Infant Baptism (Pt. 2): Handout Theology with John Gerstner
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- In this classic one-hundred-message series, Dr. Gerstner provides an in-depth overview of systematic theology. He explores what God has clearly revealed in Scripture about Himself, mankind, the fall, redemption, the church, and many other essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
This is the 88th in a series of messages by Dr. Gerstner on theology. See other videos in the series: • Handout Theology - Joh...
This message was originally published by Ligonier Ministries: www.ligonier.org/
One of the best teachers in reformed theology.
Don't say not to kill. It says do not murder. Big difference. If it were a sin to kill we couldn't protect ourselves.
To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40).
A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.
If I'm a juror in this argument. My opinion would be that you have not made out a prima face case in your submission. This argument wld simply open a theological pandoras box to the extent that even the OT sabbath worship would be valid by implication. My question would be ; Is infant baptism of an saving significance? Wld that be an alternative for children to salvation by faith alone.What about Galatians 6:15 which states that ; Circumcision or none Circumcision nothing avails except the new creation.
Why baptize ??
Sabbath worship is still valid, Westminster Confession chap. 21.
Salvation is by faith alone. Does partaking on the Lord's Supper have any saving significance? If you answer yes, then baptism has as well, but it doesn't follow that those who eat of the supper are saved by it. If you answer no, would it be sinful to not partake? Yes, just like baptism. It "may have no" salvific value but denying to right recipients is sinful.
Rubbish- the bible says ZERO about infant baptism Also- there is no church in the OT. There is no water covenant
It doesn't address baptism by any age ...
What was Israel in the OT ?? One covenant of grace ??
Is that why the Jews when translating the OT from the Hebrew to Greek in the Septuigant translated the word 'congregation' to 'Ecclesia' which in NT Koine Greek is translated as church? How is it that OT saints were saved, was it different in the OT since they "weren't the church"? The point is that the sign of membership in the covenant community in the OT was circumcision, in the NT the sign of membership in the covenant community is water baptism. These are separate categories so one could be a apart of the community and receive the sign thereof without receiving the substance that the sign signified.
The trinity is brought out in Gods word, if you and other Bible teachers cannot see that. ????
Chris: You are not paying attention. Dr. Gertsner makes the point that the word "Trinity" appears nowhere in the Bible. The first appearance of the word Trinity was by Tertulian. Of course Dr. Gertsner knows and teaches the truth of the Trinity in Old and New Testament. Try paying attention and think before making comments that are diametrical to the facts and truth. Thank you. Additionally, if you took some time to research who Dr. Gertsner was and what he believed, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself. Furthermore listen to the entire presentation and you would realize that Dr. Gertsner explains the Orthodox view of the Trinity.
Gerstner is up the creek without a paddle.
Please explain. Ad hominem attacks are unsatisfactory.
I believe in infant baptism as well as in believer’s baptism. One is not saved by baptism but by grace thru faith Christ alone. One who is baptized as an infant will not go to hell. Infant baptism is not a sin. It is not prohibited in the scriptures. Actually dr. Gerstner uses biblical passages to support his view on infant baptism.
@@aracelielardo4791 Baptism is public identification with Christ (Romans 6). Cornelius is an example why baptism without identification in Christ is wrong. He was born again long before he heard the gospel. Then heard the gospel from Peter and was not considered saved until he identified the name of our Lord.
@@urawesome4670 Paedobaptists agree with what you just said.
Paedobaptists are teachnically credobaptists, but with the addition of baptizing ONLY believing parents infants / little children. Paedobaptists would never deny to baptize an adult convert.
I think the biggest obstacle when it comes to this debate is a lack of understanding on both sides (but more on the credobaptist side) of what the other side actually believes & rejects.
OIKOS covenant