:-/ ~That moment when your Reformed Baptist brain realizes John the Baptist having infant faith is more scripturally sound than the thief on the cross being a normative in the baptismal regeneration debate... It goes without saying, but *thank you* for your videos. They are challenging if nothing else.
Obviously. Because Luther never abandoned the Church. Wittenberg and Konsrantinople agree on a lot of criticism concerning Rome. But Lutherans can enjoy MUSIC in Church and don't need to be vegans half of the year. Plus we get Eucharist like Jesus, not by intinction
Excellent points! Faith is of Grace, a gift of God given completely by the Holy Spirit. Psalm 8 is another place that speaks of this: "out of the mouths of babes, infants, thou hast perfected praise".
I love how you linked Luke 18 to faith as a mustard seed. It brought joy inside me. We have so much comfort in our God, that He calls us to Himself like this.
“A rejection of universalism* is really a rejection that God can do things that we cannot see.” Fill in whatever doctrine the scripture doesn’t teach here to add emotional micro aggression
@@KayleySexton scripture clearly teaches against simply baptizing infants. Baptism that which is new seal to the covenant as circumcision is radically different than old covenant, because it’s only those who will be adopted into his covenant by those who have faith ! Faith comes by hearing the word of God, not baptism. Baptism only acts as a seal to our faith. It is through faith that when we are baptized into Christ death that faith we have raised us out our our death. The response that Lutheran would then give is if the baby didn’t have faith the baptism will give to him… no. This is an unorthodox non historical emphasis on baptist giving faith that aren’t even found in historical paedobaptist traditions. Nowhere in scripture do we faith is installed by baptism. What we do see is faith comes form those who heard the gospel and received it (repented) then were baptized.
I'm on the fence on the topic but this is not a fair criticism. It's a rejection of God doing one specific thing that we never unambiguously see in the Bible, namely, the baptism of infants, in a way that extends what faith is beyond what how we usually think of it, and links regeneration to loads of people who go on to lead completely godless lives. I have a LOT of sympathy for the Lutheran view that God can gift a little baby faith via baptism (so I'm happy with the extension of the usual concept of faith), but the other objections are serious and should not be casually dismissed.
@@SeanusAurelius I'm a genuine Lutheran. They were called Gnesio-Lutherans in the 16th century. With regards to the confessional Lutheran doctrine that the Holy Spirit is efficacious to all in the means of grace (Word and sacraments), Luther rejected this in The Bondage of the Will. He distinguished between the outer drawing of the Gospel which goes out to everyone but which doesn't have the power to regenerate, and the inner drawing by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel which irresistibly regenerates those whom the Father wills. Luther wrote: Now take the saying of Christ in John 6 [:44]: "No one comes to me unless my Father draws him." What does this leave to free choice? He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father draws inwardly…. But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself. (p.285,286, Vol. 33, Luther's Works). Confessional Lutherans wrongly conclude from the fact that because God through Christ died for the sins of the whole world and desires to save everyone, it must follow that why people are damned is because they resist the Holy Spirit. However this is a false deduction. Simple logic also dictates that if people are saved only because God has elected to save them in eternity that the reason why people are damned is because God didn't elect them in eternity. By the way, I'm not a Calvinist. I agree with the documents contained in the Book of Concord that were in existence during Luther's lifetime. It's only the Formula of Concord, which was produced after Luther's death, that I take issue with. This however doesn't mean that predestination to hell is equivalent to predestination to heaven in that God wills to make people evil as He wills to make people good. I was arguing from the position that all people are evil through the Fall but that God elects to save some through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit whilst opting not to save others through the Holy Spirit. This is analogous to saving someone from drowning by actively reaching out a hand to save him whilst not doing so to another who then drowns through one's non-intervention. That's basically what I'm arguing for which amounts to infralapsarianism. Actively pushing a person's head under water so that he drowns amounts to supralapsarianism which wasn't what I was arguing for. Continuing on with the analogy of the drowning man and his rescue or non rescue, in the confessional Lutheran scenario the potential rescuer holds out hands to all the people who are drowning in that the Holy Spirit seeks to save everyone but doesn't do so irresistibly by grabbing and hauling a person out of the water but leaves room for the drowning person’s resistance to being saved. This means he alone is responsible for his drowning as it wasn't due to any intention on the part of the rescuer, the Holy Spirit, to leave him to drown in his sins. However because in the confessional Lutheran scenario a person has the capacity to resist being saved it follows that in order to be rescued he must cooperate with the Holy Spirit and allow himself to be saved. However confessionnal Lutherans deny that anyone has free will as they believe in monergism. Basically their position makes absolutely no sense and can't possibly be true because nothing logically contradictory can ever be true. In conclusion I just want to clarify that the above discussion on predestination is in reference to God’s hidden will. I'm not denying that God desires to save everyone through His revealed will in Christ. But that's a separate issue which I won't get into here. There's no way if Luther had been alive in the 1580’s that he would have regarded those who subscribed to the Formula of Concord as being genuine Lutherans. This is mainly down to Chemnitz and His clever arguments in the Formula of Concord where he misinterprets Scripture and does so in such a convincing way that one is almost carried away with it. Chemnitz was in no way a second Luther who saved the Lutheran church as he's made out to be. He opposed Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will, which Luther regarded as the absolute truth. I agree that what Luther taught in that book is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Chemnitz had been a professional astrologer earning good money by casting horoscopes for wealthy clients, and someone who couldn't see the fraudulent nature of astrology (as Luther did) shouldn't have been trusted to be the main author of a confessional document. Confessional Lutheranism in accepting the Formula of Concord was rejecting what Luther held to be true as he set out in The Bondage of the Will.
One of our most important responsibilities as parents is to see to it that our children are baptized as soon as they are born! We also need to have good Godparents who will help and make sure the children are properly raised in the faith, especially if we as parents should-God forbid-falter or somehow, not be available or spiritually meaningfully there.
I love how you used the example from Luke 1 regarding John the Baptist... I use this scripture frequently in conversations regarding infant faith. Happy Adventide!
By all means have your babies baptized as soon as possible after they are born. If you can't find a priest or minister, baptize them yourself. Grace can be transmitted to babies, as Dr. Cooper makes clear. Dr. Cooper, sir, what are your thoughts on the Catholic doctrine of Limbo of the Children?
Keep reading the Scripures and allow the Holy spirit to give you a discerning heart. This Lutheran view of baptism is more tradition than truth. Read those 'baptize house hold' verses over and over until your reading comprehension and the Spirit show you what the verses say without tradition mixed all up in it.
Faith is trust in, loyalty to and delight in the reality unfolding itself (aka Jesus as the Word), living as though we are completely dependent beings. Words and creeds are what we adults use to approach the faith young children usually have to a much larger degree than us.
Many infant baptism deniers will teach their kids to sing and pray and give glory to Jesus and do charity and coloring books about Jesus and even have them go to communion... but they won’t let them be baptized. Weird. It’s like they have all these indicators of faith, but they still are considered too young. As if 13 year olds know what they’re doing...
as a kid raised baptist (and is now considering lutheranism) this is such a weird comment lol. My parents did not allow me to take communion OR get baptist for the same reason I understand you guys don't let your little ones take communion before they have gone through confirmation classes: they understood both were "strong medicine" and not to be taken lightly, and wanted to make sure I (and my siblings) understood exactly what I was doing before participating in these sacraments.
It is not whether a person believes based on the flesh, as we see with Simon in Acts 8. It is whether one believes in the heart, which only God does. The person who chooses to be baptized, typically realizes the change in the heart first before getting baptized. We see this in Acts 2, 8, & 10. No one was considered baptized who did not know who Jesus was in the Bible.
Many comments agreeing with the good Dr that infants can have faith, as it is a gift from God. I feel another gift from God are the little children themselves, which brings to mind the thought provoking encouragement fromJesus found in Mark 18, explaining if we as adults will be converted unto Him, humble ourselves and become as little children, then we can enter into His kingdom. What was it about little children that The Lord is trying to teach us?
Very good video! I´m just thinking deeply about this these days and this explanation came to me as a very faithful one of the scripture doctrine of infant faith.
Thank you for explaining!! I've got one question though 😅 How can someone cause an infant to sin, if that whole passage talks about literal infants and small children?
Thank you for bothering with replying more than four years after I commented this @@bigtobacco1098. I almost feel like that comment I made was maybe meant for another video, or at least I don't see the connection with it any more now 😅 And now I don't think that conversation would lead anywhere. Because I've learnt infants are talked about as innocent through not knowing their right hand from their left (Jonah 4 :11), having no knowledge of good and evil (Deuteronomy 1:39) being co-owners of the Kingdom (Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) and David's confidence after his baby's death (2 Samuel 12 :23). Based on this despite original sin, I wouldn't say anyone could cause them to sin until they come to the knowledge of good and evil.
@ETBrothers the two gospel passages would mean everyone is born into a state of being saved, loses this salvation at some age of accountability and goes against passages that say "all people have sinned"
Great Video! Thank you! Could you please do a video answering some objections? I would imagine that a major one would be that the gift of the Holy Spirit to John was a special dispensation and not promise to our children today.
This is very interesting and took a lot of searching to find this video. Here are some other verses to consider: Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Its as if we are taught that faith comes by believing. But faith comes by hearing.
I wonder whether the statements of the Psalm about believing from the breast are simply hyperbolic statements which mean that one had believed from the earliest time that one could remember. I don’t think there is a problem saying God can give faith to an infant since sometimes scripture refers to a regenerate heart as having been given faith. Regeneration is more of a disposition that eventually results in cognitive knowledge. Granting infant faith, I’m not sure it makes a difference for the question of infant baptism. As the question there is not the possibility of infant faith, but how we might know it exists in the one to be baptized.
If I understand well, according to you baptism gives infants faith in an unconscious way (similar to the faith of a sleeping man). The problem I see with that is that experience shows that when a baptized infant is not explicitly told about the faith while growing up (for example if his christian parents died and he's educated by a non-christian family), then he doesn't know about the faith. But if baptism really gave faith in an unconscious way, you would expect the child to show more and more his faith spontaneously while growing up, without having to tell him about it; in the same way that a sleeping man spontaneously regains awareness of his faith when he wakes up. How do you explain that?
Can Psalm 8:3, "Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have drawn a defense against your foes, to silence enemy and avenger." Can it be used as proof of infant faith?
Only among those who actually believe the Bible. Many say they do, but overtheologize rather than obey. _Why do Christians baptize?_ [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16 _Why do Christians baptize infants?_ Infants are included in “the whole creation.” _But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_ Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb. “And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41. A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16. _But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_ Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant with [the disciples]. Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:13-16 _But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_ “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is no way to be closer to Jesus than this! _But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_ No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
“At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;” Matthew 11:25 NRSV-CI
Baptism is not sign of profession of faith(as credo-baptists claim) nowhere in scripture the Bible says "Baptism is a sign of public profession of faith". However Bible clearly states that Baptism is a sign that God Adopted us to his Kingdom(Are Children not part of God's Kingdom?).An Adult needs to repent in order to receive God's Kingdom like little child (Mathew 18:3) 3And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Acts 2:38-39) Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." . A little child is already there(In The Kingdom) SO BAPTIZE THEM
I'm not persuaded. It's seemingly a case of tradition driving exegesis, which is really eisegesis. Why do Lutherans constantly talk about the faith of an infant but never mention repentance of sin? Can an infant repent, thus acknowledging sin against a holy God? The gospel is a particular message about Christ's doing and dying on behalf of the sinner. Can an infant understand the need for a savior? All infants are saved and have faith given in baptism yet not all adults who hear the gospel and saved? They're both hearing the same Word. I've read Scaer on Baptism, Hoffmann on infant faith, and I don't find either of them persuasive. I keep looking for a sound exegetical argument because I'm truly interested in Lutheranism but I find the reasoning behind baptismal regeneration unscriptural, i.e., not supported by sound, consistent exegesis. I find the Lutheran case lacking credibility. I'd like to attend a Lutheran church but I'm not convinced at all. I keep reading and listening but...I'm not seeing it.
We can only repent if we have the Holy Spirit, which is given to us. Repentance isn’t some kind of articulate confession; it’s a turning back to God. Certainly this can be done even unconsciously. And it’s only with faith and the Spirit that we can turn to Him, and again, those things are from God, not of our own works.
Some interesting takes on the subject. I disagree with some of what was said, but for the most part I can see why infant baptism is taught in Lutheran churches. Here is a question for you: If children CAN be given faith, is there any evidence in the Scriptures where an infant or child does not express proof of faith? In other words, are there children who have not been elected? God bless.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but I'm glad to offer some resources that I think will help you out. Infant faith can be proven with 2 Timothy 3:15, Psalm 8:2, 22:10, 71:6, Matthew 21:15-16, and Luke 1:13-15, 39-45. On the other hand, we know that all people (infants included) are sinful. Here is a Lutheran blog on the subject: confessinglutheran.home.blog/2019/01/29/introduction-to-soteriology-total-depravity-and-original-sin-a-scriptural-and-patristic-apology/ Lutherans also confess monergistic election, meaning that the will does not play a part in conversion (we cannot "choose" God or "make a decision for Christ"): confessinglutheran.home.blog/2019/05/21/introduction-to-soteriology-monergistic-election-a-scriptural-apology/ Lutherans do not, however, confess irresistible grace or perseverance of the saints as the Calvinists do: confessinglutheran.home.blog/2019/08/15/introduction-to-soteriology-apostasy-and-perseverance-a-scriptural-apology/ Hope that helps!
A similar question I have is this, I would love to get some thoughts on it.... Babies, just as adults are fallen sons and daughters of Adam and are born into sin, with a sin nature. Therefore God has the same freedom in saving adults as he does with infants. If all babies/infants that die are saved and go to heaven, then does that mean that all people are ELECT until they reach a certain age? This gets into the age of accountability which I don't think the Bible makes clear what this age is? Anyways, the main question is if all babies that die go to heaven. And how it works with election. Cheers
It was not the teaching of Luther that everybody that is baptized would come to saving faith. Whether some infants can have faith is debatable, I would agree that John the Baptist according to scripture was filled with the holy spirit while in the womb, even before he was baptized, Luke 1:15. God chose to regenerate John the Baptist before he was born, but this is an exceptional case. There may be some baptized infants that are regenerated at the moment of baptism, but scripture does not teach that this is the norm, the vast majority of infants are regenerated years after baptism when they come to faith in Jesus Christ. Many infants that are baptized are never regenerated, but this does not mean that their baptism was not effective, their unbelief does not invalidate the efficacy of baptism as Luther taught in his larger catechism. This people do not need a new baptism, they need faith in order to be saved, baptism without faith does not save as Luther superbly explains in his Larger Catechism.
Comparing a baby to an adult who has developed faith and doesn't express it while they are asleep seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. I think the rendering of scripture in terms of baptizing infants would be simpler to say God is a loving and just God, and judges based on ability to understand, such as someone mentally handicapped obviously being an exception due to having an incapacity to develop saving faith.
That's not to say something isn't going on that we can't understand or see, and God is unable to instill faith in an infant. But purely based on brain development it seems to be a stretch to put any weight on a baby being able to formulate any complex thinking.
Sounds like a good way to produce a lot of baptized non believers . Also depriving people that were born into pedobaptist churches of obeying Christ by being baptized after repenting and being saved. Infant baptism is not in the Bible and there is not a biblical argument for it .
because, if (A)you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and (B)believe in your heart (C)that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved
I think if you dont baptize an infant because you don't believe its right to baptize somebody if they can't affirm the gospel responsibly, then you should wait til they reach the age of accountability around 12 or 13 baptizing 6 or 7 year olds is the worst.
You make disciples by baptizing and teaching. Nothing about that precludes baptizing infants- we baptize them and spend their childhood teaching them all about the faith.
@@EK-iz2jk disciples are those who repent, confess their faith and submit to Jesus and they're the ones who die to sin and are raised with christ. baptism must folllow after their confession of faith. faith comes from hearing. how can an infant who can understand nothing of a language have faith? there is no clear verse supporting infant baptism. it is tradition, not from bible.
absolutely no proof was given... none of these scriptures make your point in any way sir. you either need to look up the meaning of "proof" or "infant"
If Baptism is a sacrament like the Lords supper and someone isn't allowex to partake of a sacrament, like communion, without first professing belief in Christ, then why in the world would it make sense to administer the sacrament of baptism to an unprofessing baby? Seems beyond clear in scripture, believe in Christ and then participate in the sacraments of baptism and communion.
Because they aren’t the same. That’s faulty logic; “they are both sacraments, therefore they are the same.” If they were the same, and do exactly the same, there wouldn’t be two of them, would there? Further, there is scriptural warning not to partake of communion without discernment; there is no such warning about baptism.
If being "filled with the Holy Spirit" or "leaping in the womb" clearly equals saving faith, then I guess the pagan prophet Balaam was saved when the Spirit came on him... Numbers 24:2 When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came on him
@@Mygoalwogel i suggest you actually read psalms 71 it has nothing to do with infant baptisim unless you are reading from an altered version of scripture by the catholics or the niv baptisim is done with understanding of what your salvation means infants are not capable of that , that is why scripture refers to them as the innocent and baptism does not save you it has no salvivic authority look up the 5 solas that is where you gain salvation there is only one way and that is through Jesus Christ regardless what oprah and joel osteen have told you
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
:-/ ~That moment when your Reformed Baptist brain realizes John the Baptist having infant faith is more scripturally sound than the thief on the cross being a normative in the baptismal regeneration debate...
It goes without saying, but *thank you* for your videos. They are challenging if nothing else.
huh?
I'm Orthodox but it's videos like these that I've found helpful in explaining to non-Orthodox why we believe certain doctrines, such as this one.
Obviously. Because Luther never abandoned the Church. Wittenberg and Konsrantinople agree on a lot of criticism concerning Rome. But Lutherans can enjoy MUSIC in Church and don't need to be vegans half of the year. Plus we get Eucharist like Jesus, not by intinction
Excellent points! Faith is of Grace, a gift of God given completely by the Holy Spirit. Psalm 8 is another place that speaks of this: "out of the mouths of babes, infants, thou hast perfected praise".
I love how you linked Luke 18 to faith as a mustard seed. It brought joy inside me. We have so much comfort in our God, that He calls us to Himself like this.
Faith like a mustard seed is often what helps foreign missionaries in discouragement.
A rejection of infant baptism is really a rejection that God can do things that we cannot see.
“A rejection of universalism* is really a rejection that God can do things that we cannot see.”
Fill in whatever doctrine the scripture doesn’t teach here to add emotional micro aggression
@@Yeshua_is_king_2024 scripture explicitly teaches against universalism
@@KayleySexton scripture clearly teaches against simply baptizing infants. Baptism that which is new seal to the covenant as circumcision is radically different than old covenant, because it’s only those who will be adopted into his covenant by those who have faith ! Faith comes by hearing the word of God, not baptism. Baptism only acts as a seal to our faith. It is through faith that when we are baptized into Christ death that faith we have raised us out our our death.
The response that Lutheran would then give is if the baby didn’t have faith the baptism will give to him… no. This is an unorthodox non historical emphasis on baptist giving faith that aren’t even found in historical paedobaptist traditions. Nowhere in scripture do we faith is installed by baptism. What we do see is faith comes form those who heard the gospel and received it (repented) then were baptized.
I'm on the fence on the topic but this is not a fair criticism. It's a rejection of God doing one specific thing that we never unambiguously see in the Bible, namely, the baptism of infants, in a way that extends what faith is beyond what how we usually think of it, and links regeneration to loads of people who go on to lead completely godless lives.
I have a LOT of sympathy for the Lutheran view that God can gift a little baby faith via baptism (so I'm happy with the extension of the usual concept of faith), but the other objections are serious and should not be casually dismissed.
@@SeanusAurelius I'm a genuine Lutheran. They were called Gnesio-Lutherans in the 16th century. With regards to the confessional Lutheran doctrine that the Holy Spirit is efficacious to all in the means of grace (Word and sacraments), Luther rejected this in The Bondage of the Will. He distinguished between the outer drawing of the Gospel which goes out to everyone but which doesn't have the power to regenerate, and the inner drawing by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel which irresistibly regenerates those whom the Father wills. Luther wrote: Now take the saying of Christ in John 6 [:44]: "No one comes to me unless my Father draws him." What does this leave to free choice? He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father draws inwardly…. But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself. (p.285,286, Vol. 33, Luther's Works).
Confessional Lutherans wrongly conclude from the fact that because God through Christ died for the sins of the whole world and desires to save everyone, it must follow that why people are damned is because they resist the Holy Spirit. However this is a false deduction. Simple logic also dictates that if people are saved only because God has elected to save them in eternity that the reason why people are damned is because God didn't elect them in eternity.
By the way, I'm not a Calvinist. I agree with the documents contained in the Book of Concord that were in existence during Luther's lifetime. It's only the Formula of Concord, which was produced after Luther's death, that I take issue with.
This however doesn't mean that predestination to hell is equivalent to predestination to heaven in that God wills to make people evil as He wills to make people good. I was arguing from the position that all people are evil through the Fall but that God elects to save some through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit whilst opting not to save others through the Holy Spirit. This is analogous to saving someone from drowning by actively reaching out a hand to save him whilst not doing so to another who then drowns through one's non-intervention. That's basically what I'm arguing for which amounts to infralapsarianism. Actively pushing a person's head under water so that he drowns amounts to supralapsarianism which wasn't what I was arguing for.
Continuing on with the analogy of the drowning man and his rescue or non rescue, in the confessional Lutheran scenario the potential rescuer holds out hands to all the people who are drowning in that the Holy Spirit seeks to save everyone but doesn't do so irresistibly by grabbing and hauling a person out of the water but leaves room for the drowning person’s resistance to being saved. This means he alone is responsible for his drowning as it wasn't due to any intention on the part of the rescuer, the Holy Spirit, to leave him to drown in his sins. However because in the confessional Lutheran scenario a person has the capacity to resist being saved it follows that in order to be rescued he must cooperate with the Holy Spirit and allow himself to be saved. However confessionnal Lutherans deny that anyone has free will as they believe in monergism. Basically their position makes absolutely no sense and can't possibly be true because nothing logically contradictory can ever be true.
In conclusion I just want to clarify that the above discussion on predestination is in reference to God’s hidden will. I'm not denying that God desires to save everyone through His revealed will in Christ. But that's a separate issue which I won't get into here.
There's no way if Luther had been alive in the 1580’s that he would have regarded those who subscribed to the Formula of Concord as being genuine Lutherans. This is mainly down to Chemnitz and His clever arguments in the Formula of Concord where he misinterprets Scripture and does so in such a convincing way that one is almost carried away with it. Chemnitz was in no way a second Luther who saved the Lutheran church as he's made out to be. He opposed Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will, which Luther regarded as the absolute truth. I agree that what Luther taught in that book is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Chemnitz had been a professional astrologer earning good money by casting horoscopes for wealthy clients, and someone who couldn't see the fraudulent nature of astrology (as Luther did) shouldn't have been trusted to be the main author of a confessional document.
Confessional Lutheranism in accepting the Formula of Concord was rejecting what Luther held to be true as he set out in The Bondage of the Will.
One of our most important responsibilities as parents is to see to it that our children are baptized as soon as they are born! We also need to have good Godparents who will help and make sure the children are properly raised in the faith, especially if we as parents should-God forbid-falter or somehow, not be available or spiritually meaningfully there.
Already one of my favorite videos to share, and I'm not even 3 minutes in.
There’s a scholarly book called Born Believers which shows that People develop religious belief at a early age
was doing adult level bible study around 8.. as an infant, no way.
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
I love how you used the example from Luke 1 regarding John the Baptist... I use this scripture frequently in conversations regarding infant faith. Happy Adventide!
Thank you for Law & Gospel!
By all means have your babies baptized as soon as possible after they are born. If you can't find a priest or minister, baptize them yourself. Grace can be transmitted to babies, as Dr. Cooper makes clear.
Dr. Cooper, sir, what are your thoughts on the Catholic doctrine of Limbo of the Children?
Weird. I was just thinking about this today with some serious doubts. Very weird.
You should doubt, cause it’s false lol
Keep reading the Scripures and allow the Holy spirit to give you a discerning heart. This Lutheran view of baptism is more tradition than truth. Read those 'baptize house hold' verses over and over until your reading comprehension and the Spirit show you what the verses say without tradition mixed all up in it.
Read those passages with a grammatical historical interpretation
Faith is trust in, loyalty to and delight in the reality unfolding itself (aka Jesus as the Word), living as though we are completely dependent beings. Words and creeds are what we adults use to approach the faith young children usually have to a much larger degree than us.
Many infant baptism deniers will teach their kids to sing and pray and give glory to Jesus and do charity and coloring books about Jesus and even have them go to communion... but they won’t let them be baptized. Weird. It’s like they have all these indicators of faith, but they still are considered too young. As if 13 year olds know what they’re doing...
It is sad, they are in effect denying their children the gospel doing exactly what Jesus explicitly told his disciples not to do.
Agreed, then if their children deny the faith, they will whine and complain even though they brag about being credobaptists.
as a kid raised baptist (and is now considering lutheranism) this is such a weird comment lol. My parents did not allow me to take communion OR get baptist for the same reason I understand you guys don't let your little ones take communion before they have gone through confirmation classes: they understood both were "strong medicine" and not to be taken lightly, and wanted to make sure I (and my siblings) understood exactly what I was doing before participating in these sacraments.
Brilliant and most helpful! Thanks for your labor!
this video serves me well in my debates against Baptists as a Presbyterian lol
This is crystal clear.
Fantastic.
It is not whether a person believes based on the flesh, as we see with Simon in Acts 8. It is whether one believes in the heart, which only God does. The person who chooses to be baptized, typically realizes the change in the heart first before getting baptized. We see this in Acts 2, 8, & 10. No one was considered baptized who did not know who Jesus was in the Bible.
Many comments agreeing with the good Dr that infants can have faith, as it is a gift from God. I feel another gift from God are the little children themselves, which brings to mind the thought provoking encouragement fromJesus found in Mark 18, explaining if we as adults will be converted unto Him, humble ourselves and become as little children, then we can enter into His kingdom. What was it about little children that The Lord is trying to teach us?
Very good video! I´m just thinking deeply about this these days and this explanation came to me as a very faithful one of the scripture doctrine of infant faith.
Thank you for explaining!! I've got one question though 😅 How can someone cause an infant to sin, if that whole passage talks about literal infants and small children?
Original sin
Thank you for bothering with replying more than four years after I commented this @@bigtobacco1098. I almost feel like that comment I made was maybe meant for another video, or at least I don't see the connection with it any more now 😅 And now I don't think that conversation would lead anywhere. Because I've learnt infants are talked about as innocent through not knowing their right hand from their left (Jonah 4 :11), having no knowledge of good and evil (Deuteronomy 1:39) being co-owners of the Kingdom (Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) and David's confidence after his baby's death (2 Samuel 12 :23). Based on this despite original sin, I wouldn't say anyone could cause them to sin until they come to the knowledge of good and evil.
@ETBrothers the first two passages, you are confusing nature with cognitive abilities...
@ETBrothers the two gospel passages would mean everyone is born into a state of being saved, loses this salvation at some age of accountability and goes against passages that say "all people have sinned"
@ETBrothers David's son was in the covenant by having been given the sign...
Excellent!
Great Video! Thank you! Could you please do a video answering some objections? I would imagine that a major one would be that the gift of the Holy Spirit to John was a special dispensation and not promise to our children today.
A very clear and necessary teaching.
Luke 18:15-17 isn't the parallel for Matthew 18:1-6, the correct parallel is Matthew 19:13-15
This is very interesting and took a lot of searching to find this video. Here are some other verses to consider:
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Its as if we are taught that faith comes by believing. But faith comes by hearing.
if a tree fell in the forest and no one was there does it make a sound or if frog had wings would it still bump its butt?
Well stated! Love your videos. God's peace.
I wonder whether the statements of the Psalm about believing from the breast are simply hyperbolic statements which mean that one had believed from the earliest time that one could remember.
I don’t think there is a problem saying God can give faith to an infant since sometimes scripture refers to a regenerate heart as having been given faith. Regeneration is more of a disposition that eventually results in cognitive knowledge.
Granting infant faith, I’m not sure it makes a difference for the question of infant baptism. As the question there is not the possibility of infant faith, but how we might know it exists in the one to be baptized.
If I understand well, according to you baptism gives infants faith in an unconscious way (similar to the faith of a sleeping man). The problem I see with that is that experience shows that when a baptized infant is not explicitly told about the faith while growing up (for example if his christian parents died and he's educated by a non-christian family), then he doesn't know about the faith. But if baptism really gave faith in an unconscious way, you would expect the child to show more and more his faith spontaneously while growing up, without having to tell him about it; in the same way that a sleeping man spontaneously regains awareness of his faith when he wakes up. How do you explain that?
Can Psalm 8:3, "Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have drawn a defense against your foes, to silence enemy and avenger." Can it be used as proof of infant faith?
Only among those who actually believe the Bible. Many say they do, but overtheologize rather than obey.
_Why do Christians baptize?_
[Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
_Why do Christians baptize infants?_
Infants are included in “the whole creation.”
_But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_
Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb. “And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41. A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
_But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant with [the disciples]. Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:13-16
_But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is no way to be closer to Jesus than this!
_But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_
No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
@@Mygoalwogel Thank you.
I'm new to Lutheranism and this video was very helpful.
Just curious, what age do you define an infant? Does this include toddlers?
So goooooood!!!!
Thank you very much, you list 5 reason very clearly let you reveal the truth don't stop
Arguments like this make me more comfortable rejecting his other arguments. 😂
“At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;”
Matthew 11:25 NRSV-CI
Should look up Sean christie (revealing truth) and see what you object from him. I'm stuck between if I should baptize my child or not
Baptism is not sign of profession of faith(as credo-baptists claim) nowhere in scripture the Bible says "Baptism is a sign of public profession of faith". However Bible clearly states that Baptism is a sign that God Adopted us to his Kingdom(Are Children not part of God's Kingdom?).An Adult needs to repent in order to receive God's Kingdom like little child
(Mathew 18:3)
3And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Acts 2:38-39)
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
. A little child is already there(In The Kingdom) SO BAPTIZE THEM
I'm not persuaded. It's seemingly a case of tradition driving exegesis, which is really eisegesis. Why do Lutherans constantly talk about the faith of an infant but never mention repentance of sin? Can an infant repent, thus acknowledging sin against a holy God? The gospel is a particular message about Christ's doing and dying on behalf of the sinner. Can an infant understand the need for a savior? All infants are saved and have faith given in baptism yet not all adults who hear the gospel and saved? They're both hearing the same Word. I've read Scaer on Baptism, Hoffmann on infant faith, and I don't find either of them persuasive. I keep looking for a sound exegetical argument because I'm truly interested in Lutheranism but I find the reasoning behind baptismal regeneration unscriptural, i.e., not supported by sound, consistent exegesis. I find the Lutheran case lacking credibility. I'd like to attend a Lutheran church but I'm not convinced at all. I keep reading and listening but...I'm not seeing it.
An infant doesn't commit sin and thus doesn't need to confess sins to God. An infant is baptized because he has original, not actual, sin.
We can only repent if we have the Holy Spirit, which is given to us. Repentance isn’t some kind of articulate confession; it’s a turning back to God. Certainly this can be done even unconsciously. And it’s only with faith and the Spirit that we can turn to Him, and again, those things are from God, not of our own works.
@@henrylansing9734original sin...
This was good. It has me rethinking my position.
Thank you. This is good news.
Love your videos.
Very good
still waiting
Some interesting takes on the subject. I disagree with some of what was said, but for the most part I can see why infant baptism is taught in Lutheran churches. Here is a question for you: If children CAN be given faith, is there any evidence in the Scriptures where an infant or child does not express proof of faith? In other words, are there children who have not been elected? God bless.
I think the teaching of election is not taught as such but Lutheranism, though I'm not sure, since I'm not a Lutheran myself (yet).
@@SojournerDidimus Thanks.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but I'm glad to offer some resources that I think will help you out.
Infant faith can be proven with 2 Timothy 3:15, Psalm 8:2, 22:10, 71:6, Matthew 21:15-16, and Luke 1:13-15, 39-45.
On the other hand, we know that all people (infants included) are sinful. Here is a Lutheran blog on the subject: confessinglutheran.home.blog/2019/01/29/introduction-to-soteriology-total-depravity-and-original-sin-a-scriptural-and-patristic-apology/
Lutherans also confess monergistic election, meaning that the will does not play a part in conversion (we cannot "choose" God or "make a decision for Christ"): confessinglutheran.home.blog/2019/05/21/introduction-to-soteriology-monergistic-election-a-scriptural-apology/
Lutherans do not, however, confess irresistible grace or perseverance of the saints as the Calvinists do: confessinglutheran.home.blog/2019/08/15/introduction-to-soteriology-apostasy-and-perseverance-a-scriptural-apology/
Hope that helps!
A similar question I have is this, I would love to get some thoughts on it....
Babies, just as adults are fallen sons and daughters of Adam and are born into sin, with a sin nature. Therefore God has the same freedom in saving adults as he does with infants. If all babies/infants that die are saved and go to heaven, then does that mean that all people are ELECT until they reach a certain age? This gets into the age of accountability which I don't think the Bible makes clear what this age is?
Anyways, the main question is if all babies that die go to heaven. And how it works with election. Cheers
@@-_--_-7460 Thanks! That is very helpful.
It was not the teaching of Luther that everybody that is baptized would come to saving faith. Whether some infants can have faith is debatable, I would agree that John the Baptist according to scripture was filled with the holy spirit while in the womb, even before he was baptized, Luke 1:15. God chose to regenerate John the Baptist before he was born, but this is an exceptional case. There may be some baptized infants that are regenerated at the moment of baptism, but scripture does not teach that this is the norm, the vast majority of infants are regenerated years after baptism when they come to faith in Jesus Christ. Many infants that are baptized are never regenerated, but this does not mean that their baptism was not effective, their unbelief does not invalidate the efficacy of baptism as Luther taught in his larger catechism. This people do not need a new baptism, they need faith in order to be saved, baptism without faith does not save as Luther superbly explains in his Larger Catechism.
0:37 neither do we
Comparing a baby to an adult who has developed faith and doesn't express it while they are asleep seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. I think the rendering of scripture in terms of baptizing infants would be simpler to say God is a loving and just God, and judges based on ability to understand, such as someone mentally handicapped obviously being an exception due to having an incapacity to develop saving faith.
That's not to say something isn't going on that we can't understand or see, and God is unable to instill faith in an infant. But purely based on brain development it seems to be a stretch to put any weight on a baby being able to formulate any complex thinking.
Sounds like a good way to produce a lot of baptized non believers . Also depriving people that were born into pedobaptist churches of obeying Christ by being baptized after repenting and being saved. Infant baptism is not in the Bible and there is not a biblical argument for it .
because, if (A)you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and (B)believe in your heart (C)that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved
Any other passages ??
I think if you dont baptize an infant because you don't believe its right to baptize somebody if they can't affirm the gospel responsibly, then you should wait til they reach the age of accountability around 12 or 13
baptizing 6 or 7 year olds is the worst.
dont agree with your exegesis on this issue. make disciple, baptize them, teach them to obey what the Lord taught. the sequence is clear here.
You make disciples by baptizing and teaching. Nothing about that precludes baptizing infants- we baptize them and spend their childhood teaching them all about the faith.
@@EK-iz2jk disciples are those who repent, confess their faith and submit to Jesus and they're the ones who die to sin and are raised with christ. baptism must folllow after their confession of faith. faith comes from hearing. how can an infant who can understand nothing of a language have faith? there is no clear verse supporting infant baptism. it is tradition, not from bible.
absolutely no proof was given... none of these scriptures make your point in any way sir. you either need to look up the meaning of "proof" or "infant"
If Baptism is a sacrament like the Lords supper and someone isn't allowex to partake of a sacrament, like communion, without first professing belief in Christ, then why in the world would it make sense to administer the sacrament of baptism to an unprofessing baby? Seems beyond clear in scripture, believe in Christ and then participate in the sacraments of baptism and communion.
Because they aren’t the same. That’s faulty logic; “they are both sacraments, therefore they are the same.”
If they were the same, and do exactly the same, there wouldn’t be two of them, would there?
Further, there is scriptural warning not to partake of communion without discernment; there is no such warning about baptism.
God cares for the infants. We do not know if they know that there is God or be like those atheists!
Of course infants have faith. Denying so would indicate that God is not omnipotent and He can't work the work of grace in that child.
If being "filled with the Holy Spirit" or "leaping in the womb" clearly equals saving faith, then I guess the pagan prophet Balaam was saved when the Spirit came on him...
Numbers 24:2 When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came on him
This is really just a bunch of nonsense. Doesn’t prove anything. John the Baptist is normative? Just nonsense.
Infants can NOT believe ! The whole idea is ridiculous !
psalm 71 contradicts your baptism of baby's and christenings are not baptisms and baptisms do not grant salvation
No, it doesn't.
@@Mygoalwogel yes your right it does not grant salvation you can only get that through repentance and Jesus
@@abandoninwy1 No. Psalm 71 doesn't contradict anything he said.
@@Mygoalwogel i suggest you actually read psalms 71 it has nothing to do with infant baptisim unless you are reading from an altered version of scripture by the catholics or the niv baptisim is done with understanding of what your salvation means infants are not capable of that , that is why scripture refers to them as the innocent and baptism does not save you it has no salvivic authority look up the 5 solas that is where you gain salvation there is only one way and that is through Jesus Christ regardless what oprah and joel osteen have told you
@@abandoninwy1 Where does Psalm 71 contradict him?
I believe in Islam
This guy is a shill. 5 reasons this and that. Barely uses scripture.