Why I Changed My Mind about Infant Baptism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 авг 2024
- Why do some churches baptize infants? What are the biblical and theological reasons for this practice? In this video, Chad Bird walks us through questions such as "What is wrong with us as sinners? How does God deliver the saving gifts of Jesus to us? And how does circumcision relate to baptism?" In the end, whether you agree or disagree, you will hopefully have a better understanding of infant baptism.
View more Bible Q&A videos by Chad • Bible Questions and An...
I was baptized as a baby. I was baptized as an adult. The first was not my choice. The second was. But then the first time the Gospel was preached to me wasn't my choice, but I'm glad I heard it. So with my first baptism I realized that it was promise, an effort, a way to try to guarantee I would stay with God and the church. So I do not fault the parents who made that choice, or the Church that followed that practice.
I did not baptize my children as infants, but I did take part in a formal baby dedication ceremony for each of them that was the same as my infant baptism without the water, the intent being the same. So now I respect the intent of the parents, and honour them whether it is a baby dedication or an infant baptism. Because I love them and honour them in Jesus' name.
Thanks, Chad. Listen, I disagree. But the older I get, the less I’m willing to get distracted by our differences in these types of issues. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17, and I can’t wait for us all to truly be united in eternity one day.
I disagree as well. A child can't repent of what the child doesn't know he did wrong.
@@lagapa3661 Yes they can. Adults don't repent either. What's the difference? NONE!
@@jonathang4833of course they do.
@jonathang4833 Jesus called all to take up their cross, to count the cost ... luke14 ... Acts 2 Repent and ... Hebrews 5 12ff Repentance ... Faith .... before baptisms
Romans 7 ..Paul alive *before* the law ; Jesus : of such is the kingdom if heaven ; Ezekiel 18 children Not guilty for patents sins ... infants are Not guilty ... they fallen bodies not fallen souls
There is and was no infant baptism in the nT church .... it was impossible for infants ..... John's baptisn wa a baptism of repentance ...do was Jesus baptism but included faith in Him ...
@@lagapa3661children weren’t required to repent when they were circumcised either…
I recently left a Southern Baptist church to join a confessional Lutheran Church. The main reason I did this was over the Sacraments, Baptism and Communion. When I sat down with my Baptist pastor, he had no problem with everything I said, EXCEPT infant baptism. This is a very high hurdle for anyone raised in the reformed tradition. You explain this so well. I hadn't thought of the connection between original sin and the infant's need for salvation, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for your clarity, and for your faithful teaching, constantly clarifying New Testament lessons by their Old Testament antecedents.
Probably because John the Baptist himself practiced multiple mitzvahs it’s something that most non-messianic churches don’t understand because they weren’t Jewish like Jesus. The Bible says believe and be baptized, however, the man on the cross next to Jesus, didn’t believe and hop off and get baptized to go the paradise so disagreeing with your understanding of whole household baptism instead of mikvah mizpah (repeated ceremonial cleansing as an outward expression of relational bond) doesn’t really matter. It’s literally not a salvation issue, and the only problem is if people try to make it one. In the same way, Jesus didn’t take the cup and say once a month whenever you take it, he said, whenever you eat or drink, in many ways, it just goes to prove that almost everyone’s wrong because they’re not actually humbling to what it really says. If you have a problem with someone you’re supposed to not even eat until you’ve resolved that matter. That’s what scripture actually says on this topic.
@@SRose-vp6ew Actually the thief on the cross was baptized by Christ, by His Words and also his water and blood. John 19:31-37, concentrate on verse 34. Again remember for Lutherans, Baptism is an act of God putting to death through his Word and Water our Old adams and raising us in the same instance to new life in Jesus Christ. We do nothing but receive. Baptism now saves you, Jesus states this in John 3:5; Peter recites Jesus Words in 1 Peter 3:21, and John delivers the truth of John 19:34 in 1 John 5:6-8. It becomes obvious when you come to the realization that most christians believe they have something to "participate" in and Jesus says in Genesis 6:5"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The continuation never ends until your death. The law says you're not supposed to eat until you've resolved "matters" but the Gospel says its done, price paid in full.
Something to think about that came to my mind and of course I had to research it: When you open your mouth to speak, saliva spreads across your lips and breaks into filaments when your lips part. Airflow from your lungs then stretches and thins the filaments until they rupture and become tiny droplets. This means that Jesus was baptizing everyone he came into contact with. You can thank the covid-19 mask-pushers for this research!
The fact is, nothing this heretic said makes any sense. It only makes sense to those like him who are completely spiritually dead, blind, lost, deceived, and Biblically illiterate. Repent!
@@mulkster39 ,..You have spoken absolute unbiblical ignorance. Repent, and learn what the truth of the Bible actually is.
That was great! Thanks. I am one who disagrees on this particular point, but I greatly respect and am built up by your ministry. I won't get into why I disagree because it is not important. Keep doing what your are doing and I will keep learning and enjoying. Blessings!
I knew from previous vids that you are Calvinist/lutheran both from Augustinian Gnosticism but didn’t realize to what extent until today. I suppose this means the millions of infants and children and mentally ill that aren’t baptized go to hell which is what Augustine taught. I do think you are sincere but very wrong. The basic premise of total depravity, sinful before we were even born, is the false foundation that all this is built on. Many are seeing through these false, unbiblical teachings and are being set free to worship the God that truly loves
all. I would also suggest you do a study on Luther, one of the greatest antisemites who ever lived. Has writings on his hatred of Jews (On The Jews and Their Lies) was used by Hitler to justify his hatred and persecution of Jews. As one of his generals said during the Nuremberg trials said, “I did nothing that Luther didn’t approve of” . There is ample evidence that all these unbiblical teachings beginning with total depravity came from Augustine’s gnostic background not scripture. I am going into detail because I think you are intellectually honest, just wrong. Shalom
Repent of your ignorance and of your fake christianity.
@@user-li5vx7dn7x ,...You have spoken in completely and total ignorance and have shown yourself to be just another brute beast made only to be destroyed that has been snared into the 100% apostate church and into its antichrist gospel/christianity.
Repent!
What is your point here?@@user-li5vx7dn7x
Too often, people try to take the credit away from the Lord, when it is the Lord who chooses us.
Amen. He is doing the baptizing. He is choosing us and claiming us as his very own in that moment (“marking us”). A lot of churches will teach that baptism is us choosing him. The very opposite.
If it was up to Jesus to choose us, then why did he say " Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Matthew 23:37
Υπέροχη διδασκαλία. Ευχαριστούμε, Τσαντ. Σε αγαπάμε. Στον ελληνικό κόσμο, η γλώσσα του οποίου είναι η γλώσσα της Καινής Διαθήκης, πάντα βαπτίζαμε και βαπτίζουμε νήπια. Η βάπτιση είναι δώρο.
❤ yes! Nai!
Speaking Greek does not mean you authomatically do everything correct accoridng to God's word. You can also apply the same thing to the Jews. They spoke the same language of the old testament, but rejected the Son of God...
@@alexbaptista8150Votre pensée est insane et non biblique, puisque dans les Actes , les Apotres baptisaient des familles entières, les enfants avec ! Dites -moi sérieusement, Où dans la bible est indiqué l’âge auquel l’enfant peut être baptisé ? Nulle part ! S’il n’y a pas de limite, alors les enfants aussi ont droit à leur baptême, c’est un don et le début de la vie chrétienne : dés leur baptême, les enfants reçoivent la communion et fortifie ainsi leur lien au Christ ! Que de temps perdu chez ces mal formés! C’est la pratique normale depuis plus de 2000 ans. Ceux qui ne le font pas, le font simplement par des raisonnements insanes sortis de la cervelle de réformateurs orgueilleux sans lien avec les Apôtres, quelques 1600 ans plus tard ! Folie! Non ?
Chad, I've been listening to your commentaries for several months now and want to let you know that I appreciate the careful thought and deep perspective that you provide, similar to that of my own pastor but with many additional insights. May God continue to bless your ministry.
Thank you for being careful and thorough. One of the beautiful things about confessional Lutheranism is the trust in God's Word without feeling a need to understand how God does it.
Exactly!
Beautifully said. I agree totally.
This was my last hurdle too! We joined the EPC recently and had been attending for about a year before becoming members and I really had struggles with this. Thank you. I had been gradually accepting it and trying so hard to understand it for a long time.
Your Fusion Water Bible study gets at the water soaking the Sacred Scriptures with this Baptismal understanding. Thanks, Chad...
The last one is the best point I’ve personally heard, thank you.
Thank you for a very timely explanation. I am also grappling with the practice of baptism. I was raised Lutheran in the ALC.
I was confirmed at 16. In the late 80s I was in Texas in the midst of the liberal encroachment into what would become the ELCA. My family moved to Utah and through circumstances have ended up in a Southern Baptist congregation.
Recently I have started studying and looking into the issue to settle my mind on the teachings.
Just thank you. Your insights are very helpful.
Chad, thank you, I too have been raised SBC, and have been wrestling with this doctrine. This has been helpful! Perhaps you could do a video, on your journey from memorial to the real presence in the Lord's supper. This would be of tremendous benefit.
Thank you! This is very helpful. I'm working my way through Luther's Catechism at the moment and wrestling with this very issue.
Blessings,
Rob
I also come from a background opposed to infant baptism and have found myself Lutheran. Through the years I’ve not been totally convinced, but I’m no longer opposed. I found your point about circumcision particularly cogent. Thanks for all you do. You’ve been a tremendous blessing!
I was baptized as a child not knowing why. I lived apart from God until age 37 when I started to seek God. Later, on Pentecost, 2011 I was baptized knowing full well what it meant. Prior to that day I felt as if God was pursuing me - even as I looked the other way. Did my infant baptism make a difference? I would say no. God loves me as much now as when I was born. Christ died for me no matter what I say or do; but with that said being baptized as a child held no sway in light of my adult baptism. At least for my limited vision and understanding. All in held so much more weight than clueless. I will review your points further. Blessings!
What if your experience at 37 was connected with God's faithfulness to the promise He made to you in your baptism?
@@ChericeGraham A good point to which I will not argue God’s faithfulness. Thank you for your insight.
I thank God for how He is using your ministry. Would love to talk to you face to face one day. A very powerful presentation.
Thank you for sharing Pastor!
Same thing for me, former Baptist now Lutheran!
Thank you for your guidance brother.
Wow! It makes so much sense! Thank you very much! I live in Puerto Rico and I would really like to visit a Lutheran congregation!
Thank you brother Chad
Likewise! Arguments against pedobaptism are usually a fusion of the following: 1) a preference towards a symbolic reading of God's Word, 2) an appeal to reason fostered by Western Enlightenment ideals, and 3) a hermeneutic that isn't entirely consistent with the manuscripts or their traditional preserving through church history. So, Scripture is referenced and cited but symbolically read (in places it wasn't before) or argued for a radically anti-historical interpretation (because throwing babies out with their bathwater is preferred over anything remotely seeming "Catholic") or flies in the face of Western Enlightenment reasoning. In the end of it, one's bias inevitably plays a large part in resisting a plain reading of the text because breaking personal biases is difficult.
Thank you for your thoughtful presentation/argument. I still believe only in a believer's baptism. But, again thank you for your clear, and simple presentation.
What he presented is 100% false, manmade, unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
I was raised Catholic, but left the Catholic Church in my early twenties (I align more with the Baptists since then), so I have a different perspective. You say, "When God baptizes someone, He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this? By saying that Baptism is the Liquid Word, you "seem" to be trying to resolve a conflict you are having with who can be saved and how. So when does the "plain" water used in baptism become the Liquid Word? By the prayer of a Priest, a Lutheran minister, or when any Christian decides to baptize someone (or can they)? Since a child has the sin nature from birth, and because they are too young to confess Christ, are you concerned they will go to Hell because they have the original sin still on them? You said "plain" water can't save us, so the assumption would be that you are inferring that the Liquid Word can? If so, you never explicitly said so. I would agree with you if I saw evidence of child baptism in the New Testament and it explicitly mentioned baptism was part of the salvation process, but it does not. You also never did delve into "why" certain churches came to practice infant baptism. Circumcision introduces a male child into the Mosaic Covenant. Water baptism always follows faith in the New Testament. You said, and I quote, "What's happening in baptism is God is taking the word that is preached and he's putting it in water so that instead of the word simply entering into our ears the word is washed onto us....". Where did that come from? Scripture or your mind? So what is it? Is water baptism that you call the Liquid Word essential to saving faith? If so, you never said so. If not, then why did you say it wasn't? If water baptism is essential to salvation, then the thief on the cross is not in paradise. According to the New Testament, Jesus' blood is the only washing that is needed to cleanse our sin.
Yes. And as a former catholic myself, being taught about rituals and "holy water" and some occult practises, I find that idea too "magical", feeding superstition, possibly leading to infant baptism for the wrong motives (of "safety" more than real faith).
About John the Baptist as an unborn child, his parents had received the promise he would be filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb... We can't stretch that to any child.
Have a good day.
@@thereseservais924 Well said.
@jamesrmooresr - You say, "He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this?"
Matthew 28:19 - Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the promise that is at the heart of baptism.
Acts 2:37-41. 2:41 says that those who "received his word were baptized." The preached word is directly linked to baptism.
The same happens in Acts 8:34-40. Philip preaches (the word of the Gospel) to the Ethiopian eunuch who desires to be baptized. He clearly see baptism as something essential and it is directly linked to preaching the Gospel (giving the promises of God).
The issue is a physical element attached to God's word of promise. This happens all over the scriptures.
Gen. 12, 15, and 17 all record God making a promise to Abraham and that promise is finally attached to the physical element of circumcision.
The Tree of Life = Word of promise + physical element.
The snake in the wilderness that Jesus directly connects to his own "raising up" is a physical element (bronze snake on the pole) + Promise (word) of healing. (Numbers 21:8-9). Those who rejected the physical sign of the snake were also rejecting the word of God's promise of healing (they did not trust the word of God).
The cross of Jesus. The promise (death of Jesus is FOR YOU/for your sin) and physical sign (wooden cross).
Or Jesus, himself. John 1:1-14. Jesus (physical man) IS the WORD of God. The Word of God is literally "in the flesh/body." (Greek "sarx").
If God puts His Word into and attaches His Word to physical elements all throughout scripture then why not the waters of baptism?
But finally: Ephesians 5:25-26.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word , 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."
God has been attaching His Word of promise to physical elements/symbols/things from the very beginning!
Go research a fascinating study done by a Japanese scientist on the memory of water. The result of the scientist’s study was that water remembers what is said to it, whether words of blessing, or words of cursing, and physically manifests those words. So a priest praying words of blessings over and dedication of the water in the baptismal font for the infant baptism are very powerful indeed-Isaiah 55:11-“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplice that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Liquid Word? That's the command, by Jesus' own Word whilst the water is applied. That makes alot of sense to me as someone whom English is my third language.
Thankyou! I really understand now !
Thank you Brother Chad,I really Love the Teaching. I feel That this is True brother.
What he presented is 100% false, manmade, unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
Hi Chad Bird. My testimony is basically one of Proverbs 22:6. My mother had me (and two years later my sister) baptized as infants at the First Methodist Church of Wichita Falls, TX (back in the days before that denomination gave way to blatant acceptance of sin).
Into our mid teens mom made sure we participated in worship and activities of the churches we lived among military moves.
In time, as is common, I simply strayed away.
I always knew God was real and felt a bit of guilt by ignoring Him. Until I met the woman God brought into my life during my mid 30s. One of criteria to seriously dating me was that I be baptized. I said I'd been baptized, but later went to have a private submersion baptism just to satisfy the seeds inside and my conscious. But I still lived a worldly business style life until I was in my 50s and Christ confronted by baptism in His Holy Spirit. It changed my life.
My point is in the truth of Proverbs 22:6. It does not tell what may occur 40 years until that child returns and receives the ways of the Lord and had no intention of departing from it.
As a born again believer I pray my experience is a positive example for you and others.
Now, let's all go be a blessing.
Thank you. I love the connection between infant baptism and infant circumcision.
I'm now a confessional Lutheran (ELS) but one of the things that helped to change my mind about baptism was the prominence of the belief in infant baptism prior to American evangelicalism's rise, and especially when reading Calvin and John Wesley. I attended both Calvinist and Wesleyan churches prior to converting to Lutheranism, but even though the Calvinists and Wesleyans advocated for a Zwinglian (symbolic) view of the sacraments, both Calvin AND Wesley believed in a degree of sacramental efficacy. True, they did not subscribe to Luther's understanding of it (although Wesley was far closer to Luther's position than many modern Wesleyans realize), but they also rejected a flatly symbolic understanding of the sacraments as well.
Truth be told, a purely symbolic view of the sacraments is a relatively recent doctrine in church history. You don't find it in the first 1500 years of the church at all.
If "Infant" Baptism saved me...why would I ever need the Gospel later ?
Are not all my sins already forgiven ??
Great video! Now can you edit it and add bible verses to the screen?
Thank you for this explanation. I’ve heard most of the points you’ve given except the infusion of the Word with the water of baptism. Could this be explained further and some scriptural references given? Thanks again
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" (λουτρόν). The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517thank you Chad, your videos and teachings are always a blessing to me
Absolutely correct Chad. Thank You.
I pray that many more will see the truth and beauty of infant baptism.
Could you please give your verses that discuss "the liquid word of baptism"?
As an Anglican, I AGREE with you. Understanding what baptism is helps the shift.
"Liquid word"
You explain it well.
Baptism is the dying of the old self and being buried with Christ, then being raised up with him into new life. That's why it's immersion.
@@julieamos86 actually if you use that kind of imagery the death is raised up upon a cross and burial isn't "down" in the ground. His burial was in a tomb. I think it was level not down. The idea of immersion as a symbol breaks down.
Rather what baptism does is joins us to Christ..so what happened to him happened to us as a gift. That's why we were crucified with Christ, buried with him and will be raised with him.. because of union with him.
Baptism is also a bath, a washing. Titus 3:5
@@Liminalplace1 Titus is talking about the Holy Spirit being poured out, not water baptism.
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ROMANS 6,4
@@julieamos86 id agree that Titus isn't referring directly to water baptism...but the word translated "washing" is connected to a bath. Baptism joins one to Christ and with him comes the Holy Spirit. So the imagery of a bath or a washing is an analogy to baptism.
If you really think "immersion" is a burial with Christ..where is the cross in the baptism waters? And why do people go "down" into the water when Jesus went into a tomb at ground level?
I suggest that it's not a burial but a washing.
Because we are joined to Christ we died, were buried and will rise with him. That's what Romans 6 refers to.
So immersion isn't essential.
What is essential are the words of Christ said over the baptized with water.
As Chad said...."liquid word".
Saying baptism is a burial is reading our modern practices of funerals into baptism. The Romans would not have thought Paul was talking about that. Romans often cremated their dead or put them into catacombs...not down into the ground like we often do.
I hope that explains it.
All Christians use the words of Christ and water.
@@Liminalplace1 direction is irrelevant, it's about burial not where the burial is.
Christian baptism illustrates, in dramatic style, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, it also illustrates our death to sin and new life in Christ. As the sinner confesses the Lord Jesus, he dies to sin (Romans 6:11) and is raised to a brand-new life (Colossians 2:12). Being submerged in the water represents death to sin, and emerging from the water represents the cleansed, holy life that follows salvation. Romans 6:4 puts it this way: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Very simply, baptism is an outward testimony of the inward change in a believer’s life. Christian baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord after salvation.
The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also Acts 16:14-15). (GotQuestions. org)
Thr issue of sin you presented is so clear to me in my children.
When my son left the womb I had a vision of my newborn son burning up along with me and everone else in the hospital....because for a moment Gods grace was no longer on us.
Also reminded of how God moses that he has abundant grace. But also curses generations. Yet Moses bowed down and worshiped instantly. I had that same feeling affer thinking about my son being burnt up. Thats the God I worship. Wow that still blows me away.
Now thinking about baptising my children we didnt do it. We brought them to thr church and asked everyone to encourage and pray for us and our son. Not something we had to do we just did it.
What struck me was the washing of the word that you highleted Chad.
Thats going to sit with me in my studies probably for weeks 😅😅
Do you recommend taking an adolescent say age 8-12 and have them baptized if they have not yet received salvation by confessing their sins? Would the baptism save them the same way that the baptism will save the infant?
Dear Professor, I have no doubt that it was the Holy Spirit who enabled you to realize what infant baptism really means for the Christian according the Scripture. Blessings.
What is the Scriptural reference for “The liquid Word in and with the water”
Hi Chad. I am confused about the liquid word part. I can't find a clear reference in Scripture about the Word being put into water. The part about circumcision really was amazing. Through it, I can understand how baptism is like saying: God, I now belong to You. You are my God! What an amazing grace!
Might be the verse in Ephesians 4 I think where Christ washes His bride with the water and word
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
@@chadbird1517 Thank you. That clears things up a lot. I'll look and re-read the references again. I'm a slow learner and will take time to digest.
So, if baptism is necessary to wash away the infants original sin, what happen to that baby that dies before birth, from
premature birth, death before the baptism?
What is the status of a person that is baptized as an infant, but later turns away from God and lives a sinful, non-repentant life? Are they still accepted into heaven for eternity?
Hi Chad, really enjoy and appreciate your ministry. I have a question however that I will start with an opinion. Having different sects of Christian religions divides us because each one has differences in customs and beliefs about the same God. Why not be an “unlabeled”follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings rather than feeling the need to identify as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ect, ect, I refuse to identify as a particular sect for the reasons stated and prefer to just follow Jesus and his word without the particularities of each “we are more right” sect. Why do you identify within a sect (Lutheran). Again, not arguing, asking.
How is an "unlabeled" follower of Jesus not a sect of 1?
Good point
@@ChericeGrahamhow you ask? Following Christ is called “Christianity” and those that follow are called “Christian’s”. That should be the end of the story in my opinion. Not, I’m Catholic or I’m Lutheran or I’m ….. so, we will agree to disagree.
@@YZEDR500 If there are legit differences between the denominations and those differences matter, which they do, then the "unlabeled" idea doesn't make sense. What, are you just not going to take a stance on these issues? Jesus did and so should we. God has put people down through history into place (starting with His disciples) so that we can learn the truth. Unfortunately, some have wandered from the truth. I'm a Lutheran because I believe it's the most biblical version of all the denominations.
So if the Lutheran church is the most “Christian” church, why does many of my local Lutheran Churches permanently hang 80ft c 40ft LGBTQ flags on their sides? You see, that flag is anything BUT Christian and represents an abomination to our Lord and Savior. Having given that one example, you are still more comfortable in your “Lutheran” faith than if you were just an honest follower of God’s word and subsequent faith? This is the very problem with “denominations” as they lead to variances to the Lords words and laws and then get preached to the masses as “accceptance” and “tolerance” and “loving”. I would argue to say that if you were looking for the most Christ like church, it would be the Orthodox Christian Church if you’ve ever been? Even still, it’s yet another denomination with its own rules, rituals and ideals instead of just a straight Bible based and only Bible based, faith based church.
Chris, thank you for sharing this. I went a complete 180 from you. I went from Lutheran to Southern Baptist.
In my opinion, many of your arguements are s stretch...until you spoke about John the Baptist and also circumcision.
Thank you for sharing!
Thanks you Chad I have been thinking about this quite a bit being a baptist in the UK I have really only heard the one side of the story I was baptised as a baby into the church of Ireland/England as my mum was of that demonstration I was confirmed there too but I never believed in God or Jesus as a child not until he meet me on my 21st birthday and saved me not that I done anything for my salvation I just took his word by faith that he died for me.
What if your experience at 21 was because of God's faithfulness to the promise He had made to you in your baptism?
Almost thou persuadest me. Seriously, though, thank you for the explanation! I've never seen it Biblically, but never thought about the connection with circumcision.
You quoted Acts 2:38, Peter said repent and be baptised. In infant is born with a sinful nature however it hasn't trespassed against God, yet. The child lacks understanding of the gift of saving grace. We can't force our will on anyone, that's the Holy Spirits job, we can only plant seeds. Acts 19 in Ephesus is a clear example to me of lacking baptism understanding and only just going through the "movements". That's my view anyway. I can see yours but I humbly disagree. Baptism isn't a pretreatment oil for your engine before it's ran yet or a metal conditioner for a prefired firearm.
That all said - which Church is the right one to be baptized in? Does it matter? And what if one is baptized in a Church and leaves that one for another, whatever the reason? As in your own situation. I was baptized as a baby in the Roman Catholic Church and left that religion 60+ years ago and now am simply a professed Christian that does not attend any particular church. I've been to many different churches over the years, but never was comfortable in any - including Judaism. So is my baptism "valid"?
Thank you for taking the time to explain your journey through this topic. For myself, I have never believed in infant baptism. This is mainly because my understanding of it has the prerequisites of confession and repentance; a conscious now inclined to the things of God.
None of the arguments convinced me of anything until you hit on circumcision, which almost got me. The reason I say almost is because, though I agree that there are many things that find their root in the OT, not everything has a direct connection such as you're saying here between circumcision and baptism. Many of the requirements of OT law, ones that could get someone "cutoff from their people" simply aren't there anymore, circumcision being a major one.
However, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that connects baptism to circumcision, and certainly lacking baptism isn't punishable by death or under a threat of being cutoff from your people.
Also, circumcision was only possible to males. Are females forever cutoff from their people because they cannot be circumcised? Are infant males who are baptized now better off than females, since there is no OT precedent for their particular baptism, based off your logic here drawing a connection between baptism and circumcision?
I listened with an open mind, because this is not a pillar of the faith doctrine. I really appreciate your point of view, and love you for sharing it. I've been blessed by most all of your videos this far. I just can't follow your particular path of acceptance on this one. I still have questions and can't reconcile it in my mind, but thank you dearly for your explanation. I wish we could sit down together and break this down over coffee or something, and really sharpen some iron. Just know that's where my heart is with this. I disagree, but respectfully and most importantly lovingly. Grace and peace.
Thank you for this video Chad. I would love a follow up to this video speaking of, if you’ve been baptized as an infant should you be baptized as an adult. I know the answer. Yes! Of course. But I would love to hear you explain it out. With regard to the belief that you should only be baptized once. Thanks again. I hope this makes sense! :-)
I have explained in this video that one should never be rebaptized: ruclips.net/video/z0wWHhDSZww/видео.htmlfeature=shared
I was curious about the baptism by John the Baptist prior to Christs imparting of the Holy Spirit.
What of someone baptized as a baby, but in early forties now and yet to believe?
I’m struggling with this too, but related to what you said near the end , if we deny infant baptism, we are forced to say our children are excluded from the covenant and not really part of the church until they make a conscious decision, vs the paradigm in Judaism that circumcised babies are in the covenant automatically barring any apostasy in later life. Seems like the apostles would have addressed such a paradigm shift in the NT if it really happened.
Thanks for putting yourself out there on this controversial topic. I’ve been an Anglican pastor most of my working life, and also believe in infant baptism, though for slightly different reasons.
Things I found tricky in your reasoning, that I’d love to hear more from you about: the idea that the ‘word is in the water’ idea. I understand a little about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper - consubstantiation. Is this an echo of that view in some way?
Yes, God used water to save his people in the OT - but my understanding is that it was not to convey the word, but as a physical instrument to fulfil his word, as he also used the physical world to fulfil his promises to bring plagues upon Egypt, or fire and storm and tempest to convey the terrible awesomeness of his presence on Sinai, and so on. But connecting that to baptism, as if the water somehow saves in itself seems, to my ears, odd - given 1 Peter 3b.
The passage about John leaping in the womb reflecting what happens in baptism feels like a bit of a stretch. On one hand, I’ve never heard of anything similar with anyone else, in scripture or outside of scripture. On the other hand, this is an utterly unique moment in world history- with the conception of the God-Man standing before the one appointed to go before him. A unique sign for a unique moment, isn’t it?
There are a few questions. I’m sure you’re busy. If you do happen to get a moment to respond, that would be wonderful. If not, I understand.
Thanks again, dear brother
Regarding Word in the water:
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Thank you Chad. Lutheran always believe in the word of God . That is why I'm Lutheran.
Thank you. I do have a question- what about Muslims who find Jesus and want to be immediately baptized but do not have access to water and choose other ways to get baptized e.g. being buried in sand, then coming up from the sand, etc same concept because of their faith?
Thanks again, and I'm very much enjoying "Hitchhiking with Prophets"
The Bible never specified how much water must be used.
@ChericeGraham I am saying no water at all. I will wait for Chad's response. Thanks! 💕
Chad, what happens to babies who die in the womb? And should someone who was baptized as a baby but grew up not believing be baptized again when they become a believer?
Hi Teacher
I couldn't understand how God's word get inside of the water baptism? Can you please provide biblical bases referencing for God's liquid word?
Thank you.
I’m assuming “liquid word” is referring to Eph. 5:26? “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,”
Also, as one that doesn’t adhere to infant baptism I was curious if you believe that every infant that is baptized is now saved? I ask because I’ve known many people who have been baptized as infants and gone on to live very ungodly lives. If such a person were to be saved later on in life would they need to be baptized again? Blessings.
Yes, the Ephesians text is part of the argument, as is the connection between the Word and water in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28).
Regarding the Eph. 5 text, I find it compelling that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
Yes, every baptized child is saved. As Peter says, "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). Sadly, some who are baptized do go on to lead ungodly lives. The Scripture warns against falling away (Heb. 6 and 10, e.g.) which happens to some believers (I reject OSAS).
Regarding being baptized again, no, that is an impossibility: ruclips.net/video/z0wWHhDSZww/видео.html
@@chadbird1517thanks for your response. I was baptized as a baby (in a Lutheran church). I was Lutheran only in word not really in practice. As I grew up I was left to take care of myself at an early age, 14. At the age of 18 I became a Christian by the grace of God and was baptized without any consideration of my previous baptism. I actually forgot that I was baptized as a baby….lol. I’m assuming no harm no foul? Still not convinced about infant baptism but enjoying the conversation.
Half way through, “The Christ Key” your new book will be next.
@@chadbird1517 so yes, the WORD washes us from our sin the way water washes physical things - again figurative language
Thank you for a well articulated explanation on infant baptism. My question is this, if a child was baptized as an infant let's say Catholicism and becomes a believer, should they be "re-baptized, now as a conscious, outward confession of faith in Christ?
The validity of one's baptism is dependent on two things. (1) Was the sacrament administered by a church that "preaches another gospel?" If yes, then the baptism is invalid. (2) Was the baptism done, in the name of the Trinity? If not, then the baptism is invalid.
So, the baptism that the Catholics receive as an infant, though done in the name of the Trinity, is invalid on the basis that they have long anathematized the pure Gospel of Christ.
I address that here: ruclips.net/video/z0wWHhDSZww/видео.html
How can people go to Hell whose s sins have been paid for? I would ask you to respond to Mike Riccardi’s paper on Limited Atonement. ❤
As a layman in the Lutheran church, The "liquid word" phrase might not be the least confusing way to express the concept of "not simply water but water coupled with the word of God".
Some of the commenters seem to have a different understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, and the will of man in conversion. What are the means(tools) that the bible say that the Holy Spirit will use to strengthen or create faith?
Also related to this, where is the idea of age of accountability clearly taught in scripture? If children or babies die for whatever reason, is this not also a consequence of original sin?
I've never seen an infant baptized, but very young children as young as 5 or 6 get baptized with the understanding that they can make their own desicion at that age about personal baptism.
A Luthptist just like myself. Granted I'm still Southern Baptist but my dad's side was German Lutheran great-granddad founded a Lutheran Church in Plainview. Mom's side was Baptist so while I grew up at the First Baptist Church, I'd go visit. My grandparents at the Lutheran Church. Spent a lot of time in the Lutheran Church.
This analysis jumps from "we are born sinners" to "we need Christ's atoning sacrifice". There's something missing between, which is personal cupability: understanding the commandment, actualy sinning, and the result:
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Then should we baptize as soon as the baby is born...or even conceived?
Baptisms cannot take place in unborn children. I recommend baptizing babies as soon as possible after they are born. That is what I did with my own son and daughter. Why wait?
Great message and as a former Baptist it took me a while to understand and embrace infant baptism. But the more I thought about it, I began to realize that hearing a sermon isn't terribly different -- in some respects -- from infant baptism. God comes to us through sermons which is also a very physical process: vibrating air molecules, ear drums, nerve cells, chemical reactions, signals interpreted in my brain. And ironically our brains are 75% water, so - in a way - He comes to us through water even in a sermon. But it's not these physical "things" that save us rather God brings us his promises through them. He works from outside of us to bring us His justification and grace. I've often thought about remote civilizations that never heard of the Gospel. Surely God creates a means of grace for these people as well. Let's not put God in a box. His ways are not our ways and He's even more incredible than we can imagine.
Liquid word bit make me think of when one has to say " I now baptize you in the name of the Fath,Son,and Holy Ghost" as a blessing over the water so to speak and that could be seen as mixing words and water.
I enjoy listening to your comments, but I would like to offer some thoughts. "He places that Word inside the waters of Baptism??" @ 6:30. Where does this idea come from? Seems to be an assertion with no Scriptural backing. It's a nice thought, but is the point Biblical? Also, the use of O.T. circumcision as a pattern of salvation ignores the existence of Gentile believers. What of Jethro, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, the citizens of Nineveh? There's good indication that they were saved believers, but there is no indication that they were circumcised or were otherwise made to convert to Judaism or become part of the Mosaic Covenant.
Chad's reference for the "liquid word" is Eph.5:26 (which I personally think is a weak leg to stand a whole doctrine on). I fully agree with you about inefficiency of the OT circumcision explanation.
@@123ppap Thank you for the response. Your parenthetical comment is dead on.
Repentance and Faith is required in the Scripture before Water Baptism. Also we never see any infants baptized in the Bible. Only an argument out of silence can be made for infant Baptism
But I appreciate you explaining your views.
Blessings Hal
We also never see any of the 12 apostles baptized. They were present at the a
Jordan with John the Baptist but does not say they were baptized.
Those who reject infant baptism are the ones doing so "out of silence."
In the video, he highlighted several passages in the New Testament that speak of "whole households" being baptized. That is pretty explicit. How can you read "whole household" and then take it to mean: "only adults who first publicly profess faith in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" were baptized?
Also, as he brought up, the covenant promises of God were given to male babies in circumcision. This is is the theological and Biblical antecedent to New Testament infant baptism.
@@pataho4290 Interesting observation, but only partially true, I think. It is true that Scripture does not specifically mention about their baptism, however, later constantly "assumes" it happened. Jesus, in the great commission in Mat.28, makes it clear that baptism is linked to being a disciple. Plus various verses show that at least some of the apostles were first John's disciples, which meant had to be baptised with John's baptism - which was then made obsolete by Jesus' baptism. Additionally in John 4:1-2 we can quite safely assume that they themselves first had to be baptised to be able to baptise others (which seemed to be necessary) while they were still with Jesus.
@@matthewshields8613 Well... actually, the "whole household" usually excluded infants. (Similar would be today, if you went to a wedding with all the relatives, and you said "Everyone enjoyed themselves" automatically ignores the 3 months old baby who slept it through and we have no idea if she enjoyed it or not). Just like when "All Israel said Amen" does not mean the small babies also said amen. Infants do not get counted at conscious acts. --- The circumcision argument is a better one. However.... note that by circumcision was required to be part of Israel. It was nothing to do with salvation (otherwise there would be many Baal-worshipper Jews in Heaven). Circumcision was only a sign of the covenant! It did not substitute faith in JHWH. So you take that (rightly so) as the antecedent (cool word!) of baptism, we end up with faith being needed for salvation, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of an already existing saving faith. However, the big difference between circumcision and baptism is, that the former was explicitly commanded to be performed on infants, while the later is never mentioned in context of infants. I think we should not over-speculate the text.
@@123ppap While I understand what you are trying to say, your argument for "household" is not what the Biblical text is saying.
In Genesis 17, when God institutes circumcision, He explicitly states that 8 day old males should be circumcised (17:12). Then, later in that same chapter, Abraham actually has all the males in his "house" circumcised. Again, this explicitly includes infants. In the context of the Bible "household" does include infants.
Also, Jesus was Jewish. As was Paul and all of the apostles. They would have all made the direct connection between baptism and circumcision (which included infants).
Also, on your comment that circumcision does not substitute for faith you are correct! And neither does baptism. You are actually quite close to Lutheran baptism here!!! Faith is absolutely needed. But then you miss the mark. Baptism is "necessary" (as 1 Peter 3:21) because baptism is a promise that is given to you by God (God's word attached to water - Ephesians 5:26). How can you have faith without a promise to believe in?! Without a promise given to you, personally, you cannot have faith! Which is why Lutherans baptize babies. We are giving the promise to them as Jesus commanded us! (Matt. 28:19).
I was born into an episcopal church and baptised as an infant. At the age of 9, I prayed the sinners prayer and accepted Jesus as my Lord and savior in a charismatic catholic church. Soon after, i was immersed in baptised. I then grew up in an evangelical church. At the age of 30 i was questioned about infant baptism and it sent me on a deep dive into what i believe.
I can say, i KNEW Jesus before i prayed to receive Him. I had a relationship with God my Father, before I "prayed the sinners prayer" so i called my sister and asked if she had the same experience as I did. She did.
Now, do i believe that infant baptism "Saves" you? No. But i do believe something spiritual happens. Like marriage... a prayer is prayed and something spiritual happens 2 become 1. Salvation, a prayer is prayed and a sinner becomes redeemed.
Because of what i know from my life and what i have learned from others who were not baptised as infants and did not feel that connection to God before salvation, i made sure my children were baptised as infants. Does it make a difference? I will only know when i get to heaven and ask, but i want my children to have every opportunity to have relationship with God in this world. They are now teens, both have accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, both have chosen to be baptised and both love God and are living and serving Him. Maybe they just got wet as babies, or maybe it began that relationship. Im fine either way.
Hmmmm idk about this. I have learned so much from you but I feel you're stretching on this one. I still appreciate you tho!
Thank you! As I said in the video, the purpose is simply to explain why we believe what we believe (along with the vast majority of Christians worldwide since the days of the early church, I might add :-)
John the Baptist said I indeed baptise you in water but the one who comes after me, He will baptise you in fire and Spirit.
The big question is then, how does this affect the misscarried child, or the thousands of abhorted foetuses, who cannot recieve baptism? Are they hellbound just for being unwillingly conceived?
I have never met a single person who believes that unbaptized babies are damned. It is the REJECTION of Christ that damns, not the absence of baptism. We commit unbaptized babies who die into the hands of our good and gracious heavenly Father.
@@chadbird1517thank you for clarifying your on stance this.
According to the New Testament nobody is going to perish unless they committed an active act of sin and rejection of Christ's forgiveness. So I think it is clear that unborn babies, infants, those born with such mental deficit that they simply could not respond to the Gospel, are "automatically" Heaven-bound.
I don't know if this helps, but the deciding factor that led me to change my mind on the credo/paedobaptist divide, stems from reflecting on God and His attributes:
Most Christians would agree that God is steadfast and unchanging, as according to His Word. Obviously children (males) in the Old Covenant were welcomed into the covenant upon receiving the mark of circumcision. Considering this, after Christ implemented baptism as the sign that essentially replaces circumcision, how can the New Covenant be less inclusive than the Old? God's greatest and most gracious gift of his Son, and the salvation through him, is more limited and smaller in scope in terms of who is and isn't included in God's covenant? Surely God is steadfast.
Since historic presbyterian and Lutheran believes infant baptism and the salvific nature of it, can you make a video what the difference between the two tradition?
Presbyterian’s believe in infant baptism but not that it imparts salvation. Rather it is a sign and seal.
@@alexowens59 This is because Presbyterian nowadays depart from it's historic roots due to influence of Baptist, you can read Scott's confession and align it Westminster Confession. You cannot separate the Sign and the thing signified. The Thing signified is the one that saved you and the sacraments is the sign. John Knox and Calvin hold this view. Baptism saves if you have faith.
@@alexowens59 If you would like to really know the view of Presbyterianism when it comes on baptism you have to go back to it's founder not Presbapterian theologian today like ligonier.
@@alexowens59 sign and seal of what?
@@GencenFide Chapter XXVIII
"Of Baptism" WCF
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]
My mom went to a Methodists church
We were stationed in Tokyo in 1956-59
At 3 years old I had heart failure
The church told her have this baby Baptism
Well off to Texas for hospitalization
2 years later off to Oklahoma
15 years later i received
Christ at 20
Was Baptisted for real
I will check to see if you video library on RUclips includes a video on Jesus dying for the whole world. My question is if all the sins of everyone were atoned for on the Cross then why do any go to hell?
The guy in this video is not a Christian and is completely Biblically illiterate. He is the seller of a 100% counterfeit (antichrist) christianity.
Jesus did NOT die for the whole world. Jesus came for, and died for ONLY the very, very few who are Gods chosen ones. These few make up less than 1% of the worlds population and 0% of the churches population.
I wish you would change your mind on closed communion too…I was baptized, raised, and confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran tradition, but married a Methodist pastor. I’m now 65 and my husband just retired. We are looking for a new church, but not the now apostate UMC. There is a nice MSLChurch in the area, but their closed communion is a stumbling block for both of us (Methodists allow for open communion). I understand the reasoning given for closed communion, but I am a born again believer, Martin Luther is in my ancestry, I lean reformed, but yet I would not be welcomed at the table in this MSLChurch. I worked as a choir director in a MSLChurch and watched many a member come to the table who were, let’s just say, in the bars on Sat. night…yet they were welcomed because they were a member of the church. It makes no sense to me.
You can do communion at home.
@@seanvogel8067 this church has communion every Sunday and it takes 1/3 of the service to get everyone served. To continue to be excluded week after week for that much of the service does not build a sense of spiritual fellowship and community.
@@cecilly59 , understood.
If the position of the church on this matter has always been so, and you know it is so, and you disagree with it, why would you keep going? It's clear to me that this is not the church for you. Go and find a church that is more compatible with what matters most to you.
@@seanvogel8067 communion means with the body. It is a testimony and memorial to Christ's death. What is the point of doing it alone at home?
See, I am the exact opposite regarding initial arguments for infant baptism, accepting the scriptures teaching about predestination: That it is an act of faith by the parents that God's calling of their child will be revealed in the proper time, thus validating the sign applied in infancy. However, I am still CREDO baptist because, while I do acknowledge you make some plausible arguments for PEDO, your supporting passages seem to have other reasonable interpretations also. But when I read in 1 Pt "baptism now saves you, not the washing of dirt from the body, but the appeal of a good conscience toward God," that seems to be more clear that the one being immersed is assumed to be making a confession. Which also seems to correlate with Philip's statement to the Ethiopian in Acts. How do you deal with those verses?
There’s a lot I could critique here but the main issue here is that you cannot separate, as you quote, repent and be baptized. It really is that simple.
Agreed. Since repentance is a gift and work of God, there is no separation, even in infant baptism. The issue is that we tend to turn repentance in a human work and not regard it as a divine gift of a sinner being brought back to God by the Spirit.
@@chadbird1517 Indeed! I fully agree with your reply. The rebirth is a work of God. But John the Baptist was not a prescription of how we ought to think about baptism though it was descriptive of the actual event.
I tried to go protestant. But after several months i simply had to return to the Orthodox Church. I missed a truly beautiful liturgy, the ancient faith and an ascetical training and interior prayer. The ancient Way never disappeared, we dont need to recreate it with our biblical fine combing. I concluded the Church is alive to be experienced. Great stuff though, i really like your teaching.
I must respectfully disagree as I believe the baptism of water doesn't wash away sin. John said he indeed did baptize with water but one coming after him (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This is the baptism required to wash away sin. If not, then where do you see the millions of babies who were aborted without being baptized? I am very confident they are with Jesus, who said we must come as little children totally trusting Him for our salvation.I do enjoy your teaching and as a Southern Baptist find we are in agreement on most issues.
I'm a Baptist who enjoys you videos very much. I always learn something from watching. I think infant baptism is okay as an ordinance of dedicating a child to God's service. If parents are inclined they can ask for this type of dedication and I am not opposed to churches who see it as an ordinance. But to say that there is a mystical quality added to the water that infuses the infant with faith just sounds bizarre. In that case, faith comes before belief. I stand firmly on believer's baptism because I believe that faith should precede the ordinance which is predominantly an outward demonstration or exhibition of the faith that has already been professed in the heart.
, Ephesians 5:26 says, "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word".
You mentioned adult baptism however the bible refers to baptism as believers baptism
@margarethood114, could you provide that Scripture?
@@johnowens8530 btw.... where do you read about children being taken to church? Just wandering if that's another "Christian tradition" instead of biblical statement.
@@123ppap people take their kids to church all of the time. I didn’t say it was in scripture. Can you read?
@@123ppap somehow my comments keep being deleted. Freedom and democracy are alive and well in this country just as they always are claimed to be.
Parents take their children to church every Sunday. I didn’t mention scripture.
@@123ppap btw. Infant baptism is flat wrong. It is clearly not the will of God, those who do it are abusing people
Watch the discussion between John Mac Arthur and RC Sproul❤
The circumcision made without hands is reference to the baptism also made without hands, meaning Spirit!!!
Correct, water baptism means and does absolutely nothing. The Baptism of the Bible is a spiritual baptism that God/Jesus does to the very few who are Gods chosen ones who all have nothing to do with anything called or known as the church.
From a materialistic view point, If God can use his word in sound waves he certainly can use it in water. Doesn't water move in waves too?x
One thing that convinces me also is that Jesus said "You must be born again", infants need to be born again too. What better time to be born again than when you are infants to begin with! And the sooner we are born again, the better!
infants are already born of water: amniotic fluid. Being born from above later in life via baptism is the re immersion to the innocence we were born with.
I appreciate your video brother, I'm hearing you say that God holds the sin of the Father against the Son! Ezekiel 18:19-23 says God nolonger does that.
1 Peter 3:21 ESV
[21] 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,
How can an infant have a good conscience?
All infants/babies are 100% unsaved and baptizing them will in no way whatsoever change their unsaved, evil, corrupt, Godless state. It is only a sign of the ignorance and unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state of the baptizer.
Brother, there is no teaching that I’ve read in scripture which say that baptism is infused with the word of God. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone then how is that administered through water? I’m open to being shown in scripture where.
With a believers baptism the person is saved through faith and then they are baptized. By your reckoning then an unbeliever can be saved by being baptized.
The connection between the Word and water is, first, in the very language of the act of baptism, where these words of Jesus accompany the act of baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28). More directly using the language of water/Word is Paul in Ephesians 5, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Note that the Greek noun used here for "washing" is λουτρόν. The verbal form of the noun (λούω) is used throughout the OT for ritual washing in the temple.
This is a secondary doctrinal issue, so we didn't divide in this issue..btw good argument
I do not disagree with infant baptism, but I disagree with your explanation of what baptism by water “does” or means. The very last scripture you used-does not legitimize your case of the comparison between circumcision and baptism. It actually shows that what was done in the physical in the Old Covenant is now all completed in Christ symbolically in the New Covenant. It’s a symbol of being raised to life in Christ because of what he has done and the child being born into a covenant believing family-with the responsibility of the parents to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The liquid word and salvation in and through that liquid teaching is not supported by scripture.
So if the child got baptized in his/her infancy..Does she/ he still need salvation since baptism symbolize cleansing from inhirited sin??
The guy in this video has no idea what he is talking about. He is a false teacher and a fake christian. Baptizing a baby means/does absolutely nothing!
Infant baptism was introduced when babies died "outside of Grace " It was taken from Egyptian paganism, same as trinity theory. It was done because the Catholics thought that baptism brought salvation. Jesus said that those that repented, should let themselves be baptised. No infant can make that choice. I grew up in a sinful, ungodly un-Biblical church very similar to SBC. It is a religion, but is it Biblical Christianity?
Its a good topic, while I disagree with water baptism as a requirement in any form for this new entity called the Body of Christ, its good to see people discussing scripture - I think that honors God.
Southern Baptist to Lutheranism has been my path too.
You also have only gone from one fake christianity right into another one. Repent of your unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state.
I went from independent Baptist to evangelical Lutheran over a period of some years. The first thing that collapsed was the trail of blood theology, I could not accept that the church over 2,000 years was wrong about Nicene orthodoxy and that Baptists were the only ones doing it right until the English Baptists figured it out through rationalism. Another thing that helped me was reading sacramental study Bibles along side my NIV study Bible so that I got more historical theology. I was reading just this week in either my Lutheran study Bible or my Ignatius Press Catholic Bible about the events of 1 Samuel 7 and v. 6. In this passage, the Israelites made a pledge of loyalty to the LORD, confess their sins in deep repentance, sacrifice a lamb, and then draw running water from a river into a pitcher and then poured the cold fresh water out onto the ground "and poured it out before the LORD, and fasted on that day." in the Scott Hahn notes (convert from Presbyterian pastor scholar to Roman catholic) he says (and I'm paraphrasing) that this text in the Old Testament is unique, there's nothing else like it, where fresh water is poured out as an oblation onto the earth to mark the loyalty ceremony / confession / sacrifice. Usually its poured onto a person like King David being anointed, but here, it's just poured out as a symbol that water is important, very important, and it doesn't explain any of it. Fast forward to the first century in the Didache, the early Jewish Christian handbook from as early as the period before the temple was demolished. In the Didache there's a text about baptism where it's like a flow chart of if then statements. And it's all about trying to get your hands on cold fresh river water to do the baptisms, and if none is available, then you can do a number of options, and they all include either immersion or pouring, the technique doesn't much matter as long as you try to do it in the order specified. And the text concludes with fasting on the day of baptism. So I am not saying that anyone is doing it right nowadays, because nobody is going to the river and immersing people as in Didache option A. However, it's cool to see the unfolding biblical theology from the Old 1 Samuel 7 to the Didache, where a loyalty pledge and forgiveness of sins is accompanied by pouring out water and fasting and praying and repenting. When I see all of the sacramental, priestly, liturgical elements of early Christianity, I just had to come to a church where they respect biblical historical theology more than just lexicons the way I grew up, we did lots of word studies and were brain washed that baptism has to mean dunk, but in the long history of the church, starting with the Didache, I think they did things different ways. Craig Keener wrote a giant commentary of Acts in which he says the Holy Spirit saves, converts, calls, baptizes and sanctifies people in the book of Acts in every possible different way imaginable, so that no one group can claim they check all of the boxes. NT Wright also explains how Romans 6 - 8 is a picture of the Israelites fleeing Egypt - in ch 6 they go through the water (like in Exodus) into a period of wandering and confusion (Rom 7) and then finally in Rom 8 the Spirit sets them free from the law of sin and death to live their vocations to the glory of God. So there are all of these pictures in the New Testament about water symbolizing the liberation of Israel from Egypt, from Pharoah's grip, from eternal death and slavery to sin. There's so many exciting pictures of water in the Bible, including how Noah's family was saved from the judgment of too much water on a boat, and the water purified the world from sin, but they survived the deluge by trusting God, etc. etc. Thanks for the great video.
You have spoken nothing but a bunch of unbiblical ignorance. Repent, and learn what the truth and Christianity of the Bible actually is.