Very interesting ways at looking at Baptism. Never was taught about Paedo vs. Credo Baptism. A lot of people were baptized when they were infants including myself. The fact is that a baby is unaware of what is even going on, so how could it be possible that they would change their ways and be saved. Babies are not born holy or regenerated but can be regenerated and be called to holiness eventually. Praise the Lord that they are saved under the grace of God until they are old enough and aware of what sin is (becoming accountable). Later in life I got re-baptized which is like a renewing of your vows to God. To me Baptism is an individual personal event in one’s life just like we are responsible for our own sins and not others. Thanks for clarifying Baptism.
I have Presbyterian friends who hold so firm to the household principle for baptism that they say that in the admittedly unlikely scenario of a unbelieving wife who wants to be baptized when her newly converted Christian husband is baptized, that they enthusiastically affirm that she should be baptized. That's right.... baptizing an unbelieving adult. I found this rather shocking. Have you seen this in your experience? Apologies if you addressed this, I found this out in the past couple days, and i watched your video over a week ago and don't recall if you mentioned it.
Great lecture, Pastor H! I have one question: how do you respond to the claims that the practice of infant baptism goes all the way back in church history, the suggestion being that believers baptism is a theological novum?
Hi Alan, and thanks for writing. Here ya’ go: 1 - The apostles taught and practiced believers-only baptism, and christianity is apostolic, not post-apostolic, so we should practice believers-only baptism. Any other kind of baptism will be novel, and not apostolic. 2 - The practice of believers' baptism was normative until the early to mid 3rd century. At that time, infant baptism was a novelty. Prior to the 3rd century, there are no patristic advocates for paedo-baptism, and during the 3rd century, some theologians continued to argue for believers' baptism, while others began to argue for infant baptism. The disagreement continued into the 4th century, when infant baptism gained prominence. 3 - In constructing our theology, we don't go back to a time in church history (in this case, the 3rd or 4th century) that suits us and base our doctrines on what we find there (it might be erroneous); we go back to the Apostles. Christianity is apostolic, not post apostolic. Hope that helps! Pastor Steve
Why would infants be part of the Old Covenant to only be excluded in the New Covenant ? I agree with RC Sproul who has pointed out that the silence on this convenental rupture is pretty deafening.
Very interesting ways at looking at Baptism. Never was taught about Paedo vs. Credo Baptism. A lot of people were baptized when they were infants including myself. The fact is that a baby is unaware of what is even going on, so how could it be possible that they would change their ways and be saved. Babies are not born holy or regenerated but can be regenerated and be called to holiness eventually. Praise the Lord that they are saved under the grace of God until they are old enough and aware of what sin is (becoming accountable). Later in life I got re-baptized which is like a renewing of your vows to God. To me Baptism is an individual personal event in one’s life just like we are responsible for our own sins and not others. Thanks for clarifying Baptism.
I have Presbyterian friends who hold so firm to the household principle for baptism that they say that in the admittedly unlikely scenario of a unbelieving wife who wants to be baptized when her newly converted Christian husband is baptized, that they enthusiastically affirm that she should be baptized. That's right.... baptizing an unbelieving adult. I found this rather shocking. Have you seen this in your experience? Apologies if you addressed this, I found this out in the past couple days, and i watched your video over a week ago and don't recall if you mentioned it.
Great lecture, Pastor H! I have one question: how do you respond to the claims that the practice of infant baptism goes all the way back in church history, the suggestion being that believers baptism is a theological novum?
Hi Alan, and thanks for writing. Here ya’ go:
1 - The apostles taught and practiced believers-only baptism, and christianity is apostolic, not post-apostolic, so we should practice believers-only baptism. Any other kind of baptism will be novel, and not apostolic.
2 - The practice of believers' baptism was normative until the early to mid 3rd century. At that time, infant baptism was a novelty. Prior to the 3rd century, there are no patristic advocates for paedo-baptism, and during the 3rd century, some theologians continued to argue for believers' baptism, while others began to argue for infant baptism. The disagreement continued into the 4th century, when infant baptism gained prominence.
3 - In constructing our theology, we don't go back to a time in church history (in this case, the 3rd or 4th century) that suits us and base our doctrines on what we find there (it might be erroneous); we go back to the Apostles. Christianity is apostolic, not post apostolic.
Hope that helps!
Pastor Steve
@@groundedwithstevehartland Thanks! Is there a source (article or book?) I could read for more detail about the history of believers baptism?
@@Alan112573 Book - Believer's Baptism, Schreiner & Wright, has several chapters on the history of baptism.
@@groundedwithstevehartland Thanks!
Why would infants be part of the Old Covenant to only be excluded in the New Covenant ? I agree with RC Sproul who has pointed out that the silence on this convenental rupture is pretty deafening.
We stand on scripture alone with proper exegesis and hermeneutics
Not with logic .
Blessings brother. Scripture doesn't teach infant baptism.