Baptism in the Early Church: A Baptist Response
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2021
- Here I respond to the appeal, "all of the church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, so how can you not accept it?"
Here is my article referenced, which gives an argument against Reformed paedobaptism: “Why Not Grandchildren? An Argument Against Reformed Paedobaptism,” Themelios 45.2 (2020): 333-46: www.thegospelcoalition.org/th...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursui...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
For those who object that the damnation of unbaptized infants is only taught in the West, consider the following teaching from Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, from his 1672 Confession:
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.
Interesting. Every other source I've seen from Orthodoxy would suggest that we are only guilty once we ourselves know the right thing to do and choose not to (James 4:17). However, this can certainly happen aged as young as 4 in my own personal experience so that does add something to recommend early baptism. What do you make of his point about the likelihood those households baptised by Apostles included children though?
@Dustin Neely I'm Orthodox so I guess maybe I could be called anti-Catholic because I disagree on some things but I pray for and acknowledge that God will save many of us with mistaken beliefs. I don't think Dr Ortland is anti-anyone he disagrees with though. I can understand his current position on this issue, and he makes a good case for it based on some real evidence. I personally think that evidence can be explained away and that there are other good reasons to baptise infants (see my standalone comment under this video) but I am convinced that Dr Ortland's position is genuine and honest and I respect that. I wish everyone who disagreed with others were like him.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I address that briefly in the article in the video description. Thanks for the thoughtful comments!
@@TruthUnites Cool, I have opened it but not read yet. Thanks as always for your research and considered arguments.
@Dustin Neely Ah ok I see. That's fine - I didn't ask you to apologise, I was merely offering my own perspective. Christ is risen! :)
Coming out of Mormonism I’ve been searching for truth in Christianity. Your videos have been of tremendous value to me. Thank you
I am in the same place as you :)
Hey Dustin, Mike Winger (of Bible Thinker) has great videos on theology too. I strongly recommend checking him out for good Christian teaching.
@DarkMatter046 , I've seen Mike Winger on baptism. His other videos are good, especially on his excellent warning about the Passion Translation. On baptism, however, he directly violates the "text" of Acts 2:38. He blatantly reads a chosen piece of the verse and instead of reading the rest of the verse inserts something entirely different, instead of reading the entire passage, giving his explanation, and then letting his audience decide for themselves. The presenter here shows much more integrity.
Then read the Catechism of the Catholic Church
@dugood70 and @DanielOrtner God bless you coming out of Mormonism and not throwing out the baby (Jesus) with the bath water! Praying for you in your journey!
From a Roman Catholic, can I just say I’ve been so blessed, so blessed, to come across you. Im devouring your debates and videos.
That means so much to me. Thank you.
Stay Catholic my friend. Jesus promised that the one church he established shall never fail. Even if it may seem like it may falter (like today)
@@BullSheeper worry not. I’m not going anywhere!
@@BullSheeper how do we know that the roman catholic church is the One True Church Christ was talking about? How can the Pope be a heretic like he is right now if he is supposed to be thr vicar of Christ on earth?
@@BullSheeper The definition of "the church" has changed over the last 2000 years. The earliest thought on that phrase were those who has and believed in the gospel. You literally have 3 institutions calling themselves " The Church" As a protestant it is amusing because you can see the history of that phrase unfolding and being used to control and abuse people especially in the medieval era. The overwhelming message in the Gospels and int he epistles is FAITH in Jesus Christ. Believe believe, believe, is what he constantly said. I know you guys like to use John 6, but you never read ALL of it. Before those blood and flesh statements Jesus makes, he says to believe and you will be saved SIX times!
1. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them,“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
2. John 6:35 35And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
3. John 6:36 36But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
(Jesus is telling them that contrary to the previous 2 faith statements, they do NOT have faith)
4. John 6:37 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
5. John 6:40 40And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
6. John 6:47 47Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.
Gospel simplicity sent me here. I'm a Catholic but like to listen to what others believe. It makes me a better Catholic. Thanks for the video!
Thanks Ricardo, glad to be connected to you!
This is quickly becoming my favorite theology channel on RUclips! Great work Gavin, glad to see another strong Protestant voice on RUclips!
Thank you so much Ryan, glad it is useful!
I can echo that sentiment
Came here from two recommendations in the space of 2hrs: Mike Winger and Tony Costa. Subscribed now
Welcome, glad to be connected!
I am also listening to this video on the recommendation of Mike Winger. 🥰 Great video! I am having a discussion actually with a collegue who's from Church of Christ, so this topic is of great interest to me! (Everything about the Bible/God is actually! 😆). Thank you!
@@kinalynch6857 I recommend checking out Gavin's chat on Tony Costa's Toronto Apologetics channel too. Lots of interesting information presented there
@@ProfYaffle Thank you! I will check that out!
Anglican here: I look forward to this one! I've always had immense respect for you, but at the same time have been puzzled by your positions on Baptism. This will be incredibly informative.
Thanks! I appreciate the work you do. Please let me know your thoughts on this; I will be very curious to hear them!
@@TruthUnites will do!
We will be waiting for your reply video... lol
Barely Protestant: read my general comment I just posted under this video. Hopefully it helps
This was fantastic, Gavin. I’ve been wrestling through this issue for a little while now and this really helped.
so glad to hear that! It's a tough issue because there is so little out there on it from the non-sacramentalist side!
Following up on your comment on opposition to baptism in China-I am a missionary in Japan, and it is the same situation here. A profession of faith rarely brings persecution, but people are sometimes disowned by their families when they prepare to be baptized. Both Christians and non-Christians view baptism as the mark that one has truly converted. So in the Baptist church I attend, for example, one will not be called a Christian until he or she has been baptized. There is definitely a sense in which that is the time you were “saved.” I do not think it goes quite as far as baptismal regeneration, however (although you will often hear Acts 2:38 quoted). One pastor friend described it like this: the initial profession of faith is the engagement, and the baptism is the wedding ceremony.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that people in both China and Japan attach a greater significance to baptism than many evangelicals in the U.S. Maybe it has something to do with the more ceremonial and/or communal nature of these cultures?
This is such an interesting perspective, thank you for sharing!
This is an interesting perspective... but raises the question... when is the person saved / indwelt by the Holy Spirit? When they believe and accept Christ as their Lord & Savior? Or when they are baptized? What would it mean to be "engaged" but not yet "married"?
I fully believe in the importance of baptism, as an act of declaration of your faith and in obedience to God's Word telling us we're to be baptized. If you say, however, that we're not "married" until we're baptized... what does the "engagement" mean spiritually?
I'm interested in better understanding this perspective.
Cultural influences cleansing of water is in many beliefs as cleansing our sins before entering into the holy places of worship.
@@harryurschel4230I would personally say that initially faith and repentance is the wedding, Baptism is the consummation, where you are truly sealing and strengthening the marriage union
I actually believe that acts 2:38 should be the pattern of all of us, as it is the predominant pattern in the act. I believe that repentance and faith would be reconciliation to God, baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, you could say would be the marriage ceremony, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit would be the consummation. Although we do know that in acts 10 versus 44:48, people received the Holy Spirit first, and then were baptized. I believe that water baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus is the seal of the covenant. Romans four teaches us that Abraham was reckoned righteous before he was circumcised, and Colossians, two versus 11 and following show us that water baptism is new covenant circumcision. So it’s not like you could not go to heaven if you did not have the opportunity/understanding, but it could mean that you would be cut off if you knew and refused. And his family were traveling, and his young son was uncircumcised, the angel of the Lord was about to kill him. The young child was circumcised, and the angel of the Lord let him pass. That is how important circumcision was under the old covenant. It was the seal and the sign. So not saying it is impossible to go to heaven without it, but I would not have confidence in anyone who refuses it Deliberately or just keeps putting it off and putting it off and putting it off. Anyone who refuses to be identified with Christ and baptism could certainly be refusing him. So I guess I am in the middle of the road. I do believe that repentance and faith bring justification, but then perhaps baptism brings regeneration, not that regeneration could not proceed baptism, but perhaps tends to be the line of delineation between being in the world, and fully being in the kingdom. The best case scenario is to get people the full act 2:38 experience of repenting, being baptized in his name, and receiving his Holy Spirit. I also do not believe that water and spirit baptism are the same things, though many times, they do come together. It is interesting that when the children of Israel went through the cloud and the sea, the Egyptians could not again overtake them, unless they turned around. They had a certain amount of protection when the blood was applied to the door posts, but everything was different when they went through the red sea Being led by the cloud, the water and the spirit. Sorry for the typos I do not have vision, so am dictating this to Siri.
Just doubled back to rewatch this video after listening to your discussions with Jordan Cooper. I wanted to say thank you for all the work you put into these videos Gavin - they’re thought provoking, informative, and they have grounded me in my views as I’ve listened to your videos/discussions. Thanks for all that you do! Blessings.
Thanks a lot Justin, so grateful to hear that!
I’m 40 years old, I’m listening to Gavin Orland talk about early church views of baptism on my iPhone X, while jumping on a 16 foot trampoline in my backyard. Life doesn’t get any better
I appreciate the video! I’m a Lutheran who has been debating on and off with a baptist friend about baptismal regeneration for a while. I find myself ultimately disagreeing, as I am not sure if metonymy works well with the passages about baptism, I’ve heard contradicting accounts of early church history, and I’m just plain not a fan of decisionism. But it was great to hear someone approaching baptismal regeneration from an intellectual perspective who was not in favor of it. You gave me some stuff to think about
Please keep it coming Gavin! I am learning so much through this channel. Thank you so much for the work you put in
So glad to hear that, thanks Frederic!
Honestly I would watch videos six times longer than this in a heartbeat. No need to apologize for a 30 minutes video Gavin! Keep it up
Thank you for your teaching. My heart aches for those who have been tormented in the past by false teachings, despairing of the salvation of loved ones, particularly infants.
I started going into a baptist church after going to a WoF church for 4 months since i became a christian, have been struggling with this topic, thank you for adressing it. Let the grace of Our Lord be with you.
Thanks Gavin I attend a baptist church and have been looking into catholicism and orthodoxy. For a while I have been thinking that my time as a protestant is coming to an end, I am glad that you are able to bring such scholarship to these issues and thanks for making it so accessible
Thanks, so glad it was of use for you!
Why were you protesting? As that what Protestantism means.
@@brandonvonbo9708 protestant is in fact a "insult" or bad word for reformation churches, the same with romanists or papists to call counter reformation (trent) churches.
In most languages, and the term reformers used is "Evangelical". But for some reason in Usa and most English countries is most famous to say protestant and evangelical just refer to born again😅🤷🏻♂️ but in all other languages, German, Spanish, etc. Evangelical refer to protestantism in general
@@brandonvonbo9708please we are all brothers in Christ and doing our best. Your church hasn’t always had a great history. Show some humility so that there is no fall in your life. 🙏
@@Crazy88277 Yes, as it is written, "Man looketh at the outward appearance (church/ dogma/ denomination), but God looketh at the heart (intention/ purpose)." 1 San 16:7
The Bereans would be proud if you! Excellent discussion, thank you!
Thank you so much for giving of your time and learning to help us all!
Great Gavin! Thanks for this. The fact that scripture says “Baptism now saves you *as a pledge/appeal/response/answer/demand*” seems to reinforce your point quite firmly that baptism is spoken of in reference to the whole of the conversion process it represents.
Excellent point. It’s almost like baptism is personified in I Peter 3:21.
If it washes away sins (as per Acts 22:16), of course it is an appeal to God for a good conscience
This was tremendously helpful. I feel reaffirmed in my original convictions, but now with a better understanding of what they were. Thank you, Gavin!
I so appreciate your honesty in this. I struggled with this issue when I was graduating from GCTS a lifetime ago. I am now ECO Presbyterian. I believe I know your family from my Calif. days and my years at Westmont.
I have been watching your videos for some time now and I have really appreciated your content. Honestly, your entire family has had an impact on my life from afar. So I thank God for you and your family.
This topic has been a recent discussion at a bible study I go to. Not so much from the regeneration stand point, but from the “role that baptism plays.” (Specifically: Romans 6:3-4) Your videos on Baptism have been VERY helpful!
My favorite Baptist drops a video. God bless you Gavin!
Thanks, you as well!
fancy seeing you on here Ify, ha
I'm not a Baptist, but I enjoyed this really thoughtful analysis! I'm really happy to have found your channel.
That is so great to hear, thank you!
This was an amazing video! Really looking forward to your next video on baptism!!
Thanks Noah! Glad you enjoyed it!
I appreciate the way you present your arguments. You begin with information and context and that follows with a clear and concise conclusion and brief summary.
I have been so blessed in finding your Channel. This is one of the many times that I have experienced God helping find what I need. I have been a member of the Church of Christ my entire life. The view of the Church of Christ is that Baptism requires a prior remission of sin. "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin" We see baptism as the conscious acceptance of Grace gifted to man through the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We believe that baptism saves us through the washing away of our sin and some sort of unity through the Holy spirit. . we truly believe we become a new creature after baptism. I have to note that Christ himself did not receive the Holy Spirit until after he came up out of the Water. Since Children can neither commit sin nor repent of it, We don't see it necessary for children (note that we do not hold to the doctrine of original sin). Becoming childlike is the goal right? "For such is the kingdom of Heaven". I love you brother, and I hope God continues to bless you. You have done so much for me.
Hey Gavin, I really appreciate your point of view. It’s well thought out and you explained everything clearly. It didn’t change my mind but it’s probably the best explained reasoning. Thank you.
Thanks Alex, appreciate the kind words!
You are a beast Gavin! thank you for your insight!
This was extremely helpful. Thanks for all the research that you put into this.
Thanks Joshua, so glad it was useful for you.
The pleasure of your videos is benefit enough. Keep up the good work!
Love the videos Gavin, thank you for carefully researching and articulating your views
Thanks Sam!
Well done!
Thanks Austin!
You say near the end you wish we could receive some benefit for watching other than your appeal to like and subscribe. The benefit for me is all your wisdom leading up to the end. Thank you for this RUclips channel!
Thank you Isaac!
This gives me a lot to think and pray about.
Glad I came across this!
This is by far the best video I've seen on baptism that I don't agree with (the part about the sign). I love all your videos I've seen so far, including this one. They are very mature, thorough, and objective. Thank you.
Thanks for such an insightful, helpful video. Your pace, in particular, in all of these videos is really enjoyable - not so fast that you gloss over points and assume too much knowledge on the part of the viewer, but also not so slow that the momentum of what you're getting across is lost. Fantastic job.
My thought here is that the most important aspect of this conversation - which is almost always overlooked by Protestants and Catholics alike - is something you started to touch on around 19:20 where you began asking the question, "What does it actually mean to say 'baptism saves you'?" Baptism was not a new invention made up by followers of Jesus. But the Jewish essence of our Christian faith was so quickly lost in those early centuries that we get overly focused on the Patristic and Church-Historical arguments, as if those are the only enlightening available sources of evidence for making a call here. Baptism was a practice known and engaged in by Jews in the first century and Second Temple Period (Christians come into contact with this via the ministry of John the Baptizer). As such, it already had a constellation of theological and spiritual meanings attached to it, which we need to pay attention to. Not only that, but the conceptual world of baptism in the first century has purposeful and intentional overlaps with practices from the Roman world of the time. None of it is random, and we need to remember that the apostles are writing from within *_a world_* - the Roman world and Palestinian Judaism of the first century - so when they say things about baptism, there's a lot that's assumed about the setting from which they're writing. Baptism was a means of formally transferring your allegiance to King Jesus. Therefore, of course baptism saved you, precisely because baptism *_was_* how one started their life of faith and allegiance to Jesus. There's nothing magical about the action as such, separated from the meaning it conveyed. And to say otherwise seems to me very un-Jewish, basically denying the witness of the Prophets who talk about Israel's religious ceremonies meaning nothing apart from their faithfulness to Yahweh.
What I'm trying to say is, we need to give just as much or more attention to sources from the worlds of Biblical Theology and Bible Backgrounds as we do to Patristics and Church History. Lots of things become clear and almost obvious, in my opinion, when we do that with regard to baptism. Below is a link to a very short article from Alan Streett about this, which helps to explain more deeply the historical-cultural issues I'm getting at. He also has a book that I believe is basically an extended version of the article. Would LOVE your thoughts!
bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/baptism-politically-subversive-act
This video is super helpful. Its funny you say it is a looong video. I didn't think it was near long enough! haha! I'm actually a baptist and I've been really struggling with this. These points actually haven't fully resolved my internal conflict, but I'm planning on diving more into this beacuse I see you have lots of other videos on this. Thanks for your work brother!
Thanks as always, dude! I have found it difficult occasionally in my church when we have Baptismal ceremonies but the pastors spend more time on disclaimers (saying what Baptism ISNT) to the neglect of what Baptism IS. I like the "means of grace" language and hope it makes a comeback in our Evangelical circles.
Thanks for the encouragement Jonathan!
@@TruthUnites As a suggestion, I would love to learn more about Baptist history (since the subject seems under-studied) and also your view on miraculous spiritual gifts :) thanks for all you do. Can't get enough of it!
@@jgiaq good ideas, thanks!
@@jgiaq Hey Jonathan,
Here is a link to some early baptist writings. They are rich and connected with the historical Christian tradition and rooted in Scriptural exposition. A lot of the writings tend to be a bit polemical given the persecution Baptists faced at that time.
I would advise you to start with Hercules Collins - The Temple Repaired, William Kiffen - A Sober Discourse and Benjamin Keach - Gold Refin'd. pettyfrance.wordpress.com/online-particular-baptist-resources/
Thanks Gavin. Scottish Baptist here.
1) I agree that the earliest sources match a credobaptist scenario. The Didache commends fasting for both the baptised and the baptiser with no mention of an exception for infants. I suspect that anyone imagining infant baptism in this set up has no experience of parenthood!!
2) Yes: later history eg Basil of Caesarea, 4th century,from a devout family baptised as an adult.
3) For the case that Augustine was instrumental in a great shift in Western theology - in part developing from his views on infant baptism - I strongly recommend 'The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism' by Ken Wilson.
Thanks especially Gavin for your cordial tone. May the Lord bless His children, from whichever camp.
Thanks Derek! Glad to be connected to you.
Super helpful, sir. Thank you for your research on this! You'll have to give us a list of all the books on your shelf one day! :)
Your argument is very good and has changed my mind
I find your channel incredibly useful for understanding what and post importantly why Protestants, especially Baptists believe what you believe. Though I am not convinced to change my beliefs on any issues yet, I have come to understand both the Baptist (and wider Protestant) position a lot better.
great to hear!
Thank you!
Great video!!! Discussions and studies we should have together more often.
I've enjoyed several of your videos, and I appreciate your irenic approach. Infant baptism is a question I've thought about off and on for several decades, but I haven't been able to come to a firm conclusion. Regarding Tertullian and tradition, I'll have to go back and reread him to see how frequently he justifies or discourages various practices with appeals to tradition rather than reason. It seems clear that he wasn't immune to the allure of novelty; otherwise, he wouldn't have become a Montanist. In Chapter XVIII of "On Baptism" he appears to be deducing the need for a delay prior to baptism based on first principles (e.g., "give not the holy thing to the dogs" and "share not other men's sins"). Similarly, he advises delaying the baptism of infants, not because it was opposed to the tradition of the church, but because infant baptism would expose the sponsors to danger, and because innocent infants have no need for it.
Two things that seem clear to me from that passage in Tertullian are (1) infant baptism was practiced already in Tertullian's day and (2) Tertullian opposed it because he favored deferring baptism ("the delay of baptism is preferable"). If he also opposed it because it was a novelty, he chose not to give that as a reason. Based on the New Testament record, it would seem that the delay in baptism Tertullian recommends is itself something of a novelty.
Thanks for the comment! Interesting take on Tertullian.
@Christos Kyrios - Interesting that you intro the question with 'as an Anglican'. If I recall this video accurately, Dr. Ortlund mentioned James B. Mozley's book on baptismal regeneration, written in the wake of the Gorham case in the Church of England (~1850). It's been a while since I read his book, but I believe Mozley supported Gorham's contention that baptism doesn't regenerate automatically or immediately. Of course, many in the Church of England disagreed; otherwise, Gorham wouldn't have been prosecuted.
Divergence of views on this question still exists among Anglicans, and the fact that differing opinions are tolerated is one of the reasons I'm comfortable being an Anglican. (Similarly, I don't believe I could so easily entertain the possibility that Irenaeus and other early Christian writers were correct about the millennium from within Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or confessional Lutheranism, but I'm free to do so as an Anglican.)
My own view is that baptism is for the remission of sins. (If I didn't believe that, I couldn't confess the Nicene Creed.) Baptism is generally necessary for salvation (Mk 16.16, 1 Peter 3.21), and it brings remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38). It clearly is (to me, at least) associated with regeneration (Titus 3.5). But I'm not confident that baptism is identical to the regeneration described in the early chapters of John's gospel, since John describes the new birth as if it were exclusively God's act (John 1.13) and somewhat mysterious (John 3.6), perhaps like the action described in Ezekiel 36.25-27.
Amazingly helpful, thank you!
Great stuff! So helpful!
Thanks Ruben, so glad!
Why did you have to get me all emotional seeing the pictures of baptisms. They always make me cry. Those are my people. My family.
As a Protestant inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, I really enjoyed this video. Good food for thought, even if in the end I disagree. Thanks always Gavin!
Thanks Dylan, glad it was enjoyable!
Be sure you look into the Paraklesis if you’re a Protestant looking into Orthodoxy.
thank you
Great videos Gavin! You have caused me to go deeper, and I found this:
Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho the Jewish man, wrote: (see chapters 13-14) seems to indicate true baptism is repentance and faith in the Messiah:
“For Isaiah did not send you to a bath, there to wash away murder and other sins, which not even all the water of the sea were sufficient to purge; but, as might have been expected, this was that saving bath of the olden time which followed those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death, who died for this very reason, as Isaiah himself said, when he spake thus: . . .
bolding my emphasis
Then Justin quotes from Isaiah 52:10 all the way to 54:6, including all of Isaiah 53.
Then he says in chapter 14:
“By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure. For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness. . . .
Dialogue with Trypho the Jewish man, chapters 13-14
Interesting, Ken, thanks!
I’ve struggled with this a lot as a Lutheran and have had similar prayers asking for better clarity. It’s really helpful to hear the other arguments. I was baptized as an infant.
Why do Christians baptize?
[Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
Why do Christians baptize infants?
Infants are included in “the whole creation.”
But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?
Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41.
A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.
Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.
David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.
David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16
But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corintians 12:15. There is no way to be closer to Jesus than this!
Don't worry, the faith of your parents was sufficient.
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.” (1Cor 7:14, DRV)
“But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Act 16:31, DRV)
@@StanleyPinchaki was baptized as an infant but my parents didn’t have faith. they just did it for cultural reasons since the church is intertwined with my culture. so idk if i should be baptized again or not 😢
Thank you again, Dr. Ortlund, for your excellent presentation. Yes, I can now understand why there is angst about when baptism is appropriate. Before this, I'd always been baffled by the "credobaptist" position since throughout the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul we hear consistently that whenever a man accepts faith in Jesus, he is immediately baptized along with his entire household - which semantically includes infants. Clearly the practice of the Apostles was to baptize EVERYONE right away.
I'm not an apologist but I do remember reading Augustine's Confessions as a teenager. It seemed to me that Augustine was pretty clear that he believed that the practice of delaying baptism came not from the apostolic teachings but rather from a lack of faith. That his mother Monica believed she couldn't keep her son from becoming sinful like his father so she delayed baptism because she was afraid that if he led a sinful life (sexually) after baptism, he would go to hell. Augustine reflected that if his mother had more faith and allowed him to get baptized in infancy, maybe he would have received the grace and the strength to avoid the sins he committed as a young adult.
I just read Tertullian's On Baptism (www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm) and it seems he is recommending delay, not forbidding it and for the same reason as Augustine's mother. He says that young children, unmarried men and women, and widows are likely to turn to a life of sexual sin. Therefore, they should not be baptized "until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence." (On Baptism, Chapter 18). Tertullian does not claim that infant baptism is forbidden or that credobaptism is an apostolic practice. Just that he thinks sexual sin is so inevitable and damnable that it endangers the salvation that baptism ushers in.
Walafrid Strabo's statement, "At first the tradition grace of baptism was given only to those already mature in body and mind" does not seem like a theological argument one way or another, but a simple statement of history as he knew it.
In the end, I don't feel any draw to the credobaptist position, but I'm really trying. I read your article on "Why Not Grandchildren" and I don't see how the symbolic connection between Jewish circumcision has any determining weight on the practice of baptism. Church Fathers spoke of immersion as symbolic of Jesus's tomb but we don't hold people under water for three days.
I think the most interesting argument presented is the lack of infant Baptism in the Didache and Tertullian discouraging the practice. However, since the Didache argument is an argument from silence and Tertullian merely discourages the practice and does not reject or denounce the practice, I think that although interesting, these are not strong arguments. Tertullian wrote: "According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children (Concerning Baptism, Chapter 18)." Below are quotes from other early Christians and/or early Christian documents from across the ancient world. From Turkey, to Egypt, to Rome and even in France, infant Baptism seemed to be acknowledged and accepted. Although Tertullian discouraged it, I don't see any source that openly refutes this practice, which one would reasonably expect since they were writing to each other arguing whether you had to wait 8 days after birth or could baptize them immediately:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When asked to renounce his faith in order to save his life "Polycarp declared, Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour? (The Martyrdom of Polycarp chapter 9 [155 AD])"
IRENAEUS
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
HIPPOLYTUS
(23:06) Hippolytus also wrote: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
ORIGEN
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth." (Letters 58:2 [A.D. 253]).
Thank you for this Gavin. You make a very convincing case for credo baptism. I love the metonymy interpretation of the scripture in 1 Peter. That alone I believe is a strong case for credo.
I actually looked up some more examples of a metonymy to better understand what that is. One is the White House, a specific place that is often used to describe the president or his administration.
Looking at it in that sense is a faithful way of reading that scripture, I believe.
glad you found this of use!
I appreciate Gavin's willingness to engage in dialogue. I've appreciated his conversations with Catholic apologists Joe Heschmeyer and Jimmy Akin on a few of the doctrines that divide the Christian community.
Having left non-denominational but essentially a Free Will Baptist / Calvinist (yes, a contradiction for sure--the holding to the Perseverance of the Saints) for Catholicism a couple of years ago, I find these conversations liberating.
For those seeking an analysis, "How to be Christian" podcast did a 49 minute video in October of this year titled "What does Born Again mean?" I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation for two reasons: 1. the host included clips of a young protestant pastor that is honest for which I found comfort in his honesty regarding the question of what it means to be "born again"; 2. the ridiculousness of some pastors making contradictory claims in their logic is pointed out by the host. The video is not going to convince anyone of one position or another but it will challenge one's understanding.
One's understanding of baptism significantly influences the decision to baptize or not infants and children before the age of reason..at least this has been my observation. What perplexes me though is the lack of discussion regarding the concept of Original Sin within the context of when one is "regenerated." Regarding infant baptism, it's as if the faith of the parents cannot allow God to "save" (incorporate them into the family of God) His/their children. For sure after the age of reason, the children will have to appropriate/individually assent to the faith i.e. "own it."
Finally, the division created within the Church regarding baptism is not unlike the division created between Christians and Non-Christians/non-theists. The essence of the division is centered on the question, "what is the truth?" For sure the topic in question changes but not the question. Does Baptism answer the question, "how is one born anew?" for the Community; and, "Did Jesus truly rise from the dead or is was rising from the dead a metaphor?" for those outside the community.
Just my thoughts. I do respect Gavin and his work immensely.
Here are a couple of things, that the Catholic Church teaches, for people to think about either before or after watching this video.
1) Baptism is the first Sacrament of Initiation followed by both the Eucharist and Confirmation. After these three you are considered In Full Communion.
2) Baptism requires faith, either the faith of the parents and godparents for children or personal faith if older then the age of reason.
3) Baptism removes the stain of Original Sin and the forgiveness of all sins in Adults. It does not however remove concupiscence or the inclination to sin.
4) Indelible Mark. Baptism is the entry into Christ body the Church. This mark can never be removed or added to. That is why the Church teaches only one baptism.
5) Since baptism has been divinely revealed as a necessity for Salvation, no other means can be taught dogmatically. We therefore trust in the mercy of God in situations such as infants dying before baptism. People are bound by the Sacraments...God isn’t.
6) Through it Christ gifts you the Grace necessary to live the Christian life and practice Charity.
7) Baptism does not guarantee a life of eternity in heaven, or what some call “saved”.
Thank you Dr Ortlund for your time in putting this video together
Peace
Bob
I'm Protestant but I was very close to becoming Eastern Orthodox years ago. One reason that held me back among many other reasons is that I learned, contra popular online argumentation, that the early Reformers were actually very steeped in church history, often making their appeals to the church fathers themselves. Some of your videos have helped make that case more clear and I'm thankful for that.
As a credobaptist, however, I have often wondered whether any early Baptists also made an appeal to church tradition. I don't know if you will get into it in this video, but I look forward to this either way!
That is very much in line with the appeal I'm making. Hope the video is useful to you!
@@TruthUnites thanks!
@@JoelTrousdale88 HIPPOLYTUS:
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Hi Gavin - just want to say thank you so much for the content you put out, I'm glad the Protestant community on RUclips is growing in number and academic integrity! I feel as though I'm right on the verge of affirming credobaptism, but there's two issues I've never found a clear answer to -
First, what if a person is mentally/physically disabled to the extent that they can't communicate whether they've come to faith? Surely it would be wrong for us to exclude them from baptism purely because they're unable to communicate?
Second, (this is one of Luther's criticisms of the Anabaptists), doesn't credobaptism overly intellectualise faith? Rather than being a mystery it becomes a "I can intellectually assent to X,Y,Z doctrines"
Thanks so much! I think for both questions, I would make a distinction between "credible profession of faith" and "verbal articulation of faith." We treat what is credible relative to each person and their capacities. I have been a part of the baptism of mentally/physically disabled people and it is a beautiful thing. Also, I don't think paedobaptism has any conceptual difference on these points, for they face the same question on the issue of disabled person who does not have believing parents, such as a disabled orphan. Hope this helps!
This was awesome Gavin! Could you do a video on liturgies next?
Thanks David, will consider!
My parents, who were former Roman Catholics, raised in the East, were encouraged to baptize me as early as possible out of the fear of infant damnation. Although there have been recent reforms brought to reconsider the possibility of unbaptized babies being saved, many Roman Catholics still believe and are taught the contrary by Priests (especially in the East)
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing that Elvis.
I think here you are probably referring to Limbo, which is a pious speculation that Catholics are permitted to but not required to believe. Limbo is a speculation by some Catholic Theologians from the Middle Ages on, to assert what the disposition of a soul would be for an infant or child who died unbaptized before the age of reason. Those who espouse Limbo cite the Bible that Jesus seems to teach that the primary mission of the Apostles is to go out and preach and baptize. Therefore, anyone not baptized will not be saved. (Not a Catholic teaching by the way). Limbo for those who espouse it would be a state of perfect natural happiness for those unbaptized children and infants, as they have not merited hell.
There are those who also speculate that God may give to those who have died before hearing the message of Salvation and have not lived a life which merit's hell either the infants referred to above, or someone who lives a good life according to the Natural Law and has not heard the Gospel will be given the truth by God and be able to decide to accept or reject it. (again, this is allowed but not a dogmatic belief.) So too someone who has been raised with misconceptions and myths about what the Catholic Church teaches and is so thoroughly convinced that they should not listen to what the Catholic Church teaches will be judged by God according to what they understood and how they lived their lives according to what they believed to be the will of God.
Catholic teaching is that while God in the Second person of the Trinity did institute the Sacraments and found His Church on Peter. A Church that continues today by God's grace. That while we may be bound to follow the teachings Christ gave that Church, God can and does work outside of the limits of the Church and is not bound to what we are bound to. He is able to supply the grace needed for those who have not heard the Authentic Gospel to abide in Him. Not Universal Salvation, but indeed a loving Father.
Hi, great video, Michael Heiser's work on the 1 Peter passage is really good, connecting it to spiritual warfare , I think it's in The Unseen Realm
I’ve been harsh in my comments on another video today, let me give compliments that this one is 10/10. Duh I disagree, but I see no syllogistic or rhetorical sleights of hand. Thank you, Dr. O!
It is interesting to think though that circumcision is something that happens to you, not something that you necessarily choose or have to understand beforehand. It is just a fact that placed you into the old covenant.
Good video on the whole. You are very correct that so much hinges upon little variations in interpretation and it's why conversations are so difficult to have among various denominations.
I was raised Church of Christ, the odd man out on this subject; I will most likely be converting to Catholicism.
I don't believe in infant baptism but do believe in dedicating a child's life to the service of God which involves anointing.
The last argument really made sense to me.
Very helpful historic overview of baptism. Soli Deo gloria
Interesting. In my own readings of the earliest church fathers, baptism is often discussed within the context of a larger becoming that includes faith, repentance, new life in the Spirit, living a righteous life, etc. I think they were much more open to the mystery of the Spirit's working a new creation, rather than always trying to intellectually analyze it or make rules about the process.
This encouraged me to be more open to what the various denominations practice regarding the when and how of baptism.
Very helpful!
Glad to hear that!
Yet a century and a half before St.Augustine, Origen mentions (although Origen is condemned at the Fifth Ecumenicl Council (553) but for something else that has nothing to do with baptism) that the baptism of babies and infants is an Apostolic tradition:"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) said this at his execution:"Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156). He says that he has served the Lord eighthy-six years, therefore he was baptized as an infant in the time of the Apostles, in the 1st century.
The Apology of Aristides of Athens(?-134 CE) says:"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Apology,15(A.D. 140).
St.Justin Martyr (110-165 CE) says in his First Apology (155-157 CE), 15.6:"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years...". Here he refers to the sixty and seventy-years old Christians who were are disciples of Christ from childhood, i.e. from the first century.
So there are accounts of the infant baptism that show that it was carried out yet in the 1st century, in the apostolic times which corroborates the words of Origen that it is an apostolic tradition.
Quote:,,It makes a lot more sense of that association because the baptism associating with saying they went down in the water dead and came up alive, it makes a lot more sense about someone who just became a Christian rather than like what you get with Augustine in the fourth and fifth century where it’s an infant ex-operato. You just put the water on the infant and they are regenerated.“
Although, as far as I know, the term ,,ex opera operato’’ is introduced in the Council of Trent in 1545-1563, it is consistent with the Orthodox understanding of the sacraments. The meaning of ex opera operato is that it is not the personal virtue or lack of virtue of the priest ministering the sacraments that the grace working in the sacraments depends upon but means that God acts independently of the personal virtue of the priest ministering the sacrament. But the meaning of the term is not that God works in the sacraments without the faith of the believers. Of course, I am not saying that it is impossible for God to act that way because there is nothing impossible for God but my point is that during the carrying out of the sacraments there is always faith present when God is acting in them. In the case of the infant baptism this is the faith of the priest baptizing the infant and that of the godparent or godparents. St.Augustine also mentions that moment:,,
And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail…“ (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 24, 32). Here it must be mentioned that the Holy Fathers speak about the baptism of blood which refers to the martyrdom of those who came to believe but were baptized of water and the baptism of blood is considered identical to the baptism of water - that refers also to the thief on the cross as St.Cyprian of Carthage says in his leter 72.22:,,But the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when He speaks to the thief believing and confessing in His very passion, and promises that he should be with Himself in paradise.“ Baptism of blood is called also baptism of fire:,,…And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says.“ (Eusebius, Church history, Book VI, Chapter 4).
You say in your article ,,Why not grandchildren? An argument against Reformed Paedobaptism“:,,…Third, Peter indicates that the conditions of receiving this promise are repentance (v. 38) and calling (v. 39). He enjoins them in verse 38, “repent … and you will receive,” and in verse 39 further qualifies the recipients of this promise with the phrase, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The overall import of Peter’s claim is that anyone-from those under your very roof to those in distant lands-can receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance, in response to God’s calling. This passage thus falls short of establishing the covenant membership of the children of believers exclusively (but not for those “far off”), apart from and prior to repentance.“
But that infants can be regenerated, is evident from the fact that St.John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb:,,For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.“ (Luke 1:15, KJV). He did not have faith and had not yet repented. But he nevertheless received the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. That was before the sacrament of baptism was established by Jesus (Matthew 28:19) but yet Luke 1:15 is relevant to the point whether the infants can receive the Holy Spirit whose receptance depends on the faith and repentance (Acts 2:38-39). As it was mentioned, the teaching of the Church (that St.Augustine expresses as quoted above) is that the faith (and so the repentance respectively) of the ones ministering the sacrament of baptism supplies the wanting faith and repentance of the infant getting baptized.
The sacrament of baptism is for the remission of sins:,,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.“ (Acts 2:38, KJV). The baptism of infants which as the above-mentioned sources indicate is a practice since the apostolic times, is related to the remission of sins of the Christians in baptism ,,Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:“ (Romans 5:12, KJV). All humans inherit mortality from Adam because all sinned in Adam. That includes the infants because if they did not inherit the sin of Adam, they would not inherit mortality, too since mortality is a consequence of Adam’s sin. Although the infants do not have personal sins, they are still baptized for the remission of sins as in their case it is Adam’s sin that is remitted. The original sin spread to all humans and which all humans are held liable for which is why mortality which is a punishment for that sin, is born by all humans. St.Cyprian of Carthage (200-256) says that "does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (Letters, 64:5, c.253 CE). Here St.Cyprian clearly says that it is Adam’s sin that the infants are remitted of and not their personal sins. As the fact that the infants are liable for Adam’s sin is known from Scripture (Romans 5:12), i.e. known yet in the 1st century, and since the baptism of infants existed yet in the 1st century, it was done for the remission of the infants from Adam’s sin since the beginning of the Church.
That all humans are guilty for Adam’s sin, i.e. it is ascribed to them, is rejected by the Orthodox modernists but that is another topic. It can be mentioned that that is clearly stated in the Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church written by St.Peter Moguila in 1645 and approved by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch; affirmed at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) as the standard cathehism of the Orthodox Church:
Question XXIV. Whether all man are liable for the sin of Adam?
Answer. As all mankind, during the state of innocence, was in Adam; so in him all men, falling from what he fell, remained in a state of sin.
Wherefore mankind is become, not only subject unto sin, but also on account of sin, unto punishment; which, according to the sentence pronounced by God, was (Gen. ii. 17.) ,,In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die.‘‘ And to this the Apostle alludes (Rom. v. 12.) ,,Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all men sinned.‘‘ So that we are conceived into our mother’s womb, and born in this sin, according to the holy Psalmist [Psal. li. 7.] ,,Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me.‘‘ This is called parental or original sin; first, because that, before this, man was free from all sin; although the devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whole temptation this parental sin sprung up in man; and Adam becoming guilty. Secondly, this is called original sin, because no mortal is conceived without this depravity of nature.‘‘
That teaching of the Church was most clearly expressed at the Local Council, of Carthage (419 CE), Canon 110. (Greek 112.)
,,Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.‘‘
The Council of Carthage (419) which was among the local councils ratified by the Ecumenical Council of Trullo (692 CE), Canon 2, clearly says that the form of baptism for the remission of sins is true regarding the infants, i.e. they are truly remitted of sins in baptism - it is Adam's sin that they are remitted of as the same canon says when referring to Romans 5:12. Otherwise, if Adam's sin was not ascribed to us, the form of baptism for the remission of sins regarding the infants would not be true but false - somthing which the canon rejects. Canon 110 is one of the canons dedicated to the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy. Pelagius rejected that we inherit from Adam something else rather than death.
18:00 As a non-denominational Christian, I believe in both credo-baptism and baptismal regeneration. Very thorough and polite of you to mention we exist, as we tend to slip "under the radar" in the whole debate...
Why do Christians baptize?
[Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
Why do Christians baptize infants?
Infants are included in “the whole creation.”
But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?
Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41.
A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.
Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.
David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.
David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16
But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corintians 12:15. There is no way to be closer to Jesus than this!
@@Mygoalwogel All of those examples are pure eisegesis, of cherry-picking scriptures out of context, and only confirm that pedobaptism is a heretical and unbiblical false teaching. The baptism mentioned in the Great Commission specifically mentions "whoever BELIEVES and is baptized". That is true of all examples of baptism given in scripture. All whose baptisms were recorded were old enough to understand the implications of that baptism, and none were infants. None of the subsequent scriptures you quote have anything to do with baptism, and to link them to it is a rather laughable grasping at straws. John the Baptist was reacting to an innate joy at the physical presence of the Messiah. He was not consciously aware of his own sinfulness, repenting of his sins, and deciding to commit his life to God. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 says nothing about Timothy being baptized as an infant, and is referring to the fact that his godly mother and grandmother raised him to read scripture from an early age, giving him a strong basis for his faith. The psalmists, including David, lived in Old Testament times, many centuries before baptism, in the New Testament sense, existed. Their theme was NOT that infants can believe, but that God knew them and cared for them from the very beginnings of their lives. Likewise, in Matthew 21:18, Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2, which is making the point that God is able to use the praise of the weakest people, babies and infants, to overcome the strongest enemies of God, not that infants are capable of the level of understanding required for baptism. As for Jesus laying his hands on the infants, that was not baptism in any way, shape or form, and you yourself acknowledge in that sort of example objection you include after quoting the passage. Then you quote 1 Corinthians 12:15, which has exactly nothing to do with baptism and is talking about the unity all Christians share as members of the Body of Christ! Infants do not have a sense of right and wrong. They are also incapable of giving consent to the act. All examples of baptism related in scripture are of people who are old enough to have a sense of right and wrong, realize that they are sinners who need God's forgiveness provided through Christ's sacrifice, choose to commit their lives to Christ, and be baptized for the remission of their sins. What you did with that long list of grossly out-of-context scriptures was akin to someone saying that the Bible teaches atheism and hedonism by saying "The Bible says 'there is no God' (Psalm 14:1) and tells us to 'take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry'(Luke 12:19)". In context, Psalm 14:1 says "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'" and Luke 12:19 is the evil rich man congratulating himself on his bountiful crop just before God tells him "Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?" As the saying goes "Text without context is a pretext for a prooftext!"
@@DamonNomad82 Eisegesis is reading into the text. Explain how I'm making those texts say something other than what they say.
As to cherry picking, my examples of infant believers are specific individuals. You should already know about the psalms extolling infant faith, such as "out of the mouths of babies and nursing infants you have perfected praise." And Jesus' many sayings granting the Kingdom and belief to infants and small children.
So basically, you use words you don't really understand to be dismissive any time you don't want to accept what the scriptures plainly teach.
@@DamonNomad82 Your comments on John the Baptist demonstrate that you are a Montanist and not a Christian.
It's very basic.
The Holy Spirit makes people holy.
When he fills people he makes them holy, granting them true faith.
He is not on the business of causing muscle spasms or filling unholy people without sanctifying them.
@@DamonNomad82 What Jesus does do with the infants is:
1. Calls them to himself.
2. Says they come, not that they are brought.
3. Says the Kingdom of God belongs to them.
4. Rebukes anyone who wants to stop them from coming.
Now if the Kingdom belongs to infants who come to him, the Holy Spirit can fill them, they can rely on God from their mothers womb and bosom, and know the Gospel from infancy, who are you to withhold water for baptizing?
"Sign and seal" is a great way to put it, in my view. It's akin to the same way your wedding ring is a sign and seal of your marriage. It doesn't make you married in itself, so a person could wear a wedding ring without a marriage, or remove (or lose) a ring and still be married.
Great video! Thank you! The Catholic Church distinguishes between ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation. "Ordinary" means are those clearly stated in Scripture and Tradition. "Extraordinary" are those ways in which we know that God could save someone if He should choose. The Fathers did not speak much on this topic, and so appear much more harsh in their teaching on infant baptism. Of course, their silence neither disproves the Catholic stance today, nor limits God's ability to save as He wills, but rather shows how Christian doctrine can develope overtime with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Keep searching! God is with you!
A couple of thoughts that come to my mind. I too study all these differences in great detail and I tend to lean on and agree more with the early church in most controversial questions. 1. We are ultimately saved by faith. Note that I don't say "faith alone". 2. James says I will show you my faith by what I do. 3. There are many scriptures in the Gospel where Jesus praises others for how they showed their faith. As a result, if our faith leads us to obedience to God's will than I think Jesus will say to us "Your faith has saved you". Therefore, whatever you believe concerning baptism will be credited to us as righteousness as James would say. I personally take a literal interpretation of what Paul says in Romans 6 in that in baptism I have UNITED myself with Christ and I a am raised to a new life. It is my faith into the work of Christ that he has done is what saves me. It's not the water or the act of baptism that saves me. It is the work that Christ did that saves me by me putting my faith in Christ via baptism.
This was so good. You can believe that God is at work supernaturally through the waters of baptism being identified with the Lord Jesus Christ without believing that all that had not yet experienced it just automatically go to hell. There Hass to be a middle ground and that seems to be Where you are. I do not believe that the water saves obviously and I do believe that faith and repentance bring justification, but if someone were to want to refuse to be baptized, I would have no problem, telling them that they very likely do not have saving faith because true faith obeys. Illumination demands a response.
Wow! I had no idea baptism was such a controversial issue. Growing up Mennonite it was always pretty clear it was just a symbol of salvation having occurred.
You were taught wrong
Excellent content, a lot to mull over 👍
Thanks Huey!
Also about the infant thing, what about King David’s son? There’s no known evidence I’m aware of that suggests anything like a baptism there yet he clearly believed he would see him again one day.
This is excellent, Gavin. Good to see a fellow Baptist tackle church history issues and Newman's false dictum ("deep in history") and former Evangelicals, etc. This has also been a burden of mine for the last 25 years, since one of my best friends (Rod Bennett) became Roman Catholic. (and has written books on his conversion to RCC and using church history - "Four Witnesses". ) I just recently discovered your videos and interaction with Church History, historical theology and engagement with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. This one on baptism especially blessed me - the "metonymy principle" to understand baptism in Scripture and early church vs. ex opere operato priestly powers = excellent! Have you read Tim Kauffman's (PCA Reformed Presbyterian) assessment of baptismal regeneration in the early church?
What are your thoughts on "causal eis" (for the forgiveness of sins) for Acts 2:38 and how that phrase is also used in the Nicene-Constantinolitan Creed in 381 AD and forward in history?
The issue of baptismal regeneration in the early church is my focus here in this article, on Justin Martyr's section on baptism, using Tim Kauffman's series.
apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/
If you have time, of course.
Ken Temple
thanks Ken! Looks like an interesting article, I will check it out!
@@TruthUnites ُThanks! Anselm is also my favorite Medieval theologian, because of both his 1. "Ontological argument" and also 2. his laying the foundation for understanding the atonement of Christ as a satisfaction of justice, which led to the Reformed doctrine of substitutionary Penal atonement - satisfaction of the wrath of God against sin, which seems to be the meaning of Isaiah 52-53 and the entire NT.
@@TruthUnites Listening to one of your other sessions with 3 Roman Catholics on the "Gospel Simplicity" channel about "Does church history lead you to become Catholic?" - around the 1:20 point one of the RC mentions my friend Rod Bennett, who wrote the book, "Four Witnesses" (2002, Ignatius) (and several other books since then).
Why ken would that foundation need to be laid so late in church history if one is heretical for not believing in penal substitution/satisfaction as so many Protestants seem to think?
@@Lotterywinnerify Because the Scriptural basis is there in Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13 and all the texts on "propitiation", which means "the satisfaction of the wrath and justice of God against sin"
Mr. Ortlund, could you give me some information on how do you get these old writings regarding baptism, for example, the citation you gave from Walafrid Strabo
Good job Gavin. Irenic and incisive...a tough combo but you provide it.
Thanks David!
Hi Gavin! As always you do a good job presenting your views. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I have been wondering for a while what a baptist would say about this! Would you mind if I made a friendly response video? I had some thoughts during your presentation that I think can further the discussion.
Hey John! You are very courteous for asking -- please feel free to do so! I look forward to watching your thoughts.
@@TruthUnites Great! Thank you!
Greetings! I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of the work by James Moseley that you mentioned.
Very interesting! As a Presbyterian open to the dialogue and options that the tradition of the Church shows us, I confess that it seems safer to adopt the path of creed-baptism in light of the testimonies of the first centuries of Christianity. However, it must be said that children also have the ability to believe from the womb, if they are chosen by God, if they have their hearts circumcised from the moment they are formless substance. In this sense, it would be good to let the child be baptized in case of illness, since the power of regeneration is not in the water itself, nor in the words spoken over the water. But the work is of God that, if the child is His chosen one, he/she will be saved by the water and the Spirit, leaving the parents only to attend to the ordinance of this blessing, which is for Christians and their generations, in the light of the book of Acts. In this sense, baptism is a substitute for circumcision that will only have real validity if it is later manifested by the circumcision of the heart (mystery of predestination). However, if the child is not one of God's chosen ones, whether or not he is baptized will not matter. Therefore, being sick, it is better to baptize. Not being sick? It is safer to hope that it has as little conscience as possible and be baptized at her 4, 5 years old if possible.
Any thoughts on this quote from Origen: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”
I love the way that Irenaeaus states it:
"First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth onto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God.
- Irenaeus of Lyons [d. 202 AD], "Proof of Apostolic Preaching".
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age”
- Against Heresies 2:22:4 [180AD)
Are there any secondary sources you are aware of that address baptismal regeneration in the early church and argue against complete uniformity?
As a credo-baptist, it has always concerned me that my paedobaptist friends (usually Presbyterian) would state how common paedobaptism was in the early church...all the while seeming to overlook the fact that the early church did so with a belief in baptismal regeneration (a belief they would reject). Looking forward to seeing if this video will shed some light on these thoughts. Thanks for all the work Gavin -- when I get a full-time job I will certainly be "patronized," as your work here directly enhances my ability to minister to others in the church.
Thanks Ethan! Yeah, it's interesting that Zwingli, though affirming paedobaptism, basically said that everyone got baptism wrong since the apostles! I think you are so right that we need to give this issue of baptismal regeneration more focus. Hope this video will advance the conversation!
Well i think the fathers were right on both issues (Anglican leaning here)
I don't see why a Presbyterian would have an issue affirming Baptismal Regeneration given Westminster Confession 27.2 and 28.6. The issue isn't the phrase, but what exactly is meant by the phrase. There are a family of views regarding Baptismal Regeneration, and while a Presbyterian would reject the Roman view, their own position falls in the broader tradition. After all, Calvin did reject Zwingli and saw his view in line with Luther's on this issue.
As a Baptist Pastor I believe that Baptism is the normative occasion for the public expression of repentance and faith. The “aisle walk” the “raised hand” and “sinner’s prayer” has replaced baptism calling upon His Name as the salvic occasion. Evangelicals speak of being born again as equated or associated with those actions.
But Biblically, the heart is pricked and opened and Baptism is the “good answer” to “What shall we do?” Regeneration produces repentance and faith and Baptism gives expression to that transformation. As such, it does get salvicly tied to the wondrous occasion operationally in a literary - even colloquial sense.
This was long awaited for me, glad you did this. As a Lutheran, I wasnt swayed, but appreciate your articulation of your position. You are my favourite baptist thus far.
You said at the very end that God is at work in baptism. Obviously you dont believe in baptismal regeneration, but what do you believe God does through it?
And what do you think of the Lutheran position that baptism is a visible word that strikes the heart, a promise to create faith in a special way, and an anchor for faith to rest? Although it does affirm baptismal regeneration, it does so in a way that presupposes the integral component of _faith_ being able to grasp the sign/word to apprehend the gift given
Thank you! I like calling baptism a "means of grace," and I do believe he works through the sacrament to strengthen and nourish our faith, and also to communicate and promise the gospel (hence "sign and seal"). I really need to learn more about the Lutheran view before commenting on that. I find Lutheranism so interesting. Thanks again.
@@TruthUnites thanks for clarifying.. that sounds more robust than the stereotypical baptist position.. i hope your voice catches on and can help ecumenism in this regard. Tbh, that almost sounds like baptismal regeneration in my estimation. :)
@@thewiseandthefoolish yeah, it's interesting, the historic Baptists tended to think of it more like that (and call it a "sacrament"), but its very much fallen away today. I think it differs from baptismal regeneration in that baptism does not regenerate, but it is certainly more than a mere symbol. Thanks for the kind words!
@@thewiseandthefoolish that is the view of the early Particular Baptists such as John Spilsbury, Hercules Collins, William Kiffen, etc. Because of the context of their day Particular Baptists needed to argue that Baptism was a sacrament ordained by Christ for disciples to do (hence the word ordinance) which meant that we had to be baptised according to Christ's Institution. But latter generations took hold of the ordinance language as a sign of our faith and left out how God works in Baptism. They didn't reject the idea that God confirms his promises in baptism as a sign and seal, nourishes and strengthens our faith, etc. They did reject baptismal regeneration though.
Yeah the Lutheran view convinced me more than any of the other views I researched. That's actually one of the reasons I recently started going to a Lutheran church, the sacraments.
Thank you for the informative video Dr. Ortlund. It is interesting to note how the church's views on baptism have evolved. There has been the view, mostly among Catholics and Orthodox believers that infants should be baptized as soon as possible to ensure the washing away of original sin. However, I believe there was a time in the early church where baptism was delayed until later in life, even on one's death bed, due to the belief that sins committed after baptism would not be forgiven. Am I correct that even Constantine the Great delayed baptism until just before his death for this very reason?
Thank you Steve! Yes, it is fascinating to notice the development. It can be tempting for all sides to make the data conform to their own views, when in fact it is very messy.
Interesting yes I definitely read that before.
Yes it is true that some were delaying baptism at some point. It is also obviously the case that this was not based on scriptures but it was based on a high view of the efficacy of baptism for forgiveness of sins. This is the only ground from which such a belief could arise. Something that baptists seem to want to reject.
Signed. Sealed. Delivered.
I didn't expect to be able to disagree as peacefully as I do but you did a very thoughtful and cordial presentation on this! I think you are correct about the evidence pointing in favor of the earliest baptisms being credobaptist. I think saying it's not a normal requirement for salvation though (with possible exceptions) would be a wrong framing of this from both the Bible and the early Christian record.
Any chance you go on the reason and theology show to discuss?
I'd be happy to go back sometime, but had considered proposing other topics.
Very helpful thoughts, sir. I’m a member of the church of Christ. I’m wondering if you’ve read G. R. Beasley-Murray’s Baptism in the New Testament (1962). I highly recommend it.
Thanks Isaiah! I read it super long ago. Need to revisit it.
Hi Gavin! Thank you for posting this. I’ve been looking forward to hearing about your views on baptism more. Do you believe that the earliest Christians viewed baptism as the sign and seal of faith in Christ and repentance? If so, why would they rush to baptize a dying two year old who is yet incapable of understanding the concept of faith in Christ and repentance? Thank you!
Hi Lindsey! Good to hear from you! I don't think the earliest Christians did practice such baptisms. As I mentioned in the video, these inscriptions on tombs don't seem to arrive until the 3rd century. (Of course, this doesn't entail that sickbed or infant baptism was *universal* at that time--for instance, in the 4th century Gregory of Nazianzus seems to have been baptized around age 30, despite his father being a bishop--but that is when deathbed baptisms *start* to happen, it seems). I cover a little more in the video of how I think views of baptism developed, including the idea of the damnation of unbaptized babies. Also, just to clarify, I wouldn't say baptism is a sign and seal of our faith, but rather a sign and seal of the gospel. Let me know if that is unclear. Hope you guys are doing well!
Hi pastor! Would you ever be willing to do a video chat to answer some of my questions? I’m a Christ follower and i am trying so hard to find evidence for my faith in the history of the church but I’m so confused.