This is probably the most compelling brief scriptural case for infant baptism I've come across. Well done. I hadn't heard (or made) the connection between the corporate act of repentance (explicitly inclusive of infants) from Joel 2 and its recapitulation in Acts 2. What a great point.
I was Evangelical/Baptist for 20 years and now I'm Lutheran. I want to offer another element I think you should add to your great argument. Baptists don't really have a mental category for sacraments. I think you have to start with creating an understanding of sacraments from scripture (tree of life, bronze pole/serpent, namaan leprosy and the Jordan, etc.). Then develop the concept of baptismal regeneration. Baptists view baptism as strictly mans work of obedience AFTER regeneration. It needs to be made clear that baptism does regenerate and its God doing the work, not man. If you can establish that and total depravity is given, then infant baptism is a logical extension. That's the path I had to take and its the path I took my wife down and eventually she agreed. We ended up baptizing all 6 of our kids in the Lutheran church.
I’m surprised more people don’t use Joel 2 in this way. Going back and reading the prophecy that Peter explicitly quotes in connection with baptism is what originally convinced of infant baptism, and it has been my go to verse ever since!
Hey Sean Luke! I figured I’d add some thoughts as a Baptist who for a period of time was quite convinced of the Lutheran leaning end of the Anglican spectrum of positions on paedobaptism. 1. Isa 54:13 The broader context of this chapter is using the metaphor that Israel, the corporate entity in whom the Abrahamic promise lives on ( from genesis 17, when God renames Abram to Abraham. God says to Abraham “I have made you the father of many nations” and “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring…”). I don’t see anything in the context exactly that would support a paedobaptist position over a creedobaptist one. My understanding of what’s going on here is along the lines of what Paul refers to in Roman 9, starting in verse 6 when he distinguishes between those who are descended from Israel, and those who “belong to” Israel, or simply put that this is referring to descendants in a specifically non literal sense. 1 Corinthians 10 The context of this chapter is Paul dealing with a very specific scenario: some of the Corinthians believe that they can participate in the life of the church but still partake in the worship of idols. If Paul was intending this to speak to the nature of infants as they relate to the covenant community, he very well could have called that out like you did when you expound on some of the details of the exodus narrative. The fact that he does not accent infants, as well as the nature of the broader context pertaining to an exhortation to not live a life of compromise means I would be hesitant to read into this text what you are claiming here Isa 44 My thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Isaiah 54. One additional thought is that vs 3-5 makes rather open claims on whom is meant by terms like offspring or descendants. There is nothing within the text which would necessitate that this has to mean each and every biological descendant as opposed to something like a set of non biological descendants who are true in regards to their continuity of faith with Israel and its telos. Joel 2 In this passage the reference to infants seems to be in the support of expressing the grave immediacy and necessity of a full and expedient repentance on behalf of the entire nation of Israel. The Septuagint here (which is the version quoted by Peter in acts 2) reads breast-feeding infants, or literally, “suckling breasts”. The image is that the situation is so dire that you should not waste a single moment on the way to repentance. The children of believers belong to the Lord A lot of what you lay out in your main case I am totally in agreement with. I just don’t think that this necessitates the baptism of any individual prior to a credible profession of faith. This is precisely the reason that I believe that child dedications are permissible as part of Sunday worship. The contention of the Baptist is that there is actually a valid category of individuals in church life who are not yet in full communion with the body of Christ, but nevertheless receive many benefits by virtue of their adjacency to the church. This leads the Baptist and the Anglican to hold off on the baptism of an unbelieving spouse, while still recognizing that there is genuine spiritual good being received via the close proximity to God working in the life of the believing spouse and their Christian community. As a Baptist, I see myself as having one consistent way of dealing with individuals who are not yet in full communion with the body of Christ, regardless of age. Acts 2 I’m not convinced that this is a strong argument for infant baptism over and against a more minimal view of the partial inclusion of children prior to their baptism that a Baptist would hold to. I’ll refer back to my interpretation of Joel 2 here as well 1 Corinthians 7 I think the backdrop here is certainly ezra 10:2-3 where in a season of sin, many Israelite men took foreign wives and had children with them. Their repentance included putting away their foreign wives and children. I agree largely with what you mentioned about the difference of how holiness and defilement works post resurrection, but I believe paul is specifically repudiating the idea of a Christian using the lack of belief as a license to abandon their family rather than commenting on the nature of infants in relation to inclusion in baptism. In regard to early church data, I see the data as not as supportive as you seem to be. If you want to interact with the best case that can be made against paedobaptism in the early church I would recommend interacting with “baptism in the early church” by stander and luow. I would love hearing your thoughts on their work. All in all, while I disagree with you, I do want to say that your channel has been a large blessing to me. I spent about a year really diving into Anglicanism, and then eventually having to deal with Catholic claims and I watched a lot of hours of AA during that time. I always appreciate the way that you bring clarity to complex topics while remaining graceful, especially when your interlocutors are not. God bless, and keep making great content!
Thanks for your reply, brother! In response: Isaiah 54 - My argument is that this supports the notion that Israel had a conception of God's covenant blessing such that the covenant blessing they were beneficiaries to also were bequeathed on their children. Their children, in other words, shared in their title to the blessings of the covenant. So this forms a backdrop to the new covenant, and a consciousness of the covenant that says "my title to the blessings of the covenant are shared by and poured out on my children." Joel 2 - My argument here is that this is a description of repentance, which forms the immediate backdrop for what Peter says in Acts 2. So that infants were consecrated to the Lord is an instantiation of repentance--the participation of the infants in the repentance-ritual is thus part of what it means for Israel to repent. A Jew, then, in Acts 2, would have had that sense in mind when Peter says "the promise is for you and your children, and all who are far off"--with "you and your children" being grouped together--and not just "the promise is for you and all who are far off". The reason we hold off baptizing the unbelieving spouse is because they're rejecting the sacrament of grace extended to them in their believing spouse. Agreed that the backdrop is Ezra (I think I said it was Nehemiah, but I think you're right)--but it's important to note the actual argument Paul uses. He argues *from* the cleanness and holiness of the child to the non-defilement of the believer by the unbeliever. On church history--my specific treatment of the fathers in question is designed to meet some of those criticisms.
@@anglicanaesthetics appreciate the response! I think the biggest difference between our two perspectives then lies in how much continuity we see between the new and old covenants. We both would agree that there is not TOTAL continuity, otherwise we would baptize only men. Then, there is the tricky task of deciphering where there is continuity vs discontinuity. A Baptist would be much more slow to pronounce continuity than an Anglican. This would be a similar sort of difference, albeit not exactly the same, that a Baptist and a Presbyterian would have. I don’t say this to try to rebut any of your points in particular, but rather to hopefully offer clarity to anyone else following along with this thread. I would still enjoy your thoughts specifically on some of the particular arguments of stander and luow if you can ever find time to get around to it! That resource seems to be one that keeps coming back up for the creedobaptist position on this debate.
This is very well done! I often make similar arguments in a similar order and receive encouraging feedback form Baptist friends. Being able to forward this erudite, concise and well organized presentation is a fantastic gift. Let me know if there’s a place I can donate.
Nice! Coming from a Pentecostal background before I became Lutheran LCMS, it's great to have more resources for talking to the general non denominational or Baptist
Participation of infants in repentance ritual is a strong argument. Very helpful when paired with the promise of the Spirit, especially considering the first person to recognize the Messiah through the illumination of the Spirit is an infant!
Great video! You cover a lot of the same ground that I did in my recent video on the same topic. One connection I did not make that I really loved is what you said about corporate repentance in Joel chapter 2 including infants, which is then also in view in Peter’s sermon in chapter 2 of the book of Acts.
@@anglicanaesthetics well what do you mean by tradition? Cuz Martin C examination of the council of Trent. Makes 8 type types of it. So I’m fine with when the apostles. Guide the church being infallible. But not really with the oral tradition bit. It makes. Not much sense to me.
1:41 "If someone has faith, they should be baptized." Yes, If a person has faith, and has demonstrated that faith by repenting of their sin, and turned to God, that person is a candidate for baptism. However, an infant is too young to have faith and to repent.
11:15 The parents brought their children to Jesus, and Jesus laid his hands on them, (the children) and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16) Jesus did NOT baptize them. Why not, if infants should be baptized based on the faith of the parents?
This question is tangential to what you were discussing. What would you say to a mother whose unbaptized infant or toddler dies suddenly, if she asked you whether her child is in heaven? Other than saying "It's up to God," what outcome does your theology call for; is the unbaptized child supposed to be saved into God's Kingdom or not?
If the mother is a Christian and she had the intent to baptize, the child is with Jesus (just like a catechumen might die prior to baptism). If there is no intention to baptize, that gets murkier--and starts to approach the case of pagan kids who die. I think "it's up to God" carries a great deal more hope than we often give it credit for. First, God is far, far more merciful than we know, and his justice is perfect. No one will be judged who doesn't deserve it at the last day. But second, the Christian mother can take comfort in that God intends to do her good, and often overlooks our faults. So it's not just that she should say "it's up to God", but she should hope in the stretches of God's mercy that she can't see.
@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks for your reply. And you're right, it gets murky when we view it like that; in fact, with such a viewpoint it would be really difficult to be the rector counseling a parent whose unbaptized child died while the parent was not a Christian, if that parent became a committed Christian soon afterward. What a tough task that would be! I did have a point to make, though, when I asked the question, and perhaps the point will take out some of the murkiness. Here is my point: Our Anglican theology doesn't look at baptism in quite the same way as the Roman Catholics, who view it as a _salvific necessity_ because their view of Original Sin says that the infant is born with actual guilt for Adam's sin. A careful reading of Article IX calls original sin an “infection of nature” and a “corruption of the nature of every man....whereby man...is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit," but the Article does not include _guilt_ for Adam's sin as a part of the child's inherited "Original Sin"; in fact, the Article clearly states that baptism does not abate the effects of the original sin: "this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated..." For us Anglican Christians, baptism is not about lifting guilt off of the infant, and thus there is not the same sense of urgency to baptize as the Catholics have, because the one who has not committed actual sin _is not yet guilty._ Thus, we should view the child as one who, despite the proclivity to commit sin when the opportunity comes, is not guilty of sin until he/she becomes old enough to understand and be accountable for his/her actions. This is the view among Protestant groups which continued to reform just a bit more on this issue and which shed more of the Roman influence. Note: I was raised Roman Catholic, then followed the Lord's leading into congregational Protestant churches (including some non-denoms) for 30+ years, before He led me to an ACNA Anglican parish. As a result, I've seen multiple sides of some issues (like baptism). Whether that makes my viewpoint better than any other remains to be learned when I meet Jesus face-to-face. But I'm not afraid to analyze or question what is being taught by any given denomination (obviously, or I'd still be stuck in unquestioning lockstep with Rome). Peace and blessings to you.
@rexlion4510 Thanks for your reply. I'd take issue that the Article rules out original guilt, though it doesn't require it (Davenant and Ward thought infant Baptism removed guilt). I actually also agree that the child isn't properly guilty yet--so we agree on this point. However, the infection of nature itself needs to be cleansed. Hence, it might be the case that infants in Sheol aren't fully in the presence of God, and are eventually given a chance to embrace Christ or not. Since I can't say any more than what's been revealed, I think "hope in God" is indeed good counsel. I don't think they are automatically damned on account of lacking guilt--and Scripture does not rule out post mortem salvation. So it seems to me that unbaptized infants of non believers may have a chance yet. I'd rather not go beyond what Scripture says, though.
@@anglicanaesthetics You wrote: "However, the infection of nature itself needs to be cleansed." But the Article says, "this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated..." Just pointing that out again for emphasis, because it seems to indicate that the infection is not removed. My assumption has been that 'cleansing' was synonymous with 'removal,' but maybe I'm wrong. I think there was some tugging back and forth among the several people who collaborated on the Article, centuries ago. I think we see evidence of the same tension between the two views in the baptism liturgy and even in portions of the Eucharistic liturgy. The back-and-forth tugging continues to this day. It is a broad church, after all.
The catechism of the 1662 BCP says, accurately, that baptism requires both faith *and* repentance. It anticipates the obvious follow-up question, but the answer it gives (because their godparents promise it), is really not very satisfying. This argument sort of touches the faith part, but doesn’t even approach the repentance part.
I think we should understand that in the participatory sense I've articulated above. The child participates in the faith and repentance of their parents/sponsors.
In regard to the Patristic case, it should be noted that St. Irenaeus repeatedly identifies baptism as the mechanism of regeneration in the same work (e.g., “baptism which is regeneration to God,” [Adv. Haer., I.21.I] “giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, [Jesus] said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them…” [ibid., III.17.I]), this fact supports your reading, since, if infants can be regenerated, this presumably happens through the laver of regeneration in thought of Irenaeus. Moreover, St. Hippolytus was the pupil of St. Irenaeus and learned much of his theology from him. For this reason, St. Hippolytus's explicit affirmation of infant baptism further suggests that St. Irenaeus was indeed referring to infant baptism.
Question: Why would then the disciples go against the norm and rebuke people bringing their children to be blessed (Mat. 19:13-15)? I think this question needs to be answered in order for this incident to be used in support of Infant Baptism.
Because initially they're just thinking of Jesus as a special kind of rabbi, and are missing the full scope of the fact that he's inaugurating the new covenant. Babies didn't sign up for sessions with rabbis, but this is of course YHWH come to rescue his people.
@@anglicanaesthetics I doubt that given the context of Chapter 18 (the initial part), where Christ already reminded them of the consequences of not being LIKE a child, and yet they restricted them from being brought to Christ.
Hey Sean, thanks for the video! Just curious, what do you think about inter-generational baptism? Should grandchildren be baptized according to your view and how does this contrast to the Presbyterian view on baptizing grandchildren?
If the children's covenantal head is the grandparent, then yes. So on this score it's close to Presbyterianism. The difference would be the affirmation of Baptismal regeneration.
@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks for the reply! I will also add that I do think that your view presents a stronger case for paedobaptism than the presbyterian one. Do you think you will have a dialogue with Gavin in the near future on this topic? Keep up the great content!
As an outsider it’s always interesting to see these small debates. I just don’t understand the why behind infant baptism. It surely can’t change their salvation at that moment because if gods good then he wouldn’t send babies to hell. If it’s for when they are older and can think for themselves it shouldn’t matter because then they should either want god and go get baptized or not and then the earlier baptism wouldn’t matter. I guess maybe you can think infant baptism would help keep the babies faith? Although I would love to see stats on that.
A good way to think of it as an outsider is this. Let's assume that all babies who die end up going to heaven. Salvation isn't just about not going to hell. It's actually about being enfolded into a way of life--the way of Christ. So it's ultimately about having one's life take on the colors of God's own life. Baptism is the visible way someone is enfolded into God's life. So when parents baptize their children, they are visibly sweeping up the child into a pattern of life. It's sort of like when your parents say, "this is who our family is"--they will take on certain practices that communicate that. Faith, for historic Christianity, is very much communal. It's about a community's pattern of life--a pattern that the church received from Christ, and leads deeper into God's life. So in the life of a person who grows up Christian, it connects them to their family identity and is a seal of the community to which they belong (which, of course, they can throw off if they choose to, or choose to take that seal up for themselves and pass it down). Now, let's address the question of whether babies go to hell or not. We need to remember that what we typically think of as "hell" is the final judgment, and doesn't happen until Christ returns. The dead outside of Christ go to a place called "Sheol". So it may well be the case that babies that die do get a chance to respond later in Sheol. Hence Baptism would still secure their salvation.
That's a good question. To my mind, it would be like the case of some adult who gets baptized under false pretenses. Still a real baptism, but the grace is only efficacious when it is taken up--until then, it is refused, as there is an obstacle put up to it.
@anglicanaesthetics Thank you for the reply! I see, so it’s valid, the benefits have been conferred. The unbelieving parents will jeopardize the efficacious. Let’s say a Christian took a baby from a Muslim family and baptized them, then snuck them back to their family. Was that a valid baptism? Like outside of not using water or the trinitarian formula, what else renders a baptism invalid?
I don't, but the difference is that I think that all baptized infants are genuinely regenerate (and thus non-elect infants will end up losing justification and salvation), and that regeneration genuinely happens at the moment of Baptism. Presbyterians would disagree with both of these points.
Thank you for the video. I've been interested and I will say that it hasn't made me move from my credobaptistic views, but I respect it as a historical view within the church. If I could find a denomination that was episcopalian in government, credobaptistic, and not (at least officially) Calvinistic, I'd seriously look into it. But nay, no denomination is as perfect as me lol
Love it. Question: what about children who are abandoned to the Church and the Church doesn’t know if the parents are believers? Is the church justified in baptizing?
@@anglicanaesthetics So I've kinda been thinking about this lately because I do think that Reformed covenantal theology has an unfortunate side-effect: if infant baptism is only legitimate because children of *believers* are included in the New Covenant, then it seems that a baptism of an infant of unbelievers would not only be imprudent but actually invalid because you the sacrament did not have valid matter (i.e., a "covenant child"). So I've been thinking of it more in terms of Jairus and his daughter -- Jesus heals his daughter because of *his* faith. She was incapable of faith because she was dead, but someone had faith on her behalf, and because of that Christ's touch was effectual unto restoration of life. When the Church presents a child to God through baptism, it seems to me that it has to be the faith *of the Church* that is counting for the child rather than the faith of the parents, although the parents become the sureties of their baptismal promises. This isn't intended to be a rebuttal. It's more of a stream-of-consciousness comment coming from a couple months of reflection of infant baptismal and covenant theology. I've kinda come to the view that covenant theology, at least as it comes to us through the Reformed tradition, has an insufficient explanation for infant baptism.
Great video. To quibble a bit, what leads you to say the Lord Jesus remained ritually tahor after healing physical ailments that created ritual impurity (tum"ah)? I suspect the Lord, after touching the zavah and briefly-but-truly-dead girl in the same afternoon, either immersed that day or at least did not enter the temple until he had done so. I'm not sure we can use this assumption that he was immune to tumah to support the idea of a transformation of the marriage covenant such that unbelieving spouses once defiled the believer but do so no longer. Maybe I have not fully understood your point. Thank you for the willingness to put your thoughts out here for the benefit of the Body!
Good question--and that's fair, I don't know for sure that he didn't consider himself ritually unclean. Though perhaps that point is better made in the giving of the Spirit and 2 Cor 6--that the people of God are now clean, and uncleanness laws have been fulfilled
The problem with infant baptism. Is the same problem with the mode of baptism. Baptism was around before christ. Baptism was a ceremony done in private by Jewish procelytes. It was done as part of the process to become part of israel. And it was done by immersing themselves in water. And it was only done to those who had chose willingly for themselves to join israel. The sight of john baptizing in the jordan would have been most perplexing to the jewish leadership.
To my knowledge, it actually wasn't a ceremony done in private by proselytes. Rather, it's background is best understood as located in the mikvah, where it was used to achieve ritual purity. Baptism has new significance, however, in light of the gift of the Holy Spirit--which wasn't just promised to adults, but to adults and their children.
It is worth noting that St Irenaeus and St Hippolytus lived right near each other (relatively speaking) and knew each other. The Easter Controversy, and it’s recorded correspondence in the late 100’s, made it very clear that St Irenaeus had regular contact with Rome and knew the clergy in Rome. Hippolytus said infant baptism was the practice Rome received from St Peter and Paul, and St Irenaeus was under the jurisdiction of Rome, being that Lyon was in the western jurisdiction (the bishop of Rome did not have anything close to universal jurisdiction in the first century, as admitted by Rome). The Orthodox Catholic Church has taught infant baptism since Pentecost. The first identifiable group to reject the viability of infant baptism being regenerative was the anabaptists. The Bogomils did for other very odd and obscure reasons, they were gnostic heretics.
The fundamental of this argument is an appeal to very dubious covenant theology. I would suggest that it is much better to look first at what John the Baptist was about (see the book John the Baptist: A Biography) and how Christian baptism was built on that.
@ it’s so convoluted and opaque. There is a hugely better, clearer and more powerful theology available to us when John the Baptist’s baptisms and early Christian baptisms are understood. I cannot do more than recommend that book to you again - please read it.
I would love to be talked into a biblical foundation for infant baptism. Right now, I see it as permissible and even normative as ecclesial tradition, but struggle to see it as a Dominical or Apostlic command. I do believe that "grace is increased by virtue of prayer." For that reason, we baptized my three children. I also agree with your compelling arguments for the covenant participation of children. This seems a better argument for paedocommunion than for paedobaptism, though. Yes, I understand that communion is only permitted for the baptized but, assuming some level of covenant participation in the Body of Christ is confered by sanctification through co-membership in the domestic covenant of a believing household, then the passive, receptive act of eating sanctified foods (as would the daughters and servants of a kohen who could not themselves enter the temple) seems to cohere with scriptural patterns. I don't yet see an obvious parallel in the Tanakh or first century traditions to infant baptism. In the absence of an Evangelist's parenthetical aside to explain what the Jews mean by "baptism," I think we have to assume its meaning was more or less familiar to the reader from their experience prior to reading. Seems like the primary connotation in their minds would be that of conversion. Even today, baptism is the final step in becoming Jewish following (for men) circumcision. If I could find any scriptural or historical precedent for infants going into a mikvah either (1) during a parent's conversion or (2) to remove ritual impurity, I think the argument from familial covenant membership would be more persuasive. What am I getting wrong?
You said: "Infants do have faith; they have faith through their parents." This is the primary issue, the main question to be answered. The prophecy of Isaiah 54:10-17 has not yet come to pass; it speaks of an event we have not yet witnessed, therefore it is in the future. Notice that the people of Israel have never ceased being oppressed, but v. 14 promises: _thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee._ This prophecy of the future is not at all applicable to the issue of baptism. I don't think this was a good passage to include. Acts 2:38-39 ... if "repentance and baptism" (lumped together) are "for you and your children" (lumped together), you still have the problem of "and those who are far off"; in other words, you have lopped off the third part of what you formerly saw as three separate groups. Now you've made two groups instead of three: group 1 is "you and your children," and group 2 is "those who are far off." If you're going to start lumping together, shouldn't all three become one group? I think your original understanding (3 separate groups) is the correct one. I would add the following reasoning. We are justified by the imputation God's grace through faith apart from works and apart from any merit of our own. Infants cannot form faith for themselves. But when an infant is born to a believing parent or parents, perhaps the faith of the parent(s) is imputed to their infant until such time as the child himself becomes capable of forming faith in Christ. It still concerns me, however, that a child might grow up thinking that he is a redeemed Christian simply because he has been baptized into God's household and is living a relatively moral life that includes church participation. (This concern springs out of my Roman Catholic upbringing and my observation, over the course of 60+ years, of the beliefs held by Catholic relatives & acquaintances I've known.) Baptism is an incredibly meaningful spiritual touchpoint for an adult who comes to faith, and I'm not sure if our creation of a substitute ceremony ("Confirmation") is equally beneficial (we see no mention of confirmation in Scripture, either). I still think that baptism should be rightly reserved for one who comes to genuine faith in Christ, and the best place to add a substitute ceremony is at infancy (a ceremony called "baby dedication" which many Protestant denominations practice). You left out some relevant early church data. The Didache and some other early writings taught that the person to be baptized must first repent, or taught that the person must first go through a period of discipleship. Credit must be given to Anglicanism for not teaching that unbaptized babies who die cannot enter God's Kingdom (the Catholic Church made up a fictional destination called "Limbo" for those children). Any Anglican parents who prefer, as a matter of personal conviction, to wait before having their children baptized are free to do so.
Isaiah 54--my point here is that this text shows an awareness that the covenant blessings poured out on a people are bequeathed to their children. That provides a backdrop for how we understand how covenants work. In Acts 2:38-39, my argument was that "you and your children" should be considered a whole because of Joel 2's context. The "all who are far off" are not connected to the household of "you", and so form a distinct group. The Didache doesn't rule out paedobaptism at all. Further, catechumens--so adult converts--go through the period of instruction. This didn't necessarily apply to infants, however. As Tertullian attests, there were people baptizing infants early on--and Cyprian says this as well. Now what about the pastoral concern? I actually think that, in the context of an overall catechesis, it makes stronger Christians, not weaker ones. The problem wasn't with baptism, but with subsequent catechesis. I affirm, for instance, that if someone doesn't take up their baptismal promise for themselves, they are cut off. We *do* however have a sacrament that renews one's Baptism: Eucharist. So each time someone takes the Eucharist with repentant faith, it is a time to genuinely take up their faith as their own in repenting and confessing sin, and receiving forgiveness.
Book of Mormon Moroni 8:8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; Doctrine amd Covenants 137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. A fundamental tenet of LDS theology and Christiany in general is agency, the ability to choose. Baptism is seen as a personal covenant with God, which requires understanding, repentance, and a conscious decision to follow Christ-conditions an infant cannot meet.
So much disunity. If only there was an authority here on earth that has a lineage back to Christ that can help us decide who is right and who is wrong besides a bunch of fallible men and their personal interpretation......oh wait!
Good thing we don't anathametize each other to hell over these things and still embrace each other as brothers and sisters, so that we can discuss the data calmly and with fillial affection.
@@a.ihistory5879 This is quite a funny response about 'pride' to read after you showed up here to proclaim your own personal choice of denominational affiliation to be authoritative.
You're saying there was no disunity prereformation or among the early fathers? St. Jerome anathemitzing Origen or John Cassian against St. Augustine etc.. I could go on.
Great video on infant baptism! Love the explanation of the very strong covenantal aspect as well. I would love to get you on my channel brother! You have an email to contact?
This is probably the most compelling brief scriptural case for infant baptism I've come across. Well done. I hadn't heard (or made) the connection between the corporate act of repentance (explicitly inclusive of infants) from Joel 2 and its recapitulation in Acts 2. What a great point.
I was Evangelical/Baptist for 20 years and now I'm Lutheran. I want to offer another element I think you should add to your great argument. Baptists don't really have a mental category for sacraments. I think you have to start with creating an understanding of sacraments from scripture (tree of life, bronze pole/serpent, namaan leprosy and the Jordan, etc.). Then develop the concept of baptismal regeneration. Baptists view baptism as strictly mans work of obedience AFTER regeneration. It needs to be made clear that baptism does regenerate and its God doing the work, not man. If you can establish that and total depravity is given, then infant baptism is a logical extension. That's the path I had to take and its the path I took my wife down and eventually she agreed. We ended up baptizing all 6 of our kids in the Lutheran church.
I’m surprised more people don’t use Joel 2 in this way. Going back and reading the prophecy that Peter explicitly quotes in connection with baptism is what originally convinced of infant baptism, and it has been my go to verse ever since!
Hey Sean Luke! I figured I’d add some thoughts as a Baptist who for a period of time was quite convinced of the Lutheran leaning end of the Anglican spectrum of positions on paedobaptism.
1. Isa 54:13
The broader context of this chapter is using the metaphor that Israel, the corporate entity in whom the Abrahamic promise lives on ( from genesis 17, when God renames Abram to Abraham. God says to Abraham “I have made you the father of many nations” and “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring…”). I don’t see anything in the context exactly that would support a paedobaptist position over a creedobaptist one. My understanding of what’s going on here is along the lines of what Paul refers to in Roman 9, starting in verse 6 when he distinguishes between those who are descended from Israel, and those who “belong to” Israel, or simply put that this is referring to descendants in a specifically non literal sense.
1 Corinthians 10
The context of this chapter is Paul dealing with a very specific scenario: some of the Corinthians believe that they can participate in the life of the church but still partake in the worship of idols. If Paul was intending this to speak to the nature of infants as they relate to the covenant community, he very well could have called that out like you did when you expound on some of the details of the exodus narrative. The fact that he does not accent infants, as well as the nature of the broader context pertaining to an exhortation to not live a life of compromise means I would be hesitant to read into this text what you are claiming here
Isa 44
My thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Isaiah 54. One additional thought is that vs 3-5 makes rather open claims on whom is meant by terms like offspring or descendants. There is nothing within the text which would necessitate that this has to mean each and every biological descendant as opposed to something like a set of non biological descendants who are true in regards to their continuity of faith with Israel and its telos.
Joel 2
In this passage the reference to infants seems to be in the support of expressing the grave immediacy and necessity of a full and expedient repentance on behalf of the entire nation of Israel. The Septuagint here (which is the version quoted by Peter in acts 2) reads breast-feeding infants, or literally, “suckling breasts”. The image is that the situation is so dire that you should not waste a single moment on the way to repentance.
The children of believers belong to the Lord
A lot of what you lay out in your main case I am totally in agreement with. I just don’t think that this necessitates the baptism of any individual prior to a credible profession of faith. This is precisely the reason that I believe that child dedications are permissible as part of Sunday worship. The contention of the Baptist is that there is actually a valid category of individuals in church life who are not yet in full communion with the body of Christ, but nevertheless receive many benefits by virtue of their adjacency to the church. This leads the Baptist and the Anglican to hold off on the baptism of an unbelieving spouse, while still recognizing that there is genuine spiritual good being received via the close proximity to God working in the life of the believing spouse and their Christian community. As a Baptist, I see myself as having one consistent way of dealing with individuals who are not yet in full communion with the body of Christ, regardless of age.
Acts 2
I’m not convinced that this is a strong argument for infant baptism over and against a more minimal view of the partial inclusion of children prior to their baptism that a Baptist would hold to. I’ll refer back to my interpretation of Joel 2 here as well
1 Corinthians 7
I think the backdrop here is certainly ezra 10:2-3 where in a season of sin, many Israelite men took foreign wives and had children with them. Their repentance included putting away their foreign wives and children. I agree largely with what you mentioned about the difference of how holiness and defilement works post resurrection, but I believe paul is specifically repudiating the idea of a Christian using the lack of belief as a license to abandon their family rather than commenting on the nature of infants in relation to inclusion in baptism.
In regard to early church data, I see the data as not as supportive as you seem to be. If you want to interact with the best case that can be made against paedobaptism in the early church I would recommend interacting with “baptism in the early church” by stander and luow. I would love hearing your thoughts on their work.
All in all, while I disagree with you, I do want to say that your channel has been a large blessing to me. I spent about a year really diving into Anglicanism, and then eventually having to deal with Catholic claims and I watched a lot of hours of AA during that time. I always appreciate the way that you bring clarity to complex topics while remaining graceful, especially when your interlocutors are not.
God bless, and keep making great content!
Excellent comment.
Your interpretation of baptism didn't even come until 16th century, you read your presumptions into the Bible
Thanks for your reply, brother! In response:
Isaiah 54 - My argument is that this supports the notion that Israel had a conception of God's covenant blessing such that the covenant blessing they were beneficiaries to also were bequeathed on their children. Their children, in other words, shared in their title to the blessings of the covenant. So this forms a backdrop to the new covenant, and a consciousness of the covenant that says "my title to the blessings of the covenant are shared by and poured out on my children."
Joel 2 - My argument here is that this is a description of repentance, which forms the immediate backdrop for what Peter says in Acts 2. So that infants were consecrated to the Lord is an instantiation of repentance--the participation of the infants in the repentance-ritual is thus part of what it means for Israel to repent. A Jew, then, in Acts 2, would have had that sense in mind when Peter says "the promise is for you and your children, and all who are far off"--with "you and your children" being grouped together--and not just "the promise is for you and all who are far off".
The reason we hold off baptizing the unbelieving spouse is because they're rejecting the sacrament of grace extended to them in their believing spouse.
Agreed that the backdrop is Ezra (I think I said it was Nehemiah, but I think you're right)--but it's important to note the actual argument Paul uses. He argues *from* the cleanness and holiness of the child to the non-defilement of the believer by the unbeliever.
On church history--my specific treatment of the fathers in question is designed to meet some of those criticisms.
@@anglicanaesthetics appreciate the response!
I think the biggest difference between our two perspectives then lies in how much continuity we see between the new and old covenants. We both would agree that there is not TOTAL continuity, otherwise we would baptize only men. Then, there is the tricky task of deciphering where there is continuity vs discontinuity. A Baptist would be much more slow to pronounce continuity than an Anglican. This would be a similar sort of difference, albeit not exactly the same, that a Baptist and a Presbyterian would have.
I don’t say this to try to rebut any of your points in particular, but rather to hopefully offer clarity to anyone else following along with this thread. I would still enjoy your thoughts specifically on some of the particular arguments of stander and luow if you can ever find time to get around to it! That resource seems to be one that keeps coming back up for the creedobaptist position on this debate.
This is very well done! I often make similar arguments in a similar order and receive encouraging feedback form Baptist friends. Being able to forward this erudite, concise and well organized presentation is a fantastic gift. Let me know if there’s a place I can donate.
As a new Anglican, your videos are super helpful! God bless!
Nice! Coming from a Pentecostal background before I became Lutheran LCMS, it's great to have more resources for talking to the general non denominational or Baptist
Lutheranism is 🗿🗿🗿✝️✝️✝️
@@danielbui-tx5ht real (im presby)
This will definitely be helpful. I joined LCMS this year and have been learning so much and eager to share with others.
Wow! So many people have already trodden the path I am about to embark on. Amazing
Thank you. This is very helpful. I do believe in infant baptism, and this has strengthened my sense of the rightness of that doctrine.
Participation of infants in repentance ritual is a strong argument. Very helpful when paired with the promise of the Spirit, especially considering the first person to recognize the Messiah through the illumination of the Spirit is an infant!
Wow. As a Baptist, this scratches me where I itch. I hope this generates many thoughtful rebuttals.
This is gold. I'll come back and take notes. Thank you brother.
Great video! You cover a lot of the same ground that I did in my recent video on the same topic. One connection I did not make that I really loved is what you said about corporate repentance in Joel chapter 2 including infants, which is then also in view in Peter’s sermon in chapter 2 of the book of Acts.
Great job. This is the best defense I've seen of infant baptism.
Please can you make more videos on Sola Apostolica cuz I am really curious and interested about it but I am a bit confused on some things
@@Anglo-ton Glad to! What questions specifically would be helpful for me to address?
@@anglicanaesthetics well what do you mean by tradition? Cuz Martin C examination of the council of Trent. Makes 8 type types of it. So I’m fine with when the apostles. Guide the church being infallible. But not really with the oral tradition bit. It makes. Not much sense to me.
1:41 "If someone has faith, they should be baptized." Yes, If a person has faith, and has demonstrated that faith by repenting of their sin, and turned to God, that person is a candidate for baptism. However, an infant is too young to have faith and to repent.
1:47 "Infants have faith through their parents." Please show me New Testament examples of this. . . .
11:15 The parents brought their children to Jesus, and Jesus laid his hands on them, (the children) and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16) Jesus did NOT baptize them. Why not, if infants should be baptized based on the faith of the parents?
Thanks much for this video.
This is a very good helpful video. Thanks
This question is tangential to what you were discussing. What would you say to a mother whose unbaptized infant or toddler dies suddenly, if she asked you whether her child is in heaven? Other than saying "It's up to God," what outcome does your theology call for; is the unbaptized child supposed to be saved into God's Kingdom or not?
If the mother is a Christian and she had the intent to baptize, the child is with Jesus (just like a catechumen might die prior to baptism). If there is no intention to baptize, that gets murkier--and starts to approach the case of pagan kids who die.
I think "it's up to God" carries a great deal more hope than we often give it credit for. First, God is far, far more merciful than we know, and his justice is perfect. No one will be judged who doesn't deserve it at the last day. But second, the Christian mother can take comfort in that God intends to do her good, and often overlooks our faults. So it's not just that she should say "it's up to God", but she should hope in the stretches of God's mercy that she can't see.
@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks for your reply. And you're right, it gets murky when we view it like that; in fact, with such a viewpoint it would be really difficult to be the rector counseling a parent whose unbaptized child died while the parent was not a Christian, if that parent became a committed Christian soon afterward. What a tough task that would be!
I did have a point to make, though, when I asked the question, and perhaps the point will take out some of the murkiness. Here is my point: Our Anglican theology doesn't look at baptism in quite the same way as the Roman Catholics, who view it as a _salvific necessity_ because their view of Original Sin says that the infant is born with actual guilt for Adam's sin. A careful reading of Article IX calls original sin an “infection of nature” and a “corruption of the nature of every man....whereby man...is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit," but the Article does not include _guilt_ for Adam's sin as a part of the child's inherited "Original Sin"; in fact, the Article clearly states that baptism does not abate the effects of the original sin: "this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated..."
For us Anglican Christians, baptism is not about lifting guilt off of the infant, and thus there is not the same sense of urgency to baptize as the Catholics have, because the one who has not committed actual sin _is not yet guilty._ Thus, we should view the child as one who, despite the proclivity to commit sin when the opportunity comes, is not guilty of sin until he/she becomes old enough to understand and be accountable for his/her actions. This is the view among Protestant groups which continued to reform just a bit more on this issue and which shed more of the Roman influence.
Note: I was raised Roman Catholic, then followed the Lord's leading into congregational Protestant churches (including some non-denoms) for 30+ years, before He led me to an ACNA Anglican parish. As a result, I've seen multiple sides of some issues (like baptism). Whether that makes my viewpoint better than any other remains to be learned when I meet Jesus face-to-face. But I'm not afraid to analyze or question what is being taught by any given denomination (obviously, or I'd still be stuck in unquestioning lockstep with Rome).
Peace and blessings to you.
@rexlion4510 Thanks for your reply. I'd take issue that the Article rules out original guilt, though it doesn't require it (Davenant and Ward thought infant Baptism removed guilt). I actually also agree that the child isn't properly guilty yet--so we agree on this point.
However, the infection of nature itself needs to be cleansed. Hence, it might be the case that infants in Sheol aren't fully in the presence of God, and are eventually given a chance to embrace Christ or not. Since I can't say any more than what's been revealed, I think "hope in God" is indeed good counsel. I don't think they are automatically damned on account of lacking guilt--and Scripture does not rule out post mortem salvation. So it seems to me that unbaptized infants of non believers may have a chance yet. I'd rather not go beyond what Scripture says, though.
@@anglicanaesthetics You wrote: "However, the infection of nature itself needs to be cleansed."
But the Article says, "this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated..." Just pointing that out again for emphasis, because it seems to indicate that the infection is not removed. My assumption has been that 'cleansing' was synonymous with 'removal,' but maybe I'm wrong.
I think there was some tugging back and forth among the several people who collaborated on the Article, centuries ago. I think we see evidence of the same tension between the two views in the baptism liturgy and even in portions of the Eucharistic liturgy. The back-and-forth tugging continues to this day. It is a broad church, after all.
The catechism of the 1662 BCP says, accurately, that baptism requires both faith *and* repentance. It anticipates the obvious follow-up question, but the answer it gives (because their godparents promise it), is really not very satisfying. This argument sort of touches the faith part, but doesn’t even approach the repentance part.
I think we should understand that in the participatory sense I've articulated above. The child participates in the faith and repentance of their parents/sponsors.
In regard to the Patristic case, it should be noted that St. Irenaeus repeatedly identifies baptism as the mechanism of regeneration in the same work (e.g., “baptism which is regeneration to God,” [Adv. Haer., I.21.I] “giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, [Jesus] said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them…” [ibid., III.17.I]), this fact supports your reading, since, if infants can be regenerated, this presumably happens through the laver of regeneration in thought of Irenaeus. Moreover, St. Hippolytus was the pupil of St. Irenaeus and learned much of his theology from him. For this reason, St. Hippolytus's explicit affirmation of infant baptism further suggests that St. Irenaeus was indeed referring to infant baptism.
Good point!
Question: Why would then the disciples go against the norm and rebuke people bringing their children to be blessed (Mat. 19:13-15)? I think this question needs to be answered in order for this incident to be used in support of Infant Baptism.
Because initially they're just thinking of Jesus as a special kind of rabbi, and are missing the full scope of the fact that he's inaugurating the new covenant. Babies didn't sign up for sessions with rabbis, but this is of course YHWH come to rescue his people.
@@anglicanaesthetics I doubt that given the context of Chapter 18 (the initial part), where Christ already reminded them of the consequences of not being LIKE a child, and yet they restricted them from being brought to Christ.
@@BraveNewMen I don't understand what you're arguing but, his response is correct...
Hey Sean, thanks for the video! Just curious, what do you think about inter-generational baptism? Should grandchildren be baptized according to your view and how does this contrast to the Presbyterian view on baptizing grandchildren?
If the children's covenantal head is the grandparent, then yes. So on this score it's close to Presbyterianism. The difference would be the affirmation of Baptismal regeneration.
@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks for the reply! I will also add that I do think that your view presents a stronger case for paedobaptism than the presbyterian one. Do you think you will have a dialogue with Gavin in the near future on this topic? Keep up the great content!
@@orangefish123 I'd love to! Though he's a busy man
As an outsider it’s always interesting to see these small debates. I just don’t understand the why behind infant baptism. It surely can’t change their salvation at that moment because if gods good then he wouldn’t send babies to hell. If it’s for when they are older and can think for themselves it shouldn’t matter because then they should either want god and go get baptized or not and then the earlier baptism wouldn’t matter.
I guess maybe you can think infant baptism would help keep the babies faith? Although I would love to see stats on that.
A good way to think of it as an outsider is this. Let's assume that all babies who die end up going to heaven. Salvation isn't just about not going to hell. It's actually about being enfolded into a way of life--the way of Christ. So it's ultimately about having one's life take on the colors of God's own life.
Baptism is the visible way someone is enfolded into God's life. So when parents baptize their children, they are visibly sweeping up the child into a pattern of life. It's sort of like when your parents say, "this is who our family is"--they will take on certain practices that communicate that. Faith, for historic Christianity, is very much communal. It's about a community's pattern of life--a pattern that the church received from Christ, and leads deeper into God's life. So in the life of a person who grows up Christian, it connects them to their family identity and is a seal of the community to which they belong (which, of course, they can throw off if they choose to, or choose to take that seal up for themselves and pass it down).
Now, let's address the question of whether babies go to hell or not. We need to remember that what we typically think of as "hell" is the final judgment, and doesn't happen until Christ returns. The dead outside of Christ go to a place called "Sheol". So it may well be the case that babies that die do get a chance to respond later in Sheol. Hence Baptism would still secure their salvation.
What if your parents or sponsors aren’t faithful christisns?
That's a good question. To my mind, it would be like the case of some adult who gets baptized under false pretenses. Still a real baptism, but the grace is only efficacious when it is taken up--until then, it is refused, as there is an obstacle put up to it.
@anglicanaesthetics Thank you for the reply! I see, so it’s valid, the benefits have been conferred. The unbelieving parents will jeopardize the efficacious. Let’s say a Christian took a baby from a Muslim family and baptized them, then snuck them back to their family. Was that a valid baptism? Like outside of not using water or the trinitarian formula, what else renders a baptism invalid?
Do you have a video contrasting your conception of infant baptism with the Presbyterian conception?
I don't, but the difference is that I think that all baptized infants are genuinely regenerate (and thus non-elect infants will end up losing justification and salvation), and that regeneration genuinely happens at the moment of Baptism. Presbyterians would disagree with both of these points.
@anglicanaesthetics
Thanks!
Thank you for the video. I've been interested and I will say that it hasn't made me move from my credobaptistic views, but I respect it as a historical view within the church. If I could find a denomination that was episcopalian in government, credobaptistic, and not (at least officially) Calvinistic, I'd seriously look into it. But nay, no denomination is as perfect as me lol
Best Anglican on YT
Love it. Question: what about children who are abandoned to the Church and the Church doesn’t know if the parents are believers? Is the church justified in baptizing?
@cullanfritts4499 Good question! Yes, because at that point the church is functioning as the guardian and covenantal head of the child.
@@anglicanaesthetics What happens if the child after being baptized finds his parents who are not believers?
@@anglicanaesthetics So I've kinda been thinking about this lately because I do think that Reformed covenantal theology has an unfortunate side-effect: if infant baptism is only legitimate because children of *believers* are included in the New Covenant, then it seems that a baptism of an infant of unbelievers would not only be imprudent but actually invalid because you the sacrament did not have valid matter (i.e., a "covenant child"). So I've been thinking of it more in terms of Jairus and his daughter -- Jesus heals his daughter because of *his* faith. She was incapable of faith because she was dead, but someone had faith on her behalf, and because of that Christ's touch was effectual unto restoration of life. When the Church presents a child to God through baptism, it seems to me that it has to be the faith *of the Church* that is counting for the child rather than the faith of the parents, although the parents become the sureties of their baptismal promises. This isn't intended to be a rebuttal. It's more of a stream-of-consciousness comment coming from a couple months of reflection of infant baptismal and covenant theology. I've kinda come to the view that covenant theology, at least as it comes to us through the Reformed tradition, has an insufficient explanation for infant baptism.
Great video. To quibble a bit, what leads you to say the Lord Jesus remained ritually tahor after healing physical ailments that created ritual impurity (tum"ah)?
I suspect the Lord, after touching the zavah and briefly-but-truly-dead girl in the same afternoon, either immersed that day or at least did not enter the temple until he had done so.
I'm not sure we can use this assumption that he was immune to tumah to support the idea of a transformation of the marriage covenant such that unbelieving spouses once defiled the believer but do so no longer. Maybe I have not fully understood your point.
Thank you for the willingness to put your thoughts out here for the benefit of the Body!
Good question--and that's fair, I don't know for sure that he didn't consider himself ritually unclean. Though perhaps that point is better made in the giving of the Spirit and 2 Cor 6--that the people of God are now clean, and uncleanness laws have been fulfilled
@@anglicanaestheticsI see what you mean. Probably not the most appropriate thread for me to argue the meaning of "fulfilled." Thanks for responding.
The problem with infant baptism.
Is the same problem with the mode of baptism. Baptism was around before christ. Baptism was a ceremony done in private by Jewish procelytes. It was done as part of the process to become part of israel. And it was done by immersing themselves in water. And it was only done to those who had chose willingly for themselves to join israel. The sight of john baptizing in the jordan would have been most perplexing to the jewish leadership.
To my knowledge, it actually wasn't a ceremony done in private by proselytes. Rather, it's background is best understood as located in the mikvah, where it was used to achieve ritual purity. Baptism has new significance, however, in light of the gift of the Holy Spirit--which wasn't just promised to adults, but to adults and their children.
It is worth noting that St Irenaeus and St Hippolytus lived right near each other (relatively speaking) and knew each other. The Easter Controversy, and it’s recorded correspondence in the late 100’s, made it very clear that St Irenaeus had regular contact with Rome and knew the clergy in Rome.
Hippolytus said infant baptism was the practice Rome received from St Peter and Paul, and St Irenaeus was under the jurisdiction of Rome, being that Lyon was in the western jurisdiction (the bishop of Rome did not have anything close to universal jurisdiction in the first century, as admitted by Rome).
The Orthodox Catholic Church has taught infant baptism since Pentecost.
The first identifiable group to reject the viability of infant baptism being regenerative was the anabaptists.
The Bogomils did for other very odd and obscure reasons, they were gnostic heretics.
The fundamental of this argument is an appeal to very dubious covenant theology. I would suggest that it is much better to look first at what John the Baptist was about (see the book John the Baptist: A Biography) and how Christian baptism was built on that.
I don't see how it's dubious. This whole video is arguing that it's actually quite traceable.
@ it’s so convoluted and opaque. There is a hugely better, clearer and more powerful theology available to us when John the Baptist’s baptisms and early Christian baptisms are understood. I cannot do more than recommend that book to you again - please read it.
There is no compelling case. You have maybe half a verse that is used that is actually applicable.
I would love to be talked into a biblical foundation for infant baptism. Right now, I see it as permissible and even normative as ecclesial tradition, but struggle to see it as a Dominical or Apostlic command.
I do believe that "grace is increased by virtue of prayer." For that reason, we baptized my three children. I also agree with your compelling arguments for the covenant participation of children.
This seems a better argument for paedocommunion than for paedobaptism, though. Yes, I understand that communion is only permitted for the baptized but, assuming some level of covenant participation in the Body of Christ is confered by sanctification through co-membership in the domestic covenant of a believing household, then the passive, receptive act of eating sanctified foods (as would the daughters and servants of a kohen who could not themselves enter the temple) seems to cohere with scriptural patterns.
I don't yet see an obvious parallel in the Tanakh or first century traditions to infant baptism. In the absence of an Evangelist's parenthetical aside to explain what the Jews mean by "baptism," I think we have to assume its meaning was more or less familiar to the reader from their experience prior to reading. Seems like the primary connotation in their minds would be that of conversion. Even today, baptism is the final step in becoming Jewish following (for men) circumcision. If I could find any scriptural or historical precedent for infants going into a mikvah either (1) during a parent's conversion or (2) to remove ritual impurity, I think the argument from familial covenant membership would be more persuasive.
What am I getting wrong?
You said: "Infants do have faith; they have faith through their parents." This is the primary issue, the main question to be answered.
The prophecy of Isaiah 54:10-17 has not yet come to pass; it speaks of an event we have not yet witnessed, therefore it is in the future. Notice that the people of Israel have never ceased being oppressed, but v. 14 promises: _thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee._ This prophecy of the future is not at all applicable to the issue of baptism. I don't think this was a good passage to include.
Acts 2:38-39 ... if "repentance and baptism" (lumped together) are "for you and your children" (lumped together), you still have the problem of "and those who are far off"; in other words, you have lopped off the third part of what you formerly saw as three separate groups. Now you've made two groups instead of three: group 1 is "you and your children," and group 2 is "those who are far off." If you're going to start lumping together, shouldn't all three become one group? I think your original understanding (3 separate groups) is the correct one.
I would add the following reasoning. We are justified by the imputation God's grace through faith apart from works and apart from any merit of our own. Infants cannot form faith for themselves. But when an infant is born to a believing parent or parents, perhaps the faith of the parent(s) is imputed to their infant until such time as the child himself becomes capable of forming faith in Christ.
It still concerns me, however, that a child might grow up thinking that he is a redeemed Christian simply because he has been baptized into God's household and is living a relatively moral life that includes church participation. (This concern springs out of my Roman Catholic upbringing and my observation, over the course of 60+ years, of the beliefs held by Catholic relatives & acquaintances I've known.) Baptism is an incredibly meaningful spiritual touchpoint for an adult who comes to faith, and I'm not sure if our creation of a substitute ceremony ("Confirmation") is equally beneficial (we see no mention of confirmation in Scripture, either). I still think that baptism should be rightly reserved for one who comes to genuine faith in Christ, and the best place to add a substitute ceremony is at infancy (a ceremony called "baby dedication" which many Protestant denominations practice).
You left out some relevant early church data. The Didache and some other early writings taught that the person to be baptized must first repent, or taught that the person must first go through a period of discipleship.
Credit must be given to Anglicanism for not teaching that unbaptized babies who die cannot enter God's Kingdom (the Catholic Church made up a fictional destination called "Limbo" for those children). Any Anglican parents who prefer, as a matter of personal conviction, to wait before having their children baptized are free to do so.
Isaiah 54--my point here is that this text shows an awareness that the covenant blessings poured out on a people are bequeathed to their children. That provides a backdrop for how we understand how covenants work.
In Acts 2:38-39, my argument was that "you and your children" should be considered a whole because of Joel 2's context. The "all who are far off" are not connected to the household of "you", and so form a distinct group.
The Didache doesn't rule out paedobaptism at all. Further, catechumens--so adult converts--go through the period of instruction. This didn't necessarily apply to infants, however. As Tertullian attests, there were people baptizing infants early on--and Cyprian says this as well.
Now what about the pastoral concern? I actually think that, in the context of an overall catechesis, it makes stronger Christians, not weaker ones. The problem wasn't with baptism, but with subsequent catechesis. I affirm, for instance, that if someone doesn't take up their baptismal promise for themselves, they are cut off. We *do* however have a sacrament that renews one's Baptism: Eucharist. So each time someone takes the Eucharist with repentant faith, it is a time to genuinely take up their faith as their own in repenting and confessing sin, and receiving forgiveness.
Book of Mormon
Moroni 8:8
Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin;
Doctrine amd Covenants 137:10
And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
A fundamental tenet of LDS theology and Christiany in general is agency, the ability to choose. Baptism is seen as a personal covenant with God, which requires understanding, repentance, and a conscious decision to follow Christ-conditions an infant cannot meet.
So much disunity. If only there was an authority here on earth that has a lineage back to Christ that can help us decide who is right and who is wrong besides a bunch of fallible men and their personal interpretation......oh wait!
If only! But there isn't. So we'll stick to what God has actually left us rather than trying to make up our own authority with a man in a hat.
Good thing we don't anathametize each other to hell over these things and still embrace each other as brothers and sisters, so that we can discuss the data calmly and with fillial affection.
@@Mic1904 We do actually it's called the papacy. God bless, and stop letting your pride get in the way of being part of the true church 🙏
@@a.ihistory5879 This is quite a funny response about 'pride' to read after you showed up here to proclaim your own personal choice of denominational affiliation to be authoritative.
You're saying there was no disunity prereformation or among the early fathers? St. Jerome anathemitzing Origen or John Cassian against St. Augustine etc.. I could go on.
Great video on infant baptism! Love the explanation of the very strong covenantal aspect as well. I would love to get you on my channel brother! You have an email to contact?