To any anabaptist who wants to quote Justin Martyr as if he opposed infant baptism, do you agree with Justin that baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant? Why quote Justin as your advocate if you hate what he says about circumcision in baptism? Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho: 12. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh.... 18. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you - namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. 19 This [fleshly] circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and dug for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. 41. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first. And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.
There are two additional videos available that elucidate his recent findings. These videos have not been made public yet, as we intend to release them on a monthly basis. Furthermore, there are plans for additional content in the future. Therefore, I would advise caution to RUclips viewers and suggest withholding judgment until the entirety of his argument is presented.
Thank you for commenting, Daniel, and thank you for however much (if any) you may have watched. I can appreciate the concept of listening to a full argument, however if it means so much to you then it should have been released in its entirety. David (or whoever makes this decision) has chosen to split each part by century and each part explores a century at a time. I'm assuming David has given the bulk of his thoughts on the first and second century by now, and if more significant arguments that make are a stronger case for his position of these two centuries exist then they should have been included. Are the videos split up by parts because it is the most effective and edifying way to deliver the message or does it merely have to do with business strategy (to retain active subscriptions)? But really, Daniel, how much more can be said on that Irenaeus passage after, "So unless you believe there is baptism down in Hades, you know, that's not his topic," which will be significant? We've already demonstrated from Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus that there is baptism in Hades.
I would also advise caution to RUclips viewers and content creators not to oppose the most holy and righteous Saints of the Church such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus and Cyprian, the Martyrs of the Lord. These men sacrificed their lives in martyrdom to defend the faith once for all delivered to the Saints of God by Christ and the Apostles. And part of this faith is the baptism of infants as they testify. No argument raised against the knowledge of God shall prevail; no matter how plausible, reasonable logical or convincing and persuading it may seem. Remember the Day of Judgement. You will stand before the Lord with all the Holy Ones assembled. If you deny infant baptism the Lord will declare the Scriptures to you saying have you not read the Scriptures? And if you wish to foolishly argue against the Scriptures will the Lord not call His Martyrs and ask, "Did you never hear the testimony of these my Holy Saints?"
I will clarify the statement I made at 1:28:47 "that Barnabas also says baptism is circumcision." I make this clarification for the sake of the young and uninstructed in the truth and matters concerning God. One may erroneously think that I am claiming that Barnabas says the exact words, "baptism is circumcision." Obviously Barnabas never says these exact words. I was not directly quoting Barnabas. I was not even paraphrasing Barnabas. Ah then what did I mean? Did I mean a different writer like Justin Martyr? Was I just mistaken and remembered wrongly what Barnabas says? Here is what Barnabas says that I was referring to: "He speaks moreover concerning our ears, how He has circumcised both them and our heart. The Lord says in the prophet, "In the hearing of the ear they obeyed me." And again He says, "By hearing, those shall hear who are afar off; they shall know what I have done." And, "Be you circumcised in your hearts, says the Lord." And again He says, "Hear, O Israel, for these things says the Lord your God." And once more the Spirit of the Lord proclaims, "Who is he that wishes to live forever? By hearing let him hear the voice of my servant." And again He says, "Hear, O Heaven, and give ear, O Earth, for God has spoken." These are in proof. And again He says, "Hear the Word of the Lord, you rulers of this people." And again He says, "Hear you children, the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Therefore He has circumcised our ears, that we might hear His word and believe, for the circumcision in which they trusted is abolished. For He declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they transgressed because an evil angel deluded them. He says to them, "these things says the Lord your God" - (here I find a new commandment) - "Sow not among thorns, but circumcise yourselves to the Lord." And why speaks He thus: "Circumcise the stubbornness of your heart, and harden not your neck?" And again: "Behold, says the Lord, all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but this people are uncircumcised in heart." But you will say, "Yes, truly the people are circumcised for a seal." But so also is every Syrian and Arab, and all the priests of idols: are these then also within the bond of His covenant? Yes, the Egyptians also practice circumcision." - Barnabas chapter 9 The simple and uninstructed in the mysteries of God are confused. Here Barnabas only talks about circumcision so how does baptism relate to this. This is where you must learn the things of the spirit. According to the letter that kills Barnabas only speaks of circumcision, but this is how a Pharisee and Jew understands his statements not perceiving the spirit of his words. Christ and all His children are united in one mind, the mind of Christ, one faith and one teaching. Hear then the doctrines of Christ: Colossians 2:9-10 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. Justin Martyr on circumcision Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 18 This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcision according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 19 And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it. -Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 43 Let these things suffice for you since you are young and are not yet capable of receiving too much. But if your heart remains stubborn then ask and you will be given an ocean of evidence to drown your doubt in. If from this you do not perceive that Barnabas speaks of baptism in this passage then you must pray to the Father who enlightens men to enlighten your heart and that you not be found among those who have eyes but do not see and who have ears but do not hear. You see the Scriptures and Christianity must be understood in the mind of Christ, not in the mind of modern scholars or modern reasoning and logic or the wisdom of men and of this world. A Christian with the mind and spirit of Christ understands Barnabas to be speaking of the true circumcision of baptism but the Jew, and the modern scholar only sees the letter of circumcision and baptism is veiled from them because their foolish hearts are darkened. We must beware that we be not found among the lawyers who have received woe for they take away the key of knowledge and they do not enter in themselves and they hindered those who were entering in. If these words are too vague and not specific enough for you and you persist in denying the truth then I would have you oppose Christ who said, "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." If you don't think Barnabas is speaking about baptism when he speaks of circumcision of the heart then you must also deny Christ and rebuke Him saying no where in the Scripture "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" does it say anything about the Resurrection. Come on Jesus stop playing games. If you take issue with the words "baptism is circumcision" not being found in Barnabas' words then equally take issue with Christ, for no where in these words is anything found explicitly about the resurrection.
If Barnabas' discussion of baptism has nothing to do with circumcision then why before he starts explicitly talking about baptism does he say "We then, rightly understanding His commandments, explain them as the Lord intended. For this purpose He circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might understand these things"? Right after bringing our minds back to the circumcision of the ears and heart Barnabas then turns explicitly to baptism in Chapter 11. If there was no connection or link or continuity between circumcision and baptism you do have to admit that it is very strange for Barnabas to talk about them side by side like this. It is also dishonest to divorce and separate Barnabas from the rest of the Church as if he were alone and did not agree with and hold to the same teachings as the rest of the Church. We do have explicit statements from several fathers that baptism is the spiritual circumcision and circumcision of the heart. To separate all of the Church fathers and treat them individually as if they all taught different teachings and only believe and accept what they explicitly say in their writings is a modern and foolish "scholarly" analysis that is arbitrary and divisive. All of the fathers were unified in the unity of the Christian faith. They all teach and practice the same faith and hold to the same understandings of doctrine. If you wish to believe that all of the early Christians were at odds with each other and each of them is coming up with their own novel interpretations and understandings then this slander remains with you in your heart, but my heart has been circumcised to believe and accept the truth. For instance if you wish to divide rather than unite and say Barnabas never explicitly ties baptism and circumcision together but Justin Martyr does, and when Justin does that this is a new idea that Justin has come up with and he is just now making this connection but Barnabas never knew of such a thing and he doesn't hold to such a belief. If this is your way of thinking then you have fallen into division and turned to schism and faction rather than maintaining the concord and unity of the Christian faith. If you want to throw your lot in with the "scholars" then you will receive their reward as the modern scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers. And yes Dakota you have condemned yourself with your own comment by saying, "Barnabas doesn't say it, but if you were spiritual enough like me, you'd see it." I know you edited these words out but God sees all things. You admit here that you are not spiritual in the way I am and that you wish to be carnal in your understanding. I would never exalt myself over you but these are your words. You know that Paul says the Law must be understood spiritually and not only according to the letter and yet you remain hard hearted sticking to the letter like a Pharisee and not receiving the spirit. Paul is the one who calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. Paul and Barnabas were the closest of friends and companions. Barnabas is intimately familiar with and entirely accepts what Paul teaches. To suggest otherwise is unhistorical, illogical, divisive, and slanderous. And if you wish to be one of those who reject the Apostolic Barnabas as the author of the Epistle of Barnabas then be rebuked by the fathers who say, "The apostle Barnabas says, "From the portion I have received, I have done my diligence to send to you little by little." - Clement of Alexandria Barnabas says mystically, "May God, who rules the universe, also vouchsafe wisdom to you." - Clement of Alexandria The Apostolic Barnabas (he was one of the Seventy and a fellow worker of Paul) speaks in these words: "Before we believed in God, the dwelling place of our heart was unstable." - Clement of Alexandria Barnabas, too, who in person preached the Word along with the apostle in the ministry of Gentiles, says, "I write to you most simply, that you may understand." - Clement of Alexandria The same is declared by Barnabas in his Epistle, where he says there are two ways - one of light and one of darkness. - Origen In the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the Apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded "Jesus elected his own Apostles as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers." And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man." - Origen If you wish to hold novel views and beliefs and reject what the early Church believed and held then you are by definition a heretic and schismatic. This would be most unfortunate for your own soul but the antidote to this disease is humility if you wish to be healed.
Further if you want to have a silly belief that Barnabas didn't accept or practice infant baptism from his statements about baptism then you have to ignore a very serious problem that Paul and all of the other Apostles baptized infants. So you have to ignore this or admit that Barnabas departed from their practice and became heretical which is evil and slanderous to believe about Barnabas. It is rather much simpler and consistent to believe that Barnabas held to the same faith as the other Apostles and baptized infants and that his statements about baptism do not forbid or exclude infant baptism as the fathers testify that infant baptism came from the Apostles, of which Barnabas' was one. If you reject that Barnabas practiced infant baptism then the statement would be all of the Apostles handed down infant baptism to the Church except for Barnabas who rejected it for some reason. The scholars create and immerse themselves in all manner of silly myths and imaginative speculations that create confusion and chaos. This is yet another example of something not explicitly stated in Barnabas' letter that we do know he believed and practiced. He doesn't explicitly talk about infant baptism and yet we know that he believed it and practiced it. To argue otherwise is to put Barnabas out of step with all of the other Apostles and the Church. So you make Barnabas a heretic which it is clear from their quotations of Barnabas that the Church did not consider him a heretic but rather a righteous saint.
I will also say that when Justin Martyr speaks of circumcision and baptism he also says that the Old Testament washings were prophetic of baptism but he also says that circumcision was prophetic of baptism as well. Both of these things are simultaneously true. It doesn't have to be one or the other as many wish to read Barnabas, not rightly dividing.
0:00 Introduction 10:39 David's "Title Lawyer Approach" 15:33 Meaning of Baptism in Scripture 1:13:18 Why isn't Infant Baptism Mentioned Earlier? 1:16:22 The Didache 1:26:12 Augustine Invented "Original Sin" 1:27:22 Epistle of Barnabas 1:29:27 John isn't Named Author of his Gospel until Late 2nd Century 1:34:14 Word "Trinity" Doesn't Appear on Paper Until Late 2nd Century 1:35:22 Shepherd of Hermas 1:38:33 Justin Martyr 1:52:32 Irenaeus 1:53:33 Clement of Alexandria 1:59:35 Kurt Aland 2:01:25 David Bercot Denies Inheriting Adam's Fallen Nature 2:05:01 Ezekiel 2:09:26 Matthew 18:3-5 2:16:19 1 Corinthians 7:14 2:22:52 Hermas Innocence of Children 2:27:07 Irenaeus on Innocence of Children 2:29:12 Irenaeus on Infant Baptism 2:51:06 David Bercot Denies Baptism in Hades
We don't have a temple or a building if that's what you're asking, and we don't go by any other name than Christian. We meet in each other's homes on the Lord's day for worship and fellowship, and to take the eucharist.
@LaymanBibleLounge We typically don't talk about the end times too much to be honest with you. We do talk about the after life and the Resurrection, but we don't obsess over the end times anymore than the Church fathers. We strongly believe that if the early Church wasn't dogmatic on a subject then we have no reason to be dogmatic on it. I would say we all lean toward the more common belief in the first 3 centuries in a literal millenium reign, but we aren't dogmatic about it. Justin states that there were some pious Christians who didn't believe in a literal millenium.
we would agree that infant baptism is not forbidden, I will however ask if it is profitable, since baptism is only for those who wish to follow Christ.
I appreciate the measured introduction. However, the person who does the most talking in this video (Luke, maybe?) always insists on the most unfriendly interpretation of David. For example, when David speaks of the theory of recapitulation, he is not saying it is "merely" a theory, as is assumed. In fact, he quotes Scripture to support it. Also, just when David is digging in to the details of what Irenaeus is saying, David is cut off as though he presents no further explanation. Then the evidence he gives later is brushed away with expressions of incredulity. This brother constantly imputes motivations to David, as though he understands better than David himself what David's thoughts and motivations are. These criticisms would be more valuable if they were given with more charity.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to our video and hear our arguments. In order to explain the "regeneration" of the ancient fathers in Hades, which Irenaeus speaks of, David Bercot has resorted to an idea that Irenaeus claimed there is a regeneration apart from baptism (three total births; one from nature, one from the incarnation, one from baptism). We first take issue with accusing Irenaeus of novelty with the phrases "Irenaeus' theory" and "this doctrine he (Irenaeus) has". Irenaeus means "regeneration" in the same sense here as he always does; baptism. He says the fathers who were in Hades received baptism when he says, "to whom He remitted sins in the same way as He did to us." (Against Heresies 4.27.2) "These apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching." (Hermas Similitude 9, Ch. 16)
@@ante-nicenechristianity But that's just it. David doesn't say that there are three births. He simply says that Irenaeus believes that, through Christ's incarnation, some measure of new life comes to all people, even those who do not believe.
@@lynnmmartin I understand that, that's why I said "David has resorted to an idea that Irenaeus claimed..." Lynn, David states at 49:33 in his own video, "So unless you believe there is baptism down in Hades, you know, that's not his topic." As we've demonstrated there is baptism in Hades. When you read Athanasius say, "As we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened,” (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3.26.33) do you think he believes unbelievers are also quickened? Of course not.
@missionsbibleministry I tell you again, we aren't Roman Catholic and just because we overlap in one belief with Roman Catholics that doesn't immediately make us Roman Catholic anymore than David Bercot believing in the Sacraments makes him Roman Catholic. But the fact that babies ARE regenerated is testified to by Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, and Tertullian. Tertullian advises both unmarried persons and babies to delay baptism because it WILL regenerate and they will not be able to be baptized again if they should commit a mortal sin.
@missionsbibleministry Repent of your slander. But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36 Romans 1:29-31, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Mark 7:21-23, Colossians 3:8. You have slandered us, the Saints of God with being Roman Catholics, a most horrible and evil slander. We do not practice idolatry by bowing and worshiping images. We worship none but God the Father and His Son with the Holy Spirit who are all Divine. We pray to none other than the Father Almighty. We pray not to any human or created being. We reject war and bloodshed as evil and rather suffer harm than do any evil. We condemn the Pope in his pride and arrogance as an antichrist. Be quick to listen and slow to speak. Otherwise do not be offended when you are rightly rebuked as a fool
To any anabaptist who wants to quote Justin Martyr as if he opposed infant baptism, do you agree with Justin that baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant? Why quote Justin as your advocate if you hate what he says about circumcision in baptism?
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:
12. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh....
18. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you - namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.
19 This [fleshly] circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and dug for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former.
41. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.
And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.
Thank you.
There are two additional videos available that elucidate his recent findings. These videos have not been made public yet, as we intend to release them on a monthly basis. Furthermore, there are plans for additional content in the future. Therefore, I would advise caution to RUclips viewers and suggest withholding judgment until the entirety of his argument is presented.
Thank you for commenting, Daniel, and thank you for however much (if any) you may have watched. I can appreciate the concept of listening to a full argument, however if it means so much to you then it should have been released in its entirety. David (or whoever makes this decision) has chosen to split each part by century and each part explores a century at a time. I'm assuming David has given the bulk of his thoughts on the first and second century by now, and if more significant arguments that make are a stronger case for his position of these two centuries exist then they should have been included. Are the videos split up by parts because it is the most effective and edifying way to deliver the message or does it merely have to do with business strategy (to retain active subscriptions)?
But really, Daniel, how much more can be said on that Irenaeus passage after, "So unless you believe there is baptism down in Hades, you know, that's not his topic," which will be significant? We've already demonstrated from Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus that there is baptism in Hades.
I would also advise caution to RUclips viewers and content creators not to oppose the most holy and righteous Saints of the Church such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus and Cyprian, the Martyrs of the Lord. These men sacrificed their lives in martyrdom to defend the faith once for all delivered to the Saints of God by Christ and the Apostles. And part of this faith is the baptism of infants as they testify. No argument raised against the knowledge of God shall prevail; no matter how plausible, reasonable logical or convincing and persuading it may seem.
Remember the Day of Judgement. You will stand before the Lord with all the Holy Ones assembled. If you deny infant baptism the Lord will declare the Scriptures to you saying have you not read the Scriptures? And if you wish to foolishly argue against the Scriptures will the Lord not call His Martyrs and ask, "Did you never hear the testimony of these my Holy Saints?"
I will clarify the statement I made at 1:28:47 "that Barnabas also says baptism is circumcision."
I make this clarification for the sake of the young and uninstructed in the truth and matters concerning God. One may erroneously think that I am claiming that Barnabas says the exact words, "baptism is circumcision." Obviously Barnabas never says these exact words. I was not directly quoting Barnabas. I was not even paraphrasing Barnabas. Ah then what did I mean? Did I mean a different writer like Justin Martyr? Was I just mistaken and remembered wrongly what Barnabas says? Here is what Barnabas says that I was referring to:
"He speaks moreover concerning our ears, how He has circumcised both them and our heart. The Lord says in the prophet, "In the hearing of the ear they obeyed me." And again He says, "By hearing, those shall hear who are afar off; they shall know what I have done." And, "Be you circumcised in your hearts, says the Lord." And again He says, "Hear, O Israel, for these things says the Lord your God." And once more the Spirit of the Lord proclaims, "Who is he that wishes to live forever? By hearing let him hear the voice of my servant." And again He says, "Hear, O Heaven, and give ear, O Earth, for God has spoken." These are in proof. And again He says, "Hear the Word of the Lord, you rulers of this people." And again He says, "Hear you children, the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Therefore He has circumcised our ears, that we might hear His word and believe, for the circumcision in which they trusted is abolished. For He declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they transgressed because an evil angel deluded them. He says to them, "these things says the Lord your God" - (here I find a new commandment) - "Sow not among thorns, but circumcise yourselves to the Lord." And why speaks He thus: "Circumcise the stubbornness of your heart, and harden not your neck?" And again: "Behold, says the Lord, all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but this people are uncircumcised in heart." But you will say, "Yes, truly the people are circumcised for a seal." But so also is every Syrian and Arab, and all the priests of idols: are these then also within the bond of His covenant? Yes, the Egyptians also practice circumcision."
- Barnabas chapter 9
The simple and uninstructed in the mysteries of God are confused. Here Barnabas only talks about circumcision so how does baptism relate to this. This is where you must learn the things of the spirit. According to the letter that kills Barnabas only speaks of circumcision, but this is how a Pharisee and Jew understands his statements not perceiving the spirit of his words. Christ and all His children are united in one mind, the mind of Christ, one faith and one teaching. Hear then the doctrines of Christ:
Colossians 2:9-10
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Justin Martyr on circumcision
Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.
Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 18
This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcision according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former.
Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 19
And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.
-Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 43
Let these things suffice for you since you are young and are not yet capable of receiving too much. But if your heart remains stubborn then ask and you will be given an ocean of evidence to drown your doubt in.
If from this you do not perceive that Barnabas speaks of baptism in this passage then you must pray to the Father who enlightens men to enlighten your heart and that you not be found among those who have eyes but do not see and who have ears but do not hear.
You see the Scriptures and Christianity must be understood in the mind of Christ, not in the mind of modern scholars or modern reasoning and logic or the wisdom of men and of this world. A Christian with the mind and spirit of Christ understands Barnabas to be speaking of the true circumcision of baptism but the Jew, and the modern scholar only sees the letter of circumcision and baptism is veiled from them because their foolish hearts are darkened.
We must beware that we be not found among the lawyers who have received woe for they take away the key of knowledge and they do not enter in themselves and they hindered those who were entering in.
If these words are too vague and not specific enough for you and you persist in denying the truth then I would have you oppose Christ who said, "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
If you don't think Barnabas is speaking about baptism when he speaks of circumcision of the heart then you must also deny Christ and rebuke Him saying no where in the Scripture "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" does it say anything about the Resurrection. Come on Jesus stop playing games. If you take issue with the words "baptism is circumcision" not being found in Barnabas' words then equally take issue with Christ, for no where in these words is anything found explicitly about the resurrection.
If Barnabas' discussion of baptism has nothing to do with circumcision then why before he starts explicitly talking about baptism does he say "We then, rightly understanding His commandments, explain them as the Lord intended. For this purpose He circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might understand these things"? Right after bringing our minds back to the circumcision of the ears and heart Barnabas then turns explicitly to baptism in Chapter 11. If there was no connection or link or continuity between circumcision and baptism you do have to admit that it is very strange for Barnabas to talk about them side by side like this.
It is also dishonest to divorce and separate Barnabas from the rest of the Church as if he were alone and did not agree with and hold to the same teachings as the rest of the Church. We do have explicit statements from several fathers that baptism is the spiritual circumcision and circumcision of the heart. To separate all of the Church fathers and treat them individually as if they all taught different teachings and only believe and accept what they explicitly say in their writings is a modern and foolish "scholarly" analysis that is arbitrary and divisive. All of the fathers were unified in the unity of the Christian faith. They all teach and practice the same faith and hold to the same understandings of doctrine.
If you wish to believe that all of the early Christians were at odds with each other and each of them is coming up with their own novel interpretations and understandings then this slander remains with you in your heart, but my heart has been circumcised to believe and accept the truth. For instance if you wish to divide rather than unite and say Barnabas never explicitly ties baptism and circumcision together but Justin Martyr does, and when Justin does that this is a new idea that Justin has come up with and he is just now making this connection but Barnabas never knew of such a thing and he doesn't hold to such a belief. If this is your way of thinking then you have fallen into division and turned to schism and faction rather than maintaining the concord and unity of the Christian faith. If you want to throw your lot in with the "scholars" then you will receive their reward as the modern scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers.
And yes Dakota you have condemned yourself with your own comment by saying, "Barnabas doesn't say it, but if you were spiritual enough like me, you'd see it." I know you edited these words out but God sees all things. You admit here that you are not spiritual in the way I am and that you wish to be carnal in your understanding. I would never exalt myself over you but these are your words. You know that Paul says the Law must be understood spiritually and not only according to the letter and yet you remain hard hearted sticking to the letter like a Pharisee and not receiving the spirit.
Paul is the one who calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. Paul and Barnabas were the closest of friends and companions. Barnabas is intimately familiar with and entirely accepts what Paul teaches. To suggest otherwise is unhistorical, illogical, divisive, and slanderous.
And if you wish to be one of those who reject the Apostolic Barnabas as the author of the Epistle of Barnabas then be rebuked by the fathers who say,
"The apostle Barnabas says, "From the portion I have received, I have done my diligence to send to you little by little." - Clement of Alexandria
Barnabas says mystically, "May God, who rules the universe, also vouchsafe wisdom to you." - Clement of Alexandria
The Apostolic Barnabas (he was one of the Seventy and a fellow worker of Paul) speaks in these words: "Before we believed in God, the dwelling place of our heart was unstable." - Clement of Alexandria
Barnabas, too, who in person preached the Word along with the apostle in the ministry of Gentiles, says, "I write to you most simply, that you may understand." - Clement of Alexandria
The same is declared by Barnabas in his Epistle, where he says there are two ways - one of light and one of darkness. - Origen
In the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the Apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded "Jesus elected his own Apostles as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers." And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man." - Origen
If you wish to hold novel views and beliefs and reject what the early Church believed and held then you are by definition a heretic and schismatic. This would be most unfortunate for your own soul but the antidote to this disease is humility if you wish to be healed.
Further if you want to have a silly belief that Barnabas didn't accept or practice infant baptism from his statements about baptism then you have to ignore a very serious problem that Paul and all of the other Apostles baptized infants. So you have to ignore this or admit that Barnabas departed from their practice and became heretical which is evil and slanderous to believe about Barnabas.
It is rather much simpler and consistent to believe that Barnabas held to the same faith as the other Apostles and baptized infants and that his statements about baptism do not forbid or exclude infant baptism as the fathers testify that infant baptism came from the Apostles, of which Barnabas' was one. If you reject that Barnabas practiced infant baptism then the statement would be all of the Apostles handed down infant baptism to the Church except for Barnabas who rejected it for some reason. The scholars create and immerse themselves in all manner of silly myths and imaginative speculations that create confusion and chaos.
This is yet another example of something not explicitly stated in Barnabas' letter that we do know he believed and practiced. He doesn't explicitly talk about infant baptism and yet we know that he believed it and practiced it. To argue otherwise is to put Barnabas out of step with all of the other Apostles and the Church. So you make Barnabas a heretic which it is clear from their quotations of Barnabas that the Church did not consider him a heretic but rather a righteous saint.
I will also say that when Justin Martyr speaks of circumcision and baptism he also says that the Old Testament washings were prophetic of baptism but he also says that circumcision was prophetic of baptism as well. Both of these things are simultaneously true. It doesn't have to be one or the other as many wish to read Barnabas, not rightly dividing.
@@christianmatlock8170 Thank you for clarification, brother. Appreciate it.
0:00 Introduction
10:39 David's "Title Lawyer Approach"
15:33 Meaning of Baptism in Scripture
1:13:18 Why isn't Infant Baptism Mentioned Earlier?
1:16:22 The Didache
1:26:12 Augustine Invented "Original Sin"
1:27:22 Epistle of Barnabas
1:29:27 John isn't Named Author of his Gospel until Late 2nd Century
1:34:14 Word "Trinity" Doesn't Appear on Paper Until Late 2nd Century
1:35:22 Shepherd of Hermas
1:38:33 Justin Martyr
1:52:32 Irenaeus
1:53:33 Clement of Alexandria
1:59:35 Kurt Aland
2:01:25 David Bercot Denies Inheriting Adam's Fallen Nature
2:05:01 Ezekiel
2:09:26 Matthew 18:3-5
2:16:19 1 Corinthians 7:14
2:22:52 Hermas Innocence of Children
2:27:07 Irenaeus on Innocence of Children
2:29:12 Irenaeus on Infant Baptism
2:51:06 David Bercot Denies Baptism in Hades
So you guys said you aren’t catholic, orthodox, Anglican, or Protestant.
Do you guys have a local church you attend? If so, what’s their affiliation?
We don't have a temple or a building if that's what you're asking, and we don't go by any other name than Christian. We meet in each other's homes on the Lord's day for worship and fellowship, and to take the eucharist.
@@ante-nicenechristianity cool! Do you guys have a specific view on end times? Like premill, Amill etc?
@LaymanBibleLounge We typically don't talk about the end times too much to be honest with you. We do talk about the after life and the Resurrection, but we don't obsess over the end times anymore than the Church fathers. We strongly believe that if the early Church wasn't dogmatic on a subject then we have no reason to be dogmatic on it. I would say we all lean toward the more common belief in the first 3 centuries in a literal millenium reign, but we aren't dogmatic about it. Justin states that there were some pious Christians who didn't believe in a literal millenium.
we would agree that infant baptism is not forbidden, I will however ask if it is profitable, since baptism is only for those who wish to follow Christ.
I appreciate the measured introduction. However, the person who does the most talking in this video (Luke, maybe?) always insists on the most unfriendly interpretation of David.
For example, when David speaks of the theory of recapitulation, he is not saying it is "merely" a theory, as is assumed. In fact, he quotes Scripture to support it. Also, just when David is digging in to the details of what Irenaeus is saying, David is cut off as though he presents no further explanation. Then the evidence he gives later is brushed away with expressions of incredulity. This brother constantly imputes motivations to David, as though he understands better than David himself what David's thoughts and motivations are.
These criticisms would be more valuable if they were given with more charity.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to our video and hear our arguments. In order to explain the "regeneration" of the ancient fathers in Hades, which Irenaeus speaks of, David Bercot has resorted to an idea that Irenaeus claimed there is a regeneration apart from baptism (three total births; one from nature, one from the incarnation, one from baptism). We first take issue with accusing Irenaeus of novelty with the phrases "Irenaeus' theory" and "this doctrine he (Irenaeus) has". Irenaeus means "regeneration" in the same sense here as he always does; baptism. He says the fathers who were in Hades received baptism when he says, "to whom He remitted sins in the same way as He did to us." (Against Heresies 4.27.2) "These apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching." (Hermas Similitude 9, Ch. 16)
@@ante-nicenechristianity But that's just it. David doesn't say that there are three births. He simply says that Irenaeus believes that, through Christ's incarnation, some measure of new life comes to all people, even those who do not believe.
@@lynnmmartin I understand that, that's why I said "David has resorted to an idea that Irenaeus claimed..." Lynn, David states at 49:33 in his own video, "So unless you believe there is baptism down in Hades, you know, that's not his topic." As we've demonstrated there is baptism in Hades. When you read Athanasius say, "As we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened,” (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3.26.33) do you think he believes unbelievers are also quickened? Of course not.
@missionsbibleministry I tell you again, we aren't Roman Catholic and just because we overlap in one belief with Roman Catholics that doesn't immediately make us Roman Catholic anymore than David Bercot believing in the Sacraments makes him Roman Catholic. But the fact that babies ARE regenerated is testified to by Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, and Tertullian. Tertullian advises both unmarried persons and babies to delay baptism because it WILL regenerate and they will not be able to be baptized again if they should commit a mortal sin.
@missionsbibleministry
Repent of your slander.
But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36
Romans 1:29-31, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Mark 7:21-23, Colossians 3:8.
You have slandered us, the Saints of God with being Roman Catholics, a most horrible and evil slander. We do not practice idolatry by bowing and worshiping images. We worship none but God the Father and His Son with the Holy Spirit who are all Divine. We pray to none other than the Father Almighty. We pray not to any human or created being. We reject war and bloodshed as evil and rather suffer harm than do any evil. We condemn the Pope in his pride and arrogance as an antichrist. Be quick to listen and slow to speak. Otherwise do not be offended when you are rightly rebuked as a fool