Check out Doug's, "To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism - Covenant Mercy for the People of God" canonpress.com/products/to-a-thousand-generations/
Let me guess, women (more 50% of population) should pregnant, bare foot, never leave kitchen without daddo's permission. It's a puff piece for bearded dude spread rubbish.
@@ameliacoburn4787 whenever you attempt to build a premise, proof for the point your making requires an origin. Doug quoting 10’s and 10’s of different scripture as proof text is not a big deal. The big deal is that he quoted it all in the context in which the authors intended. Proof texting that you and I would both condemn is text quoted out of context.
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer Okay. If you read Romans 4, you see Paul saying that Abraham was justified, saved by faith. Hebrews 11 declares the same thing about Abel. Hebrews 4:2 says the gospel was preached to Israel as it was to us. All of this before the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now. When you see that salvation is the same across every interaction between God and man as recorded in His Word, is there not at least a continuity, a shared space between the covenants?
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 What you're demonstrating there is the continuity of salvation by faith alone. What is the continuity of the covenants? None, according to Scripture: But Jesus has now obtained a superior ministry, and to that degree He is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been legally enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second one. Hebrews 8:6-7 HCSB
I’ve seen a lot of great, hilarious comments on TH-cam. But this one, considering context, might be the best. Idk why. Maybe it’s what I’m sipping that’s talking.
Precisely the reason I baptize my baby’s. Covenant. What is the sign of the new covenant? Baptism. Why would I exclude my household from the covenant of God from which I belong? Thank you Pastor, hope many think through this point.
According to your reasoning, salvation is not a benefit of being in that covenant, otherwise you would be saying that you cause your kids to become born again by baptizing them
@@horrificpleasantry9474 I think the most common mistake made in parsing these things is that we are trying to constrain God's Deeds to fit into our understanding. Per Romans 3-6, salvation has not changed and always been the same. Abraham was declared righteous (justified) and received the circumcision as a mark of that declared righteousness. In that gracious Declaration of righteousness by God, according to Paul, Abraham was born again. He was then to circumcise his children and family (including Ishmael) and male workers ... though all of them were not believers. Now you might call it strange that the mark of Abraham's salvation be extended to those who later proved to not have been justified by God. But that is what God Commanded almost Personally Killed Moses for not immediately doing. Similarly, when @System Revolt baptizes his children, he is putting on the the mark of God's Covenant with him though those children may not themselves be saved. Again, please keep in mind Romans 3-6 (as explained above, confirm for yourself if I lie/misunderstand) and the fact that God's Salvation and Command are His Own. That they do not fit into my understanding is a deficiency in me and not Him. A procrustean bed applied to man may not get man killed but I would be wary of applying such truncations to God's Grace and Salvation.
I listened and heard a number of non-sequiters and an argument from silence. But even so, I think his position has at least some reason and it’s understandable why someone would reach it. I just think it’s wrong and requires you to work with scripture to make it say that.
Love Doug and the brothas there. Christ my Lord wasn’t baptized til he was a grown man. I’ll leave it at that but these are still my brothas in Christ no doubt 🤙🏾🙏🏾 😊
@@not_milk the credobaptist popped up less than 500 years ago with the anabaptists who took the reformation one step further go read about the munster rebellion
@@tomtemple69 credobaptists were around since at least the 1100s with the Waldensians. It predates Calvinistic soteriology and post-millennialism by centuries.
Thank you so much. My little children tell me but we love Jesus, aren't we the same? (when they don't take the bread and wine or can't be baptised yet). I don't know what to say, apart from we respect our local churches practice, but there are others who think you should or could be participating. I'm not versed enough in this stuff, I'm a very immature Christian so videos like this encourage me although also make me cry that I'm messing everything up for their little faith. Thank you Canon Press/Blog Mablog 🙏
You're not "messing up their faith." We who are parents are all imperfect ones at that. We're all poorly representing Christ to our children, and any others who we come into contact with. But even in our imperfections, Christ is perfect, and the work of the Spirit is perfect. Your children will stand on your shoulders and climb a little higher, and the covenant of God with His people is to be faithful to many generations. We just need to cling to that promise, fulfilled and established in Christ, in faith and trust that God will accomplish His purposes. Despite our best efforts to screw everything up.
The sign does not confer any benefit, so you cannot hurt your kids by encouraging their faith while waiting to pass judgment on whether they ought to participate in communion since there are strong warnings against taking it unworthily. No Baptist teaches that you ought to tell your kids that their faith isn't real. You can't know that either
Hi Leanne, One of the problems is that the modern church practices a version of the Lord's Supper that wasn't introduced into the church until late second or third century. And it wasn't reformed during the reformation. Originally the Lord's Supper was a "Love Feast" and worship was at table (with family and in home). There's scholarly consensus that the early church gathered weekly for the Lord's Supper followed by a participatory gathering (think 1 Cor 12-14). Paul's love chapter was written to folks used to participating in the love feast and participatory gathering. This arrangement was housing so to speak of the new covenant, where it wasn't just special priests and leaders filled with Spirit, but an entire body which could contribute. But once a stronger sacramentalism was introduced (Eucharist in addition to, and then instead of a love feast), special priests were needed. That evolvement/heist took the church out of the home and into special buildings. But for the first two centuries there were no clerics, and the more ritualistic/sacramental/magical version of the Lord's Supper didn't exist. Why is all that important? Well, children, if they weren't asleep would have been present at the Lord's Supper and it would have contrary to Paul's concerns about social propriety and behavior at the Supper to withhold food from children. To suggest that letting kids partake is risky because it may mean partaking in an unworthy manner, is to introduce that later sacramentalism into the first century. Therefore, I submit to you that children would have partaken because they would have eaten the meal. To add, since The Eucharist did not become separate from the meal until later, that's further evidence that children partook. Being more of a reformed Baptist myself, I think the Lord's Supper was a weekly opportunity for kids to be evangelized and to experience the church celebrate the Supper as it was meant to be celebrated: a foreshadowing of the Wedding Banquet to come. Children would have also experienced a more participatory gathering where God's Presence was manifest (not through the "elements), but through worship at table and the Presence of God through the body of Christ the Church, the priesthood (each believer) who was privileged to contribute to the building up of others in love and good works. So, should children participate in the more ritualistic version of the Lord's Supper. Well, I don't think any of us should since the Lord prescribed a party, but, my conviction is that the more ritualistic/sacramental/Eucharistic the Supper is, the more problematic it is for children to participate. But there's no way our Lord intended for us to get ourselves in knots over children participating in the Supper. Hope that helps shed some light on the current problems. One solution is to drop the more corporate ritualistic version and move the Lord's Supper to homes over a meal. I like to call it the Thanksgiving/Christmas gathering. We gather and celebrate the Supper more like our Thanksgiving Day celebration, and the church meeting is more participatory, where spiritual gifts are exchanged as well as perhaps economical gifts, so it's more like Christmas!
This video did it for me. I was already wearing the Paedobaptist uniform…my bases were loaded; The early church presupposition of the covenant, the argument from silence, stacked with Peter’s Pentecost sermon about the promise. Well…This video was the grand slam, it brought me home. So thankful. The crazy part is…I already read To A Thousand Generations. 😂 Goes to show how powerful video is…or how bad my reading comprehension is. Either way…thank you!
I love the comments that basically say, “just because you can use the Bible to support your argument doesn’t make it right.” Then proceeds to argue a different view without any use of Scripture. That’s hilarious.
Acts 16:31 & 18:8... the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family without exemption) were BAPTIZED... the passage never said nor mentioned that only the ADULTS were Baptized in the Household... when we say the English word "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD" means ALL the People in the Household without exemption unless otherwise noted in the passage, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
So… is he trying to say that infant baptism still has a role to play in NT theology? If so, how does infant baptism fit in Paul’s description of baptism in Romans 6? The physical act of baptism must also be accompanied by an internal act of faith and belief with a conscious desire to put the old nature to death, buried in Christ, and to live a new life in God, raised to new life in Christ. Infant baptism seems to be missing just about every aspect of what is described in Romans 6. So… what would your response be to that? I’m curious. Thanks and God bless!
Children are taught that their God is none other than the Triune Creator and that it is by trusting in Christ that they will receive eternal life. And they either will continue in that belief, or they will abandon the covenant. Faithless children are fruitless branches that will be cut off (either they will leave the church, or else, due to sin, they will be excommunicated). But they will be judged as covenant breakers, not pagans who were never part of the family. But their salvation, as everyone else’s, is contingent upon their faith. It’s the faith of the child, however, that’s the model of real faith - they accept without even thinking to question.
I believe you are right. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance and so was Christ’s. John told the Jews that God could create children of Abraham with the stones beneath their feet. Jeremiah 31 tells of a new Covenant where all would know God. Infant baptism is just not scriptural. The effort one must make to contrive an argument for it is monumental. It’s mostly an appeal to emotion. Stay the course. You are right.
@@regularguy3202 what does every child baptized know from birth? Christ is the Lord who redeemed them and now reigns over all the earth, calling all people to believe in him and reject sin zealously. Just about everyone on the world is aware of this, whether they believe it or not. Welcome to the new covenant period.
But Paul doesn't say that the physical act of baptism must be accompanied by an internal act of faith and belief in Romans. Using Abraham's circumcision as an analogy, the physical act of baptism is a mark of God's Activity in Saving. The are in a co-incidental relationship and not necessarily a temporal causation relationship. If anything, you can say, God Saves(Gives us faith, we believe, are justified) and we get baptized as a mark of that salvation. That might be a causal chain but there's a whole bunch of stuff happening at once. After the God Saves part. But God Told Abraham to circumcise(baptize) his children and household though all of them were not saved (buried in Christ, raised in Christ as you rightly said). The burial and resurrection are God's Deeds but the baptism(circumcision) are ours to do towards our children and our household.
If the PREMISE of the ARGUMENT for BAPTISM is to be able to BELIEVE in Christ Jesus and that Infants and Children have not SINNED yet... Does God/YHWH get upset/angry when Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John while Christ does not need to BELIEVE in Himself or had sinned?.... NOPE, but instead God proudly said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3:17)... Christ does not need baptism like the Infant and Children... In the same way, would God be upset/angry if the CHURCH of God does "Infant/Child BAPTISM" who is not capable of believing and has not sinned?... NOPE... Infant/child Baptism is like Christ Jesus being Baptized by Prophet John at the Jordan River... a SINLESS person (Innocent like a child)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
"Excluding infants from the covenant" is question-begging. You're assuming the one covenant under different administrations view, which reformed baptists reject. We believe the OC was concerning other things while at the same time pointing ahead/being subservient to the NC. Essentially our position is OC saints were saved under the OC but not by virtue of the OC. Rather, OC saints were saved by the NC (which we'd argue is, alone, the CoG). And we'd argue the covenant promises to Abraham were not ordo salutis promises (regeneration, justification, etc), but rather historia salutis promises (the Messiah would come through his line). The promise to Abraham was that he'd be the father of the Messiah, *who would come to establish the CoG*. Abraham believed in the One who was to come who would establish the NC in His blood. The blood of bulls and goats couldn't save. Yes, they pointed ahead to the Person and work of Christ, but that doesn't mean the OC itself was salvific. It's what the OC pointed to that was salvivic (i.e., the NC). The OC existed for a time and a purpose, and consisted of earthly promises (that pointed ahead to spiritual promises, to be sure). But the earthly promises/rites had a primary significance and a secondary significance. That is why there was a mixed membership. The OC consisted of Abraham's physical offspring who benefited from earthly blessings, and spiritual offspring who, by God's grace, understood the greater fulfillment of those blessings. The greater fulfillment of those blessings comes from the NC, and is retroactively applied to OC saints. There's a reason the OC was a mixed covenant. But that doesn't mean the NC is therefore a mixed covenant. The NC is enacted on "better promises" that pertain to the spiritual offspring of Abraham (not the physical offspring). If you have faith you are the spiritual offspring of Abraham. Those who are in the NC are those who have been given a new heart.
Actually that’s not true. As much as I generally don’t like Wilson’s teachings, his argument for infant baptism was the first step in my becoming a paedobaptist. I think his argument is missing the reality of baptismal efficacy, but it’s the first piece
@@jamescook5617Sometimes it takes a while. I was Baptistic-Arminio-Dispy until my 50s over a few years I have come to understand reformed position as the correct one including Covenant Baptism.
1. So if baptism is the “new” circumcision (or the Christian extension of the Jewish practice/“promise”), why do we then baptize girls? 2. When a whole household was baptized are we not making a bold presumption that there were actually infants in that family? It often speaks of the household believing, my infant and my three years don’t hold too many Christian beliefs though we keep training them, as commanded. The models of salvation explicitly demonstrated in scripture are: conversation/preaching, call to repentance, belief, baptism. Doug pointed to a lot of scriptures but didn’t really sit on MT28:19, MK16:16 and ACTS2:38, verses that are actual commands where there is a required preceding act by the individual to be baptized. That’s my 2cents, now to sit back and watch this comment section 🔥
When a whole household is baptized, aren’t you making a bold assumption all believed? To the paedo position, belief could be present or not and we can amen. You MUST assume believe on the part of all who were baptized. That’s a pretty bold assumption and an argument from silence my friend.
@@Postmillhighlights when Christ says he will draw all men to himself and that he's the propitiation for not only us but the whole world -- does that mean everyone in those groups? If not, why is household a special case?
@@horrificpleasantry9474 that’s a category error for one. But why say household if it’s meant to be taken as only those who believe. Seems to me that it follows the pattern of circumcising a household. Genesis 17:12 [12] He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
@@Postmillhighlights you'll note that "every child" is not in the NT. Your verse isn't defining household as every male. Every male is specified. Household is contrasted with out of household. Your emphasis is wrong
"And if anyone does not have Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9b "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." Galatians 6:15
My friend, do you suppose this argument hasn’t been thought about and responded to sufficiently by Presbyterians? Do you suppose they don’t read scripture? I affirm both of these and baptize my baby lol
@@sovereigngrace9723 "lol" ... really? Your "baby" must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be saved whether or not he/she is baptized into the covenant of church membership.
@@dws2313 Yes, yes of course. Abraham was declared righteous(justified) by God and then was circumcised (Romans 3-6). But God Commanded him to circumcise his whole household though they were not all saved. So... The passages you quoted hold and yet do not contradict the right practice of baptizing your children ... just as Abraham circumcised his own.
If I brought my unbaptized children to a church ages 22, 17, 13, and none of them wished to be baptized, but I forced the issue and they all submitted, would you be good with that?
“Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition” (The Council of Trent). This notion is contradicted by Scripture. Jesus said that adults must “become like children” (Matt. 18:1-6), to whom “the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matt. 19:14). Why would Jesus use children as a model of godly innocence, if instead they are condemned? Children become sinful later, as they learn the difference between right and wrong, and choose to do wrong (1 John 3:4). “God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices” (Eccl. 7:29). Each person shares in Adam’s condemnation not because Adam is his great-grandfather (Ezek. 18) but “because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) just like Adam did.
I don't know. You list several scriptures there that talk about having faith and then being baptised. Having faith requires a level of understanding that infants cannot conceive of. Of course we don't need to be all knowing but we do need to be believers of God in my understanding. It just seems odd that there would be no record of infant baptism if this is to be the model going forward.
Agree, I love Doug on most things, its a non issue for me, but doctrine is important, which is why I must push back against infant baptism as its simply not found anywhere in the New Covenant.
It's abundantly clear to me that presbies are sentimental about their kids. There's a little bit of a regenerationist in all of them, where they definitely think they're giving their kids a better shot by baptizing them. Pressed, they will deny baptismal regenerationism, but their actions are inconsistent
@@mcgragor1 Yes, I also agree with Doug on most things so when I push back it should be noted that it is done from a gentle and loving attitude from my perspective. I'm very grateful for Doug's ministry in general.
To say an infant cannot have faith is like saying an infant cannot love their mother. Faith is the personal response to God approaching us in grace and that doesn’t require superlative knowledge.
This question may have been asked and answered, but I have not read all of the comments. After watching this, my sister raised a great question and I would love to get some thoughts... If parents become believers at a later age, and their children are teenagers, or any “older than infant” age, does that matter? Should the entire household be baptized at that time, or not the children??
All under the authority of the believing head ought to be baptized. Age doesn't matter. Gen 17 has the covenant sign applied to the believer, their children and all their servants, even those from far off lands. Essentially, if the believer has the authority to make another go to church, that person ought to be baptized. If a child is close to the age where they would set out and start their own household or the parent leaves it up to them to decide to go to church or not, then it should be based on the child's decision.
He did teach us on it. He teaches us all over the New Testament. In Colossians 2:12 , Paul wrote that we are baptized “through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead.” An infant cannot have faith in what he does not have the mental capacity to comprehend. Faith is the result of hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). Acts 2:38 tells us that repentance is to precede baptism. Repentance is the decision to turn away from sin and turn to God. A infant cannot repent. Baptism is to “obey the gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (2 Corinthians 15:1-4). How do you “obey” the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? By being immersed in faith. Roman’s 6:3-5 describes how we “obey the gospel.” Paul told the Roman Christians that they were “baptized into his death” and that they were “raised to walk in newness of life.” Baptism is a command given (Acts 2:37-38) that each individual must obey (Romans 6:17). The word “obey” indicates a conscious choice. What blocks you from understanding all of this is that you don’t comprehend that the Bible teaches baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and that infants have not sinned. Baptism is not merely a symbol of a covenant relationship like fleshly circumcision was, but it washes away sins (Acts 22:16). I’m afraid you are trying to make the Bible fit your theology instead of making sure your theology fit the Bible.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
A big issue for this covenant is how the birth of the new covenant is not a physical rebirth. That pretty much puts a conundrum in any 1-to-1 issue pushing the baptism -> circumcision argument. Also, there just are not a lot of Jewish Christians around to show how these things work out. Circumcision and baptism are different things. They also were even back in Second Temple Judaism prior to Christianity, and they were in the Torah, as the priestly ritual washings weren’t the same as circumcision.
Salvation hasn't changed and has always been the same per Romans 3-6. Abraham was declared righteous and received the circumcision as a mark of that declaration by God. He was then to circumcise his children and family (including Ishmael) and male workers ... though all of them were not believers. In that gracious Declaration of righteousness by God, according to Paul, Abraham was born again. This is how you were also born again. God Declared you righteous by His Grace and you were baptized as a mark of that declaration. If you were to now baptize your children (and I pray that God Saves them all as I pray for my own), it does not therefore indicate that they have been declared righteous. You are merely doing what God Told Abraham to do and almost Personally Killed Moses for not immediately doing.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 No. Circumcision is done to the heart by God upon conversion. That actually is the promise and the constant distinction even within the Law of Moses. That is why Paul declares Christians to be the true circumcision in contradistinction to his own Jewish circumcision in Philippians 3. The contrast there is just the same as under Moses in distinction to the physical circumcision. Also, baptism is nowhere paralleled with circumcision in all of the imagery employed by the apostles. It is easier to see this if one is circumcised at physical birth, reads of the need to be born again, and then comes to faith and is baptized, as was the common experience among the men of Israel (and other surviving Abrahamic descendants) at that time.
@@KMANelPADRINO I know you probably don't have time but you'll understand what I said if you read Romans 4. You should also read 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism, in The Bible, is both a sign of God's Justification and a sign of covenant with God just like circumcision. I mean look at your analogy of circumcision of heart which Moses made. Paul says "12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit." Alluding to Israel in the wilderness. But also implying that Baptism of by The Spirit is the mirror of baptism of the flesh ... just as circumcision of the heart (done by God) mirrors circumcision of the body.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 Peter 3:21 compares baptism to Noah’s flood. None of Noah’s sons were circumcised and, in point of fact, no Abrahamic people existed at that time. Paul even makes the point that Abraham received the covenant before he even received circumcision in Romans 3-6. That is how Paul can legitimately call Abraham the father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised and totally not contradict himself with a theology that equates baptism with circumcision. The natural birth and birth-water of such and baptism are definitely correlated in John 3. You use theological positions and arguments. I’m just using what the actual Biblical text that we know and share says.
@@KMANelPADRINO Sir. Everyone is theological and all arguments about God are inevitably theological right? I quoted Bible texts to you. You did not completely read Romans 4 or overlooked a part. It says that Abraham received the covenant sure. But Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as **a seal of the righteousness** that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Circumcision was not *only* given concerning the covenant, per Paul. It was given as a seal of the righteousness(justification, salvation) that Abraham had been given by God. And then, in the remainder of the verse, Paul calls him father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised. The point is salvation is by faith and circumcision comes after as a mark of faith unto salvation. Thereby Abraham, through faith, becomes father of all who have faith unto salvation whether circumcised or uncircumcised. But you see now that the two are inextricably linked. The mark of salvation in the old testament was circumcision aaand circumcision was also the mark of the covenant. Similarly, baptism is a mark of our salvation in the new testament and also a mark of our covenant with God. Therefore, we may baptize our household as Abraham circumcised his household.
This is an interesting point that was made: Jews who refused to believe in Christ were cut off from their native olive tree. This means that they were joined to the tree prior to their unbelief. But when were they joined? In circumcision?
I was confused listening to this. It was jumping so quickly through so many scriptures. It is almost as if a new group is being crafted . . . the half saved who will fall away. That is believing fully saved parents enter their children into the covenant through infant baptism but over time it becomes clear these children grow up to be clearly unredeemed people. Yet they enjoyed some form of non-saving covenant relationship with God. I am not arguing or saying I am accurately understanding what is being said. Maybe I need to listen through it 8 or 9 more times. Anyway, as always appreciate these videos.
@@tye9713 Well he actually does have all the answers . . .a wise man who has been instructed by the word of God. And he blesses me and countless others with his teaching.
I’d love to answer your concerns, I’m a recent Presbyterian (previous baptist). The distinction is we view the covenant community as the visible church, not necessarily the invisible. There are men and women in our churches who are tares among wheat, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t the covenant community because there are tares. A Baptistic understanding doesn’t make differentiations between visible and invisible, saying that only the invisible are apart of the covenant community. Just as “not all of Israel is Israel”, “not all of the church is the church.” So we baptize infants *into* the covenant community, just as Israelite men were circumcised *into* the covenant community of Israel. This is one distinction among others, but I hope this helps
That's the Presbyterian paradigm, Paul.. Unregenerate people receiving the benefits of being in the new covenant, except for salvation. It gets weird but they do avoid explicitly saying you can lose your salvation or that baptism regenerates you, but then again that's why it gets weird and inconsistent imo as a baptist learning about covenant theology
@@sovereigngrace9723 Hey, I need to be real clear that I was not meaning I had concerns, my comment was that there was a very large amount of concepts delivered very rapidly, and I was having difficulty understanding exactly what he was trying to say. So, not concerned, not trying to debate, but just trying to grasp exactly what he was saying. I live in a very remote part of Africa, and am trying to plant a Calvary Chapel church in a slum area here. Hence, the issues I deal with are way more core and fundamental than the subtle nuance associated with the finer points of covenant theology. Yet I am really blessed by listening to Doug each week.
Wow, that makes so much sense and you didn’t add to the scriptures. Great, so what now, does these mean I’m a Presbyterian? Thank you Pastor Doug! EDIT: Just went to buy your book sir. I suggest you take Doritos' advise and make more, LOL! You're sold out...
Read the other comments before you decide to call yourself a Presbyterian. His argument from silence works against him. The text nowhere says that infants were baptized
@@RPSanAnto arguments from silence cannot be the basis of a belief. The Bible doesn't say that there wasn't controversy over the exclusion of infants. See how easily it turns into crosstalk?
@@horrificpleasantry9474 it is not up to us to find scripture that allows us to baptize infants. It is up to you to find scripture that forbids us to. Alas, there is none.
Wow! Way to knock it out of the park Doug! Where was the controversy over the exclusion of the circumcised infants of Jewish believers ? (And the early church was predominantly comprised of Jewish believers so there would’ve been no small number). There was no controversy because they weren’t excluded.
There was no controversy because they were told to repent and be baptized. Seriously, Doug proportionately spends a lot of time on the argument from silence, not because it's on his side, but because he needs to make it be on his side. It simply isn't. To make an argument from silence is to make a silent argument.
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer both are arguments from silence. Neither explicitly commanded nor explicitly excluded. So then the question is which makes sense with the grain of the story so far. Children being included makes more sense
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Exactly. Three year olds don’t repent from their sins and make a decision for Christ. They simply do not have that ability, yet.
I never really leaned one way or the other on this issue as I can see the arguments from both sides but it’s hard (I’m kidding, it’s impossible) to argue with scripture 😆 there’s still some logical barrier for me to clear but faith is faith!
@@tesseract535 Wrong. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul gives instructions for the Lord's Table and addresses it you "you," that is, "believers" when they come together as a church. Unless you want to exclude women from believers who meet together as a church, then this includes all believers, men and women.
How is a household baptism an example of believers baptism? Doesn’t your position require ALL the household to have faith when the text doesn’t say that?
@@Postmillhighlights There is nothing in the text that indicates infant children who are unable to make a profession of faith were baptized. The passage is not specific, therefore it isn't an argument for paedobaptism.
@@lawrencestanley8989 respectfully, for the paedo position can amen both scenarios. If the whole household believes we can amen that. If there were infants who had not believed, we can amen that. You on the other hand must assume that the household believes or your position fails. The text just doesn’t say one way or the other. It isn’t an argument ‘for’ paedo baptism but it is certainly a big assumption on your side. It is, however, exactly what we would expect to see if our position is correct. Why not mention belief (as is done in other places)? When the gospel is preached to an audience - obviously in that setting - only believers are baptized. What happened when they went home…to their families. Wouldn’t you expect to see household baptisms? Isn’t that the pattern from genesis that would need to be changed? Genesis 17:23 [23] Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
I understand the argument, but disagree with paedobaptism. The Hebrews were physically born into the family, so circumcision naturally takes place as an infant. Someone is not naturally born into God's family. He must be born again. That does not happen as an infant. Naturally baptism ought to be reserved for after being born again.
Genesis 17:13 [13] both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. It isn’t just about being ‘born into’. It’s not familial as much as covenantal.
@@DefenderoftheCross You make it sound like there was no spiritual birth in the Old Testament. The Hebrews were physically born into the family, so circumcision naturally takes place as an infant. However, they (at least the godly) were not ignorant; they also understood that circumcision of the heart was needed to receive the benefits of the covenant (Deut. 10:16). Yet they still circumcised infants. The grafted Gentiles are physically born into the family, so water baptism naturally takes place as an infant. However, we also understand that spiritual baptism (into the mystical body of Christ) is needed to receive the benefits of the covenant.
Not so sure...if I may interject. Right from the begining there's the false assumption that 'everlasting covenant' means 'never ending whatever the situation'. The problem though, is that 'everlasting covenant' is also used in Leviticus 24.8 about the cakes in the tabernacle/temple; also in Numbers 25.13 about the priesthood of Phineas... Both examples are proofs that the expression is not necessaraly describing something forever lasting, but rather something perpetual, that is not short but lasting for long (ref. ''generations''). Then the reference in hebrew six is not about Genesis 17 because there the blessing is conditionned by obedience to the Law (anticipating the covenant with Moses and Israël). Hebrew 6 speaks of 1) a promise with no condition, contrary to Genesis 17 (see Galatians 3.15-18) ; refering to Genesis 12.7 and 13.15. 2) an oath, refering to Genesis 22.16-17 We find no circumcision in the promises passage nor in the oath passage. According to the Bible, is there a definit way to be made partaker and heir of Abraham's blessing? Yes, it is by FAITH in Christ, not by the faith of parents. See here : Galatians 3.14 ; Ga 3.26-29
It was not suposed to be a proof of impermanence but the proof of the need for demonstration. Since the expression is equally used for things Indeed everlasting and for things not lasting forever, it is not sufficient merely to affirm one way or the other. Pastor Wilson is asserting something not yet proven. (I'm french, sorry for some writing mistakes)
The New Covenant has continuity with the Old Covenant by way of Faith, not by way of physical descent. Infants of believing parents are no more a member of the New Covenant because of their parents' belief than were the Children of Abraham because of their descent from Abraham. The New Covenant then is one of professing believers who, through God's work of regeneration, have entered into the New Covenant by faith just as Abraham did. It was not by way of his circumcision (which came AFTER his receiving the Covenant promise), but by faith. It would make little sense to now suggest that infants enter into the New Covenant by an outward sign administered to them without faith just like circumcision. Such a view makes a mockery of Paul's arguments for the New Covenant of Faith by applying a legalistic, inheritable covenantal relationship where scripture is clear that it is one of faith. That is why Paul repeatedly characterizes circumcision as being "nothing" and worthless. If there must be such identity between circumcision & baptism, the concept must stand & fall based on ALL that is said of circumcision and not merely the aspects tradition prefers. The New Covenant is made up only of regenerate professing believers as it is FAITH that allows entry into it and not any other sign.
If changing the persons who receive the covenant sign would have caused such a ruckus in the 1st century that it would require special teaching in the Bible, then why didn’t women receiving the sign of the covenant cause the same ruckus with the same requirement? Besides this is an argument from silence. Why were only boys given the sign? Because the sign represented the hope for the fulfillment of God’s promise to Adam and Eve of the son that would crush the head of the serpent. Their hope was in their future generations, specifically those genetically related to Abraham through Jacob. That was fulfilled with Christ. Our hope is now in His return which will not be through birth. Baptism is now our public declaration of faith and that is being robbed from our children when we use their baptism to represent our commitment to raise them in the admonition of the Lord or our hope in Christ’s future redemption of them. With no memory of their symbolic burial with Christ, they cannot feel quite as connected with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.
While I disagree with the General I think this is a very precise and compelling case. I’m waiting with bated breathe for him and Dr. White’s debate on the topic
@Maverick Sterling Smith Do u recall maybe what year that Ligonier conference was that had it? I’ve watched them for years, I absolutely love their conferences!! Or maybe a tip on wording for me to search for? Obviously I know I can search for it, but what should I be looking for as for its title? 🙏🏽 Thank u for helping btw. And thank I for the audio! I just love looking at Sproul when he speaks so much, that man warms my heart.
I agree with Doug on virtually everything, Save Infant Baptism 😂 “and if someone was baptized into Christ than he was an heir.” That’s the switch. No, “He professed Jesus as Lord” then was baptized. No examples of infant baptism and the whole circumcision argument refutes itself.
There actually are: all who walked through the Red Sea were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10), all who were in the ark were baptized in Noah’s time (1 Peter 3). Importantly, the only examples baptists have are baptisms of converts. Everyone baptizes converts, but those baptisms say nothing of what to do with the children of believers. You have no example of a child waiting to profess faith and then being baptized. The baptist argument is an argument without any explicit reference. On the contrary, whole households were baptized on the basis of the father or mother being saved, which is identical to the abrahamic application of circumcision to all in Abraham’s household on the basis of his own relationship to God. Likewise, Peter was clear in the Pentecost sermon that they should repent and be baptized, and that “the promise is for you and your children” (Acts 2:39). Children aren’t regarded as unbelievers, but are addressed as saints, are regarded as sanctified on account of their believing parents (1 Cor. 7:14), and are commanded “to obey their parents in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1). And again, as Doug makes the point: the new covenant is merely the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant, which is a covenant to be the God of both parents and their children. Abraham is our father and all the promises given to him are possessed by us and our children.
@@dbeebee the Paedo crowd is often accused of making an argument from silence because the Bible doesn’t say specifically that any infants were baptized. Ok. Granted. As you rightly point out, entire households were baptized. Now whether the household believed or not is irrelevant for the paedo position. If they believed, amen. If there were infants who had not yet believed, amen. It seems to me the Baptist here argues from silence. You MUST assume that the household believes when the text just doesn’t say that. And it would be much more consistent to read it the same way as Abrahams household circumcision. Genesis 17:23 [23] Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
@@Postmillhighlights that was when the light went on when I realized it was actually we baptists who were arguing from silence, whereas the reformed view is actually undergirded by the whole thrust of the biblical narrative at every point. And thank God for it! I think the Baptist perspective is extremely deleterious, especially for the children we raise, treating them as pagans until they prove otherwise, rather than recognizing they are actually the model disciples who are called to Jesus from birth.
Doug: " ... but whenever He changed the administration of His covenant, He informed His covenant people of the change ... " I will first say that I'm very thankful for Doug and his ministry, I and many have been very blessed by it, but based on the quoted comment Doug must agree that you have absolutely no scriptural command from the Lord regarding administration of the new covenant and sprinkling water on babies some indeterminate time after their birth. Our Lord was quite specific about cutting foreskin off of an infant's penis 8 days after birth for the old covenant, but for some reason left all the details out on how to apply baptism to babies in the new covenant? If sprinkling is acceptable, why only for infants? Why not simply sprinkle water on Jesus when He was baptized by John, or Phillip with the Eunich? Why make someone get all the way in the river if a sprinkle is sufficient? And no, citing Leviticus regarding dipping dead doves in blood and then "sprinkling" (naza) the leprous are not the words of our Lord regarding new covenant administration. Also, 'Tabal' in Hebrew and 'baptizo' in Greek at a minimum mean to dip, and more consistently mean submerge, which are separate from sprinkle (naza); if pedo baptists want to remain intellectually consistent you'd at least dip your infants for baptism like a chicken nugget into ranch! Also, you'd baptise all males and females under a new-to-the-faith father's headship, regardless of their age, as would be consistent with Exodus 12:48 and Acts 8:12. Also slaves, regardless of age, of anyone's house in cultures that still practice slavery should be baptized too according to Gensis 17:27 if they come to faith, right? Interesting how pedo baptists defend infant baptism only but throw all out all other consistent extensions of old covenant circumcision. Where are the Lord's words on changes to that administration? There are a great many, many inconsistencies with defense of infant baptism practices, but I do understand and hear your point about the hard change it would be from giving infants the sign of the covenant to that changing, but look at how long it took for someone like Luther to exposit the true meaning of justification by faith! Scripture nor Christ never promised He'd directly highlight all the implications of His teachings. Unfortunately defending infant baptism is the result of defending a system of theology, not scripture.
It’s just not accurate to identify baptizo with immerse. Notice that Paul says that those who crossed the Red Sea were baptized into Moses (1 cor. 10), and Peter says that Noah’s family was baptized during the flood (1 Peter 3). Those who were immersed are those whom God executed in judgment. Those who were baptized were sprinkled by rain from above, in the cloud and during the flood. How were all the implements of the tabernacle and temple sanctified? Sprinkling. Now, I don’t deny that baptisms by immersion are valid, but immersion is itself not the ideal mode. God sprinkles us clean and that’s consistently used language throughout. Edit: fixed typos
@@jakesanders136 I applaud your intellectual consistency regarding slaves and dipping babies; I was aware some churches do this, but I am specifically addressing Doug and his church's/ denomination's practices. They have a lot to answer for regarding inconsistencies despite the mountain of biblical verses he attempts to defend with. And unfortunately, both points are multiple steps beyond the reality that there are absolutely no specific details for infant baptism in the new covenant, and there were absolutely specific details regarding circumcision which is directly abolished by Christ/ the disciples with the new covenant (Galatians 5, Matthew 28:19 ), and never are any specific details given as to administration of baptism for infants, as Doug suggests and agrees should happen if in fact Christ had meant for such things to occur. He specifically abolished the old way and gave a new administration only for adults; its not our job to disprove infant baptism isn't carried from covenant to covenant, which is the result of a system of theology, our job is to be faithful to the Word which gives absolutely no details for it for the new covenant. Also, food for thought, Moses was almost killed for not circumcising his son after 8 days, why are pedo baptists not killed for not baptizing infants after 8 days if the sign of the covenant for infants ought to extended like it did from old to new? we have no words of Christ ending that like Doug would argue for the continuation on infant baptism, so why wouldn't that continue? curious details that seem to have hand-wavy, out-of-context, avalanche-of-bible-verse answers from pedo baptists.
@@dbeebee @DMB everything you said pulls scriptural examples to justify an already held position of infant baptism; it has nothing to do with actual words from God regarding actual administration of the sign of the covenant. Circumcision and the when, where, how are specifically detailed for God, as well as the ending of it as the sign of the covenant (Galatians 5) and the administration of baptism for the new covenant (Matthew 28:19); never once ever are instructions given for infant baptism in the new covenant as they were for the old, as Doug would agree there should be if we were to be doing such things. And, regarding your old testament examples, Peter clearly says they were "brought safely through water." The water they needed to be brought through "safely" wasn't the rain falling on their heads; it was the mass of water below that would have drowned them (aka signifying death from sin) and which signifies new birth for creation below them. This is the same type of being brought through that occurs when a baby is born through water from its mover, which is exaclt at the heart of Nicodemus's question about climbing back into his mother's womb. The Israelsites "passing through" (1 Corinthians 10:1) the red sea is the same type and shadow; it has nothing to do with sprinkling.
@@jakesanders136 don’t buy the immersionist logic-it doesn’t actually follow the scriptures. Paul says that Israel was baptized into Moses in the Red Sea, Peter says Noah and his family were baptized in the flood. Were they immersed? Nope, they were sprinkled with water. Who got immersed? God’s enemies. Water has a deep theology beginning in genesis 1. It is the fundamental earthly reality, but there is water above and water below. The promised land is regarded as much greater than Egypt because Egypt was watered with waters below (the Nile), whereas Israel would be water by “rain from heaven” (Deut. 11:10-11). Track the biblical accounts dealing with water and in nearly every circumstance, good water comes from above, sprinkling like rain, whereas judgment is by drowning (or stoning by hail). How is sin atoned for? Sprinkling. How are the holy implements of the temple cleansed? Sprinkling. Who are you? You’re a living stone in God’s temple (1 Peter 2). You aren’t a recipient of God’s drowning wrath, you’ve been sprinkled clean by the blood of Christ. Jesus came up out of the Jordan, that’s true. That doesn’t mean he was immersed. That means he was standing in the Jordan and then walked out of it and up the bank. Sprinkling is at every point the mode of cleansing, like God’s heavenly rain, sprinkled by the heavenly waters from above. Not to mention a word search of baptizo shows that it’s used frequently and it plainly does not mean immersion as the Baptists protest.
@@richardortman8641 here’s the real point: baptizo is used all over the place and in those circumstances they weren’t immersed. To suggest immersion is necessary is to make a dogmatic claim that’s not linguistically sound and not supported by the pertinent texts. I’m glad for folk who were immersed in baptism. But demanding immersion is going beyond the text and contradicts the text frequently.
Colossians 2:11-12 does not say, "Baptism replaces circumcision." In fact, it doesn't even say, "Spiritual circumcision replaces circumcision of the flesh." Paul notes that his audience, "you," a group of Gentile believers had received a valid spiritual circumcision. This validity extends so far as to allow participation in the feast of Passover (1 Cor 5:8) from which all who lack circumcision are excluded (Ex. 12:43-48). This need not invalidate the command to circumcise in the flesh, as this requirement was never placed by God upon Gentiles.
Couldn't one argue that there is little difference between the 2 main positions, because baptism and dedication do the same thing? The only wrong approach, in my opinion, is to do neither and therefore not commit to raise your child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
I think the point is, many believe because they baptize their child he/she is saved (though they may deny that), whereas dedication to the Lord, prayer, raising them right, we hope in Christ that they will be saved, but they at some point still make that choice to follow God or not. If they die in infancy, we trust in the mercy and grace of God. It would concern me more thinking some outward sign has saving power. That simply goes against the gospel, our depravity, and reeks of good works, rather than faith. I wonder how many people who are living for themselves know they were baptized as infants, and think they are saved? So sad.
Dedication doesn’t do anything at all - that’s the difference. Why would we think that it is up to us to invent a ritual, rather than obeying what God has commanded?
He DID teach us on it! Hebrews 8 tells us that the new covenant is distinct from the old in two important ways, they do not need to be taught or told to know the Lord, for they all shall know Him. And second, their sins are forgiven.
All the more reason to include those precious saints that Jesus himself told us “Let the little children come to me, and forbid them not, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
@@jcpg9592 And that is wonderful but little infants can't do "come". Nor can a little infant take a "pledge from a good conscience towards God" as Peter teaches us what baptism is and what it is called in 1 Peter 3:21-22. Where did a little baby get a good conscience from?
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer Obviously, since Peto-Baptists maintain infants are in the covenant then this would apply, but it cannot. An infant must be taught and told to know the Lord and does not have it's sins forgiven.
@@4570sharps does someone need to believe to have their sins forgiven? Or in other words, does a person's non-belief nullify the work that was accomplished 2000 years ago? The work was already done on the cross, whether you believe it or not. Salvation does not start with you, sir. It starts with Christ.
Excellent explanation! My only disagreement is with Doug's interpretation of Ephesians 1:1 and Colossians 1:2. (14:57). I assume he is trying to say that the "faithful brethren" are somehow separated from the "Saints" in Paul's greeting. While I agree that children are included in the covenant, to say that Paul would call them Saints here might be stretching. Yes, they are made holy by their parents, but Paul also clearly calls born-again believers Saints (Ephesians 4:12, 1 Cor. 1:2). It's putting a bit much on these epistle introductions to say that Paul is singling out covenant saints from those born-again believers. I think a much fairer interpretation would be to say that Paul is addressing Church officers when he says "Faithful brethren" as he does in Philippians 1:1 - "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons."
The major disagreement is what is the sign of the new Covenant. Is it Baptism, or the Holy Spirit? I would argue it's the latter. Read Acts 2 and then read Acts 10-11. There isn't a silence at all like what Doug is saying. The debate on what makes someone a covenant member is clearly in those passages: it's the Holy Spirit. Nobody reached the Gentiles because they were uncircumcised for nearly the first 10 years of the Church, and it took Peter being led by God to preach to Cornelius and observe that they are also part of God's covenant because they became filled with the Holy Spirit. That's the sign, which is also what Paul is referencing in Colossians 2, not physical baptism.
My church doesn't baptize babies. Any advice? Can I baptize them at home? Since it's under the authority of our thrice holy God do I have to have any other authority (pastoral affirmation)?
It’s amazing that you can reach a conclusion that doesn’t refer to the meaning of baptism in the NT. I suggest everyone starts from the bottom up. Check all the passages on baptism in the NT. Ask yourself what does the NT say that baptism symbolises. Ask yourself is baptism in the context of repentance and faith? Etc. then work out if baptism was meant to be a direct replacement for circumcision…
the church doesn't start in the new testament that is your problem as was mine before I came to realize this God didn't make 2 churches, the new testament church is the same as the old testament church, just expanded to include all the nations of the gentiles too to argue the baptist tradition(which popped up in the 1600s) you have to separate the old testament church from the new testament
Expand your inquiry to covenant, and see how well that point holds, lest you find yourself claiming discontinuity over continuity between covenants and testimates.
Using 1 Corinthians 7 is just absurd. 1) If Doug is saying this proves children of one believing parent are saints, then he's now switched to arguing that children are not just part of the covenant, but are actually saved. 2) The same language used to describe the children as holy is used to describe the spouse as holy. So is my unbelieving husband saved because I'm a believing wife? Obviously Doug would say not, so his inconsistency is showing. Badly. The text is clear about its meaning. Your influence may lead to salvation in the life of your child or wife, but as Paul goes on to say explicitly, this won't necessarily happen. It's about salvation, not covenant. Obviously.
That's not what the word 'holy' means in that passage. It means consecrated and set aside to God. It doesn't mean saved as you rightly surmised. They are accounted as saints and it remains to be seen (i.e. 1 John 1-3) if they actually are. But they are accounted as saints according to God's Command to Abraham and not some arbitrary declaration.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 You're importing a completely foreign concept into the text. The text is clearly about the believer influencing the unbeliever unto salvation. You're now making "saint" a label about covenant membership without salvation -- a completely foreign concept in Scripture, and a completely foreign concept to the discussion at hand. Are you seriously claiming that the unbelieving husband is a saint and covenant member because his wife believes? Because that is, of course, the only way to consistently apply your reading here. But you're not claiming that, and so you must concede the text is not at all about covenant membership and being "accounted" as a saint despite not truly being one.
@@makobean 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. I did not claim or say that the unbelieving husband or child is a saint in the sense that they are saved i.e. justified by God. I said that they are consecrated to God by the faith of their family member. How is this a foreign concept in God's Word? Or even foreign to the text as you say? It literally says that they are made holy. I know you're not saying the wife saves her husband or makes him a saint nor is Paul saying some incomprehensible mysticism. God Saves right. God Makes Holy in Salvation right. The knell in your argument is the next sentence "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." He's not talking about salvation. Note the use of unclean vs holy. This the language used to talk about temple purification. Making it clean(holy) or unclean you know. That's what a family member does for the other. That's what we do for our children when we baptize them. Note I said, "accounted" as saints. I didn't say they are saints. That's God's Work and it may be revealed, as the next verse says, that the unbeliever may leave.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 If we take your interpretation that it's about (somehow) being "consecrated to God by the faith of their family member", this still does not equal being "accounted as saints". Why would they be if they do not profess Christ, if they openly reject Him? You're arguing something different from what Doug is arguing, so I'm not sure I grasp precisely what you're saying. In your mind, are the "saint" children the same as adults? If so, you're saying my unbelieving husband is accounted a saint because I believe, though He rejects the Gospel? Or are you making a distinction between my spouse and my children? My children are saints, but my spouse is not? "Saint" never refers to someone who is not a saint. The text is not arguing about how to become a "saint" or defining "saint" as a covenant-member-but-not-saved person (which does not exist in the New Covenant). Importing that into the text, which is only about how one's faith might impact family members, and not at all about them being in the covenant (a trick covenantalists need to stop pulling, trying to make everything about covenant when covenant is never mentioned).
Act 2:41 Then they that (gladly) received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. why not use this argument? The action of God is foreordained from eternity whatever comes to pass the decree of God by which certain souls are foreordained to salvation (Gods arbitrary decision)
In context, the crowd is told to REPENT, which an infant is incapable of doing, and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the Ho!y Spirit. This is the point of salvation. It is not a gray area. This guy is leading peop!e away from heaven into the gates of hel!.
@@bengali481 Then they that (gladly) received his word were baptized I AGREE WITH YOU THATS WHY I PUT GLADLY IN BRACKETS THEY WERN'T INFANTS Doug Wilson follows The Westminster Confession of Faith I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, 521 not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;522 but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, 523 of his ingrafting into Christ, 524 of regeneration,525 of remission of sins, 526 and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus The London Baptist Confession of Faith DISAGREED WITH THE DOCTRINE this debate has been going on for hundreds of years i think RC Sproul held to the Westminster as well
@@bengali481 That's going too far. Doug is being a consistent Presbyterian, which is to say Biblically inconsistent, but at no point has he taught baptismal regenerationism, the ability to lose one's salvation, denied salvation by grace through faith etc
As a baptist, you don’t even believe baptism does anything, except publicly declare your inward faith. Baptizing an infant, then, would likewise do nothing, except be a poor example of the testimony you think that baptism shows. In either case, Doug isn’t hell bound, nor would you be.
In the United Methodist tradition, baptism, whether of an infant, child, or middle schooler who is being confirmed, is called a public sign of being a child of God. One thing about baptism in the Methodist tradition is that it must take place at a church service. The baptism ritual includes the congregation accepting the pastor's charge to assist the parents in seeing that the child is raised, learning about God's love.
When the Ethiopian eunuch had the chapter in Isaiah explained to him by philip and he came to faith in Christ, he saw an expanse of water and asked to be baptised. Sounds like he went under the water. I believe in believer’s baptism Matthew 28:19 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Why does it sound like he went under the water? Did Phillip also go under the water? Acts 8:38 [38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Two things: 1) I spent a year living 30 miles from the road the eunuch was baptized on. It actually is a desert road. As in, it’s in a desert. 2) The eunuch was readying from Isaiah 53. You wouldn’t believe what he would have just read in Isaiah 52:15.
It's from a chapter in his book, thankfully! Too much information too quickly given in that video! "To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism - Covenant Mercy for the People of God"
But if there is a denomination that says babies are going to hell they aren't heretics. They are just another opinion. Gotta love how that sola scriptura settles matters of faith...
If the covenant can't be changed, from including children to not including them, why can it be changed from only being the male children to now being male and female?
He didn’t say the covenant can’t be changed, but that changes, when made, are explicit (as with all people being admitted to baptism as the new sign of the covenant). In Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3:28). What hasn’t changed is that the covenant we have received is the same one given to Abraham, which is a promise to be the God of parents and their children. Jesus isn’t just our personal Lord - he is objectively the Lord of lords and King of kings, above every power. He presently reigns over all the earth. We recognize him as *our* Lord because he is *the* Lord. Our children have the benefit of knowing that from day 1.
@@dbeebee I agree with most of what you said. I just don't see the connection, if the covenant before included all their children, both male and female, but only the males had a sign, why does everyone in the covenant have to receive the sign now?
@@francsiscog because we’re in the new covenant in which the Soirit is poured out upon men and women alike, where we all, together, have become priests and prophets proclaiming that Christ has come and salvation is found only in him. Circumcision was a sign appropriate to the old covenant. It is bloody, corresponding to the sacrificial requirements prior to Christ. Further, the wounding of sons for the sake of bringing about the promised new life (Isaac was born only after Abraham was circumcised) points to what Jesus would do. Sadly our Bibles most frequently translate the sacrifices for sin as taking “a young bull,” but it’s literally “a son of the herd.” They were sacrificing “sons” for the forgiveness of sins. Circumcision shows that reality in the flesh, and is given to men particularly as part of this. Now we have entered into the fulfillment of everything merely promised before, as the whole old covenant was a shadow of the new. The one sacrifice has been given, so we have no bloody signs. We’ve passed from the ministry of death into the ministry of life. It is appropriate then that we have the Lord’s Supper (they weren’t allowed to drink wine in the temple under the old covenant, but now wine is given), and baptism. We receive “the washing of regeneration,” we are those who have the Spirit and therefore have “springs of living water, welling up to eternal life,” etc. Lots of water imagery associated with the new covenant, both from Christ and in the prophets. Jesus is also the last Adam, Paul says, and his resurrection is the first fruit of the new creation. In Christ we are restored to the priestly and kingly vocation of Adam and Eve and, as it happens, there isn’t any life without water (you see this in genesis 2 in many ways, not least of which God gathering “dust” - dry earth - and breathing into Adam’s nostril. Breath is moist air - it’s water and spirit. New creation happens just like the first creation). All these symbols and then some come to bear in baptism. In any case, the new covenant is in every way an expansion of the old. Men and women alike share the ministry of reconciliation for the sake of the world.
I respectfully disagree with Brother Doug. Howbeit, I really appreciate this summation of the argument. It's very helpful to focus my understanding of the doctrine.
Doug's reasoning is sloppy at best. The promise was to all who believe, Doug. Why do you guys always pretend the text stops at "and your children"? Why don't you finish the passage? Of course, I'm not really asking, because we all know the answer.
Are you referring to Acts 2 when you say ‘and your children?’ If so, where does it say ‘to all who believe?’ Don’t you mean ‘all who are far off?’ Acts 2:39 [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
@@Postmillhighlights And how does it describe those people? Called by God to Himself. It is not everyone, not all your children, not all those who are far off. Doug wants to have his cake and ignore the rest of the verse, too.
The best case you can make is that the verse is ambiguous. It’s when you pull in the Jewish context, the nature of the covenant - that the infant baptism argument shines.
@@tesseract535 No, the verse isn't ambiguous. It's not for your children unless it's also for all those far off. Both are qualified -- all those God calls to Himself. And the argument from covenant isn't there. The new covenant is only comprised of regenerate people, all taught of God. Doug simply assumes the new is like the old, and then assumes where and in what ways, but with no biblical basis or evidence. We never see the argument that baptism is the new circumcision, or that those in the new covenant can fall away, etc. The new covenant is one not of flesh, so why assume it is passed on through flesh, for instance? Doug's reasoning is just one giant assumption, and one that has no consistency or logical necessity. It's all one big non sequitur.
@@makobean > And the argument from covenant isn't there. The new covenant is only comprised of regenerate people There you go again, sneaking in those assumptions. This one isn't true, or the warnings in Hebrews and other places don't make sense. Also Paul's example with the grafted tree. If you can be taken out of it, is it the tree of salvation? No. It must be the covenant. I meant the verse was ambiguous in this sense: it doesn't explicitly state either case one way or the other. Both sides read into it a bit.
Legit question: based on what I’m hearing, those who baptize their children and raise them according to the Word will result in their salvation? Always?
That's what presbies kind of subconsciously believe/imply but on paper they are careful to say that they reject baptismal regenerationism or conditional election, their practice is just inconsistent with that profession IMO. It looks as if they think they're giving their kids a better shot to go to heaven, but if pressed, they will reject the unorthodox conclusions of their practice. So, not heresy, just .. Really messy
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Doug explicitly denies this very sentiment, which is why he spent so much time talking about branches that don’t bear fruit. Lots of folk in the covenant abandon the covenant. This happens in baptist churches all the time too, as it happens. Those who taste the heavenly gift often reject the Lord and are condemned. They just aren’t condemned as pagans, but as members of the covenant who are doubly guilty.
Most of what you said maybe 90% we agree on, but I don’t think you can look to historical events saying no one objects about the church not recognizing their baby’s as members, so that means baby’s were members, that means they were baptized. When do we start having historical documentation of baby’s being baptized? Why were they being baptized? When in church history did anyone believe what you believe about baptism? I’d say we just stick to the text sir. We Baptists have much love for you uncle Douglas, and are looking forward to your upcoming debates. Not that you gonna read this.
He keeps bringing up children who can come, can listen, can obey, can be unruly, yet I don’t know any infant who can do all of that. It’s almost as though it’s referencing children, not infants?
Baptists, you can't just assume your position is the default, you have to actually make your case. By all means disagree, but actually make a defense for your own position, especially when the model in the NT is household baptisms and you have to add to scripture to support your position that: 1. everyone in the household was above a certain age 2. everyone in the household individually believed after however brief a time they had to spend with an apostle. Everyone agrees that when one believes, they ought to be baptized. That isn't your position. You need to defend the exclusion of the household in the face of the Biblical evidence and show why only believing is the standard, not being in the household. The non-Baptist has merely to point to the practice of applying the covenant sign on the whole household as established in Gen 17, reaffirmed in Acts 2 and seen throughout Acts. Their argument doesn't depend on the age of the household members in the slightest. Where do you justify adding an additional exclusion based on age despite household membership of a believing head being the biblical norm?
@@choicemeatrandy6572 How are those not examples of household baptisms? The eunuch was a household of one, for hopefully obvious reasons. Paul was also a household of one. I've heard speculation that Paul was married at some earlier point, but by the time he became a Christian, he seems to be single and never (re-)married. Lydia's household was baptized in Acts 16. The baptism of the 3000 in Acts 2 are not talked about quite as specifically, but the people are in town for pentecost (feast of weeks) celebrations. I'd like to hear an argument for why they all left their kids at home that day, as it seems exactly the sort of thing children of all ages would attend with their families. It would seem especially odd to not apply the covenant sign to the children as this is happening on the tail of Peter's speech referencing gen 17 in which children and servants (even servants not of the head's line but from far off places) we're all to be given the sign, not just the believing head. Peter uses the same formula given to Abraham yet applies it to baptism. The audience would have picked up on that immediately. Thus, no you don't get to beg the question for credo *only* baptism. You have to do the work to show that God no longer makes covenant with families and only works at the individual level like enlightenment era ideas would have us believe, despite the numerous examples of households being baptized when only the head for sure believed. Bonus points if you can explain why even though the household model fits all of scripture that came before Acts, and prophets were to be stoned if they change God's word per Deut 13, everyone magically knew that the covenant sign no longer applied to their family despite no explicit revelation from God saying so.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 I know, that's why I pointed out the questions you were begging. Why do so many baptists do that? You guys can give much better answers than unbiblical begged questions. But no, the vast majority in these comments just assume they are right and demand everyone convince them otherwise, but can't seem to offer a modicum of scriptural proof for their assumptions. And I gave you such a great opportunity by pointing out Baptist problem passages, but you can't even begin to answer them.
It’s about time someone try to attempt defending child baptism. Still weak but at lest it was an attempt, easily disputed. Every baptism was a believer baptist in the new testament. There is no mention of baptism replacing circumcisim directly. you have to reach
By only reading the comments I'd say Credo-Baptists believe that Baptistism actually saves, Justification by Baptism and Fatih alone. Do not pedo baptits and credo baptist raise their children godly, to know that you must be born again given a new heart only by the grace of God? John 3. Baptism is a sign, and the great gnat of the church, mean while swallowing the camel of the new birth.
Neither Reformed Baptists or Presbyterians believe water baptism saves you. Baptists believe baptism follows faith and presbies believe baptism follows entering into the covenant community, which they believe can happen both through faith and through birth to believing parents
In Love and Respect to Pastor Doug. Nevertheless, the ability to rattle off a great many Bible verses in succession does not win an argument nor does the employing of strawman arguments. This was disappointing. God's grace and peace.
A wedding isn't the marriage, communion isn't the source of our salvation, and water baptism, as in the work of dunking someone in water, isn't baptism of the Holy Spirit, what God does to transform our lives to let us be born again. Weddings, communion, and water baptism are merely symbolic representations and celebrations of the real thing. Water baptism is a work; the baptism of the Holy Spirit it represents is not. To suggest that our salvation is dependent on water baptism, a work, is almost a denial of the gospel message. We cannot earn our salvation by works, and our salvation is not dependent on the doing of works. Do you want a Biblical example of someone who was saved without water baptism? Look to the thief crucified with Jesus that ended up being saved before he died. He was both saved and never received water baptism. Don't confuse the dunking of someone in water with the work of God in your life it seeks to represent. God isn't a puppet you can summon to do your bidding by making him appear and do something by any of your works, including water baptism. It's also not the case that God is somehow so weak and powerless that He's incapable of saving you without your participation via this work of water baptism. I never understood how this concept came to be a topic of debate. Yes, one can eisegetically derive the necessity of water baptism from some passages of scripture, but considering how poorly this interpretation stands up to hermeneutical considerations one would think that this notion would be dead. Suggesting the necessity of water baptism for infants requires completely misunderstanding what baptism is from even the most fundamental level. One truly has to mistake the symbolic act for the thing it represents, like thinking communion is the source of our salvation like Catholics do. The very fact that Catholics view infant baptism as a legitimate thing should be telling.
I'm credobaptist and this is not how you argue for the position. If you're credobaptist and this is the basis for your position, you're primed for paedobaptism.
I don’t think he was arguing the necessity of it. What I hear is just a direct debate of baby baptism or not. Separate from what salvation factually is. And I know Doug agrees on salvation.
@@jaquirox6579 If he doesn't view water baptism as being necessary for salvation then the entire concept of infant baptism becomes completely nonsensical. Would you give a baby communion? Why not? The same reasoning would apply to not water baptize a baby.
The thief on the cross is a faulty example: 1) We don't actually know whether or not he was baptized. It isn't explicitly stated or even implied either way. 2) That moment was technically still before the official establishment of the new covenant (i.e. Christ's death). 3) Even disregarding the previous points, Jesus is God and God ultimately has the authority and right to grant salvation to whomever He well pleases regardless of their spiritual condition. If hypothetically a lost sinner repents and confesses but has a lethal heart attack on his way to the water, will he still be denied eternal life at judgement day? I tend to believe not. But that does not inherently mean at the same time that the Lord does not still expect each of us to perform the act as part of the initiation process. Yes, it is a symbolic ritual, but just as dipping into the Jordan seven times in itself didn't cleanse Naaman yet was still necessary to receive God's healing, so too baptism should be viewed as the obligatory method the Lord has instituted by which we come into contact with Christ and are thereby liable to be raised just as He was at the end of time.
Just to give a fuller reply: "A wedding isn't the marriage, communion isn't the source of our salvation, and water baptism, as in the work of dunking someone in water, isn't baptism of the Holy Spirit, what God does to transform our lives to let us be born again." This is great start. Category distinctions! Circumcision is not baptism! Water baptism and Spirit baptism are ideally together, but categorically not the exact same thing! It's good to have these things in place, because category confusion and blurring are one of the things paedobaptists tend to excel at. "Weddings, communion, and water baptism are merely symbolic representations and celebrations of the real thing." No, no, no, no. Have you told your wife that your wedding is merely symbolic? How'd that go over? Nor does Scripture lend any credence to the idea that baptism is merely symbolic. 1 Peter 3:21 clearly says baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience. That's not just symbolic. "Water baptism is a work" Yes and no. Is appealing to God for a clean conscience a work? Baptism cannot be boiled down to its physical elements (nor can communion). "To suggest that our salvation is dependent on water baptism, a work, is almost a denial of the gospel message." Yet Scripture makes clear that baptism is commanded. In some sense, baptism saves. We need to be more comfortable with explaining how baptism saves than how baptism doesn't save. "Do you want a Biblical example of someone who was saved without water baptism? Look to the thief crucified with Jesus that ended up being saved before he died. He was both saved and never received water baptism." I'm sorry, but if I hear about the thief on the cross one more time, I'm going to scream. I'm not Lutheran, but this is not without its points: th-cam.com/video/6p7a-kTcSZo/w-d-xo.html Understanding what Scripture teaches as normative is critical to a solid defense of credobaptism. Last minute conversion is not normative. "I never understood how this concept came to be a topic of debate." Too many Presbyterians and Baptists claiming baptism doesn't save, that's why. 😛 "Yes, one can eisegetically derive the necessity of water baptism from some passages of scripture" Just stop there. If Scripture commands it, that does it. "Suggesting the necessity of water baptism for infants requires completely misunderstanding what baptism is from even the most fundamental level." We can certainly agree on that, but what baptism *is*, is not merely symbolic. "The very fact that Catholics view infant baptism as a legitimate thing should be telling." This is not a legitimate argument. If you reject *everything* Catholics believe, you're a rank heretic.
What was the "sign" of the covenant for women? Baptism, biblically speaking, is not equated with circumcision. Infant baptism is the golden calf of the reformation. Sproul's argumentation was "the bible didnt say it, but it didn't say not to do it" isn't a legitimate argument. This seems to be consistent witb paedobaptists. Tradition is one of the hardest sins to repent of.
Simple fix, have infant baptism as a profession that you will raise the child Christian. But still require a believer's baptism. Is the main issue fear of a child dying before coming to believe themselves? And if so, seeing how you're not Roman Catholics, what's the rush if baptism isn't what saves?
Baptism is to be given only once as it is a blessing the Lord gives us, not a work we do for the Lord. No rush, just trying to obey Jesus: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
Baptizing an infant does nothing more than make a baby wet and upset. Where is repentance and confessing Christ as Lord when a baby is baptized? It is suppose to be a sign of a circumcised heart. Physical circumcision was done on infants when awareness (and so the memory) of pain is the slightest (8 days old) but spiritual circumcision (of the heart) must be done at optimal awareness of a guilty heart. How can an infant confess with their mouth and how do they repent and from what do they repent? A dirty diaper?! This video is enough reason for me to reject Mr. Wilson entirely. We don't need the added burden and discord.
Choice? If someone is raised by believing parents and baptised as a babe, that's not teaching. That's parents acting out on behalf of that babe a confession of faith and a putting away of the flesh. That's the individual's choice, not the parent. It's funny, I'm keen toread a scripture evidencing the point highlighted and not a conflated amalgamation of scripture to try to make the point.
AMEN! Down with the Baptists lol! Only kidding! I truly appreciate James White and can't wait for this debate. In fact I'd probably be a Baptist but for their inconsistency in this area big time.
Doug - seems like you set up a straw man at the beginning by "assuming" the NEW Covenant is just an administration of the covenant of grace instead of a NEW Covenant. The Baptist position is much stronger than you lead us to believe. Also, what about "faithful" parents whose children God does not save?
Doug's view that the New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace is wrong, but so is the Reformed Baptist view. The fulfillment of Jeremiah's "New Covenant" prophecy awaits the consummation when "all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26-27). We are certainly not living in the "New Covenant" prophesied by Jeremiah right now.
Check out Doug's, "To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism - Covenant Mercy for the People of God"
canonpress.com/products/to-a-thousand-generations/
Let me guess, women (more 50% of population) should pregnant, bare foot, never leave kitchen without daddo's permission. It's a puff piece for bearded dude spread rubbish.
Dose anyone else want to acknowledge all the scripture that Doug quoted here? The man knows the Bible inside and out 👏🏽👏🏽
Anyone can quote proof texts.... big deal.
@@ameliacoburn4787 whenever you attempt to build a premise, proof for the point your making requires an origin. Doug quoting 10’s and 10’s of different scripture as proof text is not a big deal. The big deal is that he quoted it all in the context in which the authors intended. Proof texting that you and I would both condemn is text quoted out of context.
So does Satan
@@farmerpete0768 what context? He's interpreting it through the lens of Covenant Theology that's what he's doing.
@@ameliacoburn4787 he's quoting entire passages too
The final nudge moving me from Baptist to full fledged Presbyterian...
That's sad to hear, because Doug's rationale doesn't add up at all.
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer How does it not add up? Or what are the parts that don't add up?
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 Because Doug does the same thing all Presbyterians do: assume the continuity of the covenants without proving it.
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer Okay. If you read Romans 4, you see Paul saying that Abraham was justified, saved by faith. Hebrews 11 declares the same thing about Abel. Hebrews 4:2 says the gospel was preached to Israel as it was to us. All of this before the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Now. When you see that salvation is the same across every interaction between God and man as recorded in His Word, is there not at least a continuity, a shared space between the covenants?
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 What you're demonstrating there is the continuity of salvation by faith alone. What is the continuity of the covenants? None, according to Scripture:
But Jesus has now obtained a superior ministry, and to that degree He is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been legally enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second one.
Hebrews 8:6-7 HCSB
Just gonna sit back, sip my beer, and read these comments 😎
I’ve seen a lot of great, hilarious comments on TH-cam. But this one, considering context, might be the best. Idk why. Maybe it’s what I’m sipping that’s talking.
Let me join you
First 3 seconds: Best argument for infant baptism ever.
Precisely the reason I baptize my baby’s. Covenant. What is the sign of the new covenant? Baptism. Why would I exclude my household from the covenant of God from which I belong?
Thank you Pastor, hope many think through this point.
According to your reasoning, salvation is not a benefit of being in that covenant, otherwise you would be saying that you cause your kids to become born again by baptizing them
@@horrificpleasantry9474 thanks.
Can you show this tradition Scripturally? I don't think you can.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 yup yup.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 I think the most common mistake made in parsing these things is that we are trying to constrain God's Deeds to fit into our understanding.
Per Romans 3-6, salvation has not changed and always been the same. Abraham was declared righteous (justified) and received the circumcision as a mark of that declared righteousness. In that gracious Declaration of righteousness by God, according to Paul, Abraham was born again. He was then to circumcise his children and family (including Ishmael) and male workers ... though all of them were not believers.
Now you might call it strange that the mark of Abraham's salvation be extended to those who later proved to not have been justified by God. But that is what God Commanded almost Personally Killed Moses for not immediately doing. Similarly, when @System Revolt baptizes his children, he is putting on the the mark of God's Covenant with him though those children may not themselves be saved.
Again, please keep in mind Romans 3-6 (as explained above, confirm for yourself if I lie/misunderstand) and the fact that God's Salvation and Command are His Own. That they do not fit into my understanding is a deficiency in me and not Him. A procrustean bed applied to man may not get man killed but I would be wary of applying such truncations to God's Grace and Salvation.
As a Baptist I'll say that most of the other Baptists in the comment section didn't listen to a word Doug said. To be fair to Doug.
I listened and heard a number of non-sequiters and an argument from silence.
But even so, I think his position has at least some reason and it’s understandable why someone would reach it. I just think it’s wrong and requires you to work with scripture to make it say that.
Love Doug and the brothas there. Christ my Lord wasn’t baptized til he was a grown man. I’ll leave it at that but these are still my brothas in Christ no doubt 🤙🏾🙏🏾 😊
@@not_milk the credobaptist popped up less than 500 years ago with the anabaptists who took the reformation one step further
go read about the munster rebellion
@@not_milkOIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
@@tomtemple69 credobaptists were around since at least the 1100s with the Waldensians. It predates Calvinistic soteriology and post-millennialism by centuries.
I am so grateful for this video. It blessed my soul. Thank you Pastor Doug
Thank you so much. My little children tell me but we love Jesus, aren't we the same? (when they don't take the bread and wine or can't be baptised yet). I don't know what to say, apart from we respect our local churches practice, but there are others who think you should or could be participating. I'm not versed enough in this stuff, I'm a very immature Christian so videos like this encourage me although also make me cry that I'm messing everything up for their little faith. Thank you Canon Press/Blog Mablog 🙏
You're not "messing up their faith." We who are parents are all imperfect ones at that. We're all poorly representing Christ to our children, and any others who we come into contact with. But even in our imperfections, Christ is perfect, and the work of the Spirit is perfect. Your children will stand on your shoulders and climb a little higher, and the covenant of God with His people is to be faithful to many generations. We just need to cling to that promise, fulfilled and established in Christ, in faith and trust that God will accomplish His purposes. Despite our best efforts to screw everything up.
The sign does not confer any benefit, so you cannot hurt your kids by encouraging their faith while waiting to pass judgment on whether they ought to participate in communion since there are strong warnings against taking it unworthily. No Baptist teaches that you ought to tell your kids that their faith isn't real. You can't know that either
Hi Leanne,
One of the problems is that the modern church practices a version of the Lord's Supper that wasn't introduced into the church until late second or third century. And it wasn't reformed during the reformation.
Originally the Lord's Supper was a "Love Feast" and worship was at table (with family and in home). There's scholarly consensus that the early church gathered weekly for the Lord's Supper followed by a participatory gathering (think 1 Cor 12-14). Paul's love chapter was written to folks used to participating in the love feast and participatory gathering. This arrangement was housing so to speak of the new covenant, where it wasn't just special priests and leaders filled with Spirit, but an entire body which could contribute. But once a stronger sacramentalism was introduced (Eucharist in addition to, and then instead of a love feast), special priests were needed.
That evolvement/heist took the church out of the home and into special buildings. But for the first two centuries there were no clerics, and the more ritualistic/sacramental/magical version of the Lord's Supper didn't exist.
Why is all that important? Well, children, if they weren't asleep would have been present at the Lord's Supper and it would have contrary to Paul's concerns about social propriety and behavior at the Supper to withhold food from children.
To suggest that letting kids partake is risky because it may mean partaking in an unworthy manner, is to introduce that later sacramentalism into the first century.
Therefore, I submit to you that children would have partaken because they would have eaten the meal. To add, since The Eucharist did not become separate from the meal until later, that's further evidence that children partook.
Being more of a reformed Baptist myself, I think the Lord's Supper was a weekly opportunity for kids to be evangelized and to experience the church celebrate the Supper as it was meant to be celebrated: a foreshadowing of the Wedding Banquet to come. Children would have also experienced a more participatory gathering where God's Presence was manifest (not through the "elements), but through worship at table and the Presence of God through the body of Christ the Church, the priesthood (each believer) who was privileged to contribute to the building up of others in love and good works.
So, should children participate in the more ritualistic version of the Lord's Supper. Well, I don't think any of us should since the Lord prescribed a party, but, my conviction is that the more ritualistic/sacramental/Eucharistic the Supper is, the more problematic it is for children to participate.
But there's no way our Lord intended for us to get ourselves in knots over children participating in the Supper.
Hope that helps shed some light on the current problems.
One solution is to drop the more corporate ritualistic version and move the Lord's Supper to homes over a meal.
I like to call it the Thanksgiving/Christmas gathering. We gather and celebrate the Supper more like our Thanksgiving Day celebration, and the church meeting is more participatory, where spiritual gifts are exchanged as well as perhaps economical gifts, so it's more like Christmas!
To add: Read Ben Witherington's "Making a Meal Of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper." Very informative!
@@l.bryanburke7432 it was NOT at home, otherwise the scripture would not tell the glutton to eat at home before coming to the table
Is this an opening salvo for your upcoming debate with James White ? 🧐
Is this really planned?
Doug already debated White on the new covneant, and got whooped.
Their debate is going to be on paedocommunion, not paedobaptism.
@@michaelphillips1674 James will either turn everyone Baptist or paedocommunionist. Win win for all involved
@@kyle777 yes it's happening in a month or so I think
Pastor Doug Wilson making infant baptism and the “controversy” around it seem silly. Lol Thank you sir!
This video did it for me. I was already wearing the Paedobaptist uniform…my bases were loaded; The early church presupposition of the covenant, the argument from silence, stacked with Peter’s Pentecost sermon about the promise. Well…This video was the grand slam, it brought me home. So thankful. The crazy part is…I already read To A Thousand Generations. 😂
Goes to show how powerful video is…or how bad my reading comprehension is. Either way…thank you!
Ancient paths tv turned me into a paedobaptist
I’m watching this because I’m looking for a home myself
Very reassuring! Thank you for explaining the link from Abraham to the New Testament church! I need to listen to this again and again.
I love the comments that basically say, “just because you can use the Bible to support your argument doesn’t make it right.” Then proceeds to argue a different view without any use of Scripture. That’s hilarious.
Acts 16:31 & 18:8... the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (Whole Family without exemption) were BAPTIZED... the passage never said nor mentioned that only the ADULTS were Baptized in the Household... when we say the English word "ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD" means ALL the People in the Household without exemption unless otherwise noted in the passage, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
So… is he trying to say that infant baptism still has a role to play in NT theology? If so, how does infant baptism fit in Paul’s description of baptism in Romans 6? The physical act of baptism must also be accompanied by an internal act of faith and belief with a conscious desire to put the old nature to death, buried in Christ, and to live a new life in God, raised to new life in Christ. Infant baptism seems to be missing just about every aspect of what is described in Romans 6.
So… what would your response be to that? I’m curious.
Thanks and God bless!
Children are taught that their God is none other than the Triune Creator and that it is by trusting in Christ that they will receive eternal life. And they either will continue in that belief, or they will abandon the covenant. Faithless children are fruitless branches that will be cut off (either they will leave the church, or else, due to sin, they will be excommunicated). But they will be judged as covenant breakers, not pagans who were never part of the family. But their salvation, as everyone else’s, is contingent upon their faith. It’s the faith of the child, however, that’s the model of real faith - they accept without even thinking to question.
I believe you are right. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance and so was Christ’s. John told the Jews that God could create children of Abraham with the stones beneath their feet. Jeremiah 31 tells of a new Covenant where all would know God. Infant baptism is just not scriptural. The effort one must make to contrive an argument for it is monumental. It’s mostly an appeal to emotion. Stay the course. You are right.
@@regularguy3202 what does every child baptized know from birth? Christ is the Lord who redeemed them and now reigns over all the earth, calling all people to believe in him and reject sin zealously. Just about everyone on the world is aware of this, whether they believe it or not. Welcome to the new covenant period.
But Paul doesn't say that the physical act of baptism must be accompanied by an internal act of faith and belief in Romans. Using Abraham's circumcision as an analogy, the physical act of baptism is a mark of God's Activity in Saving. The are in a co-incidental relationship and not necessarily a temporal causation relationship. If anything, you can say, God Saves(Gives us faith, we believe, are justified) and we get baptized as a mark of that salvation. That might be a causal chain but there's a whole bunch of stuff happening at once. After the God Saves part.
But God Told Abraham to circumcise(baptize) his children and household though all of them were not saved (buried in Christ, raised in Christ as you rightly said). The burial and resurrection are God's Deeds but the baptism(circumcision) are ours to do towards our children and our household.
I cant say thank you enough for today’s video. Our heritage as believers is soo beautiful.
Great (but very fast) argument. I read a book on the subject by Oscar Cullman from my dad's generation. Very good.
If the PREMISE of the ARGUMENT for BAPTISM is to be able to BELIEVE in Christ Jesus and that Infants and Children have not SINNED yet... Does God/YHWH get upset/angry when Christ Jesus was Baptized by Prophet John while Christ does not need to BELIEVE in Himself or had sinned?.... NOPE, but instead God proudly said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (ref. Matt. 3:17)... Christ does not need baptism like the Infant and Children...
In the same way, would God be upset/angry if the CHURCH of God does "Infant/Child BAPTISM" who is not capable of believing and has not sinned?... NOPE... Infant/child Baptism is like Christ Jesus being Baptized by Prophet John at the Jordan River... a SINLESS person (Innocent like a child)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
I eagerly await the debate between Doug and White on the infant communion.
"Excluding infants from the covenant" is question-begging. You're assuming the one covenant under different administrations view, which reformed baptists reject. We believe the OC was concerning other things while at the same time pointing ahead/being subservient to the NC. Essentially our position is OC saints were saved under the OC but not by virtue of the OC. Rather, OC saints were saved by the NC (which we'd argue is, alone, the CoG). And we'd argue the covenant promises to Abraham were not ordo salutis promises (regeneration, justification, etc), but rather historia salutis promises (the Messiah would come through his line). The promise to Abraham was that he'd be the father of the Messiah, *who would come to establish the CoG*. Abraham believed in the One who was to come who would establish the NC in His blood. The blood of bulls and goats couldn't save. Yes, they pointed ahead to the Person and work of Christ, but that doesn't mean the OC itself was salvific. It's what the OC pointed to that was salvivic (i.e., the NC). The OC existed for a time and a purpose, and consisted of earthly promises (that pointed ahead to spiritual promises, to be sure). But the earthly promises/rites had a primary significance and a secondary significance. That is why there was a mixed membership. The OC consisted of Abraham's physical offspring who benefited from earthly blessings, and spiritual offspring who, by God's grace, understood the greater fulfillment of those blessings. The greater fulfillment of those blessings comes from the NC, and is retroactively applied to OC saints. There's a reason the OC was a mixed covenant. But that doesn't mean the NC is therefore a mixed covenant. The NC is enacted on "better promises" that pertain to the spiritual offspring of Abraham (not the physical offspring). If you have faith you are the spiritual offspring of Abraham. Those who are in the NC are those who have been given a new heart.
Great video!
Shockingly Doug's argument for infant baptism has been roundly accepted by those who believe in pedobaptism and rejected by those who don't.
Actually that’s not true. As much as I generally don’t like Wilson’s teachings, his argument for infant baptism was the first step in my becoming a paedobaptist. I think his argument is missing the reality of baptismal efficacy, but it’s the first piece
Doug changed my mind on it
@@nonameguy4441 and then there were 2. 19,000 views. So far, 2 changed minds :)
@@jamescook5617Sometimes it takes a while. I was Baptistic-Arminio-Dispy until my 50s over a few years I have come to understand reformed position as the correct one including Covenant Baptism.
He also was the starting point for my change of mind, then later on I consolidated that view with baptismal efficacy
1. So if baptism is the “new” circumcision (or the Christian extension of the Jewish practice/“promise”), why do we then baptize girls?
2. When a whole household was baptized are we not making a bold presumption that there were actually infants in that family? It often speaks of the household believing, my infant and my three years don’t hold too many Christian beliefs though we keep training them, as commanded.
The models of salvation explicitly demonstrated in scripture are: conversation/preaching, call to repentance, belief, baptism.
Doug pointed to a lot of scriptures but didn’t really sit on MT28:19, MK16:16 and ACTS2:38, verses that are actual commands where there is a required preceding act by the individual to be baptized.
That’s my 2cents, now to sit back and watch this comment section 🔥
Exactly. Perfectly said.
When a whole household is baptized, aren’t you making a bold assumption all believed? To the paedo position, belief could be present or not and we can amen. You MUST assume believe on the part of all who were baptized. That’s a pretty bold assumption and an argument from silence my friend.
@@Postmillhighlights when Christ says he will draw all men to himself and that he's the propitiation for not only us but the whole world -- does that mean everyone in those groups? If not, why is household a special case?
@@horrificpleasantry9474 that’s a category error for one. But why say household if it’s meant to be taken as only those who believe. Seems to me that it follows the pattern of circumcising a household.
Genesis 17:12
[12] He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
@@Postmillhighlights you'll note that "every child" is not in the NT. Your verse isn't defining household as every male. Every male is specified. Household is contrasted with out of household. Your emphasis is wrong
"And if anyone does not have Christ, he does not belong to Christ."
Romans 8:9b
"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."
Galatians 6:15
My friend, do you suppose this argument hasn’t been thought about and responded to sufficiently by Presbyterians? Do you suppose they don’t read scripture? I affirm both of these and baptize my baby lol
@@sovereigngrace9723 "lol" ... really?
Your "baby" must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be saved whether or not he/she is baptized into the covenant of church membership.
@@dws2313 I highly doubt Sovereign Grace doesn't know that as he stated in the first place. That wasn't the argument here.
@@RPSanAnto That is the argument here. If it isn't, then the whole matter is one of taste, not consequence.
@@dws2313 Yes, yes of course. Abraham was declared righteous(justified) by God and then was circumcised (Romans 3-6). But God Commanded him to circumcise his whole household though they were not all saved. So... The passages you quoted hold and yet do not contradict the right practice of baptizing your children ... just as Abraham circumcised his own.
If I brought my unbaptized children to a church ages 22, 17, 13, and none of them wished to be baptized, but I forced the issue and they all submitted, would you be good with that?
Are they members of your household such that you have authority over all of them?
22 isn't a child... strawman
But I see under your house you allow children to run the show
“Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition” (The Council of Trent).
This notion is contradicted by Scripture. Jesus said that adults must “become like children” (Matt. 18:1-6), to whom “the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matt. 19:14). Why would Jesus use children as a model of godly innocence, if instead they are condemned?
Children become sinful later, as they learn the difference between right and wrong, and choose to do wrong (1 John 3:4). “God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices” (Eccl. 7:29). Each person shares in Adam’s condemnation not because Adam is his great-grandfather (Ezek. 18) but “because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) just like Adam did.
I don't know. You list several scriptures there that talk about having faith and then being baptised. Having faith requires a level of understanding that infants cannot conceive of. Of course we don't need to be all knowing but we do need to be believers of God in my understanding. It just seems odd that there would be no record of infant baptism if this is to be the model going forward.
Agree, I love Doug on most things, its a non issue for me, but doctrine is important, which is why I must push back against infant baptism as its simply not found anywhere in the New Covenant.
It's abundantly clear to me that presbies are sentimental about their kids. There's a little bit of a regenerationist in all of them, where they definitely think they're giving their kids a better shot by baptizing them. Pressed, they will deny baptismal regenerationism, but their actions are inconsistent
@@mcgragor1 Yes, I also agree with Doug on most things so when I push back it should be noted that it is done from a gentle and loving attitude from my perspective. I'm very grateful for Doug's ministry in general.
@@benjaminofperrin Amen to that! I also love watching/listening to RC Sproul, but lovingly disagreed with him on this issue. God-bless!
To say an infant cannot have faith is like saying an infant cannot love their mother. Faith is the personal response to God approaching us in grace and that doesn’t require superlative knowledge.
This question may have been asked and answered, but I have not read all of the comments. After watching this, my sister raised a great question and I would love to get some thoughts... If parents become believers at a later age, and their children are teenagers, or any “older than infant” age, does that matter? Should the entire household be baptized at that time, or not the children??
All under the authority of the believing head ought to be baptized. Age doesn't matter. Gen 17 has the covenant sign applied to the believer, their children and all their servants, even those from far off lands. Essentially, if the believer has the authority to make another go to church, that person ought to be baptized. If a child is close to the age where they would set out and start their own household or the parent leaves it up to them to decide to go to church or not, then it should be based on the child's decision.
@@oracleoftroy Thank you. That makes complete sense. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
@@adeliastewart6223 My pleasure!
He did teach us on it. He teaches us all over the New Testament. In Colossians 2:12 , Paul wrote that we are baptized “through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead.” An infant cannot have faith in what he does not have the mental capacity to comprehend. Faith is the result of hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). Acts 2:38 tells us that repentance is to precede baptism. Repentance is the decision to turn away from sin and turn to God. A infant cannot repent. Baptism is to “obey the gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (2 Corinthians 15:1-4). How do you “obey” the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? By being immersed in faith. Roman’s 6:3-5 describes how we “obey the gospel.” Paul told the Roman Christians that they were “baptized into his death” and that they were “raised to walk in newness of life.” Baptism is a command given (Acts 2:37-38) that each individual must obey (Romans 6:17). The word “obey” indicates a conscious choice. What blocks you from understanding all of this is that you don’t comprehend that the Bible teaches baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and that infants have not sinned. Baptism is not merely a symbol of a covenant relationship like fleshly circumcision was, but it washes away sins (Acts 22:16). I’m afraid you are trying to make the Bible fit your theology instead of making sure your theology fit the Bible.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
A big issue for this covenant is how the birth of the new covenant is not a physical rebirth.
That pretty much puts a conundrum in any 1-to-1 issue pushing the baptism -> circumcision argument.
Also, there just are not a lot of Jewish Christians around to show how these things work out. Circumcision and baptism are different things. They also were even back in Second Temple Judaism prior to Christianity, and they were in the Torah, as the priestly ritual washings weren’t the same as circumcision.
Salvation hasn't changed and has always been the same per Romans 3-6. Abraham was declared righteous and received the circumcision as a mark of that declaration by God. He was then to circumcise his children and family (including Ishmael) and male workers ... though all of them were not believers. In that gracious Declaration of righteousness by God, according to Paul, Abraham was born again.
This is how you were also born again. God Declared you righteous by His Grace and you were baptized as a mark of that declaration. If you were to now baptize your children (and I pray that God Saves them all as I pray for my own), it does not therefore indicate that they have been declared righteous. You are merely doing what God Told Abraham to do and almost Personally Killed Moses for not immediately doing.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997
No. Circumcision is done to the heart by God upon conversion. That actually is the promise and the constant distinction even within the Law of Moses. That is why Paul declares Christians to be the true circumcision in contradistinction to his own Jewish circumcision in Philippians 3. The contrast there is just the same as under Moses in distinction to the physical circumcision.
Also, baptism is nowhere paralleled with circumcision in all of the imagery employed by the apostles. It is easier to see this if one is circumcised at physical birth, reads of the need to be born again, and then comes to faith and is baptized, as was the common experience among the men of Israel (and other surviving Abrahamic descendants) at that time.
@@KMANelPADRINO I know you probably don't have time but you'll understand what I said if you read Romans 4. You should also read 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism, in The Bible, is both a sign of God's Justification and a sign of covenant with God just like circumcision. I mean look at your analogy of circumcision of heart which Moses made. Paul says "12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit." Alluding to Israel in the wilderness. But also implying that Baptism of by The Spirit is the mirror of baptism of the flesh ... just as circumcision of the heart (done by God) mirrors circumcision of the body.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997
Peter 3:21 compares baptism to Noah’s flood. None of Noah’s sons were circumcised and, in point of fact, no Abrahamic people existed at that time. Paul even makes the point that Abraham received the covenant before he even received circumcision in Romans 3-6. That is how Paul can legitimately call Abraham the father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised and totally not contradict himself with a theology that equates baptism with circumcision.
The natural birth and birth-water of such and baptism are definitely correlated in John 3.
You use theological positions and arguments. I’m just using what the actual Biblical text that we know and share says.
@@KMANelPADRINO Sir. Everyone is theological and all arguments about God are inevitably theological right? I quoted Bible texts to you. You did not completely read Romans 4 or overlooked a part. It says that Abraham received the covenant sure. But Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as **a seal of the righteousness** that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Circumcision was not *only* given concerning the covenant, per Paul. It was given as a seal of the righteousness(justification, salvation) that Abraham had been given by God. And then, in the remainder of the verse, Paul calls him father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised. The point is salvation is by faith and circumcision comes after as a mark of faith unto salvation. Thereby Abraham, through faith, becomes father of all who have faith unto salvation whether circumcised or uncircumcised. But you see now that the two are inextricably linked. The mark of salvation in the old testament was circumcision aaand circumcision was also the mark of the covenant.
Similarly, baptism is a mark of our salvation in the new testament and also a mark of our covenant with God. Therefore, we may baptize our household as Abraham circumcised his household.
When is the upcoming debate with Jamss White?
that settles it, i am now a Presbyterian
Welcome, I would suggest an opc or pca church, if you like singing psalms than an RPC would be for you, steer clear of pcusa at all cost.
@@jeffreyAferguson i've been at a OPC church for 3 months now, im in the process of becoming a member
@tomtemple69 that's great! I'm happy for you brother.
This is an interesting point that was made: Jews who refused to believe in Christ were cut off from their native olive tree. This means that they were joined to the tree prior to their unbelief. But when were they joined? In circumcision?
I was confused listening to this. It was jumping so quickly through so many scriptures. It is almost as if a new group is being crafted . . . the half saved who will fall away. That is believing fully saved parents enter their children into the covenant through infant baptism but over time it becomes clear these children grow up to be clearly unredeemed people. Yet they enjoyed some form of non-saving covenant relationship with God. I am not arguing or saying I am accurately understanding what is being said. Maybe I need to listen through it 8 or 9 more times. Anyway, as always appreciate these videos.
He just seems like he has all the answers just like any other Christian
@@tye9713 Well he actually does have all the answers . . .a wise man who has been instructed by the word of God. And he blesses me and countless others with his teaching.
I’d love to answer your concerns, I’m a recent Presbyterian (previous baptist).
The distinction is we view the covenant community as the visible church, not necessarily the invisible. There are men and women in our churches who are tares among wheat, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t the covenant community because there are tares. A Baptistic understanding doesn’t make differentiations between visible and invisible, saying that only the invisible are apart of the covenant community. Just as “not all of Israel is Israel”, “not all of the church is the church.”
So we baptize infants *into* the covenant community, just as Israelite men were circumcised *into* the covenant community of Israel. This is one distinction among others, but I hope this helps
That's the Presbyterian paradigm, Paul.. Unregenerate people receiving the benefits of being in the new covenant, except for salvation. It gets weird but they do avoid explicitly saying you can lose your salvation or that baptism regenerates you, but then again that's why it gets weird and inconsistent imo as a baptist learning about covenant theology
@@sovereigngrace9723 Hey, I need to be real clear that I was not meaning I had concerns, my comment was that there was a very large amount of concepts delivered very rapidly, and I was having difficulty understanding exactly what he was trying to say. So, not concerned, not trying to debate, but just trying to grasp exactly what he was saying. I live in a very remote part of Africa, and am trying to plant a Calvary Chapel church in a slum area here. Hence, the issues I deal with are way more core and fundamental than the subtle nuance associated with the finer points of covenant theology. Yet I am really blessed by listening to Doug each week.
Wow, that makes so much sense and you didn’t add to the scriptures. Great, so what now, does these mean I’m a Presbyterian? Thank you Pastor Doug! EDIT: Just went to buy your book sir. I suggest you take Doritos' advise and make more, LOL! You're sold out...
Read the other comments before you decide to call yourself a Presbyterian. His argument from silence works against him. The text nowhere says that infants were baptized
@@horrificpleasantry9474 nowhere in the text says they weren't.
@@RPSanAnto arguments from silence cannot be the basis of a belief. The Bible doesn't say that there wasn't controversy over the exclusion of infants. See how easily it turns into crosstalk?
@@horrificpleasantry9474 it is not up to us to find scripture that allows us to baptize infants. It is up to you to find scripture that forbids us to. Alas, there is none.
@@TeamChaosYugi oh so you hold to the Normative Principle of worship?
Wow! Way to knock it out of the park Doug! Where was the controversy over the exclusion of the circumcised infants of Jewish believers ? (And the early church was predominantly comprised of Jewish believers so there would’ve been no small number). There was no controversy because they weren’t excluded.
There was no controversy because they were told to repent and be baptized.
Seriously, Doug proportionately spends a lot of time on the argument from silence, not because it's on his side, but because he needs to make it be on his side. It simply isn't. To make an argument from silence is to make a silent argument.
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer both are arguments from silence. Neither explicitly commanded nor explicitly excluded. So then the question is which makes sense with the grain of the story so far. Children being included makes more sense
@@grayewing8339 adults are explicitly and exclusively commanded because only adults can repent and believe
Prove to us all that early Christians were mostly Jews.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Exactly. Three year olds don’t repent from their sins and make a decision for Christ. They simply do not have that ability, yet.
The Romans 11:20 text is wrong in the video. The text is from Romans 8:33.
I never really leaned one way or the other on this issue as I can see the arguments from both sides but it’s hard (I’m kidding, it’s impossible) to argue with scripture 😆 there’s still some logical barrier for me to clear but faith is faith!
Have you ever considered debating with James White on this topic?
And yet the only examples of baptism in the NT is believer's baptism. I think that speaks volumes.
Also no examples of women taking communion.
@@tesseract535
Wrong. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul gives instructions for the Lord's Table and addresses it you "you," that is, "believers" when they come together as a church. Unless you want to exclude women from believers who meet together as a church, then this includes all believers, men and women.
How is a household baptism an example of believers baptism? Doesn’t your position require ALL the household to have faith when the text doesn’t say that?
@@Postmillhighlights
There is nothing in the text that indicates infant children who are unable to make a profession of faith were baptized. The passage is not specific, therefore it isn't an argument for paedobaptism.
@@lawrencestanley8989 respectfully, for the paedo position can amen both scenarios. If the whole household believes we can amen that. If there were infants who had not believed, we can amen that. You on the other hand must assume that the household believes or your position fails. The text just doesn’t say one way or the other. It isn’t an argument ‘for’ paedo baptism but it is certainly a big assumption on your side.
It is, however, exactly what we would expect to see if our position is correct. Why not mention belief (as is done in other places)? When the gospel is preached to an audience - obviously in that setting - only believers are baptized. What happened when they went home…to their families. Wouldn’t you expect to see household baptisms? Isn’t that the pattern from genesis that would need to be changed?
Genesis 17:23
[23] Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
I understand the argument, but disagree with paedobaptism.
The Hebrews were physically born into the family, so circumcision naturally takes place as an infant. Someone is not naturally born into God's family. He must be born again. That does not happen as an infant. Naturally baptism ought to be reserved for after being born again.
Genesis 17:13
[13] both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
It isn’t just about being ‘born into’. It’s not familial as much as covenantal.
@@Postmillhighlights my point still stands. You're not born into the covenant. You're born again into the covenant.
@@DefenderoftheCross This seems like a good argument. I honestly have much study to do to get to the bottom of this one.
@@DefenderoftheCross You make it sound like there was no spiritual birth in the Old Testament.
The Hebrews were physically born into the family, so circumcision naturally takes place as an infant. However, they (at least the godly) were not ignorant; they also understood that circumcision of the heart was needed to receive the benefits of the covenant (Deut. 10:16). Yet they still circumcised infants.
The grafted Gentiles are physically born into the family, so water baptism naturally takes place as an infant. However, we also understand that spiritual baptism (into the mystical body of Christ) is needed to receive the benefits of the covenant.
@@perfectsnaitang Paul says there is only one baptism, not two. You don't have infant baptism, and then "baptism of the heart" or "spiritual baptism."
Not so sure...if I may interject.
Right from the begining there's the false assumption that 'everlasting covenant' means 'never ending whatever the situation'.
The problem though, is that 'everlasting covenant' is also used in Leviticus 24.8 about the cakes in the tabernacle/temple; also in Numbers 25.13 about the priesthood of Phineas... Both examples are proofs that the expression is not necessaraly describing something forever lasting, but rather something perpetual, that is not short but lasting for long (ref. ''generations'').
Then the reference in hebrew six is not about Genesis 17 because there the blessing is conditionned by obedience to the Law (anticipating the covenant with Moses and Israël). Hebrew 6 speaks of
1) a promise with no condition, contrary to Genesis 17 (see Galatians 3.15-18) ; refering to Genesis 12.7 and 13.15.
2) an oath, refering to Genesis 22.16-17
We find no circumcision in the promises passage nor in the oath passage.
According to the Bible, is there a definit way to be made partaker and heir of Abraham's blessing? Yes, it is by FAITH in Christ, not by the faith of parents.
See here : Galatians 3.14 ; Ga 3.26-29
When did the 2 examples you offered up as proof of impermanence (the bread and the priesthood through Phineas) cease?
It was not suposed to be a proof of impermanence but the proof of the need for demonstration. Since the expression is equally used for things Indeed everlasting and for things not lasting forever, it is not sufficient merely to affirm one way or the other. Pastor Wilson is asserting something not yet proven. (I'm french, sorry for some writing mistakes)
The New Covenant has continuity with the Old Covenant by way of Faith, not by way of physical descent.
Infants of believing parents are no more a member of the New Covenant because of their parents' belief than were the Children of Abraham because of their descent from Abraham.
The New Covenant then is one of professing believers who, through God's work of regeneration, have entered into the New Covenant by faith just as Abraham did. It was not by way of his circumcision (which came AFTER his receiving the Covenant promise), but by faith.
It would make little sense to now suggest that infants enter into the New Covenant by an outward sign administered to them without faith just like circumcision. Such a view makes a mockery of Paul's arguments for the New Covenant of Faith by applying a legalistic, inheritable covenantal relationship where scripture is clear that it is one of faith. That is why Paul repeatedly characterizes circumcision as being "nothing" and worthless. If there must be such identity between circumcision & baptism, the concept must stand & fall based on ALL that is said of circumcision and not merely the aspects tradition prefers.
The New Covenant is made up only of regenerate professing believers as it is FAITH that allows entry into it and not any other sign.
If changing the persons who receive the covenant sign would have caused such a ruckus in the 1st century that it would require special teaching in the Bible, then why didn’t women receiving the sign of the covenant cause the same ruckus with the same requirement? Besides this is an argument from silence.
Why were only boys given the sign? Because the sign represented the hope for the fulfillment of God’s promise to Adam and Eve of the son that would crush the head of the serpent. Their hope was in their future generations, specifically those genetically related to Abraham through Jacob. That was fulfilled with Christ. Our hope is now in His return which will not be through birth. Baptism is now our public declaration of faith and that is being robbed from our children when we use their baptism to represent our commitment to raise them in the admonition of the Lord or our hope in Christ’s future redemption of them. With no memory of their symbolic burial with Christ, they cannot feel quite as connected with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.
The son who would be cut off.... Now that makes sense of the symbolism
While I disagree with the General I think this is a very precise and compelling case. I’m waiting with bated breathe for him and Dr. White’s debate on the topic
Did you see Sproul and Johnny Mac's debate? I love RC's work, one of my favorites, but disagreed with him here.
@Maverick Sterling Smith Lol, that's cool. They did have fun together, love those sit downs at conferences and such.
Anyone have a link to the Sproul vs Mac debate?!! Sounds great! And does anyone know details on when Uncle is debating White??
@@jaquirox6579 You-Tube has it I think, just search for it.
@Maverick Sterling Smith Do u recall maybe what year that Ligonier conference was that had it? I’ve watched them for years, I absolutely love their conferences!! Or maybe a tip on wording for me to search for? Obviously I know I can search for it, but what should I be looking for as for its title? 🙏🏽 Thank u for helping btw. And thank I for the audio! I just love looking at Sproul when he speaks so much, that man warms my heart.
I agree with Doug on virtually everything, Save Infant Baptism 😂 “and if someone was baptized into Christ than he was an heir.” That’s the switch. No, “He professed Jesus as Lord” then was baptized. No examples of infant baptism and the whole circumcision argument refutes itself.
There actually are: all who walked through the Red Sea were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10), all who were in the ark were baptized in Noah’s time (1 Peter 3).
Importantly, the only examples baptists have are baptisms of converts. Everyone baptizes converts, but those baptisms say nothing of what to do with the children of believers. You have no example of a child waiting to profess faith and then being baptized. The baptist argument is an argument without any explicit reference. On the contrary, whole households were baptized on the basis of the father or mother being saved, which is identical to the abrahamic application of circumcision to all in Abraham’s household on the basis of his own relationship to God. Likewise, Peter was clear in the Pentecost sermon that they should repent and be baptized, and that “the promise is for you and your children” (Acts 2:39). Children aren’t regarded as unbelievers, but are addressed as saints, are regarded as sanctified on account of their believing parents (1 Cor. 7:14), and are commanded “to obey their parents in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1).
And again, as Doug makes the point: the new covenant is merely the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant, which is a covenant to be the God of both parents and their children. Abraham is our father and all the promises given to him are possessed by us and our children.
@@dbeebee the Paedo crowd is often accused of making an argument from silence because the Bible doesn’t say specifically that any infants were baptized. Ok. Granted. As you rightly point out, entire households were baptized.
Now whether the household believed or not is irrelevant for the paedo position. If they believed, amen. If there were infants who had not yet believed, amen. It seems to me the Baptist here argues from silence. You MUST assume that the household believes when the text just doesn’t say that. And it would be much more consistent to read it the same way as Abrahams household circumcision.
Genesis 17:23
[23] Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
@@Postmillhighlights that was when the light went on when I realized it was actually we baptists who were arguing from silence, whereas the reformed view is actually undergirded by the whole thrust of the biblical narrative at every point. And thank God for it! I think the Baptist perspective is extremely deleterious, especially for the children we raise, treating them as pagans until they prove otherwise, rather than recognizing they are actually the model disciples who are called to Jesus from birth.
Receiving water baptism & baptised into Christ are *not* the same thing.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Galations 3:37. Seems pretty simple to me
Doug: " ... but whenever He changed the administration of His covenant, He informed His covenant people of the change ... "
I will first say that I'm very thankful for Doug and his ministry, I and many have been very blessed by it, but based on the quoted comment Doug must agree that you have absolutely no scriptural command from the Lord regarding administration of the new covenant and sprinkling water on babies some indeterminate time after their birth. Our Lord was quite specific about cutting foreskin off of an infant's penis 8 days after birth for the old covenant, but for some reason left all the details out on how to apply baptism to babies in the new covenant? If sprinkling is acceptable, why only for infants? Why not simply sprinkle water on Jesus when He was baptized by John, or Phillip with the Eunich? Why make someone get all the way in the river if a sprinkle is sufficient? And no, citing Leviticus regarding dipping dead doves in blood and then "sprinkling" (naza) the leprous are not the words of our Lord regarding new covenant administration. Also, 'Tabal' in Hebrew and 'baptizo' in Greek at a minimum mean to dip, and more consistently mean submerge, which are separate from sprinkle (naza); if pedo baptists want to remain intellectually consistent you'd at least dip your infants for baptism like a chicken nugget into ranch! Also, you'd baptise all males and females under a new-to-the-faith father's headship, regardless of their age, as would be consistent with Exodus 12:48 and Acts 8:12. Also slaves, regardless of age, of anyone's house in cultures that still practice slavery should be baptized too according to Gensis 17:27 if they come to faith, right? Interesting how pedo baptists defend infant baptism only but throw all out all other consistent extensions of old covenant circumcision. Where are the Lord's words on changes to that administration? There are a great many, many inconsistencies with defense of infant baptism practices, but I do understand and hear your point about the hard change it would be from giving infants the sign of the covenant to that changing, but look at how long it took for someone like Luther to exposit the true meaning of justification by faith! Scripture nor Christ never promised He'd directly highlight all the implications of His teachings. Unfortunately defending infant baptism is the result of defending a system of theology, not scripture.
It’s just not accurate to identify baptizo with immerse. Notice that Paul says that those who crossed the Red Sea were baptized into Moses (1 cor. 10), and Peter says that Noah’s family was baptized during the flood (1 Peter 3). Those who were immersed are those whom God executed in judgment. Those who were baptized were sprinkled by rain from above, in the cloud and during the flood. How were all the implements of the tabernacle and temple sanctified? Sprinkling.
Now, I don’t deny that baptisms by immersion are valid, but immersion is itself not the ideal mode. God sprinkles us clean and that’s consistently used language throughout.
Edit: fixed typos
@@jakesanders136 I applaud your intellectual consistency regarding slaves and dipping babies; I was aware some churches do this, but I am specifically addressing Doug and his church's/ denomination's practices. They have a lot to answer for regarding inconsistencies despite the mountain of biblical verses he attempts to defend with. And unfortunately, both points are multiple steps beyond the reality that there are absolutely no specific details for infant baptism in the new covenant, and there were absolutely specific details regarding circumcision which is directly abolished by Christ/ the disciples with the new covenant (Galatians 5, Matthew 28:19 ), and never are any specific details given as to administration of baptism for infants, as Doug suggests and agrees should happen if in fact Christ had meant for such things to occur. He specifically abolished the old way and gave a new administration only for adults; its not our job to disprove infant baptism isn't carried from covenant to covenant, which is the result of a system of theology, our job is to be faithful to the Word which gives absolutely no details for it for the new covenant. Also, food for thought, Moses was almost killed for not circumcising his son after 8 days, why are pedo baptists not killed for not baptizing infants after 8 days if the sign of the covenant for infants ought to extended like it did from old to new? we have no words of Christ ending that like Doug would argue for the continuation on infant baptism, so why wouldn't that continue? curious details that seem to have hand-wavy, out-of-context, avalanche-of-bible-verse answers from pedo baptists.
@@dbeebee @DMB everything you said pulls scriptural examples to justify an already held position of infant baptism; it has nothing to do with actual words from God regarding actual administration of the sign of the covenant. Circumcision and the when, where, how are specifically detailed for God, as well as the ending of it as the sign of the covenant (Galatians 5) and the administration of baptism for the new covenant (Matthew 28:19); never once ever are instructions given for infant baptism in the new covenant as they were for the old, as Doug would agree there should be if we were to be doing such things. And, regarding your old testament examples, Peter clearly says they were "brought safely through water." The water they needed to be brought through "safely" wasn't the rain falling on their heads; it was the mass of water below that would have drowned them (aka signifying death from sin) and which signifies new birth for creation below them. This is the same type of being brought through that occurs when a baby is born through water from its mover, which is exaclt at the heart of Nicodemus's question about climbing back into his mother's womb. The Israelsites "passing through" (1 Corinthians 10:1) the red sea is the same type and shadow; it has nothing to do with sprinkling.
@@jakesanders136 don’t buy the immersionist logic-it doesn’t actually follow the scriptures. Paul says that Israel was baptized into Moses in the Red Sea, Peter says Noah and his family were baptized in the flood. Were they immersed? Nope, they were sprinkled with water. Who got immersed? God’s enemies.
Water has a deep theology beginning in genesis 1. It is the fundamental earthly reality, but there is water above and water below. The promised land is regarded as much greater than Egypt because Egypt was watered with waters below (the Nile), whereas Israel would be water by “rain from heaven” (Deut. 11:10-11). Track the biblical accounts dealing with water and in nearly every circumstance, good water comes from above, sprinkling like rain, whereas judgment is by drowning (or stoning by hail). How is sin atoned for? Sprinkling. How are the holy implements of the temple cleansed? Sprinkling. Who are you? You’re a living stone in God’s temple (1 Peter 2). You aren’t a recipient of God’s drowning wrath, you’ve been sprinkled clean by the blood of Christ.
Jesus came up out of the Jordan, that’s true. That doesn’t mean he was immersed. That means he was standing in the Jordan and then walked out of it and up the bank. Sprinkling is at every point the mode of cleansing, like God’s heavenly rain, sprinkled by the heavenly waters from above.
Not to mention a word search of baptizo shows that it’s used frequently and it plainly does not mean immersion as the Baptists protest.
@@richardortman8641 here’s the real point: baptizo is used all over the place and in those circumstances they weren’t immersed. To suggest immersion is necessary is to make a dogmatic claim that’s not linguistically sound and not supported by the pertinent texts.
I’m glad for folk who were immersed in baptism. But demanding immersion is going beyond the text and contradicts the text frequently.
You did a fantastic job in 16 minutes Doug
Definitely disagree here but at the end of the day it’s a secondary issue and not a salvation issue.
Colossians 2:11-12 does not say, "Baptism replaces circumcision." In fact, it doesn't even say, "Spiritual circumcision replaces circumcision of the flesh." Paul notes that his audience, "you," a group of Gentile believers had received a valid spiritual circumcision. This validity extends so far as to allow participation in the feast of Passover (1 Cor 5:8) from which all who lack circumcision are excluded (Ex. 12:43-48). This need not invalidate the command to circumcise in the flesh, as this requirement was never placed by God upon Gentiles.
Couldn't one argue that there is little difference between the 2 main positions, because baptism and dedication do the same thing? The only wrong approach, in my opinion, is to do neither and therefore not commit to raise your child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
I think the point is, many believe because they baptize their child he/she is saved (though they may deny that), whereas dedication to the Lord, prayer, raising them right, we hope in Christ that they will be saved, but they at some point still make that choice to follow God or not. If they die in infancy, we trust in the mercy and grace of God.
It would concern me more thinking some outward sign has saving power. That simply goes against the gospel, our depravity, and reeks of good works, rather than faith. I wonder how many people who are living for themselves know they were baptized as infants, and think they are saved? So sad.
Dedication doesn’t do anything at all - that’s the difference. Why would we think that it is up to us to invent a ritual, rather than obeying what God has commanded?
He DID teach us on it! Hebrews 8 tells us that the new covenant is distinct from the old in two important ways, they do not need to be taught or told to know the Lord, for they all shall know Him. And second, their sins are forgiven.
All the more reason to include those precious saints that Jesus himself told us “Let the little children come to me, and forbid them not, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
@@jcpg9592 I missed where that passage mentioned baptism.
@@jcpg9592 And that is wonderful but little infants can't do "come". Nor can a little infant take a "pledge from a good conscience towards God" as Peter teaches us what baptism is and what it is called in 1 Peter 3:21-22. Where did a little baby get a good conscience from?
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer Obviously, since Peto-Baptists maintain infants are in the covenant then this would apply, but it cannot. An infant must be taught and told to know the Lord and does not have it's sins forgiven.
@@4570sharps does someone need to believe to have their sins forgiven? Or in other words, does a person's non-belief nullify the work that was accomplished 2000 years ago?
The work was already done on the cross, whether you believe it or not. Salvation does not start with you, sir. It starts with Christ.
Excellent explanation! My only disagreement is with Doug's interpretation of Ephesians 1:1 and Colossians 1:2. (14:57). I assume he is trying to say that the "faithful brethren" are somehow separated from the "Saints" in Paul's greeting. While I agree that children are included in the covenant, to say that Paul would call them Saints here might be stretching. Yes, they are made holy by their parents, but Paul also clearly calls born-again believers Saints (Ephesians 4:12, 1 Cor. 1:2). It's putting a bit much on these epistle introductions to say that Paul is singling out covenant saints from those born-again believers. I think a much fairer interpretation would be to say that Paul is addressing Church officers when he says "Faithful brethren" as he does in Philippians 1:1 - "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons."
I disagree on this one. But my grandpa would always say: in the main issues unity, in the secondary issues freedom, in all of them love. God bless!
Baptism is one of the very main issues
@@jcpg9592 the mode won't affect whether you go to heaven
@@jcpg9592 Being baptized is a main issue. When should that happen is a secondary issue.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 while that is true, it is important to know how to administer the sacraments
@@morojkiller5418 apparently not as christendome is split over it
The major disagreement is what is the sign of the new Covenant. Is it Baptism, or the Holy Spirit? I would argue it's the latter. Read Acts 2 and then read Acts 10-11. There isn't a silence at all like what Doug is saying. The debate on what makes someone a covenant member is clearly in those passages: it's the Holy Spirit. Nobody reached the Gentiles because they were uncircumcised for nearly the first 10 years of the Church, and it took Peter being led by God to preach to Cornelius and observe that they are also part of God's covenant because they became filled with the Holy Spirit. That's the sign, which is also what Paul is referencing in Colossians 2, not physical baptism.
My church doesn't baptize babies. Any advice? Can I baptize them at home? Since it's under the authority of our thrice holy God do I have to have any other authority (pastoral affirmation)?
Acts 8:37?
It’s amazing that you can reach a conclusion that doesn’t refer to the meaning of baptism in the NT. I suggest everyone starts from the bottom up. Check all the passages on baptism in the NT. Ask yourself what does the NT say that baptism symbolises. Ask yourself is baptism in the context of repentance and faith? Etc. then work out if baptism was meant to be a direct replacement for circumcision…
the church doesn't start in the new testament
that is your problem as was mine before I came to realize this
God didn't make 2 churches, the new testament church is the same as the old testament church, just expanded to include all the nations of the gentiles too
to argue the baptist tradition(which popped up in the 1600s) you have to separate the old testament church from the new testament
Expand your inquiry to covenant, and see how well that point holds, lest you find yourself claiming discontinuity over continuity between covenants and testimates.
The covenant was with a people, not individuals. Not that there is no promise to true Believers, but covenants are not the same as promises.
Using 1 Corinthians 7 is just absurd.
1) If Doug is saying this proves children of one believing parent are saints, then he's now switched to arguing that children are not just part of the covenant, but are actually saved.
2) The same language used to describe the children as holy is used to describe the spouse as holy. So is my unbelieving husband saved because I'm a believing wife? Obviously Doug would say not, so his inconsistency is showing. Badly.
The text is clear about its meaning. Your influence may lead to salvation in the life of your child or wife, but as Paul goes on to say explicitly, this won't necessarily happen. It's about salvation, not covenant. Obviously.
That's not what the word 'holy' means in that passage. It means consecrated and set aside to God. It doesn't mean saved as you rightly surmised. They are accounted as saints and it remains to be seen (i.e. 1 John 1-3) if they actually are. But they are accounted as saints according to God's Command to Abraham and not some arbitrary declaration.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 You're importing a completely foreign concept into the text. The text is clearly about the believer influencing the unbeliever unto salvation. You're now making "saint" a label about covenant membership without salvation -- a completely foreign concept in Scripture, and a completely foreign concept to the discussion at hand.
Are you seriously claiming that the unbelieving husband is a saint and covenant member because his wife believes? Because that is, of course, the only way to consistently apply your reading here. But you're not claiming that, and so you must concede the text is not at all about covenant membership and being "accounted" as a saint despite not truly being one.
@@makobean
13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
I did not claim or say that the unbelieving husband or child is a saint in the sense that they are saved i.e. justified by God. I said that they are consecrated to God by the faith of their family member. How is this a foreign concept in God's Word? Or even foreign to the text as you say? It literally says that they are made holy. I know you're not saying the wife saves her husband or makes him a saint nor is Paul saying some incomprehensible mysticism. God Saves right. God Makes Holy in Salvation right.
The knell in your argument is the next sentence "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." He's not talking about salvation. Note the use of unclean vs holy. This the language used to talk about temple purification. Making it clean(holy) or unclean you know. That's what a family member does for the other. That's what we do for our children when we baptize them. Note I said, "accounted" as saints. I didn't say they are saints. That's God's Work and it may be revealed, as the next verse says, that the unbeliever may leave.
@@ifeoluwapoeleyinafe997 If we take your interpretation that it's about (somehow) being "consecrated to God by the faith of their family member", this still does not equal being "accounted as saints". Why would they be if they do not profess Christ, if they openly reject Him?
You're arguing something different from what Doug is arguing, so I'm not sure I grasp precisely what you're saying. In your mind, are the "saint" children the same as adults? If so, you're saying my unbelieving husband is accounted a saint because I believe, though He rejects the Gospel? Or are you making a distinction between my spouse and my children? My children are saints, but my spouse is not?
"Saint" never refers to someone who is not a saint. The text is not arguing about how to become a "saint" or defining "saint" as a covenant-member-but-not-saved person (which does not exist in the New Covenant). Importing that into the text, which is only about how one's faith might impact family members, and not at all about them being in the covenant (a trick covenantalists need to stop pulling, trying to make everything about covenant when covenant is never mentioned).
Act 2:41 Then they that (gladly) received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. why not use this argument?
The action of God is foreordained from eternity whatever comes to pass the decree of God by which certain souls are foreordained to salvation (Gods arbitrary decision)
In context, the crowd is told to REPENT, which an infant is incapable of doing, and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the Ho!y Spirit. This is the point of salvation. It is not a gray area. This guy is leading peop!e away from heaven into the gates of hel!.
@@bengali481 Then they that (gladly) received his word were baptized I AGREE WITH YOU THATS WHY I PUT GLADLY IN BRACKETS THEY WERN'T INFANTS
Doug Wilson follows The Westminster Confession of Faith I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,
521 not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;522 but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, 523 of his ingrafting into Christ, 524 of regeneration,525 of remission of sins, 526 and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus The London Baptist Confession of Faith DISAGREED WITH THE DOCTRINE this debate has been going on for hundreds of years i think RC Sproul held to the Westminster as well
@@bengali481 That's going too far. Doug is being a consistent Presbyterian, which is to say Biblically inconsistent, but at no point has he taught baptismal regenerationism, the ability to lose one's salvation, denied salvation by grace through faith etc
As a baptist, you don’t even believe baptism does anything, except publicly declare your inward faith. Baptizing an infant, then, would likewise do nothing, except be a poor example of the testimony you think that baptism shows. In either case, Doug isn’t hell bound, nor would you be.
Could this "covenant tree" has some connection to the Tree of Life?
In the United Methodist tradition, baptism, whether of an infant, child, or middle schooler who is being confirmed, is called a public sign of being a child of God.
One thing about baptism in the Methodist tradition is that it must take place at a church service. The baptism ritual includes the congregation accepting the pastor's charge to assist the parents in seeing that the child is raised, learning about God's love.
How does covenant baptism relate to salvation by faith alone?
When the Ethiopian eunuch had the chapter in Isaiah explained to him by philip and he came to faith in Christ, he saw an expanse of water and asked to be baptised. Sounds like he went under the water. I believe in believer’s baptism Matthew 28:19
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Yep!
Why does it sound like he went under the water? Did Phillip also go under the water?
Acts 8:38
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Two things:
1) I spent a year living 30 miles from the road the eunuch was baptized on. It actually is a desert road. As in, it’s in a desert.
2) The eunuch was readying from Isaiah 53. You wouldn’t believe what he would have just read in Isaiah 52:15.
What does that have to do with whether infants should be baptized or not?
Matt 28 is talking about baptizing nations.
So, where in Scripture that shows there is a 'continuation of the covenant' that transfers from circumcision to infant water baptism?
JUGGERNAUT CASE FOR IB! Thanks again Doug :) So grateful for this....
It at least elevates the level of debate, since we can bring strong argument against strong argument. Read the comments
Juggernaut?
I bet you can't name a single argument of his here that actually holds up. What do you think is the most "juggernauty" argument he made?
Please tell me there is a transcript of this
It's from a chapter in his book, thankfully! Too much information too quickly given in that video! "To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism - Covenant Mercy for the People of God"
But if there is a denomination that says babies are going to hell they aren't heretics. They are just another opinion. Gotta love how that sola scriptura settles matters of faith...
If the covenant can't be changed, from including children to not including them, why can it be changed from only being the male children to now being male and female?
He didn’t say the covenant can’t be changed, but that changes, when made, are explicit (as with all people being admitted to baptism as the new sign of the covenant). In Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3:28).
What hasn’t changed is that the covenant we have received is the same one given to Abraham, which is a promise to be the God of parents and their children.
Jesus isn’t just our personal Lord - he is objectively the Lord of lords and King of kings, above every power. He presently reigns over all the earth. We recognize him as *our* Lord because he is *the* Lord. Our children have the benefit of knowing that from day 1.
@@dbeebee I agree with most of what you said. I just don't see the connection, if the covenant before included all their children, both male and female, but only the males had a sign, why does everyone in the covenant have to receive the sign now?
@@francsiscog because we’re in the new covenant in which the Soirit is poured out upon men and women alike, where we all, together, have become priests and prophets proclaiming that Christ has come and salvation is found only in him.
Circumcision was a sign appropriate to the old covenant. It is bloody, corresponding to the sacrificial requirements prior to Christ. Further, the wounding of sons for the sake of bringing about the promised new life (Isaac was born only after Abraham was circumcised) points to what Jesus would do. Sadly our Bibles most frequently translate the sacrifices for sin as taking “a young bull,” but it’s literally “a son of the herd.” They were sacrificing “sons” for the forgiveness of sins. Circumcision shows that reality in the flesh, and is given to men particularly as part of this.
Now we have entered into the fulfillment of everything merely promised before, as the whole old covenant was a shadow of the new. The one sacrifice has been given, so we have no bloody signs. We’ve passed from the ministry of death into the ministry of life. It is appropriate then that we have the Lord’s Supper (they weren’t allowed to drink wine in the temple under the old covenant, but now wine is given), and baptism. We receive “the washing of regeneration,” we are those who have the Spirit and therefore have “springs of living water, welling up to eternal life,” etc. Lots of water imagery associated with the new covenant, both from Christ and in the prophets. Jesus is also the last Adam, Paul says, and his resurrection is the first fruit of the new creation. In Christ we are restored to the priestly and kingly vocation of Adam and Eve and, as it happens, there isn’t any life without water (you see this in genesis 2 in many ways, not least of which God gathering “dust” - dry earth - and breathing into Adam’s nostril. Breath is moist air - it’s water and spirit. New creation happens just like the first creation). All these symbols and then some come to bear in baptism.
In any case, the new covenant is in every way an expansion of the old. Men and women alike share the ministry of reconciliation for the sake of the world.
I respectfully disagree with Brother Doug. Howbeit, I really appreciate this summation of the argument. It's very helpful to focus my understanding of the doctrine.
I think…I may be Presbyterian now… My Baptist preacher daddy is gonna have a fit 😅
Doug's reasoning is sloppy at best.
The promise was to all who believe, Doug. Why do you guys always pretend the text stops at "and your children"? Why don't you finish the passage?
Of course, I'm not really asking, because we all know the answer.
Are you referring to Acts 2 when you say ‘and your children?’ If so, where does it say ‘to all who believe?’ Don’t you mean ‘all who are far off?’
Acts 2:39
[39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
@@Postmillhighlights And how does it describe those people? Called by God to Himself.
It is not everyone, not all your children, not all those who are far off. Doug wants to have his cake and ignore the rest of the verse, too.
The best case you can make is that the verse is ambiguous. It’s when you pull in the Jewish context, the nature of the covenant - that the infant baptism argument shines.
@@tesseract535 No, the verse isn't ambiguous. It's not for your children unless it's also for all those far off. Both are qualified -- all those God calls to Himself.
And the argument from covenant isn't there. The new covenant is only comprised of regenerate people, all taught of God. Doug simply assumes the new is like the old, and then assumes where and in what ways, but with no biblical basis or evidence. We never see the argument that baptism is the new circumcision, or that those in the new covenant can fall away, etc. The new covenant is one not of flesh, so why assume it is passed on through flesh, for instance? Doug's reasoning is just one giant assumption, and one that has no consistency or logical necessity. It's all one big non sequitur.
@@makobean
>
And the argument from covenant isn't there. The new covenant is only comprised of regenerate people
There you go again, sneaking in those assumptions. This one isn't true, or the warnings in Hebrews and other places don't make sense. Also Paul's example with the grafted tree. If you can be taken out of it, is it the tree of salvation? No. It must be the covenant.
I meant the verse was ambiguous in this sense: it doesn't explicitly state either case one way or the other. Both sides read into it a bit.
Legit question: based on what I’m hearing, those who baptize their children and raise them according to the Word will result in their salvation? Always?
That's what presbies kind of subconsciously believe/imply but on paper they are careful to say that they reject baptismal regenerationism or conditional election, their practice is just inconsistent with that profession IMO. It looks as if they think they're giving their kids a better shot to go to heaven, but if pressed, they will reject the unorthodox conclusions of their practice. So, not heresy, just .. Really messy
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Doug explicitly denies this very sentiment, which is why he spent so much time talking about branches that don’t bear fruit. Lots of folk in the covenant abandon the covenant. This happens in baptist churches all the time too, as it happens. Those who taste the heavenly gift often reject the Lord and are condemned. They just aren’t condemned as pagans, but as members of the covenant who are doubly guilty.
Most of what you said maybe 90% we agree on, but I don’t think you can look to historical events saying no one objects about the church not recognizing their baby’s as members, so that means baby’s were members, that means they were baptized. When do we start having historical documentation of baby’s being baptized? Why were they being baptized? When in church history did anyone believe what you believe about baptism? I’d say we just stick to the text sir. We Baptists have much love for you uncle Douglas, and are looking forward to your upcoming debates. Not that you gonna read this.
Woah!! This is fire!!!!!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
He keeps bringing up children who can come, can listen, can obey, can be unruly, yet I don’t know any infant who can do all of that. It’s almost as though it’s referencing children, not infants?
This is a brief summary position. Settle down everybody. If you'd like a more exhaustive analysis, you'll have to read a book.
No, no. I want the whole thing read rapid-fire in a tik tok video 😀
@@nathanjames329 lol! You just nailed one of the many things that are wrong with Tic Tok.
This is the worst bag of words I have ever heard .. Note .. No Bible verse declaring babies to be Baptized
Baptists, you can't just assume your position is the default, you have to actually make your case. By all means disagree, but actually make a defense for your own position, especially when the model in the NT is household baptisms and you have to add to scripture to support your position that:
1. everyone in the household was above a certain age
2. everyone in the household individually believed after however brief a time they had to spend with an apostle.
Everyone agrees that when one believes, they ought to be baptized. That isn't your position. You need to defend the exclusion of the household in the face of the Biblical evidence and show why only believing is the standard, not being in the household. The non-Baptist has merely to point to the practice of applying the covenant sign on the whole household as established in Gen 17, reaffirmed in Acts 2 and seen throughout Acts. Their argument doesn't depend on the age of the household members in the slightest.
Where do you justify adding an additional exclusion based on age despite household membership of a believing head being the biblical norm?
The model isn't household baptisms. The model is credobaptism. Ethiopian eunuch, Paul, Lydia, 3000 at Pentecost etc. etc.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 How are those not examples of household baptisms?
The eunuch was a household of one, for hopefully obvious reasons.
Paul was also a household of one. I've heard speculation that Paul was married at some earlier point, but by the time he became a Christian, he seems to be single and never (re-)married.
Lydia's household was baptized in Acts 16.
The baptism of the 3000 in Acts 2 are not talked about quite as specifically, but the people are in town for pentecost (feast of weeks) celebrations. I'd like to hear an argument for why they all left their kids at home that day, as it seems exactly the sort of thing children of all ages would attend with their families. It would seem especially odd to not apply the covenant sign to the children as this is happening on the tail of Peter's speech referencing gen 17 in which children and servants (even servants not of the head's line but from far off places) we're all to be given the sign, not just the believing head. Peter uses the same formula given to Abraham yet applies it to baptism. The audience would have picked up on that immediately.
Thus, no you don't get to beg the question for credo *only* baptism. You have to do the work to show that God no longer makes covenant with families and only works at the individual level like enlightenment era ideas would have us believe, despite the numerous examples of households being baptized when only the head for sure believed. Bonus points if you can explain why even though the household model fits all of scripture that came before Acts, and prophets were to be stoned if they change God's word per Deut 13, everyone magically knew that the covenant sign no longer applied to their family despite no explicit revelation from God saying so.
@@oracleoftroy Lots of question begging in this post.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 I know, that's why I pointed out the questions you were begging.
Why do so many baptists do that? You guys can give much better answers than unbiblical begged questions. But no, the vast majority in these comments just assume they are right and demand everyone convince them otherwise, but can't seem to offer a modicum of scriptural proof for their assumptions. And I gave you such a great opportunity by pointing out Baptist problem passages, but you can't even begin to answer them.
@@oracleoftroy "Paul was married at some earlier point"
Yeah okay buddy.
It’s about time someone try to attempt defending child baptism. Still weak but at lest it was an attempt, easily disputed. Every baptism was a believer baptist in the new testament. There is no mention of baptism replacing circumcisim directly. you have to reach
By only reading the comments I'd say Credo-Baptists believe that Baptistism actually saves, Justification by Baptism and Fatih alone. Do not pedo baptits and credo baptist raise their children godly, to know that you must be born again given a new heart only by the grace of God? John 3. Baptism is a sign, and the great gnat of the church, mean while swallowing the camel of the new birth.
Neither Reformed Baptists or Presbyterians believe water baptism saves you. Baptists believe baptism follows faith and presbies believe baptism follows entering into the covenant community, which they believe can happen both through faith and through birth to believing parents
In Love and Respect to Pastor Doug. Nevertheless, the ability to rattle off a great many Bible verses in succession does not win an argument nor does the employing of strawman arguments. This was disappointing. God's grace and peace.
Right on on.
What strawman?
Agreed. What’s to keep a baptized infant in the faith?
Yeah those pesky Bible verses keep getting in the way of peoples presuppositions
I was a little lost. Might look for the written version of this so I can digest it bit by bit.
Very edifying!
A wedding isn't the marriage, communion isn't the source of our salvation, and water baptism, as in the work of dunking someone in water, isn't baptism of the Holy Spirit, what God does to transform our lives to let us be born again. Weddings, communion, and water baptism are merely symbolic representations and celebrations of the real thing.
Water baptism is a work; the baptism of the Holy Spirit it represents is not. To suggest that our salvation is dependent on water baptism, a work, is almost a denial of the gospel message. We cannot earn our salvation by works, and our salvation is not dependent on the doing of works. Do you want a Biblical example of someone who was saved without water baptism? Look to the thief crucified with Jesus that ended up being saved before he died. He was both saved and never received water baptism.
Don't confuse the dunking of someone in water with the work of God in your life it seeks to represent. God isn't a puppet you can summon to do your bidding by making him appear and do something by any of your works, including water baptism. It's also not the case that God is somehow so weak and powerless that He's incapable of saving you without your participation via this work of water baptism.
I never understood how this concept came to be a topic of debate. Yes, one can eisegetically derive the necessity of water baptism from some passages of scripture, but considering how poorly this interpretation stands up to hermeneutical considerations one would think that this notion would be dead.
Suggesting the necessity of water baptism for infants requires completely misunderstanding what baptism is from even the most fundamental level. One truly has to mistake the symbolic act for the thing it represents, like thinking communion is the source of our salvation like Catholics do. The very fact that Catholics view infant baptism as a legitimate thing should be telling.
I'm credobaptist and this is not how you argue for the position. If you're credobaptist and this is the basis for your position, you're primed for paedobaptism.
I don’t think he was arguing the necessity of it. What I hear is just a direct debate of baby baptism or not. Separate from what salvation factually is. And I know Doug agrees on salvation.
@@jaquirox6579 If he doesn't view water baptism as being necessary for salvation then the entire concept of infant baptism becomes completely nonsensical. Would you give a baby communion? Why not? The same reasoning would apply to not water baptize a baby.
The thief on the cross is a faulty example:
1) We don't actually know whether or not he was baptized. It isn't explicitly stated or even implied either way.
2) That moment was technically still before the official establishment of the new covenant (i.e. Christ's death).
3) Even disregarding the previous points, Jesus is God and God ultimately has the authority and right to grant salvation to whomever He well pleases regardless of their spiritual condition. If hypothetically a lost sinner repents and confesses but has a lethal heart attack on his way to the water, will he still be denied eternal life at judgement day? I tend to believe not. But that does not inherently mean at the same time that the Lord does not still expect each of us to perform the act as part of the initiation process. Yes, it is a symbolic ritual, but just as dipping into the Jordan seven times in itself didn't cleanse Naaman yet was still necessary to receive God's healing, so too baptism should be viewed as the obligatory method the Lord has instituted by which we come into contact with Christ and are thereby liable to be raised just as He was at the end of time.
Just to give a fuller reply:
"A wedding isn't the marriage, communion isn't the source of our salvation, and water baptism, as in the work of dunking someone in water, isn't baptism of the Holy Spirit, what God does to transform our lives to let us be born again."
This is great start. Category distinctions! Circumcision is not baptism! Water baptism and Spirit baptism are ideally together, but categorically not the exact same thing! It's good to have these things in place, because category confusion and blurring are one of the things paedobaptists tend to excel at.
"Weddings, communion, and water baptism are merely symbolic representations and celebrations of the real thing."
No, no, no, no. Have you told your wife that your wedding is merely symbolic? How'd that go over?
Nor does Scripture lend any credence to the idea that baptism is merely symbolic. 1 Peter 3:21 clearly says baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience. That's not just symbolic.
"Water baptism is a work"
Yes and no. Is appealing to God for a clean conscience a work?
Baptism cannot be boiled down to its physical elements (nor can communion).
"To suggest that our salvation is dependent on water baptism, a work, is almost a denial of the gospel message."
Yet Scripture makes clear that baptism is commanded. In some sense, baptism saves. We need to be more comfortable with explaining how baptism saves than how baptism doesn't save.
"Do you want a Biblical example of someone who was saved without water baptism? Look to the thief crucified with Jesus that ended up being saved before he died. He was both saved and never received water baptism."
I'm sorry, but if I hear about the thief on the cross one more time, I'm going to scream. I'm not Lutheran, but this is not without its points:
th-cam.com/video/6p7a-kTcSZo/w-d-xo.html
Understanding what Scripture teaches as normative is critical to a solid defense of credobaptism. Last minute conversion is not normative.
"I never understood how this concept came to be a topic of debate."
Too many Presbyterians and Baptists claiming baptism doesn't save, that's why. 😛
"Yes, one can eisegetically derive the necessity of water baptism from some passages of scripture"
Just stop there. If Scripture commands it, that does it.
"Suggesting the necessity of water baptism for infants requires completely misunderstanding what baptism is from even the most fundamental level."
We can certainly agree on that, but what baptism *is*, is not merely symbolic.
"The very fact that Catholics view infant baptism as a legitimate thing should be telling."
This is not a legitimate argument. If you reject *everything* Catholics believe, you're a rank heretic.
Will we see "Paedo Communion: A Summary Case | Doug Wilson" anytime soon?
Looking for a friend :)
What was the "sign" of the covenant for women? Baptism, biblically speaking, is not equated with circumcision. Infant baptism is the golden calf of the reformation.
Sproul's argumentation was "the bible didnt say it, but it didn't say not to do it" isn't a legitimate argument. This seems to be consistent witb paedobaptists.
Tradition is one of the hardest sins to repent of.
Simple fix, have infant baptism as a profession that you will raise the child Christian. But still require a believer's baptism. Is the main issue fear of a child dying before coming to believe themselves? And if so, seeing how you're not Roman Catholics, what's the rush if baptism isn't what saves?
Baptism is to be given only once as it is a blessing the Lord gives us, not a work we do for the Lord. No rush, just trying to obey Jesus: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
@@jcpg9592 and that's literally talking about letting them listen to his teaching, and not baptism
You don’t get circumcised twice.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 no, it's about the Kingdom of heaven belonging to the likes of children
@@jcpg9592 and not about baptizing children
This is simply an opinion unrooted in exegesis. Lots of assumptions, not a lot of proof.
Baptizing an infant does nothing more than make a baby wet and upset. Where is repentance and confessing Christ as Lord when a baby is baptized? It is suppose to be a sign of a circumcised heart. Physical circumcision was done on infants when awareness (and so the memory) of pain is the slightest (8 days old) but spiritual circumcision (of the heart) must be done at optimal awareness of a guilty heart. How can an infant confess with their mouth and how do they repent and from what do they repent? A dirty diaper?! This video is enough reason for me to reject Mr. Wilson entirely. We don't need the added burden and discord.
I respect you uncle Doug, but infant baptism is unbiblical. There is no commandment nor a law nor anything said by the apostles about infant baptism.
Choice? If someone is raised by believing parents and baptised as a babe, that's not teaching. That's parents acting out on behalf of that babe a confession of faith and a putting away of the flesh. That's the individual's choice, not the parent. It's funny, I'm keen toread a scripture evidencing the point highlighted and not a conflated amalgamation of scripture to try to make the point.
AMEN! Down with the Baptists lol! Only kidding! I truly appreciate James White and can't wait for this debate. In fact I'd probably be a Baptist but for their inconsistency in this area big time.
Read the comments and be challenged :]
@@horrificpleasantry9474 indeed!
What if your children were grown when you came to Christ...when He saved?
This video is on it.
Doug: The new is just like the old.
Bible: The new is comprised only of those born of God.
Hmmm...whom to believe...
Doug - seems like you set up a straw man at the beginning by "assuming" the NEW Covenant is just an administration of the covenant of grace instead of a NEW Covenant. The Baptist position is much stronger than you lead us to believe. Also, what about "faithful" parents whose children God does not save?
It s hard to read Galatians 3 and view ‘new’ as wholly different. A new administration seems much more likely that new from scratch. Wouldn’t you say?
It’s not stronger. The new covenant is new relative to the Mosaic. It’s not new in relation to the Abrahamic. Hebrews 8.
Doug's view that the New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace is wrong, but so is the Reformed Baptist view. The fulfillment of Jeremiah's "New Covenant" prophecy awaits the consummation when "all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26-27). We are certainly not living in the "New Covenant" prophesied by Jeremiah right now.
@@emmanuelchapel if you're the first person in 2000 years to come up with something, you're probably wrong
@@horrificpleasantry9474 I am not the first person to hold to my view. I hold the view I was taught in Seminary.
James white prep