Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Re: George Janko and Cliffe Knechtle @georgejanko @askcliffe

Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Re: George Janko and Cliffe Knechtle @georgejanko @askcliffe
Scripture or Church? Which one comes first? Infant Baptism is both biblical and historically practiced...

[@mwhabs]

The explanation of the church as the pillar of truth is wonderful. Thank you Abouna and COA! 🙏✝️

[@donhaddix3770]

not biblical.

[@mwhabs]

@@donhaddix3770 Thank you for your clear and concise explanation. 👏

[@c.Ichthys]

​​@@donhaddix3770 1 Tim 3:15 "...in God's Household which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth." Amen

[@LillyOfTheValley77]

@@donhaddix3770 He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15)

[@donhaddix3770]

@@LillyOfTheValley77 they never taught the rcc church

[@curiousing]

This is an excellent video. I'd always wondered what the Orthodox answer to this is, as I've never heard the Scripture passages about baptizing the whole household used in the context of this explanation. Nor had I considered the point that the Bible nowhere says NOT to baptize infants-which is just as strong an argument as the argument that it doesn't explicitly mention any infant baptisms, and much stronger than that argument when paired with reference to the household baptisms. Fr. Gabriel, I pray that our churches will be reunited in our lifetime so that we Eastern Orthodox may tell others about your channel and have the pride of saying, "He's one of our own!" 🙂 But in the meantime, I refer many of my EO friends to your videos, and they love them!

[@SDJ992-q9t]

Misconception: When the Bible says that a jailer in Philippi “and his entire household were baptized,” it implies that infants were baptized too. Facts: For one thing, NO AGES are even mentioned! For another, before the jailer and his household were baptized, they heard and accepted “the word of Jehovah God.” (Acts 16:31,32,34) Therefore, they must have been old enough to understand what was said and to BELIEVE in God and the Lord Jesus. A person that wants to get baptized should at least understand the basic teachings of God’s Word and living in harmony with those teachings. And through prayer, he has dedicated his life to God. (Acts 8:12) Infants aren’t able to do these things!

[@curiousing]

@@SDJ992-q9t You're arguing from silence. It's not a strong way to argue from the Bible. And it suggests you don't understand much about ancient households. They're not white middle-class American couples who choose not to have kids. There were kids in those households, be assured.

[@joussefsedeek3759]

@@SDJ992-q9t Children also didn't fully comprehend Christ's divinity but He didn't stop them from coming to him and He even rebuked the apostles for trying to stop them. How do you address that?

[@joussefsedeek3759]

@rejipaul2185 cool copy paste bro but you fail to answer my point and even the priest's point in the video. He doesn't negate the need for faith being connected to baptism but at the same time why not offer God's love and presence through baptizing His children? Why didn't Christ deny the children coming towards him even though they didn't comprehend his divinity? Answer that first before going off on "sola scriptura" nonsense that deviates from the Early Church.

[@joussefsedeek3759]

@rejipaul2185 Also ironic enough to declare yourself as not a teacher yet basically take a jab at a priest who gives you biblical basis for infant baptism but decide to call him a "false teacher". Yikes

[@misganabere6115]

Great explanation God bless you Fr .Gabriel wisa

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

God bless!

[@mwhabs]

Also really appreciated the parallel you reminded us of between the Old Testament circumcision and the baptism in the New Testament. God bless! 🔥

[@donhaddix3770]

there is no parallel. circumcision was covenant to the Jews, not gentiles.

[@mwhabs]

@@donhaddix3770oh okay never mind! Thank you for clarifying 👏✝️

[@josephjacob3274]

@@donhaddix3770 and yet, theologians in the 3rd century said let infants be baptised. this was before Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire.

[@donhaddix3770]

@josephjacob3274 so what? circumcision did make them believes in the ot.

[@josephjacob3274]

@@donhaddix3770 The Jewish expectation at the time was that the children of believers would share in the blessings of the covenant along with their parents. Thus on Pentecost Peter told the crowds: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38-39). As the Christian initiation ritual, baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the Jewish initiation ritual. Paul explicitly identifies baptism as “the circumcision of Christ,” telling his readers: “In [Jesus] also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands, by the removal of the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism” (Col. 2:11-12)

[@thealpha4966]

I really love this style of answering questions, especially to really trending and commonly asked questions. Thank you so much Fr. Gabriel Wisa

[@copticconcept]

Thank you for this Abouna, this is the content the youth need. Many in our church may sometimes be led astray by Protestant ideology in the diaspora. God bless you always for protecting our faith!

[@mussietesfamikael2713]

God bless you Father. Very explanatory ❤

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Glad to hear

[@kikikaakau-delizo8152]

I love this exegesis, Fr. Gabriel! ❤❤ Thank you!

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Glory to God

[@anomalyweddings]

Absolutely love this video; I knew there would be an answer, Orthodoxy always has the answer and I love it! I shall be sharing this next time this comes up for sure. There are always exceptions to the rule though - Literally today's (11th May 24) synaxarian is about St Sarah & her two sons. Plus we look at the thief on the right hand cross - but these are exceptions for sure. Cliff is a great apologist and I've enjoyed many hours hearing him preach at college campuses.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The true basis of baptism is found in Jesus’ commandment about who is to be be baptized - _disciples._ *Matthew 28:18-20* _And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."_ The household texts simply _do not_ support infant baptism. When we examine the ‘household’ accounts closely: • Acts 10:2 portrays Cornelius as a devout man who feared God _with all his household,_ implying everyone in that household was mature enough to ‘fear God’. Additionally, they were all present to hear (ἀκούω - akouó, meaning to hear with understanding) Peter (Acts 10:33) and all received the Holy Spirit with praising God and speaking in tongues and it is only the people who did so that were baptized (Acts 10:44-48); • Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) is not said to have been married (the fact she prevailed upon the apostles in her own right suggests not) or, even if she was, to have had infants or children too young to have repented of their sins nor expressed saving faith, so there is no reason to suppose such infants or children were part of her household. It is also difficult to see how she might have been engaged in trade some 400mi (650km) from home (the overland distance from Philippi to Thyatira) with an infant or young child; • Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-33) that salvation was available to all in his household who believed, and all of whom are said to have been baptized and to have rejoiced in their belief. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; • Crispus (Acts 18:8) believed in the Lord, together with all his household. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; and • Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) and his household were baptized but 1 Corinthians 16:15 clarifies that his whole household had “devoted themselves to the service of the saints”. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough both to: convert to Christianity; and devote themselves to serving. Your treatment of *Colossians 2:11-12* _In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead._ is disingenuous at best. The Epistle is addressed to _believers_- most of whom were probably gentiles who had converted to Christianity as adults. No mention is made of their unbelieving infants, so the only addressees who have undergone the new covenant's non-physical circumcision and have been baptized are _disciples._ This is thoroughly analogous to the conversion process a male proselyte would undergo when converting to Judaism. That process included both a ritual bath (mikveh) and physical circumcision. Female proselytes only bathed. Given what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:14, it beggars belief to suggest he is now advocating paedobaptism. There are other fundamental differences between circumcision and baptism. For Jews, male infants were circumcised as a mark of being under the Abrahamic covenant; it had nothing to do with salvation and required no belief by the infant. Females were never circumcised. By contrast, Christian baptism is for male _and_ female _disciples_ alike; there is simply no warrant in this text for baptizing unbelieving infants. That's just crass eisegesis and I'd be surprised if you didn't know the sound arguments against your abuse of this text. Paul also puts it beyond doubt that infants don't need to be baptized *1 Corinthians 7:14* _For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy._ Note that baptism isn’t even mentioned (not even the baptism of a believing parent); it is enough for either parent to be a believer for the unbelieving spouse to be consecrated and their children to be holy. As for *Matthew 19:14-15* _Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away._ the noun for child in these verses is παιδίον (paidion), which refers to a young child _old enough to be in training,_ not an infant. The noun for infant is βρέφος (brephos). And Jesus didn't say _“Bring_ the infants to me”. Hence Jesus’ “Let the children come to me” should be understood as _allowing_ children who are old enough to approach Him _of their own volition;_ it has nothing to do with newborns being _brought_ to him. What is more, when Jesus said "for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven", he quite clearly didn't think that, at their young age (perhaps up to 7yo), baptism was a prerequisite. Read again 1 Corinthians 7:14. Ultimately, to maintain the paedobaptism heresy, one has to throw out Jesus' commandments in the Great Commission - to baptize disciples and teach them to _obey_ his commands - which includes who is to be baptized, added to which one must twist the meanings of a whole bunch other scriptures beyond recognition. Your claims about the early church are a load of selective twaddle. If the apostles were baptizing infants, please explain *Didache 7.4* _But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before._ The Didache is universally recognized as predating any of your sources! Do you require infants to fast for one or two days before allowing them to be baptized? Do you expect us to believe that's what the apostles required of infants? Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) restricted baptism to those who “are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins” acquired when they were “brought up in bad habits and wicked training” ( _First Apology_ 61). How is that applicable to paedobaptism? Tertullian (c.160-220), writing c.205-210, denounced paedobaptism, saying, not only were infants innocent but they were also incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). These all predate your 'evidences'. So how come you didn't mention any of them? Let's look at some other early writings. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism. Even the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) restricted baptism to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Baptismal deferral till later in life was the norm, even among the clergy. For example: • Basil of Caesarea (330-378) wasn’t baptized until he was appointed reader there (c.356). • Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) wasn’t baptized until c.362 - by his father who was himself bishop of Nazianzus - at about the time he was ordained a presbyter there. • Ambrose of Milan (c.339-397) wasn’t baptized until he was appointed bishop there (374). • Nectarius (?-397), who was already a praetor (magistrate) of Constantinople, wasn’t even baptized until he’d been appointed to preside over the Council of Constantinople (381). • John Chrysostom (c.349-407) wasn’t baptized until 368 or 373, when he was appointed as a reader in the church. Even Emperor Constantine (c.272-337) wasn’t baptized until he was near death, in 337.

[@bestyoutubeuser]

Such an incredible video, Abouna! Thank you so much for sharing this wisdom and insight! God bless you ❤

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Thank God :)

[@AssyrianChristian]

Amin. Great video, Fr.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Thank God

[@rossanderson5243]

In Bible class today, there was a part on that we need to protect our church. You do a great job in doing so Abouna. God bless you.

[@TheNewCrusade]

Amen Father. Wonderful Response.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Glory to God

[@andrewboctor7357]

Thank you Abouna! This is very helpful to us Copts when explaining our faith to others

[@God-db9vp]

God Almighty bless you abuna.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

God bless

[@johnrabahi7689]

Bless you Fr in Jesus name amen 🙏

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Amen

[@12anathema]

God bless you abuna!

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Amen

[@JoelMorgan-Bullock]

You make an excellent point about infant baptism, I don't think its wrong to be baptised as a child but I personally preferred making the choice to be baptised when I was 14. I don't have children yet but when I do I will return to this issue and make a decision with my wife whether to baptise them as infants or wait until they can make the informed choice themselves.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

God bless you

[@simonline1194]

Abouna’s argument is an argument from silence. The Scriptures do NOT explicitly state that infants could or should be baptized and we should NOT assume that infants were included in ‘households’. We need to believe based on what the Scriptures actually say rather than on what they don’t say otherwise we can justify anything [In order to be saved we MUST baptize our budgies in tomato ketchup because the Bible does NOT explicitly state that the early church did NOT baptize their budgies in tomato ketchup]?! This is how we end up with such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary and the blessed assumption of Mary [Mary as Co-Redemptrix?! REALLY?!] etc. none of which can be substantiated from Scripture. It is the Scriptures alone, not the Scriptures and the Church that is the Word of God otherwise the Scriptures (2Tim.3:16-17) would have said so? Otherwise, the pernicious virus of LGBTQ+ that is currently infecting much of the Church would (if we are to accept Abouna’s understanding of 1Tim.3:15) also be a part of the pillar and foundation of truth?! Simonline🤔🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🙏😃👍🇮🇱

[@josephjacob3274]

You wouldnt' have scripture without the church. Period! Second theologians even in the 3rd century stated infants should be baptized or decided upon by their parents. This was before Christnaity became a legal religion. Sola scriptura is man made agenda to pervert the teachings of God to create abomination churches. Why people preach differently, create churhes, but no unity amongst them? The catholic and orthodox churches have unity in faith, even if they are in schism of each other they can go back to their roots. You can't always follow scripture alone. It will never work. Even in the bible, tradition was spread also by word and by writing.

[@mt6725]

The church came before scripture The church started on Pentecost, whereas the first book of the NT is at earliest by Bible scholars 46ad So what was happening between 33 and 46 Also, remember it was common place to have many children back then (there was no such thing as birth control) Thirdly when we have a consensus of Early Church Fathers (some being direct disciples of the Apostles like St Ignatius and St Polycarp) saying these things- we can know that this is what Christ wants of the church Immaculate conception of St Mary and such were 1500 or after interpretations of the Catholic Church not based on scripture or consensus of Early church fathers (this is their Development of Doctrine heresy) - very different subject

[@Matthew-hu6lv]

Thank you Abouna! Great explanation

[@jineshfrancis]

Infant Baptism But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Allow *little children* to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Luke 18 : 16 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be *baptized every one of you* in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to *your children* , and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2 : 38-39 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and *your house* . Act's 16 : 31 And I *baptized also the household* of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1 Corinthians 1 : 16 ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS For he came to save all through himself-all, I say, who through him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men [Against Heresies 2:22:4 (c. A.D. 189)]. And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon being baptized, but as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean of our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord; we are spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Jn 3:5] [Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 34 (c. A.D. 190)]. ST. HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family [Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there was nothing in infants that required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous [Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 (c. A.D. 249)]. EARLY CHRISTIAN INSCRIPTION Sweet Tyche lived one year, ten months, and twenty-five days. Received [the grace of baptism] on the eighth day before the Kalends [the first day of the month]. Gave up her soul on the same day [Christian Inscriptions, no. 27 (c. A.D. 250)]. Florentius erected this monument to his well-deserving son Appronianus, who lived one year, nine months, and five days. Since he was dearly loved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was going to die, she asked of the Church that he should depart from the world a believer [Christian Inscriptions, no. 40 (c. A.D. 250)]. ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE But in respect of the case of the infants, which you [Fidus] say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be followed, so that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For no one agreed with the course you thought should be taken; rather we all judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man [Letters 58:2 ]. But when even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted-and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace-how much ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being newly born, has not sinned, except that being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, he approaches more easily on this account the reception of the forgiveness of sins-that to him are remitted not his own sins, but the sins of another [Letters, 58:5 ( A.D. 253)].

[@jineshfrancis]

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! [Orations 40:17 ]. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated [Orations, 40:28 (A.D. 381)]. ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM You see the many benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sin; so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be [Christ’s] members [Baptismal Catecheses in St. Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 (c. A.D. 388)]. ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO And if anyone seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and not instituted by councils but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority. . . . Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it unquestionably avails for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves [On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:32 (A.D. 400)]. The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its Tradition is anything but apostolic [Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23 (c. A.D. 408)]. The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul that needed to be saved from perdition-in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth [Letters 166:8:23 (A.D. 415)]. By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace that he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North Africans descended from the Phoenicians] Christians call baptism, salvation, and the sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic Tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain the kingdom of God or salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration [The Merits and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants 1:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 (A.D. 412)]. COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE OF 401 It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized, and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest hesitation deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the Moorish legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the barbarians [September session of council, Canon 7 (A.D. 401)]. Nice video..Well explained.. GOD Bless you Fr.Gabriel ❤❤❤

[@jineshfrancis]

@rejipaul2185 You are using the same arguments that the heretics used in the past.. Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?. Mark 12:24 Looks like the same thing happened to you here bro.... In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “ *Let the children come to me* , and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14). The New Testament Church is the continuation of Christ who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament... "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". Matt 5:17 God makes a covenant with Abraham in Genesis "Again God said to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations. ..... And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. *An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised* among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: " Gen 17:9-12 Baptism is presented by the apostles in the New Testament as a renewal of this old covenant... "In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ ". Colo-2:11,12 In that passage, Paul refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. (It should also be noted that the Bible does not say that only adults should be baptized.) That is why we affirm the faith in the tradition handed down from the apostles through the church fathers....and not based on any heretical teachings that came from the Middle Ages.... The apostolic( Catholic) church faith is based on three pillars : Scripture , Tradition and Magisterium The Bible we using today is canonized by catholic church The Catholic Church uses its Magisterium authority to decide even the canon of the Bible ( Pope Damasus AD -382) (In the 1830s, the British Bible society excluded 7 books citing economic crisis.) The Church Fathers mentioned that the Bible was canonized in the 4th century. To reject them and the church's lineage would end up in heresy Have a nice day bro...

[@JusticeLevens]

I'm a Roman Catholic and I really enjoy this channel. I think he did an excellent job at explaining the Apostolic understanding of Infant baptism. Much appreciated 🙏

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The _Apostolic_ understanding is the same as that of the early church: Baptism is for disciples only, not for unconverted infants.

[@JusticeLevens]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh show me a consensus in the early church for your position. I'm just saying this genuinely, because the only early church father that I've read that didn't believe in infant baptism was Tertullian, and that's only because he did not have an understanding of original sin (which we can see in context of his letters). So I'm happy to show you a consensus from the early for my position.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

@JusticeLevens No-one in the early church had an 'understanding' of Original Sin because that was a later doctrine foisted on the church to support the practice of infant baptism. But that's another matter; you wanted evidence against infant baptism. Let's start with Scripture, because that sets the standard. For the Scriptural evidence, one need look no further than the Great Commission. There, it is absolutely clear on who can be baptized - _disciples._ *Matthew 28:18-20* _And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."_ Supporters if infant baptism will often point to the various ‘household’ texts (e.g. Acts 10:2-48; 16:14-15, 25-33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16) to justify the practice, arguing that ‘household’ includes children and infants and, hence, those children and infants obtained baptismal remission of their sins. Credobaptists, though, typically do not deny baptism to children mature enough to express both: repentance of their sins; and saving faith in Jesus Christ. Moreover, when we examine the ‘household’ accounts closely: • Acts 10:2 portrays Cornelius as a devout man who feared God _with all his household,_ implying everyone in that household was mature enough to ‘fear God’. Additionally, they were all present to hear (ἀκούω - akouó, meaning to hear with understanding) Peter (Acts 10:33) and all received the Holy Spirit with praising God and speaking in tongues and it is only the people who did so that were baptized (Acts 10:44-48); • Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) is not said to have been married (the fact she prevailed upon the apostles in her own right suggests not) or, even if she was, to have had infants or children too young to have repented of their sins nor expressed saving faith, so there is no reason to suppose such infants or children were part of her household. It is also difficult to see how she might have been engaged in trade some 400mi (650km) from home (the overland distance from Philippi to Thyatira) with an infant or young child; • Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-33) that salvation was available to all in his household who believed, and all of whom are said to have been baptized and to have rejoiced in their belief. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; • Crispus (Acts 18:8) believed in the Lord, together with all his household. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; and • Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) and his household were baptized but 1 Corinthians 16:15 clarifies that his whole household had “devoted themselves to the service of the saints”. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough both to: convert to Christianity; and devote themselves to serving. Paul also puts it beyond doubt that infants don't need to be baptized *1 Corinthians 7:14* _For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy._ Note that baptism isn’t even mentioned (not even the baptism of a believing parent); it is enough for either parent to be a believer for the unbelieving spouse to be consecrated and their children to be holy. As for *Matthew 19:14-15* _Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away._ the noun for child in these verses is παιδίον (paidion), which refers to a young child _old enough to be in training,_ not an infant. The noun for infant is βρέφος (brephos). And Jesus didn't say _“Bring_ the infants to me”. Hence Jesus’ “Let the children come to me” should be understood as _allowing_ children who are old enough to approach Him _of their own volition;_ it has nothing to do with newborns being _brought_ to him. What is more, when Jesus said "for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven", he quite clearly didn't think that, at their young age (perhaps up to 7yo), baptism was a prerequisite. I could deal with the other passages that get tortured to support infant baptism, but that should be enough; let's move on to the early church. The _Didache_ (aka _The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. *Didache 7.4* _But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before._ Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian “spiritually regenerated as new-born babes” ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who “are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins” acquired when they were “brought up in bad habits and wicked training” ( _First Apology_ 61). Tertullian (c.160-220), writing c.205-210, objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of infant baptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for their baptism. Even the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) restricted baptism to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). The only mention of infant baptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Many well-known figures in the church weren't baptized as infants or, if their conversion to Christianity was later, upon conversion. For example: • Basil of Caesarea (330-378) wasn’t baptized until he was appointed reader there (c.356). • Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) wasn’t baptized until c.362 - by his father who was himself bishop of Nazianzus - at about the time he was ordained a presbyter there. • Ambrose of Milan (c.339-397) wasn’t baptized until he was appointed bishop there (374). • Nectarius (?-397), who was already a praetor (magistrate) of Constantinople, wasn’t even baptized until he’d been appointed to preside over the Council of Constantinople (381). • John Chrysostom (c.349-407) wasn’t baptized until 368 or 373, when he was appointed as a reader in the church. So there you have it. Infant baptism is not supported in Scripture and was far from universal in the early church, where it was often strongly opposed and, quite commonly, not practiced.

[@atgred]

Ill century Origen of Alexandria in his commentary In Rom. R,501. "THE CHURCH HAS RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES the custom of administering baptism EVEN TO CHILDREN. For those to whom the divine mysteries were entrusted knew very well that they all carry the stain of original sin, which must be washed away by water and the spirit "

[@Troy-Moses]

Adults are first catechised then are baptised, while children are first baptised then are catechised; but the road to salvation still includes both.

[@user-bx4ti6ig3i]

Where is it in the Bible?

[@Peladios_-Meskel.21]

​@@user-bx4ti6ig3i“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” - Acts 16:31 (KJV) “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

[@bamlak154]

PERFECT 💯

[@simonline1194]

As I life long Credo-baptist and one who was inimical to Paedo-baptism, I listened to the first ten episodes (on Christian baptism) of the late Dr.Michael S. Heiser’s podcast series, the Naked Bible Podccast and, to my mind, Heiser has given, by far, the best argument I have ever heard, for Paedo-baptism such that, whilst I remain a staunch Credo-baptist, I am no longer inimical to Paedo-baptism. Having accepted Heiser’s argument and understanding, I am now tolerant of Paedo-baptism. To say I am surprized at my change in position with respect to Paedo-baptism is a total understatement. In reality, I am astounded and gob-smacked but I cannot bring myself to reject Heiser’s argument. Simonline🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😃👍🇮🇱

[@josephjacob3274]

Why do protestants think they know the bible when it was the early church that organized it. Thus today, Catholic and Orthodox churches can interpret this bible effecitvely to have unity then protestants who rely only on word alone, which won't get you far.

[@JPHolling]

amazing answers. Im a protestant... and disagree with almost all protestants on this topic

[@thejoshuaproject3809]

How is this amazing? The Lutheran, Refomed, and Anglicans churches all taught infant baptism. Read the Westminster Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Augsburg confession. Only Anabaptists and Baptists taught believers baptism.

[@ozoz2931]

Thanks be to God! The scriptures are understood in the context of the church, not apart from the church. Also the bible was compiled to be read or proclaimed in the Liturgy.

[@undaunted7]

Great explanation!!!

[@SDJ992-q9t]

Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: “Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that the practice of infant baptism was UNKNOWN in the first century. That it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather AGAINST than FOR the admission of its apostolic origin.” (History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles)

[@joussefsedeek3759]

That's how I know you didn't watch the video and wanted to regurgitate quotations you read from one book. The priest doesn't negate the connection between faith and baptism but also said that the two points are complimentary. What about the biblical basis in the video? Oh wait you don't address those either.

[@angle5070]

I would add that crossing the red sea was also a symbol of baptism. And we know that the children of Israel also crossed the red sea and were not left behind in Egypt until they grow up. ‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭10:2‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ [2] all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

[@DevotionCorner]

Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

What about verse 39?

[@3muzicluvr]

@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers Romans 10:8-13 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.'

[@c.Ichthys]

​​​@@3muzicluvr and calling on the name of the Lord entails obedience to Jesus's teachings/commandments. That means baptism, Holy Eucharist, Confession and so on. Read Mk 16:16. Matt 28:19-20 Jesus said: *_If you love me, you will obey my commandments.”_* John 14:15 1 John 2:4 _"He who says, 'I know Him,' and _*_does not keep His commandments, is a liar,_*_ and the truth is not in him."_ No life, no salvation for those who reject Jn 6:53-56.

[@c.Ichthys]

Mt 28:19-20 _"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 *Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:* Acts 2:37-39 -- 37 they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38 Peter [said] to them, *“Repent and be baptized,* *_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins;* and *_you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit._* 39 For _the promise is made to you *and to your children*_and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” *Take heed:* *_"every one of you"_* not just some, and not just adults. Why? Because *_"and your children"_*

[@Trox4955]

I personally don't think you need to be baptized until you can understand what following Christ means.

[@aaronmaynor4495]

This right here is why there are so many denominations and why people have issues with Christians! Because Christians want to argue about how and what scripture means instead of focusing on the most important that thing the fact we all believe in Jesus as the son of God! Read the scriptures multiple times if you half to and develop your own relationship with Christ let Christ guide your life repent and love God with all your heart an soul come together and bring the people who dont know Christ to Christy it doesn't matter if they want to be Catholic or Baptist they dont half to pick one at all as long as they find Jesus in the end and if u can explain who Jesus is and what he did let them get to know him. That's what's important not how u think someone should be reading the scriptures come on your a priest you should know this

[@Idrk.drake7]

I understand better, thank you Coptic Orthodox Answers!

[@bavlyfahmy9776]

God bless you Fr. Gabriel! Luke uses the word “infants” in Luke 18:15-17, can’t this passage be used to defend infant baptism in principle? Especially, Christ’s rebuke of the disciples in verse 17 may be applicable to our times as you mentioned about the same scenario in Matthew. God be with you all!

[@newman2022]

You may distinguish between infant baptism and children's baptism Those are completely different A child can learn and have enough knowledge in his heart to be baptized

[@c.Ichthys]

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, *_that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation._* 2 Peter 3:16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. _In them there are some things hard to understand that _*_the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction,_*_ just as they do the other scriptures._ 2 Thessalonians 2:15 _Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the *traditions* which *you have learned,* whether *by word,* or *by our epistle.* _(by word: Oral Tradition; by epistle: Written) 1 Timothy 3:15 ...in God's Household which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. Jesus opened the minds of the Apostles to understand scripture and taught them. (Lk 24:27, 32, 45). They in turn taught and ordained their successors (Bishops and Priests in the Catholic Church). The Magisterium interprets and teaches under guidance of the Advocate. Amen

[@rickylopez5506]

Do those scripture say how old the family members were?

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

This is tradition starting from the 16th century. You are free to follow it if you want but it is not what Christ taught the disciples.

[@StMinaandSt.KyrillosVI]

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 2:38-39

[@hllymchll]

if I was baptized as a child by my own choice but walked away from the church at age 17 and recently came back at now 31, do I need to be baptized again?

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Not at all… the Holy Spirit has remained in you the entire time. Baptism only happens once in a lifetime. Repentance and confessions and the Eucharist is what you should run to!

[@hllymchll]

@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers thank you! and you are so right. looking back He was definitely still with me even tho I rejected it all

[@kevinmathew1723]

Repent and be baptised everyone of you for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit acts 2:38

[@c.Ichthys]

You need to know if your baptism was a valid one. Some denominations do not validly baptize as Jesus taught.

[@hllymchll]

@@c.Ichthys interesting what is the criteria in the Coptic view? I forgot to mention I was raised in a Baptist church. it was an immersion baptism by the pastor. it was definitely my choice at the time, but since that feels like a lifetime ago, and since I've never been a member of an orthodox church, I feel like I may want to be rebaptized once I start going there

[@Be-crystsotom]

Great interview!

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Thank God :)

[@oluwafemijoseph2830]

Anglican do infant baptism based on the faith of the parent

[@johnz777z]

What’s the fuss thats preventing you from baptism? It is not like drinking liquid fire. It’s like taking a bath. We do bath every week, why can’t be it in the name of Jesus. If it is written in bible follow it, after all baptism literally means to die to the old self and by partaking in it, you are burying your old self in the water and when you get up - you are proclaiming Christ’s resurrection to life. If it was written in bible to do it every day, I would do it after all my life belongs to Christ

[@BrockSamson18]

Where is the Biblical teaching to re-baptize?

[@basementlm4200]

There is one body and ome spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism Ephesians 4:5

[@basementlm4200]

@@SandraJM an ancient heresy according to St epiphanius

[@SDJ992-q9t]

Some base their view of rebaptism on Ephesians 4:5, however this verse doesn’t mean that a person cannot be rebaptized. The context of Ephesians 4:5 shows that the Apostle Paul was emphasizing the need for true Christians to be united in belief and faith. (Ephesians 4:1-3,16) The apostle Paul was encouraging some who were already baptized to be baptized again because they had been baptized without a full understanding of Christian teaching. (Acts 19:1-5) To merit God’s approval, a person would have to learn Bible truth, apply what he learned, dedicate his life to God in prayer, and be baptized again. Under these circumstances, rebaptism would not be a sin. In fact, it would be the right thing to do!

[@c.Ichthys]

​​@@SandraJM no the Didache does NOT ever teach to re-baptize. Pls stop spreading falsehoods.

[@c.Ichthys]

​@Humbleservant0707 you're correct. However it's not a re-baptism since the 1st ceremony was not valid and not a baptism per se.

[@goletest]

#1 They don't baptize, they sprinkle water. Baptism means, take a dip or submerge. #2 It symbolizes washing away your sins, as a new born baby, where is the sin?

[@c.Ichthys]

Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Jesus. It is only when one is validly baptized that 1. we are born again 2. Removal of original sin. 3. We become the adopted children of God. 4. We receive not only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we receive grace transmitted to the soul. P.S. "sprinkling" is also valid. Many arid places did not have access to pools of water. And in the catacombs there was only foot basins. Look up art from that 1st century. Pouring over the head. Read the Didache (c. 70AD)

[@TheDeeStain]

Not a single scripture mentions anything about who can or can’t other than we as disciplines are called to baptize others. Jesus is a clear example of being baptized right before his ministry and he wasn’t a baby. Also are you seriously kidding me? Linking things outside of the Bible? Ridiculous

[@MPIO2023]

Yet he was circumcised as a baby 👶. infant Baptism is Biblical it is in new testament. Especially when the gentiles as Cornelius converted he was baptized and his WHOLE HOUSE meaning CHILDREN TOO. Jesus said LET THE CHILDREN COME TO ME. DO NOT STOP THEM. Kids are for Christ too as baptism. NONE IN THE Best IBLE SAID ONLY ADULTS CAN BAPTIZE. NONE.

[@ForShadow-sh4ww]

There's a difference between a child and an infant. When Jesus called the child, the child listens and walked up to him, and the child was playing prior to Jesus calling him. So, even in context, the child is not an infant. Children at that age could already understand and believe. As for the example of whole families being baptized, here's an explanation, there were no infants. The scripture is pretty clear, baptism is essential for you to be saved. And before someone is baptized, they have to understand the Gospel and believe first. As for the early church writings you showed, even at the time of Apostle Paul, people already are teaching that are not from Christ's teachings. So, I'm just gonna stick to the bible, which are traceable to the apostles.

[@StMinaandSt.KyrillosVI]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 King James Version 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[@ForShadow-sh4ww]

@@StMinaandSt.KyrillosVI ahhhh cute, now read the context.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

If you are willing to do more research you’ll get to the truth. The faith was lived and then written. History falls inline with Scripture every time if we are willing to do the research. There’s a difference between sticking to the Bible vs our own interpretation of it. God bless

[@ForShadow-sh4ww]

@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers Right... My "interpretation" is problematic. Not yours where you have to take a lot of mental gymnastics just to justify yours.

[@c.Ichthys]

Acts 2:37-39 -- 37 they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38 Peter [said] to them, *“Repent and be baptized,* *_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins;* and *_you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit._* 39 For _the promise is made to you *and to your children*_and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” *Take heed:* *_"every one of you"_* not just some, and not just adults. Why? Because *_"and your children"_* Take note: when does a human receive the indwelling/infilling of the Holy Spirit? Baptism!

[@YehudaHalevi247]

Repentance always precedes baptism. How can a child repent when it can’t speak, and what does he/she have to repent of. Common sense. Some people look too hard into scripture and see something that not even there. I believe in sola scriptura, but I like to read early church writings to see where their minds were at the time. The Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament. It gives no instructions on infant baptisms. In fact, it states that a person must be instructed and fast before the baptism. No infant can do that.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

If you are looking into the didache that’s a good start. I encourage you to continue reading the rest of the Church Fathers writings. The early church didn’t live by sola scriptura and scripture itself demands that we follow the Tradition the life of the Church.

[@StMinaandSt.KyrillosVI]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 King James Version 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Also it was the Church that decided which books would make up the New Testament. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was the first to pen the books which would later become the books of the New Testament. They were written in an Easter letter to his congregation in 367.

[@YehudaHalevi247]

@@StMinaandSt.KyrillosVI So, friends, take a firm stand, feet on the ground and head high. Keep a tight grip on what you were taught, whether in personal conversation or by our letter. - 2 thes 2:15 (msg) Tradition: teaching, doctrine, or precept that has been passed down. I believe the context of that chapter is about standing firm against false teachings; not traditions as we know the word today. I’m not against traditions in the church. I believe it shouldn’t contradict the writings of the Apostles and Luke. Can you elaborate the Saint penning the New Testament? I’ve never heard that. By the way, my intention is not to offend or condemn. I just like to cause people to think or see to other perspectives and vice versa.

[@3muzicluvr]

There is nothing in scripture that says that another person can have faith for another person. The bible says there is ONE MEDIATOR between man and God, the Man Christ JESUS. Even if a baby is baptized, salvation does not come through baptism, but through FAITH in JESUS Christ alone. Just because the word "household" is used, we cannot assume that babies were part of that household. The scripture simply does not tell us. We can't make things up and then go with them. There is a lot of adding things to scripture that are not present in scripture. I would exercise caution in elevating extra biblical texts and opinions of men above the Word of God in the Holy Bible.

[@c.Ichthys]

Oh good grief! This has nothing to do with Jesus being our Mediator between God and mankind. Jesus commanded baptism for all! Including babies. Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Jesus. It is only when one is validly baptized that 1. we are born again 2. Removal of original sin. 3. We become the adopted children of God. 4. We receive not only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we receive grace transmitted to the soul.

[@c.Ichthys]

P.S. . These are Jesus's true teachings which are necessary for accepting the gift of salvation. Read esp. MK 16:16, Jn 20:21-23 and Jn 6:53-56. You are amongst those in John 6:66. See that number? Take heed.

[@Franco-on7yw]

Acts 2,39 the baptism is for children too.

[@DevotionCorner]

تعليم غير كتابي الرب قال توبوا وليعتمد مقالش صيرو مثل اولاد وبعدين اعتمدو الطفل ليس لهّ خطيّة يتوب ليه المعمودية للإنسان الراشد الذي يتوب عن خطاياه ذكرة الختان في العهد القديم كان للصبيان فقط وماذا عن البنات والعايلات التي ذكرتا بانهم اعتمدو لم يذكر ان فيهم اطفال وما دليلك ان فيه فَقَالَ لَهُمْ بُطْرُسُ : «تُوبُوا وَلْيَعْتَمِدْ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْكُمْ عَلَى اسْمِ يَسُوعَ الْمَسِيحِ لِغُفْرَانِ الْخَطَايَا، فَتَقْبَلُوا عَطِيَّةَ الرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ.

[@c.Ichthys]

Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Jesus. It is only when one is validly baptized that 1. we are born again 2. *Removal of original sin.* 3. We become the adopted children of God. 4. We receive not only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we receive grace transmitted to the soul. *Original sin* is inherited by every human, and bars a person from heaven.

[@apoocumber4164]

The scriptures he purports to support “infant baptism” make no indication at all that infants were baptized.

[@TheNewCrusade]

So? Even if the Bible never says about Infant Baptism Tradition that we received from the Apostles say so(2 Thessalonians 2:15).

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

It is implied because the entire households were baptized… and St Paul confirms it by showing that circumcision was imagery for it. Do you think it was haphazard that God chose circumcision at 8 days old as imagery for baptism? And all of church history confirms. If you would like to stick to 16th century tradition, you are free to do so but just know it’s not the original one.

[@TheNewCrusade]

@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers Thank you Father.

[@RedRiverMan]

the scriptures were written 2,000nyears ago in an Afroasiatic Roman dominated culture. This was not a modern White western world where one could imagine a household with no children. Thereis no ancient culture that I have heard of that conceived f a definition of "household" without children. The scripture must be read in the cultural and historical context as well as a personal and spiritual one. As a Catholic, what the father here says makes sense. And Acts 2:39 is not ambiguous about who can receive the benefits of baptism-all the household.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers It is not implied at all! The texts clearly point to everyone who was baptized being believers. You're just reading into the text what you want it to say.

[@SirKnight7]

Stop mis quoting the verses. Read the verses before and after. The people in the household repented and believed. All the verses about baptism in scripture can only be applied to someone who can identify with Christ and who has repented of their sins.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Of course they repented and believed but that applies to the adults. But the entire household was baptized. That’s the point.

[@SirKnight7]

@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers so if everyone in the household repented and believed, how can that be applied to an infant? It can’t. Jesus says those who believe and are baptized are saved. Obey Christ and His Word over your tradition.

[@kevinmathew1723]

Those who oppose infant baptism stand on the New Testament’s repeated emphasis on repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. An infant cannot repent and place his or her faith in Christ. A newborn cannot understand the gospel and consciously decide to obey and submit to Jesus. Babies are oblivious to the spiritual significance of water baptism.

[@SirKnight7]

@@kevinmathew1723 well said 👏🏼

[@Vaelsung1]

@@kevinmathew1723 What sin did the infant commit that needs to be repented of?

[@simonline1194]

The Messiah explicitly stated as his last command whilst here on Earth “Go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” Matt.28:16-20. The instruction was to make and baptize disciples. The instruction was NEVER given in relation to anyone else. Infants CANNOT be disciples. Simonline🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😃👍🇮🇱

[@josephjacob3274]

we are all disciples of the Lord. Babies grow into the faith and this is after baptism. You PROTESTants really love to protest actual church teaching.

[@c.Ichthys]

Acts 2:37-39 -- 37 they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38 Peter [said] to them, *“Repent and be baptized,* *_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins;* and *_you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit._* 39 For _the promise is made to you *and to your children*_and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” *Take heed:* *_"every one of you"_* not just some, and not just adults. Why? Because *_"and your children"_* Take note: when does a human receive the indwelling/infilling of the Holy Spirit? Baptism!

[@Zz-lm1no]

Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.. Acts 2:38. Babies cannot repent,have no understanding of sin Despite their fallen state and need for a saviour ...God in his wisdom does not hold them accountable. Another example of understanding would be the psychosocial immaturity of young offenders...hence why they are not integrated into adult prisons.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Was St Peter speaking to adults or infants when he said this? What do you make that the entire Church worldwide baptized infants early on and all apostolic churches do so till today? Have they understood it the Bible wrong while the correct understanding was discovered in the 16th century? The leaders of the Church are the ones who were inspired to write Scripture. We are not meant to guess what scripture means on our own. That’s quite dangerous and has proven to be disastrous to the unity of the Church.

[@Zz-lm1no]

Peter was speaking to Jews They immediately start speaking in different languages, shocking a crowd of Jews and proselytes who are in town to celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:5-11). Some of the crowd dismiss the speech as nonsense; others are very interested (Acts 2:12-13). I believe the bible to be Inspired by the holy spirit that wrote thru all the authors of the books. I know this(not my interpretation) because I have experienced a changed heart,attitude and growing affection for Jesus as he has transformed me just as it says it does revealed in his word I boast in nothing other than his mercy and no righteousness of my own I can't speak to the salvation of every person baptised as a child....I was,however the bible does say that when one has eternal life...the substance of that is to KNOW Christ John 17:3 and John 8:31-32...thru the word and in a personal relationship ... I believe what Jesus says when the road is narrow that leads to life and wide is the gate that leads to destruction ...and yes the enemy Satan spends much of his time distorting the truth in the Church and the apostasy that's growing. I have no fear of death,I as I'm known and know Christ as he has humbled me greatly thru many trials....so when he says to many on the last day "depart" from me I never knew you...I have assurance thru pure mercy and living for him,that I will be with him. My hope is in Christ and the work wrought in me... Baptism doesn't save In and of itself We are indwelt by his spirit first...God causes the miracle in the heart to those of any background who are truly seeking him and we respond. When Peter baptised the Roman Cornelius ...the holy spirit had already worked in his heart prior to the act itself. Text.... Even as Peter was saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the message. The Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too. Acts 10:44-45 Then Peter asked, “Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:47 Babies can't respond dear friend and the text above affirms the work of God in the heart BEFORE Baptism "as Peter says "causes" us to be born again 1 Peter 1:3 when we have the mental ability to know our falleness and desperate need of a saviour

[@c.Ichthys]

​@@Zz-lm1no you state you believe in the bible, which btw came from the Catholic Church. I believe in Jesus and his teachings and those whom Jesus taught and their successors in the CC. Acts 2:37-39 -- 37 they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38 Peter [said] to them, *“Repent and be baptized,* *_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins;* and *_you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit._* 39 For _the promise is made to you *and to your children*_and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” *Take heed:* *_"every one of you"_* not just some, and not just adults. Why? Because *_"and your children"_*

[@c.Ichthys]

​​p.s. you claim that baptism doesn't save. You just called Jesus a liar for He said: Mark 16:16 _Whoever believes and _*_is baptized will be saved;_*_ whoever does not believe will be condemned._ And...1 Peter 3:21"... *baptism, which now saves you* ..."

[@Zz-lm1no]

@c.Ichthys Many Greek scholars agree and have maintained that the Greek preposition "eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.” One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word " communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins This is consistent with the process Cornelius conversion in my other thread ....he had heard,was praying etc then received In Acts 2:41...Belief is a response to hearing the Word and then believing as was the case for the 3000 converted Each individual soul is accountable to God He draws each heart by the holy spirit...and we declare that commitment thru baptism. As Romans 10:17 states " faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" When I was baptised as a baby it meant nothing...I lived in sin and total rebellion for 30 years until I was drawn back to study the bible at a low moment of my life...I then repented...committed my life to the Lord because I believed in what I heard and my need for a savior and a life change

[@jacksoncastelino04]

Ave Christus Rex Ave Maria Regina

[@exiledknight3961]

2 Thessalonians 2 15 disproves all denominations that disregard church tradition

[@CornerstoneMinistry316]

No, no it is not

[@MoeMoe-ht7hm]

It is not written period stop going around and around 😂😂😂😂😂

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Is everything written? It’s not written that it is forbidden…

[@MoeMoe-ht7hm]

@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers if not written and not been done by Jesus we donot do period Stop being typical stubborn coptic humble yourself before the lord

[@Someone-nq8qm]

He literally contradicts himself saying baptism depends on the understanding and beliving of the act of christ does infants understand or even belive that And saying they can be baptised based on the parents faith is not logical and doesn't make sense, with the same logic why dlnt my parents ask for my forgiveness instead of me why dont they fast instead of my according to the same logic what stops them

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

Did your parents ask your permission to send you to school? Not allowing infant baptism is following a new tradition of the 16th century and trying to make the Bible fit it as if the Bible is meant to include everything which it clearly doesn’t. Once we understand how multifaceted baptism is and how the early Church leaders who were taught by Christ Himself and wrote the Bible lived then the proper biblical interpretation falls in line. That understanding is the real one. It’s unfortunate to think that Scripture just fell done from the sky and we are supposed to interpret it. This is a tradition beginning at the 16th century. It’s not how the entire Christendom lived before

[@naomieshetu4022]

There is no contradiction. Abouna clearly said that the understanding and believing pertains to adults to whom the apostles were preaching. It is different with children. Like Abouna says, where does it say that infant baptism is not allowed? Yet there are multiple verses, which he has mentioned, that supports infant baptism.

[@divoryy]

wow, 6 minutes of talking on no actual answer, you failed to prove that any person can be baptazied without belief, infant or not. you had to relate to circumsision which is a totally different subject. Even your quote from history does not have anything to do with baptism. There are many quotes from Church fathers that clearly prohibits infant baptism. and let me break the bad news to you....your church is not the church of the first century!

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

If you are seeking truth, I would advise to do a bit more research. If it’s with an open heart, it won’t be a waste of time. God bless you

[@MPIO2023]

Infant 👶 baptism is biblical

[@yousifyako5607]

Jesus was baptized as an adult and babys can't say they belong to the Lord. Not all rituals you do are biblical. Chose a relationship with Jesus and not a religion

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

I encourage you to do more research on the faith Church of the first centuries and you will come to a different conclusion if you are objective. This video/content has nothing to do with rituals but with the faith of the Church from the beginning.

[@MiguelGutierrez-oc9bu]

What do you mean not a religion? Do you read the Bible? You believe the Bible is the word of God?

[@user-bx4ti6ig3i]

It's not. There let's move on.

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

It is though

[@saint5203]

Come on over Cliff. You’ll find all the answers in the Orthodox Church. The body of Christ.

[@Haramjojo123]

There are a lot of sects in orthodoxy i think you mean eastern orthodoxy since that is the true body of Christ

[@donhaddix3770]

the cross was wooden poles, not crafted wood. the cross is death, the resurrection life. you ignore the truth.

[@KMisty1]

Without cognition, baptism is meaningless. Stop with the weak attempts to stretch the Bible, rather address the question of what baptism means.

[@ivancenteno151]

That is wrong. The only truth is the Bible. You said it, the apostoles wrote it guided by the holy spirit. And just a simple example. Word of God is his will. At what age did Jesus got baptise? Was he an infant?

[@pecsservices2273]

The concept of a water baptism is nowhere found in the Bible...John the Baptist tells his followers that one will come after him baptizing with the holy spirit and with fire.....meaning.....your baptism is tribulation in your life that brings you to Christ....it has nothing to do with water, or being baptized as a child......The holy spirit baptizes you.....not another human being.....

[@CopticOrthodoxAnswers]

I would REALLY recommend reading the book of Acts!

[@pecsservices2273]

@CopticOrthodoxAnswers The book of Acts is not God's word...im coptic myself...God points us to the law and the gospels for his commands...not Acts...

[@naomieshetu4022]

Acts was written by St Luke and tells us about the acts of the apostles, what they did. If the Gospels are what we should follow(including luke), whats stopping us from accepting the Acts of the Apostles, which he wrote too? Who are we to follow other than Jesus' apostles who were there to witness what wasnt recorded?

[@pecsservices2273]

@naomieshetu4022 We follow the gospels because God's word is in them...this includes Revelation...the Acts of the Apostles and other books written by the apostles are the initiation of the church...which also isn't biblical...Jesus tears down the temple to build in the body...

[@c.Ichthys]

The 27 books of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Paul's letters were written before the Gospels. People were being baptized with water, and the words as commanded by Jesus before any words of the NT were written. Btw, The Ethiopian Eunuch was reading from the Septuagint when Philip came upon him, taught the Eunuch then baptized him with water. (Acts 8:38 _Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both _*_went down into the water, and he baptized him.)_* Acts.10:47 “Can anyone withhold the *_water for baptizing these people,_* who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?”

[@menuholviswentso1675]

False teaching

[@MPIO2023]

Yet he was circumcised as a baby 👶. infant Baptism is Biblical it is in new testament. Especially when the gentiles as Cornelius converted he was baptized and his WHOLE HOUSE meaning CHILDREN TOO. Jesus said LET THE CHILDREN COME TO ME. DO NOT STOP THEM. Kids are for Christ too as baptism. NONE IN THE Best IBLE SAID ONLY ADULTS CAN BAPTIZE. NONE.

[@joykarkada]

Further Children can listen to God, but not to humans. Even in the Womb of a mother, a child can listen. Since they are purer and worthy.

[@marinaadam8546]

When Christianity started ,the deciples baptise all from infent to elders.We baptise the children for their parents faith and grow in faith.

[@donhaddix3770]

not infants.

[@YehudaHalevi247]

I never read that in the Bible. Where did you see that?🤔

[@kevinmathew1723]

No parents are the reason for the children’s faith rather it’s their own faith and repentance in Christ

[@YehudaHalevi247]

@@kevinmathew1723 Exactly. Repentance comes before baptism. How can an infant repent and what does it have to repent of?

[@joykarkada]

Water baptism is not as per the Bible, especially immersion. That’s because Jesus never performed the immersion baptism to anyone because HE would Baptism one with Holy Spirit. Water is referred to WORD! Infant baptism is actually dedication to bring the child in a church environment which is diminishing today. Save water.

[@joykarkada]

Very good explanation. But you are just explaining exactly what I said in few words and people of knowledge and understanding will learn it and better if they do their own research. We don’t need your explanation here as it is in the Bible. Only Blind has to open their eyes. Your intentions here is to telll people you know more and comment directly under the topic. Don’t you ever reply to me as I will trace you to prove that your are sceptical. Don’t try to show off.

[@joykarkada]

Further, make your own video and post and let’s see how the Holy Spirit of Jesus leads you. Do you know that Jesus Christ is also a changed name in the Bible? Have you ever questioned anyone or your teacher? 😂😇🤔🛎️🛎️🛎️