metal part which you are making according to the engineer's specifications. You could say that you have to cut the part out, bend it, and weld it and it would be an accurate statement. The fact that you didn't mention that you have to deburr it after cutting it, or that you have to drill and tap holes in the part, doesn't make the earlier statement incorrect. But it also doesn't mean that the part is complete and usable if you only cut, bent, and welded it without drilling, deburring, tapping, cleaning, and painting the part, too, according the design. Even leaving one step out would render the part unusable (as would drilling it in the wrong place or bending it the wrong way). Jesus said that people must believe and be baptized to be saved, but those that don't believe will be condemned; you liken that to the part must be cut and bent to be usable. If you don't cut the part out, bending it anyway is obviously useless, so there's no need to mention it. So if someone doesn't believe, being baptized doesn't need to be mentioned. But it doesn't make baptism less necessary. Nor does the fact that Jesus didn't mention confession and repentance and being faithful to death, etc. mean that those are not necessary either. They are all elements in God's plan for salvation. I hope that helps.
@@sirtarin I am not going to lie - the fact that you miss my attempt at courtesy and seek to correct my use of the word feel annoys me to no end and I am not above pointing that out. So from now on I will give you no such civility. Here are my unbridled thought then: It is simply obvious to me that you are making a very nauseating philosophical blunder when you read scripture. You clearly miss the difference between sufficient qualification and necessary qualification. As a result instead of harmonizing the various testimonies of the gospels you stitch them all together in what you think is a coherent narrative. I am interested to know what you do with passages in the Bible like Mark who says both thieves reviled Jesus and Luke who says the one repented. I am pretty sure you cannot apply your own hermeneutic consistently throughout the whole Bible. Do you think every single person that is filled with the Spirit speaks in tongues for example because the vast majority of written accounts of the filling of the Spirit goes together with tongues? - And that those who don't are going to hell - because it says those who do not have the Spirit are not of Him? Nevertheless I am not here to debate whether Baptism is necessary for salvation. I find it pretty obvious that Baptism, in context, is sufficient but not necessary. Otherwise the very penitent thief, in Luke, would be in hell today, making Jesus a liar, since Jesus died before him and he was part of the new dispensation. I believe the church fathers meant something more akin to what the Catholic church today affirms but I am neither catholic nor a student of the church fathers and so I was sincerely hoping that someone could clear that up for me because I give the church fathers more credit than you do. I know everybody makes mistakes but as far as I can see it takes a fair amount of vanity to dismiss them off hand. Nevertheless it looks like I am going to have to dust off the old history books. So be it.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I am sorry that you found my cautionary point annoying. Your phrasing was a case in which can be difficult to determine with only written words whether it was intended just as polite phrasing (which I knew was a possibility and did appreciate) or if it was used with the literal meaning that your reasoning was on the basis of your feelings (both could have been a possibility, too). Since the later is extremely common, I thought it warranted the cautionary note. You don’t seem to have noticed that I did not definitively state that that was how you were using it (though I admittedly could have worded better). It was as much a cautionary note for other people as it was for you, since it may not have applied to you. Seeing as “sufficient qualification and necessary qualification” are not terms/concepts that I recall having read in the Bible, nor do they make much logical sense to me as I am considering them, I would appreciate you explaining them and your scriptural validation of them. Considering much of the Bible is an accurate historical account, I do seek to read it as a coherent narrative; that is part of idea of harmonizing (according to the definition of the term: “making something consistent or compatible”) the different accounts. Regarding the thieves who died along side Jesus, that is quite easy to handle: They both started out reviling Jesus, but then one had the presence of mind to think about what he was doing and repent. That is not at all contradictory, merely that one witness decided that detail was worth mentioning, while the other thought another detail of the same event was worth mentioning. Any time you have multiple witnesses of an event, they will have noticed different things. Jesus, being God, is quite capable of making an exception, if one was needed. That does not give anyone validation to ignore God’s commands because someone else was given an exception. Jesus also forgave him before he died, so the thief was also forgiven when he died. Regarding speaking in tongues, since you mentioned it, no, not everyone who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (which is distinct from the gift, singular, mentioned in Acts 2:38 and other places.) spoke in tongues. Nor do the gifts really have anything to do with whether a person was saved or not, other than it was members of the church that the apostles laid their hands on to give the gifts to (The spirit caused King Saul and his messengers to prophesy when they were trying to seize David in 2 Samuel 19, after all, so a person doesn’t have to be righteous to prophesy.). In 1 Corinthians 12:27-31, Paul uses rhetorical questions to point out that not everyone had all the gifts; reading the New Testament, it is clear that not all Christians had any miraculous gifts. The gifts had their role in helping to establish the church and teach people before the Bible was fully written. 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 says that there would be a time when the gifts (specifically mentioning tongues, prophesy, and knowledge) would cease when that which is perfect came (which is neuter in the Greek, so it’s not talking about a person); this ending of prophecy was also prophesied about in Zechariah 13:2. James refers to the new law as “the perfect law” (James 1:25), which seems a good indication that they would end when the New Testament was completed especially in context with what is prophesied in Zechariah. I was not dismissing the writings of the early church writers off-hand, merely stating that while they can be a valuable resource in understanding things in the Bible, they are not inspired writings like the Bible and therefore are not necessary to understand the Bible. I would probably regard them as a bit above modern Bible commentators merely due to their much closer proximity to the time of the apostles and therefore less time for false doctrines to creep in. That proximity makes them at least good sources for insights as to what the churches were doing historically. Since the Bible says that there were already false teachers even before the books of the Bible were all written, the early church writers are not exempt from scrutiny for erroneous teaching, however.
THE REASON FOR BAPTISM IN ITS ORIGINAL HEBREW CONTEXT WAS AS SUCH, WORSHIPPERS WOULD COME FROM FAR OFF, SOME EVEN FOR MANY DAYS, ..CAN YOU IMAGINE THE SMELL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD BE CONGREGATING NEXT TO YOU, ?. COME TO THE FATHER CLEAN, IN MIND HEART, SOUL BODY AND SPIRIT, TO DIP IN THE POOL OF SHILOH BEFORE ENTERING THE TEMPLE WAS JUST THIS, YOU COME CLEAN, YOU REMOVE THE DUST, DIRT, AND GRIMM FROM YOUR BODY, IN THE POOL, AND DO THE SAME WITH YOUR SOUL, IN THE TEMPLE, BEFORE GOD,...BAPTISM IS A PROCESS OF BECOMING CLEAN IN BODY, TO RENEW YOUR SOUL AND SPIRIT IN THE FLESH, ONE NEW MAN...WASHED AND CLEANED, IN THE WATER(BLOOD) OF THE SERVANT YESHUA....
@dahokage1043 then explain the verse. 1st peter 3 20-21 who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared. In it a few-that is, eight people[a]-were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge[b] of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
@@tuomassalo6102it’s amazing that you leave out the word “corresponding” u have to go back to previous verse regarding ark and noah what does baptism correspond to, the thing that baptism represents saves you, abide in the ark abide in christ . it’s type , anti type ,ark represents christ , water = new life . acts 10 cornelius saved before baptism
A problem with infant baptism is the same as the sinner's prayer. There are many who have a false sense of security and as a result will never get saved.
I disagree with you Mike, Yeshua, in his own words, states, "EXCEPT a man be born of WATER and of the SPIRIT, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of heaven
Water is physical birth. Spirit is spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus asked if he needed to be born physically twice. Jesus said no, you must be born again not physical but spiritually. You have already been born of water. Now you must also be born again of the Spirit.
@@salvadaXgracia Yeshua clearly says born by water, also he himself was baptized by water before he even started his ministry and he did that to set the example
@@PsalmChapter117 first of all I must correct you, only Yeshua is master and teacher not anyother man, second of all heaven does not just as God does not change so what applies to one also applies to all. Even though paul was a great disciple he was not of the original ones furthermore Yeshua throughout his ministry AFTER his own BAPTISM kept using the phrase, the kingdom of heaven is like unto. I will always say this too any disagreements between people that are serious matters should always be prayed over also
@@PsalmChapter117 Again people need to choose whom is they're Savior is, Paul is NOT my SAVIOR or even my lord. You guys need to study Yesuas teachings more instead of Paul's teachings because if you do then you'll understand what Paul was trying to convey in his message. Salvation doesn't require works than let me ask you this what did Yeshua do you really believe that he didn't have to do anything and we would still be saved anyway
@@PsalmChapter117 you obviously misunderstood my point. So let me ask you a question I stead of giving you statements, does Yeshua not Paul tell anyone to do anything?
I was taught that baptism in the name of Christ was absolutely necessary because it was a commandment after his resurrection. People would say you don’t have to because the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized , but he died in the Old Testament laws. In the New Testament we are commanded to be baptized. What happens if we go against his commandment?
If you think that baptism is a command (something you do for God) instead of a means of grace (God doing for us) you are still under the law and not under grace.
This was a great discussion. It has inspired me to dig deeper in my own research of Biblical doctrines. The questions raised and topics discussed serve as a great example of how to biblically analyze an issue, as well as how to approach a topic with grace and love to communicate the truth. Thanks to all involved. God bless!
Time Stamp Map
0:00 - Introduction
1. 1:11 About BibleThinker
2. 2:46 What is baptism, what does it do, and what does it declare?
3. 5:23 Is baptism purely a symbol, or is there something spiritual that happens when a person is baptized? Does baptism affect salvation?
4. 6:35 When a person makes a profession of faith, should they be baptized right away, or should there be a waiting period for their leaders to observe their conduct before allowing them to be baptized?
5. 8:02 Is pedo-baptism (infant baptism) biblical? And is it biblical to draw a parallel between circumcision and baptism?
6. 13:51 When studying Scripture, what is the difference between a descriptive text and a prescriptive text?
7. 14:55 Time stamp #5 continued (circumcision vs. baptism)
8. 16:09 What does the New Testament say is the parallel we should draw from the Old Testament practice of circumcision?
9. 18:14 What passages of Scripture do pedo-baptists refer to in support of their belief?
10. 24:22 What is the difference between infant baptism and infant dedication?
11. 26:00 Even though baptism isn't salvific, is there any harm in baptizing infants just as a blessing? And do some people believe infants can, in fact, have saving faith already? How can we respond to that claim?
12. 30:53 What happens to infants when they die? Are baptized infants more likely to go to Heaven?
13. 32:11 Refuting the most powerful argument commonly used to defend infant baptism
14. 44:59 Should believers now who were baptized as an infant be re-baptized after truly coming to saving faith in Christ?
15. 49:10 Is it correct to baptize "in the name of Jesus," or "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? And should a person be re-baptized if a different formula was used during their baptism?
16. 53:56 Who can baptize people?
17. 59:00 Closing thoughts
thank
Thank you!
Why are you blocking people commenting or shadow banning people?
Thank you so much for time stamps. Can't tell you how helpful they are!!
@@fredastire208 from my experience shadow banning comes from the UA-cam bots. Why they do it, I don't know. In my case, I know that anytime there's a link in my comment, it's automatically shadow banned.
This video reminded me of a good joke. Enjoy.
A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who’s best at his job. So they each go into the woods, find a bear, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together. The priest begins: “When I found the bear, I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his First Communion.”
“I found a bear by the stream,” says the minister, “and preached God’s holy word. The bear was so mesmerized that he let me baptize him.”
They both look down at the rabbi, who is lying on a gurney in a body cast. “Looking back,” he says, “maybe I shouldn’t have started with the circumcision.” :)
😂
😅
That rabbi was lucky lol
Good one 😂
Anyone familiar with ultra orthodox rabbi / mohel practice of pedo circumcision? With their ....mouth
My husband got saved in December 2018 and passed away February 2019. The pastor and doctor said it would kill him with all his tubes to get baptized. His family disagreed with me but the pastor and doctor both told him it was fine. He made a public profession of faith.
WOW
This may bring you comfort,
The most important thing about the word "baptism" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water.
What did John the Baptist say below about two different types of baptism?
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:
This truth is confirmed below by Peter.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 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.
The master teacher was promised to New Covenant believers in the verse below.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Christ confirms the promise below.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The following verse is ignored by most today, but it is confirmation of the fulfillment of the master teacher.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Jesus told Nicodemus a person must be "born again" of the Spirit of God in order to inherit the kingdom of God.
See Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16, and Ephesians 1:13.
Based on Ephesians 1:13, believers receive the Holy Spirit when they come to faith in Christ. No other baptism is necessary for salvation.
@@SpotterVideo thank you for your kind words. I know the thief on the cross went to heaven and I assured my husband before he passed. God blessed him with a good pastor and a christian doctor who would come in and pray with us. Again, thanks.
@@SpotterVideo That was beautiful and was a comfort to me, too. Thanks for the time you took
Public confession of faith to me is better than just a baptism that you do just for ritual purposes. Faith in Christ is what saves. Only that.
When I went to the Presbyterian Church, the pastor made a strong statement at infant baptisms that this was not a baptism as a declaration of faith, but the promise of the parents and church to help this child grown in faith. If the child eventually has faith in Christ, they will confirm it during confirmation. I appreciated this clarity, but saw no reason for calling it baptism when a dedication of the child would have sufficed.
I don't think you understood what he said. We are not dedicating, we are acknowledging God's work already. We are not dedicating, we are acknowledging our commitment to carry out what God has told us to do. Perhaps we are dedicating ourselves, but not our children.
@@karentaylor5739 I genuinely don't understand the distinction. Is there a way you might be able to rephrase to give me another shot of understanding?
I think I understand that you're saying that the parents and congregation are dedicating themselves to the task of raising the child in the church, but in that commitment aren't they dedicating the child to God? It seems contradictory if they're not because...like if an Olympic coach has dedicated their life to training up Olympians, but they're not committing the athlete TO the olympics, then what was the point of them saying that they're dedicated if they're not actively set on the athlete representing their country?
I think if a parent is dedicating their life to a specific purpose for their child, they've dedicated their child to that purpose.
An Olympic coach dedicates their life to training up their athletes. The athletes are dedicated to their country to serve a purpose. But being thus dedicated doesn't mean they've already won a gold medal (salvation). So if the parents and congregation are the coach, the child is the athlete, and the gold medal is salvation, the medal is the goal, but it's not granted to the athlete as soon as they've been committed to the competition. Lots of things can falter and go wrong between the dedication and gold medal, but the group surrounding the athlete dedicated themselves anyway.
When my nephews were baptized it was the same thing that OP described, "This is not salvation; this is showing our commitment to God that we intend to raise this child in the faith. All who are willing to commit to this before the eyes of God please rise." So the baby was dedicated to God in the Church with his parents and congregation all promising to raise the boys in the church toward God. They called it baptism, but it wasn't a baptism because it was about us and our commitment--not the child.
I know that when clarifying a previous post it's harder when someone writes a lot of words the way I just have. I don't even know if you'll get a notification that I commented on your post or if you'd be able to try to reword it in another way, but please don't get frustrated or overwhelmed or feel like you have to correct misconceptions I have about what you meant and my understanding of things if you do come back and try to reword what you said.
I genuinely didn't understand but would like to, and my long rambling was to further explain my understanding (whether it makes sense or not or is accurate or not), so that you could hopefully see my perspective and make it (hopefully) easier for you to communicate with me in a way we can both benefit. But anyway. Have a good week 🙌
@@karentaylor5739 I think we dedicate ourselves to raise a child to love the Lord and we dedicate that child to God's service as Hannah dedicated Samuel.
@@talyahthekingsdaughter37 , are you replying to me? Or to one of the other two above on this post?
@@ImCarolB I can see that you meant that. Do you consider yourself part of a covenantal relationship with the Lord?
Why is the thumbnail so funny to me lol😂??God bless you brother Mike🙏🏾💯
IKR
Because it’s ridiculous lol!
Mike’s giving that baby the ‘concerning theology’ look lol
The baby’s expression cracked me up!
I laughed a solid 5 minutes at it
"You go in as a sinner and come out as a wet sinner." 😂
I haven't watched much of your older content! Thanks for reposting!
Absolutely great quote 😂
It's an old joke. "I went in a dry sinner and came out a wet one."
Too bad it’s not what scripture says.
@@IAMFISH92 not all jokes are
@@christophekeating21 I mean the concept. Baptism washes away our sins. Scripture couldn’t be more clear.
I was baptized this past Saturday! Praise God! If anyone here is a born again in Christ and hasn’t gotten baptized yet, I encourage you to get baptized! It’s an amazing way to show your obedience to Christ publicly and will strengthen your faith! Thanks Mike for your discernment.
-Jakob
Baptism is not about an act of obedience. Faith is NOT a work. It is the gift of God. Baptism is a sacrament. It is given to build our faith and for the forgiveness of sins. I was baptized as a baby and do not need to do it again. I am already in God's family.
@@run4cmt nope, sacraments are catholicism only things aren't really biblical. Also Baptism is a work.
Could you not by living out the Christian life?
@@run4cmt Why would God implement this?
whos it going man?
Great video. I was baptized December 1, 1995 as an adult in my church. As a former Roman Catholic I was baptized as an infant according to the Roman Catholic rite. I was not saved until I was 30 and this a work of the Holy Spirit. Once I understood the biblical teaching and under the leadership of godly people I was baptized and I believe God was glorified and the church edified. Keep up the good work.
I am a huuuuge fan of time stamps! Thanks for going above and beyond to help bring clarity to those of us who have all these burning questions!
I appreciate your views on this important topic. One thing that I struggle with in the explanation here is the use of the word and idea “symbol.” While I understand why some consider baptism to be a symbol, I’m not convinced that the Bible backs this up. Here is a quick explanation of why:
Acts 2:38 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
On Pentecost, Peter tied the idea of baptism to salvation. Not that you can’t mess it up with sin later, but Peter placed priority on repent (change) AND baptism and tied this to the gift, which is salvation.
1 Peter 3:21 backs this up - Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
I am not saying that baptism is what provides salvation, but there is a clear priority expressed that make baptism more than just a symbol. Then there is this:
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Not a symbol. A priority. And when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer, was that a symbol? God’s response seems to indicate it was more important:
Matt 3: 16-17 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
The best argument for baptism being a symbol is actually scripture that seems to argue that baptism is actually a cleanser, 1 Peter 3:21.
I appreciate that the words in this video place importance on baptism and I don’t question your knowledge or your hunger for spiritual knowledge. But baptism is not like a wedding ring and there is strong Bible evidence that it is much more than a symbol.
@@CaliHawk03 really well said. Thank you.
Mike has another video (4 hours long) where he goes over probably all of what you're saying. I'll just chime in on a couple verses you pointed to. And note, the key issue here is Jesus is the only thing that saves us. Communion, Baptism, other public signs and symbols aren't a requirement, but they are things a believer should do. The problem occurs when you think its a requirement. Like Catholics will say you need to do like 6-7 things or you're going to Hell. Romans 10:9 (and many other verses in my last paragraph) prove otherwise.
"Acts 2:38 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
This verse seems to imply that the Holy Spirit (which seals us with salvation) is received upon Baptism, however:
John 7:39
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
-Holy spirit comes from faith
Galatians 3:2
This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
-Holy spirit comes from faith (read the full chapter! 3:6, 7, 9, 11 etc all mention FAITH very specifically)
Galatians 3:14
in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
-Holy spirit comes from faith
This is where the famous Ephesians 2:8-9 comes in; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
-----------------------------
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
-Very simply, it does not say, "whoever does not believe AND is not baptized will be condemned." or "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." Simply that belief, aka faith, is the requirement for salvation here. We should go and do good works and get baptized, but those things don't save us.
-----------------------------
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
-We're sealed with the Holy Spirit upon faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. As Mike points out in the video Baptism means Immersed. So it is fair to say we're BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit as soon as we put our faith in Jesus (Romans 10:9-13, John 3:1-16, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:15-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 4:30, 1 John 4:15, Colossians 1:27, etc) The Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in us the moment we believe.
“You and your offspring” sounds to me like whenever you are blessed by God with offspring, bring ‘em. Bring ‘em right on. Then teach them to cooperate with their baptismal graces as they grow.
You are going to really confuse your children by doing this. Please let them decide to follow Jesus on their own. Children need to develop their own faith. They need to make their own choices or else they are not saved.
Amen to this!
I generally disagree with Mike about baptism but I think he is right about this. You and your offspring means future generations. Acts 1: 37 and the next few verses reinforce this interpretation. This passage is on Pentacost right after Peter's sermon.
@@goofyskittles No one can make a choice for Christ
@@svnsetsomnia8280 I believe that our choice was known before we made it. God knew we would but we still made that choice.
42:. . It's not only repeating. Depending on the one teaching. I was personally preached by a children's missionary. When he asked if I wanted to pray for forgiveness I said no. Butt several days later I did hit my younger brother, then I knew I had sinned, so I went to my room, asked fort forgiveness, Andy asked Jesus into my heart. Then went and told my mother, who reassured me and taught me from there. I was 3 1/2 years old. So small children can believe. I'm so glad my parents believed me and discipled, nobody could have imagined how sick I would get immediately after, when I was near death at least no 3 times,. Had 6 surgeries and this terrible infections. I loved the stories of my Bible with the questions, and talked all day long about heaven, all this before I was six.
Only 19,000 subs in 2018 to almost 300k now. Keep up the great work Mike.
As a Lutheran I don't agree with your views on Baptism, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your opinion and share it :D
It seems like the assumption was that Baptism is a work we do, but I think the biblical position is that Baptism is a work that God does to us.
1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
Galatians 3:27 "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ"
Matthew 28:19 "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
Matthew 19:14 "Let the children come to Me and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these"
Why can't babies take communion then?
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr because they’re not mature enough to recognize the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread & wine. I think.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Different sacrament, different requirements.
First, "babies" sounds like you are talking about humans that aren't even weened yet. They wouldn't have eaten at the passover table, so I don't see how it makes any sense to feed them solid foods at communion. That aside...
1 Cor 11: 28 says one is to examine themselves before taking communion. If a child is old enough to do that, by all means they should, but if not, then they should refrain. But the practice of baptism as found in the Bible was to baptize the entire household when the believing head came to faith. This follows from the Abrahamic practice in Gen 17 which was reaffirmed in Acts 2 where not just Abraham, but his children and his servants, even those servants from far off places, were all to be circumcised into the covenant. Infants are clearly members of the covenant, not even Baptists leave their children at home when they go to church, and so should be given the sign of the covenant.
And a closing point, I really don't understand why Baptists think this line of reasoning makes sense, that is, if X is true for one sacrament, therefore X should apply to another. The Bible describes what we do for the sacraments, and they are not all the same. We don't baptize by eating bread and wine. We don't take communion by getting wet. Why isn't it obvious that different sacraments have different elements and requirements? Yet I've heard many Baptists try to infer that something only said of one should apply to both even though they don't actually apply that for their own position.
@@oracleoftroy It was the priests that ate the sacrifices in the old testament wasn't it? So to be a parallel it should be the priests eating of Jesus now. Good thing the bible makes it sound like we're ALL priests!
@@oracleoftroy or maybe when the head believed, the others also began to believe.
Great conversation. I think you should invite a well studied lutheran to weigh in on infant baptism, there were many assumptions made about what people believe about infant baptism that were not completely accurate. Faith as a gift from God is a major component driving that belief, not necessarily relating it to circumcision. Why not talk about this with someone who holds the opposite viewpoint?
As a Lutheran, seconded! Our view was not represented at all and I feel as though Luther's is a compelling argument for infant Baptism as well as Baptismal Regeneration. Some bigger Lutherans in the YT space to potentially consider would be Dr. Jordan Cooper, Rev. Bryan Wolfmueller and Rev. Jonathan Fisk.
That would be great, or an Anglican like Father James @BarelyProtestant. He's also done video responses to Mike Winger on this issue.
As a WELS Lutheran I would love this. They should bring Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller on
@@matthewbless3335 Darn, you beat me to it lol
Anyone familiar with ultra orthodox rabbi / mohel practice of pedo circumcision? With their ....mouth
I truly believe your faith is stirctly between GOD and us as individuals, I love GOD with all of my heart and I truly know that I do NOT deserve Eternal Life wih HIM but only through HIS Mercy, I will be with HIM in Heaven and GOD help those who don't believe that I will reach Heaven because that is like unto those of the Pharisees and Saducceees. I truly love your work Pastor Mike! GOD Bless you all, as you are about saving Souls and not about religion. Love from your sister in Christ, Julie. Merry Christmas and a Happy new year to you all!🙏
Mike, dear brother, I hope you are well. I want you to know that I respect you deeply and your biblical teachings. I admire your willingness to seek to think as biblically as possible. That’s why it’s hard to write this note. (and I ask your grace and that of any others who might read it and your forgiveness if I slight you unjustly in any way) Essentially, I think that the “think biblically” goal is being missed when it comes to this discussion on baptism. The New Testament is replete with references to baptism- all of which give clear insight and solid context for understanding those insights. But the discussion seemed to revolve around ideas about baptism instead of focusing on the myriad New Testament references. Also, I was dismayed to hear your definition of what baptism is, your belief that baptism is symbolic, and that you reject baptism's connection to salvation. At minute 2:46 you answer “What is baptism?” Yet, in answering it, you use no scripture to uphold your definition. Instead, you use words like “identify” with Christ and ideas like “to become a part of a church.” (not only that but Jeff’s discussion about a person needing to go through a time of testing before it is decided they are ready to be baptized- minutes 4-5- is not thinking biblically. In the New Testament people were baptized right away, without consideration of their “seriousness” in making the decision) Then, when you speak at minute 5:23 of baptism being a “symbol” and jump right into the idea that baptism has nothing to do with salvation the “think biblically” realm has been left and the “think traditionally” realm has been entered. The argument you make about a wedding ring is a wholly manmade idea to explain baptism instead of thinking biblically about it. How can I say that? Well, first of all, in your answer, you give no definitive scriptural references to baptism being “symbolic,” (like a wedding ring) and this is because there are none. Nothing explicitly nor implicitly says that baptism is symbolic. Second, it isn’t biblical thinking because the clear NT teaching on baptism is that it is something that has actual consequence in the life of a believer, it is connected to salvation. Here are a few examples relative to baptism as symbol and its connection to salvation (and of course these are limited because of the forum). First, Acts 2:38. Peter preaches and is listeners are “cut to the heart.” And in response to their heart conviction (and along with it a faith that Christ is as great as they are hearing He is), they say, “What should we do?” Peter’s response is clear and concise, “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of sin and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” There is no ambiguity in this- Peter connects repentance AND baptism to forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit. There is no way around this, except if one starts to refer to tradition. But if one thinks biblically, it can’t be missed that in no way did Peter think baptism to be something symbolic or disconnected from salvation but, on the contrary, something that is intricately involved in the act of faith, repentance, forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit. (I would to also note that Josh did mentioned Acts 2:36-39 and paraphrased it, but missed an essential part- the direct connection of forgiveness of sin, receiving the Holy Spirit, and baptism. I’m not sure why he did that.) Another place that can enlighten us to think biblically about baptism in Romans 6. You know the passage well, I’m sure. Paul says, “Don’t you know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The thing is, while this text is used by people as a way to say that baptism is symbolic of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, Paul’s language isn’t like that. He doesn’t say “baptism is a symbol of these things.” He says that when you were physically baptized it was a “literal” (not symbolic) baptism into Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. And, conversely, it could be said that *without baptism* the actual work of Christ wouldn’t be happening in one’s life. There is something “real” about what happens when a person is baptized by faith in Christ, not something symbolic. We don’t find symbolism in this Romans text but we do find symbolism in the tradition that grew from the text. Another text is with Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8). Philip explains Christ to him through Isaiah. And clearly, the eunuch gets it and believes it. Once having done so, water is seen and the eunuch himself exclaims, “Here is water, what keeps me from being baptized?” And they stopped and the eunuch was baptized. Now, there’s no “theology” being taught here necessarily but there is something so “real” about the reality of the connection of baptism and the new life that comes with faith in Christ that the eunuch couldn’t wait to get it done. I think it’s because Philip has taught him of baptism's essentiality, something he didn’t see as “symbolic” but literal, something that, if not done, would keep one from the fullness of salvation. One more example (although there are many more) is found in 1st Peter. In chapter 3 Peter writes about Noah and his family being “safely brought through the water.” And then Peter says this, “Corresponding to this, 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.” Now, there *is* some theology going on here. Something deep and abiding and literal, not symbolic. But my point here isn’t to make a rule “everyone who gets baptized is saved.” My point is to show that biblical thinking requires us to *deal with* this text and to admit that far from being symbolic, baptism plays an essential and intricate role in our “safely being brought” to God’s desired destination for us, salvation and eternal life.
My dear brother, I do not expect that many will listen to what I have written. But I hope that it can be seen that this short explanation is far closer to biblical thinking than many of the explanations being used in this video. God bless you in your ministry and may we ALL continue to do the hard work of humbly arriving at a place where we find agreement, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in chapter 1. God bless you!
Amen, this is so true!
I came to the comments to touch on the same kinds of thoughts & Scriptures. Thank you for already having done so! I would love to hear Mike’s thoughts on this comment, because your points are straight from Scripture.
Thank you so much for writing this!! I was going to say something very similar but to my pleasant surprised someone already spoke out about it.
Thanks Karl. In case your readers aren't getting it:
Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son.
Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven.
Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching.
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.*
Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous.
Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.*
John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism.
Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.*
Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.
Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that.
Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.*
Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.*
1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism.
1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead.
Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality.
Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh.
Colossians 2:12 In baptism, God raised you with Christ through faith.
Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.*
1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you! Baptism = assurance* of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@Mygoalwogel Matthew 28v19 does not say make disciples By baptising them... It reads 'make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
20k subs. You've come a long way!
*200k
Thank you so much for time stamps. Can't tell you how helpful they are!!
My pleasure! 🙏🏼
I may be wrong (if I remember to, I’ll ask Jesus when I see him), but I feel like I’ve always had faith in God, possibly even as an infant, idk. But the point when I asked Jesus into my heart, I was 4 and I remember it very clearly. I’m Baptist (though I don’t agree with 100% of Baptist theology) and my whole family went to one of those “hell” plays at my grandma’s church.
That was the night when I first felt the fear of God. When they had the altar call at the end, I was bawling because I didn’t want to go to hell, and my mom tried to stop me, but I ran up to the altar by myself and there asked Jesus into my heart. I don’t necessarily know if the sinners prayer is biblical or not, but I was very sincere nonetheless.
I have always looked on that moment as the day I got saved. I didn’t get baptized until I was 10 because my mom and preacher wouldn’t let me, and when they finally did, I think it was partly because I had pestered them about it for years lol. At 27, I look back on that night and know that the Holy Spirit was working on me even back then.
In my teen years and most of my twenties, I strayed from the path and lived more for my flesh than God, but I always believed. I had my doubts, and about the time I was 18-19, what I learned in school didn’t match up with the Bible, and I had a crisis. This led me into studying more and more about creation, and the Lord greatly strengthened my faith through it. My twenties so far could be summed up as periodic highs and very low lows. But about a year and a half ago something changed, God convicted me of my sin and though I bucked it for a long time, He ultimately led me to a life where now I feel much more secure in my relationship with Him, like when I was a kid. I’m so thankful to God, He’s given me so many confirmations and really has shown me he loves me, bless Him. I don’t deserve any of it, and can’t praise him enough. He uses the foolish to confound the wise, my life is a living testimony of His grace, mercy, and love. I owe more than I could ever achieve in all eternity to God. Every ounce of me isn’t enough, and I thank him for his gift in being my savior, and also my greatest friend. When my fiancée ghosted me after our 5 year anniversary in August 2023, it ripped my heart out. I still haven’t fully healed from it. But though the one person I thought would never do it abandoned me, He was still there. My relationship with Him has strengthened significantly, and I have realized that Jesus truly is the only person who has never hurt me. Everything He has done in my life has been in my best interest. Me, a filthy wretch. Makes me wanna bawl all over again.
How great is our God!?!
I was raised a member of the Salvation Army and so was raised with the presumption that nonadherence towards baptism was a-okay. I was then baptized in a calvinistic southern baptist church when I was 20 years old. Fourish years later, I'm an Anglican who is completely for paedobaptism. I would never say that the household argument is the strongest, personally, I think it is the weakest by far. The New and Greater Covenant argument and the Baptismal Regeneration angle is much much stronger in my opinion. When I flipped from credo to paedo on this, I spent several days praying, fasting, and writing out all the verses on baptism and tried to argue both sides before finally landing on the infant baptism perspective. I love your content here on UA-cam Mike Winger, but I really wish that you would have a dialogue with a Lutheran or an Anglican to better demonstrate the other side.
Anyone familiar with ultra orthodox rabbi / mohel practice of pedo circumcision? With their ....mouth
I've been listening to Jordan Cooper on the Lutheran side. It seems even crazier of an argument when to you're claiming that your baptized baby is regenerated, given faith, given repentance, and is now saved (implying other babies are not). Salvation is now of the will of earthly fathers.
The great commission also says to go to all nations baptizing them. It does not say adults. I would also say the household argument does hold weight because it speaks to how the early church that had the most exposure to Jesus's teachings handled baptism.
@@run4cmt I wouldn't say it has no weight, I just feel that in a debate setting, the household argument is the weaker of the arguments.
@@run4cmt Infant baptisms didn't start until the 300's, not sure the exact date. Also, I propose we just go baptize all kids and teenagers that we find on the street so that they are given faith, repentance, and are regenerated. We can save a lot of people!
Mike, I really hope you don't ever feel the need to change the thumbnail. It's hilarious. That aside, love your content. I really get a lot from your channel
How young can a child be to really 'believe'? My morher listened to the 15 or 30 minute Back to the Bible broadcast daily and I heard this solid Bible teaching and invitation to Christ as a preschooler. At 4 or 5 I understood that Jesus died for me because I wasn't always good and I wanted to be obedient to please Him. I believe i was saved then with a child's concept of Savior and Lord which matured with my age and understanding. I made recommitments to following him over the years and was baptized at 17. Mike, your Bible based teaching is a blessing ans sooo necessary these days. God bless you.
Some children mature and have greater self-awareness from a younger age than others. One of my best friends came to Christ when she was 4 or 5, and neither her father nor her nor I have any doubts that she was saved that night. There isn't a specific year, day, hour, minute, second, and moment kids universally become able to understand; it's person-to-person
That's definitely an interesting discussion. I was baptised as a child because I grew up Catholic, but I never believed until I got much older.
And were you glad to be brought up in church or not?
Acts 2:38-39 - “Repent and be baptized... this promise is for you and your children.”
Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16 - household baptisms suggest baptism of children
Jn 3:5; Rom 6:4 - necessity of baptism
Col 2:11-12 - OT circumcision replaced by NT baptism as sign of the covenant (OT circumcision was performed on infants, see Gen 17:12)
Beyond they discussed all of these passages and shown how that’s not accurate. Especially acts 2:38-39, babies aren’t old enough to understand repenting
@@juliannaodubajo6211 have you seen all the verses I sent? Baptism replaces circumcision. If a Jewish father was told that his kids had to be a certain age he would’ve left and said, “I thought this was a new, stronger covenant how come I can’t baptize my children when I can just circumcise them?” Because the church is not a club you’re born into it or if you’re a convert same thing, baptism means you are born again through water and spirit. Why wouldn’t you want to bring your children into the new covenant of God. Baptism just replaces circumcision, the old law. Also every human that has lived and will live is stained from Adam and eves fall so when we are baptized we are washed from original sin and are welcomed into the kingdom of God which is here and now.
@@juliannaodubajo6211 Everyone needs to pray seriously about baptism and communion in Jesus Christ name! And search the scriptures in Jesus Christ name! God bless you all and keep you.
Baptizo does NOT mean immersion. Why does baptists always say this? I often hear this spoken of like it is an unquestenable fact. But just look in a good greek dictionary and you will see that it does not mainly mean immersion. Yes often when something is baptized it’s also immersed but what sepperates the word bapto(often translated dipping) from baptizo is not that something that is dipped is not fully immersed. The thing you want to state by using the word baptizo instead of bapto is that the dipping caused a permanent effect.
For example: The Romans called spears and arrows with poison, baptized spears. The whole spear was off course not dipped in the poison, just the tip. But the dipping caused the spear to change from normal to poisonous.
The clearest and best example if you want to understand the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C.
It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Baptizo is also used in a non-immersion way in NT.
Mark 7:3-4 Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. 4And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash(baptizo). And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.
it is not likely that all the pharisees and the jews got fully immersed every time they came home from the market. Most people did not have conditions for that. In fact we know that these cleansing acts was made by pouring water, often from large pots. (see John 2:6)
Luke 11:37-38 As Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee invited Him to dine with him; so He went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised to see that Jesus did not first wash(baptizo) before the meal.
Same here. Do we actually asume that the pharise expected Jesus to “fully immerse” before having a lunch? No, he expected Jesus to do the ritual washing from the “tradition of the elders”.
Why is the word baptizo used in these 2 texts? Because they speak of a ritual washing. Where the one being washed went from unclean to clean. The washing produced a change just like Nicanders vinegar.
This is why it was no big deal for christians to baptize by pouring water like didache speaks about. Immersion was still norm but was never seen as a question of validity. Didache is believed to have been written before tha last apostle died so it confirms that this pracitce existed extremely early.
.
Summery: Stop saying baptizo means immersion and never question someones baptism because they were not fully immersed.
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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 ESV
Baptism is how you receive forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Amen! That is the biblical way of ‘accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior’
No it's by faith alone.
@@cendallitak8140 faith includes baptism. There was no unbaptized believer nor baptized unbeliever in the Bible. But now, since men divorced the two that God put together, there are plenty of both. It’s time to repent and be obedient to the Word of God. Whoever repents, should be baptized immediately in the name of Jesus, like the Bible commands us.
@@an_nie_dyc1386 agree. We should. But if there is someone on theor death bed who accept jesus chrost as their attonment and is birn again but he doed before we get water baptised, his going straight to heaven.
We should get baptised 100% but if we doe on the way to get baptised or whatever, we don't go to hell.
@@cendallitak8140 that’s my opinion, too. I believe whoever puts all his trust in Jesus and not in himself, and has an obedient, loving heart, will be saved; even when he or she is taught wrong in certain points.
Nevertheless we have to search the scriptures (and not the writings of the early church or whatever) to find out Gods perfect will for us, and I believe He chose to save us this way - through the name of Jesus ( e.g. His identity) that we put on in baptism. Romans 6; Acts 2,38; Mark 16,16; Galatians 3,27
„Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.“
Revelation 3:2-3 ESV
I've always considered infant baptism to be one of those things God allows us to do. It is neither right nor wrong. If it is a conviction that you hold you must do or not do it. I think the Bible gives us justification that it can be done but that it does not need to be done at that age.
I think we must do things as God says not follow our own convictions. The Bible gives us the examples to follow. We must have faith first, then be baptized. Babies have no faith so they can not be baptized.
@@sarahbishop-jones2841 God works covenantally.
God's covenants have covenant signs.
The covenant with Adam had the covenant sign of the tree.: "And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,’" (Gen. 2:16-17).
The covenant with Noah had the sign of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:9-17).
The Covenant with Abraham had the sign of circumcision: "And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” (Gen. 12:7).
There are other covenants and covenant signs..
The Abrahamic Covenant included infants and the sign of their entrance into that covenant was circumcision.
The fact is that infant males were included in the Abrahamic covenant via the sign of circumcision.
Females were included in the covenant via federal headship, the doctrine that the male head of the family represents his descendents. Heb. 7:7-10 is a good example of this.
"The federal headship view considers Adam, the first man, as the representative of the human race that generated from him. As the representative of all humans, Adam’s act of sin was considered by God to be the act of all people and his penalty of death was judicially made the penalty of everybody."1
The Abrahamic Covenant is called the gospel in Gal. 3:8
"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”
Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect.
Since the covenant is that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed and that is called the gospel by Paul, then the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect.
To say the Abrahamic covenant is not in effect now, is to contradict what Paul said when he called it the gospel. Remember, God's covenant promise was to bless all nations in Abraham. This is a reference to the coming Messiah in whom we have redemption.
Infants were included in the Abrahamic Covenant which is still in effect.
Whether or not infants understood what was occurring in their participation of the covenant sign is immaterial since it was God who ordered that the infants be included in the Abrahamic covenant.
Since the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect -- by being equated with the gospel - infants should still be included in that same covenant.
Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect?
There is no command at all to exclude infants from the same covenant that is still in effect.
Baptism is the New Testament covenant sign and is to be applied to infants.
Finally, many epistles were written to correct error. Why do none of the epistles include a restriction of infants being included in God's covenant via baptism? Why? Because theologically, infants were included in the covenant of God and since the Abrahamic covenant is equated with the gospel,
@@sarahbishop-jones2841 Mark Driscoll just taught this weekend about Romans 14 and about convictions, and I think it relates to this really well. I'm still thinking on it, so I can't summarize, but I recommend it and it may help you hone your perspective into something really precise
@@e.t.h.559 Not one commandment for Infants not to be you say? Why would you think that there has to be a Commandment? Scriptures plainly say, Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved..." and Acts 8:36'37 "... here is water, what hinder me to be baptized? If thou believeth with all thine heart thou mayest."
One Must Believe in order to be Baptized in order to have their sins remitted (Acts 2:38) to be Saved. How can an infant Believe, how can they understand that that they even have sin? One must understand that they are a Sinner first and need the Lord's redemption. Acts 2:37, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
@@mikeeagan1307 first of all, we as reformed Christians do believe that adults who were not Christians previously should be baptized, after all baptism is the sign of the covenant, and adults also need to receive baptism because it symbolizes that they are part of the visible church of God here on earth, secondly there are also accounts in the book of acts of entire households being baptized, for example, see Acts 16:15, and acts 16:31, I would like to hear your interpretation of these passages, you may say that this did not include children, but
This is true only if you assume that of all the households in Israel that were baptized, none included infants. This is an assumption that is without substance especially since we know that good Jews were to obey God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
notice, that the apostles were to make disciples of every nation, that means that they weren’t followers of Jesus Christ, and thus had to be baptized because they had to receive the sign of the covenant, also many of the accounts of baptism in the book of acts speaks of mass conversion from pagan religions to Christianity, so of course the majority would be adults
lastly, you are presupposing, that the order of faith and baptism in the book of acts is always the same, however that is not the case, since the order of faith and baptism clearly varies from one account to another, for example:
in Acts 10:44-48, the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles before they are baptized, while in Acts 19, there were a number who knew only the baptism of John and who were first baptized and then received the Holy Spirit. This is why in the Reformed tradition, we instead connect the work of the Holy Spirit with baptism as that of sign-seal [the application of water] and thing signified [regeneration], as we can see in a text such as Titus 3:5
i wanted my children baptised as soon as possible. Just baptize
them!
Not one child was ever baptized in the bible. Not one. Every time, it was a choice and it was by someone who understood their sin and need for a savior. So, if you baptize a child before they understand etc, not only are they just getting wet, they will need to be re-baptized once they do understand.
I think Jeff's point about having new believers demonstrate their faith and take it seriously makes sense when it comes to children raised in church. In that environment, a child would just be outright pressured to get baptized and may not have sincerity. (Not saying to never do it. But be wary). What Mike was saying about baptizing right away seems more applicable to adult/teenaged converts. So, yeah, I'm saying they were both right. 8 minutes in and this video is already great 😁
Thats my view is im not against kids doing it but I want it to be sincere and kids can't comprehend most things that deep and id feel better if my kid waited and understood cause I can understand they'd feel pressured like well they are doing it so I guess I will
What a phenomenal discussion, thanks for sharing this Mike, it’s definitely still a relevant topic!
I got baptized when I was a baby ( was raised orthodox) but not for salvation. I think was presumed that you bring your child to God and because you are God's people that your child will then become God's people. And was considered the child was blessed and PROTECTED
When I got saved as an adult I wanted to get baptized again but my church (not orthodox) said it is not necessary as I was already welcomed in God's family with the first baptism. And that will make me kind of reject the first one which was done in faith and from the heart.
Although I was disappointed I realized I don't need another one (doesn't mean I can't) and I am grateful I had that one even if I don't remember I know now that God saw the heart of my family and welcomed me and loved me anyway
It wasn't done by YOUR faith or from YOUR heart. I think it was invalid. Can your family save you?
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr YOU think it was invalid. Do YOU know the heart of God?
When a 3-year-old says “You have broken God’s Law”-that’s precious!!! 😁🙌
I was baptized at 7 and rebaptized at 24. In the same church and the same baptismal tank. My childlike faith at 7 was lost in my teen years and was basically in outright rebellion. When the Lord showed up in my life in a profound way, (through a dream) the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and I feel to floor in tears and repentance and immediately seen the world in a new lens and put away my old selfish ways. This moved me to get rebaptized and recommit my life to the Lord with full acknowledgement of my sin and need for a saviour and the cost involved in wearing the name of Christ. Was it necessary to get rebaptized? You could argue all I needed to do was repent and believe, however my decision and public profession meant so much more as an adult than as a child. I am saved by his Grace and forgiveness, my baptism was an outward act of obedience and acknowledgment of his lordship over my life.
PS: this was in a Church of Christ that holds to a theology that you need baptism in order to be saved. I disagree with that theology based on scripture but still consider them brothers and sisters and still attend that church.
Thank you Mike. I've been thinking about this a lot over the past half a year.
Looking forward to watching this
1 Peter 3:21, NIV: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
Ho kai hymas antityypon nyn sozei baptisma... that now saves you... Its right there in the text. The symbol is the OT type. Baptism is the thing that saves. New Covenant.
The water baptism symbolizes baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit is what saves. We receive baptism of the Spirit when we place our trust in Jesus.
If you interpret it as "water baptism saves you," then it sounds like the text is saying, "water baptism symbolizes water baptism," which is nonsense. Things don't symbolize themselves. My wedding ring doesn't symbolize my wedding ring, it symbolizes my vows.
@@bbgun061 It symbolizes the death burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I didn’t grow up in church. I went some with my grandmother. So, I didn’t know much about what it meant to be a Christian. My dad would watch Christian broadcasting and I would watch with him. One day we were watching CBN and at the end of the broadcast there was an invitation to pray. I was around 12 years old. I decided to hold hands with dad and prayed to accept Jesus. I didn’t know much about baptism at all. I would read the Bible on my own, listen to Christian radio and watch Christian broadcasting. I would go to church with friends here and there. I gave into peer pressure as I moved into my teens, around 16, because I wanted to be accepted by someone. I went on to date a man 5 years older than me. I would tell him that we needed to go to church. We went one time. We later slept together and became pregnant with our first child. Years later I got us into a church and decided to change the way we’d been living. I remained abstinent until we could be married by the church. I learned about baptism there and asked to be baptized one day and married the next. So, that was almost 10 years between praying to accept Jesus and baptism. As I look back, I struggle to know if I am right with God.
Baptizing Households
Acts 16:15 After she [Lydia] and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
Acts 16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him along with everyone in his house. 33 He took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds. Right away he and all his family were baptized. 34 He brought them into his house, set a meal before them, and rejoiced because he had come to believe in God with his entire household.
1 Corinthians 1:14 I [Paul] thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. 16 I did, in fact, baptize the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t recall if I baptized anyone else. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect.
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.
Irenaeus
Against Heresies 2:22:4, A.D. 189
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.
Hippolytus
The Apostolic Tradition 21:16, A.D. 215
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.
Origen
Commentaries on Romans 5:9, A.D. 248
If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another.
Cyprian of Carthage
ibid., 58:5
Entrance Into A Covenant
Colossians 2:11 You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive with him and forgave us all our trespasses. 14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
Genesis 17:26 On that very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his household-whether born in his household or purchased from a foreigner-were circumcised with him.
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.
Cyprian of Carthage
Letters 58:2, A.D. 253
When Believers are Baptized
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, each 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 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Mark 16:15 Then he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Forgiveness of Sins
Acts 22:16 And now, why are you delaying? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” Call to Repentance
37 When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, each 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 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, "Be saved from this corrupt generation!" 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added to them.
Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
The Stromata Book 6
Salvation
Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, 5 he saved us - not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy - through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge l of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Maybe all those who could hear and understand and repent were born again and in those cases they all were so got baptized. Maybe that's what households means.
All the earliest Christians became disciples as adults, therefore adult baptism. But did the sign of baptism mean that they were all faithful to the end? Did it mean that they understood everything about discipleship when they were baptized? What about those who were saved across time without baptism (e.g., the thief on the cross, those under the old covenant, the believers before Abraham)? What about OT believers who were dedicated to the Lord at birth (Samuel, Samson)?
In the end, it's about an outward sign of inward faith, even if the sign precedes the faith by a period of time. In God's time, childhood to adulthood is nothing. This is one of those things that it is not worth berating each other over. What matters is faith in Christ and what he accomplished at Calvary. Raising children to seek that relationship with Christ is the important thing.
After that, we all must ask forgiveness for the many times we are wrong about many things.
Baptism is not the only means to faith, it strengthens faith, forgiveness sins and brings us into the family of God. You can have salvation without Baptism.
@@run4cmt Yes. Some people are baptized, while true understanding and faith come later.
The two should as much as possible work hand in hand. Baptism is ultimately the outward confession of an inward faith that Jesus is Lord.
I am relatively "new" at this, but from all.i have seen, heard, and read, i am with you here. Baptism certainly isn't the way to salvation. I personally know many right now who have been baptized earlier in life and are now atheists. We need to remember what THE way to salvation is. I also know many very obviously saved people who have not been baptized..i also know some saved but not YET baptized, because most churches that I've been to, will set this up, not while one needs to be baptized but at least a few. So, in other words, one must wait. My issue is, any one of them could leave this earth tomorrow. What happens then, for those who believe it is tied to salvation?? I don't see ANY works as being necessarily tied to salvation. I believe salvation brings with it good works. So in my view, there is certainly good reason to baptize. However we certainly should not claim those who haven't been won't get salvation. Or that they aren't "truly saved". First off, who are we to even say that? We are not God. We need to always remember that. All this being said, it is definitely not worth picking at each other over, and it also isn't worth the division in the body and church of Christ, the way it seems to be.
@@crystalparker2542 Amen, Sister.
Love your stuff, Mike! First of all, I'm not arguing for paedobaptism. I don't believe that can be biblically supported very well. However, I do have a question/challenge. At 11:32, you ask, "Where in the NT does it say the sign of being in the new covenant is baptism?" However, here's my pushback.
Romans 2:29 (which you reference later) says, "circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit-". And Colossians 2:11-12 says "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead."
I don't believe this to be eisegesis, but rather to be a proper interpretation of two statements made on the same topic by the same author. While it does not explicitly say baptism is the new sign of the covenant, it does seem to suggest an intense link between circumcision and baptism here. Many of our doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture but are inferentially exegeted. Why is that not the case here? There are SO many passages (like the ones above) which suggest what God accomplishes in us through baptism is more than a public confession of our faith, but rather something deeply spiritual and powerful. My main concern is that we might be ignoring what Scripture says on baptism in order to reinforce our understanding of Sola Gratia. In seeking to make sense of all Scripture, I feel trapped between one camp that says, "Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that accomplishes nothing" and another that says, "Baptism is necessary for salvation." How are we to make sense of all that the Bible says on baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, etc.)?
Again, I love your stuff and am trying to think biblically through everything (see what I did there?)! I hope you know how much God blesses me through your kindness and carefulness with His word. Keep on preaching, bro.
I don't know about Mike, but I would say that the Col 2 passage relates baptism not to physical circumcision but to spiritual circumcision (Deut 10:16 and 30:6). This would go along well with Mike's idea that the transformation (regeneration, initial sanctification) by the Holy Spirit is the sign and seal of the New Covenant. Now, I am one of those weird "baptism is necessary for salvation" guys because I would say Col 2 says that it happens at the time of baptism, along with the implications of the other texts you mention there and some others like Romans 6.
Sure, baptism could be considered a sign of entrance into a new covenant. We enter into that new covenant through circumcision of the heart i.e. accepting Christ. Baptism is an external representation of that internal change.
@@peterfox7663 Thank you for your reply, Peter! I really appreciate it. Understand that I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I have another objection... Haha!
So, I agree that baptism could be considered a sign of our covenant with God. But I'm not yet convinced that the Bible teaches baptism to be "an external representation of an inward change." Further, doesn't your statement, "We enter into that new covenant through circumcision of the heart i.e. accepting Christ" seem to conflict with Colossians 2:11? It seems to me this passage is clear that circumcision of our heart occurs by baptism "through faith in the working of God" (vs. 12).
Again, I'm just trying to work through all of this as biblically as possible. I appreciate your willingness to hear my ramblings out.
@@connorpetrick6572 You are raised through your faith in the working of God. Seems to me it's talking about the symbolic burial.
@@peterfox7663 Baptism is a sign of the promises of God (Gen12, 15, 17, Acts 2), and our need to be cleansed as water washes away dirt from the body. Baptism is something that is done for us, not something we do. Simon the magician was baptized but he didn't have internal change.
I loved this discussion! Thank you gentlemen! Always a tremendous blessing to listen to you teach Pastor Mike! God bless you brother!
😌🙏✝️⚓️🕊🤍
I think that we shouldn't be surprised that John the Baptist (whose mission was ordained before his birth and foretold by the angel Gabriel!) leapt in the womb, when in the presence of the Messiah (!!!), and might consider that a special case. I mean, we had angels showing up *all over the place,* delivering messages about the events unfolding.
Love your channel and Remnant Radio, yet had somehow missed this. Great video. My brother is preparing to be baptized, so I appreciate this!
St Augustine:
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic.”
Hippolytus:
““Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Exactly is realy good that you mention this, so every body can see that it's not in the bible.
We are certain that it was the perfect formula to perpetuate the catholic church existence, if they where convertion based, they would either not exist or be barely known. Blessings!
@@salvadorgomez1834 if this is only a Catholic teaching, then why did Lutheranism come to hold to it as well within the Reformation? Further, if you continue to read the Fathers on Baptism further than these two quotes, you'll find that there are also Biblically derived arguments within them
@@matthewbless3335 simple Luther was a forced out catholic, the main practices that he question, are documented in his 99 tesis, about the bible there is not a single verse that supports baptizing babies, if you do a serious study, you'll find that people will baptize after the gospel was delivered, and there was repentance, a baby has not the cognitive requirements to understand, repent or request to be baptized, children can to a point, I would let the age open, it most be done willingly. Blessings!
@@salvadorgomez1834 Being a "forced out Catholic" didn't stop the likes of Calvin and Zwingli from radicalizing the Reformation. Luther retained these things because they were good, right and salutary practices, and the Lutheran teaching developed far further than the 95* Theses. I'd look into why the Lutheran Confessors never stopped baptizing infants, even in the midst of a long back and forth against Catholicism. On a Theological level though, God is absolutely capable of creating faith and repentant hearts in those without "cognitive understanding," which, by the way, really just plain misunderstands how humanity works, not only God. Even if one cannot necessarily confess with the mouth, it doesn't preclude God from changing the heart.
As for Biblical texts, Matthew 19 is a simple start "but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven," but further the simple charge to baptize "ALL nations." There is no distinction made there. Further still, in the book of Acts we find entire households being baptized with no distinction of age. My suggestion to you is to dig deeper into the Fathers and into Luther to find out *why* they argued these things. They often quote Scripture as well so you can double check. Doing this rather than just dismissing them as "too Catholic" would be a great start!
Understand your point, I know it's been argued a long time, my position is simple ,if it is not in the bible I won't make it up I 'll rather to say I don't know, Ihave study some of the arguments, still I'm not convinced that it applies to babies, blessings!
Thanks for covering this. I was raised United Methodist and I had been “baptized” (sprinkled) as a baby. I wish my parents never would’ve done that. Once I was a senior in high school I was saved and deeply wanted to be baptized. The UMC would not allow me to be “re baptized” but I could do a “remembrance of my baptism” by touching holy water in a special ceremony. That seemed odd to me since I was an infant when I was baptized and there was no way I could possibly “remember” that. I remember feeling so discouraged. I few months later at a youth group pool party, I was telling my new minister about my frustration and he baptized me right then and there. It was a beautiful moment! Now I have two children of my own and my husband and I go to a church that doesn’t do infant baptisms. Instead we did a baby dedication and stood in front of our church family and they all prayed over our children and our family. It was a mutual agreement with my church family in return committing to love and guide us as we raise our children. It was beautiful.
Beautiful!
So glad you are discussing baptism. It’s so important as some denominations believe that not only baptism but baptism in Jesus name is a matter of salvation. Acts 2:38 actually does say believe and be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dear Lucy
I invite you to read and study carefully what I am about to write.
There is not one single gentile Christian in Acts 2:38, these were all former Christ-rejecting Israelites (whom Christ forgave at the cross; „Father forgive them...“) who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to be saved from „this wicked generation“. Read the text again.
Jesus commands the Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20 to go to all gentile nations and to baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
In Mark He says the following:
„He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.“
Mark 16:16 KJV
(Notice that the emphasis is on believing, not BELIEVING leads to damnation)
Also, did you think about that not one of the Apostles was waterbaptized to receive the Holy Ghost?
We are born again when we believe that Jesus Christ died for all our sins and accept Him as Lord and Savior, and we could do absolutely nothing to get saved on our own (including water baptism).
Its very crucial to get this right!
The ethiopian in Acts 8 was only allowed the get baptized in water when he believed in Jesus Christ.
„And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.“
Acts 8:36-37 KJV
The Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his family in Acts 10 before they were baptized.
The gentiles are saved by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. Im sorry, but if you count on your water baptism as part of your salvation, you are wrong!
Check out Matthew chapter 28 verse 19. Jesus talks about baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is an argument I have heard too where people say you have to be baptized in the name of Jesus, but Jesus in Matthew says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe in Acts it's Peter talking to the Jewish people saying to be baptized in the name of Jesus. He is really pushing Jesus name in Acts because the Jews already believed in the Father but they did not believe in the Son, Jesus.
@@dallaspowell1318 yes!
My thoughts on this ... As I read the Bible, I see Baptism as a public declaration of an individual's belief and commitment to God. It is similar as to what is stated in James 2 in that one can say they have faith but real authentic faith is "shown" by what we do. Salvation is assured when we have faith in Christ and repent of our sins. Baptism is our public declaration.
Every one was baptized in the name of Jesus after Acts
I find it interesting that this hour-long video was posted only 45 minutes ago, yet it already has a few “dislikes.” Seems like some people are not taking time to watch and carefully consider what is being said.
Mike has a lot of “hate watchers”
If I understood Mike correctly, this is an older video that he never uploaded to UA-cam before now. It was on the “Remnants” channel.
@JoynJubilee . Oh, my sincere apologies. I thought those were from the original upload.
It was probably against these goof balls at Remnant Radio.
How are your thumbnails always so good 😂 God bless you pastor Mike .
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this video! It is, by far, the most helpful discussion I've ever heard on this topic!!!
Is there a video of a discussion with someone who disagrees with your position? I feel like videos that create an echo chamber are not super helpful just because we don't see different perspectives 🤔 It just ends up reinforcing what everyone already believes
"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put
his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."- Matthew chapter 19 verses 13 to 15.
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."- Ezekiel chapter 36 verses 25 to 28.
“I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou my God from my mother's belly.”
- Psalms chapter 22 verse 10. You are forgetting John the Baptist leapt in his mothers' belly as well FROM his mother's belly. But pray on it in Jesus Christ name! You should pray on it and search the scriptures.
Lots, all you have to do is look it up on UA-cam. Ten Minute Bible Hour talks to different denominations; the host is basically a golden retriever and is very excited to just listen to people explain their own traditions, and those who practice infant baptism explain it in some cases. He generally does a Wally-through of their church building and then has a theological interview with them to get a better understanding of their perspective on their own doctrine.
Since Winger's mission is to help people think Biblically--not to interview lots of denominations, spotlighting people and stuff really isn't his thing, but Ten Minute Bible Hour guy thrives on the kinds of things you're probably interested in. No one can do everything, but we luckily live in a world where there are many options for information so each person can focus on their skill set.
Winger is a good researcher and communicator.
Ten Minute Bible Hour guy is a good interviewer.
Hope you find the answers you're looking for ❤️❤️
@@bufficliff8978 Thanks so much!!! I'll definitely look them up 👍
As a Presbyterian, I still enjoy hearing and learning. Great discussion for my husband and I.
Thank you for sharing, I've been trying to solidify a biblical view of ordinances vs sacraments. I would have loved to have seen more time spent on if baptism saves, especially while looking at 1 Peter 3:18-22 which so far I've seen as the strongest biblical argument for baptism being an active part of salvation.
I agree with a lot of what is being talked about right now in the video. I'm around the 32 minute mark. One of the hosts just said that sin is intentionally disobeying God or "missing the mark". Sin is not simply trying to sin. Whether you are aware of the law or not, you can still break it. I find that statement of intentionality incorrect and not biblical.
The Jewish practice of Baptism for Jewish converts was the point of change so much so that it was the point where the Gentile would be given new clothes. The Didache reveals much the same frame of mind as the Jewish practice. I do believe that Baptism is much more than just a sign - Acts 2:38 and Romans 6 declare that baptism is much more than just a symbol. The early church clearly practiced baptism as being much more that just a symbol.
50:30 - Renewal of Baptism. I did so as an adult because when I was originally Baptized as a kid, I wanted to go swimming in church like everyone else who got baptized. Yes, I believed but didn't want to say it out loud in front of everyone because I was too shy. But I eventually went swimming in church for all of 60 seconds and I was happy.
My renewal was to acknowledge that I understood why I needed to be Baptized and the serious nature of Jesus's command for us to follow Him in Baptism.
For anyone who's wondering: the text on the frame at 0:32 is "gummy bears" with an arrow pointing toward the gummy bears.
😂
Excellent video! Mike Winger thank you for your faithfulness sir!
Gal 3:27 (nkjv/ esv)
For as many of you as we're baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Personally I loved being baptized.. putting my old self put to death in Christ.
Blessings 🕊.
Yes, Romans 6 and 7!
Hmm? So, be baptized early and often?
This was really good and well balanced!
This is the greatest thumbnail for a UA-cam video EVER. I'm dead. LOL
Anyone familiar with ultra orthodox rabbi / mohel practice of pedo circumcision? With their ....mouth
The Church of Christ preaches you are NOT saved until you are baptized. If you accept Christ as Lord of your life and live according to his will but are not dipped in water for baptism, you will NOT receive the eternal kingdom. So thankful I began to study the scriptures for myself and stop taking their word as absolute authority. They cannot be corrected as many of my family members still belong, and are not subject to new ideas or instruction. Proverbs 1:7 rings a bell here somewhere... thank you @Mike Winger!
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. 1 Peter 3:18-22
Thief on the cross disproves that
I'm ex catholic and have been baptised as a Christian since. On twitter there is a continuous debate going on between catholic and another Christian where he is saying it has to be full body immersion is this true? I was fully immersed but I thought crucial thing was repentance before baptism? Thanks Niamh
A pocket lexicon to the new testament
βαπτίζω, lit. I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping (whether immersion or affusion), I baptize; when the preposition εἰς with a noun in the accus. follows, it appears to indicate that through this ceremony the baptized person becomes the property of the person indicated after εἰς: met. Mk. 10:38.
A concise dictionary of the words in the greek testament and the Hebrew bible
907. βαπτίζω baptizō, bap-tid´-zo; from a der. of 911; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, espec. (techn.) of the ordinance of Chr. baptism:-baptist, baptize, wash.
Nkjv Mark 1:10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.
Check out Mathew 3:16 also
Jesus comes up out of the water which implies He was submerged in the water.
Repentance and genuine saving faith for sure. Then baptism should be on the heart and mind of the believer.
@@PsalmChapter117 Kingdom of God
@@PsalmChapter117 Please share what you have in mind.
@@PsalmChapter117 Just to be clear, the sisters initial thought toward the end of her comment in this thread is that repentance comes before baptism(submerged in water). Yes one must believe and no baptism doesn't mean a person is saved.
I've read both verses that you have referenced. Allthough the verses differ with one verse spoken by Jesus and the other verse by Paul, both verses are good news. Making sence so far.
Mike does really good critiques, feel so informed and educated
very calming when speaking and clear ❤️❤️❤️❤️
46:00 that is exactly the case with me. I was born again recently and I want to be baptized again. The one when I was seven doesn't really count in my mind because I didn't know why it was important.
I actually find it a bit insulting to God to have a do-over. Jesus does not die again. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, giving the Holy Spirit, and bringing into the family of God. It is not an act of obedience since faith is not a work or an emotion.
I enjoyed the discussion and thoughtful commentary, Mike. I'm new to your channel and enjoy your content. Keep up the good work.
After the whole "Prophetic Standards" fiasco, I just do not trust the Remnant Radio guys on theology.
I completely agree with you. They are young men who have much to learn. They at remnant radio have been led astray by false doctrine of the NAR . Bethel is an apostate church that denies the divinity of Christ. Hyper charismatics that are preaching a false Christ and false kundalini spirit. False prophets and fake “ apostles”.
No...when I saw Tod White on their show that was it
@@Oana404 I'm always disappointed when I see Michael Brown of the phony Brownsville Revival on Mike Winger's show. I won't watch the show when he's on.
Agree. Why Bethel? 😐
@@carlyerekson2035 look into Bill Johnson’s book” Physics of Heaven” . The book is new age occult blasphemy. Bethel is preaching a false Christ and false Holy Spirit.
Appreciate the humility of the hosts of this discussion though you are all very knowledgeable biblically. We all see in a mirror dimly.
I think it’s interesting that you focused on the idea of households being baptized but never addressed 1John 3:21 “baptism now saves you “ it’s hard to make the argument that baptism has no salvivic effect when the Bible literally says the opposite. I also disagree that you can separate the question of “does baptism save” and “should we baptize infants” if baptism does save then we absolutely should baptize infants because why would we deny our children that effect of baptism. To you point about baptizing infants is equivalent to baptizing people who don’t believe in God/Jesus. Similarly we would not perform surgery on an adult who does not consent to the procedure but we would never deny a life saving surgery to an infant on the basis that they don’t consent to the surgery, we allow their parents to consent on their behalf TO SAVE THEM.
Sorry, I tried to look up the verse, but it's the wrong reference. I looked up 1John 3 and John 3. If you get notified of this comment would you mind double checking the reference or sending the full verse so I could have two ways of finding it?
She’s talking about 1 Peter 3:21. Though, if you interpret it this way, you’d have to say that water baptism isn’t something we do, but something that God does to us. That would also mean that in order for one to be saved, there must be another believer present who is willing to do the baptizing.
How can this interpretation be reconciled with John 1:12-13?
I don’t think it can be. The gospel is what saves. Faith and trust in the finished work of Christ. Mercy is extended to all, grace is given to those who believe.
She is right. That is just taking the text as it is. Babtism now saves you. Jesus also said that you have to be born of water and blood. Babtism is the work of God and it brings you Christ. You shouldn't twist all scripture on babtism if it doesn't fit your theology. Regeneration, salvation and forgiveness of sins are continually linked to babtism in scripture. There is no doubt that
Jesus baptizes us with the holy spirit, and I think that is what saves us.
Do you think God is denying babies access to heaven because of their parents' faith? Doesn't seem very righteous to me.
Really great and helpful discussion! Thank you for sharing this, Mike!
Not to bring strife or too much debate, but I struggle with what is being said here vs the bible about baptism. There is some incongruence.
Stick with what Scripture says.
@@slamdancer777 What does scripture say?
@@snowtrodden you tell me. You said the Bible says something else.
I was saved at the age of 4 months through my baptism, I often have a ‘born again experience’ before the blessed sacrament, but I was born again in the bible sense through my baptism. My baptismal response was given by parents (may they by gods mercy rest in the eternal,peace of Jesus). I came back to the Catholic Church to repent and say my baptismal renewal each year for myself. It’s odd that baptists don’t take baptism that seriously, when scripture actually says we are saved through it. We are also being saved through gods grace and am I saved? God will have the answer on my last breath. The church has taught this for 2000 years until ex-Catholics went into schism and formed Protestant churches which (schism) is warned about in the bible! God bless all.
What about the scriptures that speak about when the whole house was baptized (Acts 16:15, 33). I don't agree with infant baptism but I always wondered about these scriptures.
They actually talk specifically about that in the video... :-) I agree with Mike's conclusion that they probably just don't reference babies present (if they even were present). In each text with household baptisms, the same group that is baptized does something that would not apply to babies (believe / have faith, rejoice, speak in tongues, etc.).
I think Mike has a video on baptism where he goes over that piece of scripture.
@@dosisdedoctrina Jesus agrees with the psalmist that babies praise God, (Matthew 21:16) so why do you think praising God would not apply to babies?
@@christophekeating21 Babies and children, brought up in the knowledge of the Lord can praise God. My children have been learning songs of praise in church and in the house since they were able to speak. They recite Scripture and talk about things they learn from the Bible. However, this does not mean that they have the faith and repentance that are prerequisites for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; etc.). In fact, I know that they don't have that level of maturity. I also don't believe that children who are too young to understand the concept of sin and responsibility to God have their sin counted against them and, thus, don't yet need salvation. In the text in question, the household of the jailer didn't do just general praise but rather "... And he rejoiced along with his entire household *that he had believed in God*." (Acts 16:34)
I think their "households" were very large back then. Workers, slaves...
I hope you comment in your video about Colossians 2:11-12. (I'm only 19 minutes in.) It speaks of circumcision and baptism, but in a way that, to me, indicates that we, through baptism, take part in the circumcision of Christ who was cut off from God because of our sin (circumcision was a ceremony illustrating what would happen if the covenant they were entering into with God would be broken - they would be cut off). Our sinful nature dies and we are raised with him to newness of life. Circumcision seems an interesting term to use here as it seems another term that could be used is the crucifixion of Christ. Perhaps this is where people get misled, but to me this verse has nothing to do with when people should be baptized. You can't just go reference the OT because it makes your age mandate sound scriptural.
I just feel something so disturbingly wrong about the Catholic baby baptisms, seen a few horrific videos 😳😳
Not just Catholics do it.
@@kyz8390 the horrific videos I saw were the Catholic ones..scary nonetheless 🙏🏼
@@natassha4275 scary why and how?
@@kyz8390 some babies get dunked in that water in very extreme ways..they get hit.. Even the parents step in and stop it eventually..
@Jill Domschot some babies get dunked in that water in very extreme ways..they get hit.. Even the parents step in and stop it eventually.. Not the ones you have seen I assume
That was so pleasant to watch and very interesting. Thank you for sharing it on your own channel
Baptism has two critically important requirements. 1) The individual being baptized, must have made his/her OWN decision to give their life to the Lord (be born-again). 2) You must be fully immersed in water.
Baptism is a symbol of your old life dying and your new life being born into Christ.
Where in Scripture does it say baptism is a symbol?
@@christophekeating21 Google is your friend
@@scholasticbookfair. Google is no one's friend.
@@christophekeating21 OK bud
@@christophekeating21 Read Romans 6:1-7.
I know Mike loves seeing Jesus revealed in the OT.
I think there’s a meaningful point not mentioned in this video. Jews were practicing baptism at the temple during the time of Christ (as demonstrated by the discovery of mikvehs at the Temple Mount). The significance of baptism was the symbolic washing of sins and coming before God with spiritual purity. But the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ gives new meaning to baptism that was hidden before His coming. Symbolically we are buried with Him (Colossians 2:13/Romans 6:4) and are raised to new life. And even more than that Baptism points forward to the literal resurrection of our mortal bodies.
33:22
"and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, “‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?”
Matthew 21:16 ESV
So if you don't think infants and nursing babies can fear God and praise him, take it up with Jesus and with the psalmist.
That text is not saying that babies can 1) REPENT, 2), BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Babies cannot have a faith towards God. As they just proved with all the texts they quoted throughout. Therefore, babies CANNOT be baptized as an outward act of obedience to the gospel command.
Before quoting texts of scripture it’s wise to have a right and proper understanding of it’s context. Otherwise, we just end up twisting scripture and doing eisegesis when we should be exegeting the text.
That passage of scripture is about Jesus validating His divine nature. He is using that Old Testament passage to do so as the psalmist was saying that the Lord sees infants and children’s utterances as praise, though they do not have the capability to comprehend such things.
If you think babies CAN speak praises to God but they are not doing so, they must not be saved yet and therefore should not be baptized. ;)
@@talyahthekingsdaughter37 you say they can't. I'd rather believe the Bible saying they do and that the way you enter the kingdom of heaven is by becoming like little children.
@@salvadaXgracia they do, according to the Bible.
@@christophekeating21 The Bible never, nowhere states that infants come to faith, can have faith. The scripture you use is being taken out of context. You are eisegeting the text when you are to be found diligent exegeting the text. Eisegeting text is what scripture describes as *perversion*, *twisting* God’s word. You are adding your own personal interpretation instead of working diligently to understand the text as God has intended it. We are not to haphazardly handle scripture. We are held responsible for how we choose to learn and understand what God is revealing to us by the inspiration of His Spirit.
Not only that, it’s also common sense and a biological fact that infants do not have the mental capacity as like an adult. You can find those studies anywhere on the web, if you only look. To dig your heals in to what you are claiming, is not somehow exemplifying “piety”, rather a clear indication that you do not have a teachable spirit and are unwilling to be taught the truth of the matter. We are here to learn the truth. Not win debates. An unwilling and unteachable spirit cannot grow in wisdom or maturity. If we buck against the clear teachings of scripture to “win” our way, we do ourselves a great disservice and we are not helping the body of Christ. I pray that you will consider (re consider) examining your study method and come to studying the text with a teachable spirit willing to learn the truth, instead of personal viewpoints.
God speed. 😌🙏✝️⚓️🕊🤍
Check out Col 2:9-11. Paul draws significant parallel between Circumcision and Baptism. Should make make Mike reconsider some of his statements about not seeing direct parallel between these two.
If the babies are not being immersed they are not getting baptized... If the babies have not repented of their sin and placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ they are not getting baptized they are just getting wet... Babies do not need to be baptized...
An innocent, sinless...wet baby.
Yes very well said!
A couple inconsistencies here that really need to be addressed. 1. You all start by pointing out the word baptism literally means “to immerse” and then go on to refer to infant baptism. What is called infant baptism today isn’t baptism (immersion) at all. What is performed is pouring or sprinkling which by definition isn’t immersion/baptism.
2. Act 2:38 was misquoted several times in this conversation. Peter did not say “repent and believe”. He said repent and be BAPTIZED. The full quote is “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.
Paul also wrote in Galatians 3 “for as many of you that have been BAPTIZED have clothed yourselves with Christ”. He connects baptism (not confession or repentance) with the idea that when God looks at us He no longer sees us in our sin but rather He sees the perfection of Jesus.
Baptism is the completion of our acceptance of Gods free gift of salvation and is no more or less important that confession, repentance, faith, belief, and continuing to live a new life in Jesus.
Again too wishy washy. This is simple. Jesus said “ if you love me keep my commandments.” What did he command? Believe and be baptized. Belief saves and baptism washes away sin. It is a spiritual washing . When Paul came to believe what was he told? “ Rise be baptized for the remission of sins.” There must be faith and there must be obedience. It is NOT “works” it is the act of accepting the gift of salvation.
1 Peter 3:21, NIV: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
@@LtDeadeye "Peter said to them;...'be Baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ...and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost...For the promise is to you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all'..." The Acts 2:38-39
Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world."
Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to
Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
John 3:5 - "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit"
Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
Acts 16:30, 33 - "what must I do to be saved? ... he and all his family were baptized"
1 Peter 3:21 - "baptism which saves you now."
See also: - Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:15
Commanded by Christ and taught by the Apostles
Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore ... baptizing them in the name of the Father ..."
Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
John 3:5 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit)
Acts 2:38 - "Peter [said] ... repeat and be baptized"
Acts 2:41 - (Those accepting St. Peter's message are baptized; 3000 members are added.)
Acts 8:12 - (Once they believed Philip's teaching, men and women were baptized.)
Acts 8:38 - (Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch)
Acts 10:48 - "he [Peter] ordered them to be baptized"
See also: - Mark 10:38, John 3:22, Acts 9:18, Acts 16:15, Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, 27; Galatians 3:27
Jesus sets the example for us.
Matthew 3:16 - "After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water"
Mark 1:9 - "Jesus came ... and was baptized in the Jordan by John"
Luke 3:21 - "and Jesus also had been baptized"
Is regenerative.
John 3:5, 22 - born of water and the spirit; Apostles begin baptizing
Romans 6:3-4 - So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father’s glorious power, we too should begin living a new life
Acts 2:37-38 - repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit
Acts 22:16 - And now why delay? Hurry and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name
1 Corinthians 6:11 - "now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God"
Ephesians 5:26 - "cleansing her by the bath of water with the word"
Colossians 2:12 - "burned with him in baptism .. raised with him [in] faith"
Hebrews 10:22- So as we go in, let us be sincere in heart and filled with faith, our hearts sprinkled and free from any trace of bad conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Titus 3:5 - saved us through bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit
1 Peter 3:21 - "It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now - not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
See also: - Romans 4:23-25, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 1:23
Takes away all sin.
Mark 1:4 - (John the Baptist preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.)
Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
Luke 3:3 - (John the Baptist still preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins)
John 1:33 - (John testifies that Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit)
John 3:5 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit)
Acts 2:38 - "be baptized ... for the forgiveness of your sins"
Acts 22:16 - "have yourself baptized and your sins washed away"
Colossians 2:13 - "you were dead [in] transgressions ... he brought you to life
Not to be repeated.
Ephesians 4:5 - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"
Hebrews 6:4-6 - (After the "enlightened" [baptized] fall away, they cannot be enlightened again.)
Hebrews 10:26 - (No sacrifice for sins after deliberate sin after knowing the truth)
To be administered to children "Infant Baptism"
Joshua 24:15 - "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD"
Matthew 8:5ff - servant healed because of centurion's faith
Matthew 15:21ff - daughter healed because of the Canaanite woman's faith
Matthew 18:14 - (It is not the will of God that children be damned.)
Matthew 19:14 - "Let the children come to me"
Mark 10:14 - let the children come, for such is the kingdom of Heaven
Luke 7:1ff - just say the word, and let my servant be healed
Luke 18:15-17 - people were bringing even infants to him ... whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."
John 3:5; Mark 16:16 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit)
Acts 16:15 - (Paul and Silas baptize Lydia and her whole household)
Acts 16:30-33 - (Paul and Silas baptize a prison guard and his whole family)
Acts 18:8 - (Crispus, his family, and other Corinthians are baptized)
Romans 5:18-19 - all are born with Adam's sin and need baptism
1 Corinthians 1:16 - "I baptized the household of Stephanas"
Colossians 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision
See also: - Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15, Acts 2:39, 1 Corinthians 15:22
@@LtDeadeye
“Symbolizes” is a very bad translation. And it’s also badly out of context.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,†
19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,†
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
-1 Peter 3:18-22
Antitype: something that is represented by a symbol
Baptism is the full Truth symbolized by Noah’s ark. The ark SAVED Noah and his family, just as baptism saves the Church.
@@bradleyperry1735 I agree. Accept scripture compares our being saved not by the ark but by the water that floated Noah’s ark.
I was brought up as a very young child, four years old, in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and started out by attending Sunday school, and then my parents sent me to church school of the same church. But, even from a very young age, I didn't really understand why babies got baptized. All of the baptisms that are recorded in the Bible are done because the person being baptized wanted it to happen. It appeared to me, and still does, that the public confession and the fact that a person publicly is baptized is a very huge part of the action. I would agree completely that the Holy Spirit does the work. There is no biblical record of an infant being baptized. But in addition to all this, I cannot recall ever seen an adult being baptized during a church service. I've been to thousands of them. Why is that? It is almost as though a person has to be an infant to get baptized? And of course that's obviously not true. Yet, I've never seen an adult get baptized. I remember attending a service not too long ago where the pastor asked the congregation, "Who here remembers their baptism?", and no one raised their hand. That was not the response he was seeking, and he let out a little half chuckle, and corrected himself and said of course you wouldn't; you were an infant at the time. But as I sat there, it dawned on me that that's a pretty important thing, isn't it? Shouldn't I absolutely remember getting baptized? All of the baptisms that are recorded in the Bible are ones where the person getting baptized would absolutely remember it. I think that when Luther made the break from Catholic, infant baptism should have also been left behind. But I'm still a Lutheran. I also got rebaptized in another church.
Favorite thumbnail 😂
Continue to put out great content Mike!
Some Lutheran's believe it washes away original sin of Adam I do not believe that,but I go to Bible believing wonderful Lutheran Church thay believe that to and they also say because the households were baptized and that we should all be baptized if we parents believe, I don't agree but we get along and have talked about these issues we kindly disagree
Martin Luther preached against the false teaching of original sin.
We inherited Adams fallen nature, but we do not inherit the sins of Adam, nor of our parents.
@@larrybedouin2921 I know
They are correct and I'm not even Lutheran. I think they have too low a view on sanctification though.
In the PCA (I was a member of one for several years and got to have discussions on denominational issues with pastors and elders) they do not believe that baptism saves, but rather that it is one's entrance into the church family physically, but not spiritually. To them it is a declaration that this infant is born into a family of believing parents and by baptizing them they are being brought into that world with the hope that they will accept Christ on their own when they grow and mature. Functionally, and according to their "Book of Church Order" the infant is a non-communing member. In many ways infant baptism in the PCA is functionally similar to a baby dedication in non-pedobaptist traditions.
Mike is a little less than honest when he talks about the early church history of baptism (or anything else that doesn't line up with his broken-clock theology). The early church practiced infant baptism. The first debate about when to baptize was to *delay* baptism. Some argued that water baptism wiped away sins and therefor should be delayed to later when there are more sins to be wiped out. None of them had a clue about Mike's baptism doctrine.
Well, maybe it would have been more of a debate if you had someone who had a different opinion - you all seem to kind of not see the point of child baptism :P
So, as a Christian Orthodox - though I am not a theologian, I'll do my best: we believe that baptism actually does something, but is not the final act, so to speak, it's the first of the Sacraments, that opens the way to the rest of the Sacraments - children fully participate in church life in the Orthodox Church.
About "accepting" God: Children have no sin, they have the image of God in them, like all humans - but in children, the image of God it is not marred by sin. They belong to God, there is no need to "accept" Him - it would mean the Devil has an equal claim to us, and we have to make a choice between Satan and God. Well, he doesn't have a claim, he corrupts us, but we are God's children, not Satan's, and as children, he has not corrupted us yet.
Being baptized in childhood, I never felt the need to be baptized again and never heard of anyone having that need. Because we are not confused about church life, we know that we have to cultivate a relationship with God continuously - through confession and Eucharist, fasting, prayer etc. Baptism is the beginning, not the end. It's like ... you can be nostalgic when looking at photos of your first birthday, but why would you want to recreate it ? I mean, it's nice, but you are in a different time of your life, you don't actually need diapers anymore, or being in a baby chair, or having someone feed you.
Why it's not mentioned ? Because, unlike the Old Testament, Jesus was actually there, and He had direct disciples, He didn't communicate with them in writing. He taught them, and they taught others etc. There are plenty of references to childhood baptism in the first 2 centuries, and no refutal of the practice. You do know that in the first years, the Church functioned without Scriptures, because people first with direct link to Jesus, then with very close link to the Apostles, were still there. The Church compiled the Scriptures, and it seems a bit strange to say that they put forth a valid work that can be trusted, but they themselves were heretical or very confused in their practices..
That is, by the way, the idea of the Holy Traditions in the Orthodox Church - you learn from the Scripture, but also from interpretation of the scriptures from people who were taught by people who were taught by people etc. who had a direct link to Jesus. Otherwise, you can interpret anything in almost any way you want - as shown by the thousands of new Churches in the world today, some of which are just .... purely heretical, and that is putting it mildly.
Amen.
I enjoyed this discussion so much! Thanks fellas
I am still working through this so bare with me if it is answered in the video. What is the response to the understanding that the church fathers near universally taught that baptism saves?
In short, the early church writers were correct on that. Mike is incorrect here saying that baptism is not necessary for salvation. In Mark 16:15-16, Jesus directly states, "...Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Belief on its own is not sufficient. Acts 2:38 and 2 Peter 3:21 (as well as many other passages) also support that.
Feel free to ask if you want more information on this; I'd be happy to oblige.
While the early church writers (outside the Bible) can be a good source of getting some insight into how people understood the Bible in the first couple centuries of the church's existence, they are only supplementary evidence. The authority is only in the Bible, and the early church writers sometimes made mistakes, just as everyone does.
@@sirtarin Yeah see I don't feel that, that interpretation sticks. I feel if baptism was absolutely necessary it would have been repeated in the next sentence but seemingly belief is sufficient because it is only those who do not believe that is condemned. Nevertheless I don't know enough about how the church Fathers approached the topic theologically and I am interested to know. I know these videos are not theological studies but I feel Mike and team are just too sure of themselves while isolating themselves in their own little echo chamber. And that would be fine for a Sunday school class but it is not appropriate for the internet I should think.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 There are two things I would like to address in your comment. First is a cautionary point about how you phrased that, which may well be an accurate description of how you approach things (it is, at least, how many people approach things, both among those who attest to Christianity and those who reject it): Be very careful of accepting and/or rejecting things based on how you feel. Feelings are an extremely unreliable foundation to plant your beliefs on, given how quickly they can change and how easily they are manipulated (as an example of this, think of a really good movie you've seen, and think how many different emotions you felt throughout it. You can have your emotions pushed and pulled all over by a story in just an hour or two.). The Bible gives some warning about this in Jeremiah 17:9-10 and Proverbs 28:26 (like we fairly commonly do, the Hebrews often referred to the heart as the figurative seat of the emotions).
Secondly, you said that " I feel if baptism was absolutely necessary it would have been repeated in the next sentence but seemingly belief is sufficient because it is only those who do not believe that is condemned." There are several things mentioned throughout the New Testament that are tied directly to salvation (Faith, grace, confession, repentance, baptism, being faithful until death, among others.). Many people in the denominations (and some non-denominational ones, too) like to latch onto one or some, and then say the rest really aren't necessary. But they're all necessary, even if they aren't all listed out in one convenient passage. As for why Jesus didn't mention baptism in the negative side of the statement in Mark 16, baptism without belief is useless and, in general, a person is not likely to submit to being baptized unless they believe, and even if they did, it wouldn't be for the right reason.
Let me illustrate with the idea of manufacturing a part. There are several steps that go into the process. For instance, with a hypothetical sheet metal part which you are making according to the engineer's specifications. You could say that you have to cut the part out, bend it, and weld it and it would be an accurate statement. The fact that you didn't mention that you have to deburr it after cutting it, or that you have to drill and tap holes in the part, doesn't make the earlier statement incorrect. But it also doesn't mean that the part is complete and usable if you only cut, bent, and welded it without drilling, deburring, tapping, cleaning, and painting the part, too, according the design. Even leaving one step out would render the part unusable (as would drilling it in the wrong place or bending it the wrong way). Jesus said that people must believe and be baptized to be saved, but those that don't believe will be condemned; you liken that to the part must be cut and bent to be usable. If you don't cut the part out, bending it anyway is obviously useless, so there's no need to mention it. So if someone doesn't believe, being baptized doesn't need to be mentioned. But it doesn't make baptism less necessary. Nor does the fact that Jesus didn't mention confession and repentance and being faithful to death, etc. mean that those are not necessary either. They are all elements in God's plan for salvation.
I hope that helps.
@@sirtarin I am not going to lie - the fact that you miss my attempt at courtesy and seek to correct my use of the word feel annoys me to no end and I am not above pointing that out.
So from now on I will give you no such civility. Here are my unbridled thought then:
It is simply obvious to me that you are making a very nauseating philosophical blunder when you read scripture. You clearly miss the difference between sufficient qualification and necessary qualification. As a result instead of harmonizing the various testimonies of the gospels you stitch them all together in what you think is a coherent narrative. I am interested to know what you do with passages in the Bible like Mark who says both thieves reviled Jesus and Luke who says the one repented. I am pretty sure you cannot apply your own hermeneutic consistently throughout the whole Bible. Do you think every single person that is filled with the Spirit speaks in tongues for example because the vast majority of written accounts of the filling of the Spirit goes together with tongues? - And that those who don't are going to hell - because it says those who do not have the Spirit are not of Him?
Nevertheless I am not here to debate whether Baptism is necessary for salvation. I find it pretty obvious that Baptism, in context, is sufficient but not necessary. Otherwise the very penitent thief, in Luke, would be in hell today, making Jesus a liar, since Jesus died before him and he was part of the new dispensation.
I believe the church fathers meant something more akin to what the Catholic church today affirms but I am neither catholic nor a student of the church fathers and so I was sincerely hoping that someone could clear that up for me because I give the church fathers more credit than you do. I know everybody makes mistakes but as far as I can see it takes a fair amount of vanity to dismiss them off hand. Nevertheless it looks like I am going to have to dust off the old history books. So be it.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I am sorry that you found my cautionary point annoying. Your phrasing was a case in which can be difficult to determine with only written words whether it was intended just as polite phrasing (which I knew was a possibility and did appreciate) or if it was used with the literal meaning that your reasoning was on the basis of your feelings (both could have been a possibility, too). Since the later is extremely common, I thought it warranted the cautionary note. You don’t seem to have noticed that I did not definitively state that that was how you were using it (though I admittedly could have worded better). It was as much a cautionary note for other people as it was for you, since it may not have applied to you.
Seeing as “sufficient qualification and necessary qualification” are not terms/concepts that I recall having read in the Bible, nor do they make much logical sense to me as I am considering them, I would appreciate you explaining them and your scriptural validation of them.
Considering much of the Bible is an accurate historical account, I do seek to read it as a coherent narrative; that is part of idea of harmonizing (according to the definition of the term: “making something consistent or compatible”) the different accounts.
Regarding the thieves who died along side Jesus, that is quite easy to handle: They both started out reviling Jesus, but then one had the presence of mind to think about what he was doing and repent. That is not at all contradictory, merely that one witness decided that detail was worth mentioning, while the other thought another detail of the same event was worth mentioning. Any time you have multiple witnesses of an event, they will have noticed different things.
Jesus, being God, is quite capable of making an exception, if one was needed. That does not give anyone validation to ignore God’s commands because someone else was given an exception. Jesus also forgave him before he died, so the thief was also forgiven when he died.
Regarding speaking in tongues, since you mentioned it, no, not everyone who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (which is distinct from the gift, singular, mentioned in Acts 2:38 and other places.) spoke in tongues. Nor do the gifts really have anything to do with whether a person was saved or not, other than it was members of the church that the apostles laid their hands on to give the gifts to (The spirit caused King Saul and his messengers to prophesy when they were trying to seize David in 2 Samuel 19, after all, so a person doesn’t have to be righteous to prophesy.). In 1 Corinthians 12:27-31, Paul uses rhetorical questions to point out that not everyone had all the gifts; reading the New Testament, it is clear that not all Christians had any miraculous gifts. The gifts had their role in helping to establish the church and teach people before the Bible was fully written. 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 says that there would be a time when the gifts (specifically mentioning tongues, prophesy, and knowledge) would cease when that which is perfect came (which is neuter in the Greek, so it’s not talking about a person); this ending of prophecy was also prophesied about in Zechariah 13:2. James refers to the new law as “the perfect law” (James 1:25), which seems a good indication that they would end when the New Testament was completed especially in context with what is prophesied in Zechariah.
I was not dismissing the writings of the early church writers off-hand, merely stating that while they can be a valuable resource in understanding things in the Bible, they are not inspired writings like the Bible and therefore are not necessary to understand the Bible. I would probably regard them as a bit above modern Bible commentators merely due to their much closer proximity to the time of the apostles and therefore less time for false doctrines to creep in. That proximity makes them at least good sources for insights as to what the churches were doing historically. Since the Bible says that there were already false teachers even before the books of the Bible were all written, the early church writers are not exempt from scrutiny for erroneous teaching, however.
THE REASON FOR BAPTISM IN ITS ORIGINAL HEBREW CONTEXT WAS AS SUCH, WORSHIPPERS WOULD COME FROM FAR OFF, SOME EVEN FOR MANY DAYS, ..CAN YOU IMAGINE THE SMELL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD BE CONGREGATING NEXT TO YOU, ?.
COME TO THE FATHER CLEAN, IN MIND HEART, SOUL BODY AND SPIRIT, TO DIP IN THE POOL OF SHILOH BEFORE ENTERING THE TEMPLE WAS JUST THIS, YOU COME CLEAN, YOU REMOVE THE DUST, DIRT, AND GRIMM FROM YOUR BODY, IN THE POOL, AND DO THE SAME WITH YOUR SOUL, IN THE TEMPLE, BEFORE GOD,...BAPTISM IS A PROCESS OF BECOMING CLEAN IN BODY, TO RENEW YOUR SOUL AND SPIRIT IN THE FLESH, ONE NEW MAN...WASHED AND CLEANED, IN THE WATER(BLOOD) OF THE SERVANT YESHUA....
Baptism now saves you.
It's amazing that they skip this verse. Babtism saves us according to the Bible
@@tuomassalo6102Water baptism doesn’t save you if that’s the case anyone who baptized is saved thafs not case lol
@@dahokage1043 yes it does. You can also lose your salvation. Thats also in the bible
@dahokage1043 then explain the verse.
1st peter 3 20-21
who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared. In it a few-that is, eight people[a]-were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge[b] of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
@@tuomassalo6102it’s amazing that you leave out the word “corresponding” u have to go back to previous verse regarding ark and noah what does baptism correspond to, the thing that baptism represents saves you, abide in the ark abide in christ . it’s type , anti type ,ark represents christ , water = new life . acts 10 cornelius saved before baptism
Where does the Bible say baptism is a symbol? Or that it is a public profession of faith? I struggled to find that teaching as a baptist
That baby though. So cute
Sooo lovely!😊
Great topic Mike 👍🏼
Shared on Facebook and what's aap 😊
A problem with infant baptism is the same as the sinner's prayer. There are many who have a false sense of security and as a result will never get saved.
I disagree with you Mike, Yeshua, in his own words, states, "EXCEPT a man be born of WATER and of the SPIRIT, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of heaven
Water is physical birth. Spirit is spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus asked if he needed to be born physically twice. Jesus said no, you must be born again not physical but spiritually. You have already been born of water. Now you must also be born again of the Spirit.
@@salvadaXgracia Yeshua clearly says born by water, also he himself was baptized by water before he even started his ministry and he did that to set the example
@@PsalmChapter117 first of all I must correct you, only Yeshua is master and teacher not anyother man, second of all heaven does not just as God does not change so what applies to one also applies to all. Even though paul was a great disciple he was not of the original ones furthermore Yeshua throughout his ministry AFTER his own BAPTISM kept using the phrase, the kingdom of heaven is like unto. I will always say this too any disagreements between people that are serious matters should always be prayed over also
@@PsalmChapter117 Again people need to choose whom is they're Savior is, Paul is NOT my SAVIOR or even my lord. You guys need to study Yesuas teachings more instead of Paul's teachings because if you do then you'll understand what Paul was trying to convey in his message. Salvation doesn't require works than let me ask you this what did Yeshua do you really believe that he didn't have to do anything and we would still be saved anyway
@@PsalmChapter117 you obviously misunderstood my point. So let me ask you a question I stead of giving you statements, does Yeshua not Paul tell anyone to do anything?
I was taught that baptism in the name of Christ was absolutely necessary because it was a commandment after his resurrection. People would say you don’t have to because the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized , but he died in the Old Testament laws. In the New Testament we are commanded to be baptized. What happens if we go against his commandment?
If you think that baptism is a command (something you do for God) instead of a means of grace (God doing for us) you are still under the law and not under grace.
This was a great discussion. It has inspired me to dig deeper in my own research of Biblical doctrines. The questions raised and topics discussed serve as a great example of how to biblically analyze an issue, as well as how to approach a topic with grace and love to communicate the truth. Thanks to all involved. God bless!
so glad you uploaded this. it made me laugh and learn. good stuff brother.