Well, using that same logic, what about a child(baptized presbyterian)in this world who doesn't believe at all as an adult? The complete opposite happens all the time. So it means nothing.
@@unit2394the gifts? And promises? From infant baptism? What does this mean? Sincerely.... I'm not even sure I want to know, because it isn't true. Men and women, baptized as babies in the presbyterian church I'm sure many will be in hell one day. So when we speak of gifts and promises given.... What gift and promise protected that individual from hell? Please......
@@DjSostre7 In Baptism we are united to Christ and enjoy all of the benefits that brings. We are washed of our sins and made regenerate. The reality that some will reject these gifts later and apostatize does not mean that God's Word speaks untrue about this issue. I would sincerely encourage you to read what the Scriptures have to say on this issue, particularly Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-7, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:12-16, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 3:24-27, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 2:11-15, Titus 3:4-7, and 1 Peter 3:18-22. It is often difficult in our modern materialist context to see the sacraments as having any effect or purpose beyond mere symbols, but I would urge one to read these passages and just let the Word of God speak for itself. We are unused to hearing language like this and often end up twisting it because we do not have categories to deal with the issue of sacramental efficacy, because many churches do not teach about it. But the church at large has been united on this issue throughout the past two thousand years, not in the exact outworking of this issue, but in the fact that the sacraments are real and true channels of God's Grace to us, just as His Word says.
@@unit2394 okay, with all due respect, maybe you're not understanding the argument. We're talking about INFANT BAPTISM. Follow me. We're not speaking concerning a BELIEVER going and getting baptized. INFANTS cannot be united to Christ without faith. So all that you just spoke, is invalid.
Thanks Matthew. As a baptist who's wrestled with this question for years it's nice to have a resource which lays out all these arguments which I can then investigate in more depth in my own time. I have to say though I was a bit distracted at first by the fact that baby only has four fingers haha
If you consider Saul of Tarses’ conversion and when his sight was restored by the Lord after three days of staying at Ananias’ house and was instructed to baptize the now apostle Paul in Ananias’ house. Do you really think that Ananias had a baptismal font or a bathtub to submerge Paul in as scripture clearly says they didn’t leave the house as if to go down to a body of water. In Scripture, even when you read it someone came up out of the water like the Ethiopian eunuch, don’t assume that means they were submerged but that they merely went in up to their ankles or perhaps knees and were baptized. Also, I recommend looking up on Google all the examples of ancient art depicting baptism in the early church and you’ll see the vast majority show it being done by sprinkling and mainly pouring over the head, including Jesus and many others. Maybe that should tell us something.
In the Middle East. When Abraham was circumcised so was his entire household ,including the slaves. This inclusive approach may very much still have been the norm in the Roman Empire. Consider also the family expectations of less then a 100 years ago. The individualism of today is a strange phenomenon. That the children were baptized in family baptisms should be taken as a Matter of course not the exception.
Thanks for the explanation and informative. . I am currently doing a deep dive into the study of orthodoxy. The baptism of babies has been a big topic in church history in comparasion to the anabaptisits. Thanks again for the informative video.
Perfect video! Thanks. Hopefully not too much of a trick question but my children and I have received infant baptism in the Roman Catholic Church. Would you re-baptize converted people in that case? I believe I’ve heard Dr Sproul answer that he wouldn’t.
The Reformers considered that and said no, any baptism with water in the Trinitarian name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does NOT need to be redone. The early church also considered a similar question regarding priests that abandon the faith and commit great sin or apostasy. Cults are exceptions as they are not trinitarian. Generally, baptism does not need to be redone.
@@MatthewEverhard oh yes, I remember Augustine fighting against the Donatists. It makes sense to me. I don’t feel bad about this at all, but I wanted to make sure for my kiddos that they would not see it as a stumbling block for them. Thank you so much.
@@MatthewEverhard - Sir, Here is our Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
No - if a child (or anyone for that matter) is baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit" it is a legitimate and true baptism, and must be recognized as such EVEN if done by a Catholic priest. A re-baptism is unnecessary and would really be just a ceremonial event - which I don't have a problem with; many people who were baptized as babies (their true baptism) choose to "go public" with their faith, and get immersed at a big church event and are letting the congregation know they are serious about their faith. But again, no - one does not have to be re-sprinkled OR dunked just to make it real. Churches that insist on folks being baptized in that church, before joining their church, are IMHO, in error.
Many inscriptions on the tombs of early Christians say “baptized on the eighth day”. I grew up in a Lutheran church back in the 60s. If you had a baby on Tuesday, it was baptized the following Sunday. Maybe the Sunday after that if the mother was still in the hospital. But they didn’t mess around. None of this waiting until they’re six months old.
Love this channel but i didnt get my daughter baptized. When she gets of age she will . I got baptized as a baby and just got actually baptized for the first time last week. All glory to our lord jesus christ
So why would you give someone the sign of initiation into the covenant, but then hold back the sign of covenant renewal until faith is professed? If they are in the covenant, why not treat them fully as such and give them all the covenant signs?
Is there a book you recommend on this topic, Matthew? I'd like to see your or Presbyterian exegesis of the passages mentioned to compare and contrast. Thanks.
Here's two that were helpful for me: To a Thousand Generations by Doug Wilson, Word Water Spirit by JV Fesko. Both covering Baptism and the covenants from a Presbyterian / Reformed point of view.
Pastor Matt forgot to mention at the end of the video about whether one should get their child baptized and the fact is yes, but only if you have sufficient evidence by the fruit of your life of your own conversion as getting a child baptized when you yourself are not converted makes no sense. Sometimes I wonder if Baptists, who are mostly ignorant of scripture and you can tell that by what they say and how they live their lives, belong to a different religion.
Great video Reverend. If I may ask, one happens to an individual that the Lord has elected to be saved and does so then dies before being able to be baptized? Many churches will not baptize unless you are a member of that specific church and that could take months. Can they baptize before membership?
Religious historian Augustus Neander says of first century Christianity “that the practice of infant baptism was UNKNOWN at this period.” The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “The whole early period knows baptism only for ADULTS, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century.”
Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.), Letter # 58 (ANF, V, 353), argues that the church ought not delay baptism until the 8th day (after the model of Jewish circumcision) but baptize a newborn immediately.
Thanks for that clear presentation. Would really appreciate to hear your thoughts on communion and kids. I've seen some VERY differing viewpoints in Presbyterian circles on Twitter. Hoping you might be able to give the topic the Everhard touch. Thanks again,
Yeah… I think the paedocommunion question is really tough to get around if you give in to paedobaptism. I’ve been having to work through these questions recently, listened to a debate between Gentry and Rayburn (both Presbyterians) and Gentry started to sound suspiciously like a baptist as he argued against paedocommunion
@@hammerbarca6 right, that's why I'm taking my time with paedocommunion, I don't want to fall to a double standard. The thing with the reformed faith, is the smaller issues are usually determined by bigger ones, which implies very broad scriptural context. I can see that there are valid and consistent positions either way, but still too ignorant to feel confident in a decision at this time.
@@PaulSwansonIdAu I am a Presbyterian, and I don't see any inconsistency with not holding to paedocommunion. A very simple argument that I find to be very convincing is that there is no evidence of households partaking in the Lord's Supper, whereas there is explicit evidence of entire households being baptized. Also, if one reads through 1 Cor. 11 it seems as though Paul is teaching that whoever partakes in the Lord's supper must examine himself. I am also not convinced that children partook in the Passover. Yes, there is evidence that they asked questions about the meaning of the sacrament, but that doesn't prove that they actually partook in the elements of the sacrament. In Deut. 16, Moses teaches that only the head of the household and the adult males were to go up and partake in the feasts. It also seems very unlikely to me that little children would be partaking in the Passover because the elements of the sacrament would hardly be appropriate to give little children to eat, and one had to drink wine about three times during the Passover I believe; I don't think infants and little children would have been able to drink that much wine. Here is a very good article on the subject of paedocommunion where a Presbyterian effectively - in my opinion - refutes paedocommunion: thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40039 Hope that this helps!
@@sbrown6983 Also, we are commanded in 1 Corinthians 11:28,29 to examine ourselves and discern the body as we proclaim Christ's death (v 26) and partake in remembrance of Him (vv. 24, 25). These acts of cognition, discernment and assent are absent in the commands and example to baptize.
Unfortunately, this line of argument is the same sort that is used to justify Mariology and icon veneration. "There's no clear command anywhere for it, but we can find it when we look closely at Old Testament typology"...usually followed by vehement condemnation of those who reply that "There's still no clear command for this practice."
I found 1 Cor 7:14 to be explicit. How is a child made Holy (separate) and made clean(Water) visually in the New Covenant. This was Bahnsen's argument in his lectures on covenant theology.
I would argue no, because we want to make sure they are of an age where they can examine themselves as Scripture commands before they come to the Table.
@@unit2394 I agree, that's a solid reason. But, given that, in the Presbyterian view, infants can receive the sign of the covenant before they can understand it, why would the little children be kept from Christ's table and an allowance not be made for their relative capacity, in the renewal of that same covenant? (NB: not arguing here, just working through this issue 🙂)
@@PaulSwansonIdAu I had sort of made that comparison for a while, but learning about the duty of the Christian to examine himself before coming to the Table pushed me against it. In baptism there is no duty to examine ourselves, the Bible simply commands us to be washed and we are. But to approach the table when we have not taken the proper steps beforehand is dangerous, as scripture talks about the harm which comes to those who partake in communion unworthily, which is why I think it is better to err on the side of caution. However, I have a respect for many who would practice paedocommunion, including many of the Federal Vision or CREC folks, who are probably my favorites among the Presbyterian world because they take the sacraments so seriously.
@@unit2394 I'm definitely in agreement on the importance of taking the sacraments seriously, this should at the basis of any biblical position on the matter! To be honest, I'm starting to really appreciate that God left some of these details to be worked out later. It gives us a solid reason to study scripture more closer and work it out with our brothers in the Church. It's genuinely rewarding.
I would say no as a Presbyterian. Why? (1) Because there is no example of entire households partaking in the Lord's Supper.There is explicit evidence of entire households being baptized. (2) There is an explicit command to the church of Corinth that one must examine himself to partake in the sacrament. Furthermore, Paul says that whosoever partakes unworthily in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks judgement on themselves; infants can't examine themselves and to bring them to the table before that point would risk the curses that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 11 to fall upon them. (3) Paedocommunion wasn't the universal practice of the early church, while infant baptism was according to many early church theologians. (4) There is no explicit evidence of infants partaking in the Passover ( I personally think that all of the other arguments that I have stated are enough to refute the position, but I will go on). In Deut. 16, it seems that only the head of household and the males who had reached the age of accountability were the only ones who were to go up and partake in the Jewish feasts. Also, part of the Passover tradition was that one had to drink five cups of wine at different points of the day; God would not want drunk kids to partake in the Passover. These are my main reasons for rejecting Paedocommunion. In anticipation of the possible objection that might be raised against my second argument that the command is directed toward adults and not to children, I would say that the command to examine oneself is to the entire church, which is comprised of believers and their children (Eph. 1:1; 6:1-4). The commands to repent and believe for baptism are strictly made to adults; they are never commanded to the entire church, which would demolish the Paedobaptist view. Here is a very good podcast episode with Cornelis Venema where he analyzes the Paedocommunion position and refutes it: www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11111153326 Hope that this answers your question!
What would be your thoughts on James White’s comments? He said that infant baptism started due to the mortality rate, and it became more prominent after Constantine.
I once went through and fact checked J White on this topic, very few of his arguments were as water tight as he makes them out to be. JV Fesko's Word Water Spirit is a good, scholarly reference for such matters.
Yes, that's also what I was thinking. I read a little of word, water, and spirit. It's very thorough and good. I would like to read his section on the history of baptism. I would think Fesko would know more.
@@eliarroyo4508 the only truly solid point that JW had was that the Reformed/Presbyterian view of covenants/baptism was a new development in church history. But novelty alone simply isn't an argument against a position, the question is always about its continuity with scripture. The reason I personally hold the Reformed view of the covenants/baptism is that it is highly consistent with scripture and substantially more coherent than the Baptist view. By JW's reasoning, all Baptists are wrong, simply because they're a recent development in church history.
@@PaulSwansonIdAuyes, that's a good point. If he wants to be consistent, he is also wrong for believing in credo baptism from a “covenantal” perspective. I also lean more toward the reformed view, but I came from an RB church, and it seems like the foundation for the RB Position falls apart, in my opinion. The RB position sees more discontinuity.
@@eliarroyo4508 If he was to apply that logic to his own position, yes. I too was a functional reformed baptist when I looked into this issue. One thing that struck me as odd when asking Presbyterians about infant baptism was unexcited they were about the whole topic, compared to RBs. Once I realised that the big issue for them was the view of the covenants, then I was able to see that their view of infant baptism was a merely a logical conclusion to come to. So, I did a good amount of study into both RB and Presbyterian views of the covenants. It was my conclusion that the Presbo view was substantially more consistent with scripture and generally coherent. As a result, I eventually became a Presbyterian and baptised all my kids, because I am genuinely convinced its the most CONSERVATIVE and conscientious choice I could make. To sum it all up, covenant theology is the big issue here, not infant baptism. The RBs simply don't have a case to prohibit infant baptism. The Presbyterians (representing the Reformed tradition) have a huge case for their view of the covenants, as supported by Calvin, the WCF and countless since the reformation. The Reformed view of the covenants IS WHY Presbyterians baptise their babies ... and also why they disciple and catechize their children; God's covenant is for families.
Well, the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are directed to the saints (Col. 1:2, Eph. 1:2). These letter have instructions for children of believers, thus, Children of believers are a part of the community of the holy and faithful.
Hi pastor, thank you for making this video. One of my baptist friend asked some questions, wonder whether would you be willing to consider addressing them in one of your future videos? 1. If baptism replaced circumcision, why weren't females circumcised under the Old Covenant? 2. Why the need to baptize the Jews who were already circumcised and arguably baptize the 12 Jewish disciples of John again in Acts 19:1-7? If baptism is the same as circumcision, wouldn't that means there is no need for the Jewish Christians who are circumcised to be baptized? The fact that the 12 Jewish disciples of John the Baptist were baptized the second time also shows the discontinuity of the covenant. 3. In Acts 2:39 the the promise for your children is mentioned, but v41 seems to indicate only adults who received his word were baptized. So wouldn't this be arguing against infant baptism? 4. In Jeremiah 31:31 it mentions the New Covenant, however my friend pointed out that in 31:29-30, everyone shall die for his own sins, which shows that the New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant, as it depends on personal individual decision instead of ancestry. I agree with paedobaptism but I think my friend made a good point here for us to consider.
3) only due to your lens... OIKOS covenant baptism was the standard for all new testament baptisms.. when Peter repeated the promise given to Abraham, how did it mean something entirely different to the first century Jewish audience ??
Covenant kids are under the same blessings and obligations, doesn't mean they'll all be elect, as with Israel. But, adult believers (particularly parents) are to disciple and treat them as little Christians, while it remains their responsibility; parents are to trust God with the rest.
@@mrdunn38 One last thought, another way to frame this is to say that God is a God of families. He institutes them, they are his ordinary means of making and discipling believers (through Godly parenting), that this clear pattern from the OT remains in EFFECT in NT times, hence so little discussion in the NT because it is an assumed presupposition by authors and original audience alike. We see huge controversy over the removal of circumcision, giving way to baptism, as the covenant sign caused among Christian Jews, just imagine the outrage if suddenly their kids were out of the covenant by default... there would've been rioting in the streets! The reality is, no such controversy existed. I'd argue that the modern baptistic view is popular, even feels intuitive, amongst western Christians today, primarily because of how highly individualistic we are compared to first century Christians, who saw the world as families & nations, not individuals. That's my 2 cents anyway, hope it's helpful.
Because Galatians 3:27 says those who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, I view baptism as something that causes the recipient to become connected to Christ. Romans 3:1-2 teaches that a benefit of circumcision is that the recipients receive the oracles of God. Putting these covenantal acts together, I sense that baptism has many of the same benefits as does circumcision; otherwise why not circumcise Christians so that they receive these same covenantal effects? This leads to my sense that water baptism is likened to the reception of an invisible Bible. This has much in common with the reception of a manufactured Bible. As it makes little sense for a new Christian convert to not have a manufactured Bible, it makes little sense for a new convert to not have water baptism. If it makes sense to give a baby a manufactured bible, so it also makes sense to water baptize a baby.
Do we have any New Testament practice of child baptism? If yes, which one? If not, why the silence when we have several instances of baptism in Acts? The verses you have given in Acts as proof texts are inferential rather than affirmative. Why wouldn't Christ baptize children? He instead laid hands and prayed for them! If we do not find paedobaptism with Christ and His apostles, then where do we derive it from? Are we wrong to say that it came into the church due to apostasy in early Christian centuries?
I appreciate your openness to understanding the other side. I myself was raised a Calvinistic Baptist and didn't really understand the paedobaptist side at all. There was just one family in our church that was paedobaptistic, and they were the "weird ones." I eventually decided to study the subject of covenant theology because I recognized that it played a huge part in how the Reformed tradition understood baptism. After reading five books on covenant theology, I came to the conviction that covenant baptism ( believers and their households) was biblical. I would recommend that you read the book, God to Us by Stephen G. Meyer. It is the best book on covenant theology that I have read, and it is recent ; it was written in 2021 I believe. As for a clear example of covenant baptism, I would point to the household baptism texts of Acts 10 with Cornelius, Acts 16 for the household baptism of Lydia and the Philippian jailer, and the household baptism of Stephanas in 1 Cor.. Whether there were infants or not is completely irrelevant. The argument that I am making is the representative principle. The representative principle is that principle, whereby, whenever a man or woman comes to faith in Jesus Christ, all those who come under their federal authority are to receive the sign of the covenant. this representative principle is evident in the Abrahamic covenant ( Gen. 17: 12-13, 23, 27) and in the household baptisms. Do children come under the authority of their believing parents? Yes! Therefore we baptize the children of believers. I do think that it is very interesting that the average New Testament household had between 30 to 70 members. It seems very strange to me that there wouldn't be little children in some of thosehouseholds You may object and say," What if there is a fire-breathing atheist in the household who hates Jesus and refuses to be baptized?" If there is someone who clearly rejects the gospel then they shouldn't be baptized. There were provisions that were made in the Abrahamic covenant for that possibility (Gen. 17:14), and that never came into conflict with the representative principle. this same principle carries over into the New covenant practice. I would also like to address Jeremiah 32:38-40 which explicitly includes the children of believers in the New covenant. There are parallels between this passage and Jeremiah 31, so when Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, it is indirectly addressing Jeremiah 32 as well. You may say that Jeremiah 31 explicitly says that the only people who are in the New covenant are the elect. The phrase " They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," however, is used throughout the book of Jeremiah to refer to all classes, and not all without exception. For an article on that, I would recommend that you read this article: biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ecclesia-reformanda/1.2_125.pdf Again, I commend you for being open to the other side. That is not a quality that is very common these days. Most importantly, however, we are united in Christ and both embrace the gospel with all our hearts.
Christ didn’t baptize adults either… also it would make more sense to clarify to the households to specifically not baptize their babies if that’s the case since covenantal signs were always for the children then the expectation from them would that the children are included. Those who hold to a believers only baptism also reject the explicit command to baptize households as a whole since that is not practiced in credo baptist only churches now.
@@Shepherd1646 This contextually means the PROMISE of the Holy Spirit (because baptism is not a promise but an ordinance), would be received by them who had repented and taken the step of baptism and their CHILDREN (to mean the next generations). He was basically saying, the promise of the Spirit is available to all repentant, baptized believers among the Jews and their posterity and those whom the Lord shall call referring to Gentiles. This is the context. The baptism of the Jailor and his household is not a reference to little babies being baptised but as many as were under His roof that could receive Christ and confess Him. No child was baptized because the man of the home was baptized. Acts 8:12 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. Where is the reference to them baptising children? We see clear texts on men and women who believed. Children have not the capacity to be taught and to believe and repent. When it comes to the covenant analogy, remember that children joined Israel by virtue of natural birth and therefore they needed not to believe. It was the father to instruct them on what this covenant entailed but in the New Covenant we join Christ by being born again. In the natural birth of the OT the child had no choice, in the NT we enter the covenant relationship with God through a personal choice to be born again. In fact God rebukes those who thought of circumcision as just an external observance performed to every Jew born by blood but had no transformation of heart. Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. We are to take children to Jesus that they may be prayed for and dedicated to Him, then bring them up in the Lord and when they understand enough to have personal faith they can take the step of baptism. Christ would have been baptised as a little child to enter the covenant relationship and He was not. He was dedicated in the temple ad required by Jewish law. He came to Jordan for baptism of His own accord and not by parental urging or imposition.
Males were only circumcised as a typology of the sacrifice of THE SON. Hence only males being circumcised as a method of pointing to the coming Christ. The New Covenant is a bigger covenant and so all are given the sign now
Household baptism & ancient custom in the early Church are 2 major points. So I'm gonna let youze guys slide. No longer are you under the condemnation of Charles. Go and sin no more.
How does one reconcile infant baptism with Reformed theology? If the saved are predestined to be saved and the unsaved are predestined to reject Christ and be condemned, then baptizing a condemned baby cannot result in their being saved. Likewise, if an infant is predestined to be saved then they will be saved regardless even if they die without baptism.
The "primitive" church practiced believer's baptism; later baptism of infants was adopted as a means to salvation (the unbaptized infants that die go to hell teaching). That was the point that I was making. In your opinion, why do reformed churches continue to baptize infants?@@bigtobacco1098
Baptism doesn't save anyone. If that was the case, then Jesus lied to the thief on the cross and he's now in hell because he had no opportunity to be baptized.
@@Yesica1993 Christ tells the thief that he will be with Him in Paradise, and His word is true. The Lord works faith and regeneration in the hearts of men using various means. But baptism is the norm. As Scripture says in 1 Peter 3:21, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...” Other passages about Baptism’s effects I would encourage you to look at are Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-7, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:12-16, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 3:24-27, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 2:11-15, and Titus 3:4-7.
You don’t agree with it because this view isn’t Biblical. Baptism is a symbol and an outward manifestation of what occurred inside you once you become a child of God.
The great commission says nothing of water baptism. Baptism means ‘to cleanse.’ Jesus is saying, ‘go cleanse the hearts and spirits of man. Sanctifying them with knowledge of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Evident by seeing this is all one sentence. “… and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them…” see that comma there? One thought. Teach others about the triune God. Still don’t believe me? Point to all the times Jesus spoke of the value of flesh, and weigh that against his speech of the Spirit (the Spirit in every man). The flesh of a man is worth nothing. Knowledge of the Triune God cleanses a sinful heart, giving life. I’m a hypocrite, too. Everything in life I make about the flesh. I understand the heart of this error.
If I may say so, you are considering the Great Commission in isolation. You must consider that in the Acts of the Apostles, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter preaches and tells people to be baptized. He does this in obedience to Jesus's command given in the Great Commission. Later, in Acts chapter 8, the Ethiopian eunuch says, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Finally, the primary meaning of the word baptize is not "to be cleansed." The Greek baptizo means "to dip, plunge, immerse." By implication, it does mean cleanse, but by baptism in water and the Word. So there you go. You need water to be baptized.
P.S. Ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible do not have commas. They were added in modern times by printers and translators. They did not even have spaces between words!
P.S.S. One final thought: Let's say, hypothetically, the writers of the New Testament did use commas, and let's say, hypothetically, the commas were preserved in the manuscripts that we have today or that the translators of the KJV used. Well, you still can't assume that they served the same purpose or had the same meaning as they do in modern English. Different languages use commas in different ways. For example, commas are not used in Spanish in the same way they are in English. This is obvious when you work with people who are trying to learn English.
Pastor Matt , i enjoy your channel and appreciate your ministry BUT ( with all due respect), i think this teaching is very misleading, dangerous ,and unscriptural.
My 2-week-old son will be baptized in an OPC Church this Sunday! Thank you Pastor Everhard for all you do.
I am only kid baptized (Presbyterian) in my family. Only one that is a Christian. So empirically I can see that it has power.
Well, using that same logic, what about a child(baptized presbyterian)in this world who doesn't believe at all as an adult? The complete opposite happens all the time. So it means nothing.
@@DjSostre7 The reality of apostasy does not negate the gifts God promises and delivers in Baptism.
@@unit2394the gifts? And promises? From infant baptism? What does this mean? Sincerely....
I'm not even sure I want to know, because it isn't true. Men and women, baptized as babies in the presbyterian church I'm sure many will be in hell one day. So when we speak of gifts and promises given.... What gift and promise protected that individual from hell? Please......
@@DjSostre7 In Baptism we are united to Christ and enjoy all of the benefits that brings. We are washed of our sins and made regenerate. The reality that some will reject these gifts later and apostatize does not mean that God's Word speaks untrue about this issue.
I would sincerely encourage you to read what the Scriptures have to say on this issue, particularly Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-7, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:12-16, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 3:24-27, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 2:11-15, Titus 3:4-7, and 1 Peter 3:18-22. It is often difficult in our modern materialist context to see the sacraments as having any effect or purpose beyond mere symbols, but I would urge one to read these passages and just let the Word of God speak for itself. We are unused to hearing language like this and often end up twisting it because we do not have categories to deal with the issue of sacramental efficacy, because many churches do not teach about it. But the church at large has been united on this issue throughout the past two thousand years, not in the exact outworking of this issue, but in the fact that the sacraments are real and true channels of God's Grace to us, just as His Word says.
@@unit2394 okay, with all due respect, maybe you're not understanding the argument. We're talking about INFANT BAPTISM. Follow me. We're not speaking concerning a BELIEVER going and getting baptized. INFANTS cannot be united to Christ without faith.
So all that you just spoke, is invalid.
I appreciate your teachings, brother! My views on baptism changed near the end of last summer, and I'm having my newborn son baptized this weekend.
Thanks Matthew. As a baptist who's wrestled with this question for years it's nice to have a resource which lays out all these arguments which I can then investigate in more depth in my own time. I have to say though I was a bit distracted at first by the fact that baby only has four fingers haha
If you consider Saul of Tarses’ conversion and when his sight was restored by the Lord after three days of staying at Ananias’ house and was instructed to baptize the now apostle Paul in Ananias’ house.
Do you really think that Ananias had a baptismal font or a bathtub to submerge Paul in as scripture clearly says they didn’t leave the house as if to go down to a body of water.
In Scripture, even when you read it someone came up out of the water like the Ethiopian eunuch, don’t assume that means they were submerged but that they merely went in up to their ankles or perhaps knees and were baptized.
Also, I recommend looking up on Google all the examples of ancient art depicting baptism in the early church and you’ll see the vast majority show it being done by sprinkling and mainly pouring over the head, including Jesus and many others. Maybe that should tell us something.
In the Middle East. When Abraham was circumcised so was his entire household ,including the slaves. This inclusive approach may very much still have been the norm in the Roman Empire. Consider also the family expectations of less then a 100 years ago. The individualism of today is a strange phenomenon. That the children were baptized in family baptisms should be taken as a Matter of course not the exception.
Commenting for viewer engagement. Thank you!
Thanks for the explanation and informative. . I am currently doing a deep dive into the study of orthodoxy. The baptism of babies has been a big topic in church history in comparasion to the anabaptisits. Thanks again for the informative video.
I love the word “everlasting” used in genesis 17. Gods command within His covenant to Abraham is everlasting.
Baptize the children of believers.
Perfect video! Thanks.
Hopefully not too much of a trick question but my children and I have received infant baptism in the Roman Catholic Church.
Would you re-baptize converted people in that case?
I believe I’ve heard Dr Sproul answer that he wouldn’t.
The Reformers considered that and said no, any baptism with water in the Trinitarian name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does NOT need to be redone. The early church also considered a similar question regarding priests that abandon the faith and commit great sin or apostasy. Cults are exceptions as they are not trinitarian. Generally, baptism does not need to be redone.
@@MatthewEverhard oh yes, I remember Augustine fighting against the Donatists.
It makes sense to me. I don’t feel bad about this at all, but I wanted to make sure for my kiddos that they would not see it as a stumbling block for them.
Thank you so much.
@@MatthewEverhard - Sir, Here is our Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
No - if a child (or anyone for that matter) is baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit" it is a legitimate and true baptism, and must be recognized as such EVEN if done by a Catholic priest. A re-baptism is unnecessary and would really be just a ceremonial event - which I don't have a problem with; many people who were baptized as babies (their true baptism) choose to "go public" with their faith, and get immersed at a big church event and are letting the congregation know they are serious about their faith. But again, no - one does not have to be re-sprinkled OR dunked just to make it real. Churches that insist on folks being baptized in that church, before joining their church, are IMHO, in error.
Jesus said, let the little children come to me and do not hinder them. The Lord used this one verse to change my mind from credo to paedo.
infants are not able to walk yet or decide to come to Jesus.
Many inscriptions on the tombs of early Christians say “baptized on the eighth day”. I grew up in a Lutheran church back in the 60s. If you had a baby on Tuesday, it was baptized the following Sunday. Maybe the Sunday after that if the mother was still in the hospital. But they didn’t mess around. None of this waiting until they’re six months old.
brilliant!
Grace and peace.
Please I would like to request prayers for a christian that is been persecuted.
Thanks.
Lord bless you brothers.
“If Abraham is your father, then Abraham is your father.” R Scott Clark
Love this channel but i didnt get my daughter baptized. When she gets of age she will . I got baptized as a baby and just got actually baptized for the first time last week. All glory to our lord jesus christ
No rebaptisms in scripture
@bigtobacco1098 if you define you define someone sprinkling water over your head with no recollection or meaning, then you'd have a point
So why would you give someone the sign of initiation into the covenant, but then hold back the sign of covenant renewal until faith is professed? If they are in the covenant, why not treat them fully as such and give them all the covenant signs?
Was it this way in the old ??
Could you maybe do an interview/ conversation with a solid representative of the 1689 reformed Baptists ? Dr Fred Malone ,Dr Jim Renihan
Is there a book you recommend on this topic, Matthew? I'd like to see your or Presbyterian exegesis of the passages mentioned to compare and contrast. Thanks.
Here's two that were helpful for me: To a Thousand Generations by Doug Wilson, Word Water Spirit by JV Fesko. Both covering Baptism and the covenants from a Presbyterian / Reformed point of view.
yeah I just finished Wilson’s book. Challenging (as a Baptist), but I didn’t crack yet!
@@hammerbarca6 ha! You know, it's OK not to be a baptist? 😅
Pastor Matt forgot to mention at the end of the video about whether one should get their child baptized and the fact is yes, but only if you have sufficient evidence by the fruit of your life of your own conversion as getting a child baptized when you yourself are not converted makes no sense.
Sometimes I wonder if Baptists, who are mostly ignorant of scripture and you can tell that by what they say and how they live their lives, belong to a different religion.
Exodus 31:16-17 says the Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant. Nowhere are we told the Passover is the sign of the covenant.
Out of context
Great video Reverend. If I may ask, one happens to an individual that the Lord has elected to be saved and does so then dies before being able to be baptized? Many churches will not baptize unless you are a member of that specific church and that could take months. Can they baptize before membership?
If the almighty God of heaven & earth chooses to save someone, they are saved! Salvation is of the Lord - baptism does not save.
Great overview on the subject! Thanks!
During the early apostolic period, what was their reason for baptizing infants? Did any of them make the covenantal connection to circumcision?
Religious historian Augustus Neander says of first century Christianity “that the practice of infant baptism was UNKNOWN at this period.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “The whole early period knows baptism only for ADULTS, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century.”
Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.), Letter # 58 (ANF, V, 353), argues that the church ought not delay baptism until the 8th day (after the model of Jewish circumcision) but baptize a newborn immediately.
@sunnyjohnson992 any writing denotes the change ??
Thanks for that clear presentation. Would really appreciate to hear your thoughts on communion and kids. I've seen some VERY differing viewpoints in Presbyterian circles on Twitter. Hoping you might be able to give the topic the Everhard touch. Thanks again,
I would also appreciate your thoughts on this
Yeah… I think the paedocommunion question is really tough to get around if you give in to paedobaptism. I’ve been having to work through these questions recently, listened to a debate between Gentry and Rayburn (both Presbyterians) and Gentry started to sound suspiciously like a baptist as he argued against paedocommunion
@@hammerbarca6 right, that's why I'm taking my time with paedocommunion, I don't want to fall to a double standard. The thing with the reformed faith, is the smaller issues are usually determined by bigger ones, which implies very broad scriptural context. I can see that there are valid and consistent positions either way, but still too ignorant to feel confident in a decision at this time.
@@PaulSwansonIdAu I am a Presbyterian, and I don't see any inconsistency with not holding to paedocommunion. A very simple argument that I find to be very convincing is that there is no evidence of households partaking in the Lord's Supper, whereas there is explicit evidence of entire households being baptized. Also, if one reads through 1 Cor. 11 it seems as though Paul is teaching that whoever partakes in the Lord's supper must examine himself. I am also not convinced that children partook in the Passover. Yes, there is evidence that they asked questions about the meaning of the sacrament, but that doesn't prove that they actually partook in the elements of the sacrament. In Deut. 16, Moses teaches that only the head of the household and the adult males were to go up and partake in the feasts. It also seems very unlikely to me that little children would be partaking in the Passover because the elements of the sacrament would hardly be appropriate to give little children to eat, and one had to drink wine about three times during the Passover I believe; I don't think infants and little children would have been able to drink that much wine.
Here is a very good article on the subject of paedocommunion where a Presbyterian effectively - in my opinion - refutes paedocommunion:
thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40039
Hope that this helps!
@@sbrown6983 Also, we are commanded in 1 Corinthians 11:28,29 to examine ourselves and discern the body as we proclaim Christ's death (v 26) and partake in remembrance of Him (vv. 24, 25). These acts of cognition, discernment and assent are absent in the commands and example to baptize.
Outstanding Presentation.
Great video and presentation.
Unfortunately, this line of argument is the same sort that is used to justify Mariology and icon veneration. "There's no clear command anywhere for it, but we can find it when we look closely at Old Testament typology"...usually followed by vehement condemnation of those who reply that "There's still no clear command for this practice."
I found 1 Cor 7:14 to be explicit. How is a child made Holy (separate) and made clean(Water) visually in the New Covenant. This was Bahnsen's argument in his lectures on covenant theology.
I agree with you that infant baptism is biblical.
Great presentation!
Would it therefore follow, based on what you said, that infants should also participate in the Lord’s Supper? Genuinely curious
I would argue no, because we want to make sure they are of an age where they can examine themselves as Scripture commands before they come to the Table.
@@unit2394 I agree, that's a solid reason.
But, given that, in the Presbyterian view, infants can receive the sign of the covenant before they can understand it, why would the little children be kept from Christ's table and an allowance not be made for their relative capacity, in the renewal of that same covenant?
(NB: not arguing here, just working through this issue 🙂)
@@PaulSwansonIdAu I had sort of made that comparison for a while, but learning about the duty of the Christian to examine himself before coming to the Table pushed me against it. In baptism there is no duty to examine ourselves, the Bible simply commands us to be washed and we are. But to approach the table when we have not taken the proper steps beforehand is dangerous, as scripture talks about the harm which comes to those who partake in communion unworthily, which is why I think it is better to err on the side of caution. However, I have a respect for many who would practice paedocommunion, including many of the Federal Vision or CREC folks, who are probably my favorites among the Presbyterian world because they take the sacraments so seriously.
@@unit2394 I'm definitely in agreement on the importance of taking the sacraments seriously, this should at the basis of any biblical position on the matter!
To be honest, I'm starting to really appreciate that God left some of these details to be worked out later. It gives us a solid reason to study scripture more closer and work it out with our brothers in the Church. It's genuinely rewarding.
I would say no as a Presbyterian. Why? (1) Because there is no example of entire households partaking in the Lord's Supper.There is explicit evidence of entire households being baptized. (2) There is an explicit command to the church of Corinth that one must examine himself to partake in the sacrament. Furthermore, Paul says that whosoever partakes unworthily in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks judgement on themselves; infants can't examine themselves and to bring them to the table before that point would risk the curses that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 11 to fall upon them. (3) Paedocommunion wasn't the universal practice of the early church, while infant baptism was according to many early church theologians. (4) There is no explicit evidence of infants partaking in the Passover ( I personally think that all of the other arguments that I have stated are enough to refute the position, but I will go on). In Deut. 16, it seems that only the head of household and the males who had reached the age of accountability were the only ones who were to go up and partake in the Jewish feasts. Also, part of the Passover tradition was that one had to drink five cups of wine at different points of the day; God would not want drunk kids to partake in the Passover. These are my main reasons for rejecting Paedocommunion.
In anticipation of the possible objection that might be raised against my second argument that the command is directed toward adults and not to children, I would say that the command to examine oneself is to the entire church, which is comprised of believers and their children (Eph. 1:1; 6:1-4). The commands to repent and believe for baptism are strictly made to adults; they are never commanded to the entire church, which would demolish the Paedobaptist view.
Here is a very good podcast episode with Cornelis Venema where he analyzes the Paedocommunion position and refutes it:
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11111153326
Hope that this answers your question!
children refers to descendants who have not been born yet.
What would be your thoughts on James White’s comments? He said that infant baptism started due to the mortality rate, and it became more prominent after Constantine.
I once went through and fact checked J White on this topic, very few of his arguments were as water tight as he makes them out to be. JV Fesko's Word Water Spirit is a good, scholarly reference for such matters.
Yes, that's also what I was thinking. I read a little of word, water, and spirit. It's very thorough and good. I would like to read his section on the history of baptism. I would think Fesko would know more.
@@eliarroyo4508 the only truly solid point that JW had was that the Reformed/Presbyterian view of covenants/baptism was a new development in church history. But novelty alone simply isn't an argument against a position, the question is always about its continuity with scripture. The reason I personally hold the Reformed view of the covenants/baptism is that it is highly consistent with scripture and substantially more coherent than the Baptist view. By JW's reasoning, all Baptists are wrong, simply because they're a recent development in church history.
@@PaulSwansonIdAuyes, that's a good point. If he wants to be consistent, he is also wrong for believing in credo baptism from a “covenantal” perspective. I also lean more toward the reformed view, but I came from an RB church, and it seems like the foundation for the RB Position falls apart, in my opinion. The RB position sees more discontinuity.
@@eliarroyo4508 If he was to apply that logic to his own position, yes. I too was a functional reformed baptist when I looked into this issue. One thing that struck me as odd when asking Presbyterians about infant baptism was unexcited they were about the whole topic, compared to RBs. Once I realised that the big issue for them was the view of the covenants, then I was able to see that their view of infant baptism was a merely a logical conclusion to come to. So, I did a good amount of study into both RB and Presbyterian views of the covenants. It was my conclusion that the Presbo view was substantially more consistent with scripture and generally coherent. As a result, I eventually became a Presbyterian and baptised all my kids, because I am genuinely convinced its the most CONSERVATIVE and conscientious choice I could make.
To sum it all up, covenant theology is the big issue here, not infant baptism. The RBs simply don't have a case to prohibit infant baptism. The Presbyterians (representing the Reformed tradition) have a huge case for their view of the covenants, as supported by Calvin, the WCF and countless since the reformation. The Reformed view of the covenants IS WHY Presbyterians baptise their babies ... and also why they disciple and catechize their children; God's covenant is for families.
Genuine question, do we have any church father who had the same parallel-to-circumsicion covenantal view of baptism that John Calvin does?
I am a cradle-baptist.😊
Brother, can you please explain how Col. 3:20 and Eph. 6:1 refers to children directly as "saints"? Thank you.
Well, the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are directed to the saints (Col. 1:2, Eph. 1:2). These letter have instructions for children of believers, thus, Children of believers are a part of the community of the holy and faithful.
Do you support the effort to rebrand “pædobaptist” to “oikobaptist”?
I, for one, would rather be mistaken for a yogurt than a, well, something worse.
Baptism in yogurts lol, tell me now about full immersion
Are you saying baptism also imparts the holy spirit to infants?
it doesn't impart the holy spirit to anyone... pretty sure he didn't say that
Hi pastor, thank you for making this video. One of my baptist friend asked some questions, wonder whether would you be willing to consider addressing them in one of your future videos?
1. If baptism replaced circumcision, why weren't females circumcised under the Old Covenant?
2. Why the need to baptize the Jews who were already circumcised and arguably baptize the 12 Jewish disciples of John again in Acts 19:1-7? If baptism is the same as circumcision, wouldn't that means there is no need for the Jewish Christians who are circumcised to be baptized? The fact that the 12 Jewish disciples of John the Baptist were baptized the second time also shows the discontinuity of the covenant.
3. In Acts 2:39 the the promise for your children is mentioned, but v41 seems to indicate only adults who received his word were baptized. So wouldn't this be arguing against infant baptism?
4. In Jeremiah 31:31 it mentions the New Covenant, however my friend pointed out that in 31:29-30, everyone shall die for his own sins, which shows that the New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant, as it depends on personal individual decision instead of ancestry.
I agree with paedobaptism but I think my friend made a good point here for us to consider.
I think your friend is right
1) the new covenant is a better covenant...
2) not the same and nobody says that
2) the OIKOS covenant is repeated in Acts 2:38
3) only due to your lens... OIKOS covenant baptism was the standard for all new testament baptisms.. when Peter repeated the promise given to Abraham, how did it mean something entirely different to the first century Jewish audience ??
Can you explain children who've been baptized and are not believers? Thanks.
Many such cases.
Covenant kids are under the same blessings and obligations, doesn't mean they'll all be elect, as with Israel. But, adult believers (particularly parents) are to disciple and treat them as little Christians, while it remains their responsibility; parents are to trust God with the rest.
@@PaulSwansonIdAu thank you for taking the time to explain that!
@@mrdunn38 you're welcome!
@@mrdunn38 One last thought, another way to frame this is to say that God is a God of families. He institutes them, they are his ordinary means of making and discipling believers (through Godly parenting), that this clear pattern from the OT remains in EFFECT in NT times, hence so little discussion in the NT because it is an assumed presupposition by authors and original audience alike. We see huge controversy over the removal of circumcision, giving way to baptism, as the covenant sign caused among Christian Jews, just imagine the outrage if suddenly their kids were out of the covenant by default... there would've been rioting in the streets! The reality is, no such controversy existed. I'd argue that the modern baptistic view is popular, even feels intuitive, amongst western Christians today, primarily because of how highly individualistic we are compared to first century Christians, who saw the world as families & nations, not individuals. That's my 2 cents anyway, hope it's helpful.
Because Galatians 3:27 says those who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, I view baptism as something that causes the recipient to become connected to Christ. Romans 3:1-2 teaches that a benefit of circumcision is that the recipients receive the oracles of God. Putting these covenantal acts together, I sense that baptism has many of the same benefits as does circumcision; otherwise why not circumcise Christians so that they receive these same covenantal effects? This leads to my sense that water baptism is likened to the reception of an invisible Bible. This has much in common with the reception of a manufactured Bible. As it makes little sense for a new Christian convert to not have a manufactured Bible, it makes little sense for a new convert to not have water baptism. If it makes sense to give a baby a manufactured bible, so it also makes sense to water baptize a baby.
Do we have any New Testament practice of child baptism? If yes, which one? If not, why the silence when we have several instances of baptism in Acts? The verses you have given in Acts as proof texts are inferential rather than affirmative. Why wouldn't Christ baptize children? He instead laid hands and prayed for them! If we do not find paedobaptism with Christ and His apostles, then where do we derive it from? Are we wrong to say that it came into the church due to apostasy in early Christian centuries?
I appreciate your openness to understanding the other side. I myself was raised a Calvinistic Baptist and didn't really understand the paedobaptist side at all. There was just one family in our church that was paedobaptistic, and they were the "weird ones."
I eventually decided to study the subject of covenant theology because I recognized that it played a huge part in how the Reformed tradition understood baptism. After reading five books on covenant theology, I came to the conviction that covenant baptism ( believers and their households) was biblical. I would recommend that you read the book, God to Us by Stephen G. Meyer. It is the best book on covenant theology that I have read, and it is recent ; it was written in 2021 I believe.
As for a clear example of covenant baptism, I would point to the household baptism texts of Acts 10 with Cornelius, Acts 16 for the household baptism of Lydia and the Philippian jailer, and the household baptism of Stephanas in 1 Cor.. Whether there were infants or not is completely irrelevant. The argument that I am making is the representative principle. The representative principle is that principle, whereby, whenever a man or woman comes to faith in Jesus Christ, all those who come under their federal authority are to receive the sign of the covenant. this representative principle is evident in the Abrahamic covenant ( Gen. 17: 12-13, 23, 27) and in the household baptisms. Do children come under the authority of their believing parents? Yes! Therefore we baptize the children of believers. I do think that it is very interesting that the average New Testament household had between 30 to 70 members. It seems very strange to me that there wouldn't be little children in some of thosehouseholds
You may object and say," What if there is a fire-breathing atheist in the household who hates Jesus and refuses to be baptized?" If there is someone who clearly rejects the gospel then they shouldn't be baptized. There were provisions that were made in the Abrahamic covenant for that possibility (Gen. 17:14), and that never came into conflict with the representative principle. this same principle carries over into the New covenant practice.
I would also like to address Jeremiah 32:38-40 which explicitly includes the children of believers in the New covenant. There are parallels between this passage and Jeremiah 31, so when Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, it is indirectly addressing Jeremiah 32 as well.
You may say that Jeremiah 31 explicitly says that the only people who are in the New covenant are the elect. The phrase " They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," however, is used throughout the book of Jeremiah to refer to all classes, and not all without exception. For an article on that, I would recommend that you read this article:
biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ecclesia-reformanda/1.2_125.pdf
Again, I commend you for being open to the other side. That is not a quality that is very common these days. Most importantly, however, we are united in Christ and both embrace the gospel with all our hearts.
@@Shepherd1646 neither of these prove your point
@@Shepherd1646 the scriptures you chose don't support your point
Christ didn’t baptize adults either… also it would make more sense to clarify to the households to specifically not baptize their babies if that’s the case since covenantal signs were always for the children then the expectation from them would that the children are included. Those who hold to a believers only baptism also reject the explicit command to baptize households as a whole since that is not practiced in credo baptist only churches now.
@@Shepherd1646 This contextually means the PROMISE of the Holy Spirit (because baptism is not a promise but an ordinance), would be received by them who had repented and taken the step of baptism and their CHILDREN (to mean the next generations). He was basically saying, the promise of the Spirit is available to all repentant, baptized believers among the Jews and their posterity and those whom the Lord shall call referring to Gentiles. This is the context.
The baptism of the Jailor and his household is not a reference to little babies being baptised but as many as were under His roof that could receive Christ and confess Him. No child was baptized because the man of the home was baptized.
Acts 8:12 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.
Where is the reference to them baptising children? We see clear texts on men and women who believed. Children have not the capacity to be taught and to believe and repent.
When it comes to the covenant analogy, remember that children joined Israel by virtue of natural birth and therefore they needed not to believe. It was the father to instruct them on what this covenant entailed but in the New Covenant we join Christ by being born again. In the natural birth of the OT the child had no choice, in the NT we enter the covenant relationship with God through a personal choice to be born again.
In fact God rebukes those who thought of circumcision as just an external observance performed to every Jew born by blood but had no transformation of heart.
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
We are to take children to Jesus that they may be prayed for and dedicated to Him, then bring them up in the Lord and when they understand enough to have personal faith they can take the step of baptism. Christ would have been baptised as a little child to enter the covenant relationship and He was not. He was dedicated in the temple ad required by Jewish law. He came to Jordan for baptism of His own accord and not by parental urging or imposition.
I refer to the Presbyterian baptism as Covenant baptism to emphasise this very thing.
👍🤟
When Jesus said that,He was talking about the Jews🤔
Great short presentation on infant baptism. Thanks
So you limit Baptism to only male infants then since only males were circumcised?
No... Peter makes it an entire household thing in Acts 2:38
Males were only circumcised as a typology of the sacrifice of THE SON. Hence only males being circumcised as a method of pointing to the coming Christ. The New Covenant is a bigger covenant and so all are given the sign now
@@nonameguy4441 That is a terrible argument.
@@DrGero15 lol!
Household baptism & ancient custom in the early Church are 2 major points. So I'm gonna let youze guys slide. No longer are you under the condemnation of Charles. Go and sin no more.
How does one reconcile infant baptism with Reformed theology? If the saved are predestined to be saved and the unsaved are predestined to reject Christ and be condemned, then baptizing a condemned baby cannot result in their being saved. Likewise, if an infant is predestined to be saved then they will be saved regardless even if they die without baptism.
Not follow your reasoning... we don't baptize on regeneration
The "primitive" church practiced believer's baptism; later baptism of infants was adopted as a means to salvation (the unbaptized infants that die go to hell teaching). That was the point that I was making. In your opinion, why do reformed churches continue to baptize infants?@@bigtobacco1098
Children are a part of the covenant. And Baptism saves.
Do we have a Lutheran lurking around here...? 😅
Baptism doesn't save anyone. If that was the case, then Jesus lied to the thief on the cross and he's now in hell because he had no opportunity to be baptized.
@@PaulSwansonIdAu We may indeed 😅
@@unit2394 awesome! You guys are a hoot. I don't always agree on all points, but I always appreciate the biblical provocation you provide me with.
@@Yesica1993 Christ tells the thief that he will be with Him in Paradise, and His word is true. The Lord works faith and regeneration in the hearts of men using various means. But baptism is the norm. As Scripture says in 1 Peter 3:21, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...” Other passages about Baptism’s effects I would encourage you to look at are Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-7, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:12-16, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 3:24-27, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 2:11-15, and Titus 3:4-7.
Matt I love you and your channel. It’s one of my go toos in my Christian walk. I just don’t agree with this. Hard to wrap my mind around all of this
You don’t agree with it because this view isn’t Biblical. Baptism is a symbol and an outward manifestation of what occurred inside you once you become a child of God.
Infant baptism in lieu of circumcision???
Galatians 5:2
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
The great commission says nothing of water baptism. Baptism means ‘to cleanse.’ Jesus is saying, ‘go cleanse the hearts and spirits of man. Sanctifying them with knowledge of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Evident by seeing this is all one sentence. “… and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them…” see that comma there? One thought. Teach others about the triune God.
Still don’t believe me? Point to all the times Jesus spoke of the value of flesh, and weigh that against his speech of the Spirit (the Spirit in every man). The flesh of a man is worth nothing. Knowledge of the Triune God cleanses a sinful heart, giving life.
I’m a hypocrite, too. Everything in life I make about the flesh. I understand the heart of this error.
If I may say so, you are considering the Great Commission in isolation. You must consider that in the Acts of the Apostles, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter preaches and tells people to be baptized. He does this in obedience to Jesus's command given in the Great Commission. Later, in Acts chapter 8, the Ethiopian eunuch says, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Finally, the primary meaning of the word baptize is not "to be cleansed." The Greek baptizo means "to dip, plunge, immerse." By implication, it does mean cleanse, but by baptism in water and the Word. So there you go. You need water to be baptized.
P.S. Ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible do not have commas. They were added in modern times by printers and translators. They did not even have spaces between words!
P.S.S. One final thought: Let's say, hypothetically, the writers of the New Testament did use commas, and let's say, hypothetically, the commas were preserved in the manuscripts that we have today or that the translators of the KJV used. Well, you still can't assume that they served the same purpose or had the same meaning as they do in modern English. Different languages use commas in different ways. For example, commas are not used in Spanish in the same way they are in English. This is obvious when you work with people who are trying to learn English.
Unbibical no one verse in bible supports this
Acts 2:38
Pastor Matt , i enjoy your channel and appreciate your ministry BUT ( with all due respect), i think this teaching is very misleading, dangerous ,and unscriptural.
So wrong