Baptism Debate: A Paedobaptist Position with R.C. Sproul
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Christians agree that adult converts are to be baptized upon making a profession of faith in Christ. Where we disagree is whether or not the infant children of believers are also to be baptized. In this message, Dr. R.C. Sproul makes a case for the practice of paedobaptism, the view that baptism is to be administered to professing believers and to their infant children.
This is the second of two messages in a debate between Dr. Sproul and Dr. John MacArthur on the biblical meaning and mode of baptism. See the entire debate: • Baptism Debate with R....
I love Mr. R.C. but I'm with Mr. John on this one... that was a good debate. Good insights from both. At the end of the day, we are saved from God, by God, for God alone. By His wounds we are healed! Thank you Jesus!
They’re both great. RC makes a lot of good points. There are references outside of the Bible to paedobaptism, but no condemnation of it within the Bible. I think the honest answer is that nobody looked at this as a defining issue.
Long-live RC! The greatest theologian of our time!
@@danejensen7269 hey just a heads up the dedache, one of the earliest church catechisms teach credobaptism, while church tradition did turn into pedobaptism that was because they thought baptism itself saves.
@@Jondoe_04 The Didache, also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is an early Christian document that outlines various teachings and practices of the early Church. While it does mention baptism, it does not specifically address the issue of infant baptism.
There is some debate among scholars as to whether the early Church practiced infant baptism. Some argue that there is evidence to suggest that infant baptism was practiced as early as the second century, while others maintain that it was not a widespread practice until later.
The Didache emphasizes the importance of baptism, stating that individuals should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, it does not provide specific instructions on who should be baptized or at what age.
Overall, the Didache does not provide a clear answer to the question of infant baptism, and the issue remains a topic of debate among scholars and theologians.
@@hush8009 the didache makes it clear the person must profess Jesus
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
Also if an infant were to fast for today's I'm fairly curtain they would die.
I have been a Reformed Baptist for very long now and here I am looking into Paedobaptism, and reconsidering so much about what I believe.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
.
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool Thank you for the verses, very encouraging, though I didn't see how the last 2 had anything to do with this.
I'm currently exploring becoming a Protestant. More specifically a Reformed Baptist. I was under the impression RC Sproul was a Calvinist? Can a Calvinist adhere to infant Baptism?
@@JustGeorge86RC Sproul was a Presbyterian which is a sect of Christianity that adheres to Calvinism :)
These two men are giants of the "word" and possibly 2 of the best pastors there have ever been. They have taught me a lot and brought me closer to Jesus Christ without a doubt. The Holy Spirit truly has spoken through these men. The combination of great faith and intellectual debate is precious.
I was raised in the Baptist tradition. My children all professed faith at an early age and were baptized soon afterwards, as I was. Doug Wilson is the first person I heard on this subject (recent debate between Wilson and James White - Canon Press) and so my awareness is piqued. R.C. Sproul is so compelling and winsome - how can one not be pulled over by his arguments?! What we are receiving right now from the Reformed perspective is incredibly challenging and edifying!
I agree my friend. I think, coming from a Reformed Church and going against the baptism of infants, I am not happy with parents who are not willing to dedicate themselves to their newborns and the teachings of the Church, with or without water, as a form of a baptism of an infant. However, With or without John MacArthur's or R.C. Sproul's baptism I am really strong on the dedication with or without water as a symbol of dedication, sanctification, or the setting apart of a child to Christ and the Church.
Please be careful with Doug Wilson. There are many ways in which he will mislead and I'm fairly confident Dr, SSproul would agree wh me if he were here today.
@@BrazosEyrieDoug Wilson is a solid brother in Christ. Don’t believe the slander.
How old are your children and are they still in the faith?
(If i may ask)
@@danystana6245 my children range in age from 22 to 31 and are in various places of their journey... from very solid and seeking God to more cynical and hard. My biggest prayer is that they would have a sincere faith and know and love the Lord with their whole heart. I would say they all have a deep-down tenderness, even the ones who aren't walking with the Lord as they should, so I continue to pray. And sometimes I gently remind them of their baptism and the choice they made to follow the Lord. Amy Carmichael said, "It is a safe thing to trust the Lord to fulfill the desires that He creates." 🙏🏻 I have no greater desire than for my children to know and walk with Him.
I love how he describes John in the beginning. JMac really is a blessing.
I agree. I would love for Johnny Mac to debate Dr. Michael Brown on the Continuation of the gifts.
@@ryandawson2877 In my opinion if Dr. Brown got routed by Dr. White, JMac would mop the floor with him.
I listened to both debates and it's a blessing to know that circumcision of the heart saves and Baptism is a sign of redemption and a sign of God's Holy people and a sign of Gods blessings so God's sign of his promises are reiterated to believers and their Children.
That is not automatically true. Good kings had bad children and bad kings good children in the old testament. Circumsision said NOTHING about the spiritual state or outcome of the children. That is one huge step too far and playing god creating false security.
@@heidjemeidje7189 that's my point, according to the Apostle Paul, the sign does not show the state of a person.
Romans 2:28
[28]For [s] no one is a Jew [t] who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Cross-references
[s]: Rom 9:6-8; Gal 6:15
[t]: Rom 2:17
(ESV)
Romans 2:29
[29]But a Jew is one [u] inwardly, and [v] circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. [w] His praise is not from man but from God.
Cross-references
[u]: 1 Pet 3:4
[v]: Deut 10:16; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; Acts 7:51; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11
[w]: 2 Cor 10:18; 1 Thess 2:4; Gal 1:10
(ESV)
To think we're down here still learning, listening to such a great man, who is very much alive, but just in a different place that is far more exquisite than our minds could even fathom. I wonder if he is building a house right now, or singing, or bowing, etc, at this very moment, and how he felt when he saw Christ. Can you imagine?
Brother, I think he is just looking at the face of God without feeling a single desire of doing anything else
@@raphaelaugusto4529 Amen.
From this perspective it is difficult.
@huh what no.
we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
- 2 Corinthians 5:8
A beautiful reflection on a precious man of God.
Beautifully done! I miss RC . So thankful his ministry continues. Soli Deo Gloria!!!
I have listened to both sides of this discussion. I am settling into the Paedobaptist beliefs. I think it is very important to always view both sides of the discussion, to spend quiet time with God, study His word, and pray for clarity in the scriptures. Everyone should do this, and research all they can before making a decision. I’ve seen so many reasons why Credobaptism makes sense, and I understand why people believe it. But I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures do no back that up, and that Credobaptists tend to put God in a box in saying that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. I believe The Holy Spirit is present in the water in baptism and it is not said in any scripture to be a symbol. Knowing the difference between John’s baptisms and Jesus’ baptisms is important. When I hear people say that no infants were baptized in the New Testament, I would say that there are no accounts of someone professing their faith and using a baptism to show others that, using it as an outward and symbolic profession. I think both sides have reason to believe what they do. And I think it’s important to remember to act how Christ would act and have love and compassion for others who might not believe the same as you. At the end of the day, we choose to believe in God and will all have faults in our interpretation of scripture. Our sinful, human minds will never be able to fully understand or interpret it. Thanks for reading, God bless! :)
I couldn't agree more. I was baptized as an infant and 2 years ago was baptized in the Holy Spirit. This after 60 years of life with the last 30 making God a part of my life. I can only go by my experience but this happened after I put God as my number one love in my life. I have a 29 year old son that I loved more than anything. After a falling out I felt alone. But I wasn't. God got me through and I realized that real love has to come through the Father. By putting God in His rightful position the miracle of the Holy Spirit came to me. I fall deeper in love with my triune God each day. I feel totally protected by the Passion of Christ on the cross. Thank you Jesus, my King of kings, Lord of lords!
The Holy Spirit present in the water is Roman Catholic theology
In “the end” we don’t choose! God does
I was baptized as a baby and I had my son baptized as a baby... I am still indecisive on the subject but this makes me feel better thank you
To God be the Glory, but, if you're indecisive, you should watch the video of John, and you'll have a good position... You have to meditate about that a lot ❤️
Infant baptism is true don't worry
It's a Blessing your children recieved a sign of God's promise and are part of his Covenant
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 amen
In Who's name are we all baptized....
If infant baptism is a sign of the new covenant, how come NO ONE in the NT practised it, preached it or referred it to old testament covenant of circumcision. The new testament covenant is in the blood of Jesus and the circumcision of the heart.
Whole households were baptized in the New Testament just like in the Old.
Col 2:11-12
@@edeancozzens3833 whole households were baptised in the OT? Lol they weren't all circumcised either. And guess what, the whole household wasn't saved simply because 1 man believed
Lol Romans?
People accept infant baptism as a form of dedication. And I’m sure the Lord will award it to them according to their faith. But the danger is in thinking infant baptism is the literal baptism. Scripture says REPENT and be baptized. What exactly is a baby repenting of at 4 months old? When they aren’t even sin conscious? When they can’t even identify with the death and resurrection? People must be very careful what they promote because they will be called to account for misleading the church.
the paedo argument seems more biblical, but if we only understand the covenant as merely regarding salvation, and not including our families, as the sign of the covenant clearly points to, then the credobaptist argument makes sense. but clearly the fact that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his household, shows that the sign of the covenant (if not the covenant explicitly) absolutely belongs to the entire household. the sign of the covenant is not the covenant itself. who are we to say who God should include in the sign of the covenant? the apostles told the new converts to baptize their household. it doesn't get much clearer than that
It's a sign of faith for the parents but not for the child. It was not Ishmael's or Isaac's faith but Abraham's as to why they were circumcised. Isaac's faith was shown in the circumcising of Jacob and Esau. It was their looking forward to the Child of Promise born from the seed of Eve who would crush the head of the serpent. We no longer look for Christ to come from our children but from heaven.
I side with John on this one but you made a very good point.
@@arreola891 Oh, I should have been more clear in my post. I side with John too in that we should practice believers baptism. Circumcision was a sign of the parent's faith as opposed to the child's faith as they looked for the promised son. Since He has fulfilled that promise, we now we show our faith in baptism rather than circumcising our children as we identify with Christ's crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection.
I had to write a paper for school about this and this was very helpful :)
Sproul makes some great arguments here.
I presume if you're articulate enough, anyone can convince people of ANYTHING! My goodness even "flat earthers" have good arguments but we have to look to scripture and scripture ALONE! We shouldn't be assuming that infant baptism is okay just because the Bible DOESN'T tell us to NOT do it. That's the worst argument ever! Jesus himself gave us a great example and command of what we're to do regarding baptism. And here is man, changing it. OYY!! When will we learn to not change what scripture says??🤦♀️
No he does not, he compares apples with pears and describes them as being the same. Circumsision is not a promise or covenant of redemption. It was Gods way to show the world His plan and ways through a stubborn nation which stood as a metaphor for all of us and was set apart for that specific reason. Hebrews specifically tells us that Circumsision does not safe and even brings us back to the law and away from Christ.
@@heidjemeidje7189circumsision doesn't save and neither does baptism. The Jews had to be circumsiced in obedience to GOD.
Christians had/have to baptized in obedience to GOD
Truthfully, the Bible only really speaks of conversion baptism and not believer baptism. Churches that practice infant baptism also practice baptisms of new believers in Christ.
Historically, during the times of the Bible, if the father received a sacrament, such as baptism, the entire family would as well. Naturally, this would include children AND infants.
It speaks of household baptisms of converts.
and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
- Acts 11:14-18
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
- Acts 16:14-15
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
- Acts 16:31-32
@@joshuatheo1419 1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
@@joshuatheo1419 Did you watch Jmac's portion of this? He goes through each of the households and breaks down what occurred.
@@jamessheffield4173 a baby doesn’t even know his right hand from his left, they can’t desire the Word. The understanding of that verse is to show how that a newborn baby craves the nutrients needful for his body and we should crave the spiritual nutrients of the Word because it is needful and will cause us to grow
@@logangilmore9544 Matt 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
These men of God set a very good example for us Christian, in that relationships are more important than our theological beliefs. These men are very good friends even though their different theological beliefs caused Reformed churches to form two denominations centuries ago. I love RC but I’m with John on this. There is overwhelming scriptural evidence of believers baptism.
I believe RC is right in this. I got my babies baptized and that pushed me to teach them the scriptures believing God to bring them to Himself. He has been faithful
You are right
You are wrong.
That's how I was raised. I was baptized as a baby, grew up in the church but I didn't receive the Holy Spirit until I was 25. Even though I went astray for some time, my parents were always praying for me and always reminding me of God. Always. Until finally the Lord saved me, at 25. Such great faith shown by my parents for years, YEARS. It was a great test of faith for my parents but God is faithful. My parents believed and left everything in God's hands. And God did it. God saved me.
If I ever have children, I will surely baptize them and instruct them in the Lord's way, just as my parents did. Our lives belong to the Lord. Everything does, even our children.
@@leonnakof9034 But how does your testimony stand against someone who wasn’t bought up in church didn’t know that Jesus was the Son of God until age 27, and is indeed a born again believer and follower of Christ and one of His elect?
What does infant baptism have to do with your journey, especially if baptism doesn’t save?
Honest question..
How old are they and are they still in the faith?
(If i may ask)
So true show one person who came from parent of new Testament who were beleivers then i would become a cridobaptist. Early church were all examples of new converts coming to faith. As R.c said he practices believers baptism too as ALL DO!
SPOT ON SERMON!
So why won't he baptize an adult without signs of repentance and a profession of faith but will baptize an infant who can show or do neither?
@@benjaminsteele4640 Idk for the same reason as in Old covenant ? that include entire families ?
R.C is in a different level than John... there was no one in History who denied infant baptism until the reformation.. even Lutherans kept infant baptism.
Do we get truth from history or from scripture?
You do acknowledge that people have held to all kinds of heresies for thousands of years but that doesn’t make it correct.
@@swtor20bingo.
@swtor20 have you had the pleasure of discussing with other evangelist about whether a Christian must repent? So called Free Grace vs Lordship salvation? I quoted Scripture but they still held that a Christian must only believe, regardless that they are not abiding in Christ and carrying their Cross
@@swtor20what a silly false dichotomy. Those are not opposites. Orthodoxy is interpreting Scripture in a way that is faithful to the historical witness of the church. "no creed but the Bible" combined with private interpretation is the basis of every cult that ever existed.
Also it's hardly true that people have held heresies for thousands of years. For starters people generally don't live that long 😂. Heresies arise for short period , and then through God's providence, church councils, creeds, confessions, church discipline, proper teaching, and persecution, etc...they tend to die out for a while. They may reappear again, but my point is that orthodoxy is something that doesn't change, it's what God's people have always believed throughout history. Whereas heterodoxy is much more localized and novel.
So yeah, I'm real suspect of anyone who says, that 1500 years worth of interpretation is all wrong, but ' I have the right interpretation'
@@longllamas I actually would contend with that cult comment at the end. When groups abandon the scriptures and go with tradition and their own ideas is the basis of every cult that has ever existed.
But as for my main comment I did not mean it as a dichotomy, such as choose either history or the Bible. You can have your history that’s all well and good. But when you exalt historical orthodox over plain reading of the Bible you get the pagan mess that is the Catholic Church.
Just because people have held to an idea for a long time does not mean that it’s true… that’s not how we decide truth
I have to admit that R C.Spruol makes a compelling argument for Infant baptism. This gives me much food for thought.
Thank you, RC.
If the New Testament is a better covenant and more inclusive, and thus infants should not be excluded from Baptism, why are they excluded from participating in the Lord's supper? I've always wondered this and am truly seeking an answer.
I don't have an answer to this. I actually have the same question, and am looking for the answer But I know pastor Doug wilson speaks on this. Id look up Doug's stance on this if I was you.
@@Jacki_Morris Thanks!
@@jonathanvickers3881 you're welcome. If you find anything worth sharing, please do. I'd like to learn more
Bc they cannot consent. God doesnt force himself on people. Raise the child well and when he/she grows up they'll say yes to baptism.
And children can participate in the lord's supper, they are innocent.
The Didache never mentions paedobaptism, despite its lengthy portion on baptism. Additionally, the requirements for those being baptized include tasks impossible for infants to perform (prayer, fasting).
When the children of Israel ate the Passover meal and crossed through the waters of baptism, what did they do with the children?
What are you talking about? Lol
Against baptism justification: You can have the sign without the faith but can not have the contents of the sign without faith. There are abudant records of baptism (12 NT references) and circumcision being given to adults upon confession/ joining the covenant people. This is what we agree with.
But should the child of the NT receive the covenant just like the OT. Yet there are differences.
> OT sign focuses on men, but NT focuses on both
>NT labours that the new covenant is better because it includes a radical expansion
> We can't find references to baptism until 3rd century, with not one single complaint. There is no divide or arguments as one would find in theology. Not one single word of practice. Argument from silence, but it is a screaming argument.
Sanctify means to also be set apart, to "be holy as I am holy, and God sanctified a nation for himself", yet not everyone in this sanctification and consecration is saved. The husband sanctifys the wife, meaning the wife is set apart from the ordinary or different situation. The children benefit from this sanctifying, "else the children would be unclean, but now they are holy." The primary reference for unclean is to outside the covenant. This is covenant language, used consistently throughout the Bible.
In the OT, circumcision doesn't convey redemption, it is the sign of redemption. Baptism doesn't zonvwy redemption, it is a sign of cleansing, regeneration, sanctification, of baptised in holy spirit, buried with Christ and raised with Christ. It is a sign of the content of salvation. The sitn does not automatically communicate the reality by the outward sign. But it commubciate the promise of God, that they would recieve the fullness of redemption in the gsopel. The sacrament of baptism is a radical sign of the spoken promise.
I am a Reformed Baptist. I believe in believer's baptism as it is written in the Bible, and I may disagree with Sproul on this, HOWEVER, listen to me, HOWEVER...I must, MUST, MUST say that this man was nothing short of a living LEGEND. And knowing that I will see him in Heaven after the day of Judgement, I am extremely proud and excited.
Wouldn’t it be inconsistent to adhere to the regulative principle and promote infant baptism? Thank you.
I am a catholic convert, and I love RC. I wish he was on our team.
I’m new at this but I’m with John on this one.
Why? I think baptism is an outward sign where a child of God is marked as a member of the community of believers. With this foundation, infants of believing parents would have every right to this sacrament.
Jesus said in Luke 22:20
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. end quote Baptism is never called a covenant
The justification of faith alone was taught by a man in the 1500s. And he changed the scriptures to fit his few which then opened Pandora’s box and we now have each man interpreting the scriptures according to how they see fit and now over 40,999 denominations when JC last words were to be United - one church he founded. I was a protestor for 60 years until I read researched and humbled myself to be open and willing to see the truth no matter where it led me. I cannot thank GOD enough for raising me up from the deadness in protestism
So are you Catholic or Orthodox ?
With all due respect RC, Col 2:11 is not referencing OT circumcision. It’s referencing the NT version of circumcision which has to do with regeneration or conversion
circumcision is the sign of the OC & spiritual circumcision is the sign of the NC
Do a dub into Spanish please, it would be a great blessing!!
Hagan un doblaje al español por favor, sería de mucha bendición!!
I believe and am filled with the Holy Spirit. My husband also is. My children and our grandchildren. Water baptism. My parents were strong believers. My grandparents. Are you telling me John, that they are not in heaven? Will I not be?
Define"filled with the Holy Spirit"
I am one who was Credo only but have come to accept covenant baptism as the correct position.
Would it be offensive to God if one had both done to himself.....just to make sure he did the way God wants?
Is RC saying that baptism is what saves?
Or is it a step in believing Gods promise of salvation through His Son?
maybe watch again
The absence of express forebadence against infant baptism is not the same as the so-called absence of requiring infant baptism.
In Other words, all of scripture clearly displays baptism after a credible profession of faith.
That is a clearly false parallel of absences.
The typology, as well as the clear expression of baptism is after believe in Christ
Also, Acts 8:37 KJV clearly requires faith.
Honestly i think John won but what a beautiful friendship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I love you on both sides.
Our reformed fathers had an easy answer to all this ado about household baptisms: Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism said this.'......while we do not concede the natural meaning of the word (household), the command is to baptize all nations.' John Calvin referred to Col 2:11-12 as the 'death knell passage to all arguments against infant baptism'. To answer John Macarthur's declaration that though he is a spiritual child of Abraham he is not a Jew, the Scripture says 'Therefore, brethren, we are after the manner of Isaac, children of the promise'. (Gal 4:28)
Infant baptism makes no sense and produces nothing but confusion.
Only to the small-minded or spiritually lost. I'm not confused at all and can see it plainly all the way back to Abraham.
Is it hard for you to find a bible to read?
Wouldn't it be useful to find out "for yourself" what Jesus and his apostles said about baptism, mentioned over 50 times?
Have you, personally, ever wanted to understand for yourself why Jesus wanted to be baptized?
If you discovered something about baptism different from what you were taught, would you act on it?
John the Baptist baptism was refered to as the baptism of repentance because the baptism was after repentance.
Haven't finished listening to this, but with regards to circumcising infants analogy, we baptized "infant" believers (born again new believers).
Circumcision was for the physical children/adults of God's old covenant, and baptism is for the spiritual children/adults of God's new covenant (spiritually born again), *those are my personal thoughts on this.* Willing to change sides (to infant baptism side of the debate) as long as it's proven Scripturally to be so. And not here for senseless arguments either, so if that's what you're looking for go somewhere else. God bless
Did you ever finish listening to it?
@@magnumsacramentum Oh, I forgot if I ever did. I think I did, but if I did I would've changed my comment to say that I did (but maybe I forgot to change)? So, I don't know.
What did you think about the video/debate? God bless
Oh, I realize the term I used "infant" believers might be confusing. What I mean is new born-again Christians. Not physical infants.
Hmm- as a Credobaptist, I never heard your point- a great one!!
@@jamesburkhart1658 It just came to me as I was listening to that part. God bless
Although Abraham circumcised Ishmael, he and his descendents did not become part of the Covenant
(Gen 17^20-21;26).
⏺... what doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
Ac 8^36-37
Old gone forever......new covenant our Lord already did this for us ,yes he was circumcised already did it for us the proclaimed the new,not including circumcision. Our Complete in completion has done for us all. The father being the head blessing of his family, not the church. The head of a family carried the blessing for the whole family, the baby......
This came across randomly but I’m more concerned with children and communion. Referencing Passover in the OT
I'm with john macarthur on this
Sproul seems to believe infant baptism is simply different than adult baptism and that adult baptism requires faith and repentance. He seems to believe there is a layer of meaning to baptism that it is a sign of covenant and that adult believers then have parental authority to bring their children into the covenant. Sounds like infant baptism is merely a dedication.
I would have thought that Macarthur’s position on the future of Israel in the millennium as distinct from this church age, would have tended to maintain the idea that circumcision being the sign of the old covenant might be replaced by infant baptism as of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Wheras Sproul is not a premillennialist (I think) but maintains infant Baptism. (I was infant Baptised in the Evangelical C of E but glad to be believer’s baptised at the age of 19 when I found faith, in a Baptist church). if one believes so strongly, as dispensationalists do, that many sections of scripture are addressed exclusively to future ethnic and national Israel then it seems inconsistent to abandon a sign of the covenant for infants.
I agree. although i've been pretty swayed to believe that infant baptism in this case makes total since and isn't heretical or wrong, if I have kids someday (fingers crossed, prayers prayed) I would probably want to do both kinds of baptism. when they're infants and then later on when they make their confession.
RC uses the same type of "Theology By Inference" that is used by John McArthur to contrive a "Pre-Tribulation" rapture.
Neither doctrine is Sola Scriptura.
What Was the Purpose of Water Baptism?
Foe the Jews and their “gospel of the kingdom,” water baptism was a required expression of believing faith.
We see in Luke 7:28-30 those that were baptized with the baptism of John, justified God, and those that chose not to be baptized, rejected the counsel of God.
Luke 7:28-30
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
John’s baptism was a symbolic baptism. God tells us in Hebrews 9:22 that there is no “remission of sins” without the shedding of blood. At this time, Christ’s blood had not yet been shed.
Jesus spoke in Matthew 26:28 about His blood being the blood of the New Testament which is shed for “many” for the “remission of sins.”
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
We see in Acts 2:38 that on Pentecost, Peter preaches repentance and baptism for the “remission of sins.” Christ’s blood had been shed, so “remission of sins” was available for those who by faith obeyed and were baptized.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We see in Mark 16:16 where Jesus speaks of believing faith accompanied by obedience.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
In I Samuel 15:22 we are told “behold to obey is better than sacrifice.” Christ is the Lamb of God. He willingly sacrificed Himself upon the cross. Those under the “gospel of the kingdom” who believed in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, possessed obedient faith and were baptized.
I was baptized as a baby.
Thankful for MacArthur for assuring me that I am 100% certain in my belief Credo baptism is biblical baptism.
Does that mean your baptism as an infant in vain?
Where does it say in the Bible not to Baptism infants. Jesus clearly says 'all people'. The Holy Spirit gives us faith, we do not create faith on our own or save ourselves.
It's less a prohibition against baptizing infants than the fact that a proper understanding of what Baptism is demonstrates that infants lack the capacity to be baptized in accordance with Scripture.
Infants can neither repent, demonstrate faith, nor identify with Christ by the dying to oneself and being raised to newness of life in His resurrection.
By all means dedicate your children to the Lord. But your infant "baptisms" are merely getting the child wet & I think you're missing the significance of the symbol.
I do not see it as a sin to practice it, but I think it is simply a tradition that can obscure the profundity of baptism.
All these attempts to force circumcision into justifying infant baptism is just so much eisegesis. Don't try to make the Word say what it does not say.
The issue is not salvific, nor worth disfellowshipping over.
@@zachbattles9762 You're missing one huge point -- you do not create faith on your own - the Holy Spirit gives you faith - which he can give to an infant as well as an adult. Jesus in the Great Commission said to baptize "all people" .. all people means all people including the infant and adult. Above all Holy Baptism gives forgiveness of sins and makes us children of God -- something we have every day of our life. Why would you forcefully keep God's grace that He promised away from children?
@@johnmarquardt1991 Infants cannot have faith. They do not have the capacity.
Great video
Baptism is the repentant ritual introduced by John the Baptist!
R.C makes one big mistake: the nation of Israel were a physical nation, to show Gods plan and purpose, that was what the circumsision was for, to appoint them that special people in the physical. The new testament church is a physical people who are born again, and by that becoming a spiritual nation. In Christ we don't judge by the flesh but by the spirit. Baptism is not a covenant sign in the sense of a promise, it is a sign of the person who becomes a spiritual child in the household of God and shows that its old life is buried. We don't need baptism for infants to give them the promises of God. Also, if a stranger wanted to become a Jew, he not only was cicumsized but ALSO needed to be baptized, or else the conversion didn't count. R.C puts too much emphasis on circumcision being a sign of being saved, or the promise of redemption, this is simply not true. Many Reformt theologie is very good, but on baptism, Israel and endtimes they think too flat. They spiritualize what should be taken literaly, and take literaly what should be taken spiritual. John McArthur's lecture on this is far better argumented and profiund where R.C Sproul's is far fetched and also immature. Sorry to say, because I do love much of R.C's teaching, as I do John's.
I know this is off topic but does anyone know much about the mennonites? Are they good people with bad theology on secondary issues or are they heretical?
I was homeschooled with Mennonite curriculum. I would lean towards the former, that said, they can be REALLY bad on the secondary issues haha
Google it.
It depends on the sect I believe. I was raised Mennonite (not horse/buggy/dresses/bonnets type) and went to a Mennonite high school & churches. The church has now gone non denominational but lots of Mennonite families attend (again, more modern ones).
I’d stay away from the Church of God Mennonites.
MacArthur's position on so many issues is unscriptural from Dispensationalism, to Lordship Salvation to credobaptism.
Thank you for pointing that out. MacArthurites are a hard-headed bunch of brothers and sisters, slow to research and learn on their own.
Beautiful! I also believe in childbaptism
You didn't listen to John's sermon then?
@@adamcraig1468 read some Calvin
T.U.L.I.P. is the pat-answer and pat-reasoning for ALL these doctrines.
Unfortunately, for the debater, Jesus spent about three years with "grown" men,
demonstrating the purposes of God, and unfolding the Father's heart to them.
As He was empowered by the Spirit at His baptism (what age?) He expected them ALL
to pick up His ministry when He ascended. The RCC and the Reformers missed this point.
Each of them have their own little "pocket-guides" to help them along. Jesus, instead,
promised Another Comforter to dwell with them forever. The Reformed begin to get nervous
when you mention the Book of Acts - especially 2.38-39. They shouldn't! He's there for our
constant reminder and help. Today, we need people of faith to overcome the works of the devil
in our world - for he's quite busy. We receive a "dynamic" connection at baptism - not just
"being saved." We overcome by the Word of God and OUR testimony. Did you hear that?
WE OVERCOME!
Jesus said to the man on the cross next to him "today you will be with me in paradise". (Luke Chapter 23 Verse 43). Had this man been water baptized???
Water baptism happens because someone has been saved. Water baptism doesn't save.
The recent coronation did not make Charles the King. Charles became the King when his mother - Queen Elizabeth the Second - died. The coronation happened because Charles is now the King.
A coronation for William or George would be nonsense as neither of them are King.
"I agree with Calvin that the preferred method of baptism is immersion" at 38:26
regeneration (not baptism) = circumcision. after the water dries there is no sign. also, the NC is NOT like the OC,
RC RIP 🙏🏻
He certainly is Rejoicing In Paradise!!
OIKOS OIKIA οικία οικογένεια . Oikogenia means family in Greek and explicitly includes children
"If the opponent of infant baptism could point to one case of an adult baptism in the New Testament where the person who's being baptized as an adult was the child of Christian parents when that person was an infant, then they would have a relevant case to point to. In fact, that would be all it would take to change me on that " around the 22 minute mark.
This one is simple. We look to the one that we always look to. Jesus Christ.
He was not baptized as a baby.. but as a man. To fulfill all righteousness - to be our example of faith and life.
Jesus should have been baptized as a baby according to Sproul's logic - but He was NOT. He is the Son of the Father - the truest sense of a Christian that exists. His Father was a Christian in the truest sense of the word and theology. Yet - Jesus was baptized not as a baby, not at 13 when He became a man according to Jewish customs, not even at 25... but just like the priests in the Old Testament - at 30.
Jesus was mature when He was baptized.
This is where tradition blinds following the Word of God.
If it was a covenant of redemption why was only for the Jews? They were the only ones told to do it. I do not believe it was a covenant but a sign for a set apart as a nation
Olga Burgos: Any non-Israelite wishing to convert and became identified with the nation-state of Israel was required to be circumsized, along with all the males in their households. The covenant and sign were made with Israel directly, but Israel was commissioned to take this message to the nations and proliferate the Kingdom with it, but they failed, which is why Christ came and fulfilled this duty by bring the offer of salvation freely to all who would believe. Blessings.
Who does any other practice like that? The Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit us baptising our pets but we don't go around baptising them. We go off of what we have in scripture and that is believers were baptized, never infants.
your point falls flat because circumcision was never for animals and both baptism and circumcision are clearly for humans. and also Sproul pulled from scripture and showed the clear connections between infant circumcision and infant baptism as a sign of the covenant.
What part of "And your household" do you not understand?
Baptism is valid for adults that accepting the fact that they are sinners want to be washed forgiven and be born spiritually clean , again in the faith of the promise of salvation. Baby or infants cannot comprehend any of these and is not capable of sinning and in need of forgiveness. The circumcision is not done for the forgiveness of sins and that is why when they become old enough to understand what is the meaning of babyish they are baptized.(eve if they are circumcised).circumcision was done por a body Purificación not for sin elimination. It was a Jewish institution to also distinguish them as the chosen people that believed in God Creator and Savior. Now, in our days we still circumcise the babies for medical and physical benefits not spiritual ones, and we adults are baptized for spiritual ones understanding the important meaning for doing it.
NO, children have always been included in God' covenant community and were given the covenant sign. There is nothing that teaches us Christ changed that. The sign was never an indication of any works from the recipients of the sign, but was the seal of God on them pointing to His faithfulness to fulfill his promises and complete the building, protecting and perfecting of his Church.
@@cigardawg Baptism is not a covenant community it is an individual acceptance of Jesus as Savior, circumcision was a community covenant.
Rev. 22:18
There is a big difference between the old and the covenant. In the old, the people were born in the covenant and whether they believes or not (an many didn't) they had no chose and were circumcised in the tradition of the state religion. The new testament is faith based and faith is a requirement to be baptized. Even when the word all his household is used it says as prerequisite believed on the Lord with all his household.....Here are a few verses to that, nowhere is it said that you can be baptized without believing.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
"In the old, the people were born in the covenant" - yes, and tell me, what *was* that covenant, exactly? Just some arbitrarily chosen ethnic identity? What exactly was the covenant and what was its basis?
I think you completely missed the point to which relation the New Covenant is new. It's new to Moses, and the NT makes that clear, Isaiah makes that clear. But it's not new in relation to Abraham because Abraham was a FAITH COVENANT. The gospel was preached to him, to him was the promise of the spirit given and the sign for that was circumcision.
Now ask yourself if the sign circumcision was the seal for the righteousness Abraham had by faith as Paul in Romans 4,11 says, why did his children get that sign even though the fulfillment what that sign signified was not there in his children yet?
Oof. I love R.C Sproul. But the argument that circumcision is a sign of the Gospel means Paul was lying to the Galatians. He clearly says neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counted for anything. Abraham's true seed was the spiritual seed of faith. Not the physical seed circumcised.
The covenant to Abraham carried both ethnic and salvific elements. The salvific element following from the ethnic marker. So circumcision is a natural ethnic sign, practiced throughout the ANE for separating to priesthood.
But baptism is a sign of a distinct reality. And it goes beyond ethnic markers. The ethnic elements of the Abrahamic Covenant are fulfilled in Christ. The New Covenant is universal, and thus the ethnic markers of Israel have ended.
But this is why I'm 1689 and not Presbyterian. 😁
I wish people would reference the book of Acts and see they were baptized in Jesus name. after repentance of course./
That contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 28, 19-20... in the name of Jesus was just referring to the Apostles baptism authorized by Jesus
Did you hear nothing in this video? We all believe in "Credo" baptism of new adult believer's but after becoming believers, they were commanded to baptize their entire households, with no mention of their repentance being necessary.
@@cigardawg can you give me the reference of the Scripture where they were commanded to baptize the entire household? Thank you in advance.
@@semper_reformanda
Acts 10:48
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
1 Cor 7:14
As RC states, no verse is explicit, for or against, but the implicit case is easy to make. And while he tried mightily to avoid arguing from tradition, I wish he hadn’t because that is a non-biblical self imposed hoop to jump through.
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
1 Cor 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
The early church practiced infant baptism, not because they dreamt it out of thin air. It was sacramental to them and puts the verses above into clear context. They firmly believed it was scriptural and based in apostolic tradition, which is also scriptural.
It wasn’t until the late 1500s, well after the reformation, that infant baptism was looked down upon. Since it took 1500 years to come to this conclusion it can be argued that the opposition to infant baptism is not only wrong, but a newly arrived at tradition of men that flies in the face of the historic understanding of scripture and holy tradition.
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 1a. That is absolutely right: there is no explicit command to baptize babies. The only explicit verses that have to do with baptism are connected to people to whom the Gospel has been preached and who reacted with repentance and faith. So baptism of babies - even if it is mere tradition - is by way of being tradition in no way in line with Christ‘s teaching or the Apostles teaching. Tradition with no backup from Christ and no backup from his Apostles is very dangerous and not to be seen biblical BECAUSE it is tradition. What is it that renders it good tradition? It can be bad tradition also! So who decides infant baptism to be good tradition?
1b. It coule also be true that credobaptism was the rule until bad tradition entered the church until it has been rediscovered and restored years later (no matter how long it took time).
2. Can you show me how Paul taught others how to discern between right and wrong traditions? This is an important question *because Paul foretold that falseness would emerge from men within* the church. So just to be clear: if Paul foretold that false doctrines and traditions would emerge from among those you are viewed as Christians - otherwise it would be impossible for them to do it »unnoticed« (Jude 1,4) and »secretly« (2.Peter 2,1) - how do we discern between right and wrong, holy and unholy, true and false, edifying and destructive? How can I know that?
I love RC. I understand and respect his comparison of baptism and circumcision. As a historian, I also agree that infant baptism was a common practice in the early church (Universal is too strong).
However, I just can't get past the simple fact that baptism of infants is never demonstrated or mentioned. Every baptism described in Scripture is an act engaged in after repentance and a profession of faith. It just doesn't make sense that it would never be mentioned if God required it.
Respect to you, and to all my Baptist brethen (many of whom are my closest friends)! May I humbly submit that, in the entirety of the New Testament, we have something in the region of an entire seven (7) named individuals who are baptised, all of whom are on the mission field consistenting solely of new converts to the faith from either the Jewish people or from Greek paganism. This doesn't strike me as quite the overwhelming tide of evidence my baptist friends perhaps sometimes assume it is, since *both* your tradition and my tradition perform this exact process - the baptising of new converts on the mission field. There is no controversy or disagreement in the baptisms that Scripture explicitly describes, and no side can claim a 'win' or 'lose' here - both are following the Scriptural pattern.
What neither tradition has explicitly laid out in Scripture is what we then do with those newly born members of Christian households. While Baptists point out that there are no 'infant baptisms' in the NT, nor is there a typical modern credo-baptist approach - an individual from a Christian home, having first reached an age of reason (unspecified and disagreed upon among baptists), typically undergoes a lengthy Bible study and church membership course, before presenting a testimony at their church and finally being baptised weeks, months or a year later. None of this is in Scripture, yet it is the Baptist who often assumes their practice to be the norm in the pages of Scripture, when it is silent on such a matter.
In this light, in my opinion, I consider this to blow the doors of the debate open, and suddenly the weight of evidence behind the particular covenantal approach of the infant baptizers carries greater Scriptural warrant to 'fill in the baptism blanks' than the (if I might be so bold as to say so) slightly arbitrary and individual-centric approach to deciding the how and what of Baptism.
@@Mic1904 I would agree with you but for one simple fact. The Bible quite clearly, on multiple occasions provides an order to the steps. First, you must believe and repent; then, you are baptized. I don't think any course is required. I don't believe any presentation of testimony is necessary. I don't believe anything beyond belief and repentance are required for baptism.
How many of those seven are baptized without belief or repentance? I don't think there's a specific age delineation, but the capacity for belief and recognition of the need for repentance are crucial for baptism. What is baptism without repentance? What is baptism without belief? I would argue that baptism without belief is a useless exercise.
Jesus dealt with children on multiple occasions. He never said they should be baptized. He didn't say "bring the baptized children to me." He didn't say "you'd rather have a millstone around your neck and be cast into the sea than harm a baptized little one." If it were important, much less required, wouldn't Jesus have used the opportunity to teach on baptizing young children or infants?
My points are very simple. Jesus never encourages baptism without belief and/or repentance. He interacts with children and never, not once, encourages them to be baptized. If it were such a requirement, even if it were just a suggestion, wouldn't He mention it on one of those occasions?
@@brushylake4606 Appreciate your response - briefly, a quick non-exhaustive response for now, if I may:
"The Bible quite clearly, on multiple occasions provides an order to the steps."
It does - again, in the matter of new converts on the mission field. Again, this is exactly what both our traditions do. No Presbyterian is baptizing an adult pagan into the church without the clear steps of believing, repenting and baptizing. These were the ricipients of this message - new Jewish or pagan converts from outside the New Covenant. What neither you nor I have an explicitly laid out passage for is what then happens within the bounds of those Covenant homes. The Baptist perspective of waiting an arbitrary length of time until offspring proclaim faith is certainly not present. (As a sidenote - one pattern that absolutely is shown is household baptism. It's worth asking, if the NT is the pattern of Baptism, how many full household baptisms you've witnessed as a credo(only)-baptist? For Presbyterians, it's numerous, all the time. For Baptists, it's rarely a Biblical reality that they see in the flesh, yet it happens frequently in the NT they rightly point too for their pattern).
"How many of those seven are baptized without belief or repentance?"
Per both the Baptist and Presbyterian practice, none of those seven named individuals are baptized without belief and repentance. Because they are all new adult converts. Our traditions are doing this exact practice everyday, worldwide, on the mission field.
"I would argue that baptism without belief is a useless exercise."
That's ok, although this, alone, wouldn't be an argument against paedobaptism (I'm not suggesting it is your only argument, obviously). In terms of the salvation of a person's soul, circumcision was also a 'useless' exercise for the unbeliever, if we're to take a very mercenary approach to the matter. There's a sense in which we might say it doesn't matter to the unbelieving Old Covenant Hebrew who is now condemned eternally to hell if part of their flesh was cut off or not as a child. Regardless, it mattered to God, and remained His command, and what matters to God covenantally goes beyond what we deem to be mere formality or whether something is useful or not.
"Jesus dealt with children on multiple occasions. He never said they should be baptized ... He interacts with children and never, not once, encourages them to be baptized ... wouldn't He mention it on one of those occasions?"
Well no, He wouldn't, because Christian baptism was not instituted by Him yet? This is a chronological impossibility. There were no baptized Christians (children or adults) of any variety. Not even Christ Himself was the recipient of Christian baptism at this point in time. No one was.
The Kingdom of God isn't physical Jerusalem. The Heavenly, Spiritual kingdom doesn't require physical circumcision or baptism. Spiritual baptism isn't apparent, so we manifest it symbolically. Children are baptized spiritually and symbolically, but who are children??? - 1Cor3:1
Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
Are you seriously using this to support paedo baptism?
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Matt 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Pastor John covers this doctrine of baptism so well, the paedobaptism position looks like a straw man on fire, looking for water to dunk himself.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith 1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
@@jamessheffield4173
Using a foreshadow to justify your position? The old covenant was merely a foreshadow of a better covenant. Read Hebrews. Pastor John gave the clear position on why infant baptism is not biblical. If you wish to argue, I would encourage you to listen to Pastor John's message. Have a great day.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Ezekiel 18:20
The Old Covenant with Abraham was for all those *in him* , in *genealogy* and by *faith*
*Genealogy* is of the flesh, physical ceremony etc
By *faith* , is individualistic based on conviction and a witness of the spirit !
Not for babies !
The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles by Christ Jesus, so that we could receive the *promised Spirit through faith* .
Galatians 3:14
and *this water symbolizes baptism* that now saves you also--
*not the removal of dirt from the body* but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.
*It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ*
1 Peter 3:21
exactly. The Old Testament has people in a patriarchal society; the males represented the household and exactly why Abraham and his offspring were circumcised. Sprouls, in my opinion, contradicts himself. he ays that circumcision and baptism can be equated (making infant baptism plausible since Isaac was circumcised) but then proceeds with the logic that one must profess faith before getting baptized. Babies cannot do such a thing and it makes no sense. The New Testament is without a doubt more individualistic and thus why faith profession is a requirement to baptism.
@@acropolis4459 👍🏻🙏
Scripture is silent on the subject because it was a given that adults get baptised, not infants.. The KING was circumcised on the eighth day, but not immersed.. The whole premise of baptism is being buried, and rising from death into life through CHRIST... Infants don't know any of that until much later... If you want to fully follow the KING, do what HE did - full immersion...
RC Sproul who I highly respect and now knows the truth better than any of us I believe his missed taught and missed what God's word says. Believers baptism unlike circumcision is explicitly only for those who believe, God does give explicit direction for believers he does not do that for circumcision circumcision is given for all and as he even points out they weren't necessarily believers so to use that transfer of it similar for baptism is not warranted in Scripture.
The general spiritual approach is to dedicate Children to the Lord in Christianity. Now when children have grown up and reaches the age of accountability to understand the scriptures to receive salvation and Baptism with immersion in water is the general accepted spiritual process.
We cannot compare Circumcision and Baptism one is an act of obedience in a covenant to God the other is a testimony of being saved Grace through faith.
R.C goes against his own confessions RPW in 21:1 of the confession.
Nauseating
Question. Maybe this was conveyed in R.C.’s message in an indirect or maybe even direct way, but for those who practice infant baptisms, do the same people who were baptized as babies/infants get a second baptism after they are old enough to repent and have full faith in Jesus? I ask because I did not grow up with the tradition of infant baptisms. I have always practiced MacArthur’s teachings.
No only one baptism. The practice in the Roman Catholic and Anglican church (maybe others but I can’t speak for them) is for those baptised as infants to be catechised (taught the faith) and confirmed by a Bishop, often as a young adult.
Thank you. I’m considering going to a Presbyterian Seminary and that’s a topic I know they believe in. I’m not quite convinced this practice is necessary in the church, but I have a lot to learn still.
@@johnmitchell4357 it’s essentially based on the idea that infant baptism is a consecration and separating out of people for the church, but faith is needed too which is “confirmed” following catechism and the laying on of hands of a bishop as a successor of the apostles.
This is often a confusing thing to Credo Baptists. I grew up SBC so I had to study this deeply. I'm solid paedobaptist now for many reasons. Study historic Covenant theology and it will become clear to you... not the retwizzled CT Baptists have had to create, but the historic position. Dr. R. Scott Clark had a series called I Will be a God to You and your Childrem that is very helpful.
Tradition often blinds us. So many Baptists wrongly believe that Reformed folk are saying baptism saves.... but that is not true. Our children are given the promises in the covenant of grace in baptism..... that they will grow up in the church, be nurtured in the gospel through thr preaching of God's word, observing but not partaking in the holy sacrament of communion, etc. Most of our children are older when the promises of the covenant are realized in their hearts, when they profess saving faith, are examined by our elders for assurance they understamd the faith, to finally becoming communicant mermbers in the church and able to receive communion.
Having lived in both traditions, paedobaptism is beautiful. How I wish as a young mother I could have experienced the comfort of understamding these promises for my children.... that the promises are for you and your children. I absolutely do not regret leaving the baptistic world for reformed theology....not reformed Baptist, but historic, confessional reformed theology. Paedobaptism is a gift from God to his beloved people. Btw, the reformed absolutely believe in adult believers baptism.
@@BrazosEyrie thank you for the detailed response in answering my question. I’m actually a student now of Dr. Clark. I’m enrolled at Westminster and am learning about Covenant Theology so I should have a decent grasp of it all by graduation, Lord willing.
Please don’t anyone ever refer to me as a paedo Baptist or a credo Baptist. Or even a Baptist baptist. Someone who is in fellowship with the anointed one, Jesus the Christ, will be sufficient.
Alright Bapticostal
It's not about our interpretation but what the bible says. In heaven RC Sproul now knows there is only one baptism: believers baptism.
Well, that’s not very gracious.
No offense friend, but we need to reject teachings of men but rely ONLY what the scripture teaches. We need to be like the Bereans, checking and testing out everything. Infant baptism was NEVER taught in the bible. The reformers came out of the pagan catholicism holding the banner of Sola Scriptura but some still adopted its false doctrines and justified it whatever it takes for the sake of their denominations. Let's rebuke one another in love as body of Christ.
@@derekf85 it's not ungracious.
It's arrogant and prideful.
@@vintagewind9390 real bereans know there's not just explicit but also implicit.
Repent of your foolish baptistic pride and believe.
@@joshuatheo1419 I think so too. He clearly didn’t even listen to RC’s sermon, but still had to post something. But hey, it’s the internet.
IMO, JM and RC both make great arguments for Credo and Paedo baptism. I just happen to think RC’s is more convincing.
Circumcision was a sign of the promise of redemption baptism is the sign after the promise has been fulfilled in person's life that's salvation so RC sprouls got it backwards
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
.
.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
The belief that infant baptism is based on scripture is based on an eisegetical approach to studying the scriptures. You need to read something in to it that isn't there. If you read the scripture plainly and base your theology on an exegetical approach there will be no room for debate.
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
- Acts 2:38
The act of Baptism comes AFTER repentance. An infant CANNOT repent. Infant baptism is not Biblical.
Likewise, Matt, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit comes after repentance,
being baptized in Jesus' name, and receiving forgiveness of your sins, right?
(That what it says, in the scripture, when somebody reads it for themselves.)
Reading what Paul wrote in what we now call Romans chapters six through chapter eight - relates.
You skipped verse 39 in acts 2.. "the promise is to you and your children"..
After repentance, your sins are forgiven through baptism... infants have original sin, through baptism that sin is removed and they become part of the body of Christ (1 cor 12, 12)
@@magnumsacramentum No, that is the filthy Papist view. Baptism does not take away sin, it is the sign of the covenant community, but not efficacious for salvation.
That's a false dichotomy, as both situations are held to be Biblical. You should watch the video again.
@@cigardawg at what point is a person forgiven of his sins?
13:58. Abraham repented???? What
Making stuff up as he goes
Come on RC I'm surprised at your logic
Team Credo
Did John the Baptist commit theological malpractice?
At the time John the Baptist was baptizing Jews in the Jordan River the mechanism for the forgiveness of sins involved animal sacrifices under the Mosaic law. The sacrifice of Jesus in atonement for our sins had not yet happened but the time was near.
We read in Mark 1:4 about a new mechanism for the forgiveness of sins, “so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. What are we to say if we believe that the baptisms of John were only symbolic? If the repentance and baptism did not forgive sins then John was a liar! The Jews would have been better to stick with the law God gave Moses! John the Baptist committed theological malpractice!!!
Indeed none of that is true because the baptism did remove sin during the transition period between Mosaic law and The Law of Christ. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). Indeed the mechanism of baptism remains one tool for the forgiveness of sins today. Acts 2:38, Peter 3:21.
I think you may be misunderstanding what the baptism of John was. It was a baptism of repentance. A sign that the one undergoing that baptism was repenting - was returning to the Lord. That certainly points toward forgiveness of sins, but did not in itself forgive - that could only be done through the sacrificial system at the Temple. These baptisms were to wash & make clean ceremonially so that they would be ready to do good works in obedience to God's Law.
The baptism of John never forgave sin & no one at the time thought it did. It simply symbolized the repentance & the turning of the sinner back towards the way of the Lord.
@@zachbattles9762 It’s explicitly says the John was preaching this for the forgiveness of sins.
You’ll have to explain the scripture , not just talk from your own authority. For some reason you do not discuss Mark 1:4. It’s possible you may be committing theological malpractice.
@@LetsgoB You aren't reading it correctly.
The purpose of the baptism is for demonstrating repentance. The goal of the repentance is the forgiveness of sins. It's quite clear in the original Greek.
The baptism itself is simply a symbol of the REPENTANCE not the forgiveness.
The confusion is understandable due to the limitations of English.
So you are saying he was preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins?
@@zachbattles9762 4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
The plain language is clear. You’ll have to explain the Greek-English mistranslation, or simply be dismissed as a false prophet.
You cannot tell me that my baptism didn’t count. I was 8 days old. If you ask me when I converted, I wouldn’t be able to answer that. I have always believed because I was raised since infancy in the church. Children of believers are not the same as the children of the world, the sign of the covenant belongs to them just as much as it belongs to people with deficiencies
Amen
I think you don't quite understand what it means to believe. Not just believing something is true, but believing, trusting, having faith in Christ. That doesn't happen in baptism. It happens when God regenerates the heart- the circumsision made without hands.
It is important for anyone listening to this debate to remember that the ENTIRE church taught infant baptism as long as we have history regarding it. I appreciate RC Sprouls willingness to forego the historical arguments for John’s sake, but it’s worth considering that the universal church practice was infant baptism up until POST reformation. Even Luther, Zwingli and John calvin aggressively defended the practice. So while in debate format, BOTH positions appear to have strength, when you read Christian writings as a whole on the topic the Baptist position is not merely non-existed in Christianity for the first 1500 years but is still held post reformation by a majority of Protestantism
Infant baptism cannot be defended simply by what history has taught, regardless of what the historical church believed. The authority can only come from what God has declared in His Word alone. That is the standard.
@@samzelmer5482 yes! But do you not find it concerning that your beliefs are at odds with the universal church’s opinion OF the teaching of the word of God? It’s not tradition VS scripture, but scripture AS BELIEVED by all the great Saints and martyrs of our faith. These men studied the scriptures (and many knew more honestly and carefully than most likely any of us (including me) within this comment thread, and they died to ensure that faith was passed forward. And to disregard them and their faith is arrogant and dangerous in my opinion.
@@alexanderderus2087 my friend, though a large gathering of early church believers may have endorsed infant baptism, i find no Biblical authority for siding ones beliefs to the majority vote, as the old proverb goes; birds of a fearher flock together. The authority comes down to what is explicitly taught in the Word of God. As far as finding it concerning; no, it does not surprise me that some secondary doctrines didnt forgo the intesnse scrutiny that other doctrines recieved due to the prominant attacks on more important doctrines of that time
Universal church is the catholic church the mother of all harlots, her harlots being the Lutherans, methodists, Presbyterians etc. Catholuc church is NOT a christian church.
You have no Scripture for your statement "the ENTIRE church" unless you are calling catholicism " the ENTIRE church. Please study and rightly divide HIS word.
I come from a baptist tradition. I always thought baptism was an outward showing what God has done inside, but there is no verse that I know of that explicitly states that. I have become more understanding of the paedobaptist position. The believers baptism position is more individually focused and the paedo position is more corporate and covenantal (households).
Scripture clearly shows whole households being baptised as soon as only the father/husband begin to be believe
Children are to young to understand the full gravity of repentance and forgiveness to be baptized. A child canr become a Christian just because the parents are and have been baptized as a family. Each person has to understand exactly what it means. Babies and young children are to young.
1 example. And It says a man and his wife and children. It's doesn't say his babies. It would make sense with the rest of the examples of baptism in Scripture that his children were repentant and chose to be baptized, not forced to do so. That would defeat the purpose.
RC winning me over on second listen.
Me too
Credo is the simpler route. Paedo is the theologically advanced route.