I'm Baptist and Ioved this video. I agree wholeheartedly. I think baptism itself is a formal act so I would want to to wait for the formal profession, but the child needs to be brought up knowing all about Jesus! Good video, Rachel! -From, one of your Baptist brethren. :)
Knowing the teachings of Jesus is not what she said. She said that being born to believers means they come into all the benefits of salvation without trusting the Saviour. This is why they baptise children without the capacity to believe.
Bill Fredericks I know what she said. I was speaking in reference to the similarities between her thinking and my own Baptist thinking. I was not getting into the differences because such are unimportant.
I totally agree that our job as parents is to disciple our children, and if there are parents out there who don't worship with their children daily because they're not baptized, they desperately need a wakeup call; but I truly believe baptism is an act of a willing, repentant person who understands his or her sin and accepts Christ as their savior. That being said, Rachel and her family are clearly walking in the way of the Lord and have a lot to teach us all!
I am credo-baptist. I must confess (no pun intended) that early on in their childhood my children knew who Mickey Mouse was before they knew who Jesus was. I am a bit sheepish to admit that, but it wasn't for long. We homeschool and I have one daughter who asked to be baptized and wanted to do that and accept Jesus. She was baptized last year and the church gave me their blessing to do it myself. It was very special.
We LCMS Lutheran's (and a handful of other Lutheran lines) believe the Holy Spirit comes in us at baptism. So, if your baby is baptized, then the Holy Spirit is with them from that point. Yes, the commitment is made later in your teens after you take catechism classes and can make the decision. Yes, we can fall away after making the decision if our priorities are not correct. And I'm not diminishing the fact that we as parents most definitely need to be cautious of how we speak and act around not only our own kids and families, but everyone really (this video is helpful), but the credit should all go to the Holy Spirit who works in us. We can't change on our own, that's 100% God's doing. We are all sinners who need Christ, not one of us is good.
Love the honesty. Very great clarity. However my children as infants did not and do not come to Christ. Ultimately we cannot rely on Jesus if we have not turned to him in repentance in faith
So if a child is baptized as an infant, would they be rebaptized as an older child/teen etc when they’ve taken up faith as their own? Because baptism is an outward proclamation to the world that you follow Jesus, but a baby can’t decide that... even if they’re raised in that life, they have to choose to make their relationship with Jesus their own.
Hi Dawn, we Reformed confess one baptism for the remission of sins, not two. If someone is re-baptized as an older person after their baptism in infancy, they are merely re-enacting a baptism, or worse, it's a denial of the confession that there is one baptism for the remission of sins. We do not believe baptism is tied to a decision to follow Jesus. It is given as a gospel gift by God to the Church to bury us with Christ and raise us up to new life in Him; it effects that which it symbolizes for God's people.
Dawn Merk, this is the issue I have with this clip. The bible is clear about baptism and even gives the example of baptism, not sprinkling infants. Sprinkling infants is a Catholic tradition and practised by other religions but it is not biblical. Christian parents should be teaching their children about God and who He is and why He sent His Son to earth. But they also need to teach them what the bible says and that is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no exception to this. The teach otherwise is infact another gospel and very dangerous.
@@hannahgreen1427 Who said sprinkling children? I doubt Rachel means sprinkle. I believe her church *actually* baptises covenant children. I think I see good biblical warrant to baptise children *actually baptise* sprinkle is not baptise. From the covenant relationship between God and the parents. If you are not fully convinced then dont let it be a burden to you or a stumble for you (and in that people who hold to baptising babies should not force it on others to risk stumbling them, ) But i dont think your statements are correct about it being clear that you cannot or should not baptise your baby or child (if you have just come to christ)
@@gavin_hill wow you actually do full immersion baptism on an infant? That is interesting but there is no biblical teaching for it or for this concept of covenant children. As I said, this is infact another gospel and people need to know that. Where is your biblical support of this practice?
The world is trying to dull down Jesus name Even "Modern Christians, mostly Evangelical " won't use his name. They say HE,. HIM ,YOU, LORD, CHRIST, BUT NOT USE THE NAME OUR STRENGTH IS IN THAT NAME, SALVATION IS IN THAT NAME, MY STRONG TOWER IS IN THAT NAME, I WILL HIDE IN THAT NAME, I WILL TRUST IN THAT NAME, JESUS, JESUS, JESUS !!!!!!
Children cannot be in Christ. You have to understand that law, so you can know you are condemned, hear the word, believe it to be true, repent of your sins, and be water baptized for the remission of sins. You cannot repent unless you have acknowledged the law against you, which small children cannot possibly understand. You guys have to stop making things up.
@@JuniusBrutus777 that’s nonsense. Babies aren’t condemned. Being born under the curse of sin means that we all suffer physical death, because Adam represented us corporally in the garden. He failed, so that brings death upon all mankind. Romans 5:12 KJV [12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Now, here is the part that people seems to reject. Sin is not imputed to anyone, when there is no law against them. This means that, infants and young children, don’t have any sin imputed to them, because they cannot understand the moral law against them. God put the moral law on our hearts, but people come to understand that, as they grow and develop the mental capacity to understand that law, understand the ramifications of violating that law, and have the ability to make a decision regarding said law. Where does the Bible make this assertion about imputation of sin?!? In the very next verse. Romans 5:13 KJV [13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Now, does this apply anywhere else?!? It sure does. It also applies to the bushmen who has never heard the word “Bible” before, never heard about “Jesus”, and hasn’t heard the written law of god, or the gospel unto salvation. These individuals are not held accountable to submitting to Jesus in faith, unless the gospel hasnt sufficiently been preached to them, such that they can understand the milk of the gospel, and choose to submit to it, or not. Prior to their knowledge of the gospel, they were to be judged by god, based in the moral law written on their hearts, which tells all of mankind (as they grow/develop from an infant) the major moral components that we should and should not be doing. They aren’t held accountable to believing in Jesus or not, until they have had Jesus preached to them. The sins of violating the moral law on our hearts is against them, but the requirements to follow Jesus and to adhere to specifics in the gospel, are not against them, if it has never been preached to them. Does this apply anywhere else?!? Why yes it does. The mentally challenged are covered by the limitation of sin imputation from Romans 5 as well. If a person has mental limitations, that prevent them from understanding the moral law on their heart, or prevents them from having the ability to choose to obey or disobey thst moral law, sin isn’t imputed to them either. Same thing for the gospel message. If they cannot hear/understand that either, then that law isn’t against them, ans the sins for violating that So, as you can see, original sin is false. The age of accountability is actually based on scritpure, which requires that a law be against them, that they can understand and they are capable of choosing to adhering too (or not). For the infant, small child, or the mentally challenged who cannot understand, there is no sin imputed to them.
