Debate: Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

[@ApologiaStudios]

Do you want more from Apologia Studios? Your wish has been granted! Apologia All Access has all the exclusive content and behind-the-scenes of Apologia Studios. Click here to learn how you can partner with us and subscribe! ean.link/bahnsenu

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

Baptism is a pagan ritual. When men believed that earthquakes were created by demons. Time we retired this is nonsense to the same place as animal sacrifice.

[@georgeluke6382]

Love that you guys argued this in a broadly charitable and clear way. Great gateway to so many crucial arguments! Thank you for hosting, and for doing this!

[@josephkusabs46]

Love seeing these debates happen! The brotherhood paired with deep theological understanding is refreshing.

[@anthonyneubert9569]

I have always been in a Baptist Church. I never understood the thinking of the idea of infant baptism. I essentially only ever got an explanation of it being tradition of the Church. This debate best made the opposing view clear to me and am glad I had this. Not saying it persuaded me, but certainly gave me a lot to think about and am glad to better understand that POV in this debate.

[@kennethstandridge1205]

Yes, there is as much if a case for infant baptism as not. It's one of those things. I'm a Baptist who attends a Presbyterian Bible College. There is a case for both sides. The idea of Baptism being the sign of the New Covenant (which is not disagreed by many) does point to the possibility that infant baptism could be perfectly fine. I clearly don't believe there is anything nefarious about it. We all should agree that Baptism does not save. So whether we stand on "believers baptism" or "infant baptism," the fact is the act of baptism does not save, so that's the most important thing for us to understand. So, if it's done as an infant or later, it requires faith for salvation

[@soldierofchrist7343]

Actually, the majority of Baptists agree that Infant baptism is not biblical. In fact the baptist were originally came from the Anabaptist which contrary to the name they weer not against baptism, they were against the infant baptism that Catholic church preached preformed.

[@kennethstandridge1205]

@SoldierOfChrist73 There are absolutely Baptist churches who are pedobaptist, but yes, the majority are firm believers in "believers baptism." I say that scripture leaves just enough information that allows for both cases to be made. A good Biblical, open-minded study will show that. Both Baptisit and Presbyterian agree, though, that Batisim does not save. So whether you baptize an infant (as a sign of being partaker in the new covenant ) or believers' baptism as an adult, neither will save you apart from Christ. What I can promise you is that you will not find enough scriptural support to say that infant Baptisim is "not bibilical." There is just enough Scripture on both sides to make a case. Neither were explicitly ruled out by Scripture. The biggest case the Presbyterians have, in my opinion, is that the sign of the old covenant was circumcision (at birth). The Bible is clear, and Baptist agrees that baptism is the sign of the new covenant (so why change who it's administered too?). Actually, as a Baptist, we do something that closely resembles that in baby dedications (when someone in the church has a baby). That is very similar to the "spirit" behind infant baptism. Yet baby dedication also isn't in the Bible. The Scriptures make the point a couple of times that after an individual was saved, his whole house was baptized. That's the only other argument that leaves room to me on the subject. Are we to think none if these people had children? Lol, it's a tough one.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@kennethstandridge1205 _"Both Baptisit and Presbyterian agree, though, that Batisim does not save."_ I'll be a little bit nitpicky here and say we agree that the water ceremony does not save. Baptists in general tend toward Baptism being merely symbolic, but Presbyterians believe it is a sacrament, and that "...by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time." (WCF 28.6). The thing doing that is God, not the human action of getting someone else wet. WCF 27.2 is worth keeping in mind: "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." So while it isn't wrong to speak of baptism as the water ceremony (which doesn't save), it also isn't' wrong to speak of baptism as regeneration and remission of sins and spiritual renewal, etc (the things that actually save). It's not that we are saying that the water ceremony does those things, but that God does those things in Baptism, where Baptism is more than the water ceremony and includes God regenerating the recipient in his own time. But I do want to say, I greatly appreciate that you recognize that it isn't as simply as one side has scripture and the other goes beyond it. Both sides have to fill in the gaps of what isn't explicit about the recipients. They both have a burden of proof. For me, I think household baptism is the more scriptural position, but in working through this issue and studying the arguments my Reformed Baptist brothers make, it made me truly see how someone can be "wrong" about scripture and yet do so because they love scripture and want to be in full compliance with God's word. I appreciate that my Baptists brothers can say the same, that while I am wrong, I have my position because of my love of God and his Word and a desire to be faithful to scripture.

[@N81999]

@@oracleoftroywow wow wow how dare you a presb hold to traditional confession presby theology. Dont you know what you said contradicts salvation by faith alone. We can ise have the precision and nuance with baptism as we do calvinism😉😂 Im kidding with you.

[@amaledward2147]

Infant baptism is opposed by same people who don’t accept Trinity since it’s not written plainly. Oh wait

[@SeanGrossICT]

Thank you, Apologia Church, for hosting this debate. I am a young Christian (saved Feb 2022 by God's sovereign grace) and have just recently started to *really* study baptism. I've said for some time now, "I don't know if I'm Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. I need more milk before I get to that." After reading "William the Baptist," which I HIGHLY recommend, I am leaning toward Presbyterian, but I respect figures such as Dr. White, Durbin, Baucham, and Washer (along with Reformed Baptists as a whole) far too much to take a hard stance before hearing their arguments. The points made in "William the Baptist" are new to me, and while quite convincing, I know they're not new to the wonderful names I mentioned above. I do think Rench puts forward a better argument (but as a member of the CREC, I might be biased although I genuinely try not to be). Anyway, my point is this was a huge help for me in my walk with Christ to understand both positions better. Truly a blessing to have Apologia and the CREC to inform and sharpen me as I grow in the Lord. Big thanks to all involved in making this happen! God bless!

[@fatboy1603]

You can still read and watch reformed baptists when you decide to go Presbyterian. It is good and right to listen to Godly men even if they belong to another denomination.

[@simonwood8637]

I similarly took many years to come around (from Baptist to Presbyterian view). "William The Baptist" was my first read and I also recommend it strongly - but it was one of many which ultimately convinced me of the Biblical basis for paedobaptism. Thanks for hosting this debate.

[@MansterBear]

Watch the MacArthur vs Sproul debate. And any of the ones you can find of James white. Glad to have you as a brother!

[@lbee8247]

Welcome to the family Sean.

[@michaelmannucci8585]

Both of them did really poorly. I was kind of shocked the the poor argumentation from Wrench… and the Baptist guy didn’t do as well himself. I would recommend listening to James White vs Strawbridge. It is, in my opinion, easily hands down win for White, as he refuted all the arguments raised by Strawbridge and White’s exegesis went unanswered… but of course, Presbyterians see it differently.

[@chrisc414]

Dr. White should have put his mask on when Gabe said "Revelations" lol

[@Naomi_OB]

😂 I heard it too! Too funny

[@ByzBap]

Guess we all heard it

[@haydenbarton4003]

Hahaha my thoughts too

[@RealSamChat]

Exactly what I was thinking 😄

[@MrNanonen]

I love both my brothers at Apologia Church and Christ Church. And I love how they they can debate each other with brotherly love. May God continue to bless the relationship between these two God fearing assembly of saints, and bring a unity of knowledge and wisdom and understanding in Biblical doctrine.

[@rontherrien7392]

My experience as a former credobaptist for 50 yrs is that after much study, searching the word, reading both sides and praying, these things dont come easily as we have much to overcome from our entrenched traditions, biases, and egoes which r very hard to overcome. But if we r true Bereans and take the Time n effort to search the word and discover the truth. I did this the same time Jared Longshore discovered the truth. Now we see the reality of Acts 2:39 the promise is to you and your children, and Lk 18:16 let the infants come to me for of such babes is the kingdom of God. These r glorious truthes that God is revealing ti his people and it sets us free to include our babes into the covenant, not as saved babes but by faith believing as God wills they will be saved in his time. The great blessing is to know they r included and not excluded as the credos proclaim. Those included tend to stay in the church, be saved and grow.

[@D12Min]

Acts 2:39 refutes pedobaptism. Which promise is to them and their children "Repent, be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit". So the verse clearly tells us in black and white that the children too repent, be baptized and receive the Spirit. And Luke 18:16 is obviously not about baptism, but about blessing them. Jesus/his disciples did baptize, but there was no baptism here. So maybe you should overcome traditions, biases, and egoes once more.

[@BeefyPreacher]

Can’t take anything you say seriously if you’re going to type like that.

[@TheAardar]

this was such a great, respectful debate. Both gentlemen were very charitable and asked clarifying questions, not "gotcha" questions. It seemed like both sides were genuinely trying to understand the other.

[@mcpfox92]

11:43 when he said REVELATIONS (with an S) I could hear Voddie Baucham’s voice in my head saying THE Revelation 🤣

[@TheTruth_561]

Amazing debate by two brothers! Love it!

[@cooljams_jams]

I had my stance going into this, but warm gratitude to both men for a strong performance each. Certainly some angles in this debate not already covered as closely in previous debates on this like MacArthur and Sproul.

[@Orangeokie7]

2:02:44 - 2:02:48 I'm not really understanding his point here. He says "circumcision joined you to a covenant that didn't promise you anything." The problem here is that he's referring to the Mosaic Law, which is true, but circumcision was a commandment that was given prior to Torah.

[@4evamobbin534]

Not to mention circumcision nor baptism promise anything to you. They point to the promise and faithfulness of God and his ability to save. We are saved by grace through faith, if we have that then baptism can point to our sure salvation. If we don’t have true faith, we are lying and the sacraments still point to Gods faithfulness.

[@oracleoftroy]

This is a bit of a rant about how the typical lay-Baptist argues this issue, in part inspired by the comments and in part by the opening statements. I hope everyone realizes that the point of agreement between the two sides is that regardless of what regulations or mode or applicants' baptism ought to be applied to, the thing that initiates baptism is someone's belief. No one thinks we should barge into the household of unbelievers and start baptizing them. That's the baseline. The major problem is that most Baptists stop there. The Baptist position is that when someone comes to believe, only that person is to be baptized. Yet they don't make a positive case for their position. They rarely deal with passages that indicate more than that except to dismiss them. The model in Acts is that when one came to believe, all under their household were baptized. The Baptist wants to add to the Bible that in every case without exception, everyone in the household came to believe, but the Bible doesn't seem to think that is a worthwhile detail to include, and only seems to mention that in a few cases, like with Crispus in Acts 18. Contrast that with Acts 16 where the apostles spoke to the whole family, yet only one person is explicitly said to believe: "And _after she was baptized, and her household as well,_ she urged us, saying, “If you have *judged me to be faithful* to the Lord, come to my house and stay.”" Why is Lydia only asking about herself and not the rest of her family? "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and _he was baptized at once, he and all his family._ Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And _he rejoiced along with his entire household_ *that he* had believed in God." Why not that they, the whole household, had believed? The model seems to be that the recipient of baptism is based on the faith of a believing head. It is covenantal, it is federal. It isn't based on an individual's personal belief, but all those under their household authority are included. Age is never brought up at all. Each individual's personal belief is never brought up. Being in the household is the Biblical standard. The Baptist has to go beyond the Biblical model and insert into scripture the assumption that every member of the household was above some unspoken age and came to a personal belief in Christ regardless of the fact that scripture doesn't say that even when it had every opportunity to do so. The Baptist will demand, where does scripture show an infant getting baptized. It doesn't. But where does scripture show refusal to baptize an infant? It doesn't. Silence either way, yet somehow the Baptist assumes the silence secretly whispers their position without evidence. But I repeat, the Bible doesn't seem to care about age, but about the household. Age doesn't matter, it's the wrong question in the first place. Is the infant part of a believer's household? Then as a member of the household, they ought to be baptized. Positive scriptural proof against household baptism is needed to refute what seems to be the clear practice found in scripture, not arguments from silence about the unstated belief or age of the recipients. This seems to be the practice God established way back in Gen 17. Not just the believer was to receive the sign of the covenant, but everyone in the household. The passage is quite explicit. The believer, their children, and even their servants were to receive the sign. And these servants aren't just locals that are probably related by blood at some level, but even the servants from far off foreign lands were to receive the sign. It's rather telling that Peter repeats the same formulation in Acts 2, saying that the promises are for you, your children, and for those that are far off. It's as if the Bible is one God with one promise of salvation that isn't restricted by age or ethnicity but is for the whole world. The Baptist ought to take great care to show why there is a sharp divide between the OT and NT. They too often don't deal with the discontinuity their position creates. It just doesn't matter to them. It's as if the Bible says "And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you -and your household.”- " Or: "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, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you -and for your children and for all who are far off,- everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”" The more extreme Baptists seem to indicate (if not outright say) that the Bible consists of -the Old Testament and- the New Testament, as if the OT is some other religion's holy text with some completely different god and has nothing to do with the Christian God. And some even go so far as to tear apart the NT, consigning passages they don't like by Jesus or John or whoever as "being for the Jews not for Gentiles." The NT does not treat the OT like that. So much time is spent showing that this is the same God, and the same law applies, and the same promise of a messiah applies and is fulfilled in Jesus. It doesn't spend it's time inventing a new theology, it gives commentary on the OT and shows what that means in spirit and in truth for the children of God. Moreover, we see great controversy over ceremonial aspects of the law that were fulfilled in Jesus and no longer apply. Kosher laws and circumcision needed to be addressed in a number of NT books. Yet somehow there was a major change in the recipient of the sign of the covenant, that it should be age restricted, and it went by without a peep of mention by any NT author, and not a fuss of controversy arose out of it, despite the practice being household baptism, despite same Abrahamic formula being applied to baptism? Silence either way, sure, yet what a deafening silence over this issue. Baptists can make a positive case for their position, I've heard it. But I am disappointed that they too often don't. Instead, they rest on the point of agreement and pretend that it was uniquely theirs, that they don't need to meet the burden of proof for their own position where it goes beyond what scripture objectively says. The Bible doesn't outright say that baptism is restricted solely to believers, an actual case needs to be made. Treat it like the trinity, where no one verse clearly spells out the doctrine, yet when we examine the whole of scripture, it is clearly there. If the Bible is so clear about restricting baptism, then make a cumulative case and show the baptismal harmony of the OT and NT.

[@ben.duffour]

You make really great points(coming from a Reformed Baptist willing to adhere to whatever the bible clearly teaches). I have a couple of questions though. Is the promise Baptism or the Spirit? Is the emphasis in Acts 2 on who the Lord calls or adults, children and whoever is far off?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@ben.duffour Sorry for the late response. I don't remember seeing any notification, and I just happened to get linked to the video again and saw your questions. _"Is the promise Baptism or the Spirit?"_ Not sure I would pick either of those options per se. It is certainly not Baptism if you are regarding that as a mere water ceremony where someone gets wet. And the Spirit is involved in the giving of the promises, but I wouldn't call the Spirit itself the promise, unless you mean indwelling of the Spirit, which I would include in the promises. Here's a snippet from Westminster Confession 28.1 which I offer as representative of the Reformed view of the promises signified in Baptism: "...but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world." _"Is the emphasis in Acts 2 on who the Lord calls or adults, children and whoever is far off?"_ The emphasis of the particular wording here seems to be to harken back to Gen 17 where the same formula is given. The audience, the believers in the gospel according to the OT as known at the time, would know what Peter is alluding to and see how Peter is applying that to Jesus as the fulfillment of a promised Christ. The OT is just as clear as the NT that merely having some ritual performed on you doesn't save, yet God does convey his promises of salvation in a sacramental ritual. Like circumcision, those promise are for the whole household: not just the believing head, but his children and even household members that are from far off just as it always has been.

[@charitymeyer9903]

Gabe’s point from Colossians 2 was spot on. The circumcision made with hands was a sign of what hopefully was an inward reality, but often was not. Baptism is a sign of the inward reality, but often is not. That is something both pedo and credo baptists have to realize. Sign does not always mean inward reality, but that sign does always point to Christ. Also God’s grace can be experienced in ways other then salvation. I often hear the Baptist argument that conflates grace and salvation. It is by grace that I am saved but it is also by grace that I breathe and move. I deserve nothing good in this life. A child raised in the church who was never saved would still experience the grace of God just not to salvation. Also I believe only in this anti-child anti-patriarchal society can we imagine a household baptism without children and not with the father guiding the families religious practices. I think being raised in a society when birth control is the norm has in some ways informed our theological presuppositions.

[@mkshffr4936]

The conflation of grace and salvation is an important point that can not be stressed too much.

[@vibeauxssxuaebiv3489]

And why would that not manifest as the child being under the head/leadership of the house until the child has reached an age of accountability?

[@mkshffr4936]

@@vibeauxssxuaebiv3489 Where is this age of accountability of which you speak? I can't recall the passage which teaches this.

[@bretlynn]

Why is the Abrahamic covenant constantly being used to represent the Old Covenant? Why is the covenant of Sinai not being brought up. Generally when the New Testament refers to the old covenant it is speaking about Sinai

[@PlavitPOi90]

Exactly! It almost sounded that Gabe said the Abrahamic covenant is the Old covenant.

[@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097]

The abrahamic covenant preceded the covenant of law. The abrahamic covenant is a faith covenant.

[@D12Min]

@@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097 circumcision, however, must be differentiated from baptism. Col 2:11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and NOT by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

[@mkshffr4936]

Ben Merkle's (sp?) "Short History of Baptizing Short People" is helpful in providing context for this debate.

[@Justin_Case702]

I love CrossPolitic and Apologia this is awesome debate/colab

[@Fassnight]

Love these in-house debates

[@Orangeokie7]

1:54:19 - 1:54:36 it's interesting that the Baptist says there's an issue with someone being baptized who hasn't professed their faith but he fails to see the problem with his own view. If somone professes their faith and is baptized but later falls away, he would say that person wasn't even a "real" Christian to begin with. He doesn't see a problem with that?

[@lbee8247]

On the flip of that statement my question is: If the one who is baptized but doesn't believe until they are an adult do they skip baptism? I'm not talking about a person who rebelled against their parents or walked away. I'm talking about a person who says I heard but I just didn't believe until (choose an age). So would it follow: baptize, believe, profess? Or baptized by parents, believe, profess, believers baptism? Infant baptism takes away the opportunity to follow scripture to have a public believers batism or you make them have two baptisms.

[@Orangeokie7]

@@lbee8247 those are all good questions for the Presby as I would ask the same thing because I think he's wrong as well and the Baptist is correct that one must first profess faith.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@lbee8247 _"If the one who is baptized but doesn't believe until they are an adult do they skip baptism?"_ The quick answer is that you just said they were baptized, so obviously they didn't skip it. But I have serious questions about how this hypothetical child was raised. You say: _"I'm not talking about a person who rebelled against their parents or walked away. I'm talking about a person who says I heard but I just didn't believe until (choose an age)."_ Were the parents leaving them at home on Sunday? Did they refuse at home devotions, prayer times, Bible readings, song singing, etc? Why wasn't their child raised in the faith? They should have been under church discipline for neglecting the spiritual needs of their children. _"So would it follow: baptize, believe, profess?"_ Baptize and believe are the works of God. Profess is our response to what God has worked in his people. _"Or baptized by parents, believe, profess, believers baptism?"_ No, rebaptism isn't good. _"Infant baptism takes away the opportunity to follow scripture to have a public believers batism or you make them have two baptisms."_ What scripture says to have a public believer's baptism? Every example in the Bible is of an unbaptized person coming to belief for the first time, then they and their household are baptized. And I know Baptists tie these two ideas together for some reason, but you _can_ publicly confess your faith without having to get wet. Mouths and/or hands are able to do that.

[@lbee8247]

@@oracleoftroy the hypothetical idea came from a smaller version of a real event. My third child at 3 years old ask me why did I think God was real. The question was so shocking to me. My children had the Bible read to them daily. God spoken of all the time as part of the family. We prayed regularly throughout the day about everything. We went to church twice a week. Worship was a part of our home life and God was the authority even above his dad. His older brothers believed. Yet my three year old who had imaginary friends said this to me. I said you have imaginary friends. And he said yes but I know they are imaginary but you think God is real. Of course I went on to tell him God is real. And through scripture and history I spent the rest of my life explaining and hoping he would get it. When he was grown he called me up and told me he wants to believe in God. He reads his Bible and prays and goes to church but nothing happens. It feels make believe to him. My son is very scientific. He graduated 3rd in his class in an elite private school. Went right in to college as a chemical engineer student. He got a internship as a Scientist at a laboratory after just one year of college. He did later decide he didn't like working on a lab and is in finance and is very successful. That is where I got the example from. All my kids before and after him had no issue with believing. All my kids chose when they wanted to be baptized. All my kids do everything they were raised to do for the most part. The Bible doesn't say that anyone in the household was babies. And not everyone who was baptized had the whole house hold baptized. The Bible says that baptism is a pledge of a clear conscience towards God. Babies can't do anything to show anything about their conscience being clear. It's more reasonable to assume everyone in the two examples of whole house holds met the criteria then to assume they included people who didn't meet the criteria. The Bible says those who accepted his message were baptized. Here no whole house is mentioned. It also says get up and be baptized and wash away your sin. Babies wouldn't apply here either. Not one verse applies that we can decide this for anyone. Father's aren't instructed to have their households baptized. Lydia wasn't instructed to have her household baptized. Her household was baptized. It makes sense that her household believed. In both of those two examples (I think it was Peter) stayed with them. He stayed with the jailer and with Lydia. It makes sense they all believed and we're baptized like everyone else who were baptized. I hope I addressed everything you mentioned. Sorry my reply was so long.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@lbee8247 _"My third child at 3 years old ask me why did I think God was real. The question was so shocking to me."_ It's honestly a good question and all believers should be able to give an answer, though I can understand why that would be shocking to have to explain on the spot especially from your own child at a young age. It sounds like you did a great job trying to raise your children in a faithful way and gave them a solid foundation. I hope and pray your lost son finds God as well. _"The Bible doesn't say that anyone in the household was babies."_ It also doesn't say there weren't. It's an argument from silence either way, so I just take the position that age doesn't matter, it is being in the household of believers that matters and is what the apostles seemed to want to convey. If they wanted to make a big deal about age, they would have. I don't think you are wrong for going a different direction in the face of silence, but I do want to point out that you are also going beyond what is explicitly said, and so some amount of caution and humility must be taken by both of us before we get overly dogmatic about our conclusions. _"And not everyone who was baptized had the whole house hold baptized."_ What is the exception? The first one who comes to mind is the eunuch, but I think it is pretty obvious why his whole house was baptized when he was baptized alone. Maybe Acts 2? I doubt if they would have babysitters for the feast of weeks (Shavuot/Pentecost), it seems like a family event that the whole community would participate in. I didn't review every baptism in scripture, so maybe there is one I missed, but I can't recall any that explicitly go against the norm of household baptism, and the ones where one might infer that are ultimately arguments from silence. _"Babies can't do anything to show anything about their conscience being clear."_ Where does the Bible say they have to? The basis in my view is the clear conscience of the believing head. That seems to match the household model. _"It's more reasonable to assume everyone in the two examples of whole house holds met the criteria then to assume they included people who didn't meet the criteria."_ Agreed, in that the criteria given is that they are members of a household under the headship of a believer. _"The Bible says those who accepted his message were baptized."_ Yes, they and their household. _"Here no whole house is mentioned."_ ? Acts 16 gives a pretty explicit call. The practice in Acts is that the believer and their household is baptized. _"Babies wouldn't apply here either."_ Why not? Babies are born in Adam. _"Not one verse applies that we can decide this for anyone."_ Baptism isn't about our work or our decisions, but about God's work and choice. Jesus compared salvation to birth. Children don't get to choose their parents, their parents decide this for them. So to, being born again (regenerated) is based on our spiritual parent's decision. The sign of regeneration works like that, it is applied to all in the household of a believer and its significance isn't based on the human choice, but on God. _"Father's aren't instructed to have their households baptized."_ Correct. Believers are. Believers can be fathers or mothers or barren or single. It isn't specific to the Father role. _"Lydia wasn't instructed to have her household baptized."_ Then why did she? Did she make it up? I think she was probably taught about Baptism by Paul and Luke and that's why when she believed, they baptized her whole household. _" It makes sense that her household believed."_ That's fine if you believe that. But it isn't what scripture says. I'm not going to claim that your private beliefs about what scripture is silent on are wrong. But scripture is only explicit about Lydia's belief, and yet still says her household was baptized. Crispus is the only example that comes to mind where Luke bothers to report that the whole household believed, and I think Luke is detailed oriented enough to have included that in other cases if it happened or if it was so important for the recipient of baptism. Note, I'm not saying they didn't believe. I'm saying scripture doesn't say. My position doesn't require them to, the promises given in baptism are true regardless of their beliefs. Your understanding of baptism requires something in these sorts of passages that isn't made explicit. _"It makes sense they all believed and we're baptized like everyone else who were baptized."_ Again, that's fine as an inference from silence, but it is based on unspoken assumptions. Don't get me wrong. My point is to highlight where you are filling in silence with your own beliefs, not to prove that you are wrong and I am right or anything like that. Too often Baptists don't seem to realize where they go beyond what scripture explicitly says and enter into speculation, but they love pointing out where the other side fills in the silence with their own beliefs. It's fine to fill in the gaps of scripture, but we should be aware of when we do it so that we don't get dogmatic over issues that go beyond what scripture is concerned about.

[@usernametaken6659]

How is it possible that people do not understand that baptism for the remission of sins is the baptism of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ as scripture clearly says.

[@apracity7672]

Where in the Bibke does it say that there exists a "baptism of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ"?

[@usernametaken6659]

@@apracity7672 Acts 1:5 King James Version 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. It is impossible to recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit unless you have faith in the life, death and ressurection of Jesus, that He was made a propitiation for us.

[@ethankeating1644]

@@apracity76721 Corinthians 12:13 is one verse. There’s another in Galatians that talks about baptism or the Holy Spirit being the means we are placed into Christ. Romans 6 says the baptism of the HS is what allows us to die, be burrier and raise with Him

[@jamestownley1610]

This was great. Glad to see two deacons getting opportunity to work through this together. I appreciate the reformed baptist position and the 1689 London Confession. However, the credo-baptist always seems to want a proof-text for covenantal (paedo) baptism in the new testament, when actually what should be required is a text (and ensuing teaching for all new Jewish Christians) that clearly nullifies the practice of applying the covenant sign to the children, just like there are passages, teachings, and a council making sure Jewish Christians didn't require Gentiles to be circumcised.

[@oracleoftroy]

Yes! It's annoying that Baptists sit at the point of agreement, that believers should get baptized, but never prove from scripture their core contention, that the whole household of a believer shouldn't, all while demanding the other side to provide verses for their position.

[@gaipou6982]

Thanks for this. Both did a very good job!

[@TheApologeticDog]

HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS DEBATE!!

[@mr400meter]

It came up like a thief in the night.

[@TheApologeticDog]

@@mr400meter hahahahha!

[@mr400meter]

So, I’m not so sure I agree with Gabe that the Old Covenant is with Abraham. Hebrews tells us that old covenant was at Sinai with Moses.

[@chet1646]

Reason being because the Mosaic Covenant is seen by many as the chief administration of the Old Covenant. However, the law given to Moses governed whether or not one experienced the blessings promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant gave a promise of Land to Abraham, how one experienced blessing in the land was obedience to the Law. So it's right to say that the Mosaic Covenant is seen as the main administration in the Old Covenant, but the entire reason for it's existence (according to the flesh) is to govern what was promised to Abraham

[@mr400meter]

@@chet1646 Would you say that the promise to Abraham was two-fold? Physical and spiritual? Could our planet be a copy of what the heavenly realm looks like? I've been trying to wrap my head around what I see panning out in the OT Scriptures and making sense of what the NT Scriptures say explicitly.

[@derrickspan5589]

I'd argue that the covenant is friendship and fellowship. This covenant runs through history without change with regard to it's essence, while it does have changes with regard to how it is put into practice. Since it is friendship and fellowship, this covenant was clearly made to Adam and Eve extremely clearly.

[@kac0404]

Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.

[@tawandandlovu2505]

I don't regret using up a full hour and fifty plus minutes here. Great stuff.

[@pipinfresh]

Imagine being a Jew in the first century, you just had a baby boy and circumcised him on the 8th day. Then you hear the gospel and get saved and baptized, but then you have to leave your son in the old covenant because you can't baptize him. It just doesn't make sense to me. God is consistent throughout scripture and His covenants with man.

[@lbee8247]

But what if the baptized baby comes to believe later like 10 or 27 years old. Now they don't get the chance to obey the command to believe and be baptized. Because they were baptized didn't believe but then believed later. I didn't believe until I was 23. I got baptized after that. The baptism I had from a Catholic mom couldn't count as me being obedient. I had to get baptized now that I believed. It was a sign that I was now a believer. I was not a believer before that week. Even though I was baptized as an infant.

[@pipinfresh]

@@lbee8247 I see no problem with an individual wanting to be rebaptized if they came to faith later in life after being baptized as an infant. If that's what they feel led to do.

[@lbee8247]

@@pipinfresh but our feelings can be misleading. Does a person get baptized once they believe and repent. The Bible says repent and be baptized. Correct me if I am wrong but the Bible never said repent and be circumcised. If a person was already baptized before they repented, before they believed, but doesn't feel led to be baptized. They have no memory of it and unlike circumcision they can't even look to see it. If they do get re baptized what was the point of the first baptism that didn't include repentance. In fact what is baptism according to the bible without repentance? Is it really a covenant? Baptism without repentance doesn't promise going to the holy land as circumcision did.

[@Mic1904]

@@lbee8247 "Now they don't get the chance to obey the command to believe and be baptized." And? Respectfully, this isn't about merely getting the chance to experience something. A baptized person who comes to faith has fulfilled both aspects of being a believer and being baptized. The command to the new converts on the mission field to 'believe and be baptized' needn't be and shouldn't be some sort of bar mitzvah coming of age experience that all people get to have as a 'thing' or 'event' - being baptized and raised in a Christian household is, itself, a different but wonderful blessing.

[@lbee8247]

@@Mic1904 why do you take obeying Jesus as just some unimportant experience?

[@desiM_y]

Oscar: When an infant was circumcised on the 8th day was it because of their faith like Abraham's? Gabe: It was because of Abraham's faith. Oscar: Sure. Gabe: Which is why in the new testament we baptize based off the parent's confession of faith.

[@Oscardunlap]

The answer was no to the first question. An infant is circumcised essentially at birth. The believer ought to be baptized at the new birth.

[@desiM_y]

@Oscar Dunlap I agree, a believer should be baptized at new birth, as I was. But the circumcision was a sign of the covenant, not because of the new birth. It was off Abraham's faith, not the infants. Great debate! You both articulated your positions well.

[@michaelmannucci8585]

Right, because being born a Jew made you part of the covenant. So the people of God received the sign. It was “by blood, by flesh”. The new covenant is by faith, being born again. So the people of God still receive the sign.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Michael, please discern the difference between Jew and Israelite. The terms are not interchangeable.

[@ronburgundy2738]

i was wondering when we would see Oscar again. his performance witnessing to the mormons was outstanding!

[@COJ316]

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. All His family was baptized🔥

[@mosesvibe]

Where does it say his family had babies?

[@mosesvibe]

Plus in the Greek “family” is not there

[@skyred2]

None of the family members described in any of the "family" passages are reasonably able to be described as infants.

[@ewanvandermerwe599]

Acts‬ ‭16‬:‭32‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” Acts‬ ‭16‬:‭34‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.” His entire household received the Word of God & he rejoiced along with them (so him joining in with them rejoicing) that he had believed in God. ‭‭So it points more towards them all being baptised because they all received the Word of God & believed.

[@COJ316]

@@mosesvibe there is no proof on either end. but i know babies are pure even if they cant choose or decide for themself, Infants and children are saved.. Matthew 18:3-5 " ““Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

[@savedby_grace6110]

Paedo or adult baptism are both expressions of faith in God's covenant. The temporal aspect of when and to whom it is administered is the issue of debate. Is it of faith to baptize infants or children, yes! Is it ok according to your understanding? That's the debate.

[@Justin_Case702]

Also, those who do baby dedications in the church, that’s just a waterless baptism

[@Ermasalie]

I was thinking this same thing haha!

[@lbee8247]

Is it? I always that that was just praying over the child. Where 2 or 3 are gathered and praying together. And not taking away the baby's opportunity to have a public believers batism. Which infant baptism either takes away that opportunity or it's voided by a 2nd baptism.

[@unit2394]

Baby dedications are an invented rite of man to replace the Biblical rite of Holy Baptism.

[@D12Min]

No it isn´t. Baptism is to be buried and raised with Christ through faith, Col 2:12.

[@unit2394]

Baptism saves (Mark 16:15-16, 1 Peter 3:18-22) and it does this by uniting us with Christ and ingrafting us into Him (Romans 6:1-4, Galatians 3:24-27, Colossians 2:11-15), washing away our sins (Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:12-16, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 5:25-27), and creating within us the rebirth/regeneration which brings faith (John 3:3-7, Titus 3:4-7). Because infants are born in sin and are sinners (Psalm 51:5) they need a savior. This salvation is not something we choose, but something that is given to us. Baptism is not something we do, but something that God does to us. This is the historic Christian belief about Baptism as taught in God's Holy Word, something that sadly, is explicitly contradicted in this conversation. I understand this sounds polemical, but I hope Christians will see fit to read the Scriptures here and come to believe what they teach, as has been believed throughout the whole history of the Church. God bless.

[@DisciplesOfGod7]

You forgot "believe" and be baptized. - Mark 16:16 And you forgot "through faith" in other scriptures you mentioned.

[@unit2394]

@@DisciplesOfGod7 faith alone saves. Baptism gives faith along with the other means of grace.

[@DisciplesOfGod7]

@@unit2394 The Bible doesn't say "faith Alone" saves. The Bible does say that baptism saves us.

[@unit2394]

@@DisciplesOfGod7 what is your disagreement? What position are you coming from?

[@jameshinton429]

What about Romans 10:9? “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Baptism is almost always preceded by belief or repentance. Can a person be saved without water baptism? Does baptism that saves speak of water baptism or baptism of the Spirit?

[@t1kt0k_gaming]

You know it is pretty amazing to see God in your life when you aren't even paying attention. I literally just saw on Twitter a thread about baptism then this video on infant baptism and now in my seminary course I am readying chapter 39 in Grudems Systematic Theology on Baptism in and Filling with the Holy Sprit. Recently I have been trying to get my family baptized at their request so just funny how God works to show us things.

[@derrickspan5589]

Have you heard of Herman Hoeksema's Dogmatics? His take on the covenant in connection with baptism is beautiful!

[@jonathantue1801]

Is there a passage of scripture that explicitly tells us what the sign of baptism is actually signifying? Is it signifying the individual’s personal faith in the Christ of the covenant? or is it signifying the Christ of the covenant and all that He’s done?

[@kac0404]

Simply put, infants have no sin until they learn to practice it. Since the purpose of baptism is to wash away sin (Acts 2:38; 22:16), it is meaningless to baptize an innocent baby. Sadly, few individuals who are baptized as babies ever come to realize that they have never really been baptized, in faith, for the remission of their sins. But even more convincing is the fact that there are simply no examples of infant baptism in Scripture. Every person baptized is a penitent believer. The only possible exceptions are the “households” of Acts 16:15 and 16:33, but the word “household” does not demand that babies were present. Many, many families do not include babies. Often, the notion of “household” included servants (Phil. 4:22).

[@marcomarcello8746]

Oscar kept asking how can a person participate in the covenant apart from faith? The answer is they can't! Oscar's exactly right here. However, the Bible clearly teaches that infants can have faith (Psalm 22:9 "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.", and Luke 18:16 "But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children (literally 'infants' - paidion in Hebrew: Strongs G3813) come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God." ). It is right to trust that God sovereignly grants saving faith to covenant children, no matter how immature that faith might be. Of course, we expect that faith to mature and develop into a sound intellectual understanding of the Gospel over time.

[@hudjahulos]

but whoever causes one of _these little ones who believe in me_ to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6 I am writing to you, _little children,_ _because your sins are forgiven_ for his name's sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, _children,_ because _you know the Father._ 1 John 2:12-23

[@marcomarcello8746]

@@hudjahulos great verses, thank you!

[@hudjahulos]

@@marcomarcello8746 God bless you brother :)

[@oracleoftroy]

@@marcomarcello8746 _"Oscar kept asking how can a person participate in the covenant apart from faith?"_ From my perspective, this is the wrong question. Here I think Baptists blur the covenant with salvation. It is easy to participate in the covenant apart from faith. Go to church, sit under a sermon, read the Bible, take communion get baptized, etc. Those are the visible aspects of the covenant and all those in the congregation participate in them. But those things don't save, God alone saves. I think that's why Heb 6 and Rom 11 show people that are in covenant with Christ and in some sense unified with him, and yet it isn't a salvific union and they are eventually cut off from Christ, and why this isn't in contradiction with John 2 or Romans 8 which indicate that nothing can remove us from salvation. In that way, I think salvation and the covenant are distinct (though related) and that the covenant is more about the human experience of salvation and the promises of blessings and curses for those who keep or defy the terms of the covenant, whereas true salvation is from God and God saves to the uttermost his people without fail and without leaving it up to chance.

[@marcomarcello8746]

@@oracleoftroy I agree that you can be in the covenant in a formal sense but not actually saved, as you mentioned. However, I think that is not a good place to be (i.e., enjoying covenant blessings without actually trusting in Christ for salvation and living for Him with a genuine heart). I think the norm is that those in the covenant are also saved, and those who are not saved are in a very dangerous place and need to repent immediately and trust in Christ.

[@Ermasalie]

My thought after watching this which was touched on in the discussion and something that's always been on my mind is why is it okay to baptize a "believer" because they professed faith but then later leave the faith but not okay to baptize an infant who will either come to faith or not? The "believer" is therefore a false convert and actually an unbeliever and therefore wrong to baptize them. Just my thoughts. I'd love to hear what others think with relation to this. Thanks!

[@truththroughlove1012]

The question will always be "what is written" and we must acknowledge that infant baptism is never mentioned in the new testament and creedobaptism is the standard each time. We must too look at the fruits that are produced by each form of baptism. Which practice produces better fruit? Answering the fruit question really will solidify any argument you may have within yourself. As for the debate, I feel like Gabe really knew his scripture but wasn't able to pick up the philosophical underpinnings that caused his argument to fall flat in the end. His best argument was the clear old testament teaching of both infant and creedobaptism. The failure, however, was proving that infant baptism was more desirable for God's purposes in Christ. Circumcision, a work, is not like the free gift of baptism. Thus, unless Gabe can prove faith as a gift to life can be given to an infant without the ability or having of faith, then creedobaptism seems more biblical and better for the Church.

[@brba8245]

The reason why is because initialy there was a profession of faith. WIth infants you are creating a 3rd category of people. Gave alluded to this when Oscar asked him directly if baptism brings infants under the fedral headship of Christ. He could not say yes. Tat is a problem.

[@steevineer]

@@truththroughlove1012 We must also acknowledge that forbidden of infants baptism is never mentioned in Scriptures.

[@oracleoftroy]

Yes, exactly op. The covenant Baptist follows what is visible and baptizes all that are visibly part of the church. They know that some will leave, but they do not pretend to know what only God can know. The Baptist tries to play God and judge the heart, denying baptism to some in the covenant community and giving baptism to others who will fall away, and thus create an inconsistency with their theology.

[@brba8245]

@@steevineer this is an argument from silence. There are many things that are not forbidden in Scriptures, but we must use the scriptures we have to help give a way forward. Infant baptism does not seem like a way forward.

[@brettlamson3014]

This is a sincere question. I always though it was “blessings and curses” or is it “blessings and cursing’s”?

[@michealferrell1677]

Dr Sam Renihan , The mystery of Christ really answered many of the questions I had . Everyone needs to read it !

[@Genexus8]

Theres a difference between Repentant Faith that leads to Salvation and one being Sanctified. Newborn infant is sanctified by their believing parents however that doesn't mean the newborn is regenerative and saved.

[@AHAPPYBANNANA]

What is the point to it?

[@CWJ0725]

According to Acts 10:15, 28, the whole world has been sanctified, but we don't baptize the whole world, do we? And the point of 1 Cor. 7 is the legitimacy of unequal marriage between believers and unbelievers. New converts don't have to divorce their unbelieving spouse because their marital status is 'holy' and recognized by God. Their children are not 'bastards', but legitimate. The early church didn't know if they had to follow the historical incident in Ezra 9 by putting away their unbelieving spouse and even children (Ezra 10:3). Paul was just telling them the OC ceremonial distinction no longer applies. He doesn't even mention baptism in the passage.

[@zacdredge3859]

@@CWJ0725 TBF the world was baptised during the time of Noah. I do agree with your conclusion though.

[@MrElguero16]

So God can’t save infants? Dr White even himself says he doesn’t know who the elect are only God those but yet thinks he know someone is save after having repenting faith? Does he have regeneration glasses?

[@RockyTop85]

THANK YOU

[@mattproffitt4570]

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Great job Gabe.

[@ScottTheProtBlankenship]

56:46 That’s one of the points that stumbled me back when I was a baptist.

[@eagleclaw1179]

Because the apostles never taught that a “sign” of the covenant is an equivalent to receiving the covenant.. I listened to the pedo’s point on this and to me it’s really not a good one. First, you are saying because the Jews never mentioned it, that somehow means that the Apostles taught something? There is so much drawn from silence that you can drive a bus through it lol On a more serious note tho, I do have a question, considering you said you were a baptist, I’m assuming you are still a Christian and that you are just a Presbyterian or something.. so, is it your belief that water baptism actually does something? And I’m assuming that if you do, that’s something it does is include them into the covenant?

[@ScottTheProtBlankenship]

@@eagleclaw1179 Yeah, I believe that baptism unites them to Christ covenantly (and I’m a Paedobaptist now).

[@oracleoftroy]

@@ScottTheProtBlankenship Yeah, exactly. Just about every NT book deals with the major controversy that arose due to the differences in kosher laws and circumcision, yet somehow such a major change like whether children are part of the covenant community went by without a peep? No way. That boggles the mind that anyone could believe that.

[@skyred2]

@@ScottTheProtBlankenship is there a requirement for a member of the New Covenant to repent and believe the gospel?

[@RobSwith]

@@skyred2 There is a requirement for all men and women to do this. This is how new adult members are made. Our children are set apart and made holy by the Lord by his grace. The question that got me was when Oscar asked what benefit does baptism give if the child never has faith. This was a question that was asked by the Jews in the new testament! This question was asked of circumcision, if not all who are circumcised had faith, how was there a benefit? 1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, xthe Jews were entrusted with ythe oracles of God. 3 zWhat if some were unfaithful? aDoes their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! The benefit of baptism is it marks our children as a part of the people of God, who are given (if they are under truly godly parents who teach them) the oracles of God! What a blessing. Baptism in it's purest sense is a sign of the promises made from God for all of those who have faith, and the curses for all those who will not.

[@sbrown6983]

I do not agree with Gabe or Oscar that the Abrahamic Covenant is part of the Old Covenant; Hebrews 8 refers to the Old Covenant as being the covenant that God made with Moses. I don't believe that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but I believe that it is a republication of the Covenant of Works that God made with Adam. The Abrahamic Covenant was when the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated with Abraham in Gen. 15 and Gen. 17, which Paul seems to think when he expounds it in Galations 3 and Romans 4. I think Galations 3:15-18 makes it clear that there were not two seeds of Abraham, but only one promised seed in Christ. All of the children were in covenant with Christ, since Christ is the head of the Covenant of Grace that was inaugurated with Abraham. Next, I would like to say that there are many prophecies on the New Covenant that explicitly say that children are in the New Covenant. ( Jer. 32:36-40; Ezek. 37:25-28; Isa. 54:13; 59:21; 61:8,9) Now, Paul says, "For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises to the patriarchs," ( Rom.15:8) which shows that Christ came to fulfill all of the promises that looked forward to the New Covenant; According to the Baptist view, Christ did not fulfill those promises. I'm sorry, but this strikes at the very heart of what Jesus Christ came to do. He came to fulfill those prophecies regarding the New Covenant that explicitly say that children are included in it because of their parents faith. When we look at the New Testament, we see that Jesus did not push the children and infants away because they didn't have a profession of faith, but that He said, " Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Now when Jesus said that, He was not using using them only as an illustration of who belongs to the Kingdom of God, but rather, He was saying that the kingdom belongs to children like these, and others like them as well. Moreover, Jesus blessed the children of believers with His covenant blessing. Some might say, '' Where does it say that He baptized them,'' to which I would say that the big word is not ''baptize,'' but ''blessed.'' Look all throughout the Bible to see what it means to be blessed by God; it means to have God's name placed upon you, and to be consecrated to him. My next text to look at is Acts 2:39, which says, " For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." I've had so many Baptists say to me that I'm not paying enough attention to '' everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself,'' to which I respond that we Presbyterians hold to election, thank you very much! Election has never been at odds with family solidarity in any of God's covenants with His people as seen in Romans 9. What Peter is saying is that the visible administration of the covenant is with believers and their children. The reason he adds, ''Everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself'' is to clarify that salvation is of the Lord as it has always been, even in the Abrahamic Covenant.(Gen 17:20-21; Rom. 9:6-13) Finally, 1 Corinthians 7:14 says that the children of just one believing parent are holy. If we look at all of the Scriptural uses of the word "holy,'' we will find that it means to be consecrated or set apart to God. Our children are set apart to God in His gracious Covenant of Grace, and to deny them the covenant sign of baptism is to say that they are unclean. We should always look to see what the Scripture has to say about the children of believers, and we'll quickly see that the Baptist view cannot withstand it. Now I don't believe that our children are saved simply because they are born in the covenant; I believe with all of my heart that they need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. It is the duty of parents to never lead their children in presumption on account of their children being baptized, but to lead them to faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation. But we can rest in the reality that God will keep His promise to save all of those who call upon His name, including our children. I know that my comment was long, but I would like to say that I myself grew up as Reformed Baptist. I thought that I was pretty staunch in my view of baptism, but as I began to study in preparation for Bible college, I became uncomfortable with my Baptist position. The concept of a covenant was never really mentioned in my upbringing, but when I studied it very carefully, I saw a pattern in the Bible with all of God's covenants. It wasn't until I came to understand Covenant Theology that I changed my view on this issue. For anyone who is struggling with this issue, I would strongly recommend that you study Covenant Theology - not baptism. Once you understand Covenant Theology the rest will fall into place.

[@Federalist-mj7xj]

You are right. Covenant Theology has a noble goal which modern Baptists have generally ignored. The Particular Baptists of the 17th century were born out of Covenant Theology. They did not dump it when they wrote their confession of faith (1), but rather they saw themselves as reforming it further. It is a thoroughly Biblical position to hold that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the Old Covenant, per the Scriptures you cite. The questions I would pose to you are these: Do you believe that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works by which Israel is saved by perfect obedience? If so, how do you account for Paul? Paul said: If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith- 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:4-10) Based on this verse, I cannot see how it is possible to hold that the Mosaic Covenant can save its members by perfect obedience. But you may be referring to another view of the republication idea, summarized by the OPC report: View 1: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of works, promising eternal life and/or salvation upon condition of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. View 2: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a mixed covenant, containing elements of both a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. View 3: The Mosaic covenant in substance is a subservient covenant, promising temporal life in Canaan upon condition of perfect obedience to the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. View 4: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of grace, although uniquely administered in a manner appropriate to the situation of God’s people at that time. (2) I believe that view 3 is the best description of the Mosaic Covenant. If it was view 1, then Paul would have been saved by his works. View 2 does not make much sense, and view 4 we both agree is not right. In any case, if you conclude that the Old Covenant is a covenant of works, then why don’t you conclude the same about the Abrahamic Covenant? I believe an honest reading of the text must conclude that the Abrahamic Covenant is a covenant of works for every individual, but a covenant that promises a coming seed, who is Christ. “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” The Abrahamic Covenant is not substantially the Covenant of Grace, but is a covenant that promises it. Christ indeed is the head of the Covenant of Grace. The Westminster Larger Catechism, question 31, says: “With whom was the covenant of grace made? The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.” Now, here is where my argument is going: If Christ is the head of the Covenant of Grace, and in Him are all the elect, then to be under His headship in the Covenant of Grace is to be elect. If you say that infants who are baptized are in this Covenant of Grace, then you are either saying that baptism regenerates children, or that the Westminster Standards are wrong. The Covenant of Grace is a covenant between God and His son (who represents the elect). The Abrahamic Covenant is a covenant between God and Abraham (who represents Israel). These are different parties, different covenants. It is impossible to say that Christ is the head of the Abrahamic Covenant, because Abraham was the federal head. You said that Christ “came to fulfill those prophecies regarding the New Covenant that explicitly say that children are included in it because of their parents faith.” Not one of the verses you cited say that parents’ faith brings children in the New Covenant. It is Christ’s blood alone that can bring someone into the New Covenant. You say that Christ blessed children with the covenant blessings. What are the New Covenant blessings? The blessings are calling, repentance, justification, regeneration, and sanctification. No physical blessings can compare to these. Indeed, even in persecution the Christian is blessed. The seal of the New Covenant is truly the Holy Spirit Himself! (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13, 4:30) You cite Acts 2:39. All I will say is that you did not ask yourself “What is the promise?” The promise is: “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” (v 38). It’s not about “all who are far off”, as much as the fact that the promise is of the Holy Spirit, who is the seal of the NC, will be granted to all who repent and are baptized and receive the forgiveness of sins. If an infant dies in infancy, only God knows the child’s state of election. We are in the hands of a good God; “In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths.” The promise demands that we wait till we repent. If we do so, preaching the Gospel to our children, then God will work His will. It does not take a nudge from us for Him to bring children into the Covenant. As to 1 Corinthians 7:14, if you say that children of just one believer are holy, you have to apply the same hermeneutic and say that the husband of the believing wife is holy, as the text says. Holy here is referring to set apart, as you said, but not in a saving way. If a believing wife is faithful to God, it will effect every facet of her life, therefore her husband will be benefited by the fruits of a Proverbs 31 woman. Thank you for considering these thoughts. The reason I am responding to you is that you said that you were a Reformed Baptist, but saw the truths of Covenant Theology. I respect that. It is not whether the Bible supports the idea of covenant theology, but which covenant theology it supports. Therefore be alert. True covenant theology must be loath to prescribe an outline for the Bible to follow. Rather, it should hasten to submit to the outline that the Bible clearly declares. Settle for nothing less. I encourage you to consider Baptist Covenant Theology, specifically 1689 Federalism. If you are interested, here are some helpful resources: - www.1689federalism.com/ - Samuel Renihan’s “From Shadow to Substance” - Nehemiah Coxe’s “Discourse on the Covenants” ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12024/A34849/A34849.html?sequence=5&isAllowed=y - A. W. Pink’s “Divine Covenants” archive.org/details/divinecovenants0000pink/page/52/mode/2up?q=infant+baptism - John Owen’s work web.archive.org/web/20220407205159/www.reformedbaptist.co.uk/JOHEBREW86My%20Version.htm - and, or course, the 1689 Confession of Faith www.the1689confession.com/. Compare chapter 7 to the Westminster Confession of Faith’s chapter 7 References: (1) www.the1689confession.com/ (2) www.opc.org/GA/republication.html#Taxonomy

[@sbrown6983]

@@Federalist-mj7xj Thank you for your comment and for the resources. I studied a book on Baptist Covenant Theology written by Pascal Denault, but I wasn't convinced. I must admit, that I'm in league with Paedobaptists such as Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, and Samuel Petto, who believe that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works. (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5; Gal 3:12) I do not believe that O.T. saints were saved by the law( though in order to be saved by the law one had to obey it perfectly), but I do believe that the saints were saved by faith alone, just as Abraham was according to Romans 4. I think that interpreting the Abrahamic Covenant as being a covenant of works according to Genesis 17:14 is ignoring that Genesis 15:6 says, " and he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.'' This doesn't by any means come into conflict with Genesis 17:1, where God says,'' I am God almighty, walk before me and be blameless;'' this just resembles the call that Jesus gave to His disciples to follow him. Now on the topic of those New Covenant prophecies, Jeremiah 32:39 says, "I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them." I will admit that those other texts that I cited do not say that children are brought into the covenant by their parents faith, but, this one that I just cited from Jeremiah definitely affirms my point. It says that God will give the parents new hearts so that they will fear Him, but nowhere in the text does it suggest that the children themselves are brought into the covenant by faith. I believe that in order to be brought to salvation in Christ Jesus one must have faith, but all of those passages that I cited say that the offspring of believers will be blessed in some way. I still don't see how you can refute texts like these when none of them say that the children must have faith in order to be brought into the covenant. I do agree with you that the blessings of the New Covenant include calling, repentance, justification, regeneration, and sanctification; all of those are given unconditionally to the elect sinner in Christ. But there is an external administration of the New Covenant that does experience the blessings of getting to grow up in a Christian home, hear biblical preaching, and even have some spiritual blessings; there isn't just an internal administration. I think that this notion of there being an external administration is supported by passages such as Matt. 13:47-50, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-24, and Heb. 10:29; you're going to run into trouble if you say that only regenerate people are in the New Covenant when you come to texts like these. Again, salvation is in the hands of the Lord, but the visible and invisible churches are not identical yet. Hebrews 8 has not reached the consummation yet, which will come when Christ comes again. Let me say as strongly as I possibly can, that I firmly hold to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, but people can be broken off of that olive tree that represents the one Covenant of Grace. In regards to the 1 Corinthians passage, I do not think that an unbelieving spouse should be baptized, due to the fact that in order to be baptized as an adult one must have a profession of faith. (Acts 2:38) I do believe that it is a parent's duty to give their child to the Lord just as those believing parents gave their children to Jesus to be blessed by Him. He even states that the kingdom of God belongs to them. I want to see an explicit command that does away with this familial aspect of a covenant. I don't want to hear the one text from Luke 12:49-54 that my one pastor kept throwing at me; that is not the objective of the gospel and doesn't disproof the household principle of a covenant. Thanks for the resources, but I will warn you, I had to endure a lot of below the belt comments from a lot of my Baptist friends, so I'm pretty staunch in my view of this issue. I believe that infant baptism is implicitly taught in the Bible- as do many great theologians- just like the doctrine of the Trinity, or women taking the Lord's Supper is implicitly taught.

[@lbee8247]

@@sbrown6983 I am blessed to read you and JW's conversation. I am not nearly as educated or well read on any of this. So my questions may be simple but not because I am trying to hit below the belt. I was batized as an infant in the Catholic church. What was that baptism? What did it do? Was my mom being inadvertently obedient? I was not raised in any church. My mother taught me that Jesus was the son of God. She taught me a few Bible verses. Like the 10 commandments and John 3:16. I was saved in a Baptist church and baptized days later. Because I was told that after you repent and believe Jesus tell us to be baptized. That when I was a baby my baptism didn't come in that order. So what was that baptism? Later when my daughter was 4 she did not believe she needed Jesus. Should I have had her batized anyway? And if I had would she have gotten baptized after she did believe and repent? My main question is how to you get baptized after you repent if you got baptized before you repented. Do you just not obey that command? Is it not really a command? I have a granddaughter now. If it's just a sign to show you belong in the Christian family doesn't being taken to church and being part of a church family do that already? What specifically is infant and unbeliever baptism doing? That all the other religious behaviors isn't doing? And doesn't baptizing a baby or an unbeliever just make the command for believers to be baptized confusing on how to obey it if they were baptized before they believed? I know it did for me at first.

[@sbrown6983]

I just realized that my statement regarding the republication of the covenant of works was rather vague, and I didn't really clarify which of those views that you listed I agree with. I hold to the third view, which is that the Mosaic covenant in substance is a subservient covenant, promising temporal life in Canaan upon condition of perfect obedience to the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws.

[@Federalist-mj7xj]

@@sbrown6983 1. Thanks for clarifying on the Mosaic Covenant. I agree that it was a covenant of works that neither saved or condemned eternally, but was rather for temporal life in Canaan. I’m sure you agree with me, but I do believe that the 10 commandments, though keeping them perfectly cannot save, are still God’s perfect standard. 2. We also agree that all who were saved in the OT were saved by faith. “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). Those who are saved by faith are elect, whether Old or New Testament. 3. We dissagree on whether all require personal faith to be in New Covenant. You cite Jeremiah 32:39 as affirming that children do not need personal faith to be in the NC, but rather the faith of their parents. I would submit to you the next verse after it. Verse 40 says “I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from Me.” That means that in in this promised covenant, God will never turn from doing good to its members. “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28 NASB). It also says that God will place the fear of Himself in the hearts of the covenant members. When Mary sang her song of praise, she said, “And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation” (Luke 1:50). This does not mean one generation’s fear of the Lord makes the next one automatically fear the Lord. It means that every generation must in turn fear the Lord. If a generation does not fear God because His mercy is not on them, then they will not be saved. Also, “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1 ESV). That las phrase in Jer. 32:40 says “that they may not turn from Me.” God is speaking of the members of this covenant. They cannot turn from Him, because He has put the fear of the LORD in them! To strengthen this point, I would like to refer to the last chapter. Jeremiah 31:33-34. “For this is the covenant I will make declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sins no more.” This passage is saying that God will put His law in our hearts, that those in the covenant will be His people, and that everyone in the covenant will be forgiven. He will remember the sins of His covenant people no more! How could this apply to anyone who is unsaved? Jeremiah 31 and 32 are not saying that the parents are the only ones who fear Him, or know His law in their hearts, or KNOW Him. These passages are consistently saying that every member in this prophesied covenant will know Him. This wonderful Covenant of Grace has a simple requirement in order to be in it. No one can fulfill that simple requirement: It is spotless perfection. Only those for whom Christ’s blood is spilled have any claim to this covenant, because ONLY those who are covered in said blood have any perfection. And that perfection is not their own, but Christs. Here’s the shocker: children and adults alike cannot enter the covenant simply by faith. I do not say “I’m in the Covenant of Grace because I have faith.” No; it is by faith THROUGH grace. Not any grace: God’s grace because of Christ’s obedience. To say that an infant can be in the covenant by assuming that it only requires the parents’ faith is robbing the glory of Christ’s death on the cross. Children who are graced with salvation will have faith. Christ uses child-like faith as an example of what every person’s faith should be like. A child has faith in his parents in a way that no one does; he relies on them for everything. So also is our faith in God. 4. We agree that the NC blessings are calling, repentance, justification, regeneration, and sanctification. We dissagree on whether the New Covenant has an external administration that has temporal blessings. You say “there isn’t just an internal administration,” then cite those famed apostacy passages. I would submit to you a key passage that you left out: - “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). We may dissagree on hermeneutics, but I’ll explain my view: If there is a passage that is unclear, confusing, or hard to understand, I go to a similar verse and use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Apostacy passages are HARD, and a lot of people misunderstand them. How can God say X tasted the fruits of the Spirit, then say that X can transgress the covenant? Before moving on, I want to touch on Hebrews 10:29, “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?” It’s so hard to make a theological dogma out of this passage because it is highly debatable as to who was sanctified. I believe the passage is saying “…has profaned the blood of the covenant by which CHRIST was sanctified…” for two reasons: a) We are clearly told in verse 14 that: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). Christ’s offering, His blood, perfects those who are being sanctified. b) Only Christ’s blood can save. Only His blood sanctifies. We are sanctified because He lived a sanctified life and died a sanctified death. If we profane the blood by which Christ was sanctified, then we will outrage the Spirit. In other places, outraging, or blaspheming the Spirit is called the unforgivable sin. No one who is forgiven and is being sanctified can be unforgiveable. Apart from these apostacy passages, I see no Biblical basis for an outward administration of the NC. Of course there’s a common grace that God gives to all: “he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). My dad raised me and my family in a missionary context. Yet my brother is not saved. Because he grew up under a Christian influence, he is a hard worker, and honest worker, and a generally good fellow. But those blessings are nothing. I think it’s a great lie in the American church to say that being a Christian, whether nominally or not, gives you “blessings” in any sense of the word the world knows. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11) and “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered” (Acts 7:52). The blessings of Christ heap condemnation on the heads of unsaved people, but for His chosen, they make a new creation. To reject the true blessing of salvation is to reject the covenant itself. 5. You say “Hebrews 8 has not reached the consummation yet, which will come when Christ comes again.” I would add that the NC has been legally fulfilled by Christ and that everyone is already bought and paid for in the NC. The verbs describing Christ here are either past or present tense, which leads me to think the passage is focusing on the reality of the here and now, and less on the future. 6. We dissagree as to the interpretation of Romans 11. At the present I do not have time to write much on that passage due to time constraints. I will simply say that I think the passage is talking about nations, not individuals. 7. We agree that an unbelieving spouse married to a believing spouse should not be baptized. I would simply add the same hermeneutic to the child. 8. The NC never says families are done away with. It simply says that salvation is by faith through grace. The Noahic Covenant included all the creatures of the earth. The Abrahamic Covenant included only Abraham and his offspring. Would you say that the creatures are excluded in the Abrahamic Covenant? No; it’s a different covenant. So also with the NC. P. S. I am sorry to hear that you were ill treated by your Baptist friends. That is not how the church is to act. I am dealing with arguments, not your soul. It is not my position to judge the soul, but all of us have the ability and sanction to analyze arguments.

[@ComeOutOfHerMyPeople]

Baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16), infants cannot repent of their sins, therefore no, according to scripture, baptism is not required for infants. It is done when a person is old enough to acknowledge their sin nature and want to repent of it.

[@CANADA515]

Come out of her my people , you speak like we are Baptisted for forgiveness of sins. And if that is your thought about it ? You are wrong ! ! ! WE ARE BAPTIZED BECAUSE WE HAVE FORGIVENESS ! Forgiveness of sin happened at the instant of conversion. Past , Present, and Future sin. Baptism preformed in the correct way , has the understanding we are already forgiven and secure in Christ !

[@Trialbyfire9]

@Daniel Morris I completely disagree, your not being consistent biblically. Not one child was baptized in scripture for a reason. If our God is sovereign and just tell me how a infant that can’t even make decisions for itself lose there salvation because of another man’s choices? Just another example how astray the Catholic Church is from the real Jesus

[@IWestexI]

Where does God say infants can't repent of their sins?

[@Trialbyfire9]

@Daniel Morris so in all what your saying is the New Testament left out all roads to salvation? We must take Gods word , im sorry but the Catholic Church has always tried to make man made requirements for salvation this is nothing new . The New Testament would have explained something so important like infant baptism if it were required by God. Mark 16:16 which says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be damned.” Again belief comes before baptism here. “He who believes and is baptized.” An infant is incapable of belief, therefore an infant cannot be baptized. And tbh baptism and salvation have nothing to do with each other anyway

[@IWestexI]

@@CANADA515 with love, respect and humbleness Mr. Jones, Peter says in the book of Acts Chapter 2, “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." Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Please hear me in humbleness brother, let the text speak for itself.

[@VisionOnDuty]

The rebuttal at 1:21 sealed it

[@Alien_Tech_ICP]

Dude, I’m Baptist and I think the Baptist guy totally totally lost because he is using these liberal tactics of assuming that Presbyterians claimed that baptized children are saved. What is this guy talking about? He has no argument, man.

[@BeefyPreacher]

True

[@SouthpawEhud]

Oscar could have done better if he wasn’t reading a research paper the whole time. If we wanted that we’d go read an article instead of watching a debate.

[@Oscardunlap]

I had notes brother... Also my ipad wouldn't work. Cut me some slack lol

[@SouthpawEhud]

@@Oscardunlap just an observation on your means of pathos. Appreciated watching the debate.

[@mkshffr4936]

I believe Brother Oscar is wrong on this issue but criticizing his use of notes or even a prepared statement seems pretty lame.

[@samsens]

Think it was telling that Gabe was constantly in scripture and Oscar was not. Point to padeobaptists

[@COJ316]

Acts 16:31-33 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. The whole family was Baptize!!!!

[@billclass5847]

Indeed. *Is baptism for adults only? **kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpC4p557aLyqi6M*

[@skyred2]

None of the family members described in any of the "family" passages are reasonably able to be described as infants. These passages are clearly more supportive of the credo- baptist position.

[@jaked8537]

A credo baptist would baptize an entire family if they all converted together and professed repentance and faith, young children and all. Could you demonstrate from scripture where it shows that there were infants below the age of learning and comprehension in this house? Make sure you don't forget about the "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house" part. Were they preaching to infants?

[@COJ316]

@@jaked8537 there is no proof on either end. but i know babies are pure even if they cant choose or decide for themself, Infants and children are saved.. Matthew 18:3-5 " ““Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

[@COJ316]

@@jaked8537 there is no proof on either end. but i know babies are pure even if they cant choose or decide for themself, Infants and children are saved.. Matthew 18:3-5 " ““Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

[@ryanmossman3343]

Wow. I thought Gabe made a great point at 1:05:54. And I’m credobaptist! 😂

[@michaelmannucci8585]

It’s kind of Presbyterian covenant understanding 101. It’s a really bad argument, though, because they’re essentially arguing, using his analogy, that you can be born a Wrench without actually being a child of Gabe, or you can be born American and not have any of the rights of an American.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@michaelmannucci8585 _"It’s a really bad argument, though, because they’re essentially arguing, using his analogy, that you can be born a Wrench without actually being a child of Gabe, or you can be born American and not have any of the rights of an American."_ How does that follow? They 100% are a part of the covenant community just as they are a citizen, until such time as they abandon the Church/their country. I think this assumes a Baptist thesis that the "covenant community" or "being in the covenant" == salvation when I think the Bible distinguishes them. For example, I think it is clear that on the one hand salvation is something one cannot lose (Rom 8, 1 John 2), and on the other hand, that there are people in the covenant who are then later cut off from the covenant (Heb 6, Rom 11).

[@michaelmannucci8585]

I said the analogy was bad, I didn't make an argument against unregenerate new covenant members. But let's consider what God says about the NC in Jeremiah 31:31-34: // “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord." So according to God, there will be differences between the OC and NC. What are they?: // "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” So according to God, these are characteristic of NC members (notice they, them, not it), but not of OC members: 1. The law is in their hearts 2. God will be their God 3. They will all know God 4. Their sins will be forgiven Now the Presbyterian understanding that the NC has unregenerate unbelievers in it necessitates that I must believe that there are NC members who: 1. Do not have the law written on their hearts, but are under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13) 2. Are enemies of God (Romans 5:10) 3. Do not know God (2 Thessalonians 1:8) 4. Do not have their sins forgiven (literally the whole NT) And that's just looking at one passage. When I consider what every passage about the NC says is characteristic of it, and realize those things cannot apply to an unbeliever (indwelling Holy Spirit, Christ as their high priest interceding on their behalf, etc), I simply cannot accept that unregenerate, "not seeking for God", unforgiven sinners are NC members. And this is where you get some really wacky Presbyterians (not all of course) introducing a new, totally unbiblical third category of person (outside of believer vs unbeliever) who is an enemy of God but not really, who is forgiven of sins but not really, who is unregenerate but regenerate, etc. Which I think is just silly, and obviously a desperate attempt to keep their tradition intact. And just in case it isn't clear, since comment sections can get a bit dicey, I *love* my fellow Presbyterian brothers with Christ's love!

[@oracleoftroy]

@@michaelmannucci8585 _"I said the analogy was bad, I didn't make an argument against unregenerate new covenant members."_ That's what I was addressing. I think the analogy holds in all the ways it was used and so seemed like an apt analogy. I'm still not sure what was "bad" about it, aside from it not working on Baptist assumptions (I don't think it needs to, as in part the debate is over whether those assumptions hold up). _"So according to God, there will be differences between the OC and NC."_ First, I think it would be good to be explicit about what you are calling the OC and the NC. Is the OC just Moses? Does it include Abraham? Does it include the promises given in Gen 3 after the fall? Is Abraham the NC? Gen 3? A mix and match of some or all of the above? It's not clear to me that even in Covenant Theology that the Baptist version of CT has the same view of the covenants as the Reformed view of CT. _"1. The law is in their hearts"_ Is that really "new"? Deut 11:18 - You shall therefore lay up these words of mine *in your heart* and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. Deut 30: 6 - And the LORD your God will circumcise *your heart and the heart of your offspring,* so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Prov 3: 3 - Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; *write them on the tablet of your heart.* _"2. God will be their God"_ Is that really "new"? This one has a large number of OT references, so here are a few written long before Isaiah. Gen 17: 8 - And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and *I will be their God.* Ex 6: 7 - I will take you to be my people, and *I will be your God,* and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. Lev 26: 12 - And I will walk among you and *will be your God,* and you shall be my people. _"3. They will all know God"_ Not sure exactly how you take this. 1 & 2 seem to be the definition of one who knows God in a salvific way and seems to be true in both the OT and NT and not some new thing. As postmil, I think there will come a time when this is more literally true and everyone will know God at least at an intellectual level and the majority will know him at the heart level described in 1 & 2. _"4. Their sins will be forgiven"_ Again, is this "new"? The sacrificial system was given as a promise of forgiveness of sins, not in the animals themselves, but in what they pointed to, the messiah who would come and crush the head of the serpent. The thing is, what is "new" about the new covenant doesn't seem like it is new in the purpose or overall means, but in fulfilling what was only shadows and symbol in the OT in the person of Jesus and his death on the cross and victory over death in resurrection. All these supposedly "new" things are found in the OT. Hebrews is the book that explains how the old and new covenant relate, and it seems explicitly clear that all the terms and conditions of the old are preserved, and the primary thing that makes it new is that the administration has changed. Where before it was administrated by the Levitical priesthood and a human high priest, it is now administered by Christ as high priest. Where before it was imperfect animal sacrifice that could never satisfy sin and so had to continually be made again, now Christ is the final sacrifice for sin. On every point you make above, that is said about the "old" covenant as well as the "new" covenant, and so don't seem to be a distinguishing mark between them. And I'll note that the terms and condition were never on man's obedience. That's why built into the law was a way to seek forgiveness when we inevitably did disobey God. That is one of the purposes of the law in the first place, to show that we are sinners who desperately need a savior and our only hope of salvation is to put our hope in our living redeemer. Baptists tend to assume a wall between the OT and NT that I just don't see. _"1. Do not have the law written on their hearts, but are under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13)"_ _"2. Are enemies of God (Romans 5:10)"_ _"3. Do not know God (2 Thessalonians 1:8)"_ _"4. Do not have their sins forgiven (literally the whole NT)"_ And just like with your previous 1-4 these were true of both covenants. Not everyone who is in the covenant community receives the blessings of the covenant and instead receives the curses. That's why the covenant includes curses as well, and the NT indicates that people can be cut off from the covenant despite having been in it and received blessings of it (Heb 6, Rom 11). There seems to be a distinction throughout the Bible between being in the covenant and being saved. _"When I consider what every passage about the NC says is characteristic of it, and realize those things cannot apply to an unbeliever (indwelling Holy Spirit, Christ as their high priest interceding on their behalf, etc), I simply cannot accept that unregenerate, "not seeking for God", unforgiven sinners are NC members."_ And when I read those things, I conclude that there is a distinction between the covenant and salvation and those follow the same distinction between the visible and the invisible church. The Baptist confuses those two distinct things, which is why they think it is their duty to gate admission into the visible church by their invisible status as a regenerate believer even though they cannot read the heart as God does. We understand our role in admitting people into the covenant as based on what is visible to us, and to be removed when the visible things show they have rejected God by their sin or having removed themselves from the community. In practice, Baptists have to live like this as well as they are not God. It isn't a problem in our theology, but it is for the Baptist as they strongly oppose baptizing someone who is unregenerate, despite them having no ability to truly discern such a thing. _"And this is where you get some really wacky Presbyterians (not all of course) introducing a new, totally unbiblical third category of person (outside of believer vs unbeliever) who is an enemy of God but not really, who is forgiven of sins but not really, who is unregenerate but regenerate, etc."_ I haven't heard of such a thing. Do you know which denominations believe that? I'm curious to find out more. The closest thing that comes to mind is Lutheran single predestination where those God passes over are not definitely left to condemnation, but they leave open the possibility for their salvation. _"Which I think is just silly, and obviously a desperate attempt to keep their tradition intact."_ Yeah, it seems completely unnecessary once we understand what a covenant is and how it is distinct from the promises of the covenant fulfilled in an individual. If I may offer a counterpoint, it seems to me that Baptists are prone to treating the OT and NT as so distinct that one could practically tear out the OT from their bibles and nothing would be lost. Some even seem to comb through the NT and pick apart which statements are "for the Jews" and which are "for the gentiles" such that it seems anything they don't like isn't for today. My default assumption is that God is the same God yesterday, today, and forever, and so when I read something in the OT, it is just as true as if it were in the NT. So much of the NT seems to be commentary not on why it is different, but why it is the same as the OT teachings and that the promises aren't dismissed and replaced with new ones, but accomplished in Jesus and available to all regardless of ethnicity. I don't think the OT and NT teach a different gospel, but a consistent message that salvation is by grace through faith in the promised messiah. Broadly speaking, the approach Baptists take doesn't always accord with this, through my Reformed Baptist brothers in the faith are much better about this sort of thing. When Oscar framed the debate over a presumed continuity or discontinuity between the covenants, that really spoke to me as hitting on the core issue. I can't see that the "new" covenant is altogether a new and unique thing when it reiterates the exact same points made in the supposed "old" covenant. _"And just in case it isn't clear, since comment sections can get a bit dicey, I love my fellow Presbyterian brothers with Christ's love!"_ Not at all, I didn't think otherwise! Same here! I appreciate that you are defending your view with conviction and firmness all while trying to remain faithful to the Bible. These issues are where I first really learned how someone can be "wrong" about what the Bible says for reason of wanting to be completely faithful to the word without trying to compromise it. I think this is an issue where we can display strong disagreement and passionately defend our view, yet still embrace each other as brothers in Christ in full unity at the end of the day. Iron sharpens iron. I appreciate your directness and unwillingness to mince words, and I personally hate the modern tendency to demand people spend 90% of their time apologizing for having a different opinion or reminding people that it is just an opinion least they be accused of being prideful and arrogant (the accusation of which almost always reflects the accuser rather than the accused). It's silly, and I love that you aren't given in to such nonsense.

[@michaelmannucci8585]

​@@oracleoftroy I am skeptical of the fruit of debating this in a KZbin comment section, but here I go: _"I'm still not sure what was "bad" about it"_ What I already pointed out above. An unregenerate covenant member is an unbeliever (biblical category), and unbelievers are enemies of God, under the curse of their sin. They are not a child of God. They do not have, among others, the right to approach the throne of God with boldness. So, yeah, I think it's a bad analogy. This isn't assuming Baptist categories, it's assuming Christian ones: unbelievers are enemies of God. So you're a Wrench but not a child of Gabe (child of God), you're American but don't have the rights of an American (forgiveness of sins, communion with Christ, etc). But we can go in circles about the analogy. _"Is that really "new"?"_ With regard to you suggesting it's not really new, I'm going to go with what God says in the passage I quoted where He literally says "*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers* on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt". And then, just same basic hermeneutics, followed by "*For*", where He highlights how it is not like the covenant that He made before etc. _"1. The law is in their hearts" Is that really "new"?_ Yes. The first and third passages you cite are a commands (which they could not do, Colossians 2:11). The second is a prophetic promise about the NC. Notice as I pointed out, God's description in this passage of the NC are descriptions of *their members* and what He will do. This is important to note. _""2. God will be their God" Is that really "new"?_ Perhaps I should have been more clear here and thought it through more. Clearly, God is to be the God and only God of any covenant He makes with any people. However, I think if you follow the flow of what He is saying, that "no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest", in this sense shall He be their God. Now this is a problem for your view. In the OC, there was a need to say "Know the Lord!" to your neighbor, because even though they were covenant members by birth, they did not all know Him or worship Him. God says in the NC, there will be no need because "they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest". It seems apparent to me that, according to God, NC members will all know him. But the Presbyterian would have me believe there are covenant members who do not know Him. PS, I am post-mill too but that's making minced-meat of the text ;) . "I will be their God, and they shall be My people", clearly speaking of NC members, and then "And each one...", The "each one" can't be divorced from the immediate context to be a reference to some future group of "all people" alive at the time. He is speaking of what is characteristic of NC members. We can't just step out of the flow of thought and then step back into it at will, we have to follow the argument and logic of the text. _""4. Their sins will be forgiven" Again, is this "new"?_ Yes. It is new that NC will all have their sins forgiven. I assume you agree, from your perspective, that not all NC members are forgiven of their sins? OC members were not all forgiven of sin. But I am glad you brought up the sacrificial system. This is a big problem for you folks. The priests in the OC made sacrifices for the sins of all the OC members, correct? I assume so. So then, why would Christ be a sacrifice for only some of them? Yes, I get that the OC sacrificial system was a shadow, and only by appropriating it to themselves by faith could someone be right before God in the OC... but the blood was still spilled on behalf of everyone, was it not? So then, did Christ die for everyone in the covenant? If so, is it simply non-efficacious? Or does He only die for His elect and not for covenant members necessarily? If the latter, and if He is indeed the high priest of the NC, in what sense is He the high priest of non-elect covenant members, considering the function of the High priest is to make sacrifice to God on behalf of the covenant members (Hebrews 10:11-14)? _"it seems to me that Baptists are prone to treating the OT and NT as so distinct that one could practically tear out the OT from their bibles and nothing would be lost"_ That is silly and I don't believe merits a response. _"My default assumption is that God is the same God yesterday, today, and forever, and so when I read something in the OT, it is just as true as if it were in the NT"_ I fail to see how this is relevant. This is how charismatics argue for the continuation of the supernatural gifts: since God doesn't change, then the gifts must continue. Arguing from a statement about God's being that therefore He must act in history in the same ways is bad theology. _"I don't think the OT and NT teach a different gospel, but a consistent message that salvation is by grace through faith in the promised messiah."_ Agreed. If I may add, brother, I would encourage you to consider why you keeps putting _new_ and _old_ in scare quotes as if this is Baptist language. Is it possible you're seeing things through more of a theological-system lens than a Biblical one? This is how Scripture speaks of the covenants. Scripture refers to the covenants as _old_ and _new_. Scripture calls the NC better (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:8-13).

[@philiplehman1843]

Interesting debate, I'm not arguing here for either side just thinking out loud here: one thing that came to my mind: if circumcision was how a child entered into the Old Covenant how did baby girls enter the Old Covenant? Second if baptism of babies replaced circumcision then baby girls are now included in the New Covenant but were left out of the Old Covenant.

[@theoppositionpodcast]

My question for paedobaptists is this: So what if I don't baptize my baby? Like, what exactly is the baby missing out on? I'm still going to raise them in a Christian way and expect that God will save them. Also, it's interesting that Gabe hesitantly says it's not a sin to NOT baptize your baby when the Westminster Confession calls it a 'great' sin. How can something be a 'great' sin when there are no clear commands, just an 'implication' from the OT?

[@Mic1904]

Take the central premise of your question, and replace 'baptize my baby' with... almost anything in the Bible or a part of Christian life, since it's not by works or actions that we're saved. Why do any of anything? What are we missing out on? After all, Christ has fulfilled all. You see the potential non-starter this creates? That perhaps our discussions on what we should or shouldn't do Biblically shouldn't revolve around what we, in our own wisdom, judge as being the 'gain' or 'benefit'?

[@theoppositionpodcast]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to debate, just trying to figure out what the practical difference would be.

[@Mic1904]

@@theoppositionpodcast No, I understand, this isn't intended as confrontation, I'm just attempting to answer what I see as an issue in your question. There are lots of things we do as Christians that aren't salvation issues, yet we recognise their significance. Indeed, why did you (I presume) get baptized as an adult? What would you be missing out on without it? We could ask this about so many things that aren't salvation issues, yet that doesn't stop us as Christians from doing so. I suppose, in summary, my point is: do we measure things by what we think gain or don't gain from it? Or by whether we think it's Biblical? God bless!

[@theoppositionpodcast]

Yeah but I'm not asking what I get out of it or how I'm benefitting. I'm asking what the point is. Baptism symbolizes something that has happened in my mind, which is why we get immersed, and come from death to life. But Baptism for babies would seem to lose its point if all it does is bring us into a Covenant. Does it point towards what we expect Christ to do in saving them? If so, isn't that presumption? That's why I'm confused about what it does. If we can just upgrade circumcision to Baptism in the new Covenant, why not just keep circumcision as the practice, if it does no different? My intention isn't to challenge anyone. I found the debate very helpful, and slightly convincing. But I still have major questions that need to be answered.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@theoppositionpodcast Honestly, I think framing the entire question of baptism over what you or anyone else gets out of it misses the point entirely in that it sounds too close to making man the center of belief instead of God. I think there is a good question hidden in there that I'm not going to attempt to answer in my reply, I just wanted to point out that the framing seems off to me. I did want to clarify what the Westminster Confession does say. WCF 28.5 - "Although it be a great sin to *contemn* or *neglect* this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." I don't think the Baptist 'contemns' the ordinance of baptism by having a different view. From Merriam-Webster: "Contemn - to view or treat with contempt : SCORN." The closest I think Baptists get is when they re-baptize someone who has already had an adult baptism, but even there, it is due to a certain respect and esteem they have for it that doesn't quite make sense to me given their theology, and not at all due to any disdain for it. Is the Baptist neglecting the ordinance by not baptizing their children? From the Presbyterian perspective, sure, but Baptists don't have a Presbyterian perspective. From their perspective, they are being Biblical by waiting for an age-appropriate confession. I don't think it makes sense to condemn a Baptist in a Baptist church under the authority of their Elders obeying their church's teaching on that matter. It would be obvious neglect if a member who held to the Westminster Confession but refused to have their household baptized. It would be a tougher case for a member with Baptist convictions. They ought to talk things out with their Pastor. In my experience, the Pastor will certainly give his case for why they ought to baptize their household, but will make allowances for personal conviction on this matter. Different denominations might have different standards. I would call it neglect if the child is old enough and professing faith and yet the parents are still refusing. In other words, I think what the confession is getting at is it is wrong to withhold baptism because one detests the ordinance or because they just don't see the importance of it. It isn't speaking to people with different convictions over mode or applicant but who otherwise hold it in high regard and don't neglect it.

[@stefana9068]

Is there a baptism debate that does not focus on covenant for example more lutheran or catholic view.

[@lbee8247]

If you find one let me know.

[@Wheatsilo]

Help me understand. Since the example was given of marriage as a covenant. And marriage in the New Testament is described as a symbol of Christ and his church, by Covenant theology standards, wouldn't it be consistent to make your infants get married to each other. Why would you exclude your children from the church of God? That's why the pedobaptism doesn't make sense to me.

[@oracleoftroy]

No. Two things can both be covenants while having particular details in the covenant vary between two different covenants. Think of it like a bit like a contract. Say your old company paid you X and your current company pays you 2X. Can your current company legally pay you half your agreed on salary just because a different contract had that salary? No, they are legally bound by the terms of their contract with you, not some other contract you might have agreed to. This example shows that even being the same sort of contract (an employee contract) does not mean the terms of one apply to another, and there are many different types of contracts, many of which don't even include salary terms. Likewise, the terms of the covenant of marriage are different from the covenant of grace, and the point of comparison isn't the terms of the covenant, it is the category of covenants.

[@Wheatsilo]

@oracleoftroy you are wrong at two points. 1. It's not the covenant of "grace" if someone can be a part of it but die outside of the grace of God. It doesn't guarantee salvation, its just a title of being a part of "the covenant people of God." 2. You totally misread my comment because I listed out the terms of the contract, i.e. marriage is a covenant that represents the relationship between Christ and his church. So again, if your argument is that we shouldn't leave children out of the "God's covenant people" why would we leave them out of Christ's church.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@Wheatsilo _"1. It's not the covenant of "grace" if someone can be a part of it but die outside of the grace of God."_ Huh? It's the covenant of grace, what else besides grace will allow them to receive the promises given in the covenant of grace? I don't understand what point you are making here. _"It doesn't guarantee salvation, its just a title of being a part of "the covenant people of God.""_ Yes, being in the covenant doesn't guarantee salvation, God does that. This is where Baptists make an unwarranted equivocation. I think the Bible distinguishes the covenant with its promise and curses, and salvation which is the realization of those promises. _"2. You totally misread my comment because I listed out the terms of the contract, i.e. marriage is a covenant that represents the relationship between Christ and his church."_ Sorry, where do the terms of a marriage contract specify that the children are to marry each other? If I misunderstood what your comment said and it doesn't say this, then your OP is really confusing and you should edit it, because from what I read and still read, it looks like you are confusing the terms of one covenant with the terms of another covenant, and that confusion is leading you to misunderstand the nature of a covenant apart from the specific terms involved. _"So again, if your argument is that we shouldn't leave children out of the "God's covenant people" why would we leave them out of Christ's church."_ Those are the same thing. Yes, I agree. We don't leave our children at home when we go to church because they are obviously and quite visibly part of the covenant. But going to church doesn't save, nor does other activities those in the covenant do save, like taking the sacraments, praying, etc. The covenant per se doesn't save, only God saves.

[@addisnet21]

No single verse rejects baptized infants!

[@timvanandel237]

what is being mediated during infant baptism? The answer I think is a promise from God that he will work through his people and the child’s family to bring that child to know him. The splashing of water also represents the promises that the church community is making to the child and the promise of the parents to raise the child. So lots of promises are going on during the ceremony of infant baptism. 😀

[@RobinLynnOK]

Excellent debate! Here’s my question: If God’s elect are already determined ( they are ), is the infant of an unbelieving family “less than” the infant of a believing family who supposedly entered them into “covenant”, when the infant of the unbelieving family may be elect and the infant of the believing family isn’t? I believe we are all on equal ground at the cross and no infant has special consideration because of his/her parents. Our faith is our own. Is Gabe saying a “covenant” infant has covering if it dies when an unbaptized infant doesn’t have this covering? What if the infant of a believing family dies at birth before being baptized? Has it missed out on being part of the covenant? I agree with Oscar. ( and scripture) Christ’s blood is the covenant. Baptism is the sign of that person’s belief and partaking of that covenant. While I do have a clear stand on this subject, I do have a clearer understanding of where paedobaptists are coming from in their beliefs and Gabe had some good points that made me think. Which I think was the goal of this whole exercise. ❤ *Oh, and Oscar’s point of baptism of the unbelieving spouse! 🔥🔥🔥

[@MaranathaMetal]

Are Christians in sin if they reject infant baptism? No, because tho they may reject the sign with their mouth by the holy spirit in them they still live as tho infant baptism is scriptural.

[@CANADA515]

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard , that causes so much confusion without explanation. Yes , you could say " all Baptisms are Infant Baptisms " when you understand we are babies in Christ when we are saved / converted / spiritually born again. But in no way does it mean it is biblical to baptize a physical baby.

[@CANADA515]

@Daniel Morris I only responded the way I did because the guy left the door wide open to say it's ok to baptize babies / children. And yes it is dumb and irresponsible to debate a topic and not clarify what you mean.

[@IronFire116]

Were babies circumcised into Covenant with God, without given a choice in the matter?

[@jaked8537]

@@IronFire116 Were circumcised babies all guaranteed saints of God, saved and Justified and reborn in Holy Spirit with the law of God written on their heart? If not, then it's not really relevant, is it?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@jaked8537 Why wouldn't it be relevant? Not all baptized are "guaranteed saints of God, saved and Justified and reborn in Holy Spirit with the law of God written on their heart," even in Baptist soteriology where they try to gatekeep on God's behalf and prevent false converts from being baptized. It seems like a red herring to me.

[@jaked8537]

@@oracleoftroy Are you also supportive of unregenerate non-believers partaking in the Lord's supper alongside the Church? Because that's what your line of reasoning results in. We cannot control the confused and evil hearts of men, but we can attempts to regulate our worship and sacraments according to God's Word. "We can't read hearts so the sacraments should just be for everyone!" is a terrible argument.

[@Laughy-Flaaffy]

As a former baby, I can confirm, paedobaptism is not biblical. Issue resolved.

[@hudjahulos]

For every baby there is an equal but opposite baby. I too was once a baby and think paedobaptism is biblical.

[@DeVergam]

You have to read scripture more hahahaha

[@trenthobson2756]

Thank you so much for ending 2,000 years of hot theological debate. Your name shall be remembered.

[@chadd2413]

@Laughy-Flaafy As a former non baptized baby, I can confirm, credobaptism, is not biblical. Issue resolved. (See how that sounds?)

[@sethcarlisle7330]

Lucky you. I've always been an adult. I had to learn paedobaptism is in fact biblical the hard way. Haha, cheers.

[@stuffipost137]

I'll have to rewatch this. I remember being somewhat disappointed in Gabe's performance, but i get the feeling I'm alone on that. The truth is, when I was reading through the text, reconsidering everything I had been taught (when I gave up on dispensationalism), infant baptism was, simply put, the most natural and obvious take away on that subject. Over the years I've realized that most Baptists do not want to deal with Acts 2. Dr. White fails here as well, i hate to say. He's off in the Didache or talking about the early church writings. Which is odd because he's presently really taking Trent Horn to task for "arguments from silence" and for his ignoring that we only "have a fraction" of what the early church had written. The point is, ive heard him try to use the early church to say it's not mentioned, while going after Horn because there's not enough early church writings to come to conclusions... I honestly find this sad because Ive learned some much and have grown so much because of his teaching. Everyone's human and everyone, if they're honest, has "blinders" on in certain areas.

[@garrettblalock5943]

I felt the same way. I’m a reformed Baptist, but felt a lot of inconsistencies on the side of baptists. It felt like dispensationalism was the main hermeneutic used. It is definitely a tough topic.

[@ServantofGOD__]

The foundation of the Protestant reformed position is an important historical subject to study. Augustine, Calvin, and Luther (modified) affirmed paedo-baptism including a challenging position that babies who were NOT baptized went to hell as a result of inherited sin. An internal critique of such a powerfully presumed theology should have been considered in this debate.

[@Orangeokie7]

As I listened deeper into this debate, it seems the Presbyterian is affirming just as much as the Baptist that baptism doesn't really mean that much. This observation is in reference to what the Presbyterian says starting at 1:43:00

[@solochristo65]

No where also does it say all babies go to heaven. We cannot go by our human feelings. RC Sproul has the best answer to this question. As much as I really like White and Durbin, I still find it strange that they cannot see that judging for 'that certain time' when they believe a child is "READY" to be baptized tends itself back to the freewill of said person getting baptized. Baptism is a SIGN! "Believer's baptism" all came about from freewiller preachers. Blah blah....... Plus, most covenant theology believers do not believe their children are AUTOMATICALLY going to be saved just because they were baptized into a covenant home...... When that kid becomes an adult and feels different then they could be rebaptized.....IT IS A SIGN...... there are a lot more learned teachers who can explain this a million times better than I......

[@solochristo65]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2bVl35mjsSpqqs

[@billyrubin2065]

Paedobaptist demolished the credo in this debate… regardless of which side you’re on it’s hard to imagine someone arguing the opposite.

[@skyred2]

I'll soon see however, is hard to imagine since the God of the covenants fails to even hint at infant baptism in His scriptures.

[@jetrpg22]

@@skyred2 He is correct, paedobapists did a much better job. Still it wasn't to the point of a convincing argument, but more like he supported his position better, still lacking tho.

[@JamesMarshallimagesofgrace]

Huh??? Billy is drinking too early this morning lol

[@fatboy1603]

@@skyred2Bible mentions multiple times whole households were baptised. Add the tradition that come from the early church, seals the deal for me. Do you believe in dedicating your child?

[@skyred2]

@@fatboy1603 the Bible also describes two of the four of the households and there is no way to reasonably assume there are infants being baptized. My children are taught to live in accordance with God's commands, to include repent and believe the gospel. Outside of Christ there is no hope.

[@bretlynn]

Gabe: Why do you think the new covenant is new? Ben Shapiro: It's in the name.... New covenant

[@Justin_Case702]

It’s called new since we no longer sacrifice animals

[@johnpratts2856]

@@Justin_Case702 This is a joke comment, my friend. Check out the boy scout video from Ben Shapiro.

[@Justin_Case702]

@@johnpratts2856 gotcha 👍 my mistake

[@mkshffr4936]

New does not necessarily mean complete discontinuity.

[@apologeticswithvladimir]

another great debate, thank you

[@Ajsirb24]

I disagree with both. Baptism now is not a necessary or required sacrament for Christians today. Let me explain. Physical circumcision has nothing to do with water baptism. Both rituals came from the old covenant (old testament) as signs to be fulfilled when the new covenant was established and consummated. John the Baptist and the Apostles helped bring in the new covenant which was inaugurated at the cross of Christ. These men were awaiting the fulfillment and consummation of this covenant within their generation as Jesus prophesied. Until the fulfillment of the covenant arrived, they were to baptize all people that they may become priests of a new nation, the church. The Levite priests were ritually baptized and cleansed in water before they approached God in the tabernacle or temple. The book of Hebrews is clear that all believers in Christ became priests unto God with Jesus as the high priest. The time of the fulfillment and consummation of the new covenant arrived in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which completely severed the covenant between God and earthly Israel. Paul says that those who believe in Jesus are the Israel of faith. We are the children of Abraham, not by blood but by faith. We are the New Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, the Jerusalem from above. It's time we recognize that all people are saved by the blood of Jesus. Those who recognize this will be blessed immediately and those who deny this truth will experience the fire of chastisement and correction that will purify them, bringing them to God in total restoration and reconciliation.

[@Oscardunlap]

I didn't say it was required.

[@conservativekyle9648]

Mathew 3:11- John the Baptist says that Jesus will baptize by means of the Holy Spirit and fire! Faith in Jesus allows us to recieve the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is what purifies our spirit. Baptism by fire refers to the day of judgement, when our works will be tested by fire, and only Good Works will remain, and be rewarded. Therefore water baptism is just a form of EXCERCISING and PROCLAIMING FAITH, but it is not necessary in order to HAVE FAITH.

[@conservativekyle9648]

And as far as babies and children, in John 9:39-41, Jesus says that if you were blind(ignorant) then you would be free of sin, but if you see(understand) then your sin remains. So children being ignorant, are not held accountable for their sins. Once a child understands faith in Jesus Christ, and the difference between good and evil, then and only then can they be held accountable for their sins.

[@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097]

When Oscar says " there is no text that demonstrates infant baptism" is the same argument that unitarians use with the trinity. They demand a specific text but they are missing that the conclusion of infant baptism is derived from a covenantal view of the text that maintains a consistent harmony in both covenants. It's not a bumper sticker understanding. It flows from a comprehensive view of the whole Bible. Just like the trinity.

[@Oscardunlap]

Nope. When I say that I mean, there is not yet that explicitly teaches nor implicitly illudes to infant baptism... Big difference.

[@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097]

@@Oscardunlap But that proves the point. Unitarians will say very similar things about the trinity. When you say there is a "discontiuity" with the covenants you are abandoning the flow and harmony that exists within them. From that position you now have to demand specific texts because the covenantal grounding of the argument has been taken away by an arbitrary idea of "discontinuity". It's inconsistent. It's using different standards for different doctrines. You have the responsibility to demonstrate that there is a "discontinuity" within the covenants before using that argument to undermine the opposing view which derives from à harmonic continuity of covenants. Just asking for consistency. Take care and much love in Christ.

[@Oscardunlap]

@@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3, ESV) Case closed.

[@Oscardunlap]

@@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097 now what text can a Paedobaptist give me as such?

[@volumeofthebook-shaunloomi7097]

I affirm that the passage you qouted from John 1 is one of many texts that establish the doctrine of the Trinity. Which I might add is a revelation that was progressively revealed through out the entirety of the scriptures. You are just proving the point I made. Demanding individual texts to affirm the doctrine is a product of your view of covenant discontinuity. Again, if you make that claim you have to demonstrate why it's acceptable to view the covenants as though there is discontinuity. The John 1 passage is one of many old and new testament texts that are perfectly harmonious when seen together present the doctrine of the Trinity. This view of scripture when applied objectively leads to a covenantal view of the text. Consistency matters.

[@TheTrueMendoza]

Do you guys have plans to debate orthodox christians? I would love to see Jeff debate Jay Dyer

[@sidelias]

I'm a orthodox Christian but also inspired by apologia church. They should really speak to the early ancient church

[@TheTrueMendoza]

@@sidelias I agree. I don't know if I've seen them speak on it before

[@andrewgd1858]

Of course it’s 100% biblical. And John Calvin or John Knox they are agreed about it . Denying is heretical. Read R J Rushdoony.

[@bdubb5390]

No babies were baptized in the bible. Any thinking Christian should agree. Shalom

[@hudjahulos]

No women took the Lord's Supper in the Bible either. Should women be denied communion?

[@americaone749]

R.C.Sproul taught that for the first 150 years of the early church, they would baptize children.

[@usernametaken6659]

@@hudjahulos wrong, the last supper was to be for all believers to do in remembrance and is also backed by other passages in the NT in reference to gathering and fellowship.

[@malachi7948]

@@americaone749 Rc Sproul was not around back then and he is not infallible. None of us can know this information on our own. That is why we appeal to God’s holy revelation.

[@mikeschmoll7762]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

[@File001]

1:25:47 "It is appropriate for the baptism to happen in an infant" - Where have I heard that language before? "It is appropriate"... 🤔

[@oracleoftroy]

I don't know, you tell me. My guess is the Bible? Ecclesiastes 5:18 NIV - "This is what I have observed to be good: *that it is appropriate* for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them-for this is their lot." 2 Thessalonians 1:3 WEB - "We are bound to always give thanks to God for you, brothers, even as *it is appropriate,* because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of each and every one of you toward one another abounds," I mean, it's a common enough English phrase. Maybe I'm reading too much into your tone, but it sounds like you are insinuating something evil because of your interpretation of a three word phrase that doesn't say very much in and of itself.

[@File001]

@@oracleoftroy What I was hinting at is the language Roman Catholics use in their veneration of Mary. While it is not anywhere found in Scriputre, they claim it is appropriate to do so, because of this imagery, because of that type, etc. I believe I heard it in one of Dr. James White's debates with Roman Catholics, or in some other Roman Catholic materials. I wasn't insinuating anything evil, because Presbyterians are brothers and sisters in Christ. I just wanted to point out that, like our Roman Catholic friends (who are on the other hand mostly unsaved, sadly), when pushed to back infant baptism with Scripture, brother Rench here resorted to language of "it is appropriate", because there is no clear command to do so in the New Testament. The similarity in argumentation struck me. That's all.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@File001 Ok, but it isn't like he just left it there. That follows from the scriptural case he offered. And that could be flipped. No verse is ever offered to show infants being excluded from the household baptisms we see in the Bible. So the Baptist just says "it is inappropriate" while lacking the same explicit scriptural support they demand of others. I found it disappointing that all Oscar did was assume his position was right and demand that everyone else prove him wrong. The problem is that the point of agreement and his actual position are different, and he needs to make a positive case to go beyond what everyone agrees on to actually make a scriptural argument. Everyone agrees that the thing that initiates the ordinance is someone's faith. Oscar had to go beyond that and show Biblically that only the believer is to receive baptism, despite the Bible's practice of household baptisms, despite God being the same God yesterday, today, and forever, despite God applying the sign of the covenant to not just the believer, but their children and their servants, even those from far off places, despite Peter repeating this formula in Acts 2, etc. My point isn't that Baptists don't have answers, but rather that Oscar didn't give them. He begged the question. I could argue like a Baptist. It would go something like this: The Reformed only have to point to what is explicit in scripture, that the Bible calls people to repent and be baptized, you and your household, seemingly saying that the whole household was to be baptized on belief of the household head. They can show that is exactly what happened in Acts. They don't need to make age an issue because the Bible doesn't make age an issue, the Baptist does. The question the Reformed ask is simply, "are they a member of a believing household?" If yes, they should receive the sign of the covenant as exampled in the Bible. The Baptist has to go beyond this and speculate that no, there weren't any infants in the household, and yes, every single individual in the household believed, despite the silence of the text. There is discontinuity in God, and he changes his behavior between the OT and NT in a way that the Bible is largely silent on. Anyway, my call here isn't to prove infant baptism, but to remind Baptists that they do need to realize the assumptions they make and leave unargued. Ultimately, _both_ are making inferences beyond what scripture explicitly says, and so both need to show why their inferences are warranted. Baptists tend to be one-sided on this issue and not notice the plank in their own eye. In the above, I was simply assuming that scripture proves my position by default and shift the burden of proof on the Baptist. I don't think that is sufficient, nor do I suspect that you do.

[@kentonlittle3291]

Short kings unite💪💪💪

[@mkshffr4936]

If you mean Covenant Baptism, yes it is.

[@joshendley]

This is the most civilized debate I’ve seen. I’m credo, but Gabe did the best job I’ve ever heard in the issue. I was already sympathetic to paedobaptism but I’m moreso now then before. However, I still side with Oscar just because I still don’t see the reality or practicality of baptizing the children. I get that we don’t truly know if anyone who is baptized is saved, but the difference I understand is that babies are not capable of knowing good and evil. I think believers baptism is more consistent in the NT and don’t see how infant baptism is cut and dry the replacement for circumcision; I see why paedobaptists think it is, but I think it takes a bit more mental gymnastics from my point of view.

[@ETHANGELIST]

Children born into Christian homes clearly have different covenant obligations than children born into heathen homes. They are raised as Christians, disciples and under the gospel. They pray and worship with their parents. If they leave the Christian faith, they are covenant-breakers and apostates (even if they are not baptized). In the Baptist view, the person wouldn't be a covenant-breaker or apostate because he/she was NEVER part of ANY covenant. But clearly, his/her responsibility is higher than heathen children. Baptism DISTINGUISHES these children from the children of unbelievers. Hebrews 10 clearly shows someone with connection to the New Covenant can apostatize.

[@calvinknox1142]

In the NT, infants of believers are called hagias -- holy, set apart. In the NT, we see entire households baptized based on the profession of faith from the head of the home. In Presbyterian churches, like the NT, we have continued to baptize households. We also practice credobaptism when adults are saved. And then, we "pour" -- which is the mode of Christian baptism Jesus preferred (Acts 2:17 😉).

[@joshendley]

@@calvinknox1142 I totally respect and have a better understanding for infant baptism, however I’m not quite convinced that “pouring” water is in line with what I know… but hey if I’m softening on infant baptism maybe I’ll soften in pouring 🤷‍♂️

[@nonameguy4441]

@@joshendleyI hope you only clean yourself at the end of the day totally immersed in a bathtub. It is impossible to get clean or fully wet under a shower head that pours water - obviously good natured sarcasm

[@graydomn]

John Calvin on infant faith "And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction. For as he, in order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, assumed that very flesh, that in it he might, on our account, and in our stead, perform a perfect obedience, so he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that, completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed, he might transfuse it into us. If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all the graces which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification. This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God.630 As to their objection that, in Scripture, the Spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from incorruptible seed, that is, the word of God, they erroneously interpret Peter’s words, in which he comprehends only believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23). We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases. "19. But faith, they say, cometh by hearing, the use of which infants have not yet obtained, nor can they be fit to know God, being, as Moses declares, without the knowledge of good and evil (Deut. 1:39). But they observe not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is only describing the usual economy and dispensation which the Lord is wont to employ in calling his people, and not laying down an invariable rule, for which no other method can be substituted. Many he certainly has called and endued with the true knowledge of himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. But since they deem it very absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to infants, whom Moses makes void of the knowledge of’ good and evil, let them tell me where the danger lies if they are said now to receive some part of that grace, of which they are to have the full measure shortly after. For if fulness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, since some of those whom death hurries away in the first moments of infancy pass into life eternal, they are certainly admitted to behold the immediate presence of God. Those, therefore, whom the Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance, before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? "

[@AVKingJamesBible]

No. It isn’t Biblical. If the corrupt modern translation “bibles” didn’t remove Acts 8:37 more people would know this.

[@lbee8247]

My Catholic mother had me baptized as an infant. When the Lord saved me in my 20's I was baptized. I couldn't imagine it being biblical that I would have just counted my infant baptism and refused to be baptized as a believer. Do people who were baptized as a baby raised in a Christian family but never believed, wasn't rebellious or disrespectful but acknowledged they just didn't believe then get converted as an adult and truly believes is there no believer baptism or a 2nd baptism?

[@mkshffr4936]

Since in the Peado perspective the covenant sign is not a statement of a state of belief there is no need to rebaptize.

[@maxeriksen9086]

Hi AS... when was it?

[@muskett]

epic lets go

[@tophatt5706]

If infant water baptism doesn't save, why is it such an emotional subject?

[@mattallred]

It's only emotional to people who are emotional about it. As a Christian, it's a foreign concept to me. Why might the Hajj be emotional to a Muslim? I couldn't tell you.

[@oracleoftroy]

Good question. I always wondered why Baptists practically anathematize everyone who holds a different view on this topic, even though they are so adamant that it doesn't do anything at all.

[@D12Min]

Because you´re creating the illusion that people are children of god when they aren´t. How many little devils who were "baptized" as babies run around?

[@Aries4uu]

It’s false teaching to teach “ 28:53 Sola Scriptura” because it’s unbiblical. Ask yourself what happened to early church fathers in the first, second, and third centuries when there was no scripture. My second question is was is the etymology of the scripture? And why does the scripture advocate for scripture and tradition? And what do the early fathers teach? Please do your research before asking questions?

[@williamdando6643]

Water baptism has nothing to do with this dispensation. We are baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ. There is only one baptism today. We are not spiritual Israel.

[@danielg7868]

Presbyterians claim that for millenia God included the children in the covenant thus there must be a command in order for a change. What about the Sabbath? For millenia the day of rest was the 7th and now it's the 1st. This change happens in the New Testament without a specific command, only examples. This is exactly what we see in baptism. Virtually the whole church agrees with this change of the sabbath, it is consistent to view baptism in the same way.

[@ernst_junger]

Those are two totally different topics that are completely unrelated to each other

[@eagleclaw1179]

@@ernst_junger Yeah that’s kind of obvious, pointing out the obvious isn’t responding at all to what was said.. So do you have an answer?

[@oracleoftroy]

It is unclear to me that the teaching on a weekly sabbath rest requires a specific day of the week, beyond the communal aspect of it. Certainly it was Saturday all throughout the OT, but even in the NT we start seeing references to "the Lord's day" referring to Sunday when Jesus rose. Paul indicates that it isn't a problem to regard one day like another (Romans 14: 5), so while I still see importance for honoring the day of rest God made for man, I don't see any obvious reason that it has to specifically be Saturday (and not Sunday) for Christians. Fun speculation, not a serious argument: In Joshua 10: 12,13, God stopped the sun from setting for a whole day. So in terms of 24 hour days of the week, Sunday actually is on the Sabbath day, and ever since Joshua, Jews have been behind a day and resting on Friday! The Christian church has realigned the day of rest to the proper day!

[@adammauldin9800]

Did he just say "revelations"?

[@isaiahburridgemusic]

Automatically disqualified 😂

[@jeremyhewitt2637]

Great points on both sides. But believers baptism is one of the starting points of walking out your faith. The other view shown as an inheritance promise is extremely compelling but not necessarily explicit in New Testament. But in the idea people are baptized we don’t know for sure their heavenly destiny is a very compelling argument against believers baptism as there is no difference from their stance of instituting a promise responsibility in raising the one in this way

[@banzaiduck]

In presbyterianism God promised to save those who are baptised. This is not exactly like Baptismal Regeneration where the one being baptised is claimed to be regenerated at that moment. However claiming that God will save those (in the future) who are baptised is still a false gospel.

[@sovereigngrace9723]

As a presbyterian, this is not our position. This is literally lutheranism your describing

[@banzaiduck]

@@sovereigngrace9723 Well Im glad you don't belive in heresy. But what I said about presbyterianism is from the Westminister confession WCF 28:6 And you are also wrong about Lutheranism, they belive baptismal regeneration right of the bat.

[@sovereigngrace9723]

@@banzaiduck you are reading it incorrectly. We don't sever regeneration from salvation like 2 different things. Being engrafted into the new covenant doesn't mean you are necessarily regenerate or elect. That's our view. Lutheranism believes in regeneration through baptism, which can be lost. But regeneration does not mean they are elect necessarily in lutheranism. Only those that continue and don't forsake their regeneration (baptism) will have shown that God has elected them unto salvation.

[@sovereigngrace9723]

@@banzaiduck here is the caveat the confession gives after its statement of what baptism is; (emphasis added) V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, (Luk 7:30; Exd 4:24-26); yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it, (Rom 4:11; Act 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47); or, THAT ALL THAT ARE BAPTIZED ARE UNDOUBTEDLY REGENERATED, (Act 8:13, 23). VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered, (Jhn 3:5, 8); yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) AS THAT GRACE BELONGETH UNTO, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time, (Gal 3:27; Tts 3:5; Eph 5:25-26; Act 2:38, 41).

[@banzaiduck]

@@sovereigngrace9723 VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;q yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time So God's promise is then unreliable in presbyterianism?

[@YouSoCouldHaveGotMe]

I’m fine with supporting an infant child being involuntarily baptized, providing they are voluntarily baptized again post regeneration.

[@tyd3407]

Thereby nullifying the infant baptism... but maybe that's what you're getting at.

[@YouSoCouldHaveGotMe]

@@tyd3407 yup

[@mrhartley85]

How do you know when they are regenerated?

[@dave1370]

Of course it is. And confirmed by the church fathers.

[@D12Min]

Of course it isn´t. And it is confirmed by reading the earliest church fathers and noticing the fact that it is a late 2nd/early 3rd century accretion.

[@MansterBear]

Went to open this and the first preview screen is James White in a Jason mask.... lol. Well this should be interesting 🤣

[@manyinfallibleproofs]

We have our children prayed over and dedicated to God as babies. They will then be baptized when they give their heart to the Lord. Is this not a common practice? Seems like it satisfies both sides of the argument.

[@scottandant]

Are baptist and do the same, a baby cannot repent and be baptised but being dedicated is a different.

[@zsaklong4619]

1:09:00 Asked when Jesus says He will draw them to himself does that apply to the baptised infant? Answer: Yes. Jesus says he will raise them all up on last day and not lose one, does that mean all baptised infants? Answer: I don't know which babies are saved and which are not. Paedobaptist conclusion: One can lose one's salvation. Jesus draws them. Jesus loses them.

[@michealferrell1677]

The covenant of grace is one and the same as the new covenant. This is why so many are confused in this debate

[@americaone749]

Jew used to sacrifice their child to molak, I think the parents should baptize the child as a promise to raise them in Christ, then when they are capable to profess Christ as Lord, baptize as their affirmation. R.C. Sproul taught that the early church baptized the child the first 150 years of the church, and it wasn't debated.

[@HoseaCuervo]

This isn’t a biblical argument for infant baptism

[@americaone749]

@@HoseaCuervo if you can't get two great theologians like Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C.Sproul to agree on this subject, I doubt that you have it all figured out. God bless.

[@D12Min]

WHAT? The early church pre around 200 AD baptized believers. Paedobaptism is a later accretion.

[@jetrpg22]

Honestly, i dont think this debate did a great job at addressing the topic. However, it was well done.