On The Westminster Confession of Faith Regarding Baptism

[@bassistguy13]

I feel like this is the first time I’ve heard Dr. James White not articulate his opponents’ take well, or fully. I would point people who are interested in hearing a hearty discussion on this between Dr. White and Pastor Bill Shishko, debating on Long Island, NY.

[@oracleoftroy]

Agreed. About a year ago, there was a very brief aside in one of these clips where White touched on this issue, so I've been looking forward to a fuller take on White's disagreement with my side on this issue. I am rather disappointed, as he ignores or dismiss out of hand what I would consider to be the strongest supporters of my side. A lot of his critiques seem to have parallels for his side as well, so to act as if since the padeobaptist side has had disagreements among themselves is reason to switch to his side, ignoring that his own side has their own set of disagreements, just isn't convincing. One of the biggest things that appalls him (common among Baptists) is the idea that unregenerate people might receive baptism (the horror!), yet no human can know the heart, so even his credo baptism cannot prevent this. We are to see this as a showstopper for one side and something to shrug off and ignore for the other. He speaks of a consistency through the Bible, and I agree that this is a good thing, yet I have to note: our side has a consistency in who the covenant sign is applied to, whereas he mysteriously wants to change that without Biblical warrant; a clear inconsistency. I'm really curious what evidence of early church practice he references, as I thought it was fairly universally agreed on by all but a few fringe scholars that the practice of the early church included infant baptism. His whole section on 28.1 completely ignores that Baptism is the sign and seal, and then acts horrified that it teaches that is actually this or that thing. The sign for Boston is not Boston, likewise the sign of regeneration is not regeneration. I'm actually surprised that White missed this basic fact, and can only assume it is because he is speaking off the cuff, because I can't imagine this would have slipped past him if he were trying to address this in a more scholarly fashion. I wish he had stuck solely to the Westminster position; a few times he wandered to other views, and didn't always address the Westminster view, but I do greatly appreciate that he walked through the confession and gave his thoughts.

[@myles7446]

@@oracleoftroy you nailed it. As a recent paedobaptist convert this DL by White was pretty frustrating. For starters, he should have started at WCF 27, not 28. His entire argument was predicated on baptism being the “sign and seal of regeneration, newness in Christ, etc”. Yet, he completely misdefines that. He equates the sign with the thing the sign signifies. Meaning, if baptism is the sign of regeneration is MUST mean that regeneration has taken place so you are assuming the child is regenerate. All because he doesn’t understand what the framers of the WCF meant when they said it’s a sign and seal. I love White, but on this topic his own tradition has caused him to be unable to process his own presuppositions regarding this position.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@myles7446 _"For starters, he should have started at WCF 27, not 28."_ Err, he did. I found it frustrating because WCF 27 is about the sacraments generally, and he was applying it to baptism in a way that ignored the specifics of each sacrament. This was the part where he kept saying, well if you do this for baptism, why not be consistent do this for communion? I was screaming in my head, "because the Bible says different things about the specific sacraments!" He might as well argue, "well if you get people wet when you baptize people, why not be consistent and get people wet when you take communion? Or reverse it, "if you feed them bread and wine for communion, why not feed them bread and wine for baptism?" Put that way, it's obvious why, the Bible makes very clear differences between the two sacraments. He completely ignored that what we see is that baptism is for the entire household of the believing head, and what we see for communion is that the recipient is to examine themselves before taking. I agree with the rest though.

[@28reynoldsburg]

@@oracleoftroy well, baptists do baptize the unregenerate. Sometimes a lot. But there aren't wanting to. Paedobaptists ALWAYS sprinkle unbelievers, unregenerate, non-confessing, unrepentant, infants who lack understanding. Every time. But they demand that adults confess their faith and show repentance, every time. Two different rituals. Thus inconsistent.

[@oracleoftroy]

​@@28reynoldsburg Well, you are trying to hold us to Baptist standards and marveling that we are inconsistent with standards we reject. But from the very beginning Presbyterians don't think we should baptized on the basis of something only God knows. Rather we baptized based on what we do know: are they a member in good standing in the church? Then baptize them! The infants of believers are behaving exactly how a good Christian ought at that age.

[@Pizarro1689]

Really want to see you and Doug debate on baptism

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

You must really wanna see Doug lose

[@MariusVanWoerden]

the Disciples baptized people coming from the gentiles and Jewish adults. So they said to the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” The Philippian jailor was saved but his household was also baptized.

[@Cts_99]

Believe and you will be saved, you and your household. Yes, if he believes he will be saved. If his household believes they will be saved.

[@supersurgelawncare]

Were his family saved by the jailers faith? How many babies were in the jailers household exactly?

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@supersurgelawncare how many 21 year Olds??

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@supersurgelawncare what did OIKOS mean to the first century Jewish audience ??

[@johnygoodwin3441]

Is that supposed to be an argument?

[@joev2223]

For the credo-baptists, how do you feel about baby dedications?

[@zacdredge3859]

I think they are fine. I wasn't dedicated but they were common by the time I left the Church I was raised in. Notably dedication was more about the covenant community committing to support the parents and be a blessing to their child than about any sort of guarantee about the child themself. I understood it as a prayer and a plea, not a promise from God who can answer prayer according to his will in all cases. Not sure if that's the way everyone who uses the terms sees it, just my 2 cents.

[@BurkMacklynFBI]

This was very helpful for me. Was being lead into covenantal baptism but am having doubts.

[@MTNMT265]

How do we know who the elect truly are? “Those who persevere to the end will be saved” The same goes for both infants and adults. We don’t truly know until the end

[@Cts_99]

Hmmm no we are given repeated tools to sift out wolves from the sheep. If we don’t know who are saved then we cannot gather together, exhort one another etc etc

[@tomtemple69]

@@Cts_99 sifting out wolves from sheep is about teachers.... we are not called to pull the wheat from tares, you have no right to expel any congregation member other than church discipline for sins against others or if they are trying to teach other false doctrine

[@tomtemple69]

exactly, that's why we baptize those who are a part of the VISIBLE church communion is for PROFESSING believers

[@jimstiles26287]

How old was Polycarp when he was martyred? Was he in his nineties or his eighties?

[@reformedcatholic457]

In his 80's.

[@pakerossi9940]

When I first joined my church, PCA in DFW. I had this discussion with the associate pastor. He told me about the correlation between circumcision and baptism. In that moment it hit me that he was right, when you were born into the ethnic people of God you were marked with circumcision. Now, when we are born again, we are marked with baptism. And then I said to him “but infants aren’t born again.”which he quickly replied “well, OK, OK it’s not a perfect one to one correlation.” Though I thoroughly disagree with them, I have been a member of that church since 2021. They are faithful to the gospel, and to the exposition of the word of God.

[@BurkMacklynFBI]

The presbyterian church im trying to join wont make me a member because of it. They said I'm in sin for not baptizing my children and can't in good faith make me a member.

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@BurkMacklynFBI That's strange and not at all typical of a Presbyterian church. What denomination?

[@BurkMacklynFBI]

Heritage Reformed Presbyterian church ​@@ihiohoh2708

[@smileswelchsermons]

I am a 1689 guy who also goes to a Westminster Confession church. I'm right there with you that my brothers at church are faithful to the gospel and to the exposition of God's Word. I love my church wholeheartedly, and they wholeheartedly love me... so much so that they are soon sending me and some others out to plant a church, knowing that as the lead pastor, I am planting a church that holds to the 1689's view of Scripture. I'm so thankful that true love can reign in the midst of this disagreement between us. That is a praise to God.

[@pakerossi9940]

@@ihiohoh2708 I agree, at least that hasn't been my experience in the PCA.

[@mary-janechambers3596]

I love the wisdom of Doug Wilson but I can’t understand how he can believe in infant baptism because of the covenant. It robs the child of declaring his own faith and repentance through his own decision to be baptized.

[@brendanfox8945]

I disagree - if it is not valid the believer will discern this and take steps to rectify the situation. Noone is robbed of anything.

[@davidbalicki3567]

He must speak the party line. Its an interconnected system. Remove one piece and the system collapses. This system is built upon a false premise. Then there's ego = can't admit we are wrong.

[@kevingodinho3813]

Baptism isn't a profession of faith. It's a sign of the covenant. It is something God does to us. Once we change the way we understand the direction of baptism, it changes everything. An infant didn't declare their faith through circumsicion, yet they were circumcised. Believer's children are included in the covenant. Therefore, should be included in the covenant signs of baptism and Supper, along with everything else Christian.

[@johfu4705]

@@kevingodinho3813 biblical arguments are much more persuasive than theological ones; if one is clever with words, one could make all sought of theological arguments that are not biblical

[@oracleoftroy]

@@johfu4705 True. But at the same time, most people just want a verse that says "thou shall baptize babies" and don't want to put in the work of examining the whole of scripture if it isn't spelled out as clearly as that. I think the case for infant baptism is at least as good as the case for the trinity, but both require actually understanding and harmonizing the whole of scripture in a way that gives people an excuse to dismiss it as being extra-scriptural. I think a careful reading of Gen 17 followed by Peter's speech in Acts 2, noting the clear parallels between the two passages, makes a fairly solid case, especially when we notice that the practice of the apostles was to baptize the whole household when the head of household believed. God's covenant always worked in a federal way, so it isn't surprising that the sign of the covenant also works in a federal way. Plus, Colossians 2 shows a pretty strong collocation between their meaning in terms of covenant signs. And the thing that bugs me most, though I don't think it is a great argument per se, is that we read in the NT about several controversies that arose because of the change of practice between the old and new covenant: kosher laws and the eating of unclean foods, whether circumcision should continue, the inclusion of gentiles, etc. These things were so huge that nearly every NT book addresses them and there was a council convened in Jerusalem to address them. Yet there was complete silence on the shift from including babies in the covenant sign to their removal. I'd really like a convincing explanation of this from the baptist perspective. Despite how earth-shattering all the other changes were to the Jews, this one change supposedly went by without any issue whatsoever? It seems to me far more believable that there was no controversy because there was no change; babies were still to be given the covenant sign. Thus this is why restricting baptism only to believers comes rather late in church history and household baptism, including infants, was always the norm.

[@fredrolinners8903]

The household baptism of Cornelius Acts 11:14 and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household. (NASB) All those of the household who had believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 15:7; cf. 11:17) were water baptized (Acts 10:48). It requires belief to be water baptized

[@billyr9162]

Cornelius was not dipped in water.

[@tomtemple69]

they also spoke in tongues do you speak in tongues before baptism?

[@fredrolinners8903]

@@tomtemple69 Not all do (1 Corinthians 12:30), but it is if a gift for those IN THE CHURCH (1 Corinthians 12:28). This demonstrates these Gentiles were saved before their water baptism.

[@genericname7020]

​@@fredrolinners8903This is a great argument used against Rome and The East.

[@fredrolinners8903]

@@genericname7020 kzbin.info/www/bejne/baC7d2agptiBmbM

[@keithal1478]

The PCA Book of Church Order in chapter 56 and 57 covers baptism and the administration of those 'sealed' by the covenant. Soon after my regeneration in 1994 at 40 years old, I joined a PCA local body in Dallas Texas. I learned a lot from that experience. Enough to know I had to leave it for Gospel reasons. I left some years later upon realizing their fundamental, critically errant theology of infant baptism. I was raised Episcopalian and baptized as an infant and was believer baptized at 48 years old soon after leaving the PCA. The language of the PCA BoCO is a best confusing and least establishes a third category of man ... going to be saved versus saved or unsaved. This is arguably another gospel, one of works that purports some Efficacy. It empties the biblical meaning of Covenant of Grace and the Seal of the Covenant. Regardless of the 'winsome' words of Doug Wilson and the Federal Visionists, infant baptism casts great discord concerning biblical soteriology and worse. Affiliation in any respect with the Federal Vision crowd is a wrong-headed affection for their intellectualism which conflicts directly with biblical exegesis.

[@yvonnedoulos8873]

Fascinating, Keith! Thank you for sharing your experience! I am currently a member of a PCA church and have little that I agree with in their official documents. I began listening to this thinking I may agree with Dr. White’s perspective up until he began talking about the ‘elect’. That’s when I tuned out. May finish later just to understand his position and his arguments or maybe I’ll go pull weeds. ;-)

[@davidbalicki3567]

that's the language of covenantal theology. You are brought into the covenant by ritual - and - as long as you don't break any rules of the covenant - potentially - you will receive all the blessings of the covenant.

[@keithal1478]

To David Balicki... what you describe is consistent with my understanding of "Reformed Covenant Theology" and in so many slippery words and implication erects a works based, man-instituted, alternative gospel, which Paul calls out as anathema. Presbyterians of whom I have read or spoken have 6" thick steel blinders welded over by their puffed up intellectualism and systematics. At least Federal Visionists are errantly consistent which inevitably lands them into the rank heresy of Anglican baptismal regeneration. My view is based on having been an Episcopalian for 40 years and read the 39 Articles. Reforned Episcopalianism is a theological contradictpapery... thinly cloaked popery.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@keithal1478 You are right that such would be an obvious conclusion _were this covenant made in the normal fashion,_ but you are leaving out one of the key pieces: who passed between the animals when the covenant was formed in Gen 15? What is supposed to happen is that both parties pass through, indicating that if they violate the covenant that party would die, and thus the works based salvation you describe would hold. But what actually happened is that God passed through for himself and then again for man, thus saying that if God violated the covenant, God would die, and if man violated the covenant, God would die. All of us violate the covenant, and so all of us deserve death, and yet Christ dies in our place. When the apostles write about baptism, they make this explicit by relating the sign of the covenant to the flood. Those under the water died, but those who are raised in Christ are made alive and are as such saved from the flood. Thus, the thing signified by the sign of the covenant is true regardless of whether the recipient believes or not, we all deserve death and are indeed dead in their sins already, and our only hope of salvation is being raised by Christ. Our hope cannot be in works we do to keep the covenant because we already failed, it is in Christ delivering us from of the waters of judgement.

[@signposts6189]

The debate about “infant baptism” vs “believer's (read: adult) baptism” is in respects misleading. Unfortunately, this lingua franca by its very nature actually misses the mark because it clouds the issue and hems people into an unnecessary impasse. The dispute makes it about age, when the issue is really about agreement with God's truth by the baptismal candidate no matter their age. James White says "nowhere in the New Testament do we see evidence of the ordinances solemnly engaging us to service in Christ apart from faith and repentance." Well that's quite right. But here's the thing, children of Christians are born into a faith and worldview by which they will be raised and strategically taught the things of God from infancy. The kids bear no opposition to the faith of their parents, and ordinarily grow into it as their own because it is their own for as long as they live and don't come to abandon it. As such for all intents and purposes, they will be raised Christian, and should be considered Christian seeing as “You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.”.(2 Timothy 3:15). The specter of abandoning the faith later on as grownups may be brought up but is rather irrelevant to those formative years, and really speaks to another matter entirely. The only thing adult apostasy of someone who grew up “Christian” shows is “These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.” (1 John 2:19). The Bible doesn't need to have a doctrine of "infant baptism" as if children are a separate category of people in the Church of Christ. The Bible nowhere treats children anything like that. And that's a good thing. The children of Christian parents are in principle regarded as holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). They're seen as belonging to God (Ephesians 6:1-4). This is why there are very specific commands specially directed at children as well as instructions to parents about their being brought up in the fear of the Lord (Colossians 3:20-21). This training of kids in righteousness by Christian parents is really tantamount to making disciples of them as per Christ's command in the great commission. The reality is children in the church are part of the church community. Ergo, baptizing them shouldn't be denied to them on the flimsy pretext that they can't repent or believe when the Bible teaches otherwise. The fact that children are regarded as holy and fitting candidates of discipleship a la Matthew 28:19 by virtue of their being brought up with the discipline and instruction that comes from God says so. The simple truth is that the idea that little children can't repent or believe and therefore shouldn't be baptized has no biblical support whatsoever. In fact the Bible teaches the opposite. Jesus made it clear that "anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” (Mark 10:15). In other words "unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4). If Jesus presented a little kid as humble before a bunch of grownups, what grounds does anyone have to think no little kids can show humility? Again, Jesus taught that children could as surely fall into sin as they could turn from their sins provided they were taught to. This is the most explicit reference to the idea that kids can repent and believe like grownups do seeing as adults are being encouraged to be like little kids who turn from their sins by Christ Himself. After all, Christ did also say, "And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me. But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matthew 18:5-6). Catch that? You know, the line "these little ones who TRUSTS in ME?" Try and explain that away with the little kids can't repent and believe spiel. I bid you good luck with that. Fact is Jesus already opened up the kingdom of Heaven to little kids when He said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.” (Matthew 19:14 NLT). These words make one thing clear: Children can and should be brought to Jesus because the kingdom of heaven also belongs to them. Keep in mind that Jesus is talking about the same kingdom of heaven He told Nicodemus no one could see or enter unless they're born again of water and the spirit (see John 3:3-6). Translation: children can in fact experience being born again according to Jesus. Here He also commands that no one stop children from being brought to Him. And sorry, He just ain't talking about so-called baby dedication here. The kingdom of God belonging to children is a salvation issue and not a mere dedication issue, which in the churches that practice "baby dedication" is about the adults doing it and not really about the children being brought to Jesus. God saving people ain't just a grownup thing y'all. There's just so much more on the side of baptizing children of Christians no matter their age than the side that exempts little children from participating fully in the commonwealth of believers. Imagine being told you're only a citizen of the country you were born only after you grow up even though you've lived there since birth. What country ever treats its infants and children as non-citizens? Our heavenly citizenship is no different. The errors of the "libertarian freedom" philosophy are the only reason most Christians end up reading unwarranted notions that exempt little kids who are in practice already part of a given church community from being fully afforded the grace and privileges of baptism as full members of the body of Christ.

[@kevingodinho3813]

Well said!

[@JohnHanly]

Brother, I appreciate your extensive thought on this subject, but must respectfully disagree... The first statement, "The debate about 'infant baptism' vs 'believer's (read: adult) baptism' is in respects misleading", is itself misleading! This might be a straw-man or a red herring, I'm afraid. I've been a member of several local, independent, and / or non-denominational congregations that strongly held to a position of believer's baptism. I observed children as young as perhaps 7 or 8 yrs. old making a confession of the gospel while they were in the baptismal or pool, moments before they were immersed! So no, this is not about age as you asserted...it's about believing the good news before identifying with Christ's death, burial and resurrection in baptism. Remember that the Reformers spoke of the *noticia* as an aspect of faith--i.e., the facts re: Christ that are the basis of our faith. In my limited knowledge of the debate, it seems the argument is not about children who can "repent and believe", but about infants who cannot repent and believe! Could it be possible that you have now expanded the "debate" or discussion to something neither side is talking about? Let's make sure we're not "missing the mark", or holding a position that "clouds the issue" as you've said, by the equivocation of "infants" and "children". God bless!

[@mkshffr4936]

I use the term Covenant Baptism as I think it more accurately represents the actual issue.

[@signposts6189]

@@JohnHanly Thanks for the response brother. You say "it seems the argument is not about children who can "repent and believe", but about infants who cannot repent and believe!" Infants are by definition children, and are considered as such in Scripture. There is no reason to think when Jesus said let the little children come to me and do not hinder them that this in any way excluded infants. Jesus meant any child whatever their age. Scripture nowhere teaches that infants cannot repent and believe nor excludes them from baptism on the pretext that they're infants. The exclusion only comes from people who believe in "believers' baptism" who assume that infants can't repent and believe because they're infants merely because they themselves cannot discern the repentance. But this isn't about what you, me or any other person can discern in an infant's profession but about what God Himself is able to do in the infant and the instructions He's already given in how they should be brought up by His people. Don't you think it telling that children no matter their age aren't exempted from obeying God's commandments? Honour your father and mother is a command to all children no matter their age. It is a command that applies even to infants, and every Christian parent in their own way has to teach them to obey it. The children of believers are God's holy children upon whom repentance and faith are still commanded as duties they have to uphold. They're just not the unique province of adults or young ones we assume capable of exercising them. All infants are still sinners in need of salvation by grace through faith in Christ just like everyone else. God can and does save anyone including infants. Christian parents are tasked with raising their kids in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Why? Because this is the way God ordinarily grows and brings to fruition the faith He deposits in them from the womb as the holy children of His people who ultimately belong to Him. Being an infant provides no impediment to God teaching wisdom even to infants. Even David observed, "But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there" (Psalm 51:6 NLT). God can and does teach wisdom to infants even when they're still in the womb. How does He do it? Who knows? But Scripture clearly states He can and does do it. Grace to you bro.

[@signposts6189]

@@mkshffr4936 I never really think of adjectives to add to baptism as qualifiers. But I see your point.

[@langer747]

The Lord has got to deliver us as much from a Christian system as from an anti-Christian system it is just as big a thing as to deliver us out of the power of darkness T. Austin sparks

[@davidbalicki3567]

Then why take on such a heavy yoke?

[@davidbalicki3567]

@@duranbailiff5337 describe what that yoke is, and its burden please.

[@hiker-uy1bi]

Does James White believe only the regenerate are entitled to baptism? His position is hard to follow.

[@DjSostre7]

He's a reformed baptist. This isn't hard. We have Google for a reason. What do they believe? They believe a BELIEVER is the only one qualified for baptism. Not infants who cannot believe. Simple

[@hiker-uy1bi]

@@DjSostre7 How do you explain the myriad of people who are baptized as adults but then fall away from the church? if only "believers" are qualified for baptism, why would a "believer" ever fall away?

[@DjSostre7]

@@hiker-uy1bi did I say that I am a reformed baptist? Did I say that? I was explaining to you what James white believes.

[@DjSostre7]

@@hiker-uy1bi get some brains bro.

[@DordtyHylemorph]

Several Reformed figures (including those among the Church of England) have held forms of Baptismal Regeneration. It’s one of several positions allowed by the Reformed confessions, but not required. E.g. Cornelius Burgess (Westminster divine), John Davenant (Dordt divine), Samuel Ward (Dordt divine), etc. "[Baptism is] the first sacrament of the Christian church, by which upon the covenanted, having been received into the family of God by the external sprinkling of water in the name of the Trinity, remission of sins and regeneration by the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit are bestowed and sealed,” as we gather from the passages Mt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3, 4; Tit. 3:5, 6; Acts 2:38." Francis Turretin, *Institutes of Elenctic Theology*, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 3 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-1997), 380.

[@doctor1alex]

*forms* of baptismal regeneration I accept yes, but surely not the typical understanding of baptismal regeneration as it’s typically understood?

[@DordtyHylemorph]

@@doctor1alex If you mean ex opere operato efficacy, then no.

[@alphablitz1024]

So James's thinking here is that in the household baptism, the men being baptized more likely than not would have withheld their little children?

[@mimz1555]

Surely the elect are the ones who have RECEIVED baptism in the Holy Spirit, nothing to do with our own doing?

[@davidbalicki3567]

the Holy Spirit did it

[@bigtobacco1098]

But do we baptize the elect only ??

[@TheKingsCamp]

Choc Knox is gonna have to change his outro now 😄✌🏼

[@Soli_Deo_Gloria_.]

As far as the Westminster, I would not affirm complete and all encompassing cessation and therefore put God in a box, but nor would I affirm miracles as normative, nor is infant baptism a hill I would die on. Reminds me of the old RC and JMac back and forths. *:-)*

[@TheJpep2424]

No one puts God in a box. God chose to work in ways for a temporary time and now works through scripture.

[@davidbalicki3567]

is there a hill you would die on?

[@keitharchie8120]

With this you not only weaken the case for particular redemption. With the idea that water baptism is a “seal” of the covenant of grace, regeneration and remission of sins you strengthen the synergistic interpretation of the gospel. If water baptism contributes to salvation the “reformed” faith is a works gospel. And you are so correct that the RCC must be kept in mind when looking at the confessions because the language of the church applying a “seal” of salvation is THE great deception.

[@lindaw2418]

Baby baptism isn’t biblical!

[@MariusVanWoerden]

Abraham Kuyper was teaching Baptismal presumptuous regeneration. So when a child is baptized we have to presume that they are born again till they show the opposite. This is a Heresy. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. Baptism is not the new birth. The old testament speaks about adults converting to Christians being baptized

[@billyr9162]

Is how can dipping somebody in water be a sign of a covenant? That's one extremely temporary sign.

[@tomtemple69]

all those in the church receive baptism only the ones who can discern the body can partake in communion

[@Given119]

Love my Baptist family but they completely rely on confessional baptisms and skip right over the implications of rejecting the Federal Headship position. 🤷🏼‍♂️ I enjoy Dr. White's ministry too. Baptize your babies y'all, or stop training them up as one who is elect, so as to be consistent in your argument against pado baptism.

[@jgeph2.4]

Amen

[@oracleoftroy]

Heh, I've noticed that. It's funny to me that they tell me that we shouldn't baptize children because they aren't believers, but completely miss that they shouldn't bring their children to church either for the same reason. They act like their children are members of the covenant in every other way except in applying the covenant sign.

[@jgeph2.4]

@@oracleoftroy it helps make understanding of those apostasy warning passages as well . Just like as in Israel there can be members of the church outwardly but not inwardly .

[@jgeph2.4]

Good listen kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6e6m2qaYr99atU

[@Given119]

@@oracleoftroy bingo

[@Mason_O]

I would assume “worthy receivers” would be the children of the regenerate?

[@travissharon1536]

Wow, it's refreshing to see James thinking clearly. I wish Augustine had never done his thing. Edit: he just had to fit in his total house of cards doctrine of the elect, dang.

[@StarAccount-km1rt]

Calvinism's perverted doctrine of "Predestination" is striking similar if not identical to the Islamic doctrine of Fatalism? 1) The Islamic Surah Ibrahim 14:4 - "And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and ALLAH SENDS ASTRAY(THEREBY) WHOM HE WILLS AND GUIDES WHOM HE WILLS. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise." 2) The Islamic Surah 2:6-7 states, "It is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. ALLAH HAS SET A SEAL ON THEIR HEARTS AND ON THEIR HEARING. AND ON THEIR EYES IS A VEIL; GREAT IS THE CHASTISEMENT THEY INCUR." 3) John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, section 5 - "SOME ARE PREORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE, OTHERS TO ETERNAL DAMNATION, and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death." 4) "That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He PREDESTINATED TO EVERLASTING LIFE, as the most merciful bestower of grace; while to those whom He HAS PREDESTINATED TO ETERNAL DEATH, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith." - Augustine, City of God, On the Soul and its Origin, Book 4, Chapter 16. 5) In Islam, in the 2nd stage of "Taqdeer" (fate), it states that "Allah made a divine decree after the creation of Adam. Allah took out all of the progeny of Adam (i.e. all of the humans from the beginning of time until the end of time), and asked them "Am I not your Lord?" and all of the humans responded "We testify that You are our Lord!" THEN ALLAH DECREED TO THEM WHO SHALL GO TO PARADISE AND WHO SHALL GO TO HELL." 6) In Islam, Allah is exalted and pleased as he sends people to hell: this is the fatalistic claim of Islam. Fatalism is a belief that events are fixed in advance for all time in such a manner that human beings are powerless to change them. In this case, Allah will send to heaven whomever he pleases, and send to hell whomever he pleases. ("Unveiling Islam: An Insider’s Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs" pages 31-32, by authors Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2002.) That is why Satan has raised up such gifted false teachers in our day, that have the power to blind un suspecting Christians. The lazy Christian. The Christian that does not go to the Word and does not "ASK" the Holy Spirit for guidance. So these wolves in sheep's clothing like, John Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, Lawson, James White, Voddie Baucham, RC Sproul are ravaging the sheep. They are not brothers, they are Satan's finest false teachers. Truth in Love

[@billyr9162]

1 Corinthians 1:17 [17]For Christ sent me *not to baptize* , but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. If Christ commanded the apostles to baptize how could he possibly say Christ didn't send him to baptize? Answer: Because the baptism Christ commanded was not dipping people in water! And Paul was dipping people in water as a proselyte baptism and realized it was wrong. So we quit. That's why he was glad he didn't baptize them.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

What are you on about? Your assertion "Answer: Because the baptism Christ commanded was not dipping people in water!" is patently false. Christ was baptised by full immersion in the Jordan River.

[@billyr9162]

@@TheLincolnrailsplitt That was a proselyte baptism. I said that. If Jesus had commanded a proselyte baptism then Paul would have baptized everybody. Duh

[@billyr9162]

If baptism is a sign and seal ordained by Jesus Christ why was Paul glad he didn't baptize anyone? And what were the apostles doing baptizing people before Christ had even ordained it?

[@billyr9162]

@Ryan Buikema .. That doesn't have anything to do with my questions.

[@billyr9162]

@Ryan Buikema No it's not why he was baptized. And it has nothing to do with what I'm asking. Not really. Only a little maybe.

[@billyr9162]

@Ryan Buikema But if it was ordained by Jesus he should do it because he was commanded. Duh! Mat. 28

[@billyr9162]

@Ryan Buikema The point I'm getting at is that Jesus did not command his disciples to baptize with water. I know that's a long standing tradition. But I don't think it's true. That's why Paul was glad he didn't baptize anyone. Because he wasn't baptizing them like the protestants think baptism is. Paul and the apostles were doing a proselyte baptism for a while. But they stopped. The baptism Jesus commanded was a spiritual baptism. And baptizing them with the word of God. He even says teaching them the commandments. That's the baptism Jesus was talking about. But the long standing tradition makes protestants freak out when I say that. They don't think they could have been wrong for all these years.

[@michaeladner5485]

@@billyr9162 Paul Baptist Crispus and Gaius

[@gsaray123]

The Bereans searched the Old Testament and found that children were included in household baptisms. If the apostles were baptists, the Bereans would not accept their teachings. Hence, every New Testament teaching must be based on Old Testament principles. In Psalm 77, were not children of the visible church baptized? (cf. 1 Cor 10) All the ordinances of the Old Testament were not destroyed in the sense that they were gone completely - in administration (like circumcision), yes - but not in principle. The ordinances were replaced by the person of Jesus Christ. In principle, children ought to receive the sign of being part of the visible church. How strange to see children of Baptists serving then baptized (can an unclean person serve God?). Should someone be baptized then serve or serve then be baptized (a works salvation)? Baptists to be consistent should omit children from church - give children a choice to choose to go to the visible local church!

[@abckids3476]

The Bible says there's only one baptism. That's not dipping in water.

[@gsaray123]

@@abckids3476 Correct. I'll not sidetrack to the mode of baptism - both Baptists and Presbyterians are partially in error. What the Baptists fail to distinguish: children of the visible and children of the invisible church. Also, on the topic of whether babies are to be baptized, the principle begins in the Old Testament and not the New. Jesus and the apostles (and the noble Bereans) based their understanding of whether children of Christian parents (of the visible church) were baptized in the Old Testament.

[@abckids3476]

@@gsaray123 Still sounds like you think baptism is with water.

[@gsaray123]

@@abckids3476 Outward baptism: water Inward baptism: Spirit's irresistible work of spiritual rebirth

[@abckids3476]

@@gsaray123 That's 2 baptisms. The Bible says there's only one baptism.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

So, do you still teach trinity, brother?

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

@NicoCocoGreetings. Well, it really doesn't Say so in Scripture. The trinity is a man-made, ancient, Roman Catholic doctrine.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

@NicoCoco Thank you for your reply, Nico. But actually, the verses you presented do Not exemplify a trinity: Number One: "HEAR, OH ISRAEL, THE LORD ( Singular), OUR GOD (Singular), IS ONE ( Singular)." Jesus himself, in MARK12:29, Confirms this. In the Bible, GOD is always referred to in SINGULAR termonology; HE HIS HIM YOUR THOU THINE I AM...Not, WE ARE! 1COR.8:6, is, in fact stating the OPPOSITE of a trinity, my friend; "But there is ONE GOD---the FATHER, from WHOM are all things, and we exist For ( or, because OF) HIM; and, one Lord ( Cap. L, Small .ord), Jesus Christ ( the SON of the FATHER) by, or rather THROUGH whom all things came..." Be careful with this verse, because if you fail to understand the intended context, you'll get the wrong interpretation. You must determine the Last part of this verse according to the Context of the FIRST part----and the First half has already told us WHO GOD IS, and that would be the FATHER, Not the Son! The second part of Vs.6 is simply saying that Jesus was brought forth BY his FATHER to bring us Salvation via...the Cross! The words, "We EXIST through him," are just pointing toward the fact that we have "Life," Spiritual life Through Christ because he' "Obeyed" the FATHER in all that was required of him. Read JOHN 20:17; (Jesus speaking); "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the FATHER ( meaning---After his resurrection),...I am returning to my FATHER, and Your FATHER...to MY GOD, and Your GOD.." If you truly understand this verse, you will see, all by ITSELF, it Contradicts your predetermined rendering of every single Vs. you offered---but there are More: Read JOHN 5:19; ( Jesus himself speaking). "I tell you the TRUTH---the Son can do NOTHING by himself; he can only do what he 'Sees ( in a Spiritual sense) his FATHER do- ing..." Vs. 22 tells us that it is/was the FATHER that has, "ENTRUSTED," or, Gave Jesus the Power to Judge. This also proves that Christ is NOT GOD. But read Vs.26: "For as the ( My) FATHER has life in HIMSELF, so HE GRANTED ( did you Get that?) the SON to have Life in himself.." What are we seeing here, my friend? It is the "ONE TRUE GOD ( JOHN 17:3)) Who has GRANTED, or, GIVEN life to Jesus...Not the Other way around. This proves Jesus is Not GOD, and there IS no trinity. Go down to verse 30. Vs. 30 Proves conclusively that Jesus is Not GOD: (Jesus speaking) "By myself I can do NOTHING ( did you Catch that?), I judge only as I hear---and my judgment is just, for I seek Not to please my- self...but HIM WHO SENT ME." QUESTION: WHO "Sent" Who? ANSWER: The FATHER Sent HIS Son. Verse 36 tells us that it is/was Jesus' FATHER that has, "...Given him the very Work to finish.." Vs.43; "I have come in my FATHER'S NAME." Jesus is NOT the FATHER. He is Not the HOLY SPIRIT. GOD the FATHER is the One True GOD---and GOD the FATHER is the One and Only HOLY SPIRIT. Jesus Proclaims in Vs. 44, that..."Praise comes from the ONLY GOD..." And he was NOT referring to himself. JOHN 6:27. Tells us that it is GOD the FATHER that has, "Placed HIS Seal of APPROVAL ( on the SON/Jesus)." Read verse 37: "All that the FATHER gives me will Come to me..." Do you see a Pattern here, Nico? It is the FATHER that is doing All the GIVING! I will return in a bit to address more of your Scriptures.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

@NicoCoco Take a Closer look at GAL.3:20: A "Mediator" is one who STANDS IN for another. The Last part of the verse echoes both DEUT.6:4, and, MARK 12:29, which is referring to the One True GOD---the FATHER, Not Jesus. If you can determine context, you would know that is the Correct rendering of the verse. Jesus is the Mediator, or, the Speaker for that which the FATHER gives him. 1TIM.2:5, is simply repeating the very Same truth. There is but One GOD, and One representative of that One GOD---Jesus! GENESIS 1:1, and 26, have been sorely mistranslated for years. A number of trinitatians have since admitted, these are not True Trinity verses. And the Hebrew word, ELOHIM, is Not a plurality in NUMBER; It is a definitive word used in much the same way as, ADONAI. ADONAI is a Hightened form of "LORD." ELOHIM is not a plural- ity in Number---it is an All encompassing Hebrew word relating to the "Manifold Glory" of our GOD. In other words, ELOHIM is what we call, "A Plurality of MAJESTY." It is Scriptures way of Declaring the MANY ways GOD reveals, and "MANIFESTS" HIS Infinite Power and Glory. But there IS no "3 Persons" of GOD! There is but One HOLY SPIRIT---GOD the FATHER. Read JOHN 10:29. But read verse 25 First! "... The Miracles I do IN MY FATHER'S NAME, speak FOR me.." Verse 29. (Jesus, talking about the Disciples AND us!). "My FATHER, Who has GIVEN them to me, is GREATER than All." Jesus is including himSELF in that! WHO is "Greater?" The FATHER., JOHN 10:36. Jesus Proclaims he is, "GOD'S Son.." What does Vs. 37 Say? "Do NOT believe me unless I do what my FATHER DOES.." According to this verse, Nico---WHO is GOD, and Who is the SON of GOD? JOHN 11:4, Says, "...It is for GOD'S Glory.." And it was Christ who was referring to his FATHER/GOD. JOHN 12. Makes reference to the Coming crucifixion. The last Part of Vs.26 says; "My FATHER will Honor the one who serves me." Verse 27 is where Jesus is asking to be, "..Saved from the hour." Meaning, the Hour of his Crucifixion. Read JOHN 12:49. "For I did not speak of my OWN accord---but the FATHER who Sent me, Commanded me what to Say, and How to Say it." QUESTION: WHO is "Commanding" Who, what to say? ANSWER: GOD the FATHER is Commanding Christ what to say, and how to Say it. I will return later. GOD bless.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

@NicoCoco In MATT.3:16,17, The "Spirit of GOD," came down, "As a dove..." Number One; This does NOT mean a Literal Dove Came down...it simply means the Spirit, or, "Anointing" of the FATHER came down gently, and Covered Jesus. There are Not 3 Persons here. There IS but One Literal GOD. Ask yourself, if there are actually Three Persons of GOD---Then which One is "GREATER?" How many HOLY SPIRITS do you believe in, Nico? Is Jesus the FATHER? NO! Is Jesus the HOLY SPIRIT? NO! There IS only One HOLY SPIRIT...Guess Who that IS? You guessed it! GOD the FATHER! As for MATT.28:19. This is yet another example of preconcep- tion, and bad Theology. MATT.28:19, is Not teaching a trinity---it is an example of how we can Pray. When we pray, we can approach the FATHER; We Can refer to Him as YAHWEH, or, JEHOVAH, or, ELOHIM. Or, We can Pray, "In the Name of Jesus Christ." We can even Say, "Oh HOLY SPIRIT," which is GOD Himself! How do we Know this isn't a trinitatian verse? Read the verse preceding it...Vs.18: ( Jesus speaking). "ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME." QUESTION: WHO "Gave" Who this..."Authority?"

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

@Dominic Sadly, he is quite screwed up.

[@stevie6621]

Water baptism was never part of Paul's gospel and that is what most Christians have failed to understand. Who knows how many denominations have been made because of this.

[@billyr9162]

What do you mean?

[@--i-am-root]

@@billyr9162 they sound like a hyper dispensationalist. Some beleive there are 2-7 "gospels" despite Paul saying there is only one.

[@billyr9162]

@@--i-am-root What does not being water baptism have to do with that?

[@--i-am-root]

@@billyr9162 sounds like he's saying "Paul's Gospel" (what they consider the gospel to the gentiles, and I think the only gospel that doesn't need works according to them), doesn't prescribe water baptism in any form.

[@billyr9162]

@@--i-am-root I don't think Jesus commanded the apostles to dip anybody in water at all. Is that what you mean?

[@squirrelandchick9484]

My only issue with the baptist stand is when a church will not allow an adult, "baptised" as a child, then confirmed, i.e., a believer, from taking communion. You see, I believe the prebytarians are wrong to withhold adult anabaptism through legalism and the baptists wrong to withhold the bread and wine through legalism.

[@berglen100]

Galatian was wrote years before the other gospels, Paul proved the OT was allegory, the name of Paul and Mark, Mark, Luke, John were allegory also. Divine meanings is thought to be secular history it wasn't.

[@Deco.Servant.of.God.]

One of the reason before why people worship idols is because at that time there was kind person who is a pious or a prophet at that time who tell to a nation about goodness and about God to worship god alone and to follow the law of god. after there died, people of the nation miss them so much until there make a idols of them so that there remember him and to remember of the good teaching about the law of god. by time to time after the new generation of the nation there don't know much about the idols that their father Glorify them so there start worshipping the idols for goodness like their father do before. After time by time their worship the idols and claim the idols is the god of them. This happen not in one nation but to a many nation before that have different language in a different places that each places god send for them a prophet with their language on this world before. And after time by time people change the teaching and the message of the prophet. Until god send the last final prophet for the hole humankind that is prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. 1) In islam have to believe that Jesus peace be upon him is a messenger of God and there are many messengers of God. example like moses and abraham and so on. We call them prophets ,some prophets have some power given by God. All prophets are human beings and there worship God and there bring the same message to humankind by the instruction of God to worship God the one and only and not to worship the stone or the idols or making partners with God. The Angel of Jibril is the angel that give the message to the prophet from God. 2) There are many prophets because when God send a prophet to humankind, by time through time people change the message and the teaching of the prophet until the religion is spoiled and there make partners with God and worship others then God again. That Is why God send another prophet to bring back the correct massage again for the humankind and that is why there are many religions that are wrong and worshipping wrong God 😉. 3) prophet Muhammad💖 is the last final messenger of God to bring back the message again and to stop the arabs land from worshipping the idols and the stone and making partners with God. Also for the hole humankind. 4) God the one and only have said in the Quran that only islam is the religion that is accepted in the side of God and islam means peace and submission to the will of God. And Muslim means the followers. And all Prophets are muslim. And God the one and only in arabic we call it (Allah). And islam is a religion of all Prophets from the beginning of humankind that is prophet adam to the last prophet that is prophet muhammad. Peace be upon them all. 5) so worship God the one and only (Allah) and do not worship the idols or the stone or the prophet or the jin or me or satan or the animals or the angel accept (Allah) the one and only. 6) And on this World is a test for humankind to seek and accept the truth and do righteous deeds or do not want and do bad. And only God the one and only (Allah) can give to his creatures the right path who wants it. hello , I want to share my W.h.a.t.s.A.p.p nomber so that I can share a link of my playlist to you. it's my favorite video and I want share to someone. it's interesting too about my playlist and it's also will benefit you. I hope someone will and can be my friend.... my W.h.a.t.s.A.p.p nomber is [phone] can I have your Whats.App ;)

[@Deco.Servant.of.God.]

😅

[@billyr9162]

Mark 16:15-16 [15]And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [16]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. The great commission in the book of mark. They have more reason than the age of the text to want it gone. Cause it throws a monkey wrench into the whole water baptism thing.

[@fredrolinners8903]

The same with drinking deadly poison.

[@billyr9162]

@@fredrolinners8903 Deadly poison does not have anything to do with baptism

[@fredrolinners8903]

@@billyr9162 Not good to base any doctrine on such a disputed text.

[@billyr9162]

@@fredrolinners8903 What doctrine?

[@jamessheffield4173]

Exodus 2:10 “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.”

[@isaiahburridgemusic]

Are you using this verse to support Paedobaptist theology?

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@isaiahburridgemusic Yup. Matt 21 16And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

[@isaiahburridgemusic]

“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:14‭-‬15 ESV Imagine if tried to make that support Credobaptism... That's how absurd your argument is.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@isaiahburridgemusic Notice: me and my house. I believe Joshua had children. Luke !:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

[@oracleoftroy]

@@jamessheffield4173 As a padeobaptist, I don't think any of those verses are particularly strong, except to show that God loves children. I think a stronger case is made by looking at the parallel between Gen 17 and Peter's speech in Acts 2 and how the apostles applied it by baptizing the whole household. Unfortunately that doesn't fit into a pithy quote.

[@billyr9162]

If the great commission by Jesus was to go dip people in water then when is the last time anybody reading this dipped somebody in water? I would guess that 90% of the people reading this never dipped anybody in water If Jesus commanded people to dip in water and you're not dipping in water then you're not obeying Jesus. The whole water baptism thing is dumb. I don't understand why people miss what Jesus really said.

[@berglen100]

You were born of God before creation, you wake and save yourself! Phil 2:Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Luke 17:20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[@davidbalicki3567]

you were born of your parents. That's why Jesus says, you must be born again, not of your parents, but of God. Not everyone will be born again. Jesus is the Savior, not myself. I cannot save myself. You cannot save yourself. No one can save themselves. If a person is born again, then the new birth is a new spirit. This new spirit is part of the kingdom of God. No regeneration = no new spirit. No new spirit = die in your transgressions and sins. Final Judgment Day - punished for those transgressions and sins by being thrown into the Lake of Fire.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

This is nonsense

[@davidbalicki3567]

@@toolegittoquit_001 this is the word of God

[@ctdprather2064]

Anabaptists = grape juice and experientialism. Gnosis 🤷‍♂️