I renounce my rejection of infant baptism I once had. Through my own understanding and false Protestant teaching. Thanks be to God I’m fully believing in this holy sacrament for life
I studied the Bible for over 50 years and never made the connection of baptism replacing circumcision .it makes perfect sense.im glad my parents had me baptised as a child in the church of England .I saw my certificate when I was 18 but lost it over the years .I wish I could find a copy now .I'm now 75.
Fr. Findley, excellent job explaining the Biblical Christian theology behind infant Baptism! I fully agree! As an Anglican, it's nice to see your short videos! I'm Anglican and my wife is Southern Baptist...this is one area where we agreed to let her win when it comes to our children's upbringing. I do believe that infant Baptism is Biblical. However, we still have to have a Baptism of the heart regardless of when the sign (physical Baptism) occurs. At least I got my way in that we attend an Anglican church.
Hello, I am roman catholic from Poland and first of all I would like to thank you for your videos. It's very helpful for me to understand anglican faith and tradition. There are not many anglicans in Poland so it's hard to find someone who tell me how it really is. This year we celebrated 20th anniversary of joint declaration on the doctrine of baptism, so all christian churches believe that sacrament of baptism is valid in each of those churches (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Orthodox, Oldcatholic, some of Evangelicals) that was a great day for all of us. I've seen Your video about Holly Eucharist and it's almost (in my opinion) the same as in lutheran churches. But what about the other 5 sacraments? I've heard Anglican Church has seven just like Roman Catholic, but not always thery are mensioned. And if there are 7, do you recognize them in the same way as roman catholics? I have also other questions which refers to the Liturgy of Altar. Does have "mass" the same meanig as in Roman Catholic Church? According to RC Church teaching, the mass is at once a memorial and a sacrifice. In the eucharistic prayer, the church commemorates Jesus Christ and his redeeming work, especially his sacrifice for the sake of all humankind through his crucifixion. Christ’s sacrifice is not only recalled in the mass, it is made present. Doas anglican mass has the same meaning? Or is it like in lutheran church (only thanksgiving sacrifice without making it present). Thank you Father, God bless you and your congregation!
Fr. Findley, what would you do if an evangelical wanted to join your church (because of Communion & the BCP,) but wanted to wait until their children were old enough to understand the gospel and the cost of discipleship before they got baptized? Also, isn't it possible that Peter is referring to future generations when he referred to "your children" in Acts 2:39? As you know there were many beliefs about baptism in the early church. In fact some early Christians, superstitiously IMO, wanted to wait until near death because they were afraid of sinning after baptism. I have really come to deeply respect Anglicanism, but the teaching on baptism is still an issue for me.
Adam Smith Hi Adam! It’s not mandatory that they be baptized. That’s always left to the parents. However they could not receive communion until they were baptized. They would receive a blessing at the communion rail instead. I think the overall Bibilical and historical thrust is much more in favor of paedobaptism. Believers only baptism doesn’t show up on the historical radar until after the reformation. Even Luther and Calvin were in favor of the practice of infant Baptism. But, I don’t discount your convictions of desire for your children. It’s why we have confirmation, in fact. But the short answer is that while I encourage my parishioners to have their children Baptized, it is the parent’s decision. Hope this helps. It’s a big topic, I know.
@@chrisfindley9037 Thank you so much for your fast reply. We will visit soon (though not this week). We are only about 20 minutes away. I have visited an Anglican Church in Nashville (Church of the Redeemer) a few times after reading Fr. Thomas McKenzie's The Anglican Way. He says something similar to what you just said about baptism in his church. But your church is closer and I wanted to see if you felt similarly. I have a 3 year old and seven month old. I do see both sides of the issue. On the one hand I believe that infant baptisms are very much legitimate and that baptism is the means of entry into the Kingdom of God. On the other hand I want my children to remember their baptism. I will continue to read on this issue. There is a book by Scott McKnight that I want to try.
I love this video! Thanks for sharing! Can you point me to the works of Origen and Augustine where these things are mentioned? I would love to study more and be able to read these original works.
"And this is the firm tradition of the Universal Church, in the respect of the Baptism of Infants, who certainly are as yet unable, 'with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation' as the thief (on the cross next to Jesus) could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are Baptized to no purpose. (24) And if anyone seek for Divine Authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by Apostolical Authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the Sacrament of Baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision...(here, a lengthy explanation of how Circumcision and Baptism parallel is given)...so infants, who are Baptized, the Sacrament of regeneration (say wha?!?!?) is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow..."--On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, chapters 23-24 (written approximately A.D. 400)
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you (Fidus) say ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be Baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man."--The Epistles of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter LVIII, 2 (written approximately A.D. 253)
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
Infants were baptized in the 3rd century yes. But it was because they believed it was one of the means by which a person was saved (like a tool in Christ’s hands). And they wanted to ensure their infant would go to heaven if they died before a profession. And from that historical fact alone we can see that confession, repentance and THEN baptism was the norm… not infant baptism. Jesus was baptized by John’s baptism which was a baptism of repentance. This is what the Apostles would have been thinking of when Jesus commanded to baptize in Matthew 28. The baptism of Jesus is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the circumcision of the heart and is not to be understood as synonymous with a water baptism. Thats not what that text is doing
Interestingly, Matt Powell’s comment is blocked from receiving replies. When I was his age I thought I knew everything about the Christian faith, too. I’m just glad it was too long ago for there to be a video record of my folly. Good video, Chris Findley.
Andrea Garrett Voice Overs agreed. I took it off also because while I don’t at all mind dialogue and discussion, being referred to as “wicked” doesn’t really help at having a profitable discussion. Blessings!
Thanks for the explanation. I was also a taken aback by that characterization! Thanks for your videos. I’m enjoying your insights and comments on Anglicanism.
Thank you. I am talking to my sons baby mom about dedocate/baptisum. She is open. Do i request from the church a education class for the mother? I will be with her as spiritual support.
Excellent. One comment. To the best of my knowledge Tertullian (baptismo chap 18) speaks against infant baptism. However, it could be well argued that this indicates that infant baptism was well established (and of course Tertullium was not completely orthodox)
Thanks Andrew. Yep, Tertullian had some concerns for sure. And I think you're correct in the idea of Paedo Baptism being well established. I'm empathetic to people's concerns as it often comes from a concern for the person baptized. I think that so much of it starts with backing up and starting from the Sacramental theology behind it and seeing what underlies the concept. Thanks for the comment and blessings to you!
Tertullian was not entirely against it, but he did recommend putting off Baptism. However, his reasoning is not the reasoning of people who are opposed to Baptism today. His argument was, essentially, that if you were baptized as an infant you had an entire life ahead of you in which you could sin after that Baptism. That was a concern for him because he believed you couldn't return to the Faith if you made a grave sin after Baptism. This is why he also suggested single people not be Baptized, because they might fall into lust after Baptism.
Regardless of Tertullian and others like him, I always wonder why people would not want to bring their infant into the Church (meaning body of Christ, not just the Anglican Church) and especially, why would they not want to give their child the gift of the Holy Spirit?
Though infant baptism is silly… sprinkling was practiced by the earliest church under certain circumstances (I.E. when they had no body of running water that they could be baptized in)
Gordon Falconer No. The two go together as a hand in glove. Otherwise, every “believer “ is a sort of “mini Pope.” Was this the intention of the reformers?
Scripture is a tradition. Tradition means what has been handed on. The oral teachings of the church existed before the New Testament was one book with a specific canon.
@@karmayeshengondrubs4594No. The intention of the reformers was to go back to scripture.. and according to scripture, God is God and man is man and there is no pope whatsoever
They didn't speak negatively of baptising babies because no one considered it to be done. In Acts it is quite clear that baptism accompanies repentance. Only believers are baptised.in the NT. Baptism does not replace circumcision.
Hey, Martin! Hope you are doing well. A few things: 1) Circumcision and Baptism are connected in the New Testament. See Colossians 2:11-12. 2) As we see it, if infants were to no longer be made part of the Covenant and joined to the Covenant by the Covenantal Sign (Baptism), there would have been an explicit mention of it. We see the old sacrifices being done away with in Hebrews, for instance. However, we no longer see this idea that infants can't be made part of the Covenant. 3) Entire households are Baptised in the New Testament. 4) We see no explicit mention of women receiving Communion, or any statement saying that they should be allowed to receive Communion. Does this mean that, therefore, they aren't allowed to receive Communion? It seems like those who argue that Infant Baptism is not in the Bible, and therefore infants can't be Baptized, must argue the same for women receiving Communion if they are to be consistent.
@@barelyprotestant5365Sorry, must have missed your post - 1. Paul is talking of circumcision & baptism as the things they represent. It shows that the true circumcision are believers. 2. Nothing stops God saving infants, but we have no means of discerning if they are saved. Until they are saved, they are not part of the New Covenant. 3. An entire household does not have babies most of the time. 4. But we do see that statement that women are a part of the Church, even though they are excluded from the leadership. The question is, who is baptised in the Bible and on what basis.
It isn't I agree. You can see though why it became the norm. The same is true on the Trinity. Not mentioned in the authenticate bible but you can see why the view developed
In Acts, when certain people convert, they get their whole family and household baptised, including their servants/slaves and (presumably though not said outright) children including babies.
@@tcrosslinho5565the trinity wasn’t a view that “developed” it is very clearly taught in scripture. Very very very clearly. And we gave that teaching a name “the trinity.” Infant baptism is nowhere in scripture at all. And we can see how it developed, but a development doesn’t make it right or necessary
@@GuguchinaThis is a non sequitur. “Household” doesn’t necessitate “infants.” Further, the greek there indicates (and the English for that matter) that the household believed and therefore were baptized. Infants don’t “believe” Further the command is “repent….and be baptized” not “be baptized…and maybe repent later”
U are a liar there is no biblical account of infant because baptism is an answer of a good conscience 1 Peter 3:21 the promise is the promise of holy spirit not of baptism of babies
@chrisfindley9037 And baptism is supposed to be a symbolic burial and resurrection (as you mentioned). How can a sprinking be a burial and resurrection? How does an infant put to death the old man as Paul explains in Romans 6?
@@pivigurlmusic4439 You asked, "How does an infant put to death the old man as Paul explains in Romans 6?" My answer is the person does not put himself to death, but this is something that God does. Baptism should be looked at as something God does more than something man does. Jesus asked this sort of question about the baptism of John the Baptist. It was of God; not men, which helped in establishing the basis for the authority of Jesus in the temple. Belief in the supernatural effects of water baptism means the recipient has been placed under the authority and government of Jesus so that they can become God's workmanship. It is God's program of belief and repentance more that the baptized recipient's program of belief and repentance. Infant baptism shows grace better than waiting until a person must make their own baptismal decision.
@@raykidder906It was not “of God” but “from God” which is a wholly different meaning. Even so, John’s baptism was one of repentance.. he wouldn’t even let the pharisees be baptized unless they had repented first.
@@ScribeAlicious Why were there so many people in Jerusalem later calling for the crucifixion of Jesus? Apparently none of them had been baptized by John. Is this what you believe?
"The church has been baptizing children from its early days" (find infant baptism in the Bible - its not there)- children (not babies) - when Jesus said for little children to come unto him; the context has nothing to do with baptism. The promise of the gospel is open to children - yes, children can come to faith in Christ, but not as babies - many children come to faith in Christ at 5 or 6 years old but, babies cannot come to faith in Christ. Baptism is not a continuation of the covenant of circumcision. The Scripture does not teach that. Baptism is not an issue of washing away sin; it is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (the Gospel) and our identification with it. The Gospel must be acknowledged or accepted by faith. No one can come to faith in Christ as a baby.
The model of gospel faith is Abraham. He was circumcised in old age, while Ishmael was circumcised as a youth together with him. But Isaac was circumcised as an infant. This is the template for those who are likewise saved by grace through faith. If baptism is inapppropriate for children in the covenant of faith, then circumcision of Abraham's son Isaac must also be inconsistent with the covenant of faith, but in that case the Spirit chose a strange example for the pattern according to which we must all relate to God. Peter says the promised Spirit is for us and our children when he commands baptism in Acts 2. And the household of Cornelius and the Philippian Jailer, and Lydia are all said to have been baptized together with them just as Abraham's household members were baptized with him when he believed God's promise. Abraham is the pattern for the NT. Adults are baptized when they believe, but children are baptized just as Abraham's Isaac was circumcized. Thus to argue that infant baptism has no place in a covenant of faith is to argue either that God himself made a mistake with his instructions to Abraham, or perhaps to misunderstand the nature of that covenant and ours. Abraham believed, and Isaac was circumcized in the covenant of faith.
Oh, and John (the original Baptist) did recognize Jesus as Messiah, not only as a babe, but in the womb of Elizabeth. Faith is a supernatural gift, not a human work that merits salvation.
Ross Pyle We don’t “come to Christ” . Christ COMES TO US. It’s called “SOVEREIGN GRACE.” Study some history and theology and you might learn something of value.Where does the Bible describe Baptism as a “picture.”? No where! Baptism is a Sacrament of the Gospel commanded by the Lord Jesus. The Church is a divine institution, not something that was invented in 1963.
R P, this is from Romans 3 (NKJV): 1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. If water baptism does not replace circumcision, and there are advantages to circumcision, then you need to be a proponent of circumcision since it is such a profitable thing; right? If water baptism is the mark of (and entrance into) the new covenant, then isn’t it correct that the water baptized do not profit from receiving circumcision as this new covenant also results in receiving the oracles (word) of God? R P, you typed, “Baptism is not an issue of washing away sin”. This is from Acts 22 (NKJV): 16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ This is from Mark 1 (NKJV): 4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Why didn’t John just preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins? My answer is that his baptism was an instrument of repentance as this created a supernatural effect from God to instill what people needed to repent of. An age and/or creed based understanding requirement for water baptism is like having such a requirement for the reception of a manufactured Bible. Bible reception is more God’s doing rather through grace than man’s doing through an intellectual attainment. John’s baptism was from heaven and not from men. Likewise, baptism is something that God does on behalf of the recipient more than something man does through the religious ceremonial act of baptism.
I renounce my rejection of infant baptism I once had. Through my own understanding and false Protestant teaching. Thanks be to God I’m fully believing in this holy sacrament for life
I studied the Bible for over 50 years and never made the connection of baptism replacing circumcision .it makes perfect sense.im glad my parents had me baptised as a child in the church of England .I saw my certificate when I was 18 but lost it over the years .I wish I could find a copy now .I'm now 75.
Fr. Findley, excellent job explaining the Biblical Christian theology behind infant Baptism! I fully agree! As an Anglican, it's nice to see your short videos! I'm Anglican and my wife is Southern Baptist...this is one area where we agreed to let her win when it comes to our children's upbringing. I do believe that infant Baptism is Biblical. However, we still have to have a Baptism of the heart regardless of when the sign (physical Baptism) occurs. At least I got my way in that we attend an Anglican church.
My wife sings in our Church Choir (we go to an Anglican church). What should I learn?
@Nkg Hdr well, that's uncharitable and untrue.
@Nkg Hdr Romans 11:11-26, Hebrews 10:26-32.
Both passages clearly teach that you can be a part of the Faith and fall away.
Hello, I am roman catholic from Poland and first of all I would like to thank you for your videos. It's very helpful for me to understand anglican faith and tradition. There are not many anglicans in Poland so it's hard to find someone who tell me how it really is. This year we celebrated 20th anniversary of joint declaration on the
doctrine of baptism, so all christian churches believe that sacrament of baptism is valid in each of those churches (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Orthodox, Oldcatholic, some of Evangelicals) that was a great day for all of us.
I've seen Your video about Holly Eucharist and it's almost (in my opinion) the same as in lutheran churches. But what about the other 5 sacraments? I've heard Anglican Church has seven just like Roman Catholic, but not always thery are mensioned. And if there are 7, do you recognize them in the same way as roman catholics?
I have also other questions which refers to the Liturgy of Altar. Does have "mass" the same meanig as in Roman Catholic Church? According to RC Church teaching, the mass is at once a memorial and a sacrifice. In the eucharistic prayer, the church commemorates Jesus Christ and his redeeming work, especially his sacrifice for the sake of all humankind through his crucifixion. Christ’s sacrifice is not only recalled in the mass, it is made present. Doas anglican mass has the same meaning? Or is it like in lutheran church (only thanksgiving sacrifice without making it present).
Thank you Father, God bless you and your congregation!
Fr. Findley, what would you do if an evangelical wanted to join your church (because of Communion & the BCP,) but wanted to wait until their children were old enough to understand the gospel and the cost of discipleship before they got baptized?
Also, isn't it possible that Peter is referring to future generations when he referred to "your children" in Acts 2:39? As you know there were many beliefs about baptism in the early church. In fact some early Christians, superstitiously IMO, wanted to wait until near death because they were afraid of sinning after baptism.
I have really come to deeply respect Anglicanism, but the teaching on baptism is still an issue for me.
Adam Smith Hi Adam! It’s not mandatory that they be baptized. That’s always left to the parents. However they could not receive communion until they were baptized. They would receive a blessing at the communion rail instead.
I think the overall Bibilical and historical thrust is much more in favor of paedobaptism. Believers only baptism doesn’t show up on the historical radar until after the reformation. Even Luther and Calvin were in favor of the practice of infant Baptism. But, I don’t discount your convictions of desire for your children. It’s why we have confirmation, in fact. But the short answer is that while I encourage my parishioners to have their children Baptized, it is the parent’s decision.
Hope this helps. It’s a big topic, I know.
@@chrisfindley9037 Thank you so much for your fast reply. We will visit soon (though not this week). We are only about 20 minutes away. I have visited an Anglican Church in Nashville (Church of the Redeemer) a few times after reading Fr. Thomas McKenzie's The Anglican Way. He says something similar to what you just said about baptism in his church. But your church is closer and I wanted to see if you felt similarly. I have a 3 year old and seven month old. I do see both sides of the issue. On the one hand I believe that infant baptisms are very much legitimate and that baptism is the means of entry into the Kingdom of God. On the other hand I want my children to remember their baptism. I will continue to read on this issue. There is a book by Scott McKnight that I want to try.
I love this video! Thanks for sharing! Can you point me to the works of Origen and Augustine where these things are mentioned? I would love to study more and be able to read these original works.
"And this is the firm tradition of the Universal Church, in the respect of the Baptism of Infants, who certainly are as yet unable, 'with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation' as the thief (on the cross next to Jesus) could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are Baptized to no purpose. (24) And if anyone seek for Divine Authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by Apostolical Authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the Sacrament of Baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision...(here, a lengthy explanation of how Circumcision and Baptism parallel is given)...so infants, who are Baptized, the Sacrament of regeneration (say wha?!?!?) is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow..."--On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, chapters 23-24 (written approximately A.D. 400)
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you (Fidus) say ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be Baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man."--The Epistles of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter LVIII, 2 (written approximately A.D. 253)
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
Infants were baptized in the 3rd century yes. But it was because they believed it was one of the means by which a person was saved (like a tool in Christ’s hands). And they wanted to ensure their infant would go to heaven if they died before a profession. And from that historical fact alone we can see that confession, repentance and THEN baptism was the norm… not infant baptism.
Jesus was baptized by John’s baptism which was a baptism of repentance. This is what the Apostles would have been thinking of when Jesus commanded to baptize in Matthew 28.
The baptism of Jesus is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the circumcision of the heart and is not to be understood as synonymous with a water baptism. Thats not what that text is doing
From me, a Catholic, I say well done!
Sorry I missed your comment. Thank you for watching and commenting! Blessings to you.
Interestingly, Matt Powell’s comment is blocked from receiving replies. When I was his age I thought I knew everything about the Christian faith, too. I’m just glad it was too long ago for there to be a video record of my folly. Good video, Chris Findley.
Andrea Garrett Voice Overs agreed. I took it off also because while I don’t at all mind dialogue and discussion, being referred to as “wicked” doesn’t really help at having a profitable discussion. Blessings!
Thanks for the explanation. I was also a taken aback by that characterization! Thanks for your videos. I’m enjoying your insights and comments on Anglicanism.
Thank you. I am talking to my sons baby mom about dedocate/baptisum. She is open. Do i request from the church a education class for the mother? I will be with her as spiritual support.
Excellent. One comment. To the best of my knowledge Tertullian (baptismo chap 18) speaks against infant baptism. However, it could be well argued that this indicates that infant baptism was well established (and of course Tertullium was not completely orthodox)
Thanks Andrew. Yep, Tertullian had some concerns for sure. And I think you're correct in the idea of Paedo Baptism being well established. I'm empathetic to people's concerns as it often comes from a concern for the person baptized. I think that so much of it starts with backing up and starting from the Sacramental theology behind it and seeing what underlies the concept. Thanks for the comment and blessings to you!
Tertullian was not entirely against it, but he did recommend putting off Baptism. However, his reasoning is not the reasoning of people who are opposed to Baptism today. His argument was, essentially, that if you were baptized as an infant you had an entire life ahead of you in which you could sin after that Baptism. That was a concern for him because he believed you couldn't return to the Faith if you made a grave sin after Baptism. This is why he also suggested single people not be Baptized, because they might fall into lust after Baptism.
Regardless of Tertullian and others like him, I always wonder why people would not want to bring their infant into the Church (meaning body of Christ, not just the Anglican Church) and especially, why would they not want to give their child the gift of the Holy Spirit?
Not only do you baptise wrong people (infants) but the process is wrong too (sprinkling)
Though infant baptism is silly… sprinkling was practiced by the earliest church under certain circumstances (I.E. when they had no body of running water that they could be baptized in)
Tradition does not override scripture
Gordon Falconer
No. The two go together as a hand in glove. Otherwise, every “believer “ is a sort of “mini Pope.” Was this the intention of the reformers?
Scripture is a tradition. Tradition means what has been handed on. The oral teachings of the church existed before the New Testament was one book with a specific canon.
@@karmayeshengondrubs4594No. The intention of the reformers was to go back to scripture.. and according to scripture, God is God and man is man and there is no pope whatsoever
Amen.
They didn't speak negatively of baptising babies because no one considered it to be done. In Acts it is quite clear that baptism accompanies repentance. Only believers are baptised.in the NT. Baptism does not replace circumcision.
Hey, Martin! Hope you are doing well. A few things:
1) Circumcision and Baptism are connected in the New Testament. See Colossians 2:11-12.
2) As we see it, if infants were to no longer be made part of the Covenant and joined to the Covenant by the Covenantal Sign (Baptism), there would have been an explicit mention of it. We see the old sacrifices being done away with in Hebrews, for instance. However, we no longer see this idea that infants can't be made part of the Covenant.
3) Entire households are Baptised in the New Testament.
4) We see no explicit mention of women receiving Communion, or any statement saying that they should be allowed to receive Communion. Does this mean that, therefore, they aren't allowed to receive Communion? It seems like those who argue that Infant Baptism is not in the Bible, and therefore infants can't be Baptized, must argue the same for women receiving Communion if they are to be consistent.
There's also no record of children being baptized either, so is baptism solely for adults?
@@xandro2445 The Bible teaches that we should baptise believers, age is irrelevant.
@@martinploughboy988 quit redirecting
@@barelyprotestant5365Sorry, must have missed your post -
1. Paul is talking of circumcision & baptism as the things they represent. It shows that the true circumcision are believers.
2. Nothing stops God saving infants, but we have no means of discerning if they are saved. Until they are saved, they are not part of the New Covenant.
3. An entire household does not have babies most of the time.
4. But we do see that statement that women are a part of the Church, even though they are excluded from the leadership.
The question is, who is baptised in the Bible and on what basis.
Infant baptism is no where in the word of God.
It isn't I agree. You can see though why it became the norm. The same is true on the Trinity. Not mentioned in the authenticate bible but you can see why the view developed
In Acts, when certain people convert, they get their whole family and household baptised, including their servants/slaves and (presumably though not said outright) children including babies.
@@tcrosslinho5565the trinity wasn’t a view that “developed” it is very clearly taught in scripture. Very very very clearly. And we gave that teaching a name “the trinity.”
Infant baptism is nowhere in scripture at all. And we can see how it developed, but a development doesn’t make it right or necessary
@@GuguchinaThis is a non sequitur. “Household” doesn’t necessitate “infants.” Further, the greek there indicates (and the English for that matter) that the household believed and therefore were baptized. Infants don’t “believe”
Further the command is “repent….and be baptized” not “be baptized…and maybe repent later”
U are a liar there is no biblical account of infant because baptism is an answer of a good conscience 1 Peter 3:21 the promise is the promise of holy spirit not of baptism of babies
Acts 2:38
And the next verse 2:39.
@chrisfindley9037 And baptism is supposed to be a symbolic burial and resurrection (as you mentioned). How can a sprinking be a burial and resurrection? How does an infant put to death the old man as Paul explains in Romans 6?
@@pivigurlmusic4439 You asked, "How does an infant put to death the old man as Paul explains in Romans 6?" My answer is the person does not put himself to death, but this is something that God does. Baptism should be looked at as something God does more than something man does. Jesus asked this sort of question about the baptism of John the Baptist. It was of God; not men, which helped in establishing the basis for the authority of Jesus in the temple. Belief in the supernatural effects of water baptism means the recipient has been placed under the authority and government of Jesus so that they can become God's workmanship. It is God's program of belief and repentance more that the baptized recipient's program of belief and repentance. Infant baptism shows grace better than waiting until a person must make their own baptismal decision.
@@raykidder906It was not “of God” but “from God” which is a wholly different meaning. Even so, John’s baptism was one of repentance.. he wouldn’t even let the pharisees be baptized unless they had repented first.
@@ScribeAlicious Why were there so many people in Jerusalem later calling for the crucifixion of Jesus? Apparently none of them had been baptized by John. Is this what you believe?
"The church has been baptizing children from its early days" (find infant baptism in the Bible - its not there)- children (not babies) - when Jesus said for little children to come unto him; the context has nothing to do with baptism. The promise of the gospel is open to children - yes, children can come to faith in Christ, but not as babies - many children come to faith in Christ at 5 or 6 years old but, babies cannot come to faith in Christ. Baptism is not a continuation of the covenant of circumcision. The Scripture does not teach that. Baptism is not an issue of washing away sin; it is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (the Gospel) and our identification with it. The Gospel must be acknowledged or accepted by faith. No one can come to faith in Christ as a baby.
The model of gospel faith is Abraham. He was circumcised in old age, while Ishmael was circumcised as a youth together with him. But Isaac was circumcised as an infant. This is the template for those who are likewise saved by grace through faith. If baptism is inapppropriate for children in the covenant of faith, then circumcision of Abraham's son Isaac must also be inconsistent with the covenant of faith, but in that case the Spirit chose a strange example for the pattern according to which we must all relate to God. Peter says the promised Spirit is for us and our children when he commands baptism in Acts 2. And the household of Cornelius and the Philippian Jailer, and Lydia are all said to have been baptized together with them just as Abraham's household members were baptized with him when he believed God's promise. Abraham is the pattern for the NT. Adults are baptized when they believe, but children are baptized just as Abraham's Isaac was circumcized. Thus to argue that infant baptism has no place in a covenant of faith is to argue either that God himself made a mistake with his instructions to Abraham, or perhaps to misunderstand the nature of that covenant and ours. Abraham believed, and Isaac was circumcized in the covenant of faith.
Oh, and John (the original Baptist) did recognize Jesus as Messiah, not only as a babe, but in the womb of Elizabeth. Faith is a supernatural gift, not a human work that merits salvation.
Ross Pyle
We don’t “come to Christ” . Christ COMES TO US. It’s called “SOVEREIGN GRACE.” Study some history and theology and you might learn something of value.Where does the Bible describe Baptism as a “picture.”? No where! Baptism is a Sacrament of the Gospel commanded by the Lord Jesus. The Church is a divine institution, not something that was invented in 1963.
Can you find baptism of children in the bible, if not is baptism only for adults?
R P, this is from Romans 3 (NKJV):
1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
If water baptism does not replace circumcision, and there are advantages to circumcision, then you need to be a proponent of circumcision since it is such a profitable thing; right?
If water baptism is the mark of (and entrance into) the new covenant, then isn’t it correct that the water baptized do not profit from receiving circumcision as this new covenant also results in receiving the oracles (word) of God?
R P, you typed, “Baptism is not an issue of washing away sin”.
This is from Acts 22 (NKJV):
16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’
This is from Mark 1 (NKJV):
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Why didn’t John just preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins? My answer is that his baptism was an instrument of repentance as this created a supernatural effect from God to instill what people needed to repent of.
An age and/or creed based understanding requirement for water baptism is like having such a requirement for the reception of a manufactured Bible. Bible reception is more God’s doing rather through grace than man’s doing through an intellectual attainment. John’s baptism was from heaven and not from men. Likewise, baptism is something that God does on behalf of the recipient more than something man does through the religious ceremonial act of baptism.