You argue for infant baptism and for a higher view of baptism than most of your Reformed peers. How do you differ from say, a Lutheran and what do the Lutherans get wrong on this topic in your view?
Id be interested in addressing issues such as could the apparent drop in the sacramental efficacy in USA Presbys be attributed to things such as federal vision and presbys wanting to disassociate completely with that? Or what you believe could be the issue in the drop of Presbyterian conviction over the sacraments, here in AUS doesn’t seem like many hold the strong view of sacraments
Does this mean that the wild pastor's kids are "once saved, always saved"? 16:40 nvm he covered it. Lay person's question: Jesus was baptised, submissive act but one he committed under the command of God
@redeemedzoomer6053 I have been trying to deepen my understanding about the second commandment, what is your opinion on a audio recording where someone speaks “as Jesus” or any person of the trinity? Does this constitute making an image of our Lord since it is a human representation of God? Thanks for your work.
Excellent, video! You are a blessing to the Church, Rev. Don Baker. The Presbyterian pastor we've been waiting for so long to elevate Reformed theology on RUclips. I don't say this to pressure you rs, but just to share my joy. It was very difficult to share our confessional theology with my elders (who unfortunately are lacking), because they wouldn't take it seriously from a RUclipsr like RZ. But now we have a pastor on RUclips who is faithful to our confessions to support us in our attempt to restore confessionality in our Church. Hugs from Brazil
I got a lot of my questions answered in this video, thanks a lot! God bless! I'm from Brazil, by the way, just wanted to show that your work is reaching very far already. 😊
Presbiteriana de Brasília já está reforçando durante a ceia a presença espiritual de Cristo. O meio brasileiro é muito batista/pentecostal, normal imaginar que esse lado seja um pouco mais fraquinho@@pedroguimaraes6094
Thank you for not only teaching but showing that circumcision and baptism are the same sign of the covenant. I pray that God will continue to use and guide you, much love for South Africa
Thank you!!! Going to SOON baptize our baby girl into God’s Covenant People!! So excited! We go to a PCA church & our pastor is going to help us become members first & then our sweet baby girl will be baptized early this next year! 2025 will be beautiful! God bless & happy new year!
@@caleblawson118 Amen! We’re coming up to the first anniversary of my son’s baptism. Now’s the more difficult and absolutely necessary part of discipling them.
Don, I love your channel and you really do have a gift for teaching. I’m speaking as a former (recovering) Baptist: you really need to make an argument against the Baptist interpretation of Jer 31 and Heb 8, that the New Covenant is only with the elect, and that the Abrahamic covenant, likewise, is spiritual and only with the elect. Those, without doubt, were the biggest obstacles to me in accepting Reformed paedobaptism.
Thank you for this video. I was convinced about infant baptism, but after this video I got even a better idea about this topic. I attend to a methodist church here in Chile and we practice infant baptism, but I know some brothers and sisters that are nos convinced, so this info is useful for me to deploy my point better
Thank you for another excellent video. Could you address the objection that Jeremiah 31:34 shows that only believing individuals will be members of the new covenant?
@@samuelortizdelgado4910 Most books that I’ve read are mostly centered on covenant theology with a little of baptism at the end. Covenants Made Simple is one that was written by another minister in the International Presbyterian Church.
Infants are regenerated at baptism. The church has taught baptismal efficacy since the first and second centuries. It forgives sins, regenerates, and saves.
Question: Although I was Infant Baptized, my Parents were and are Unbelievers (a Universalist and a Militant Atheist), it was on the Command of a Believing Grandparent that I was Infant Baptized (by the Methodists, but into Anglicanism/Church of England, Although I myself lean *far* more Presbyterian than I do Anglican, the only Two Bible Believing Churches to so far offer me Fellowship (and Sadly, both are out of Range, one being 105 Miles away and the other being 130 Miles away) are Low/Reformed Anglican, not Presbyterian, although one (the one that is 105 Miles away) does lean *very* Presbyterian indeed, to the Point it actually uses the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith *along* with the 39 Articles 1571, as the Documents are indeed 100% Compatible under Scripture!) and then sent to a Christian School (Church of England, back before it Fully Apostatized, my time in that School was 1989-1997, while the Diocese in question did not apostatize until 2003!) where I was indeed Discipled! My Question is, although I indeed hold to Infant Baptism, because my parents are not part of the Covenant, and the Infant Baptism I was given was on the Command of a Grandparent who was part of the Covenant, does that Infant Baptism still count due to me being set apart by that Believing Grandparent at the Time and added into the Church and now set Fully Apart from the world By Faith in Christ Jesus Granted purely in the Grace of God alone? or is it Invalid due to my Parents having Broken the Covenant (as they were and are Unbelievers) meaning I was not set apart at the Time, meaning I am going to have to go through a Believers Baptism as the Outward Marker of that God Granted Faith in Jesus Christ given through Grace, leading to me now being fully set apart from the world, but still needing a Valid Baptism to be Added into the Church? I am *very* Confused on this, so an Answer would be Helpful. Love and Peace.
Excellent question. Short answer is yes, your baptism is still “valid” because you received the sign and seal in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing else really matters. This channel has another video called “Baptism Saves” that explains the concept well. It’s worth taking the time to chew on. To your question, though, the Westminster Confession has these famous words: “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” It is GOD who makes your baptism valid, and in his own timing according to his own will. It is he who elects you, regenerates you, justifies you, and sanctifies you. It is not your parents, or your minister, or your denomination. God graciously elected you if you are indeed a believer, and he himself baptized you. It sounds like the error (such as it was here) was with the minister who chose to administer the sacrament to you when he knew you weren’t the child of communicant and faithful parents. He shouldn’t have done that (in my judgment, based on what you’ve said here). But, again, the Westminster Confession has wise words on this topic: “The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.”
@@jonathanromaneski2617 Thank you for the Kindly Response, that is a Massive Weight off my mind, God Bless You. I will have to check that Video out! thank you for letting me know! Indeed, it is all of God, to His own Eternal Glory alone, Soli Deo Gloria, it is indeed God who Regenerated me, Justified me, and Sanctified me, it is purely of God alone, for it was indeed God who Elected me before the Foundation of the World in His Mercy, and Baptized me with the Holy Spirit at His chosen Time. Sadly, the Error, for it is an Error, of Baptizing Children on Request, regardless on who the Parents are, they will even Baptize the Children of People who are known to Actively follow false religions if they are Requested to, is Far Far Far too Common among Ministers in the Mainstream English Church, both the CofE and the Methodists (who, at least in England, are considered part of the CofE, although the CofE (and thus the English Methodists) are not Part of the Anglican Communion anymore as they were Booted out by the African Anglican Elders at GAFCON II in 2023) alike, so I am sadly far from the only Child of Parents who are not Communicant nor Faithful who has yet still had the Sacrament given unto us in Error, there are many, many of us in England due to this "Baptism on Request" Policy at the church of England (or, as I call them, "the cult of England" ) as part of its complete falling away from the Christian Faith as Laid out by the Holy Bible and by the 39 Articles of Religion. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 is indeed a most Godly and Wise Document, and a great Guide in manners of the Faith, Subservient to Scripture for Scripture indeed has all Authority until the Final Return of Christ, but fully in Compliance to Scripture, and is a Masterwork of the Christian Faith, I can well see why that Church I seek to Join uses it as well as the 39 Articles 1571 upon which the Westminster Confession is itself mostly Based, for as a Confession, Westminster is the Masterwork! Thank you again for the Kindly Response, and I am sorry for the Late Answer. God's Blessings, Love, and Peace upon You and all Yours.
God gave you the Spirit in baptism. You still have the spirit, and your parents opinions does not affect or change the work that God does in your baptism. The only time a baptism would be considered invalid would be if it was not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
@@charliecampbell6851 Thank you for the kind Response, yes, the Baptism was Trinitarian, so thank you, that is a massive weight off my mind! God's Blessings, Love and Peace unto all you and yours.
Acts 2:39 Objection: The promise is to you and your children, implying a covenant in the flesh. Response: The promise is explicitly limited to "as many as the Lord our God shall call," signifying it applies only to those who are called by God and believe, not to all descendants indiscriminately. 1 Corinthians 7:14 Objection: The unbelieving spouse is sanctified, and the children are holy, implying covenantal holiness. Response: This sanctification refers to the lawful status of the marriage, ensuring children are legitimate (clean in a societal and legal sense). It does not imply spiritual holiness or a covenant of eternal life. Romans 11:16-17 Objection: The root is holy, so the branches are holy, implying covenantal blessings extend through the flesh. Response: Holiness here refers to Abraham’s faith and the covenant of grace. The branches broken off represent those in unbelief, and only those who have faith are grafted into the covenant. It is spiritual, not fleshly. Matthew 19:13-15 Objection: Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom of God," implying covenant inclusion of children. Response: "Of such" refers to those who exhibit childlike qualities of humility and trust, not to children by birthright. The text highlights spiritual character, not a covenant in the flesh. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 Objection: Israel was under the cloud, baptized into Moses, and partook of spiritual food, implying a covenant in the flesh. Response: These were types and figures pointing to Christ. Baptism into Moses symbolized temporal deliverance, not eternal salvation. The covenant is fulfilled in Christ and applies spiritually, not through physical lineage. Objection: A covenant of eternal life runs in the flesh of believers' descendants. Response: The covenant of grace is spiritual, requiring faith and repentance. Fleshly descent does not confer inclusion; only faith in Christ does, as seen in Galatians 3:29 and John 3:5.
Objection: The covenant of works was merely a form of administration for the covenant of grace, not a distinct covenant. The carnal children were only granted outward privileges, not adoption or justification. Answer: This objection is inconsistent with Scripture, which clearly distinguishes between two covenants: - Genesis 17:7, 13 explicitly speaks of a covenant established with Abraham and his seed, not merely an administration. - Hebrews 8:6-13 contrasts the "old covenant" (temporal promises and shadows) with the "new covenant" (eternal and better promises), showing they are distinct. - Hebrews 9 confirms the old covenant was sealed with the blood of bulls, whereas the new covenant is sealed by Christ's blood. The covenant with Abraham's seed was real and distinct, providing temporal blessings, while the covenant of grace is spiritual, based on faith. Thus, it is incorrect to reduce the covenant of works to a mere form of administration of the covenant of grace.
Just watched a video on a believers baptism, now I can watch a video on Infant baptism. I did see the continued talk on the topic when you addressed the best counter argument you received against infant baptism, but I cannot remember what that was so I cannot say the video I saved in omy info's playlist made that same argument or not. The paster did not watch this video, he just happened to upload it within the last 24 hours believe.
He did though talk about how to view one self when understanding the temple convenant. I cannot however, repeat in details though because my memory. It's good to see and understand the different sides because it allows people to at least try to consider others more important than themselves by understanding why other people belive what they do and why.
@@EliArroyo-op7bc I may just make my next video on specifically dealing with Reformed Baptist arguments. Everything else is just low hanging fruit as the Reformed Baptists arguments are the better arguments.
No objections. But would you be able to cover some of the objections that covenantal-type Baptists raise against infant baptism? Particularly the idea that the new covenant is better and contains only the elect?
@@dvd1989 Absolutely. If I avoid those arguments, I’m really just going for low hanging fruit. I plan to address Jeremiah 33 and even the way Galatians speaks of Abraham’s offspring as being Christ and the elect. Those are the more convincing arguments coming the 1689 federalist perspective that I plan to address.
Hebrews 10 makes pretty clear that there are Covenant breakers in the New Covenant. The "better" of the New Covenant does not include that there can no longer be Covenant breakers.
Objection 1 - The new covenant is based on better promises than the old covenant - such as "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts" (Heb. 8:10). How can infants be a part of this covenant family if they show no sign of faith? They can't. While the old covenant includes infants, the newer better covenant is only for those who show faith. Objection 2 - At 17:40 you never finished exegeting the verse. Col. 2:12 tells us that those who are raised with him are the ones who are raised "through faith". This is a spiritual baptism. Again, infants do not have faith. Objection 3 - Acts 2:39, "for you and for your children" means your descendants. The rest of the verse says "and for all who are far off". This is not talking about parents and infants being in the same covenant family, it is saying that everyone who repents (having faith) and then is baptized receives the promises of the covenant (including Gentiles who are far off).
for objection 2, you state "infants do not have faith". For one, what do you do with Luke 1:41, which tells about John leaping in his mother's womb at the approach of Jesus, and Psalm 22:10 (as well as others) which talk about God caring for and guiding people from the moment of their conception. Collectively these verses make a powerful case that God does indeed give infants faith, as he wills. For two, do you therefore believe that all infants who die in childbirth or in their early years prior to a profession of faith? If you say that infants do not have faith, then unless you say that God saves some people by one means (faith) and others by some other means, you must necessarily conclude that all stillborn or aborted infants necessarily go to hell, along with children who die prior to any confession of faith.
@@tategarrett3042 I don't know how Lk. 1:41 proves that infants have faith. It says that the baby leaped and had joy. It says nothing of faith. Psalms surely talks about God caring for infants from conception, but again it doesn't talk about infant faith. Even if these two infants did have faith (John the Baptist and David) how does that prove that all infants have faith? My own thoughts on where dead infants go is based upon God's grace and unconditional election, they go to heaven. It has nothing to do with whether parents had them baptized or not.
@joshuajohansen1210 so you believe that God saves people without giving them faith? Even though the Bible says we are crooked and sinful from the womb? If you deny that he saves people only through faith then you deny Sola Fide and thus are not a Protestant, and if you deny that infants need faith to be saved because you don't think they're sinful then you're denying original sin.
Objection 1 - Heb. 10 makes it clear there are Covenant breakers in the New Covenant. The newness applies to the fact that the administrator (formerly Moses now Christ) is now the effector of the Covenant, not just the herald of it. Objection 3 - that's bad exegesis. After thousands of years of OT worship, standing up in Jerusalem and quoting OT verses to mean something totally new with no explanation whatsoever is a bizarre take. Also if infants are incapable of faith, it seems strange Jesus would tell us they are the example for ours. Also you've just created a way of getting into heaven that bypasses faith entirely and said that everyone possessed that salvation at some point and then lost it. If that is the case, how sad it is that God has let so many poor souls live to adulthood without killing them first.
@@loganpeck5084 precisely. And if infants can't have faith how and why would john leap in his mother's womb? And what confidence could we have of stillborn infants being saved?
@@jonathanj.n.2375 They were, but they rejected the promise making them covenant breakers. Upon their birth, they were God’s people which makes their unbelief to be apostasy.
I highly recommend you watch this, and his other videos, if you'd like to understand where this is found throughout scripture and why not only the Reformed, but many other traditions as well, see it as fully Biblical.
Someone did not watch the video... And do not forget that we don't believe that something needs to be explicitly in the Bible in order to be Biblical. If that was the case, we would not believe in doctrines like the Trinity or Hipostatic Union. But we believe these doctrines, including Infant Baptism, can be deduced from Scripture. According to the First Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith: "VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture". - that what Sola Scripture meant for the reformers , not it radical form defended by the Anabaptist.
@pedroguimaraes6094 Infant baptism can't be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence either. If you're a believer in paedobaptism, you must also believe in paedocommunion, because all the arguments for paedobaptism equally apply to paedocommunion. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent, and nothing exposes a weak argument like inconsistency.
@@c.m.granger6870 ok. Well it shows that I can't baptism is present and supported in the Bible so you might want to modify what you say about it in the future.
25:28 Assuming you agree with translation of acts 16:34 used in video why is adverb πανοικεὶ modyfying ἠγαλλιάσατο instead of πεπιστευκὼς? Grammatically i can see it going either way personally.
Leave all questions or objections in the comments so I can respond in a second video! Thanks for watching!
You argue for infant baptism and for a higher view of baptism than most of your Reformed peers. How do you differ from say, a Lutheran and what do the Lutherans get wrong on this topic in your view?
@ The difference between Reformed and Lutheran baptismal efficacy will be a future video
Id be interested in addressing issues such as could the apparent drop in the sacramental efficacy in USA Presbys be attributed to things such as federal vision and presbys wanting to disassociate completely with that? Or what you believe could be the issue in the drop of Presbyterian conviction over the sacraments, here in AUS doesn’t seem like many hold the strong view of sacraments
Baptists been real silent since this banger dropped
Bro, be a little more loving towards baptists... We're all brothers and sisters despite of all the differences.
I like your videos a lot, btw
Does this mean that the wild pastor's kids are "once saved, always saved"?
16:40 nvm he covered it.
Lay person's question: Jesus was baptised, submissive act but one he committed under the command of God
@@enzogabrielcaldas2796 pretty sure he's just joshing. Specially since the vid came out like 3 hours ago.
@redeemedzoomer6053 I have been trying to deepen my understanding about the second commandment, what is your opinion on a audio recording where someone speaks “as Jesus” or any person of the trinity? Does this constitute making an image of our Lord since it is a human representation of God? Thanks for your work.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Baptists don't search RUclips for paedobaptist arguments.
What a glorious Sacrement The LORD has given His Bride. Few things have brought me comfort like the baptism of my children.
This is the most thorough biblical case I've seen for infant baptism on all of RUclips.
Excellent, video! You are a blessing to the Church, Rev. Don Baker. The Presbyterian pastor we've been waiting for so long to elevate Reformed theology on RUclips. I don't say this to pressure you rs, but just to share my joy. It was very difficult to share our confessional theology with my elders (who unfortunately are lacking), because they wouldn't take it seriously from a RUclipsr like RZ. But now we have a pastor on RUclips who is faithful to our confessions to support us in our attempt to restore confessionality in our Church. Hugs from Brazil
I got a lot of my questions answered in this video, thanks a lot! God bless!
I'm from Brazil, by the way, just wanted to show that your work is reaching very far already. 😊
Precisamos restaurar a confessionalidade na IPB, irmão. A sacramentologia é o elefante na sala.
Presbiteriana de Brasília já está reforçando durante a ceia a presença espiritual de Cristo. O meio brasileiro é muito batista/pentecostal, normal imaginar que esse lado seja um pouco mais fraquinho@@pedroguimaraes6094
Brother, you are an incredible teacher. You are a gift to the Church. May God bless all your efforts. I will definitely be sharing this video! 🕊️
This is the best video I have seen on RUclips about Infant Baptism! Thank you Rev. Don Baker for making this video
Commenting for engagement!! God bless everyone!! ✝️
26:04 has the most convincing point. I was watching as a sceptic of infant baptism
His videos are extremely good. I recommend the other 3 he has too if you're curious.
I LOVE THIS GUY!
Thank you for not only teaching but showing that circumcision and baptism are the same sign of the covenant. I pray that God will continue to use and guide you, much love for South Africa
Bro never misses 💯
Excellent video! May God bless you, Reverend Baker!
Thank you!!! Going to SOON baptize our baby girl into God’s Covenant People!! So excited! We go to a PCA church & our pastor is going to help us become members first & then our sweet baby girl will be baptized early this next year! 2025 will be beautiful! God bless & happy new year!
@@caleblawson118 Amen! We’re coming up to the first anniversary of my son’s baptism. Now’s the more difficult and absolutely necessary part of discipling them.
Don, I love your channel and you really do have a gift for teaching. I’m speaking as a former (recovering) Baptist: you really need to make an argument against the Baptist interpretation of Jer 31 and Heb 8, that the New Covenant is only with the elect, and that the Abrahamic covenant, likewise, is spiritual and only with the elect. Those, without doubt, were the biggest obstacles to me in accepting Reformed paedobaptism.
Thank you for this video. I was convinced about infant baptism, but after this video I got even a better idea about this topic. I attend to a methodist church here in Chile and we practice infant baptism, but I know some brothers and sisters that are nos convinced, so this info is useful for me to deploy my point better
Wonderful video, bringing up points I had not yet considered.
about to baptize my first this sunday !
@@danielgoode6732 Amen! Congratulations!
Thank you for another excellent video. Could you address the objection that Jeremiah 31:34 shows that only believing individuals will be members of the new covenant?
Great video as always!! Could you recommend some books that I could read to learn more on this subject?
@@samuelortizdelgado4910 Most books that I’ve read are mostly centered on covenant theology with a little of baptism at the end. Covenants Made Simple is one that was written by another minister in the International Presbyterian Church.
@ Thank you very much!
Clarifying question from 30:25 - would you say that infants are regenerated at Baptism?
No
@@dinomartinez2665 I just wondering what he thought since baptism points to "regeneration" on the slide.
@@joshuajohansen1210 WCF 28.6 "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered..."
Infants are regenerated at baptism. The church has taught baptismal efficacy since the first and second centuries. It forgives sins, regenerates, and saves.
Question: Although I was Infant Baptized, my Parents were and are Unbelievers (a Universalist and a Militant Atheist), it was on the Command of a Believing Grandparent that I was Infant Baptized (by the Methodists, but into Anglicanism/Church of England, Although I myself lean *far* more Presbyterian than I do Anglican, the only Two Bible Believing Churches to so far offer me Fellowship (and Sadly, both are out of Range, one being 105 Miles away and the other being 130 Miles away) are Low/Reformed Anglican, not Presbyterian, although one (the one that is 105 Miles away) does lean *very* Presbyterian indeed, to the Point it actually uses the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith *along* with the 39 Articles 1571, as the Documents are indeed 100% Compatible under Scripture!) and then sent to a Christian School (Church of England, back before it Fully Apostatized, my time in that School was 1989-1997, while the Diocese in question did not apostatize until 2003!) where I was indeed Discipled! My Question is, although I indeed hold to Infant Baptism, because my parents are not part of the Covenant, and the Infant Baptism I was given was on the Command of a Grandparent who was part of the Covenant, does that Infant Baptism still count due to me being set apart by that Believing Grandparent at the Time and added into the Church and now set Fully Apart from the world By Faith in Christ Jesus Granted purely in the Grace of God alone? or is it Invalid due to my Parents having Broken the Covenant (as they were and are Unbelievers) meaning I was not set apart at the Time, meaning I am going to have to go through a Believers Baptism as the Outward Marker of that God Granted Faith in Jesus Christ given through Grace, leading to me now being fully set apart from the world, but still needing a Valid Baptism to be Added into the Church? I am *very* Confused on this, so an Answer would be Helpful.
Love and Peace.
Excellent question. Short answer is yes, your baptism is still “valid” because you received the sign and seal in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing else really matters.
This channel has another video called “Baptism Saves” that explains the concept well. It’s worth taking the time to chew on. To your question, though, the Westminster Confession has these famous words:
“The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.”
It is GOD who makes your baptism valid, and in his own timing according to his own will. It is he who elects you, regenerates you, justifies you, and sanctifies you. It is not your parents, or your minister, or your denomination. God graciously elected you if you are indeed a believer, and he himself baptized you.
It sounds like the error (such as it was here) was with the minister who chose to administer the sacrament to you when he knew you weren’t the child of communicant and faithful parents. He shouldn’t have done that (in my judgment, based on what you’ve said here). But, again, the Westminster Confession has wise words on this topic: “The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.”
@@jonathanromaneski2617 Thank you for the Kindly Response, that is a Massive Weight off my mind, God Bless You.
I will have to check that Video out! thank you for letting me know!
Indeed, it is all of God, to His own Eternal Glory alone, Soli Deo Gloria, it is indeed God who Regenerated me, Justified me, and Sanctified me, it is purely of God alone, for it was indeed God who Elected me before the Foundation of the World in His Mercy, and Baptized me with the Holy Spirit at His chosen Time.
Sadly, the Error, for it is an Error, of Baptizing Children on Request, regardless on who the Parents are, they will even Baptize the Children of People who are known to Actively follow false religions if they are Requested to, is Far Far Far too Common among Ministers in the Mainstream English Church, both the CofE and the Methodists (who, at least in England, are considered part of the CofE, although the CofE (and thus the English Methodists) are not Part of the Anglican Communion anymore as they were Booted out by the African Anglican Elders at GAFCON II in 2023) alike, so I am sadly far from the only Child of Parents who are not Communicant nor Faithful who has yet still had the Sacrament given unto us in Error, there are many, many of us in England due to this "Baptism on Request" Policy at the church of England (or, as I call them, "the cult of England" ) as part of its complete falling away from the Christian Faith as Laid out by the Holy Bible and by the 39 Articles of Religion.
The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 is indeed a most Godly and Wise Document, and a great Guide in manners of the Faith, Subservient to Scripture for Scripture indeed has all Authority until the Final Return of Christ, but fully in Compliance to Scripture, and is a Masterwork of the Christian Faith, I can well see why that Church I seek to Join uses it as well as the 39 Articles 1571 upon which the Westminster Confession is itself mostly Based, for as a Confession, Westminster is the Masterwork!
Thank you again for the Kindly Response, and I am sorry for the Late Answer.
God's Blessings, Love, and Peace upon You and all Yours.
God gave you the Spirit in baptism. You still have the spirit, and your parents opinions does not affect or change the work that God does in your baptism. The only time a baptism would be considered invalid would be if it was not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
@@charliecampbell6851 Thank you for the kind Response, yes, the Baptism was Trinitarian, so thank you, that is a massive weight off my mind!
God's Blessings, Love and Peace unto all you and yours.
Acts 2:39
Objection: The promise is to you and your children, implying a covenant in the flesh.
Response: The promise is explicitly limited to "as many as the Lord our God shall call," signifying it applies only to those who are called by God and believe, not to all descendants indiscriminately.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Objection: The unbelieving spouse is sanctified, and the children are holy, implying covenantal holiness.
Response: This sanctification refers to the lawful status of the marriage, ensuring children are legitimate (clean in a societal and legal sense). It does not imply spiritual holiness or a covenant of eternal life.
Romans 11:16-17
Objection: The root is holy, so the branches are holy, implying covenantal blessings extend through the flesh.
Response: Holiness here refers to Abraham’s faith and the covenant of grace. The branches broken off represent those in unbelief, and only those who have faith are grafted into the covenant. It is spiritual, not fleshly.
Matthew 19:13-15
Objection: Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom of God," implying covenant inclusion of children.
Response: "Of such" refers to those who exhibit childlike qualities of humility and trust, not to children by birthright. The text highlights spiritual character, not a covenant in the flesh.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Objection: Israel was under the cloud, baptized into Moses, and partook of spiritual food, implying a covenant in the flesh.
Response: These were types and figures pointing to Christ. Baptism into Moses symbolized temporal deliverance, not eternal salvation. The covenant is fulfilled in Christ and applies spiritually, not through physical lineage.
Objection: A covenant of eternal life runs in the flesh of believers' descendants.
Response: The covenant of grace is spiritual, requiring faith and repentance. Fleshly descent does not confer inclusion; only faith in Christ does, as seen in Galatians 3:29 and John 3:5.
Objection: The covenant of works was merely a form of administration for the covenant of grace, not a distinct covenant. The carnal children were only granted outward privileges, not adoption or justification.
Answer: This objection is inconsistent with Scripture, which clearly distinguishes between two covenants:
- Genesis 17:7, 13 explicitly speaks of a covenant established with Abraham and his seed, not merely an administration.
- Hebrews 8:6-13 contrasts the "old covenant" (temporal promises and shadows) with the "new covenant" (eternal and better promises), showing they are distinct.
- Hebrews 9 confirms the old covenant was sealed with the blood of bulls, whereas the new covenant is sealed by Christ's blood.
The covenant with Abraham's seed was real and distinct, providing temporal blessings, while the covenant of grace is spiritual, based on faith. Thus, it is incorrect to reduce the covenant of works to a mere form of administration of the covenant of grace.
Just watched a video on a believers baptism, now I can watch a video on Infant baptism. I did see the continued talk on the topic when you addressed the best counter argument you received against infant baptism, but I cannot remember what that was so I cannot say the video I saved in omy info's playlist made that same argument or not. The paster did not watch this video, he just happened to upload it within the last 24 hours believe.
He did though talk about how to view one self when understanding the temple convenant. I cannot however, repeat in details though because my memory. It's good to see and understand the different sides because it allows people to at least try to consider others more important than themselves by understanding why other people belive what they do and why.
The Pastor even made a reference within mark quoting Jesus allow me to find it, about beleiving and being baptized.
@revdonbaker Yes, please address how reformed Baptists view the new covenant. They argue for a “regenerate church membership.”
@@EliArroyo-op7bc I may just make my next video on specifically dealing with Reformed Baptist arguments. Everything else is just low hanging fruit as the Reformed Baptists arguments are the better arguments.
No objections. But would you be able to cover some of the objections that covenantal-type Baptists raise against infant baptism? Particularly the idea that the new covenant is better and contains only the elect?
@@dvd1989 Absolutely. If I avoid those arguments, I’m really just going for low hanging fruit. I plan to address Jeremiah 33 and even the way Galatians speaks of Abraham’s offspring as being Christ and the elect. Those are the more convincing arguments coming the 1689 federalist perspective that I plan to address.
Great! Those are the toughest objections I've found. Thank you for your work, as always!
Hebrews 10 makes pretty clear that there are Covenant breakers in the New Covenant. The "better" of the New Covenant does not include that there can no longer be Covenant breakers.
Argument against: Then why not Paedocommunion? Excellent vid as always! Thanks Rev Baker 🤙
1 Cor 11:27-32, probably.
Where did you get those slides?
@@gdot9046 I just made them in PowerPoint. I’d send them to you but a lot of them got deleted when editing them. Feel free to screen shot them though
Objection 1 - The new covenant is based on better promises than the old covenant - such as "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts" (Heb. 8:10). How can infants be a part of this covenant family if they show no sign of faith? They can't. While the old covenant includes infants, the newer better covenant is only for those who show faith.
Objection 2 - At 17:40 you never finished exegeting the verse. Col. 2:12 tells us that those who are raised with him are the ones who are raised "through faith". This is a spiritual baptism. Again, infants do not have faith.
Objection 3 - Acts 2:39, "for you and for your children" means your descendants. The rest of the verse says "and for all who are far off". This is not talking about parents and infants being in the same covenant family, it is saying that everyone who repents (having faith) and then is baptized receives the promises of the covenant (including Gentiles who are far off).
for objection 2, you state "infants do not have faith".
For one, what do you do with Luke 1:41, which tells about John leaping in his mother's womb at the approach of Jesus, and Psalm 22:10 (as well as others) which talk about God caring for and guiding people from the moment of their conception. Collectively these verses make a powerful case that God does indeed give infants faith, as he wills.
For two, do you therefore believe that all infants who die in childbirth or in their early years prior to a profession of faith? If you say that infants do not have faith, then unless you say that God saves some people by one means (faith) and others by some other means, you must necessarily conclude that all stillborn or aborted infants necessarily go to hell, along with children who die prior to any confession of faith.
@@tategarrett3042 I don't know how Lk. 1:41 proves that infants have faith. It says that the baby leaped and had joy. It says nothing of faith. Psalms surely talks about God caring for infants from conception, but again it doesn't talk about infant faith. Even if these two infants did have faith (John the Baptist and David) how does that prove that all infants have faith? My own thoughts on where dead infants go is based upon God's grace and unconditional election, they go to heaven. It has nothing to do with whether parents had them baptized or not.
@joshuajohansen1210 so you believe that God saves people without giving them faith? Even though the Bible says we are crooked and sinful from the womb? If you deny that he saves people only through faith then you deny Sola Fide and thus are not a Protestant, and if you deny that infants need faith to be saved because you don't think they're sinful then you're denying original sin.
Objection 1 - Heb. 10 makes it clear there are Covenant breakers in the New Covenant. The newness applies to the fact that the administrator (formerly Moses now Christ) is now the effector of the Covenant, not just the herald of it.
Objection 3 - that's bad exegesis. After thousands of years of OT worship, standing up in Jerusalem and quoting OT verses to mean something totally new with no explanation whatsoever is a bizarre take.
Also if infants are incapable of faith, it seems strange Jesus would tell us they are the example for ours. Also you've just created a way of getting into heaven that bypasses faith entirely and said that everyone possessed that salvation at some point and then lost it. If that is the case, how sad it is that God has let so many poor souls live to adulthood without killing them first.
@@loganpeck5084 precisely. And if infants can't have faith how and why would john leap in his mother's womb? And what confidence could we have of stillborn infants being saved?
Wasn't Ishmael an offspring of Abraham? Wasn't Esau an offspring of Abraham? Yet they're not part of the promise for "you and your children".
@@jonathanj.n.2375 They were, but they rejected the promise making them covenant breakers. Upon their birth, they were God’s people which makes their unbelief to be apostasy.
Infant baptism doesn't exist in the Bible, anywhere. Not in command or direct example.
I highly recommend you watch this, and his other videos, if you'd like to understand where this is found throughout scripture and why not only the Reformed, but many other traditions as well, see it as fully Biblical.
Someone did not watch the video...
And do not forget that we don't believe that something needs to be explicitly in the Bible in order to be Biblical. If that was the case, we would not believe in doctrines like the Trinity or Hipostatic Union. But we believe these doctrines, including Infant Baptism, can be deduced from Scripture.
According to the First Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith: "VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith
and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from Scripture". - that what Sola Scripture meant for the reformers , not it radical form defended by the Anabaptist.
@pedroguimaraes6094 Infant baptism can't be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence either.
If you're a believer in paedobaptism, you must also believe in paedocommunion, because all the arguments for paedobaptism equally apply to paedocommunion. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent, and nothing exposes a weak argument like inconsistency.
@@tategarrett3042 I watched it. It didn't persuade my judgment from Scripture.
@@c.m.granger6870 ok. Well it shows that I can't baptism is present and supported in the Bible so you might want to modify what you say about it in the future.
25:28 Assuming you agree with translation of acts 16:34 used in video why is adverb πανοικεὶ modyfying ἠγαλλιάσατο instead of πεπιστευκὼς? Grammatically i can see it going either way personally.