Mark Dever, Regenerate Babies, and Protecting the Gospel | Jared Longshore

[@raypaget815]

As a Baptist, I was not convinced but the presentation was well done, informative and fair. Jared always does a great job in his comments. I especially enjoyed his use of a Spurgeon quote (a Baptist of historical renown) to affirm a point. I’ve been a longtime time admirer of what comes out of Moscow, Idaho. For its depth of thought, tenacity in addressing the culture, and love for the Gospel there’s nothing like it.

[@Reconstructor75]

Amen, Amen

[@anthonythomas1791]

So... My question as a Baptist is... When presbyterians baptize infants do they shift from being in Adam to being in Christ? If so.. how is this possible if they have not placed faith in Christ?

[@ReformedSooner24]

I’ll answer as best I can but I’m hardly the best guy to respond: baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant promise. They will give a confession of faith later on provided they are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If they’re elect, as we assume they are until or unless they demonstrate otherwise (which most likely has something to do with their upbringing), then even if they haven’t come to faith yet they still will in the future. It’s like with circumsision (however you spell it): many of the children were circumcised even though they didn’t yet have a personal faith in God because it was the sign of the covenant. The sign of that promise about the children of believers.

[@choicemeatrandy6572]

@@ReformedSooner24 _(which most likely has something to do with their upbringing)_ Hold up a second...what? This puts salvation contingent on upbringing, which makes it a work. Also being elect isn't something that you switch into or out of, you're either elect or you aren't, and how you know you're elect is whether YOU PERSONALLY believe in Jesus for salvation, not because your mom and dad had you sprinkled in the past. The sign of the new covenant is a regenerate heart. Children of Christians are in a far better position than pagan children, I've seen this first hand, however these children aren't necessarily saved because they grew up going to church 4 times a week, instead they're set apart (which is what holy means) in a special way.

[@RecalledtoLife]

@@ReformedSooner24 So, they are elect until they are not?

[@davidbradford9631]

@@ReformedSooner24 Okay using the circumcision logic, Romans 9 talks about an Israel within Israel and that it's not about the flesh, but the promise. And Romans 2 talking about a true Jew having heart circumcision (pulling from Deuteronomy). This is where infant baptism fails. It's not a logical conclusion from the scriptures, but an emotional appeal.

[@joev2223]

@@davidbradford9631are you a truly reformed Baptist, or no? Secondly, what do Baptists do with children? How are you to treat them in the church? In the home? I mean this gently, but truly, answer only from the NT.

[@ericcarlson9885]

I’m a kangaroo credobaptist. 1Corinthians 7:14 declares my kids holy…and says absolutely nothing about baptism. Children of at least one believing parent are covered by the Covenant. I’ll keep them as joeys in the pouch until they emerge as confessing believers. No reason to think of them as little pagans and no reason to think of them as mature and independent believers. They are, quite clearly, neither one nor the other.

[@blakelewis857]

Thank you. I think your concise, clear statement represents well most Reformed Baptists, including myself. Was pretty much going to write the same thing but you got it! Brother Jared, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the position of credo baptists as represented by our brother here. Be blessed.

[@johnlocke6800]

Let the little children come to me, once they're old enough to vote.

[@paulasueInChrist]

Outstanding… what a thoughtful, robust commentary. Thank you from Breaux Bridge, Louisiana!

[@ranbran2948]

I am thankful for this church up in Moscow. And I have benefited from a lot of what they teach. However, every time they talk about pedo baptism, I become further entrenched, if I can say that, in my position of credo baptism. I do most certainly believe that my household will be saved, as scripture says. Using implicit arguments such as that, or a straw man by saying that the credo does not allow their little children to come to Christ, only hurts his position and discredits his argument, regardless of how many people he quotes.

[@blakelewis857]

Some thoughts 😊: I do disagree with some things Mark said as well, but here’s some thoughts toward the interpretation and points presented here in this video: 1) QUESTION FOR A POINT RAISED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE VIDEO: Is infant baptism the only way to welcome an infant to ‘Christ’s body’? Or is it the only mandated way, if it is mandated? Does a parent withholding baptism but still raising their children up in Lord (godly parenting and teaching of the gospel, etc.) and having their children active in the church they are a part of keep them ‘separate from Christ’s body’? Definitely need some Scripture to help me understand. 2) The only reference I know of in the NT to anyone being ‘washed’ is for born-again believers (1 Cor. 6:11, Rev. 7:14). Again, I’m definitely open to seeing what I’m missing from the Scripture here. 3) No decent-understanding Reformed Baptist believes they are keeping their children out with the Gentiles (this seems to be your conclusion though of what we are doing). There is a holiness/set-apartness given to them by God through at least one believing parent that is there in the household (1 Cor. 7:14), whether baptized as an infant or not. But definitely, show me Scripture that says differently. Regarding the many men quoted 😊: 4) Polonus - 1500’s - ‘Infants baptized have all that’s promised to regenerate believers’ - seems to be what he’s saying, correct me if I’m wrong here. (Therefore, is he saying nothing can get in the way of the security of this salvation for the baby?) • ‘Your children have also been purchased by my blood,’ seems to be his paraphrase of God’s promise here. Thus, they are saved? • Polonus also goes on to say that infants are “redeemed by the blood of Christ (Amandus Polanus (1561-1610) on Baptism | Theologia est doctrina Deo vivendi per Christum - Theology is the doctrine of living unto God through Christ (wordpress.com). Is that an everlasting redemption that cannot be broken? Is that a God-ever sealed redemption? Are then all baptized babies saved? • “Infants possess the Holy Spirit” - at baptism? At birth (if one of their parents is a believer)? Where is that clearly stated in the NT? 5) Antonius Walaeus - I think it would be good to read the quote Brother Jared mentions here in the context of a larger article about Antonius: “Near the end of this lecture, wherein Vos traced the role of the doctrine of the covenant in Reformed dogmatics-especially in contrast to Lutheran dogmatics-Vos turned to how God’s covenant relates to children, and how baptism fits into that scheme. He noted that Reformed theologians disagreed about “when the [covenant] promises are usually realized by regeneration in the children of the covenant.” The first view, “not only assumes that the children of the covenant who die before they reach the age of discretion, possess the Holy Spirit from their earliest childhood and so are born again and united to Christ, but also maintains this thesis as generally valid for the seed of the promise without distinction.” Within this first school, Vos cited Antonius Walaeus (about whom, at the time, all I knew was that he had a funny last name). Walaeus, a delegate to the Synod of Dordt and a long-time professor of theology at Leiden University, is cited by Vos as saying: We reject the opinion of the Lutherans who tie the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to the external water of baptism in such a way that, either it is present in the water itself or at least the principle of regeneration will only work in the administration of baptism. This, however, is opposed to all the places in Scripture, where faith and repentance and hence the beginning and seed of regeneration are antecedently required in the one who is baptized […]. Therefore, we do not bind the efficacy of baptism to the moment in which the body is sprinkled with external water; but we require with the Scriptures antecedent faith and repentance in the one who is baptized, at least according to the judgment of love, both in the infant children of covenant members, and in adults. For we maintain that in infants too the presence of the seed and the Spirit of faith and conversion is to be ascertained on the basis of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant. I readily admit that when I first read this I was dumbfounded. Walaeus is saying that he denied baptismal regeneration (as argued by the Lutherans) because the Bible speaks about faith and repentance as presumed prerequisites for baptism. Therefore, he presumes that baptized infants already have the seed of faith. In short, he holds to presumptive regeneration. 6) To Peter Vermegli’s quote, “we assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ.” Would then you say that children can lose their ‘holy’ status as children of believers (not their salvation, but their set-apart status) if they are estranged from Christ? 7) Ursinus also holds: “infants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother s womb, and Jeremiah is said to have been sanctified before he came out of the womb. (Luke 1:15. Jer. 1:5.) If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with every thing that is requisite for their baptism, according to the declaration of Peter, “Can any man forbid water to them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” Do paedo-baptists for sure hold that all infants of the true-elect have the Holy Ghost at birth? 8) At the end of the Junius quote, he mentions the sealing of the infant being born again happens at baptism? That sounds like a guaranteeing of regeneration unless such sealing can be revoked. That might be something you hold to though (including the revoking). Would love to know. 9) Valensius (?) - doesn’t mention infant baptism here in his quote actually TO A POINT MADE AT THE END: “he brings them bread and wine but you won’t let them be nourished” - don’t paedobaptists also reserve the Lord’s Supper from infants/children? O my, Brother Jared - I do have to say that your end point starting a little after the 12:00 mark is a VERY POOR representation to what a Reformed (Credo) Baptist believes. As you would enjoy tickets to hear Junius stand up and present his points to Mark during his presentation, it would also be good to consider that having a well-grounded Reformed (Credo) Baptist in the room as you presented your point would also have been good ‘show’ for us to hear and watch (as they presented their case as well) 😊. We must apply the same standard to each person and hypothetical scenario to ourselves as well (haha - which I must even apply to myself here 😊.) Be blessed, brother. I think some of the content here can be confusing and/or misleading in my opinion. Very open to hear your thoughts on any of the points thought I mention above. We are in the fight together. Lord, have mercy on Your church.

[@GR-dk5ju]

Why has everyone forgotten that Anglicans and Lutherans exist? You don’t need to worship statues or icons of Mary to find a church full of baptized, regenerate, baby-inclusive Christians.

[@TheMaineSurveyor]

Two items: 1) The Doug-esque reading of an essay or blog you've written is not enjoyable. It seems like you're copying Doug's style, all the way down to the use of metaphors and the celebration of your own word choices (listen at 3:00). It's strange when Doug does it. It's weird that you are doing the exact same thing, as if you are trying to be just like him. It detaches you from the audience, and is impersonal. 2) Appealing to the writings of past theologians is not a good argument in favor of paedobaptism, which already suffers from having to make far too many assumptions in order to preserve its continued practice. Don't do that. It would be great if you came back to the much more easily-defended and supported credobaptist view.

[@chrislabrec]

I also found it weird how Doug-like this video was. Almost seems as if Doug wrote it and Jared delivered it in his best Doug impression. Was that the aim?

[@TypicalTGreen]

I appreciate how you were trying not to chuckle in the middle. 😊

[@ebenezercunningham9073]

I've heard of quite a few really cool people, both alive today, but also especially ones who lived long ago, and wrote eloquently, that were paedo babtists. If only someone could introduce me to a few more, I would be convinced that infant babtism is the Biblical position.

[@amandas.3065]

where does it say when they turn 18? I find most paedo's argue that, as if baptist don't allow until then? my church baptizes those who confess Christ as Lord and i have witnessed many 3 or 4 year olds, be baptized.

[@TimothyLearn]

Praise the Lord. But that has not been the norm.

[@jonahmix3232]

Can anyone point out where I could read or watch the original statements made by Dever? Are they online or accessible anywhere?

[@BernardDiaz-x2j]

Dever's tone aside, I would ask Jared based upon what scriptural and exegetical basis would he justify padeobaptism? On what exegetical basis can we declare that infants are regenerate? Circumcision even failed to regenerate or identify infant Jews in the Old Covenant. Note my question is rooted for a scriptural answer or argument, and not a number of reformed era theologians.

[@bigtobacco1098]

OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms

[@ehudsdagger5619]

Can a brotha get a link to Dever's remarks?

[@deanvanlaarhoven1413]

You sound so smart now; full of grace and without guile. Congratulations on a successful end to your journey.

[@yeoberry]

This critique only makes sense if you believe in baptismal regeneration.

[@choicemeatrandy6572]

The practice itself originates from a belief in baptismal regeneration.

[@yeoberry]

@@choicemeatrandy6572 : Infant baptism did, yes. Baptism didn't. IN the NT, baptism is always of believers.

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@yeoberryno... regenerational baptism is crud... you don't know who is truly regenerate

[@Rio_Seco]

I am not really sure I understand the controversy. Baptists and those who baptize infants functionally share the same belief about baptism, specially that it really does not do anything. In the bible the pattern is very clear. People hear the word and are confronted with a moral decision to respond to it or not. If accepted, the person is baptized into the death of Christ, washed of his or her sins, and is born again in to Christ resurrection, making baptism a supernatural event. "Covent theology" seems to rely heavily on misunderstanding of the book of Hebrews, thinking that in the new covenant a baptized infant becomes a Christian in the same way a baby being circumcised on the 8th day is a Jew. There are zero instances of an infant being baptized in the NT.

[@bigtobacco1098]

No (insert age here) baptisms in scripture

[@bigtobacco1098]

OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms

[@Rio_Seco]

@@bigtobacco1098 Show me one scripture that proves an infant was baptized into Christ? Show me one scripture where a person who had not first heard the gospel was baptized into Christ. I won't wait for a reply because we both know you don't have one. A parting word. If you hold a belief that is anchored entirely in the "innovative" theology of men, and lacking anything even resembling solid scriptural support, then on that topic you are following men, not the Father.

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@Rio_Seco show me one scripture that says TRINITY...

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@Rio_Seco show me (insert age here) baptism in scripture...

[@rontherrien7392]

Thanks for this clear presentation of this glorious truth. How wonderful to include our babes into the covenant blessings and grievous to exclude them, thus absence of youth in the credobaptist camp. It's not that infants can repent but we believe by faith they will one day as the HS SHINES ON THEM. YOUNG BABES at age 2 or 3 can know the simple truth and be saved. The promise is to u n your children, that sounds like inclusion if we have eyes to see.

[@yeoberry]

Baptism is not a sign of the covenant.

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@yeoberry what is it ??

[@TheRoark]

You quote him as saying "I am tired of being condescended to" and then say it's worth a good laugh. Not condescending at all!

[@Texasguy316]

It is a good laugh. Considering he states that with a true underlying meaning which is “I got to put blame on them for my unbiblical rant and slandering right now to defend myself”. He needs to repent. Not only for what he did towards Gods people, but for his false doctrine as well. The former must come first.

[@DelmarPeet]

There seems to be a heavy lean on the passage saying God will be the God of your children as received as 100% statement. However, what about those who are children of the elect who are never brought to faith. Does this interpretation of scripture make God a liar? I’m sure there is a good infant baptism answer. I would just like to hear it. Honestly, I would like to see the credos answer the same question. It would seem that those who would baptize infants knowingly do baptize those who will become elect, and those who are reprobate. There is a lot of emphasis on Hope of the child’s regeneration in baptism from this position. Comes across as impatient hope to baptize a child before they have professed? While I do not agree with an age limit, I do believe that there must be a heart condition. And, yes, we have no short of abundance of Baptists, who have snarky remarks. You nailed that! “Infant baptism is the golden calf of the reformation” -James White

[@bigtobacco1098]

Infant dedication is the golden calf not from scripture

[@bigtobacco1098]

There doesn't need to be a heart change... just a profession...

[@bigtobacco1098]

I'll ask you the same question... why do baptists baptize both regenerate and unregenerate ??

[@stwrong1255]

this was a stretch... Lets trust God and not take 2 verses out of context and build a theology around it. I'm still curious why Christ waited to be baptized at 30...

[@tesseract535]

Why did Peter only eat unclean things after his vision?

[@laiquende9971]

Jesus was born under the Old Covenant and was circumcised as an infant. And from infancy He worshipped as a part of the people.

[@stwrong1255]

@@laiquende9971 exactly and what is more interesting is Christ's instruction to make disciples and then baptize them in his name... i wonder why he didn't say baptize then make them disciples.

[@stwrong1255]

@@tesseract535 and was rebuked for it holding that view... and then somehow we baptize babies, interesting

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@stwrong1255 it's AND... not THEN

[@ericrichter7933]

Can you defend your point 1. With scripture alone? 2. Refraining from quoting man made works? (i.e. the catechisms and other historical church celebrities) You quoted various historical commentaries, but as a Christian, we should be looking to scripture to guide and defend our beliefs. You quoted VARIOUS non biblical sources, but you have not allowed the holy word of God to defend your point here.

[@joshnelson3344]

1. Yes 2. Yes

[@jarrodjames5673]

This dude tries to hard to sound like Doug Wilson. These guys are always parroting their favorite celebrity pastor. It is annoying.

[@johnmarkharris]

The reformer types are thoroughgoing systematitians, bless you.

[@joshhigdon4951]

The reformation did produce a golden calf.

[@DutchMcGinnis]

I am shocked that Presbyterians do not use 1Cor 7:14 to rebuke the opposition... this coming from a former reformed 1689er now 1647er :)

[@ericcarlson9885]

@ConfederateBerean. Huh? 1 Corinthians 7:14 is one of the MOST used paedobaptist proof texts, along with Acts 2:39 and Mark 10:14. (None of which actually talk about baptism!)

[@DutchMcGinnis]

@@ericcarlson9885 I did not say it was about baptism. Ask any true reformed baptist and they will say they are baptist but raise their children Presbyterian. Yet they do not see their children as saved nor believers. Which is opposite of what Paul states in the verse mentioned.

[@choicemeatrandy6572]

@@DutchMcGinnis _Yet they do not see their children as saved nor believers._ Because age doesn't save, trusting in Jesus is what saves.

[@RecalledtoLife]

@@DutchMcGinnis True reformed Baptists do not "raise their children Presbyterian." They do not labor under the delusion that their children are elect from the womb but perhaps may become unelect later. Depending on the faith or lack thereof of the parents.

[@MTNMT265]

Just slap little Johnny’s hand away from Jesus’ feast. “NO NO! This is not for you!”

[@smhbbag1]

Correct. It's not for non-professors.

[@MTNMT265]

@@smhbbag1 I encourage my children to reach for Jesus.

[@smhbbag1]

@@MTNMT265 So does every Christian.

[@smhbbag1]

@@MTNMT265 You reach for Jesus by profession of faith and belief in the gospel.

[@vanessaloy1049]

@@MTNMT265Say a family of new converts becomes members of a church; their children are 16, 13 and 6 years old. Should all three children be baptized without requiring a profession of faith?

[@interestedmeow]

Lots of theologians quotes. A little out-of-context Scripture sprinkled on a straw man at the end. Nice. Genesis 17 - one of those descendants happens to be Ishmael… Acts 16 - each of the household believed and each was saved, there is simply no promise in the original language nor in English of one’s belief saving another.

[@kodymorrison2662]

Am I the only one who cannot understand the point of blog an mablog and Jared's presentations as well? It seems very unclear what he is trying to say. It sounds like he was saying that all babies are regenerated. Is that what he is saying the reformed believe lol?

[@vanessaloy1049]

Infants can’t repent.

[@MTNMT265]

Who told you that?

[@vanessaloy1049]

@@MTNMT265 It’s common sense. They can’t speak.

[@gregstaton128]

Baptism doesn't SAVE

[@milesrupert4815]

The parents can repent. 12. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring. Genesis 17:12 39. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2:39

[@MTNMT265]

@@gregstaton128 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

[@jamesgasaway7784]

I'm a big fan of most of your stuff, but this is a big miss. Babies aren't examining themselves no matter how vigorously you engage in the gymnastics.

[@rontherrien7392]

But young ones 2-3 can know the truth and what sin is if taught properly and examine themselves. Infants are God's creatures and capable of knowing the truth. Have some faith in God's people young n old.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Unnecessary... they didn't for circumcision