Infant Baptism debate w/ Pastor Keith Foskey (Conversations with a Calvinist)

Subscribe to Pastor Keith's channel, "Conversations with a Calvinist" for hilarious and also edifying content:
/ @conversationswithacal...

[@Michaelspamfolder]

It was actually Reformed Zoomer, until Emperor Constantine changed it to Redeemed Zoomer, as to not offend the Catholics

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Dang it I’ve been exposed

[@deuslaudetur2451]

Just like Constantine changed the bible HURHURHUR GOTCHA CHRISTIAN IM SO SMURT

[@yeetus_reetus_deeleetus]

​@@deuslaudetur2451just like when Martin luther added words to the Bible

[@whatsinaname691]

😂

[@LarryQ2]

really, i remember it being reformed zoomer but i thought it was just my memory being wrong

[@Polyhexgaming]

“God is going to redeem the galaxy!” - Redeemed Zoomer This is probably the coolest statement you’ve ever said.

[@ScottTheProtBlankenship]

Very postmill of him.

[@bman5257]

“Behold I make ALL THINGS New”

[@bushbladesnbows.2378]

Y'all are dressed for the occasion! Been so hyped for this video, thank you guys!

[@reddeaddude2187]

"Get dressed, be blessed!" - Dripped up Jesus, 2019 AD (2023 CE)

[@DakotaJones-nn2oi]

Business suits are the strongest evidence _against_ the existence of God. Credibility immediately drops as soon as I see someone dressed like that. As a disembodied voice, Zoomer's a cool guy, somebody I'd not be opposed to listen to or chat with. Looking like this, I would cross the street and change direction to avoid walking past him.

[@David-bh7hs]

@@DakotaJones-nn2oi He's not wearing a business suit though. So you really don't know what you're talking about.

[@LordVader1094]

​@@DakotaJones-nn2oiYou sound like a schizo lol

[@DakotaJones-nn2oi]

@@David-bh7hs I know I associate suits with federal agents, politicians, and business executives. You know. The kind of criminals who get away with it for as long as they live on this earth. It might not be logical, but it's definitely a reasonable association. Only positive association with suits is lawyers, but that's only about half the time. Pardon me if I don't know the technical terms for the various types. I had one on once, and it felt absolutely awful. Never again, not even for my own brother's wedding would I dawn such a garment.

[@juliajohnson4080]

I love that Christians can respectfully debate these issues and still remain united as friends and brothers in Christ. Keep up the great content guys!

[@billyhart3299]

It's a 2000 year old religion that spans the planet, so it should be obvious why disagreements pop up. It's important to remember that we're all on the same side here and we are in this together to help redeem the Earth in Christ's name.

[@zichenghan7585]

well...mostly respectfully

[@Holy-Heretic]

0:00 Intro 4:17 Redeemed Zoomer's Opening Statement 17:42 Pastor Keith's Opening Statement 33:21 Redeemed Zoomer's Rebuttal of Pastor Keith 43:02 Pastor Keith's Rebuttal of Redeemed Zoomer 51:00 Cross Examination Explanation 53:26 Pastor Keith Cross Examines Redeemed Zoomer 1:03:34 Redeemed Zoomer Cross Examines Pastor Keith 1:16:44 Pastor Keith's Closing Statement 1:20:43 Redeemed Zoomer's Closing Statement 1:26:26 When Should Tradition Be or Not Be Followed? 1:28:04 Why Does the Great Commission Command Discipleship Before Baptism? 1:30:17 Is the Holy Spirit Tied to Baptism? 1:32:15 Do You Have to Be Baptized to Be Saved? 1:34:02 Would the Credo-Baptist Position Exclude Mentally Disabled Adults? 1:38:11 How Do Babies get Forgiven Thru Baptism if They Haven't Sinned? 1:41:05 Conclusion

[@gregorysampaio]

Despite our different interpretations, great content, gentlemen. Cheers from a Roman Catholic.

[@1988casco]

Paedobaptism was the last domino to fall in my journey to the Reformed perspective and im having all of my kids baptized as soon as possible as a result. I'm glad that as Christians we can have these internal debates and disagreements without condemning the other side or breaking fellowship over it. Pastor Keith, I pray God's continued blessings on your church and ministry, I watch your sermon clips and see you clearly preaching the word of God. Zoomer, even if I don't fully agree with or participate in the Reconquista, I see your efforts come from a sincere desire to glorify God and spread His kingdom and for that, I pray your efforts are successful. Even if you don't become a pastor your knowledge and gift of teaching is invaluable. Hopefully you become a church elder in a "woke" church and continue to catechize and teach the younger generations faithful, biblical truth. You and other gen z christians give this older millennial hope that the American church will be alright.

[@Mark-gz9si]

beautifully said

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

Amen. Although I don't see why the Baptist view is considered "not reformed" by some (not saying you said that). It seems to be an attempt by a particular group of Presbyterians to make some Reformed Baptists into Presbyterians. It works by saying that the Baptist view is not reformed, thereby making it less than the reformed view. It attempts to make them choose between either Baptists or Presbyterians by saying "there is no Reformed Baptist." In other words by calling a part of Presbyterian theology as Reformed Theology, the Reformed Baptists are subtlety told "you can either be up high in the Reformed View of things, the most accurate. Or you can stay in the lowly, Baptist view of things." I want Reformed Baptists to know they can be legit (don't get me wrong there's a lot of Calvinistic Baptists who aren't Reformed like MacArthur). We can hold to Reformed Theology and Credo-Baptism. I get so saddened by people calling true Reformed Baptists frauds, because some have misused the title "Reformed Baptist." thank you for reading what i have to say.

[@rprestarri]

Praise the Lord!!!

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@RedeemedReformedRenewed My biggest issue with Reformed Baptists is the holding to Lordship salvation. I think it conflates law and gospel, which is something I think causes too much anxiety to believers. To the point some are even potentially traumatized or deal with religious OCD. I know not all Calvinistic Baptists hold to this view, but I see it as a great problem.

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@RedeemedReformedRenewedbecause the baptist view is innovative... it's not a return to, but something new

[@ChrisTheFreedomEnjoyer]

Redeemed Zoomer rocking that prom night drip

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Making up for the fact that I never went to prom in real life (Couldn’t find any Christian girls at my high school)

[@judahkozel8270]

@@redeemedzoomer6053 Based

[@jamilgonzaga7081]

​@@redeemedzoomer6053I relate to you very much

[@Snidbert]

@@redeemedzoomer6053 couldn't find an christian girls? or just couldn't find any girl who could stand to be around you?

[@officialspoon42]

@@Snidbert he has a girlfriend lol

[@richardstoltzfoos9145]

This was one of the best-run debates I’ve ever seen. Good work, Matthew! Redeemed Zoomer, your opening was excellent; Your Calvinist, your questions during cross-examination were some of the best I’ve heard on this topic.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

I was pleasantly surprised how even this debate was to be honest. I feel like there wasn't really a "loser" as they both presented good points and counterpoints.

[@paulnash6944]

“We’re lucky to get people who believe in God!” Oof! As an Episcopalian, that one hits home.

[@King-uj1lh]

Why are you a member of a church that is openly apostate?

[@bossinater43]

Credo-baptist here! Despite me disagreeing with you on this topic, the fact that you were able to make compelling arguments to an experienced pastor while not being a pastor yourself is IMPRESSIVE.

[@davekohler5957]

When you stand on the right side it is easy, no mental gymnastics needed.

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

Infant baptism is not the right side...

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

Infant baptism is not the right side...

[@alonamaria279]

@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the most important reasons why we must baptize infants: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth (CCC 1250). Original sin is a reality from which each and every human person desperately needs to be freed. Biblically speaking, Romans 5:12 is remarkably clear on this point: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so d3ath spread to all men because all men sinned. Even if nothing else was said in Scripture implying infant baptism, we could conclude it to be necessary just from this simple fact: babies need to have original sin removed from their souls. But there is more. Banner image for Catholic Answers Book of the Month Club - Join Now and receive all these great benefits. St. Paul, being a Jew, as well as all of the apostles, understood the idea that true religion is a family affair. A Jew became a Jew when he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. They did not have to first “accept Moses as their personal prophet” before they could be circumcised. And according to Paul, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision: In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ. . . . You were buried with him in baptism (Col. 2:11-12). The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, which I quoted above, has the word “and” placed between “Christ” and “you were buried.” I left it out because it is not in the original Greek text. The Greek indicates that baptism is the circumcision of Christ! This seems trivial to us today. Okay, so baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” But this was not trivial to first-century Jewish Christians who were being challenged to circumcise their children “after the manner of Moses or else they could not be saved” (see Acts 15:1-2). Many were being persecuted because they chose infant baptism instead of infant circumcision. As Paul says in Romans 2:28: For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. What is this “spiritual circumcision” of which Paul speaks? Baptism, according to Colossians 2:11-12. Not the shedding of foreskin, but the transformation of the inward man through the sacrament. As a fulfillment of that which is only a type, baptism does something circumcision could never do: “baptism now saves” us (1 Pet. 3:21). The change that occurs is not physical; it is spiritual. As it is often said, what you don’t see is what you get in all of the sacraments, baptism included-and infant baptism included, too. Elsewhere in Scripture we find a close association between baptism and circumcision. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul says: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Paul’s point is that baptism is more inclusive than its Old Testament antecedent. You had to be a free, male Jew to be circumcised. And when were males generally circumcised in the Old Testament, by the way? At eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12). Paul’s point is that in the New Testament, baptism is open to all. Of course babies would be included. This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ, therefore opening up the legitimacy of infant baptism, is at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher! The Lord explicitly “called infants” to himself in Luke 18:15-17: Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus. The Greek word here is brephe, which mean “infants.” And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parent’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be-that is, they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God-infant baptism makes sense, as they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” (CCC 1250). From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). For brevity’s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis. I encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well. When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.

[@Just8gor]

Man you're so cool. I'm actually thinking of not being an atheist because of you! Most of my relligion teachers in schools were often spreading what they thought and were extremely racist and homophobic. But you're actually very cool, even though you're conservative you don't necessarilly hate on others . I thought that relligion was a generally old thing for people that hated everything, everyone, but you changed my mind, and showed to me that there young christians who create minecraft servers and spread the bible in a creative way. May God bless you,

[@whosflair3716]

I'm happy to hear that. Christianity is about everything but hate. Unfortunately, some people are hateful, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. God bless you my friend 🙏

[@endygonewild2899]

I’d recommend you watch truth unites and inspiring philosophy as well

[@coordinateplane1012]

👍

[@MarianMetanoia]

Come be Catholic!

[@Abcdefghijajajaja]

Yeshua Hu Adon.

[@Epic_Curious]

Thank you for addressing this topic. Keep up the good work!

[@dave1370]

"For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin." St. Augustine

[@jmphome9793]

RZ I think the understanding of infant baptism has to come after the understanding of covenant theology. I used to be First Baptist but now part of a RPC congregation and we baptized all our children and when they all became believers, they made they own statement of faith before they were allowed to take communion. But they truly were part of the visible church under the covenant before they became part of the invisible church. I found your opening argument leaned more on Scripture than church history compared to the Baptists. I just think it just goes over a Baptist head without a thorough understanding of covenant theology vs dispensationism. You give me hope for Gen Z. Good work, you got my Sub..

[@bushbladesnbows.2378]

Totally agree, when you come at the issue with a totally different hermeneutic the conclusions that the another person comes to aren't really going to make any sense to you.

[@alonamaria279]

@jmphome9793 The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the most important reasons why we must baptize infants: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth (CCC 1250). Original sin is a reality from which each and every human person desperately needs to be freed. Biblically speaking, Romans 5:12 is remarkably clear on this point: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. Even if nothing else was said in Scripture implying infant baptism, we could conclude it to be necessary just from this simple fact: babies need to have original sin removed from their souls. But there is more. Banner image for Catholic Answers Book of the Month Club - Join Now and receive all these great benefits. St. Paul, being a Jew, as well as all of the apostles, understood the idea that true religion is a family affair. A Jew became a Jew when he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. They did not have to first “accept Moses as their personal prophet” before they could be circumcised. And according to Paul, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision: In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ. . . . You were buried with him in baptism (Col. 2:11-12). The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, which I quoted above, has the word “and” placed between “Christ” and “you were buried.” I left it out because it is not in the original Greek text. The Greek indicates that baptism is the circumcision of Christ! This seems trivial to us today. Okay, so baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” But this was not trivial to first-century Jewish Christians who were being challenged to circumcise their children “after the manner of Moses or else they could not be saved” (see Acts 15:1-2). Many were being persecuted because they chose infant baptism instead of infant circumcision. As Paul says in Romans 2:28: For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. What is this “spiritual circumcision” of which Paul speaks? Baptism, according to Colossians 2:11-12. Not the shedding of foreskin, but the transformation of the inward man through the sacrament. As a fulfillment of that which is only a type, baptism does something circumcision could never do: “baptism now saves” us (1 Pet. 3:21). The change that occurs is not physical; it is spiritual. As it is often said, what you don’t see is what you get in all of the sacraments, baptism included-and infant baptism included, too. Elsewhere in Scripture we find a close association between baptism and circumcision. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul says: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Paul’s point is that baptism is more inclusive than its Old Testament antecedent. You had to be a free, male Jew to be circumcised. And when were males generally circumcised in the Old Testament, by the way? At eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12). Paul’s point is that in the New Testament, baptism is open to all. Of course babies would be included. This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ, therefore opening up the legitimacy of infant baptism, is at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher! The Lord explicitly “called infants” to himself in Luke 18:15-17: Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus. The Greek word here is brephe, which mean “infants.” And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parent’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be-that is, they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God-infant baptism makes sense, as they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” (CCC 1250). From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). For brevity’s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis. I encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well. When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.

[@vicentegonzalez8848]

I love this channel ❤

[@galladite4924]

Oh my goodness, Redeemed Zoomer got dapper! I'm going to enjoy watching this :D

[@taylore22]

Can I just say that redeemed zoomer you are hilarious 😂 love your channel brother

[@ADT1995]

Most respectful debate I've ever seen. My hats off to both of you.

[@christianwalton7080]

I appreciate your response to my question about the Great Commission and pray the Lord blesses you :)

[@ryanmeek6284]

As someone who grew up episcopal, it always made sense to me that baptism made you Christian and the first communion/confirmation process was your profession of faith

[@boazlickliter6629]

As a Paedobaptist, I admire how zoomer is defending infant baptism, though I do respect Keith's argument.

[@featurebroadcast297]

Excellent debate of yet another church splitting topic. ❤

[@billyrayphillips]

This was a great debate. Both had good, compelling arguments while still being respectful of each other.

[@reddeaddude2187]

As different congregations, we disagree on so many things. The one thing I hope we can all agree on is that Jesus is the best man to ever live and we desperately need him.

[@Blaaake]

Great discussion. I’m a baptist but I’m still torn between both arguments.

[@thebigperch2832]

I think Reedemed zoomer won

[@dman7668]

In my view the stronger and easier position to take is infant baptism. The Church was doing it prior to the protestant reformation and it was settled as an issue. The issue only recently opened up again when reformers rejected baseline Christian theology on the subject. It wasn't hard to mount a defense against credo baptism because the default theology for infant baptism was worked out long before Zoomer was even Born by the Roman Catholic Church/Catholic Church.

[@turkeybobjr]

​@@dman7668Umm... do you even know why the Reformation happened?

[@Souls_25]

@@thebigperch2832lmao i dont think so. Bible destroys infant baptism

[@leviwilliams9601]

Come to the dark side ❤

[@dracicidasempronius4754]

Fabulous debate my dude

[@mussie361]

Very constructive debate of respectful Godly people

[@colinhamilton7365]

I loved this. Thank you!

[@mussie361]

Very constructive debate of respectful godly people

[@joegriffith810]

Excellent debate. Very well done by both.

[@huskyspin1007]

The reformed zoomer moment lol

[@kianayazdani4806]

Very respectful debate. I enjoyed it irrespective of my own personal stance on this.

[@guybuddyman838]

your tone makes me laugh sometimes. great job sir.

[@tessaroumas9498]

My grandma told me god calls you to get baptized.I asked her what about the babies they can't talk. she said God tells their parents. And honestly I believe that I'm episcopalian and my mom waited for me to get baptized until I wanted it ( got baptized at 10 ). I'm now 25 I got my son baptized at 3 months because I felt the same calling when I was 10 but for my son ❤

[@dman7668]

This is a beautiful statement as a person who is going to do the same thing with my baby on the way. My logic is this: 1. The early Church never had a problem with it. 2. Some writers even say in the early Church Father's this practice came from the Apostles. 3. The Old Covenant cannot be superior to the New Covenant. If Jewish children were brought in as infants into this Covenant, it does not seem to follow that the New Covenant would be more restrictive on children.

[@beat1riz]

Salvation is individual, so is baptism. Your parents can't make it for you.

[@nobodygh]

@@beat1riz this is where the argument from the family-conversion in Acts actually carries water (pun intended). We see that whole households were baptized every time a head-of-household professes belief. I agree that we can't infer infant baptism from that, but it does shoot holes in the "Salvation is individual" narrative.

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

​@@dman7668 Your first two points fall flat. You can't just say that because the Church Fathers believed it, that's okay. You are holding tradition higher than scripture, therefore making your argument for the first one invalid. The second is similar, "some authors say." No matter how you interpret the Bible, there is no explicit instance of an infant Baptism. I know what you say on acts, but that's just an assumption. that's an extrabiblical point therefor, unfit here. Your third one also is lacking. We are not saying that the old covenant is superior. You drew out a point no one made. The new covenant IS different, however. We are not saved by tradition, we are saved faith. We are not born into a covenant, we are born again into it. So if Baptism is a result of salvation, it only makes sense to come after. A rooster crows as a result of the sun. The sun does not rise from a rooster crowing

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

Yes, they weren't just baptized and that's it, they were baptized because of salvation. If infant baptism is valid, then unbeliever baptism should, which no church practices. Therefore no church should practice infant baptism@@nobodygh

[@alejandroduenas1828]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD): In his work "Against Heresies," St. Irenaeus defends the legitimacy of infant baptism. He refers to the baptismal practice of the Church as a tradition received from the apostles and states, "For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, 2.22.4).

[@turkeybobjr]

Unless you left out a portion where he mentioned baptism in this, that is quite the eisegetical stretch.

[@CroshBash]

Yeah... All who through him are born to God. Those who are saved. Infants can meet this we see John leaping in the womb

[@alejandroduenas1828]

@@turkeybobjr pick yours 🍒🍒

[@sunnyjohnson992]

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

[@loganstrait7503]

1:02:12 Wow I don't think I've ever heard a Protestant openly address "Donatism" before.

[@dman7668]

I didn't think they knew what that was. I thought most think it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.

[@AnotherStratCopy]

@@dman7668off topic but the teenage mutant ninja turtle show from like 2014 was great

[@dman7668]

@@AnotherStratCopy I liked the 2012 nickelodeon show. I am a massive fan of shredders revenge if you have not played it on switch or steamdeck. Takes me back to my childhood playing the 4 player version of TMNT in the arcade.

[@AnotherStratCopy]

@@dman7668 never played it but I did have an Xbox 360 game with all of the same characters and 3d models and it was pretty hard from what I remember

[@vinciblegaming6817]

I feel that there’s a significant tie in on regeneration and Once Saved Always Saved… it’s hard to talk about one without the other. Also, one of the significant things about the NC overlooked by both debaters is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - which is the source of regeneration… and in the OC, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was not promised to all and was not constant and was only on certain people (prophets, judges, priests). I’d like to hear more on those subjects tied into the baptism debate.

[@tiger5869]

I like the bow tie

[@RossPattisonJr]

Excellent debate

[@jozefkukovicic7124]

Well done!

[@IDONTKNOW1072]

my man is dripped out

[@icxcarnie]

Lmao when I search for you on youtube I always search for Reformed Zoomer

[@jennifertomlinson7726]

Excellent ❤

[@sarahm9089]

Really enjoyed this debate! Before hearing this I would say I was leaning towards Presbyterianism (not on infant baptism, but overall) but now I am less inclined. So many of the arguments are hinged on tradition as though tradition is as important as Scripture. The arguments presented on behalf of infant baptism had to add a whole lot of theorizing and leaps to scripture to make it work. Pastor Keith’s opening and closing statements were so on point and biblically solid and straight-forward. Thank you both for having a respectful debate for our benefit :)

[@maten146]

Tradition is more important than scripture. (I am catholic so of course that is not what protestant think even though that is what most Christians think)

[@alekseyvalentinov9361]

I think what's crucial in understanding this topic is having a good understanding of covenant theology. In the end, this entire subject hinges on it and I think YourCalvinist hit the nail on the head in his opening statement. Having a superficial understand of scripture is what makes topics like these go round and round.

[@ApoplecticDialectics]

There's so much dapper; I can't even...

[@whatsinaname691]

I don’t think that Keith had a good response to the Kingdom theology. I found that brilliant

[@classicchristianliterature]

Regarding Keith’s argument on new covenant members being exclusively regenerate … that will be the case. The new covenant is the ultimate (as in last) covenant. In the final state all who are in the new covenant are regenerate. Until then, the covenant body remains mixed.

[@dman7668]

Exactly. The weeds will co exist until the harvest.

[@jennifertomlinson7726]

Great work Reformed Zoomer

[@joshmariscal6431]

You actually blew my mind, I really thought you were reformed zoomer!! Mandela effect is real 🤣

[@alejandroduenas1828]

W Infant Baptism

[@FaithRefinedByFire]

Let us not forget that though everyone on the Ark was only sprinkled and the rest of mankind was immersed in the flood, the covenant God made with Noah & his offspring was to not limited to them, but included every beast on the earth (Genesis 9:10), and Noah cursed his grandson Canaan due to the actions of his son of Ham (Genesis 9:25). The Noahic covenant God made was to never again destroy the earth by flood. Sounded like a nice covenantal family story, the way Redeemed Zoomer put it. I almost would have thought Ham and his son were regenerate, as well as the pagan Canaanites who came to practice child sacrifice as well as other abominations & whom God commanded Israel to destroy. Peter was saying that those whose lives were saved on the Ark was a type and shadow of the salvation to come and corresponded with, "an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21) and water also played a corresponding symbolic role. It was "not as a removal of dirt from the body." The gift of faith cleanses you, not the water. Walk away from trusting in your own works. I almost like Redeemed Zoomer more after watching this debate. He showed a lot more humility than I at least expected him to and did make a couple of funny jokes. Remember this: The Bible does not speak of salvation only in terms of justification. We have been saved (justification), we are being saved (sanctification), and we will be saved (glorification). Context is key.

[@dman7668]

Yes, not as a removal of dirt from the body but the removal of a different kind of dirt. Sin. Baptism washes away sins.

[@FaithRefinedByFire]

@@dman7668 it says an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[@dman7668]

@@FaithRefinedByFire Yes I realize this, Peter states the water is not for the removal of dirt but for a clear conscience. The context is baptizing washes away sins. We already know that's what Peter was talking about because he days it here: Peter replied, “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. Notice he does not say have your sins forgiven and then be baptized. He does NOT say that. He says be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. And the Church simply echoed this fact. Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16 And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190 Saint Irenaeus understands this.

[@FaithRefinedByFire]

@@dman7668 the only time I have had a discussion with anyone about baptismal regeneration it was with a Lutheran. He was willing to admit at least that there are clear examples where baptism does not regenerate as far as justification. The thief on the cross is, of course, the go-to answer, and people say that he would have been baptized had he lived longer. I agree with this, of course, but it eliminates the idea of baptism being necessary for justification because he entered paradise. If you are Catholic can we discuss the unbiblical doctrine of blood baptism the Roman Catholic Church created to get around such issues? I am admittedly not extremely well-versed on the topic. However, I have read Calvin and it is clear he believed in baptismal efficacy and not baptismal regeneration. I have also watched Matthew Everhard who gives a convincing argument from a Presbyterian perspective, but I don’t think his views on what Calvin taught are the same as what Redeemed Zoomer thinks he taught. Every single sacrament in some way points us back to the cross, and as I said, the Bible does speak about sanctification as being saved in certain contexts. I will have time later today or possibly tomorrow to look through Bible passages.

[@dman7668]

@@FaithRefinedByFire I am happy to discuss it with you, but you need to keep something in mind, their is no Roman Catholic Church. It's just the Catholic Church. Roman is just describing which rite the Catholic Church is following in that region. Alot of people misunderstand this, I just thought I'd make you aware of that. Secondly, the Catholic position is the official default position of Christianity. All these other guys that popped up like John Calvin simply deviated away from baseline ESTABLISHED Christian belief. So you are aware for discussion purposes, the burden of proof actually is not on the Catholic Church, the Burden of proof is actually on you, the protestant. Because you came later and nobody thought the way you did prior to that train of thought. Which is why I personally flat out reject any of the reformers and in fact the more I read about the early Church fathers the more the protestants all look pretty whack a doodle to me. That's how I want to start off this discussion. It's up to you to prove your assertions over the default teachings of the Catholic Church which predate protestant views.

[@commanderchair]

Hebrews 8 is a pretty big blow against the paedo argument in my opinion. I'll need to look up how different people interpret it but on the surface it looks like it leans to the credo view. Good stuff! Thanks for doing this.

[@dman7668]

Is The New Covenant superior or inferior to the Old Covenant?

[@commanderchair]

@@dman7668 "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." - Hebrews 8:6 It seems to be saying that on first reading.

[@dman7668]

@@commanderchair So let me break this down. 1. You agree the Bible says the New Covenant is superior. 2. How can the Old Covenant allow infants into the Old Covenant, but this isn't possible in a Superior Covenant? It doesn't stand to reason with logic, that infants can be brought into the inferior Old Covenant, but not into a Superior Covenant. Hence why Credo baptism is false. At least even if you still disagree, you can understand my chain of reasoning.

[@nicohalac8642]

@@dman7668 I haven't refined my answer and if I take the time to do so will get lazy and not come back to this comment so I'll just post it as is! 😅 on behalf of the credo view I'm thinking with regard to your chain of reasoning that the new is superior even if it doesnt allow babies because the circumcision is of the heart and not of the flesh, while having your foreskin cut of may definitely be a sign, it does nothing for the spirit, it just cuts off a peace of flesh "thus serving as a sign" but the spirit remains the same. Theres no change of spirit unless there is a spiritual circumcision which happens not eith water as a cleansing of the flesh as I believe Paul says but with the cleansing that comes from the Holy spirit. So this is my quickly written understanding as to why one would be superior to the other while not including infants. In short one brings actual change and the other does not.

[@dman7668]

@@nicohalac8642 No worries bro, I appreciate it. I have a life too and typing everything on a smart phone isn't easy lol.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

I have never heard the salvation of the 8 in 1 Peter 3 used in that way before! Interesting take.

[@markf5229]

Credobaptists must acknowledge three points to maintain their position: (1) God has acted to save only rational, thinking adults. His plan of salvation intentionally excludes the young, mentally incapable, and seriously ill. These are without hope as they by definition cannot have faith. The Baptist’s only solution is to permit their salvation outside the Baptist definition of faith, which unravels the argument. Thus, the church is ONLY for rational, thinking adults. You are disqualified from believing that God has set out through Christ to establish a new humanity, because the church does not and cannot reflect a cross section of humanity. We need a better view of the Church than this. (2) Can any Baptist make an argument for their view without Jeremiah 31? It appears to be their only verse, or, at the least, it is repeated so often as to be rote. It is odd, however, to suggest that one verse should override the all the other evidence within the scriptures requiring or suggesting treating children of believers as members of the covenant community. Not only is Jeremiah 31 touted as practically the sole verse, but an honest reading of that text reveals that the Baptist reading contains a hoard of assumptions about what the often cited passage means that many people would never even consider if they didn’t grow up in a Baptistic church. Just because you want a passage to say something doesn’t mean it actually does. (3) For the Baptist, baptism is fundamentally an act arising from personal choice and is therefore inherently and foremost individualistic. In this, it fails to be fully trinitarian. While it involves the church, its impetus always results from the choice of the individual and the church’s involvement is always a secondary or caused effect. For padeobaptism, when properly administered as the norm within a community, the individual and community act together and experience the rite together without an order of priority. There is no first me, then we. The full Trinitarian nature of baptism is enacted and experienced, both by the recipient and the community to which he or she enters. This may seem like an odd distinction, but it is a profound difference and teaches us all something very different about the nature of salvation and life within the church. The idea that baptism must be reserved for only professing adults because the church is limited to the elect or “real” Christians can’t be taken too seriously can it? Should we all pretend Baptist pastors can tell who is “really” saved before baptizing people or can tell who is really elect. Has any professing, baptized adult in a Baptist church ever turned their back from the faith? We all know the answer to that. So call me unimpressed with the argument that the new covenant, and therefore baptism, is reserved solely for the “believer” based on Jeremiah 31.

[@nonameguy4441]

Praise God for this! Soli Deo Gloria!

[@Interns-Eternal-Empire]

Love the channel do a vid on the Copts and ask about their Pope and i aint got allowed to use the Telagram so sorry i did not respond on that

[@Gamerboy365ify]

Be honest Zoomer, you weren't wearing pants for this debate were you?

[@kevinyao0615]

I've been thinking about this issue a lot and have been agreeing more with the paedo-baptist arguments (though I go to a Baptist church). Something that wasn't really mentioned but I think is a strong argument for paedo-baptism is that the infant mortality rate for much of history has been incredibly high, like 50%+, and it's only been within the last couple centuries that it's started to decline. I honestly doubt anyone would be a Baptist if the infant mortality rate still remained high. The paedo-baptist view for baptizing infants at least provides a means for God's grace in saving those infants, while the credo-baptist view has to rely only on the "Age of Accountability" argument which has very limited basis in Scripture. Baptists can't just claim sola scriptura for baptism, but then draw on the 'Age of Accountability' which is nowhere to be found from Scripture. I think the Age of Accountability argument is incredibly weak too since then it would mean we should celebrate (or even encourage) abortion since it guarantees a spot for that baby/infant in heaven.

[@manlymemez]

Hi there! just want to share a few thoughts.... Age and Accountability is not really a Biblical Doctrine, neccessarily, I trust that God is sovreign and a just God for when Babies die If your Baptist church is teaching that abortion is morally right because Babies go to heaven then leave that church! otherwise it's flawed to say that Credo's believe "minus well have abortions" No, Murder is Evil no matter what, that's also like saying, minus well kill born again christians cause they are going to heaven anyway Baptism doesn't save, only Christ saves Infant-mortality rate doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[@shanezarcone5401]

I don't understand, you say you're a Baptist but then also seem like you're arguing that baptism brings salvation?

[@kevinyao0615]

I go to a Baptist church, but that doesn't mean I'm a Baptist. I haven't made up my mind nor do I think I am smart enough to ever have a strong conviction over this. My main point was that I think the doctrine of "Age of Accountability" that Baptists use is a very terrible argument (especially when you use sola scriptura to reject infant baptism).

[@jakinboaz8558]

@shanezarcone5401 You can be a baptist and believe baptism saves, though it’s very uncommon. I think Voddie Baucham might believe in baptismal efficacy. I think the 1689 federalists have something to say about this too.

[@shanezarcone5401]

@@kevinyao0615 Well to argue for age of accountability, the Bible communicated pretty clearly in my opinion that following Christ is not a contest of who can follow the most rules. God wants all to be saved, so why would it be that God sends innocent infants to hell who never made the conscious decision to sin? I cannot say for absolute certain this is the case, but knowing that God is good I cannot rationalize why he would send an innocent infant to Hell. And as for baptism saving, any additional works on top of Christ's sacrifice is saying that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to cover our sins, so more must be done. I am saved because of what Jesus did for me, not what I did for Jesus.

[@Keepprayingthebattleisreal]

You know I don’t really understand why this is such a hot topic in the Church. I was baby baptized and full submerged when older. But I use to talk to God as a kid outside when playing. But if I had a child I would baby baptize as well. Bc baptizing a baby can’t bring harm in my opinion either way I consider the act as guardians setting that child aside for the Lord. I think it’s a beautiful thing and I believe there are protection properties from doing that spiritually. I also don’t believe a water baptism is necessary for saving. The thief on the cross next to Jesus only confessed he was a sinner and that jesus is Lord. That’s what saves. All we need is Jesus. The rest is ok but he can save anyone at any point and we must not forget his power and the core of the gospel in my opinion. Just walk with him.

[@jaceeisworth]

I wasn’t baptized as a baby but I was baptized at like 8. I did “make the choice” to be baptized but I really just think it was cause I wanted to be like my parents and people I looked up to. Being in my 20s now, I do want to get baptized again now that I have a firm grasp of life and death, Christ and satan, and everything that comes along with being a Christian. I don’t regret getting baptized as a kid but I definitely did not understand the significance of it. Kinda “embarrassing” that I want to do it again but I feel it’s necessary.

[@Keepprayingthebattleisreal]

@@jaceeisworth I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. It honors God shares your testimony. It’s your walk with him. It’s a great thing to do though. Maybe making a point of sharing a testimony yearly of How good God is or what he’s done in your life could be cool. Actually I might start doing that daily. Remembering him. It’s important to remember your testimony. I haven’t been reminding myself as much as I should. Helps you remember where he’s brought you from what you have made it through. Sharing it with others encourages them too. That he is faithful. That’s what it’s about in my opinion.

[@dman7668]

You don't believe water baptism is necessary? Well, that's just it, your view on that wasn't what the old Bishops of the Church taught. Which is that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation. Jesus clearly says one must be born of water and spirit to enter into heaven. So yes, that sounds necessary. The good thief on the cross argument is over exaggerated. First of all, the early Church explained that this was merely an exception, not the baseline for how Christians get saved. I repeat, the good thief is an exception not a normative. Also, it explains the good thief was indeed baptized according to tradition, by blood. He died and was baptized by desire. So no, this wouldn't be a shinning example of how baptism is "unnecessary " If it was truly unnecessary Jesus would not say that it is necessary. It's just not "absolutely " necessary. There is a difference. Also we do not baptize as Christians twice. This is actually quite a scandal because in the a Nicene creed it adheres to ONE baptism ONLY. For the forgiveness of SINS. Something most Christians now reject. Baptismal regeneration is true.

[@dman7668]

​@jaceeisworth You can only be baptized one time. We as Christians according to the Nicene creed confess only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. You have already been baptized. However, during certain times of the years Christians will sprinkle holy water or bless themselves with Holy Water to remind themselves of their baptism.

[@jakinboaz8558]

@jaceeisworth Hey man, if I may do so, I would strongly plead with you not to get baptized again. This is for a few reasons: 1. If you don’t believe baptism does anything (see the part where Redeemed Zoomer was cross-examining Pastor Keith), you don’t need to do it again. 2. There is zero precedent anywhere in the Bible or church history for someone being baptized a second time until the Anabaptists, let alone three times (though this is a disturbing trend among some Gen Z evangelicals to have had a believer’s baptism between age 7 and 16 and later feel it “wasn’t good enough” and they need another one). In fact, both the Bible and church history emphasize ONE Baptism (read Ephesians 4:4-6 and the Nicene Creed). 3. In your case in particular, getting baptized a second time after spiritual maturation is not only not commanded but might actually be sinful, because it is trusting in your own understanding and development rather than the work of the Holy Spirit that occurs in baptism. Please trust that the Holy Spirit was effectual in your baptism. 4. Many people who have received believer’s baptism feel like they need some kind of major spiritual event upon reaching maturity. This is true, and there is a reason for this, but they mistakenly think it means they should be baptized again. This is because many of their churches don’t teach the importance of the other sacrament, Communion. Instead of being baptized again, please delve into the richness and beauty of the Lord’s Supper, and receive it regularly. You are communing with God and receiving Christ when you do so. I would suggest reading from the Scots Confession about it.

[@louismarx8269]

For a group that considers Baptism to have no actual connection to salvation, they sure are serious about babies not being Baptized.

[@dman7668]

Yeah, I mean their fear I guess is that if babies are baptized then that means the baptism isn't valid and they risk not complying with Christ's ordinance. But if that's true, and baptism does not save you (never-minding for a minute St Peter does say that it does save you) Then it shouldn't be a big deal at all really when baptism even happens.

[@xravenx24fe]

​@dman7668 Yeah, with that logic, you'd think that opting in is a better wager than opting out until later, but hey, I'm just a layman so idk

[@MarianMetanoia]

That’s because Baptists are nothing if not individualistic. It’s all about the person’s personal walk of faith and personal interpretation of Scripture and personal understanding of what it means to live a Christian lifestyle.

[@nonameguy4441]

@@MarianMetanoiaand it’s sad. Their individualism has done great damage to the American Church.

[@Skibidivm_Latrinae]

hey RZ, the minecraft server doesnt let me join. It says that im "not whitelisted on the server." PLS HELP!

[@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH]

Easy Did Jesus Christ ever baptize infants? Second did the early church fathers and the apostles baptize infants? I’ll answer both with a resounding No so out of this understanding of Gods Word we do not baptize infants🙏in every occasion in the book of Acts we see the man of the household are the ones who get baptized never once has it been mentioned that an infant has been baptized..

[@whosflair3716]

Did Jesus ever baptize anyone? Or was it John

[@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH]

@@whosflair3716No Jesus did not baptize but He mandated His apostles to baptize,,John even says that another one is coming after me who will baptize in fire 🔥 so what’s the difference between water submerging and fire 🔥 that’s the question who is Jesus and why did John say this.

[@dman7668]

How do you know the apostles didn't baptize infants? Or the Church Fathers? Do you have video tape of their entire ministry proving this? Will you please share this with us and end this debate once and for all?

[@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH]

@@dman7668 because I live according to the Bible and the texts that have been given if the early church never once committed the action in the Bible then I’m not going to do it myself

[@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH]

@@dman7668 so my question to you is do you live according to man made doctrine or Gods Word

[@shaddjimenez4524]

Hey everyone, don't you think God would have made the Scriptures more clear in supporting infant baptism since baptism saves? The fact that this is even a debate shows infant baptism is not clear enough in the Scriptures, and judging that baptism saves as Jesus and Peter says, it would have been important enough to make clear [Also I'm not completely solid on my stance on infant baptism, I just wanted to start the discussion. Obviously God has grace for infants to be in the Kingdom of God if they pass away as infants, but the credobaptist (while holding to the view of baptism saving) view would be that while there is that grace period, there is a time where they do need to believe and get baptized] “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” ‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

[@williamgoodpaster7564]

The old covenant was a national covenant, the new covenant, however, is a worldwide covenant that’s why God has written his law on the hearts of every single man, woman, and child in the world. That’s what the apostle Paul says about the Jeremiah passage in the book of Romans.

[@MarianMetanoia]

Infant baptism is so important. We know it saves via sanctifying grace. You can see the fruit of baptism in all the lapsed Christians who eventually revert to the faith. I truly believe that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, and that if you stray from the faith, the graces bestowed at baptism can help to lead you back to the flock. The young generations are being raised in a culture that is incredibly hostile toward religion, particularly Christianity, so the reality is that many young people will buy into the lies and apostatize. Give them a fighting chance to find their way back. Baptize them as infants.

[@dman7668]

Well stated. They need graces as soon as possible.

[@EthanWalkerMusic]

i dont believe in infant baptism, but this here is its best case for me. well said my brother.

[@MarianMetanoia]

@@EthanWalkerMusic *sister ☺️ And thanks!

[@the_lotharingian]

I hath decided. Infant baptism is for citizenship. Voluntary baptism is for cleansing of sins. Pentecostal baptism is for ecstatic glossaria.

[@danielholder7979]

😂

[@kevschnibbletz3808]

nah man haha

[@mr8282humble]

"One baptism"

[@EthanWalkerMusic]

*pentacostal bruh* lol at least with my experiences pentacostalism isnt so focused on speaking tongues as the stereotype, spirit baptism is just when the holy spirit enters you lol

[@williamhenning4320]

Cool tuxedo

[@silaswarren8418]

Zoomer lookin FRESH in that tux

[@harrisonthull6746]

HELP, IT SAYS I AM NOT ON THE WHITE LIST FOR KINGDOM CRAFT. HOW CAN I JOIN AGAIN!

[@bricksburger5409]

Why does it say I am not white listed on the minecraft server. This is bricksburger who built the Ice Rail

[@alejandroduenas1828]

Do Presbyterians baptise with single immersing? hence the canons of the Council of Niceæ talk against it.

[@Mic1904]

Typically the method (pouring or sprinkling) is applied three times as the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' section is pronounced. In the Presbyterian context, where sprinkling/pouring is judged an appropriate method of 'baptizo' (immersion), I suppose this is, in a sense, triple immersion rather than single immersion.

[@isaiahburridgemusic]

This looks like an IFB conference.😂😂

[@nicodemus9105]

How is this even a debate If you can prove we inherited Adam’s sin then yes, but the scripture is clear 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Baptism is for the remission of sins, was John the Baptist baptizing baby’s , he was preaching to people walking by. Baby baptizing is a false doctrine

[@Mic1904]

_"was John the Baptist baptizing baby’s"_ If you keep reading that Bible which you rightly examine for the truth, you'll get to the bit where the Baptism of John is clearly distinguished as NOT Christian Baptism as instituted by Christ, as made clear in Acts 18:25 and Acts 19:3. Therefore John's Baptism cannot be reliably employed as an example of the practice of Christian Baptism, when it is not the same thing. Keep reading.

[@nicodemus9105]

@@Mic1904 we certainly can, you are making the assertion cause only Jews are saying this, but when we define what water baptism is (the remission of sins) it’s a work you are doing showing the Lord of your repentance, and then the baptism of the Holy Spirit come next. Sounds like your definitely a Protestant and they all teach we don’t need to be baby with water.

[@Mic1904]

@@nicodemus9105 Completely irrelevant to anything and everything I've said which is: the Baptism of John is separate from Christian Baptism. Not controversial. Agreed upon by all Christians. Only you have managed to somehow make this about Jews (?) and Protestants.

[@nicodemus9105]

@@Mic1904 no it’s agreed-upon by protestants, Here I’ll show you the holes in your error. The Jews were under the Law of Moses and the law of circumcision, they were not under baptism. Why did Nicodemus Not know what water baptism was?? He was a Jew!!! Not only that, a Jewish pharisee, and the Pharisees are the ones that went and confronted John the Baptist. And Nicodemus didn’t have a clue what water baptism was he thought jesus was saying being born of the womb again. 2nd point. Why would you think that you don’t need to be baptized for the remission of sins, are the gentiles some special people that don’t have to abide by the rules?? Most likely you believe in once saved always saved to.

[@magicfoogieA]

Wasn't this in context to the sin of murder? And not the sin of mankind?

[@biomuseum6645]

zoomer, do you agree with inspiring philosophy's take on genesis and evolution?

[@CosmicKnightly]

He'd probably agree since they both believe in evolution

[@biomuseum6645]

@@CosmicKnightly yes, but insipring philosophy takes a different approach to Génesis, one based more on ancient Hebrew and ancient middle east

[@bushbladesnbows.2378]

I'm unsure, in his vid on the whole story of the Bible he had some line when he was talking about the second day of creation where the lights appeared that went something like "maybe the skies were cleared so that the stars and moon and sun could be seen" so it seems he (Zoomer) might be interpreting Genesis through the lense of science, while IP let's science and Genesis stay separate because we doesn't think Genesis is necessarily trying to scientifically analyze the creationm

[@biomuseum6645]

​@@bushbladesnbows.2378IP believes god didn't create a thing in Genesis, he only assigned functions while Zoomer believes light was created but darkness already existed and it's evil, not physical darkness

[@bushbladesnbows.2378]

@@biomuseum6645 ya that's what I was saying, IP has a totally different read on Genesis but Zoomer seems to be trying to fit Genesis into a scientific understanding.

[@notsigmaryan]

I am not whitelisted to your minecraft server I dont know what I did I hope you can help me and if I did something wrong I will fix it

[@Biggun3567]

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. Westminster confession So you can't bind the interpretation of Scripture to someone else. Who knows who's right?

[@Ferrerman]

its definitely a mandala effect. For awhile I thought you were reformed zoomer.

[@unavailableun]

I keep calling you Reformed Zoomer as well

[@critical_mass6453]

I think more accurately the story of Noah and his family is a good example of how the leader of the household can have an influence over the rest of the household. Noah had faith is Faith was strong enough to be conveyed and compelling to the rest of the family to also have faith, what other reason would they have to get on a big boat? We're not dealing with Noah and the eight puppets, we're dealing with thinking, breathing people who can have their own faith. The same as all other examples of 'household' conversation/baptisms. We must also keep in mind narrative compression, if not then we are being dishonest.

[@vqsxd]

Acts 2:39 is not about baptism, but instead about the promise, which is of remission of sins and the Holy Spirit.

[@micahwatz1148]

Niceeeee

[@alejandroduenas1828]

Saint. Constantine definitely was the one that changed it and you cannot find it anywhere in the Church Father's writings before him. Trust me, I was there.

[@themar.i.per3374]

can you make a video about why you have converted?

[@Michaelspamfolder]

He did make one, its called "My theological journey - KingdomCraft"

[@discobolous]

Baby sprinkling today, baby sprinkling tomorrow, baby sprinkling forever.

[@TheIncredibleRooster]

Theory: all do not have pants on

[@GoofyGoober316]

Can we start a Patreon to get mr. Zoomer a better microphone 😅

[@GoofyGoober316]

Outstanding debate regardless

[@williamgoodpaster7564]

Presbyterian do require their children to be circumcised through baptism

[@Charlie-lu4wi]

So if baptism saves then is every baby that’s been baptized saved ? and if it isn’t like that and it’s like you said through faith baptism works, then can a baby have faith in something they don’t understand ? (I haven’t watched the entire video, so Im sorry if this question has already been answered)

[@dman7668]

Yes. Assuming they remained in a state of grace and never commit mortal sin, thereby losing their justification, all baptized babies that maintain their justification throughout life will be saved.

[@dman7668]

The Church has always taught the faith of the parents will speak on behalf of the child and bring them into the New Covenant. Because this New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant. In Judaism nobody asked the old testament infants their faith to bring them into the religion via circumcision. You were brought under the Old Covenant as an infant into this Old Covenant even if you did not understand it. The first Christians were Jews, as such they understood that the New Covenant was superior. Therefore, it could not be reasonable that infants would be excluded from this New Covenant at their birth.

[@Charlie-lu4wi]

@@dman7668so if a baby gets baptized, and the next day doesn’t remember who Jesus is, does he lose the justification ?

[@dman7668]

@@Charlie-lu4wi See what I wrote above.

[@Charlie-lu4wi]

⁠​⁠@@dman7668If somebody doesn’t get baptized until he’s 20 but believes in Jesus and remains in a state of grace and doesn’t commit “mortal sin” before do they get saved ?

[@paulwoodhouse3386]

Hey Redeemed Zoomer, do you think the case of the story of Samuel's mother might pertain to infant baptism? Baptism isn't technically mentioned per se, but through Samuel's mother's faith, she dedicated Samuel to God, regardless of his choosing.

[@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH]

That is not by definition baptism to be submerged in water it’s a dedication of the child to the Lord just as Samson was dedicated from birth to be a Nazarite🙏

[@paulwoodhouse3386]

@@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH Yeah, that makes sense.

[@justchilling704]

Samuel could have chosen not to. But I get what you’re getting at.

[@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH]

@@justchilling704 Samuel was dedicated to the Lord there’s a difference between dedications and baptisms

[@123WonderReads]

@@Azariah.HelpedByYHWH it’s interesting that we don’t at least in my opinion see baby dedications in church history until people moved away from infant baptism. Dedications, as far as I’ve seen, serve the same purpose to include the child in Gods kingdom and promise/dedicate their being raised in the ways of the LORD

[@loganstrait7503]

In monergism, what's the point of debating or doing baptism or doing anything at all? We're passive. What are we doing discussing the matter at all?

[@Mic1904]

_"In monergism, what's the point of debating or doing baptism or doing anything at all? We're passive."_ Why do you assume, in your description (which we'll accept for the sake of argument), that being 'passive' means doing nothing, when doing something you were predestined to do would also be 'passive'?

[@loganstrait7503]

@@Mic1904 not necessarily that it means doing nothing, but that it is literally and totally pointless and futile

[@Mic1904]

@@loganstrait7503 But if it's predestined, nothing about it being pointless and futile means it doesn't happen, because you've been predestined to. You here stating 'it's pointless and futile' was predestined to happen, and will still result in you doing everything you were ever predestined to do. (Note, that I think this is a simplification of predestination, I'm mostly just adopting the view of predestination you seemed to suggest in your original comment for the sake of the debate).

[@loganstrait7503]

@@Mic1904 yes but admitting that it's pointless defeats the whole point. Predestination is very very close to nihilism.

[@Mic1904]

@@loganstrait7503 _"but admitting that it's pointless defeats the whole point"_ You keep stating this as if to realise it were pointless were to somehow break it. What is it about 'realising it's pointless' that you think changes anything?

[@captainneeda1980]

It seems to me that given the lack of any prescription of infant baptism or example of an infant being baptized in the New Testament, pedobaptism undermines both the regulative principle of worship and the perspicuity of scripture.

[@Mic1904]

This is a good argument, much better than most. I will say though, that Westminister's understanding of the regulative principle goes hand-in-hand with Westminister's understanding that God's counsel "is either expressly set down in Scripture, or *by good and necessary consequence may be deduced* from Scripture" (emphasis mine). I'm sure you've heard this language before. So, whether you agree with the argument or not, something not being explicitly word-for-word in Scripture is not really ever how a Westministerian perspective on the Regulative Principle has worked. This language of deduction by 'good and necessary consequences' was removed by our Baptist friends when they adapted Westminister into the 2nd London Baptist Confession - some have suggested, to tighten up some of Westminister's grey areas that allow Presbyterians to infer paedobaptism from Scripture. In my humble opinion, they wildly shot themselves in the foot here and open a cataclysmic problem when it then comes to key Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, which are clearly inferred from Scripture but are not, in the language of the time, explicitly stated word-for-word in Scripture in the terminology that we'd use today.

[@dman7668]

There is a lack of any prescription banning infant baptism.

[@captainneeda1980]

@@Mic1904​​That makes some sense, but I still feel that if God intended for the church to baptize infants He would have made that intent clearer in the Bible. Baptism seems like a matter that’s important enough that God wouldn’t have left us having to deduce His will relating to it.

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@captainneeda1980careful... the TRINITY isn't prescribed clearly either

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

giving this a watch now. but let me add at the start - you cant pick and choose which aspects of calvins theology you'd like to follow and others that you'd like to ignore. its a whole system. if you want to call yourself a calvinist in the true sense - you need to believe what calvin believed which is in covenant theology, which entails the baptism of infants. calvinism isn't just a set of presuppositions about election.

[@comey14]

Sounds like a rule you just made up

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

@@comey14 sounds like you believe in pick-and-choose theology. Have you read the institutes?

[@comey14]

@@HenryLeslieGraham you say that like it's a bad thing.... Am I not supposed to pick and choose what I believe to be right and scriptural?? No system of theology is perfect, so I don't subscribe to any single system.

[@caine3410]

At around 30 minutes, drawing a parallel between a modern day congregation (with an aging demographic structure AND widely available and practiced contraception) and a congregation in biblical times, and saying because the former doesn't have many babies, therefore we can safely assume that the latter didn't either... that's just genuinely painful to listen to. I'm really trying to be respectful to baptists and give the benefit of the doubt but damn, that's just embarrasing, and most of their arguments are either this tier, or barely stronger to begin with.

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

Ugh, this topic has me all over. I'm just not sure 😭

[@daniellitton9288]

There actually would be a 3rd position for this that some might find interesting. There is Bible teacher named Robert Breaker (his channel is his name) and he has a couple video that would explain why infants were originally water bapitized in the early church but now are not once Paul arrived on the scene. The videos are titled 'Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?' and 'Following Jesus or How you are Supposed to Follow Jesus.' As far as The Great Commission, another interesting video on that would be 'The Great Commission?' by Breaker as well

[@dman7668]

Will check it out when I have time.

[@MakaylaChildress]

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". How can a baby repent?

[@diegocorea4613]

Repentance and faith is granted by God. It is impossible for an adult to repent and believe as much as it is for a baby. Because neither you nor me can believe into christ unless the spirit regenaretes us by his pure grace. So a baby can repent and believe in christ at the moment of baptism because it is God who gives faith unto salvation. And when someones "Produces faith to believe and repent" (which is not biblical) but assuming your position then it always end up in apostasy or false assurance of salvation even though outwardly they are in the visible church of God.

[@jonasopmeer]

No way. This is sweet.

[@Abcdefghijajajaja]

Huh?

[@shaddjimenez4524]

@@AbcdefghijajajajaNo way. This is sweet.

[@leviwilliams9601]

God and can grant faith to children. Its all over the bible.... The verse talking about not taking communion in vain was blatantly not talking about children taking communion. The context was talking about drunk men eating all the bread and drinking all the wine lol Nothing to do with children taking apart of the loaf of Christ.

[@hudjahulos]

Spot on

[@hayliewallace3489]

You should debate an LDS person PLEASEEE