The Stakes of the Debate Around Baptism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Some links to some good videos that exegete this issue from the Bible:
Jordan Cooper Defense: • Infant Baptism is Bibl...
New Kingdom Media Defense: • A Defence of Infant Ba...
New Kingdom Media Anglican View of Baptism: • The Anglican View of B...
Young Anglican is just a hobby for a theology nerd. I do all of this in my spare time and don't have any relevant degrees in theology or philosophy, but hope that nonetheless my thoughts and knowledge still have a kind of value.
If you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my locals, and get early access to some of my videos:
younganglican....
Recently I've been experiencing a lot of anxiety as to the validity of my infant baptism. The topic really consumed me. I'm glad I found this vid.
I'm glad I could help!
I like to ask credobaptists to think of this from a Pascalian approach. If we baptize an infant and they die, then they will gain everything, beatific vision and life everlasting. But if we’re wrong, well, nothing happens, we didn’t hurt anything, they were gonna be “saved anyways”. So let’s say the Credobaptists are right; most would say they are saved (in spite of being afflicted with original sin which alone bars from heaven.), so not baptizing infants won’t do anything. But if credobaptists are WRONG, and we still don’t baptize infants, they could LOSE Eternal Life (theologians posit that they will go to a place called limbo of the infants. They still can not ever attain supernatural happiness.) Which one would you want to wager on?
Credobaptists tend to believe babies cant go to hell until an "age of accountability" is reached. So there is no need for baptism unless you can go to hell.
If they believe that though, why NOT baptize their children?
"I raise my child as a Christian, and rely on Gods grace until they're old enough to take account of their own faith. So they are effectively Christian until they're old enough to say they're not." is a common reasoning I hear.
In response: "If they're Christian until they say otherwise, why not baptize them?"
The usual response: "Because baptism is only for Christians."
@@etheretherether Idk man, I was a staunch Baptist all my life (I understood dispensationalism pretty well), then I heard the Reformed and Lutheran arguments for infant baptism, soooo much more grace. My conscience was instantly relieved. The Reformed Catholic doctrines of grace are just the truth. Now im going to baptize my babies so they will always know they grace of God in their lives
Thank you for a well done video. Credobaptists would support their belief in the following ways:
1. The biblical command to baptize is for those who demonstrate faith in Jesus and repentance. A person must be old enough to have a basic understanding of faith and repentance and therefore is reserved for those old enough to do this. This would exclude infants. There are certainly biblical accounts of entire households being baptized but nowhere is there an explicit mention of an infant being baptized.
2. I'm not expert in church history but it is my understanding the first explicit mention of infant baptism was made by Tertullian in about A.D. 200 and he was against it. Some may question whether an erroneous practice like infant baptism could have come into the church so quickly and broadly but we do see several examples of nonbiblical baptismal practices in the early church such as delaying baptism after three years of catechism or even waiting until near the end of one's life before being baptized.
Just a couple thoughts on how one might address those questions:
1. I think just begs the question. Should mentally handicapped people never be baptized? Why would you withhold this grace from them?
2. Tertullian was against infant baptism on heretical grounds. His argument was that since baptism is for the remission of sins, it shouldn't be done to infants, since they will surely sin after they are baptized, and thus either die sinners or need to be baptized again.
If you think so many erroneous things could have krept into the church before possibly some books of the New Testament had even been written (Revelations was written towards 80-110 AD), and definitely hadn't been in circulation or considered scriptural yet (Even into the 2nd and 3rd centuries most churches only had the 4 gospels as their NT), why would you trust scripture? The very people who you received scripture through, and who decided what to pass down and preserver, and what not to pass down or preserve may have been heretics.
Either the Holy Spirit guided the Early Church through the early years of it's persecution and growth, or He didn't.
All that said, I'm not very well versed in debating these topics. I know this video is part of a larger playlist that might be more useful to you. God bless!
Whats your opinion on the Ten Commandments? do Anglicans use it?
Of course, as all Christians should
First, thank you for making the video and sharing your overall view of this issue. I respect it. I myself have been thinking on this issue in part because, though both my wife and I were baptized as teens, we now worship with a wonderful PCA congregation that practices pedobaptism. For us, the question is academic, but if/when we have children, we are unlikely to baptize them as infants. Not because we think the practice is evil, but because it is not what we believe is modeled in Scripture.
Below are just my responses, generally in the order of your video, to your presentation. I hope it's edifying and thought-provoking (sorry it's so long):
Most Credobaptists do NOT believe that the act of baptism cleanses sin and would find the near-death baptism of Constantine to be heretical superstition.
Baptismal regeneration appears to be your stance, but that still begs the question: when does your Christian life begin? It cannot be at or near one's natural birth - otherwise, why be "born again"?
In every biblical example of baptism, faith precedes baptism. Nowhere in Scripture does faith in Christ flow from baptism.
As for baptism being the "new circumcision", this is a singular analogy from Paul in Col 2:11-13 (ESV) "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses."
So many pedobaptists read the comparison of baptism to circumcision and stop, but that is not the image shown here. In baptism, there is a going down under the water and a being raised out from the water (sprinkling & pouring are acceptable symbols of this), but it is one contiguous act. Here Paul is showing that through our FAITH in Christ, we have our true circumcision & triumph over death & promise of new life. Without faith, there is just burial. Without faith, there is no raising up.
Furthermore, if we take all the Old Testament burdens of circumcision and equate it with baptism, what absurdities arise when we consider Paul's other writing in 1 Cor 7:19? (ESV) "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God." Or Galatians 5:2 (ESV) "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you." Obviously Paul would not be suggesting that baptism counts for nothing. It is therefore inappropriate to take the whole covenant theology of circumcision and smash it into baptism without care.
Through baptism, we identify with Christ. We act in faith and take on HIS circumcision, His obedience, His promised redemption. No infant can identify with Christ. They lack the capacity. Nor can infants be disciples as Matthew 28:19-20 (ESV) commands "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..."
Baptizing who? Disciples. Infant disciples do not exist because they again lack the capacity.
Children's faith can indeed be real and superior to the skepticism of adults, but that is no argument that infants - who have no capacity for faith - should thus be baptized.
Perfect understanding is obviously not required for faith. Peter hardly knew how he was walking on water when he went out to Jesus, yet his faith permitted him. As for those who lack the capacity, that doesn't mean they are not allowed God's mercy, but it does impact whether they are proper recipients of baptism. Not being baptized does not mean one cannot be saved. It is therefore not a salvation issue for Credobaptists regarding infants or the disabled. Only if you hold a baptism-is-required-for-salvation point of view (and ignoring the thief on the cross) can this present any problem.
You seem to slip from infant baptism into child baptism. They are separate issues. Most Credobaptists have problems with the former, but not the latter.
Whether we know who is fully justified unto eternal life has no bearing on who the proper recipients of baptism should be. Outward declarations are imperfect, but necessary in the exercise & practice of our faith. Many Credobaptists follow the same logic and do not permit pedocommunion (neither do many pedobaptist churches). Furthermore, all children in such churches see the act of faith in baptism throughout their childhood as a vital step in their relationship with God. And their eventual baptism is an event they remember and can hold onto. Infant baptism is an event no one remembers, but can only hear about from others. It is by nature less clear in the life of the believer. Nor is the question of whether a child understands the meaning of baptism such a hard or mysterious thing. The basic questions asked are almost identical to the questions asked to new members of churches. It really isn't anything new or complicated.
Household baptisms are, in fact, an argument from silence. Even the legendary R.C. Sproul admitted that there are no clear biblical examples of infant baptisms in Scripture.
If baptism is merely a duty, then it is no longer by faith. You're replacing faith with legalistic works. I don't think that's what you're arguing, but that's the implications of the inherited-duty line of thinking. The duty you're referring to is one imposed on everyone, not merely those who are born to a believing parent.
All of that to say: I personally fall into what you described as the moderate Credobaptist camp. Infant baptism is a tradition of the church and is not the best exercise of the model of baptism found in Scripture. It is, in many ways, an extension of the argument over whether full immersion is the only way of baptism or whether pouring/sprinkling is acceptable. Immersion is, in my view, the clearest sign of baptism - full burial & raising in water. But as long as the significance of the event is preserved, the form is not a salvation issue.
I would urge a consideration of this series of sermons on baptism if you want a strong argument against the infant baptism position:
th-cam.com/play/PLzOJll8dItg7GcgUsrm2Cy18iYQEpp37i.html&si=r5fmLdHII2C3amPS
Thanks for that. I generally agree with what you have written and appreciate the counter argument to pedobaptism. I think a lot of people like infant baptism because they believe that you receive Gods grace through baptism. Currently I am a Baptist whose looking into reformed theology. I find I like a lot of it but the whole business with the sacraments and whether we receive Gods grace through them I kind of agree but when I look back at the Bible I just dont see a reason to believe that. Paul writes we are saved "by grace THROUGH faith" not Baptism or the Eucharist.
Im not completely against the idea and I kind of see where people are coming from but at the same time it can seem like a bit of a stretch. I completely disagree with the Roman Catholic view of the Sacraments as that is more based of Church History (which I think contradicts the Catholic view a lot anyway). Reformed theology on the Sacraments seems more acceptable but a still find a lack of evidence. I dont disagree with it but I dont agree with it at the same time.
I do believe though that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is clear we can receive Gods grace through faith. We do not need Baptism. I think its important and a command of Jesus but not a necessity. Also within Catholic circles you hear about many who are baptised and believe they are saved because of that but dont change and repent.
In acts the Paul tells the Jailor “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” and then straight after is baptised. The baptism didnt save him but after he believed he wanted to be baptised to outwardly declare his faith and new life in Jesus. I then says "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."
He isnt rejoicing that he is baptised but rejoicing that he had out his trust in God and as a result was baptised.
Clearly we see that baptism is important as it was done immediately but it didnt save him as Paul had just said he needed to believe in the Lord Jesus but still significant. This might seem of topic but I think it relates to this debate about infant baptism as if Baptism was simply a declaration of faith and not a way of receiving grace, infant baptism would not have any significance.
I just wanted to write this to add onto your argument as its something Ive been looking at recently and wanted to talk about. I am open to the idea of receiving grace in which case you can be saved through baptism (only if done in faith of course) but that would still not be infant baptism and I find it lacks biblical backing. If you disagree with anything I have written please say so and I would like to hear your opinion although this might seem more of a rant about what I believe than a super well backed argument.
God Bless and thank you
@@axpa2771 I think that the Reformed pedobaptists simply misread Hebrews (and other passages) to create this special category of "covenant children" who are neither Vipers in Diapers nor Regenerate Christians, but are somehow under some umbrella of grace with some saving element. It seems to me that they are attempting to read some sort of parallel to blood inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant (you're part of Israel b/c you're a descendant of Abraham). But they miss that Hebrews' discourse is that the old covenant of blood was not sufficient, but has always been one of grace through faith. For in the same way that not all of Abraham's offspring are "True Israel", certainly not all children of Christian parents end up as believers. For King Ahab was a descendant of Abraham & had claim to that inheritance, yet he married Jezebel, murdered prophets, and led Israel into idolatry and was cut off from the covenant. Ahab was a "covenant child" of the Old Covenant, yet was condemned.
If, somehow, the New Covenant still fails to bring children into reconciliation with God, then how is it better than the Old? I find it hard to believe that the author of Hebrews would go through his exhaustive argument that the New Covenant is superior to the Old just to institute a new form of the failed Old covenant, fallible in all the same ways, by prescribing infant baptism.
The desire to create this extra-biblical category is for purely pastoral reasons. Pastors wish to confer greater comfort to those parents who lose their children to illness or chance than the simple ultimate goodness and fairness of God. So they spin this tale of an umbrella of grace granted through baptism by believing parents, then shoe horn Scripture to back it up. It is well intentioned, but I am unconvinced it is a faithful reading & application of Scripture.
Or so my impression goes.
All that to say, I do not believe that it is an issue worth dis-fellowshipping or leaving a church for. I suspect it might be an issue if I were being considered to become a PCA Elder, but simply being a member is not.
My other concern with Reformed theology / Calvinism is that while it may accurately describe the process of redemption/regeneration, it does not describe the experience of salvation. Specifically, I know of no believer who did not have the experience of "choosing" Christ. We all have. Now whether the Holy Spirit previously "regenerated" us so that we could choose Jesus - maybe, but why are we trying to anatomize the mystery of salvation to this degree? Nor do any of those who they decry as "Arminian" fall prey to the logical consequences they say follow from that position; for example, what believer have you ever known, when they say "I have chosen Christ! I chose to give my life to Him!" goes around giving themselves credit for the result of their choice? None!
I'm still wrestling with Reformed Theology, though. I appreciate that those who follow it take Theology so seriously. It's a beautiful quality even if sometimes I think they overanalyze what are, in fact, divine mysteries.
Hopefully I responded to you in some helpful way. Thanks for the discussion.
@@axpa2771At least for the Eucharist I find 1 Conrinthians 10:16-17 to be fairly clearly showing that we are united to Christ in the Lords Supper, and that we truly receive His body and blood, and then also that it truly unites us with other Christians as Christ's body. I'm not sure if that totally agrees with reformed thinking, but I do find it to be a very clear stance on Paul's part for the real presence in the Eucharist, hopefully that helps somewhat, perhaps it doesn't at all, oh well :)
I'm now in the minute 20 and you have only weak arguments
I've read your entire argument and you don't even have weak arguments, you have none. 😯
I'm in a credobaptist Pentecostal church, and even so, a baby dedication ceremony is nearly an expectation for active members. Clearly they are flirting with paedobaptism, perhaps because they feel a lack of something. I hope they chase that feeling. Thank you for your explanation. It helped inform some incomplete thoughts.
It's not a SU/YA video unless Joe gets heated about credo baptism at least once
Yea but thief on the cross…
Checkmate baby dunkers!
Unironically how so many baptists argue
GOTTEM
I think when people use that example it provides an excellent opportunity to show how they have similar beliefs.
Paul says with the mouth one confesses unto salvation. Which non sacramental baptizers do believe. But yet they believe a mute can be saved.
Bringing this up shows how the exception doesn’t negate the rule.
I agree. Mostly a meme@@not_milk
@@traditions1900 I caught it.
I just hear that enough not as a meme that I figured I'd share what I tend to say in response.
ACNA Anglican here. Good video. I come from an "Independent" Fundamental Baptist background and struggled with this for a long time. The content here is very helpful. Would love to see a 10-min or Shorts version of these arguments specifically for sharing with others.
Keep hammering on this topic. Credobaptism denies the fullness of God’s salvific economy.
I often go to an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church, and there, the common belief is that baptism is *not* required for salvation, it is just an outward sign of the faith. It's kind of like an anglican confirmation in a way. I feel like the views on baby vs adult baptism come from just entirely different ideas on what baptism is
That’s really interesting all those motifs in the Old Testament. Passover would be another one. As well as the baptism into Moses through the Red Sea including unbelieving babies
Anglicans/Episcopalians are cool! George Washington was a Anglican/Episcopalian
Good video. I had a conversation with my girlfriend recently about this, who struggles with the idea of infant Baptism. She seemed to understand that the stakes were high if we withheld the saving Grace of Baptism from our children though.
You kinda said this I think, but I would make sure to add that we are really not debating if only believers should be Baptized, as like you said, God is able to work faith in even infants, and the most common way He engenders this belief is through Baptism. This is over and against the overly rationalistic view of faith held by the credobaptists that one must be able to make some sort of rational decision to believe in God.
Credo baptism is not the biggest problem, but it is still an error. I don't know how to feel about denying this means of grace to your infants. Thats why I'm now PCA.
Credobaptism alone is a grave error (Reform theology not paedo only, but allows for credo baptisms in the case of adult converts).
Baptistic theology has several limiting errors that we are seeing manifested in our culture today - namely, 1. Baptistic Theology is not Covenantal and does not allow for headship and representation - it becomes individualistic (look where that has gotten us. (In Baptistic Theology Noah couldn’t take his family, Abraham couldn’t be head of the covenant family, Joshua couldn’t claim “as for me and my house…” and on and on and on 2. Baptistic Theology does not hold the civil magistrate accountable despite the fact that the civil magistrate is appointed by God to represent him in protection the people under the magistrate’s authority and 3. The limit the efficacious grace in the sacraments - they become mere man-centered acts and not true means of grace that they truly are - the sacraments are means God uses to act on man and not acts man use to please God.
So I guess I hold a mixed opinion. I think it’s probably a good idea to get baptized at an age when you will remember it (for mainly psychological reasons) but I don’t really think it’s any different spiritually then infant baptism as long as they are raised to eventually have faith.
That being said I think it’s silly to believe that God sends newborn or stillborn children to hell.
Also i’m two weeks into attending an Anglican Church. I find that I agree more with what they believe.
27:30
You are so close to hitting the monetization requirements
Preach it, brother - preach it!
The reason why I remain Credobaptist is because the verses I read in the Bible say that faith comes before baptism. Also, I know people who were baptized Catholic as infants but are now nonbelievers.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
It seems to me that faith came before baptism in these verses. This does not mean that I am against paedobaptism, it just means that I would not baptize my children until they become believers later in their life when they can choose.
Do you think these verses teach that we should have both baptism and faith in our lives or that we have faith so that we can be baptized. Instead they say have faith /and/ be baptized. As if those are two separate categories. The first quote from 1 Peter even seems to insinuate that baptism appeals to God so that He clears our conscious by baptism, not before our baptism.
Hey there, baptist here! What do you think of the position of Gregory of Nazianzus on baptising children when they can understand something of the mystery around 3 or 4? Not that earlier baptisms are invalid or anything, just that for purely prudential reasons infants that are not in danger of death should wait till they can at least somewhat understand the sacrament.
Admittedly Gregory has a weird view, but also reccomended babies at risk of death be baptized. In my opinion he seems to advocate for this view because he thinks they will remember it, not because their faith is required: "But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more, or less, when they may be able to listen and answer something about the Sacrament; that even though they >do not perfectly understand< it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration" (Oration 40, Ch. XXVIII (arrows added to emphasize)).
@@Young_Anglican i think those children that, while they don’t have a perfect understanding of their faith, do certainly have faith. That shouldn’t be a difference between our positions though. I was mainly pointing out that one can believe in delaying baptism for reasons other than thinking infant baptism is invalid, and that normative infant baptism was not a universal in church history. It is totally consistent to say infant baptism is valid, just not preferred since it is preferable to be able to remember and look to your baptism for assurance.
This is a critique of baptists btw, not your position. I think baptists should be more accepting of people who have been validly baptized as infants and who have received the benefits of their baptism through faith, even if they think people in general should be baptized upon their profession of faith.
Same with a person who was baptized without their knowledge and accepts that involuntary baptism as valid after the fact. Now, if that person denied that baptism that they were unconscious for and didn’t ascent to they should be allowed to be baptized properly of course, but it would be an error to force either party to either accept that involuntary baptism or to be rebaptized against their conscience.
You're misrepresenting when you say only the adults can be baptized which is not true, the kids at the age of knowing what is good and bad can be baptized and they are baptized
Did you know that you can edit or reply to your own comment if you want to add more thoughts instead of spamming the comments section?
You said that because Noah believed that's why the other seven were saved. They were all adults and none of them were forced to enter in the ark
You did not absorb the point of the argument at all obviously
The whole household meant everyone in his house including children
@@benboulet1724 The whole household in those days was attributed to Noah 1 Peter 3
20. who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water.
If you would to take this argument to a court that the whole household was baptized and that for sure included kids, this logic will not go in your favor
Well he's taking into covenant community context not an American courtroom. If a pitbull mauled a whole household a Baptist would say that we are glad that there wasn't any children there. Everyone else would recognize that household means whole family and think the Baptist is crazy. It's mental gymnastics to not include our children in God's promises. Saying this as a former Baptist.
@@abbottdietrich are you ready to bet your life on your interpretation?
What if the kids were 13 years older?
In the beginning you claim that there's proof at very early stage of the Christian church of kids being baptized when they were small , I'm in minute 28 still waiting
You're applying what God said about Jesus and John the Baptist and you are generalizing