This very video opened the door for me to start my journey towards becoming convinced of the infant Baptist position- I watched the debate first & actually wasn’t much a fan of it , it became clear very quickly the two were talking past each other , meaning different things by the same words - but I absolutely loved this video. Them taking time to define terms was a game changer- When the presby said “we keep continuity unless the New Testament changes something from the old” was the thing that did it for me - I’ve been 1689 for the past 10 years. But never really did a deep dive into Cov theology & the sacraments. I dove into Sam Renihans mystery of Christ , but it was Calvin’s ch on Cov theology in the institutes that helped me see continuity & then you just start seeing more Grace, more Gospel & more Christ in the OT. You start seeing how God relates to people in the OT through Covenant framework & it’s true that we really need the New Testament to tell us we don’t do Covenant that way anymore in order to have true justification to change it - John Owens breakdown of hermeneutics is especially convincing along these lines - you can find that in his Vol 16. Addressing infant baptism , although his Cov theology was a little different than Calvin’s - Another great resource for those doing a deep dive into this topic is Herman Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics - I love how he incorporates a lot of Church History into his explanations on Doctrines, he’ll show you how the doctrine has progressed over time & gives all the other views. It definitely comes down to hermeneutics- We need more videos like these by guys just taking time to define terms in a gracious way - breaking down barriers! 🙏🤙😊
Brothers, thanks to both of you for this debate. It was very beneficial. I grew up with a credobaptist mindset but have since entirely switched to being an advocate for pedobaptism. After crossing that bridge, so many doors have been opened between the Old Testament and the New. Continuity is a big deal, and Presbyterianism provides the best avenue to this.
I'm a Reformed Baptist, but the Baptist brother is not making a good case that regeneration is a "sign." Clearly regeneration is not a sign. It is the reality. We can differ over whether baptism or the Lord's Supper is the New Covenant "sign," or if there is a sign at all. But saying regeneration is a sign does not make sense.
I agree. I believe baptism is a sign of the New Covenant (which just means that it's a visible representation of the promises of the covenant). However, unlike my Presbyterian brothers, I don't believe that means whoever is baptized is a party of the New Covenant. Anyone can put a ring on their finger. That doesn't make them married.
@@brandonadams07 Circumcision was a sign of the covenant of circumcision, but it was also a condition of the covenant itself. Isn't faith the proper analogy, since in the new testament, faith is the condition for the covenant, but it is also the sign to believers that they are in the covenant? Baptism is an assurance for those who already know they are in the covenant. In other words, what sign do Christians see, who haven't been baptised yet?
@@Hez0 You're conflating two different aspects of circumcision. The original comment was about circumcision as a sign, not circumcision as a condition. You are correct that faith a condition of the new covenant (although, that needs to be carefully understood since faith is itself a gift/blessing of the new covenant). But faith is not a sign. As I said above, a sign is a visible representation of the promises of a covenant. It is something sensory (taste, see, touch, etc). You are using "sign" in a different sense (i.e. "an indicator").
(I'm over my head in this conversation but I wanted to add my two cents!) Ephesians 1:13 says when you heard and believed the Gospel, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit. That is regeneration and it is invisible, therefore it is a seal. And, Titus 3:5 says we're not saved by righteous works, e.g. baptism. My Quaker friends and family would look to the Fruits of the Spirit as confirmation of their salvation. Also, acts of service are very important to that faith. Does baptism confer and extra measure of grace as pedobaptists believe? My baptism at 9 was special in that I felt a connection with my beloved church family, but I have seen God's grace in many areas of my life.
The frustration is that this conversation goes in circles because each of you have a different definition of what it means to be in the covenant. If you can't come to agreement on definitions, then you go around in circles. It's a good listen for sure. I just wish it was focused on proving what the new covenant is according to the Bible.
That's because presby comes from a position of tradition that forms theology and credo from a position of theology that forms tradition. Essentially they both have a different definition of covenant. Pascal Denault does a really good job of explaining this.
15:09 - 16:17 How is this not tending towards biblicism? "Triune" is not mentioned in the scriptures; but we are happy to anathematize someone who does not believe in the triune God. 21:28 To both brothers: What about Scopus Scripturae, the scope of the scriptures? Does all scripture have Christ as its focus, or only some (i.e., those explicitly mentioned by Jesus or the apostles)? Was Jesus doing damage to the scriptures in Luke 24:27? Why can't we use the same hermeneutics that the apostles used and even Christ Himself to see types in the text that aren't explicitly mentioned? What happened to _"by good and necessary consequence"_ or _"necessarily contained in"?_
I wish my fellow Presbyterian would have let the Baptist finish his points and stop interrupting, I don’t feel like I understood his points because the Presby kept jumping in.
We baptize upon profession of faith so that believers can outwardly identify themselves with the covenant of grace . We do not intentionally baptize anyone who does not intentionally, personally identify themselves with the people of God and his covenant.
Your doctrine baptizes all the children of believing parents in their the flesh. I will not baptize anyone that does not claim to be “the seed of Abraham in Isaac”. Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Amen I believe baptizing babies robs them of that beautiful right of passage as a believer in a believing family to come forward publicly and say I believe I want Christ for my self I profess that I have been baptized into Christ and am now professing faith in Christ I’m not ashamed of the gospel
I’m reformed Baptist now leaning Presbyterian. I want to be gracious to my Baptist brother and this may be too far into trying to discern the brothers motive but it felt like when he was backed into a corner he resorted to finding common ground and being gracious to the other side without defending his point. As someone who is desperately trying to find reasons to hold to Baptist theology because it feels painful to switch, I’m not sure I got the direct answer I was looking for. Both brothers tried to hard to be overly gracious to each other which I love but it should be assumed. Let the sparks fly come what may lol.
@@mkbr1992 I hate expressing this because I’m not convinced of either and feel off about expressing my doubts and cause my brother to stumble. I have doubts about baptizing a 6,7,8 year old on a profession of faith. We don’t trust children under any other circumstance with decisions far less important. Why Baptists always discuss baptism or the negation of infant baptism but NEVER EVER discuss how God relates to our children. These two were my biggest questions throughout my baptistic upbringing and it wasn’t until I was 30 that I realize Presbyterians have a historical and reformed tradition of infant baptism.
@samueljimenez7420 You don't trust a 6-8 year old to come to faith in Jesus, but you trust an infant is regenerated upon no profession, believing, or repentance? I don't see the logic. The Presbyterians do indeed have a tradition of infant baptism. Is it a Biblical tradition?
@@mkbr1992 graciously brother, one other reason I doubt credobaptist theology is because they repeatedly say things that are factually incorrect about the paedobaptist view like you have said. I don’t know of any Presby who says they baptized an infant believing they are regenerate. I repeatedly see Prebys represent our view well and Baptists say the weirdest things about what Presbyterians believe.
As the Baptist fellow in the video, can you point me to a spot where I misrepresented the other side? I’d be glad to hear it. By design this was a less formal discussion. The intention was to show with the debate that happened the night before that we can allow sparks to fly, and then with the discussion the next day (this video) to be a little less sparky and just have a conversation rather than a debate.
The proper subjects of circumcision are identified in Genesis 17:9 as “you (Abraham) and your seed after you, for the generations to come.” “the seed ” in view here are the inter-generational descendants of Abraham that would comprise the nation of Israel. It was not the spiritual or covenantal status of the mother and/or father of an infant Israelite boy, in itself, that established their right to circumcision, but rather their identification as the “offspring” of Abraham. This raises the question: if the basis for infant baptism is infant circumcision, and infant circumcision was practiced intergenerationally, should not infant baptism be practiced intergenerationally as well? If the argument for baptizing infants arises from continuity with circumcision, why not baptize grandchildren (and great grandchildren, etc.) of believers?
Actually, The NT corrects that view in Gal3 and in Rom 4. The children of Abraham are those of the faith of Abraham, circumcised or not. Thus the promise is for those of faith. And the seed is Christ. And those those of that seed are those who are of faith in Christ. The OT sacrifices were only for those Israelis who had repentance.
@mrhartley85 correct because in the OT circumcision was not based on if an Israelite had believing parents it was based on the fact that they were offspring of Abraham. In the presbyterian view to get from “you and your seed after you for the generations to come” to “those who believe and their children” is not the continuation of an established practice. It is a movement, a development, a change.
Jesus says that the Covenant is a covenant in his blood . How would the Presbyterian explain that in any other way ? We are in Christ or in Adam , right ?
In Heb. 10:29, how does one “trample underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified”? It’s either the New Covenant includes unbelievers or salvation can be lost right?
@@erikodandan4256 The book of Hebrews reads like a sermon . Within that sermon there are warning passages that encourage us to persevere in the faith . Also the passage could very well be speaking of Jesus being the one who is sanctified but if not , the passage would not be a prescriptive of how a person is saved but rather descriptive of what it would look like to turn from Christ. Look to vs 39 for what I’m seeking to explain. Also read Romans 5:1
I thought this convo was super charitable and super helpful. It also helped me see how Baptists can't be consistent with their covenant theology no matter how hard they try. Thanks Zach for helping me cross over to the dark side 😀
@@bigtobacco1098hi brother, not sure what your point is here. If you’re listening to the video, the Presbyterian is making the point about things needing to be expressly changed in order to do things differently than the OC. That’s the context of my comment
Good and necessary inference...Acts 2:38... OIKOS covenant baptism was the standard for all new testament baptisms... As well, we do see the early church meeting on the first day of the week in Acts also...
There is no evidence that circumcision was administered on a "genealogical principle." Genesis 17:13,27 shows that circumcision was administered on the basis of a federal principle, which is the principle that whenever a man or woman comes to faith in God, all who come under their federal authority are to be given the sign of the covenant. Was Uriah the Hittite circumcised on the basis of being descended from Abraham? That's a very strange name for a good Jewish boy! This very same federal principle is continued explicitly in the New covenant with the household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 34; 1 Cor. 1:16). Whether there were infants or not is completely irrelevent. With the federal principle being eatablished in the New covenant, I think that this argument is conclusive because children are under the federal authority of the head of household. As for the question, "Why not baptize grandchildren?" I would say that that is a misunderstanding of the Abrahamic covenant. The head of household needed to believe in God in order for his household to be circumcised; in fact, there is evidence that if the parents were unfaithful to God's covenant, their children could not receive the sign of the covenant (Num. 14; Josh. 5). If circumcision was mandated for male children regardless of the spiritual condition of their parents, then the faithful leaders of Israel seriously screwed up! But I highly doubt that Moses, Who almost lost his life on account of his failing to circumcise his son, would have failed to have administered the aign of circumcision again. Baptists may object by saying that the children of unbelievers were circumcised after that point; that only proves one thing... people are sinful. Their actions were a complete lack of church discipline.
Can I ask yall something? Why is it that the inclusion into the covinent community must be marked by baptism? We can affirm that our children are in the covenant community (visible church) by association to the Christian father or mother? They go to church, they hear the Gospel, but even the westminster wont let them take comunion tell they profess faith, why is that? If we are told that baptism is a representation of or union with Christ through, death and resurrection and the forgiveness of sins and we know that those realities are only true once a person is regenerate through faith. Then how could we administer that sign to someone who is not displaying signs of regeneration and fruits? Only through faith are they in the invisible church. We can use the vine and apostasy all the same as our Presbyterian brothers, while waiting to administer the sign and also refusing to anabaptise. It's clear we as baptist need to refine our position and we can do that and still stick to our convictions on baptism.
[Mar 16:16 NKJV] 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Baptism is meant for those who believe in Christ. While we never know for certain if an individual seeking baptism is truly born again. Their confession of faith is sufficient evidence for baptism. An infant cannot make such a confession. There is therefore no biblical warrant to baptize an infant.
You can only either be paedobaptist/paedocommunionist OR credobaptist/credocommunionist and be consistent in the relationship between the sacraments. To all my Presby brethren who still are trying to be half paedos, let's be consistent brothers. Baptism is a ticket to the Lord's Supper. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.
What you’re not taking into account is God’s warning about partaking of the Lord’s Supper unworthily. The reason for the inconsistency is rooted in the command of God. If we allowed credocommunion for the sake of consistency, we would be violating the word of God. No such warning exists for baptism.
@@manualboyca Your argument only works if you try to read the second half of 1 Corinthians 11 as if neither ch. 10 nor the first half of ch. 11 lead into it. Paul's argument concerning the Lord's Supper begins at 1 Corinthians 10:1, not 11:17.
@@boughtdeadbyChrist I disagree. Paul’s main point in chapter 10 is not the Lord’s Supper, though he mentions it in speaking against idolatry and food sacrificed to idols. He’s addressing a list of concerns. In chapter 11 he leaves idolatry to talk about head coverings, and then he talks about their behavior at the Lord’s Supper.
So one says baptism is the sign of the new covenant and one says regeneration is the sign of the new covenant. I believe Zach is his name, then presses and says well that’s not a sign. But I’m already confused haha😅 (I did watch the debate first.) Is it accurate to say: A regenerative heart is the sign of the new covenant. Baptism is a sign of a regenerative heart. Baptism is a piece evidence that a believer is obeying a command given by Christ and only a regenerative heart is one who obeys. Along with other evidences, namely the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Am I on the right track or just no?
False Presbyterian Hermeneutical premise: There needs to be a one to one replacement of the old covenant with the new. True premise: You have heard it said…
30:08 So all of Israel are of spiritual Israel, contrary to Romans 9? Either you make a distinction in the covenants, or you're going to call _all_ covenants ecclesial covenants. What are you going to do with the Noahic covenant, the common kingdom covenant? Are you going to say that it's also a covenant directed to the ecclesia only? And you can't have your cake and it eat too by saying that these all typologically point to the one covenant of grace. Either you make a distinction in the covenants, or you're going to call _all_ covenants, ecclesial covenants. - 36:54 Yes, and Christ was cut off on our behalf. Jer 31:32 says that the new covenant can't be broken, unlike the old covenant. You are conflating being _"cut off"_ in the old testament, with someone leaving the _"covenant community"_ in the new testament. Therefore you are conflating the two covenants, when they are distinct in this very sense, as Jeremiah says. They left the covenant community, because they were never of the covenant community; if they _were_ in the new covenant, then they would have remained (1 Joh 2:19).
If you are kicked out of the visible community than that is proof that you are not actually in that community right ? 1 John 2:19 [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
It shows that the one excommunicated is outside of the historical/visible church, but it doesn’t mean that the excommunicated is out of the eschatological/invisible church since the purpose of excommunication is repentance and restoration to fellowship in the historical/visible church.
You both may agree that you “are the Israel of God” but that does not make it so. Galatians 4: 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But we the elect are the spiritual child of promise. The Israel that will all be saved will be first born to us with the name of Jacob. I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Ultimately, if the Presbyterian model of Covenant Theology is true then there is no room for the basic points of Reformed Theology. Their high sacramentology results in a low soteriology. This is why many of them have become Catholics over the past few decades.
“Know” in the certainty sense. Nobody has infallible knowledge of who’s elect. Nobody can have epistemological certainty of who is elect, including ourselves. Both these men know that they are saved. They are “working out their salvation with fear and trembling.” Your comment is misleading for those who don’t know the context of his statement.
@@shanelyons9966 Right, again, they cannot know. Your statement is misleading because you are doing mental gymnastics in order to dismiss what is plainly being said.
@@jennyjohnson1930 Scripture clearly teaches that we as humans cannot distinguish between the visible and invisible church. This is the sense in which the Presbyterian was speaking in the video. Not that he or we as Christians can’t know that we are saved. We don’t have God’s future knowledge of our salvation, but we have assurance of our salvation.
The Presbyterian would make a distinction between the internal substance of the covenant of grace and its external administration which would include infants. But I don’t see him actively bringing that argument here . If he did bring the argument the Baptist would quickly point out that that is an indefensible position, one that is imposed on the scriptures.
Here is the link for the Debate! ruclips.net/video/RavcfPHonJA/видео.html
This very video opened the door for me to start my journey towards becoming convinced of the infant Baptist position- I watched the debate first & actually wasn’t much a fan of it , it became clear very quickly the two were talking past each other , meaning different things by the same words - but I absolutely loved this video. Them taking time to define terms was a game changer-
When the presby said “we keep continuity unless the New Testament changes something from the old” was the thing that did it for me - I’ve been 1689 for the past 10 years. But never really did a deep dive into Cov theology & the sacraments. I dove into Sam Renihans mystery of Christ , but it was Calvin’s ch on Cov theology in the institutes that helped me see continuity & then you just start seeing more Grace, more Gospel & more Christ in the OT. You start seeing how God relates to people in the OT through Covenant framework & it’s true that we really need the New Testament to tell us we don’t do Covenant that way anymore in order to have true justification to change it - John Owens breakdown of hermeneutics is especially convincing along these lines - you can find that in his Vol 16. Addressing infant baptism , although his Cov theology was a little different than Calvin’s -
Another great resource for those doing a deep dive into this topic is Herman Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics - I love how he incorporates a lot of Church History into his explanations on Doctrines, he’ll show you how the doctrine has progressed over time & gives all the other views.
It definitely comes down to hermeneutics-
We need more videos like these by guys just taking time to define terms in a gracious way - breaking down barriers! 🙏🤙😊
Brothers, thanks to both of you for this debate. It was very beneficial. I grew up with a credobaptist mindset but have since entirely switched to being an advocate for pedobaptism. After crossing that bridge, so many doors have been opened between the Old Testament and the New. Continuity is a big deal, and Presbyterianism provides the best avenue to this.
The amount of interruptions were difficult for me to listen to.
Great conversation none the less brothers. Thanks
This was so so amazing and thought provoking. Love you brothers!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, but the Baptist brother is not making a good case that regeneration is a "sign." Clearly regeneration is not a sign. It is the reality. We can differ over whether baptism or the Lord's Supper is the New Covenant "sign," or if there is a sign at all. But saying regeneration is a sign does not make sense.
I agree. I believe baptism is a sign of the New Covenant (which just means that it's a visible representation of the promises of the covenant). However, unlike my Presbyterian brothers, I don't believe that means whoever is baptized is a party of the New Covenant. Anyone can put a ring on their finger. That doesn't make them married.
@@brandonadams07 Circumcision was a sign of the covenant of circumcision, but it was also a condition of the covenant itself. Isn't faith the proper analogy, since in the new testament, faith is the condition for the covenant, but it is also the sign to believers that they are in the covenant? Baptism is an assurance for those who already know they are in the covenant. In other words, what sign do Christians see, who haven't been baptised yet?
@@Hez0 You're conflating two different aspects of circumcision. The original comment was about circumcision as a sign, not circumcision as a condition. You are correct that faith a condition of the new covenant (although, that needs to be carefully understood since faith is itself a gift/blessing of the new covenant). But faith is not a sign. As I said above, a sign is a visible representation of the promises of a covenant. It is something sensory (taste, see, touch, etc). You are using "sign" in a different sense (i.e. "an indicator").
(I'm over my head in this conversation but I wanted to add my two cents!) Ephesians 1:13 says when you heard and believed the Gospel, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit. That is regeneration and it is invisible, therefore it is a seal. And, Titus 3:5 says we're not saved by righteous works, e.g. baptism. My Quaker friends and family would look to the Fruits of the Spirit as confirmation of their salvation. Also, acts of service are very important to that faith.
Does baptism confer and extra measure of grace as pedobaptists believe? My baptism at 9 was special in that I felt a connection with my beloved church family, but I have seen God's grace in many areas of my life.
The frustration is that this conversation goes in circles because each of you have a different definition of what it means to be in the covenant. If you can't come to agreement on definitions, then you go around in circles.
It's a good listen for sure. I just wish it was focused on proving what the new covenant is according to the Bible.
That's because presby comes from a position of tradition that forms theology and credo from a position of theology that forms tradition. Essentially they both have a different definition of covenant. Pascal Denault does a really good job of explaining this.
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
15:09 - 16:17 How is this not tending towards biblicism? "Triune" is not mentioned in the scriptures; but we are happy to anathematize someone who does not believe in the triune God.
21:28 To both brothers: What about Scopus Scripturae, the scope of the scriptures? Does all scripture have Christ as its focus, or only some (i.e., those explicitly mentioned by Jesus or the apostles)? Was Jesus doing damage to the scriptures in Luke 24:27? Why can't we use the same hermeneutics that the apostles used and even Christ Himself to see types in the text that aren't explicitly mentioned? What happened to _"by good and necessary consequence"_ or _"necessarily contained in"?_
That mantle is perfect
I wish my fellow Presbyterian would have let the Baptist finish his points and stop interrupting, I don’t feel like I understood his points because the Presby kept jumping in.
From the description “The line has finally been discovered”,
after hundreds of years these two dudes found the dividing line 😂
We baptize upon profession of faith so that believers can outwardly identify themselves with the covenant of grace .
We do not intentionally baptize anyone who does not intentionally, personally identify themselves with the people of God and his covenant.
Your doctrine baptizes all the children of believing parents in their the flesh.
I will not baptize anyone that does not claim to be “the seed of Abraham in Isaac”.
Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Amen I believe baptizing babies robs them of that beautiful right of passage as a believer in a believing family to come forward publicly and say I believe I want Christ for my self I profess that I have been baptized into Christ and am now professing faith in Christ I’m not ashamed of the gospel
What benefits does a child baptized as an infant have that a child who isn't baptized till they make a profession of faith have?
@@keithm1689 none provided that we are speaking of children who are being influenced by the church .
@@keithm1689 the benefits of being called a Christian and praying Abba Father.
I’m reformed Baptist now leaning Presbyterian. I want to be gracious to my Baptist brother and this may be too far into trying to discern the brothers motive but it felt like when he was backed into a corner he resorted to finding common ground and being gracious to the other side without defending his point. As someone who is desperately trying to find reasons to hold to Baptist theology because it feels painful to switch, I’m not sure I got the direct answer I was looking for. Both brothers tried to hard to be overly gracious to each other which I love but it should be assumed. Let the sparks fly come what may lol.
Why are you leaning Presbyterian? What is it that you feel Baptists can't account for?
@@mkbr1992 I hate expressing this because I’m not convinced of either and feel off about expressing my doubts and cause my brother to stumble. I have doubts about baptizing a 6,7,8 year old on a profession of faith. We don’t trust children under any other circumstance with decisions far less important. Why Baptists always discuss baptism or the negation of infant baptism but NEVER EVER discuss how God relates to our children. These two were my biggest questions throughout my baptistic upbringing and it wasn’t until I was 30 that I realize Presbyterians have a historical and reformed tradition of infant baptism.
@samueljimenez7420 You don't trust a 6-8 year old to come to faith in Jesus, but you trust an infant is regenerated upon no profession, believing, or repentance? I don't see the logic.
The Presbyterians do indeed have a tradition of infant baptism. Is it a Biblical tradition?
@@mkbr1992 graciously brother, one other reason I doubt credobaptist theology is because they repeatedly say things that are factually incorrect about the paedobaptist view like you have said. I don’t know of any Presby who says they baptized an infant believing they are regenerate. I repeatedly see Prebys represent our view well and Baptists say the weirdest things about what Presbyterians believe.
As the Baptist fellow in the video, can you point me to a spot where I misrepresented the other side? I’d be glad to hear it.
By design this was a less formal discussion. The intention was to show with the debate that happened the night before that we can allow sparks to fly, and then with the discussion the next day (this video) to be a little less sparky and just have a conversation rather than a debate.
The proper subjects of circumcision are identified in Genesis 17:9 as “you (Abraham) and your seed after you, for the generations to come.” “the seed ” in view here are the inter-generational descendants of Abraham that would comprise the nation of Israel.
It was not the spiritual or covenantal status of the mother and/or father of an infant Israelite boy, in itself, that established their right to circumcision, but rather their identification as the “offspring” of Abraham. This raises the question: if the basis for infant baptism is infant circumcision, and infant circumcision was practiced intergenerationally, should not infant baptism be practiced intergenerationally as well? If the argument for baptizing infants arises from continuity with circumcision, why not baptize grandchildren (and great grandchildren, etc.) of believers?
You’re asking why grandparents don’t have their grandchildren baptized?
Actually, The NT corrects that view in Gal3 and in Rom 4. The children of Abraham are those of the faith of Abraham, circumcised or not. Thus the promise is for those of faith. And the seed is Christ. And those those of that seed are those who are of faith in Christ. The OT sacrifices were only for those Israelis who had repentance.
@mrhartley85 correct because in the OT circumcision was not based on if an Israelite had believing parents it was based on the fact that they were offspring of Abraham. In the presbyterian view to get from “you and your seed after you for the generations to come” to “those who believe and their children” is not the continuation of an established practice. It is a movement, a development, a change.
@28reynoldsburg I agree but it also had a twofold purpose, one for the immediate context in which it was given and then the typological function
I’ve asked the same question!!
48:40 we are saved by virtue of the new covenant. The new covenant existed in the Old Testament in prominent form only .
Jesus says that the Covenant is a covenant in his blood . How would the Presbyterian explain that in any other way ? We are in Christ or in Adam , right ?
In Heb. 10:29, how does one “trample underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified”? It’s either the New Covenant includes unbelievers or salvation can be lost right?
@@erikodandan4256
The book of Hebrews reads like a sermon . Within that sermon there are warning passages that encourage us to persevere in the faith .
Also the passage could very well be speaking of Jesus being the one who is sanctified but if not , the passage would not be a prescriptive of how a person is saved but rather descriptive of what it would look like to turn from Christ.
Look to vs 39 for what I’m seeking to explain.
Also read Romans 5:1
The visible/invisible distinction
The visible/invisible distinction
Eric's voice sounds just like N. D. Wilson's
Love the John Calvin beard.
According to the Presbyterian view, does a child come into the covenant of Grace at 1) Conception, 2) Birth, 3) Baptism?
They come into the visible covenant at birth
Conception (Ps. 22:10).
I thought this convo was super charitable and super helpful. It also helped me see how Baptists can't be consistent with their covenant theology no matter how hard they try. Thanks Zach for helping me cross over to the dark side 😀
They needed to read the next verse in John 1!
52:45 sabbath - no where is it expressly stated as being changed to first day of the week
Expressly... like TRINITY or CESSATION
@@bigtobacco1098hi brother, not sure what your point is here. If you’re listening to the video, the Presbyterian is making the point about things needing to be expressly changed in order to do things differently than the OC. That’s the context of my comment
Good and necessary inference...Acts 2:38... OIKOS covenant baptism was the standard for all new testament baptisms...
As well, we do see the early church meeting on the first day of the week in Acts also...
There is no evidence that circumcision was administered on a "genealogical principle." Genesis 17:13,27 shows that circumcision was administered on the basis of a federal principle, which is the principle that whenever a man or woman comes to faith in God, all who come under their federal authority are to be given the sign of the covenant. Was Uriah the Hittite circumcised on the basis of being descended from Abraham? That's a very strange name for a good Jewish boy! This very same federal principle is continued explicitly in the New covenant with the household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 34; 1 Cor. 1:16). Whether there were infants or not is completely irrelevent. With the federal principle being eatablished in the New covenant, I think that this argument is conclusive because children are under the federal authority of the head of household.
As for the question, "Why not baptize grandchildren?" I would say that that is a misunderstanding of the Abrahamic covenant. The head of household needed to believe in God in order for his household to be circumcised; in fact, there is evidence that if the parents were unfaithful to God's covenant, their children could not receive the sign of the covenant (Num. 14; Josh. 5). If circumcision was mandated for male children regardless of the spiritual condition of their parents, then the faithful leaders of Israel seriously screwed up! But I highly doubt that Moses, Who almost lost his life on account of his failing to circumcise his son, would have failed to have administered the aign of circumcision again. Baptists may object by saying that the children of unbelievers were circumcised after that point; that only proves one thing... people are sinful. Their actions were a complete lack of church discipline.
Can I ask yall something? Why is it that the inclusion into the covinent community must be marked by baptism? We can affirm that our children are in the covenant community (visible church) by association to the Christian father or mother? They go to church, they hear the Gospel, but even the westminster wont let them take comunion tell they profess faith, why is that? If we are told that baptism is a representation of or union with Christ through, death and resurrection and the forgiveness of sins and we know that those realities are only true once a person is regenerate through faith. Then how could we administer that sign to someone who is not displaying signs of regeneration and fruits? Only through faith are they in the invisible church. We can use the vine and apostasy all the same as our Presbyterian brothers, while waiting to administer the sign and also refusing to anabaptise.
It's clear we as baptist need to refine our position and we can do that and still stick to our convictions on baptism.
[Mar 16:16 NKJV] 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Baptism is meant for those who believe in Christ. While we never know for certain if an individual seeking baptism is truly born again. Their confession of faith is sufficient evidence for baptism. An infant cannot make such a confession. There is therefore no biblical warrant to baptize an infant.
You can only either be paedobaptist/paedocommunionist OR credobaptist/credocommunionist and be consistent in the relationship between the sacraments. To all my Presby brethren who still are trying to be half paedos, let's be consistent brothers. Baptism is a ticket to the Lord's Supper. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.
What you’re not taking into account is God’s warning about partaking of the Lord’s Supper unworthily. The reason for the inconsistency is rooted in the command of God. If we allowed credocommunion for the sake of consistency, we would be violating the word of God.
No such warning exists for baptism.
@@manualboyca Your argument only works if you try to read the second half of 1 Corinthians 11 as if neither ch. 10 nor the first half of ch. 11 lead into it. Paul's argument concerning the Lord's Supper begins at 1 Corinthians 10:1, not 11:17.
@@boughtdeadbyChrist I disagree. Paul’s main point in chapter 10 is not the Lord’s Supper, though he mentions it in speaking against idolatry and food sacrificed to idols. He’s addressing a list of concerns. In chapter 11 he leaves idolatry to talk about head coverings, and then he talks about their behavior at the Lord’s Supper.
I’d like to here the Baptist explain better the difference between the quantitative and qualitative differences between the old and new covenants
So one says baptism is the sign of the new covenant and one says regeneration is the sign of the new covenant. I believe Zach is his name, then presses and says well that’s not a sign.
But I’m already confused haha😅 (I did watch the debate first.)
Is it accurate to say:
A regenerative heart is the sign of the new covenant.
Baptism is a sign of a regenerative heart.
Baptism is a piece evidence that a believer is obeying a command given by Christ and only a regenerative heart is one who obeys. Along with other evidences, namely the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Am I on the right track or just no?
Yes, but we can't always be sure... we don't baptize on those, but on profession, for adults
False Presbyterian Hermeneutical premise: There needs to be a one to one replacement of the old covenant with the new.
True premise: You have heard it said…
30:08 So all of Israel are of spiritual Israel, contrary to Romans 9? Either you make a distinction in the covenants, or you're going to call _all_ covenants ecclesial covenants. What are you going to do with the Noahic covenant, the common kingdom covenant? Are you going to say that it's also a covenant directed to the ecclesia only? And you can't have your cake and it eat too by saying that these all typologically point to the one covenant of grace. Either you make a distinction in the covenants, or you're going to call _all_ covenants, ecclesial covenants.
-
36:54 Yes, and Christ was cut off on our behalf. Jer 31:32 says that the new covenant can't be broken, unlike the old covenant. You are conflating being _"cut off"_ in the old testament, with someone leaving the _"covenant community"_ in the new testament. Therefore you are conflating the two covenants, when they are distinct in this very sense, as Jeremiah says. They left the covenant community, because they were never of the covenant community; if they _were_ in the new covenant, then they would have remained (1 Joh 2:19).
This was ok. It’d be nice if the Presbyterian didn’t interrupt the Reformed Baptist every two seconds 🙄
The utmost important issue is the FINISHED and completed work of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. God WiLL NOT accept any other WAY into heaven
We don't baptize on regeneration, but on profession
If you are kicked out of the visible community than that is proof that you are not actually in that community right ?
1 John 2:19
[19] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
It shows that the one excommunicated is outside of the historical/visible church, but it doesn’t mean that the excommunicated is out of the eschatological/invisible church since the purpose of excommunication is repentance and restoration to fellowship in the historical/visible church.
@@mrhartley85 i think that is a valid point, yes .
And thank you for sharing it .
You both may agree that you “are the Israel of God” but that does not make it so.
Galatians 4: 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But we the elect are the spiritual child of promise.
The Israel that will all be saved will be first born to us with the name of Jacob.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Ultimately, if the Presbyterian model of Covenant Theology is true then there is no room for the basic points of Reformed Theology. Their high sacramentology results in a low soteriology. This is why many of them have become Catholics over the past few decades.
And baptists deny means... use terms like "symbols" and have low sacramental views
The Presbyterian just admitted…he can’t know he’s regenerated.
“Know” in the certainty sense. Nobody has infallible knowledge of who’s elect. Nobody can have epistemological certainty of who is elect, including ourselves. Both these men know that they are saved. They are “working out their salvation with fear and trembling.” Your comment is misleading for those who don’t know the context of his statement.
@@shanelyons9966 Right, again, they cannot know. Your statement is misleading because you are doing mental gymnastics in order to dismiss what is plainly being said.
@@jennyjohnson1930 so you think fallible people can have infallible knowledge of who is saved?
@@shanelyons9966 If it is revealed to us from an infallible source then yes! 🙂 I believe this is revealed in the Bible.
@@jennyjohnson1930 Scripture clearly teaches that we as humans cannot distinguish between the visible and invisible church. This is the sense in which the Presbyterian was speaking in the video. Not that he or we as Christians can’t know that we are saved. We don’t have God’s future knowledge of our salvation, but we have assurance of our salvation.
This is so frustrating to listen to… the Presbyterian is so condescending while simultaneously not understanding anything the Baptist is saying
Opposite
A Presbyterian being condescending to a Reformed Baptist? Wow… I never saw that one coming…
That’s crazy I’m a reformed Baptist myself and all I heard was a kind and civilized brotherly disagreement.
So thankful for these discussions! Reformed Presby has better arguments.
The Presbyterian would make a distinction between the internal substance of the covenant of grace and its external administration which would include infants. But I don’t see him actively bringing that argument here . If he did bring the argument the Baptist would quickly point out that that is an indefensible position, one that is imposed on the scriptures.
mmmh all was good until they start talking about theonomy...
Presby schooling the baptist 😂🤣😉