Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized

[@Andrewski8506]

Great video! It is concise, biblical, and thorough. I am very encouraged by this! Thank you for doing it.

[@ChristiansQuoted]

Biblical? Exactly like the devil did in Eden and in the desert tempting Jesus. Uses the Word and perverts. Babies are born in sin full nature but do not sin. Because sin is the transgression of law (10 commandments which the catholic church have perverted and do break all the time e. G: images, Sabbath breaking etc) how can a baby kill steal use God's name in vain, break the Sabbath? Guess what... IT CAN'T. All people who were baptized in the Bible were grown ups and Jesus our Example when He was already a man. If a child is not baptized then is automatically out of Heaven? Uau catholic church doing the same as ever: picturing God as a bad God so that people do not belive in Him. Anyone who reads the Bible can in no way be catholic.

[@chaddisrud535]

He is using biblical, text, meanings and logic.

[@chaddisrud535]

In the original scripture ( not the king James man made skewed interpretation) it is shown that entire families were baptized. The phrases used clearly assumed men, women and children.

[@morelmaster]

@@ChristiansQuoted We baptize infants into the new covenant, just as the Jews circumcised eight day old infants into the old covenant. YOU: All people who were baptized in the Bible were grown ups and Jesus our Example when He was already a man. ME: That's not true, there certainly were infants and children baptized because the Bible has MANY accounts of WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS being baptized, and no exceptions for infants and young children were noted. Jesus was baptized with John the Baptist's baptism, which is not the same as Christian baptism, so you really can't use Jesus as an example.

[@ChristiansQuoted]

@@morelmaster so babies who are baptized are saved if they die and babies who are not baptized are not saved if they die infants? let that sink in your mind.

[@Virikel]

So good to be an oldschool, Sacramental Christian. We avoid so many theological problems, and receive so much more assurance of salvation.

[@huntsman528]

How do you receive more 'assurance of salvation'? More than whom?

[@haronsmith8974]

@@huntsman528 People who doubt the work of God done through the sacraments. Thats who.

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . .

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

@@huntsman528☕️

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

@@haronsmith8974☕️

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

These were the verses that convinced me that what I learned as a Baptist wasn’t always correct. But as a former Baptist who remembers my baptism by immersion as an 8 year old, I find it sad that infants don’t remember their baptism like I do. It was a very special day in my life.

[@Mygoalwogel]

My Dad, Lutheran pastor, wept at each of us kids' Confirmations. I experienced literal fear and trembling upon making the only two vows of my life before God: Confirmation and Matrimony.

[@RIDE_26]

I am a Baptist and was 17 when I decided I want to be baptized because I heard in church that I need to be saved. You need to decide you want to follow Jesus.Some baptized Catholics convert to Islam so what was the point. It is heresy to baptise infants. Infant baptism has nothing to do with faith, it's a religious tradition. It's like forced marriage . A person needs to be born again first.

[@huntsman528]

@@RIDE_26 Augustine, the father of Lutheranism and Calvinism, believed that an infant that died would go to hell if they weren't baptized. This is why he hated Pelagius. The rest of the church didn't believe infant baptism was 'salvific'. Augustine's conclusion for determinism is based on a scenario where a prostitute's infant gets baptized and then dies and a Christian family's infant dies on the way to get baptized. His conclusion was that the prostitute's infant was saved and the Christian family's infant was damned. Therefore Got must determine everyone's salvation.

[@felixiusbaqi]

@@RIDE_26 If it's heresy to baptize infants, are Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox all heretics? Were Martin Luther, John Calvin and St. Augustine heretics?

[@NeverCloseToHome]

@@RIDE_26 I think you misunderstand free will and the choice of faith. Please provide us with biblical evidence for your argument. If you can’t then your opinion has no standing.

[@qijiy]

I was an independent fundamentalist KJV only baptist and your videos have helped me come out of that a lot into a more historic Christianity. I am not Lutheran yet, but I will probably be landing within that tradition soon.. Thanks, Dr. Cooper, God Bless..

[@Reformed_Thinker]

U become lutheran?

[@seanmoore9713]

I'm a Baptist. I have to say that the Lutheran argument in your point 1 is much more powerful and consistent than the Presbyterian covenantal argument for paedobaptism I'm used to hearing.

[@Psalm144.1]

I’m an Angliteryian, (or an Anglican who is currently a member of a PCA). I would just say, having studied baptism in a couple seminary classes that the Covenantal theology for infant baptism is just Point #6. It doesn’t contradict the 5 reasons which were wonderfully succinct. The Puritan Anglican priest John Stott wrote about infant baptism, basically the same points made here but he he also mentioned the Covenantal theological Bible texts.

[@marialange9509]

Was thinking about getting re-baptized now I know I am already baptized

[@PepeLeFunk]

As a Presbyterian minister, I agree with all the points raised by the Rev. Dr. Cooper. I would just also include the Covenantal principle.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

[@Dilley_G45]

1 - 00:10 Baptism is the work of God 2 - 02:35 Infants are sinners 3 - 03:54 Infants can believe 4 - 05:55 Households are baptized 5 - 07:16 God includes Children in his gracious promises

[@danandnaomisayers7828]

But there's no record of infant baptism in the bible. Household baptisms followed faith of the household: LYDIA no mention of husband or children, she was a businesswoman. PHILIPIAN JAILOR, the household heard the word and they all believed in God and rejoiced with him. CORNELIIUS, household had the Holy Ghost fall on them which heard the word and they spake in tongues, no reason to forbid water to these who had received the Holy Ghost. CRISPUS, beloved on the Lord WITH his house, they all believed on the Lord. STEPHANUS, they devoted themselves to the Lords work, and are described as the first fruits or converts I achaiai. Baptism. Is always connected to or following after the receiving the Holy Spirit, believing, and conversion. The Word should inform our theology, not our theology informing the reading of the Word.

[@Dilley_G45]

@@danandnaomisayers7828 Babies were baptized. Just watch the video about it again. The Bible doesn't specify a minimum age. There is no age of accountability mentioned nor a baby dedication. There is no biblical reason to deny infants the sacrament if baptism

[@vk4742]

@@Dilley_G45 ”People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.“ ‭‭Mark‬ ‭10‬:‭13‬-‭16‬ ‭NIV‬‬ That’s a dedication. If baptizing children was important and the right way to do it, Jesus would have baptized children which would have been recorded by Mathew, Mark, Luke, John. After blessing them, why not then baptize them right after.

[@wilby1414]

Luke 18:15-17 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. How do you come to Jesus? He is not here so how do children come to Jesus today? When we are baptized in Jesus name we also receive the Holy Ghost. This is called being born again into His family and we receive the family name as well as His spirit. What did Jesus say about whom are His and whom are not His. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Infants and children MUST also be prepared to enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Does this scripture exclude women? NO. It says man as in human which includes women and children. Jesus did not put a restriction on salvation to a certain group or age - He includes everyone must be born of water and spirit plus, He commanded His deciples to go into all nations and baptize. Jesus did not restrict this commandment - it's for all and it's mandatory. Get your household baptized in Jesus name today -- before the door closes. salvationjourney.com

[@johnpowers3013]

Do your homework. Infant baptism has been practiced since the very earliest days of the church. People understood the original Greek meaning quite well back then and still baptized babies. Those are the facts.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Peter in the book of Acts said baptism is for you and your CHILDREN. Paul also said baptism has replaced circumcision which was done on the 8th day of a baby being born if it wasn’t intended for children to Paul wouldn’t of used this example

[@barfrockskin535]

#1) Jesus DID NOT command these children to be baptized, #2) Jesus did not command anyone else to baptize these children, #3) These were children, NOT infants/babies. A huge difference. A child can have faith, but it is impossible for an infant to have faith. And belief, faith, and repentance PRECEDED (and NOT the other way around) every single incident in regard to water baptism in the New Testament, #4) Jesus BLESSED these children. No baptism whatsoever is mentioned here. #5) Infant/baby baptism is unscriptural. Any clear, detailed reference to infant/babies getting baptized (i.e. household baptisms) is extremely vague at best, and totally non-existent at worst.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Asaph Vapor the bible was compiled by the church in the year 380AD. We have oral and written tradition so what did the early Christians and church fathers do before the bible was around. Yes that’s right baptise infants. In the bible it says family’s and their whole house holds were baptised no where does it say don’t baptise young children.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Asaph Vapor the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

[@Mygoalwogel]

*Argument from ancient Roman demography and Scripture for infant baptism:* _Premise 1:_ The scriptures say the Apostles *baptized* no less than 5 Roman Empire *households.* _Premise 2:_ Roman Empire *households* had 6-9 *children* per woman, and several married women. _Conclusion:_ The Apostles *baptized children.* en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire 1. Cornelius' Household (Acts 10) 2. Lydia's Household (Acts 16) 3. The Philippian Jailer's Household (Acts 16) 4. Crispus’ Household (Acts 18) 5. Stephanas’ Household (1 Corinthians 1) *Argument from ancient geopolitics and Scripture for infant baptism:* _Premise 1:_ Every single region and language where one or more Apostles set foot practices infant baptism. _Premise 2:_ Some of these regional churches had almost no contact at all with one another during the lifetimes of the Apostles, or for centuries later. (e.g. Between Roman Emp., Persian Emp., India) _Conclusion:_ These regions did not each independently invent infant baptism. All learned the practice from the Apostles, who baptized regional households. Origen noted that all of the far flung geographic churches in the entire Christian world baptized infants. Today these ancient regional churches that practise infant baptism include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East. Each of these churches was home and place of death to one or more Apostles. Several of these regional churches had almost no contact with each other at all, especially the Persian Empire churches with the Roman Empire churches. It's unlikely that each geographical region, speaking it's own languages, using it's own forms of worship, listening to it's own preachers, and only rarely interacting with other groups each invented infant baptism independently. Rather, they all learned infant baptism from the example of the Apostles who baptized entire households.

[@lakedays3708]

“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭8:12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@nathroug6345]

“But when they believed...” yep

[@Truthinjesuschrist]

So adults only.....

[@lakedays3708]

@@Truthinjesuschrist - believers in the Christ only...

[@johndisalvo6283]

Hanna DEDICATED Samuel to the Lord.

[@Paul-ek5lu]

@@Truthinjesuschrist yes not babies

[@TaterSaled15]

I’m a Lutheran, LCMS is my church. But I was raised Baptist. So this has been an issue of mine, something that’s hard to shake. And I want to understand better. What would you say about the story about Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch. It seems like he gives him a stipulation for baptism, or rather a direction. The eunuch asks “what is to prevent me from being baptized?” And Phillip asks “do you believe in Jesus (essentially)” and he says “yes” and Phillip replies “then you can be baptized” so does this not give clear indication of a believers baptism?

[@TaterSaled15]

Seeing as infants can’t give a clear indication of belief?

[@patriciareynolds2729]

@@TaterSaled15 all man has to do is come up with a new interpation of bible and start a new church. people are so gullible, they won't study bible and use common sense!

[@solosaloon1959]

Yes, believers baptism is a thing. It doesn’t remove the strength of baptism just because one comes to the water later in life. Baptism doesn’t change.

[@B27-o2c]

Infant baptism and believer’s baptism are not mutually exclusive. As Dr. Cooper points out, the Bible describes infants as able to have faith, and actually being models for faith. We always share the gospel with them before baptism, and it’s actually built into the liturgy with the confession of the Creed. One important detail about the Ethiopian’s baptism - notice how he insisted on an immediate baptism in the ditch, and Philipp did not insist that they return to Jerusalem to be baptized in the presence of a large group of believers. I think it’s safe to assume that both Philipp and the Ethiopian Eunuch recognized the efficacy and divine work in baptism rather than an act to publicly declare a conversion. Today’s Baptist or Non-denominational would likely not have done what Philipp did.

[@BigLivingNow]

How can a baby "repent" - then be baptised. Act 2:38. Believers repent.

[@shellieperreault6262]

The Greek text doesn't indicate an order of time. That is just a traditional way of it being translated in English.

[@SamTheToyRobot]

The comments here are something else, I gotta say. It blows my mind how the people that essentially believe that baptism is some showy "look at me and my decision" event of nothingness get so bent out of shape about infant baptism, as if some gross sin is being committed. Talk about backwards and illogical as all heck. "Infant baptism isn't in the Bible!" * Proceeds to talk about how children are basically mindless, heartless, soulless creatures. Ignores a ton of Scripture that says otherwise * Are we not sinful from birth, from the time we were conceived? Did John not leap for joy in his mother's womb? Did Jesus not say to let the little children come to him, to have faith like a child?

[@RexDavid]

your arguments on infants having faith are great? can an infant repent? mr sam novak? can an infant appeal to God for a good conscience?

[@flashhog01]

I agree, it is strange to see people get twisted up over something they don't believe does anything and is just for show. It also baffles me how it is simply assumed and never proven that baptism is our work. I've never seen anyone even try to defend that position biblically.

[@livingwater7580]

do you understand what the water being changed into wine means, The water Jesus changed to wine was the same water the people washed their hands upon entering the wedding at Cana.

[@robp4993]

Where does is say faith is a gift from God all I can find is Romans 10:17 New King James Version (NKJV) 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I have to so something for faith it was never given to me.

[@williamlewis2383]

Ephesians 2:8, “For By Grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” NKJV

[@adamnichols7051]

@@williamlewis2383 Sounds like the point of that passage is talking about grace

[@sager31708]

Amen

[@jennernolast6858]

William Lewis if you study the Bible specially Paul’s gospel. Be very careful when reading “faith” and “works”. Paul meant law of faith and law of works. Romans 3:27 where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of WORKS? (Law of works). Nay, but by the LAW OF FAITH 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by FAITH (clearly it’s law of faith on verse 27) without the deeds of the law

[@colinjames7765]

Rom 12:3

[@yeldaw705]

My one question is from the first verse cited: Acts 2:38 - how does a baby repent? Or am I tying those two things together in error? Thank you for the good video and the great channel

[@immanuelmaanga]

Baptism efficacy depends on name of God(Trinitarian formula) called during it and not what you do. Baptism and repentence are two separate actions

[@connormacleod1490]

Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your CHILDREN" (Acts 2:38-39).

[@barfrockskin535]

Sorry, but I have never seen an infant/baby repent.

[@joyceileen]

why pick out one word in the sentence ? read it again .... 1.repent 2.be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ 3. you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit . . . the promise of 1 + 2 + 3 is for our children .... the promise is also for those who are far off . . by your analysis should we just go to far off places and baptise them . . . .

[@AugsburgAugustinian]

Barf Rockskin Oh please. That’s not a linear progression, it’s a general, wholistic command. Under your logic you must also necessarily believe that because Jesus commanded his disciples to “baptize and teach” in the great commission then that means no one is allowed to teach anyone anything of Christ until their baptized.

[@joyceileen]

@@AugsburgAugustinian I agree . . . it's not linear . . . baptising and teaching is not linear . . . note the word 'and'. . . . just like repent and be baptised is not necessarily linear .. . remember the Ethiopian eunuch ? . . so baptism without repentance is incomplete . .

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Barf Rockskin on day of Pentecost the apostles and Peter are speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles; of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering. Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

As a Presbyterian, I'ma send this Lutheran to my dirty work arguing with our credobaptist friends.....😂😂😂

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

Even R. C. Sproul said he loved baptizing believers (credobaptists), because that meant older people had heard the gospel and were saved, just like the first converts in the Bible before those in households.

[@justinbrowning6263]

I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran faith. I know that Lutheran‘s believe it doesn’t matter how much water is used during a baptism how was conducted my question is are you able or will it be acceptable to ask for a full immersion baptism for an older child?

[@robynmattfield2919]

I was baptized and conformed as Lutheran. I was baptized when I was two months old.

[@minsh5675]

@@robynmattfield2919 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Repent and trust alone in Jesus Christ because He is our Saviour.

[@robynmattfield2919]

@@minsh5675 thank you for your comment on my post and I've been baptized Sunday school confirmation been confirmed summer Bible School and I am a Lutheran Missouri Senate okay the last word is spelled wrong but Lutheran Builders Missouri Senate has another 120 Missouri Senate and I'm not affiliated with them. Everything in your comment to me I've already done that and I already know that and I do the Bible and I will use the dog and I stayed and been Reborn and many other things but that's all you need to know that thank you but I already knew what you were telling me so thanks anyways I just didn't know if you believe and then maybe you might stay or something but I already know everything you already told me and more

[@idkaskgoogle]

2. Infants are sinners- (REPENTANCE THEN BAPTISM) But people are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Infants don't even know what sin is, so how do they know that they are sinners, how do they repent?

[@atgred]

ugochukwu Emeka- Okeke Let’s list the steps from the Bible. As a notice the order of “first believe then repent and then baptize” is for adults, as for children we can see in this passage a different order. Both are valid because they are Biblical. ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28:19-20‬ ‭KJV «Go ye therefore, and teach ALL NATIONS (this includes ALL, not only adults), baptizing (here Baptism is first, so it is OK to do this first) them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching (second step, after being baptized you learn the faith, this is how we should do it with children) them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded (it is a commandment ) you: and, lo, I am with you always (always as in forever as in Apostolic Succession), even unto the end of the world. Amen.»

[@joecastillo8798]

@Asaph Vapor Your belief about infant baptism is a man-made accomodation or simplification. The biblical evidence shows that all are sinners from birth by the inheritance of the sin of Adam. Besides the biblical quotes, you seem to have overlooked in this video, we have historical and archeological evidences that confirm this belief and practice. Take time to research and learn. It will get you closer to God's will. God bless.

[@joecastillo8798]

@Asaph Vapor Says who? Show me where it says that everything must be in the Bible for you to believe, like: 1.- Every writing included in the Bible, even though there's NO apostolic Index. So I ask you: Who tells you that they are the Word of God? (I have reasons, outside of the Bible, to believe that each book is the word of God) 2.- The four Gospels do not include the author's name. (I have reasons, outside of the Bible, to know who are the authors of each Gospel) Having said that, I believe that the entire Bible is The Word of God because the Catholic Church said it in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome through the Decree of Damasus, written by Pope Damasus I. www.rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html The four Gospels were written by MATHEW, MARK LUKE AND JOHN, according to St. Irenaeus in his work against heresies. www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml Irenaeus was an important figure defending the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in the New Testament in 170 C.E., stating in his Against Heresies: "But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit. (Against Heresies 3.11.8) Thus Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now-canonical Gospels as divinely inspired, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel.[6][10] Irenaeus was also the first to assert that the Gospel of John was written by John the apostle,[11] and that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul.[12] (The gospels themselves are anonymous.) May God bless your discernment.

[@joecastillo8798]

@Asaph Vapor I'm sure you understand that it takes an intelligent human to decide and to put a final product together. Regarding the Word of God, the Bible, it was decided for the first time by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. through the Decree of Damasus, after months of studies and debates out of an approximate number of 250 writings circulating among Christians at that time. The result: Maintain the Alexandrian Old Testament or Septuagint with 46 books. Reduce the number of 250 writings to 27 proven inspired writings for the New Testament. The final outcome: A total of 73 books for what was to be known as The Bible. DECREE OF DAMASUS www.rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html May God bless your discernment.

[@joecastillo8798]

@Asaph Vapor ??? Now I ask you: Show in the Bible where any of the Apostles gave an Apostolic Index and said that The New Testament with its 27 books is also the Word of God, just like the Old Testament is? My short answer: IT IS NOT! The first time and place where someone with supreme authority, like Peter at The Council of Jerusalem, decided on something of such magnitude as to what is and is not the Word of God was at The Council of Rome of 382 AD, by the successor of Peter, Pope Damasus I, who chose 27 out of 250 books to be The New Testament for all Christians for all times. Subsequent Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Trent, also confirmed the same decision, with the approval of the respective Popes at such times. Remember Asaph, a book does not write itself, neither a "library" or Bible is chosen by itself; it always needs someone outside itself with authority to make that decision. God bless. The only time where someone with no divine authority decided on matters of belief and practice, that you adhere to, was at the self declared "reformation" by Martin Luther. I will leave the links to The Decree of Damasus and How The Bible came about links below: Decree of Damasus: www.rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html Time line: catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline-of-how-the-bible-came.php May God bless your discernment.

[@davidstamburski9487]

Good video. To many say baptism is an outward sign of an inward work. Can't find that definition anywhere.

[@morito1u1]

Good Moring! How would you respond to this article: "Do the "Household Baptisms" Justify Infant Baptism? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D. On occasion, advocates of infant baptism appeal to Acts 10, Acts 16, and 1 Corinthians 1 for proof that infant baptism is scriptural. Acts 10:24-48 relates the account of Cornelius and his “relatives and close friends” hearing the Gospel and being baptized. Acts 16 includes the accounts of two sets of baptisms: (1) the baptism of the members of Lydia’s family (verse 15); and (2) the baptism of the Philippian jailer and “all his family” (verse 33). Paul revealed that he baptized members of the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). These are the so-called “household baptisms” (see Coffman, 1977, p. 320; Mare, 1984, pp. 192-193). Proponents of infant baptism assume that there were children in Cornelius’ house, Lydia’s family, the jailer’s house, and Stephanas’ house, and that the infants were baptized. Since there is no mention of infants in any of these passages, those who use these passages to justify infant baptism base their claims upon two assumptions: (1) infants were present in the households; and (2) the contexts of Acts 10 and 16 allow for the baptism of infants as part of “household baptisms.” In each example of “household baptism,” the people who were baptized were ones who had been taught what they needed to do in order to receive salvation (Acts 10:34-43; 16:14, 32; 1 Corinthians 1:16-18; 16:15-16). They were the people who could hear and understand the Word of God (Acts 10:44), believe (10:31-33), and devote themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15). The absence of the noun “belief,” and the verb “believe,” in some of the conversion accounts, does not necessarily imply that the ones who were baptized did not, or could not, believe. Also, the context of the household conversions does not demand that any infants were baptized. Yet, some insist that infants must have been present in the “households,” and that the infants must have been baptized. Lydia did not live in Philippi (she was from Thyatira, on the other side of the Aegean Sea). Since she was traveling, she probably did not bring her children with her, if she had any. Because oikos seems to denote “property” in this instance, it was probably Lydia’s servants who were baptized (Lydia certainly was wealthy enough to have servants; see Jackson, 2000, pp. 201-02; Lenski, 1944, p. 660). Notice also that, in the case of Lydia’s conversion, the evangelists spoke to a group of women who had “come together,” indicating that the members of Lydia’s household could have been found within that group of women (the very group who was praying and who heard Paul’s message; see Coffman, 1977, p. 313; Lenski, 1944, p. 659). Some allege that Lydia’s family members were baptized, not because they believed, but only because they were in Lydia’s family, while Lydia herself did believe (e.g., Barnes, 1972, p. 241). This allegation rests on the fact that Acts 16:14-15 denotes Lydia’s belief, but does not specifically reveal that her family believed. The Bible clearly teaches, however, that belief must precede baptism (see Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37; Romans 10:10-11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Ephesians 1:21), and that a sinner cannot be forgiven of sin based on the faith of another (Matthew 12:36; Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 2:7; 4:5; 1 John 3:23). Furthermore, Acts 16:34 (part of the account of a “household baptism”) reports that the Philippian jailer’s family, at the time of the “household baptism,” was made up entirely of “believers” (excluding infants), and the accounts of both Cornelius’ and the jailer’s conversions specifically indicate that candidates for baptism were those who had “heard the word” (Acts 10:44,47). When inspired writers wrote about “hearing” the Word of God, “hearing” often denoted not only the recognition of audible sounds, of which infants are capable, but also understanding the message, of which infants are incapable (see Deuteronomy 5:1; Romans 10:17; Job 13:17; Luke 14:35). The contexts of Acts 10 and Acts 16 imply that meaning of the verb “hear” (akouo). Some base their claim that infants of the jailer’s household were baptized, upon the assumption that there would not have been enough water in a jail to immerse adults. Thus, they say, sprinkling was the mode of baptism, which would have been appropriate for infant baptism. However, Acts 16 suggests that Paul and Silas were not in the jail at the time of the major part of the teaching and the baptism, because they had been “brought out”-likely out of the prison itself-and taken to a place where the prisoners’ stripes could be washed. It was at this place that the baptisms took place, so it is an imposition on the text to imply that Paul and Silas did not have access to enough water for immersion. There are other examples of household conversions, whose contexts attest to the fact that, when “households” of people were baptized, infants were not baptized. When the inspired writers mentioned the so-called “household baptisms,” they said that all believers in the households were baptized. To assert otherwise is to put an unnecessary strain on the text, and to teach that which contradicts unambiguous, definitive Bible teaching (see Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37-38; Romans 10:10-11). REFERENCES Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Coffman, James Burton (1977), Commentary on Acts (Abilene, TX: ACU Press). Jackson, Wayne (2000), The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications). Lenski, Robert C.H. (1944), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). Mare, W. Harold (1984), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

[@alanwolf9469]

Right on!

[@hayleysimons6807]

The 5 minute mark talks about infants having faith. Biblical examples. Household Baptism, whilst isn't conclusive evidence for infant baptism, helps support the case.

[@isabellanagel7539]

I was raised babtist, but my fiancé is Lutheran so I am trying to know more about the Lutheran beliefs. And I think I agree with that, the way is backed up by the Scripts really convinced me.

[@broncobronco2829]

Both are fake christians sorry they broke away from the roman catholic church which is the only true church.

[@akimoetam1282]

Sprinkle til we die!

[@chaddisrud535]

The Roman Catholic Church has remained the only true church only in name. It clearly does not resemble the first century church.

[@sirchingalot3535]

@@broncobronco2829 the same church ran by the anti Christ

[@Dilley_G45]

Hope you convert all the way sister! Lutheran 1517 🏆

[@dwainsmit8410]

A special care for infants shows He will save all babies when they pass away. They are obviously in a special category when it comes to salvation.

[@jzak5723]

True, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't still be baptized, since baptism isn't just a symbol, it washes away sin, and everyone who comes into this world has original sin from Adam. If you doubt that infants can have sin, then tell me why infants die right along with adults??? The wages of sin is death, so there must be at least one sin present in a human being for them to die a physical death, wouldn't you agree?

[@sidwhiting665]

This mentions the verse in Acts where Peter says, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins..." Does that mean if one does not or cannot repent, one should not be baptized? To be clear, I was raised, confirmed and faithfully attended the Lutheran church Missouri Synod until about 6 months ago, and on my own read Martin Luther's Large Catechism. So I am thoroughly familiar with the doctrine of infant baptism and the supporting scriptures, and I do believe infants can and probably should be baptized. So my question is entirely focused on why when teaching on this verse one would highlight the forgiveness of sins while glossing over the first verb (REPENT!)?

[@ruthgoebel723]

Repenting was likely focusing on those who could do so. Of course a child does not have that capability yet, but that cannot exclude him/her from God’s gift of grace. When our children are born they cannot tell us they love us, so does that mean we don’t show our love to them till they are older?

[@christopherkraemer8560]

The work repent means to turn back, make a 180 turn. I think most people equate confession with repentance which is a misunderstanding of the two words. Repentance is best understood as turning from sin and back to Jesus, back to following Him!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Dr. Cooper What do you recommend in the case of my wife being Catholic and myself Protestant (believers baptism)?. She is adamant about baptizing our infant boy Catholic and I strongly object. Please respond...our marriage may be in jeopardy as both of us have strong beliefs and she is vietnamese Catholic so it's very engrained traditiona and culture.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. We only see wives commanded to respect their husbands. We see husbands commanded to give themselves up for their wives as Christ gave himself up for the Church. God clearly wants husbands to be willing to lose, to suffer, to humble themselves. 1. Err on the side of your wife winning in times of uncertainty. 2. From your wife's perspective, not baptizing your baby will harm your baby. 3. From your perspective, baptizing your baby does nothing, and he can be baptized to your satisfaction later. 4. I've been to Vietnam and seen how Catholics there struggle against open hostility from the government. They are a persecuted Church. Can she not finally be allowed to worship God without fear? Especially in a matter that can be corrected later if he grows into a protestant?

[@0NoOne1nParticular]

@@Mygoalwogel God bless you brother for taking time to offer biblical advice, very cool of you. Glory to Jesus and hope you both had a good new year!

[@GadierCasiano]

I’ve been a christian for just about two years now, by now God has granted me knowledge and understanding I don’t really deserve and I truly thank Him for that… As I grow (as a christian) I’ve been able to understand better the big spectrum of Christian Theology across the centuries (although I’m just recently starting to read and learn about ancient development of it all). Settling this things first, I have to admit that having an open mind (concerning theology in general) is really a profitable thing to own. So, in that same spirit I can honestly say that the only point that really made me think and analyze infant baptism was the third one (“Infants can indeed believe”). I’m gonna invest time on studying the implications of that… Thanks again, Dr. Cooper. You and your channel have been a really good resource for me concerning theology, patristics, and reflection on the truth of God. Blessings in Jesus Christ, amen.

[@elshaddiliben193]

Yup im in the same boat with you and that was the one point that gave me questions (the other points were pretty easily refuted)

[@Waterboy5152]

I would also look into mike winger. He has some very good videos on this topic. He also has some good videos on various theology

[@colepriceguitar1153]

How can you discern which infants are believers and which aren’t? If a fetus dies is it not saved? There’s multiple problems with this video.

[@whitleyjm79]

Jesus and the Apostles never once command (or encourage) infants to be baptized and there is not even one "actual" example in the N.T. of an infant or child being baptized - all specific examples being adults. Why make such a hard case for infants being baptized then? Luke's references to "households" does not necessarily mean children and the text never says "children." Households, in the first century, often included servants, especially wealthy homes. Lydia likely was wealthy since the text says she sold purple goods - purple was very difficult to get. According to Acts 8:36 - it was the Ethiopian himself who expressed the desire to be baptized, not Philip and not the Ethiopian's parents! He willingly and eagerly participated in baptism. Yes baptism is a gift from God, but that certainly does not exclude an individual's decision to participate it in as an act of obedience. Can infants believe? Yes. In fact, they believe almost anything! But James says we are not saved by mere belief itself, but by a repentant belief (James 2:18-26). And Paul agrees with James (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). An individual must consider the cost (Luke 14:28) and even be willing to forsake their parents if necessary (Luke 14:26), if they are to follow Christ and be saved.

[@rovingwolverine5786]

there are no examples of women being communed in the Bible. does your church commune women?

[@aaroncarlson1162]

Jason Whitley Instead of trying to read infants out of the text, start by answering the question of (exegetically from Scripture) 'what does baptism accomplish'? Once you figure out what it does, then come back and say who should receive it..

[@whitleyjm79]

Aaron Carlson I'm looking for a simple, textual reason to dunk babies. Having to ask that particular question and work backwards concerns me. Is it really this difficult? I've honestly been trying to understand you reformed brothers for years on this point and just don't get it. Thx for the kind response Aaron. I appreciate good healthy argumentation. :)

[@whitleyjm79]

Ken Miller I'd love to dialogue with you, if you want. Just please don't call me a Pelagian heretic. That kind of ends these conversations fairly quickly. So, before you burn me at the stake, let's talk a bit more. :) I am clarifying the "faith" in faith alone. Do I believe in Sola Fide? Yes, but I think we (like James) still need to clarify terms. James had to clarify things then and I think we still do at times. The only phrase "faith alone" used in the NT is in James 2:24 and it's not a good thing, brother!! Read it for yourself. Earlier in James 2, he says: at least the demons shudder (that's "something" compared to those people abusing grace in the first century who did "nothing" - likely people who were misunderstanding Paul's doctrine of grace). So let's be careful using non-scriptural language so much. I have no problem with the idea that children can have faith in God. My concern is whether it is a saving faith and my concern is the tremendous risk of misleading our children so early on - particularly by baptizing them. The question is - what kind of faith (alone) does God require? Is it merely faith? That's not what James and Peter say, nor even what Paul says, as I stated in my original comment from Romans (see also Gal. 6:8 & Rom. 8:6). In Acts 2:38, Peter preaches for people to have faith in the Gospel message and to repent. Genuine faith is a repentant faith. Genuine repentance is a complete dependence upon God's grace kind of repentance. Repentance is NOT works righteousness. Peter is not calling for men to perform works in order to be saved. Nor is James. Nor is Jesus. Nor am I. But they do call men to follow Christ. So I think we should do the same. Jesus is to have supremacy in their lives. That means faith includes consideration - considering the supremacy of Christ and considering the cost involved in order to worship him exclusively. The Apostles simply repeat what Jesus demanded in his preaching. The gift of salvation is free but Jesus does have conditions for receiving the free gift (to quote Steve Lawson). Condition: follow me. Are you saying we should eliminate that condition - to follow Christ? He didn't "only" require the rich young ruler to believe but he required him to be willing to "forsake" his riches. Please don't tell me Jesus commands us to follow him but we can't follow him...so there. We are commanded to repent (Acts 2:38) and we must repent. And, although we are commanded to repent, Luke and Paul both tell us that God is the one who grants repentance (Acts 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25). Does that mean because God grants repentance that we don't (or can't) repent? Not at all. If he grants it, we can (and must!!). Just as we "must" pray that God protect us from the evil one (Matt. 6:13) even though God promises to guard us from the evil one (2 Thess. 3:4). One of my main concerns is how often "faith alone" is used in our reformed circles (especially in the context of baptizing babies) and it seems to be used more in a hyper-Calvinistic way. Some of it sounds even hyper-grace like language. I also find it interesting how many are willing to abuse (or at least ignore) scriptural language to "guard" reformed theology language. I believe in God's total sovereignty and man's total depravity and yet - we must believe and repent! Does God grant faith and repentance? Of course! Why? Scripture says so! And yet - we "must" (i.e. Condition) believe and repent. Why? Because scripture says so! So let us preach (and expect) the same from children, right? Or, are they the exception? Am I missing something? Let us be more faithful to scriptural language and scriptural ideas rather than the WCF, or Calvin, or Owen, or our ever so popular reformed theological sayings. Back to dunking babies... I still haven't heard a convincing, "scriptural" reason for this. Just being honest.

[@whitleyjm79]

I didn't say works justify a person. I'm saying that works are necessary as part of genuine faith. Faith and works are not the same thing, but the NT does not break them apart like you do. They are distinct, but inseparable. And I bleieve you are separating them in an unbiblical way - to the detriment of faith! The Reformers were responding to Catholicism, but I think many in reformed circles have gone the other extreme and we are afraid to even talk about works as the NT talks about works - and yes, in connection with salvation. No, not to justify ourselves, but as inseparable from the faith that justifies. I'm also cautioning you against avoiding using scriptural language to talk about faith. For example, Matthew 7:21 Jesus says "not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Notice Jesus says the "one who does the will of my Father" gets to heaven. Jesus is certainly not Catholic nor is he talking about works righteousness. Faith is not separated from activity in the NT., Ken. I understand the Reformers were guarding against works righteousness, but we are sounding like Antinomians now. Please examine the scripture and don't just rely upon reformed expressions your friends pass around. I would also encourage you to study the idea of repentance in the biblical contexts its found in in the N.T. and not only it's lexical definition. Context is just as important, if not more important than lexical meanings. I would highly recommend you read Thomas Schreiner's fairly new book titled "Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification." Here's a quote from page 191 that gets at what I'm getting at... "When some hear the Reformation cry of sola fide - 'Faith alone!" - they assume that it means that good works are an optional part of the Christian life or that they play no role at all in our final justification or salvation. Such a perspective radically misunderstands the NT witness, while also distorting the historical and biblical meaning of sola fide. The NT clearly teaches that bare faith cannot save, and that works are necessary for final justification or final salvation. As we will see, this latter notion does not compromise or deny sola fide when it is properly understood." He also says "faith alone isn't compromised because such works are the fruit of faith." Finally, "Justification is by faith alone, but it is a faith that expresses itself in good works. Good works aren't the basis of justification, but they are a necessary evidence and fruit of justification."

[@sbwende]

My question is how do we know if a baby wants to be baptized or not? Yes a baby can have faith but how do we know if we are force baptizing a baby who doesn't have faith or when it comes down to it a baby who has put their faith in another god.

[@billzaferatos2256]

Infants were baptized since the beginninging. The church baptized infants before we even had a Bible. It was done through holy tradition( what the disciples taught the church)

[@carolhartwell9245]

The Bible does not advocate infant baptism. You must be old enough to make a dedication to God, which children are not. You symbolize this dedication with baptism. Do you see anywhere in the Bible that Jesus told people to do that?

[@marklouisondevilla847]

@@carolhartwell9245 does Bible advocate KZbin? Yet, you use it. Unbiblical correct and you're using it? You see sister, not every thing has to be found in the Bible. People in the ancient time worship God without a Bible. God's word didn't fall from heaven in a form of a book. Early Christians baptized their household and that includes infants. Baptism is a gift from God not a personal choice. When Nicodemus asked Jesus how to be born again, John 3:5 he answered through water and spirit. Did Jesus explicitly said except infants? No. In verse 8 he continued... "So it is with EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit".

[@thomasrubie7089]

Mark Louis Ondevilla your argument is invalid because baptism is a biblical concept and it was something that was happening in biblical times therefore the Bible does discuss baptism. However, KZbin was not even close to being invented during biblical times so how can the Bible discuss topics pertaining to KZbin or other similar topics. This is the same reason that the Bible does not discuss social media. You are basing your argument on a straw man fallacy.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Acts 2:38 38 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. 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.”

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Asaph Vapor no they can’t repent they are innocent and sinless. Did Jesus repent before he was baptised?

[@Johnkoth]

Reasons not to I looked up every Bible Verse on Baptism and found this. #1 No infants were baptized in the Bible #2 Everyone baptized said they believed (Believers Baptism) #3 Infants can't believe. Sure a 4 year can but a infant is not 4 years old. #4 As for a whole house being baptized read the beginning of the verse. They all believed first. #5 Baptism is symbolism of Jesus's Death, Burial and Resurrection

[@Mygoalwogel]

1. Shavuot is a pilgrimage festival. There would have been many whole families. 2. Statistics show that the Roman Empire could not sustain itself without a birthrate of 6-9 children per fertile woman. 3. Peter spoke to a crowd of 3000 people. 4. Based on 1-3, there were babies in the crowd. 5. Peter included all of the children of those families without excluding anyone. 6. On Palm Sunday, Jesus took the Psalm, "Out of the mouths of infants and sucklings" quite literally. Based on 4-6, Peter baptized babies. Those babies had true faith.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

(Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

[@wmredfield22]

@@Mygoalwogel I missed the text whereupon Peter baptized babies, a little help, please?

[@wmredfield22]

​@@georgeibrahim7945 Children vs. infants. I think we can argue they are NOT the same. As to your reference (Colossians 2:11) you need to continue into verse 12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." NOTE: risen with Him through FAITH, a conscious act upon the individual in question. Circumcision was a required act mandated by God through Abraham as a sign in the flesh. In Judaism, we see a very specific time frame in which parents have the obligation to fulfill this, not the child. (Infant Baptism is a relic of the Roman Catholic Church, and was not shed by the reformers). Nowhere in the text is any phrasing that obligates parents to "baptize" their infants. That being said, children of Christ believers are "SANCTIFIED" by their parents (1 Corinthians 7:14) and a "christening" wherein the parents are publicly pledging to "raise a child in the way (s)he should go, is appropriate. Infant Baptism unto salvation is not scripturally sound. The reference to Ephesians 6:1-3 is also faulty in that, if Paul is speaking to children, one must agree they have an understanding of what he is saying to them, therefore, not infants. Christ is Lord!!!

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Wm Redfield all the early churches including the Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian Churches, Catholic Churches all baptised their infants, in fact even the Protestant reformers believed in it, it’s only churches which have turned up last few centuries that have issues with it. None of the Church Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when exactly an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it? We see in the bible families and their whole house holds getting baptised, doesn’t mention except young children. The apostles and Peter are speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles; of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering. Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness. Maybe you should heed the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

[@realpowerofmusic]

Dear : What a great privilege to have found this video on the subject of baptism, is the best .I was baptized as an infant in a Catholic Church after that, life took me away from my family to another continent. I am Christian now and nobody knows the answer if I should be baptized again. The spirit of God has always been with me and that was thanks to that baptism.Waoo,,

[@jonatikaWwe]

You were always a christian as a catholic

[@dr.dreymisenheimer8499]

@@jonatikaWwe no

[@jonatikaWwe]

@@dr.dreymisenheimer8499 yes.

[@dr.dreymisenheimer8499]

@@jonatikaWwe expound? 😂

[@ruthgoebel723]

Exactly! I was baptized when I was 3 weeks old and am thankful for the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life ever since. So grateful I didn't have to spend my early years being reminded that I was 'a sinner'and needed to accept Jesus or I would go to hell.

[@aliyamathiesen7290]

Should infants take communion?

[@Bible33AD]

Bapistim is God's offer of covenant with each person (like circumsion in OT). Not our decision to decide to declare God is our God. He is regardless of whether we declare it or not. For Communion- repentance is MANDATORY. So not for infants. Better explanation than this video in Syriac Oriental and Greek Orthodox churches who date back to the Apostles.

[@svkhobit5100]

I was sprinkled as a child but nothing was changed in my life and even when I raised in christian family I did not know God, I lead sinful life but in one day I heard the whole gospel and i relized that i am not saved. So I repent and as act of my faith to God i was baptized to Jesus name and God do his part of Job and give me holy life and give me freedom from sin. So bpatism is not only God's work because he called us to do it.

[@dorcas-thepurposefinder1649]

kzbin.info/door/LzIBHtLMOSk2lHHtzeG4zg

[@1953kp]

Praise God

[@solosaloon1959]

You were baptized for you. So narcissistic. God does the work. Not YOU. You are not God.

[@oslivrosdananinha]

​​@@solosaloon1959narcissist for a person to admit he was a sinner and needed to repent and cleansing from past sins with a conscience? But it isnt narcissism to baptize your child believing you doing it will save them?

[@solosaloon1959]

@@oslivrosdananinhawhat I said was rude. Forgive me. I just think God does the work.

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

Baptists/Evangelicals in a nutshell … they think they’re more in touch with the “correct” interpretation of Scripture than the literal early Church Fathers.

[@retrograd332]

Baptismal regeneration is just not a consistent belief. Parts of it can be defended, but when dealing with all the issues it contradicts itself. For example, it is compared to circumcision and I agree. However, we are told explicitly in scripture that circumcision did not save. Rather it was faith. Most of the circumcised Jews rejected God as well, see Judges and following. I think Calvin and the Presbyterians have the most biblical view. It seems much more consistent with how circumcision is actually represented in both the OT and NT. I will not misrepresent you all though. I know you all do not think it is a work. I do get that. I will always consider Lutheran's my brothers and sisters (except maybe some of the ELCA), but I think you are in error here. And I accept you all think the same about my position. I believe you are spot on btw though in how most evangelical churches teach a very low of view of both of the sacraments.

[@mugglesarecooltoo]

What about those who are "innocent" (so to speak) of sin by virtue of being below the age of accountability? Do they strictly NEED to be baptized? (Thinking of 2 Samuel 12:21-23)

[@jonwatson3271]

I am Reformed, and this is a concise and clear Biblcal view of the work of Grace. Excellent.

[@michaelkistner6286]

If, as you say, infants receive the gift of salvation through baptism, why are they not allowed to participate in the Lord's table until after confirmation? That seems inconsistent.

[@burger3856]

It is from the Lutheran and Catholic perspective, the Eastern Orthodox do not have that kind of waiting period; they baptize and serve the holy Eucharist to infants.

[@malachi9898]

Is there any scripture that shows when babies were baptized in the bible? Why did Jesus wait till he was in his 30's to get baptized?

[@malachi9898]

Ken Miller you make some valid points but didn't Jesus say, whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. Aren't babies too young to believe or have free will to make the choice of being born again?

[@ESchafer]

Christ's baptism is not the same as ours. He was not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John's baptism is not the same thing.

[@malachi9898]

I know young children start to exercise free will yet do not understand things, but some do at an early age but for sure not toddlers or babies. I know this is a personal choice. Parents will not be answering for our choices when we get judged.

[@michaelcontreras148]

Jesus was circumcised as a baby. The New Testament says baptism is the new circumcision

[@saronamaqa9871]

we baptise because Jesus died for us,our sin so in the blood of Jesus that cleanse us.is Jesus died for only an adult?all of us,baptisim also dedicate to an infant.we must keep our mouths shut..why we also receive Holly spirit in this baptism infant.. stop judging guys,,respect the work of the holy spirit in each one of us and also others.

[@soteriology400]

When someone is baptized, it means that person has become a disciple of the person one was baptized into. This means the person has chosen to be a follower of the person. How can a person be considered baptized, if one does not even know who one was baptized unto?

[@solosaloon1959]

No scripture evidence of this. Human reason is no good.

[@soteriology400]

@@solosaloon1959 Exactly, every single person in the bible knew who they were baptized unto, and who they became a disciple of.

[@IbelieveinGod483]

​@@soteriology400What about the children in Acts 2:39? Is a child not an infant? Is a child not a sinner needing God's Grace and Gospel?

[@soteriology400]

@@IbelieveinGod483 There is a Greek word for "children" and a separate Greek word for "infant". The Greek word for "infant" is not used here. Also, the call to repent, and be baptized into the name of Jesus, only applies those who understood the message. This is why it says "Those who gladly received the word were baptized". This entails faith, that God gave. It entails a pledge of a good conscious towards God, which Peter mentioned in his epistle. Baptism also entails the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So those who GLADLY received the word, experienced Christ's resurrection.

[@IbelieveinGod483]

@@soteriology400 An infant is a type of child, so your argument there is invalid. It doesn't only apply to all who understand because it gives saving faith and grace to those that receive it. If baptism were merely a symbol, there wouldn't be a good reason to be baptized because it does nothing for your soul. God gives faith through baptism as displayed in 1 Peter 3:21, as you cannot be saved without faith. An infant is a sinner just as we are, and they need saving faith just as we do. Baptism gives them that faith as baptism has the Word in the water.

[@followeroftheway8454]

Well said great explanation. Thank you. For I have been brought up in the Church of England, Baptised as a baby and Confirmed at the age of 11. Yet I have started during the past year after this pandemic to also attend a Baptist church, for it seems more spirit filled, especially concerning the teaching of escatology. They are saying I should have an adult Baptism, but my argument is that I don't need to as I have the Holy Spirit, and have confirmed my Baptism through being Confirmed by a Bishop, anointed by oil, to which I made my confession to Christ. I heard Gods voice at the age of 6, that I was aware of for the first time speaking to me. Which was before I was Confirmed even.

[@Dan-jp8jr]

Do we have clear biblical proof of infants getting baptism

[@txgsu43]

This is still the most difficult thing for me regarding Lutheranism. I remain a Baptist in large part because this argument always seems so weak. I have no issue in catechizing one’s children or teaching them the faith. I agree that infants are sinners and that God can in His grace grant them faith. I agree what gives baptism its power, so to speak, is God (i.e., God is the actor in Baptism, just as with the other Sacraments). My issue is most arguments for baptizing infants is founded in presumptions and assumptions. We see single members of a household being Baptized throughout Scripture, but since there is evidence of a few households it is presumed that they had small children. It was even pointed out in this video: we do not know how many children there were (could be zero) or how old them were (all could be near grown). This is a weak argument. Then we look to the early Church Fathers, and infant Baptism appears to first occur in the third-century. The answer for its absence was it was so pervasive it did not need a discussion; but the earliest Church father’s discussed the proper timing for baptism. We know several felt we needed to wait to later in life because of a misunderstanding of Baptismal regeneration. I would love to become Lutheran, but I just need someone to provide a better argument for this point.

[@shellieperreault6262]

Let me ask a question: If baptism is a gift from God to a person, what qualifications does that person have to have in order to deserve baptism?

[@charleskramer8995]

If children sin and baptism washes away sin, why would you not have them baptized. There are two explanations as to why things are not widely written about. First, the thing never happens so there is nothing to write about. Second, the thing always happens so there is no controversy about it. As an example, there is very little written about the advisability of decriminalizing murder - almost everyone believes it is wrong. One of the first controversies about infant baptism occurs in the 250's in North Africa. The controversy was whether to wait until the eighth day of life to baptize a child. That position was rejected. Rather, infants were to be baptized at the earliest opportunity. Infant baptism itself was not controversial.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@charleskramer8995 fun fact on 8th day circumcision- vitamin k is a blood clotting factor that is largely absent in newborns. It rises to sufficient levels to prevent excessive bleeding by the 8th day! Today, hospitals give Vit K shots to newborns to speed up the process. I love those kinds of facts that just speak to God’s involvement in these commands.

[@MissingTrails]

In terms of arguing from what is *not* evidenced in the text or in early Church history, we also do not have evidence for the notion that children born in Christian households need to be converted. This is the credobaptist claim about children born of Christian parents: they are born reprobates, and need to be converted once they reach the age of accountability. This narrative is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

[@MessianicRestoration]

The biggest reason I became a believer in infant baptism is because of my brother who has disabilities which prevents him from having any concept of God,Jesus,or religion in general. If the believers baptism is truly essential for salvation, (which many denominations believe) then people like my brother would be damned from day 1 because they can't truely profess faith. Anyone who believes in believers baptism think about that for a bit.

[@cogareth]

Kindly help me understand your thought process considering Jesus pardoned the thief who was crucified with him. That forgiveness was granted without baptism (Luke 23:43), yes? Another concern around infant baptism that came up for me: What about Atheists / other non-Christians that was baptized as infants. Do they get a free pass and what about Christians who give their lives to Christ but die before their baptism? I Appreciate your feedback. thanks

[@edelbertlitangan5780]

Salvation is through faith alone.

[@shellieperreault6262]

"Once saved always saved" is not biblical. Someone can reject Christ or his baptism, and thus reject salvation.

[@charleskramer8995]

God can save who He will. In the same way, God assumed Enoch and Elijah to heaven even before the death and resurrection of Christ. St. Dismas, the good thief, is an exception to the rule of baptism. While God is not bound by the sacraments, we turn on backs on them at our eternal peril. As far as atheists who were baptized as children, had they died as children, they would have been saved. However, they were free to reject their salvation as adults and walk away from the salvation that God gave them. Finally as to those who desire baptism but die before they can receive it, the church recognizes "baptism of desire." So that those who desire baptism but die before they can receive it are saved. However, the doctrine does not apply to those who delay their baptism. So someone killed in an accident on the way to their baptism would be saved. Someone who puts it off is in peril.

[@charleskramer8995]

@@edelbertlitangan5780 The only time "faith alone" appears in scriptures is in James who says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

[@edelbertlitangan5780]

@@charleskramer8995 James’ teachings concentrate on the works that exemplify that justification. Look on Paul's (other Scripture) teaching and you'll see, dont just look on one side.

[@coldfusionmusical]

Thank you pastor Cooper! Preaching in love and respect. God bless you!

[@BIBLEGYAN]

U quoted Acts 2:38 where it says repent and be baptized. How can an infant be baptized?? Did u find a single example of infant baptism in the Bible??

[@georgeibrahim7945]

(Acts 2:38) But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”

[@BIBLEGYAN]

@@georgeibrahim7945 thats ur inference. But never clearly mentioned. Believe and Repent are totally not possible by babies.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

BIBLE GYAAN on the day of Pentecost the apostles and Peter are speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles; of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants, people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering. Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness.

[@shellieperreault6262]

They looking up "household" rather than "infant" and you'll find your answer.

[@MP-kc8sl]

Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). Baptism is an important step of obedience that every Christian should take. Baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. To make it such is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. -gotquestions

[@akimoetam1282]

M P got questions is Baptist propaganda

[@morelmaster]

YOU: Baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. ME: John 3:5

[@michaelszczys8316]

My dad's family came from homesteaders in North Dakota and were all Roman Catholic. When I was young and in catholic school I heard story that I thought was pathetic about how a couple living in wilderness took their sick infant out in a blizzard to the local church to get baptized before it died. I thought at the time that was a pathetic story that put an infants salvation in the hands of its parents making it through the snow. Then, years later I found the same story to be true in my own family only worse. My great grandfather's first children were twins and one was sick and dying in middle of winter in a cabin so they took it to the church LEAVING the other in the cabin. The one got baptized and died, the one left in the cabin didn't get baptized and froze to death before they got back.

[@ClauGutierrezY]

Oh my word... So sorry to read

[@wilwelch258]

Awesome video. I love infant baptism. It perfectly displays the gospel: helpless sinners being saved by Jesus alone through His cross alone received by faith alone and even that faith is a gift. Lutheranism for the win.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Yes Faith through charity and love, Faith is never alone in fact Read James 2:24 which mentions Faith alone and has the words and NOT BY infront of it. It’s only place entire bible where the term faith alone is found.

[@Dilley_G45]

Lutheranism for the win...straight from my heart! Amen. Yes yes yes

[@Psalm119-50]

Was Jesus baptized as an infant? Nope! And neither should anyone else!

[@jamesworkman9697]

I attend a LCMS church but I struggle to understand this.....I do see the implications in Scripture regarding households being baptized and references to David being "...cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." The strongest verse I see for infant baptism is Colossians 2:10-13. I come from a Baptist background...but I'm trying...lol

[@katlyn3210]

same here.... I'm trying to understand but my entire life I've been taught about the "age of accountability".... then again, we are all born as sinners... But then again, what if someone is baptized as an infant and walks away from the faith as an adolescent or adult? I'm confused on this topic.

[@barfrockskin535]

Household baptism? YES. But none of these distinctly mention that infants were baptized. To believe that infants were baptized in household baptisms is AN ASSUMPTION. And it is an assumption that is extremely vague at best, and totally non-existent at worst. Infant baptism is a complete lie.

[@medzuslovjansky3075]

Barf Rockskin In the Old Testiment, the use of the word household included infants for sure. Ex. “And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.” Genesis 45:18 Do you think they all went to Egypt and left their infants behind?

[@solosaloon1959]

I guess mentally challenged people have no way to get to heaven. Baptism is a gift.

[@christmyking11]

I just can't get on board with this being biblical in any way. Points: 1) Baptism is an act of obedience to hearing the word of God. There are numerous references of this such as the Ethiopian eunuch. Yes God works through it but that doesn't mean belief preceding it doesn't matter. It also seems that you are conflating every time the word baptism is used to mean the exact same type of baptism, when it would seem to me the Bible clearly delineates between water baptism and baptism by the blood of Jesus unto salvation. To act like every time baptism is used it means water baptism leads to believing that water baptism is part of salvation when it clearly is not. (Faith in Christ alone saves, otherwise how could the thief on the cross be saved as Jesus said he was upon repenting and believing?) 2) Same as above, you add the "work" of baptism to the gospel. Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved NOT of works lest anyone should boast. 3) It's adding to the text to say because John the Baptist leapt in the womb he was a born-again believer in the womb. This sounds very strange on its face and the Bible is very clear that to be saved you must hear the word and believe (obviously God enlightens the mind as we can't save ourselves, yet this line of thinking seems to perpetuate the idea that someone can be saved from birth with no real knowledge of who God is or the Bible. Not sure how this is in any way scriptural. How would the baby as they grow up know whether they were saved or not?) 4) Once again adding to the text assuming "because they had households they had infants," (you say children, but children getting baptized isnt at question, it's infants who can't believe whereas young children can so going to go with you meant infants). The text in no way as written requires that the households had infants. And many of those scenarios talk about the household hearing and receiving the word (believing). 5) "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12) The idea of what’s spoken of in this passage appears to clearly be of a spiritual nature, similar to Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, and 1 Peter 3:21. We can see that in the immediate context of the passage. The believers were circumcised with the circumcision “made without hands.” It was this spiritual circumcision (cf. Rom 2:28-29), “the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh”, that Paul called “the circumcision of Christ.” Now, if the circumcision that saved believers and put off their sins was done “without hands” shouldn’t we conclude that the baptism that Paul was speaking of was “without hands” as well? It would be strange for Paul to stress that one physical ritual wasn’t what put off the sins of the flesh but that it was a physical ritual of water baptism that united a person truly with Christ in His resurrection. Secondly, this is yet another passage where the word “baptism” is used but there is no mention of water. It is an erroneous presumption to think that every time the word “baptism” appears in scripture that it refers to water baptism. The word baptism simply signifies ‘immersion into a given thing.’ And as we have noted already in previous daily teachings, the scriptures speak of more than one kind of baptism (See Mk. 10:38-39, 1 Cor. 12:13). Thus, the baptism spoken of in Colossians 2:12 appears to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the act whereby the Holy Spirit savingly immerses a person into spiritual union with Christ." www.lifeinchristministries.com/teachings/does-colossians-212-teach-salvation-by-baptism/

[@jamesworkman9697]

Isn't baptism the answer of a good conscience toward God? (1 Peter 3:21)

[@ThreeQuartersCrazed]

If I recall correctly, the Greek can be translated as "the answer of a good conscience" or as "the appeal for a good conscience." Some translations have one, some have the other. Lexically, they both work, and there's a lot of debate over which is better.

[@davethunselle9452]

Of the many baptisms described in the New Testament, I.e John the Baptist baptism, Christ’s water baptism by John, the baptism of the spirit, the baptism of fire, and so on…. Which is the “one baptism” in Ephesians 4?

[@Mygoalwogel]

0:11 Baptism is God's work, not man's work. 2:35 Infants are sinners. 3:54 Infants can believe, according to scripture. 5:56 Households and large crowds with children are baptized in scripture. Peter's command to immediately baptize "your children" has no age qualifications. 7:17 God includes small children in his gracious promises.

[@amosfetalsana4004]

Liar

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@amosfetalsana4004 Which time stamp(s) don't reflect the video? I put them in a year ago, as you can see, so I'm a bit fuzzy.

[@davidverhoef5035]

So can infants take part in the Lord's Supper?

[@stephenbailey9969]

The scriptures are clear that faith, baptism, forgiveness of sins, and the new birth of the Holy Spirit are all tied together in God's grace through Jesus Christ. But Dr. Cooper is reading more into the scriptures than they say in their most straightforward and simple reading. It all makes sense once one is inside the doctrinal system, but the interpretive assumptions don't make sense from the outside. The same can be said for other doctrinal systems that try to put God in a box. For the everyday believer, the mystery of grace at the cross of Calvary is sufficient. Faith and baptism should go together (no matter the chronological order). And thank the Lord for his saving power.

[@Mygoalwogel]

“Infants cannot have faith” is a mantra you learned from your teachers. You did not get it from the Bible, nor did anyone get it from the Bible. Some late medieval anabaptists invented the notion. Christ warns, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” *John the Baptist had and professed faith from his Mother’s womb.* _And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41 *David had faith from birth.* _For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_ _You are my trust from my youth._ *_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_* _You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6 _[You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י while on the breasts of my mother._ Psalm 22:9 *Timothy had faith from infancy.* _From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms] you have known the holy letters._ 2 Timothy 3:15 *The babies of Palm Sunday had faith at their mothers’ breast.* _And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16 Finally, the Son of God did not somehow lose his eternal faith in his Father during his earthly infancy. 𝑨𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑺𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒃𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎: ℙ𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝟙: The scriptures say the Apostles *baptized* no less than 5 Roman Empire *households* and a crowd of 3000 men, women, and specifically *"children."* Peter excludes no age range with this word. ℙ𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝟚: Roman Empire *households* had 6-9 *children* per woman, and nearly always had babies in the house. Crowds of families include children and babies. ℂ𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕝𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟:The Apostles *baptized small children.* 𝖲𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗅, 𝖶𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋. "𝖣𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗁𝗒", 𝗂𝗇 𝖶. 𝖲𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗅, 𝖨. 𝖬𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖱. 𝖲𝖺𝗅𝗅𝖾𝗋, 𝖾𝖽𝗌., 𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝖢𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗀𝖾 𝖤𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖼 𝖧𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖦𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈-𝖱𝗈𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖶𝗈𝗋𝗅𝖽 (𝖢𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗀𝖾: 𝖢𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗀𝖾 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌, 𝟤𝟢𝟢𝟩), 𝟥𝟪-𝟪𝟨. 1. The crowd of 3000 men, women, and children. (Acts 2) 2. Cornelius' Household (Acts 10) 3. Lydia's Household (Acts 16) 4. The Philippian Jailer's Household (Acts 16) 5. Crispus’ Household (Acts 18) 6. Stephanas’ Household (1 Corinthians 1) 𝑨𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒈𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑺𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒃𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎: ℙ𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝟙: Every single region and language where one or more Apostles set foot practices infant baptism. ℙ𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝟚:Some of these regional churches had almost no contact at all with one another during the lifetimes of the Apostles, or for centuries later. (e.g. Between Roman Emp., Persian Emp., India) ℂ𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕝𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟:These regions did not each independently invent infant baptism. All learned the practice from the Apostles, who baptized regional households. Origen noted that all of the far flung geographic churches in the entire Christian world baptized infants. Today these ancient regional churches that practise infant baptism include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East. Each of these churches were home and place of death to one or more Apostles. Several of these regional churches had almost no contact with each other at all, especially the Persian Empire churches with the Roman Empire churches. It's unlikely that each geographical region, speaking it's own languages, using its own forms of worship, listening to it's own preachers, and only rarely interacting with other groups each invented infant baptism independently. Rather, they all learned infant baptism from the example of the Apostles who baptized entire households.

[@stephenbailey9969]

@@Mygoalwogel Every person is drawn by the Holy Spirit to seek God, and to recognize his Christ. (John 6:44, 12:32) Every person has been gifted by the Spirit with the capability to look at nature and recognize that there is a Creator, as well as to discern right and wrong. (Romans chapters 1-2) But every person is also a slave to sin, conceived in iniquity. (Romans 8:1-2; Psalm 51:5) There is no scriptural example of baptizing infants. It was the father's duty to ensure instruction in the faith was carried on. (Ephesians 6:4) As your scripture citations show, children could learn from very young what was taught within the family. But that does not mean that babies were baptized. In the scriptures and apostolic fathers, baptism is linked to faith, repentance, and salvation, as a continuous process. Jesus himself linked baptism and discipleship, something in which only a person capable of reasoned choice could participate. (Matthew 28: 19-20) Infant baptism according to church historians does not seem to have become prevalent until the end of the second century and beginning of the third. Other traditions began to seep in over the following generations as well: penance, asceticism, growing separation between clergy and laity, etc.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@stephenbailey9969 my scripture citations do not speak of 'learning from a young age' but of foetuses infants and sucklings having faith.

[@Mygoalwogel]

My two 'arguments from' demonstrate that infants were baptized with households and at pentecost.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@stephenbailey9969 Your claim about church historians is false. In the second century, some bishops noticed and put into writing that every church throughout the world, including non-greco-latin churches unanimously baptized infants. Tertullian later questioned this unanimous and very early practice.

[@dwainsmit8410]

1. Does the baptism in Acts 2 refer to Spiritual Baptism or only Water Baptism?

[@OnBelayClimbOn]

As a Reformed Christian I found this video to be a tremendous blessing. Thanks so much for making this video, Dr. Cooper. I find the Lutheran view on Infant Faith to be very enlightening. I am wondering if anyone from the Reformed tradition has held to this as well? I'm looking at Heidelberg Q. 72 to 74 which seems to be oh so close. Did the Reformed Germans have a similar view to their Lutheran brothers and sisters on Infant baptism?

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

I'm not sure about the German Reformed, but Calvin himself was, I believe, pretty explicit about the reality of infant faith.

[@patriciareynolds2729]

where does the lutheren church come from? I thought Martin Luther went against catholic church on infant baptism.

[@carrieroberts5611]

My question is baptism comes after repentance. How can a baby repent?

[@TheGeorgeology]

You confuse the covenant with covenant signs. The new covenant is a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant though updated because Jesus fulfilled the seed promise to Abraham. With the updating of the covenant also came the updating of the sign, and as you admit the new sign has a new group of people to whom it is applied. Were women excluded from the previous covenant? No, but the sign was never applied to them. It didn’t need to be, because the sign had nothing to do with including or excluding someone from the covenant. Instead it was a the reminder or sign of the covenant. The reminder of Gods promise to fulfill his promise. The sign was meaningful in the sense it was applied to the reproductive organ of the boy because God promised Abraham a child in his old age and promised him a multitude of nations that would come from him. It also promised that his seed would be a blessing to the nations. All of that has been fulfilled. Now with the new covenant comes a new sign that has new representations and different people to whom it is applied. Where has the previous sign had to do with the cutting away of sin, and the promise of a physical heritage for nations, the new covenant speaks of a new heart. In that the baptism is a representation of a washing away the sins and putting on Christ to walk a new life. Thus it is applied to only believers. The sign has changed, the meaning behind the sign has changed, and the recipients of the signs had changed. To say that Baptists are excluding children from the covenant is to then also say that God was excluding women from the previous covenant which I am sure you would never do. So, stop trying to shame Baptists by saying they are not letting their children into the covenant. It’s simply not true and a misrepresentation of the biblical purpose of covenant signs

[@loganpeck5084]

Some baptists actually claim to exclude their children from the covenant. Plus most Baptists now are Dispensationalists and don't believe in Covenant Theology at all. Covenantal Baptists, like yourself, have a much better grasp of Scripture than most. Your explanation is the best I've heard from a Baptist perspective. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but it makes a lot more sense than any other arguments I've heard. You didn't happen to address the idea in the video that infants can have faith, citing scriptural examples. I'm curious what you would say to that. I personally had no "born again experience", which many Baptists claim is necessary for salvation. I simply put my faith in Christ, and I was taught the gospel since infancy. I was verbal very early... around the time I learned to walk and immediately affirmed my faith. By 3 years old, I asked if my Baptist church could baptize me. They refused until I was older..I assume because they didn't want to look like they were baptizing a baby.

[@TheGeorgeology]

@@loganpeck5084 I actually feel like that is his weakest argument for a few reasons. 1. It is a straw man. When someone says that infants can’t have faith, they are speaking generally, and as far as I know don’t actually make that as an argument. The argument is simply faith must proceed baptism. So, he is tearing down an argument that very few if any actually put up. 2. I can concede his point and say sure, even babies can believe. If you want to baptize a believing baby go ahead. I just don’t know how they can express that until they are verbal. I have heard of children as young as 4, believing and being baptized. Yours is an exceptional case, but I personally wouldn’t have had a problem with you being baptized. However that is not what paedobaptists are aiming at when they baptize babies. They baptize as newborns. They are not baptizing based on the faith of the child, but on the faith of the parent. 3. We don’t actually have a confirmation that any of those examples are saving faith. Yes, John leapt, but was that faith and repentance. Psalm 22 is literally a prophesy of Jesus. Psalm 71, he says he trusted in the womb, but again what context do we have that it was a salvific belief. We have examples all over the Bible of people believing, but then seeing that their faith was of some earthly sort other than faith and repentance. So, if he is going to make believing babies an argument, then he can still be a credo-Baptist because we follow the New Testament constant and consistent example of baptizing only those who believe.

[@loganpeck5084]

@@TheGeorgeology In the paedobaptist services I've seen in covenantal churches, the parents and congregation all commit to teach the child the gospel from infancy. So the baptism would be a sign that God has already shown grace on the infant by putting it in a home that will teach them that Jesus rose from the dead in the same fashion that they will teach them 2+2 = 4, fire is hot, and to brush their teeth. In such an environment, the child is basically guaranteed to make some kind of orthodox confession of faith as soon as they are verbal, because their parents (who they trust by nature) tell them it's true. Their reason for believing may not be the most mature in the world. But even adults change their reasons for believing. Why we believe isn't really as important as what we're believing. Another side issue I've seen with born-again theology (pretty universal among baptists I've seen) is people constantly point to their salvation experience, because they believe a born-again experience is necessary for salvation. Baptism is prohibited until this experience takes place. But doesn't that mean we're placing faith in our own experience instead of in Christ alone? Even lifelong Christian kids who walked the aisle and were baptized at 9 years old will give some kind of testimony about how they sort of walked away from God when they were 8 years old. They feel such a strong need to manufacture this part of their testimony, because it feels so important to the structure of the theology. How do you deal with Acts 2:38-39 where Peter basically defines the terms of the new covenant as including the children of believers by quoting Genesis 17's covenant to Abraham and his children? It seems like that would've been a really good time to tell those Jewish covenanters not to baptize babies while 3,000 people and their families were about to be baptized. If the small children were to be prohibited, it seems like almost the worst possible thing he could have said to communicate that...

[@TheGeorgeology]

@@loganpeck5084 1. So this concept is one of the reasons why I started looking into the reformed pedobaptist argumentation in the first place. I love the concept of infant baptism somehow being indicative of a promise that he father will be the priest of his family and that the parents are taught through example and ceremony their personal responsibility for the spiritual education of their child. I think that is beautiful. Regardless of how great that sounds, we have no explanation of baptism in Scripture that gives this reason for baptism being what it is. 2. Bad theology associated with a biblical practice doesn’t make that practice unbiblical, it just makes those people wrong. That is a guilt by association fallacy. Every reformed Baptist I know subscribes to perseverance of the saints. Though not everyone can say that they have had a profound experience upon coming to the faith, most have. This can not be dismissed. However, it is foolish for a pastor or anyone to judge a person’s conversion based on an experience. Rather it should be based on whether the person can affirm that they repented and believed. 3. Your assessment of Acts 2:38-39 makes an assumption about what the people would have assumed. I am familiar with this argument. I have always found this one of the least compelling arguments. It goes this way. A. Peter quotes Abrahams covenant, and all of these Jews were familiar with the covenant and knew that circumcision was the sign of the covenant. B. Therefore when he told them that they needed to baptized they would automatically assume that they must baptize their children. There are several problems with this 1. Peter qualifies who those who are receiving this promise, everyone whom the Lord calls to himself. So, if I have to assume that this is for all of their children, then I must assume that this if for all of those who are afar off. This would then be universalism. Peters own words, sets the limits of who will be receiving this promise. 2. The primary promise is the gift of the Holy Spirit, not baptism. 3. Baptism was already being practiced on proselytes to Judaism. So, where you may assume that they would assume that the baptism would be some exact replacement of circumcision, I assume that they would see the message behind baptism being implemented. The message is that your relationship with God is not contingent on your bloodline, but instead on you being converted to Christ. He puts the Jews in the same boat as the gentiles not the reversed. The Gentiles don’t need to become Jews to come to God. The Jews need to see that without Christ they are just as lost as the Gentiles. Yes once we are saved, we become Jews. Not outwardly by the circumcision of the flesh, but inwardly by the circumcision of the heart.

[@genol.depello7274]

If someone gets saved, born again and repentance through the word of God and shows a change to life, does that mean when they're baptized in water their sins are forgiven a second time how does that make sense?

[@simo0248]

Thank you for such a great video! As a Lutheran pastor to be, I greatly appreciate your precise and thorough videos!

[@wmredfield22]

Simon Nielsen - Don't stop there!!! 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15) Be a Berean!!! 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:10-11) Establish where you find in the text (like in the case of the circumcision which is nothing like Baptism), there is a mandate to baptize infants. Leviticus 12:3 boom! circumcise on the eighth day (boys, never girls), verses for mandatory infant baptism??? The Liturgy reads like a christening, with the exception of the opening line, "In Holy Baptism our gracious heavenly Father liberates us from sin and death..." sound like salvation via baptism? Don't get me wrong, anyone who proclaims "JESUS as LORD" needs to be baptized, but "buyer beware!" Infant Baptism came to Protestantism in the reformation via the Roman Catholic Church. The reform was about righting the wrongs particularly with the interpretation of scripture, lets just say, "follow the money" and I think you will understand what I am referring to ~ Jesus Christ is Lord!!!

[@danbratten3103]

@@wmredfield22 "circumcision which is nothing like Baptism".....ooh, so wrong. Colossians 2:11,12 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." Paul is clearly showing that Baptism replaces circumcision.

[@wmredfield22]

@@danbratten3103 Point noted: "...circumcised with the circumcision made without hands..." Who does the circumcision? Christ! Physical circumcision was done on the eighth day in the physical flesh, a requirement the parents were responsible to fulfill, yes? So then, A christening would be comparable in that sense, is that your point? (it is important here to keep in mind, that ONLY males were physically circumcised under Jewish Law thus narrowing participation). When one gets Baptized one is engaging voluntarily as a matter of obedience, in an act of confessing publicly their faith and their visual relationship to Christ. All believers, male and female, partake in baptism. The 8-day old male child has no voice in the decision to be circumcised therefore, not the same. What happens when one believes? The old man (flesh) is removed and replaced by the new man in Christ by the Spirit, (see Col. 3:9-11), which Paul is saying in your quoted text. Unlike physical circumcision, it is NOT limited to males, but to believers all. It is in this sense that I see a distinction, do you not? Jesus Christ is Lord!!!

[@sahaynam6470]

I was baptized as a baby, but my wife, my stepdaughter, and our new baby have not been baptized. I want them all to be baptized, and I think it would be a good example as the leader of the family to be baptized again with them. Any issues with this?

[@sager31708]

Dont do it it does nothing for u.Baptism is expose to be dunking not sprinkleling.Baptism is just repersenting that u are are saved christian.

[@atanasiogreene8493]

Vicki Sage you are just following baptist traditions not scripture. There is no scriptural requirement for dunking that is a baptist tradition and dogma that comes from modern Interpretations. It is not just a symbol and never has been 1 Peter 3:21 “21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. e It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

[@atanasiogreene8493]

Vicki Sage where does it say anywhere is scripture that baptism says that you are a saved Christian verbatum in scripture... no where at all

[@atanasiogreene8493]

Vicki Sage and you are not saved until God welcomes you into heaven it is not a moment in the past if it was you would already be in heaven

[@nathanyamaha465]

One baptism, do not get rebaptized, you are already baptized. To get rebaptized changes the Sacrament from God’s work of grace to man’s work and choice.

[@craigjoyner9857]

Infants are sinners?!? Absolute nonsense. Book chapter and verse for that assertion?

[@11tkohtz]

Pslams 51:5, Ecclesiastes 9:3 , Genesis 8:21. We are by nature sinful and unclean. We inherit it from our fallen father ultimatly Adam. Infants may have never committed an actual sin but just like a Tiger cub it may be harmless when it's first born but it will grow into its natural preditor instinct because it's in its nature. Same way it is in our nature to sin.

[@chronoblip]

​@@11tkohtz How would you reconcile those passages with 1 Corinthians 7:14?

[@11tkohtz]

​@@chronoblip First, I am excited and hoping that we are challenging each other in faith in this dialouge and even if your view does not change I hope it will help you better understand the other side of this discussion. I would reconcile by first saying we need to look at the context and avoid cherry picking scripture versus. For example, seeing we are both protestant, James 2:26 faith without good works is dead don’t contradict all the scriptures that teach salvation by grace, Ephesians 1:4 doesn’t contradict all the versus that God died for everyone not just those, “predestined,” and 1 Corinthians 7:14 doesn’t contradict all the versus on our inherit sin or that Baptism is a means of grace to which God brings forgiveness to us. In 1st Corinthians 7 Paul is addressing principles for marriage. Before 7:14 what Paul is teaching is that unbelief in Christ is not a grounds for divorce. Obviously, we can agree that one person’s faith can’t save that of an unbeliever. Rather the faith and witness of one spouse can lead their unbelieving spouse to faith. In the same way two parents who have unbelief are not going to raise their children to fear God when they themselves don’t fear God. On the other hand the family is the first place God calls for children to have their spiritual needs met. A parent/s who does fear the Lord will provide for their spiritual needs which would include presenting them to God in Baptism, fostering their faith to do as God commanded in Deuteronomy 6:7 to teach the commandments diligently to your children so that as Proverbs 22:6 says teach a child the way they should go and when they are old, they will not depart.

[@chronoblip]

​@@11tkohtz I appreciate your comment and will endeavor to reflect your earnest and cordial investigation into the topic. :) The issue is perhaps with exactly what you mean with "inherent sin". To return to the original question you were answering, the concern was with infants being considered sinners in the present tense, which is different from possessing a sin nature where sin is inevitable apart from divine intervention. To try and make clear the distinction through a question: do you believe a debt of sin exists from the moment of conception?

[@11tkohtz]

@@chronoblip I too appreciate your cordialness and openness! Your question is the very base of how we view everything in scripture including Baptism. Are we people broken by sin that chose to sin or are we spiritually dead and know only how to sin and cannot know God and be saved except by the intervention (grace) of the Holy Spirit? So, is there a debt to be paid for sin from the moment of conception? Yes, that is what inherit sin is (Psalms 51:5 In sin did my mother conceive me). Think of original sin as the disease and the sins we commit in life as the symptoms. Let me elaborate in more detail. When we go back to the Fall, Adam and Eve were told when they ate the fruit they would surely die. They didn’t drop dead when they ate from the fruit, but they became dead spiritually (Ephesians 2:1). When we are dead spiritually then the only thing the natural man knows is the desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:17-21). When Adam and Eve had children, they no longer bore the image of God’s perfection and immortality but of sin and death, hence when Genesis 5:3 says Adam fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image. Adam and Eve both being dead in trespasses could not give birth to a son alive in the spirit of Christ. Since the wages of sin is death children are not immune from illness and death as sad as it is to see. Think about when Cain killed Abel, is human nature naturally humble and loving or are we naturally prideful and selfish? Scripture says there is no one who seeks God and does good, not even one (Romans 3:10-12), we are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Flesh gives birth to flesh and the spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:6), hence why Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit so that he would be born without sin and in the same way me must be born again in the Spirt. Also think in the Exodus when the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians. Two Israelite parents couldn’t give birth to a child that was free because they themselves were slaves. Their children were born into slavery, in the same we are born into sin. The Israelites were freed from their bondage to slavery because by God’s work alone drowned Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. In the same way when Jesus calls us to be baptized in his name (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). He is drowning our inherit and sin and all the sins that we will ever commit as a result. washing away all of our sins (Acts 22:16) so that we are risen to a newness in life in which we can stand before God with Christ’s perfection. The Baptist view is we are not spiritually dead but broken and need to make a choice to accept Jesus before Baptism. I would challenge though when we look at John 6:63 (among many, but this is the most direct) which reads, “It is the Spirit that gives life the flesh is no help at all, the words I have given to you are spirit and Life. No one can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). It wasn’t the bronze snake, the water, and mud that saved the Israelites, cured Naaman of his leprosy, and opened the eyes of the blind man, but the word of God. When Jesus raised Lazarus, he couldn’t chose to come back to life, God’s word alone called him back to life. In Baptism it’s not the water that does the work but it’s the word of God that blesses the water that makes one holy. This is why we refer to the sacraments (Baptism and Communion) as a means of grace. That they are God’s actions toward us, not the other way around. There is a lot more under the iceberg that have to be addressed before we can really see eye to eye such as God’s judgment (does god send children to hell, does God damn those who have never heard of him (my simple answer no but that’s a whole different discussion)), If we’re saved by God’s grace alone and his grace is for everyone why is not everyone saved, what about the thief on the cross, are once saved always saved, etc. However, I hope this gives you a start to understanding the other’s perspective here.

[@kyledanner436]

I'm confused as to how the blood and body of christ was not sufficient for redemption/salvation? Also a baby's dependence I think is different than ability to conceive belief.

[@johnsaxon5154]

OK you convinced me, a Baptist, that we should baptise infants.

[@tucker3601]

God bless

[@MissCarasMusic]

I’ve been a Lutheran my whole life and now, living in the south, have many Baptist friends. I really struggle to understand why they keep such a beautiful gift from their children. I’m so happy and thankful to be a Lutheran.

[@sager31708]

In the bible it talks about baptism saves u.But it doesent mean water baptism.It means baptism through the holy spirit.

[@atanasiogreene8493]

Vicki Sage baptism is water and spirit in one and is a work of God not ours.

[@carolinelvsewe]

Every verse you gave requires an action on the part of the person. Not possible with an infant. Just say you like your tradition and be honest. I can respect that.

[@solosaloon1959]

Mom and Dad feed and water their babies. It’s not too hard to add baptism to the care of babies.

[@rogerblevins78]

So what about the thief on the cross who was not baptized?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Haven't you seen this? kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKGakmChiciGkNE

[@AZVIDE0Z]

The devil is at work when children especially are ROBBED of the gift of God

[@markhorton3994]

Baptism is necessary for salvation. It is the means by which God delivers His grace. God makes exceptions for all who repent and believe but cannot be baptized (or who delay too long) but those who refuse to be baptized are not saved. If you believe that infants are sinless and do not need to be saved, at what age does a child become responsible for their actions and sins?

[@julie-annjolinekert913]

But shouldn’t everyone decide if they even want to be baptised?

[@jennernolast6858]

Yes. You are correct. The person should decide if he or she wants to be baptized. It’s like this. If a son is born and another daughter is born and the parents wants them to be married, can they marry the two infants and the parents will answer for them? 😂

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Did the Jewish boys decide if they wanted to be circumcised at 8 days of age or was it done by the Faith of the family. Circumcision was a sign of entering the Old Covenant and Baptism is entering into the New and Better Covenant

[@jgeph2.4]

Help me to understand better the Lutheran view of baptism. I’m currently Presbyterian OPC and we too baptize our children and believe it includes them in the convent of God to be raised and admonished in the faith but we don’t believe it regenerates them necessarily. This leaves understanding not only of Gods election and eternal security but of the real threat of apostasy in the warning passages of say Hebrews 6 and 10 and others . Do Lutherans hold that children baptized are regenerated at baptism but can still fall away in apostasy later and if so how do you reconcile that? Thank you

[@charleskramer8995]

It is because Lutherans reject eternal security and election. A Lutheran would believe that a Christian always remains free to reject God, His Grace and the salvation it brings. A Lutheran would reject the idea of God only electing to save certain people. Rather, salvation is open to all. Everyone is free to accept or reject salvation.

[@jgeph2.4]

@@charleskramer8995 article 18 of the Augsburg Confession on free will disagrees with what you are saying on choosing God

[@charleskramer8995]

@@jgeph2.4 I don't see any conflict. Art. 18 indicates that men can do civilly good works but need the help of God to become pleasing to God. There is nothing in Art. XVIII which conflicts with the idea that a human remains free to chose to accept that help or reject it. Nor there anything in it which implies that certain people who have heard the Gospel are incapable (as opposed to unwilling) of accepting it.

[@jgeph2.4]

@@charleskramer8995 this is from the book of concord . So Lutherans do believe in election . 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:

[@charleskramer8995]

@@jgeph2.4 Election of whom? In a sense, God knows who will be saved from all eternity and wills their salvation. The question is whether God wills the salvation of all or wills that some are simply damned. That does not appear to be a Lutheran position. From the Book of Concord: Therefore we reject the following errors: 1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel. 2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him. 3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.

[@5692Nate21]

Very good video. Even more simply, why would you want to withhold the Grace of God from your child just because they’re young?

[@eleat]

I'm currently non-denominational looking into more traditional denominations. 1 Peter 3:21 without a doubt says that Baptism is more than a symbol. I can't stay in a church that views the sacraments lowly anymore.

[@nathanmontgomery5535]

Bro this is legit!!!! Just curious what denomination do you accociate with?

[@RomGabe]

@Nathan Montgomery .... Jordan Cooper is a Lutheran pastor in the AALC denomination (which is in communion with LCMS, a much largery synod).

[@P4bb10]

I am alao troubled with the need for repentance on the part of the sinner stated for example in the Acts 2 scripture. My secind question would be, why do the babies historically need godparents for confessing their faith for them if infant baptism was so natural and it is established that babies can have faith of their own?

[@2WheeledRakyat]

Hi Dr. Cooper, thanks for your concise introduction on this subject. Would love to hear your thoughts on the similarities/differences with the Classical Reformed view. Cheers!

[@GoatzombieBubba]

Cooper is a false teacher.

[@nightshade99]

The guy is a heretic.

[@hawkkent]

Thank you, this was very helpful!

[@windywithachanceofsunshine5219]

Jordan, great explanation! And to add, at Baptism we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are no longer sons of Adam but sons of God. Baptism puts us in line for sonship and the hope of heaven.

[@Psalm119-50]

One reason to run from this page! Jesus wasn't baptized until His 30's! Not that this is the age to be baptized! But, if anyone was to be baptized at a young age to follow, it would have been Christ! And no where in Scripture does the Bible teach to baptize a baby! Hence baptism does not save anyone! But a sign that one has become a disciple of Christ! So a baby becomes a disciple of Christ and knows what that baptism is??

[@IbelieveinGod483]

Jesus was already Holy. He didn't need to be baptized, yet He did for those hearing the Gospel for the first time. This is different from a child being born into a Christian household. By being baptized, they are given saving faith as the Word and Spirit are in the water. Baptism saves you in 1 Peter 3:21. Acts 2:38-39 says that the promise is also for your CHILDREN. This includes infants. Baptism saves as it gives you the Spirit and the Word which is in the water.

[@blakehanson4683]

Wow! This was very well put together with scripture!

[@grandpahand7410]

I find it very curious that Dr. Cooper has Catholic crucifixes and a rosary hanging on the bookshelf behind him. What gives?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Lutherans often have crucifixes. They're visible reminders of Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins. And those are Lutheran prayer beads. We don't use them to pray to Mary.

[@grandpahand7410]

@@DrJordanBCooper I learned something. Thank you.

[@grandpahand7410]

@@DrJordanBCooper it’s funny, right after I saw your reply I saw this video on KZbin: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYnWnZ5opdFpfM0

[@grandpahand7410]

@@DrJordanBCooper right after I sent you the earlier KZbin video this one popped up: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3SrhY2CadJjZ5Y

[@jacobcochrane9069]

I wish this were a joke. I don't mean to insult, but this content is neither biblical not logical. Also concerning is the use of exaggeration. Any treatment of a controversial topic that fails to honestly interact with the opposing view is suspicious at best. I've fallen for this type of thing before too, though. Hopefully folks are more descerning than to continue to listen to shallow argumentation.

[@jacobcochrane9069]

@knowledge seeker Actually, I think the reason this video showed up for me is because I'd already watched Mike Winger's video on this topic. If you're interested in a more clear and thorough treatment of infant baptism then check it out. I think he generally does an excellent job of addressing "controversial" topics with humility and love.

[@jacobcochrane9069]

@knowledge seeker Yes, based on what I've heard and my own reading of scripture, I believe infant baptism is a misguided practice. I believe baptism is to be performed on a believer, with his consent, as a sign of commitment and acceptance. Now, seeing your use of the word "denying" I'm assuming that you did not watch Mike Winger's video, and that you're comfortable with a somewhat divisive way of handling disagreement. Look, I don't know you so I'm not going to attempt to correct you. I've recommended a public source of info for your edification. I see no need to continue discussing this with you, but thank you for the attention.

[@morelmaster]

@@jacobcochrane9069 YOU: I've recommended a public source of info for your edification. ME: If you believe what Mike Winger teaches, fine, but there are people that don't agree with him, me included. He seems like a good guy, but that doesn't mean he is interpreting Scripture correctly, that's all I'm saying.

[@rikardseltveit2732]

@knowledge seeker yes but if there was a famely of 5 to day. The parents and 3 children ho was 17 years old Jack, 5 yers old Hanna and 2 yers old Pete they where not christian. then one day you heard that the perents was saved, had become christians, we would maybe ask, was Jack saved too? We woulden't ask was Hanna and Pete saved to? Infant and babyies dont count

[@rikardseltveit2732]

@knowledge seeker can you five meg the book en verses on that?

[@unit2394]

It appears that there was a slight error concerning the Baptism of the household of Lydia in Acts 16:5. It looks to be in Acts 16:14-15 instead. Great video, incredibly useful. Thanks and God bless.

[@abbey4026]

We have free will, babies can't make decisions themselves. We have no right to baptize them. That's the same as abortion, we have no right to kill another soul. We can't force baptize another soul. That is their decision once they decide to become a follower of christ.

[@atgred]

Abbey :] Baptism is LIFE!!! Abortion is DEATH!! You are all mixed up! And yes children have free will bit they also have loving parents!! And I as a father WILL for them because they do not know better UNTIL they have matured. And that is called being responsable. Your comment is irresponsible.

[@africanphilosophymatters6951]

@@atgred Say it again bro! If that's the case they shouldn't send their children to school until the age of reason. Also why should parents even decide the kind of food the child is suppose eat. Why don't they wait until the age of reason since they can't reason? No one complains about these things but the fundamentalist will complain if one decides to dedicate his or her child to Christ through baptism.

[@rawrdino7046]

@@africanphilosophymatters6951 what if the child grow up to not believe in god

[@africanphilosophymatters6951]

@@rawrdino7046 Man is unpredictable and that's why it's even possible for those who even receive baptism at a matured age can stop believing in God. This is a reality!

[@mariadiaz8418]

@@africanphilosophymatters6951 help me , I grew up with different families so a religion never stuck to me , I cannot consider myself a catholic if I do not worship the virgin mary although I believe I her. And I cannot say I'm Christian if I do not practice , but I do believe in the almighty God and his son jesus christ. I have sinned like many I had my first son at 29 yrs old my bf is Christian and his family does not think I should baptize the baby , they say he should decide that on his own when hes ready :/ but in my heart I feel like baptize is very important in case God Forbid he shall call for my baby one day. If I were to decide to baptize my son , would it be best to do it as Catholicism or christianity?

[@sager31708]

What about the theif on the cross.What about when paul says that I have not come to baptise but to preach the gospel.

[@morelmaster]

The thief was an exception, God can make exceptions because HE is GOD, that is why we cannot judge anyone as to their eternal destination. Paul did baptize some people himself, but his mission was to preach the Gospel and not spend time baptizing, other people in the Church were probably given the duty of baptizing.

[@theflower4348]

If you were part of the Orthodox Church you would know the early church had 3 forms of baptism, water blood and tears, that’s why we say martyrs are baptized because through the shedding of their blood for Jesus they are forgiven and baptized

[@shellieperreault6262]

God gives grace through several ways. One is through water and word, and one is body and blood, but these are not exclusive. The thief on the cross knew who Jesus was, and Jesus gave him His WORD. That is enough. The thief had faith, and that faith saved him.

[@ImCarolB]

Every one of these arguments fall flat biblically, as far as I am concerned. It diminishes the value of baptism.

[@shellieperreault6262]

Baptism is a means by which God gives the gift of salvation and the Holy Spirit. How is the value of baptism being deminished here!?

[@Paul-ek5lu]

@@shellieperreault6262 John 3:3 King James Version 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Baptism is not for a baby.

[@shellieperreault6262]

@@Paul-ek5lu Now give me the real Greek translation of that verse.

[@Paul-ek5lu]

@@shellieperreault6262 Hi Shellie, That is direct from Greek is it not?

[@Paul-ek5lu]

@@shellieperreault6262 Can a baby know what it means to be born again?

[@averagenoah1410]

infants aren't sinners? Do you really think infants who have not done anything wrong will go into eternal fire

[@jennernolast6858]

They won’t. They won’t be judged on the second judgment day. They go straight to heaven. They don’t have to answer to anything even to Jesus

[@shellieperreault6262]

They do have original sin.

[@definitionhighguy]

@@jennernolast6858 That's heretical

[@jennernolast6858]

Babies are God’s gift. They are pure and sinless. Original sin is the one that’s heretical preaching. No where in the Bible can you read that. And according to Galatians 1:7-9, those who preach that the apostles didn’t preach are cursed.

[@jennernolast6858]

👉🏻👉🏻according to their works.👈🏻👈🏻. Do infants have “WORKS” that needs to be judged??? Answer please. Rev 20: 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, 👉🏻👉🏻according to their works.👈🏻👈🏻

[@juggler8524]

you should do 5 reasons why baptism saves from the bible. that'd be a solid follow up considering how connected it is. Great content though!

[@barfrockskin535]

Baptism DOES NOT save you! If baptizing is the only thing that saves, then the apostle Paul would have been baptizing EVERYBODY.

[@elijahclubb4097]

10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise master builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one must be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

[@elijahclubb4097]

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not remember baptizing anyone else. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. Paul was not sent to baptise himeslf, so others would have done it.

[@atgred]

Barf Rockskin Peter’s word inspired by God over yours. ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:21‬ ‭KJV «The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also NOW SAVES US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:» ‬‬

[@harktheheral]

"He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved." Mark 16:16 "Baptism now saves you." 1 Peter 3:21 "Repent and BE BAPTIZED, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVNESS OF YOUR SINS. And you will RECEIVE THE GIFT of the Holy Spirit. The promise is FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off-for all whom the LORD our God will call [...] SAVE yourselves from this corrupt generation." Acts 2:38-40 "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that He might SANCTIFY her, having CLEANSED HER BY THE WASHING OF WATER with the word..." Ephesians 5:25-26 Elijah Clubb above wants to point to 1 Corinthians as Paul not baptizing, but what does Paul actually say? He says "I baptized all these people. And this guy. And that entire household. And maybe some others. I don't remember." He wishes he hadn't baptized not because of the lack of power of baptism, but precisely because of it - his argument is predicated on the idea that baptism knit you into a greater whole. But that head wasn't Paul. People are baptized INTO CHRIST. Since Christ saves, being in Christ is that which saves us. How do we put on Christ? "For as many of you AS WERE BAPTIZED into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:27

[@AmillennialMillenial]

We are justified by faith, and faith deepens in understanding and grows (or wanes) throughout our lives. In evangelical and baptist circles, children sometimes as young as 5 and often around 7 or 8 “make a decision” and get baptized to fulfill the post conversion baptism belief. Kids this young can certainly have faith, but I doubt that most of them have a real understanding beyond “my parents want me to ask Jesus into my heart so I can go to heaven, so I will.” So I would say that even Baptists/evangelicals often push children to be baptized before they can make an intelligent, cognizant, true confession of faith, but they wait until a point a little later, after they can get some verbal assent out of the kid. Again, these kids’ faith can be real, as it is a gift of God. But on the continuum of understanding and confessing faith, I don’t think there’s much difference between getting baptized at 6 after repeating correct words to your parents and Sunday school teacher and an infant. There’s no objective way to measure how correct the young person’s understanding must be to get baptized, and since it’s an effective sacrament and gift of God, why not do it near birth instead of the “baby dedication” these denominations often have.

[@NurseT489]

You are all types of wrong mate 😅 don't pick and choose bible vs bro 👍

[@harktheheral]

...which Bible verses would you like us to use?

[@wesleycrisp6523]

Babies r innocent. Lutheran tradition, not scriptual

[@IbelieveinGod483]

That's Pelegianism, that's heresy.

[@IbelieveinGod483]

Romans 3:23, Psalm 51:5

[@primeprime4698]

Infant baptism is NOT scriptural. It is a CHOICE (Acts 8: 36 - 39) we make AFTER we realise we are sinners and need a saviour and repent (turn away from our old lifestyle, friends and family if need be (Matt 10: 37, 38) Even Mary acknowledged that she needs a saviour (Luke 1: 46, 47) As a baby Jesus was "presented" to the Lord (Luke 2: 21) Jesus laid hands on infants and small children to bless them, not sprinkel or pour water over them or immerse them in water

[@matbianco8842]

Marie-Louise it is!!! as you heard

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

[@primeprime4698]

@@georgeibrahim7945 Rom 6: 3 Baptism symbolises death unto sin - babies are not sinners therefore have nothing to confess or to repent from - turn away from a sinful life - to be born again is to have remorse of a previously sinful life with a sincere desire to change - infants do not have this choice since they don't have life experience and do not have to be born again

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults. Peter in Acts says baptism is for you and your CHILDREN. If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

[@joyceileen]

@@georgeibrahim7945 why do you only read half of the sentence ?

[@soundimpact4633]

How can a child be attributed to obedience as an infant? I was raised Wisconsin-synod Lutheran. I was immersed at 35. Infant baptism never made any sense to me and it doesn't make any sense to me now. Dedication I can understand. A parental intention to raise their child in the faith I can understand. But baptism follows repentance and belief. Otherwise it's nothing but magic water and if it's magic water why not spray down the congregation why not add magic water to the city system? I'm not being snarky or blasphemous. I am presenting extremely serious points and questions. You cannot turn baptism into an incantation with magic water. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It's about understanding that we are sinful creatures in need of a savior and repenting our sins and submitting to The obedience of baptism.

[@liftmyvoicetoworship]

Can you honestly tell me that if you had no prior teaching or outside influence and you read the bible cover to cover that the conclusion you would come to in regards to baptism would be that all infants should be baptized? I really don't think so. Instead you would find no explicit examples of an infant baptism but many examples of individuals who made a conscious decision to repent and follow Christ and then be baptized. To argue that infants should be baptized is to take what was a God given gift to true believers, apply hundreds of years of false teaching and practice, and then try to validate this new infant baptism with scripture. It simply doesn't fit and wasn't in the text to begin with.

[@windywithachanceofsunshine5219]

I'm surprised that a "sola scripture" believer glosses over specifics in the bible. First, Jesus was baptized as an example to all of mankind. Baptism is a gift from God that gives us grace. It is not something that we must do to get a gift. Jesus taught that ALL should be baptized to enter heaven. And in several instances throughout the bible, thousands were baptized. Included were whole households, which also included EVERYONE in the household - women, children, infants, slaves, even visitors. When reading scripture, you have to consider the customs of the times and how information was expressed. You cannot read the bible literally. You will miss too much important info. So, were babies baptized then? Most definitely! And the primary purpose of God's gift to us - baptism - was to expunge the sin of Adam(the Savior's coming, foretold right in the beginning of the bible, Genesis) and to initiate us into His church. After that, it is our responsibility to repent for our sins and receive grace, so that we may share in eternal life.

[@Leaf93]

I was baptized as a baby (United) and so were my kids (Catholic). But is there proof of baby baptisms in the early church prior to Constantine around 325 when he legalized Christianity in the empire? Honest question I don’t know the answer to.

[@patriciareynolds2729]

the catholic church has been the object of many misintertations of the bible over the years. they also use apostle Peter as starting the catholic church and forbid church officers not to marry. Peter had a mother-in-law in bible so ?????

[@Leaf93]

@@patriciareynolds2729 I hear you. I joined (RCIA pre marriage)to make things easier with my wife and her family and our kids but there are definitely some things I struggle with. Other things, I can see their point on.