The best presentation on the subject I’ve heard. Perhaps because it reflects a uniquely helpful mixture of Ligon’s personal baptist roots + his gracious pastor’s heart + clear articulation of biblical texts surrounding a complex theological subject + his unhurried southern gentleman tone). Anyone with a baptist or credobaptism background will be well served upon hearing this!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . .
Excellent presentation! Very enlightening and helps me understand why both sides are so adamant re their stance, but in the end, both sides admit that Baptism does not save, faith in Jesus and His work on the cross and his burial and resurrection is what saves. I thank God for changing my heart so that I now believe in Jesus, our Savior and Lord.
both sides admit that Baptism does not save, That does not count for all Baptist denominations in a large number I would almost say most of the Baptist churches children from the age group of 8 to 15 are getting baptized under pressure and make a taught confession and then told they are saved.
@@matheusdabnei5540 Scripture also says that baptism saves: Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism … now saves you
Baptism does save it’s an appeal to Christ for a clear conscious Peters says that it literally saves and it’s for the forgiveness of sins Not the water in and of itself but the appeal made through baptism through faith in Christ and his promise to us. Paul states it’s when we put in Christ and are in Christ
This is my 5th time watching this. It’s the best explanation of infant Baptism that I have seen. Excellent questions from the audience make it even better! God willing, I will be showing this to my Baptist neighbours for this Sunday Bible study instead of Dr. Kruger (RTS Charlotte Romans) Thank you Dr. Duncan!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . .
By faith my parents believed God would lead their children to repentance, that's the way they lived their lives by faith. Their children would never come to Christ, God would come to their children and change hearts. This was a very nice teaching. Salvation is 100 percent of God.
I see their view and get it. Nothing like Catholicism. Catholicism Baptism = works and a way to heaven. Reformed = covenant and promise P.s. still studying infant baptism.
agree, i was raised lutheran and baptised a baby, but after much searching and prayer, starting from zero and no presuppositions i am now convinced baptism is for believers. I think you can get an argument for infants under covenant theology, but it is just that, an argument, plausible but not as convincing as all the texts clearly dealing with those who "believed" and were baptised. Also the Didache of the first century clearly did not contemplate infant baptism, its a catholic throw back, and I feel those like the speaker, who I respect, possibly lean more on their ecclesiastical colours; that said to disagree with paedobaptists like luther and calvin is a big call!! haha
@@danielclausen5318 So I guess God broke his covenant with Abraham according to your Theology? You credobaptist make God just like man, a covenant breaker.
To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40). A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.
Acts 2:38-39 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you, AND YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. Acts 2:40-41 NIV well it doesn't say kids or doesn't say adults so if we stick to the protestant point of view Sola scriptura who got added
@@1960DLB The repentance comes as the child grows and matures. The Fact remains that the Apostles baptized ENTIRE HOSEHOLDS....(entire families) and nowhere does it say that children & infants were excluded. in fact as already stated he bible tells us that: "This promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN" (not your descendants)
"Why didn't the NT authors make clear the mode of baptism?" They did. They used the word baptizo which means "immerse". That's why the Greek Orthodox Church immerses their infants in water...because they know Greek. And is it really that hard to read the rest of Acts 2:39? "...everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Presbyterians, stop partially quoting Acts 2:39 to support your position. Eisegesis at it's finest...
Greg F Time will not allow a complete refutation regarding your position that baptizo always must mean immerse but I will supply a few points of clarification. In order to understand NT baptism we must go beyond simply looking up the words basic etymology and instead look at context and usage. Bapto and baptizo can have a much more varied application wether one is looking at Classical Greek or NT Koine Greek. Also, it is interesting to note that baptism is not unique to the NT and is born out of OT practices. If you have the time I think you would find a study of the Septuagint on this matter enlightening. Anyway, a few examples of the term(s) in question used historically: To merge one thing with another. To wet thoroughly or to moisten. To pour upon or to drench To become overwhelmed or over powered by something. Coming under the influence by that which you are baptized. Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character ,state, or condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state or condition does in fact baptize it. When one thing has the inherent or derived authority to alter something else that is that which is used for baptism. The point is, is that the emphasis on baptizo is on what results afterward and not the mode. The significance is not in the static etymology of the word but on its usage. Three things are to be associated with Christian baptism: Purification ( ceremonial or actual) Identification Covenant I don’t find it a problem at all to the case for infant-baptism to continue the reading of Acts 2. The charge of eisegesis is a shallow one and demonstrates that you misunderstood the material in Duncan’s presentation and the overall Reformed hermeneutic, which combats eisegesis and atomistic readings of Holy Scripture with great vigor! Any argument against the baptizing of infants also must be raised against the circumcision of infants as well. One must force a strong dichotomy between circumcision and baptism to make their case. We know for certain that God has ordained that a sign of faith be given before faith could be expressed in circumcision, and the NT makes it clear that this isn’t just about ethnicity. The substance hasn’t changed, only the administration and its token to God’s covenant people. In Christ brother.
@@5solas743 I can see you've done a little reading. Very good. I'd encourage you to read more as it may prove to be enlightening. 1. The usage of baptizo in the LXX, and your summary (which I don't disagree with on the whole), does little to undermine my initial claim. You should know this if you are familiar with the relevant data. 2. The phrase "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" undermines the paedobaptist's understanding of Acts 2:39 because it identifies precisely who is in view: the elect, not "covenant children" per se. It's this poor reading that is in conflict with the rest of Reformed exegesis. 3. To establish a connection between baptism and circumcision would still beg the question: Why physical (as opposed to spiritual) infants? Circumcision corresponds to a promise, baptism to a promise fulfilled. One is forward-looking, the other backward-looking.
Faith and repentance comes BEFORE baptism (Read Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16), and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This is something infants cannot possibly do. Infant baptism is a lie and not scriptural.
@@barfrockskin535 there are a lot of things that are not scriptural like the trinity?? Then why do u adopt an orthodox teaching of the trinity yet deny an other teaching of infant baptism by the orthodox church.. Protestants need to quit with the arrogance and learn orthodoxy and church history..
@@DisciplesOfGod7You Do Yourself A Disservice When The Text Is Taken Out Of Context To Suit Your Pretext. Finish Reading The Verse- "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Baptism Is A Sign Of A Believer's UNION With Christ. Repentance, Faith, Believe, Grace Are Gifts From The LORD. "Salvation Is Of The LORD." Jonah 2:9. "Because The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God nor indeed can be." Romans 8:7
Why do we need validation? Rejoice he is alive today within you, He died for all sinners, even before birth. The Kingdom is Within, Rejoice! Religious traditions are for comfort and control. He is ALIVE NOW TODAY WITHIN US ALL!
I got hold of the Baptist Bible and took phrases from some verses: This promise is for your children [after they grew up]. The whole household was baptized [except the infants]. "All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea [but, parents held their babies over their heads to prevent the babies from getting baptized].
I've been in a baptist church for 4 or so years, and I'm skeptical as to your claim, or the tone behind it. I haven't heard of a "Baptist Bible" - was this some translation, or just an individual bible from a baptist that has personal notes?
@@Jondoe_04 I don't see it as a strawman to connect the baptism of infants in the church in the desert in the sea to infant baptism in our churches. I do see many verses which imply infant baptism, which you must dismiss one after another.
@@jamesreed5678 The Israelites were baptized into a national covenant, imaged by the desert and the sea, but individually pictured in circumcision. What covenant are gentile infants baptized into? Would you go as far to say that they are baptized into the covenant of grace, which marks the true Israel of God?
i dont understand why im baptized when i was an infant. because my parents get seperated. my experience knowing christ was after i made alot of mistake in life that it brought me to do sin normally. i have been baptized the second time in my 20's and still doesnt understand the meaning of it. but after i realize repentance is the first thing you need to do everything was clear now. i started knowing jesus more and more having a conviction of my sins in a daily basis while im still in the process of chaging myself again to do good and righteous. for me infant baptism is not mandatory if your religion condemn you about it better pray to jesus and ask for help about it. neglecting infant batism is not a sin and should not define your a bad parent. the best way for me being a parent now is to guide my child and have a personal promise to Jesus that i will do my best to take care of my children guiding them to jesus christ. bec. my life before is a mess... but with Gods grace im saved and standing for his teaching forever.
Children belong to Jesus, so infants should be baptized. Baptism is a covenant sign, like circumcision in the Old Testament. The testimony of the early church fathers *proves* that the New Testament church baptized infants.
What still has me on the position of having repentance and faith prior to baptism are the arguments set forward by the paedo baptist. One of which involves the proposition that there is no direct command against infant baptism. While that is true, I could likewise go to Genesis 17 and state that there is no command to not circumcise your neighbors who happen to be your best friends either or women for the matter! But the reason I (if I were Abraham) would know that my neighbors (even if they were good friends with me) and women in my household would not be circumcised is because of the clarity of the command on who is to be circumcised. If the command is clear on who is to receive the sign (as I would argue in Matthew 28), there is no need for a command against baptizing infants in the New Testament.
@@mr400meter So, I think you missed the point in that, in the OT the application of the old sign (circumcision) included the children of Abraham (the believer) which meant that they were also considered part of the people of God (people of the promise/covenant), and nowhere in the NT are now children of believers excluded (separated) from the people of God (people of the promise/covenant), and the application new sign (baptism) of belonging to it. If the promise is for you and your children, why not equally as in the OT would the children receive the sign of that promise in the NT? GBY
@mr400meter confusion... first, you don't circumcise females... simple biological thing... second, we are commanded to include our children in the OIKOS covenant and Peter repeated this in Acts 2...
Also, just FYI, most Reformed Baptists are very, very familiar with Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed, etc. covenant theology. In fact, we probably read far more of the Reformers in our own reading than non-Reformed writers (of which I have virtually nothing in my library - than for refutation and reference). My pastoral book shelves are filled to overflowing (literally with Reformed and Puritan writers).
Can I also at least encourage my paedobaptist brethren to at least read "Baptism in the Early Church" by H.F. Stander and J.P. Louw. It does strongly argue against Dr. Duncan's assertion that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church for the first fifteen hundred years. Much of these claims are based upon one older book which is not exactly up to date in its historical research. They provide a number of extended quotes from the church fathers and demonstrate that even Turtullian had concerns about baptizing those who could not knowingly confess Christ. Also remember, that much of the church, for its first fifteen hundred years, was largely apostate regarding even more essential matters such as the final authority of Scripture and the Gospel. I'm not trying to posit an argument here, just trying to give another resource for further consideration for those who may wish to check this claim with some further research. However, all of this is ultimately an argument from history, and we must turn to Scripture as the final arbiter.
It might also interest folks to know that the ground of the particular baptist argument (I'm not speaking here of the ana-baptists) in England and the continent against infant baptism began actually with covenant theology. For that, you may wish to check out "Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ" by Nehemiah Coxe". Owen's commentary on Hebrews chapter 8 is included - because the Reformed Baptist Covenant theology is basically identical to John Owen. Another key book is "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. So, for Reformed Baptists, the key and central argument actually arises from their covenant theology. Only after that do they bring in the other arguments from the New Testament.
Dr. Duncan made a slight mistake when he looked at Jeremiah 31:31ff and he stated that baptist believe that everyone in the visible church will be believers. This may have been just a slip of the tongue or a slight oversight (SEE MY EDITORIAL NOTE BELOW).* However, baptists do not believe that everyone within the visible church is a believer or even that all who are professing are actually believers. Thus, the invisible church is the true church. We know, as our Presbyterian brethren would affirm, that within the visible church would be false converts, wolves and tares. Baptists would argue that only the actual redeemed within the visible church are the true church. Confession of faith may and a measure of fruit may be the basis for baptism (which, by the way, is the same basis for baptism for converted adults in the Presbyterian church), but it is well known that there may be some false converts within those who are professing to be believers. Now, does the fact that some will later prove to be false converts invalidate the need for a profession? Not in the least. Just as it may prove to be true that a man may apostatize who was earlier ordained as an elder. The fact that some may fall away does not invalidate the former requirements of elder. Later disqualification does not invalidate earlier qualifications. And, while not all who confess and are baptized will later prove to be genuine, we certainly should not invalidate the requirements simply because some may later prove to be false. The requirements still stand, just as the requirements for elder or deacon may stand, even though some may fall away. We must not ordain, or IMHO baptize those whom we know at the point of ordination or baptism are definitely not qualified. In other words, the fact that some ordained elders may later fall away does not mean we should toss out the requirements and ordain just anyone who wants to be an elder. Another quick note, many of the same arguments used by baptists against baptizing infants are the same exact arguments used by many Presbyterians against infant communion...although SOME do practice infant communion...albeit is very rare. I hope this is helpful. *EDITORIAL NOTE: Dr. Duncan does later acknowledge that Baptists affirm that not all who profess faith are genuinely converted, so that was good.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
" the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament." You have a problem. Neither is delaying the baptism of infants to the age of reason. It's no where in the text. Rather, we can read how the early Church under the faith, scripture included (none ever taught baptism delayed to the age of reason, not for 1500+ years) “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64): v2, 6 (A.D. 251). Who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles. “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins: “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
@TruthHasSpoken Infant baptism, though practiced in many churches, is absent from Scripture. Baptism is more than the water. Just because a person eats a grape jelly-on-matzo sandwich for lunch doesn’t mean that he is partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Only when he eats the symbols with faith, for the purpose of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice, does he partake of the Supper. Likewise, just because a person gets wet does not mean that he is experiencing Christian baptism. Baptism is a person’s faithful response to the preaching of the gospel, “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21). It is a reenactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-7). Through baptism, a person is buried with Him into His death, and raised up to new life (Col. 2:12). Baptism is a spiritual rebirth (John 3:1-8), that puts away the old man of sin and creates a new man in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40). A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.
@@kac0404 "is absent from Scripture" This is true of baptism delayed to the age of reason. Not absent, but not explicit: Scripture does say, repeatedly, that WHOLE households were baptized and there is repeatedly, never an exception for infants. "A baby is incapable of doing these things." Infant baptism parallels circumcision, based on the faith of their parents.
@TruthHasSpoken You have no scripture to support your weak logic. Often, proponents of infant baptism like you will point to circumcision of babies in the Old Testament for support. It is true that the Law commanded Jewish males to be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Luke 1:59) to be included in the covenant to Abraham. But, the old Law has been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ (Gal. 3:24-25; Heb. 8:13). One might just as well argue for making animal sacrifices, observing the Sabbath, abstaining from pork, or not baptizing females, as argue for infant baptism. Jews became Jews by birth alone, and Gentiles were by birth “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12). Today, individuals enter covenant relationship with God by virtue of choice rather than birth.
@@kac0404 you have no scripture for yours: Baptism of infants delayed to the age of reason. God never makes an exception for infants for whole households being baptized Do you believe infants are not part of a household? Can you cite anyone in the first 1000 years of Christianity that taught your fallible interpretation of the text? Anyone, any where?? Other protestants disagree with you, as do the Orthodox.
Very good presentation, but : seven minutes of preamble irrelevant to the topic at hand. I wish that this kind of thing (so extremely common in church presentations), were edited out of the posted video.
@@froyvm7868 Bro, you might have all the time in the world to listen to a mere captatio benevolentiae, of no interest or use to a wider audience, but I don't.
We cannot say that Ismael did not belief or was lost. That is not Biblical He promised her that He would turn Ishmael into a powerful nation. In addition, he showed her a well of water. Ishmael and Hagar relied on God’s provision for their survival. “And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He spent his life in the woods, honing his bow skills. He resided in the Paran wilderness, and his mother brought him a wife from Egypt” (Genesis 21:20-21).
See audio series "I Had a Dream: Judgment's Coming. Are You Under the Blood?," beginning at www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T1111. Followed by audio series "Baptism: Sprinkling, Pouring, and Immersion: Does It Really Matter?," beginning at www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T1121.
“Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition” (The Council of Trent). This notion is contradicted by Scripture. Jesus said that adults must “become like children” (Matt. 18:1-6), to whom “the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matt. 19:14). Why would Jesus use children as a model of godly innocence, if instead they are condemned? Children become sinful later, as they learn the difference between right and wrong, and choose to do wrong (1 John 3:4). “God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices” (Eccl. 7:29). Each person shares in Adam’s condemnation not because Adam is his great-grandfather (Ezek. 18) but “because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) just like Adam did.
The Lord Jesus said baptizing them in the name of the father, son and the holy spirit.Matt 28:18- 20 read. Is that holy spirit baptism? No,it is baptism by immersion.This comes before or after holy dpirit baptism according to biblical examples eg, Conellius house hold received h/s baptism b/4water baptism.
As someone, who is Presbyterian in ecclesiology, but a practicing credo Baptist, this is an excellent discourse on the biblical significance of the administration of water baptism and a very biblical approach to this very layered and multi-dimensional issue. However I would contend both Presbyterians and Baptists must make a proper distinction between "immersion" and "submersion" - all submersions are immersions, but not all immersions are submersions - it is perfectly biblical to "immerse" - "make one with" - by administering water via pouring and sprinkling😃Getting beyond the issue of the mode of administering water however, we all still wrestle with the significance of the outward sign of administering water - if it is simply a sign of God's promise to bring salvation to the children of believers, pedobaptism it is a perfectly biblical practice and is clearly consistent with Covenant Theology - if it is a sign however of one being "spiritually one" with Christ, credo Baptists validly raise an issue of the propriety of administering water to an infant who can not yet discern the Lord's body and His atoning work which is a prerequisite of receiving the sign of union with Christ by partaking of the Lord's table (1 Corinthians 11). Christ clearly explained the New Covenant sign of the Lord's table, and this was reiterated and reinforced by the Apostle Paul. However when it comes to the practice of the administration of water baptism the teachings are not as explicit and we all struggle to properly infer how to properly understand the significance of water baptism. Many blessings to my pedo and credo baptistic brethren - as prayed in this video - let's continue to encourage and edify one another and properly worship Christ and Christ alone.
The example of baptism is when John the baptist baptized Jesus Christ in the river. Jesus came up out of the water. He was immersed in water, not sprinkled. Good sermons can also be found on YT by John MacArthur, “Is Infant Baptism Biblical?” and “Believer’s Baptism.”
John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus was an Old Testament baptism. It is not the same as a New Testament baptism and had a different purpose and meaning. The Bible says John the Baptist was the greatest prophet, but he is less than New Testament believers. Look up RC Sproul’s discussion of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist.
One, Jesus did not receive Christian Baptism (Acts is clear on this). Two, neither Jesus, nor anyone in Scripture ever, is explicitly stated to have been submerged underwater. Three, there is only one baptism in all of Scripture where the method is explicitly stated, can you tell us what it is (hint: God does it Himself, and it comes from above by pouring)?
"Jesus came up out of the water. He was immersed in water, not sprinkled." You are adding to the text that which is not there. _16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water,_
1 Peter 3:20-21 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this WATER symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
No, because Jesus was not the recipient of Christian Baptism at any point in his life. In Christian Baptism terms, Jesus was baptized neither once, nor twice - but rather, not at all.
Ligon have you and your elders had a chance to sit down with Pastor Wilson and others to explain what you were meaning in your discussion about the so called Moscow Mood?
Im a baptist and im trying to write a paper on this subject. Id love an answer to a question of mine but i must adress what Baptist actually believe in a baptism we believe we are declaring the work of Christ on the cross being brought into His death and therefore united into God by the Son's and Him and the Father sending the Spirit by the call of the Father. Not an idea of demonstrating our feeble love. My question is this, what happens to the unbelievabling child baptismed into Christ brought into the covent but not saved if they pass or go to glory? We dont believe it brings the Spirit so we say greater condemnation, it sounds like its being taught that the Spirit is being brought in baptism here.
“Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.” Matthew 19:13-15 ESV
Defending" believers baptism", is the worst thing to do. It gives a person false hope. Baptism is not Christ and Christ is not baptism. Faith and righteousness is Salvation according to the Bible.
@ChurchOfKentucky we can look at the old covenant frist and see how Christ fulfilled the old covenant circumcision . In the biblical context, circumcision is more than just a symbol - it's a physical sign of a spiritual covenant between God and the individual. It represents: 1. Obedience: Submitting to God's command. 2. Identity: Belonging to the community of Israel. 3. Faith: Trusting in God's promises and guidance 4. Separation: Distinguishing oneself from other nations. 5. Purification: A ritual cleansing, signifying spiritual renewal. 6. Covenant: God’s promise 7. Skin and blood: points to Christ and his coming. While the physical act of circumcision is a symbol, it's meant to represent a deeper spiritual reality. The removal of the foreskin serves as a tangible reminder of the individual's commitment to their faith and covenant relationship with God this included 8 day old babies.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
@Bad-pt4gu According to the Bible, baptism is God's promise (Acts2:39). Sacraments are God's covenant signs or promise. When I read Colossians 2:12 you are raised by faith. The Lord’s promises are realized by faith. Rom 4:13-25, Gal 3, Eph 2, Heb 6:12-15 and Gen 15:6.
"It's still unbiblical, " No where does scripture state baptism of infants should be delayed to the age of reason. That belief is unbliblical. Rather: - whole households were baptized, repeatedly - never an exception for an infant, repeatedly
When the Disciple Philip baptized the eunuch, Philip told him that if he believed with ALL OF HIS HEART, that then, and only then, could he baptize the eunuch. "AND AS THEY WENT ON THEIR AY, THEY CAME UNTO A CERTAIN WATER, AND THE EUNUCH SAID, "SEE, HERE IS WATER; WHAT DOTH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED?" ACTS 8:36. "AND PHILIP SAID, "IF THOU BELIEVEST WITH ALL THINE HEART, THOU MAYEST." AND HE ANSWERED AND SAID I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD" ACTS 3:37. "AND HE COMMANDED THE CHARIOT TO STAND STILL; AND THEY WENT DOWN BOTH INTO THE WATER, BOTH PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH; AND HE BAPTIZED HIM" ACTS 3:38. You see, BAPTISM must be done willingly and the person receiving the BAPTISM MUST BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR CONFESS THEIR SINS, AS JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS ALSO BAPTIZING PEOPLE AFTER THEY SPOKE AND CONFESSED THEIR SINS, THEY WERE THEN BAPTIZED. Babies can't confess their SINS because first 1) They are innocent 2) they cannot speak and 3) they cannot discern from GOOD or EVIL. Philip told the Eunuch that only if the Eunuch believed with all his heart, he would baptize him. Very important verse, as BABIES or INFANTS CANNOT TALK or RESPOND if you ask them if they BELIEVE. PEOPLE, READ YOUR BIBLES, for in the SCRIPTURES you will find TRUE UNDERSTANDING! Do NOT BE MISLED, THE PASTOR DUNCAN HIMSELF was BAPTIZED AS A GROWN UP!
All three reasons you listed for not baptizing an infant are the exact reasons you can baptize them. You are looking at it the opposite way from what you should. Adults need to confess their sins and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior before being baptized, infants don't need to do that, because they are INFANTS.
Christ Jesus was BAPTIZED as an adult, not a baby or child! He came to show us the way; He was baptized at the age of 30. Babies cannot confess their sins for they are not in the years of understanding. Even the courts of this world do not recognize children as adults, they are minors, so the law protects them if they get into trouble, even the records are sealed in court. MR, MOST CHURCHES USE BAPTISMS FOR PROFIT. THEY RETAIN THEIR CONGREGATION THROUGH BAPTISM OF INFANTS, WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BEING THE WORST OFFENDERS. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PROTECTED PRIESTS FOR A LONG TIME, EVEN DENIED THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN UNTIL LATELY. You must be able to confess, accept the Lord into your heart in order for BAPTISM to be recognized by God, babies cannot do that!
@@jaymart2355 First of all, NT baptism is a sign of the New Covenant with God, just as circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant with God. Were eight day old babies at the age of understanding? YOU: Christ Jesus was BAPTIZED as an adult, not a baby or child! He came to show us the way; ME: Jesus was born under the Old Covenant, and him being baptized as an adult was not done to show us that all Christians must be baptized as an adult rather than as an infant, far from it. If Jesus was showing us a particular way to follow, then surely we should only be baptized at 30 years of age ONLY, and it needs to be done in the Jordan river ONLY. Besides that, nobody knows if Jesus was baptized by complete immersion, washing, pouring, or sprinkling, so obviously, if Jesus wanted us to follow him exactly, then Scripture should have pointed out the exact method of baptism to use, which it doesn't. YOU: Even the courts of this world do not recognize children as adults, they are minors, so the law protects them if they get into trouble, even the records are sealed in court ME: What does this have to do with baptism? YOU: MR, MOST CHURCHES USE BAPTISMS FOR PROFIT. THEY RETAIN THEIR CONGREGATION THROUGH BAPTISM OF INFANTS, WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BEING THE WORST OFFENDERS. ME: LOL! Talk about conspiracy theories.
Jay Mart John the Baptist baptised Christ and if he was supposed to baptise him as a child John the Baptist Would of been to young to baptise Jesus since he was only 6 months older
We must be old I hear them say for one to be baptized Perhaps it is the children then that men now do dispise Have not they heard that from the mouths of babes shall then come prais Hosana in the highest His will on earth be made So suffer then the children to come now to his side and put away the fallicy That's born of human pride. The lord loves best his children that come so swift and free to grace that brings salvation He purchased on a tree.
@@mrhartley85 The Old Covenant did include women, but the sign of the Covenant - Circumcision - was observed through the male line of the ethnic Nation of Israel. Women were included in the Covenant, but the sign was on the males. In the New Covenant, the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile was torn down; the Covenant is no longer for an ethnic People, but a spiritual one. This New Covenant is better than the Old, it is that to which the Old pointed, and its sign is now on both Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, as the ethnic lineage of the Old Covenant is no longer relevant.
Wrong, the Colossians text is speaking about the believer's union with Christ. This union does not result from physical baptism, here Paul is speaking of the believer's spiritual baptism into Christ.
david glock 1 Peter 3:20-21 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
George Ibrahim the emphasis is that baptism isn’t about removing dirt from the body, that’s why it’s mentioned there. But it is referring to baptism being washed by water and the word. Ephesians 5:25-27
@@Nevrclear Yes, baptism doesn't save you on its own, you must have faith in Jesus. And once having faith in Jesus and being baptized, you must then demonstrate your faith through good works.
If someone baptized a baby in the New Testament I would go along with it… a large church I went to would sometimes have a baby dedicated to the Lord and we prayed for the child as a church. It seems this is more of a custom than a Bible ordinance.
"If someone baptized a baby in the New Testament I would go along with it" If someone delayed baptism of an infant to the age of reason in the New Testament I would ... "go along with it." That belief is not found in the bible. Rather: - whole households were baptized, repeatedly - never an exception for an infant, repeatedly
Jesus said count the costs. No baby ever did that. Early church fathers confirm adult baptism. Children are holy because of their parents. 1 Corinthians 7:14
"Early church fathers confirm adult baptism" Not either or but both. Adult AND infant baptism. Keep in mind, infants were circumcized on the 8th day after birth, not the 8th year. “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251). Who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles. “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins: “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
All through the Bible salvation is for households. When people are saved the package includes a promise to save ones children and beyond just one generation. I want to claim that by baptizing all of my children. Why exclude them. That puts a spirit of rejection on them. Baptism puts the spirit of adoption on them.
Exactly right. And the teaching of the Church for 2000 years has been consistent, a teaching handed down by the apostles. “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64): v2, 6 (A.D. 251). Who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles. “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins: “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
Steve51791 the semantic domain is broader than immerse. It does mean immerse. And Cleanse. And Wash. Luke 11:38 is usually rendered as "wash" rather than immerse.
@@mareduave6870 The English word "Baptize" comes from the Greek "baptizo" and it does primarily mean to immerse. It can also mean to wash, but wash carries the idea of getting whatever is to be washed completely wet. There are other words in Greek for "sprinkle" and "pour".
Baptism always comes after hearing the word and believing. Really a hard sell to include infants in that. Especially, because baptism is an act of obedience. If they are “implying” that they should baptize infants because it’s not forbidden, then we are in danger of adding to our Lord’s word. What else can we imply from scripture (think this falls into eisegesis) Pedo-baptism comes out of the Church of Rome and should have been reformed.
Among the scriptures in Greek which discribes entire of 3 generations of families being baptized there are writings from early church fathers who speak of infant baptism that predates Constantine. Baptism was never taught by the early church that it is an outward sign of an inward confession. So u can say baptisms has been always done that way since Ana Baptist came around in the reformation but you can't say it was always been done that way
Adam An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering. Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.
Duncan distorts Acts 2:38. The promise is God's promise to Abraham of faith that he had through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not baptism. "Your children and for all who are far off everyone, whom the Lord calls to himself". Infant baptism is not a call. There is no infant baptism in the bible.
And Duncan distorted the book of Colossians because physical circumcision isn't mentioned. Infant baptism is not in the bible. Jesus didn't baptize any children neither did the apostles.
"There is no infant baptism in the bible." No where does scripture state baptism of infants should be delayed to the age of reason. That belief is not found in the bible. Rather: - whole households were baptized, repeatedly - never an exception for an infant, repeatedly
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, and Ephesians 1:13, the most important thing about the word "baptism" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. Based on these verses, nobody gets into the New Covenant through water. You will not find "water" in Peter's words on the Day of Pentecost. Act_3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; The promise of the master teacher of the New Covenant (John 14:26, Hebrews 8:11) is found fulfilled in the verse below. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
SpotterVideo 1 Peter 3:20-21 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this WATER symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
@@georgeibrahim7945 What did the same man say below? Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. .
@lily of the desert Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Why is this part always left off from Jeremiah 31 when speaking of the promise of the new covenant? 29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, And the children’s teeth are set on edge. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: Every man that eateth the sour grape, His teeth shall be set on edge. 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2009). (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., Je 31:29-32). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
The first thing one should observe is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never given as a command to be administered by man, nor was it to be obeyed by man. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise to be received by certain men chosen for a certain purpose. When Jesus spoke on the subject between His resurrection and His ascension, He appeared to the chosen apostles, speaking to them things concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). Among the things spoken to them were the following words: “ … wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” {He said,} “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4-5 NAS).
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order. (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them . ================================================================================================= New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
Baptism and salvation are clearly linked throughout Scripture. Peter compared baptism to the water that saved Noah and said, “Baptism…now saves you” (1 Peter 3:20-21). Paul compared baptism to circumcision under Mosaic Law and indicated that being “buried with [Christ] in baptism” results in being “forgiven” of all your sins (Colossians 2:11-13). But no one made the relationship between baptism and salvation more clear than Jesus who said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
@@kac0404 What is the one baptism of our faith according to the Apostle Paul in Eph. 4:1-5? How many times is the word “Spirit” found in the passage, and how many times is the word “water” found? Eating Kosher is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Circumcision of male children is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Trimming your beard according to the Law of Moses is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Water baptisms were a part of the Old Covenant, but they are not required under the New Covenant. The proof is found below. John baptized with water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Which one is related to salvation, based on Romans 8:9? . Heb. 9:10 (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them . (Old Covenant ------> New Covenant) . Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (What is the one baptism of our faith here, based on Eph. 1:12-13, and 1 Cor. 12:13?) . Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, . 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. . Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. . Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (See Mark 1:8)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". .
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
Jesus died only for an adult sin? Bible said all of us.baptism is the time we think back on Jesus death.simple as that baptism also dedicate to an infant and if you think we're wrong,thats only you not the bible.dont fool yourself in carrying your children to church giving god and giving him as his childre and you let thm grow up doing bad action wating him or your girl baptise emersion..it's a fool
Coming from a reformed background, I know that covenant baptism is sugar coated (catholic) salvation via baptism. Covenant theology was developed to get protestants to swallow sacralism. The bible never list one example of baptism preceding faith. But actually state that you must believe with all your heart before baptism in Acts 8:37. But you better use an old revision(and non catholic) bible because Protestant and Catholic sacralists try their best to erase, or change that verse. A good book to read is The Reformers and their stepchildren, this research book was written by Verduin.
Jaco V. As someone also from a Reformed background I am curious about what you view as sacralism. It seems to me that, if I understand sacralism properly, Covenant Theology does not encourage it.
@@honephillips3840 The degree of directness differs between denominations. But you usually hear things like: with baptism the infant receives the HS that enable it to believe; baptism means that the child is numbered as one of God's children, Baptism seals the infant with the HS; ancesteral sin is removed in baptism. The usual deflection from baptismal salvation is: but the person must later believe or that the person must have been pre-destined to believe. On ground level reformed people usually believe that God, predestined believing children to believing parents, infants are included in the covenant via baptism etc.
I was the son of a Presbyterian who insisted we attend church (twice iirc) every Sunday and by 25 I still had never heard of the Westminster Confession let alone read it. My Presbyterian background did not give me an accurate picture of what was the church's doctrine. Covenant theology, at least as taught by Witsius and those who stood on the same ground as Mr Duncan do not believe children are saved by their baptism. Baptism marks them (as it does all who undergo the ritual) as members of the covenant originally made with Abraham and therefore liable to both the associated blessings and curses. Blessings accrue to those who repent of their sins and put their trust in the provision made by God to avoid its eternal consequences the curses follow those who refuse the obligations of that covenant and continually flout the Law of God. For the latter group the greater privilege gains greater damnation. Knowing this no parent would place their children in this position were it not commanded. In doing so, God set the stage for the careful instruction of the young and also commanded parents to do so, encouraging them by precept and example. We should not, and many do not, treat our children as saved OR damned but as covenant members who have obligations they will one day have to take up for themselves. Prince George is a good example. He will DV one day be king but currently, though born to privilege, is treated like any other child who has to learn his place in the world. Nevertheless there are many things he is required to do and many he is required not to but the reasons for that reality rest on the roles assigned to his father and grandfather. Covenant theology recognises the followers of the Christ and the children have privileges and obligations assigned to us by God and we seek to understand them and teach them to our children. As the psalmist teaches us, "thus they shall learn in God alone their hope securely stands, that they may not forget his law, but honor his commands."
Btw when I had a book shop I knew several Baptists to whom I recommended both the book you mentioned and Al Martin's and Walter Chantry's books on the place of children in the church. I do not think the Baptist view is right but I think study of the original documents is better than ignorance -- it helps us overcome that ignorance if we are prepared to think through the implications of some of the things people claim.
Actually, people of the Baptist faith (as I once heard James White say has occurred) sometimes baptize people whom they were under the impression were believers but later decided such persons were not really believers. Apparently, the Baptists believe baptism is to be given only to those who want to be baptized and that this desire to be baptized is an indication of their faith. If you read the first verses of Romans 3, and disbelieve that water baptism replaced physical circumcision, then it seems reasonable to me that you should be expounding physical circumcision as the benefits of circumcision include obtaining the oracles of God. Lutherans believe water baptism promotes faith, and some even go as far to claim that genuine saving faith is only present after the person has been administered Trinitarian water baptism. If you consider a supernatural component from the sacrament of baptism, then it makes sense to baptize an unbeliever much like it makes sense to give a manufactured Bible to an unbeliever. Baptism should not be given to those who do not want to be baptized, much like it is unwise to give a Bible to someone who will promptly destroy their Bible. Does it make sense to give a Bible to an infant? If so, why is it improper to baptize an infant? Ray Kidder, Anglican
I thought baptism was by immersion, because the greek word is BAPTIZO meaning to immerse. Also without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb 11:6. Babies don't have faith. Should not infant baptism (so called) rather be called sprinkling.
"Babies don't have faith." That are baptized based on the faith of the parents, a parallel to circumcision, when infants were circumcized on the 8th day after birth, not 8th year. We can read how the early Church understood the faith, scripture included (none ever taught baptism delayed to the age of reason, not for 1500+ years). St Cyprian echos the parallel to circumcision : “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64): v2, 6 (A.D. 251). And who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles. “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins: “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
@@TruthHasSpoken The Christian has faith in the “working of God” that He will do this circumcision (cutting away) of sins. Babies have no such faith that God will do this when someone manhandles them and forces them into water. They are innocent of sins and have no knowledge or understanding of what these people are doing to them or why. The only comparison to circumcision is that a cutting off is in both, but the contrast is that in the circumcision of the flesh, there does not have to be any ‘faith” in the why or any understanding of God. Males were to be circumcised on the 8th day and did not have to consent or understand anything. In the case of baptism, there is first an understanding of what God will do in His operation. We understand that He will cut away our sins when we are buried with Christ in baptism. If there is no such understanding, then the baptism or immersion is not “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Jesus authorizes that “believers” be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Peter, by the Spirit, said that “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” results in “remission of sins” (cutting off sins which is the circumcision God does without hands). So, if there is no conviction of sin, and no determination to repent of sins, then there is no baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36-41).
Dr..on the day of penticost there were not only Jews present but many other ethnic groups of people..what the people asked was what they must do to be saved...Peter replied that they must repent and be baptised...how does an infant repent?..repentance is surely a prerequisite for baptism...the bible is silent on infant baptism...why do you try to read something into the bible seeing that the bible is expressly gods word?..children need not necessarily mean infants...you cannot prove from the bible that infant bapitsm is necessary for salvation...YOU ARE THEREFORE BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH!!!
Those various ethnic groups were Jews. And, the Apostles baptized infants. Not a single person who opposes infant baptism and who has responded to this video has shown any evidence of being aware of the video's strongest argument for infant baptism.
BABY BAPTISM is NOT BIBLICAL Mr. Duncan. Show me one scripture that directly says baby baptism is acceptable to God through Christ Jesus!!! YOU CAN'T, CAN YOU! DEFEND YOUR POSITION and STATEMENT THROUGH BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES, NOT SUPPOSITIONS, EMPTY RHETORIC OR OPINIONS. A pastor that preaches without scriptures is like a man that built his house on sand......it CRUMBLES!!!
Jay Mart show me a verse which says don’t baptise infants. Bible shows families and heir whole house holds get baptised. Peter on the day of Pentecost said baptism is for you and your children.
@@georgeibrahim7945 The earliest converts came from Judaism. How would they have taken the examples of household baptisms in Acts? Opponents of infant baptism are so busy focusing on biblical examples of converts that they can't see anything else.
Dr Duncan has not proven his point at all. You want to know the real reason why infant baptism is not biblical listen to John McArthurs sermon on infant baptism. This guy is totally ignorant of Gods word.
and secondly Bible said you can follow how Jesus baptise but in heaven Jesus himself don't know who's going to enter everlasting life,only his Father knows his people.. could be adult baptism or infant baptism,we don't know only the father that is in heaven.we must love one other so we can close our big mouths and working out our faith,if there's no love and doing jugding,im sorry that's not the fruit of the holy spirit,its from evil.
Infant baptism is Roman Catholic teaching that the Reformers failed to abandon. It's not biblical, but is the result of confusing the various covenants.
Interesting this Philip: all Christians for 1500+ years baptized infants. However, there was an early debate on what *day* after birth to do so. “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251). All Christians baptized infants because the _apostles_ taught such. “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins: “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
I think that you should do a little research. Infant baptism is endorsed by the early church fathers, and early church councils. It was called apostolic by Augustine.
What this statement actually says: "The bible is very clear in the light of my traditions and preconceptions that only believers are to be baptized, even though it doesn't actually say this. Quit trying to force out my interpretation on what the Bible says and replace it with yours."
So what really happened is that Peter, Paul and a few other guys were watching Mary Magdalene and her friends take their weekly baths in the river. After they left they saw Jesus and John up river and they were playing some kind of naked dunking game. So Peter says, "Hey, what are you guys doing?" Jesus and John were caught off guard so John says, "Oh... um.... I'm dunking Jesus in the river like that story we heard in school about Achilles. You know, make him immortal." So the guys kinda say, "Oh, ok, whatever." As they are walking away Peter says, "Those two are always playing grab ass somewhere while the rest of us men are spying on the ladies." Then Paul says, "That John guy is Batshit Crazy, and now he's playing some naked dunking game with Jesus. I mean.... not that there's anything wrong with that." So from then on they referred to John as "John the Batshit". Move ahead a few centuries, several different language translations of the story, and "Batshit" became "Baptist". So basically the Baptistism religion is based on some Baptist, aka "Batshit", naked guys dunking each other in a river.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
The best presentation on the subject I’ve heard. Perhaps because it reflects a uniquely helpful mixture of Ligon’s personal baptist roots + his gracious pastor’s heart + clear articulation of biblical texts surrounding a complex theological subject + his unhurried southern gentleman tone). Anyone with a baptist or credobaptism background will be well served upon hearing this!
This is totally amazing! Thankful to follow Dr. Duncan's explanations and teachings!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
Excellent presentation! Very enlightening and helps me understand why both sides are so adamant re their stance, but in the end, both sides admit that Baptism does not save, faith in Jesus and His work on the cross and his burial and resurrection is what saves. I thank God for changing my heart so that I now believe in Jesus, our Savior and Lord.
both sides admit that Baptism does not save, That does not count for all Baptist denominations in a large number I would almost say most of the Baptist churches children from the age group of 8 to 15 are getting baptized under pressure and make a taught confession and then told they are saved.
Actually, some protetants (lutherans and Anglicans) do believe baptism saves - in baptismal regeneration. So, the discussion is even bigger
@@matheusdabnei5540
Scripture also says that baptism saves:
Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism … now saves you
@@bridgefin I totally agree
Baptism does save it’s an appeal to Christ for a clear conscious
Peters says that it literally saves and it’s for the forgiveness of sins
Not the water in and of itself but the appeal made through baptism through faith in Christ and his promise to us.
Paul states it’s when we put in Christ and are in Christ
This is my 5th time watching this. It’s the best explanation of infant Baptism that I have seen. Excellent questions from the audience make it even better! God willing, I will be showing this to my Baptist neighbours for this Sunday Bible study instead of Dr. Kruger (RTS Charlotte Romans)
Thank you Dr. Duncan!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
By faith my parents believed God would lead their children to repentance, that's the way they lived their lives by faith. Their children would never come to Christ, God would come to their children and change hearts. This was a very nice teaching. Salvation is 100 percent of God.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
I see their view and get it. Nothing like Catholicism.
Catholicism Baptism = works and a way to heaven.
Reformed = covenant and promise
P.s. still studying infant baptism.
themarsvoltas what promise? The promise of maybe saving the child?
@@frankborder the promise of the covenant
agree, i was raised lutheran and baptised a baby, but after much searching and prayer, starting from zero and no presuppositions i am now convinced baptism is for believers. I think you can get an argument for infants under covenant theology, but it is just that, an argument, plausible but not as convincing as all the texts clearly dealing with those who "believed" and were baptised. Also the Didache of the first century clearly did not contemplate infant baptism, its a catholic throw back, and I feel those like the speaker, who I respect, possibly lean more on their ecclesiastical colours; that said to disagree with paedobaptists like luther and calvin is a big call!! haha
@@frankborder The same promise he gave to Abraham, when God commanded him to circumcise Isaac.
@@danielclausen5318 So I guess God broke his covenant with Abraham according to your Theology? You credobaptist make God just like man, a covenant breaker.
To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40).
A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.
John 3:16 has nothing to do with baptism
So a circumcised baby??
@@bigtobacco1098 Who says John 3:16 had to do anything with baptism? I see my post blew right over your head.
@@bigtobacco1098 Circumcised baby? The subject is infant baptism.
@kac0404 the whole biblical point of OIKOS covenant baptism is over you
Acts 2:38-39 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you,
AND YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our
Keep reading - - verse 41 says "So those who received his word were baptized, ..."
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Acts 2:40-41 NIV well it doesn't say kids or doesn't say adults so if we stick to the protestant point of view Sola scriptura who got added
John Cash x
The children mens successive generations not infants who cannot repent or believe
@@1960DLB The repentance comes as the child grows and matures. The Fact remains that the Apostles baptized ENTIRE HOSEHOLDS....(entire families) and nowhere does it say that children & infants were excluded. in fact as already stated he bible tells us that: "This promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN" (not your descendants)
I agree with you dr. Ligon duncan. Thank you for making clear the case of infant baptism.
Thank you Dr. Duncan for your gracious, clear, biblical and patient teaching on infant baptism.
"Why didn't the NT authors make clear the mode of baptism?"
They did. They used the word baptizo which means "immerse". That's why the Greek Orthodox Church immerses their infants in water...because they know Greek.
And is it really that hard to read the rest of Acts 2:39? "...everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Presbyterians, stop partially quoting Acts 2:39 to support your position. Eisegesis at it's finest...
Greg F Time will not allow a complete refutation regarding your position that baptizo always must mean immerse but I will supply a few points of clarification.
In order to understand NT baptism we must go beyond simply looking up the words basic etymology and instead look at context and usage.
Bapto and baptizo can have a much more varied application wether one is looking at Classical Greek or NT Koine Greek.
Also, it is interesting to note that baptism is not unique to the NT and is born out of OT practices. If you have the time I think you would find a study of the Septuagint on this matter enlightening.
Anyway, a few examples of the term(s) in question used historically:
To merge one thing with another.
To wet thoroughly or to moisten.
To pour upon or to drench
To become overwhelmed or over powered by something.
Coming under the influence by that which you are baptized.
Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character ,state, or condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state or condition does in fact baptize it. When one thing has the inherent or derived authority to alter something else that is that which is used for baptism.
The point is, is that the emphasis on baptizo is on what results afterward and not the mode. The significance is not in the static etymology of the word but on its usage.
Three things are to be associated with Christian baptism:
Purification ( ceremonial or actual)
Identification
Covenant
I don’t find it a problem at all to the case for infant-baptism to continue the reading of Acts 2. The charge of eisegesis is a shallow one and demonstrates that you misunderstood the material in Duncan’s presentation and the overall Reformed hermeneutic, which combats eisegesis and atomistic readings of Holy Scripture with great vigor!
Any argument against the baptizing of infants also must be raised against the circumcision of infants as well. One must force a strong dichotomy between circumcision and baptism to make their case. We know for certain that God has ordained that a sign of faith be given before faith could be expressed in circumcision, and the NT makes it clear that this isn’t just about ethnicity. The substance hasn’t changed, only the administration and its token to God’s covenant people.
In Christ brother.
@@5solas743 I can see you've done a little reading. Very good. I'd encourage you to read more as it may prove to be enlightening.
1. The usage of baptizo in the LXX, and your summary (which I don't disagree with on the whole), does little to undermine my initial claim. You should know this if you are familiar with the relevant data.
2. The phrase "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" undermines the paedobaptist's understanding of Acts 2:39 because it identifies precisely who is in view: the elect, not "covenant children" per se. It's this poor reading that is in conflict with the rest of Reformed exegesis.
3. To establish a connection between baptism and circumcision would still beg the question: Why physical (as opposed to spiritual) infants? Circumcision corresponds to a promise, baptism to a promise fulfilled. One is forward-looking, the other backward-looking.
This is why it's not Sola Scriptura..its what the Church taught who is authoritative
Faith and repentance comes BEFORE baptism (Read Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16), and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This is something infants cannot possibly do. Infant baptism is a lie and not scriptural.
@@barfrockskin535 there are a lot of things that are not scriptural like the trinity?? Then why do u adopt an orthodox teaching of the trinity yet deny an other teaching of infant baptism by the orthodox church.. Protestants need to quit with the arrogance and learn orthodoxy and church history..
13 years I struggled with this topic. Now I realize the truth. Thank you Dr.Duncan.
Baptism saves. Mark 16:16
@@DisciplesOfGod7You Do Yourself A Disservice When The Text Is Taken Out Of Context To Suit Your Pretext. Finish Reading The Verse- "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Baptism Is A Sign Of A Believer's UNION With Christ.
Repentance, Faith, Believe, Grace Are Gifts From The LORD. "Salvation Is Of The LORD." Jonah 2:9.
"Because The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God nor indeed can be." Romans 8:7
Freemasons take secret oaths. James condemns those who do such things. James 5:12
Beware of wolves in suits and ties.
Why do we need validation? Rejoice he is alive today within you, He died for all sinners, even before birth. The Kingdom is Within, Rejoice!
Religious traditions are for comfort and control. He is ALIVE NOW TODAY WITHIN US ALL!
Word salad
I got hold of the Baptist Bible and took phrases from some verses:
This promise is for your children [after they grew up]. The whole household was baptized [except the infants]. "All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea [but, parents held their babies over their heads to prevent the babies from getting baptized].
I've been in a baptist church for 4 or so years, and I'm skeptical as to your claim, or the tone behind it.
I haven't heard of a "Baptist Bible" - was this some translation, or just an individual bible from a baptist that has personal notes?
@@EthanDyTioco I was joking. The closest thing to a Baptist Bible is the abomination produced by the SBC called the Holeman Christian Standard Bible.
@@jamesreed5678okay so strawmaning a brother is funny to you?
@@Jondoe_04 I don't see it as a strawman to connect the baptism of infants in the church in the desert in the sea to infant baptism in our churches.
I do see many verses which imply infant baptism, which you must dismiss one after another.
@@jamesreed5678 The Israelites were baptized into a national covenant, imaged by the desert and the sea, but individually pictured in circumcision. What covenant are gentile infants baptized into? Would you go as far to say that they are baptized into the covenant of grace, which marks the true Israel of God?
Teach all nations baptising them in the name of the trinity!
Too bad not even one noticed to adjust the MICROPHONE for better audio output!
i dont understand why im baptized when i was an infant. because my parents get seperated. my experience knowing christ was after i made alot of mistake in life that it brought me to do sin normally. i have been baptized the second time in my 20's and still doesnt understand the meaning of it. but after i realize repentance is the first thing you need to do everything was clear now. i started knowing jesus more and more having a conviction of my sins in a daily basis while im still in the process of chaging myself again to do good and righteous. for me infant baptism is not mandatory if your religion condemn you about it better pray to jesus and ask for help about it. neglecting infant batism is not a sin and should not define your a bad parent. the best way for me being a parent now is to guide my child and have a personal promise to Jesus that i will do my best to take care of my children guiding them to jesus christ. bec. my life before is a mess... but with Gods grace im saved and standing for his teaching forever.
Children belong to Jesus, so infants should be baptized. Baptism is a covenant sign, like circumcision in the Old Testament. The testimony of the early church fathers *proves* that the New Testament church baptized infants.
OIKOS covenant baptism... every example in scripture followed it
Man...this was sooo good. God bless you Ligon Duncan. I'll definitely be downloading his lectures on Covenant Theology as soon as I possibly can.
What still has me on the position of having repentance and faith prior to baptism are the arguments set forward by the paedo baptist. One of which involves the proposition that there is no direct command against infant baptism. While that is true, I could likewise go to Genesis 17 and state that there is no command to not circumcise your neighbors who happen to be your best friends either or women for the matter! But the reason I (if I were Abraham) would know that my neighbors (even if they were good friends with me) and women in my household would not be circumcised is because of the clarity of the command on who is to be circumcised. If the command is clear on who is to receive the sign (as I would argue in Matthew 28), there is no need for a command against baptizing infants in the New Testament.
@@mr400meter So, I think you missed the point in that, in the OT the application of the old sign (circumcision) included the children of Abraham (the believer) which meant that they were also considered part of the people of God (people of the promise/covenant), and nowhere in the NT are now children of believers excluded (separated) from the people of God (people of the promise/covenant), and the application new sign (baptism) of belonging to it. If the promise is for you and your children, why not equally as in the OT would the children receive the sign of that promise in the NT?
GBY
@mr400meter confusion... first, you don't circumcise females... simple biological thing... second, we are commanded to include our children in the OIKOS covenant and Peter repeated this in Acts 2...
Video doesn't load. Just keeps spinning. Anyone else have that problem?
Having same problem.
No
Prolly your Wifi
Just FYI, in case anyone is curious, Reformed Baptist churches DON'T do baby dedications either...
Also, just FYI, most Reformed Baptists are very, very familiar with Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed, etc. covenant theology. In fact, we probably read far more of the Reformers in our own reading than non-Reformed writers (of which I have virtually nothing in my library - than for refutation and reference). My pastoral book shelves are filled to overflowing (literally with Reformed and Puritan writers).
Can I also at least encourage my paedobaptist brethren to at least read "Baptism in the Early Church" by H.F. Stander and J.P. Louw. It does strongly argue against Dr. Duncan's assertion that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church for the first fifteen hundred years. Much of these claims are based upon one older book which is not exactly up to date in its historical research. They provide a number of extended quotes from the church fathers and demonstrate that even Turtullian had concerns about baptizing those who could not knowingly confess Christ. Also remember, that much of the church, for its first fifteen hundred years, was largely apostate regarding even more essential matters such as the final authority of Scripture and the Gospel. I'm not trying to posit an argument here, just trying to give another resource for further consideration for those who may wish to check this claim with some further research. However, all of this is ultimately an argument from history, and we must turn to Scripture as the final arbiter.
The book also challenges this claim throughout the centuries by citing original sources.
It might also interest folks to know that the ground of the particular baptist argument (I'm not speaking here of the ana-baptists) in England and the continent against infant baptism began actually with covenant theology. For that, you may wish to check out "Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ" by Nehemiah Coxe". Owen's commentary on Hebrews chapter 8 is included - because the Reformed Baptist Covenant theology is basically identical to John Owen.
Another key book is "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault.
So, for Reformed Baptists, the key and central argument actually arises from their covenant theology. Only after that do they bring in the other arguments from the New Testament.
Dr. Duncan made a slight mistake when he looked at Jeremiah 31:31ff and he stated that baptist believe that everyone in the visible church will be believers.
This may have been just a slip of the tongue or a slight oversight (SEE MY EDITORIAL NOTE BELOW).*
However, baptists do not believe that everyone within the visible church is a believer or even that all who are professing are actually believers. Thus, the invisible church is the true church. We know, as our Presbyterian brethren would affirm, that within the visible church would be false converts, wolves and tares.
Baptists would argue that only the actual redeemed within the visible church are the true church. Confession of faith may and a measure of fruit may be the basis for baptism (which, by the way, is the same basis for baptism for converted adults in the Presbyterian church), but it is well known that there may be some false converts within those who are professing to be believers.
Now, does the fact that some will later prove to be false converts invalidate the need for a profession?
Not in the least.
Just as it may prove to be true that a man may apostatize who was earlier ordained as an elder. The fact that some may fall away does not invalidate the former requirements of elder. Later disqualification does not invalidate earlier qualifications.
And, while not all who confess and are baptized will later prove to be genuine, we certainly should not invalidate the requirements simply because some may later prove to be false. The requirements still stand, just as the requirements for elder or deacon may stand, even though some may fall away. We must not ordain, or IMHO baptize those whom we know at the point of ordination or baptism are definitely not qualified.
In other words, the fact that some ordained elders may later fall away does not mean we should toss out the requirements and ordain just anyone who wants to be an elder.
Another quick note, many of the same arguments used by baptists against baptizing infants are the same exact arguments used by many Presbyterians against infant communion...although SOME do practice infant communion...albeit is very rare.
I hope this is helpful.
*EDITORIAL NOTE: Dr. Duncan does later acknowledge that Baptists affirm that not all who profess faith are genuinely converted, so that was good.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
" the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament."
You have a problem. Neither is delaying the baptism of infants to the age of reason. It's no where in the text. Rather, we can read how the early Church under the faith, scripture included (none ever taught baptism delayed to the age of reason, not for 1500+ years)
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64): v2, 6 (A.D. 251).
Who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles.
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins:
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
@TruthHasSpoken Infant baptism, though practiced in many churches, is absent from Scripture.
Baptism is more than the water. Just because a person eats a grape jelly-on-matzo sandwich for lunch doesn’t mean that he is partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Only when he eats the symbols with faith, for the purpose of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice, does he partake of the Supper. Likewise, just because a person gets wet does not mean that he is experiencing Christian baptism.
Baptism is a person’s faithful response to the preaching of the gospel, “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21). It is a reenactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-7). Through baptism, a person is buried with Him into His death, and raised up to new life (Col. 2:12). Baptism is a spiritual rebirth (John 3:1-8), that puts away the old man of sin and creates a new man in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40).
A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.
@@kac0404 "is absent from Scripture"
This is true of baptism delayed to the age of reason.
Not absent, but not explicit: Scripture does say, repeatedly, that WHOLE households were baptized and there is repeatedly, never an exception for infants.
"A baby is incapable of doing these things."
Infant baptism parallels circumcision, based on the faith of their parents.
@TruthHasSpoken You have no scripture to support your weak logic.
Often, proponents of infant baptism like you will point to circumcision of babies in the Old Testament for support. It is true that the Law commanded Jewish males to be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Luke 1:59) to be included in the covenant to Abraham. But, the old Law has been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ (Gal. 3:24-25; Heb. 8:13). One might just as well argue for making animal sacrifices, observing the Sabbath, abstaining from pork, or not baptizing females, as argue for infant baptism.
Jews became Jews by birth alone, and Gentiles were by birth “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12). Today, individuals enter covenant relationship with God by virtue of choice rather than birth.
@@kac0404 you have no scripture for yours: Baptism of infants delayed to the age of reason.
God never makes an exception for infants for whole households being baptized
Do you believe infants are not part of a household?
Can you cite anyone in the first 1000 years of Christianity that taught your fallible interpretation of the text? Anyone, any where??
Other protestants disagree with you, as do the Orthodox.
Very good presentation, but : seven minutes of preamble irrelevant to the topic at hand. I wish that this kind of thing (so extremely common in church presentations), were edited out of the posted video.
Bro take it easy
@@froyvm7868 Bro, you might have all the time in the world to listen to a mere captatio benevolentiae, of no interest or use to a wider audience, but I don't.
We cannot say that Ismael did not belief or was lost. That is not Biblical He promised her that He would turn Ishmael into a powerful nation. In addition, he showed her a well of water. Ishmael and Hagar relied on God’s provision for their survival. “And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He spent his life in the woods, honing his bow skills. He resided in the Paran wilderness, and his mother brought him a wife from Egypt” (Genesis 21:20-21).
See audio series "I Had a Dream: Judgment's Coming. Are You Under the Blood?," beginning at www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T1111.
Followed by audio series "Baptism: Sprinkling, Pouring, and Immersion: Does It Really Matter?," beginning at www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T1121.
“Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition” (The Council of Trent).
This notion is contradicted by Scripture. Jesus said that adults must “become like children” (Matt. 18:1-6), to whom “the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matt. 19:14). Why would Jesus use children as a model of godly innocence, if instead they are condemned?
Children become sinful later, as they learn the difference between right and wrong, and choose to do wrong (1 John 3:4). “God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices” (Eccl. 7:29). Each person shares in Adam’s condemnation not because Adam is his great-grandfather (Ezek. 18) but “because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) just like Adam did.
The Lord Jesus said baptizing them in the name of the father, son and the holy spirit.Matt 28:18- 20 read. Is that holy spirit baptism? No,it is baptism by immersion.This comes before or after holy dpirit baptism according to biblical examples eg, Conellius house hold received h/s baptism b/4water baptism.
As someone, who is Presbyterian in ecclesiology, but a practicing credo Baptist, this is an excellent discourse on the biblical significance of the administration of water baptism and a very biblical approach to this very layered and multi-dimensional issue. However I would contend both Presbyterians and Baptists must make a proper distinction between "immersion" and "submersion" - all submersions are immersions, but not all immersions are submersions - it is perfectly biblical to "immerse" - "make one with" - by administering water via pouring and sprinkling😃Getting beyond the issue of the mode of administering water however, we all still wrestle with the significance of the outward sign of administering water - if it is simply a sign of God's promise to bring salvation to the children of believers, pedobaptism it is a perfectly biblical practice and is clearly consistent with Covenant Theology - if it is a sign however of one being "spiritually one" with Christ, credo Baptists validly raise an issue of the propriety of administering water to an infant who can not yet discern the Lord's body and His atoning work which is a prerequisite of receiving the sign of union with Christ by partaking of the Lord's table (1 Corinthians 11). Christ clearly explained the New Covenant sign of the Lord's table, and this was reiterated and reinforced by the Apostle Paul. However when it comes to the practice of the administration of water baptism the teachings are not as explicit and we all struggle to properly infer how to properly understand the significance of water baptism. Many blessings to my pedo and credo baptistic brethren - as prayed in this video - let's continue to encourage and edify one another and properly worship Christ and Christ alone.
Thankyou. This is so solid.
The example of baptism is when John the baptist baptized Jesus Christ in the river. Jesus came up out of the water. He was immersed in water, not sprinkled.
Good sermons can also be found on YT by John MacArthur, “Is Infant Baptism Biblical?” and “Believer’s Baptism.”
John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus was an Old Testament baptism. It is not the same as a New Testament baptism and had a different purpose and meaning. The Bible says John the Baptist was the greatest prophet, but he is less than New Testament believers. Look up RC Sproul’s discussion of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist.
Read the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch ... both "came up out of the water" ... do both people "immerse"???
One, Jesus did not receive Christian Baptism (Acts is clear on this). Two, neither Jesus, nor anyone in Scripture ever, is explicitly stated to have been submerged underwater. Three, there is only one baptism in all of Scripture where the method is explicitly stated, can you tell us what it is (hint: God does it Himself, and it comes from above by pouring)?
"Jesus came up out of the water. He was immersed in water, not sprinkled."
You are adding to the text that which is not there.
_16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water,_
Praise the Lord. That was an excellent biblical explanation.
1 Peter 3:20-21
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this WATER symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
so based
Very very good
Making disciples...baptising. Baptizing is part of making disciples.
Then let me ask,was Jesus baptized twice? As an infant and then as an adult?
No, because Jesus was not the recipient of Christian Baptism at any point in his life. In Christian Baptism terms, Jesus was baptized neither once, nor twice - but rather, not at all.
Jesus took on the covenant sign and seal of circumcision as an infant, which is then replaced by baptism in the NT.
@@Mic1904Jesus received the Holy Spirit at water baptism, then began his ministry.
The Holy Spirit fell on Jesus at water baptism and he began his ministry.
The moment someone of one view begins to educate me on another group's view, I become skeptical. Need to hear them myself.
Big Lig!
Ligon have you and your elders had a chance to sit down with Pastor Wilson and others to explain what you were meaning in your discussion about the so called Moscow Mood?
This is so good !
Im a baptist and im trying to write a paper on this subject. Id love an answer to a question of mine but i must adress what Baptist actually believe in a baptism we believe we are declaring the work of Christ on the cross being brought into His death and therefore united into God by the Son's and Him and the Father sending the Spirit by the call of the Father. Not an idea of demonstrating our feeble love.
My question is this, what happens to the unbelievabling child baptismed into Christ brought into the covent but not saved if they pass or go to glory? We dont believe it brings the Spirit so we say greater condemnation, it sounds like its being taught that the Spirit is being brought in baptism here.
“Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.”
Matthew 19:13-15 ESV
Act 2 is never about requirement for infant baptism. THATS BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE not Gentile baptism😊
Defending infant baptism is the worst Christian should do!
Defending" believers baptism", is the worst thing to do. It gives a person false hope. Baptism is not Christ and Christ is not baptism. Faith and righteousness is Salvation according to the Bible.
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8Baptism saves. Through Faith is Repentance, Confession and Water Baptism
@ChurchOfKentucky we can look at the old covenant frist and see how Christ fulfilled the old covenant circumcision . In the biblical context, circumcision is more than just a symbol - it's a physical sign of a spiritual covenant between God and the individual. It represents:
1. Obedience: Submitting to God's command.
2. Identity: Belonging to the community of Israel.
3. Faith: Trusting in God's promises and guidance
4. Separation: Distinguishing oneself from other nations.
5. Purification: A ritual cleansing, signifying spiritual renewal.
6. Covenant: God’s promise
7. Skin and blood: points to Christ and his coming.
While the physical act of circumcision is a symbol, it's meant to represent a deeper spiritual reality. The removal of the foreskin serves as a tangible reminder of the individual's commitment to their faith and covenant relationship with God this included 8 day old babies.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
@Bad-pt4gu According to the Bible, baptism is God's promise (Acts2:39).
Sacraments are God's covenant signs or promise.
When I read Colossians 2:12 you are raised by faith. The Lord’s promises are realized by faith. Rom 4:13-25, Gal 3, Eph 2, Heb 6:12-15 and Gen 15:6.
Baptism erases ORIGINAL sin.
It's still unbiblical, regardless of tradition, circumcision or anything else. As meticulous as Paul was he certainly would have emphasized it.
Apply this hermeneutic to the trinity ? Cessation ??
"It's still unbiblical, "
No where does scripture state baptism of infants should be delayed to the age of reason. That belief is unbliblical.
Rather:
- whole households were baptized, repeatedly
- never an exception for an infant, repeatedly
When the Disciple Philip baptized the eunuch, Philip told him that if he believed with ALL OF HIS HEART, that then, and only then, could he baptize the eunuch. "AND AS THEY WENT ON THEIR AY, THEY CAME UNTO A CERTAIN WATER, AND THE EUNUCH SAID, "SEE, HERE IS WATER; WHAT DOTH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED?" ACTS 8:36. "AND PHILIP SAID, "IF THOU BELIEVEST WITH ALL THINE HEART, THOU MAYEST." AND HE ANSWERED AND SAID I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD" ACTS 3:37. "AND HE COMMANDED THE CHARIOT TO STAND STILL; AND THEY WENT DOWN BOTH INTO THE WATER, BOTH PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH; AND HE BAPTIZED HIM" ACTS 3:38. You see, BAPTISM must be done willingly and the person receiving the BAPTISM MUST BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR CONFESS THEIR SINS, AS JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS ALSO BAPTIZING PEOPLE AFTER THEY SPOKE AND CONFESSED THEIR SINS, THEY WERE THEN BAPTIZED. Babies can't confess their SINS because first 1) They are innocent 2) they cannot speak and 3) they cannot discern from GOOD or EVIL. Philip told the Eunuch that only if the Eunuch believed with all his heart, he would baptize him. Very important verse, as BABIES or INFANTS CANNOT TALK or RESPOND if you ask them if they BELIEVE. PEOPLE, READ YOUR BIBLES, for in the SCRIPTURES you will find TRUE UNDERSTANDING! Do NOT BE MISLED, THE PASTOR DUNCAN HIMSELF was BAPTIZED AS A GROWN UP!
All three reasons you listed for not baptizing an infant are the exact reasons you can baptize them. You are looking at it the opposite way from what you should. Adults need to confess their sins and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior before being baptized, infants don't need to do that, because they are INFANTS.
Christ Jesus was BAPTIZED as an adult, not a baby or child! He came to show us the way; He was baptized at the age of 30. Babies cannot confess their sins for they are not in the years of understanding. Even the courts of this world do not recognize children as adults, they are minors, so the law protects them if they get into trouble, even the records are sealed in court. MR, MOST CHURCHES USE BAPTISMS FOR PROFIT. THEY RETAIN THEIR CONGREGATION THROUGH BAPTISM OF INFANTS, WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BEING THE WORST OFFENDERS. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PROTECTED PRIESTS FOR A LONG TIME, EVEN DENIED THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN UNTIL LATELY. You must be able to confess, accept the Lord into your heart in order for BAPTISM to be recognized by God, babies cannot do that!
@@jaymart2355
First of all, NT baptism is a sign of the New Covenant with God, just as circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant with God. Were eight day old babies at the age of understanding?
YOU: Christ Jesus was BAPTIZED as an adult, not a baby or child! He came to show us the way;
ME: Jesus was born under the Old Covenant, and him being baptized as an adult was not done to show us that all Christians must be baptized as an adult rather than as an infant, far from it. If Jesus was showing us a particular way to follow, then surely we should only be baptized at 30 years of age ONLY, and it needs to be done in the Jordan river ONLY. Besides that, nobody knows if Jesus was baptized by complete immersion, washing, pouring, or sprinkling, so obviously, if Jesus wanted us to follow him exactly, then Scripture should have pointed out the exact method of baptism to use, which it doesn't.
YOU: Even the courts of this world do not recognize children as adults, they are minors, so the law protects them if they get into trouble, even the records are sealed in court
ME: What does this have to do with baptism?
YOU: MR, MOST CHURCHES USE BAPTISMS FOR PROFIT. THEY RETAIN THEIR CONGREGATION THROUGH BAPTISM OF INFANTS, WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BEING THE WORST OFFENDERS.
ME: LOL! Talk about conspiracy theories.
Jay Mart John the Baptist baptised Christ and if he was supposed to baptise him as a child John the Baptist Would of been to young to baptise Jesus since he was only 6 months older
Jay man, you're right. Better yet scripture is right. Repenting and believing are key. Infants can't do either.
We must be old I hear them say for one to be baptized
Perhaps it is the children then that men now do dispise
Have not they heard that from
the mouths of babes shall then come prais
Hosana in the highest His will on earth be made
So suffer then the children
to come now to his side
and put away the fallicy
That's born of human pride.
The lord loves best his children
that come so swift and free
to grace that brings salvation He purchased on a tree.
why baptise girls ?
joyjoyjoy because the New Testament covenant is more receptive in nature than old covenant
Binu Samuel but didn’t the old covenant include females?
@@mrhartley85 The Old Covenant did include women, but the sign of the Covenant - Circumcision - was observed through the male line of the ethnic Nation of Israel. Women were included in the Covenant, but the sign was on the males.
In the New Covenant, the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile was torn down; the Covenant is no longer for an ethnic People, but a spiritual one. This New Covenant is better than the Old, it is that to which the Old pointed, and its sign is now on both Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, as the ethnic lineage of the Old Covenant is no longer relevant.
Because we are moving from the lesser to the greater. The NC is more inclusive.
Dr. Duncan is the man!
Wrong, the Colossians text is speaking about the believer's union with Christ. This union does not result from physical baptism, here Paul is speaking of the believer's spiritual baptism into Christ.
david glock 1 Peter 3:20-21
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
No it’s talking about baptism. The spiritual and the physical are one and the same
George Ibrahim the emphasis is that baptism isn’t about removing dirt from the body, that’s why it’s mentioned there. But it is referring to baptism being washed by water and the word. Ephesians 5:25-27
Good historical covenant theology here
This has left me more confused and with even more questions than before
It might be worth listening to his lectures on Covenant Theology (free on iTunes U) for a fuller understanding of his position.
@@pierrequeripel183 What’s the title of them?
Really good explanations are found on YT by John MacArthur entitled, “Is Infant Baptism Biblical?” And “Believer’s Baptism.”
@@Armygirl4Christterrible series
@@Armygirl4Christavoid him... he's also dispensational
Can a man be baptized without his faith?
Were Jewish infants circumcised without their own faith?
A man can be submerged or sprinkled with water but he isn't saved until his heart is open and surrendered to God.
@@Nevrclear
Yes, baptism doesn't save you on its own, you must have faith in Jesus. And once having faith in Jesus and being baptized, you must then demonstrate your faith through good works.
Simon the Sorcerer, Acts 8
NO
If someone baptized a baby in the New Testament I would go along with it… a large church I went to would sometimes have a baby dedicated to the Lord and we prayed for the child as a church.
It seems this is more of a custom than a Bible ordinance.
If someone baptized any (place any age here) in the Bible .... hermeneutic dilemma
The Philippian jailer was baptized with his whole household.
"If someone baptized a baby in the New Testament I would go along with it"
If someone delayed baptism of an infant to the age of reason in the New Testament I would ... "go along with it." That belief is not found in the bible.
Rather:
- whole households were baptized, repeatedly
- never an exception for an infant, repeatedly
When the Israelites left Egypt they crossed the Red Sea which was a type and shadow of baptism. All of the children went with.
Jesus said count the costs. No baby ever did that. Early church fathers confirm adult baptism. Children are holy because of their parents. 1 Corinthians 7:14
"Early church fathers confirm adult baptism"
Not either or but both. Adult AND infant baptism. Keep in mind, infants were circumcized on the 8th day after birth, not the 8th year.
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
Who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles.
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins:
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
All through the Bible salvation is for households. When people are saved the package includes a promise to save ones children and beyond just one generation. I want to claim that by baptizing all of my children. Why exclude them. That puts a spirit of rejection on them. Baptism puts the spirit of adoption on them.
Exactly right. And the teaching of the Church for 2000 years has been consistent, a teaching handed down by the apostles.
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64): v2, 6 (A.D. 251).
Who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles.
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins:
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
Doesn't baptize mean "immerse"?? Im confused?
Steve51791 the semantic domain is broader than immerse. It does mean immerse. And Cleanse. And Wash. Luke 11:38 is usually rendered as "wash" rather than immerse.
baptize ( Greek NT) means to immerse, submerge--NOT DOT WITH A DROP !!! Even religious Jews practice Mikvah (tank immersion) to this day!!!
Ryan is correct. The meaning is broader than immerse. More here Danny.
www.catholic.com/tract/baptism-immersion-only
Baptize in Greek it doesn't mean dip or immerse,
Bapto in greek is dip or immerse.
@@mareduave6870 The English word "Baptize" comes from the Greek "baptizo" and it does primarily mean to immerse. It can also mean to wash, but wash carries the idea of getting whatever is to be washed completely wet. There are other words in Greek for "sprinkle" and "pour".
you are talking about the baptism of the HS and then comparing to water baptism...two different baptisms altogether...
Baptism always comes after hearing the word and believing. Really a hard sell to include infants in that. Especially, because baptism is an act of obedience.
If they are “implying” that they should baptize infants because it’s not forbidden, then we are in danger of adding to our Lord’s word. What else can we imply from scripture (think this falls into eisegesis)
Pedo-baptism comes out of the Church of Rome and should have been reformed.
Actually ur quite historically wrong... Infant's have actually always been baptized.. Please learn church history before spouting bad history
Among the scriptures in Greek which discribes entire of 3 generations of families being baptized there are writings from early church fathers who speak of infant baptism that predates Constantine. Baptism was never taught by the early church that it is an outward sign of an inward confession. So u can say baptisms has been always done that way since Ana Baptist came around in the reformation but you can't say it was always been done that way
Adam An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering.
Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing of The Word of God.
@@sinfulyetsavedwrong wrong wrong
Duncan distorts Acts 2:38. The promise is God's promise to Abraham of faith that he had through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not baptism. "Your children and for all who are far off everyone, whom the Lord calls to himself". Infant baptism is not a call. There is no infant baptism in the bible.
And Duncan distorted the book of Colossians because physical circumcision isn't mentioned. Infant baptism is not in the bible. Jesus didn't baptize any children neither did the apostles.
"There is no infant baptism in the bible."
No where does scripture state baptism of infants should be delayed to the age of reason. That belief is not found in the bible.
Rather:
- whole households were baptized, repeatedly
- never an exception for an infant, repeatedly
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, and Ephesians 1:13, the most important thing about the word "baptism" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. Based on these verses, nobody gets into the New Covenant through water. You will not find "water" in Peter's words on the Day of Pentecost.
Act_3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
The promise of the master teacher of the New Covenant (John 14:26, Hebrews 8:11) is found fulfilled in the verse below.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
ruclips.net/video/opPognbvMXc/видео.html
Read the book "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll to understand the true history of Baptists.
SpotterVideo 1 Peter 3:20-21
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this WATER symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
@@georgeibrahim7945 What did the same man say below?
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
.
@lily of the desert
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
I would much rather parent children that i have invited Holy Spirit to rest upon.
Why is this part always left off from Jeremiah 31 when speaking of the promise of the new covenant? 29 In those days they shall say no more,
The fathers have eaten a sour grape,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity:
Every man that eateth the sour grape,
His teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
That I will make a new covenant
With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2009). (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., Je 31:29-32). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Covered in Ligon Duncan’s lectures on Covenant Theology (free on iTunes-U app).
That was not the Water Baptism, but the Baptism of the Holy Ghost which was given by the laying on of hands by the Apostles
The first thing one should observe is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never given as a command to be administered by man, nor was it to be obeyed by man. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise to be received by certain men chosen for a certain purpose. When Jesus spoke on the subject between His resurrection and His ascension, He appeared to the chosen apostles, speaking to them things concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). Among the things spoken to them were the following words: “ … wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” {He said,} “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4-5 NAS).
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
(CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order.
(ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation.
(GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things.
(KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357
(NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
(NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
(YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
=================================================================================================
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
❤❤
WRONG!!!!!
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
Baptism and salvation are clearly linked throughout Scripture. Peter compared baptism to the water that saved Noah and said, “Baptism…now saves you” (1 Peter 3:20-21). Paul compared baptism to circumcision under Mosaic Law and indicated that being “buried with [Christ] in baptism” results in being “forgiven” of all your sins (Colossians 2:11-13). But no one made the relationship between baptism and salvation more clear than Jesus who said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
@@kac0404 What is the one baptism of our faith according to the Apostle Paul in Eph. 4:1-5? How many times is the word “Spirit” found in the passage, and how many times is the word “water” found?
Eating Kosher is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Circumcision of male children is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Trimming your beard according to the Law of Moses is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Water baptisms were a part of the Old Covenant, but they are not required under the New Covenant. The proof is found below. John baptized with water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Which one is related to salvation, based on Romans 8:9?
.
Heb. 9:10 (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them . (Old Covenant ------> New Covenant)
.
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
(What is the one baptism of our faith here, based on Eph. 1:12-13, and 1 Cor. 12:13?)
.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (See Mark 1:8)
Does anyone have the link for the online class they mention at the end?
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
God also cares and loves the infants.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
Jesus died only for an adult sin? Bible said all of us.baptism is the time we think back on Jesus death.simple as that baptism also dedicate to an infant and if you think we're wrong,thats only you not the bible.dont fool yourself in carrying your children to church giving god and giving him as his childre and you let thm grow up doing bad action wating him or your girl baptise emersion..it's a fool
Великолепно!
Coming from a reformed background, I know that covenant baptism is sugar coated (catholic) salvation via baptism. Covenant theology was developed to get protestants to swallow sacralism.
The bible never list one example of baptism preceding faith. But actually state that you must believe with all your heart before baptism in Acts 8:37. But you better use an old revision(and non catholic) bible because Protestant and Catholic sacralists try their best to erase, or change that verse. A good book to read is The Reformers and their stepchildren, this research book was written by Verduin.
Jaco V. As someone also from a Reformed background I am curious about what you view as sacralism. It seems to me that, if I understand sacralism properly, Covenant Theology does not encourage it.
@@honephillips3840 The degree of directness differs between denominations. But you usually hear things like: with baptism the infant receives the HS that enable it to believe; baptism means that the child is numbered as one of God's children, Baptism seals the infant with the HS; ancesteral sin is removed in baptism. The usual deflection from baptismal salvation is: but the person must later believe or that the person must have been pre-destined to believe. On ground level reformed people usually believe that God, predestined believing children to believing parents, infants are included in the covenant via baptism etc.
I was the son of a Presbyterian who insisted we attend church (twice iirc) every Sunday and by 25 I still had never heard of the Westminster Confession let alone read it. My Presbyterian background did not give me an accurate picture of what was the church's doctrine. Covenant theology, at least as taught by Witsius and those who stood on the same ground as Mr Duncan do not believe children are saved by their baptism.
Baptism marks them (as it does all who undergo the ritual) as members of the covenant originally made with Abraham and therefore liable to both the associated blessings and curses. Blessings accrue to those who repent of their sins and put their trust in the provision made by God to avoid its eternal consequences the curses follow those who refuse the obligations of that covenant and continually flout the Law of God. For the latter group the greater privilege gains greater damnation.
Knowing this no parent would place their children in this position were it not commanded. In doing so, God set the stage for the careful instruction of the young and also commanded parents to do so, encouraging them by precept and example.
We should not, and many do not, treat our children as saved OR damned but as covenant members who have obligations they will one day have to take up for themselves. Prince George is a good example. He will DV one day be king but currently, though born to privilege, is treated like any other child who has to learn his place in the world. Nevertheless there are many things he is required to do and many he is required not to but the reasons for that reality rest on the roles assigned to his father and grandfather.
Covenant theology recognises the followers of the Christ and the children have privileges and obligations assigned to us by God and we seek to understand them and teach them to our children. As the psalmist teaches us, "thus they shall learn in God alone their hope securely stands, that they may not forget his law, but honor his commands."
Btw when I had a book shop I knew several Baptists to whom I recommended both the book you mentioned and Al Martin's and Walter Chantry's books on the place of children in the church. I do not think the Baptist view is right but I think study of the original documents is better than ignorance -- it helps us overcome that ignorance if we are prepared to think through the implications of some of the things people claim.
Happy-go-lucky defending your tradition...
This is DECEIVING.....stop infant baptism! Covenant don't save...baptism dnt save
Why would you baptize a non believer? Asking for a friend...
Actually, people of the Baptist faith (as I once heard James White say has occurred) sometimes baptize people whom they were under the impression were believers but later decided such persons were not really believers. Apparently, the Baptists believe baptism is to be given only to those who want to be baptized and that this desire to be baptized is an indication of their faith. If you read the first verses of Romans 3, and disbelieve that water baptism replaced physical circumcision, then it seems reasonable to me that you should be expounding physical circumcision as the benefits of circumcision include obtaining the oracles of God. Lutherans believe water baptism promotes faith, and some even go as far to claim that genuine saving faith is only present after the person has been administered Trinitarian water baptism. If you consider a supernatural component from the sacrament of baptism, then it makes sense to baptize an unbeliever much like it makes sense to give a manufactured Bible to an unbeliever. Baptism should not be given to those who do not want to be baptized, much like it is unwise to give a Bible to someone who will promptly destroy their Bible. Does it make sense to give a Bible to an infant? If so, why is it improper to baptize an infant? Ray Kidder, Anglican
I thought baptism was by immersion, because the greek word is BAPTIZO meaning to immerse. Also without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb 11:6. Babies don't have faith. Should not infant baptism (so called) rather be called sprinkling.
While baptizo can, meaningfully, be translated 'immerse', immerse is not 'submerge'. In either Greek or English.
"Babies don't have faith."
That are baptized based on the faith of the parents, a parallel to circumcision, when infants were circumcized on the 8th day after birth, not 8th year.
We can read how the early Church understood the faith, scripture included (none ever taught baptism delayed to the age of reason, not for 1500+ years). St Cyprian echos the parallel to circumcision :
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64): v2, 6 (A.D. 251).
And who taught infant baptism? Answer; the apostles.
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins:
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
@@TruthHasSpoken The Christian has faith in the “working of God” that He will do this circumcision (cutting away) of sins. Babies have no such faith that God will do this when someone manhandles them and forces them into water. They are innocent of sins and have no knowledge or understanding of what these people are doing to them or why. The only comparison to circumcision is that a cutting off is in both, but the contrast is that in the circumcision of the flesh, there does not have to be any ‘faith” in the why or any understanding of God. Males were to be circumcised on the 8th day and did not have to consent or understand anything. In the case of baptism, there is first an understanding of what God will do in His operation. We understand that He will cut away our sins when we are buried with Christ in baptism. If there is no such understanding, then the baptism or immersion is not “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Jesus authorizes that “believers” be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Peter, by the Spirit, said that “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” results in “remission of sins” (cutting off sins which is the circumcision God does without hands). So, if there is no conviction of sin, and no determination to repent of sins, then there is no baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36-41).
Dr..on the day of penticost there were not only Jews present but many other ethnic groups of people..what the people asked was what they must do to be saved...Peter replied that they must repent and be baptised...how does an infant repent?..repentance is surely a prerequisite for baptism...the bible is silent on infant baptism...why do you try to read something into the bible seeing that the bible is expressly gods word?..children need not necessarily mean infants...you cannot prove from the bible that infant bapitsm is necessary for salvation...YOU ARE THEREFORE BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH!!!
Those various ethnic groups were Jews. And, the Apostles baptized infants. Not a single person who opposes infant baptism and who has responded to this video has shown any evidence of being aware of the video's strongest argument for infant baptism.
BABY BAPTISM is NOT BIBLICAL Mr. Duncan. Show me one scripture that directly says baby baptism is acceptable to God through Christ Jesus!!! YOU CAN'T, CAN YOU! DEFEND YOUR POSITION and STATEMENT THROUGH BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES, NOT SUPPOSITIONS, EMPTY RHETORIC OR OPINIONS. A pastor that preaches without scriptures is like a man that built his house on sand......it CRUMBLES!!!
Jay Mart is a question of personal interpretation. The Bible has not one interpretation, the proof is all the differents comments for this video
Jay Mart show me a verse which says don’t baptise infants. Bible shows families and heir whole house holds get baptised. Peter on the day of Pentecost said baptism is for you and your children.
@@georgeibrahim7945 The earliest converts came from Judaism. How would they have taken the examples of household baptisms in Acts? Opponents of infant baptism are so busy focusing on biblical examples of converts that they can't see anything else.
Dr Duncan has not proven his point at all. You want to know the real reason why infant baptism is not biblical listen to John McArthurs sermon on infant baptism. This guy is totally ignorant of Gods word.
and secondly Bible said you can follow how Jesus baptise but in heaven Jesus himself don't know who's going to enter everlasting life,only his Father knows his people.. could be adult baptism or infant baptism,we don't know only the father that is in heaven.we must love one other so we can close our big mouths and working out our faith,if there's no love and doing jugding,im sorry that's not the fruit of the holy spirit,its from evil.
Infant baptism is Roman Catholic teaching that the Reformers failed to abandon. It's not biblical, but is the result of confusing the various covenants.
Interesting this Philip: all Christians for 1500+ years baptized infants. However, there was an early debate on what *day* after birth to do so.
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
All Christians baptized infants because the _apostles_ taught such.
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
St. Augustine echos Origen, referring to infant baptism apostolic origins:
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, (A.D. 400).
Philip ????
Infant baptism predates the Catholic church
@GregHess-en8ry it predates the Roman catholic church
I think that you should do a little research. Infant baptism is endorsed by the early church fathers, and early church councils. It was called apostolic by Augustine.
Another hour spent by a Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterian attempting to explain something that has nothing to do with what Scripture says.
The bible is very clear on who is to be baptized, believers! Quit trying to force your delusions on what the bible says.
What this statement actually says: "The bible is very clear in the light of my traditions and preconceptions that only believers are to be baptized, even though it doesn't actually say this. Quit trying to force out my interpretation on what the Bible says and replace it with yours."
Only da believer's baptism is valid......😮
Pretty flimsy.
How so?
I don't believe in it. How is it flimsy. It's a solid defense. Making me do more studying.
Any argument is flimsy if you're not paying attention to it.
Now on to approving Purgatory.
So what really happened is that Peter, Paul and a few other guys were watching Mary Magdalene and her friends take their weekly baths in the river. After they left they saw Jesus and John up river and they were playing some kind of naked dunking game. So Peter says, "Hey, what are you guys doing?" Jesus and John were caught off guard so John says, "Oh... um.... I'm dunking Jesus in the river like that story we heard in school about Achilles. You know, make him immortal." So the guys kinda say, "Oh, ok, whatever." As they are walking away Peter says, "Those two are always playing grab ass somewhere while the rest of us men are spying on the ladies." Then Paul says, "That John guy is Batshit Crazy, and now he's playing some naked dunking game with Jesus. I mean.... not that there's anything wrong with that." So from then on they referred to John as "John the Batshit". Move ahead a few centuries, several different language translations of the story, and "Batshit" became "Baptist". So basically the Baptistism religion is based on some Baptist, aka "Batshit", naked guys dunking each other in a river.
Bob carp: Lolrotf That is the funniest story I've heard in quite some time. I pray that it was tongue-in-cheek.
Demon
I've always wondered what makes all these lyinig non-Biblical false teachers think Almighty God will let them get away with making up their own rules?
A simple answer would be to look to yourself and find your answer right there.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
Generally necessary