That was great! Thanks. I am one who disagrees on this particular point, but I greatly respect and am built up by your ministry. I won't get into why I disagree because it is not important. Keep doing what your are doing and I will keep learning and enjoying. Blessings!
I knew from previous vids that you are Calvinist/lutheran both from Augustinian Gnosticism but didn’t realize to what extent until today. I suppose this means the millions of infants and children and mentally ill that aren’t baptized go to hell which is what Augustine taught. I do think you are sincere but very wrong. The basic premise of total depravity, sinful before we were even born, is the false foundation that all this is built on. Many are seeing through these false, unbiblical teachings and are being set free to worship the God that truly loves all. I would also suggest you do a study on Luther, one of the greatest antisemites who ever lived. Has writings on his hatred of Jews (On The Jews and Their Lies) was used by Hitler to justify his hatred and persecution of Jews. As one of his generals said during the Nuremberg trials said, “I did nothing that Luther didn’t approve of” . There is ample evidence that all these unbiblical teachings beginning with total depravity came from Augustine’s gnostic background not scripture. I am going into detail because I think you are intellectually honest, just wrong. Shalom
@@LarryVinson-l5t ,...You have spoken in completely and total ignorance and have shown yourself to be just another brute beast made only to be destroyed that has been snared into the 100% apostate church and into its antichrist gospel/christianity. Repent!
Thank you for being careful and thorough. One of the beautiful things about confessional Lutheranism is the trust in God's Word without feeling a need to understand how God does it.
Υπέροχη διδασκαλία. Ευχαριστούμε, Τσαντ. Σε αγαπάμε. Στον ελληνικό κόσμο, η γλώσσα του οποίου είναι η γλώσσα της Καινής Διαθήκης, πάντα βαπτίζαμε και βαπτίζουμε νήπια. Η βάπτιση είναι δώρο.
Speaking Greek does not mean you authomatically do everything correct accoridng to God's word. You can also apply the same thing to the Jews. They spoke the same language of the old testament, but rejected the Son of God...
@@alexbaptista8150Votre pensée est insane et non biblique, puisque dans les Actes , les Apotres baptisaient des familles entières, les enfants avec ! Dites -moi sérieusement, Où dans la bible est indiqué l’âge auquel l’enfant peut être baptisé ? Nulle part ! S’il n’y a pas de limite, alors les enfants aussi ont droit à leur baptême, c’est un don et le début de la vie chrétienne : dés leur baptême, les enfants reçoivent la communion et fortifie ainsi leur lien au Christ ! Que de temps perdu chez ces mal formés! C’est la pratique normale depuis plus de 2000 ans. Ceux qui ne le font pas, le font simplement par des raisonnements insanes sortis de la cervelle de réformateurs orgueilleux sans lien avec les Apôtres, quelques 1600 ans plus tard ! Folie! Non ?
This is the most irrelevant argument I heard to make a point. I know greek people and they think Christian are stupid. So, they are right and everybody shouldn’t be Christian because it’s just stupid.
Chad, I've been listening to your commentaries for several months now and want to let you know that I appreciate the careful thought and deep perspective that you provide, similar to that of my own pastor but with many additional insights. May God continue to bless your ministry.
Thanks, Chad. Listen, I disagree. But the older I get, the less I’m willing to get distracted by our differences in these types of issues. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17, and I can’t wait for us all to truly be united in eternity one day.
@jonathang4833 Jesus called all to take up their cross, to count the cost ... luke14 ... Acts 2 Repent and ... Hebrews 5 12ff Repentance ... Faith .... before baptisms Romans 7 ..Paul alive *before* the law ; Jesus : of such is the kingdom if heaven ; Ezekiel 18 children Not guilty for patents sins ... infants are Not guilty ... they fallen bodies not fallen souls There is and was no infant baptism in the nT church .... it was impossible for infants ..... John's baptisn wa a baptism of repentance ...do was Jesus baptism but included faith in Him ...
I recently left a Southern Baptist church to join a confessional Lutheran Church. The main reason I did this was over the Sacraments, Baptism and Communion. When I sat down with my Baptist pastor, he had no problem with everything I said, EXCEPT infant baptism. This is a very high hurdle for anyone raised in the reformed tradition. You explain this so well. I hadn't thought of the connection between original sin and the infant's need for salvation, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for your clarity, and for your faithful teaching, constantly clarifying New Testament lessons by their Old Testament antecedents.
Probably because John the Baptist himself practiced multiple mitzvahs it’s something that most non-messianic churches don’t understand because they weren’t Jewish like Jesus. The Bible says believe and be baptized, however, the man on the cross next to Jesus, didn’t believe and hop off and get baptized to go the paradise so disagreeing with your understanding of whole household baptism instead of mikvah mizpah (repeated ceremonial cleansing as an outward expression of relational bond) doesn’t really matter. It’s literally not a salvation issue, and the only problem is if people try to make it one. In the same way, Jesus didn’t take the cup and say once a month whenever you take it, he said, whenever you eat or drink, in many ways, it just goes to prove that almost everyone’s wrong because they’re not actually humbling to what it really says. If you have a problem with someone you’re supposed to not even eat until you’ve resolved that matter. That’s what scripture actually says on this topic.
@@SRose-vp6ew Actually the thief on the cross was baptized by Christ, by His Words and also his water and blood. John 19:31-37, concentrate on verse 34. Again remember for Lutherans, Baptism is an act of God putting to death through his Word and Water our Old adams and raising us in the same instance to new life in Jesus Christ. We do nothing but receive. Baptism now saves you, Jesus states this in John 3:5; Peter recites Jesus Words in 1 Peter 3:21, and John delivers the truth of John 19:34 in 1 John 5:6-8. It becomes obvious when you come to the realization that most christians believe they have something to "participate" in and Jesus says in Genesis 6:5"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The continuation never ends until your death. The law says you're not supposed to eat until you've resolved "matters" but the Gospel says its done, price paid in full. Something to think about that came to my mind and of course I had to research it: When you open your mouth to speak, saliva spreads across your lips and breaks into filaments when your lips part. Airflow from your lungs then stretches and thins the filaments until they rupture and become tiny droplets. This means that Jesus was baptizing everyone he came into contact with. You can thank the covid-19 mask-pushers for this research!
The fact is, nothing this heretic said makes any sense. It only makes sense to those like him who are completely spiritually dead, blind, lost, deceived, and Biblically illiterate. Repent!
I was raised Catholic, but left the Catholic Church in my early twenties (I align more with the Baptists since then), so I have a different perspective. You say, "When God baptizes someone, He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this? By saying that Baptism is the Liquid Word, you "seem" to be trying to resolve a conflict you are having with who can be saved and how. So when does the "plain" water used in baptism become the Liquid Word? By the prayer of a Priest, a Lutheran minister, or when any Christian decides to baptize someone (or can they)? Since a child has the sin nature from birth, and because they are too young to confess Christ, are you concerned they will go to Hell because they have the original sin still on them? You said "plain" water can't save us, so the assumption would be that you are inferring that the Liquid Word can? If so, you never explicitly said so. I would agree with you if I saw evidence of child baptism in the New Testament and it explicitly mentioned baptism was part of the salvation process, but it does not. You also never did delve into "why" certain churches came to practice infant baptism. Circumcision introduces a male child into the Mosaic Covenant. Water baptism always follows faith in the New Testament. You said, and I quote, "What's happening in baptism is God is taking the word that is preached and he's putting it in water so that instead of the word simply entering into our ears the word is washed onto us....". Where did that come from? Scripture or your mind? So what is it? Is water baptism that you call the Liquid Word essential to saving faith? If so, you never said so. If not, then why did you say it wasn't? If water baptism is essential to salvation, then the thief on the cross is not in paradise. According to the New Testament, Jesus' blood is the only washing that is needed to cleanse our sin.
Yes. And as a former catholic myself, being taught about rituals and "holy water" and some occult practises, I find that idea too "magical", feeding superstition, possibly leading to infant baptism for the wrong motives (of "safety" more than real faith). About John the Baptist as an unborn child, his parents had received the promise he would be filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb... We can't stretch that to any child. Have a good day.
@jamesrmooresr - You say, "He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this?" Matthew 28:19 - Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the promise that is at the heart of baptism. Acts 2:37-41. 2:41 says that those who "received his word were baptized." The preached word is directly linked to baptism. The same happens in Acts 8:34-40. Philip preaches (the word of the Gospel) to the Ethiopian eunuch who desires to be baptized. He clearly see baptism as something essential and it is directly linked to preaching the Gospel (giving the promises of God). The issue is a physical element attached to God's word of promise. This happens all over the scriptures. Gen. 12, 15, and 17 all record God making a promise to Abraham and that promise is finally attached to the physical element of circumcision. The Tree of Life = Word of promise + physical element. The snake in the wilderness that Jesus directly connects to his own "raising up" is a physical element (bronze snake on the pole) + Promise (word) of healing. (Numbers 21:8-9). Those who rejected the physical sign of the snake were also rejecting the word of God's promise of healing (they did not trust the word of God). The cross of Jesus. The promise (death of Jesus is FOR YOU/for your sin) and physical sign (wooden cross). Or Jesus, himself. John 1:1-14. Jesus (physical man) IS the WORD of God. The Word of God is literally "in the flesh/body." (Greek "sarx"). If God puts His Word into and attaches His Word to physical elements all throughout scripture then why not the waters of baptism? But finally: Ephesians 5:25-26. "25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word , 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." God has been attaching His Word of promise to physical elements/symbols/things from the very beginning!
Go research a fascinating study done by a Japanese scientist on the memory of water. The result of the scientist’s study was that water remembers what is said to it, whether words of blessing, or words of cursing, and physically manifests those words. So a priest praying words of blessings over and dedication of the water in the baptismal font for the infant baptism are very powerful indeed-Isaiah 55:11-“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplice that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Liquid Word? That's the command, by Jesus' own Word whilst the water is applied. That makes alot of sense to me as someone whom English is my third language.
Likewise! Arguments against pedobaptism are usually a fusion of the following: 1) a preference towards a symbolic reading of God's Word, 2) an appeal to reason fostered by Western Enlightenment ideals, and 3) a hermeneutic that isn't entirely consistent with the manuscripts or their traditional preserving through church history. So, Scripture is referenced and cited but symbolically read (in places it wasn't before) or argued for a radically anti-historical interpretation (because throwing babies out with their bathwater is preferred over anything remotely seeming "Catholic") or flies in the face of Western Enlightenment reasoning. In the end of it, one's bias inevitably plays a large part in resisting a plain reading of the text because breaking personal biases is difficult.
I also come from a background opposed to infant baptism and have found myself Lutheran. Through the years I’ve not been totally convinced, but I’m no longer opposed. I found your point about circumcision particularly cogent. Thanks for all you do. You’ve been a tremendous blessing!
I was baptized as a child not knowing why. I lived apart from God until age 37 when I started to seek God. Later, on Pentecost, 2011 I was baptized knowing full well what it meant. Prior to that day I felt as if God was pursuing me - even as I looked the other way. Did my infant baptism make a difference? I would say no. God loves me as much now as when I was born. Christ died for me no matter what I say or do; but with that said being baptized as a child held no sway in light of my adult baptism. At least for my limited vision and understanding. All in held so much more weight than clueless. I will review your points further. Blessings!
We'll never know. Unless it's after. I was baptized as an infant, but my parents did not raise me to be a Christian. I turned to God at age 24 and my dad wouldn't talk to me for 6 months because I left the Catholic church -- yet he was living in sin and never went to church. Crazy.@@ChericeGraham
Hi Chad Bird. My testimony is basically one of Proverbs 22:6. My mother had me (and two years later my sister) baptized as infants at the First Methodist Church of Wichita Falls, TX (back in the days before that denomination gave way to blatant acceptance of sin). Into our mid teens mom made sure we participated in worship and activities of the churches we lived among military moves. In time, as is common, I simply strayed away. I always knew God was real and felt a bit of guilt by ignoring Him. Until I met the woman God brought into my life during my mid 30s. One of criteria to seriously dating me was that I be baptized. I said I'd been baptized, but later went to have a private submersion baptism just to satisfy the seeds inside and my conscious. But I still lived a worldly business style life until I was in my 50s and Christ confronted by baptism in His Holy Spirit. It changed my life. My point is in the truth of Proverbs 22:6. It does not tell what may occur 40 years until that child returns and receives the ways of the Lord and had no intention of departing from it. As a born again believer I pray my experience is a positive example for you and others. Now, let's all go be a blessing.
Thank you for your thoughtful presentation/argument. I still believe only in a believer's baptism. But, again thank you for your clear, and simple presentation.
Your spirit was gracious but your evidence for infant baptism was weak. In short, infant baptism is NOT New Testament baptism. Only believers are baptized in the NT. Baptism is always an informed decision believers make and are later baptized. Babies cannot exercise faith or make faith informed decisions. Come on, they're babies! Household passages in the NT speak to family solidarity and the fact that several in the household came to saving faith. Babies and/or infants are never mentioned. That leads to the next reason that arguments for infant baptism are weak: infants are never baptized in the NT. You can at best say that it may have happened in the households that were baptized but it's still an argument from silence. It's amazing that denominations have made infant baptism into an essential of the faith when there's not one example in the NT that it ever happened. Not to mention the massive blood letting that occurred over baptism because men and women could no longer subscribe to the unbiblical doctrines of infant baptism. That's a black eye that the historic church will always have. God help us...
I was baptized as a baby. I was baptized as an adult. The first was not my choice. The second was. But then the first time the Gospel was preached to me wasn't my choice, but I'm glad I heard it. So with my first baptism I realized that it was promise, an effort, a way to try to guarantee I would stay with God and the church. So I do not fault the parents who made that choice, or the Church that followed that practice. I did not baptize my children as infants, but I did take part in a formal baby dedication ceremony for each of them that was the same as my infant baptism without the water, the intent being the same. So now I respect the intent of the parents, and honour them whether it is a baby dedication or an infant baptism. Because I love them and honour them in Jesus' name.
I think in place of infant baptism, parents should aim to consecrate their baby with oil before the church in order that they be accountable to train that child up in the Lord in hopes the child will one day truly profess faith and be baptized.
Amen. He is doing the baptizing. He is choosing us and claiming us as his very own in that moment (“marking us”). A lot of churches will teach that baptism is us choosing him. The very opposite.
If it was up to Jesus to choose us, then why did he say " Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Matthew 23:37
@@Soundguydan If He chooses us, then we do not have to do anything. So, we, therefor, do not need to confess with our mouths? Repentance is not needed? If God chooses us, then we have the ability to end our own lives to be with Him, correct? Did He not choose the rich man in Luke 16?
Chad, thank you, I too have been raised SBC, and have been wrestling with this doctrine. This has been helpful! Perhaps you could do a video, on your journey from memorial to the real presence in the Lord's supper. This would be of tremendous benefit.
Hi Chad. I am confused about the liquid word part. I can't find a clear reference in Scripture about the Word being put into water. The part about circumcision really was amazing. Through it, I can understand how baptism is like saying: God, I now belong to You. You are my God! What an amazing grace!
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Infant baptism was introduced when babies died "outside of Grace " It was taken from Egyptian paganism, same as trinity theory. It was done because the Catholics thought that baptism brought salvation. Jesus said that those that repented, should let themselves be baptised. No infant can make that choice. I grew up in a sinful, ungodly un-Biblical church very similar to SBC. It is a religion, but is it Biblical Christianity?
Thank you! As I said in the video, the purpose is simply to explain why we believe what we believe (along with the vast majority of Christians worldwide since the days of the early church, I might add :-)
Hi Chad, really enjoy and appreciate your ministry. I have a question however that I will start with an opinion. Having different sects of Christian religions divides us because each one has differences in customs and beliefs about the same God. Why not be an “unlabeled”follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings rather than feeling the need to identify as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ect, ect, I refuse to identify as a particular sect for the reasons stated and prefer to just follow Jesus and his word without the particularities of each “we are more right” sect. Why do you identify within a sect (Lutheran). Again, not arguing, asking.
@@ChericeGrahamhow you ask? Following Christ is called “Christianity” and those that follow are called “Christian’s”. That should be the end of the story in my opinion. Not, I’m Catholic or I’m Lutheran or I’m ….. so, we will agree to disagree.
@@YZEDR500 If there are legit differences between the denominations and those differences matter, which they do, then the "unlabeled" idea doesn't make sense. What, are you just not going to take a stance on these issues? Jesus did and so should we. God has put people down through history into place (starting with His disciples) so that we can learn the truth. Unfortunately, some have wandered from the truth. I'm a Lutheran because I believe it's the most biblical version of all the denominations.
So if the Lutheran church is the most “Christian” church, why does many of my local Lutheran Churches permanently hang 80ft c 40ft LGBTQ flags on their sides? You see, that flag is anything BUT Christian and represents an abomination to our Lord and Savior. Having given that one example, you are still more comfortable in your “Lutheran” faith than if you were just an honest follower of God’s word and subsequent faith? This is the very problem with “denominations” as they lead to variances to the Lords words and laws and then get preached to the masses as “accceptance” and “tolerance” and “loving”. I would argue to say that if you were looking for the most Christ like church, it would be the Orthodox Christian Church if you’ve ever been? Even still, it’s yet another denomination with its own rules, rituals and ideals instead of just a straight Bible based and only Bible based, faith based church.
You quoted Acts 2:38, Peter said repent and be baptised. In infant is born with a sinful nature however it hasn't trespassed against God, yet. The child lacks understanding of the gift of saving grace. We can't force our will on anyone, that's the Holy Spirits job, we can only plant seeds. Acts 19 in Ephesus is a clear example to me of lacking baptism understanding and only just going through the "movements". That's my view anyway. I can see yours but I humbly disagree. Baptism isn't a pretreatment oil for your engine before it's ran yet or a metal conditioner for a prefired firearm.
I do not disagree with infant baptism, but I disagree with your explanation of what baptism by water “does” or means. The very last scripture you used-does not legitimize your case of the comparison between circumcision and baptism. It actually shows that what was done in the physical in the Old Covenant is now all completed in Christ symbolically in the New Covenant. It’s a symbol of being raised to life in Christ because of what he has done and the child being born into a covenant believing family-with the responsibility of the parents to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The liquid word and salvation in and through that liquid teaching is not supported by scripture.
Dear Professor, I have no doubt that it was the Holy Spirit who enabled you to realize what infant baptism really means for the Christian according the Scripture. Blessings.
I very respectfully disagree with you. Nevertheless, I’m extremely blessed by your kindness and wisdom that you have shown in all your teaching. I’ll continue to follow you and pray for God’s grace upon you.
Ephesians 2:9. This is fundamental regardless of our denomination. We cant add to the gospel . ... We cannot earn salvation from a baptism. Just as Gods people were not saved by circumcision alone. It is by Gods grace alone that we are saved. How we come to faith in Christ should never be confused with how we celebrate our profession of faith. God Bless
Looking at scripture specifically in what is says about baptism is: believe and be baptized. When is the point a human being can express belief in Christ and then be baptized? I would challenge an infant cannot. But God and His grace I belief takes care of our infants. Even the thief on the cross was not baptized, but Christ told him he would see Him in paradise. Baptism isn’t a salvation issue really. The work of God is to believe in Christ whom our Father sent.
Not everyone who is baptised as an infant for Bible says "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved". However child baptism is more like a dedication so as an EPC person ww look at it as that. I have seen so many non believers who were baptised as infants... being saved is by faith in Him. I accept Christ as a 6 year old boy at the time i understood the foundation of the Gospel presented. Others have different times for understanding whst is presented of the Gospel.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Lack of belief is what hinders someone from being baptized. A baby with no knowledge of God does not believe Jesus is the son of God or anything else. They do not meet the requirement. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." The logical implication of this question and answer, is that If thou doth not believe, thou mayest not.
@@johnowens8530 btw.... where do you read about children being taken to church? Just wandering if that's another "Christian tradition" instead of biblical statement.
@@123ppap somehow my comments keep being deleted. Freedom and democracy are alive and well in this country just as they always are claimed to be. Parents take their children to church every Sunday. I didn’t mention scripture.
I'm a Baptist who enjoys you videos very much. I always learn something from watching. I think infant baptism is okay as an ordinance of dedicating a child to God's service. If parents are inclined they can ask for this type of dedication and I am not opposed to churches who see it as an ordinance. But to say that there is a mystical quality added to the water that infuses the infant with faith just sounds bizarre. In that case, faith comes before belief. I stand firmly on believer's baptism because I believe that faith should precede the ordinance which is predominantly an outward demonstration or exhibition of the faith that has already been professed in the heart.
Dedication is NOT biblical. Baptism IS biblical. If you are a Bible based Christian, Why are you rejecting a Scriptural teaching and practicing a nonscripture practice created to cause confusion and false sense of doing the right thing. Odd how protestants reject infant baptism, despite clear teaching that entire households were baptized and no age, no IQ requirements put on it in Scripture. YET with the Lord's Supper which scripture clearly states it can be taken to your damnation, y'all insist on open Communion, something NOT practiced in biblical times and not for the first 1,500 years of Christianity. Christianity is faith handed from one generation to the next, yet 2 keys points of faith, baptism and Lord's Supper is rejected by you protestants. Infant baptism and Lord's Supper is Scriptural and practiced in Christianity, East and West, for 1,500 years across the world. Then come the protestants, what you practice has not been handed down by the Apostles. You did not get it from Scripture aka God. Makes one wonder who are you worshiping actually. You can't serve 2 masters. You can't say you are Christian while rejecting Christian doctrine and practices.
I enjoy listening to your comments, but I would like to offer some thoughts. "He places that Word inside the waters of Baptism??" @ 6:30. Where does this idea come from? Seems to be an assertion with no Scriptural backing. It's a nice thought, but is the point Biblical? Also, the use of O.T. circumcision as a pattern of salvation ignores the existence of Gentile believers. What of Jethro, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, the citizens of Nineveh? There's good indication that they were saved believers, but there is no indication that they were circumcised or were otherwise made to convert to Judaism or become part of the Mosaic Covenant.
Chad's reference for the "liquid word" is Eph.5:26 (which I personally think is a weak leg to stand a whole doctrine on). I fully agree with you about inefficiency of the OT circumcision explanation.
I went from independent Baptist to evangelical Lutheran over a period of some years. The first thing that collapsed was the trail of blood theology, I could not accept that the church over 2,000 years was wrong about Nicene orthodoxy and that Baptists were the only ones doing it right until the English Baptists figured it out through rationalism. Another thing that helped me was reading sacramental study Bibles along side my NIV study Bible so that I got more historical theology. I was reading just this week in either my Lutheran study Bible or my Ignatius Press Catholic Bible about the events of 1 Samuel 7 and v. 6. In this passage, the Israelites made a pledge of loyalty to the LORD, confess their sins in deep repentance, sacrifice a lamb, and then draw running water from a river into a pitcher and then poured the cold fresh water out onto the ground "and poured it out before the LORD, and fasted on that day." in the Scott Hahn notes (convert from Presbyterian pastor scholar to Roman catholic) he says (and I'm paraphrasing) that this text in the Old Testament is unique, there's nothing else like it, where fresh water is poured out as an oblation onto the earth to mark the loyalty ceremony / confession / sacrifice. Usually its poured onto a person like King David being anointed, but here, it's just poured out as a symbol that water is important, very important, and it doesn't explain any of it. Fast forward to the first century in the Didache, the early Jewish Christian handbook from as early as the period before the temple was demolished. In the Didache there's a text about baptism where it's like a flow chart of if then statements. And it's all about trying to get your hands on cold fresh river water to do the baptisms, and if none is available, then you can do a number of options, and they all include either immersion or pouring, the technique doesn't much matter as long as you try to do it in the order specified. And the text concludes with fasting on the day of baptism. So I am not saying that anyone is doing it right nowadays, because nobody is going to the river and immersing people as in Didache option A. However, it's cool to see the unfolding biblical theology from the Old 1 Samuel 7 to the Didache, where a loyalty pledge and forgiveness of sins is accompanied by pouring out water and fasting and praying and repenting. When I see all of the sacramental, priestly, liturgical elements of early Christianity, I just had to come to a church where they respect biblical historical theology more than just lexicons the way I grew up, we did lots of word studies and were brain washed that baptism has to mean dunk, but in the long history of the church, starting with the Didache, I think they did things different ways. Craig Keener wrote a giant commentary of Acts in which he says the Holy Spirit saves, converts, calls, baptizes and sanctifies people in the book of Acts in every possible different way imaginable, so that no one group can claim they check all of the boxes. NT Wright also explains how Romans 6 - 8 is a picture of the Israelites fleeing Egypt - in ch 6 they go through the water (like in Exodus) into a period of wandering and confusion (Rom 7) and then finally in Rom 8 the Spirit sets them free from the law of sin and death to live their vocations to the glory of God. So there are all of these pictures in the New Testament about water symbolizing the liberation of Israel from Egypt, from Pharoah's grip, from eternal death and slavery to sin. There's so many exciting pictures of water in the Bible, including how Noah's family was saved from the judgment of too much water on a boat, and the water purified the world from sin, but they survived the deluge by trusting God, etc. etc. Thanks for the great video.
There’s a lot I could critique here but the main issue here is that you cannot separate, as you quote, repent and be baptized. It really is that simple.
Agreed. Since repentance is a gift and work of God, there is no separation, even in infant baptism. The issue is that we tend to turn repentance in a human work and not regard it as a divine gift of a sinner being brought back to God by the Spirit.
@@chadbird1517 Indeed! I fully agree with your reply. The rebirth is a work of God. But John the Baptist was not a prescription of how we ought to think about baptism though it was descriptive of the actual event.
We must do "all in the name of the Lord." (Colossians 3:17). The things we do must be according to his authority, name, and glory. (Ephesians 5:20). Simply put there is no passage in the New Covenant that mentions, names, or authorizes "infant baptism." People who were immersed had been commanded to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 16:30-31), "repent," (Acts17:30); and to be immersed in order to have their past sins forgiven (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). None of those elements apply to infants. Therefore, "infant baptism" is a man-made religious tradition or theory that does not adhere to God's will. "Infant baptism " is a doctrine or "plant" that God did not plant, and it will be pulled up by the roots. (Matthew 15:13-14).
Hi Teacher I couldn't understand how God's word get inside of the water baptism? Can you please provide biblical bases referencing for God's liquid word? Thank you.
Isaiah 55:8-9 8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
We're called to be faithful to what God has revealed and practices he has given us to use during the journey on earth. You are not called to understand, and often being that humans are finite and sinful, there is no way to understand a God who is infinite and sinless. We're called to trust, not understand.
The big question is then, how does this affect the misscarried child, or the thousands of abhorted foetuses, who cannot recieve baptism? Are they hellbound just for being unwillingly conceived?
I have never met a single person who believes that unbaptized babies are damned. It is the REJECTION of Christ that damns, not the absence of baptism. We commit unbaptized babies who die into the hands of our good and gracious heavenly Father.
According to the New Testament nobody is going to perish unless they committed an active act of sin and rejection of Christ's forgiveness. So I think it is clear that unborn babies, infants, those born with such mental deficit that they simply could not respond to the Gospel, are "automatically" Heaven-bound.
@@bigtobacco1098yes. Jews did, so can you if you don't stay faithful to The Word. Jeremiah 3:8 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries.
It's a gift from God to the person and a duty of the parents. Blesses you with graces for this world of struggle. Do you feed a steak to a new born? If not, than why would as an adult? Different stages call for different actions. Baptism is a building block, foundation in the life of the faithful. You ask, Are not all my sins forgiven? Are you old enough you can repent of them ? If you are old enough and refuse to repent, than No they're not forgiven.
I like this question, and this is where I believe the big fuss is. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that the dunking of the water is what saves you, and even if you are baptized, you are not out of the water. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that apostasy is a real thing, you can fall out of Gods Grace. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, it regenerates you, it initiates you into the body of Christ. I believe it goes hand in hand with salvation but it’s not the initial act itself that all of a sudden makes you saved. You picking up what I’m putting down? If you have any questions ask me, I’d like to discuss more, and give you more examples or better explanations if needed.
Because I once wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox church, I'm always willing to be persuaded that infant baptism is a biblically sound practice. It was a sticking point I just could not reconcile. I heard lots of different arguments and ideas -- and I WANTED to believe. I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. But the arguments fell short when I studied the text. I remained in my nondenominational Body, still sympathetic to the liturgical faiths. I was hoping for something, but the liquid Word rang hollow in light of participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It just sounds like a work-around theological position taken in order to be all in on your desired denomination. If I could have done that, I'd be in the Eastern Orthodox church. But I couldn't.
I realize Luther and many reformers did teach infant baptism. However there was and in many cases still is a glaring inconsistency in the Sola Faith teaching of the Reformation, which they got right and was a significant theological correction, and the baptismal regeneration teaching, which they got wrong. The anabaptists got it right, but that was a step too far for many reformers including Luther who viewed that as a view of social anarchism and such were burned at the stake by many reformed groups. Which is to say for all the positive theological reform of the 1500s, the reformers were not perfect and did not fully find the right path in all theological areas. They struggled much over the theology of the Lord’s supper as well. These are things followers of Luther could have corrected as better understanding came, but instead, Lutheranism has remained locked and frozen in the inconsistency and institutionalized it. Sometimes man’s “systematic theology” becomes a straight jacket that binds even God in strange ways and results in doctrines like baptismal regeneration.
I also have a Luthern background, and was baptized as an infant and it meant absolutly nothing to me. Later on in life when I accepted Jesus, and became a Christian I was baptized as an adult. I knew what I was doing, and it was deeply felt, and meaningful to me. Your explaination of your point of view didn't make any sense, and did not witness in my heart as the truth.
@@mbnomad I think the whole issue is a baby isn't aware of their sinfulness (although sinful). The Holy Spirit's job is to convict us of our sin, and thus bring us to repentance. While you can't necessarily put an age on when this happens, pretty safe to say an infant doesn't comprehend sin (although sinful). God draws and saves.
My mom went to a Methodists church We were stationed in Tokyo in 1956-59 At 3 years old I had heart failure The church told her have this baby Baptism Well off to Texas for hospitalization 2 years later off to Oklahoma 15 years later i received Christ at 20 Was Baptisted for real
This analysis jumps from "we are born sinners" to "we need Christ's atoning sacrifice". There's something missing between, which is personal cupability: understanding the commandment, actualy sinning, and the result: Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
I’m a life long (no infant baptism, but yes for baptizing children who want to be baptized) Christian. We “dedicate our infants” before God and the congregation pledging to raise them “in the Christian faith” (or words to that effect). That effort leads them to the point where they can accept Christ and follow him in believers baptism. That dedication is made by the parents to God and before the congregation. It is also a “parent dedication” as much as a “infant dedication” but it is (like baptism) willingly made by people able to make that level of commitment (the parents). The church also dedicates themselves to helping the parents and their child to be raised “in the Christian faith.” It looks like a lots of “dedications” but with NO WATER involved. However, you describe “infant baptism” as just and only that. I heard no mention of a dedication of the parents or the church, “just the water baptism.” I would think if there were any commitment made by the parents or the church you would have mentioned it. (Please clarify if I missed it or if that was an oversight.) Therefore, here is my question: How is “infant baptism” (as I understand you describing it) better than “baby dedication (as I described it) insofar as “promoting the likelihood that the infant will come to a saving faith” on his own later in life? Asked another way: How is “infant dedication” inferior to “infant baptism?”
Faith doesn’t only have to be present in the individual. Read in The Gospel of Mark 2:4…when friends of a paralytic man made an opening through the roof on a house where Jesus was (they couldn’t get through because the crowd) to lower their friend to be healed by Jesus. Jesus did not ask if the the paralytic man had faith….but Jesus knew that his friends did and that was enough for Jesus to heal this man. When we baptize our infants, the parents and god parents present have faith. This is enough in our Lords eyes. Yes?
Liquid word is stretching it, first time hearing it actually, I don't agree with infant baptism. I understand where you're coming from. But it's not a question of solvation, so we can disagree on it.
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
I believe circumcision was for Israel, where the covenant was for all physically born of Israel. The new covenant circumcision (baptism) is for those who have been born again. It always seems to be tied to repentance and believing, which are signs of being born again. I agree an infant can be a believer, but he can also be a non-believer. I'm just not sure I can cross that divide of baptizing non-believers. Thanks though for the explanation of the Lutheran perspective on this!
While I believe you did well reasoning again the doctrine of age if accountability. But It really sounds like you are explaining baptismal regeneration in a very mystical way. That's concerning. I grew up Wesleyan-Armenian Holiness and was baptized as a child there. Was baptized in a hyper-charismatic church as an adult because I didn't remember being baptized as a child. I am a protestant and member of the PCA. And while I am not completely sold. I am not opposed. My concern and reason for commenting isn't regarding infant baptism, but the Catholic-light teaching. I know many confessional Lutheran; none would defend it in such a way.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your journey through this topic. For myself, I have never believed in infant baptism. This is mainly because my understanding of it has the prerequisites of confession and repentance; a conscious now inclined to the things of God. None of the arguments convinced me of anything until you hit on circumcision, which almost got me. The reason I say almost is because, though I agree that there are many things that find their root in the OT, not everything has a direct connection such as you're saying here between circumcision and baptism. Many of the requirements of OT law, ones that could get someone "cutoff from their people" simply aren't there anymore, circumcision being a major one. However, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that connects baptism to circumcision, and certainly lacking baptism isn't punishable by death or under a threat of being cutoff from your people. Also, circumcision was only possible to males. Are females forever cutoff from their people because they cannot be circumcised? Are infant males who are baptized now better off than females, since there is no OT precedent for their particular baptism, based off your logic here drawing a connection between baptism and circumcision? I listened with an open mind, because this is not a pillar of the faith doctrine. I really appreciate your point of view, and love you for sharing it. I've been blessed by most all of your videos this far. I just can't follow your particular path of acceptance on this one. I still have questions and can't reconcile it in my mind, but thank you dearly for your explanation. I wish we could sit down together and break this down over coffee or something, and really sharpen some iron. Just know that's where my heart is with this. I disagree, but respectfully and most importantly lovingly. Grace and peace.
See, I am the exact opposite regarding initial arguments for infant baptism, accepting the scriptures teaching about predestination: That it is an act of faith by the parents that God's calling of their child will be revealed in the proper time, thus validating the sign applied in infancy. However, I am still CREDO baptist because, while I do acknowledge you make some plausible arguments for PEDO, your supporting passages seem to have other reasonable interpretations also. But when I read in 1 Pt "baptism now saves you, not the washing of dirt from the body, but the appeal of a good conscience toward God," that seems to be more clear that the one being immersed is assumed to be making a confession. Which also seems to correlate with Philip's statement to the Ethiopian in Acts. How do you deal with those verses?
I’m struggling with this too, but related to what you said near the end , if we deny infant baptism, we are forced to say our children are excluded from the covenant and not really part of the church until they make a conscious decision, vs the paradigm in Judaism that circumcised babies are in the covenant automatically barring any apostasy in later life. Seems like the apostles would have addressed such a paradigm shift in the NT if it really happened.
I suspect you would say you believe in 'sola scriptura'. Infant baptism is one topic which absolutely fails to be found to be supported in any way, shape, or form in scripture. You keep saying 'biblical arguments'. But they don't exist. It is all spin created by guys like you through the centuries.
What about gospel verses that do not mention baptism? Mark 1:14-15 Jesus Begins His Ministry [14] “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, [15] and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 1:17 [17] “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
God is rich in grace and brings us to Jesus and Jesus to us in many ways. Sometimes through a preaching of the Gospel, sometimes through reading the Word, sometimes through baptism. In the end, it is all the same: God is using his Word to bring us to himself.
Dear brother, I love your passion and zeal for Lord. In fact I watch your videos regularly because I found them beneficial. Specifically when you make parallels between old and new testament. But about this video when I look at the bible, I don’t see it as you mentioned as well. Also we know about age of accountability (as you mentioned). But look at Bar-mitzvah. As you know before age of twelve, boys were not accountable for what they were doing. Their father was accountable. Also when I look at 2Sam ch12 v23, I see that David is saying “But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me. Here he’s talking about an infant who died. So David is confirming that infant/babies are not going to hell but heaven. Isn’t salvation free gift for everyone who deciding to accept and follow Jesus? Doesn’t that means that people who are accepting Jesus are knowing what they do? Does a baby have ability to make decision? Does the babies who were baptised, wanted to accept and follow Jesus by their own decision? When you talked about picture of circumcision, and Israelite boys were brought in to covenant, that was old covenant. New covenant is faith in Christ. Question: what about Israelite girls? Because infant baptism is for boys and girls. Even though we may not agree on this subject, you’re still great teacher on my eyes and I love your work for Lord brother 💐
I personally know several people who are lulled into believing they are on the way to heaven based on their infant baptism. They have little or no spiritual inclinations. I have heard one of these folk's pastor at their Lutheran funeral say they are most assuredly in heaven now due to their baptism as a baby. Sad. BTW, wasn't practiced in early church until second century- sprinking was used for the sick who couldn't go into the water. Chad listen to James White on these matters. Luther was wrong on Jews and was wrong here.
I'm now a confessional Lutheran (ELS) but one of the things that helped to change my mind about baptism was the prominence of the belief in infant baptism prior to American evangelicalism's rise, and especially when reading Calvin and John Wesley. I attended both Calvinist and Wesleyan churches prior to converting to Lutheranism, but even though the Calvinists and Wesleyans advocated for a Zwinglian (symbolic) view of the sacraments, both Calvin AND Wesley believed in a degree of sacramental efficacy. True, they did not subscribe to Luther's understanding of it (although Wesley was far closer to Luther's position than many modern Wesleyans realize), but they also rejected a flatly symbolic understanding of the sacraments as well. Truth be told, a purely symbolic view of the sacraments is a relatively recent doctrine in church history. You don't find it in the first 1500 years of the church at all.
Thanks for putting yourself out there on this controversial topic. I’ve been an Anglican pastor most of my working life, and also believe in infant baptism, though for slightly different reasons. Things I found tricky in your reasoning, that I’d love to hear more from you about: the idea that the ‘word is in the water’ idea. I understand a little about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper - consubstantiation. Is this an echo of that view in some way? Yes, God used water to save his people in the OT - but my understanding is that it was not to convey the word, but as a physical instrument to fulfil his word, as he also used the physical world to fulfil his promises to bring plagues upon Egypt, or fire and storm and tempest to convey the terrible awesomeness of his presence on Sinai, and so on. But connecting that to baptism, as if the water somehow saves in itself seems, to my ears, odd - given 1 Peter 3b. The passage about John leaping in the womb reflecting what happens in baptism feels like a bit of a stretch. On one hand, I’ve never heard of anything similar with anyone else, in scripture or outside of scripture. On the other hand, this is an utterly unique moment in world history- with the conception of the God-Man standing before the one appointed to go before him. A unique sign for a unique moment, isn’t it? There are a few questions. I’m sure you’re busy. If you do happen to get a moment to respond, that would be wonderful. If not, I understand. Thanks again, dear brother
Regarding Word in the water: The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Thank you for a very timely explanation. I am also grappling with the practice of baptism. I was raised Lutheran in the ALC. I was confirmed at 16. In the late 80s I was in Texas in the midst of the liberal encroachment into what would become the ELCA. My family moved to Utah and through circumstances have ended up in a Southern Baptist congregation. Recently I have started studying and looking into the issue to settle my mind on the teachings. Just thank you. Your insights are very helpful.
This was my last hurdle too! We joined the EPC recently and had been attending for about a year before becoming members and I really had struggles with this. Thank you. I had been gradually accepting it and trying so hard to understand it for a long time.
I will check to see if you video library on TH-cam includes a video on Jesus dying for the whole world. My question is if all the sins of everyone were atoned for on the Cross then why do any go to hell?
The guy in this video is not a Christian and is completely Biblically illiterate. He is the seller of a 100% counterfeit (antichrist) christianity. Jesus did NOT die for the whole world. Jesus came for, and died for ONLY the very, very few who are Gods chosen ones. These few make up less than 1% of the worlds population and 0% of the churches population.
That all said - which Church is the right one to be baptized in? Does it matter? And what if one is baptized in a Church and leaves that one for another, whatever the reason? As in your own situation. I was baptized as a baby in the Roman Catholic Church and left that religion 60+ years ago and now am simply a professed Christian that does not attend any particular church. I've been to many different churches over the years, but never was comfortable in any - including Judaism. So is my baptism "valid"?
I appreciate your Lutheran view on this subject but there are a few points that I would considering lacking regarding this presentation. The main issue is regarding the approach to handling the sin issue. It is very true that we are corrupt sinners from the start (Ps 51:5) and Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sin. You quoted Acts 2:38 to explain the promise was to our children, but you didn't put any emphasis on "Repent". You addressed the Holy Spirit and baptism but left out repentance. Repentance comes as a result of the Holy Spirit working in our life revealing to use that we are a sinner and we need to put our trust in Christ, thus changing our minds. Jesus preached repentance and the Apostles in Acts mentions it in 8 verses, not including verses relating to John's baptism of repentance. Repentance seems to require a personal acknowledgement of sinfulness, not based on age necessarily, but is an new born baby capable of doing this? Also I have read Luther's view which is similar to yours regarding John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb. He likened this to a type of infant baptism by the water in his mother's womb. I believe we have to admit that allegory was a very popular form of biblical interpretation, that we need to be cautious of, regardless of the person promoting it. Finally, my experience with over 30 years of ministry has shown that people that were baptized as baby's and coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ later in life, almost without exception desire to be rebaptized, without coercion. Their standard comment is usually; "I was baptized as a baby, but it didn't mean anything to me". I would liken infant baptism to the same as baby dedication in other traditions. Just my opinion and thanks for the great clip. Have a great day!
exactly about the promise. The promise of repentance bringing personal salvation applied to their children, same as the words "and your house" spoken to the Philippian jailor. The instruction he received on how to be saved applied to him and to anyone else in his household. He couldn't believe on their behalf
Since historic presbyterian and Lutheran believes infant baptism and the salvific nature of it, can you make a video what the difference between the two tradition?
@@alexowens59 This is because Presbyterian nowadays depart from it's historic roots due to influence of Baptist, you can read Scott's confession and align it Westminster Confession. You cannot separate the Sign and the thing signified. The Thing signified is the one that saved you and the sacraments is the sign. John Knox and Calvin hold this view. Baptism saves if you have faith.
@@alexowens59 If you would like to really know the view of Presbyterianism when it comes on baptism you have to go back to it's founder not Presbapterian theologian today like ligonier.
@@GencenFide Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism" WCF I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8] II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9] III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10] IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12] V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15] VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17] VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]
Do you recommend taking an adolescent say age 8-12 and have them baptized if they have not yet received salvation by confessing their sins? Would the baptism save them the same way that the baptism will save the infant?
Correct, water baptism means and does absolutely nothing. The Baptism of the Bible is a spiritual baptism that God/Jesus does to the very few who are Gods chosen ones who all have nothing to do with anything called or known as the church.
Wow! I'm shocked. I have listened to you over the years and shared your videos because I thought you were so solid on explaining theology. But in this I think you are jumping through hoops to convince yourself what you are saying is theological sound. You didn't even describe the purpose and symbolism of Christian baptism. Baptism is the liquid Word. I don't even know what that means. Sorry but I am just shocked after listening to your sound teachings over the years. I'll still listen but I think you're reaching this doctrinal conclusion because of something else. God bless.
@jeffh776 This video appears to just be him describing certain things that helped change his mind on infant baptism specifically, and not an exhaustive exploration of the topic of baptism as a whole. Here's another of his videos that I think might scratch that itch if that's what you're looking for: th-cam.com/video/Nt9il4S-BnE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=naDSDO1JmQWK5k3d
Thanks for the comment. As I noted on Twitter, I am confused as to why you are shocked if you have been listening to me over the years. I have often taught about the salvific nature of baptism, and that I am in the Lutheran tradition. No secret that we believe baptism saves and that we baptize infants. So, I am OK with disagreement, just not "shock" :-) God bless you, too.
I had the same reaction, tbh. But I think we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the water (pun intended). Yes, I also disagree with Chad about infant baptism. But it is still good to listen and see why someone has changed his mind. Even if we disagree, there is a lot we can learn from each other. I had many theological points I changed my mind on during the last 3 decades.
Water baptism is not necessary for, and has nothing to do with salvation. Those who baptize babies are those who are Biblically illiterate and are not Christians.
After you repent, believe, trust Jesus for you salvation, then get baptized, not to do it as a work, or a salvationary thing, its obedience, it doesn't matter in salvation whether its as an infant or adult, its not a sacrament, you don't get to participate in your salvation, God is a jealous God, don't turn it into idolatry,
@jasono6315 I already do trust in Jesus, to get baptised or receive the eucharist is an act of faith, by living a sacramental life means to live for him and not ourselves, getting baptised isn't part of a checklist and doesn't mean anyone who is will be saved, it's down to God's grace whether or not anyone is.
When we realize that Scripture teaches that faith and repentance are gifts from God to us, then baptism for infants makes more sense. Plus, the continual teaching of God's Word is also needed after baptism. God leads us to repent and believe through His Word. This is true whether we are baptized as infants or as teens/adults.
The same way we all repent: it is God's gift, his work within us. The mistake we so often make is to think in terms of ME, ME, ME. I did this. I did that. We thus make repentance (and faith) our work. It is the Spirit's gift, to adults and children.
Great message and as a former Baptist it took me a while to understand and embrace infant baptism. But the more I thought about it, I began to realize that hearing a sermon isn't terribly different -- in some respects -- from infant baptism. God comes to us through sermons which is also a very physical process: vibrating air molecules, ear drums, nerve cells, chemical reactions, signals interpreted in my brain. And ironically our brains are 75% water, so - in a way - He comes to us through water even in a sermon. But it's not these physical "things" that save us rather God brings us his promises through them. He works from outside of us to bring us His justification and grace. I've often thought about remote civilizations that never heard of the Gospel. Surely God creates a means of grace for these people as well. Let's not put God in a box. His ways are not our ways and He's even more incredible than we can imagine.
Jesus absolutely did NOT die for all. Jesus came for and died for only the few who are Gods chosen ones, Gods elect. These few have nothing to do with anything known as the church that is ALL 100% apostate and does unbiblical, ignorant things like baptize baby's. Repent, and learn what the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
@@julieamos86 actually if you use that kind of imagery the death is raised up upon a cross and burial isn't "down" in the ground. His burial was in a tomb. I think it was level not down. The idea of immersion as a symbol breaks down. Rather what baptism does is joins us to Christ..so what happened to him happened to us as a gift. That's why we were crucified with Christ, buried with him and will be raised with him.. because of union with him. Baptism is also a bath, a washing. Titus 3:5
@@Liminalplace1 Titus is talking about the Holy Spirit being poured out, not water baptism. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ROMANS 6,4
@@julieamos86 id agree that Titus isn't referring directly to water baptism...but the word translated "washing" is connected to a bath. Baptism joins one to Christ and with him comes the Holy Spirit. So the imagery of a bath or a washing is an analogy to baptism. If you really think "immersion" is a burial with Christ..where is the cross in the baptism waters? And why do people go "down" into the water when Jesus went into a tomb at ground level? I suggest that it's not a burial but a washing. Because we are joined to Christ we died, were buried and will rise with him. That's what Romans 6 refers to. So immersion isn't essential. What is essential are the words of Christ said over the baptized with water. As Chad said...."liquid word". Saying baptism is a burial is reading our modern practices of funerals into baptism. The Romans would not have thought Paul was talking about that. Romans often cremated their dead or put them into catacombs...not down into the ground like we often do. I hope that explains it. All Christians use the words of Christ and water.
@@Liminalplace1 direction is irrelevant, it's about burial not where the burial is. Christian baptism illustrates, in dramatic style, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, it also illustrates our death to sin and new life in Christ. As the sinner confesses the Lord Jesus, he dies to sin (Romans 6:11) and is raised to a brand-new life (Colossians 2:12). Being submerged in the water represents death to sin, and emerging from the water represents the cleansed, holy life that follows salvation. Romans 6:4 puts it this way: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Very simply, baptism is an outward testimony of the inward change in a believer’s life. Christian baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord after salvation. The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also Acts 16:14-15). (GotQuestions. org)
I agree in baptism but I also believe you have to find a good church.. the problem is Christianity is messed up there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion how can any one go to a church like that for anything.
Perhaps you have had some bad experiences with churches that cause you to write this. I would urge you, however, to stamp down such a cynical attitude toward Christianity in general. I have been involved in churches my entire life, some good, some better, but never one that would cause me to write, "there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion." I have my own sin to deal with; others have theirs. We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. And we gather in worship as sinners among fellow sinners to hear the Word, to receive forgiveness, and to praise the God of grace in Christ.
@@chadbird1517 all Christian faith is based of Catholic religion if your I the United States there is no church that is safe all churches around here are Catholic tradition based any church that celebrated Christmas or Easter or any pagan holidays is a false religion . There's only one faith I can trust to teach the truth and it isn't an American church
So, if baptism is necessary to wash away the infants original sin, what happen to that baby that dies before birth, from premature birth, death before the baptism? What is the status of a person that is baptized as an infant, but later turns away from God and lives a sinful, non-repentant life? Are they still accepted into heaven for eternity?
So what about all the infants born into an unbelieving family or situation and never get baptized? What about someone baptized as an infant, and then at 25 years old, they reject Christ? What if being baptized by water DOESNT save a person in the first place? What if being saved is based upon an understanding of the Cross and belief upon what Jesus did for us? Therefore causing a conscientious decision to accept Jesus as their Savior. PS: Do you also believe in Gay Marriage and Gay Pastors and Woman Pastors?
Repentance and Faith is required in the Scripture before Water Baptism. Also we never see any infants baptized in the Bible. Only an argument out of silence can be made for infant Baptism But I appreciate you explaining your views. Blessings Hal
Those who reject infant baptism are the ones doing so "out of silence." In the video, he highlighted several passages in the New Testament that speak of "whole households" being baptized. That is pretty explicit. How can you read "whole household" and then take it to mean: "only adults who first publicly profess faith in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" were baptized? Also, as he brought up, the covenant promises of God were given to male babies in circumcision. This is is the theological and Biblical antecedent to New Testament infant baptism.
@@pataho4290 Interesting observation, but only partially true, I think. It is true that Scripture does not specifically mention about their baptism, however, later constantly "assumes" it happened. Jesus, in the great commission in Mat.28, makes it clear that baptism is linked to being a disciple. Plus various verses show that at least some of the apostles were first John's disciples, which meant had to be baptised with John's baptism - which was then made obsolete by Jesus' baptism. Additionally in John 4:1-2 we can quite safely assume that they themselves first had to be baptised to be able to baptise others (which seemed to be necessary) while they were still with Jesus.
@@matthewshields8613 Well... actually, the "whole household" usually excluded infants. (Similar would be today, if you went to a wedding with all the relatives, and you said "Everyone enjoyed themselves" automatically ignores the 3 months old baby who slept it through and we have no idea if she enjoyed it or not). Just like when "All Israel said Amen" does not mean the small babies also said amen. Infants do not get counted at conscious acts. --- The circumcision argument is a better one. However.... note that by circumcision was required to be part of Israel. It was nothing to do with salvation (otherwise there would be many Baal-worshipper Jews in Heaven). Circumcision was only a sign of the covenant! It did not substitute faith in JHWH. So you take that (rightly so) as the antecedent (cool word!) of baptism, we end up with faith being needed for salvation, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of an already existing saving faith. However, the big difference between circumcision and baptism is, that the former was explicitly commanded to be performed on infants, while the later is never mentioned in context of infants. I think we should not over-speculate the text.
@@123ppap While I understand what you are trying to say, your argument for "household" is not what the Biblical text is saying. In Genesis 17, when God institutes circumcision, He explicitly states that 8 day old males should be circumcised (17:12). Then, later in that same chapter, Abraham actually has all the males in his "house" circumcised. Again, this explicitly includes infants. In the context of the Bible "household" does include infants. Also, Jesus was Jewish. As was Paul and all of the apostles. They would have all made the direct connection between baptism and circumcision (which included infants). Also, on your comment that circumcision does not substitute for faith you are correct! And neither does baptism. You are actually quite close to Lutheran baptism here!!! Faith is absolutely needed. But then you miss the mark. Baptism is "necessary" (as 1 Peter 3:21) because baptism is a promise that is given to you by God (God's word attached to water - Ephesians 5:26). How can you have faith without a promise to believe in?! Without a promise given to you, personally, you cannot have faith! Which is why Lutherans baptize babies. We are giving the promise to them as Jesus commanded us! (Matt. 28:19).
I must respectfully disagree as I believe the baptism of water doesn't wash away sin. John said he indeed did baptize with water but one coming after him (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This is the baptism required to wash away sin. If not, then where do you see the millions of babies who were aborted without being baptized? I am very confident they are with Jesus, who said we must come as little children totally trusting Him for our salvation.I do enjoy your teaching and as a Southern Baptist find we are in agreement on most issues.
the bottom line.. WATER BAPTISM ended when John baptized Jesus ❗ the real GREAT COMMISSION Acts 1:4-5 Jesus after the resurrection commanded the apostles to wait for the gift the father promised............. the baptism of the Holy Spirit
As much as I admire your knowledge and teaching abilities I felt that you are struggling with this one. The struggle is because what you are saying is just not in the Bible. There is not a single command, example, or inference to infant baptism in the New Testament, yet we have several examples of the person being baptized as cognitive as to what they are doing. Peter said in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins..." How can an infant possibly repent? In Acts 8, Simon, when he heard the good news of Jesus, "Believed" and was baptized. How can an infant believe? Also in Acts 8, the Ethiopian, when he "understood" what Phillip was explaining to him, went "down into the water to be baptized." How can an infant understand? Even in the Old Testament, Isaac understood what was going to happen to him. Why didn't God have Abraham sacrifice him when he was born, or two years old, or four years old? There are many, many other examples of baptism in the New Testament, yet none of them are infants. Perhaps it goes even deeper. Adam and Eve made a CHOICE to disobey God. Perhaps we DON'T inherit the sins of our parents but choose to sin when we know the difference between right and wrong. Yes, every human who can determine what right and wrong is will sin, but that is why through Jesus we are offered redemption. I know my one year old granddaughter, at this point, has no clue as to right, wrong, sin, redemption, etc., but she will at some point. One last point. What if you are wrong? Do you not see the danger of this teaching? If someone was baptized as an infant, without understanding, belief, repentance, or confession, and they NEVER do any of those things because they honestly believe they are "safe" to go to heaven because of their infant baptism...could that possibly cost them their soul? I certainly would not want to answer to God on the day of judgment for that teaching!
You sound like you may be a member of the church of Christ. Even if you’re not maybe Paul’s words to the Ephesians about being adopted will help you understand. We adopted our daughter at 9 months old. At that time we gave her our name and all benefits of being in our family. We then raised her as “a Crum” (our last name) rooting her identity in all that meant for her). We didn’t wait to adopt her at an age she could choose to be ours and believe that she was. As we came to understand our spiritual adoption in Christ we saw that is exactly what Christ does for us in our baptism. He says you are mine and your identity is now my son or daughter. Acts 2:39 says this promise is for you and your children, infant baptism became the standard in all faiths for many centuries for children born into Christian homes when you study church history. It helps me to remember when reading scripture that sometimes it is descriptive of what was happening versus prescriptive for all times. Just like we continue to teach our child what it means to be in our family it is a parent’s job to continue teaching them what it means for them to be a baptized child of God. Baptism is a gift from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and when they struggle we can continue to point them back to that gift and their identity because of “who’s they are” regardless of their age. That is the good news of the gospel and why it is a comfort and brings them (and me) peace.
Again, just using strictly God's word as our ONLY reference, I can find no teaching about infant baptism. The first mention of it in historical accounts is nearly 200 years after Christ. It is something ADDED to God's will by man and no matter the intention it is not part of his holy word...and very dangerous! .@@kristicrum63
@@kristicrum63 Is there anyway you could back up what you are saying with scripture? Acts 2:39 simple means "generations" after you and to all who are far off. In other words everyone! As far as common practice there is NO mention of infant baptism anywhere in historical accounts until almost 200 years after Jesus. God bless you for adopting your child but the simile that you are using does not apply to infant baptism.
"Then Philip went down to the CITY of Samaria and preached Christ to them. And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip.........But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. " Acts 8:5-12
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
That was great! Thanks. I am one who disagrees on this particular point, but I greatly respect and am built up by your ministry. I won't get into why I disagree because it is not important. Keep doing what your are doing and I will keep learning and enjoying. Blessings!
I knew from previous vids that you are Calvinist/lutheran both from Augustinian Gnosticism but didn’t realize to what extent until today. I suppose this means the millions of infants and children and mentally ill that aren’t baptized go to hell which is what Augustine taught. I do think you are sincere but very wrong. The basic premise of total depravity, sinful before we were even born, is the false foundation that all this is built on. Many are seeing through these false, unbiblical teachings and are being set free to worship the God that truly loves
all. I would also suggest you do a study on Luther, one of the greatest antisemites who ever lived. Has writings on his hatred of Jews (On The Jews and Their Lies) was used by Hitler to justify his hatred and persecution of Jews. As one of his generals said during the Nuremberg trials said, “I did nothing that Luther didn’t approve of” . There is ample evidence that all these unbiblical teachings beginning with total depravity came from Augustine’s gnostic background not scripture. I am going into detail because I think you are intellectually honest, just wrong. Shalom
Repent of your ignorance and of your fake christianity.
@@LarryVinson-l5t ,...You have spoken in completely and total ignorance and have shown yourself to be just another brute beast made only to be destroyed that has been snared into the 100% apostate church and into its antichrist gospel/christianity.
Repent!
What is your point here?@@LarryVinson-l5t
Thank you for being careful and thorough. One of the beautiful things about confessional Lutheranism is the trust in God's Word without feeling a need to understand how God does it.
Exactly!
Beautifully said. I agree totally.
Υπέροχη διδασκαλία. Ευχαριστούμε, Τσαντ. Σε αγαπάμε. Στον ελληνικό κόσμο, η γλώσσα του οποίου είναι η γλώσσα της Καινής Διαθήκης, πάντα βαπτίζαμε και βαπτίζουμε νήπια. Η βάπτιση είναι δώρο.
❤ yes! Nai!
Speaking Greek does not mean you authomatically do everything correct accoridng to God's word. You can also apply the same thing to the Jews. They spoke the same language of the old testament, but rejected the Son of God...
@@alexbaptista8150Votre pensée est insane et non biblique, puisque dans les Actes , les Apotres baptisaient des familles entières, les enfants avec ! Dites -moi sérieusement, Où dans la bible est indiqué l’âge auquel l’enfant peut être baptisé ? Nulle part ! S’il n’y a pas de limite, alors les enfants aussi ont droit à leur baptême, c’est un don et le début de la vie chrétienne : dés leur baptême, les enfants reçoivent la communion et fortifie ainsi leur lien au Christ ! Que de temps perdu chez ces mal formés! C’est la pratique normale depuis plus de 2000 ans. Ceux qui ne le font pas, le font simplement par des raisonnements insanes sortis de la cervelle de réformateurs orgueilleux sans lien avec les Apôtres, quelques 1600 ans plus tard ! Folie! Non ?
This is the most irrelevant argument I heard to make a point.
I know greek people and they think Christian are stupid. So, they are right and everybody shouldn’t be Christian because it’s just stupid.
Thank you. I love the connection between infant baptism and infant circumcision.
Chad, I've been listening to your commentaries for several months now and want to let you know that I appreciate the careful thought and deep perspective that you provide, similar to that of my own pastor but with many additional insights. May God continue to bless your ministry.
Thanks, Chad. Listen, I disagree. But the older I get, the less I’m willing to get distracted by our differences in these types of issues. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17, and I can’t wait for us all to truly be united in eternity one day.
I disagree as well. A child can't repent of what the child doesn't know he did wrong.
@@lagapa3661 Yes they can. Adults don't repent either. What's the difference? NONE!
@@jonathang4833of course they do.
@jonathang4833 Jesus called all to take up their cross, to count the cost ... luke14 ... Acts 2 Repent and ... Hebrews 5 12ff Repentance ... Faith .... before baptisms
Romans 7 ..Paul alive *before* the law ; Jesus : of such is the kingdom if heaven ; Ezekiel 18 children Not guilty for patents sins ... infants are Not guilty ... they fallen bodies not fallen souls
There is and was no infant baptism in the nT church .... it was impossible for infants ..... John's baptisn wa a baptism of repentance ...do was Jesus baptism but included faith in Him ...
@@lagapa3661children weren’t required to repent when they were circumcised either…
I recently left a Southern Baptist church to join a confessional Lutheran Church. The main reason I did this was over the Sacraments, Baptism and Communion. When I sat down with my Baptist pastor, he had no problem with everything I said, EXCEPT infant baptism. This is a very high hurdle for anyone raised in the reformed tradition. You explain this so well. I hadn't thought of the connection between original sin and the infant's need for salvation, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for your clarity, and for your faithful teaching, constantly clarifying New Testament lessons by their Old Testament antecedents.
Probably because John the Baptist himself practiced multiple mitzvahs it’s something that most non-messianic churches don’t understand because they weren’t Jewish like Jesus. The Bible says believe and be baptized, however, the man on the cross next to Jesus, didn’t believe and hop off and get baptized to go the paradise so disagreeing with your understanding of whole household baptism instead of mikvah mizpah (repeated ceremonial cleansing as an outward expression of relational bond) doesn’t really matter. It’s literally not a salvation issue, and the only problem is if people try to make it one. In the same way, Jesus didn’t take the cup and say once a month whenever you take it, he said, whenever you eat or drink, in many ways, it just goes to prove that almost everyone’s wrong because they’re not actually humbling to what it really says. If you have a problem with someone you’re supposed to not even eat until you’ve resolved that matter. That’s what scripture actually says on this topic.
@@SRose-vp6ew Actually the thief on the cross was baptized by Christ, by His Words and also his water and blood. John 19:31-37, concentrate on verse 34. Again remember for Lutherans, Baptism is an act of God putting to death through his Word and Water our Old adams and raising us in the same instance to new life in Jesus Christ. We do nothing but receive. Baptism now saves you, Jesus states this in John 3:5; Peter recites Jesus Words in 1 Peter 3:21, and John delivers the truth of John 19:34 in 1 John 5:6-8. It becomes obvious when you come to the realization that most christians believe they have something to "participate" in and Jesus says in Genesis 6:5"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The continuation never ends until your death. The law says you're not supposed to eat until you've resolved "matters" but the Gospel says its done, price paid in full.
Something to think about that came to my mind and of course I had to research it: When you open your mouth to speak, saliva spreads across your lips and breaks into filaments when your lips part. Airflow from your lungs then stretches and thins the filaments until they rupture and become tiny droplets. This means that Jesus was baptizing everyone he came into contact with. You can thank the covid-19 mask-pushers for this research!
The fact is, nothing this heretic said makes any sense. It only makes sense to those like him who are completely spiritually dead, blind, lost, deceived, and Biblically illiterate. Repent!
@@mulkster39 ,..You have spoken absolute unbiblical ignorance. Repent, and learn what the truth of the Bible actually is.
@@SRose-vp6ewthe thief was under the old covenant
The last one is the best point I’ve personally heard, thank you.
I was raised Catholic, but left the Catholic Church in my early twenties (I align more with the Baptists since then), so I have a different perspective. You say, "When God baptizes someone, He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this? By saying that Baptism is the Liquid Word, you "seem" to be trying to resolve a conflict you are having with who can be saved and how. So when does the "plain" water used in baptism become the Liquid Word? By the prayer of a Priest, a Lutheran minister, or when any Christian decides to baptize someone (or can they)? Since a child has the sin nature from birth, and because they are too young to confess Christ, are you concerned they will go to Hell because they have the original sin still on them? You said "plain" water can't save us, so the assumption would be that you are inferring that the Liquid Word can? If so, you never explicitly said so. I would agree with you if I saw evidence of child baptism in the New Testament and it explicitly mentioned baptism was part of the salvation process, but it does not. You also never did delve into "why" certain churches came to practice infant baptism. Circumcision introduces a male child into the Mosaic Covenant. Water baptism always follows faith in the New Testament. You said, and I quote, "What's happening in baptism is God is taking the word that is preached and he's putting it in water so that instead of the word simply entering into our ears the word is washed onto us....". Where did that come from? Scripture or your mind? So what is it? Is water baptism that you call the Liquid Word essential to saving faith? If so, you never said so. If not, then why did you say it wasn't? If water baptism is essential to salvation, then the thief on the cross is not in paradise. According to the New Testament, Jesus' blood is the only washing that is needed to cleanse our sin.
Yes. And as a former catholic myself, being taught about rituals and "holy water" and some occult practises, I find that idea too "magical", feeding superstition, possibly leading to infant baptism for the wrong motives (of "safety" more than real faith).
About John the Baptist as an unborn child, his parents had received the promise he would be filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb... We can't stretch that to any child.
Have a good day.
@@thereseservais924 Well said.
@jamesrmooresr - You say, "He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this?"
Matthew 28:19 - Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the promise that is at the heart of baptism.
Acts 2:37-41. 2:41 says that those who "received his word were baptized." The preached word is directly linked to baptism.
The same happens in Acts 8:34-40. Philip preaches (the word of the Gospel) to the Ethiopian eunuch who desires to be baptized. He clearly see baptism as something essential and it is directly linked to preaching the Gospel (giving the promises of God).
The issue is a physical element attached to God's word of promise. This happens all over the scriptures.
Gen. 12, 15, and 17 all record God making a promise to Abraham and that promise is finally attached to the physical element of circumcision.
The Tree of Life = Word of promise + physical element.
The snake in the wilderness that Jesus directly connects to his own "raising up" is a physical element (bronze snake on the pole) + Promise (word) of healing. (Numbers 21:8-9). Those who rejected the physical sign of the snake were also rejecting the word of God's promise of healing (they did not trust the word of God).
The cross of Jesus. The promise (death of Jesus is FOR YOU/for your sin) and physical sign (wooden cross).
Or Jesus, himself. John 1:1-14. Jesus (physical man) IS the WORD of God. The Word of God is literally "in the flesh/body." (Greek "sarx").
If God puts His Word into and attaches His Word to physical elements all throughout scripture then why not the waters of baptism?
But finally: Ephesians 5:25-26.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word , 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."
God has been attaching His Word of promise to physical elements/symbols/things from the very beginning!
Go research a fascinating study done by a Japanese scientist on the memory of water. The result of the scientist’s study was that water remembers what is said to it, whether words of blessing, or words of cursing, and physically manifests those words. So a priest praying words of blessings over and dedication of the water in the baptismal font for the infant baptism are very powerful indeed-Isaiah 55:11-“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplice that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Liquid Word? That's the command, by Jesus' own Word whilst the water is applied. That makes alot of sense to me as someone whom English is my third language.
Likewise! Arguments against pedobaptism are usually a fusion of the following: 1) a preference towards a symbolic reading of God's Word, 2) an appeal to reason fostered by Western Enlightenment ideals, and 3) a hermeneutic that isn't entirely consistent with the manuscripts or their traditional preserving through church history. So, Scripture is referenced and cited but symbolically read (in places it wasn't before) or argued for a radically anti-historical interpretation (because throwing babies out with their bathwater is preferred over anything remotely seeming "Catholic") or flies in the face of Western Enlightenment reasoning. In the end of it, one's bias inevitably plays a large part in resisting a plain reading of the text because breaking personal biases is difficult.
I also come from a background opposed to infant baptism and have found myself Lutheran. Through the years I’ve not been totally convinced, but I’m no longer opposed. I found your point about circumcision particularly cogent. Thanks for all you do. You’ve been a tremendous blessing!
I was baptized as a child not knowing why. I lived apart from God until age 37 when I started to seek God. Later, on Pentecost, 2011 I was baptized knowing full well what it meant. Prior to that day I felt as if God was pursuing me - even as I looked the other way. Did my infant baptism make a difference? I would say no. God loves me as much now as when I was born. Christ died for me no matter what I say or do; but with that said being baptized as a child held no sway in light of my adult baptism. At least for my limited vision and understanding. All in held so much more weight than clueless. I will review your points further. Blessings!
What if your experience at 37 was connected with God's faithfulness to the promise He made to you in your baptism?
@@ChericeGraham A good point to which I will not argue God’s faithfulness. Thank you for your insight.
We'll never know. Unless it's after. I was baptized as an infant, but my parents did not raise me to be a Christian. I turned to God at age 24 and my dad wouldn't talk to me for 6 months because I left the Catholic church -- yet he was living in sin and never went to church. Crazy.@@ChericeGraham
No rebaptisms in scripture
Thank you Brother Chad,I really Love the Teaching. I feel That this is True brother.
What he presented is 100% false, manmade, unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
Hi Chad Bird. My testimony is basically one of Proverbs 22:6. My mother had me (and two years later my sister) baptized as infants at the First Methodist Church of Wichita Falls, TX (back in the days before that denomination gave way to blatant acceptance of sin).
Into our mid teens mom made sure we participated in worship and activities of the churches we lived among military moves.
In time, as is common, I simply strayed away.
I always knew God was real and felt a bit of guilt by ignoring Him. Until I met the woman God brought into my life during my mid 30s. One of criteria to seriously dating me was that I be baptized. I said I'd been baptized, but later went to have a private submersion baptism just to satisfy the seeds inside and my conscious. But I still lived a worldly business style life until I was in my 50s and Christ confronted by baptism in His Holy Spirit. It changed my life.
My point is in the truth of Proverbs 22:6. It does not tell what may occur 40 years until that child returns and receives the ways of the Lord and had no intention of departing from it.
As a born again believer I pray my experience is a positive example for you and others.
Now, let's all go be a blessing.
I pray that many more will see the truth and beauty of infant baptism.
Thank you for your thoughtful presentation/argument. I still believe only in a believer's baptism. But, again thank you for your clear, and simple presentation.
What he presented is 100% false, manmade, unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
Thank you Chad. Lutheran always believe in the word of God . That is why I'm Lutheran.
Your spirit was gracious but your evidence for infant baptism was weak. In short, infant baptism is NOT New Testament baptism. Only believers are baptized in the NT. Baptism is always an informed decision believers make and are later baptized. Babies cannot exercise faith or make faith informed decisions. Come on, they're babies! Household passages in the NT speak to family solidarity and the fact that several in the household came to saving faith. Babies and/or infants are never mentioned. That leads to the next reason that arguments for infant baptism are weak: infants are never baptized in the NT. You can at best say that it may have happened in the households that were baptized but it's still an argument from silence. It's amazing that denominations have made infant baptism into an essential of the faith when there's not one example in the NT that it ever happened. Not to mention the massive blood letting that occurred over baptism because men and women could no longer subscribe to the unbiblical doctrines of infant baptism. That's a black eye that the historic church will always have. God help us...
I was baptized as a baby. I was baptized as an adult. The first was not my choice. The second was. But then the first time the Gospel was preached to me wasn't my choice, but I'm glad I heard it. So with my first baptism I realized that it was promise, an effort, a way to try to guarantee I would stay with God and the church. So I do not fault the parents who made that choice, or the Church that followed that practice.
I did not baptize my children as infants, but I did take part in a formal baby dedication ceremony for each of them that was the same as my infant baptism without the water, the intent being the same. So now I respect the intent of the parents, and honour them whether it is a baby dedication or an infant baptism. Because I love them and honour them in Jesus' name.
No rebaptisms in scripture
I think in place of infant baptism, parents should aim to consecrate their baby with oil before the church in order that they be accountable to train that child up in the Lord in hopes the child will one day truly profess faith and be baptized.
@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 good for you.. I'll stick with OIKOS covenant baptism
@@bigtobacco1098
What is that?
@@bigtobacco1098
Infant baptism is not biblical
Too often, people try to take the credit away from the Lord, when it is the Lord who chooses us.
Amen. He is doing the baptizing. He is choosing us and claiming us as his very own in that moment (“marking us”). A lot of churches will teach that baptism is us choosing him. The very opposite.
If it was up to Jesus to choose us, then why did he say " Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Matthew 23:37
@@fcastellanos57videos on this
@@Soundguydan If He chooses us, then we do not have to do anything. So, we, therefor, do not need to confess with our mouths? Repentance is not needed? If God chooses us, then we have the ability to end our own lives to be with Him, correct? Did He not choose the rich man in Luke 16?
It's cause "MEANS"
Chad, thank you, I too have been raised SBC, and have been wrestling with this doctrine. This has been helpful! Perhaps you could do a video, on your journey from memorial to the real presence in the Lord's supper. This would be of tremendous benefit.
Wow! It makes so much sense! Thank you very much! I live in Puerto Rico and I would really like to visit a Lutheran congregation!
This also help explain Psalm 51:5 for me.
Hi Chad. I am confused about the liquid word part. I can't find a clear reference in Scripture about the Word being put into water. The part about circumcision really was amazing. Through it, I can understand how baptism is like saying: God, I now belong to You. You are my God! What an amazing grace!
Might be the verse in Ephesians 4 I think where Christ washes His bride with the water and word
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517 Thank you. That clears things up a lot. I'll look and re-read the references again. I'm a slow learner and will take time to digest.
Thank you! This is very helpful. I'm working my way through Luther's Catechism at the moment and wrestling with this very issue.
Blessings,
Rob
Infant baptism was introduced when babies died "outside of Grace " It was taken from Egyptian paganism, same as trinity theory. It was done because the Catholics thought that baptism brought salvation. Jesus said that those that repented, should let themselves be baptised. No infant can make that choice. I grew up in a sinful, ungodly un-Biblical church very similar to SBC. It is a religion, but is it Biblical Christianity?
Hmmmm idk about this. I have learned so much from you but I feel you're stretching on this one. I still appreciate you tho!
Thank you! As I said in the video, the purpose is simply to explain why we believe what we believe (along with the vast majority of Christians worldwide since the days of the early church, I might add :-)
Hi Chad, really enjoy and appreciate your ministry. I have a question however that I will start with an opinion. Having different sects of Christian religions divides us because each one has differences in customs and beliefs about the same God. Why not be an “unlabeled”follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings rather than feeling the need to identify as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ect, ect, I refuse to identify as a particular sect for the reasons stated and prefer to just follow Jesus and his word without the particularities of each “we are more right” sect. Why do you identify within a sect (Lutheran). Again, not arguing, asking.
How is an "unlabeled" follower of Jesus not a sect of 1?
@@ChericeGrahamhow you ask? Following Christ is called “Christianity” and those that follow are called “Christian’s”. That should be the end of the story in my opinion. Not, I’m Catholic or I’m Lutheran or I’m ….. so, we will agree to disagree.
@@YZEDR500 If there are legit differences between the denominations and those differences matter, which they do, then the "unlabeled" idea doesn't make sense. What, are you just not going to take a stance on these issues? Jesus did and so should we. God has put people down through history into place (starting with His disciples) so that we can learn the truth. Unfortunately, some have wandered from the truth. I'm a Lutheran because I believe it's the most biblical version of all the denominations.
So if the Lutheran church is the most “Christian” church, why does many of my local Lutheran Churches permanently hang 80ft c 40ft LGBTQ flags on their sides? You see, that flag is anything BUT Christian and represents an abomination to our Lord and Savior. Having given that one example, you are still more comfortable in your “Lutheran” faith than if you were just an honest follower of God’s word and subsequent faith? This is the very problem with “denominations” as they lead to variances to the Lords words and laws and then get preached to the masses as “accceptance” and “tolerance” and “loving”. I would argue to say that if you were looking for the most Christ like church, it would be the Orthodox Christian Church if you’ve ever been? Even still, it’s yet another denomination with its own rules, rituals and ideals instead of just a straight Bible based and only Bible based, faith based church.
You quoted Acts 2:38, Peter said repent and be baptised. In infant is born with a sinful nature however it hasn't trespassed against God, yet. The child lacks understanding of the gift of saving grace. We can't force our will on anyone, that's the Holy Spirits job, we can only plant seeds. Acts 19 in Ephesus is a clear example to me of lacking baptism understanding and only just going through the "movements". That's my view anyway. I can see yours but I humbly disagree. Baptism isn't a pretreatment oil for your engine before it's ran yet or a metal conditioner for a prefired firearm.
Heretical... original sin is Christian
I do not disagree with infant baptism, but I disagree with your explanation of what baptism by water “does” or means. The very last scripture you used-does not legitimize your case of the comparison between circumcision and baptism. It actually shows that what was done in the physical in the Old Covenant is now all completed in Christ symbolically in the New Covenant. It’s a symbol of being raised to life in Christ because of what he has done and the child being born into a covenant believing family-with the responsibility of the parents to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The liquid word and salvation in and through that liquid teaching is not supported by scripture.
Dear Professor, I have no doubt that it was the Holy Spirit who enabled you to realize what infant baptism really means for the Christian according the Scripture. Blessings.
I very respectfully disagree with you. Nevertheless, I’m extremely blessed by your kindness and wisdom that you have shown in all your teaching. I’ll continue to follow you and pray for God’s grace upon you.
Ephesians 2:9. This is fundamental regardless of our denomination. We cant add to the gospel . ... We cannot earn salvation from a baptism. Just as Gods people were not saved by circumcision alone. It is by Gods grace alone that we are saved. How we come to faith in Christ should never be confused with how we celebrate our profession of faith. God Bless
Looking at scripture specifically in what is says about baptism is: believe and be baptized.
When is the point a human being can express belief in Christ and then be baptized? I would challenge an infant cannot. But God and His grace I belief takes care of our infants.
Even the thief on the cross was not baptized, but Christ told him he would see Him in paradise.
Baptism isn’t a salvation issue really. The work of God is to believe in Christ whom our Father sent.
Not everyone who is baptised as an infant for Bible says "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved". However child baptism is more like a dedication so as an EPC person ww look at it as that. I have seen so many non believers who were baptised as infants... being saved is by faith in Him. I accept Christ as a 6 year old boy at the time i understood the foundation of the Gospel presented. Others have different times for understanding whst is presented of the Gospel.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Lack of belief is what hinders someone from being baptized. A baby with no knowledge of God does not believe Jesus is the son of God or anything else. They do not meet the requirement. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." The logical implication of this question and answer, is that If thou doth not believe, thou mayest not.
You mentioned adult baptism however the bible refers to baptism as believers baptism
@margarethood114, could you provide that Scripture?
@@johnowens8530 btw.... where do you read about children being taken to church? Just wandering if that's another "Christian tradition" instead of biblical statement.
@@123ppap people take their kids to church all of the time. I didn’t say it was in scripture. Can you read?
@@123ppap somehow my comments keep being deleted. Freedom and democracy are alive and well in this country just as they always are claimed to be.
Parents take their children to church every Sunday. I didn’t mention scripture.
@@123ppap btw. Infant baptism is flat wrong. It is clearly not the will of God, those who do it are abusing people
I'm a Baptist who enjoys you videos very much. I always learn something from watching. I think infant baptism is okay as an ordinance of dedicating a child to God's service. If parents are inclined they can ask for this type of dedication and I am not opposed to churches who see it as an ordinance. But to say that there is a mystical quality added to the water that infuses the infant with faith just sounds bizarre. In that case, faith comes before belief. I stand firmly on believer's baptism because I believe that faith should precede the ordinance which is predominantly an outward demonstration or exhibition of the faith that has already been professed in the heart.
Dedication is NOT biblical.
Baptism IS biblical.
If you are a Bible based Christian, Why are you rejecting a Scriptural teaching and practicing a nonscripture practice created to cause confusion and false sense of doing the right thing.
Odd how protestants reject infant baptism, despite clear teaching that entire households were baptized and no age, no IQ requirements put on it in Scripture.
YET with the Lord's Supper which scripture clearly states it can be taken to your damnation, y'all insist on open Communion, something NOT practiced in biblical times and not for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.
Christianity is faith handed from one generation to the next, yet 2 keys points of faith, baptism and Lord's Supper is rejected by you protestants.
Infant baptism and Lord's Supper is Scriptural and practiced in Christianity, East and West, for 1,500 years across the world.
Then come the protestants, what you practice has not been handed down by the Apostles. You did not get it from Scripture aka God. Makes one wonder who are you worshiping actually. You can't serve 2 masters.
You can't say you are Christian while rejecting Christian doctrine and practices.
I enjoy listening to your comments, but I would like to offer some thoughts. "He places that Word inside the waters of Baptism??" @ 6:30. Where does this idea come from? Seems to be an assertion with no Scriptural backing. It's a nice thought, but is the point Biblical? Also, the use of O.T. circumcision as a pattern of salvation ignores the existence of Gentile believers. What of Jethro, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, the citizens of Nineveh? There's good indication that they were saved believers, but there is no indication that they were circumcised or were otherwise made to convert to Judaism or become part of the Mosaic Covenant.
Chad's reference for the "liquid word" is Eph.5:26 (which I personally think is a weak leg to stand a whole doctrine on). I fully agree with you about inefficiency of the OT circumcision explanation.
@@123ppap Thank you for the response. Your parenthetical comment is dead on.
I went from independent Baptist to evangelical Lutheran over a period of some years. The first thing that collapsed was the trail of blood theology, I could not accept that the church over 2,000 years was wrong about Nicene orthodoxy and that Baptists were the only ones doing it right until the English Baptists figured it out through rationalism. Another thing that helped me was reading sacramental study Bibles along side my NIV study Bible so that I got more historical theology. I was reading just this week in either my Lutheran study Bible or my Ignatius Press Catholic Bible about the events of 1 Samuel 7 and v. 6. In this passage, the Israelites made a pledge of loyalty to the LORD, confess their sins in deep repentance, sacrifice a lamb, and then draw running water from a river into a pitcher and then poured the cold fresh water out onto the ground "and poured it out before the LORD, and fasted on that day." in the Scott Hahn notes (convert from Presbyterian pastor scholar to Roman catholic) he says (and I'm paraphrasing) that this text in the Old Testament is unique, there's nothing else like it, where fresh water is poured out as an oblation onto the earth to mark the loyalty ceremony / confession / sacrifice. Usually its poured onto a person like King David being anointed, but here, it's just poured out as a symbol that water is important, very important, and it doesn't explain any of it. Fast forward to the first century in the Didache, the early Jewish Christian handbook from as early as the period before the temple was demolished. In the Didache there's a text about baptism where it's like a flow chart of if then statements. And it's all about trying to get your hands on cold fresh river water to do the baptisms, and if none is available, then you can do a number of options, and they all include either immersion or pouring, the technique doesn't much matter as long as you try to do it in the order specified. And the text concludes with fasting on the day of baptism. So I am not saying that anyone is doing it right nowadays, because nobody is going to the river and immersing people as in Didache option A. However, it's cool to see the unfolding biblical theology from the Old 1 Samuel 7 to the Didache, where a loyalty pledge and forgiveness of sins is accompanied by pouring out water and fasting and praying and repenting. When I see all of the sacramental, priestly, liturgical elements of early Christianity, I just had to come to a church where they respect biblical historical theology more than just lexicons the way I grew up, we did lots of word studies and were brain washed that baptism has to mean dunk, but in the long history of the church, starting with the Didache, I think they did things different ways. Craig Keener wrote a giant commentary of Acts in which he says the Holy Spirit saves, converts, calls, baptizes and sanctifies people in the book of Acts in every possible different way imaginable, so that no one group can claim they check all of the boxes. NT Wright also explains how Romans 6 - 8 is a picture of the Israelites fleeing Egypt - in ch 6 they go through the water (like in Exodus) into a period of wandering and confusion (Rom 7) and then finally in Rom 8 the Spirit sets them free from the law of sin and death to live their vocations to the glory of God. So there are all of these pictures in the New Testament about water symbolizing the liberation of Israel from Egypt, from Pharoah's grip, from eternal death and slavery to sin. There's so many exciting pictures of water in the Bible, including how Noah's family was saved from the judgment of too much water on a boat, and the water purified the world from sin, but they survived the deluge by trusting God, etc. etc. Thanks for the great video.
You have spoken nothing but a bunch of unbiblical ignorance. Repent, and learn what the truth and Christianity of the Bible actually is.
There’s a lot I could critique here but the main issue here is that you cannot separate, as you quote, repent and be baptized. It really is that simple.
Agreed. Since repentance is a gift and work of God, there is no separation, even in infant baptism. The issue is that we tend to turn repentance in a human work and not regard it as a divine gift of a sinner being brought back to God by the Spirit.
@@chadbird1517 Indeed! I fully agree with your reply. The rebirth is a work of God. But John the Baptist was not a prescription of how we ought to think about baptism though it was descriptive of the actual event.
We must do "all in the name of the Lord." (Colossians 3:17). The things we do must be according to his authority, name, and glory. (Ephesians 5:20). Simply put there is no passage in the New Covenant that mentions, names, or authorizes "infant baptism." People who were immersed had been commanded to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 16:30-31), "repent," (Acts17:30); and to be immersed in order to have their past sins forgiven (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). None of those elements apply to infants. Therefore, "infant baptism" is a man-made religious tradition or theory that does not adhere to God's will. "Infant baptism " is a doctrine or "plant" that God did not plant, and it will be pulled up by the roots. (Matthew 15:13-14).
Beautifully put. The danger of infant baptism is those who think they are saved because of their infant baptism.
Hi Teacher
I couldn't understand how God's word get inside of the water baptism? Can you please provide biblical bases referencing for God's liquid word?
Thank you.
Isaiah 55:8-9
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
We're called to be faithful to what God has revealed and practices he has given us to use during the journey on earth.
You are not called to understand, and often being that humans are finite and sinful, there is no way to understand a God who is infinite and sinless.
We're called to trust, not understand.
The big question is then, how does this affect the misscarried child, or the thousands of abhorted foetuses, who cannot recieve baptism? Are they hellbound just for being unwillingly conceived?
I have never met a single person who believes that unbaptized babies are damned. It is the REJECTION of Christ that damns, not the absence of baptism. We commit unbaptized babies who die into the hands of our good and gracious heavenly Father.
@@chadbird1517thank you for clarifying your on stance this.
According to the New Testament nobody is going to perish unless they committed an active act of sin and rejection of Christ's forgiveness. So I think it is clear that unborn babies, infants, those born with such mental deficit that they simply could not respond to the Gospel, are "automatically" Heaven-bound.
If "Infant" Baptism saved me...why would I ever need the Gospel later ?
Are not all my sins already forgiven ??
Can you lose salvation ??
@@bigtobacco1098yes. Jews did, so can you if you don't stay faithful to The Word.
Jeremiah 3:8
8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries.
It's a gift from God to the person and a duty of the parents. Blesses you with graces for this world of struggle.
Do you feed a steak to a new born? If not, than why would as an adult?
Different stages call for different actions.
Baptism is a building block, foundation in the life of the faithful.
You ask, Are not all my sins forgiven? Are you old enough you can repent of them ? If you are old enough and refuse to repent, than No they're not forgiven.
@@OutWestRedDirt all jews were saved?? And then they all lost their salvation ??
I like this question, and this is where I believe the big fuss is. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that the dunking of the water is what saves you, and even if you are baptized, you are not out of the water. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that apostasy is a real thing, you can fall out of Gods Grace. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, it regenerates you, it initiates you into the body of Christ. I believe it goes hand in hand with salvation but it’s not the initial act itself that all of a sudden makes you saved. You picking up what I’m putting down? If you have any questions ask me, I’d like to discuss more, and give you more examples or better explanations if needed.
Because I once wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox church, I'm always willing to be persuaded that infant baptism is a biblically sound practice. It was a sticking point I just could not reconcile. I heard lots of different arguments and ideas -- and I WANTED to believe. I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. But the arguments fell short when I studied the text. I remained in my nondenominational Body, still sympathetic to the liturgical faiths. I was hoping for something, but the liquid Word rang hollow in light of participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It just sounds like a work-around theological position taken in order to be all in on your desired denomination. If I could have done that, I'd be in the Eastern Orthodox church. But I couldn't.
Please look into Reformed Baptist theology. Particularly the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
I realize Luther and many reformers did teach infant baptism. However there was and in many cases still is a glaring inconsistency in the Sola Faith teaching of the Reformation, which they got right and was a significant theological correction, and the baptismal regeneration teaching, which they got wrong. The anabaptists got it right, but that was a step too far for many reformers including Luther who viewed that as a view of social anarchism and such were burned at the stake by many reformed groups.
Which is to say for all the positive theological reform of the 1500s, the reformers were not perfect and did not fully find the right path in all theological areas. They struggled much over the theology of the Lord’s supper as well. These are things followers of Luther could have corrected as better understanding came, but instead, Lutheranism has remained locked and frozen in the inconsistency and institutionalized it.
Sometimes man’s “systematic theology” becomes a straight jacket that binds even God in strange ways and results in doctrines like baptismal regeneration.
With all this, you basically said nothing. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
I also have a Luthern background, and was baptized as an infant and it meant absolutly nothing to me. Later on in life when I accepted Jesus, and became a Christian I was baptized as an adult. I knew what I was doing, and it was deeply felt, and meaningful to me. Your explaination of your point of view didn't make any sense, and did not witness in my heart as the truth.
So you're first baptism didn't take? Were you not naturally sinful as an infant? You weren't selfish, narcissistic, jealous, etc.?
*your
@@mbnomad I think the whole issue is a baby isn't aware of their sinfulness (although sinful). The Holy Spirit's job is to convict us of our sin, and thus bring us to repentance. While you can't necessarily put an age on when this happens, pretty safe to say an infant doesn't comprehend sin (although sinful). God draws and saves.
He's for it. 1:33. Not sure why he didn't just get to the point.
My mom went to a Methodists church
We were stationed in Tokyo in 1956-59
At 3 years old I had heart failure
The church told her have this baby Baptism
Well off to Texas for hospitalization
2 years later off to Oklahoma
15 years later i received
Christ at 20
Was Baptisted for real
This analysis jumps from "we are born sinners" to "we need Christ's atoning sacrifice". There's something missing between, which is personal cupability: understanding the commandment, actualy sinning, and the result:
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Thank you for sharing Pastor!
Same thing for me, former Baptist now Lutheran!
I’m a life long (no infant baptism, but yes for baptizing children who want to be baptized) Christian.
We “dedicate our infants” before God and the congregation pledging to raise them “in the Christian faith” (or words to that effect). That effort leads them to the point where they can accept Christ and follow him in believers baptism. That dedication is made by the parents to God and before the congregation. It is also a “parent dedication” as much as a “infant dedication” but it is (like baptism) willingly made by people able to make that level of commitment (the parents). The church also dedicates themselves to helping the parents and their child to be raised “in the Christian faith.” It looks like a lots of “dedications” but with NO WATER involved.
However, you describe “infant baptism” as just and only that. I heard no mention of a dedication of the parents or the church, “just the water baptism.” I would think if there were any commitment made by the parents or the church you would have mentioned it. (Please clarify if I missed it or if that was an oversight.)
Therefore, here is my question:
How is “infant baptism” (as I understand you describing it) better than “baby dedication (as I described it) insofar as “promoting the likelihood that the infant will come to a saving faith” on his own later in life?
Asked another way:
How is “infant dedication” inferior to “infant baptism?”
Faith doesn’t only have to be present in the individual. Read in The Gospel of Mark 2:4…when friends of a paralytic man made an opening through the roof on a house where Jesus was (they couldn’t get through because the crowd) to lower their friend to be healed by Jesus. Jesus did not ask if the the paralytic man had faith….but Jesus knew that his friends did and that was enough for Jesus to heal this man. When we baptize our infants, the parents and god parents present have faith. This is enough in our Lords eyes. Yes?
Liquid word is stretching it, first time hearing it actually, I don't agree with infant baptism. I understand where you're coming from. But it's not a question of solvation, so we can disagree on it.
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Your Fusion Water Bible study gets at the water soaking the Sacred Scriptures with this Baptismal understanding. Thanks, Chad...
I believe circumcision was for Israel, where the covenant was for all physically born of Israel. The new covenant circumcision (baptism) is for those who have been born again. It always seems to be tied to repentance and believing, which are signs of being born again. I agree an infant can be a believer, but he can also be a non-believer. I'm just not sure I can cross that divide of baptizing non-believers. Thanks though for the explanation of the Lutheran perspective on this!
While I believe you did well reasoning again the doctrine of age if accountability. But It really sounds like you are explaining baptismal regeneration in a very mystical way. That's concerning. I grew up Wesleyan-Armenian Holiness and was baptized as a child there. Was baptized in a hyper-charismatic church as an adult because I didn't remember being baptized as a child. I am a protestant and member of the PCA. And while I am not completely sold. I am not opposed. My concern and reason for commenting isn't regarding infant baptism, but the Catholic-light teaching. I know many confessional Lutheran; none would defend it in such a way.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your journey through this topic. For myself, I have never believed in infant baptism. This is mainly because my understanding of it has the prerequisites of confession and repentance; a conscious now inclined to the things of God.
None of the arguments convinced me of anything until you hit on circumcision, which almost got me. The reason I say almost is because, though I agree that there are many things that find their root in the OT, not everything has a direct connection such as you're saying here between circumcision and baptism. Many of the requirements of OT law, ones that could get someone "cutoff from their people" simply aren't there anymore, circumcision being a major one.
However, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that connects baptism to circumcision, and certainly lacking baptism isn't punishable by death or under a threat of being cutoff from your people.
Also, circumcision was only possible to males. Are females forever cutoff from their people because they cannot be circumcised? Are infant males who are baptized now better off than females, since there is no OT precedent for their particular baptism, based off your logic here drawing a connection between baptism and circumcision?
I listened with an open mind, because this is not a pillar of the faith doctrine. I really appreciate your point of view, and love you for sharing it. I've been blessed by most all of your videos this far. I just can't follow your particular path of acceptance on this one. I still have questions and can't reconcile it in my mind, but thank you dearly for your explanation. I wish we could sit down together and break this down over coffee or something, and really sharpen some iron. Just know that's where my heart is with this. I disagree, but respectfully and most importantly lovingly. Grace and peace.
See, I am the exact opposite regarding initial arguments for infant baptism, accepting the scriptures teaching about predestination: That it is an act of faith by the parents that God's calling of their child will be revealed in the proper time, thus validating the sign applied in infancy. However, I am still CREDO baptist because, while I do acknowledge you make some plausible arguments for PEDO, your supporting passages seem to have other reasonable interpretations also. But when I read in 1 Pt "baptism now saves you, not the washing of dirt from the body, but the appeal of a good conscience toward God," that seems to be more clear that the one being immersed is assumed to be making a confession. Which also seems to correlate with Philip's statement to the Ethiopian in Acts. How do you deal with those verses?
Thankyou! I really understand now !
I’m struggling with this too, but related to what you said near the end , if we deny infant baptism, we are forced to say our children are excluded from the covenant and not really part of the church until they make a conscious decision, vs the paradigm in Judaism that circumcised babies are in the covenant automatically barring any apostasy in later life. Seems like the apostles would have addressed such a paradigm shift in the NT if it really happened.
Not just water..... please "not water" periods.... Jesus Christ plus anything is adulteration....
I suspect you would say you believe in 'sola scriptura'. Infant baptism is one topic which absolutely fails to be found to be supported in any way, shape, or form in scripture. You keep saying 'biblical arguments'. But they don't exist. It is all spin created by guys like you through the centuries.
What about gospel verses that do not mention baptism? Mark 1:14-15
Jesus Begins His Ministry
[14] “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, [15] and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
1 Corinthians 1:17
[17] “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
God is rich in grace and brings us to Jesus and Jesus to us in many ways. Sometimes through a preaching of the Gospel, sometimes through reading the Word, sometimes through baptism. In the end, it is all the same: God is using his Word to bring us to himself.
Dear brother, I love your passion and zeal for Lord. In fact I watch your videos regularly because I found them beneficial. Specifically when you make parallels between old and new testament.
But about this video when I look at the bible, I don’t see it as you mentioned as well. Also we know about age of accountability (as you mentioned). But look at Bar-mitzvah. As you know before age of twelve, boys were not accountable for what they were doing. Their father was accountable. Also when I look at 2Sam ch12 v23, I see that David is saying “But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.
Here he’s talking about an infant who died. So David is confirming that infant/babies are not going to hell but heaven.
Isn’t salvation free gift for everyone who deciding to accept and follow Jesus? Doesn’t that means that people who are accepting Jesus are knowing what they do? Does a baby have ability to make decision? Does the babies who were baptised, wanted to accept and follow Jesus by their own decision?
When you talked about picture of circumcision, and Israelite boys were brought in to covenant, that was old covenant. New covenant is faith in Christ.
Question: what about Israelite girls? Because infant baptism is for boys and girls.
Even though we may not agree on this subject, you’re still great teacher on my eyes and I love your work for Lord brother 💐
I suggest you listen to Dr. Michael Heiser on his podcast about baptism. He has a much clearer teaching and reality concerning the subject.
I personally know several people who are lulled into believing they are on the way to heaven based on their infant baptism. They have little or no spiritual inclinations. I have heard one of these folk's pastor at their Lutheran funeral say they are most assuredly in heaven now due to their baptism as a baby. Sad. BTW, wasn't practiced in early church until second century- sprinking was used for the sick who couldn't go into the water. Chad listen to James White on these matters. Luther was wrong on Jews and was wrong here.
I'm now a confessional Lutheran (ELS) but one of the things that helped to change my mind about baptism was the prominence of the belief in infant baptism prior to American evangelicalism's rise, and especially when reading Calvin and John Wesley. I attended both Calvinist and Wesleyan churches prior to converting to Lutheranism, but even though the Calvinists and Wesleyans advocated for a Zwinglian (symbolic) view of the sacraments, both Calvin AND Wesley believed in a degree of sacramental efficacy. True, they did not subscribe to Luther's understanding of it (although Wesley was far closer to Luther's position than many modern Wesleyans realize), but they also rejected a flatly symbolic understanding of the sacraments as well.
Truth be told, a purely symbolic view of the sacraments is a relatively recent doctrine in church history. You don't find it in the first 1500 years of the church at all.
Actually you find it in the early church. See Romans 6:1-4. 😊
Thanks for putting yourself out there on this controversial topic. I’ve been an Anglican pastor most of my working life, and also believe in infant baptism, though for slightly different reasons.
Things I found tricky in your reasoning, that I’d love to hear more from you about: the idea that the ‘word is in the water’ idea. I understand a little about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper - consubstantiation. Is this an echo of that view in some way?
Yes, God used water to save his people in the OT - but my understanding is that it was not to convey the word, but as a physical instrument to fulfil his word, as he also used the physical world to fulfil his promises to bring plagues upon Egypt, or fire and storm and tempest to convey the terrible awesomeness of his presence on Sinai, and so on. But connecting that to baptism, as if the water somehow saves in itself seems, to my ears, odd - given 1 Peter 3b.
The passage about John leaping in the womb reflecting what happens in baptism feels like a bit of a stretch. On one hand, I’ve never heard of anything similar with anyone else, in scripture or outside of scripture. On the other hand, this is an utterly unique moment in world history- with the conception of the God-Man standing before the one appointed to go before him. A unique sign for a unique moment, isn’t it?
There are a few questions. I’m sure you’re busy. If you do happen to get a moment to respond, that would be wonderful. If not, I understand.
Thanks again, dear brother
Regarding Word in the water:
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Thank you for a very timely explanation. I am also grappling with the practice of baptism. I was raised Lutheran in the ALC.
I was confirmed at 16. In the late 80s I was in Texas in the midst of the liberal encroachment into what would become the ELCA. My family moved to Utah and through circumstances have ended up in a Southern Baptist congregation.
Recently I have started studying and looking into the issue to settle my mind on the teachings.
Just thank you. Your insights are very helpful.
This was my last hurdle too! We joined the EPC recently and had been attending for about a year before becoming members and I really had struggles with this. Thank you. I had been gradually accepting it and trying so hard to understand it for a long time.
I will check to see if you video library on TH-cam includes a video on Jesus dying for the whole world. My question is if all the sins of everyone were atoned for on the Cross then why do any go to hell?
The guy in this video is not a Christian and is completely Biblically illiterate. He is the seller of a 100% counterfeit (antichrist) christianity.
Jesus did NOT die for the whole world. Jesus came for, and died for ONLY the very, very few who are Gods chosen ones. These few make up less than 1% of the worlds population and 0% of the churches population.
That all said - which Church is the right one to be baptized in? Does it matter? And what if one is baptized in a Church and leaves that one for another, whatever the reason? As in your own situation. I was baptized as a baby in the Roman Catholic Church and left that religion 60+ years ago and now am simply a professed Christian that does not attend any particular church. I've been to many different churches over the years, but never was comfortable in any - including Judaism. So is my baptism "valid"?
What of someone baptized as a baby, but in early forties now and yet to believe?
I appreciate your Lutheran view on this subject but there are a few points that I would considering lacking regarding this presentation. The main issue is regarding the approach to handling the sin issue. It is very true that we are corrupt sinners from the start (Ps 51:5) and Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sin. You quoted Acts 2:38 to explain the promise was to our children, but you didn't put any emphasis on "Repent". You addressed the Holy Spirit and baptism but left out repentance. Repentance comes as a result of the Holy Spirit working in our life revealing to use that we are a sinner and we need to put our trust in Christ, thus changing our minds. Jesus preached repentance and the Apostles in Acts mentions it in 8 verses, not including verses relating to John's baptism of repentance. Repentance seems to require a personal acknowledgement of sinfulness, not based on age necessarily, but is an new born baby capable of doing this?
Also I have read Luther's view which is similar to yours regarding John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb. He likened this to a type of infant baptism by the water in his mother's womb. I believe we have to admit that allegory was a very popular form of biblical interpretation, that we need to be cautious of, regardless of the person promoting it.
Finally, my experience with over 30 years of ministry has shown that people that were baptized as baby's and coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ later in life, almost without exception desire to be rebaptized, without coercion. Their standard comment is usually; "I was baptized as a baby, but it didn't mean anything to me".
I would liken infant baptism to the same as baby dedication in other traditions.
Just my opinion and thanks for the great clip.
Have a great day!
exactly about the promise. The promise of repentance bringing personal salvation applied to their children, same as the words "and your house" spoken to the Philippian jailor. The instruction he received on how to be saved applied to him and to anyone else in his household. He couldn't believe on their behalf
Since historic presbyterian and Lutheran believes infant baptism and the salvific nature of it, can you make a video what the difference between the two tradition?
Presbyterian’s believe in infant baptism but not that it imparts salvation. Rather it is a sign and seal.
@@alexowens59 This is because Presbyterian nowadays depart from it's historic roots due to influence of Baptist, you can read Scott's confession and align it Westminster Confession. You cannot separate the Sign and the thing signified. The Thing signified is the one that saved you and the sacraments is the sign. John Knox and Calvin hold this view. Baptism saves if you have faith.
@@alexowens59 If you would like to really know the view of Presbyterianism when it comes on baptism you have to go back to it's founder not Presbapterian theologian today like ligonier.
@@alexowens59 sign and seal of what?
@@GencenFide Chapter XXVIII
"Of Baptism" WCF
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]
Do you recommend taking an adolescent say age 8-12 and have them baptized if they have not yet received salvation by confessing their sins? Would the baptism save them the same way that the baptism will save the infant?
The circumcision made without hands is reference to the baptism also made without hands, meaning Spirit!!!
Correct, water baptism means and does absolutely nothing. The Baptism of the Bible is a spiritual baptism that God/Jesus does to the very few who are Gods chosen ones who all have nothing to do with anything called or known as the church.
Wow! I'm shocked. I have listened to you over the years and shared your videos because I thought you were so solid on explaining theology. But in this I think you are jumping through hoops to convince yourself what you are saying is theological sound. You didn't even describe the purpose and symbolism of Christian baptism. Baptism is the liquid Word. I don't even know what that means. Sorry but I am just shocked after listening to your sound teachings over the years. I'll still listen but I think you're reaching this doctrinal conclusion because of something else. God bless.
@jeffh776 This video appears to just be him describing certain things that helped change his mind on infant baptism specifically, and not an exhaustive exploration of the topic of baptism as a whole. Here's another of his videos that I think might scratch that itch if that's what you're looking for: th-cam.com/video/Nt9il4S-BnE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=naDSDO1JmQWK5k3d
Thanks for the comment. As I noted on Twitter, I am confused as to why you are shocked if you have been listening to me over the years. I have often taught about the salvific nature of baptism, and that I am in the Lutheran tradition. No secret that we believe baptism saves and that we baptize infants. So, I am OK with disagreement, just not "shock" :-) God bless you, too.
Very same feelings
I had the same reaction, tbh. But I think we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the water (pun intended). Yes, I also disagree with Chad about infant baptism. But it is still good to listen and see why someone has changed his mind. Even if we disagree, there is a lot we can learn from each other. I had many theological points I changed my mind on during the last 3 decades.
I do agree baptism is necessary for salvation, this baptism is of the Spirit, not all who were circumcision were saved,
Water baptism is not necessary for, and has nothing to do with salvation. Those who baptize babies are those who are Biblically illiterate and are not Christians.
looks like im a Lutheran now.
I was curious about the baptism by John the Baptist prior to Christs imparting of the Holy Spirit.
Im yet to be baptised but i am planning to early next year, i think its extremely important to live a sacramental life.
After you repent, believe, trust Jesus for you salvation, then get baptized, not to do it as a work, or a salvationary thing, its obedience, it doesn't matter in salvation whether its as an infant or adult, its not a sacrament, you don't get to participate in your salvation, God is a jealous God, don't turn it into idolatry,
@jasono6315 I already do trust in Jesus, to get baptised or receive the eucharist is an act of faith, by living a sacramental life means to live for him and not ourselves, getting baptised isn't part of a checklist and doesn't mean anyone who is will be saved, it's down to God's grace whether or not anyone is.
One question. How does a baby repent?
It's a mystery how God's Word works in an infant, but we can be certain that it does not return to Him void.
When we realize that Scripture teaches that faith and repentance are gifts from God to us, then baptism for infants makes more sense. Plus, the continual teaching of God's Word is also needed after baptism. God leads us to repent and believe through His Word. This is true whether we are baptized as infants or as teens/adults.
The same way we all repent: it is God's gift, his work within us. The mistake we so often make is to think in terms of ME, ME, ME. I did this. I did that. We thus make repentance (and faith) our work. It is the Spirit's gift, to adults and children.
Great message and as a former Baptist it took me a while to understand and embrace infant baptism. But the more I thought about it, I began to realize that hearing a sermon isn't terribly different -- in some respects -- from infant baptism. God comes to us through sermons which is also a very physical process: vibrating air molecules, ear drums, nerve cells, chemical reactions, signals interpreted in my brain. And ironically our brains are 75% water, so - in a way - He comes to us through water even in a sermon. But it's not these physical "things" that save us rather God brings us his promises through them. He works from outside of us to bring us His justification and grace. I've often thought about remote civilizations that never heard of the Gospel. Surely God creates a means of grace for these people as well. Let's not put God in a box. His ways are not our ways and He's even more incredible than we can imagine.
Jesus absolutely did NOT die for all. Jesus came for and died for only the few who are Gods chosen ones, Gods elect. These few have nothing to do with anything known as the church that is ALL 100% apostate and does unbiblical, ignorant things like baptize baby's. Repent, and learn what the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
Could you please give your verses that discuss "the liquid word of baptism"?
As an Anglican, I AGREE with you. Understanding what baptism is helps the shift.
"Liquid word"
You explain it well.
Baptism is the dying of the old self and being buried with Christ, then being raised up with him into new life. That's why it's immersion.
@@julieamos86 actually if you use that kind of imagery the death is raised up upon a cross and burial isn't "down" in the ground. His burial was in a tomb. I think it was level not down. The idea of immersion as a symbol breaks down.
Rather what baptism does is joins us to Christ..so what happened to him happened to us as a gift. That's why we were crucified with Christ, buried with him and will be raised with him.. because of union with him.
Baptism is also a bath, a washing. Titus 3:5
@@Liminalplace1 Titus is talking about the Holy Spirit being poured out, not water baptism.
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ROMANS 6,4
@@julieamos86 id agree that Titus isn't referring directly to water baptism...but the word translated "washing" is connected to a bath. Baptism joins one to Christ and with him comes the Holy Spirit. So the imagery of a bath or a washing is an analogy to baptism.
If you really think "immersion" is a burial with Christ..where is the cross in the baptism waters? And why do people go "down" into the water when Jesus went into a tomb at ground level?
I suggest that it's not a burial but a washing.
Because we are joined to Christ we died, were buried and will rise with him. That's what Romans 6 refers to.
So immersion isn't essential.
What is essential are the words of Christ said over the baptized with water.
As Chad said...."liquid word".
Saying baptism is a burial is reading our modern practices of funerals into baptism. The Romans would not have thought Paul was talking about that. Romans often cremated their dead or put them into catacombs...not down into the ground like we often do.
I hope that explains it.
All Christians use the words of Christ and water.
@@Liminalplace1 direction is irrelevant, it's about burial not where the burial is.
Christian baptism illustrates, in dramatic style, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, it also illustrates our death to sin and new life in Christ. As the sinner confesses the Lord Jesus, he dies to sin (Romans 6:11) and is raised to a brand-new life (Colossians 2:12). Being submerged in the water represents death to sin, and emerging from the water represents the cleansed, holy life that follows salvation. Romans 6:4 puts it this way: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Very simply, baptism is an outward testimony of the inward change in a believer’s life. Christian baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord after salvation.
The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also Acts 16:14-15). (GotQuestions. org)
I agree in baptism but I also believe you have to find a good church.. the problem is Christianity is messed up there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion how can any one go to a church like that for anything.
Perhaps you have had some bad experiences with churches that cause you to write this. I would urge you, however, to stamp down such a cynical attitude toward Christianity in general. I have been involved in churches my entire life, some good, some better, but never one that would cause me to write, "there's nothing but hypocrisy in the Christian religion." I have my own sin to deal with; others have theirs. We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. And we gather in worship as sinners among fellow sinners to hear the Word, to receive forgiveness, and to praise the God of grace in Christ.
@@chadbird1517 all Christian faith is based of Catholic religion if your I the United States there is no church that is safe all churches around here are Catholic tradition based any church that celebrated Christmas or Easter or any pagan holidays is a false religion . There's only one faith I can trust to teach the truth and it isn't an American church
What is the Scriptural reference for “The liquid Word in and with the water”
So, if baptism is necessary to wash away the infants original sin, what happen to that baby that dies before birth, from
premature birth, death before the baptism?
What is the status of a person that is baptized as an infant, but later turns away from God and lives a sinful, non-repentant life? Are they still accepted into heaven for eternity?
So what about all the infants born into an unbelieving family or situation and never get baptized?
What about someone baptized as an infant, and then at 25 years old, they reject Christ?
What if being baptized by water DOESNT save a person in the first place?
What if being saved is based upon an understanding of the Cross and belief upon what Jesus did for us? Therefore causing a conscientious decision to accept Jesus as their Savior.
PS: Do you also believe in Gay Marriage and Gay Pastors and Woman Pastors?
Repentance and Faith is required in the Scripture before Water Baptism. Also we never see any infants baptized in the Bible. Only an argument out of silence can be made for infant Baptism
But I appreciate you explaining your views.
Blessings Hal
We also never see any of the 12 apostles baptized. They were present at the a
Jordan with John the Baptist but does not say they were baptized.
Those who reject infant baptism are the ones doing so "out of silence."
In the video, he highlighted several passages in the New Testament that speak of "whole households" being baptized. That is pretty explicit. How can you read "whole household" and then take it to mean: "only adults who first publicly profess faith in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" were baptized?
Also, as he brought up, the covenant promises of God were given to male babies in circumcision. This is is the theological and Biblical antecedent to New Testament infant baptism.
@@pataho4290 Interesting observation, but only partially true, I think. It is true that Scripture does not specifically mention about their baptism, however, later constantly "assumes" it happened. Jesus, in the great commission in Mat.28, makes it clear that baptism is linked to being a disciple. Plus various verses show that at least some of the apostles were first John's disciples, which meant had to be baptised with John's baptism - which was then made obsolete by Jesus' baptism. Additionally in John 4:1-2 we can quite safely assume that they themselves first had to be baptised to be able to baptise others (which seemed to be necessary) while they were still with Jesus.
@@matthewshields8613 Well... actually, the "whole household" usually excluded infants. (Similar would be today, if you went to a wedding with all the relatives, and you said "Everyone enjoyed themselves" automatically ignores the 3 months old baby who slept it through and we have no idea if she enjoyed it or not). Just like when "All Israel said Amen" does not mean the small babies also said amen. Infants do not get counted at conscious acts. --- The circumcision argument is a better one. However.... note that by circumcision was required to be part of Israel. It was nothing to do with salvation (otherwise there would be many Baal-worshipper Jews in Heaven). Circumcision was only a sign of the covenant! It did not substitute faith in JHWH. So you take that (rightly so) as the antecedent (cool word!) of baptism, we end up with faith being needed for salvation, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of an already existing saving faith. However, the big difference between circumcision and baptism is, that the former was explicitly commanded to be performed on infants, while the later is never mentioned in context of infants. I think we should not over-speculate the text.
@@123ppap While I understand what you are trying to say, your argument for "household" is not what the Biblical text is saying.
In Genesis 17, when God institutes circumcision, He explicitly states that 8 day old males should be circumcised (17:12). Then, later in that same chapter, Abraham actually has all the males in his "house" circumcised. Again, this explicitly includes infants. In the context of the Bible "household" does include infants.
Also, Jesus was Jewish. As was Paul and all of the apostles. They would have all made the direct connection between baptism and circumcision (which included infants).
Also, on your comment that circumcision does not substitute for faith you are correct! And neither does baptism. You are actually quite close to Lutheran baptism here!!! Faith is absolutely needed. But then you miss the mark. Baptism is "necessary" (as 1 Peter 3:21) because baptism is a promise that is given to you by God (God's word attached to water - Ephesians 5:26). How can you have faith without a promise to believe in?! Without a promise given to you, personally, you cannot have faith! Which is why Lutherans baptize babies. We are giving the promise to them as Jesus commanded us! (Matt. 28:19).
I must respectfully disagree as I believe the baptism of water doesn't wash away sin. John said he indeed did baptize with water but one coming after him (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This is the baptism required to wash away sin. If not, then where do you see the millions of babies who were aborted without being baptized? I am very confident they are with Jesus, who said we must come as little children totally trusting Him for our salvation.I do enjoy your teaching and as a Southern Baptist find we are in agreement on most issues.
the bottom line..
WATER BAPTISM ended when John baptized Jesus ❗
the real GREAT COMMISSION
Acts 1:4-5
Jesus after the resurrection commanded the apostles to wait for the gift the father promised............. the baptism of the Holy Spirit
As much as I admire your knowledge and teaching abilities I felt that you are struggling with this one. The struggle is because what you are saying is just not in the Bible. There is not a single command, example, or inference to infant baptism in the New Testament, yet we have several examples of the person being baptized as cognitive as to what they are doing. Peter said in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins..."
How can an infant possibly repent?
In Acts 8, Simon, when he heard the good news of Jesus, "Believed" and was baptized.
How can an infant believe?
Also in Acts 8, the Ethiopian, when he "understood" what Phillip was explaining to him, went "down into the water to be baptized."
How can an infant understand?
Even in the Old Testament, Isaac understood what was going to happen to him. Why didn't God have Abraham sacrifice him when he was born, or two years old, or four years old?
There are many, many other examples of baptism in the New Testament, yet none of them are infants.
Perhaps it goes even deeper. Adam and Eve made a CHOICE to disobey God. Perhaps we DON'T inherit the sins of our parents but choose to sin when we know the difference between right and wrong. Yes, every human who can determine what right and wrong is will sin, but that is why through Jesus we are offered redemption.
I know my one year old granddaughter, at this point, has no clue as to right, wrong, sin, redemption, etc., but she will at some point.
One last point. What if you are wrong? Do you not see the danger of this teaching? If someone was baptized as an infant, without understanding, belief, repentance, or confession, and they NEVER do any of those things because they honestly believe they are "safe" to go to heaven because of their infant baptism...could that possibly cost them their soul? I certainly would not want to answer to God on the day of judgment for that teaching!
You sound like you may be a member of the church of Christ. Even if you’re not maybe Paul’s words to the Ephesians about being adopted will help you understand. We adopted our daughter at 9 months old. At that time we gave her our name and all benefits of being in our family. We then raised her as “a Crum” (our last name) rooting her identity in all that meant for her). We didn’t wait to adopt her at an age she could choose to be ours and believe that she was. As we came to understand our spiritual adoption in Christ we saw that is exactly what Christ does for us in our baptism. He says you are mine and your identity is now my son or daughter. Acts 2:39 says this promise is for you and your children, infant baptism became the standard in all faiths for many centuries for children born into Christian homes when you study church history. It helps me to remember when reading scripture that sometimes it is descriptive of what was happening versus prescriptive for all times. Just like we continue to teach our child what it means to be in our family it is a parent’s job to continue teaching them what it means for them to be a baptized child of God. Baptism is a gift from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and when they struggle we can continue to point them back to that gift and their identity because of “who’s they are” regardless of their age. That is the good news of the gospel and why it is a comfort and brings them (and me) peace.
Again, just using strictly God's word as our ONLY reference, I can find no teaching about infant baptism.
The first mention of it in historical accounts is nearly 200 years after Christ. It is something ADDED to God's will by man and no matter the intention it is not part of his holy word...and very dangerous! .@@kristicrum63
@@kristicrum63 Is there anyway you could back up what you are saying with scripture? Acts 2:39 simple means "generations" after you and to all who are far off. In other words everyone! As far as common practice there is NO mention of infant baptism anywhere in historical accounts until almost 200 years after Jesus. God bless you for adopting your child but the simile that you are using does not apply to infant baptism.
Great video! Now can you edit it and add bible verses to the screen?
How can people go to Hell whose s sins have been paid for? I would ask you to respond to Mike Riccardi’s paper on Limited Atonement. ❤
"Then Philip went down to the CITY of Samaria and preached Christ to them. And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip.........But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. " Acts 8:5-12