From Credobaptist to Paedobaptist?! Pastor Tyler Jackson's Journey to Reformed Theology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 май 2021
- In this video, we interview Pastor Tyler Jackson from Redemption Life Bible Church in New Castle, Indiana. Pastor Jackson is a graduate of Ball State University, and details his transformation from the Church of Christ to Reformed theology, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Covenant Theology.
Links: Redemption Life Bible Church: www.redemptionlifebiblechurch....
Tyler Jackson on Facebook:
/ tyler.jackson.161446
Calvin's Institutes:
amzn.to/3h9SS3l
Matthew Everhard on Telegram:
T.Me/MatthewEverhard
Love this! I’ve made a similar journey. I started as a charismatic and God brought me out of that into the SBC as a cessationist Baptist, and as I’ve been serving in youth ministry, reading my bible, following reformed theologians, and studied for myself I’ve been drawn more and more into covenant theology. Praise God for Illumination of scripture.
I know this all too well.
Praise God!
I went from charismatic pentecostal to reformed Baptist(oxymoron ik) and now in orthodox Presbyterian
This an amazing testimony , and now we are blessed in the OP to have Pastor Tyler as a minister of Word and Sacrament .
This ices infant/child baptism for me. BTW, welcome to Telegram 😁😁😁💯
The scriptural language under the covenant is always "family", not individuals. Abraham circumcised all his household even his servants/slaves as the seal of the covenant. As a Presbyterian, I agree on the need for the infant baptism, but I object to the inconsistency that it's for only "infants" only. It's should be all family members who live/reside under the authority of the head of the household which include teenagers.
Thank you for help in understanding the meaning of Covenant infant baptism. Having grown up in Catholicism where the sacraments have an inherent power to confer salvation and grace, then the dispensational position that there is no grace attached, but simply a personal testimony and comment, this Covent position is the only teaching that makes sense from a Biblical position.
It took 1600 years to figure out though, since Calvin is the first one who taught it.
Praise God. Love to hear these stories. The same thing happened to us earlier this year in 2023, though I've been waffling on it for a good 10 years. It's amazing how many folks have come out of the Baptist background into a more Covenental understanding. My family is now whole. It breaks my heart to think that I'm so dense I couldn't understand this for so long. Bless you guys.
Excellent talk! 👍
Thanks for this discussion. I am a reformed baptist pastor wrestling through this issue myself. I appreciate the openness and story of how you both got to where you are theologically.
Do you hold to baptist covenant theology? Or are you dispensational?
Definitely not dispensational, I’m studying covenant theology now. Im fairly new to reformed theology having been an arminian Pentecostal most of my life until about 8 years ago.
@@lukebarnhard3962 thats sad
Luke, two excellent books that have been helpful to my husband and I on the Scriptural foundation for the Reformed Covenantal Baptist view are The Kingdom of God by Jeffrey D Johnson and Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul K Jewett. God bless!
OIKOS covenant
New sub. I really appreciate your videos brother. They have been encouraging as I've been studying Gods word and discussing with my husband.
Love the interview
Thanks for taking on this topic! Really helpful. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the differences between baptism and communion, and more specifically, why do babies get to be baptized but children have to wait until they make a confession of faith before they can participate in communion? Are they not both a type of covenant? Always wondered about that. Thanks again for the videos. They’re a blessing!
Bassists for the win!
Question for Matthew (or any other presbyterian, coming from a baptist wrestling with the infant baptism question)... How do you deal with the fact that (as I understand it) we don't see any explanations of infant baptism before Calvin that sounds anything like covenantal infant baptisms? It's one of the strongest arguments keeping me from going all in. If it's not what the apostles taught, then no matter how much sense it might make of the scriptures, I can't in good conscience embrace it (though, I definitely WANT to embrace it). Thanks!
Not for sure if its mentioned in the video but 1) families are baptized in the Bible, 2) Very early Christians baptized infants 3) everybody, gentiles and jews, understood the covenant analogies and baptism was seen as circumcising into the faith, 4) the oldest Church, the Catholic Church, baptizes infants to this day and sees it as circumcision of the new covenant
Watched the video, they do mention these things for the most part. Great video!
1.) No 2.) No 3.) No 4.) I’m not sure if citing the Catholic Church helps you. No.5) love my presby brothers
"1) families are baptized in the Bible"
No evidence of this. In every case except for Lydia's, it is explicit the rest of the household believed, hence they were baptized.
"2) Very early Christians baptized infants"
If by early Christian you mean the 3rd century and onward, yes. But this was a debate in the early church, notably Tertullian arguing against baptizing young children, and the idea of baptizing a baby simply because their parents are Christians wasn't even in his mind.
Also, sola Scriptura. Forming our orthopraxy off of what "early Christians" did is ill-advised.
"3) everybody, gentiles and jews, understood the covenant analogies and baptism was seen as circumcising into the faith"
Like Tanner said, no. This is just an assertion. You have no Biblical case to make that assertion.
"4) the oldest Church, the Catholic Church, baptizes infants to this day and sees it as circumcision of the new covenant"
So much wrong with this. First of all, church* since Rome is apostate. Second, are Rome's beliefs and practices really going to be our benchmark? Do you really want to go there? Third, Rome's infant baptism is *totally different* from "covenantal infant baptism", a theological idea that did not exist before Calvin.
Note that Michael's 4 seemingly strongest arguments for infant baptism (since they're the 4 he named... no one names their weakest arguments and leaves) make one vague reference to the Bible and that's it, a reference that has nothing to do with infant baptism. I cannot accept infant baptism, as much as I want to, because there is no good exegetical case for it.
2 .. yes ... unless I you can show that there was a significant change in BOTH theological beliefs and practices ???? NOBODY buys into your landmark baptist trail of blood garbage... 99.99% of historians uphold the view that the early church held to the OIKOS covenant ...
3.. yes ... to say that there's ZERO biblical evidence is dishonest at best ... numerous theologians have covered it and numerous RUclips videos cover it ... please
Interested to hear your talks on critical theory.
I'd recommend you purchase the book, Culture of Critique, by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. It really digs in deep and scratches well bellow the surface, even explaining the origins and history of the teachings of critical theory. Sadly I believe its been banned from Amazon, so you'd have to either get it from eBay or Barnes and Noble.
God bless you and yours, Pastor Matt!
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.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Matthew 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?
This has nothing to do with Baptism.
@@timothydodenhoff1068 In your opinion.
LOL!!! That legit made me laugh. This is a perfect example of the absolute eisegesis infant baptists have to resort to. Really? Exodus 2:10 is being used as a proof-text for infant baptism? This is Arminian level eisegesis.
@@michaelmannucci8585 I Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
At 46:00 - please help me locate this Piper article. Bro Matt? Anyone?
I am a member of a Reformed Baptist church.
One of the "procedural" problems I see with the baptisms done over the last several years -> the person in immersed, comes up/out, and the (youth) pastor gives a loud whoop and the congregation applauds. It really seems to become a work of man.
Does "becoming a member of the covenant community" equate to "becoming a member of the new covenant community" as in Jeremiah 31?
Verse 33 says: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Are the young children of believers unregenerate (the law is written on their hearts)? Is this true of the unregenerate?
Thanks
Evan, I am glad you are catching the fact that baptism is not a work of man. In defense of Baptists, there is an element of Baptism (for those consciously capable, I.E- older children, adults, etc) in which it does function as an oath-sign from earth to heaven, the recipient to God, as one receives all that is promised in the sacrament of baptism. But, first and foremost, it is a covenant sign with objective meaning from heaven down. In my opinion, it doesn't get much better than Calvin regarding definitions. You can find his work on baptism in book four of the Institutes.
Now, regarding covenant membership, I mentioned in this video how belonging to the covenant community is multidimensional. We must make internal/external, visible/invisible distinctions. When we talk about passages like Jeremiah 31, these are new covenant passages that are bound up with the new creation. Baptists often go here and try to argue for a regenerate only covenant community. Well, in the new creation yes but between now and then, who knows. Hebrews 6 and 10 clearly teach that there is apostasy. 1 Cor. 10 clearly teaches that one can belong covenantally and fall in the wilderness. But to keep it short, physical baptism does not necessarily put one into the internal/invisible essence of the covenant. To hold that view would demand a kind of baptismal regeneration. We don't believe that. the sacrament of baptism is the initiation sign into the visible body of Christ, the realm of the covenant, where the word and sacraments exist. And due to the promises of God, that he will be God to us and our children (even a promises found in the New Covenant, I.E Jer. 32, Ezek. 34, etc.), we baptize in faith and charity believing that our children belong to the Lord and will walk with him by faith all the days of their life!
Hope that helps a little!
@@ReformedVosian121 yes, important not to have an overrealized eschatology as in a Baptist covenant theology. Hebrews is important in showing the already/not yet of the new covenant community promises of Jeremiah 31, which the reformed and Presbyterian covenant theologians hold 👍👍
@@ReformedVosian121 why aren't infants baptized into the new covenant? Which covenant community are they being baptized into if not into the new covenant?
The main issue with coc is baptism is essential .
Were girls not covered by the covenant in the OT?
They were covered by virtue of their fathers or husbands. If they never married and their fathers were deceased, they were under the headship of their brothers. This might be a touchy topic for some, but proper male headship (both ancient and now) was meant to be a love and protection over the women of the community. Because the NT sees the progression of the Covenant of Grace and the people of God not tied to a theocratic and geographic location (ie ethnic Israel and those sojourners who would come into Israel), God explicitly tabernacles in the hearts of His people by the Holy Spirit. Thus, women are now recipients of the covenant signs and seals and not just the men.
The central issue really is the relationship of the really new newness of the new covenant and consequently the really new newness of its signs. I find myself partial to Gadsby and Huntington and the English Particular baptists and the striking Similarity to modern New Covenant theology.
For people who say they were hyper-Calvinists: I find that hyper-Calvinism fundamentally REALLY consists in an attitude of super-correct perfectionism more than a particular theological position.
For example, you can believe in eternal Justification as a logical outgrowth of certain teachings of scripture without exercising Hyper-Calvinist tendencies. I do think Hoeksema has a point about Hawking Christ and subjecting the good news of the gospel to a kind of popular emotionalism unworthy of its dignity. I think you can be an equal ultimist Supralapsarian full dual predestinationist. You CAN (I don’t) deny common grace, in the sense of God loving everyone the same and his love not being particular and efficacious for the elect alone.
Again, it seems to me the hypers are more fundamentally defined by attitude and approach than specific theological content. Semper Reformanda. To go beyond Calvin and Beyond error in certain approaches is inevitable. But we must maintain the bond of love with those who are trusting in Christ alone and defending faith alone and Denying works as a sign of the New Covenant. Baptist and Reformed alike.
I blame John Owen, lol.
OIKOS covenant
I'm struggling to see why baptized children are fenced from the Lord's table after baptism. Especially if they're eating solid food. It seems we expect those converted as adults to repent and believe before baptism but not their children.... And I understand that. Then we get to the Lord's supper and the "and their children" clause of the Westminster confession/catechism is suddenly missing.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 ESV
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, [3] and all ate the same spiritual food, [4] and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
This passage teaches that the substance of the sacraments have always been the same... CHRIST. We realize that children weren't expected to wait until a profesion of faith before crossing the sea and they weren't expected to either before partaking of the "spiritual food".
That's great that you are thinking through these things. With regards to the Lord's Table - yes, Jesus is the substance of the sacraments in the both the NT and the OT, but the administration is clearly different. There is a necessary discernment that needs to take place in conjunction with the taking the Lord's Supper. Children who have not professed faith and become communicant members, have not discerned Christ's body yet by faith. There is a necessary assent that needs to take place in the heart, mind, and soul of the partaker. The solemn warning is given to protect both the partaker and the minister of the sacraments. So, there is a credo aspect of the Lord's Supper that must be maintained, though I think you bring up a great point with the 1 Corinthians quote. Keep thinking through these things! Also, look at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website to read reports on the topic. Those reports are open to the public for their consideration. Blessings!
@@johnathanallen6714
I have read the official report of the PCA (of which I'm a member), but there is also the aspect that part of the rebuke to the Corinthians in chapter 11 is that some where going hungry. Paul often used double meanings. So while the body may have been the sacrament ( I don't believe the bible teaches a physical presence in the sacrament) it was probably also just as much (if not more) talking about the congregation as the body. The warning then is pertaining to how some were leaving hungry and thirsty and others were leaving drunk and filled. Both gluttony and starvation will obviously lead to some being ill and even dying. Keeping in mind that the passage of chapter 10 concerning the sacraments in the covenant of grace is just technically shortly before the verses in question of chapter 11. We must remember that the original epistle didn't have chapter divisions. The ideas of chapter 10 are being carried over in chapter 11.. but again, how the prerequisite of converted adults to repent and believe is wavered for their children in baptism but not Lord's supper is a stone that seems to always be left unturned in this discussion. So I suppose this is an area where I "decent". Of course I feel that scripture lead me to this view and it could lead me back away from it if I'm being confused now. But as of now that's how I see things. Of course all of this is just great discussion any way. I have one child who is still fenced. And I've made an oath to submit to the Church government.
@@nickspitzley8539 First, I commend you for rightly submitting to the session of elders at your church. The responsibility for caring for you and your family does fall on them. Hence the warnings to those being leadership. The accounting for chapter breaks not being inspired has been taken into account by those who, I think have rightly, have opposed children who have not publicly declared their faith. Have you read Children at the Lord's Table?: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion by Cornelis Venema? Many folks thinking through this have found his work to be very helpful. Since you are not in a position for your child to approach the table anyways, you'd have time to read it over.
Your point about Paul's use of wording might be misapplied here. I mean this with all respect as you seem to be quite savvy in rightly dividing the Word. That said, don't fall into the exegetical fallacy of applying something to a text that might not be there. I believe you need to account for more discontinuity (progression) from the OT to the NT. Although the seed of a rose is still of the same substance as the rose blossom itself, it isn't in the same form yet. The headship of the father in the OT accounted for the children partaking in (some of) the OT sacraments. The representation is removed directly from the individual and mediated through a series of advocates. All of this is fulfilled in Christ and thus removes much of what was a veil between God and His people. *Disclaimer: I don't mean at all what I'm about to say is in a woke heresy sort of way. Please don't misread.* The meal being a stumbling block to the people in Corinth had more to do with those who, typically being of lower class/ slave status, had to work later than those with more wealth and power. They are equally heirs in Christ. That is why the table was being abused and the Lord's name tarnished. The equality of all those purchased in Christ was being transgressed. So, the spiritual nature of the table harmed the people who were abusing it. It would have been so if it were the other way around. Christ is the one who they all, OT and NT, were and are partakers of. The differences in the administration of Covenant of Grace between the OT and NT needs to be observed. I'm grateful for this dialogue, brother!
There are some of us that still believe in Paedo Communion.
I don't know about the circumcision argument, as only Muslims 'circumcise' females. 🤔
Why didn't Paul emphasize baptizing children? These great minds are men and can be entirely wrong on this subject.
Peter did ... Acts 2:38
My take is that it is largely because it was expected. The application of the sign of the covenant to covenant children was the practice for thousands of years. If that practice were not changed there would be no controversy thus no great need to address it.
However if the practice were changed to exclude children one would expect the apostles would need to address the issue of why the change was made.
Why didn't Paul emphasize females taking the supper ??
@@bigtobacco1098 Did females not take part in passover?
@@mkshffr4936 that would assume that same continuity that paedobaptism assumes
I really want to accept Paedobaptism... but I just have yet to see a good exegetical case for it. I watched both of James White's debates on baptism and he refuted every single argument they had exegetically, and those arguments seem to be the best the Paedobaptists have. Unless there's better, exegetical arguments than those presented in those two debates (and from RC in his "debate" with MacArthur), I just don't see myself accepting it.
See exclusions in scripture ??
Baptism in new testament is always tied with believing receiving repenting etc. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. Philip to eunuch. Obviously the eunuch would not have children but possibly a household though. But it was personal to him, he believed with his whole heart. He was given permission.
@@danandnaomisayers7828 Acts 8:37 is not original, it was added later. But I do agree that the NT teaches that baptism proceeds repentance and faith.
Where is the biblical evidence, no inferences either.
Or historical examples
Where is the history of the big change ??
Neither position is explicitly stated in scripture so both must be arrived at by inference.
Given that the NT narratives are primarily of first generation Christians it is expected that the record is of new converts so most examples would be of credo baptisms which of course both camps practice.
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms