Baptize Your INFANTS with Redeemed Zoomer | ReformCast

[@NotJustinMartyr64]

The collab of the century 🔥🔥🔥

[@Nirvanafanboy1991]

Fr fr

[@BigBozo2]

New subscriber, here to stay and listen.

[@isaiahwlong]

Thanks brother!!

[@ClearlyGospel]

Lovely conversation chaps, it's heartening to see young men standing so proudly in the faith! I am a recent addition to the Christian-creator space here on KZbin, but your successes in the name of the Kingdom, here, put the wind in my sails to persist. I also appreciate the nuance with which you guys approach this topic, in particular - I started my journey with Christ as a total Anabaptist, then moved to a Credo-Baptist position, and have since been settled for some time in the Paedo-Baptist position, once I started to take the matter seriously. It was hard to deal with the strange amount of vitriol around the matter in our circles, and am glad to see the conversation being helmed with love, and respect, for not only the truth, but for our brothers and sisters in Christ, as well here. Many blessings, and keep up the good work.

[@carolinajackson7621]

What is the difference between Anabaptist & credo-baptist? The Anabaptist baptism is also a baptism of believers

[@ClearlyGospel]

@@carolinajackson7621 They are strikingly similar in their output, absolutely, BUT, a credo-baptist does not necessarily recognise their infant baptism as illegitimate, and so would not necessarily re-baptise themselves, but would not go on to advocate for others' infant baptisms. An anabaptist literally means "re-baptiser", and so they not only believe in a confessing baptism, but they believe their own infant baptisms are illegitimate, and so would baptise themselves again. Basically, all anabaptists are credo-baptists, but not all credo-baptists are anabaptists, as some will not have themselves rebaptised, believing the grace of God in their initial baptism to still be sufficient.

[@Apf37]

I agree with what zoomer said, the covenantal argument was the first one I heard and it made sense but what fully convinced me and sealed my belief in paedobaptism was 1 Peter 3:21. A lot of baptists aren’t covenantal or at least aren’t in the same way as Presbyterians so I think arguing for baptismal efficacy is pretty easy even apart from the covenantal context. All you really need for that imo is 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38-39. Great discussion!! Loved getting to listen to this one Isaiah I’m looking forward to your book on the topic I’m very passionate about this becoming the widely accepted view in southern America again.

[@PulsePilgrim]

Praise God for His grace! The communal aspect of baptism is clearly implied in 1 Cor 7:14. Our children are "holy", which means set apart from the world and united to the community of believers Keep it up young lads!

[@isaiahwlong]

Thank you so much!!

[@carolinajackson7621]

But some children of believers will not end up following the Lord. I don't understand that part so well

[@PulsePilgrim]

@@carolinajackson7621 Yes this is true, but it is also true of some adults who get baptized and turn away from the Lord. Both camps are in the same predicament. The proper way of understanding baptism is God's sign is this: to outwardly mark a person as being a member of His covenant community - no matter what age the person is. The old covenant sign of circumcision (Gen 17) was replaced by baptism (Col 2:11-12). If a baptized person walks away from the Lord, then the waters of baptism no longer represent washing, but instead they represent the waters of judgment (think of the flood, or the parting of the red sea for the Egyptians). It is a deep subject and hard to work out in just a paragraph...

[@carolinajackson7621]

@@PulsePilgrim thks for explaining. I heard a Presbyterian pastor say once that Ishmael was outside the covenant (even if we was circumcised). What is r take in that?

[@Levi-rl3fu]

@@PulsePilgrimYou say “walks away from the Lord,” which to me implies that a child, when baptized, must know or follow the Lord in some way. Could you please clarify? This sounds like question begging based on the preconception that baptism causes one to be in Christ.

[@RevDonBaker]

Around the 21:15 minute mark Zoomer comments on the lack of patristic support for the Presbyterian view of infant baptism as often commented on by Dr. White. I actually made a video on this very subject you might interested in. While the Fathers may lack the fully developed covenant theology, the basic connection of baptism and circumcision and the continuity of the covenant people is very supported in the Fathers. The video is called The Historicity of Reformed Infant Baptism. The historical content is in the last 10 minutes of the video or so.

[@calebdyer8694]

As for the Baptist definition of baptism, Augustine famously said that a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. That is what the Baptists have believed. Not that their view is correct (Augustine was obviously not a credobaptist lol) but their definition does have historical founding. I also think you guys should have some better articulated Baptists on your podcast. Not sure you guys truly understand the historic baptist position, or it at least didn't come through in this video. I think having someone on who can articulate some of the "cringe" positions Baptists hold would be helpful to everyone who watches these videos, so that they can actually understand the baptist position. thanks!

[@alexanderh2345]

Were infants going up to the Temple to pray? Were they bringing their evening and morning oblations unto the Lord to be sacrificed? Did Hannah bring Samuel to the Tabernacle to serve while he was still an infant, or after he had already grown into early adolescence? God commanded the Israelites to be ready to give an account to their children of all that they believed when their children asked. That’s because if their children were cognizant enough to ask then they were cognizant enough to obey the faith. We must follow that example.

[@ashleysbored6710]

argument invalidated because RZ has blasphemed the sacred incense

[@isaiahwlong]

Silence!

[@reformedholycannoli]

Honestly, I feel like this topic needs further exploration. Good discussion had though. Also the covenantal argument is by far the best argument for infant baptism and I don’t care what anyone says. If you are actually reformed then you will use your best tool, the correct view, covenant theology.

[@isaiahwlong]

We will dive deeper soon!

[@codywork-us7wu]

covenant theology is based

[@reformedholycannoli]

@@codywork-us7wu the most

[@reformedholycannoli]

@@HaleStorm49 since never in history

[@HaleStorm49]

@@reformedholycannoli It's the only way the statutes of the covenant can be enforced. Otherwise the atheists are correct and there is no free will. Praying for the eyes of the blind and visible impaired to be opened.

[@hismajesty6272]

I for one will NOT be baptizing my infants. My priest will 😊

[@calebdyer8694]

Credobaptist leaning paedobaptist here. One question I had from the first couple points of the video. What makes the covenant wqith Abraham everlasting? what makes passover everlasting? It seems that the thing that makes those everlasting is Jesus being the fulfillment of those things, and since he is everlasting, the covenant is everlasting. So to be a part of the everlasting covenant, would you not need to be united to the everlasting One in whom the covenant is fulfilled? Thanks!

[@isaiahwlong]

What makes them everlasting is 1. God said they were haha and 2. They are part of the overarching covenant of grace which is the only way man can be saved. That covenant is everlasting so it makes those signs everlasting.

[@isaiahwlong]

I touch on this in my upcoming book more in detail.

[@mewtube2671]

No wonder Karl Barth had such big problems, he had to deal with two women, not just one

[@isaiahwlong]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[@Nirvanafanboy1991]

The thing that finally convinced me of infant baptism was the fact that baptism is the new circumcision. Great convo as well!!

[@VFXShawn]

Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands", water baptism is performed by human hands, and thus, is not the new circumcision. Paul said clearly in 1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel". We are baptized by one Spirit into one Body (1 Corinthians 12:13), this is a spiritual baptism performed by the Spirit of God, and has nothing to do with water. Water baptism was an earthly ordinance for Israel, who are to become a nation of priests (Isaiah 61:6; Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6), and all priests must be cleansed in water according to the law (Numbers 19:7). The Body of Christ is not Israel and is not a nation of priests, so their water baptism is not for us, and is certainly not for infant babies. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4), and babies can not repent of anything, nor do they need to. Today, we must believe the gospel, upon which we receive the Spirit of God: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 1:13).

[@PsychoSpartan7]

Dang didn't know they circumcised females and pagans in the OT.

[@carolinajackson7621]

​@@PsychoSpartan7female israelies were included in the covenant

[@Mr2001ghost]

Except Colossians 2 does not equate physical baptism with circumcision but rather the ‘circumcision made without hands’ which is regeneration/new-birth.

[@VFXShawn]

@@Mr2001ghost Amen. Paul said clearly in 1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel". We are baptized by one Spirit into one Body (1 Corinthians 12:13), this is a spiritual baptism performed by the Spirit of God, and has nothing to do with water. Water baptism was an earthly ordinance for Israel, who are to become a nation of priests (Isaiah 61:6; Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6), and all priests must be cleansed in water according to the law (Numbers 19:7). Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands", water baptism is performed by human hands, and thus, is not the new circumcision. The Body of Christ is not Israel and is not a nation of priests, so their water baptism is not for us, and is certainly not for infant babies. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4), and babies can not repent of anything, nor do they need to. Today, we must believe the gospel, upon which we receive the Spirit of God: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 1:13). This is how a person is saved today according to Paul's gospel, which is the only gospel in effect today during the dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3). God will return to saving Israel "after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25-26), then "Israel shall be saved as it is written". What is written about Israel in the Old Testament will come to pass once Paul's ministry to the Gentiles concludes, then Hebrews to Revelation are the doctrine for the final generation of Israel to inherit the promises, resist the mark of the beast and the antichrist, endure to the end of the tribulation and the time of Jacob's trouble, etc. If you do not rightly divide between Paul's ministry for the last 2000 years to the Gentiles during Israel's fall (Romans 11), and the future fulfillment of Israel's kingdom, you will be doctrinally confused all your life and your ministry will not be approved by God. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15).

[@jethrokingsley8903]

The Bible says: -faith saves -confession saves -repentance saves -baptism saves They must all be in place Salvation is not a one time thing, but all must be done. And household baptism doesnt say Children were baptised does it? Leighton Flowers does some good work on whether you are born guilty of the sin of Adam. Yes we are born into a sin nature,but without guilt until we have developed a conscience.

[@isaiahwlong]

No. You are born guilty. The Bible makes this clear. Leighton Flowers is a heretic. Also, it is silly to think that households from the first century AD had no children in them.

[@jethrokingsley8903]

@@isaiahwlong Hi. Thanks for the quick response. Please if you have time send me some texts to prove children's guilt. Very interested to hear why Leighton is a heretic. A word slung around very quickly these days. I'm sorry if you see that as silly but, for me at least, if there are many examples of baptisms in the book of Acts and none of them are children, there doesn't seem to be a reason to assume that children were included in the households. Happy to be proven wrong. Scripture is most important. Blessings.

[@jethrokingsley8903]

Do you think a child can give an account of themselves before God as per Romans 14:12?

[@isaiahwlong]

I'll make a video answering your questions soon. I also have a book coming soon on this topic!!

[@jethrokingsley8903]

@@isaiahwlong Great. I will give it a watch. I no doubt have many many views that are wrong or at the very least imperfect. I wish that discussions would be laced with more gentleness towards each other even if they see things very differently. I wish you well in the Lord.

[@alexanderh2345]

You must have cognizance of your baptism. Infants do not and therefore cannot be baptized. It’s pure foolishness. There is no scripture which supports it and so we should reject it all together. Why confuse scripture which is so simple? Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation.

[@bigtobacco1098]

It's repeated OIKOS covenant

[@ryanbursell6076]

Can you imagine your whole life based on a belief system as archaic as the Greeks? It is human nature to look for a deeper meaning but Ive found that life itself gives meaning. Otherwise who would be there to ask the questions. Views dont give meaning.

[@tomk4984]

Hebrews 8 convinced me of believers baptism. Those who are in the new covenant have their sins forgiven.

[@VFXShawn]

Hebrews, like the books after it, James 1:1 "to the twelve tribes scattered", is doctrine for Israel in their last days, not for the Body of Christ during the dispensation of grace to the Gentiles (Ephesians 3).

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@@VFXShawn 2 Timothy 3:16-17

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

MY INNER CREDOBAPTIST IS SCREAMING!!!

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

There is NO biblical argument for infant baptism.

[@isaiahwlong]

Watch the video lol.

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

​@@isaiahwlong - I did watch the video. Redeemed Zoomer said that it infant baptism has prooftexts in Scripture (via "household baptisms"). The passages that he's referencing in the Book of Acts are not referring to infants anywhere within the text. Thus, it's not a "proof text" if it offers no real proof. Rather, Redeemed Zoomer is relying upon what is essentially the paedo-baptism argument used by Roman Catholics and certain tradition-oriented Protestant denominations. Even the reliance upon a single passage quoted from the Council of Carthage by Cyprian of Carthage (more than two hundred years after the death and resurrection of Christ) reads somewhat differently than it is often interpreted for us via paedo-baptism apologists. Rather than encouraging paedo-baptism or equating it to a New Testament form of circumcision, he concludes by saying, "No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken" (Cyprian Letters 64:2). What's notable is that, nearly a century earlier, Tertullian of Carthage discouraged baptizing "little children." He continued by explaining the reason for delaying baptism of children: "Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins" (Tertullian, On Baptism 18)? This sentiment seems to be shared in the earliest of church writings. Even early writings like the Didache indicate a different form of baptism. Pouring water (rather than sprinkling) was only permissible in circumstances in which all of the previously methods of baptism (i.e., in living water [e.g., a river, stream], other water [e.g., standing water, pond, lake], into cold, into hot) weren't an option. After all, the Koine Greek word for "baptize" is a relatively common Greek word for "immerse." In fact, the presence of the word "baptize" into English and other languages is one of high church tradition (to retain the traditional liturgy) rather than an accurate translation. After all, those who are baptized are baptized ("immersed") INTO water. This has profound impact on the purpose of baptism in the first place. Paul makes it quite clear in Acts 19 (with the men of Ephesus) where he distinguishes between John's baptism (i.e., of repentance), baptism into the Name of the Lord and. afterward, receiving the subsequent Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. However, this means that the Catholic interpretation of being "born of water" (in John 3) doesn't equate to baptism (i.e., immersion) but that of natural birth (i.e., born first from a mother's water then born again by the Spirit when a person). Either way, I'm really happy that you guys are discussing such things. I was agnostic before believing in Jesus. I didn't trust any church, denomination, creeds, preachers, etc. In fact, I am still this way. I guess that has to do with my own mental and academic background. My wife and I don't have any kids yet, but we are fully convinced that any person must choose Christ. As the Scriptures indicate (along with most earliest church writings) that baptism is something of a personal covenant and declaration that you enter with God -- death to self but alive with Christ. Unlike circumcision, it's something that you enter into of your own accord.

[@onecrispynugget9959]

@@isaiahwlongI don’t think bro’s gonna watch the video😂

[@isaiahwlong]

@@onecrispynugget9959 Yeah I know

[@tylermorgan552]

did u watch the video