Baptists assume advocates of infant baptism are blinded by their traditions, but they seldom stop to consider how they impose …
45 COMMENTS
There were many sects of Baptists that were heretics but there were also some Baptist sects that were sound in the faith. Just like there were many infant baptist sects that were heretics. read the book, "America Crimson Red" Baptists suffered a lot of persecution at the hands of the protestants in early America and this book documents it. You can point to many sects today who baptize babies that are heretics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, PCUSA, and the Roman Catholic church, all these sects baptize babies, all are heretics. You cannot lump all baptists together with heretics anymore than you can lump all infant baptizers together with all the paedo-baptist heretics. Some baptist sects were sound, they may have been few but some were. Just like today there are a few baby baptizers who are sound but they are few. I would like to ask this person if he gives babies the Lords supper? Is that not a type and shadow of the passover meal? If he would not give children the supper then when was it that children were to be removed from the passover?
Thank you for your contributions to this conversation Brother Wallace. If it were possible, I think many would appreciate if Dr. White & yourself dialogued on baptism at length. Merry Christmas to you & your congregation.
I have some questions: Are not LDS and JWs, along with SDA and all other Baptists, including "orthodox" Baptists, simply one form or another of Anabaptists? To be sure, there is a range within Anabaptism from merely heterodox Reformed Baptists to Non-Reformed Baptists to "orthodox" Charismatics to what might be called small "h" heretical SDA to capital "H" Heretical anti-trinitarian and anti-Christological OPism, JWism, to the rock-bottom rank polytheistic LDS. Are not Charismaticism, 7th Day Sabbaticism, and Apocalypticism also ancillary features of Anabaptism? Were there any 7th Day Sabbatarians among 16th century Anabaptists? I know there were what might be called Charismatics and Apocalypticists. There seems to be a progression in Anabaptism from bad to worse to heterodox to heretical to damnably heretical. From revivalism and pietism among the Reformed orthodox, to a fork in the road leading to unitarianism, universalism, deism, and ultimately ending at atheism, or the other fork branching off of Reformed orthodoxy at mere Anabaptism (with its precursors of pietism, revivalism, and perfectionism) which may lead if followed to Charismaticism, Apocalyphicism, and finally to Trinitarian and Christological errors, ultimately ending in polytheism.
It all seems to begin with not correctly understanding conversion and the Covenant of Grace at the point of baptism. Even the conglomeration of errors from which the Reformed forked off, the RCC, seems to have started with a misunderstanding of the Covenant of Grace at the point of baptism (baptismal regeneration). It seems that if you misunderstand the Covenant of Grace, whether RCC or Anabaptist, eventually you will "progress" first to merit and then to works salvation along that road, if you do not stop. Thank God for all of the Anabaptists who stopped at mere Reformed or even Non-Reformed Anabaptism. Yes, and thank God for all those Anabaptists who stopped before denying the Father and the Son.
Am I all wet here? Am I conflating things? Am I reading too much into this? I don't want to insult or harden either "Reformed" or Non-Reformed mere Anabaptists, or for that matter, Non-Reformed "Arch"-Anabaptists. But, is there a progression beginning at non-covenantal baptism? Is covanental/non-covenantal baptism a "bright" theological dividing line? Do the vast majority of Protestant sects follow from a misunderstanding of the Covenant of Grace in general, and at baptism in particular?
AP, *I* believe that, minimally, Christ saves the baptized infants and children of baptized believers who have not yet eaten FOR THEMSELVES of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whose fathers, extending back to Adam, ate FOR THEM (Original Sin)), without their own personal faith. As such infants did not need "anti-faith" (unbelief) evidenced by anti-works (sin) to be made guilty, so they do not need faith evidenced by works to be made innocent. Merely being IN Christ (by regeneration) makes them first innocent and then righteous if they have no high-handed sins of their own. This our Lord accomplished by fulfilling the Day of Atonement sacrifice "for the sins of the people committed in IGNORANCE", alone, for them. The Day of Atonement, not requiring personal faith to benefit from it as evidenced by the fact that in it the people DO NOT WORK to perform the sacrifice but only the High Priest – works being evidence of faith. Our Lord's fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice, since it involves the head of household, at a minimum, working to perform the sacrifice while the rest of his household may be more or less passive in the sacrifice, perhaps merely eating the Passover meal, involves the personal faith of the head of household at a minimum, covenantally and temporarily covering the rest of his household who may lack personal faith at that time from guilt from their high-handed sins with KNOWLEDGE and understanding.
However, there is nothing in Christ's fulfillment of the DoA sacrifice that prevents unbaptized infants of Christians who die as infants in utero, from being saved. Indeed, there is nothing that prevents ALL infants, defined as all children, in utero or born, who have not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge FOR THEMSELVES, who also die AS INFANTS, from being saved without their own personal faith. All such infants are guilty ONLY of "sins of ignorance", which would include Original Sin (in everyone but Adam), and are NOT guilty of high-handed sin with the KNOWLEDGE and understanding that what they are doing is sin and evil, which high-handed knowledgable sin requires Christ's fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice and personal faith on the part of the one saved to lay hold of Christ and his benefits – AS WELL AS Christ's fulfillment of the Day of Atonement sacrifice for sins of ignorance including Original Sin.
This is why in the DoA sacrifice, since it is a corporate or national sacrifice and not all of "the people" are elect, both a DoA victim (Jesus Christ (Jesus, Son of the Father)), whose blood will be sprinkled on the throne of mercy, and a scapegoat (Jesus Barabbas (Jesus, "son of the father")), who will carry away out of the camp of the elect those "sins of the people (Adam's children/mankind) committed in ignorance" that ARE NOT forgiven in Christ – are required. IOW, because in the DoA sacrifice "the people" are all of Adam's race, and because not all in Adam are elect, therefore there must be some means of LIMITING Christ's atonement to only the elect. That means IS the scapegoat. Without the scapegoat, everyone's Original Sin and Original Guilt would be forgiven, as well as their sins of ignorance. And because Christ's fulfillment of the DoA for his people is the grounds for the Spirit regenerating the elect (Adamic debt must be settled before regeneration into Christ), everyone would be regenerated and universalism would be true, because everyone who is regenerated will repent and trust Christ if developed enough. Therefore, for infants, as I defined them, who die AS infants, to be saved, all that is necessary is that they are elect and then regenerated (John Baptist was regenerated in the womb) before they die as infants, receiving forgiveness of Original Sin in the womb, or forgiveness of Original Sin after birth and if necessary as children receiving forgiveness for their other sins of ignorance as well. I suspect that all infants who die as infants ARE elect.
Yes, the reason Pontius Pilate officiated (brought the two goats to the High Priest for his choice) at the Day of Atonement sacrifice of Christ along with the earthly Jewish High Priest (who decides which goat is to be the victim and which is to be the scapegoat) is that he represented Cesar, the king of the world at the time, who himself represented Adam, the first king of the world and head of the Adamic dynasty – therefore the need for a scapegoat to avoid universalism.
Therefore, Christ may have saved many more people by his fulfillment of the DoA than he has by his fulfillment of the Passover. Medical studies reveal that the average married couple will produce between 200 and 300 children in their fertile lifetimes of which they are not even aware since those children died before the woman even knew she was pregnant. ALL of those children may be saved by Christ in the DoA without their personal faith if they are merely elect and therefore are regenerated by the Spirit prior to their death. There are eight billion people alive now, say roughly three billion couples, do the math. Gives new meaning to God's promise to Abraham that his seed should be more than the 10b x 10b stars of the 2nd heaven and more than the sand of the seashore.
Ever wonder how there are people of every tribe, tongue, nation, and people around the throne when there are people groups who never heard of Jesus, let alone of the Jews and Yahweh, who thrived on distant continents or islands and perished as distinct peoples? This is how. Even if not a single adult (someone who has eaten of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil for themselves (i.e., committed a sin knowing it was sin and experiencing the shame of their guilt)) from their tribe was saved – their infants who died as infants (including those they may have sacrificed to idols) were (may have been) saved.
Nonetheless, willful high-handed sin with knowledge and understanding is only atoned for by Christ's fulfillment of the Passover and only appropriated by the personal faith of the offender. Interestingly, I believe there IS NO atonement for willful high-handed knowledgable sin in the Law ([Acts 13:38-39 NKJV] "[39] "…and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you **could not be justified by the law of Moses**."), and likewise, the Passover is never stated in Scripture to be for the forgiveness of ANY kind of sins (even though it does state that "Christ, our Passover was sacrificed for us"), let alone high-handed sins. Christ's fulfillment of the Day of Atonement atones for all types of ignorant sins, including Original Sin, and is the basis for God regenerating his elect (severing their connection to Adam and placing them into the Last Adam by Spiritual birth) – SO THAT they might trust Christ for the forgiveness of their high-handed sin with knowledge in his fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice if they live long enough to have committed such. Because the DoA is a universal sacrifice, though limited by the scapegoat who is also Jesus "son of the father", Christ our Lord is quite literally the Savior of the world – his atonement for the reprobate being thereby made ineffectual.
This understanding is perfectly covenantal and Reformed, therefore, the mere belief that God saves infants who die as infants without personal faith (the covenantal faith of the DoA Victim on Earth/High Priest in Heaven saves them) is insufficient to be an exclusive sign of Anabaptist error in this area. It is true that the Anabaptist view of the "Age of Accountability" is non-sense and heresy. All people conceived, save Christ alone, are conceived with Original Sin and Guilt and are "accountable" for at least that from conception. This is why infants and children, and even infants in utero, die ("…the wages of sin is death…"). As children of Adam, we all recapitulate his sin in the flesh, making his sin our own – if we live long enough. As Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed, so are infants and younger children. As Adam and Eve became ashamed after sinning willfully and gaining "the Knowledge of Good and Evil" and then constructed coverings to hide their nakedness (guilt) before God and each other, so do children, eventually.
Human Guilt: Infants: Original Sin. Children: Original Sin, plus sins of ignorance. Adults: Original Sin, plus sins of ignorance, plus willful high-handed sins with knowledge and understanding that such sins ARE sins and therefore evil – with accompanying shame (shame is evidence of the KNOWLEDGE of guilt (i.e., evidence of personal KNOWLEDGE of Good and EVIL).
LOL! Good point, it was the Egyptians who were baptized in the Red Sea by immersion. Israel walked through it merely being sprinkled by water at the most.
Good video. You have some great content on your channel. I was wondering if the Conenantal view of baptism can be found in church history prior to the Reformation? Also do you have any book recommendations on the subject?
8:34, 8:46 – inference: infant baptism and women at the Lord’s table 9:00, 12:41 – sola scriptura
9:16, 9:31, 9:37, 12:16 – the first day 10:10 – Colossians 2 and the Sabbath 10:34 – circumcision and Passover 10:45 – “substance” 12:00 – Epistle of Barnabas and the “eighth day”
[Comment 1/2] John MacArthur claims in minute 53 that circumcisions *primary* purpose was to distinguish Jews who were descended from Jacob from those of gentile progeny. This is an often repeated but never substantiated claim consistently made by Baptists. Such a claim is so false, it borders on asinine. I don't mean this to sound excessively polemical, hyperbolic or adversarial, but such a claim flies in the face of so much scripture. Consider that :
1. Those who conflate circumcision with the temporary mosaic covenant– making the mosaic covenant exhaustive of circumcision's significance, contradict the very words of our Lord, who said circumcisions origination is NOT from Moses but from the patriarchs (John7:22).
2. Additionally, circumcision was not enjoined upon Abraham alone, nor on his immediate offspring alone, but his whole house, including his slaves. Those in his household, related or not, were bound to be circumcised under the threat of death/excommunication (Gen17:14). Thus we see that in the very first instance in which circumcision was given as a covenantal sign, even those not descended from Abraham were among the first to receive it, which was itself a foreshadowing of the eventual full inclusion of the gentiles into the church. A foreshadowing that was repeated when the Israelites were delivered from the Egyptians.
3. In the exodus account, it seems is if Baptists have glossed over exodus 12 and have failed to appreciate its significance with respect to understanding circumcisions primary ecclesial signification (a covenant between God and his people/the church at that time~Acts7:38). Consider that it was not just the Israelites who left egypt, but also a "mixed multitude" (Ex12:38) and God, speaking to the congregation which included these aforementioned non-Hebrews, said that if any of these people wished to keep the Passover, i.e. become proselyte, they would need to become circumcised, them and their house (Ex:12:48), emulating the same model set up by Abraham who was himself a proselyte of sorts.
Methinks these considerations utterly destroy the notion that circumcision was meant for the physical progeny of Jacob alone, as both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant enjoined circumcision on Non Hebrews, even at the very inception of both covenants! If the baptistic posit is correct, namely that circumcision was meant for physical descendants of Jacob only, why in the world would God allow gentile converts to receive the same sign? Circumcision was clearly the same for the OT church, as Baptism is now for the NT church now.
You've provided the necessary information for me to finally see that full immersion isn't the only legitimate method of baptism. Thank you! Was a long time coming and in general, I feel that those who baptize infants can do a much better job at explaining pouring, sprinkling, splattering, etc. baptism to their baptist brothers, although it does take some lengthier explanation. I would hope that you also see the benefit that baptists bring to the table in their desire to try (even if they fail sometimes) to do things as originally intended rather than relying too blindly on tradition or history. I still have some questions about the New Covenant as it relates to the Old and to the Church. Besides that, I always ask the question of those who baptize infants- would you baptize the infant of a member if you knew the member had a track record of not discipling their children in the home? I'm a baptist (don't know for how much longer haha) who acknowledges the authority of the father (because of his duty and responsibility to raise his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord) to have his infant baptized, but I would also push back on the exercise of that authority if he was not a faithful pastor to his family in the home. This is why I support the puritan practice of the Elders of the church annually confirming that the father is doing family worship regularly. Otherwise, it would seem one would be throwing that infant 'to the wolves' in the home. Appreciate your videos!
Remember – Protestants have no principled place to draw the historical line. No authority to trust as one trust’s Christ – all the many thousands of protesting splinter groups are different types of manmade houses, all built on sand – you cannot protest those placed over you by God, take the Bible recognized and Canonized for you by Holy See and written by Her sons under Divine Inspiration. The Catholic Bishops in Communion and Obedience to the Throne of Pope St. Peter the Rock has given you too much of your patrimony, and that’s because Jesus only established that Church. Separated Brethren, come Home. Christ commands it.
what about the Didache written in around 70 AD and translated the teaching of the twelve which states baptism is to be done only to believers and after fasting as well I guess you had better start withholding food from those infants. No seriously all the talk of man made traditions and yet you hold on to that one I would otherwise be willing to hear you but the arguments is not good trying to draw back to circumcision.
"If the Scriptures can be understood, they should have been understood a long time ago." Very nice, a pithy defense of the authority of Christian tradition.
But, if the Scriptures can be MISunderstood–and we know they can–those misunderstandings might have begun a long time ago too. In fact, we know they had begun before the Apostles had departed this life. Infant baptism has all the hallmarks of an attractive manmade tradition: it gave power to parents over their children's eternal destiny, gave power to priests over new parents, gave power to bishops who alone could authorize new priests, and (most importantly) it gave power to civil governments who could control the bishops, unify their subjects under one religious institution and easily enter new citizens in their tax records.
Circumcision was for the naturally-born participants in the Old Covenant. Baptism is for the spiritually (re)born participants in the New Covenant. Unless you are willing to adopt some sort of baptismal regeneration position, the circumcision argument will not be remotely convincing.
As much as I have benefited from John MacArthur‘s ministry over the last 20+ years, I get the feeling that guys like him think it’s impossible that they could have a blind spot or have any error in their theological system, which is really troubling.
That’s why, if I ever got a chance to talk with him or anybody else on that level, I would ask Following:
“if there was any one area where you might have a blind spot or have an incorrect theological view, what do you think it would be?“ Their answer would tell me everything, especially if they replied that they can’t think of any or that it’s impossible, so it’s kind of a trick question, but still one worthwhile to fish them out to see if they have an Elijah complex.
As a Baptist, I must say that it was an interesting presentation. But I have one question about your understanding of Jeremiah 31.
God says there that the new covenant was to be "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake … But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." In what way exactly the new covenant was to be "not according to the old one"? The Lord here refers the the breaking of the old covenant and says that in the new one he will write the law on people's hearts. Therefore, the goal seems to be to make sure that from now the participants will not break the covenant as the Israelites did.
Throughout the video you argued for the possibility of falling away from the new covenant on the basis of various NT passages, but I don't think you've addressed this particular matter. Thank you in advance!
@1:25:06 the quote from St Hippolytus seems to be from a misattribution (a coptic tradition). A better Greek tradition does not make mention of a baptismal tank or a scarcity of water.
Google "THE TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS -Egyptian Church Order"
Compare this to "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome"
Very well organized and presented. After providing a detailed history and addressing scripture, these sentences are potent— “Ask yourself if Hebrews 8 is really meant to redefine the visible church or if it's simply describing the elect. Ask yourself why if your position is so obviously the biblical one why do you have to rely on Tertullian who said widows and unmarried people shouldn't be baptized. Why do you have to believe Martin Luther and John Calvin got it so wrong but men who denied the deity or humanity of jesus were the ones who got it right.”
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.".
This channel is not honest in it's teaching about Anabaptists, it uses lies to paint a large group of people. Here's proof: https://youtu.be/6B6z7Kcpnsc Calvin & Luther allowed mass killings for their beliefs.
As a Baptist, I have learned much from watching your “earnest plea” videos. They are well-researched and you have some great insights into church history.
I would like to respond to a few of the arguments you make in this video and I pray that my response is made in a spirit of gentleness and respect:
1. At 7:37 you said, “And baptism is called the circumcision made without hands.”
The circumcision “made without hands” of Colossians 2.11 is not baptism, but the spiritual circumcision of the heart which is regeneration. In contrast, both physical circumcision and physical baptism are made with hands. It is true that circumcision and baptism can be used metaphorically to picture regeneration, but it does not follow that both circumcision and baptism mean the same thing when used literally.
2. At 8:32, you ask where in the Bible women are included in the Lord’s table “even though they’re never singled out for inclusion.”
Women were included in the membership of the church in Corinth according to passages like 1 Corinthians 11.5 and 14.34. And in 1 Corinthians 11.20 Paul says, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” “You” in this verse would have included women because they were part of the church and Paul mentions women in this church just a few verses earlier in verse 15. And those who partook of the breaking of bread in Acts 2.42 included all of those who received his word and were baptized in the previous verse which included women since Jesus commanded all of his disciples to be baptized in Matthew 28.19.
3. At 22:36, you begin your critique of the Baptist trail of blood.
I actually agree with your critique of the trail of blood model. As my Baptist History professor said in seminary, you have to be a Christian first before you can be a Baptist. However, Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, and Arnold of Brescia argued against infant baptism long before the Anabaptist movement arose. I would not view these men as heretics.
4. At 43:15, you showed the Houston Chronicle article that exposed much of the child abuse that has taken place in Baptist churches. I assume that you are using this as an argument against the Baptist quest for a wholly regenerate church and how such a desire is unrealistic in contrast to their interpretation of Hebrews 8.
But rather than being an argument against the Baptist position, the widespread sin in the church shows why the Baptist pursuit of regenerate church membership is so important. These sins happened in the church because the Baptist practices of biblical church membership, formal and informal church discipline, biblical accountability, and the true preaching of the gospel are absent from so many Baptist churches today so that they are Baptist in name only.
As Albert Mohler has said in his article “Discipline: The Missing Mark” about church discipline:
“The mandate of the church is to maintain true gospel doctrine and order. A church lacking these essential qualities is, biblically defined, not a true church. That is a hard thing to say, for it clearly indicts thousands of American congregations who long ago abandoned this essential mark and have accommodated themselves to the spirit of the age. Fearing lawsuits and lacking courage, these churches allow sin to go unconfronted, and heresy to grow unchecked. Inevitably, the false unity they seek to preserve gives way to the factions that inevitably follow the gradual abandonment of biblical Christianity. They do not taste the true unity of a church grounded on the truth and exercising the ministry of the keys” (Baptist Polity, 56).
The sad reality is that there are regenerate and unregenerate people in the visible church today, but it should not be that way. Church discipline exists to remove unregenerate people from the membership of the church so that it will become a pure church made up of those who have the circumcision of the heart (1 Cor 5.1-13).
5. At 1:02:44 you said, “How is the new covenant better? And if he does, why are children no longer given the sign of that covenant?”
I’m sure that you have read James White’s two-part article “The Newness of the New Covenant.” I will not add to what he has said, but I will say that the interpretation of these key passages in Hebrews and Galatians demonstrate that we hold to different understandings of the degree of continuity between the two testaments and the relationship between the covenant of Abraham and the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are not the same. One was a covenant between Abraham and his physical offspring while the new covenant is only made between God and those who have forgiveness of their sins. Abraham has two seeds, one physical and one spiritual. And while sometimes they overlap as in the case of Jews who believe in Jesus, they must be distinguished because enrollment in the Abrahamic covenant by birth does not guarantee enrollment in the new covenant which comes through faith (Rom 4.11-12; 9.7-8; Gal 3.29; Heb 2.16-17). Abraham’s circumcision functioned as a sign which pointed to his righteousness by faith before God. But this was only true for Abraham and those Jews who believed. Not all Jews can point to their circumcision as being a sign that they are righteous because not all Jews have faith.
6. At 1:03:12 you said, “If children were kicked out of the visible church, why was the church in Jerusalem still circumcising theirs in Acts 21.”
Actually, this is a strong argument for the Baptist position. If baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant of grace, why were the Jewish Christians still circumcising their infants? They did so because they understood that circumcision and baptism both signify membership in different covenants. If they baptized their infants, why did they also circumcise them? Why didn’t the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 argue against the necessity of circumcision for Gentile believers by pointing out that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant?
7. At 1:12:49, you quote Hebrews 9.10 to support the belief that baptismos is describing “the ceremonial sprinklings and pourings of the Old Testament.”
But the baptisms of Hebrews 9.10 are not acts of sprinkling, but the ritual immersions of the Old Testament which describe the bathing of the body in water (Lev 11.32; 14.8-9; 15.5-13, 21, 27; 17.15-16; Num 19.7-8, 19). These are distinct from the sprinkling mentioned in Hebrews 9.13 which was done with blood, not water. I know you are familiar with the mikveh tradition and the archeology surrounding it.
8. At 1:18:42, you argue that Sirach 34.25 uses baptizō to refer to the ritual sprinkling of Numbers 19.19.
But Sirach 34.25 is describing the ritual immersion of Numbers 19.19, not the first part of the ritual involving sprinkling. The person must “bathe himself in water” and this was done by immersion. The proof that Sirach only has in mind the second half of the ritual involving immersion is that Sirach uses the noun loutron to describe the ritual which corresponds to the verb louō in the Greek translation of Numbers 19.19 in reference to the bathing in water.
9. At 1:20:46, you argue that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and therefore baptizō means pouring.
G. S. Bailey, in his book A Manual of Baptism, responds to this argument: “The Spirit is not literally poured out, only figuratively. He is not a liquid that can be literally poured. If the pouring were the baptism, the Spirit himself would be the one baptized, because the Spirit is poured out, not the candidates. If pouring is baptism, then the water is baptized, and not the candidates, for the former is poured, but the latter is not” (225). Both pouring and immersion are figurative expressions to symbolize the work of the Holy Spirit in filling and empowering the disciples. But these are two different metaphors which use different verbs and have different objects. When the Spirit is poured out, the Spirit is the object of the verb “to pour,” not the disciples. But when the disciples are baptized, they are the objects of the verb “to baptize,” not the Spirit. Pouring does not mean baptizing because a person cannot be poured. To be baptized in the Spirit is a metaphor which means to be overwhelmed by the Spirit. The pouring out of the Spirit is a metaphor which means that the Spirit’s power and gifts were given to the disciples. The church father Cyril of Jerusalem expresses the relationship between water baptism and baptism in the Spirit this way: “As he who is plunged in the water and baptized is encompassed by the water on every side, so they that are baptized by the Holy Spirit are also wholly covered over” (Bailey, 222). The paedobaptist argument is the result of conflating the two metaphors together instead of keeping them distinct.
10. At 1:42:13 you said, “Why do you have to believe that Martin Luther and John Calvin got it so wrong, but men who deny the deity or humanity of Jesus were the ones who got it right?”
But I could use the same kind of argument for my position: “Why do you have to believe that Charles Spurgeon and William Carey got it wrong about baptism, but the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches were the ones who got it right about infant baptism?” Which view is right ultimately comes down to the exegesis of the text of Scripture, not what the heroes of our past believed to be true.
Two books that I read in college that confirmed my Baptist beliefs are The Meaning and Use of Baptizen by T.J. Conant and Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects by Alexander Carson. They are worth reading if you have never done so before.
As a pastor in rural Nevada, I pray that the Lord would bless your ministry and use you to reach many Mormons and ex-Mormons for Christ.
Very interesting discussion. At around 50:00, you mention Nehemiah Coxe's work on covenants. I'm reading a book that compiles some writings of Coxe and John Owen called Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. Coxe argues against infant baptism because of the inclusion of Ishmael and slaves in circumcision. He says that since neither Ishmael nor slaves had any interest in the Abrahamic covenant, the sign of circumcision does not translate into infant baptism.
Building on Coxe's point, God calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, each of these men having an interest in the Abrahamic covenant. God does not call Himself the God of Ishmael and Abraham's slaves. We come into the New Covenant by faith, but not by the believing parent's faith, but by the faith of the individual (which really is a gift of God). In the New Covenant, we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. As an outward sign of this New Covenant, we baptize believers with water.
Parenthetically, I'm a Reformed Baptist, raised in Dispensational Baptists churches, and was baptized once, as a new believer at about the age of 10.
There were many sects of Baptists that were heretics but there were also some Baptist sects that were sound in the faith. Just like there were many infant baptist sects that were heretics. read the book, "America Crimson Red" Baptists suffered a lot of persecution at the hands of the protestants in early America and this book documents it. You can point to many sects today who baptize babies that are heretics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, PCUSA, and the Roman Catholic church, all these sects baptize babies, all are heretics. You cannot lump all baptists together with heretics anymore than you can lump all infant baptizers together with all the paedo-baptist heretics. Some baptist sects were sound, they may have been few but some were. Just like today there are a few baby baptizers who are sound but they are few.
I would like to ask this person if he gives babies the Lords supper? Is that not a type and shadow of the passover meal? If he would not give children the supper then when was it that children were to be removed from the passover?
How have I never seen this? Just started it now. Excellent so far!
Anabaptists: not a good crowd. No wonder English Particular Baptists wanted to distance themselves from those lunatics! Good video brother!
I was raised as a Baptist in England and I didn't know about any of this. I didn't know how violent Baptist have been when they had power in history.
Amazing Video as always Pastor.
God bless you. ❤🙏
Thank you for this.
good work
Excellent
Thank you for this.
Thank you for your contributions to this conversation Brother Wallace. If it were possible, I think many would appreciate if Dr. White & yourself dialogued on baptism at length. Merry Christmas to you & your congregation.
Well done, as usual!
I have some questions: Are not LDS and JWs, along with SDA and all other Baptists, including "orthodox" Baptists, simply one form or another of Anabaptists? To be sure, there is a range within Anabaptism from merely heterodox Reformed Baptists to Non-Reformed Baptists to "orthodox" Charismatics to what might be called small "h" heretical SDA to capital "H" Heretical anti-trinitarian and anti-Christological OPism, JWism, to the rock-bottom rank polytheistic LDS. Are not Charismaticism, 7th Day Sabbaticism, and Apocalypticism also ancillary features of Anabaptism? Were there any 7th Day Sabbatarians among 16th century Anabaptists? I know there were what might be called Charismatics and Apocalypticists. There seems to be a progression in Anabaptism from bad to worse to heterodox to heretical to damnably heretical. From revivalism and pietism among the Reformed orthodox, to a fork in the road leading to unitarianism, universalism, deism, and ultimately ending at atheism, or the other fork branching off of Reformed orthodoxy at mere Anabaptism (with its precursors of pietism, revivalism, and perfectionism) which may lead if followed to Charismaticism, Apocalyphicism, and finally to Trinitarian and Christological errors, ultimately ending in polytheism.
It all seems to begin with not correctly understanding conversion and the Covenant of Grace at the point of baptism. Even the conglomeration of errors from which the Reformed forked off, the RCC, seems to have started with a misunderstanding of the Covenant of Grace at the point of baptism (baptismal regeneration). It seems that if you misunderstand the Covenant of Grace, whether RCC or Anabaptist, eventually you will "progress" first to merit and then to works salvation along that road, if you do not stop. Thank God for all of the Anabaptists who stopped at mere Reformed or even Non-Reformed Anabaptism. Yes, and thank God for all those Anabaptists who stopped before denying the Father and the Son.
Am I all wet here? Am I conflating things? Am I reading too much into this? I don't want to insult or harden either "Reformed" or Non-Reformed mere Anabaptists, or for that matter, Non-Reformed "Arch"-Anabaptists. But, is there a progression beginning at non-covenantal baptism? Is covanental/non-covenantal baptism a "bright" theological dividing line? Do the vast majority of Protestant sects follow from a misunderstanding of the Covenant of Grace in general, and at baptism in particular?
TLDR <><
AP, *I* believe that, minimally, Christ saves the baptized infants and children of baptized believers who have not yet eaten FOR THEMSELVES of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whose fathers, extending back to Adam, ate FOR THEM (Original Sin)), without their own personal faith. As such infants did not need "anti-faith" (unbelief) evidenced by anti-works (sin) to be made guilty, so they do not need faith evidenced by works to be made innocent. Merely being IN Christ (by regeneration) makes them first innocent and then righteous if they have no high-handed sins of their own. This our Lord accomplished by fulfilling the Day of Atonement sacrifice "for the sins of the people committed in IGNORANCE", alone, for them. The Day of Atonement, not requiring personal faith to benefit from it as evidenced by the fact that in it the people DO NOT WORK to perform the sacrifice but only the High Priest – works being evidence of faith. Our Lord's fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice, since it involves the head of household, at a minimum, working to perform the sacrifice while the rest of his household may be more or less passive in the sacrifice, perhaps merely eating the Passover meal, involves the personal faith of the head of household at a minimum, covenantally and temporarily covering the rest of his household who may lack personal faith at that time from guilt from their high-handed sins with KNOWLEDGE and understanding.
However, there is nothing in Christ's fulfillment of the DoA sacrifice that prevents unbaptized infants of Christians who die as infants in utero, from being saved. Indeed, there is nothing that prevents ALL infants, defined as all children, in utero or born, who have not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge FOR THEMSELVES, who also die AS INFANTS, from being saved without their own personal faith. All such infants are guilty ONLY of "sins of ignorance", which would include Original Sin (in everyone but Adam), and are NOT guilty of high-handed sin with the KNOWLEDGE and understanding that what they are doing is sin and evil, which high-handed knowledgable sin requires Christ's fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice and personal faith on the part of the one saved to lay hold of Christ and his benefits – AS WELL AS Christ's fulfillment of the Day of Atonement sacrifice for sins of ignorance including Original Sin.
This is why in the DoA sacrifice, since it is a corporate or national sacrifice and not all of "the people" are elect, both a DoA victim (Jesus Christ (Jesus, Son of the Father)), whose blood will be sprinkled on the throne of mercy, and a scapegoat (Jesus Barabbas (Jesus, "son of the father")), who will carry away out of the camp of the elect those "sins of the people (Adam's children/mankind) committed in ignorance" that ARE NOT forgiven in Christ – are required. IOW, because in the DoA sacrifice "the people" are all of Adam's race, and because not all in Adam are elect, therefore there must be some means of LIMITING Christ's atonement to only the elect. That means IS the scapegoat. Without the scapegoat, everyone's Original Sin and Original Guilt would be forgiven, as well as their sins of ignorance. And because Christ's fulfillment of the DoA for his people is the grounds for the Spirit regenerating the elect (Adamic debt must be settled before regeneration into Christ), everyone would be regenerated and universalism would be true, because everyone who is regenerated will repent and trust Christ if developed enough. Therefore, for infants, as I defined them, who die AS infants, to be saved, all that is necessary is that they are elect and then regenerated (John Baptist was regenerated in the womb) before they die as infants, receiving forgiveness of Original Sin in the womb, or forgiveness of Original Sin after birth and if necessary as children receiving forgiveness for their other sins of ignorance as well. I suspect that all infants who die as infants ARE elect.
Yes, the reason Pontius Pilate officiated (brought the two goats to the High Priest for his choice) at the Day of Atonement sacrifice of Christ along with the earthly Jewish High Priest (who decides which goat is to be the victim and which is to be the scapegoat) is that he represented Cesar, the king of the world at the time, who himself represented Adam, the first king of the world and head of the Adamic dynasty – therefore the need for a scapegoat to avoid universalism.
Therefore, Christ may have saved many more people by his fulfillment of the DoA than he has by his fulfillment of the Passover. Medical studies reveal that the average married couple will produce between 200 and 300 children in their fertile lifetimes of which they are not even aware since those children died before the woman even knew she was pregnant. ALL of those children may be saved by Christ in the DoA without their personal faith if they are merely elect and therefore are regenerated by the Spirit prior to their death. There are eight billion people alive now, say roughly three billion couples, do the math. Gives new meaning to God's promise to Abraham that his seed should be more than the 10b x 10b stars of the 2nd heaven and more than the sand of the seashore.
Ever wonder how there are people of every tribe, tongue, nation, and people around the throne when there are people groups who never heard of Jesus, let alone of the Jews and Yahweh, who thrived on distant continents or islands and perished as distinct peoples? This is how. Even if not a single adult (someone who has eaten of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil for themselves (i.e., committed a sin knowing it was sin and experiencing the shame of their guilt)) from their tribe was saved – their infants who died as infants (including those they may have sacrificed to idols) were (may have been) saved.
Nonetheless, willful high-handed sin with knowledge and understanding is only atoned for by Christ's fulfillment of the Passover and only appropriated by the personal faith of the offender. Interestingly, I believe there IS NO atonement for willful high-handed knowledgable sin in the Law ([Acts 13:38-39 NKJV] "[39] "…and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you **could not be justified by the law of Moses**."), and likewise, the Passover is never stated in Scripture to be for the forgiveness of ANY kind of sins (even though it does state that "Christ, our Passover was sacrificed for us"), let alone high-handed sins. Christ's fulfillment of the Day of Atonement atones for all types of ignorant sins, including Original Sin, and is the basis for God regenerating his elect (severing their connection to Adam and placing them into the Last Adam by Spiritual birth) – SO THAT they might trust Christ for the forgiveness of their high-handed sin with knowledge in his fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice if they live long enough to have committed such. Because the DoA is a universal sacrifice, though limited by the scapegoat who is also Jesus "son of the father", Christ our Lord is quite literally the Savior of the world – his atonement for the reprobate being thereby made ineffectual.
This understanding is perfectly covenantal and Reformed, therefore, the mere belief that God saves infants who die as infants without personal faith (the covenantal faith of the DoA Victim on Earth/High Priest in Heaven saves them) is insufficient to be an exclusive sign of Anabaptist error in this area. It is true that the Anabaptist view of the "Age of Accountability" is non-sense and heresy. All people conceived, save Christ alone, are conceived with Original Sin and Guilt and are
"accountable" for at least that from conception. This is why infants and children, and even infants in utero, die ("…the wages of sin is death…"). As children of Adam, we all recapitulate his sin in the flesh, making his sin our own – if we live long enough. As Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed, so are infants and younger children. As Adam and Eve became ashamed after sinning willfully and gaining "the Knowledge of Good and Evil" and then constructed coverings to hide their nakedness (guilt) before God and each other, so do children, eventually.
Human Guilt:
Infants: Original Sin.
Children: Original Sin, plus sins of ignorance.
Adults: Original Sin, plus sins of ignorance, plus willful high-handed sins with knowledge and understanding that such sins ARE sins and therefore evil – with accompanying shame (shame is evidence of the KNOWLEDGE of guilt (i.e., evidence of personal KNOWLEDGE of Good and EVIL).
TLDR <><
May God give Johnny Mac the grace of enough years to become fully Reformed and completely covenantal. Amen.
LOL! Good point, it was the Egyptians who were baptized in the Red Sea by immersion. Israel walked through it merely being sprinkled by water at the most.
Let us learn from history to not slander and murder one another but to debate from Sola Scriptura and to unify under the banner of Christ!
Good video. You have some great content on your channel. I was wondering if the Conenantal view of baptism can be found in church history prior to the Reformation? Also do you have any book recommendations on the subject?
8:34, 8:46 – inference: infant baptism and women at the Lord’s table
9:00, 12:41 – sola scriptura
9:16, 9:31, 9:37, 12:16 – the first day
10:10 – Colossians 2 and the Sabbath
10:34 – circumcision and Passover
10:45 – “substance”
12:00 – Epistle of Barnabas and the “eighth day”
13:09, 13:34 – historical belief
13:52, 15:08, 20:56 – Tertullian and infant baptism
14:37, 16:50 – Gavin Ortlund reference
20:15 – Irenaeus
22:46 – Have baptists always been around?
24:25 –
24:40 –
24:48 –
24:59 –
25:09 –
25:24 –
27:05, 27:23 – Thomas Müntzer
27:56 – Conrad Grebel
Interesting.
JD GREER HAS BEEN BAPTIZED 4 TIMES???
This is fantastic. Thank you so much.
[Comment 1/2] John MacArthur claims in minute 53 that circumcisions *primary* purpose was to distinguish Jews who were descended from Jacob from those of gentile progeny. This is an often repeated but never substantiated claim consistently made by Baptists. Such a claim is so false, it borders on asinine. I don't mean this to sound excessively polemical, hyperbolic or adversarial, but such a claim flies in the face of so much scripture. Consider that :
1. Those who conflate circumcision with the temporary mosaic covenant– making the mosaic covenant exhaustive of circumcision's significance, contradict the very words of our Lord, who said circumcisions origination is NOT from Moses but from the patriarchs (John7:22).
2. Additionally, circumcision was not enjoined upon Abraham alone, nor on his immediate offspring alone, but his whole house, including his slaves. Those in his household, related or not, were bound to be circumcised under the threat of death/excommunication (Gen17:14). Thus we see that in the very first instance in which circumcision was given as a covenantal sign, even those not descended from Abraham were among the first to receive it, which was itself a foreshadowing of the eventual full inclusion of the gentiles into the church. A foreshadowing that was repeated when the Israelites were delivered from the Egyptians.
3. In the exodus account, it seems is if Baptists have glossed over exodus 12 and have failed to appreciate its significance with respect to understanding circumcisions primary ecclesial signification (a covenant between God and his people/the church at that time~Acts7:38). Consider that it was not just the Israelites who left egypt, but also a "mixed multitude" (Ex12:38) and God, speaking to the congregation which included these aforementioned non-Hebrews, said that if any of these people wished to keep the Passover, i.e. become proselyte, they would need to become circumcised, them and their house (Ex:12:48), emulating the same model set up by Abraham who was himself a proselyte of sorts.
Methinks these considerations utterly destroy the notion that circumcision was meant for the physical progeny of Jacob alone, as both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant enjoined circumcision on Non Hebrews, even at the very inception of both covenants! If the baptistic posit is correct, namely that circumcision was meant for physical descendants of Jacob only, why in the world would God allow gentile converts to receive the same sign? Circumcision was clearly the same for the OT church, as Baptism is now for the NT church now.
Awesome presentation!
Baptismal regeneration is WHY infant baptism developed. The idea of “covenant children” is a relatively new one on the historical landscape
You've provided the necessary information for me to finally see that full immersion isn't the only legitimate method of baptism. Thank you! Was a long time coming and in general, I feel that those who baptize infants can do a much better job at explaining pouring, sprinkling, splattering, etc. baptism to their baptist brothers, although it does take some lengthier explanation. I would hope that you also see the benefit that baptists bring to the table in their desire to try (even if they fail sometimes) to do things as originally intended rather than relying too blindly on tradition or history. I still have some questions about the New Covenant as it relates to the Old and to the Church. Besides that, I always ask the question of those who baptize infants- would you baptize the infant of a member if you knew the member had a track record of not discipling their children in the home? I'm a baptist (don't know for how much longer haha) who acknowledges the authority of the father (because of his duty and responsibility to raise his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord) to have his infant baptized, but I would also push back on the exercise of that authority if he was not a faithful pastor to his family in the home. This is why I support the puritan practice of the Elders of the church annually confirming that the father is doing family worship regularly. Otherwise, it would seem one would be throwing that infant 'to the wolves' in the home. Appreciate your videos!
One of the best videos which helped me to understand this doctrine (I had to watch it more than one once). Thank you so much. Soli Deo Gloria.
Remember – Protestants have no principled place to draw the historical line. No authority to trust as one trust’s Christ – all the many thousands of protesting splinter groups are different types of manmade houses, all built on sand – you cannot protest those placed over you by God, take the Bible recognized and Canonized for you by Holy See and written by Her sons under Divine Inspiration. The Catholic Bishops in Communion and Obedience to the Throne of Pope St. Peter the Rock has given you too much of your patrimony, and that’s because Jesus only established that Church. Separated Brethren, come Home. Christ commands it.
Now do the Eucharist!
what about the Didache written in around 70 AD and translated the teaching of the twelve which states baptism is to be done only to believers and after fasting as well I guess you had better start withholding food from those infants. No seriously all the talk of man made traditions and yet you hold on to that one I would otherwise be willing to hear you but the arguments is not good trying to draw back to circumcision.
I’m sorry baptismal regeneration is not a early church error but it’s a universal teaching in the Bible and in the early church.
"If the Scriptures can be understood, they should have been understood a long time ago." Very nice, a pithy defense of the authority of Christian tradition.
But, if the Scriptures can be MISunderstood–and we know they can–those misunderstandings might have begun a long time ago too. In fact, we know they had begun before the Apostles had departed this life.
Infant baptism has all the hallmarks of an attractive manmade tradition: it gave power to parents over their children's eternal destiny, gave power to priests over new parents, gave power to bishops who alone could authorize new priests, and (most importantly) it gave power to civil governments who could control the bishops, unify their subjects under one religious institution and easily enter new citizens in their tax records.
Circumcision was for the naturally-born participants in the Old Covenant. Baptism is for the spiritually (re)born participants in the New Covenant. Unless you are willing to adopt some sort of baptismal regeneration position, the circumcision argument will not be remotely convincing.
The golden calf of the reformation. One thing the reformers couldnt shake from the papists.
As much as I have benefited from John MacArthur‘s ministry over the last 20+ years, I get the feeling that guys like him think it’s impossible that they could have a blind spot or have any error in their theological system, which is really troubling.
That’s why, if I ever got a chance to talk with him or anybody else on that level, I would ask Following:
“if there was any one area where you might have a blind spot or have an incorrect theological view, what do you think it would be?“ Their answer would tell me everything, especially if they replied that they can’t think of any or that it’s impossible, so it’s kind of a trick question, but still one worthwhile to fish them out to see if they have an Elijah complex.
As a Baptist, I must say that it was an interesting presentation. But I have one question about your understanding of Jeremiah 31.
God says there that the new covenant was to be "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake … But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." In what way exactly the new covenant was to be "not according to the old one"? The Lord here refers the the breaking of the old covenant and says that in the new one he will write the law on people's hearts. Therefore, the goal seems to be to make sure that from now the participants will not break the covenant as the Israelites did.
Throughout the video you argued for the possibility of falling away from the new covenant on the basis of various NT passages, but I don't think you've addressed this particular matter. Thank you in advance!
@1:25:06 the quote from St Hippolytus seems to be from a misattribution (a coptic tradition). A better Greek tradition does not make mention of a baptismal tank or a scarcity of water.
Google "THE TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS -Egyptian Church Order"
Compare this to "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome"
“All of history is a mixture of truth and error.” So true. I very much appreciate your thorough review and search for the thread of truth,
Very well organized and presented. After providing a detailed history and addressing scripture, these sentences are potent—
“Ask yourself if Hebrews 8 is really meant to redefine the visible church or if it's simply describing the elect. Ask yourself why if your position is so obviously the biblical one why do you have to rely on Tertullian who said widows and unmarried people shouldn't be baptized. Why do you have to believe Martin Luther and John Calvin got it so wrong but men who denied the deity or humanity of jesus were the ones who got it right.”
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.".
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. —John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
You sure love to use Muntzer to disparage all Anabaptists. You are guilty of that you accuse others of.
This channel is not honest in it's teaching about Anabaptists, it uses lies to paint a large group of people. Here's proof: https://youtu.be/6B6z7Kcpnsc
Calvin & Luther allowed mass killings for their beliefs.
As a Baptist, I have learned much from watching your “earnest plea” videos. They are well-researched and you have some great insights into church history.
I would like to respond to a few of the arguments you make in this video and I pray that my response is made in a spirit of gentleness and respect:
1. At 7:37 you said, “And baptism is called the circumcision made without hands.”
The circumcision “made without hands” of Colossians 2.11 is not baptism, but the spiritual circumcision of the heart which is regeneration. In contrast, both physical circumcision and physical baptism are made with hands. It is true that circumcision and baptism can be used metaphorically to picture regeneration, but it does not follow that both circumcision and baptism mean the same thing when used literally.
2. At 8:32, you ask where in the Bible women are included in the Lord’s table “even though they’re never singled out for inclusion.”
Women were included in the membership of the church in Corinth according to passages like 1 Corinthians 11.5 and 14.34. And in 1 Corinthians 11.20 Paul says, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” “You” in this verse would have included women because they were part of the church and Paul mentions women in this church just a few verses earlier in verse 15. And those who partook of the breaking of bread in Acts 2.42 included all of those who received his word and were baptized in the previous verse which included women since Jesus commanded all of his disciples to be baptized in Matthew 28.19.
3. At 22:36, you begin your critique of the Baptist trail of blood.
I actually agree with your critique of the trail of blood model. As my Baptist History professor said in seminary, you have to be a Christian first before you can be a Baptist. However, Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, and Arnold of Brescia argued against infant baptism long before the Anabaptist movement arose. I would not view these men as heretics.
4. At 43:15, you showed the Houston Chronicle article that exposed much of the child abuse that has taken place in Baptist churches. I assume that you are using this as an argument against the Baptist quest for a wholly regenerate church and how such a desire is unrealistic in contrast to their interpretation of Hebrews 8.
But rather than being an argument against the Baptist position, the widespread sin in the church shows why the Baptist pursuit of regenerate church membership is so important. These sins happened in the church because the Baptist practices of biblical church membership, formal and informal church discipline, biblical accountability, and the true preaching of the gospel are absent from so many Baptist churches today so that they are Baptist in name only.
As Albert Mohler has said in his article “Discipline: The Missing Mark” about church discipline:
“The mandate of the church is to maintain true gospel doctrine and order. A church lacking these essential qualities is, biblically defined, not a true church. That is a hard thing to say, for it clearly indicts thousands of American congregations who long ago abandoned this essential mark and have accommodated themselves to the spirit of the age. Fearing lawsuits and lacking courage, these churches allow sin to go unconfronted, and heresy to grow unchecked. Inevitably, the false unity they seek to preserve gives way to the factions that inevitably follow the gradual abandonment of biblical Christianity. They do not taste the true unity of a church grounded on the truth and exercising the ministry of the keys” (Baptist Polity, 56).
The sad reality is that there are regenerate and unregenerate people in the visible church today, but it should not be that way. Church discipline exists to remove unregenerate people from the membership of the church so that it will become a pure church made up of those who have the circumcision of the heart (1 Cor 5.1-13).
5. At 1:02:44 you said, “How is the new covenant better? And if he does, why are children no longer given the sign of that covenant?”
I’m sure that you have read James White’s two-part article “The Newness of the New Covenant.” I will not add to what he has said, but I will say that the interpretation of these key passages in Hebrews and Galatians demonstrate that we hold to different understandings of the degree of continuity between the two testaments and the relationship between the covenant of Abraham and the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are not the same. One was a covenant between Abraham and his physical offspring while the new covenant is only made between God and those who have forgiveness of their sins. Abraham has two seeds, one physical and one spiritual. And while sometimes they overlap as in the case of Jews who believe in Jesus, they must be distinguished because enrollment in the Abrahamic covenant by birth does not guarantee enrollment in the new covenant which comes through faith (Rom 4.11-12; 9.7-8; Gal 3.29; Heb 2.16-17). Abraham’s circumcision functioned as a sign which pointed to his righteousness by faith before God. But this was only true for Abraham and those Jews who believed. Not all Jews can point to their circumcision as being a sign that they are righteous because not all Jews have faith.
6. At 1:03:12 you said, “If children were kicked out of the visible church, why was the church in Jerusalem still circumcising theirs in Acts 21.”
Actually, this is a strong argument for the Baptist position. If baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant of grace, why were the Jewish Christians still circumcising their infants? They did so because they understood that circumcision and baptism both signify membership in different covenants. If they baptized their infants, why did they also circumcise them? Why didn’t the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 argue against the necessity of circumcision for Gentile believers by pointing out that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant?
7. At 1:12:49, you quote Hebrews 9.10 to support the belief that baptismos is describing “the ceremonial sprinklings and pourings of the Old Testament.”
But the baptisms of Hebrews 9.10 are not acts of sprinkling, but the ritual immersions of the Old Testament which describe the bathing of the body in water (Lev 11.32; 14.8-9; 15.5-13, 21, 27; 17.15-16; Num 19.7-8, 19). These are distinct from the sprinkling mentioned in Hebrews 9.13 which was done with blood, not water. I know you are familiar with the mikveh tradition and the archeology surrounding it.
8. At 1:18:42, you argue that Sirach 34.25 uses baptizō to refer to the ritual sprinkling of Numbers 19.19.
But Sirach 34.25 is describing the ritual immersion of Numbers 19.19, not the first part of the ritual involving sprinkling. The person must “bathe himself in water” and this was done by immersion. The proof that Sirach only has in mind the second half of the ritual involving immersion is that Sirach uses the noun loutron to describe the ritual which corresponds to the verb louō in the Greek translation of Numbers 19.19 in reference to the bathing in water.
9. At 1:20:46, you argue that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and therefore baptizō means pouring.
G. S. Bailey, in his book A Manual of Baptism, responds to this argument: “The Spirit is not literally poured out, only figuratively. He is not a liquid that can be literally poured. If the pouring were the baptism, the Spirit himself would be the one baptized, because the Spirit is poured out, not the candidates. If pouring is baptism, then the water is baptized, and not the candidates, for the former is poured, but the latter is not” (225). Both pouring and immersion are figurative expressions to symbolize the work of the Holy Spirit in filling and empowering the disciples. But these are two different metaphors which use different verbs and have different objects. When the Spirit is poured out, the Spirit is the object of the verb “to pour,” not the disciples. But when the disciples are baptized, they are the objects of the verb “to baptize,” not the Spirit. Pouring does not mean baptizing because a person cannot be poured. To be baptized in the Spirit is a metaphor which means to be overwhelmed by the Spirit. The pouring out of the Spirit is a metaphor which means that the Spirit’s power and gifts were given to the disciples. The church father Cyril of Jerusalem expresses the relationship between water baptism and baptism in the Spirit this way: “As he who is plunged in the water and baptized is encompassed by the water on every side, so they that are baptized by the Holy Spirit are also wholly covered over” (Bailey, 222). The paedobaptist argument is the result of conflating the two metaphors together instead of keeping them distinct.
10. At 1:42:13 you said, “Why do you have to believe that Martin Luther and John Calvin got it so wrong, but men who deny the deity or humanity of Jesus were the ones who got it right?”
But I could use the same kind of argument for my position: “Why do you have to believe that Charles Spurgeon and William Carey got it wrong about baptism, but the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches were the ones who got it right about infant baptism?” Which view is right ultimately comes down to the exegesis of the text of Scripture, not what the heroes of our past believed to be true.
Two books that I read in college that confirmed my Baptist beliefs are The Meaning and Use of Baptizen by T.J. Conant and Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects by Alexander Carson. They are worth reading if you have never done so before.
As a pastor in rural Nevada, I pray that the Lord would bless your ministry and use you to reach many Mormons and ex-Mormons for Christ.
Very interesting discussion. At around 50:00, you mention Nehemiah Coxe's work on covenants. I'm reading a book that compiles some writings of Coxe and John Owen called Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. Coxe argues against infant baptism because of the inclusion of Ishmael and slaves in circumcision. He says that since neither Ishmael nor slaves had any interest in the Abrahamic covenant, the sign of circumcision does not translate into infant baptism.
Building on Coxe's point, God calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, each of these men having an interest in the Abrahamic covenant. God does not call Himself the God of Ishmael and Abraham's slaves. We come into the New Covenant by faith, but not by the believing parent's faith, but by the faith of the individual (which really is a gift of God). In the New Covenant, we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. As an outward sign of this New Covenant, we baptize believers with water.
Parenthetically, I'm a Reformed Baptist, raised in Dispensational Baptists churches, and was baptized once, as a new believer at about the age of 10.
Any good sources on the history and violence of early anabaptists?
Can we stop listening to John MacArthur?