Dr. Cooper changed my view on exclusive Credo-Baptism as being the conservative and careful interpretation of Scripture to being an individualistic view (i.e., a liberal) of Scripture. Credo-baptist perspective come when the culture adopts a hyper-individualistic viewpoint of how God interacts with the world.
That doesn't mean that they're correct about this issue or any other, for that matter. Consensus doesn't equal Biblical Truth. One must BELIEVE and then be baptized (Acts 8:36-38). Infants are incapable of saving faith. Therefore, sprinkling or plunging them into water doesn't do anything but make them soaking wet.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 :)
I had a teacher tell me I'm not saved because I wasn't fully dunked as a baby. It's not the water itself that saves us, but God's promise attached to it. Appreciate your video on this, Dr. Cooper.
This is an example of the truth to the old joke that the very people who insist baptism isn't important or effective and doesn't save simultaneously insist that it be done in a particularly precise manner or it is not effective and doesn't save.
" ... a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 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 Pet 3: 21). The problem here is that infants are incapable of making an appeal. Adults are. Nor are infants capable of having a good conscience.
@@brendanjobe6895Infant baptism requires the faith of the parents on their behalf. You might say this doesn't count. But the alternative would to allow a child to be excluded from entering the Kingdom of Heaven until they turned 18. Not sure you can justify that.
@@wordforever117 Who mentioned 18? Certainly not me. Infants have no need to enter the kingdom - the church. The church, or kingdom, consists of the saved, the forgiven, the pardoned. I would classify infants as "safe" - not saved: they are incapable of sinning and certainly didn't inherit sin from Adam. I think our difference is going to be that you believe that in some inexplicable way, an infant is a born sinner. While it is true that we all, infants included, experience the consequences of Adam's sin, infants do not inherit the guilt. That's probably why we do not find any examples of infant baptism in the New Testament.
I hope credobaptists will find this content helpful and engaging. Studying the early church fathers and reading Joachim Jeremias on this issue was the game changer for me.
@@Nonz.M It's very simple: babies or infants were immersed in the NT. Whose baby was it? Where was it done? Who did it? Why was it done? If it's into the remission of sins, what sin did the infant commit?
@@brendanjobe6895 The biblical basis for infant baptism is quite evident. Baptism forgives sins, imparts the Holy Spirit, and brings salvation. Who needs to be forgiven of sins, receive the Holy Spirit, and to be saved? Everyone, or only those who have reached a subjective, unspecifiable age of accountability? The Bible says everyone, including infants. Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise is for you AND your children and to all who are far off- to all whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.” This verse is very clear that the promise of baptism is for the children as well. If children are not to be baptized, then the promise isn't for them. It's very clear. Baptism unites us to Christ and brings us salvation. Jesus says to let the little children and infants come to Him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is filled with those like these (Luke 18:16). So why would you want to withhold these little children and infants from being united to Christ in baptism? There are five recorded instances of household baptisms in the New Testament. The Greek word for household is a word which can encompass infants, so it's very likely that these households that were baptized included infants (e.g. Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16). It is also very likely that even more household baptisms than this took place and weren't written down. The likelihood that none of these household had children is extremely slim. In the Bible, Children are never considered outside of the covenant until they reach a certain age and can verbally express their faith. In the Old Testament, circumcision was entrance into God's covenant especially for children of the Israelite believers, and also for converts (Gen 17:9-19). What's interesting is that this covenant is described as an "everlasting covenant", meaning the circumcision covenant hasn't ceased. Rather, it has been fulfilled in Holy Baptism which is the new Testament circumcision. Colossians 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. How wonderful it is that God has not restricted His covenant, grace and salvation to adults, but desires those of all ages to come to him and be saved.
Babies can be have faith. John the Baptist leapt for joy while still in the womb when Mary visited Elizabeth. Babies have faith that mom will feed them when they are hungry. They have faith that mom will come when they cry. God's grace is for everyone, no age limit. There is mighty power in the water and Word together.
In which case, John the Baptist was already saved before being baptized. Aside from which, there is no evidence he was ever baptized. But I'm sure you knew all that and just forgot to mention it...
@@Berean_with_a_BTh John lived and died before the death of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant. So it doesn't matter if he was baptized or not.
John the Baptist actually is an excellent case for credo baptism. Follow the logic of the passage: If you have a baby that clearly shows a faith response to the gospel go ahead and baptise it. If not, you don´t. Case closed.
If you listen close you can already hear the masses of non-Sacramental Protestants charging onto this spiritual battlefield with war cries. The title alone attracts them like flies, nevermind the content of the video. (I'm not judging you out there, you are just as much redeemed Christians as the next)
@@paulsmallwood1484It’s a simile, they are being attracted to the video similarly to how flies are attracted to dung, he isn’t calling non sacramental people flies
Fantastic video (I’m coming from a Wesleyan view): I think there are a couple of issues that trip people up on infant baptism. One is how this coheres with repentance and justification by faith, since most people are working (implicitly I think) with a modern idea of “informed consent” that (presumably) one cannot have until one is a bit older. Maybe that is worth addressing. The other, as you discuss here, is the idea that the Bible is supposed to be a doctrinal textbook that lays everything out explicitly like a textbook would. I think maybe Hodges says something like that in the introduction to his systematic theology, that the Bible is a collection of doctrinal data points, which does not seem to fit well with typological reading, or just reading narratives in general
Rather than use the language of informed consent, perhaps a better language is of citizenship. There is a scholar who believes that "faith" in the New Testament if better translated as "allegiance." We are saved by our allegiance to Jesus as King. We become citizens of that Kingdom through baptism. Just as children can be citizens of a country, they can be citizens of the Kingdom. They too, become citizens of the Kingdom through their baptism. This actually makes more sense if you think on original of the word "sacrament." It comes from Latin for an oath of allegiance.
As Reformed we actually do touch on the other types of baptism seen in the old testament, we just have our primary focus on circumcision being the most direct and important correlation to baptism (both of them being signs of their respective covenants). J.V. Fesko touches on a lot of this in his book Word, Water, and Spirit. I'm surpised you didn't touch more on the fides infantium and fides aliena arguments. I think both the Reformed and Lutheran arguments for this are important and useful and we have more overlap than most give credit for. Within the Reformed tradition we have multiple arguments, some saying baptism causes initial faith in the infant (Cornelius Burgess), others saying we baptize on the presumption of an infant's regeneration (Charles Hodge), and even those who would strictly argue from it being the covenant sign. As an unrelated note, your video appears to cut short at the end, i assume that was unintended.
This is taken from the WELS Q and A page ... Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). It is faith that saves; it is unbelief-not the lack of baptism-that condemns. God can certainly work saving faith in a child through the word of God alone, apart from water and the word in baptism. If God worked saving faith in a child through his word and the child died in the faith before being baptized, there would be every reason to talk about “the hope of salvation.”
I found this super helpful to better understand the Lutheran view of baptism. One question I had was how does justification by faith relate to this conversation? I have heard Presbyterians say that the moment of baptism does not necessarily correspond with justification but it sounds like you are saying that it does. Let me know if I am misunderstanding you. Is it correct that in the Lutheran view of baptism, faith is imparted to the infant to be justified during the baptism? Or is that a misunderstanding?
The Scriptures teach that Yahweh gives faith to the children of his people (Ps 22:9-10; Ps 71:5-6). However, I believe that children should be baptized because they are members of a Christian household and they need their sins forgiven and the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39). And according to the Apostle Paul, baptism justifies (Romans 6:7).
Do Presbyterians point back to circumcision when justifying infant baptism? Yes, of course. But, it's a strawman to say that their support of the practice hinges on that alone. They would say that baptism is the sign of the final covenant. And, being a covenantal sign, they compare it to other such signs. So in addition to circumcision you'll see comparisons to Noah's Ark, the law of Moses, and so on.
We Presbyterians do believe baptism is a means of grace, just not necessarily at the moment it is given. You would also hear a lot of talk about how baptism doesn’t save in of itself.
Presbyterian Pastor, Rich Lusk, sheds some light on 28.5 of the confession in a footnote in his chapter Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy: "Some interpret the Westminster Confession in this fashion since 28.5 states "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." Some argue this means one may be baptized as an infant, but not receive baptism's benefits until later in life. But such an interpretation, while possible, is unlikely given the historical background of the Confession's writing. In light of the Reformational debate over postbaptismal sin and penance, as well as the consistent teaching of earlier Reformed Confessions and theologians, it seems more likely the Confession is teaching baptism's efficacy is not limited to the moment of administration. The point, then, would not be that one's baptism may not take effect until long after the time of administration; rather, the sense would be that baptism's efficacy, beginning at the moment of administration, extends through the whole of one's life. The Reformers argued that the additional sacrament of penance was not necessary to deal with post-baptismal sin, since baptism already cleansed us once and for all. The Belgic Confession (34) states, "Neither does this Baptism only avail us at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life." Likewise, the Scots Confession (21) says, "For baptism once received continues for all of life, and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption." The French Confession (35) teaches the same: "[A]lthough we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification." Finally, Cornelius Burges, in The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants: "There is no ordinance set up by Christ in his church, more useful and comfortable unto a Christian, throughout the whole course of his militant condition, than sacred baptism, the laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost... I deny not future actual efficacy of baptism after the act of administration, but I only plead for some efficacy when it is administered" (1, 112). Burges claimed Calvin for support of this view (cf. 159, 169)." (Rich Lusk, The Federal Vision, pg 122.
If, as a result of infant baptism, are babies 'added to the Church"? Then, 'does The Church' consists of both believers and unbelievers, or do infants become 'believers' as a result of infant baptism?
Yes, there is absolutely a sense in which believers and unbelievers are part of The Church, since they are a part of the Covenant. Hebrews 10:28-30 is clear there are unbelievers in the Covenant.
Questions: 1) Does baptism fall within the lines of justification or sanctification? Because the MacArthur types would claim that baptism can’t justify you- only the work of Christ did that. 2) Does baptism simply open one up to the possibility of sanctification? If so, how can that be without being justified by faith? 3) Can someone ultimately be justified by the faith of their parents who baptized them as infants, or is justification come later when they are old enough to follow God? The scripture that comes to mind is Romans 9:6 that states, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” As some Israelites grew up- even though they were circumcised, they were not inwardly circumcised- and could not be called “Israel.” 4) Can we make a correlation between a Nazarite vow given before birth, (Samson and John the Baptist), and infant baptism? Sorry, I know it’s a lot of questions. Thank you
1) Baptism justifies (Romans 6:7). 2) Baptism sanctifies (I.e. it sets us apart for the priesthood by fulfilling the priestly ordination rite of the OT). In Galatians 3:27, Paul uses the same language used for ordination when he speaks of us "putting on Christ" in baptism. 3) See my answer above. But I must add that just because baptisms justifies, doesn't take away the possibility of apostasy. Forgiven people can be unforgiven (Matthew 18:35).
NO baptism has been taught by the Church from the time of Apostles until now. Only the schismatics who left the church in the 16th century have a hard time with this.
@@wordforever117 My point is that the topic of baptism has not been at the forefront of conversations recently, and I believe that it should be brought up more often because it such an important doctrine
@@Godfrey118 This doctrine is 2000 years old. It is the first sacrament of Christian Initiation. If your church does not have it at the forefront then your church has serious problems....it may not even be Christian!
Proverbs 2:6 "For the Lord gives wisdom;from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;"🙏 Let God’s Peace and Grace be with you (To The Reader). Praise God always. Amen🙏🙌
Thanks for the clear explanation. It sounds like the Lutheran position is the closest of the Protestant churches to Rome’s view of “baptism” - considering it a “means of grace” and something that “forgives sins”, and something that removes “original sin” etc. It is interesting to see the progress of the Reformation throughout history through the lens of “baptism” in this way. 🤔🙏
Just thinking out loud here. 8:50 “Infants are in need of forgiveness, baptism offers forgiveness.” When you said that my mind went, “Infants don’t know what is happening when they are baptized and have no idea why they are being baptized, but they receive forgiveness of sins anyway? So, if we take a 5 year old, 12 year old, 26 year old ect… family member who isn’t a believer, doesn’t know what Christianity is, hasn’t repented of their sins and hasn’t trusted in Christ, but I take them and baptize them while they have no idea what’s even happening (just like the infant doesn’t know) then that family member receives forgiveness of sins and enters into the New Covenant unknowingly? Again, this is a serious question. No sarcasm at all or hostility. I’m trying to work through this authentically and that’s where my mind went when you said that. I appreciate the various points made in this video and I’ll be chewing on them. 👍🏼
The Lutheran view is that they would be validly baptized, but any grace they received would be lost by their unbelief and resistance. Infants don't resist and there are examples of infant faith in scripture. So we believe God can give faith to an infant through baptism or even the infant hearing his Word.
My problem is having known too many people who were baptized as babies and who showed no more faith in Jesus Christ than I have in Muhammed. Yet, I was baptized as a baby, was a believer at 4 at the latest, cherish my baptism, and would never consider being rebaptized.
@@chemnitzfan654 yes. I don't know what to make of that. My hunch is that former "Christians" who are now self proclaimed unbelievers were never Christians, because I don't think a Christian can lose salvation. The Holy Spirit is not going to surrender one of Jesus' to the Devil. But I also think Christians can "go carnal," and that this is what Paul has in mind when he writes about his fear of making shipwreck of his faith, his fear of being a castaway ( "disapproved," the koine Greek scholars say ).
Baptist but willing to hear you out. Ok so having watched.. i do find the argument satisfactory… though im not sure about basptimal regeneration (i admit im more presby (ie basptimal efficacy) on this issue)
Numerous verses in scripture tie baptism to the forgiveness of sins, salvation, and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5). In scripture, baptism is not just a symbol, but a means of grace. I know you're a Baptist, so this may not mean much to you, but literally all of the early church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration and this is what the entire church confessed for almost the first 1600 years. Regarding efficacy, someone can walk away from their baptism and chose to not believe anymore. That doesn't mean that the baptism wasn't effective and that they did not have faith at one point. They simply walked away from the faith they received in baptism. (If you don't believe someone can loose/walk away from their salvation, read James 5:19-20, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Hebrew 6:4-6)
Do you believe the Name of Jesus Christ has any power whatsoever? That's the Name in which baptism is performed, so saying nothing happens is sort of emptying it of the power that is obviously there, just by the Name of God, not even the fact that it's commanded by God and that it also contains words of promise, not from men, but from God.
@@electric336no, not all of the early church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration. That is a flat out lie. The Word of God is very clear that salvation is found in Christ alone.
Regeneration means the same as Rebirth or Born Again - no one in the early church considered baptism and being born again to be different things. Many of them state that they got this teaching directly from the apostles. You can read their writings online very easily. Protestantism is easily proven fake now that we have the internet
I’m confused why you said that Presbyterians only look at the OT type of circumcision when I have seen plenty of BT on the reformed side looking at the flood and the Red Sea. Calvin for instance places these two as primary in his defense of infant baptism, J. V. Fesko in his book Word, Water and Spirit he spends much more time on the Red Sea and the flood. Plenty of Reformed Orthodox, Cobtemporaries, magisterials, etc. will include a more nuanced OTBT than just circumcision.
I may be assuming this... but got a hint about it the first video I watched.. and you use the theme hymn..."A mighty fortress is our God"... I love that hymn... but if I am not mistaken.. when I was a child growing up watching tv on Sundays.. before church.. I would watch the "Davey and Goliath".. claymation...show... and these were sponsored by "the Lutheran Council"... are you a Lutheran.. ?... then I can understand you thinking infant baptism is ok... perhaps the bible you are using omits Acts 8:37 as well... one of the few passages where we see that one believes first THEN is baptized... BTW I was able to watch these shows.. since they came on around 10:45 A.M.... and our church did not start until NOON... I was raised as a Catholic... if I had been raised as a Baptist... I would never had seen these shows...as I would have been in church from 9A.M. - 12 A.M.
I’m coming to Lutheranism from nondenominational and this has been my sticking point where I have struggled the most, and honestly found the large catechism to be the worst justification I’d seen. Thank you for your argument. It helped me come to terms with it far more than anything else I’ve seen.
Dr. Cooper states, "There is this movement from exclusion to inclusion" in the transition from Old Covenant to New Covenant. I can see this is true for the most part, but what about this situation: in Israel, circumcised but unregenerate Israelites were included as part of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant do Pedobaptists likewise include unregenerate adults who were baptized as infants as legitimately in the Covenant? Or I guess a more basic question is: can a person be baptized but unregenerate in the Lutheran system?
@@bigtobacco1098 The unregenerate Israelites were those who were legitimately in the Mosaic Covenant by their physical circumcision but had uncircumcised hearts. (Jeremiah 43-4, Romans 2:29)
@@bigtobacco1098 I answered it for the Mosaic Covenant - unregenerate Israelites were still fully in the Covenant, but not saved. This is because being in the Mosaic Covenant was due to a person's first birth, not a result of their spiritual birth or their spiritual condition. My question was about the New Covenant. For paedo-baptists, if an infant is baptized, thereby received into the New Covenant and does not grow up to have faith, are they then out of the Covenant? So the question is, in the paedo-baptist system, does the New Covenant include baptized unbelievers? And if not, at what age must they show evidence of faith before being considered Covenant breakers, or out of the Covenant...?
One of the better videos I've seen defending this doctrine. However, even from this clip I think it is clear that the real battleground regarding who should be baptized is not a soteriological question but an anthropological and hamartiological question.
Yet as a mother I can’t take my child to be baptized without having a “God parent”… where does the Bible say infants or anyone has to have “God parents” to be baptized? Where is this in the Bible? My son is 5 now and I’m still saddened that I can’t baptize my son in my church because of this. This is why people shy away from organized religion.
I’m struggling with this. So in a paedobapist church the infant grows up and if it’s Gods will that person is to be saved they will then make profession of faith. The Baptists see a baptism as only a ceremony for those that hear the gospel, believe it and repent and then they get baptized. So profession of faith and baptism are confessing the same thing: Jesus is our propitiation and we believe in him. I just don’t see any scripture saying specifically that infants must be baptized and that replaces circumcision. The circumcised of the OT were done so only in Israel. The baptisms in the NT were for everyone because Jesus broke down that cultural barrier of Jew vs Gentile. I’m trying to understand infant baptism and how it can be defended biblically. Can someone explain this?
Baptism is A means of grace, not the only way to salvation. Faith is the gift which supplies the grace. Faith is given in God's word and water, it is not a confession, it is saving. However people can fall away, grace is resistible
Thanks for this and all your other videos on the topic. I’m trying to convince my girlfriend that if we marry and have children we need to baptize them for the forgiveness of their sins. Your videos might be employed in trying to do that. It’s tough to do in the Southeastern US where everyone basically holds to a symbolic only adult baptism view.
@@Dilley_G45 Well, one good thing: you didn't do any permanent harm, other than annoying the baby. Nor did you accomplish anything. That's probably exactly how she looked at it.
@@brendanjobe6895 lol no they weren't unhappy at all. And of course a Baptism doesn't do damage, much to the opposite, they are baptized. 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38
@@Dilley_G45 "Baptism doesn't do damage, much to the opposite, they are baptized. 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38". But Acts 2: 38 and 1 Peter 3: 21 did not include any infants, did they? And likely the infants under consideration were not really baptized: all that happened was that some "clergyman" put a tad of water on their head. They did not receive the remission of any past sins because they didn't have any. They were not saved because they were not lost. So what good did it do?
@@brendanjobe6895 baptism gave them the Holy Spirit, salvation, and faith. There are no Bible passages that say that baptism is for kids older than eleven as a mere symbol.
My favorite example of a word not in the scripture that we use is in Genesis 6:3 “120” in Hebrew But in LJV it is “six score.” But nobody complains because six score is mathematically 120.
Hey Dr. Cooper, I made sure to hear the entirety of your video before commenting. I am a Pentecostal Protestant who has been looking at Lutheranism because I love the high view you have of the sacraments. My biggest issue in becoming a Lutheran is the theme of this video haha. And it is one I don’t believe can be overcome so easily for me. My biggest problem is that in the Old covenant circumcision as well as the other types of baptism you showed seem to be attached to ethnical ties due to parent’s faith, rather than the Faith of the individual. In fact God beautifully justifies entire peoples because of the Faith of their parents (pointing forward to what the new covenant will be). So, clearly the New covenant is all about Faith (we don’t have Sola Fidae for nothing), as well as many passages that led for us to develop this doctrine. In my view, Baptism and Faith cannot be separated by any means. So the question we should ask before “are babies sinful and in need of salvation?” Should be “Can babies have the gift of Faith and through that be saved?” I don’t think it is correct to separate the type from what it is pointing to. This is why the sacraments pull me so hard towards your tradition in the first place! What is the baptism without the Faith God gave to us that allows us to leave the dead man behind and live a new life? A very cold bath where you might be clothed and everyone is watching😂. What is the Lord’s Supper without the sacrifice of Jesus who poured out his blood for the forgiveness of our sins, a moment where he is really present and available to all believers (yes, I believe in real presence)? Without this, it is a meal of bread and wine that doesn’t fulfill all of your nutritional needs 😂. I don’t think babies can have faith. Therefore baptizing a baby would be separating the type from what it points to. I think this is VERY dangerous. I think doing this can lead to works based salvation and make the sacraments loose it’s significance all together. So yeah, this is my cross roads. Most Baptists/Pentecostals see Baptism and the Lord Supper as no more than a “symbol”, something God asked us to do. And I feel that by baptizing infants, Lutherans separate Baptism from what actually saves which is Faith in Jesus. So yeah, I have been chewing in all of this and kind of been feeling orphaned by all the denominations out there :( I know you are a very busy man, but I would love to hear from you or other brothers and sisters in Christ that can help explain my issues with it.
Perhaps we don't talk about it enough but Baptism and Communion do nothing for the recipient without faith (in fact, Communion will do harm). These Sacraments are directly linked to the work of Jesus on the cross, received through faith. So we as Lutherans baptize infants with the hope that infant comes to saving faith and therefore salvation through faith. I see Dr Cooper himself linked a video proving infant faith. Now let's say that the child doesn't immediately come to faith after Baptism. If that person grows up and comes to the faith, we don't "re-baptize" them. Why? Because we believe their first Baptism is still efficacious even in a time when they weren't of faith. Therefore we also baptize infants (and anyone) for this reason: They will have a valid baptism saving them whenever they may come to faith, whether 10 days later or 10 years later. If God for reasons unknown to us wills a child to die, we may not have had the time to communicate the faith to them with logic - but they were baptized and the Spirit worked in that baptism and hopefully they were brought to faith unknown to us.
@@restedassurance I watched both the video and read your comment! I really appreciate your kind response and Dr. Cooper’s video. And thank you for acknowledging my issue that separating the sacrament type from what it represents can be a dangerous thing as well as better explaining the Lutheran view on infant baptism and the sacraments! All the churches I have been a part of have “baby dedications” which kind of serve the purpose of parents hoping God will use their infant in the future to serve Him without the sacramental weight that Baptism carries. And to be honest, I think this is a better approach, even after hearing out you guys. I appreciated Dr. Cooper’s vídeo because it shed light on a fuzzy area for me. “What is the right age to baptize someone?” 8,12,6,15,18,21? Which one is it? 😂 I personally think it is a case by case basis, and after hearing the video my resolve was kind of strengthened in this area. I’ve met plenty of 6 year olds who show faith to be baptized but is that the right thing to do? Well, I don’t know 😂. This issue is even more nuanced for me because I was “baptized” as an infant and than later as an adult. I put baptized in quotations because I don’t think even you guys would consider this baptism valid given that my mom had me at 32 and she stopped going to church at 13 and shows no desire to go back 😬(pray for my family please). Yet, her hope was similar to yours when she baptized me. So, it is just tough. My believer’s baptism means infinitely more to me given how closely linked it is to the saving Faith I received.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank You for responding to me! You didn’t fully convince me, but I am now more open to the possibility of an infant having faith! Especially when prophecy is involved and/or we observe signs that they may have faith (both kinda hard to spot today).
Hi @fav7an758 Is there a strong reason you believe that babies can’t have faith? While I would admit that it can be hard to understand faith without intellectual ascent, i look what the scriptures say and it seems clear that the Holy Spirit can work faith in the unborn and infants. Luke 1:44, Psalm 22:9, Psalm 8:2, and Matthew 19:14. I hope that helps!
I want to thank you for all of your videos, Dr. Cooper! Particularly on baptism! I come from a broadly evangelical Southern Baptist background. One thing I have been struggling with recently is baptism and all of your videos have been excellent resources to help explain infant baptism from a Lutheran perspective and have helped to change my mind over the past few months. I will be joining a Reformed church that practices infant baptism here soon. God bless!
You don't understand what baptism is. You need less books on your shelf and more obedience if you want to understand spiritual things. Before you are capable of understanding what baptism is, you need to repent of your sin of pride. Who told you to be called "Dr"? It wasn't Jesus Christ, that's for sure, because we know what Jesus says about titles. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Matt 7:38 So stop trying to elevate yourself above others with your title, and repent. Infants don't need a savior and don't need baptism. In John 9:39-41, Jesus said if you were blind, you have no guilt. Infants are clearly blind to evil and good. For an infant to be baptised, they would need to REPENT (Acts 2:38). Again, without knowledge of evil, an infant would have nothing to repent of, so how then can they be baptized according to Acts 2:38? They can't, and if you think getting an infant's flesh wet does anything, then you have failed again to understand what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that the flesh profiteth NOTHING, it is the spirit that quickeneth... John 6:63 So how does getting flesh wet clean a sinful spirit? Baptism occurs upon repentance and obedience to God, not as a result of getting your flesh wet. Acts 2:38 is clear that one who repents and immersed into the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, receives the gift of the holy ghost. Acts 2:38 nor any other baptism verse commands to be immersed into WATER. And if it did command to be immersed into water, then where is the command to come out of the water? The entire point of baptism is that you immerse into the authority of God, and you STAY UNDER that authority until the end. It has NOTHING to do with water. You have conflated old and irrelevant water immersion, with the command in Acts 2:38. John 6 talks about how Jesus' disciples didn't understand what Jesus taught. The disciples stopped following Jesus because they were carnally-minded, but everything Jesus taught was about the spirit, not the flesh. You should be ashamed of yourself for accepting money or charging money for books or anything else when you are more ignorant than the disciples in John 6. Jesus said to give freely, and if you had the truth, you would be giving freely instead of charging for the lies you push. You want infant baptism to be a doctrine so that you get paid more when ignorant parents bring infants to you.
@@noahelliott1831 I didn't post my own words, I posted Jesus Christ's words. Are you familiar with bible citations? So not sure what you're talking about.
Cooper starts by lowering our expectations on whether we need to have scripture proofs to support what we believe. Strange proposition for someone who claims to hold Sola Scriptura. I guess In the case of infant baptism Luther decided to go with custom rather than the Source of all doctrine reproof and instruction in righteousness
Hi Dr Cooper, thank you for making this video. One of my baptist friend asked some questions, wonder whether would you be willing to consider addressing them in one of your future videos? 1. If baptism replaced circumcision, why weren't females circumcised under the Old Covenant? 2. Why the need to baptize the Jews who were already circumcised and arguably baptize the 12 Jewish disciples of John again in Acts 19:1-7? If baptism is the same as circumcision, wouldn't that means there is no need for the Jewish Christians who are circumcised to be baptized? The fact that the 12 Jewish disciples of John the Baptist were baptized the second time also shows the discontinuity of the covenant. 3. In Acts 2:39 the the promise for your children is mentioned, but v41 seems to indicate only adults who received his word were baptized. So wouldn't this be arguing against infant baptism? 4. In Jeremiah 31:31 it mentions the New Covenant, however my friend pointed out that in 31:29-30, everyone shall die for his own sins, which shows that the New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant, as it depends on personal individual decision instead of ancestry. I agree with paedobaptism but I think my friend made a good point here for us to consider.
I have an answer for the first question: Women dont have male genitals. Thats why they're women. See this timestamp from this very video as well 11:10.
The verses about the household say that they all believed and were baptized. Then you have to make an assumption there is an infant in the family to be baptized. Is it fair to base these occurrences on an assumption that infants were baptized? Circumcision was only for males, what is the OT equivalent for females? What about the theif on the cross who wasn't baptized but joining Chirst in heaven? Practically speaking, is not having an infant baptism sinful and/or deserving of church discipline?
So you admit there’s no scripture to back up that clearly states the doctrine and nor any clear examples of practice happening in New Testament. Your whole argument relies on Old Testament assumptions must still be true because we see connections in something that’s happening in New Testament.
Thank you for your explanation, I understand your point of view. However, in the beginning of the video you make a statement that baptism is a means for our sins to be forgiven. I would beg to differ, as baptism is the symbol of our dead and resurrection in Christ. We are saved because of our faith through grace and repentance. So yes, people who have never been baptised but belief what He has done for us, are still saved. Not to say that baptism isn't important, but it is worth noting.
If you isolate Acts 2:38 I can see coming away with the notion that Baptsim saves, but there's a glearing problem here. This verse says that you repent and get baptized and then you will receive the Holy Spirt as if the order of these events matters. But, this is completely opposite to verses in Acts 10:44-48, where they were received the Holy Spirit and then afterwards were baptized. So, it's quite clear one cannot difinitivley come away with Luthern interpreation of Acts 2:38.
Do we forget that there were two baptisms, that of water and that of the Holy Spirit. Unless specified, we can’t assume it’s water that people are being baptized with. Because faith baptizes (immerses) you with the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:16 Jesus said, " He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" so, can a baby believe? In Acts 2:38 Peter said " Repent and be baptized....." so, can a baby repent? Acts 8:3 " Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off MEN AND WOMEN and committed them to prison". Romans 10:9 " if you CONFESS WITH YOUR LIPS..." can a baby confess?
@@MovieRiotHD So? a baby is a non-Christian. In order for a baby to become a Christian, they must believe, repent, confess and even hear the word.......they can do none of them.
@@MovieRiotHD So, can a baby believe? yes or no. Jesus plainly said, " He that believes and is baptized...." so again, can a baby believe? No, they cannot, so therefore they cannot be baptized......not that hard to understand
@@DannyLoydyes babies can believe. When God saves them in baptism he gives them the faith to believe. Just because you can't make them use words to agree doesn't mean there's no faith
Jews still initiate their babies into the community of faith through immersing in water. This is called Mikveh. Many Jewish communities immerse babies three times. So, the triple immersion would have made complete sense to the first Jewish believers.
Why interpret "greater" to mean that more are included, rather than the degree of knowledge/fellowship the covenant member has of the Lord? Also, would Lutherans disagree that the closest type to new covenant baptism is John's baptism of repentance?
It appears to me the guilt of original sin is where your argument falls apart. I agree with Dr. Heiser and other christian theologians that yes we all commit sin and therefore need Christ, but no where in scripture does it allude the the notion we are guilty of Adam's sin.
Regarding the Old Testament baptisms. - Circumcision: no women. Not households. - ark: no infants This point is not as relevant nor clear as you attempted to depict. With less words, You are just assuming that the baptism of the NT works like 1/3 OT baptisms mentioned (Red Sea) as a defense of infant baptism with that point.
And just to take the flood baptism a bit further. 100% of all the infants on the entire world failed to survive the flood. 0% of all available infants are on the ark
Plot twist, not everything has to have a 1-1 correlation to the Old Testament. There are no references to infant baptism, nor is there any doubt in the texts that repentance and belief are a prerequisite to baptism.
@@alexwryes, it does. Christ walked through the OT scriptures with the disciples at the end of Luke, revealing Himself all throughout the Law and the Prophets.
@@RCopley23 Circumcision came after the head of household was born again, and it was applied to the believer, their children, and everyone else in the household, even servants from far off places. The same is true of baptism. Peter uses the Gen 17 formula in Acts 2 and applied it to baptism, and the practice of the apostles is in line with the practice God gave from the beginning, that when you believe, you and your household is baptized.
@oracleoftroy The only problem is that you were born into the old covenant according to the flesh. It was a covenant for land according to bloodline. The new covenant is according to the SPIRIT. You aren't born into the spirit by the flesh
"Then Philip went down to the CITY OF SAMARIA and preached Christ to them..............But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both MEN and WOMEN were BAPTIZED." Acts 8:5-12
This is a very good explanation why most doctrine (denominational traditions) are man made and not biblical. You’re literally explaining how you use a “lens” etc. to do Eisegesis and not Exegesis. I’m saying this not to start arguments but out of love. I was baptized as a baby and I see this nowhere in scripture. See the channel beyond the fundamentals for a non-Calvinistic / reformed view. If you don’t agree then you’ve waisted a little bit of time. God bless.
Out of the whole town of Samaria only “men and women who believed were baptized” household argument debunked. If I give dresses to every household wouldn’t you be able to put 2 and 2 together that the females would receive the dresses
I loved this. Thank you for this segment. One thing I want to add is a perspective from pastoral theology/care. Whenever this "controversy" comes up, I cannot help but think about it pastorally besides systematically. I cannot imagine how an anti-paedobaptism pastor might attempt to console parents whose infant died without the comfort of Baptism. I thank God that I haven't had to console a family yet whose baby unexpectedly died, so I can only imagine it. Anyway, compare how a Baptist pastor might comfort such a family versus a Lutheran pastor who comforts a family with a baptised baby. The Baptist pastor can basically only leave it up to hope like a coin flip. Let's just hope your baby is saved. He has nothing to point them to, nothing to assure them that baby is now in the arms of Christ because they weren't baptised and they therefore don't know if the baby had faith since they teach babies cannot have faith. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved" (Romans 10:9-10). They believe babies cannot do this, so they cannot be sure, despite Jesus' words, "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies You have prepared praise'?" (Matthew 21:16). Whereas the Lutheran pastor can point the parents to their baby's Baptism. "Look at the baptismal font. We were gathered around it not that long ago. What did God deliver to your little one there? Forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation; adoption as His son/daughter, the redemption of his/her body in the life of the world to come; faith; and the Holy Spirit. You will see him/her again. You know this, because just as Christ is raised from the dead, so your baby was baptised into His death & resurrection to rise from the dead like Him." Of course, the rebuttal will come up, "What if the baby couldn't be baptised?" Well, for the Lutheran pastor this is easier than one might think. In the Large Catechism, Luther puts the efficacy of Baptism, and therefore salvation, on the Word. The Word of God is what delivers salvation to a person. The water is useless without it. So, I can tell those parents that their baby heard the Word of God in the womb as they were going to church. Science has shown that softly playing classical music against the womb improves brain development. Imagine what the Word of God can do that created everything ex nihilo! "What if they weren't going to church," comes another rebuttal. Well, I can't really speak to that because I don't know what they were doing in the home. Maybe they were reading the Bible out loud; if so, the same principle applies. If not, then what? I appeal to Luther's wisdom, who said, "What [a Christian] prays for, especially in the unexpressed yearning of his heart, becomes a great, unbearable cry in God's ears" (LW 43:248). Luther actually appeals to Moses in Exodus 14:15, who gave no verbal cry, yet still God heard the groaning of his heart because "Moses did not know how or for what he should pray" (LW 43:248). Luther continues, "Who can doubt that those Israelite children who died before they could be circumcised on the eighth day were yet saved by the prayers of their parents in view of the promise that God willed to be their God? God (they say) has not limited His power to the sacraments, but has made a covenant with us through His Word. Therefore we ought to speak differently and in a more consoling way with Christians than with pagans or wicked people (the two are the same), even in such cases where we do not know God's hidden judgment. For He says and is not lying, 'All things are possible to him who believe' [Mark 9:23], even though they have not prayed, or expected, or hoped for what they would have wanted to see happen... Leave such situations to God and take comfort in the thought that He surely has heard our unspoken yearning and done all things better than we could have asked" (LW 43:249-250). In short, God does not limit Himself to the Sacraments; He can certainly save the child by the faith and prayer of his/her mother.
As a Catholic I approve this message and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Cooper’s points. I also agree that some Catholic apologists do downplay scripture and rely on the magisterium but there’s need to scripture is all that is needed for this.
St Augustine believed in infant baptism: "Infant Baptism Is The Apostolic And Universal Practice Of The Church. What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority." St John Chrysotom also mentioned how baptism has been a practice of the Church from the beginning: “We baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sins, so they too may be given holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and membership in Him.” I somewhat disagree with your statement on Roman Catholics/Orthodox because we believe in Scripture and Tradition. It is not an either/or but a both and. We did not even have a finalized canon until 4th-5th century. Having a Magisterium is essential because Christians are all over the board on this issue as well as on many other issues. I think Luther would have remained Catholic had he known the fallacy of his words -- "believers should be able to read the Scriptures for themselves rather than depend upon an outside clerical interpretation" because know we have thousands of divisions. The major religions have their own "Magisterium", such as the LCMS, PCUSA, or their own pastor is the pope (papa) and I think order/organization is a good thing.
I think it'dbe easier to make a biblical case of infant baptism if there was at least one mention of an infant being baptized in Scripture. But there isn't, right? 😊
Babies are born sinful. They need salvation. Does this mean God has no way to being them to his arms? No. God does what he wants. This argument is not what baptism is about.
Do a study on the topic of Jewish Mikveh. It wasn't a foreign thing for infants to be immersed in water as an initiation into the faith community. That doesn't prove anything, except that washing infants in water ritually as an initiation rite was already practiced by Jews, so it isn't totally out of left field to say the Jewish Messianic community retained that practice, but did it in the Name of Jesus Christ and understood it as having greater meaning.
Dear Brother, God bless you. I have listened to your teaching. Since there is only God’s Truth, doesn’t it give you pause if you need to say over and over, “true from a Lutheran perspective,” to make your point. Your tortured argument is simply swept away by the fact that infant baptism is nowhere found in the Word. Accept His Word and repent of your pride. that you would add to His Word. May God soften your heart to hear the truth.
8:30 Noah's sons were not infants so the ark doesn't count at all or at least does not help your argument to get babies wet. Also I'm quite certain that it was actually a Gus and who was for getting babies wet and it was Pelagius who believed and believers baptism. At least at one point
I can’t jump on this bandwagon. Where is an example in the New Testament where we were told to baptize babies? If babies don’t know right from wrong yet (which is the definition of sin, knowing what is right and doing wrong) how can they be saved of their sins?
But if Noah's flood is a type, then are animal candidates of baptism? (Ala St Francis of Assi) . The analogy breaks down. There were no infants on the ark. And as you admitted, only males were circumcised. Oscar Cullman questioned the connection in Colossians 2 between baptism and circumcision.So only the crossing of the Reed Sea is an analogy used in the NT where infants were present. The case that children were considered Christian in the NT is everywhere and the best case. Eg. children obey your parents in the Lord "
The ancient Christian teaching regarding baptism is that faith and water are both required. The faith can be from the parents or godparents of a child too young to profess faith themselves. This goes right back to the apostles and historical records prove this. So the Catholic Church has had it correct continuously for 2000 years
@@bradleygilmore5638 Do you think it is possible that the authors of the New Testament could have written infallible books, yet still wrongly baptised infants?
Good video except for the fact that not once did you mention the Orthodox Church 😂 nas if it’s Catholic vs Protestants . Just remember who gave you the canon buddy. Baptism isn’t a “sprinkling” of water on the head. It’s supposed to be IMMERSION 🤦♂️
This was so disappointing. I had heard so many glowing reviews of Jordan and his brilliance. Instead, I found this guy … twisting scripture and logic to try to prove his faith tradition correct when there’s no biblical evidence that we should baptize little infants. A few thoughts: 1- Acts 2:38. Great verse, but has nothing to do with infants. Jordan suggested that this verse meant that little infants could have original sin forgiven if they are baptized in Jesus’ name. FIRST, nowhere does it mention original sin here. Peter is specifically addressing the men who demanded that Jesus be crucified. He convinces them from scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. Then they ask, “What shall we (the men who demanded the Messiah be crucified) do?” And Peter tells them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and they will receive the Holy Ghost. He says nothing about original sin or infants. How exactly is an infant supposed to hear a message, understand it, believe it, repent, and THEN get baptized? Just nonsense. SECOND, Luke is not trying to set out a specific order in salvation. Here in Acts 2 we have repentance, then baptism, then forgiveness, then Holy Spirit. But in Acts 8, there is baptism but no Holy Spirit, maybe for months. And in Acts 10, Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before getting baptized. Luke is simply summarizing stories that he’s heard from the Apostles. I don’t think he was concerned with trying to create a doctrine of the saving efficacy of baptism. Acts 2:38 was a specific message to a specific group in a specific situation. Notice that it is never repeated to any other group in the book of Acts or in any of the epistles. THIRD, original sin can never be forgiven. We are all under the curse of original sin. Read Romans 5. What do we inherit from Adam? Death. We will all die because of the condemnation we inherit from Adam. We do not inherit hell or eternal damnation from Adam and his sin. We receive eternal damnation based on our own sin and our own actions. No one will be in hell because they are being punished for Adam’s sin. That’s just basic doctrine, folks. 2 - Acts 2:39. Jordan was convinced that this verse alone proves infant baptism. “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The point of this verse can be found in two other passages: Matthew 27:24-25 KJV When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. [25] Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Luke 23:28-30 KJV But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. [29] For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. [30] Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. Peter is here speaking to the men who demanded that Jesus be crucified and insisted that His blood be upon them and their CHILDREN. And Jesus proclaimed a prophecy against them and their CHILDREN. Peter is specifically offering mercy and forgiveness to these men and THEIR CHILDREN. 3 - Household Baptism - There are 2 accounts of household baptism in the NT. They are both found in Acts. The first is in Acts 16 and the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:30-34 KJV And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. [34] And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Paul preached to everyone in the house. And they all believed the message. There is nothing there about infants. They were all old enough to hear a message and believe it. No one was baptized that did not first believe. It specifically says so. The second instance is in Acts 18 in Corinth, which is also referred to in 1 Corinthians. Acts 18:8 KJV And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Once again, everyone in his house heard a message and believed on the Lord. No one was baptized that did not first believe. There is no mention of infants whatsoever. Household baptism is not a thing. In both instances that it’s mentioned, everyone heard a message and believed before getting baptized. I won’t continue with a point by point refutation of this nonsense. If anyone is interested I’ll be glad to chat about the types of baptism he mentioned, as well as his understanding of John 3.
Should Infants Be Baptized? Our Readers Ask . . . Should Infants Be Baptized? ▪ “I was afraid that my little brother, John, was doomed to Limbo,” relates Victoria. Why did she have that fear? “John died before he was baptized,” she explains, “and a Catholic priest said that for this reason, John would remain in Limbo forever.” Such a notion is certainly frightening, but is it Scriptural? Does the Bible teach that children who die without being baptized are forever doomed? The Bible does teach that Christians should be baptized. Jesus instructed his followers: “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19, 20) Note that those who are baptized must be disciples of Jesus. That is, they are individuals who have learned about Jesus and have chosen to follow him-a choice that no infant, of course, can make. Even so, many insist that Jesus’ command applies to small children. “Everyone is to be baptized, including infants,” asserts Lutheran pastor Richard P. Bucher. He adds: “To keep them from baptism is to keep them from forgiveness and to endanger them with damnation.” In fact, though, such comments contradict Jesus’ teachings in at least three ways. First, Jesus did not teach that infants should be baptized. Why is that fact significant? Consider: Jesus earnestly taught his disciples about God’s requirements. At times, he repeated key teachings. Why? To ensure that his disciples grasped the point. (Matthew 24:42; 25:13; Mark 9:34-37; 10:35-45) Yet, not even once did he teach that infants should be baptized. Did Jesus somehow forget to mention the requirement? Impossible! Surely, if infants must be baptized, Jesus would have said so. Second, Jesus never taught that anyone suffers after death. He believed the Scriptures, which clearly state: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Jesus knew that the dead do not languish in purgatory, Limbo, hellfire, or any other location. Rather, he taught that they are unconscious, as if asleep.-John 11:1-14. Third, Jesus taught that “all those in the memorial tombs” will come back to life. (John 5:28, 29) Undoubtedly, these will include many millions who were never baptized. Upon being resurrected, they will have the opportunity to learn God’s requirements and live forever in Paradise on earth. *-Psalm 37:29. Clearly, then, the Bible does not teach that infants should be baptized.
I’m not Lutheran but I love your channel for the perspective. Got to get that Iron sharpened yo. lol As a Baptist, I hear all the time from Presby that silent argument regarding the idea that if infants were not going to be receiving the signs of the NC, wouldn’t that erupt a big discussion? Valid point, but on the flip side of that, given that only a small remnant of the Jewish people believed at that time and the gentile church was undoubtably becoming the larger part of the church, why then, is there not affirmative teaching to the gentiles on this subject, being those who had no concept of covenant or covenant succession. Wouldn’t we expect there to be some sort of teaching in that regard to a dominantly gentile church?
There is, it's the OT. Next time you are reading the NT, no matter who you think the book or section is addressed to, take note of how often the author unapologetically quotes from the OT as if it's teachings are true today for everyone. Many Baptists have a bad habit of treating the OT as if it doesn't belong in Christian scripture, and some even take random passages from the NT that they don't like and write them off as "for the Jews" so that they can ignore them. Not all Baptists, but far too many, and even the ones who are better about it seem to fall down this trap for some doctrines.
Good video... but your statement that you don't need a magisterium is nonsense. Is is precisely because of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that you have anything at all. All of the great theologians of the early centuries of the Church long before Luther came on the scene were clearly Catholic. The magistarium is clearly Scriptural if you connect the text together along with typology. Even Luther knew this. “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” ~Martin Luther Also, I agree that some Catholics do present the text in a manner that that connects all the dots. But there are great many of us that do, including myself. God Bless!
I don’t know what belief system you were reading in… Baptismal Regeneration seems to not be the case, being that the thief on the cross was saved upon believing. It seems more like a sign and a seal, biblically. By the very nature, you’ve been regenerated when you desire God and are repentant. That occurs before you ever get to water.
@@hunteroxentine3661 Baptismal regeneration is taught repeatedly throughout the Old and New Testaments, and you throw that all out in order to say that it was not possible for God to make an exception to his own rule regarding the thief.
@@wordforever117 I simply don’t believe you can make the claim that it was taught through the old and New Testaments. Maybe by your hermeneutics, but I’m just not sure how you make the connection. You assume God makes an exception to a rule, because you assume there’s a rule, that isn’t explicitly taught.
@@hunteroxentine3661 Do you remember Ezekiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Do you now see how this connected to the teaching of Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
I agree with this wholeheartedly. What I cant wrap my head around, is that a certain group decided it was profitable to exclude their own children from this gracious gift of God. Why would a man wake up and suddenly tell his children they are "other", outside of God's sphere of influence?
Only someone who believes the doctrine of Original Sin (i.e. imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to and the inheritance of Adam's 'sin nature') would suggest unbaptized infants are outside God's 'sphere of influence', whatever you mean by that. You might be surprised to learn there is no scriptural support for that doctrine. Early church writers believed infants were born innocent. It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice. For example, the _Apology of Aristeides_ (c.125, 15.11), the _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c.130, 6:11), and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160, 27:1; 101:1-3) all expressed the conviction that children are born innocent of sin. The _Apology of Aristeides_ was written by Aristeides of Athens (?-c.134). The _Epistle of Barnabas_ was considered sufficiently authoritative to be cited by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind and Jerome. Some early church fathers ascribed it to the Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Also according to church tradition, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ was written by Hermas, a Christian of Rome (Romans 16:14). It was also considered to be canonical scripture by some of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus. There is also no evidence at this early stage of paedobaptism. Indeed, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Had Justin believed infants were born in a sinful state, he would hardly have thought that being "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) was a worthwhile outcome. Note, too, how Justin viewed one's sinful state as resulting from one's upbringing, not as something inherited. Irenaeus (c.130-202) expressed the view that Christ sanctified infants and children: “becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age” ( _Against Heresies II,_ 22.4) and that faith in Christ was necessary for the remission of sins ( _Against Heresies III,_ 12.2, 7). Concerning the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’, Irenaeus wrote: _For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom_ ( _Against Heresies III,_ 16.4) It is difficult to argue these infants were regarded by Irenaeus as being in a sinful state. Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) wrote _For so also we lie under Adam’s sin through similarity of sin_ ( _Fragments_ 2.4, c.195). Note that there is no hint of inherited sin in this allusion to Romans 5:12. The first steps towards the development of a doctrine of original sin as it later came to be understood were recorded by Tertullian (c.160-220). Writing c.205-210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). In _The Apostolic Tradition_ (c.215), Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-c.235) endorsed paedobaptism (21.16) but gave no theological justification for the practice. Origen of Lyons (c.185-254) thought souls had a pre-incarnate existence ( _De Principiis_ 1.7.3-5) and people were born into a state reflecting the relative departure from good done by them during that existence ( _De Principiis_ 2.9.1-7). Hence, everyone was born in a state of sin ( _Homilies on Leviticus_ 8:3, Commentaries on Romans 5:9). Nevertheless, they shared with Adam only physical descent and the mortality with which he was punished ( _Against Celsus_ 4.40). Quoting Romans 5:12-21, Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam ( _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:1). Perhaps the first Christian theologian to formally posit the inheritance of the sins and guilt therefore from Adam was Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258). Cyprian said infants were contaminated by descent from Adam and baptism provided forgiveness for any sins thus inherited ( _Epistle_ 58.5; 64.5). According to Cyprian, personal repentance (cf. Acts 2:38) was not a prerequisite for paedobaptism, which was considered efficacious for salvation in its own right ( _Epistle_ 73.7). Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) regarded infants as being born morally neutral but, because salvation required positive righteousness, were eligible to be baptized so as to acquire it; otherwise they would be left in a state of limbo. Conversely, Christians who desired baptism but died beforehand were lost ( _Oration_ 40.17, 22-23). Therefore, baptism was crucial to salvation. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism. John Chrysostom (c.349-407) expressed the firm view that infants are born innocent, writing “the soul of a little child is pure from all the passions” ( _Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew_ 62.4). In this context, one might note the qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) implied that infants are born innocent, saying: _ye have “been baptized into the Lord’s death,” and into His resurrection, as “new-born babes”._ (5.3.16). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Paedobaptism was neither approved or disapproved in this passage. Elsewhere, however, baptism was restricted to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). Jerome (c.347-420) held the view that all sins are forgiven at baptism ( _Letter_ 64.2, 4, 7; _Letter_ 123.11), which even children require ( _Letter_ 85.6) for inherited guilt - for which he cited Cyprian and Origen as authorities ( _Against the Pelagians III_ 18-19) - and in spite of noting scriptures opposing that stance (e.g. Ezekiel 18:4, 20) ( _Letter_ 39.4). Augustine of Hippo (354-430) argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1). Augustine had no knowledge of Hebrew and only a superficial knowledge of Greek, a limitation undoubtedly hindered his ability to extract the original meanings of the texts he worked with. So, until Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent. When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._
Great video. Your logic also helps explain why arguments for believers baptism are so weak. "But Peter said to repent and be baptized. And all the examples of baptisms in the New Testament show people believing before being baptized!" Well yes, but obviously when dealing with adult converts, you need them to believe first, because we don't kidnap and forcibly baptize people. But what happens to the young children of adult converts? The whole household is baptized!
You could argue it is weak, but if you are looking to the Bible as the rule of faith and practice, from one perspective it does make sense that one should expect both "forms" of Baptism to be displayed or commented upon, especially as the implicit or hidden version is the one which came to predominate. Also, it's not just credobaptists who made that argument. Look in any Jesuit manual or dogmatic theology of the time and they will argue that the Presbys are inconsistent because paedobaptism is not proved from the Bible but Tradition. Hence Presbyterians migrated to the Covenant to ground the practice.
The struggle I have with this argument is that if baptism IS regenerative, then why do adults HAVE to have faith first? The Lutheran argument is that baptism CREATES faith, so in that sense it doesn't require faith...if faith is born out of baptism as these arguments propose, then forcibly baptizing people (much like is done to infants) is in essence saving them and should be done. But they do require a profession of pre-existing faith in "converts" which is inconsistent at best.
I'm starting to think the outlandish doctrines that aren't found in the bible are for the less intelligent cuz they sure do have to work hard to make a case.
@@tomo5136 Infant baptism is based on believing it is true, then without realizing it, reading it into the text what is not there. This is a common problem across the board, regardless of topic. People tend to form their opinions and beliefs outside of scripture, then bring it with them into the texts then go around claiming they have scriptural support when they don't if one pursues authors intent.
@@soteriology400 Oke, now go into specifics, which texts. And you are also talking about the early church, 3 generations after christ, who all did infant baptism.
"8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach-repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins." -The word of God through an ancient prophet. 😊
The work of water baptism is not required for righteousness and for the forgiveness of sins today. We are not under the law today. If anything is added to the cross, then Christ died for nothing. Justification is by Faith Alone. Ro 4:5 Gal 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.
@@tomo5136 This is the baptism that is God's work alone. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. No water involved and it is performed without hands. Again, if righteousness comes with anything in addition to the cross, Christ died for nothing.
