Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?

Подписаться 751 тыс.

Просмотров 16 тыс.

50% 1

Should Protestants recognize the validity of a baptism administered by the Roman Catholic Church? From one of our live events, R.C. Sproul addresses this difficult and complex question.
Get answers to your biblical and theological questions online as they arise at ask.ligonier.org/

Опубликовано:

14 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 190

@duranbailiff5337 3 года назад

I listen to the late Dr. RC Sproul daily, and I never tire of his passion, wisdom and measured fervency for the Holy scriptures. I thank God for this ministry- please keep up this excellent work!

@jakeestrada1239 3 года назад

Same here but I can't stop listening younger RC sproul sermons daily ! Also my pasteur his brother in Christ John Macarthur .stay strong brother! I highly recommend young RC sermon on here titled Guilt and Forgiveness. God bless you brother!

@delemaitreful 2 года назад

It is rather like asking if a Ford Model T is a valid car.

@christopherhennigan9834 8 месяцев назад

That’s perfect! I’m using this from now on.

@Orwellwascorrect 3 года назад

I don’t see the complexity of this question, its wrong. It is not NT theology

@jesusdeity2010 3 года назад

What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand. God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly. Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc). We are all born into that mess. For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ. With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator. That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love. And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin. Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come. So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand. Hence the divine healing miracles we experience. God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after in Gen 1. The image we lost in the fall of man. The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us. What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing. It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle. He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love. Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh. For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth. He said: "Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc. I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name". Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!! So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit. You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator. You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace. A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam. Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever. Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote: "As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again". "IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)" "The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power". So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing! In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote: "By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man". The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!! Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness. He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind". "I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."

@thomase.zimmermann1165 3 года назад

This is hillarious. While R. C. Sproul puts question marks on the Roman Catholic baptisms, he is basically using Roman Catholic theology to do so. And this just once again illustrates, that protestants have nothing, that they have not taken from the Roman Catholic Church. The criteria used by R. C. Sproul for a true baptism - "Name of the Trinity", "Done with water", "Intent to ...... " - are basically the Roman Catholic criteria for a true baptism. However, R. C. Sproul differs a bit on the intent part. He says: "Intent to mark the person with .... ". The Roman Church certainly does believe, that the person being baptized receives an indelible mark in the soul, but on intent, it "only" says: "Intent to do what the Church does". In Roman theology, a priest (or lay person), who thinks he has done a baptism, has had enough intent. A movie actor doing a baptism but saying: "No, it was not a baptism, it was just for the camera", has not had intent. There is no requirement of some sort of sincerity coming from the deepest corners of the heart. For as R. C. Sproul also correctly points out, in Catholic theology, the sacrament does not depend on the integrity of the priest, but on God. So, R. C. Sproul is stricter on intent, and that is how he puts doubt on Catholic baptisms. But he is bacically using a Roman Catholic framework to do so. The more basic diference between Reformed people and Catholicism is probably found in the doctrine of depravity. When believing, that sin has made this world utterly corrupt, and that we are under total inability, it becomes impossible to uphold the Catholic teaching, that God does meet and regenerate us through the ordinary means of water and words spoken by a normal priest (or lay persons). And it is impossible to imagine, that God somewhow should be dependent on that water and those words. For reformed people, there has to be some extraordinary spiritual dimension in the priest (or somewhere else) in order for God to do anything. And then, the baptism is not viewed as actually being regenerative, but "only" as putting people into the covenant. How this "stricter" view on intent is compatible with the "stricter" reformed view on depravity seems to me like a "good question". I guess it is not compatible at all.

@josueinhan8436 2 года назад

Good point. I also tend to think oftentimes that a Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran position about the Baptism is better than ours, as Presbyterians. Because if the Baptism is a Sacrament, it must confer something to the baptising. So, either you believe in a kind of Baptismal Regeneration or you believe in a Credo-baptist Non-Sacramental view, that the Baptism is just an external sign (or symbol) of an inward change. For me, I cofess, the Presbyterian position about this matter is, by far, the worst.

@Athena_JS 3 дня назад

Yo tengo esa duda, en la iglesia presbiteriana dicen que el bautismo catolico es invalido porque no se hace bajo un ministro ordenado iempre que quiero que me ayuden a ver luces sobre ete asunto me dicen que es dificil y complejo pero nuncame dan una respuesta certera (pues estoy en periodo de prueba y para ser miembro me piden el bautizo entonces mi conciencia me dice que no lo haga pero si no lo hago no soy miembro que puedo hacer aqui?)

@robmarshall956 3 года назад

Under the Abrahamic covenant, those who were born within the covenant community received the sign of the covenant as infants. Because the Abrahamic covenant remains in effect, but with the sign of it having been changed, it follows that those who are born within the covenant community should be baptized as infants, just as they were formerly circumcised as infants. They should be baptized at the start of the discipling process, as outlined by Jesus.

@emmanuelacharithayamim3627 3 года назад

Can circumcision of the heart be meaningful and relevant to a baby?

@magicberu 3 года назад

Just asking: following this logic, why should we baptize female infants since only male infants were baptize under the Abrahamic covenant?

@robmarshall956 3 года назад

@@emmanuelacharithayamim3627 indeed circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant was applied to infants on the basis of parental faith (Gen. 17; Rom. 4:11). Since we today are part of that covenant through faith in Christ, the new sign of the covenant, water baptism, should likewise be applied to infants on the basis of parental faith. That theological conclusion is confirmed by the accounts in the book of Acts which reveal that whole households were commonly baptized on the basis of the faith of the head of the household. Paul’s promise to the Philippian jailer, that salvation would come to his whole house if he believed in Jesus, was no different from what Peter told three thousand adult converts at Pentecost. The promise of the Holy Spirit, Peter said, was “for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself” (Acts 2:39). These converts had just been called by the Lord into fellowship with himself, and many other adults (then “far off”) would be called in the future, but the children of these converts formed a third category: they were called into fellowship with Christ together with their parents (or even merely one parent: see 1 Cor. 7:14). Such is the grace of God to the children of believers! We can only infer that the children of the first Christian converts were baptized, brought up in the Christian faith (see Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20-21), and, whenever it pleased the Lord, given the Holy Spirit promised to them. No baptism is salvational this is a question of what to do with children within the body of Christ, at the right age they should either make a profession of faith as they are in agreement with there parents beliefs or choose not to, i for example chose to have confirmation at 16 then I went my own way as it happened and was saved at 43, my brother chose not to have confirmation and isn’t saved today but that isn’t because he hasn’t had baptism it’s because he has hardened his heart to God and will not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

@robmarshall956 3 года назад

@@magicberu Into the circumcised community was born Jesus, in whom the promise of spiritual blessing for all peoples of the world would be fulfilled (Gal. 3:8-9, 14). The line of physical descent from Abraham reached its climax in the person of Jesus, read Galatians(vss. 16, 19). After him, only spiritual descent mattered (vss. 7-9, 25-26). Converts would no longer be incorporated into the nation of Israel. Consequently, a covenant sign that focused on physical descent through the male line was no longer appropriate. A new sign of the covenant was needed-one that all people, whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, could receive. As we have seen, water baptism was instituted by Jesus as the new sign of entrance into the community of faith. Essentially, then, baptism replaced circumcision. The change from circumcision to baptism is reflected in Acts 8:12, where we read that Samaritans were being baptized, “men and women alike.” There is no reason to point out that people of both genders were now receiving the sign of the covenant, except to contrast it with the old sign of the covenant. Implied in this contrast is the fact that baptism had replaced circumcision.

@emmanuelacharithayamim3627 3 года назад

@@robmarshall956. May your brother come to accept Yeshua as his one and only Saviour, and may you be the instrument God uses to bring about his new beginning. I pray his heart will soften to receive The Word. Trust in Jesus.

@david_porthouse Год назад

Will this be the first of a series? What about Orthodoxy or Anglicanism? You could be giving more publicity than is due to one particular denomination, though there is an alternative explanation, something about Roman Catholics being also genuine Catholics and duly hated by Satan and his minions.

@neilanadams5173 Год назад

The gall!

@ETHANGELIST 2 года назад

Ah the end was unexpected to me. My Free Presbyterian pastor holds the same view too. He holds RCC baptism as valid up to a point but would still baptize a person who doesn't consider it valid. It seems he prefers not to regard it as legitimate lol.

@faithmanovat8203 3 года назад

Well I believe the answer is straightforward. What I learned is that the act of baptism in itself is a significant rite, a physical act with spiritual interpretation. The immersion and re-emergence from the water signifies the death of the old man and birth of the new man, so every other means of water Baptism aside from immersion is invalid

@WHR0306 3 года назад

Ephesians 4:5 says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Once a person is baptized, whether in a Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, or a Reformed Church, they should not be baptized again because that would go against this verse.

@NewTemplar 3 года назад

This!!!!!!

@scrapingrama1 3 года назад

So if you were in the middle of the desert with no water then what. We are baptized in the NAME of Jesus

@hr2r805 3 года назад

Just as the elderly person with only a very short time of physical life (on their death bed) left acknowledges true salvation with no time to "go immerse" in a tub of water, lake, river, etc. The sprinkling is available as a way to please the obedience to Jesus. Any of it has nothing to do with receiving Salvation... It's about pleasing a command that Jesus spoke. Imagine that you "had to" take an 80 yr. old with pneumonia out of the hospital and immerse them in the lake or river or bismol pool... Yeah

@scrapingrama1 3 года назад

@@hr2r805 baptism is not salvivic in itself. We are baptized in the name of Jesus. It’s like when we get baptized we don’t get more of the Holy Spirit. It seems totally illigucal to say we need water baptism as well to be saved.

@hr2r805 3 года назад

@@scrapingrama1 -- It's a matter of a heart felt desire to be obedient to Jesus... seem reasonable for one's true salvation is a very strong desire to accomplish what the Lord requests... along with the Lord's other requests or commands from the Heavenly Throne... When one desires to willfully be "disobedient" has its own answer about one's supernatural Heart Change... Accountability is at stake and will certainly be judged...

@evangelist- Год назад

Baptism doesn't have anything to do with your demonation and we all are to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy spirit as our savior instructs us (Matthew 28:19)

@rockeshepherd7694 3 года назад

There is only one Baptism now in the Church age and that is the Baptism of the H. S. .......Ritual without reality means nothing ... This ritual is not required for salvation like it was in the O.T. Our ritual is Communion ...not Baptism of water . We are Baptized in the Spirit at the moment of salvation .

@rockeshepherd7694 3 года назад

Repent means turn from your unbelief of the Gospel and Believe on Jesus too the Jews , and be Baptized is pre church for the Jews . We are now baptized by the spirit at salvation the moment we believe . Water Baptism is not for the church to be saved .

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

Jesus commanded baptism and you say that it is not needed?

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

@Charles Johnson Jesus commanded baptism and you say that it is not needed?

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

@Charles Johnson Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:13 Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place. Acts 8:16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Acts 8:36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’ Acts 8:38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. Acts 8:39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. Acts 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, Acts 10:47 ‘Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ Acts 10:48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days. Acts 16:15 When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.’ And she prevailed upon us. Acts 16:33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. Acts 18:8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized. Acts 18:25 He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. Acts 19:3 Then he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They answered, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Acts 19:4 Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

Tertullian “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism-which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes-by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

@onfireforJESUS75 3 года назад

I for one think infant baptism is kind of a waste of time the baby cannot understand or fully give consent to what is happening. Furthermore I think it mandatory if you choose Jesus as Lord and Savior once you hit the age of accountability and want Jesus to be your whole life than get baptized. You should be the one making the choice to follow the Holy Trinity not your parents, it is our individual free will.

@robmarshall956 3 года назад

Do you understand what infant baptism is ? What confirmation is ?

@ReformedByChristAlone 2 года назад

@onfireforChrist You're mixing up things here and there! 1) You're attributing baptism to free will as if you're the one who took a decision to prove something (the faith in this case!) 2) On the word you mentioned, accountability, it made me asking myself is the child not held accountable to God for his/her sins? I know you've been a child and you know so many children, even to their parents, when did they start to be accountable to their evil deeds? I can surely say, it's a way back when they are still young. What point I want to make here, is that God's work in His people goes beyond what we can see and think of; even to/in the hearts of little children. And it's always good to look into the bible to see what God’s will is.

@jimberry7411 3 года назад

I am 66 years old having been brought up as a catholic, went to latin masses, taught by monks and ruled by the enforced guilt used by the catholic church to keep you in line until I found the way, the truth and the light through Jesus. I was taught, as many were, to believe that you had to have new born babies baptised because if they were not and they died then they would be sent to a place called Limbo, which was somewhere between heaven and hell but not purgatory ( a catholic temporary hell which you can get out of if loved ones pray to mary and the saints and light some candles). This is the total opposite of what Jesus taught when he said ' suffer little children to come unto me'

@scottcouch1988 2 года назад

Obviously you weren't taught right then

@sup0809 Год назад

This is so inaccurate and not at all what the church teaches

@shonblake298 3 года назад

I am questioning the validity of my own baptism into the Methodist church...but I won't question the validity of my God-father...professor Harper...now what?

@stephanietunc2240 2 года назад

I'm really struggling to believe that the father mother and son baptism is still OK if you moved to believe the father son and holy spirit baptism. I believe the catholic church bapistm is the wrong baptism. And all the answers on it always says it's OK to be baptized in a catholic church and you don't need to be rebaptized and I'm finding it really hard to believe that. As a Christian.

@aliu8914 2 года назад

Stephanie Tunc, there is no baptism father mother son in Catholic Church. Catholic Church is the original and the Apostolic church. Catholic Church only baptise in Trinitarian formula. I think u don't know really know the Catholic Church's teaching, but only listen from heretic teaching from anti Catholic ppl.

@Philip__325 4 дня назад

Haha this is guy is pure comedy. My favourite comedian.

@hummerwisdom 3 года назад

EVERYTHING’S A MOCKERY Everything’s a mockery Everything’s a mockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery Turn on the TV And everything you see Everything’s a mockery Turn on the radio And everything you hear Like that mockingbird doesn’t care if he keeps you up all night long Everything’s a mockery Everything’s a mockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery And we laugh at the mockery We laugh heartily And some of us are wise to the mockery We laugh at the crockery We laugh heartily Some of us are wise while others remain lost Everything’s a mockery Everything’s a mockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery Everything’s a mockery Chock full ‘a crockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery Turn on the TV And everything you see Everything’s a mockery Turn on the radio And everything you hear Like that mockingbird doesn’t care if he keeps you up all night long The holy lands is a mockery The people in it a crockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery The holy lands is a mockery The people in it a crockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery A mockery of you and me and Jesus the Christ Everything’s a mockery.......🎵 Copyright 2021 Renee La Chapelle For King of Kings and Kingdom, Praise Yah and glorify His name! 🙌🏻💕

@Yesica1993 Год назад

I've been a long time listener of RC, and now am having a bit of a revival listening to/watching his videos. But wow, this was confusing! I don't think I understood it much at all. Baptism is for those who have received Christ. You don't baptize babies or very young children because they can't understand what they are doing. I do think some older children can have a genuine profession of faith, as long as they understand the basic idea that they are sinners in need of a savior. But that's a case by case basis to be discerned by their parents and the church. As far as I have ever seen, there are no biblical examples or even instructions/references to baptizing babies. It is for professing believers, only.

@heresyhunters 9 месяцев назад

You need to start reading in the OT, where babies were circumcised. Baptism, as the NT equivalent, likewise is given to children. Nowhere does Scripture say that baptism is only for those who understand.

@limpingnad8100 11 месяцев назад

You’re questioning the validity of the baptism of the first and one true church of Christ? The gull of these Christian sects!

@dfacedagame 3 года назад

The question is, are all the RC Sprouts overseen Infant Baptisms invalid ?? Seems like the wrong person to be answering this question ….

@islandbreeze496 3 года назад

What is the guy talking about, scripture says REPENT AND BE BAPTISED! How can an infant repent? It's a heart issue here guys? John the Baptist was not baptizing babies and neither should we. If we do, we are missing the whole point of baptism

@Yesica1993 Год назад

I have nothing but respect for Pastor Sproul, but this was indeed disappointing and confusing.

@flhxri 3 года назад

James 2:14, have a nice day 😀

@toricarrillo5165 3 года назад

Thank you for this clip. Very helpful for me as I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant and have gotten different advice from members of my reformed church. I’ve never asked our elders or pastors as I have no conviction to be re-baptized.

@TheAvenstar 3 года назад

You SHOULD be baptized as an adult. Infant baptism is meaningless. Since you have been saved by the merits of Our Lord Jesus Christ, you ought to go into the water again as a sign of your belief -- and as a testimony to others that the grace of God has fallen on you -- and with an opportunity to publicly thank Him and sing his praises (however briefly) to all who witness the event. I understand that takes a dose of humility. You don't HAVE TO DO IT...but you should.

@carmensiekierke3579 3 года назад

@@TheAvenstar You do not understand Reformed Covenant theology. The sign and the seal of baptism is for believing parents and their children. Baptism is not your " testimony." The belief you describe began with the AnaBaptists, followed by the Baptist movement.

@Unspoke 3 года назад

@@carmensiekierke3579 Your history is correct. What I do not understand is what RC Sproul said about the promises in the covenant. I believe that there’s blessings in baptism but what is it? So do you have a idea?

@carmensiekierke3579 3 года назад

@@Unspoke Thanks for asking. Baptism is God's promises of eternal life and blessings found in Jesus Christ through faith. Often it is misunderstood that what is pointed to in one's baptism is his or her personal faith in Christ. It is an "outward sign of an inward change." In this view, the person's ( subjective) faith is at issue. But in the context of God's covenant, the issue is something objective.....God's promise. So, baptism, as was circumcision, is an outward sign expressing the reality of God's promise. God has always dealt with families and so the children of at least one believing parent are regarded differently than the children of unbelievers. The sign does not save the baby or indicate the baby is saved. The sign points to the promises that are to be received by faith. If, by God's grace, the child grows up to believe, baptism becomes a sign of the blessing found in salvation in Jesus Christ. Unbelief is a rejection of those promises.

@Unspoke 3 года назад

@@carmensiekierke3579 Thanks for sharing but I’m not getting the answer to what I’m asking. In your second sentence, you said blessings found in Jesus Christ. What (exactly) are those blessings? This is what I’m asking about. I am not questioning what you believe.

@margcarter3758 3 года назад

Sadly R.C. has a flawed stand on baptism. scripture does not teach infant baptism but he says it’s legitimate even though he says he is a reformed believer.

@joaomarcostroquez 3 года назад

Paedobaptism is Reformed Doctrine

@carmensiekierke3579 3 года назад

Yes, Dr. R. C. Sproul was an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church of America. Marg, you are not familiar with Reformed Covenant theology. Baptism is a sign and seal for believing parents and their children. This is unlike the AnaBaptists and later the Baptist movement.....baptism is not about your " testimony."

@ericmchenryil5186 3 года назад

It can be a dedication to the church body as far as bringing the child into a church family but you have to understand the child cannot repent so it is not a profession to the public that they are a Believer now

@Camalamadingdon Год назад

Where does it say that baptism specifically is the profession of faith? Is not your testimony your profession? What do you think of adult baptized people who become apostates?

@denonjoka8848 3 года назад

Thanks R. C. Sproul *4 Answering This Complex Question Well While I Say That I Disagree 2 Agree With Yu R. C. Sproul Because I Say That The Protestant Baptism Is More Legit & Organized Than The Roman Catholic Baptism Because People Baptized In The Protestant Church are Baptizing In The Name of The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit While The Roman Catholic Baptism Is Baptism In The Name of Virgin Mary 4 There Is One Lord, One Faith & One Baptism Written In Ephesians 4:5 4 We Baptize In The Name of Our Great LORD Jesus Christ* & May Our Great Almighty God Bless Yu R. C. Sproul & Lingonier Ministries So Very Much 4 Yu R. C. Sproul are Missed So Veryyyyyy Much.🙏🙏🕊️🕊️🕊️

@uslanja 3 года назад

What? Baptized in the name of the Virgin Mary? Nonsense!! I wish people would practice their supposed Christian doctrine of not uttering false testament. R.C. gives a very good talk about the Roman Catholic doctrine on the Ligonier site. Folks who value R.C. Sprouls wisdom might do well to listen to it.

@solochristo65 3 года назад

I have been to the Roman Catholic Baptism in the past..... NOT ONCE did they ever say in Mary or the Virgin Mary's name anywhere.

@dfacedagame 3 года назад

The Catholic Church does much wrong , that flies in the face of Holy Scripture but I never heard of being baptized in the name of Mary…. Ever….

@dfacedagame 3 года назад

@@uslanja while I agree he has much wisdom and the whole comment about Catholics and Mary baptisms is absurd…… i do think the last thing I would seek guidance on from RC, is concerning Baptism. He seems to get this one wrong. Seems like this man made tradition was engrained in him. Anyhow, he is a great theological mind and I enjoy listening to him very. He paved the way for so many Christian leaders and has brought many a men to Christ.

@aliu8914 2 года назад

Deno Njoka, you are wrong about Catholic Church baptism. You have no idea at all. In fact, Catholic Church only baptise in trinitarian formula. No other formulas are recognized by Catholic Church. The church can't rebaptize ppl, unless if the formula is incorrect.

@Jennifer-qo4kz 3 года назад

Dr Sproul is so wise All the points that he made seems so convincing but I just can’t be totally convinced that Catholic baptism is legitimate. biblically.

@kaycee625 3 года назад

It’s not biblical. How can a baby decide? Jesus said “repent and be baptised”. How can a baby do that?

@nobodynobody4389 3 года назад

@@kaycee625 it can be baptized repentance comes later

@carmensiekierke3579 3 года назад

Jennifer, Roman Catholic baptism is irregular, but valid. Martin Luther and John Calvin were baptized as Roman Catholics.

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

Where did Jesus say that there must be an age requirement for baptism?

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

@@kaycee625 Where did Jesus say that there must be an age requirement for baptism?

@stephenpeter4820 3 года назад

If a person is not repentance then how he baptised.it is not biblical.how small child know what is sin and what is not sin.may our saviour open all closed eyes only jesus name amen.🙏🙏🙏

@sanjivoberoi5361 3 года назад

Your views on baptism are strange. “Repent and be baptized” Book of Acts. Are you judging the evangelical who comes to you as a grownup to say he is not fit to be baptized if he seeks this with repentance? You “may” be willing to baptize another who was baptized as an infant because it was under the Catholic Church. The evangelical infant knew what he was doing while the CC infant did not? Strange indeed.

@hummerwisdom 3 года назад

No. Roman Catholic baptism is not legit Scripturally.

@NikhilNicolasKedasi 3 года назад

He said the same isnt it?

@nobodynobody4389 3 года назад

It is as Roman Catholic church is the creator of the Bible

@WHR0306 3 года назад

@@nobodynobody4389 Exactly, its funny because they actually tried to cut things out of the Bible. Only until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, did the archeologists discover the missing part of 2 Esdras that Roman Catholics cut out hundreds of years ago because it says it is pointless to pray for dead people (which is something Catholics do).

@Unspoke 3 года назад

@@WHR0306 Explain. Less words and more understanding to us.

@nobodynobody4389 3 года назад

@@WHR0306 who tried to cut anything the Bible exists only because it was compiled by the church there is no biblical authority without Catholic church which was a creator of the bible so trying to avoid this issue by claiming that some mysterious "they" have altered the Bible is laughable claim as firstly written Bible exists only because Catholic church created it and the Church has the authority to say what is and isn't scripture no one else

@stevemelvin6012 3 года назад

My disagreement with Dr Sproul on this issue is not purely on the legitimacy of Roman Catholic baptism of infants, but upon the legitimacy of any pedo baptism. No where in Scripture is any such practice supported. Baptism is found in Scripture as being administered to those who had confessed belief in the person & work Christ. Furthermore it is always seen as by immersion which is what the word itself means, "to dunk or immerse". Poor explanation by such a fine bible scholar.

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

Jesus never commanded an age requirement for baptism.

@Yesica1993 Год назад

It confused me as well! I've never heard this from him before. I do give it some leeway if you're in a place where there's not enough water for immersion. And I certainly don't believe, as some do, that baptism is required for salvation. Obviously the thief on the cross wasn't baptized.

@orangeandslinky 3 года назад

As Johnny Mac always says. RC, why are you baptizing babies at all? As Johnny the baptizer in the bible, he never ever did.

@Yesica1993 Год назад

I had never even HEARD of this (outside of Catholicism) until a few years ago!

@orangeandslinky Год назад

@@Yesica1993 Yea, me too. I went to a Calvin reformed church for a while and I asked the pastor if this baby baptism is in the bible? (they baptized babies there too) He said no it's not. I said, why are you doing it then? He said it's like a promise from the parents to the congregation that they will raise their baby in the Christian way. I said, " did that ever happen in the church in the bible? He said , well........no. LOL. So, I don't get it man. A man and a woman can't swear to do anything really. they just let their yes be yes and their no be no but this really looked official. Here is why I say that. I asked the pastor, "if the Lord saves this baby someday , will the young or old man need or have to choose to be baptized again? The pastor said, Oh no, this is the only one the baby will ever need to do. I said, that makes no sense at all, can you explain it to me? He said no, not really. LOL.

@NewTemplar 3 года назад

I love RC, but this was a really disappointing video. We confess "one baptism for the remittance of sins." ONE baptism (Ephesians 4:5). There isn't a "good baptism" and a "bad baptism" that invalidates a miracle of God because of what a human being was thinking or feeling. Calvin believed this, as did Luther before him. In fact, Luther believed a second baptism was a sin against the Holy Spirit! "Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?" (Luke 20:4) If Baptism is of God and heaven, it can't be "invalid" because the baptizer picked the wrong Christian denomination.

@solochristo65 3 года назад

Wow....Disappointed you say. And to think that John MacArthur is not disappointed....

@christopherhennigan9834 8 месяцев назад

Of course Roman Catholic baptism is valid, the apostles, upon whom the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, were the first to baptize new Christians. Anyone who says otherwise has either been deceived or they themselves are practicing deception.

@emmanuelacharithayamim3627 3 года назад

Immersion is an outward sign of an inward change from the one being immersed, i.e., repentance from sin and a declaration of trust in Jesus. Is a baby capable of understanding this?

@nathaniel8422 3 года назад

I believe babies go to Heaven no matter if a MAN baptizes them or not. Baptism is for adult person who understands sin and the consequences of sin. Repent of your sins and be baptized in The Name of The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit. Babies do not understand sin neither they do sins (major) like adults do.

@emmanuelacharithayamim3627 3 года назад

@@nathaniel8422Yes. King David knew he would be re-united with his little one.

@nobodynobody4389 3 года назад

Baptism is valid in one holy apostolic Church moreover the bapistm keeps being re affirmed in various church practices If you want to be part of the Church you should be baptized in his Church

@paulseano5100 3 года назад

A true and Biblical baptism comes by a choice of a saved person as an act of obedience to God. A baptism is false when it is done in a false religion. There are no grey areas with regard to baptism. An infant baptism is invalid as the individual being baptized had no decisive involvement in it. An infant cannot acknowledge an action done by faith and an unrepentant, unregenerate individual cannot be baptized and identify with being buried with Christ and being raised to newness of life like the Bible says. Just like no one can make a decision for Christ without responding to the gospel of salvation, a person cannot be baptized into Christ without first being in Christ. The Bible is clear. Furthermore, a Roman pontiff or priest cannot baptize a person Biblically because they reject the gospel of salvation. The Roman system always bases a false salvation upon a persons false baptism. It is Unbiblical to baptize a person in the Roman system just like it is unbiblical to baptize a person into Mormonism and by baptizing the dead as they do. Scripture is clear. It dishonors God all the way around and degrades the commands and directives God has ordained. To perform a false baptism is just like false worship. It degrades the gospel. May people stop getting so hung up on heresy and search the Scriptures. The Roman system to begin with is a damnable heresy. The only ones saved are the ones getting saved outside of the Roman system and being delivered from Roman universalism. It doesn’t matter about opposing views either. The Scripture is inflexible. Inerrant, immutable, unchangeable. Man’s best guess is the crux of the problem and that is explained in Proverbs 16:25.

@carmensiekierke3579 3 года назад

Paul......"baptism comes by a choice of a saved person as an act of obedience" Paul, that's the Baptism position, not the position of Reformed covenant theology. Baptism is not a " testimony" of your faith. Mormonism is a cult with a false Jesus. The Roman Catholic church has the right Jesus ( Trinity) but as of the Council of Trent is an apostate church. Neither Martin Luther or John Calvin were re-baptized.

@paulseano5100 3 года назад

Is there an echo in here? I just said that very thing and baptism is an act of obedience and without faith a person won’t get baptized Scripturally. You twisted things around. Of course Mormonism is a cult and so is Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is a theological cult. Point is is that all baptisms outside of the Christian Church and the Godhead are not Biblical baptisms. Think about it. The Council of Trent violates everything about Biblical Christianity. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation but an act of obedience as a result of a person’s honoring God. Without getting caught up in any form of legalism, the point is is that one get baptized as an act following conversion. Don’t overthink this issue. There are many cloudy views out there but the Scriptures are crystal clear. The Lord bless.

@carmensiekierke3579 3 года назад

@@paulseano5100 The Roman Catholic church is an APOSTATE CHURCH........It is not a theological cult. You don't know the difference between a cult and an apostate church? Paul, I am not " overthinking this issue." The Westminster Confession of Faith is not legalism. It is not a " cloudy view." Your position is the Baptist position. ....and it is a position held ONLY by Baptists.

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

Where did Jesus say that there must be an age requirement for baptism?

@georgepierson4920 3 года назад

@@paulseano5100 Where did Jesus say that there must be an age requirement for baptism?

@dr.k.t.varughese3151 3 года назад

Nether you nor is he entitled to answer it unless both of you are holy and have the highest level of wisdom.

@kaycee625 3 года назад

Oh dear 🤦‍♀️

@PatrickSteil 3 года назад

The Roman catholic church condemned and anathematized the gospel? Last I checked they condemned in anathematized the man-made ideas of Martin Luther and the reformers. Is he equating Martin Luther with the gospel itself? I have studied the Catholic Church in Deb’s for the last year and a half in a come to the conclusion that they are the true church who actually follows with the Bible says. The protestants have taken the scripture out of context because they refuse to look at the whole Truth. This statement by RC Sproles is the most incomplete and inaccurate and slanted and hateful message towards all Catholics. Do you know what the Catholic position is on protestants? The Catholic Church says that they are all separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They do not declare them in heresy even though they won hundred percent are. The Catholic Church is not afraid of the truth. I invite any of you reading this to study Catholic teaching. Not from the mouths of anti-Catholic’s like RC sprawl’s but actually pick up a book of the Catholic Catechism and read what they actually teach. You will be shocked and amazed at the Wonder the Beauty and the completeness in fullness of the truth found there.

@brahtrumpwonbigly7309 3 года назад

So your position is that the Catholic church lies about protestants being in heresy? That's a very weak point to make. Now, by your own arguement, the Catholic church is one that refuses to speak the whole truth from their point of view for whatever reason. That's not Biblical in the least. If protestants are in heresy they should make it known.

@Bibliotechno 3 года назад

Don't know how anyone can be enticed into this mysticism. I do think it's enchanting in a way. The smells and bells are enticingly dramatic. But how can anyone think seriously of all that tradition. Eg dying wearing the scapular of Mary gets you into heaven by the next Sabbath, etc.

@mitchellthurner5980 3 года назад

The Catholic Church has clearly and unambiguously declared Protestants heretics. Keep studying my friend

@gordonculp8364 3 года назад

bad boy. thats 10 hail marys! 40 our fathers. hold the rosary tight( mary will hear you better) and kiss her statue's toe for extra blessings.

@PatrickSteil 3 года назад

@@brahtrumpwonbigly7309 Did I say that the Catholic Church lies? Why would you put words into my mouth? Why don't Protestants believe in Charity, especially towards other believers? >> the Catholic church is one that refuses to speak the whole truth from their point of view 1) What is your very best example of this? 2) "from their point of view" - Here is the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestant ideas - the "catholic church" (universal church) teaches only the Truth as it was taught by Jesus, recounted in the New Testament Books which they established (stop quoting from the book the Catholic Church canonized if Catholics are so evil) and then passed down directly from the Disciples, to the early Apostles who became the Early Church Fathers and then held to the "orthodox" Christian beliefs for 1500 years before the "reformers" decided all of that was "incorrect" - that God and His Holy Spirit had let the Church be in error for 1500 years, but they - they had the "real truth"... >> That's not Biblical in the least. In my studies so far, I see that the most important protestant ideas are not-biblical: - Sola Scriptura - not a single Scripture that says that Scripture is the ONLY Authority. If this had been practiced for the first 400 years of the Christian Church, we would ONLY have the Old Testament scripture. - Sola Fide - show me any relationship ever where you can profess your love for someone and that does not turn into you dying to your self and "working" toward an increase in that relationship every day. The scripture is very clear that our Faith requires works or it is DEAD. - Lord's Supper - How any protestant can honestly read John 6 where Jesus is giving us a new Passover meal and replacing the old sacrifice of the lamb with his own Body and argue he just meant it was a symbol is MIND BOGGLING. He says it over and over, This is my body, unless you eat my body, this is a new covenant, unless you eat of my body you have no life in you. He never corrected those who walked away saying this is too hard a teaching. Is it too hard for you? Do you believe in the miracles such as: God created the entire universe? God created His people? God sent his Son to earth? Jesus healed miraculously? Jesus rose from the dead after he was crucified? Why in the WORLD then would you then think that Jesus cannot bless the Bread and Wine and turn them into his Body and Blood so that we might fully participate in his Sacrifice that he started at Holy Thursday and told his Disciples to "do this in remembrance of me"? The Catholic Church takes Jesus at his word and doesn't try to change it into something that "makes more logical sense" or is "more reasonable". ALL OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE ENTIRE CHURCH FOR 2000 YEARS HAS BELIEVED THIS ABOUT THE EUCHARIST. If they did, and they are right, you must at least avoid any heresy that denies this.

@matthewbroderick6287 2 года назад

Why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors like RC Sproul, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures! The false teachings of RC Sproul, have made me a stronger Catholic Christian! RC Sproul I'd in my prayers as he journeys toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@Yesica1993 Год назад

You claim the "infallible Holy Scriptures" but you follow the Catholic religion?

@matthewbroderick6287 Год назад

@@Yesica1993 I follow both,,as Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink