Baptism Debate: A Credobaptist Position with John MacArthur
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Who is a proper candidate for Christian baptism? In this message, Dr. John MacArthur presents an argument for credobaptism, the view that baptism is to be administered to professing believers alone.
This is the first of two messages in a debate between Dr. MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul on the biblical meaning and mode of baptism. See the entire debate: • Baptism Debate with R....
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank You Dr. John MacArthur, after listening to Dr. R.C. Sproul expound on Paedobaptism and then hearing your expository message regarding Credobaptism. I am no longer confused on the issue of infant baptism and agree with Gods revealed understanding provided to you through His word. I really appreciate Ligonier and Grace To You ministries. I am learning so much, may our Lord continue to blessed both institutions as we wait for His return. Shout out to Truth For Life with Pastor Alistair Begg, another GOD fearing BIBLE teaching ministry. Love in Christ,
My top three as well, after my own pastor of course. Honorable mention to Lawson.
Appreciate this debate. Was on the fence after hearing Sproul until i listened to this.
Jesus like many of His teaching shows us how when we are in Christ are able to give a blessing? He blesses them.
Thank you John, this really helped me.
Johnny Mac was more convincing
Because he is correct 🤣
Understand what Brother John is saying: because the people of God are ONLY those who express personal faith, your infant is not only excluded from the people of God, but they are AT BEST "tares, branches broken off to be burned." This is the category he puts our infants in. Let that sink in next time you take your infant to his Congregation.
Why do evangelicals pit justification by faith alone against Baptismal Regeneration? Baptism isn’t my work, I merely receive. Peter says baptism saves, he says repent and be baptized. Jesus Christ himself says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. He says whoever is born of the water and the spirit has eternal life. It is God’s physical means and work to distribute his Grace to us.
From my understanding, I see baptism as a work that we perform. I don't see how it can be justified (at the moment) that we "merely receive", because what it says practically is that one must wait for someone to baptize you, come to the place to be baptized, and have the water to be baptized, etc. It sounds to me that this is making a ceremony the basis of salvation when Paul says in Philippians that it is based on faith. If Paul says it is based on faith, but we say it is based on baptism, clearly that means baptism is not faith and clearly that means there is a difference in Paul's doctrine and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
It also sounds extremely similar to those in Galatians/Acts 15 that said one needed to be circumcised to be saved. We are saved by grace through faith.
We have to also be careful to not take only a few verses that speak of baptism and salvation together and build an entire doctrine on that, especially when it comes to salvation. You have to take all of scripture together, and when you do, it is overwhelmingly clear that it is by faith alone in Christ. Acts 10, John 3, Ephesians 2:8-10, Philippians 3, are some examples of that. God bless my man!
@@peytonsingh1038 the issue is you can’t pit scripture against scripture. Scripture also clearly teaches in several places that Baptism saves and Baptism regenerates (1 Peter 3, Acts 2, Mark 16, Titus 3, Ephesians 5). So instead of placing our reason above scripture we have to seek what God is teaching clearly. Justification by grace through faith alone and Baptismal regeneration are not at odds because scripture says both. So we have to figure out how they work together. Which is clear if one reads the whole of scripture instead of isolated texts without context.
St. Paul demonstrates that the faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10) and also says in Ephesians 5 that Baptism is the washing of water with the Word. It’s the water and the word. If the Word saves which we would agree on and faith comes by hearing the Word, how then can we reject that Baptism saves when all it is is the water and the word?
@@halo0360 I never said we pit the Word against the Word, we have to rightly divide the Word, and therefore, we use all of scripture to help us interpret scripture.
There is an error in saying Ephesians 5 is speaking of baptism, because it does not say baptism in that passage
The verse says "by the washing of water with the word,"
Which means that it is the Word, Christ, who does the washing. This clearly lines up with how The Holy Spirit is called the Living Water and that when we believe in Jesus, we are washing in His blood and filled with the Holy Spirit. When you look at the whole of scripture, it teaches we are saved by faith. Paul said that it was before Abraham was circumcised and in Galatians 3 asks the question:
Galatians 3:5- He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Hearing with faith. Romans 10:17 tells us faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. It is the Word which gives us faith in Christ which saves us. This lines up with Ephesians 1 which tells us that once the people heard the Gospel, they believed, and were filled with the Holy Spirit. We know that baptism is not required because of Acts 10, for example, as well as the thief on the cross. God bless!
@@peytonsingh1038 brother, this is what pitting scripture against scripture is. It’s taking one passage and using it to say another passage doesn’t mean what it says. If nothing else, Peter is clear that “baptism now saves you” that’s clear. I’ll grant that Ephesians 5 May not be if you do not have an understanding that Baptism regenerates. But Peter is undeniably clear. If you read him in context it is clear. So our job is we have to figure out, how does faith justify us alone but yet Baptism saves? Baptism is a great gift that we do not need to look upon with suspicion. Our God is a great God who can save in an infinite amount of ways. Baptismal regeneration doesn’t even mean that if one isn’t baptized they cease to be saved. It means that it is God’s chosen instrument to bring the saving Word to us in a real, visible, and tangible way. Something you feel and something we use in ordinary life to cleanse ourselves.
Scripture reading requires us to submit and acknowledge what the plain Word of God says.
God bless our Christian discourse here, these are good and important subjects! God bless you as well!
Are there really zero passages in the New Testament that connect circumcision with baptism? Maybe we should reread Colossians 2.
he complains about infant baptism not being mentioned in scripture and how there's no explicit connection between infant baptism and circumcision then he makes a connection between circumcision and man's sin which isn't in scripture. more inconsistency
Romans 2:26-29
I would even read Romans 2 as a whole.
Poor Macarthur
Nowhere in the Bible can I find the term" Believers Baptism " ?
I wonder were macarthur got that from ?
He says baptism does not save and than he says "Believers Baptism", this is a contradiction, according to the Bible, repentance saves, not baptism.
Belonging to a covenant holy people by Baptism (adoption) is a state (which included 8 day old babies in the old covenant), their also has to be evidence of a covenant person being faithful (faith,love,Holiness).
Your not saved when baptized (receive God's promise) , according to the Bible your saved when their is repentance and ongoing faithfulness.
Saying "Believers Baptism" is false hope, faith is not a 1 hour event, our daily faithfulness to God is love and loving the neighbor and holiness. Belonging to a covenant community by the adoption of baptism does not give automatic Salvation, its a promise of salvation, yes baptism a sign of God's promise , yes a sign, but it what's on your heart that's Salvation, your day to day activities. that's llike saying, I go to church, I'm saved, and then all activities after church are ungodly.
People convince themselves that credobaptism is not in the scriptures because the scriptures does not mention a clear caseof one. Neither does the scriptures FORBID one. Who receivers the benefits of this doubt? Most possibly the loser, the baby.
There are major holes and inconsistencies in MacArthur's logic. One example...Are there any rituals, feasts and covenantal signs that were extended to Israel that the children were excluded from?
I don`t understand why this discussion is still being held. It is so clear! Sola Scriptura? No infant baptism.
You inspire me to think spiritually on infant baptism which is unbiblical . Question Could the denominations or Churches now teaching infant Baptism wants to eliminate Salvation through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and raise up a generation of misguided believers with only Baptism rather than embrace the word of God with Salvation first which then leads to Baptism .
Best video I've seen on this topic!!!!! I'm a Baptist attending and a member of a Presbyterian church. I've been struggling with this topic but this flushes that out. I'm finding out that I'm in reality a Reformed Baptist.
When the bible says entire households and families were baptized, children and esp.infants weren't counted? Soo...babies aren't part of the family?
His arguments:
1.Infant baptism is not in Scripture.
2.Infant baptism is not the New Testament baptism.
3.Infant baptism is not a replacement for circumcision.
4.Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the Church.
5.Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformational soteriology.
You missed that the Greek word for baptism means to immerse.
@VDMA LCMS If you believe what you wrote, you are yet in your sins. May Christ open the eyes of your understanding.
@@drleach208 No, he says what he doesn't believe.
The lord Christ Jesus fulfilled the Old testament,the body of Christ is circumcision (physical$Spiritual)and my Children are blessed with the outward sign of Baptism.
I agree. I go to a reformed church and I don't know why in the world but they started to do infant baptism. Not even full submersion, just a water sprinkle on the forehead like a good little Catholic. I think it's time to look for another church.
Do a dub into Spanish please, it would be a great blessing!!
Hagan un doblaje al español por favor, sería de mucha bendición!!
Pastor MaCarthur’s unwavering faithfulness to the Word of God,regardless of where he stands amongst enemies of God or fellow brothers in Christ, is worthy of imitating
"The cray of the Reformation was not tradition, tradition, tradition; the fathers, the fathers, the fathers; but Scripture, Scripture, Scripture"
In fact, Jesus said "“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Also: "For the believing wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the believing husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy." Can you imagine denying baptism to those to whom belongs the Kingdom of heaven and to those who are holy?!
@@jcpg9592 quote--- Can you imagine denying baptism to those to whom belongs the Kingdom of heaven and to those who are holy?!--unquote
Where is the word "infant" in the Bible? Quote the Bible that says babies be baptized?---
quote--Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy."--unquote
Why are the children holy?
You quoted
@@jcpg9592do the children need baptisim to be with Jesus in heaven?
@@mitchellosmer1293 I am very confident that 8 day old babies belonged to the covenant (Gen17:12).
as soon as Christ died on the cross 8 day old babies are excluded ?
So the Holy household which included 8 day old babies of the old covenant did not foreshadow the new covenant?
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 So, why do Jews STILL circumsise males babies today????
It is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham with which the Jewish story traditionally begins, and it is sealed in the organ of generation that carries human life forward. Tied by a biblical text (Genesis 17) to the inheritance of the land, circumcision also helped to convey rootedness to a people in exile.
Why Christians don't need to circumcise?
The circumcision of Jesus is celebrated as a feast day in the liturgical calendar of many Christian denominations, while the teachings of the Apostle Paul asserted that physical circumcision was unnecessary for the salvation of Gentiles and their membership in the New Covenant.
The idea that we can’t infer things from scripture that aren’t explicitly stated seems silly, and that seems to be the only argument against paeodaptism. Given the full context of Gods covenants it doesn’t make sense not to make the inference of infant baptism. For all of biblical history the children of the faithful were included in Gods promises to his people AND RECEIVED THEIR SIGN, the idea this would suddenly change doesn’t make sense especially when that change isn’t stated; why would you assume it does? That seems like a much less rational inference to make than that God would continue to be faithful to those promises and as such the practice of giving the sign to children of believers would also continue, although the sign itself has changed in form. The more I look into this issue the less sense the Baptist argument makes, they say we’re making an inference while basing their argument on one themselves, that the sign of the covenant is no longer for infants even though biblically there is zero precedent for that being the case.
What seems to be missing here is that baptism existed before ajohn the Baptist and the New covenant. Why do they not include the background of baptism to help clarify the idea of what it is and stands for.
he argues that infants aren't mentioned and that's why he disagrees with PB but then he argues from inference about Lydia's family. her husband isn't mentioned john why do you assume she does not have one? inconsistent
I am as big of a fan of Ligonier as can be, truly. I want so badly to understand paedobaptism, but I simply haven't heard a biblical argument for it. The Presbys have easily the best theology I can find (I'm even a seminary student at a Presby college) and yet I just can't agree on this issue.
Even my beloved Doug Wilson could not give me enough Biblical evidence to change my mind. I don't see it. But I am so blessed by the reformed Presbyterians none the less.
Do Presbyterians have a high church liturgy as well. Generally the traditions that follow old liturgy seem to also keep the Catholic/Orthodox infant baptism as well.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Yes, they do. that is something I have a great appreciation for in Presbyterianism. And in my opinion outweighs the baptism issue.
They view baptism as part of a covenant theology which I agree with, but don't see the necessity to attach this sign in the same vein as circumcision. To me its a leap.
@@ministryoftruth1451 Ok thank you. So many nitty gritty theological differences among our Christian churches. We most of the same ingredients of doctrine, but sometimes in different order.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Its ok to disagree. I believe much of the time it is part of sharpening our minds with christ.
I'm not Presbyterian but there aren't many reformed churches where I live and that is doctrinally desirable for me. I will not do dispensationalism.
@@ministryoftruth1451 I totally understand. I'm not Catholic, and yet i go to Mass. Lots I don't agree w/ there, but I can still praise God. Not many places you could put me in where I couldn't. I have no problem w/ pentacostals, and am used to what is apparently low church services, but that wackadoodle, and highly occultic hyper charismatic move is a whole nother thing. So are these mega churches that look like rock concerts. W/ me again being used to a modest band, clapping and chaste dancing. Hope I'm not freaking you out, I've just always been committed to being non-denominational. I'm not sure what you mean by dispensationalism?
17:50 and this would only be relevant although wrong, if “coming to me” is done by baptism.
But the Bible is clear that’s not true either
No clear scripture teaching or examples found with women partaking in communion- what are we to make of that?
We know by the SCRIPTURES that believers are to partake. Are you insinuating that women can’t be believers??
@BC0555 No, the questioner is asking since women partake of holy communion, then the argument that there is no specific command to baptize infants doesn't hold. In the 1st church, Peter was speaking to adults who first came to faith but the apostolic tradition is that infants were baptized since its God's convenant with anyone born into a Christian family. When coming into the faith from the outside, as an adult, a believer's baptism makes sense. When born into the faith, why wait till you're an adult to declare you have decided to accept the Lord. The Lord is the Lord whether one accepts Him or not. Church fathers speak to infant baptism as practised in the early church. The NT says the Holy Spirit enters at the time of baptism. Why deny a child this who is in a Christian family? Then it's up to the parents to raise up a child in the rest of the faith and as the child grows and obtains age and reason for accountability, it is up to each one to cultivate a relationship with God who made a covenant drawing each one even as a baby.
@@Bible33AD How can babies, infants do this…repent and believe the gospel, and enter through the narrow gate? Forget tradition for a while and think on what scripture directs us to do. Serious question.
@@BC0555baptism is not Christ and Christ is not baptism.
Baptism is not automatic Salvation.
"Believers Baptism " is a man made saying and is not in the bible.
God's covenant Holy people always included 8 day old babies to recieve the sign and as soon as Christ died on the cross, Holy 8 day old babies are excluded from the new and better covenant?
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 name me one nonbeliever that was baptized in Christ in the NT? I’m sure scripture is loaded with great examples as you insinuate.
Respect to Sproul. But there really is no contest here. Slam dunk for MacArthur.
I’m somewhat confused about brother john’s stance. In spite of his testimony what about Paul said I don’t baptize ? Many people have died not being baptized and not sure if their noncompliance is reason to doubt their salvation.
@@glendagaskin6002 I'm a born again Christian woman. I'm 55 years old and was baptized at my United Methodist Church when I was a pre-teen. I thought I knew why I was being baptized. I want to be baptized again now, knowing what it is all about. But I do want to point out that baptism is NOT a condition of our salvation. It is not required for our salvation. But it IS important. Baptism is to publicly show how much you love our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and want to follow Him all the days of your life. Being baptized is not the way to get to heaven. Believing that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior who died on the cross for our sins, repenting of our sins, and having a personal relationship with Him and glorifying Him is the only way to Heaven.
Love/Loved Sproul! Listen to Ligonier all the time. I’m 1689. Tried to go in without tradition because I do not want to follow tradition! I have to agree with you. Sproul did not convince me though.
@VDMA LCMS There is no infant baptism whatsoever in the scripture. Did you land here just to peddle your theories, or did you actually listen to MacArthur?
@@kellyhenson3316 Well stated, yes, exactly!
I have listened to both sides of this discussion. I am settling into the Paedobaptist beliefs. I think it is very important to always view both sides of the discussion, to spend quiet time with God, study His word, and pray for clarity in the scriptures. Everyone should do this, and research all they can before making a decision. I’ve seen so many reasons why Credobaptism makes sense, and I understand why people believe it. But I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures do no back that up, and that Credobaptists tend to put God in a box in saying that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. I believe The Holy Spirit is present in the water in baptism and it is not said in any scripture to be a symbol. Knowing the difference between John’s baptisms and Jesus’ baptisms is important. When I hear people say that no infants were baptized in the New Testament, I would say that there are no accounts of someone professing their faith and using a baptism to show others that, using it as an outward and symbolic profession. I think both sides have reason to believe what they do. And I think it’s important to remember to act how Christ would act and have love and compassion for others who might not believe the same as you. At the end of the day, we choose to believe in God and will all have faults in our interpretation of scripture. Our sinful, human minds will never be able to fully understand or interpret it. Thanks for reading, God bless! :)
Sometimes well-meaning Christians get confused. The want of a single example of baby baptism seems to me to carry great weight. I marvel that it does not to my infant baptizing friends.
I was baptized as a child and thank my Dad plus God for that. I also have been baptized as a believer and thank God for that opportunity to show my obedience.
Respect your charitability. I as a credobaptist do not believe baptism is a mere symbol, but instead is spiritually efficacious/ nourishing to the believer (like the word of God is) but not unto salvation. I agree with the presbyterian view in nearly every way except the baptism of infants
Peter Goldman’s book is fantastic on this debate. Highly recommend reading it
@@JoeCanella Brother, it's a pleasure to finally see that someone else was baptized in the exact same manner as I. I'm also thankful for my infant "baptism" but I call it my "affusion" (Latin for pouring). I was baptized by being affused as an infant and immersed as a Gospel-believer; and like you, I have never renounced my infant affusion. I think we're a rare lot.
"If scripture doesn't command it, it's forbidden."
yet John celebrates Christmas.
One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God.
Romans 14:5-6
hahaha, I dont celebrate Christmas but in this kind of subject, He is right.
I listened to the two debaters and there is no doubt, for anyone who wants to be impatient, that John MacArthur's biblical arguments are much more convincing.
MacArthur says "believers baptism " at 37 minutes and than he contradicts himself and says not all baptized recieve automatic Salvation?
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8Cause the *believer* is baptized. We are saved by belief, by faith, in Christ. Not by baptism, which would come after already being saved.
@@adriflux7704 it's not about believers baptism. It's about the forgiveness of sins. This is why John baptised people and why Peter tells me people tells people to be baptised.
So what does that mean how is it for the forgiveness of sins? Aren't we saved by trusting in Jesus. We are but God connects the physical reality of baptism by water with the spiritual reality of baptism by the spirit. The two are linked together in a way to give us assurance of our own salvation otherwise we would doubt our own salvation and say well how do I know I am trusting in christ enough or that my belief is genuine .
That is why it is for the forgiveness of sins and why self baptism is wrong because you can't forgive your own sins. Baptism is at heart something that is done to you not something to you which invalidates the idea of a profession of faith.
This is why also I think one can argue for infant baptism. Because otherwise you are saying that between a person is born and the time they choose to baptise they haven't sinned or that those sins they do not matter. So if a child sins and isn't baptised and sins what assurance can you give them if they are genuinely repentful of their actions. If you have baptised then you can give them the assurance that God gives baptism as assurance that are sins are forgiven and wiped clean. That's real hope
MacArthur's case only holds water if you are dispensationalist
The women were included in the circumcision of the males '...we cannot give our sister to one who is uncircumcised.' (Gen 34:14).
Col. 2:11-12 is cited by Calvin as the 'death knell passage to all arguments against infant baptism'. To all this ado about household baptisms, Ursinus (principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism) : '...although we do not concede the natural meaning of the word (household), the command is to baptize all nations.'
You said baptism does not save then how do u explain 1 peter 3:21
32:57
18:03 Acts 8:37 KJV
Great study to clarify Baptism from a Biblical standpoint. The word of God takes preeminence to support firstly salvation which secondly leads to baptism.
Macarther speaks "believers Baptism " than he says not all baptized are saved?
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 Yes - confession of faith is required for one to be baptised in most churches. Pastors use their best judgement to discern who has done so but many make false professions. That is between the one confessing and God. Same assertion is true of infant baptism - not all infants who are baptised are saved. If salvation is "for you and your children" as many paedopbaptist interpret that verse, why is there a single baptised infant in a place of separation from Christ?
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 There is no mention of 'believer's baptism' in the Bible.
So the old covenant did not foreshadow any thing? I don't believe 8 day old holy babies are excluded from the covenant as soon as Christ died on the cross.
Maybe you can point out were 8 day Holy babies are excluded from the new covenant?
@spdinsbeer1
@@spdinsbeer1interesting, 8 day old babies are excluded from the covenant as soon as Christ died on the cross but the bible says we have a new covenant based on better promises. I don’t see anywhere in the new covenant that Holy children are to be excluded from the new covenant? I do see inclusion of Gentiles.
Baptism, was a washing for nation of Iseral,it was part of them becoming a kingdom of priest.priest had to be washed, then anointed. Today under grace today we are spiritual baptism.into Christ 1corth 12÷13 Romans 6÷3 is not water,and others.today water bapstim is not accaptable
Brother do you also believe Christmas is pagan? And easter?
Scripture says that there is only ONE baptism. So what is the difference between John' baptism and Christian baptism? Secondly what is the MEANING of baptism and the MODE of baptism?
I love of RC but John hit a home run
That was simply outstanding!
As a minister of the Gospel and pastor of a local Baptist church I have never been asked or compelled in any way to baptize an infant. However saying that ,if I had been asked or compelled to do so I would have had to refuse on Scriptural grounds. I have found in my 34 years of ministry that Scriptural ground is the best ground to stand on. Amen John MacArthur.
It is always nice to hear from someone who considers scripture to be authoritative!
You would have refused to obey Christ? “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
@@jcpg9592 quote--You would have refused to obey Christ? “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”--unquote
Mark 10:13-16
People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
NOTHING ABOUT BAPTISM!!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 Everything about baptism. We have no examples nor direct commands on what should be done with baptism with those who grow up in the fatih. The Baptist insists on biblical examples, the problem however is that all of those baptised in the Bible are all coming out of Jewish/Pagan situations. No one is being baptised who grew up believing in Jesus as Messiah. Therefore, we must take Jesus' words on children. He says that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them. They obviously must be baptised
@@jcpg9592 If a young person, "child", has understood the Gospel and wants to be baptized, then we should baptize them, and I am sure this minister would have done so. But an "infant", does not have an understanding of the Gospel, so cannot rightly believe. That is the distinction here. Also, Jesus is making a point of people needing to be humble, like children, before they can have salvation, and therefore can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. God resists the proud and self righteous. If we are to come to Christ rightly, we must bow down to him and take him as our Lord.
There are 2 holes in his arguments when working from scripture. Household means everyone in the household, not only those who believe in the household. That's common sense. Secondly, the authority a parent has over a child and the childlikeness and innocence of those who have not reached the age of accountability is completely different than an unbelieving spouse. A parent can indeed believe in a limited way for a baby but once the child is old enough to be held responsible for their unbelief, they are on their own to believe in God or not.
Jesus was not buried 6 feet underground. no case for immersion.
Missed this debate by minutes. But the responses were the same then. Thanks for ligioneer for putting this up😊
Jesus has commanded baptism. Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Can anyone point me to a Church, or preacher, that taught Believer's (or Credo-)Baptism between the 6th century and the rise of the Anabaptists in the 16th century?
To be clear, I myself am a Baptist, I'm just looking for any historical Churches that taught/practiced Believer's Baptism before the Anabaptists.
@Vernon Thomas so in other words you are saying that the one undivided church being led by the Holy Spirit....taught wrongly for 1500 years. You create a strawman by pitting scripture and tradition as opposed. Yet St. Paul said clearly to follow the tradition.
Read the Didache on baptism. It includes detailed instructions on baptism by immersion, or pouring if no body of water is available, and not one mention of baptising infants
Because the Marion Church of Rome aka Roman Catholic Church was the only organized church in Europe, and to openly disagree with them could mean your death. These people did not have any access to what we know as the bible (no printing presses), all they had were catholic priests for instruction. All this changed when the printing press made the bible accessible to everyone (which the catholic church regrets to this day).
Absolutely false. The Eastern Orthodox church was also a part of Europe and they also teach infant baptism. Not only them, but the other Apostolic Churches from the Middle East and Africa also practice infant baptism. The only people that teach infant baptism is false, are low-church protestants. A group of Northern Europeans that started in the 16th century.
The Waldensians were Credobaptists.
And Peter said to them, “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. Acts 2:38
Don’t skip the next verses: for the promise is for you, and your children
@@dbeebee Yes, because your children are going to grow up and be adults, and hearing the Gospel and believing, will have a part in the promise.
Mr. MacArthur, you speak the truth so plainly and back it up with the bible. Unfortunately the deception taught by so many will be hard to see through by those who have been deceived for so long.
Incredible!
Why should one be concerned about infant baptism, when he doesn't believe it is essential for anyone to be baptized?
... because that's what obeying God involves? Obedience to God is 'essential' even when doesn't involve a specific salvation issue.
You are on this council, but we do not grant you the rank of reformed
Thank God for the faith in this servant! The light shown in your faith shines bright Pastor MacArthur. May God bless you brother. Shalom, Shalom
Praise God for the life of john mcarthur
My point is in regards to circumstasm and replacing it with infant baptism .If we take it to its logical conclusion. If only males were to be circumcised and not females Then in baptism, only the Infant males would be baptized and not the female infants. If we want to be true to its terms, that is with circumcism versus baptism. And lastly I want to thank John. MacArtur for your presentation on infant baptism spot on thanks again, John MacArtur.
I fail to understand how a theology that believes in unconditional election would ever support paedobaptism. It cheapens the significance baptism itself because, as MacArthur stated, that you would have millions of unregenerate baptized people. That is, unless, as a Calvinist, you truly have no idea if you or anyone else has truly been elected. I guess though, if you believe in unconditional election, it doesn't matter if they're unregenerate, because they would have been anyway. Which once again cheapens the significance of baptism.
On the contrary, I think infant baptism makes more sense on an unconditional election view. There is nothing we do to save ourselves, God is the savior. Thus adding a condition to baptism demonstrates that man has to do something to earn God's salvation. Baptizing without condition of age and making it covenental based on being in the household of a believing head seems to match how the sacramental sign was always handled (Gen 17) and reestablished in the NT era (Acts 2).
@@oracleoftroy Right... so baptize everyone so you make sure not to miss one of God's elect. Back to my point about it cheapening the institution of baptism. Baptism is never once referenced in scripture. Some might say it is _implied_ , but that's just not true. Not once were John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Apostles documented as dipping infants. They baptized converts... believers... people who repented. Baptism is an outward display of inward faith.
@@nealwright5630 Not once was an infant refused baptism in scripture. In fact, scripture never makes it about age. The standard was always the household of believers in both the OT and NT. It was about covenant status, something anyone can objectively observe. Neither the scattershot approach you offer nor the Baptist approach of baptizing based on knowledge humans don't have makes much sense of the passages we do have on baptism.
@@oracleoftroy an infant cannot consent to baptism.
@@nealwright5630 Where is concent a requirement? I see household, but not concent. An 8 day old boy can't concent either, yet such was the model of applying the covenant sign for thousands of years. God doesn't change, so unless I see a specific reason to assume God acts differently, I'll assume the sign works the same way. Peter seems to make this explicit by following the same model in Acts 2 as Gen 17 while applying it to baptism.
I thought you could not enter the Kingdom of God without being born again by water baptised is that not what Jesus said? John 3:5 Jesus answered 'Most assuredly I say to you,unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
The being “born again” in John 3 is not about baptism but rather about regeneration :)
@@steph9195 sorry Steph I do not understand what you mean
@@steph9195 Remember who the 'living water' is as referenced in John 4, Jesus is. Without Jesus (alone) you can't enter the Kingdom of God, there's nothing you can do to be given salvation, because of our depravity in sin, yet Jesus paid for that on the cross, ascended and rose from the dead, as he ever triumphs over sin.
@@sophiaborrowdale2795 Water and Spirit is talking about God cleansing us. It’s not about physical water. Keep reading the verse Jesus explains how it happens. He says like the wind blows where it wishes and no one knows so is the Spirit of God. This makes no sense if you believe it’s implying physical water and not spiritual.
@@ShepherdMinistry Hello thank you, I apppreciate your kindness and helping me. I have been trying to learn and what I have also realised is that although we are not under the Law/ Torah we are still to keep the commandments and follow them. Like keeping the Sabbath Day from Friday sunset until Saturday sunset...... Thank you sent with love.............
I'm not a Pabtist member but few time listen to John McCarther because he preachs are lots of the biblical truth, but reading through the comments is an eye opener, a Christian faith system is based on Bible the word of God, and the Bible alone, the very truth, but most comments indicated that most of the members have not understood or study the Bible, so sad, I hope you take notice of John McCarther for he teaches the truth in regards to the truth about the infant pabtism, when a very simple issue is misunderstood, how much more for the complicated truth, studying the word of God is not complicated, we listen to too many false preachers, you seem to believe pabtism is a work, and you are not save by work, Satan must be laughing his head off, study the word of God, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Baptism is not a work. Do you agree?
to aganese: See my post . . . we only submit to baptism in water for the forgiveness of our sins, God does the spiritual work of cleansing us from our sins.
Submitting to baptism is an act of faith on our part, and a work on God's part.
We are saved by faith alone, and that faith must include submitting to baptism.
By the way, it is not an 'ordinance'. It is a blessing from Almighty God.
@@vernaweese6120 Correct. It is not a work that we do. It is a spiritual work that God performs (see Colossians 2:11-13). We submit to it as an act of faith.
@D How convoluted! You say "The baptism Col 2 speaks about is the true baptism of faith..." So, now we are to believe that saving faith is ITSELF a baptism? Really? So when we read in Ephesians 4:5 of 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism,' we are to understand, according to your 'theology', that the Holy Spirit has not gotten it right. Actually, according to you, He should have said, 'one Lord, one faith which is also baptism,' and just skipped the reference to 'one baptism', because if you had Him say, 'one Lord, one faith which is baptism, and one baptism', you would have readers counting and coming up with TWO baptisms!
No, faith is faith and baptism is baptism. Col 2:11,12 as well as Romans 6:3-12 are written to simply tell us what happens spiritually when we are baptized as the first Christians were baptized.
And you may wonder why it is necessary to emphasize "as the first Christians were baptized'. I did add that so that you may know that there is a great difference between the baptism that the early Christians submitted to, and the so-called baptism many masn made churches practise today - the 'outward sign of an inner conversion' baptism that is so ultra silly and foreign to the baptism practiced in the New Testament.
The real God performs the work in real baptism.
@@sdthyng It is a blessing, but it is an ordinance, for that is how it is ordered in the New Covenant.
The circumcision of the heart replaces old testament circumcision, not infant baptism. This video is spot on.
Agreed, we now have a more perfect circumcision made WITHOUT hands
No way. Circumcision of the heart was ALWAYS the AIM of circumcision of the flesh. See Romans 2:24-25.
Aside from the fact that circumsion was a visible sign given to God's people, just like the water of Baptism. Can you imagine denying baptism to those to whom belongs the Kingdom of heaven and to those who are holy?!
I listened to this debate and it’s a great debate, but I must admit I do find scripture pointing to the credo Baptist side of believer baptism. Much love for our brother RC x
Slam dunk.
This teaching was a banger!
I was WATER baptized in 1979 when I was first saved! However, through the years, I saw in 1Corinthians 12:13 KJV:
For by One Spirit are we all (all believers IN Christ) baptized into One Body (Body of Christ) whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink into One Spirit! "
"Moreover, brethren, I would
not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and
were all baptized unto MOSES in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same SPIRITUAL meat (food-manna) and the same SPIRITUAL drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ!" Please see 1 Corinthians 10:1, 2, 3, 4 KJV! Real water came out for them to drink, however, at that point!
I don't see, according to the above Scriptures, that the baptisms spoken of were WATER at all, but SPIRITUAL BAPTISM! We know that the exodus of the Israelites followed Moses into the Red Sea on DRY GROUND! The SPIRITUAL meat was physical manna, and the baptism of the One Spirit into the Body of Christ means THAT
that baptism is SPIRITUAL only and NOT denoting water!
Infant baptism is ludicrous, for a tiny infant has NO ability to know what's going on, is unable to put trust and
belief in Jesus Christ as Savior! Once infants get wet, they need to have their diapers changed, LOL!!!
To end, I believe baptism today is SPIRITUAL and NOT WATER IMMERSION for adult believers! Maybe I am
truly mistaken, but this is what I believe nonetheless!
I listed to both sides of the debate and agree that circumcision of the heart saves and Baptism is only a sign of redemption and a sign of Gods Holy people and a sign of Gods promises.
What a blessing 8 day old babies are Sanctified by Christ (1Cor7:14).
When Jesus said go and baptize them He did not mean in water but in the Holy Spirit of His word.
Baptism saves.
Sooo the thief on the cross next to Jesus was not saved?
Not being baptised doesn't cause you not to be saved, being baptised saves you. Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Pretty clear!
"bUt ThAt DoEsN't MaKe SeNsE."
Gods justification, like election, is unknown to us as it's his hidden divine council.
We cannot say with 100% that those who believe and aren't baptised are saved!
We can say that those who believe and are baptised are saved!
@@Michella..
Wonderfully done
17:10 and with childlike faith
Baptism does not save? Ananias told Paul after he had prayed and fasted for three days in Acts 22:16, And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. So if one is saved before baptism, they are saved before their sins are washed away by the blood of Christ through obedience in baptism. 1 Peter 3:21, "The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us..." Infant baptism and this man's statement that baptism has nothing to do with salvation is false doctrine. Jesus said in Mark 16;16 that he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but these false teachers say he that believes and is not baptized shall be saved. This is false doctrine which will send one to hell.
There is a crazy amount of ads on this video...
I didn’t see any ads?
I think they are markers for each new point he makes.
No ads here
Apollo's need more instruction Acts 19 1--7
Powerful, powerful stuff. After listening to both of these messages and reading various other opinions, it seems to me that the biggest dividing line comes down to whether you see your relationship to Christ primarily as an individual or as a collective (I.e. as the visible church). It is likely that my culture and upbringing in modern America predisposes me toward the former, but it seems to be a definitively stronger stance to take. I appreciate and agree with John's statement that this is a confounding factor on the assurance of salvation for the individual. I love and resonate with R.C., but the position he laid out had some serious hoops that I'm unwilling to jump through. God bless him and everyone at Ligonier for hosting invaluable resources like this, even where disagreement exists.
We are called to divide…
Anti-Christian site.
McArthur is right!
4:00
4:30
Unfaithfulness
Consumers
Rather than church theology and authority. Command of scripture.
Repent and be baptized. Command.
Clarify.
5:40
Ignorant?
5:52
Wrongly taught.
Proud?
6:20
Accountability.
When did this happen? They both sound quite young
1997 I believe
I thank you Lord for your Word
Help me to live it each day
Amen
I don't mean to misconstrue MacArthur's approach to baptism (so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but why does he not recognize inference of Scripture and Church history as valid ways to understanding baptism, yet makes an appeal to them on the doctrine of cessationism?
Good question. I’ve been studying that myself. I’ve listened to quite a bit on his teaching on that subject particularly and he makes a strong argument for cessationalism on many different points than just church history. The fact that infant baptism didn’t start until 300 years after the birth of the New church, compared to miraculous works ceasing with the Jesus 12, plus Paul. Even Paul teaching Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach rather than just healing him is a strong argument against the continuationalist teaching.
@D they still happen!!!
@@mrsmrich1 I don’t think that verse answers that debate because continuationist or cessationist the obvious purpose of the gifts are for Gospel validity. The Gospel doesn’t need validity in Timothy’s life since he is a believer, therefore is remedies to drink wine
MacArthur gave a classic credo position, while Sproul gave a weak paedo position. Grew up Orthodox, went to a Baptist church for years, and then a PCA, always wrestling with the issue. Finally Bahnsen and Wilson gave me the best arguments for paedo, as it makes most sense of a) the family b) the covenant of Abraham and c) God's promises
Except, after the cross, we are in the New Covenant, and the book of acts shows the difference in the practice of the faith. Over and over again it says, they believed and were baptized in the name of Jesus. Salvation is an individual situation, and God is the One who calls out the true Church, the family of God, it is not of any man's decision. The Gospel is the power of salvation for everyone who believes. (Romans 1:16) We preach the Gospel to the world and in our homes, but God does the saving. See Hebrews 8:13 The New Covenant replaces the Old.
Poor Macarther
At 37 minutes in, someone should tell him that physical circumcism symbolizes circumcision of the heart.
Romans 2:28
[28]For [s]no one is a Jew [t]who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Cross-references
[s]: Rom 9:6-8; Gal 6:15
[t]: Rom 2:17
(ESV)
Romans 2:29
[29]But a Jew is one [u]inwardly, and [v]circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. [w]His praise is not from man but from God.
Cross-references
[u]: 1 Pet 3:4
[v]: Deut 10:16; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; Acts 7:51; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11
[w]: 2 Cor 10:18; 1 Thess 2:4; Gal 1:10
(ESV)
Also baptism was part of salvation for nation of Iseral,and gentiles who become part of nation Isearl
David Ortiz no sir. Read your Bible. Abraham proved his faith in God by almost sacrificing Isaac. He however was righteous before he did that. It says so in chronological order in the book of genesis. End of discussion.
16:40 "he's talking about child like believer"... is He though??? I still don't think humbling yourself like a child has anything to do with infant baptism, but child like believers seems really wrong.
You're right. That is an extremely weak argument coming from a man who claims to take the literal reading of Scripture. It's almost as if he is saying "I know that the Bible says that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to children, but it actually means the exact opposite.
I find it ironic that Brother MacArthur refers to Brother Sproul's child baptism doctrine as one being contrived by beliefs which are not explicitly stated, but which are inferred by scriptures which have no direct mention of it.
Yet, concerning MacArthur's pre-tribulation rapture beliefs, he does exactly what he is accusing Sproul of doing; building a doctrine based on inferences and ommisions.
In which case do you think MacArthur is wrong?
EXCELLENT!!!
He missed it on circumcision but otherwise good points. Circumcision of the flesh showed the need of circumcision of heart.
Good point!
Unfortunately what I keep encountering here is a stipulation of sola scritura upheld for your counterpart, but you make so many suppositions not found in scripture for your own argument as well. Especially when it comes to trying to explain away the inclusion of children in scripture. Nothing you used as an argument was actually stated in scripture.
dayum sunnnn this slapped
It's not debate, it's just two speeches of opposing views smashed together.
Actually it's one speech. I got confused.
Yes, when you try to mix Old Covenant and New Covenant you tend to get confusion. The New Covenant is the new way to be saved, and it is by way of faith. Believe and be saved, and your household, if they believe too. When your children get old enough, where they can understand the Gospel and believe, they will be saved.
Johnny Mac won this debate hands down. Circumcision has nothing to do with baptism, and unless you are a Muslim, you don't circumcise baby girls.
I know many many people who were baptised as infants and believe they are going to heaven but also say they are not 'born again' or 'saved' so therefore they have no interest in the teachings and salvation of Jesus Christ. Simply Because they are already assured they are "in the Church" and safe, they are no longer concerned about their soul. So sad. What a travesty to teach that infant baptism saves a soul and assures union with Christ. Isn't this error causing people to go to Hell?
@VDMA LCMS Totally wrong - you are asking people to believe and put faith in Baptism - faith is to be placed in the work of Christ!! Baptism comes AFTER faith in Christ and being born again - Baptism is a rite showing faith already exists!!! We are already united to Christ - by faith - baptism is the outward proclamation of this - Baptism does NOT SAVE - we are saved by faith in Christ and His sacrificial death on the cross - and babies cannot exercise faith.........baptism is for people who come to faith in Christ!!
Yes it is a travesty!! Churches that do perform infant baptism should clearly teach that it DOES NOT SAVE THEM - as RC Sproul said it is just a Covenant relationship with the Church - offering the promises of Salvation IF that child grows up to become a believer by the GRACE OF GOD!! And I am sure Sproul and loke thinkers will explain it clearly. Churches see it as a New Covenant sign like circumcision was an Old Testament sign - not all males in the Old Testament who were circumcised were actually saved - the Jews of Jesus' day were circumcised and did not believe in Him. So at the time of infant baptism it must be clearly explained to all involved - but unfortunately this does not always happen and even the wording of some of the ceremonies leads to people thinking they are saved and are now in union with Christ. The Churches who preach this false notion have a lot to answer for!! The Church of England, the Roman Catholics, etc...... This is why it is probably better for people to profess faith in Christ and then be baptised - as per the Baptist Church method.
@@mikekayanderson408 and the people who come to faith in Christ are the people who are regenerated, they are born again.
@@psalm1197 Quite correct! They are born of God - by His choice - regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit.
It actually does not matter how many church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration!!! Majority is no always right!!! Even if a child is baptised - it will not do any good - the child has to grow and at some point in his or her life needs to come to a living faith in Christ or he will perish - the Bible calls people to BELIEVE and be baptised and those who do not believe will perish - the important word is BELIEVE - here is a perfect example - the thief on the cross beside Jesus believed and Jesus promised him that he would be in paradise that day - he was on the point of death and there was no water baptism to help with his regeneration process!!! He had been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and baptised into Christ by the holy spirit - all done by the grace of God the Father who elects and brings to faith. Jesus said no one can come to Him unless the Father call him. The Roman Church and other misguided protestant churches who teach baptismal regeneration are false teachers and misleading people - they will have a lot to answer to on the day of judgement!! They are giving people a false sense of security!! This is what all the Reformers fought against in the Reformation - and I am sure people like RC Sproul who did believe in infant baptism made sure the parents of the child realized that the act of baptism DID NOT REGENERATE THE CHILD OR SAVE IT!!!! That the child would have to - by God's grace - come to a personal faith in Jesus Christ.
I see no issue with infant baptism as a sign of the covenant and to set apart a child as belonging to God. I think the error is when it is believed that infant baptism is the basis for salvation. R.C Sproul believes the former.
Infant Baptism is not biblical. If someone wants to set apart a child, just present and pray over the child. Thats it.
@@David-lk3mw amen
@@David-lk3mw “but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 19:14
@@yeni_daughterOfGod can you provide me with biblical texts to back up your claim?
@@magnumsacramentum you will not find any bible verse on infant baptism.
It's hard to believe that R.C. would even remotely consider infant baptism has any support in the Scripture! Very puzzling to say the least !
Without history, christianity would be just an Idea.. were you able to answer all of the questions R.C asked?
@@magnumsacramentum that doesn't sound right. The scriptures aren't just an idea. We have the word of God. The Holy Spirit guides to truth as well. That statements negates the Word of God and the Holy Spirits guiding.
@@victorrene3852 I wasn't saying that scriptures are just an idea... but without History (old testament and salvation History) it would be just an idea because we would only have the N.T.
when looking at infant baptism, we have to look at everything, not just the N.T - because the Holy spirit guided Christians for the first 1,500 years to baptize infants.
@@magnumsacramentum History is not doctrine my friend. Many people in history believed in baptismal regeneration, for example, which is certainly not a leading of the Holy Spirit. God bless you.
@@peytonsingh1038 I wasn't saying either that History is doctrine but through history we see doctrine being defined.. ex. Jesus hypostatic union..
You're right many people including the Church Fathers believed in baptismal regenrarion, including Luther, the guy who started the protestant movement. All of sudden, a thing of the "past" for evangelicals.
Did I hear John MacArthur actually say these words: "circumcision was never a sign of salvation."? Romans 4:11 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also..." Deut. 10:16 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer." Deut. 30:6 "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, And take away the foreskins of your hearts,..." This debate is one of the reasons I am a Presbyterian minister today. Not sure what debate some of these commenters listened to!
In saying (sign of Salvation) John MacArthur means getting circumcised doesn't make you saved example someone going around saying " I'm circumcised there for I'm saved " which is not true. That's the point John McCarthy was making.
@Patrick .What did you listen to ??? LOL. Rewatch the debate please...you are off point
Vintage MacArthur
It's true, ignoring historical christinaity for his version of dispyness
Thank you for this and thank you Pastor John McArthur
Acts 2:38. Babies cannot repent. The fact that millions believe it's okay to do that is just extremely unfortunate.
Then why were babies circumcised in the OT? Baptism is a sign of faith. NOT a profession of faith.
Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and fire.
The problem is when he calls baptism a work, which it is never called in the scriptures, even though many call it such. Rom.6:1-9 relates baptism to death into Jesus death and raised by God to live in newness of life "freed from sin". And this is in the presence of grace vs1.
Baptism is a sacrifice and a humbling of self, a cleansing of sins and being raised by God.
Baptism is not a work of man, but of God, although it is done by faith by man in grace.
And doesn't another baptize you? We surely don't perform our own baptism.
to Dwight Haas: We submit to baptism in water as an act of faith. It is a spiritual work of God.
The baptism we read about in the scriptures was not designed for those who had already been forgiven of their sins. It was always for the purpose of submitting to God so that our sins may be washed away. We know that only the blood of Christ washes away our sins.
@D ummm, not. The thief on the cross was saved...personally by Jesus. Beyond that Jesus told His disciples to make disciple and baptize the for salvation, which is exactly what Peter did in Acts 2. The people wouldn't have separated the act from the symbolism for...to them it was for salvation.
@D same question back to you...does Jesus save?
For sake of the question...faith saves, repentance saves, baptism saves, being faithful saves, etc., but all of these are based on the Savior...Jesus, when they are based on Jesus.
Again that wasn't the question, which had to do with what baptism is according to scripture. Baptism isn't simply dipping under according to scripture, but can include many other forms of surrounding the person in or overcoming of and the scriptures never define what baptism has to be by command, although most example that regard baptism of people do include going down into water...running water at that.
@D you are preaching to the choir, but this wasnt the issue of the conversation and many would agree with you. I always start with Jesus saves, respond so that God believes you know that.
What you actually have to ask yourself is: Where did Baptism come from? All of the sudden, in a Jewish culture, suddenly we have guys immersing people in water for the remission of their sins. How did that come about? Was that prophesied that suddenly in that time this would become a thing? What precedent does it have? Where are two witnesses (by which a thing is established) that this would be a thing? And don't bore me with it somehow descending from the mikvah. Mikvah wasn't for remission of sin nor was it a one-time occasion. It was to clean the desert off you before going to into the temple precincts. And what of all those who were evidently baptized before Jesus was? Were they following in their Lord's footsteps--BEFORE he foot-stepped into the Jordan?
I blame John the Baptiser. There could also be a connection to Living water.
Jenna
Apparently the Essenes practiced ritual baptism. John’s Baptism was simply a repentant baptism with water, and we have been informed by Christ and His Scriptures the nature of His baptism.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 Yes, the baptism in Christ is a baptism unto our death then resurrection as a new creature.
Ritual baptism was an annual practice by the nation of Israel when celebrating Yom Kippur - it was a coming clean, dedicated to repenting to those you wronged and being forgiven. They would then wash, their sins would be cast on a scape goat that was led out of the city by the High Priest, before commencing with their sacrifices.
John broke with the annual practice, but reiterated the reason for it - repentance and cleansing - while arguing that something better was coming. Jesus took that water baptism symbolism from the OT and tied it to spiritual baptism and circumcision of the heart.
Actually, baptism was practiced in more ways then that in ancient Judaea for any process of being made clean again. They were “unclean” and then made clean again.
The thing that seems to be very different between OT and NT is the belief in ONE baptism, not a need to continually be baptized over and over again. Nothing makes you unclean again under the blood of Christ.
I can hardly listen to this, I grew up in a Southern Baptist reformed church. And the pastor just like Johnny Mac. Was all about condemnation, you’re a sinner, if you sin you’re not a Christian, bla bla bla. Then I read the Bible, John Calvin, Augustine, Luther to name a few and then I realized I am justified! The scriptural, historical, cultural, chain of covenants is crystal clear Children were included and were never excluded. No early convert would even comprehended this idea that their children were outsiders in a covenant family. The Church practiced infant inclusion w/ Baptism for 1500 years and then the reformation gave rise to the ANTI-baptists and they ejected many from their fellowship and created this 2nd biggest church split in all of known history. Johnny Mac has no problem calling Covenant keeping churches sinners but objects when the Westminster divines call the re-baptizers and Ana Baptists as outside the biblical norms. Your next objector is you’re holding to traditions of men. A close examination is the Baptist is just as or more guilt of the same charge. When the average number of baptisms of the normal Baptist goes from 3 times in their life to 1 we can have a conversation about a religion of grace and not works. I love my Christian brothers and sisters in the universal church but the burden of proof rests securely on Ol Johnny Mac and R.C with the 500 years of reformers before him have securely held to Covenant Theology and a religion of grace.
Well this sermon sums it up perfectly. I go to a reformed church and they started to do infant baptism. I don't know WHY in the world they started doing that but that just didn't sit well with me.
I'm glad those babies are now regenerated! Long live Augustinianism!
@@huntsman528 You know how many people I know that have been baptized as infants and are non believers? Way too many to count. Are THEY "regenerated". They completely refuse to believe that the Bible is the word of God. 🤔
@@arreola891 I was joking. I don't believe baptized babies are regenerate or actually baptized. This was something manufactured by Augustine and he hated Pelagius because Pelagius thought babies didn't need to be baptized, that they weren't predestined by God for hell because their parents couldn't get them baptized before they died. Augustine witch hunted him into being declared a heretic.
@@huntsman528 Oh.. sorry, my bad. 😊
@@arreola891 lol, you're good. I should have made it more explicit.