Baptists, Your Children Are Holy (Whether You Agree Or Not)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 апр 2024
- One of the greatest and most frequent requests in our prayers should be for God to graciously save our children. No child by virtue of pedigree or status is born with a right to salvation, and each individual must choose for himself to place personal faith and trust in Jesus. However, in an effort to maintain the importance of a personal decision to trust in Jesus some baptists run the risk of overcorrecting, and negating the promises of the gospel that are given to parents and children, for example 1 Cor 7:14. Baptists can and should affirm the holiness and special nature of their covenant children with a good conscience, while still waiting to baptize their children upon profession of faith. Tune in now as we discuss covenant theology and why the children of baptists are indeed holy.
Ministry Sponsors:
Private Family Banking
Contact a Private Family Banking professional via email at banking@privatefamilybanking.com
OR
Call them directly at 830-339-9472.
Armored Republic - www.ar500armor.com/
Honoring Christ by equipping Free Men with the tools of liberty necessary to preserve God-given rights.
The Psalms Project:
To hear more music from The Psalms Project, including their new album for Psalms 47 through 55 that just dropped, go to thepsalmsproject.com
Squirrelly Joes Coffee - Caffeinating The Modern Reformation
Get 20% off your first order by using code RRM: squirrellyjoes.com/rightresponse
Subscribe to our Theology Applied podcast below:
Apple podcast: bit.ly/theologyapplied
Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify
Google Play podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedgooglep...
*If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Georgetown, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: covenantbible.org/ 
Развлечения
"Baptists need to hear this." Amen.
Brethren, thank you for your labors in the creation of your ongoing content, it’s often entertaining, informative and always well produced. Also, grace and peace to each of you who happen by Gods providence to read this comment……
There seems to be somewhat of a lost Christian practice that I often desire to share because it was so transformative in the development of my own covenantal thought. I was at one point a 1689 federalist for approximately 8 years, starting around 2013. As I was attending a RB church plant I was introduced to the practice of “occasionally”singing psalms in worship. I loved it every time we sang the psalms, and knew it was pleasing to the Lord (this is the Christian practice that sowed the seeds of covenantal clarity). The church plant eventually closed like so many do, and I found myself by Gods providence attending an RPCNA church. Among the Presbyterians at the RPCNA we sang the psalms exclusively (side note, this is a worthy topic to study for another day). I quickly lost my appetite to sing any hymns, simply because of the superior nature of the Psalms and their complete and clear sufficiency in worship. The singing of psalms slowly worked into my family and private worship until it became so ingrained in all of my life. Every single sermon preached in the RPCNA is brought further to life by the psalms we sing that highlight the main points of the sermon. In this practice we feast upon so many connections in Gods word that others often miss. It is here in this very practice brothers that God blesses His command to sing the psalms by giving greater clarity to the continuity of all the scriptures especially the covenants. The “one house” is made more evident. Moses was faithful over God house as a servant and Christ was faithful over that SAME HOUSE as a son (Heb.3:5-6). Needless to say I eventually became Presbyterian, but that’s not the ultimate point. I want to encourage brothers to reignite this once common practice of psalm singing and if possible exclusively. At a minimum God requires inclusive psalmody (Col.3:16), and I think if many of you at least start there, the desire will grow and the lenses will develop. God Bless.
that is an absolutely baller studio. high class
Thank you God bless.
Interestingly Gen 15 was a major factor in my acceptance of covenant baptism. The directivity of covenant is illustrated clearly.
The Lord is soverign. We don't need to know or guess if He saved my child lost in miscarriage. I need only trust in His goodness. He is always good and right, whomever He chooses to save.
love the rootin tootin intro
Praise God
Thank you for your faithful work brothers. There is no contradiction between being covenental and credobaptist
Weeeeeellll... I well.... I wouldn't say that
Amen
@@micahlantz905 why not?
@@EmanKcin8820 credobaptist by definition is inherently against covenantalism. It's literally individualistic. Being baptized because of an individual profession, it literally is the opposite of how God works through covenantal families. I love right response ministries so much. Brother Joel is a tremendous gift to the church and the fruit is evident. He has my sword.
All I'm saying though is that you literally can't be covenantal by definition and be credobaptist. It just doesn't work. It just isn't consistent. Love my reformed Baptist brethren though.
modified covenant theology
even the dispies criticize the inconsistency of particular Baptists
The best thing that can be said about federal vision is that it reconciles the most problem passages without going Arminian or Catholic
Convoluted.
I think the connection, presented here at the beginning, between God's covenants and ANE covenants is correct, but backwards. God as the ultimate covenant maker and keeper is where human covenants come from. We as descendants of Adam and Noah have adopted this practice from Him, not the other way around
Good stuff here. This is so important.I am sure you brothers are aware of this, but some of your viewers may not be.The 1689 Baptist Confession uses the language of "revealed by farther steps" for the Covenant of Grace, rather than the language of one covenant of grace with two administrations. Baptist covenant theology is different than paedobaptist covenant theology. There are a lot of similarities, but we need to emphasize those differences. I believe that the wording of 2LBCF is more biblical. The covenant of grace is progressively revealed until it's fullness in the New Covenant. That said, we have to take seriously what Paul says about the children and even the unbelieving spouse of the believers.
Very interesting but no sound!!
Sorry to see that, the sound worked great for me. Hopefully the issue gets resolved for you and your are able to listen in later.
1:03:15 why would your children receive covenant curses for rejecting God after all that grace bestowed on their behalf, if they are not in fact part of the covenant?
What if they're part of the old covenant?
Don't ask the Baptists about apostasy in the new covenant 😉
Very good, brothers. However, Joel was off with regard to the assurance a Romanist has. I strongly recommend James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy.
How many covenants of salvation are there? Were old testament saints saved apart from the covenant of salvation?
Lost sound,again. Please fix😢
Check your speakers as it is working loud and clear on our end.
Baptists, your unbelieving wives are holy - whether you believe it or not. Also 1 Cor. 7.
Yes
@@RightResponseMinistriestherefore, children being holy has nothing to do with being in covenant with God to obtain salvation
The need for assurance of salvation is why Lutheranism > Regormed Federal Vision and Roman Catholicism. All of these complex terms and fights(covanental theology, federal vision, "paedobaptism" vs. "credobaptism," etc.) completely disappear when you are Lutheran.
Sound stopped?
The audio is coming through clear. It might be on your end.
No sound??
Whatever you do, don't play a drinking game with the word 'covenant' for this video.
Even if you only imbibe water you will not survive past the 20 min mark.
51:48 love the conversation. On this point, I don’t think if you hold the legitimacy interpretation, you are saying marriage is only legitimate for Christians. This would be in the context of intermarrying between Jews and unbelieving gentiles, in which the children in Ezra/Neh were put away with the spouse when the sin was dealt with. But the 2 pagans married to eachother don’t have bastard children. The Jew and Greek did (Timothy)
But I’m not exactly sure where I land on this. I think Ex 13:1,12 and Luke 2:23 could play a part in explaining the uses of “holy” as being set apart but not implying a covenantal membership status.
Exactly
List sound again.
Enjoyed this discussion, however my one reservation would be at the end looking back to baptism for assurance of salvation. I agree but only to a certain extent. This may be my just my own experience, but too many times children (myself included) had made false professions of faith as a child. Many of those same children were then baptized upon a false conversion. Only then to be baptized again. (I by the grace of God was not.) Maybe that is something you could touch upon in another video. Again agree with a lot of points here but why baptize children, especially if more times than not that profession is not genuine?
Lost sound again!
At time-mark 17:20 I think Joel’s way of explaining it was just slightly different from the historic reformed Presbyterian view of the covenant. The covenant is how God deals with humans in the objective/visible/material sense. I don’t believe there is any sense of two categories within the new covenant. You are either a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker. The hidden things of God’s eternally elect is not part of this equation.
Only quibble here, Federal Vision isn't between the WCF peeps and the Catholic Peeps. FV is between the WCF peeps and the Anglican peeps.
Nope. The 39 Articles is not contrary to the WCF.
@@Psalm144.1 your response tells me that you probably don't understand the differences when it comes to Federal Vision. Which is understandable, since there's a lot of confusion on the differences unless you actually do the reading or are in the spaces where Federal Vision is lived out
@@johnmichaelbullock594 I’ve read the extensive report by the PCA about the Federal Vision; how it was declared heretical. I currently belong to a very conservative PCA Church.
And I’ve studied in a seminary class solely focused on the 39 Articles.
@@Psalm144.1 reading an inflammatory PCA report and studying something in seminary does not make an expert. Until you actually read what the FV proponents have actually said on their own terms, you do not have a leg to stand on here brother. If I am going to make a claim about something as you have, I actually do the work.
@@johnmichaelbullock594
What denomination do you belong to?
You’re certainly not an expert nor educated enough to comment on the 39 Articles.
The PCA and OPC both studied the FV over a two year period before issuing their report. It’s not inflammatory. It was very scholarly.
And I didn’t claim to be an expert. But I know the 39 Articles very well and the intent of the original authors. Most of my personal library is composed of Anglican theology books. The 39 Articles is not close to the FV. Perhaps maybe some sacramentalist Anglo-Catholic. But that’s not true to the original intent of the English Reformers.
Denigrating an entire course is not enough for me to comment; yet I’m supposed to accept you know what you’re talking about.
Absolutely silly.
Come on Joel, just baptize them!
No.
@@GoodPersonTestWebsite yes
Joel, your view has no allowance for apostates, and no, you can't just say they were never part of the Covenant to begin with. If that were true, on what basis do they receive a harsher payment for renouncing their confession? None. Just like with apostate Israel and the Olive Tree, it is possible for an individual to be part of the Covenant and yet be cut off.
On what basis? The basis that they were exposed to the true gospel, knew that it was the right, one, true, and only path, but still refused to continue on it. As the Apostle John said, if they were ever of us, they would have continued with us. And if they left, what would they be going to? They know that nothing out there will save them. That's a sin unto death. It's on that basis that the book of Hebrews states that this warrants a harsher punishment. Someone who knew the gospel and saw its saving power but rejected it anyway is rebelling against God in a far worse way than someone who has happily lived a life of sin in willful ignorance never hearing or understanding the gospel.
"Holy" does not mean "saved." There was "Holy water" used in The temple services. Will we see that water in heaven after it exercised faith in Jesus? 🤔🤔🤔
Joel is a better version of Matt Walsh.
Thank you brother Wes for keeping Pastor Joel rightfully credo.
What's "normative" in all the scriptures is that the children of God's covenant people receive the sign and seal of the covenant. If fact, what's normative is that the whole household, both the family and the servants of the family receive the covenant sign. Withholding baptism and communion from the covenant children is a great shame of the church. THAT isn't normative at all according to the scriptures
I’ve been told by Calvinists that God seals the salvation of children of the elect. I worked with a woman who’s farther was a lifelong Reformed Presbyterian pastor and professor. He wrote a book about his homosexual son who died of AIDS. The book was short on answers and log on fatalism. My friend loved her brother. She’s now an old woman without faith.
That is so painful. I’m so sorry.
As an attempt at clarifying the conflict… I don’t think Calvin taught, nor that the scripted teach children of covenant parents are guaranteed salvation, just like they weren’t guaranteed in the old covenant, “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated”. Because, I believe a person identified as in the covenant is identified with Christ, participates with him in the body (church) in the food and washing (lords supper and baptism) and that those things are not the same as redemption. As pointed out in this talk, you can do those things without faith, and redemption (salvation) is by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.
In short, a person is born in the USA, as a member or citizen of the USA. A person can then be a great citizen, believing in this country and what it stands for, and work for the Glory of God in the USA, or they can be unfaithful citizens, commit all kinds of crimes, work for the destruction of their neighbors, go to jail and be cut off from their citizenship.
“Covenant children”? Man unfortunately I don’t have time to listen to this, but you sure sound like you’re headed down the paedobaptist track. If they are in the covenant, shouldn’t they receive the sign of the covenant? Love you guys.
A swing, and a miss.
The children of covenant parents have a relationship not yet of covenant but of providence. We expect them to share in the covenant in time, but in the meantime reserve the signs and seals of the new covenant for those who have articulated the prerequisites of the new covenant: faith.
The problem is that Brother Joel considers the covenant as only applying to the regenerate. But God's pattern is a people under His covenant including both those who have the root of the matter in them and those who do not ("not all are Israel...").
As to apostasy delaying baptism does nothing to prevent it. The credo baptised also include covenant members who are not redeemed just as those who have received covenant baptism.
I’ll have to watch it, but in what sense are they then holy? That is covenant language, is it not?
@@JB-em9po It is but not all people under the covenant have the root the matter in them. This is true of those baptized as adults also.
They are holy in the sense of set apart for God. God has a claim on them.
Baptist do a weaker version of it in baby dedications. By applying the sign of the covenant to our children we make that explicit.
When the baby is baptized they are a part of the covenant community which comes with many blessings but also a responsibility to make it their own.
18:00 Finally filling in some of the gaps regarding FV. I've tried to find a decent summary of what it was all about. It's helpful getting some details.
The first sweater vest dialogue features James giving doug a series of questions about FV errors and Doug responding with affirmations and denials.
Your characterization of Presbyterian views at around the 44:00 mark is federal vision, not westminster presbyterian.
The visible church is a new covenant institution but the visible church is not the new covenant.
The new covenant, the elect is just with the elect true believers.
Non-elect (false profession, eventualy apostatize) experience some off the blessings of the church and the new covenant but are not in the new covenant.
😂 They got so offtrack lol
Who was the New Covenant made with in Jeremiah 31?
Context is key -
The house of Israel & the house of Judah -
In time & space of the context of Jeremiah 31 - the All has an object - the house of Israel & the house of Judah -
If All in that context means every person God is making the New Covenant with in THAT Context then All Jews have a solid reason to believe their Elect - so where do the Gentiles come in? Over 650yrs later - the gentiles are grafted in - you can’t read something into the text that’s not there - you can’t read “the church” or “the elect” in the place of the house of Israel & the house of Judah, if so you have to consistently apply that principle all through out Jeremiah & that just won’t work - so by good & necessary consequences we can go back to those truths about the New Covenant & say that applies to us , but only the truth IN CONTEXT - so All simply cannot mean every person in the covenant is Elect , Exegesis won’t allow it 🙏🤙-
The mystery is somewhere between the good points of paedos and credos, but the tie goes to paedobaptism....but do it with fear and trembling and faith.
Baptize dem babies! They're God’s covenant children
"No, I don't think I will."
@@GoodPersonTestWebsite you really ought to
I love the work Joel is doing, however, I would have loved it more if they had someone like Longshore on to speak to the paedobaptist position. The baptists did an ook job, but seemed - especially Joel - to completely miss how he contradicted his own position. The "quiet part," Joel, is not that there's "two parts" to the covenant. You actually, just before that, quoted Christ saying it: He'll separate the wheat from tares, sheep from goats; the visible and the invisible church.
Moreover, if once someone is in the covenant they can never be out (with which I agree), how does that support credobaptism considering you have admitted to baptizing those who later apostatized? So, the sign, whenever given, does not mean in or out, but is given by God and God alone.
Please, brother, please. Start in Acts 2. Imagine you're a Jew there, hearing Peter in live-time. How would you have understood him when he quoted the promise to Abraham? Exactly. Baptize your babies.
If they are holy them give them membership into the church. Oh you won’t? Then they aren’t holy.
Not a good argument. That's just not what Holy means
@@cosmictreason2242 so you’d argue you can be holy outside of Gods covenant people? I’d argue being holy means being set apart. Who are the set apart ones? If children of believers are holy then how are they recognized as set apart if their aren’t set apart with the church? Paul speaks to the saints and includes children. He doesn’t see them as holy but yet outside the covenant administration. (Church body). BAPTIST HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY IF THEY ACCEPT CHILDREN AS HOLY. a consistent baptist would never recognize their unable to profess children as members of the church but rather as unbelievers.
@@gdot9046 is holy water in covenant with God?
@@cosmictreason2242 lol. I was trying to apply the rationale of these baptists and show where it takes you. Covenant baptism and entrance into church for children of believers. Holy water (I’m guessing your talking about water for baptism) is a sign of a gospel reality. It can not be saved nor become a member of a church. Lol.
The Old Covenant blood says, “Wait.” to God’s wrath. The New Covenant blood says “Forgive!”
Somehow the New Covenant is better because our children are cut off from it, by default. That's just silly, guys...and you know it.
Somehow your system is better with children in covenant being still able to be damned, in which case Christ only mediates damnation to those members of the covenant... That's not better. You're being silly
@@cosmictreason2242 Yet, the Old Covenant did that, so is God wrong? He did that to the northern kingdom when He gave them a bill of apostasy and sent them away in captivity for them to never come back again to the land as a nation/kingdom again. For such a change to the Covenant like that, don't you think you'd have a strong proof verse for it? Yet you don't. Your "system" can't make sense of apostates. Frequently the reformed baptist falls back on the line of "they were never in the Covenant to begin with!" Yet, that doesn't work because the apostate is judged with a harsher judgement than the one who never professed to be part of the Covenant to begin with. Your "system" can't make sense of apostate Israel and the judgement it went through in 70AD. It was a harsher judgment because they were the visible Covenanted people of God. They were cut off with covenant judgement. We're not to try to pull up the tares. As long as a child within the Covenant community persists in the faith (and doesn't show any reason to be put through church discipline and be excommunicated for persisting in sin, i.e., effectively pronouncing them an apostate) it is not your job to try to know whether he or she is indeed washed internally. But that's reformed and calvinistic baptists' problem. They want to know so badly who else is truly saved and they restrict even their own children from covenantal identity. And it's not a surprise that many of their children leave the faith, if they ever publicly profess it to begin with. Sure, there are many paedobaptists who presume upon God that He will save their children just because they are born to a believing spouse and are baptized into the Covenant. And those paedobaptists need to be admonished and exhorted to not fall into that pit. But in my experience at multiple paedobaptist churches since leaving baptist beliefs, is that the vast majority of them do not presume upon God in this way. The other experience I've had at these same churches is that their children regularly, in very high numbers, persevere in the faith into adulthood. Please also make sense of children of at least one believer being pronounced "holy", i.e. set apart for the Lord, by Paul if these children aren't at least automatically part of the broader covenanted community of God, and thus, should be treated as covenant members unless and until they prove they are truly not regenerate. The New Covenant is better for my children because I can point them directly to the Word made flesh, Jesus, and I have the entire revealed Word of God to help me witness to them the goodness of God and how God has blessed them immensely by using me as a means for them to taste and see that the Lord is good.
Ok, guys.... I am trying to follow you closely here ...
You say that, if the children of believers are full members of the New Covenant, that creates a class of people (apostates) who are tryly New Covenant members, but do not end up being regenerate. This makes the New Covenant, and Christ's blood, ineffective at saving all whom He calls, contra the claims of Scripture. This is a strong argument, and it disturbs me as a paedobaptist.
But ... if I follow your logic... are you reading the passages about the superiority of New Covenant to mean that NO ONE was ever regenerated under the Old Covenant? Because that's what it sounds like would be necessarily implied, if you want to make such a watertight interpretation of those passages.
It seems to me that under both covenants, apostacy was possible. I realize this creates a paradox with what we also believe about the efficacy of Christ's blood, but the warning passages are there. And John speaks of what appear to be believers who made a profession of faith as adults, giving every appearance of having been regenerated, but then fell away. So it seems that credobaptists also can't avoid baptizing the occasional reprobate... yet this does not disprove the efficacy of the blood of Christ.
Baptist theology did not exist in the early church either....
Wrong. It's in the didache. Says explicitly to baptize in tu l living (running) water, if none available, other (stagnant) water, and if none available, pouring from a bowl or vial, and if none available, then by sprinkling from the teeny bit of start you have available. So sprinkling was the third or fourth backup method if dunking isn't practical
@@cosmictreason2242 yup this is correct. And the covenantal reason for baptism was brand new when Calvin first articulated it in the 15th century. it was originally to cleanse original sin.
@@cosmictreason2242 That doesn't sound like the concern was dunking. Most readily available sources of living water wouldn't be deep enough to dunk, let alone get more than your feet wet (streams), and many living water rivers would be dangerous due to currents. Large bodies of water like lakes seem to be ruled out by this as the water is likely to be stagnant, especially in warmer weather.
Rather, this just sounds like a recommendation to use the freshest water available. Flowing water is better than stagnant water as there is less opportunity for alge and waste to accumulate to dangerous levels. It sounds like they were more concerned with making sure baptism didn't make people sick than about mode.
@@oracleoftroy m instead of fantasizing hypothetical possibilities, maybe it's worth looking it up to read it before imposing a view that you are the first one to ever advocate onto it...
@@cosmictreason2242 Maybe read more broadly than just Baptists? It's clear that being able to fully immerse isn't the main concern as large standing bodies of water seem to be treated with caution, and are avoided when they are warm. If you live near many lakes, you know what can happen during summer that would make such water very unhealthy to use. It's hard for us moderns to realize when we think clean water magically comes from sinks and we don't have to secure reliable sources of clean water for basic survival.
For help in understanding go to Dr. David Jeremiah or Dr. Charles Stanley. Much depth and simpler explanations.
wow. I am a Baptist tho not calvinist. This new infection of Reformed Covenant theology is something new and anti Baptist. Even the historical calvinistic Baptists never taught Covenant theology. To teach that children get into heaven on the coat tails of their parents is heresy. We will all stand alone at the judgement, and we all stand alone when we are presented with the Gospel. Christ came to save sinners not "families". That is Mormonism. Now it is def more likely that children raised by Christian parents will be saved because they see Christ at work, but to say that God must save a child because of who the child was born to??? nuts
I think maybe you need to watch again or do some more research. Covenant theology is not new and Reformed Baptists absolutely do not teach that Christian's children are automatically saved - not by a long shot. They're literally saying the opposite in this video and calling out Presbyterians who dance with heresy at times.
You guys will end up Lutherans!😊
Or you could just baptise babies like literally every other group of a Christians in the world.
As none of the early church did. Why should this romanist superstition be retained in the church?
No.
This might be a dumb observation, but I do notice that Jesus was not baptized as an infant, but as an adult. Would that implicate anything, either way?
It’s tough to parse out - Jesus’s baptism was to fulfill all righteousness and was not a covenant sign and seal necessarily.
His baptism was a ritual cleansing rite not a sign of a covenant. His covenant sign was His circumcision.
Right, good question. Jesus Baptism was different, as pointed out, he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.
Acts points out that the Baptism of John was NOT a Baptism into the new covenant. Acts 19:3-7. John’s Baptism is categorized as a Baptism of repentance, and a person needed to be baptized into Jesus.