Several others have pointed out that the context around Acts 2:39 indicates "children" is referring to descendants rather than literal young humans, let alone babies. Sure enough, the original Greek used is "τέκνοις", which effectively translates to "children, offspring, descendants". It has no regard for sex or age in any of its usages. Besides which, there is no explicit depiction of infant baptism within the NT anyways. I am not personally against infant baptism. If a church wishes to do it, there's no real harm as far as I can tell. However I am not convinced that it is necessary compared to that of a discerning, mature believer.
So EVERY time the Bible mentions that someone's entire family/household was baptized, there were adult living with their parents? But at that time, basically everyone got married very young, while they were still teenagers, and left their parents' house. That to me is pushing the envelope too much. So since the beginning of the Church, EVERYONE was wrong (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and even the Puritans) they were all performing the sacrament of baptism wrong and the Holy Spirit therefore failed greatly to guide believers into the truths until the modern age? Sorry, but to me the cumulative evidence of Scripture and Tradition for paedobaptism is much stronger than the evidence for credobaptism and I will not deprive my children of the blessings of the covenant.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Multi-generational families were not uncommon up until contemporary history, especially outside of the West. Besides which, it would make more sense for teenagers to have received baptism in a household rather than infants, as they also could marry during those years. Appealing to church tradition is a flimsy argument as no church is infallible. Even those started by the Apostles were often susceptible to false doctrine, which is why we even have the New Testament. The Holy Spirit gave the Apostles power and discernment and even they fell prey to error at times, as seen with Paul needing to rebuke Peter for Judaizing (Galatians 2:11-14). Becoming a believer does not exonerate you from the influence of sin, only its consequences. You still need to resist your own flesh as it continues to breathe on this earth (Romans 7:14-25). If you believe that the scriptural evidence for paedobaptism is stronger, then please show it to me rather than making an empty claim. You can absolutely dedicate your children to Christ and His covenant, but if you think this guarantees their salvation then you are making an appeal to mere works (Matthew 3:11; 1 Peter 3:21).
@@denkillen It is one thing to say that Churches and traditions can be wrong, any Protestant would say that, but quite another to say that the entire Church has been wrong, without exception, from the beginning about the sacrament of Baptism, and that it is only during the modern age that the Holy Spirit revealed to his people the right way to baptize. This is a very low view of the Spirit. The reformers didn't say that (that's why they were all paedobaptists, except the Anabaptist). I do not believe that Baptism guarantees the salvation of my children, but it is a means of grace, just like hearing the Word of God, praying and having communion with the Church, and these are blessings for everyone, even if they are only totally effective for believers. Regarding the evidence of Scripture, if you watch the video I think Redeemez Zoomer has already made a good point lacing the verses and making the associations.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 The church at large has been debating various questions of doctrine since day one, most revolving around the nature of the Trinity and hypostatic union. The mainline churches often took arguably heterodox positions to combat outright heresies, and there would be no reason to assume a lack of genuine faith in them because of it. Paedo vs. credo baptism by comparison is such a minor issue (no pun intended). I would never go as far to say that we've only now figured it all out as if this were the enlightenment. However it is just as spurious to think that the church had it all figured out early on. This would be tantamount to claiming to fully understanding God, thus making His word and power unnecessary in this world. I've already explained the error in Redeemed Zoomer's argument. I don't see his position as heretical, but he seems to be starting from Presbyterian tradition and attempting to vindicate it with scripture rather than starting from the latter. Denominations and their respective traditions can often become distractions or outright idols if not tested against the Word, just as happened with the Pharisees.
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her, *so that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word*, that he might present to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless." - Eph 5:25-27 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." - Titus 3:5-7
@@redeemedzoomer6053Believers Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. (Complete defence) - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those 1 Peter 3:21 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ( notice how it says ANSWER OF GOOD CONSCIENCE, which a infant can't do) - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven. - one of the most important text is Hebrew. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Without faith it is impossible to please God & if someone is coming to must believe that He is. And babies can't do that they can believe because their brain is not developed yet. (There no such pratice as infant Baptisim in Judaism. John the Baptist Baptisim adults "Saying believe the One coming after me" which is Lord JESUS, and most importantly Lord Jesus Christ Himself was Baptised at 30). _____ Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48. Acts 8:14-17 14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
The Didakia, which is a 1st century book, cleary shows that the earliest christians practiced infant baptism, and existed in an episcopal setting, even under persecution and in caves.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. The Didache Chapter 7 Please explain where in that it says to baptize infants
@@michhanesh5466The Didache prohibits giving the Eucharist to the unbaptized, and we know that it is an ancient practice to give the Eucharist to infants.
@@redeemedzoomer6053Believers Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. (Complete defence) - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those 1 Peter 3:21 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ( notice how it says ANSWER OF GOOD CONSCIENCE, which a infant can't do) - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven. - one of the most important text is Hebrew. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Without faith it is impossible to please God & if someone is coming to must believe that He is. And babies can't do that they can believe because their brain is not developed yet. (There no such pratice as infant Baptisim in Judaism. John the Baptist Baptisim adults "Saying believe the One coming after me" which is Lord JESUS, and most importantly Lord Jesus Christ Himself was Baptised at 30). _____ Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48. Acts 8:14-17 14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
I grew up in a Baptist church where I often heard the phrase "outward sign of an inward reality" used in discussions of baptism. However, around a year ago I started questioning this view when I realized I couldn't find that exact phrase or a similar one anywhere in Scripture.This led me to do more research into theology and the biblical covenants. As a result, my understanding grew significantly. In the end, I adopted a credobaptist position even while acknowledging the continuity between the Old and New Covenants (influenced by 1689 Federalism theology). While there is overall continuity, all agree there are also some discontinuities between the covenants (such as circumcision being only for males in the Old Covenant versus baptism being for both males and females now). Ultimately, what solidified my credobaptist view was Hebrews 7:22-25. This passage talks about how Jesus is a superior and perfect high priest and mediator compared to those under the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8 then explains that the New Covenant Jesus established is superior as well. Most importantly, Hebrews 7:25 states that through Jesus, God can "save forever those who come to God." This suggests to me that unlike the Old Covenant, one cannot be part of the New Covenant and later fall away. Whereas in the old system you could be part of visible Israel without being part of true Israel, Jesus fully saves all who are in the New Covenant. So logically, only those who have faith and are truly saved should receive the sign and seal of the New Covenant through baptism.
I find it funny how whenever redeemed zoomer makes a video about a certain denomination, the comments are filled with that denomination's response. Also as a 1689 i really like what you have to say
John 15 - “every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit he takes away” Luke 8 - “the ones (seeds which grow to plants) on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy” but we know what happens next Lastly - Romans 11 - “they were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear… continue in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be broken off” The covenant vine or tree is one that includes those who may or may not bear fruit and are at risk of being taken out of the covenant. These passages clearly teach that new covenant members can fall away. I should mention that I still believe in the perseverance of the saints. Those who have the Holy Spirit are sealed forever, but there are those who will be in the covenant family and yet fail. Lest you quote Jeremiah 31 - I believe this will be true in the long run, but for the moment we can all plainly see that people join the covenant community and fall away (credo or paedo).
@@thatguy5474 The promise is for all three of the groups listed, you, your children, those who are far off- as many as the lord will call. All three groups are given the same promise, “Repent and be baptized… and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”, not just be baptized, repentance is a necessary part of the sign. The promise is the same for all three groups, you, your children, all those who are far off.
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2:38-39 The gift spoken about here is the Holy Spirit. Your children does not need to mean your literal infants, it makes more sense in context to interpret this as "your descendents". This verse is talking about the universality of the Holy Spirit and of salvation, in opposition to the national exclusivity of the Old Covenant, not about whether or not the babes are supposed to get baptized.
This should be crystal clear. The promise is for the gift of the Holy Spirit after repenting in the name of Jesus. Let me repeat that… After repenting in the name of Jesus. It is a promise (with its necessary stipulation) made not only for those present, but also for future generations. Their children. And their children’s children for that matter. And so on. Their children will have the same promise provided they repent in the name of Jesus.
@@horsa8181 Most likely yes. The scripture is pretty cut and dry about what saves and what doesn't and baptism alone does not do such a thing. Though the subject of infants being exempt from judgement is worthy of its own discussion that I do not believe I am qualified to discuss fully, this is just my assumption from what I understand.
This doesn't address the point at hand, that verse 39 supports the idea that infants should be baptized. Also, in the book of Acts, there are still the household baptisms when the head of the house is baptized, which could possible be what happened here by simple inference.
When are babies ever mentioned as being a part of the "household baptisms"? Only those who beleived were a part of these baptisms: "And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31). "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8).
It's pretty much impossible to exclude small children and infants from the people of a household in a time way before contraception. If you look at e.g. Christian sects that prohibit condoms and such, the women tend to be pregnant pretty much all the time, because sexuality just happens to be such a strong thing. Also, ancient Greco-Roman custom was that the head of the household chose the religion for the whole household.
I'm Missouri Synod Lutheran and this video made me think of 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, (meaning corresponding to the fact God delivered Noah and his family from the Flood) 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." Chirst delivers us from sin, death, and the devil to Himself through Baptism. Therefore, I don't see how this promise doesn't apply to infants! Great video!!
yeah, thats why I can't stand them... imagine having the audacity to call yourself after the sacraments you refuse to administer correctly or to the proper subjects...
@@ShepherdMinistry 1. baptism is for believers AND their children 2. it's not immersion only, in fact effusion is the biblical method, immersion is no where mentioned. it's acceptable because it's water, but it's not the only or preferred method
In Acts 2 the promise being 'for you and your children' can obviously be interpreted as 'you and your descendants', since the previous discussion is about David and his descendants. Remember - read the entire chapter, yes? There is no example infant baptisms in the Bible. Comparing the baptism to circumcision is also dubious, since circumcision did nothing outside of marking one as a Jew - and many Jews who were circumcised were not faithful to God and did not become Christians.
People who get baptized when they understand are just as likely to not be Christians either, it's why Reformed churches tend to not do confession of faith until one is a late teenager.
@@jdkayak7868 My church did confession of faith as a late teenager and often neither the parents nor the teenager were actual believers. They just did it for the tradition (parents) and the presents (teenagers) and the legal matters (church). At least that was my takeaway. There may have been more sincere reasons behind everything, but it got never communicated and they also didn't make any difference between obvious non-Christians and Christians.
The Bible supports both. Depending on how you view the Abrahamic covenant. Covenant of only grace? Or grace and our works? It’s a hot topic with well respected theologians on either side. It’s a secondary issue to the overall church, but still important.
Despite still being Protestant myself, historical context/interpretations is at least equal to Scripture itself as being the best interpreter of Scripture imo.
@@danshakuimo Yeah, if you have any doubts on Scripture you have to find how literally everyone understood things. easy secular example "right to bear arms" can make the average modern English speaker second-guess if they had no access to what e these words always meant. It's carry weapons, not exposed limbs! Just a silly example.
And to make it better all the definitions of the word "child" that i've found include "from birth".U can refer as babies to ones between 0-3 years old if u want to but that doesnt make them different from children
@10:28 You mention that most Presbyterians withhold communion until people are mature believers and can make a profession of faith. Just wondering, what do you think about folks receiving communion when they are mentally disabled or incapable of articulating their faith? i.e. the elderly who have suffered a stroke, severe mental issues from genetics, etc. I imagine that theological knowledge, however basic, could be missing from someone. Shouldn't we still commune them since they are a part of the family of God? Also, I do understand your logic - Baptism == Citizenship and Communion == Mature Participation, but previously in the video you gave an example of how babies can have faith even in the womb. How does that make sense when you say that we should withhold communion until someone is mature in the faith? Is a child's faith to be regarded as lesser than an adult's faith? And if so, why? Is it because the adult may have dealt with temptations or may be more versed in theology? In my opinion, the child's faith (even though it may be less tested or knowledgeable) may be just as valid. Much respect to you sharing your perspective and beliefs on the matter, and apologies if this was answered in the video and I missed it. Thanks for your reading and consideration.
I can't speak for RedeemedZoomer, but I'd like to try a brief response. Man consists of three parts the body, the soul (which includes the intellect), and the spirit. These three should be regarded as independently active. What is going on in Communion and baptism does address itself to the body and the mind, but it is necessarily spiritual - if it isn't, then it has no meaning (you can eat bread and wine, or take a bath, at home). Somebody who has not got a completely fit body can be baptised and take communion because it is spiritual. Somebody who has not got a completely fit mind can be baptised and take communion for the same reason. Somebody who has not got a completely fit spirit should under no circumstances go through either of these. Differently from baptism, the Communion is part of the regular worship of the church. Baptism is the start of your Christian life, and then everything else - worship, Christian life, and so on - is built on this foundation. All these things, which can be considered on physical or intellectual levels, gain a spiritual dimension, but the physical and intellectual is not to be ignored. Since the child has not yet reached maturity, whether physical, intellectual, or spiritual, they require education and practice in the things of Christ as much as they require education and practice in the things of the world. Any minister may call the children of his congregation to come up and take communion from time to time if he likes, but it is not the children's decision as to whether or not they take communion until they have reached maturity - of behaviour, understanding, and desire for the spiritual blessings. This is achieved by the pastoral care of the ministries and the parents, and doesn't happen overnight.
I go to a baptist church, and never really understood why people think you should baptize babies. This video has helped me see the other side. Thank you.
I wasn't baptized as a baby (raised in a heretical cult) but as an adult. It meant so much to me, to consecrate my faith in a public, Lutheran Church, baptism.
Classic Presbyterian "reads" Acts 2:39 and stops right when it says "children" and doesn't understand that even a pair of 32 year olds can also be called someone's "children", and that words doesn't necessarily HAVE to mean infants. Especially when the Presbyterian refuses to acknowledge all the parts of the Bible that state that baptism is a sign of walking in your faith in Christ and affirming your already established belief in Him, and newborn babies can not speak, much less profess their belief in Him in order to then be baptized.
Someone did not watch the video. Hmm... so let's ignore every time the Bible mentions that someone's entire family/household was baptized, considering the context of the time that "family/household" meant parents and children. Or do you believe that in the context of that time, when young people were getting married as teenagers, we had 32-year-old adult children living with their parents?. Let's pretend that there is no continuity between circumcision in the Old Testament and Baptism in the New Testament, even though Colossians makes this connection explicit. Let us assume that since the beginning of the Church, everyone was wrong and that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and even the Puritans were all performing the sacrament of baptism wrong, the Holy Spirit therefore failed greatly to guide believers into the truths until the modern age. Sorry, but to me the cumulative evidence of Scripture and Tradition for paedobaptism is much stronger than the evidence for credobaptism and I will not deprive my children of the blessings of the covenant.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 The only "continuity" between circumcision and baptism was that both of them were signs of a person entering into a covenant with God. And nowhere in the New Covenant does it say that you need to dunk your newborn babies in water or sprinkle it on them. "Believe and repent". That's all Jesus says we need to do. Baptism is a sign of your faith in Him. That means that that faith needs to have existed beforehand. This means that you must already be a believer to want to be baptized. What does that sound like? Oh yeah. Believer's baptism. Newborn babies have not and can not show that they have believed from the womb. Therefore they have no business being baptized. What happens when you baptize that baby thinking they'll now believe forever and they grow up to be an atheist? Whoops, the baptism just didn't work?
@@chiebukachibee-zoraedu So then it's ultimately the parent's choice to baptize the child or not, right? It isn't Jesus working through it at all? Thank you.
I will say I am Baptist and still disagree with you, but I will say I understand your arguments and respect your opinion. Keep doing what you're doing, I love what you do.
Fun little story I’d like to share. My wife and her family all grew up in church and I did not. One time we were talking about baptism, and her younger brother said, “Psh, we’ve baptized each other so many times in the pool growing up that I’m sure we are covered in any denomination”. As someone who didn’t grow up doing that I found baptism pool parties hilarious 😂
Infant baptism was the last domino to fall in my journey leaving dispensational, baptistic arminianism to Confessional Reformed Covenant Theology. My wife and I decided to have all our children baptized on the same Sunday as an act of obedience to God and a symbol of our trusting His plan of salvation for our family. God be praised!
This is interesting I have spent some time thinking about this theme too. In my question to you, I am curious in the scenario if one were infant baptized but years later a similar church requires public baptism along with it even with rededication prior (implying a person has no issue with non public second baptism)? Similarly to previous address, I don't understand the importance of (symbolic) baptism treated exclusively treated more important and higher requirement for communion than the more literal profession faith and stating my faith to their vulnerable friends/christian peers and pastor.
Thank you! I've genuinely never been exposed to anything but dismissal and derision for infant baptism, and you're helping me become aware the world of Christendom outside my Bible Belt bubble. I'm not going to immediately rewrite my notion of baptism based on one RU-vid video of a dude playing Minecraft, but it's a matter I now intend to look into further.
I really don't get people who use Acts 2:38-39 to justify infant baptism. The command is to repent and be baptized, and the promise is that you will receive the Holy Spirit for doing so. But if an infant can't repent, then the "promise" doesn't apply. It would be like if I said "Study hard and get your degree, and you'll be able to make a good living - this is the promise of the American dream, for you and your children." No one would ever think that means your child should get a degree as an infant! It just means you can be sure that your child will be able to make a good living *once they study hard and earn their degree.* The same is true here - the promise is that your child will receive the Holy Spirit once they repent and are baptized. And they can't do that until they're old enough to understand sin and guilt and so on. That seems like the plain reading of the text to me.
I've seen it said that some sects believe that baptism can be performed on the deceased before burial. Can you please state your stance on this subject?
I was baptized as a baby but my family wasnt christian at the time i was baptized, nor did i become a christian until last year, so does my baptism count or do i have to get baptized?
"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”" -Acts 8:36-37 "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 "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 8:12 "So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized." Acts 16:31-33 Verses taken from NKJV. Zoomer, I think what you miss about Baptist's is that: Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it's right.
Thank you! I've been a Baptist all of my and I've never understood why higher churches put so much emphasis on infant baptism. I've been waiting for someone to point this out.
Is nobody gonna talk about how it says ‘REPENT and be baptized’? Personally, I don’t think that a baby can repent, but if you have a reasonable argument, please debate⬇️
Love your videos. The work you are doing to help protect and restore mainline churches is second to none. Now, onto the criticism lol. As I’ve gotten more historically-minded from my very anti-traditional upbringing, I still do not understand the appeal of the Presbyterian tradition. Presbyterians do not preserve enough to really claim continuity with tradition (like the Lutherans and Anglicans) and they don’t go all in to actually change the doctrines to the more obvious conclusions (like the Baptists). I find the arguments for infant baptism to be very weak and mostly an argument from silence (of course household could include children, but all the saved people could also be speaking in tongues the moment they get saved per my Apostolic friends). If I wanted the tradition, I would be Lutheran; I don’t understand where this tradition fits in. As a note, obviously I think there are brilliant theologians in the Presbyterian tradition, this has nothing to do with that.
Bruh you are WAY more competent at making a biblical case for pedobaptism than some pastors. I have seen a video of a Lutheran Brazilian pastor where he was so nervous at the video that he couldn't make a single scriptural quote along the video, he just vaguely said that "babies can have faith", he didn't even make the case that baptism saves. I mean, I was raised credobaptist; now I want to stay Pentecostal but I am open to paedobaptism, but if one doesn't teach me how to certify that it is valid, I will just let my kids grow unbaptized. That's not really my case, but it could be the case of many Non-Denoms, Pentecostals and Baptists who are not willing to interchange with other Christian traditions. And congrats, you make a better case for breaking the wall.
No, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16, other verses from Acts 2:36-47, Acts 8:32-40, Acts 19:1-10 and Acts 22:1-2. Baptism is for the one who believes and repents of their sins, also means that baptism is essential for salvation.
Credobaptist here, just wanted to tell a funny story. Despite my background, I did an internship over the summer with an Episcopal church, and one Sunday I came in to witness an infant baptism (I had never been to one before). When the priest went to anoint the little girl’s head, she squealed and tried to squirm away, and the priest said “nope, you’re not getting out of this.” Every Baptist bone in my body was screaming😂 there were a lot of things I actually appreciated about the ceremony, but that moment really stuck with me. Even though I don’t consider infant baptism invalid, I just don’t see a world where I could bring myself to baptize a baby (I’m working on my MDiv right now).
I agree with most things in this video except for “babies can have true faith” because that verse that you brought up is not talking about a personal, conscious faith in God. It is clearly talking about an instinctual faith in God through relying on one’s mother as an infant. By that definition, all infants who have mothers or mother like figures have faith in God.
If Salvation is through faith alone, then I do not see any conceivable way that baptism could make you a member of the Kingdom of God. I don't think there is necessarily anything immoral about baptizing infants, but they are incapable of faith, the only way to Christ. Make it make sense man.
We are continually being renewed, forgiven, and saved every day of our Christian life. We are only saved by faith as you've already said. But that does not mean God doesn't bless us with his salvific gifts in other ways. St Paul describes salvation as a past, present, and future reality. Therefore whenever I confess my sins, I receive the benefits of the cross. When I am baptized, I receive the benefits of the cross. When I take the Lord's Supper, I receive the benefits of the cross. I cannot receive any of this without faith. So what's the difference between a deathbed convert and someone with a whole lifetime of faith, confession, their baptism, and the Lord's Supper? Both are equally saved. The only difference is that the latter individual received more blessings of God in their time on earth. So faith saves. And baptism saves those who have faith, whether prior to or after the baptism. And the Lord's Supper saves those who have faith. Also, infants indeed can have faith. Faith is solely the work of God, not cognitive ability or comprehension.
Do you know of a factual historically accurate book or web page on the history of the Church of England that lists their doctrinal beliefs & when they were ever modified??
Another thing I’ve noticed among evangelicals is that baptisms are used to evangelize to the family and friends of the baptized. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just interesting to think about!
Thank you for keeping this vital topic front and center. If there is to be a revival of genuine Christianity it will entail the correct understanding of baptism which certainly includes infants. I am glad that Young Anglican and you are stressing this doctrine.
Id like to hear your oppinion on confessional. Is this something Protestants are lacking? As a Protestant I'm interested in the mystery of confession. Cant hurt...
@@RhoDesia-gr1wbThat's common, but not what he's talking about. Basically he wants to know about the Catholic sacrament of confession where a person goes to the priest and tells him about their sins and the priest absolves the guy of his sin, and then he has to go pray a certain amount of rosaries or something to do penance
Read Hebrews.. It will clear up a lot of this confessional thing. Jesus is our High priest, our mediator for us to the Father. We go to Him to confess our sins. No one else.
As a Lutheran, Confession is a part of every (liturgical) service. Today's Protestants are seriously lacking this. Jesus has given us the Keys to the Kingdom, the ability to pronounce through his given authority whether someone is forgiven or unforgiven. It is not as if we are deciding in place of Christ but more so passing along his decree from the heavenly throne. How intimate it is to hear someone saying "By Christ's authority I forgive you all of your sins".
@@runictellings1536 I agree with this 99%. However, in James 5:16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." (read the whole last bit of James, it's really good and backs this up) In this text, isn't he calling on sins to be confessed to others, even if not done directly to others? Not trying to be argumentative just curious. I'll read Hebrews.
Love the video and am myself raised in a non-denominational (baptist beliefs mostly) household and faith. I’ve been looking into this a lot and wonder how you interpret 1 Peter 3:21 “ ”and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,“ It seems here baptism is more a symbol, a pledge to God
I’m not Catholic or Orthodox or oriental orthodox so I’m not trying to ask a gotcha question but I’m just curious, I’ve heard a argument that was originally said by an atheist that would not work against a faith with a church but might work against Protestantism. Basically the argument goes why would God reveal himself through scripture if scripture can be misinterpreted, for example in Genesis Abraham curses Ham which was for a time interpreted by some Christian’s as a reason to support racism and slavery against African Americans. Nowadays this isn’t thought really at all anymore as that is obviously not what the bible meant by that verse there’s no way a loving God could have meant that but the argument is if scripture can be miss interpreted to the point where things like slavery are being by justified why would God allow that if he is all knowing and all loving. This could be explained with the existence of a church as that means God left behind something to interpret these things so stuff like that can’t happen but because Protestants believe sola scriptora how can they explain this without the use of a church. Again just a question that I was curious about love your vids
Baptism is new Circumcision, so no its not thing you should do in adult, yes Jesus was baptized as Adult but bible later say baptise enyone, not just adults
I never thought I would, but I recently changed my belief on baptism and am now a paedobaptist. Paul says the gospel was first preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8) not only was Abraham to receive the sign of the covenant, but he was to give it to his children because they were also part of God’s covenant people. We know what has changed in the new covenant, because we are told. We are not told that the children of believers are no longer included among God’s covenant people. In fact, we have reason to believe in continuity, besides the silence on the issue. We are told that a child of at least 1 believer in a marriage is holy, otherwise they would be unclean. We also have clear passages that teach eternal security but also have clear passages about falling away. Once you believe you are eternally secure, but people born into the covenant community can fall away. Since children are still included in the covenant community they should receive the sign of the covenant, which is now baptism.
“Repent and be baptized” Babies can’t repent therefore cannot be baptized. I’m pretty sure people interpret it this way because they fear babies going to hell. Which makes no sense because Jesus told the Pharisees that if they were blind they would be without sin but because they say they can see they are guilty. A baby isn’t capable of knowing right from wrong so it is not getting sent to hell. God isn’t slam dunking infants into hell because someone else didn’t choose to baptize them.
The church I went to they did infant baptism. There the baptism is mostly about church membership, at least according to what I've heard and how they behaved. With church membership in this context I mean the earthly organizational structure (Swiss Zwingli state church). Many of these church members don't belief in God. Neither the parents nor the children up to the point I got to know them. For them it is just some cultural tradition. I wouldn't have gone to the church if the pastors weren't Christian as well as the people I interacted with, but it didn't really paint a picture of infant baptism being a valid thing. And they also had the concept of confirmation. This means at the age of 16 they turn adult in the view of that church. And then they had to confirm that baptism they did as a baby. And most teenies just did it because the parents told them and they got presents. If the definition of baptism has something to do with salvation then the concept of confirmation undermines that concept. So I'm curious what your opinion is in my example. Where is the line drawn? For example there are plenty of state churches where none of the parties involved are Christians and all of it is just tradition. Is that still a valid baptism?
The reason why we (Baptists) turn to passages talking about faith is because the covenant is and has always been of faith (read Hebrews) thus baptism as a sign of the covenant is a sign of faith. I also think back to the passage where Jesus says to the jews that they are not children of Abraham, but children of the devil because they do not follow God's commands. So even in the "old" covenant you were not simply counted a recipient of the promises by birth or circumcision. Faith is an essential aspect of Christianity, so I don't think we should mark non-christians (those without faith) with the sign of baptism.
I can't see how Acts 2:38-39 is in any way valid argument in this discussion. What can I see from "The promise is for you and your children..." is a way to say "For you and your progeny". Rest of the argumentation though is more valid and I can agree with it.
I would say that infant baptism is fine. It doesn't really hurt the baby and generally speaking, babies have faith in their parents because that's kinda all they know and if their parents have faith in God, then the children through that would be saved, much like you would be through believing in a priest who believes in scriptures of apostles who believed in and knew Jesus. I would also say in case of circumcision it's a bit different because a circumcision, especially a botched one could make you lose faith in your parents and god out of bitterness, which would be worse for you than not having gone through it at all, however there's no such thing as a botched baptism, save by being baptised by a heretic, in which case you could do a second one to be absolutely sure. In the end, I would see that credobaptism makes the assumption that you can't have true faith until you're mature enough to do so, which to my experience is false. It's in fact when you're young that you have lots of faith but little understanding and if you needed to be a theologian to be saved, only priests would go to heaven.
In addition to being effective, baptism is the sign of the new covenant in the way that circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. Circumcision was given to infants, thus bringing them into the old covenant. The new covenant is better in every way than the old covenant, so it follows that infants must be admitted into it as well.
I had a friend who was and is very against infant baptism then he learned from his parents he was baptized as an infant. He finally chose to be baptized in his mid twenties, there was a few people baptized with him one of whom was a child probably around 10 being baptized. She spoke very well about her faith in God but after the service he was still like (too early) like my brother in Christ do you want people to know Jesus or don’t you? 😂😂😂
I think both credobaptists and anabaptists should be far more cautious with strongly asserting their view as the correct one. I don't think the scriptures are as clear or definitive as either side claims. The historical argument in favour of anabaptism is also muddied by the existence of many, many great and faithful saints who were against it - one of the earliest we know of being Tertullian. It was not practiced consistently across all the Catholic and Apostolic churches within the true faith. "The promise is to you and your children *and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call*" (Acts 2:39). You can't exactly baptise pre-conceived babies, so this does undermine the verse as supporting infant baptism Now the whole household being baptised is an interesting detail. In Roman times, each family (and this is not the nuclear family, but more like the extended family/tribe) would be united under one head of the household, and under one/several household gods. When someone marries into a family, they marry into those household gods. And when the head of the household changes religion, everyone else follows suit. So an entire household being baptised is a Roman practice and does support the idea of baptism as an outward symbol of covenant unity rather than a believing confession of faith. The issue really does come down to what baptism actually is. Is it a covenant sign like circumcision? Well yes, everyone - including Baptists - believe this. The issue is what you consider the kingdom of God. Is the kingdom of God everyone who identifies as a Christian, or is it the true believers who will be justified on the last day? The Jews were born always a Jew - there was nothing they could do to not be a Jew aside from marrying out of Judaism. This is because the covenant was one of hereditary adoption - God promised a covenant to Abraham's ethnic people. But for the new covenant, we are the spiritual people of Abraham for "if you belong to Christ, you are Abraham's seed" (Gal. 3:29). Because of the idea of original sin, no one is naturally a Christian until they repent and believe. That is, until those who are foreknown are called into the faith and justified by Christ's blood (Rom 8:30). And we see this idea of calling all throughout the bible. The calling of Abraham by God into the promised land. The calling of the 12 into Jesus' community of faith. There is a strong precedent for calling into faith being the point at which a believer is saved - a spiritual calling of action into repentance and faith. While John the Baptist is given the spirit while he is a baby, I would be very hesitant to apply this to all Christians. JtB is special within the kingdom of God, he is "Elijah the prophet", "the voice of one calling in the wilderness" (John 1:23), and there is a separation between him and those within the kingdom, as Jesus said "whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he[JtB]" (Matt. 11:11). The idea that you could be born a Christian is not well supported by the Pauline doctrines of salvation and faith, which strongly emphasise the former "un-Christianity" of our flesh - for "there is no one righteous, not even one" (Psalm 14:1, cf. Rom 3:12). If baptism represents the true covenant community of Christ, then it ought not to be given to the children of believers, as most of them have not been called into the true covenant community (in the west around 3/4 of believer's children renounce Christ in their adulthood). Even if we're ignoring "western individualism", the group of the covenant community itself needs to be carefully considered. There was a great conflict between the Catholic church and the Donatists, the latter of which considered that no false believers should be permitted in the church. Ultimately, we determined that it was only God who could tell the "wheat from the chaff" (Matt 13:24-30) and that both exist within the church. This is why we baptise those who have shaky faith, for it is for God to separate the believers and unbelievers - for us we are to encourage and strengthen one another. This is why I see there being room for infant baptism despite being a credobaptist. Although I have not fully explored all the arguments and all the logic, so I am open to both sides
According to this logic then, if we receive the Holy Spirit by baptism then anyone who is baptized as a baby has the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9-10 supports that those who have the Holy Spirit belong to Jesus. This defines that those who belong to Jesus have the Holy Spirit. So if Infant Baptism gives the Holy Sprit, then explain why these individuals (to o my name a few, this list goes on and on) were all baptized as babies and turned out how they did: Hitler Moussilini Stalin Fidel Castro Maximilien Robespierre
Sprinkling water on a baby of either gender is not the same thing as circumcision (just ask, oh, anyone who's ever participated in those two acts). And what if the male baby is actually circumcised? Can he forego the sprinkling altogether? If a circumcised boy IS to be baptized, then when? Perhaps like a bar mitzvah, when he's old enough (13) to understand something of what he's participating in? Jesus himself almost certainly would have been recognized as "bound by the law" beginning at age 13, after his first Yom Kippur fast. But then, famously, HE was only baptized by John at age 30.
Believers Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. (Complete defence) - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those 1 Peter 3:21 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ( notice how it says ANSWER OF GOOD CONSCIENCE, which a infant can't do) - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven. - one of the most important text is Hebrew. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Without faith it is impossible to please God & if someone is coming to must believe that He is. And babies can't do that they can believe because their brain is not developed yet. (There no such pratice as infant Baptisim in Judaism. John the Baptist Baptisim adults "Saying believe the One coming after me" which is Lord JESUS, and most importantly Lord Jesus Christ Himself was Baptised at 30). _____ Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48. Acts 8:14-17 14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
The problem with the argument of “the Bible never says that it’s a personal decision” is what we call an exact wording fallacy. No, the Bible doesn’t use the phrase “Baptism is a personal decision,” but it doesn’t say that it’s not. If you’re looking for exact wording that’s spelled out, you’re not going to find it one way or the other. So instead, we must use theology and reasoning to deduce what the nature of baptism is. You used Acts 10 as an example. However, this passage hurts your argument more than it helps. Cornelius and his family first receive the Holy Spirit, then are baptized. How is it that one can receive the Holy Spirit and not be saved? Is it then a baptism by water that is the outward expression of the Spirit which has filled those who are already saved? And what then are we to make of Romans 10:9-10? It doesn’t say that those who are baptized with water are saved, but rather those who profess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. So if baptism does not save, how then does infant baptism preserve? Is it not the Spirit which moves and Christ who saves? How does baptism by water in any sense preserve an infant if it does not save an adult? Rather it is the mercy of God by which we are saved and as such, by God’s mercy that those who cannot make the decision are preserved. We see this idea expressed in Romans when Paul talks about those who are not under the law not being held to the law. But rather those who do the law without having heard the law are counted among the righteous. Seeing as babies are unable to do the law or go against it, they are not under the law. Once one is aware of the law, they are under it and as such must be saved from their sins. However, as Romans 2 says, each will be repaid according to their works and for a baby, one who is incapable of doing any works, will have nothing counted against them
Hi Zoomer, great video. But i would like to know is youre baptism valid If you where baptized in a heretical group, that was the case with my baptism. I would really like to hear youre thaughts on that, and also the thaughts of the other people in the comment section.
@@eliasmuller5885 You should be baptized in a church that confesses and truly believes the Nicene creed, not because the creed saves, but because they have a more biblical view of God (especially about Christ)
Below are the verses given as evidence for infant baptism and my commentary on them in relation to the video: Acts 2:37-40 "37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 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. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." If we look at a bit more context it can be shown that he was saying for all those asking and standing there able to listen to be baptized in the name of Jesus. The promise seems to exist for everyone (them, those who are afar off, and yes their children too) regardless of when. This verse does not thus seem to support infant baptism in and of itself. Acts 16:14-15 "14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." It does not give ages or explicit information on whether or not those within the house all made the conscious personal decision to be saved or not. This, too, is not a verse that can be used to explicitly support infant baptism. Acts 16:29-34 "29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 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." This verse does not give ages or explicit information on whether or not those within the house all made the conscious personal decision to be saved or not. This, too, cannot be used to explicitly support infant baptism. Romans 4:9-12 "9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." These verses do not tie circumcision to baptism, and thus cannot be used to explicitly support that the idea of baptism being apart of salvation itself. This also does not seem to indicate that the details of circumcision and why it is done passes from the old to the new covenant. Colossians 2:8-15 "8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: "11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also *_ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead._* 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." Although circumcision is tied together with baptism here, it sounds like both are occurring because of a deliberate faith. (the area that makes it seem as such has been highlighted) From all the above I don't think you have any evidence from these passages to support infant baptism.
@@__-tn6hw but you didn’t say it was forbidden. In an era when it was expected that many children would die in infancy, it makes no sense to not do infant baptism
Infant baptism is so important. We know it saves via sanctifying grace. You can see the fruit of baptism in all the lapsed Christians who eventually revert to the faith. I truly believe that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, and that if you stray from the faith, the graces bestowed at baptism can help to lead you back to the flock. The young generations are being raised in a culture that is incredibly hostile toward religion, particularly Christianity, so the reality is that many young people will buy into the lies and apostatize. Give them a fighting chance to find their way back. Baptize them as infants.
If you think that Infant Baptism is effective, then you've never been to the UK. So many people just get their children baptised, even when they have no faith. It's just a customary thing now. It's just like circumcision used to be in the US, done for the sake of 'that's what had been done before, so I'll do it for my child'. It's done for all the wrong reasons, and it it evidently thoroughly ineffective at helping people gain or maintain faith judging by the dwindling number of christians, and the aging congregations.
In my environment the people who are baptized as infants don't seem to be better off than the ones who didn't and still grew up with Christian parents and did a baptism once they were older. Do you have any statistics that show that infant baptism causes more lapsed Christians compared to non-infant baptism?
@@philippbrogli779 I’m not arguing that those baptized as infants are less likely to lapse than those not baptized until they’re older. I do think that baptized Christians are less inclined to lapse than unbaptized Christians, though, and that baptized Christians who have lapsed are more inclined to revert than their unbaptized counterparts. I don’t have any evidence apart from personal anecdotes. People who revert to the Faith often say their baptism played a role. It makes sense. If we believe that baptism is a conduit of grace, then it has deep spiritual effects on the human soul.
@@MarianMetanoia If it has any salvific contribution then we would expect to see that. I personally have never noticed that, but I'm also aware that what I see is not enough to make any definite statement about it.
I'm not the best at biblical arguments, but one refutation I could make against infant baptism would be Mark 16:16. Jesus does not say "He who is baptized and believes" but "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." The belief must come first before the baptism has any effect. To baptize an infant would, In my interpretation, be putting the horse before the cart. Another argument is that baptism is described as being "for the remission of sins." Infants are incapable of sin, and baptism would only have effect if there was Original Sin. However, I do not believe this to be the case, in light of scripture such as Ezekiel 18, or Jeremiah 31:29-30.
As a Mormon,(I know we're not considered Christian, but that's a whole other thing), we believe in baptism at age 8. Children are innocent and have no accountability. Their parents are held accountable for their transgressions as children are still learning. If children die before they are baptized, they are considered spotless and sinless. Idk why we have 8 as the age. Baptism is not there to signify your dedication or fealty to church. It is a covenant promise between you and God. After you're baptized, you take the sacrament weekly at church to renew that baptismal covenant and to forgive your sins.
What gets me about this is 1. there is clearly different opinions, even between people who baptize adults. There are people who are adamant that if you aren't fully submerged, you aren't baptized. 2. Nobody has claimed that you aren't saved if you are born-again, but not baptized or not "correctly" baptized. Yes, we should be baptized, but even those who will argue tooth and nail, won't say you aren't saved because your baptism was "faulty". So why argue about it and sow such division about something God didn't give strict rules about and that doesn't affect someone's salvation? Is it just to prove you are right? If you think people who are born-again, but only baptized as infants, aren't saved, then start sounding the alarm. If however you think even someone with a faulty baptism can be saved, stop arguing about it.
One thing i dont understand is that baptism forgives sins. for an infant there are really no sins yet to forgive and if it means future sins then what if they arent christian as an adult. and if baptism is required for salvation than whst if someone repents and believes but dies before being baptised? for forgiving sins and for salvation, being washed clean, that would happen through belief and the holy spirit, since belief and repentance is Gods free gift.
with communion, taking it without faith is condemnation, what is baptism without faith then? do you have citizenship in the kingdom but not be allowed in? It just doesnt make sense
The thief on the cross didn't get the chance to get baptized but was allowed entry into heaven. A faithful Christian can die without being baptized. The exception should never be made the rule though. Baptism is part of our on-going justification, Jesus gave us the means of grace through the physical (the sacraments are his works, not ours) - just like how he healed the blind with dirt. Keep repenting.
@@CheekyHaggis I mean babies don’t have conscious sin as in breaking commandments, of course they have original sin. I do not believe that Mary was sinless though.
I believe in credobaptism because of Romans 6 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. That whole experience of death and rebirth was profound to me when I decided to be baptised as an adult, against my dad's wishes. I was pedobaptised into the Afrikaans Dutch Reformed church. I think a big reason that church went completely off the rails is because a bunch of people who considered themselves Christians because of being pedobaptised took the liberty of messing up the doctrine. It created a ethno-religion mentality and a lot of problems. At worst, I think pedobaptism happens because of parents who are unsure what would happen in the unfortunate event that their kids die young. I believe I can trust a God who is kind and merciful.
Your case is essentially “this one ethnic church went off the rails so it is unbiblical”? You mentioned Romans 6 briefly at the beginning but your argument seems to be much more contingent on the effects of the belief and how much you personally enjoyed your own personal experience of baptism, not the actual nature of the work itself.
@@dreadshells5611 How does the ability of a view to be misinterpreted invalidate that view? There are plenty of views that are easy to be misinterpreted but are in fact true. This is a silly line of argumentation.
@@Max-wy9hz My experience was not intended to be the basis of my theology, just to add a practical example of it in action. To expand on what I think about Romans 6...to me I read that baptism points to the spiritual reality of dying with Christ. I believe there is actual spiritual power in baptism and that doing it if the person being baptised has not died to sin and become alive in Him is pointless. From our side it is an act of obedience, from God's side he uses it for our benefit, communally it binds us together in that we have a shared experience and we have a physical event that we can remind each other of (e.g. Paul telling Timothy to remember when they laid hands on him, we can remind our friends of their baptisms we actually attended). I often don't labor explaining my interpretations when I quote scripture because I think my interpretation is obvious 😬
@@driaan_louw I would discourage you from assuming that others have the same interpretation as you do, these scriptures have been debated for millenia resulting in different perspectives. I think that Romans 6 is a very peculiar passage to affirm or disprove credo or paedo baptism given that it does not actually refer to the age of the baptized or anything about what is required of the individual. That chapter is illustrating how we as Christians are united to Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism. That being said, that passage is not particularly talking about infant baptisms. Even paedo-baptists would affirm that you do need a profession of faith for adult baptisms. So your line of argument that we need to die to sin before adult baptism is not one that is even contested, that’s not what paedo-baptists argue. The question is about infants and what their human condition is, and how the covenant of grace is to be extended to them. If I may ask, when you say that you believe baptism has “spiritual power”, what do you mean by that exactly?
The analogy you make with citizenship is, if anything, a point in favour of credobaptism rather than paedobaptism. You become a citizen of heaven by being born again, rather than being born biologically (John 3).
Since baptism is just a NT version of circumcision as a sign of the New Covenant, why does the rule of infant baptism also apply to females, that were not circumcised?
John 3:5 "unless a man..." man meaning anyone in mankind. Also males and females are baptized in the book of Acts. Why did it change to all? Because it's tied to remission of sins and having the christian faith. Circumcision was just a sign of having the faith of Abraham, baptism is a stronger and more important sign of being saved in Jesus and having sins remitted.
@Jordan-th3pr Yes, baptism definitely has more significance than circumcision. HOWEVER, you cannot relate and justify infant baptism by saying that is a parallel to circumcision.
