The Reformed View: Water Baptism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2020
- In this video, I will be looking at the Reformed view of Water Baptism. Presbyterians believe baptism is a sacrament (sign + seal) that points towards the benefits of the Gospel.
Love God Notes: amzn.to/377uuKk
Hold Fast commentary on the WCF: amzn.to/3n5IeuB
![XO (Only If You Say Yes) - ENHYPEN エンハイプン 엔하이픈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240712](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wBT1bKKwPTo/mqdefault.jpg)
I used to be a Reformed Baptist and recently came to the Presbyterian convinction about baptism. My newborn baby girl was baptized two months ago. God bless.
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Praise God!
@@SpotterVideo keep on trolling
@@josephdennison4890deep rebuttal
@SpotterVideo you have put this up on multiple videos... how did the church that Jesus started get this wrong ??
I'm a RB but I can finally understand what Presbyterians are saying. God has used you to help in that process. Glory to God and thank you
I'm a baptist and I gave you a thumbs up!
I am a reformed Calvinist. Love your channel. From South Africa. We use the Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis (Belgic Confession). But I also read the Westminster Confession.
Hey pastor Matt. Thanks for this video. I'm a Reformed Baptist and I am still pretty much convinced that the way we understand baptism is much closer to the biblical models and examples but nevertheless, I admire your very thorough and easy to understand explanation on this matter. Glad to have you as a brother and an elder as I've learned so much about the reformed faith through watching your videos. May the Lord continue to bless you, your family, and your ministry!
But that's just it, you don't follow the biblical model on baptism. The early Church understood that baptism could be done on infants, and it also understood baptism washes away sin as taught by the nicene creed and the New Testament. As a matter of fact baptists wouldn't even be considered Christians because they don't hold the nicean creed that we believe one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Just giving you a reality check.
Also, this guy isn't a Church elder. You'd have to have apostolic succession to do that. Someone has to lay hands on you who actually was ordained via the Apostles. This guy didn't have that. He isn't a Church Elder.
.
What "models"??
@@bigtobacco1098 by that, I mean what the Scriptures say about baptism, what it is and how it is administered.
@@renz5520 just FYI, they entombed people back then
@@bigtobacco1098 yup, I know 😄
I am reformed Baptist but have had alot of questions recently about covenantal theology so I very much thank you for laying your convictions out in such a clear and concise way. I do have some objections but you have caused me to think and God bless brother 😊
Very thorough. I've read articles on this in TableTalk and other resources, but your presentation was easier to understand. Thanks 😊
Lol. That was perhaps the most gracious way anyone has ever said, "go fly a kite!"
This was so helpful! My wife and I have been trying to get a better grasp on the Presbyterian view of baptism as we found a local PCA church that we love.
Thank you for this video. I’m in a Christian Reformed Church and really appreciated your logical and thoughtful teaching. You have a new subscriber!
That's the best explanation I ever heard of the sacraments.
I used to doubt the efficacy of water baptism until I studied the early church fathers, and came to the realization that (nearly) all of them held a real regenerative view of water baptism. I also used to disregard infant baptism as obviously wrong, but as I've become more familiar with the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Catholic traditions, I am opening up to the idea.
Most catholics are idolizers and a corupt view of the bible alot of the hell testimoneys i seen which some i think are fake but they all say how god wants catholics to stop praying to marry that she doesnt even hear the prayers and its idolizing same with crosses with jesus on them cause of how thats idolizing the anti christ cause the real christ already rose from death and is no longer dying on the cross
Excellent!
Great explanation with scripture to back it up! It’s so obvious once you see all the scripture related to it!
Excellent. I’ll be visiting you shortly! From Texas
Really great teaching!
Thank you for clarifying this view on a difficult topic. I enjoy hearing others views, even if I disagree 😮😅. May God bless your ministry
I love this...
Thank you!
Great teaching brother!
Thank you for the PDF of your Outline of Reformed Theology.
Good explanation brother. Thanks for sharing 😊
Excellent explanation!
Very good video! Nice and succinct. I used to be a baptist but now attend a PCA church. Another thing I love about the Presbyterian view of baptism is that we shouldn't be baptized multiple times. I have been baptized three times in my life. While I was in baptist churches there was always this notion of if you're lacking assurance of when you were converted, you may need to get baptized again since it didn't count before if you don't think you were saved back then. Such a confusing and unbiblical way to view baptism. I grew up as a Methodist and was baptized in that church before converting to a baptist and being baptized two more times (once to fix the supposedly erroneous Methodist sprinkling baptism, and again because I was lacking assurance of the first baptist baptism) and now I'm a Presbyterian. I never anticipated a day would come where I change my mind about my Methodist baptism fully believing now that it was sufficient and that the baptist baptisms were totally unnecessary. :)
I'm Baptist we practice infant dedication. It doesn't save your infant, it's a covenantal commandment to bring our children in the way's of the Lord. You can't be born a Christian though the likelihood of you becoming a Christian increases exponentially if you're brought up in a family that practices Christianity (You still have to accept Christ as your Savior / You can enter his family with a child like faith I was saved at the age of 5).
You can't be born an Israelite... wait
Two thumbs up from a Baptist
Although I’m coming late to this lesson…as a female, you did to my great relief explain that baptism was extended to include females…Thank you for reassuring me😊
LOL baptism is for everyone, infants, men and women, boys and girls, aunts and uncles. This promise was for you and for your children!
See:
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
Despite believing that the scriptures teach the confessional Lutheran view of the Sacraments, I would never troll a confessional Presbyterian or 39 Articles Anglican for having a Sacramental view of Baptism that is a little bit different from the Augsburg Confession, Luther's Small Catechism, and other Book of Concord statements on Sacraments.
The Reformed view of Sacraments is certainly logical. I believe the confessional Lutheran view is closer to the clear meaning of all the scriptures on Sacraments, including Baptism. I believe true believing Reformed Christians, including Reformed Baptists, are true Christians. I read and listen to Reformed Evangelicals as well as confessional Lutheran Evangelicals.
May God bless you and your family and your ministry.
Honestly, as a Reformed Christian, I have no problem with much of the Book of Concord's stance on the sacraments. I think a confessionaly Reformed Christian could sign off on the unaltered Augsburg confession and Luther's Large/Small catechisms wholeheartedly. Its the Formula of Concord, where Chemnitz and others took issue with the (so called) "Philipists" (later called "Calvinists") that start getting a bit weird and too specific to my taste.
It amuses me, a common Lutheran critique of Reformed Theology is that we say too much and don't properly leave things to mystery. But the sacraments are an area where I think Lutherans say far more and get far more specific than what scripture says. It's the Reformed Confessions and earlier Lutheran Confessions that are restrained enough to speak about what is clear in scripture and leave further details a mystery. At least as I see it.
Lane Tipton had an awesome lecture on this subject. I wish i could find it somewhere bc i dont remember it
A very good explanation of Presbyterian and reformed belief, thank you. Can you tell me, though (if you monitor the comments), does baptism 'do' anything to a person, or is it merely some of these more signifying acts of entrance into the church, into the covenant, etc? Does baptism affect a person or their soul; or does it have any effect on the inherited sin nature? Thanks.
My wife and I just finished up our membership class with an OPC branch and the issue of pedobaptism was the only thing I personally was having trouble accepting 😅 coming from and Ev free church. This was quite helpful indeed! I really wanted to have a better understanding of it so I could defend it with some conviction and knowledge. Thank you!
Hey Matthew. Can you do a video on roles in the Church (Complimentarianism compared to egalitarianism, etc...)
Pastor Matt, I really appreciate you and your teachings. Thank you. I’m a paedobaptist who attends a baptist church. Most of my friends are Baptist and some Pentecostal. Would you believe their children are still considered holy (1 Cor 7:14) and members of the covenant community but just without the sign, or would you believe their infants and children need to be baptized in order to become members of the covenant community?
Could you make these available in podcast form ! Pls !
Pls discuss further about the Lords supper the seal and the sign.what it means?
I neglected to mention, in my last comment that both of my children were baptized in the Presbyterian church, where my mom was the secretary for 13 years. In all that time I had no idea what Presbyterians believed, or what made them different from the Methodist church I had grown up in. I guess they seemed. interchangeable at the time.
Not a hate comment, just an observation; I still love you pastor Matt 😂.
“You can assume that Jesus was immersed but I don’t think there’s enough proof to necessarily follow that” (very rough quote).
Logically therefore, you cannot assume then that there were infants in Lydia and the Phillipian jailor’s house that were baptized.
I don't think anyone is assuming there were infants. The point is that the head of household believed, and because of this the remaining members of the household were baptized. Their ages aren't really the point of the argument.
Ehhhm, what? Please make a video and explain your logic. That'd be great. Thank you
Household.
OIKOS covenant
What happened to confirmation in your church... do you have a sign for anointing in Spirit? In catholic and orthodox church it is seen as a package 3in1 ...1 baptism 2 anointing 3 eucharist
Ligon Duncan also has a video about infant baptism, recorded in a Sunday school class rather than a studio. If you are interested, just look for his name. As he mentions, same as you Matt, there are plenty of instances where baptizo cannot possibly mean immersion. One instance Ligon mentioned is the sacrifice of dove offering. The supplicant takes two doves, kills one and drains the blood. Then baptizes the other bird in the blood of the sacrifice. There is never going to be enough blood from a dove to immerse another dove.
Point 2, I had a friend and roommate who was very dedicated to the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC, whereas I was/am a convinced Reformed PCA congregant. Another very good friend in the house was Episcopalian who was listening. The discussions one day turned to baptism, whereupon my SBC friend allowed that he and the SBC believes baptism ought to be like Jesus did it. I'm like, but John baptized for the washing of sins and repentance. And SBC wpuld say one rises from the water in newness of life. How did that apply to Jesus? As he says, all the law must be fulfilled. The Bible doesn't say Jesus was immersed.
Point 3, In college I was involved in a campus ministry like Campus Crusade. It was/is doctrinally sound and Biblical based. We had annual summer camps ("Beach Project" or "Thai Project" or whatever foreign location your chosen project was). So, I was on Beach Project for two summers. At least one time, some leaders (none of them ordained) were in the swimming pool "baptizing" campers who'd never been baptized. I thought it was odd. Would those baptisms count? I wouldn't think so as they were not done before the congregation, nor as a consequence of any doctrinal examination. For clarification the group was officially non-denominational but it was populated mainly with Soutern Baptists. I had a lot of friends and love to see them even now 40 years later.
@blchamblisscscp8476, "Would those baptisms count? I wouldn't think so as they were not done before the congregation, nor as a consequence of any doctrinal examination."
Please read the Bible first. Acts 8:26-39(36-39 specifically) answers your question. Straight from Scripture. Not from church "fathers" pen, or some man's mouth. Straight from Scripture, means straight from GOD.
As the WCF states that only ordained elders can rightfully administer the sacraments. So, no. They don't count.
Regarding Jesus "coming up out of the water" - another account to consider is the Ethiopian eunuch. We are told that after he was baptized, in Acts 8:39 that "they" came up out of the water, meaning both the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip. So with respect to "coming up out of the water", whatever is true of the Ethiopian eunuch is also true of Philip. Did Philip also baptize himself by immersion? Of course not. The more reasonable interpretation of "coming up out of the water" has to do with the water being physically located at a lower elevation than the surrounding land. And as was mentioned in the video, the phrase doesn't say anything about how much of the person's body was in the water while the baptism took place. It's quite a stretch to use Acts 8 as support for an immersion ONLY view, especially grammatically.
I am still not convinced in the presbyterian view of baptism, but I appreciate your exclamation of it.
Question. When a person is converted and comes to saving faith are they baptized or is the infant baptism all that is administered? Also, if an adult or child who was not baptized as an infant is born again are they then baptized? Just trying to understand. I don’t believe your position is heretical so as a Calvinistic Baptist I give you a thumbs up for helping be to understand your position.
As a layman (so take that with a grain of salt) in the PCA and with experience in other Reformed denominations, I see Baptism as the sign of the covenant made to a household of believers, administered federally based on the faith of the household head. "Infant Baptism" is a term for focusing on one small part of it, but a better term would be Covenant Baptism. Age doesn't play into it, being covenantally in Christ is what matters (I'll talk a bit about this later).
If someone comes to the faith and they have never been baptized, they and all in their house under their authority ought to get baptized, not based on age or a personally expressed faith per se, but on the faith of the believing head. This models the covenant sign as laid out in Gen 17 and as repeated by Peter in Acts 2.
If one who received Baptism as an infant or child walks away from the faith and repents and comes back, they ought not be rebaptized. The promises already given in baptism are showing themselves to be true by their repentance.
Baptists have a difference in what being in Christ covenantally means. Baptists seem to view it as the invisible things only God knows for sure: whether the person saved and all the stuff that goes along with that. They want to only apply the sign to those that show true signs of regeneration.
For us, it is about the visible: do they go to church and participate in fellowship, confession, worship, sing songs, discipleship, discipline, and other visible marks of a Christian? Then they are part of the covenant community and ought to receive the mark of being in the covenant community. We can't know the heart, but we can see what they do. Children imitating their parents in the service even if they don't fully understand what it means, or infants asleep in their parent's arms are perfectly fine expressions of age appropriate Christian behavior. They might not have "faith" as a Baptist sees it (and I would disagree in principle), but they are being discipled in Christian teaching as any believer ought to be.
So we always baptize on the bases of a creed (we are credobaptist in that sense), but that creed can be held by the parents for their young children. Sometimes I hear objections along the lines of "why don't we drag random atheists off the street and baptize them?" They wouldn't be under the headship of a believer.
Totally hear you about disagreeing yet not finding us heretical. Too many act as if one can't disagree yet still embrace those you disagree with as brothers in Christ. I love my Baptists brothers in the faith and have benefitted greatly by their challenges and their excellent example. I disagree with them and find some aspects concerning (I'm sure you could say the same about us), they are true saints of the living God and I will enjoy eternity in fellowship with them.
Thanks for this discussion, as this is something I've been struggling with for the last ~6 years (i.e., since joining my semi-PCA church). I grew up in the Friends church, who don't baptize with water at all, but with largely a Baptist view of baptism--it was an outward sign of an inward change, a public proclamation of your faith in Christ, and thus properly applied only to those who could be considered believers in some meaningful sense. But now I'm in a church where all the ministers are PCA--and all but one of them came from a baptist background.
I'm hearing some things that are strong arguments--baptism as the circumcision of Christ, for example. I'm hearing some things that are weaker, IMO--I don't believe Acts 2:39 has any real relevance to the question, but it's (partially--they never continue the quote past "and your children") quoted every time we baptize a baby. But it seems the direct commands regarding baptism get, well, forgotten. We're told to baptize disciples (Matt. 28:19). In Acts, people are told to "repent and be baptized" or "believe and be baptized," neither of which an infant can do. It just seems like in the desire to establish continuity between the Old Covenant and the New, we're relying too heavily on "good and necessary consequence", while not putting enough weight on what's explicitly said.
I'm Baptist we practice infant dedication. It doesn't save your infant, it's a covenantal commandment to bring our children in the way's of the Lord. You can't be born a Christian though the likelihood of you becoming a Christian increases exponentially if you're brought up in a family that practices Christianity (You still have to accept Christ as your Savior / You can enter his family with a child like faith I was saved at the age of 5).
The early Church had no problem with baptizing infants. This was understood in the early Church and only became issue after the failed protestant reformation of the 16th century.
Everyone was fine with it prior to. That's why we know it's perfectly valid and acceptable practice. Also we have historical witness outside of scripture verifying it's validity.
You can see some of that here:
"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140)
“For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180
@@txdoubletap8509
Baptism does save you, this is what the early Church taught and has always taught, and the Baptist church is a heretical church and false. It should not be telling anybody things like that which contradict 2000yrs or Church teaching on baptism.
If you were to go on an airplane, and fly to visit the oldest churches on the planet and told them baptism doesn't save you, which predate the Baptist church, they would look at you guys like you are lunatics and would be RIGHT to perceive you that way!
We are told to baptize and make disciples teaching them all I have commanded, not baptize after we make disciples or baptize after you have taught all that I have commanded. If our children are not our first priority in making disciples of Christ, what kind of parents are we? The children of our congregations are the most important disciples in our presence as they will be the ones who carry forward the faith of their fathers.
@@eklacik We're told to "make disciples, baptizing them." Baptizing whom? Disciples.
Well done Brother, just two questions; what does a 3 year old think happened when Baptized? Does it Theologically matter (for the child) in your view?
It doesn't theologically matter, because the faith of the parents can substitute for the faith of the child before the age of reason.
@@dman7668 which scriptures support your statement? Thank you
@mkurosh
Well, I don't adhere to scripture alone. I differ this proof to the Apostolic tradition of the Church. However, there is presidence and examples in the Bible where the faith of someone else substituted for an unbeliever. I will provide an example as well as let you see comments where the early Church talked about this. See below for details.
"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn…’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam.” Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408
We learn from Saint Augustine, a bishop and influential one at that in the early Church is apparently completely aware of what I pointed out to you. Validating that this was at the very least Christian understanding on this subject.
And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140)
The belief was also that baptism washes away sins. Original sin is washed away from the child. The faith of the parents substituting here.
And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215
We see yet another example of what I've explained to you here as you can see. This is how the Church functioned.
As far as scriptural references go.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years
@@mkuroshwhat happened at circumcision ??
Please help me, am I understanding you correctly that
"by putting off the body of the flesh,..." refers to Circumcision in the old covenant?
Colossians 2:11 ESV
please Toipc on Sabbathism@ Sabbath day keeping and Tithing
I don't think what you're saying is really Reformed, it sounds like a combination of Reformed and Baptist theology. Sacraments don't merely "point" to the inward realities of salvation. Westminster says sacraments are made up of both the signs AND the things signified. So, in the Reformed view, Baptism refers to both baptism by water AND baptism of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, it is right to say that Baptism saves.
Good morning dear pastor,
I would like to know about the infant baptism clearly. Could you please send me the detailed (with biblical references) soft pdf copy or else other source.
Thank you
In Christ
Dhanapalwilliams
India (Tamilnadu)
I would prefer immersion, not necessarily because the meaning of baptizo, but because Romans 6 connects it to being buried with Christ and being raised with him
They entombed people back then 😮😅
More on this: ruclips.net/video/r3guiVlOTJ0/видео.html #DiveDeepTogether
In the Reformed tradition, must an adult be "born again" before being baptized?
Yes.. I don't know any "unreformed" churches that are different
Wouldn’t it be inconsistent to adhere to the regulative principle and promote infant baptism? Thank you.
I don't see why. The Bible never directly shows an infant being baptized or being refused baptism, so either side would have to make an argument based on what scripture does say. From the Reformed perspective, there is a pretty obvious link between the sign of the covenant being applied both to the believer and their household, including their children, even infants, and also non-blood related servants, even servants from far off places. This household-based system as found in Gen 17 is repeated by Peter in Acts 2, and throughout Acts we see people baptized on the basis of being in the household.
You probably disagree with that and have your own conclusion, but the point is just that it doesn't obviously violate the RPW as the stance we take is explicitly because of scripture, even if some deduction is required.
It might be helpful if you see the 3-hour debate between John MacArthur From Grace Community Church and RC Sproul
Rev. Matt, have you discussed the PCA view of Freemasonry?
My ancestors from Scotland have been Presbyterians for generations and my fathers and grandfathers have been Free Masons for more than 200 years but here in the US it seems that Free Masons are not universally welcomed.
Question:: Is Baptism about a person, of any age, joining Christ and the Church (an act of man) or is about God accepting a person into Christ and the Church (an act of God)? Did I miss an answer in this video?
Appreciate this explanation of the Presbyterian view of baptism. One question to the availability of baptism to children who have not yet believed and baptismal modes other than immersion, what about Romans 6:4 and the meaning of baptism Paul highlight? Namely, that baptism is a picture of dying to self and living in new life. Would this not imply that baptism should only be observed by believers? Also this verse points to being buried with Christ and raised to new life in Christ - wouldn’t immersion better represent that? Not a troll here - really interested in your thought about it.
First question, for adults, yes..
And we raise children in this manner...
Second question... they entombed people back then...
_"Also this verse points to being buried with Christ and raised to new life in Christ - wouldn’t immersion better represent that?"_
Immersion is seen as a valid form of Baptism in Reformed churches.
At the same time, Baptism is presented in terms of Noah's flood by Peter (and I think Romans 6 is making a similar comparison). Noah wasn't immersed at all, he was saved because he only had rain poured on him. And 1 Cor 10 speaks of being baptized by the cloud and the sea, yet we know they crossed the sea on dry land, so at most maybe were sprinkled by mist from the divided sea. We regard all three modes are valid because all three find Biblical backing.
I hugged my wife.
North of Pittsburgh pa? Name of the church ⛪️? My name is David and I’m just getting into the Bible and Jesus... I do not know a lot about the Biggest and most important story, stories, storyline, storytelling..
Can a person baptize themself by themself? If not, why?
In the same way the sacrement of the Lord's supper is not to be done in private. It's a covenant sign. God bless
I respect the graciousness with which you present this. If infants are to be part of the covenant community then why not have parents and the church 'dedicate' themselves to bringing up the child in the nurture and admonition of the church. It is patently obvious that not all children (even of Presbyterian families) come to faith. In this sense baptism really should be based on a conscious decision to follow Christ. The Colossians 2:11 represents a great parallel with the old covenant but that covenant was 'of the flesh' to be physically part of the Jewish people' whereas the new covenant is 'of the spirit' for genuine (consciously accepting) believers of all races. Both are signs of belonging. I also take 'Reformed' view of the doctrines of grace!
We don't know who is "of the spirit"...
We don't know who are "genuine believers" either
Does God create some people simply for destruction? And if so,is His glory magnified as a result? Thanks
No. God might have their destruction as part of his plan, but to reduce God's purposes solely to their eternal state is hopelessly shallow and not at all the Reformed understanding.
Around the 11:30 time, Pastor Everhard seems to be promoting the Baptist doctrine of credobaptism as compared to the Lutheran acceptance of paedobaptism. This is because he claims that a person should not be baptized if they show no desire to participate in the faithful witness of the local church. Since babies do not show a desire for such participation, their baptism should therefore be postponed until they can indicate such a desire. I view water baptism as being likened to the reception of an invisible Bible, which means the recipient obtains a new covenant communication channel from God as they enter the body of Christ. According to my logic, it is appropriate to give a manufactured Bible to an infant, but it is not appropriate to give a manufactured Bible to a person who does not want a Bible. I also view water baptism as the promotion of a death and resurrection (and a rebirth) experience through Christ.
Baptism is a Jewish commandment ; its actually called a Mikvah and a mikveh (a pool) is used for baptism. Ever heard of the pool of Shiloah (one of the largest mikveh used in Jerusalem, which was recently discovered and started to be excavated)? This is why every community in ancient Israel had a mikveh either in their homes, or otherwise. Jewish law requires that one immerse in a mikveh as part of the process of conversion to Judaism. It also requires women to immerse before getting married and when observing the laws of niddah (menstrual purity). There are also various other reasons - both traditional and modern - that women, as well as men and Jews who are gender-non-conforming, visit the mikveh: every Friday before Shabbat, before Yom Kippur, and also for grooms to immerse before their weddings. Nowhere in the old or new testament is there mention of child baptism or mikvah.
When it is introduced in Matthew by John the Baptist to the Gentiles, this had been performed ritually by Jews for centuries. Read the old testament for more info. At 25:10 you say "We dont have an accurate description of how to perform a baptism." Yes we do, the bible and old testament are very clear: its a FULL body dip. Pouring or sprinkling is NOT biblically accurate, only used by Catholics and Presbyterians. This baby "baptism" is also a reformation and NOT biblically correct. Jesus was Jewish, with Jewish traditions, which is what the entire bible refers to: Jewish ways. The entire new testament quotes the old. God does not contradict himself.
So when Peter quoted the OIKOS covenant in Acts 2:38 in reference to baptism??
Seems to me that the mode of baptism isn’t the issue, but the idea of Children being brought into the covenant without an understanding of the Gospel is. With that being said, if you were to be asked by a new convert who held baptist convictions to immerse them, would you?
Children are brought into the visible covenant by means of their parents..
It might vary from various Reformed denominations and maybe from individual congregations to another, but in my experience, the PCA is pretty accommodating of the private convictions of members in this area. My PCA church, in addition to the usual in church baptisms, takes a trip to a nearby lake at least once a year to do mass baptism, usually by pouring with a giant pitcher, but they will immerse if the participant prefers it. We don't want to needlessly violate the conscience of believers on tertiary matters of the faith and the WCF is clear that any mode (immersion, pouring, sprinkling) is licit.
This is an area where a Reformed church can be more accommodating. I wonder what would happen if I was ever in an area where the best church was a Baptist church. Could they honor my desire to have my children baptized so as not to violate the convictions of my conscious even though it goes against their understanding of scripture, for sake of unity in Christ? I think it would be a very hard ask. Some would, but I don't think very many would, and it would likely be asking the church to violate their own deeply held convictions that the act in itself might cause disunity in some congregations.
What do you THINK happened to Jesus Christ when He came up out of the water?
Why not do every single different type of baptism just to be sure you're covered?
I know that many, if not all Americans who read this post will not believe what I'm writing. You must set aside the prejudice of your country, and follow my suggestions. If so you will see that unfortunately I know what I'm writing about.
Until the mid to late 1990s there were two types of devices used for neonatal circumcision in the USA. The mogen clamp which produces a lose, and either high or low cut. And the gomco clamp which normally produces a medium to high cut. These two devices, UNLESS used to produce a low cut ( which means less of the inner mucosa/skin which is exceedingly sensitive, and typically of a lighter pigmentation) are relatively benign. HOWEVER the tissue dries out, and calluses develop from abrasion due to friction from the underwear, etc.
There are two types, which are now almost exclusively used the are both unacceptable One us the plastibell, which gives a very low, and also tight cut, the other, which is now the industry norm is the inflation method.
The inflation method eliminates ALL of the highly sensitive inner skin/mucosa. It reduces the sensitivity of the shaft of the penis by approximately
90%, or 95% (not including the glans which is the overall source of about 30% of the sexual pleasure).
This is how you can prove to yourself that unfortunately, what I'm telling you is true.
Contact an OBG/YN from England, they, and most of the West, and the wider world never generally adopted that practice. Make sure that He is actually English, and not Muslim.
In their medical they learn all about the functions of the foreskin.
Contact an OBG/YN in either, or both Canada, and Australia. They stopped routine neonatal circumcision in the mid to late 1990s. He will tell you the truth, unless he us malicious in his envy.
If you are circumcised purchase, and use yardly oatmeal, and almond soap.
It exfoliates. Likewise Eucerin lotion advanced repair. It is just strong enough to work.
I know this because of extensive research years ago, and personal experience. I was born in your country in 1988, a gomco clamp was used, and these products produced discernable results inside of a weak, and the process continues for much longer.
Beware! Many obgyns, and nurses will say that they will follow your wishes, and refrain, but then they do it anyway, free of charge. Do not trust them, they learn none of this in medical school.
This is a lucrative industry as foreskins are used for skin grafts, and stem cell research among other things.
Technically I'm American, I've lived here all of my 32 years, my ancestors were Americans, but this, and other reasons are why I consider myself as having no nationality. As wonderful as the Constitution, and Bill of Rights are, I feel no emotional connection to your Country, and way of life.
If you perform circumcisions, DO NOT CONTACT ME. Typing all of this was difficult enough.
Christ be with all of you who read this.
Not all Reformed has this same view. You have the Presbyterian view specifically about infant/child baptism.
And Dutch, Lutheran, anglican..
Thanks for sharing your view, but I was disappointed that you don't encourage critique. If you put your ideas in the public sphere, you should ready to receive public disagreement. For example, why neglect the most common meaning of the word baptism as an immersion? I know you would never build your doctrine on other subjects in this manner. Why disregard the imagery of our immersion as a burial into Christ (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12)? If the Scripture intended immersion, would it need to be clearer? I know you value the regulative principle. As such, "immersion" has been commanded, but there is no command for pouring or sprinkling...just as there is no command for where to do it (river, tub, etc). We would never replace the bread and fruit of the vine during communion because these were commanded. Therefore, why replace the Lord's command to be immersed? Finally, I believe you could have more fairly represented the immersion view instead of using strawmen. If not, please listen to other views and welcome critique of your own. You'll better defend your view to others...and perhaps learn something new. We must all consider whether we're willing to change if we've been mistaken.
Hi Joe! Regarding the regulative principle, do you practice communion with unleavened bread?
@@jeremiahsherlock9144 Yes, but I'm not dogmatic on the type of bread. However, I do think the example is that bread be used and probably the bread at that Passover was unleavened. With the greek word baptismo, we have a word meaning that indicates what is intended (ie immersion). Sprinkling can maintain the symbolism of washing away sin, but it loses the symbolism of burial and resurrection. In baptism, we are being united to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In immersion, someone is buried in water and raised up again to new life (Romans 6). We are buried with Christ and raised with Christ. Our old man is put to death and we become a new man (Col. 2:12). This sign is supposed to represent a spiritual reality. Just as sprinkling dirt on a corpse is not a proper burial, neither is sprinkling water on a sinner (according to my understanding of Scripture). For those who wish to follow the examples of Scripture, it seems that we would baptize in the manner that it was done in the New Testament. Thanks for your question, Jeremiah!
@@josephleehamm Thanks for a thoughtful answer, Brother! Hopefully this is not just a semantic question, but following the examples of Scripture would not be the same as obeying the commands of Scripture, would you agree? (The latter being that which defines the regulative principle.)
@@jeremiahsherlock9144 I'm thankful for our peaceable discussion. I agree that it is good to notice a distinction between a direct command and an example found in Scripture. The underlying question you raise appears to be whether the examples of Scripture are authoritative and necessary. I realize that Christians may disagree over which examples are necessary and which are not. For example, must Christians meet in an upper room? Do Christians have to meet for worship on the first day of the week? We have no direct command to meet on Sunday, but we do have one example of Christians meeting on the first day of the week...and they were in an upper room (Acts 20:7-8). Most protestants follow the example of meeting on Sunday as authoritative and necessary, but the upper room as incidental. These are good questions to consider. Paul instructed brethren to follow his example (Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:17) so we should strive to do so. If we find an apostolic example or pattern in the New Testament, we can have 100% confidence that God finds it acceptable. Everything else is human reason or guesswork and we risk doing something unpleasing (ie. the profane fire of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10). For reformed folks, this is addressed in WCF 1.6.
They entombed people back then 😅
While it's always great to be gracious to those brothers and sisters with different views I don't think it's wise to start the video saying infant baptism is the unique view. It's the believer-only baptism view that's new, fringe and takes up very little of Christianity.
This is the problem with protestant sects, everyone just has their "view", its relativism, nothing carries any authority from God, it's naturalistic hyper individualism, and not what we see in the bible.
Christ didn't deliver bibles to everyone telling them to go read and determine their own view.
We don't see the writers of the epistles doing this either. They were speaking from an authority to the churches giving instruction. We see a council called by the apostles in Acts 15 to deal with the judaizers.
So I ask protestants, if the judaizers didn't accept the ruling of the council were they still part of Christ's Church? Were they still christian?
What do you think about changing doctrine, contradictory even, among the papacy? I think you misunderstand Reformed Protestant theology and are attacking modern, evangelical non-denominationalism…
@@isaacmaue-tg7kl there is no protestant theology... because everyone has their own private interpretation.
@@ACF1901 I find the same is true with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox proponents, but instead of insisting its what (their private interpretation of) scripture teaches, they just insist it is what (their private interpretation of) the church teaches. The number of times I've seen people advocate for heresies their denomination explicitly condemns is way too high, yet I guess it is different when your side does it...
@@oracleoftroy Catholics don't privately interpret individually what the scripture says. There's no real such thing as heresy in protestantism because everyone is free to believe whatever they privately interpret. Protestantism can't punish any heresy. In the Catholic Church heresy can be punished and one loses their salvation.
Baptism is from the Greek word. What John was doing ; was call people to be Mikvah to prepare for repentance. Mikvah is done be for a change in ones life . There are Womens Mikvahs . That was done after her menstruation that was unclean now is clean.
Then there is a mens Mikvahs a man would go into the mikvah to mark an event in his life or a milestone in his spiritual life . Jesus would have entered the mikvah before he entered into the synagogue to read the scriptures and sit in the chair of Moses.
Both a man and a woman would be mikvahed before wedding. Each one enters the Mikvah single and then emerge to be married or one flesh.
A mikvah was and is alway with immersion. The water must have a natural source of water. and a flow of water.
Jesus' baptism was an ordination, not a baptism for the remission of sins. Ordination by John, who was of priestly lineage, was typically done by pouring. Jesus insisted that it had to be done for Him to begin His earthly ministry.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The problem with Presbys and infant baptism is that Presbyterians worship according to the Regulative Principle of worship. According to this principle, one cannot worship God in a way not prescribed in the Scriptures. If as a Presbyterian you are going to be completely faithful to this principle you should stop baptizing babies. Reformed Baptists worship on the same principle and do not baptize infants, because there is no command or example in the Scriptures to support the baptism of infants.
If you are going to use deductive reasoning and language to find that you are not doing something that contradicts Scripture, even though it is not necessarily in Scripture, then you are not following the Regulative Principle but the Normative Principle of worship, which we Anglicans use. It is easier for us to justify Infant Baptism for the same reasons you mentioned.
_"If as a Presbyterian you are going to be completely faithful to this principle you should stop baptizing babies."_
That doesn't really work, as part of the principle is to neither add to nor take away from what God has regulated in worship. God set forward who should receive the covenant sign in Gen 17 as being for the believer, their children, and the rest of their household, including non-blood related servants, even those from far off foreign places. Peter repeated this formula in Acts 2, and the household model is what we find practiced throughout Acts.
I'd want an explicit example of an infant being refused baptism before I conclude that God has changed something he never said he changed.
It's fine if you disagree with this, but one should at least acknowledge that scripture is ultimately silent on this, and you are just as much using deductive reason to come to your view. I think we have the stronger case to make, but it is OK if you disagree with that.
_"If you are going to use deductive reasoning and language to find that you are not doing something that contradicts Scripture, even though it is not necessarily in Scripture, then you are not following the Regulative Principle but the Normative Principle of worship"_
The Regulative Principle has room for deductions and allowances that are not explicate in scripture. Where is having a church building, or pews, or print Bibles, or microphones, or pulpits laid out in scripture? Yet many across the spectrum of RPW denominations allow for those sorts of "accidents" of worship (as they are called in RPW language).
Adult immersion >>>?
Baptism in the singular name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost takes place in the book of Acts. The apostles baptized in the singular name of Jesus Christ, “For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” (Colossians 2:9 ESV) In fact, there is not an instance of a person being baptized any other way than in Jesus’ Name after Jesus Christ ascended and His Spirit was poured out.
Research the Didache. There is no other proof of jesus only doctrines in any church history.
Won't make you a better Christian only a wetter one!
Matthew Everhard, is there anything in the Bible that you actually believe?.
Nowhere does the Bible teach infant or young children can be baptized.
Every Greek meaning for baptism, is by total immersion, Not by pouring or sprinkling.
The things that are washed or dyed have to be completely covered with water.
Water baptism comes after a person is saved, NOT before they get saved.
Your problem is, you have to believe what your denomination tells you, instead of what the Bible says.
Hence your twisting the scriptures.
If you knew the Bible, you would know that circumcision of the heart, (the rebirth)
Rom 2: 29. has replaced circumcision of the flesh.
NOT water baptism.
The Baptisms in Rom 6 and
Col 2 are the rebirth, NOT water baptism.
To say they are water baptism, is to say water is greater than the Holy Spirit.
The Bible teaches 3 Christians Baptisms, and you have to know which one it Bible is talking about, you have to keep the Bible in it's right context.
As for household baptism,
Please note, Acts 16: 32 and
Acts 18: 8. Says the whole household believed, which doesn't include infants, because they don't have the ability to understand and believe.
Don't you care about deceiving people.
I take Presbyterians are a false cult.
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptism
@@bigtobacco1098 People enter the Covenant through the rebirth, NOT through water baptism. As any Christian would know.
@@bigtobacco1098 There is no water baptism of Covenant.