What Changed Your Mind on Baptism? | Doug Wilson
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2021
- In this episode of Ask Doug, Pastor Doug Wilson answers the question, "What changed your mind on baptism?"
Enjoying this video? Check out Doug's books, "Standing on the Promises" and "To a Thousand Generations" today!
canonpress.com/products/stand...
canonpress.com/products/to-a-...
Ask Doug is presented by Canon Press.
Enjoying this video? Check out Doug's books, "Standing on the Promises" and "To a Thousand Generations" today!
canonpress.com/products/standing-on-the-promises/
canonpress.com/products/to-a-thousand-generations/
Thank you for all you do! Do you have plans to make and release an audio of To a Thousand Generations?
Infant baptism is at best meaningless but at worst blasphemous because the infant could grow up into an adult that thinks they are saved because they were baptized as an infant. It happens all the time. I've personally known many people who believe such. As a result, they have no interest in the gospel. But some people would rather idolize their baby instead of sticking to the Word of God.
@@goodbuddy7607 OK? I can cook up a sob story too, it doesn't change what the Bible does and does not say.
Here we go:
Withholding the sign of covenant membership is dangerous as it teaches children that they are outside the promises of God and not a part of his covenant community, the church. They may grow up thinking that since the church rejected them all this time, they might as well reject the church themselves just as their church taught them to do.
Now, you might wonder how this makes sense, as it looks very little like how you think about baptism. Hold onto that thought for a moment, consider that a similar thought might come from your presbyterian brothers and feel just the same about how your sob story hypothetical is nonsense on the covenental view of baptism.
I don't understand why nearly every Baptist in these comments have defended their view by giving similar sob stories instead of engaging our actual view or making a positive case for their view from the Bible. It gives the impression that they can't do either.
So, is Doug saying that christian children (if raised biblically) will without fail perservere in faith?
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27.
I am reformed baptist (little letters) however RC Sproul's and Wilson's explanation of why they engage in infant baptism has given me a greater appreciation for that view. I do appreciate that, although I remain unconvinced and still baptist.
#metoo
Entire households were baptized in the New Testament. Who lives in households? Only adults who profess faith? Do not babies and children live in households?
Also, doesn’t God do the saving anyways? We certainly do not save ourselves.
@@JeanmarieRod While it is true that whole households were baptized as scripture describes, it is not as clear a statement on infant baptism as it would be if it simply said "the apostles baptized the babies", which it does not say. It leaves plenty of room for doubt on what actually happened.
Of course God does the saving, no one disagrees with that. If you think that baptists believe that baptism bring salvation then you don't understand baptists. We do not believe that.
@@karcharias811 My argument is that if God does the saving anyway, then why not just faithfully raise babies in the church as believers, including baptism?
@@karcharias811 Plus I know of plenty Armenian types, Baptist and other denominations also, who think they play a part in salvation. There are plenty of people who do not understand that God, and only God, does the saving.
Love Doug's openness about how he has worked through things over a lifetime of preaching and studying and living out his faith. Thanks Pastor Doug you're one of the good Shepard's appreciate it.🙏
czcams.com/video/ClXRAf_KJjc/video.html
This is why I'm still a Baptist. Exegesis must be textually driven, not driven by emotions. And with the exact same hermeneutics we use for every other doctrine. Follow these sound principles and you'll arrive safely and soundly at believers baptism.
@Phil Andrew Wow that's a really good point. I've always said that while baptists say us paedo's make an argument from silence, their argument seems like even more of an argument from silence. Your comment illustrates that well.
Doug Wilson explained logically, not emotionally, why he now believes in infant baptism.
It's very incorrect and insane to accuse the presbyterians of being driven by emotions when baptists and evangelicals place such high emphasis on a personal experience of the faith. That's the highest one can go as far as being driven by emotions.
Presbyterians do not argue from emotions. We argue from the bible.
"...for man judges the outward appearance, but the Lord judges the heart."
-1 Samuel 16:7
Amen. Circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit
What does this have to do with baptism?
@@sovereigngrace9723 Baptism is an outward expression of an inward faith. God does not judge according to water baptism. Only man tries to judge in such a crude manner. God judges the baptized by his heart.
@@domeretaylor4437 The Bible never says baptism is an an option or an “outward expression of an inward confession”. The Bible says it’s for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), to wash away sins (Acts 22:16), a burial with Christ (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12), circumcision of the heart (Col 2:11), and it saves us (1 Pet 3:20-21).
@@JivTurky1986 I agree with the Bible. But baptism of the Spirit is transformative while baptism in water is only an outward display of a Spiritual reality. The same with circumcision. Read the book of Hebrews for further details. Just like the physical act of circumcision can not save, the physical act of baptism can not indwell you with the spirit in of itself.
I really like Doug. I am in utter shock that he would not once mention any of the scriptures in this short discourse that tell us what baptism does, but instead cooks it all down to what his father believed and then further reduces baptism to our sign of commitment as a Christian for the world or at least a congregation to see. This is not a sound apologetic.
Perhaps he goes deeper into it in the full length video.
He wrote books about it! These videos are not meant to be comprehensive. But he certainly covers this extensively in his numerous writings.
There are many longer form works that get into the depths (no pun intended).
He answered the question. 🤷
The argument Doug is essentially putting forward is the one that ‘if you don’t find it in scripture, it therefore shouldn’t be practiced is not a logical argument’, is in itself as well not a logical argument.
He said that you can’t find in the scriptures how when he was 10 years old during a Christmas service he desired to be baptized, that is a false dichotomy. He built a straw man in order to tear it down.
No Baptist ever claims that a legitimate baptism is properly done by following a strict formulaic form; it’s not the form or incidentals that should be sought in order to adhere to biblical legitimacy.
What baptists DO declare and believe is that the person being baptized, HIMSELF comes forward with a desire to be baptized. That IS ABSOLUTELY in the bible. What I would like Doug to show me is where in the Bible anyone was forced to be baptized against their will, or even their knowledge for that matter.
The Bible is silent on the issue of whether or not baptism is for infants. The only other sign of faith in the Bible is circumcision. That sign of faith was for infants (and was done against their will). Since the NT is silent on the issue (there is no command either way), the conclusion is to adhere to the same formula for the new sign of faith. Thus infants are baptized.
@@jonathanvickers3881 "The only other sign of faith in the Bible is circumcision. " This is what you wrote. So much is wrong with this statement that I feel like suffice it to say, faith is not a 'doing' of something, faith is a 'believing' in something. To say that circumscision is a sign of faith by infants against their will, I'm sorry to say is ridiculous full stop. I'm sure you probably meant something else, so feel free to elaborate but if that is sincerely your argument, then I guess I'll simply bow out of this conversation.
@@jonathanvickers3881 In the old covenant, infants were born in the flesh and were circumcised.
In the new covenant, the 'infants' are infants in the faith who have been born into the Kingdom by faith. They are not our children born in the flesh. Children in the faith are baptized as a sign, but I see no connection whatsoever to children born (in the flesh) to Christian families.
" There is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that one might justify the introduction of infant baptism at the time of the early Christians after the Apostolic period."- Martin Luther.
czcams.com/video/ClXRAf_KJjc/video.html
@@nestoriancalvin4071
Nice.
Luther clearly appealed to tradition to justify infant baptism: “Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments.” Martin Luther.. where did you get your quote from? Martin Luther never questioned infant baptism. That's why it wasn't changed until John Smyth and baptist theology in 1600's
@@angieruthw Luther, like many others, developed and grew in his view of Church doctrine over time as he grew in the faith. I never said he questioned infant baptism. I merely quoted what he said concerning the scriptural support for it in the early church. I wrote the quote in the back of one of my Bibles many years ago. It was from one of his books, but I don't remember which one. But he did write it.
@@jamestrotter3162 ok but he states clearly in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church that one of the great comforts that he had in his life was the baptism he received at birth. This man believed in baptismal regeneration, so why would you quote one thing he said pertaining about whether there are examples of infant baptism? That's like saying because there is no example of daily bible devotions for the common lay person as an example in all the new testament, therefor bible devotions are not biblical,or reading your bible everyday. Luther argued it was baptism where one can be assured of one's salvation.
Jesus made it clear-- Repent and be baptized. In that specific order. If you're still a young kid and don't understand sin and repentance, you're not ready for baptism. The problem is that people just treat baptism symbolically, and they assume so much of their kids because they are Christians that their kids believe automatically.
Correct!
It’s never be baptized THEN repent.
I agree. So much
People talk all about all these earthly men and their commentary. Just read the bible and trust and obey. I bet when you do, and even under the tutelage of a good Christian brother or Sister you're going to be baptized. Just a casual reading will provide the way.
@@bmcfonzie there IS a reason he said it in that order, and it makes perfect sense if you understand the purpose of baptism. Repentance is the moment when you put your old sinful man to death. Theres nothing to bury in baptism if that old man isnt killed off and crucified with Christ. Read Romans 6. And I never indicated that kids cant come to repentance so idk why you brought that up, unless youre hinting at baby baptism which is not biblical
@@Bobbo825 Actually there's no place where Jesus said it thus in the concise form you've given. You appear to be rather arbitrarily conflating "repent and believe the Gospel" and "he who believes and is baptized..." (phrases from opposite ends of Jesus' earthly ministry!). The specific phrase you cite comes not from Jesus but from Peter, at Acts 2:38, who then goes on to say that the promise of the Holy Spirit is for both his hearers and their children. And when he asked later on in the history "who can forbid water for baptism" to those who have received the HS (Acts 10:47), well, it doesn't take much to put two and two together. So, baby baptism is non-biblical only in the superficial sense of not being explicit - in every other way, inferential by sound logic, it's definitely in the Bible, and that on multiple counts. A threefold cord isn't quickly broken, etc. And deductive reasoning itself is a biblical procedure, as per e.g. Jesus' reasoning from the David and Abiathar story to a Sabbath principle. Hence the attempt by some Baptists to rule out implicit teaching is itself unbiblical and un-Dominical!
excellent, thanks for this discussion
czcams.com/video/ClXRAf_KJjc/video.html
I was baptized at 12 and I wish I had waited even longer until I understood more of the significance of it
People just got baptized because they wanted to. They didn’t fully understand it but they did it out of obedience
@@jesuschristsaves9067 Interesting. Never thought about it like that. I do know that they knew what they were doing tho with John. At the very least they knew about Immersion already from the Mikvahs and so they were saying they were unclean. And they were being baptized in the Jordan which is significant because thats where they entered the promised land so it was like a redo. And I think John would have been talking about it. And I know theres a difference between John's baptism and Jesus' but I keep on thinking that baptism is a choice
@@jamesharris3642 you got to remember, there were people who were simple regarding the scripture and people who weren’t even Jews who were baptized. John didn’t give an extensive rundown on the mechanisms of baptism. He just said repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
The significance never changes and you never appreciate it enough. Be glad you were baptized at all.
@@zarnoffa Right! Im just saying I think the ideal would not be to baptize babies but to instead baptize new believers who have recognized their uncleanliness and their need for a savior and recreation.
What is the purpose of baptism? I think this is the fundamental question
What conclusion have you come to as to the purpose of baptism?
The direction is so important: Is baptism a statement of God to us or our statement to God?
@@ctvtmo
Can't it be both?
@@prayunceasingly2029 True, but which one comes first and foremost?
@@ctvtmo
In the act of baptism or prior?
Need more sweater vest dialoguing on the matter.
That would be awesome
So I had my son before I was saved and had him baptized when he was 6 and I didn't know anything really, I was a false convert, he wasn't raised to be christian he is an adult male in rebellion against the creator and me and his baptism was basically in vain to me. I still have hope and pray that he will be saved later, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to baptize anyone who isn't professing Jesus Christ as their Savior 🤨
You have hope? Okay so live in that hope. God is faithful.
Whats the difference between baptising a baby of Christian parents who cannot make a profession of faith, and baptising a 10 year old kid who made a proffession simply to make his parents happy, only to leave the faith later? Baptism is not about what you do, it is about what God does. Because you intend to raise the child as a christian, you can baptise him in the hope that the Holy Spirit will work in him from day one. But whether you believe in pedobaptism or credobaptism, there is just as much chance of apostacy after baptism.
When he is ready he must return and do the first works.
Our Lord begs to differ. Matthew 28:18-20. All authority, yes? All things, yes? Always, yes? But all nations, no?
I agree with you, this is so easy to understand but somehow unfortunately people will baptise their children because priests and false pastors are misleading common people like us
While I agree with Doug on many things, IMO a person must choose to be baptised.
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
@@SpotterVideo But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Luke 7:30
One might conclude that since water was once required, it should therefore cease to be practiced.
@@Mdebacle Which baptism is Luke talking about? Which one indicates a person's relationship with Christ? The answer is found below.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
@@SpotterVideo In Acts 2:38 there are 2 baptisms, water and Spirit. In Paul's epistles there is one. Then water is disposable. This is called the "gospel of the uncircumcision" Gal. 2:7.
@@Mdebacle The word "water" is not found in Acts 2:38. What did Peter hear from the mouth of Jesus?
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
I have not thought to ponder this question to much in recent years I just kinda accepted that the bible doesn't say baptise children that we shouldn't . But I need to study this properly I think
Amen!
It's actually "awomen" now, congress said so
I know that God answers prayer because everytime I'm rethinking (praying about) my presuppositions, something from Moscow (and sometimes Sheologians) gets released that makes the exact argument I just made in different words.
"The first generation of believers looks the same and you don't have anything in the NT after that either way."
After thinking through the arguments, seeing the way you answered my questions in Rapid City, and now hearing my own arguments from a faithful minister of the Gospel I'm settled on Paedo-Baptism now too.
Two words that tear down this argument for me, Pastor Doug: "Abraham Piper" I don't see scripture giving parents a guarantee like this. And I've seen too many faithful parents with kids who went crazy woke and abandoned their faith. Some who've passed. I think this belief sets up too many parents for an unnecessary crisis of faith.
Absolutely. What do you do when you do everything humanly possible to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and they still turn their backs on God? Even godly pastors? This smacks of faith by works. If your children are not walking in the faith then YOU are an ungodly person, harboring sin, and have no business pastoring.
I was thinking this exactly! Really wonder thoughts on this!
@@timtherrien7843 I think there is another way to look at the scriptures in question in Titus and Timothy. I think its an encouragement to all men with familys that if they walk as obedient to Christ, God will bless their familys and through God we have an enormous impact on our children, but if we've fallen short in that area regardless of how hard we tried i think your time and focus should be on your family first and get it in order first if possible instead of investing all your time and effort to ministry. I think thats a healthy way to view it, not everyone should be a teacher or leader and its a worldly thing to long after high places of authority in the first place if you dont meet the biblical requirements for those roles what benefit is it to you to long after harsher judgement and becoming a slave to everyone which is a requirement to leaders in Christ.
Well first of all Abraham Pipers story isnt over yet
@@brianhubler356 yes, thank God.
I drank milk, ate cereal and grew extremely well despite having no knowledge of nutrition. But that's because my parents knew it was what was needed for me. Later, I learned to love food and even make it for myself. Of course if that simple milk given to me by my mother did nothing, there would be no reason to drink it then or ever.
"It takes a church" is a great book with some great insight on the matter coming from someone whos practiced and learned under both schools of thought. I just pray that not everyone is so stubborn and set in their "tradition" they refuse to learn or entertain other ideas.
Who wrote it?
@@Scribeintheink Scott McKnight
My parents call themselves Christian's, but are liberal ones. That being said they raised me and my brother more or less consistent with Christian morals, but now my brother is a meth addict living on the streets for 10+ years. As a child he wasn't rebellious to a major degree, but he most certainly wasn't raised to be a drug addict. I think the raising a child scripture needs to be taken in light of understanding depravity and slavery to sin. Only God can save someone, not Christian parenting.
Proverbs are conditional wisdom literature...they are not true 100% of the time.
@@shawnstephens6795 I know, I'm refuting his dad's position that you should trust God WILL save your children and if a minister has an unbelieving child it should disqualify him. I would say as long as the children are not openly rebellious before the age of accountability. If a child grows up and leaves the faith in their adult life, the father shouldn't be punished as long as it is clear he raised the child in the fear of the Lord.
I don't think anyone in the video believes that good parenting guarantees salvation
This is so very helpful. There is at least one case in the Bible, where a new convert's entire household is baptized. To me, that seems to indicate the same reasoning which brother Doug has presented here.
The jailer's household heard the Gospel, then believed, before they were baptized. Read carefully :
27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
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.
@@jth1017 Thanks. I've recently learned to read more carefully and more simply-as-intended, but I have had little time, thus far, to apply that to studies. I think I was more exactly thinking of earlier in the chapter:
"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 held to what was spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If yall have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she compelled us."
The wording Paul uses later with the jailer, sounds like "Trust on the Lord Jesus Christ and you, and all your house, will be saved" but it could be taken as "Trust on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and same goes for all your house". I think the latter reading is less plainly spoken, but I'm not fluent in Greek such to tell the difference, and not every saying is plainly spoken.
Though certainly one is saved by one's own God-given trust in Jesus, it sounds like there is promise of this trust, and giving of this trust, going out corporately. I think we can find the answer to this in the centurion of unrivaled trust, who understood Jesus can divinely command reality, and by his own trust he asks that a slave in his house be healed, and Jesus promises him that the slave is healed. The unrivaled trust of the centurion is doubtlessly in focus here, with no regard to whether or not the slave trusted.
While it's not stated, in Act 16, if there are any young children or infants involved or not, the way it reads sure does sound like the assurance of promise goes to the whole house regardless of such details, such that the whole house receives God-given trust regardless of any specifics. Of course, proclamation of God's word is essential in either case. Maybe the promise, which God expressed via Paul, is individually conditional based on specifics, but it sounds more like God's promise to the whole house can be trusted to overcome all contrary specifics.
1st Timothy 3 seems to presuppose this, unless we are to simply take it as a purely earthly and pragmatic matter of leadership. Pragmatic capabilities and pragmatic follow-through are very important, so maybe, but seems hard to separate pragmatic trustworthiness from spiritual trustworthiness in the case of the role of bishop.
When I consider the Bible wholistically, I find it hard to deny corporate promise of God, promises which will not come back void.
Interesting how Doug seems to maintain so much respect for John Piper, because 1st Timothy 3 plainly states that Piper is not qualified to be a bishop, and it seems obvious that Piper's vast influence puts him in that role and wrongfully so. Of course, the examples of Doug and Piper do not make for an argument, but rather merely to communicate spiritual considerations which are easier to see in example than to hear in articulated wording.
I wonder if Piper is a paedobaptist; I'll look it up. Piper is not a paedobaptist. Doug Wilson chooses to express trust in God's promises, and his children are all shining examples. Piper chooses to express necessity for our confession of trust, and he has disgraceful children. Piper well argues that baptism is an expression of trust, but he fails to argue that infants cannot trust a trust which ought to be expressed.
Jesus said: "One whom receives you receives me, and one whom receives me receives him that sent me. One whom receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s wage; and one whom receives a righteous one in the name of a righteous one shall receive a righteous one’s wage."
Infants receive their parents unto trust, this is a blatant fact of infancy; should then the receiving of Christ through the parents not be expressed?
I'm fully aware what it says, mere lines earlier, about putting children at variance against parents. But Jesus specifies the meaning in that they must love Jesus more than their parents. Therefor, that cannot apply to saying Jesus came to set children against receiving Jesus through their parents, and we then get to the text which I quoted which further clarifies.
When I was a baby in Christ, I enjoyed listening to Piper. I became very worried when I heard him speak of Satan's perspective with equal passion as he speaks of God's perspective. Seems the passion is acting and is not actually passion, because I do not think Piper was expressing passion for Satan, and thus he also does not express passion for God. After wholistic consideration of Piper's teaching and spiritual expressiveness, I have come to deep spiritual concern that Piper's passion is rooted in a spirit of self and not in the Spirit Of Truth. As far as I know, he does make a philosophically compelling case for Christian Hedonism, but it is exactly the opposite of how Jesus describes it:
"count the cost"
"take up your cross"
I'm still open on this matter; I'm not one to come to a preference and impose it on Scripture. From what I can assess thus far, it seems that paedobaptism expresses trust in God's promises, and the reason for objecting is because one would rather express trust in the individual's will to trust those promises. I feel much more comfortable emphasizing God's trustworthiness, and much less comfortable emphasizing my action of trust. The trustworthiness of my will to trust has it's sole basis in the trustworthiness of God's promises, it has nothing to do with how it seems on my end and has everything to do with God's trustworthiness. My action of trust is given by God via the obviousness of God's trustworthiness, which is made obvious by the love of God expressed in Christ's suffering on the cross.
Sorry if that was too long for you. Thank you for offering pushback so I may scrutinize the matter more closely.
That’s the same passage I used to destroy infant baptism with.
Bring that forward to today.
A business owner gets saved and he has his household and all his employees baptized.
Are they saved?
No of course they are not.
But those people were, because they too believed and why they all were baptized.
Same with infant baptism.
Using it for purposes it wasn’t intended for ruins the intent it’s purpose was for.
@@benjamingilley9629 Brother, here's my qúestion... So after I get my infant child baptized and grew up very well, I mean he grew up morally upright, he grew up as if he was a genuine christian, but later as he lives a christian find out that he is not really saved, I mean he realized that he didn't really understand the gospel or he realized that it didn't really get it's root in his heart, and then let's say a child that was baptized in his infanthood was only regenerated by God in his 10th or 15th years(meaning that is the only time he understand the gospel, genuinely repented and have the faith in Jesus-Christ) is it neccesary to rebaptize him again or not?
Creates a predicament doesn’t it?
To me and I believe the Word clearly says it, if the first forced baptism means nothing and no rebirth or inward change is made then it’s no different than being marked with circumcision. Which Romans alone clearly spells out didn’t save them and wasn’t the means of salvation for the Jew and wasn’t a suggested for the gentiles before the age of gentiles or during. Yet baptism was/is for both during this age, and still isn’t required for salvation.
Both a sign of a theoretical inward stance with God and His salvation.
To answer your question.
I would consider infant baptism just for show. It’s meaningless to the child, just as a cut penis.
So for the first case, they still are not saved and parents most likely just gave false security to the child for a very long time.
For the second if me, I would be baptized again, because this time it’s a real outward reaction to and inward change. Therefore meaning. The first only had hollow meaning and at best a foreshadowing of the future hopefully rebirth.
Wow this is great!
So much wisdom here, thank you!
czcams.com/video/ClXRAf_KJjc/video.html
No, so much intellectualism that he can’t see the forest for the trees. Baptism is a personal decision not one we make for our infant children.
For me it was when I was reading Mark 1:40-45 and Lev 14 back and forth for a Bible study for the 4th time in a row and it clicked when I was in the shower “Why do I understand the scene with the leper in the context of continuity of covenant but not anything past the gospels?” And I began thinking of Acts chapter 8 with the eunuch and applied that same understanding to that scene and all of a sudden as a Baptist I could not claim that scene as an argument for credo anymore because that was too simple of an understanding of the scene that was playing out. Same with Acts 2 and Col 2 and 1 Cor 7 and so on. I realized I was stripping the systematic covenantal context out of the very verses Baptists use to justify credo over infant baptism.
What if...
Water baptism was only for John the Baptist ...
And after Baptising Jesus water baptism ended...
John preached for the one who comes after me will baptized in the Holy Spirit..he never mentioned it would continue...
Acts 1:1-5
Jesus himself specifies only John the Baptist's water..after Matthew 28:19
It's not to throw you a curve ball just trying to make it simpler to understand water baptism
@@artistart55 the baptism Christians do is not the same as the one John the Baptist did. Two different baptisms.
@@-Red-Beard-
The water baptism disciples of Christ do today ,they don't understand all there doing is a Jewish Mitzvah water ceremony...
Most that are water baptized today don't know the real saving Baptism in the Holy Spirit...
The big Question....
Why didn't Jesus ever water baptize anybody in water?
John 4 :1:4
When Jesus learned his disciples were water baptizing. He went back to Galilee to tell them to stop baptizing.
The problem started when Peter baptised the gentiles and in
Acts 10:48. Peter should had never baptise the gentiles .because they had already received the baptism of the Holy Spirit he were saved ..
for that reason Jesus chose Paul to go to the Gentiles..
Galatians 2:14
Paul opposed Peter for forcing gentiles for follow old Jewish custom ceremonial Washing...
@@artistart55 I’m not even going to engage this with you just because I’m already seeing what this is going to turn into. I’m going to recommend that you pick up some systematic reading material and a good study Bible and just do more research.
@@-Red-Beard-
Let me have you read what Paul says about it..
1st Corinthians 1:1-17
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Paul tried to handle this back in the beginning the same problem I'm talking to you about..
Read Acts 18
Priscilla and Aquilla had to teach Apollo's the same thing.....
Acts 18:24-25
I'm still split on the issue. On one hand, I don't see the necessity of a parallel with circumcision because the old covenant was more centered around flesh and birth, while the new is more spiritual and about the second birth. Still, to the people that say babies cannot believe, I say Psalm 8:2 (and Matt 21:16).
NO. The verses you cite do NOT make any sort of case for infant baptism. THEY DO NOT, Infants lack the reasoning capability to choose to put their faith in God and needless to say, it is a universal fact which every person on Earth well knows! Only believers have the right to be baptized and D.W. did not convince me the other way for one blessed minute.
@@eucharistangel4662 Every person knows? even babies?
Those verses speak about children and infants giving praise, not believing. Creation itself is said to praise YHWH, for example, but that's a matter of design and not choice.
@Stand4Truth Trying to make "children" all-inclusive of every age group when every individual baptism that we see in the text is credo in nature is illogical. We don't even see retarded adults being baptized in the text. The logical conclusion is that the children baptized would have needed to be old enough for a credobaptism. And the Didache does indeed indicate that there was an age of innocence tradition that had exactly this kind of credobaptist view. Likewise, the household or family being baptized would logically mean when everybody who could be credobaptized was credobaptized.
More logically, there is no evidence that group salvation tactics produce the born-again miracle, so infant baptism has no evidence to show that it's valid. That's more important than anything since a false claim about being born-again is an act of false witness against Yeshua and against his ability to defeat sin.
@@eucharistangel4662
Ah yes. We believe in Christ because of our REASON. I think you misunderstand some things…
Excellent
The way I’ve heard it put that resonated with me is, just like the old covenant just because Jews were circumcised doesn’t mean they kept the faith, there were those that broke the covenant and rebelled against God and therefore weren’t saved. So to with the new covenant we should baptize our children into the covenant but that doesn’t mean they won’t rebel against God and break the covenant they were raised up in.
Teaching your young child to pray and baptizing them as an infant are apples and oranges. If you believe your child is going to be saved, then show a little faith and wait for them to make their own decision when they're older.
You nailed it!
The best argument for infant baptism is actually 1 Timothy 3:15. If the Church had been guided by the Holy Spirit and truly is the pillar and bulwark of all truth as the scriptures say, then how could it have been wrong for the whole first 1500+ years on such an important matter? Were all those who were directly instructed by the apostles, who then instructed their successors, and their successors, simply in error on such matters? Did the apostles fail to instruct their disciples on such an important matter?
Lean not on your own understanding.
Indeed. Refutes the entire Reformation.
Catholics making false claims about the church fathers once again I see.
That's a fair argument in my opinion
Wilson is correct that the Bible does not describe either of those situations. So we must ask "what situations does it describe?" The Bible DOES describe people being saved and THEN baptized. So, that is the example we ought to follow because it is the only example we have.
Those believing people weren't baptized alone like the credo would assume, their whole household was baptized with them. If we are going to look to scripture, let's not ignore scripture when it says something that doesn't easily reconcile with your personal preferences or traditions.
I feel like Doug doesn’t think we Baptists have a systematic theology. It’s honestly the biggest blind spot in his theology.
I think he was specifically referring to his Baptist Dad.
But to his point, the Presby’s definitely have us beat on producing theological works like Systematics.
@@chrismatthews1762 sure they do-aside from that glaring federal headship problem haha
@@JosephsCoat you lost me on that one, both Baptists and Pesbys agree on Federal Headship.
Maybe you meant Federal Vision?
Like Doug but he’s off the track on this one. Because the parents are believers does’nt mean their children will be. We would all have it made if that were the case.
@@chrismatthews1762 nope. Read Renihan. What do they do with Adam’s headship before rebirth? How can a believer’s child have two federal heads? The Baptists account for this.
In the Reformed Episcopal Church, we do infant Baptism and then a separate ceremony called Confirmation. In Confirmation, which occurs in when the Christian is more mature, they will personally and pubically confirm their faith and baptism. I love having the two and it settles this argument in my mind very effectively.
Infant Baptism and a separate ceremony called Confirmation is a man-made tradition that developed in the church over the centuries after the 1st churches were established by the apostles. This practice is not Scriptural.
@@chamado.mundo9infant baptism is very much biblical if you understand the covenants and read the Bible as one whole book instead of 2 books and only the latter half applies to you
@@chamado.mundo9You refer to Confirmation as a man made ceremony an not to be found In Scripture nor done by the Apostles. In our understanding, we see it in the Bible book called The Acts of the Apostles. Our Ceremony prayers are as follows:
BELOVED, it is written in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles that, when the Apostles in Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Then they laid their hands upon those who were baptized, and they received the Holy Ghost. Also, in the nineteenth chapter of that same Book, we read that St. Paul laid his hands upon certain disciples at Ephesus, after their baptism, and the Holy Ghost came upon them. In accordance, therefore, with Holy Scripture, apostolic custom, and the practice of the early Church, we have retained this rite of the laying on of hands upon those who are baptized, in order that they may thus, in open confession before men, confirm their faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and avow their unchanged purpose to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking in his holy ways.
Grew up in Christian Nazarene family, 12 yro Baptist Church camp acceptance of Christ (although I was confused as I just thought I always was a Christian) Finally baptized at age 32 in a Presbyterian Church.
I agree with Doug's dad about a pastor stepping down if any child walks away from the faith as they grow older. Unfortunately, many pastors, including John Piper, won't obey the requirement.
So God must save each one of their children or they cannot be pastors? Where do you find this in scripture?
@ShepherdMinistry the standard is faithfulness and obedience (stated in multiple verses: Tit 1:6 and 1 Tim 3:4-5), not belief because no one can know for 100% certainty about another person's status. We can't know the invisible, which salvation is. See John 3. We can only know the visible and God gives us necessary tools such as church discipline to deal with the visible for the purposes of the invisible (further sanctification or actual regeneration). For every faithless, disobedient child, I can guarantee you some sort of failure on the part of the head of household. God uses human means, namely a father (especially) and a mother, to deliver the promise (Acts 2:38-39 and Eph 3:6) to offspring. On the part of John Piper, there were anger issues and absenteeism because he was so focused on his ministries rather than his family, just like his own father. Abraham isn't his only faithless or disobedient child; Barnabas is, too.
@@JR-rs5qs How does that apply to children that are grown adults and no longer part of your household?
So with that logic, Abraham and Isaac must of not been great men of God? Think of Ishmael and Esau.
This sounds like a work based salvation on the parents behalf.
@@ShepherdMinistry the Biblical household is multigenerational and multilayered and not what we think it to be in our day and age. We have largely lost the Biblical household.
Abraham and Isaac were not pastors. They were great men of God despite their failures.
Were there no works involved on the part of others that led to your own salvation? Surely someone shared or preached the Gospel to you for you to believe. Those are good works and God uses good works (and even evil ones) to accomplish His purposes on this earth, even Salvation. Parents do not earn their children's salvation for them, but they are the primary workers in their children's lives to deliver the promise of the Gospel, which is Salvation. I can unequivocally guarantee you that parents who work, in humility, on behalf of the Lord in their childrens' lives by teaching and disciplining them the Word of God, regularly sharing the Gospel with them, etc. have more visibly regenerate kids than those Christian parents who treat their kids like unbelievers, don't share the Gospel with them regularly, do not teach them the word...is this a case of parents earning their childrens' salvation for them? NO! But it is employing the God ordained mechanisms God put in place to see the legacy of faith be passed on from one generation to another. Do you not think it's God's will to see regenerate people disciple their own children and, through the work of the Holy Spirit, see those children be regenerated as well?
Does anyone yhave a link to the essay by Rob Brayburn the PCA pastor's essay on Covenant succession?
I'm trying to find it. Thanks!
Also, if we are to baptize infants, why was Jesus not baptized until he was an adult? I mean he was circumcised on the 8th day to fulfill the old covenant, but if we are to baptize infants as part of the new covenant, He really should have been baptized as a baby as well.
They were under the OLD covenant before the last supper.
Good point!
@@lambo58 Thanks Dave!
@@democratpro That's a very neat, cut and dried, Western way of looking at it. I would say you are half right. All were under the OC at that time and Jesus did come to fulfill the law for all who would believe. Yet at the same time, for example, as Jesus gives the sermon on the mount, He turns many of the teachings of the OC on their head, so to speak. "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you... turn the other cheek." There is a NT teaching early on in Jesus ministry. That is just one example we could look at the rolling out of the New Covenant all throughout the ministry of Jesus...
@Phil Andrew He is the figure to which the OC pointed and was Himself the one to institute the New C, so why not make sure that we all knew to baptize infants by having the angel tell Mary and then Joseph, "Oh, by the way, you should baptize Jesus as an infant." I mean, God gave other instructions to Mary and Jospeh by angels, so why not this very important one of infant baptism?
Love Doug. Drops the ball here tho.
I have been doing a fair amount of digging into the paedo/credo debate having listened to I believe everything on the Canon App re: the topic. (Not so incidentally I have a one-year old I'm considering baptizing.) I was just listening to the RC Sproul/John MacArthur debates from Ligonier and what part of me that was convinced of the Paedo argument felt some pushback re: the covenant sign argument from Acts 2:36-41. From the context here, it appears that Peter is preaching to both Jews and proselytes-- so wouldn't all these men have been circumcised, having received the sign of the covenant in infancy or upon their conversion to Judaism? If that was the case, then why would they have needed to be baptized? Were all Jewish converts to Christ initiated with baptism? Does John the Baptist's baptism ministry have anything to do with this? Other than this, I am quite comfortable with the paedo/oiko position, but feel I need to do some more due diligence before presenting my baby. Thanks! I couldn't find where to submit this question to Doug, so Doug or anyone else, thanks for whatever help you can give!
A few questions I always have prepared for my paedobaptist brethren that I never get to ask sadly because they could care less anything I have to say:
1) We agree that God commanded Abraham to circumcise with particular boundaries (ie, at 8 days old or those bought with his money) which is to be continually perpetuated until circumcision is done away with.
If circumcising before 8 days or after 8 days it is sin with baptism purportedly replacing circumcision, at what point in the age of the child is it sin to baptize too soon or not?
2) If the argument for infant baptism also includes that Jewish parents would be very concerned or outraged if the sign of baptism was not carried along to their infant children in the first century, how would that be the case for a Jewish couple who had only girls if the sign of circumcision was always for thousands of years only applied to males?
Possibly some things to ponder. Another good debate to watch is between James White and Gregg Strawbridge on this issue. I think it was a much better debate than JMac and RC Sproul.
Is infant baptism in scripture? If it is not, then why would you do it? Why partake in a Roman Catholic tradition? Nothing happens in infant baptism. There is no confession of sin and it doesn’t mean your kid will become a Christian. While some paedobaptists won’t say that; a lot of them believe it. Which begs the question: if your kid is in the church universal through infant baptism then what is the point of Christ? I’m not saying Baptism is salvational either.But it is commanded as the way of doing things in the NT. And it’s a pretty big deal. Big enough that reformers were killing anabaptists during the reformation. If you’re wanting to abide by sola scriptura then you should not be comfortable going forward with infant baptism.
I appreciate Mr. Wilson's even handedness on the issue & yet, none of those verses quoted at the 2:50 mark speak directly to the issue of "baptism" per say - and that's where "systematics" (something the elder Wilson held at arms length) wiggles its way into the discussion. Anyway, understand, I'm not against the practice of baptizing children because there seems to be enough evidence that the early church did in fact practice it (the Greek word translated "households" seems to imply this)- and yet I still sense that the practice of ritual cleansing practiced in the second temple era was still a complete immersion and any biblical study on the topic demonstrates this was the norm as witnessed in the ministry of John the Baptizer. What I find unable to digest completely is the issue of calling what is done to an infant or toddler as "baptism" and making that the right of passage so to speak of ushering someone into the covenant of faith. An infant can't express the faith needed to become a child of the most high - yet the parents are doing it for them - I rightly consider the practice more of a dedication of the community of faith to being the vessel through which the Spirit will work in order to bring the young person into right relationship and to provide the nurturing and admonition to make that possible. After all that's what those verses speak to that were quoted. Another concern I have is that those who have been baptized as an infant are, in some cases subtly convinced that no further action on their part to embrace the faith individually is needed since they're part of the covenant succession - and I also don't see the clear connection between "covenant succession" and the baptism of infants being an integral part of that concept of succession. I must admit that I was raised in the anabaptist tradition and I'm thankful for having done so but I also have embraced much of the Reformed way of thinking on most matters and now attend an OPC church. So go figure - but I remain one who hasn't had a "lynch-pin" argument either for or against in order to fully embrace paedo-baptism nor to completely abandon believers baptism through immersion. One additional comment - linking paedobaptism with that of the Jewish rite of circumcision as somehow indicative of how we should see this Christian practice as "covenant succession" is fraught with some very difficult inconsistency's- namely - did all those who were circumcised as the Law of Moses prescribed as the sign of the covenant enter God's rest? I see some very profound problems with equating the doctrine of paedobaptist with circumcision if that's the comparison you want to make. Hebrews 4:3 makes that abundantly clear.
This is the best comment I’ve read on this thread. Thank you, Mortimer.
🔥🔥🔥🔥
Love a lot of your teaching/thoughts Doug. Where is your systematic scripture for support of infant baptism. Always compare unclear scripture to clear scripture.
Was Ishmael circumsized, before or after Abraham was told he was not apart of the covenant family? Once you read that, decide for yourself, was Abraham sinning in that moment when he administered the Old Covenant sacrament upon him. If you answer no, you've systematically established the principle in the Old Testament. Now you have to ask yourself, is the New Testament Church, which is a mixed body of believers regardless of view on this issue [don't eschatologically move a few chapters in Jeremiah up, before the end of this age] (went out from us, but not of us)... more or less generous than the previous? What do you also do with severe handicaps mentally etc. I could go on, but that's enough to chew on.
@@ogrc-dot-org5635 thank you for the thoughts I honestly never thought of that concerning Abraham. But have put thought into Abraham's justification witch is by faith not works. I may be wrong but I assume your justifying infant baptism by this section of scripture ( please correct me if I'm mistaken). I just don't see the connection with circumcision in the OT with baptism in NT. Baptism being an act of submission and obedience from an individual to the Lord and circumcision in OT obeying the law regardless of age. And we also don't have one example of infant baptism. I hope this isn't a dividing topic, I personally love studying scripture and correcting myself when I'm in error. It's especially nice discussing these things with faithful servants of the Lord. Again thank you and look forward to more insight. God bless
@@joshphilp6500 Hey Josh, thanks for your response. I was a former baptist myself, and ultimately if you don't see the link then that means you call what I did 'replacement theology' that basically I wrongly replaced the praxis of the Old Covenant sacrament upon the New Testament praxis. However if God had dramatically changed it, the onus is on the New Testament to make that incredibly clear. Also you would have expected the early Jews to really need that debate hashed out.
One other point... Paul and Peter link the practice of baptism to two Old Testament events... which ones? The parting of the Red Sea, and Noah's Ark... Were there unbelievers on/in both of those? Yes there were. yet they were still included. Why were they included? Because they had a connection to the covenant family of faith. Ultimately they were found not to be the Lord's but they welcomed to the benefits of being in the community.
@@ogrc-dot-org5635 thank you brother for responding to my post. Your last statement I guess is what I would lean on (ultimately they were found not to be the Lord's but they welcomed the benefits of being in the community).
It seams clear in the NT those that were baptized did it willingly and of clear conscience to whom they we're obeying (Christ). I just don't see how obeying the Lord in baptism has any meaning if you don't know the why and who regardless of age. I personally baptized my son when he was six because he came to me with understanding of salvation and the willingness to obey the Lord. The eunuch in Acts is a great example of this understanding.
I should note, I'm not in or have ever been in a denomination. I fellowship regularly with a local gathering of believers that believe Christ is the Son of God and the Bible is His inspired written Word.
@@joshphilp6500 thanks for your response. Ultimately how you would describe baptism, I would describe communion. I think Paul makes clear those who participate in communion need to be able to discern the body (and I think he's implying knowing what the gospel is, and isn't, who believers are, and aren't).
I once had a baptist friend of mine (he's now a pastor in Orlando) decide he wanted to 'convert me back' to the baptist argument. So he took me out for taco's. I said before the discussion started, 'you already live my worldview, before you begin', and he said why? I said well do you really treat your kids like unbelievers? Not eat with them? Not teach them to pray, etc? He of course he does things like teaching them to pray, etc.
I said exactly... yet when I go evangelize to unbelievers I don't bother with teaching them things like the Lord's prayer, or to memorize scripture, etc. Yet you do that with your kids. I share the gospel. He is still baptist, but he couldn't get out of that conundrum - he's living my worldview within his household. You likely are as well.
Here is an article I wrote on the issue, at a previous ministry stop of mine that better outlines some of what I've argued here: springmeadowschurch.org/the-promise-to-you-and-your-children/
What happened to the baptism sweater vest dialog?
I’m a raised baptist but currently attending Presbyterian due to my drive to go to a true reformed church.
My question to the masses is this.
If an infant is baptized, when they finally are converted and profess their faith, should or could they be baptized again as a public testimony of their faith?
Im no pastor so take what i say as my own thoughts and not scripture. Baptism is symbolic, the act has no virtue or weight to it. It's no hallpass to heaven, it's a gesture showing the lord your commitment. I believe it's symbolicly important and one should do it as a growing Christian but ultimately i see it like this. Does Jesus save you or the cross? Symbols vs the way. Maybe im wrong, just what I've surmised on the issue
The official answer would be no, only baptized once
Why would someone think baptism is a public testimony of faith? Where does the Bible say that? Was there any public around when the Ethiopian was baptized? Why can't your word and deeds be your public testimony?
One baptism for the remission of sins
There is historic Christian practice called Confirmation that settles this issue.
Interesting conversation and almost spooky in that it parallels my own transition from credo tp covenant baptism, including the same influential name, "Robert Rayburn." The only difference was that in my case, it was reading the father's book; rather than the son's. However, with all due respect, one minor niggle; Mr. Wilson mentioned two missionaries and having the same experience in the first generation. However, a Presbyterian missionary would have baptized the parents and their children; which is exactly what we have in the book of Acts with household baptisms. He would not have to wait for ten years, unless everyone in the village was unmarried and with no children. But again, that is straining at gnats....
In all of the household baptism in the NT where we are given sufficient detail to say yea or nay, the baptism of the family members follows the preaching of the Gospel to them, so it is perfectly logical to assume that the children who were baptised also heard and believed the Gospel. There is no indication, merely the assumption, that infants were baptised.
Well, that and church history which sees infants being baptized.
@@tesseract535 -- There are quite a few non-Biblical beliefs and practices in church history.
@@gregb6469 I think we would agree on that, and would probably agree on what many of them are. But I don't think we'll solve this debate here. God bless.
@@gregb6469 If I may chime in... Remember that circumcision, the OT sacrament, included infants. Why would baptism, the NT sacrament exclude infants?
Isn’t “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he’s old he will not depart from it” a proverb? Why do we apply it as a promise?
For example Proverbs 10:5 “The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry” Thats obviously not a promise unless you deny that there have ever been believers that have died of starvation.
I was about to ask that exact question. Proverbs are general truths. So I would necessarily apply this.
No it's apart of the covenant
@@angieruthw -- Which covenant?
@@angieruthw A proverb is a truism (look it up) and is never part of a covenant.
A proverb is always a truism and never a promise. That should be basic Bible knowledge that any pastor has studied.
This was rad
Can anyone tell me where scripture says that in order to be an elder, your children need to be in the faith, or have not left the faith? I heard Doug say that twice in this video, as though he was quoting first Timothy 3.
From the Bottom of my heart, I want to Thank you for this discussion.
Sincerely,
Your Catholic Brother in Christ.
I must say that the more I hear about infant baptism the more I’m convinced it is wrong
Haha yep
That's interesting. I have the exact opposite reaction.
Well, when you look through a straw you only see what’s on the other end.
You didn't even watch the video I see.
@@mrstaleycl yeah those church fathers were dumb I wouldn't listen to them
Do you hold baptismal regeneration or is that distinct from holding infant baptism in this context?
Put the water where your mouth is? How about put the water where the Word is… and that’s after salvation. So much for the Word being the standard for life, faith, and practice.
The more I read the comments the more I realize most baptists are completely lost in the arguments because their paradigm is different and think on different terms. I'm a baptist, but I fail to see how so many brothers here in the comments section fail to see the Presbyterian argument. The issue is more profound than what most baptist (and surely presbyterians) think it is.
Pascal Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" would be a great place to start, and finish. At least with his arguments we credobaptists will get some credibility.
I'm a Presbyterian and I completely agree. The Reformed approach to the covenants is so completely at odds with non-Reformed baptists that it is easy to talk past each other, and these comments are full of that.
Even my Reformed Baptist brothers seem to weaken the covenantal aspects of the sacraments to make the system work, as seen by the bulk of the changes between the Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession.
I'll have to check out your book recommendation, as I am pretty ignorant of the Reformed Baptist perspective on covenant theology beyond the confession differences.
I am a Reformed Baptist and have read Denault's book. Tough read, but I highly recommend it. It's a different view of the covenant of grace that separates us.
In fairness, most Presbyterians fail to see the Presbyterian argument. The average person discussing baptism will use either HH baptism (if paedo) or something like the Ethiopian Eunuch (if credo) to prove their case. Most attendees of the average Presbyterian church are not formal Covenant Theologians any more than the average Baptist is a learned Dispensationalist, 1689 Federalist, or New Covenant Theologian. Ultimately, it is an issue of how Biblical covenant(s) work(s), though depending on how they work it can also be a matter of what the Bible clearly says and doesn't say.
My understanding for infant baptism of Christian parents is that baptism replaced circumcision in the new testament. It is not a guarantee of salvation, but, like an Israelite, the child will have the exposure to the truth of the gospel. So many Christians like to dedicate their infants. I think that is a very similar idea. What do you think?
I agree. The child dedication is similar to infant baptism in that before your church family the parents commit to raise their child in the Way of the Lord and ask for the commitment of the church family to help you along the way. And then said child when he has been born anew may profess his faith in the waters of baptism, which is so powerful in the immersion, dying to self and rising to new life in Christ, it is a humbling profession of faith. If infant baptism is so good and true, it would be done by full immersion, which l cannot believe any in the early church would have done. Why is it hard to believe that the family baptisms in the book of Acts were of families with children old enough to believe? Why assume infants were baptized? I think infant baptism robs the believer of the most prescious public profession a person can make.
The orthodox fully immerse infants, 3 times! The church has been baptizing babies from the beginning.
@@anitasmith203 A covenant baptism holder, and a 'we must dedicate the baby' individual are VERY close on this matter intellectually speaking.
Becoming covenant minded
With the old covenant you were physically born into it with circumcision as the sign. The new covenant you are born spiritually into it - born again after you heard and accepted the gospel. Baptism must include the mind and the will of the person who is baptised - this is what sets apart the new covenant with the old covenant as per Jeremiah 31, which describes it a better covenant.
“put your water where your mouth is”
Man ... they really did it now, after exposing all of these incongruities I don’t think I’m a Baptist anymore.
Jk ... in all truth though I do love my Presbyterian brothers.
I do too. I just don't see the logical step from "I believe the promises of God" to "I must make a proclamation of my child's not yet faith and rob them of a meaningful baptism"
@@TheBluntNinja Good point!
I love my Presbyterian brothers as well even though they are wrong on this issue. RC Sproul and John McCarthur were best of friends.
I dunno. I like infant baptism (though I’m part of the baptist tradition rn)
I am sad that the sacrament has become more about the individual and less about the covenant community. I think you can have the acting out of covenant succession in both, but infant baptism seems to more naturally point the sacrament to God and his promises, rather than the individual and their “decision” whatever you wanna believe about that.
I’m in the same boat. I currently am reformed baptist, but I find the idea of infant baptism very appealing to me.. but I haven’t brought myself to fully embrace it yet.
I have been getting hung up on the mode of baptism more than anything at the moment.
@@Owngeeeeee have you read what the Didache says on the subject?
@@ericdelanoy9570 I have! What do you gather from it?
An individual has to make that decision. A sinner has to ask God for forgiveness, get baptized and than carry his or her cross otherwise we are not worthy of Jesus and his sacrifice. You have to be willing to follow Jesus with your own cross. We can baptise all infants we want but being born in Christian family doesn't save. Jesus said that father will be against his son, etc. This subject should be easy, but this pastor is not born again Christian, he started to baptise infants because some parents asked him to do so rather than tell them to just be good Christian parents as an example.
@@RIDE_26 No offense brother, but it's very clear you haven't looked into this debate deeply enough at this point in time. Your use of "being worthy of Jesus sacrifice" by "following Jesus with our own cross" is also a bit concerning. That is an anti-gospel message. The point is that we are not worthy and never will be by anything we do, period.
Very interesting story and conclusion. I wonder if anyone has done an in depth comparison of ritual washings in Judaism for children born and raised in it. Something tells me that it would be highly enlightening. Ive been convinced for some time that our collective knowledge on christian baptism is woefully lacking. And I have considered the comparison between circumcision and pedo baptism. I am also moving rapidly towards a covenant succession type of perspective on family and child raising, due to passages like 1 Corinthians 7:14.
As I understand things now, I find that the substitution of the ecclesiastical priesthood for the priesthood of the fathers has done massive damage to Christianity as a whole. For example, the concept of the clergy baptizing the children of a believing father seems absolutely antithetical to a priesthood of believers, as does paying another man to be a priest for your family.
All that being said, I find myself moving more towards a Jewish structure of milestones for my sons in particular. A type of bar mitzvah around 12-13, with some type of introduction into priesthood, and a biblical age of accountability for sons and induction in to priesthood at 20. At this point, I still fail to see the importance or necessity of pedo baptism as I have come to utterly reject Augustine’s theory of Original Sin and its sexual transmission for a multitude of reasons.
Basically a father is accountable for everything done under his covering. Young men are held accountable for their own actions after 20. The age of accountability is best defined as the point at which the imputation of sin and its accompanying sentence has an effect on the sinner. Literally when he becomes accountable for his sin. Thats why women and children were not allowed to offer sacrifices for sin. The father was accountable for everything committed under his covering. It was literally PSA at a nuclear level. Christ exampled PSA at a divine level. The creator is accountable for the creation.
Here are two scriptures about infant faith. Psalm 22:9. "Yet Thou are He who didst bring me forth from the womb. Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts." John the Baptist leaped for joy while still in Elizabeth's womb when Mary came to visit. Luke 1:41.
Can you please give a verse for this view? Some of those verses quoted talk about teaching your children but not as to baptism. In the new Testament we see that one believe then one was baptized so I'm curious do you then rebaptize after repentance?
Act chapter 19 Paul rebaptized disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized to repentance the correct way of in Jesus name.
I was finally convinced of paedobaptism (having been a Baptist for 20 years) by a message from John Piper, of all people. He admitted the incontrovertible link between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2, and everything finally clicked for me. But finally "getting" the framework of covenant theology was a necessary prerequisite in my case. It's a completely different view than the individual "me and God" approach that our Baptist brothers and sisters embrace. Good stuff here.
Circumssision of Christ is cutting off of Christ, not a new form of circumcission.
This viewpoint entirely misses the point of Colossians 2, and I would argue asserts something close to the opposite. In the same way that infants were circumcised under the Old Covenant, we as spiritual infants are baptized soon after being born again in the spirit, through the circumcision that is "made without hands."
When practicing covenantal/paedo baptism, Men are attempting to fill the role of Christ and the Holy Spirit with their own ritual. Attempting to force the attributes and rituals of Old onto New is merely repeating the mistakes of the Judaizers. Until a person is born again and made alive through the spirit, they cannot receive the "circumcision of Christ" and thus cannot be considered members of his Covenant. Baptism has value only as a mere symbol and reflection of the real work being done in spirit. De-coupling it from that (as in the case of baptizing every infant and child) removes it from it's Biblical context and subsequently from it's worth as a practice.
Additionally, you show great disrespect and misunderstanding when you conflate the 2 covenants as if it's a given they should be equivocated. Hebrews 8 for example illustrates the stark differences between Old and New. The sign of Old Covenant membership (circumcision) was ubiquitous because being a member of that covenant did not offer any promise of salvation, faith, heart condition, or knowledge of God. The New Covenant clearly does, as the overwhelming testimony of the scriptures tells us that Jesus will not fail to save and raise to spiritual life even a single member that has been given to him. The concept of a "New Covenant-breaker" is completely foreign and contrary to the teaching of scripture.
Instead of applying the sign without prejudice to every child physically born to a nation or group of people, it is applied to those who have been "born" into the nation of "spiritual Israel." As Men, we can't know the hearts of those professing their faith and transformation from the Spirit. But we have also been given careful instruction on how to identify these counterfeit members, and have been told that such people "were never of us." By only baptizing professing believers and leaving no room for other categories of Covenant "membership", we are able to hold the highest view of the New Covenant and it's promises, never diluting it with extra-biblical definitions and attempts at regression to pre-Christ practices.
@@jaked8537 Jake! Can I steal this? Good job articulating the truth! We must be “born again” in the context of John 3.
@@jaked8537 I would also like to take this. It's good doctrine. believer's baptism.
It made no sense to me when Doug Wilson said he read several books on the matter and never came to this conclusion.
I also prefer how he talked about his father's understanding of Scripture. While he may of got Proverbs wrong, the premise is still true that Scripture is preeminent to any and all the words of man.
With respect, I think circumcision was a picture of baptism maybe, but in the OT God dealt with the nation of Israel. In the new covenant God deals with individuals, hence the need for personal faith before baptising. That's my take on that, not that you asked for it ;)
Covenant theological rationalism. I was baptized as an infant, and as later sacramental ‘Confirmation’ as well. NEITHER had any efficacious effect on my first 20 years of life. In 1969, I was a LOST SINNER, hedonist, and in full existential bondage to sin. Backed into a philosophical dark corner, I “called upon the name of the Lord” (Romans 10:13) for divine rescue. Without a drop of water, I experienced a supernatural “new birth” (John 3). Listen to and heed the words of the Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.”
What do you think about the condition where a person was baptized as a child and then makes a profession of faith and wants to be baptized again? Some Churches will say that there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and therefore will not take part in believer's baptism when the person was baptized as a child. I don't like this because it does not allow someone to sort of own their faith by making a public declaration in a fairly significant way and participate in the symbolism of tradition.
I was baptised as a child, but when I was born again of the spirit in adulthood I felt that I needed to be baptised following the proper example as laid out in scripture.
"One baptism" - perhaps refers to being born again, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So there is one baptism of the Spirit, but many fillings. I understand that the baptism of water is the ordinance which should take place after the believer's profession of faith.
There are a thousand ways to declare your faith. No need to re-baptize. Baptism is about what God does for you. Don’t try to make it into something else.
@Michelle Staunton
I’d love to see where Scripture says that baptism is “an outward sign to the world and the devil.” That isn’t at all what Scripture tells us.
There is only one baptism. Baptism isn’t a way for you to show anyone anything. It is how you are brought into Christ’s Holy Church.
@@bradleyperry1735 so the thief who died with Jesus didn't go to paradise, check.
There is absolutely no example of infant immersion in the New Testament. Zero. Philip would not immerse the Ethiopian until his belief was confirmed. John ridiculed the Jewish leaders who thought they were good with God because of their lineage. He preached a baptism of repentance. Peter preached repentance prior to immersion at Pentecost. Infant baptism is simply not biblical. It is from the wisdom of man. Support it at your own risk sir.
Did you watch the whole video? What do you have to say about his argument regarding "it's not in the bible?"
@@isaiahtaylor5309 Hi Isaiah! Yes sir. I did. It is the same argument my wife who is Anglican uses. I get it. It is a clever argument and it is true that the scriptures report “the first wave” of those being saved. However if the good Lord had wanted us to baptize our infants prior to them understanding and making the decision themselves, he would have clearly instructed that as he did with circumcision. He was very clear with that...8 days. With immersion it seems to me that John the immerser made it clear that a new age had arrived. Jeremiah 31 also indicates that a New Covenant would arrive in which awareness is required unlike the Old where one was circumcised then instructed. I understand the covenant argument and it is indeed convincing on one level. It feels good to believe it. However I know for certain what is instructed in the New Covenant. Why chance it?
@@isaiahtaylor5309 I watches the video hoping to hear something new some better argument in defense of the issue just because I really like DW. But it is as poor argument as the rest of them. It seems that every single time Calvinist is trying to defend pedo-baptism he just shoots himself in the foot.
@@isaiahtaylor5309
It’s not biblical - fact - you have to believe - how can an infant believe ?
Hello brothers, unfortunately I am very unqualified to debate the point, I merely replied because "Regular Guy's" comment didn't seem to be answering Doug's treatment of the "it's not in the bible" argument.
I will say though, that if you really want to hear Doug out on this topic you ought to read "To a Thousand Generations." This CZcams short is more of a colloquial retelling of his journey than a rigorous inquiry.
Calvinistic rolls of the tongue like the sweet grace of GOD
Lol this is the most random comment that I have seen, but I agree with it! 😂
?? Calvin created an evil legacy where man love the teaching of man above the teaching of god
@@jesuschristsaves9067 Calvin didn’t create Calvinism. It’s interesting that you consider a synergistic soteriology to be Man enjoying God’s teaching, but a Mongergistic soteriology to be Man enjoying Mans teaching. 😂
@@jesuschristsaves9067 You do understand the principles of grace in scripture right ? This was taught before Calvin. Keep reading the word man as it does not support potential atonement.
Just the opposite, somehow man's free will has the ability to rob Christ of his glory?. Salvation is not a matter of choice by man or of human origin. The scriptures teach that those who belong to the father will be given to Christ and then drawn unto himself.
@@Owngeeeeee
I don’t hold to any philosophical framework or label beside Christian. Calvin didn’t create Calvin-ism? Interesting to note.
There is a book by W. Gary Crampton titled: from Paedobaptism to credobaptism
A critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism
…That will shoot big irreparable holes in the argument here.
I am a ruling elder in a PCA church that has an ordained Southern Baptist brother and my father is a 20+ year deacon in a SBC church as well. All 3 of us would say we believe God for the salvation of our children and are covenantal in belief but only I and my wife practice pedo-baptism. This is as good of an explanation as I have ever encountered. Thank you Pastor Doug for this Godly wisdom and calling believers to practice their belief.
There's no sin in asking God for the salvation of your children, but history shows a million times over that he simply does not grant this request to all Christian parents. Much could be said, but suffice to say
HE is the one who chooses the elect (all for his own good reasons) and HE is the one who chooses to pass by those who are not chosen (all for his own good reasons).
@@eucharistangel4662 couldn’t agree more. I am trusting the Lord for the salvation of my children, but the Almighty and gracious King of the Universe owes me nothing. Too many examples in Scripture of Godly parents with wretched kids.
As a Baptist, I really like this perspective on infant baptism. At the end of the day, baptism is a public ceremony. I've always considered it a symbol of one's public profession (credo), and this perspective of pedo is very similar, the ceremony still a symbol but a symbol of the parents faith in the promises of God for their children. I've always been very concerned about "the order" of baptism in relation to profession but this has made me reconsider that as perhaps too legalistic. I can gladly link in arms in fellowship with this perspective. I think baptism might be better suited as a family issue rather than a church issue, different families in a church doing what they think best. 🙂
But the order does indeed matter.
For Baptists, baptism follows salvation. For Catholics and a few others, baptism is linked to salvation (has salvific effects).
For Presbyterians, baptism places you into a local church covenant, but is not linked or tied to salvation. That is a departure that is worth noting.
There are dangerous implications to separating baptism from salvation. I'm not claiming Baptism saves, but I am claiming that they are linked.
Ezekiel tells us that in the New Covenant God would replace our heart of stone with a heart or flesh, and that His laws would be written in our heads and on our hearts. That is a description of salvation.
So to be a part of that New Covenant people, salvation has to have first taken place. To be baptized into anything else does not follow IMO.
@@gabelumby149 Ezekiel doesn't say anything about the ceremony of baptism. We don't see that until the New Testament. What I found helpful about the video was looking at baptism as a public acknowledgment of God's promise to graft the child into the New Covenant people upon the child's future profession. In that sense, the order of baptism and profession doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as churches have historically made it in my opinion.
@@michaelkelleypoetry Yes, I agree Ezekiel doesn't say anything about baptism. But it does describe entry or acceptance into the new covenant.
Just as circumcision was the sign of entry into the the old covenant (nation of Israel), baptism is the outward sign of being brought into the new covenant. No where in the NT do we find baptism being a public profession of being brought into the local church (though I would agree with Doug that either position is an argument from silence as the baptism texts in Acts are for people hearing/understanding the gospel for the first time).
"What I found helpful about the video was looking at baptism as a public acknowledgment of God's promise to graft the child into the New Covenant people upon the child's future profession."
Can you point me to anywhere in the NT where we find this pattern?
I think the paedobaptist response would be that the new covenant acts in the same way as the old covenant with respect to children and that belief was always necessary. When the gentiles are grafted in to the tree, they are warned to be careful or they can be pulled out. That’s a covenant tree, not salvation tree.
@@gabelumby149 _"For Presbyterians, baptism places you into a local church covenant, but is not linked or tied to salvation. That is a departure that is worth noting."_
That doesn't accurately capture baptism from the Prebyterian perspective. Here's what our confession says, noting that it (mostly) affirms what you say about covenant membership (though it isn't just for local membership), but goes well beyond just that mere statement:
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28
1) Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; *but also,* to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
6) The efficacy of Baptism *is not tied to that moment of time* wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but *really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.*
So it is simply not the case that it is not linked or tied to salvation - the Presbyterian confession explicitly says it is - but what is denied is that salvation occurs at the moment of time of the baptism, as if getting wet in this ceremony causes salvation.
And to return to the idea about it being for entry into a "local" church covenant, which might imply that a person needs to get rebaptized if they ever have to change churches:
7) The sacrament of Baptism is but *once* to be administered unto any person.
So good. We don't wait for children to get baptized to let them partake in Christian worship, so then why should we wait to let them get baptized? 10/10
They are not waiting to get baptised. They are waiting to accept baptism. Has a child that leaves the faith broken an oath?
No, just the covenant into which they were born.
Because baptism is a public declaration by the person accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, otherwise it’s just dogmatic, ritualistic wishful thinking.
@@tesseract535 You cannot be born of a woman into the New Covenant.
@@chrislane1076 there is not even a single example for such a practice for covenental members in bible.
This is as good an explanation as I've heard for this position. But even if all faithful Christian parents should believe their kids will become faithful/are elect, what is Baptism a sign of? The parent's belief in the future realization of God's promises? Or what God does with a person's life with conversion?
I find most discussions around baptism are downright silly. In order to understand baptism, one has to be honest and understand where and WHY it originated THEN discuss how that context applies to baptism in scripture. Our view of baptism is based on one of several mikvahs Jews took part in. Its original intent(s) was to purify/renew as an outward sign of repentance and/or (depending on context) to agree to become the person baptizing you as a disciple. That’s why there was a debate in Paul’s churches about who was baptizing whom. It became a popularity contest - and, I believe, it is why Jesus never directly baptized anyone in scripture, but he commanded his disciples to do so. Anyone baptized directly by Him would have struggled with haughtiness and pride perceiving himself greater than the rest.
More clearly there is no passage in the New Testament that says babies weren’t baptized, there are passages that state the whole family was baptized.
Your removing the right to be baptized from your son or daughter, I was infant “baptized” and struggled with the idea if my baptism was valid. The LORD set on my heart to be baptized and I struggled with the idea, I was a Presbyterian at the time. This created a disharmony with my relationship with the church and ultimately I left, the LORD is great however and was leading to me another church where I was baptized. When we baptize children without their claim of faith we are removing an important transaction of faith with God from their life.
@@syfeb incorrect. The church has always baptized infants and still does to this day. It is very wrong not to baptize your infants.
@@MrWesford It's "wrong" not to baptize your infants? Please tell me - what does it accomplish? Do you think by baptizing them, they are now saved and part of God's kingdom?
@@danm5911
You misunderstand Salvation. And God’s Kingdom is present on Earth, now, as His Church. So yes, when a baby is baptized into the Church, they are entering in to God’s Kingdom. Salvation is not a one and done deal. It is a life long struggle.
@@bradleyperry1735 Then, my question remains. What does it accomplish if it doesn't provide any eternal benefits and since the Bible never commands it to be done at this age?
I don't misunderstand salvation. Salvation is by grace, not by works. Thus, it is not a lifelong struggle. I'm not saying "once saved always saved," but it is unbiblical to also believe that we can lose our salvation at any moment. God doesn't decide whether to declare us righteous again every day. He purchased us by his blood, and we are in his family. If we categorically reject him and walk away, then we're in questionable territory. But I don't lose my salvation every time I sin or have doubts or get discouraged.
reading books about baptism??? doctrines of men??? how about an argument for
believing the word of God? belief in the gospel of Jesus is the only prerequisite
for baptism. preach the word.
you read books to get commentary or better explanation about the word of God that doesn't diminishes believe in the word of God. Having so many versions of the Bible doesn't diminish the word of God.
Amen, the way he described his dad is pretty much who I am by the grace of God, besides the part about just believing that God will save the children by default because you believe he will. His dad had as much scriptural support for that position as Doug has for infant baptism.
@@timnoe19 scripture interprets scripture, cross referencing.
also, versions, or various interpretations of the bible are popular,
but not wise. stick with the best "translations". seek the word of God,
and He Himself for wisdom. Feed on the word. john's baptism, was
it from God or from man??? Jesus commands "believers" to be baptized.
@@stevenl1706 all the promises of God are YES "in Christ Jesus".
meaning, if you are in Christ, obtained thru faith in Him. all the
promises are conditional and always have been. peace and amen.
If you want the theology behind it, Doug and others did videos at grace agenda a few years agouti was called keeping your children and is available on CZcams
I have literally never considered this
Infant Baptism sounds more like it is a dedication of the baby to the Lord, by the parents. Not baptism as we have been told that it is. Baptism being a public profession of faith and belief in the Lord Jesus by the one getting Baptized. then being Baptized in that faith. But a baby is not able to do that. So I am confused about the infant Baptism. Not that it is wrong, but just confuses the meaning of baptism. If Baptized as an infant or even a toddler, I would think they should then be Baptized again when they are old enough to profess their belief and acceptance as Jesus as their savior? Or is our understanding of baptism and what it means, incorrect. I love this and want to understand more about it. Thank you Pastor Doug. You explain things so well.
There is not a single verse in the Bible about infant baptism. Baptism is ALWAYS after confession of faith in the NT.
But what about believers who were baptized with their whole household? Would that have potentially included people who had not yet professed faith?
I try to think about what may have actually happened. Like Peter saying, don't just wash my feet! I wonder if there may have been some zeal by new believers to get baptized and to include their family, including kids.
@Michelle Staunton yeah, I think that probably everyone who was baptized had heard and believed. The question you ask is exactly what is at issue: why baptized children and infants. And the reason is the the same reason as circumcision: to demonstrate faith in God doing work in the lives of those children and dedicating them to the Lord in a physical and liturgical rite.
@@jessedphillips in my opinion, the strongest argument for paedobaptism is the fact that if you assume continuity between the old and New Testament, except in those places where it is explicitly stated to have discontinuities.. then you would assume that infants would be included in the Sign of the Covenant in the New Testament because they were included in the Old. (I am credo baptist though).
The problem with the households being baptized in Acts is that even in those instances.. from what I have looked at.. it still speaks of all of them believing.
Though I hold to a credo baptist position... I am kind of in the air on this particular topic. I have been studying it for a while and haven’t landed solidly on it yet.
“And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having BELIEVED in God WITH his whole household.”
Acts 16:34 NASB1995
@@Owngeeeeee I like the idea of continuity in participating in the symbolism of the new covenant. I like the idea of testing people as potential believers. We encourage prayer, church attendence, bible study and memorization, even recitation of creeds for prime who may yet profess faith, so I kind of like doing this too.
I was baptized when I was like 33 or so and my kids were with me. They were very young, younger than the so-called age if accountability at around 7-8 years old. It was meaningful and they were aware of it. I thought it was a great way to show the covenant and cement the idea of their identity in Christ. If they later profess faith, though, I hope that they'll be able to be baptized. As a corner southern Baptist, this credo approach has a cost place in my heart. The evangelical Anglican church does the paedo though.
It's not a salvific issue either way so I like liberty and charity as a general approach.
@Michelle Staunton you realize that Doug Wilson isn't the first to put forward this idea, right. What is doubl talk? What truth is he leading people away from with this perspective?
There may be other things with which you take issue regarding Doug but let's focus on this issue only. Can you it forward your perspective rather than naysaying? What is the position you regard as correct and what are the rules with other perspectives and what is the associated harm with them?
I'm noticing two things in this thread: 1. Some of you think that Doug's "10 year old baptism isn't in the Bible either" argument is weak. 2. The rest of you are saying "where are the verses?"
These two complaints arise from a misunderstanding of the context of this debate. When Doug points out that the Bible has no example children waiting for baptism until a profession of faith, he's not saying that it proves the opposite. He's demonstrating that this is not a point-and-shoot debate. Neither side has a silver bullet verse. Both sides are arguing from a systematic understanding of scripture.
The reason you don't hear "proof verses" that say exactly what Doug is saying is that scripture doesn't address the topic directly. Instead you have to build your system from scripture, which is why you hear *supportive* verses like "train up a child in the way he should go."
Exactly. Dunk a baby and be blessed!
Great point - there are no bible examples of parents waiting till their infants turn 10 before they baptize them
A Christian Baptism requires faith (of the one who is being baptized) because following Christ requires a change of heart (repentance) so it’s highly unlikely that they thought it needs to be stated.
@@arminius504 give me a text that says it requires faith so that babies cannot be baptized? Baptism of infants is the most natural practice for the primitive church since they were doing circumcision on 8 day olds - that is Jewish believers
Simple: Salvation is NOT via someone else's decision
Salvation is not any of our decisions. God chooses whom he chooses.
Babies do not understand what is going on.
Reading the comments, am I to assume that Baptists are not Calvinists then? It seems like infant baptism would be more consistent with the Calvinist notions of total depravity, and regeneration preceding faith.
I don't understand the conflict. Christening is a wonderful ceremony where parents dedicate their child to the Lord in front of their family and community. It is appropriate for a christened child to then be baptized once they pass the age of reason, or on to adulthood, and are able to confess their faith.
Absolute utter nonsense, Doug you should listen to your father, your too intellectual for your own good.
God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
I guess spelling is yours?
Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me..." His statement shows the willful volition of the children coming to Jesus. They wanted Jesus. These children were not infants. Some people believe on Jesus while they are children. Their hearts were open to the gospel. Their faith is real. They come to Christ with the understanding of a child. Infants have no understanding of the gospel. To baptize an infant is unscriptural. Only believers, even young ones, qualify for baptism.
Eh, that can be turned around quite readily. Note that he is commanding the adults not to forbid the children from coming to him. To withhold a child from coming to Jesus by withholding their baptism is thus unscriptural and forbidden by this passage.
Of course, the problem for both of us is that this passage is not about baptism so you (and I) making it about baptism is a stretch.
Still... from my perspective when we see the practice of baptism in Acts, what we see is household members being baptized when the head of household they are under comes to believe. So regardless of the age of the household members, the Biblical pattern is to baptize the whole household of a believing head.
This fits my view. You'd have to reject the household baptism practice and insert the belief that everyone in the household was 1) above a certain age, and 2) had a credible confession of belief. It's still an argument from silence either way, but now your side has to insert caveats that my side just doesn't need to patch up the potential hole.
Is there much of a difference baptizing babies and people that later prove to be apostates?
Understanding the OIKOS covenant
Sorry Doug, missed the mark with this video. You gave a very poor argument with no scriptural support for infant baptism, just that “well I also don’t see what x people do either” which is a deflection from the question of the legitimacy of infant baptism and is a logical fallacy. Infant baptism is as scriptural as the argument for just believing that God will save all of your children as well because you trust he will, that being that it’s not scriptural at all. Keep in mind that your protestant forefathers like ulrich zwingli and John Calvin and others who drowned Baptists over baptism. Seems like it was a worthy cause to die for, seeing as how it’s blasphemous to baptize an infant. It’s like letting a heathen participate in the Lord’s supper. It disgraces that ordinance, and all you have to do is read Acts 8:36-38 to see why it’s not scriptural. Unless you believe acts 8:37 is spurious because of the seminaries and textual criticism have caused you to believe that, I can’t see how you came to the conclusion that infant baptism is correct doctrine.
Hang on, can you clarify where Acts 8 condemns infant baptism? Is your reference correct?
@@CaitHoover sure, acts 8:36 the eunuch asks Philip what hinders him from being baptized and Philip answers in verse 37 that if he believes with all his heart that he may be baptized and then he makes his profession of faith by saying “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” and then they go _down_ into the water and he is baptized in verse 38, there’s the immersion.
I’ve never seen an infant that could talk and understand who God is and their own sin and come to repentance and make an open profession of faith, and then be immersed into water. The whole practice of infant baptism is just another blemish that protestants have from Rome.
@@stevenl1706 I'm curious though. When they baptize entire housholds in Acts (10 and 13), do you assume they all professed faith? I'm not assuming there were infants in the house, but I think to assume everyone in the house professed faith is a pretty big assumption.
@@stevepierce227
Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
They had already received the Holy Ghost, meaning they had already repented and believed on Christ! Also, show me where you see infant baptism in acts 13, because I don’t see it. I don’t even see baptisms happening (if you could quote that verse out of acts 13?) but I see Paul preaching and people believing and getting right with God. Not sure what point you’re making for the case of infant baptism.
@@stevenl1706 So children should not be taught to pray and obey Christ until they are baptized?
This is strictly incorrect. Baptism is an answer of a good conscience by the person Being baptized not the person doing the baptizing or the family saying it needs to happen. Likewise baptism Requires bringing fruit fit for repentance. A Baby is not capable of either of these things.
Where do you get this teaching from?
@@oracleoftroy sorry it's taken so long. I have a response written but I need to review it to make sure it's good enough
@@joncilbonk9801 No rush, I'm often really slow to respond, and CZcams isn't all that great for fast moving conversations anyway.
A big issue to me. Most Biblical accounts are of people (adults) coming to the faith. Yes, be baptized! And confess!
But, children of God, (me and you).. Are our children, not God's children? (Meaning underaged children.) Do they have any inheritance? Isn't that what the covenants are about? Isn't baptism about putting a name upon a person? A NAME? Yes, the Inheritance-Name. The name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Gender unasked, Age unasked?
Household. Is there a boundary according to Scripture, on household?
If you take your children on vacation, you take them.. Get in the car.. Let's go.
The same way, our savior saves. For the underaged, In the Household, Grace and Salvation!
(If they grow older, and, maybe, sadly, leave the Faith, it is on them. They have a God given choice.)
For protestants, it is not just the ritual itself that matters, but the intention behind it, which was not really addressed in this video. Water baptism symbolizes spiritual rebirth and being sealed in Christ, but should that happen before or after salvation? And if before, does it affect salvation? Can you be saved without it? We say "faith alone in Christ alone," but having infants baptized may have the potential to confuse people on whether the rituals or family/church memberships are necessary or sufficient for salvation. The Pharisees thought they were special because they had Abraham and Moses as their "fathers," but Christ shows the need for each person to repent of sin and trust in him. This can often happen in a community/family setting. There is nothing inconsistent with the idea that parents should raise their children to follow Christ, but that the children respond individually and at a specific moment to be saved. If they do, and choose to be baptized afterward they will have lost nothing. But if they do not believe, having already been baptized as infants, they would have gained nothing. Personally, I have seen many people fail to walk as Christians despite being raised in the "covenant." When someone is baptized as a youth or adult, it seems a more personal part of their own testimony. With infant baptism, it reflects more on the parents and church community. Yet we also have baby dedication and adult/teen profession of faith, which are not unbiblical, but not commanded either. So in both camps there seems to be a desire to have some type of both community and individual-level accountability for "becoming a Christian." These debates can be stumbling blocks for the unsaved to accept the gospel and for believers to grow in faith, but I think it makes sense to think through carefully what Christ is asking us to do, without condemning those of a different tradition with regard to things not specified in Scripture.
Faith alone is a lie and it’s not even Biblical.
@@bradleyperry1735 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. By "faith alone," we understand that Christ does all the work in salvation and we simply believe. Our works, such as rituals of the church, do not add anything of merit to the salvation process. Paul goes to great lengths in his epistles to overturn any doctrine of salvation through works. I'm not sure what you are objecting to, but this is a central tenant of protestant belief.
@@lorainehitt9977
Of the Protestant belief is the key phrase. This didn’t arrive until 1500 years after the Church was founded and you will find no writings or practices of any first century Saints to support that position. And you will also find that the no Christians until the Protestant revolution interpreted that Scripture to mean what you say it does.
The rituals f the Church as you call them are acts of God’s Grace. What rituals, exactly, are you opposed to? Confession? Baptism? Communion? A liturgical service? All of these are in keeping with the oldest tenets of the Faith. From the very beginning. Any deviation from them is a denial of the traditions passed onto us from the Apostles, which Paul warns us not to forsake.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Our works do not save us, but it is for good works that we are saved. Simply believing is not enough to save you.
James 2:14-25
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?† If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble!† But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.† (James 2:14-26, OSB)
@@bradleyperry1735 I agree that faith without an out-flowing of good works is not true faith at all, which I think is James's message here. Both Rahab and Abraham had an internal faith, which they acted upon externally, and if they had not acted we would assume they did not believe at all. The two, faith and works, are inextricably linked. Works are like fruit that show the true nature of a tree, but don't change it's nature.
Many Christians throughout history have struggled with these ideas. The New Testament shows believers confused about whether a man should be circumcised to be considered a Christian, and I think Paul would not have written "not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:9) unless he, as a former Pharisee, was reacting against an over-reliance on righteousness according to the law (i.e. works). So I don't accept that first century Christians couldn't have covered the ground we're covering, and come down on the side of saving faith as prior to works. As touching works, we also see plenty of evidence that early Christians treated communion, for example, as a serious and meaningful event, which I do as well.
I'm simply saying that I choose to belong to an evangelical/baptist/protestant community specifically because I think the danger is over-emphasizing our works over the work of Christ, and I think this concern is Biblical. I also believe my salvation is secure only because Christ's sacrifice is complete, shown by His resurrection. If I thought my works added anything to that, I would be terrified, never knowing if I had done enough. Every other religion in the world is about human works, what we have to offer God. I believe next to the perfection of Christ, we cannot offer anything of merit. Yet my faith in Christ compels me to do good in the world, to follow Him in obedience and to point others to Him. And growing in good works is evidence of growing faith and sanctification. A maturing Christian rejects the idea that God is fine with any lifestyle.
I appreciate your thoughts and believe Christians can agree to disagree on non-essentials. I treasure opportunities for respectful dialogue, which are few and far between, and I certainly don't, and never will, have all the answers. I'm reasonably certain we would agree on most of the works/rituals that Christians should do. BUT...the central foundation of Christianity has got to be Christ.
@@lorainehitt9977When was Abraham justified according to Paul in the NT?
Adam rebelled against his perfect Father... And we are saved by belief, just as Abraham, not water but water from the Rock. Baptism. It is symbolic of a heart change, death of the sinner in Messiah's death, life in Yeshua's life as the firstfruit of the resurrection. Symbols don't save. Just look at islam and Catholicism.
I was baptised when I was 20. If the Pastor did more to explain to me the importance of Baptism I would of been baptised when I was 19 the year I was saved.
Thank you, Yes there are to many who rush to baptism without giving time to see a genuine work of repentance and new life given by the Holy Spirit.
Is john pipper son saved???
Wrong sir. Acts 8 teaches CLEARLY the PREREQUISITE for baptism is BELIEVING ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST with "ALL THINE HEART". Infant "baptism" is NOT REAL BAPTISM according to Philip !!!!
I disagree on the baptizing of infants too; Baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality that has already happened for believers. If it were necessary for us to baptize anyone other than believers, scripture would speak clearly to it. We don't let children participate in the Lord's supper (hopefully) apart from a confession of faith in Christ, this is no different. And If we teach our kids the Gospel (and the reality of sin in their lives) and they see faith lived out in our homes, children can understand and come to faith and we can baptize them.
Fair point but no need for aggression. This is a mole hill of our faith not a mountain top. I don’t see baby baptism as legitimate either but I’m always interested in learning and hearing different view points. Objective truth is what drives me, not merely being right or wrong.
And belief is a prerequisite to salvation. Good thing God grants infants faith!
Yes, we believe what Philip teaches, and we follow the model given in Acts that when the head of the household believes, the whole household is baptized. We don't disobey Phillip and indiscriminately baptize the households of unbelievers.
Well that was poor.
Brutal.
@@CanonPress yea that too.
Interesting
Honestly infant baptism is the thing I’m torn on atm