Infant baptism v believers baptism: A Beginner's Guide || Psalm1Readers

In this video I provide 5 reasons to support both infant baptism and believer's baptism.

[ByGracethroughFaithEph..]

When I read Rom 2:29 physical circumcision was a sign of what is to happen inwardly and also a sign of Gods Holy people and a sign of Gods promises as it is a ordinance which does not become active because of something we did .
True circumcision of the heart is in Ezekiel 36:25-27
Baptism is no different, it is also a ordinance and does not become active because of something we do.
The ordinance of Baptism is a sign and promise from God and circumcision of the heart is eternal life.

[amilcarfigueroa]

Acts 8:36-37: As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized. Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” As mentioned in the video, there is a lot of scripture reference explicitly pointing towards a believers baptism. However, through a covenant theology perspective, the scriptures point out to pedobaptism. I think whatever your belief is, one must have faith in God alone.

[BoerVanPretoria]

Infant baptism requires suggestion and assumption where believers baptism is based on direct scripture(clear examples) in the new testament.
Although infant baptism may sound good (promise and covenant), it ends up being a false door to God (sacremental salvation). There is only one way and that is through personal faith in the completed work of Christ. Sacremental salvation is a remnant of Catholic heresy and stand in opposition to salvation trough faith, some denominations try to follow both but it is impossible.

[lawrie]

I have enjoyed both and feel comfortable with this.

[motojack]

I’m not religious but I do find it fascinating

[jamesreed]

The video says "He [the jailer] and his household rejoiced upon hearing the word of the Lord". But the Bible says, "He rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." The household rejoiced that *he* believed. Many people and some translations change the text because they don't think a household would rejoice at just *him* believing. But, they're still changing the text. Keeping with the actual text, I think the household celebrated because they were submitting to his leadership, not because they personally necessarily believed. The household was baptized, infants too, per his leadership, and for similar purpose as males of whole households, including infants, were circumcised when the head joined the old covenant.

[shonsam]

Greatly helpful video! Thanks so much🙌🏼😊

[ByGracethroughFaithEph..]

When does Spiritual life begin in a Christian household ?
When the children are being discpled(1Cor7:14)in the(Christian) Holy household ?

[jillcorley]

Very helpful information! Thank you for explaining it so clearly.

[sharonbretall]

I’d like the next video if there is one please! Thank you for this video, it is very helpful.

[josecorpus]

In Place of Circumcision

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.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus, in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same.

Were Only Adults Baptized?


Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians.”.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). 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.

Specific Biblical References?
But one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized, ” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit

Great information on the two positions thank you

[jeremiahmeade]

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35).

"You cannot be my disciple, unless you love me more than you love your father and mother, your wife and children, and your brothers and sisters. You cannot follow me unless you love me more than you love your own life. You cannot be my disciple unless you carry your own cross and follow me. Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. What is the first thing you will do? Won't you sit down and figure out how much it will cost and if you have enough money to pay for it? Otherwise, you will start building the tower, but not be able to finish. Then everyone who sees what is happening will laugh at you. They will say, “You started building, but could not finish the job.” What will a king do if he has only 10, 000 soldiers to defend himself against a king who is about to attack him with 20, 000 soldiers? Before he goes out to battle, won't he first sit down and decide if he can win? If he thinks he won't be able to defend himself, he will send messengers and ask for peace while the other king is still a long way off. So then, you cannot be my disciple unless you give away everything you own." (Luke 14:26-33).

It seems to me that you cannot receive salvation unless you submit to God. It also seems to me that the description of a disciple is a description of said submission. So, then, it seems to me that loving one another is a covenant sign. It seems also that this submission is "circumcision of the heart, " and, since it shares the name of "circumcision, " it seems to me that this is actually the sign of the covenant like circumcision of the flesh was the sign of the old testament. It seems to me that, based off of Colossians 2:12, baptism is identifying with Christ's Burial and Resurrection. But, I think that what Jesus taught us to do was love, God and our neighbor.

It also seems to me that love is sufficient to show that one does serve God and is qualified to receive God's free gift of grace. It also seems to me that love last longer than baptism just like circumcision of the flesh. It seems to me that the sign of the covenant is something that stays around, but baptism doesn't do that. It also seems that Jesus explicitly said that love of one another was the sign of being his disciple, which I think is synonymous with receiving salvation.

So, if circumcision of the heart seems so much more likely than baptism to be a sign of salvation, and anyone can be dunked in water, but only what is done in love matters as 1 Corinthians 13 seems to let us know, then I think that circumcision of the heart is actually the thing which circumcision of the flesh was looking toward.

This also seems more obvious to me after considering that Abraham was the father of the circumcised and the father of those who have faith, as opposed to being the father of those who were baptized. Faith seems to be to be synonymous with submission to God and circumcision of the heart, as well as loving one's neighbor, because you can't really have faith unless you have those other things too. You can be baptized and lack all of the other things though.

So, I don't understand how baptism is the sign of the New Testament, when circumcision of the heart seems unequivocally more likely to hold that position.

[ashleydavis]

When are you going to create more videos? I learn so much from them and am hoping to see more soon! ❤️

[nlightpix]

The last slide has some reference errors. Acts 14:32-34 and Col 2:8-15 do not correspond correctly

[The-Spotlight-Kid]

If baptism doesn't assume having any amount of faith or belief, then it's 100% pointless.

[carolynkading]

It always amazeze me that baptism be o ex a discussion between infant and adult baptism. It really should be about what God has promises at the time of baptism. Does it have saving grace or not??? If one were to truely write down all scripture referances to baptism to get a true and complete knowledge of what Jesus meant when He commanded us to baptisze. Be sure to finish with 1Peter 2.31
S

[jackiesicilian]

If two parents were baptized as babies into catholic church but now have Christian beliefs should they be baptized again as believers before baptizing thier baby? Catholic family is pushing them to baptism for the baby now.

[ByGracethroughFaithEph..]

There is continuity in the Bible as we see in Rom 9:4 the lseralities received adoption, promises and covenants and so do we by the ordinance of Baptism.
We are adopted as God's Holy by Baptism and recieve God's promise and are part of God's covenant by Baptism.
It's interesting that 8 day old babies are not included in God's promises anymore.
The Bible also did not teach us that the adopted have automatic salvation (1Cor10:1-6).
Believers and their children were always adopted as God's Hoy covenant people but throughout the Bible they also needed circumcision of the heart (rom2:29). The sign of Baptism pointed to God's adoption, promises and covenants but we also need circumcision of the heart.

[The-Spotlight-Kid]

The notion of infant baptism is ridiculous according to scripture itself. (& Common sense, imo) I was baptised at 20'ish yr'old when, despite being bought up in an atheistic immediate & extended.. (but not zealously atheistic) ..family, but i never didn't believe in "Jesus being God come to save mankind" tho I'd not forget Jesus' name, I'd think of same in more age-related thoughts, ever since a Junior school talk ..where the Headmaster (many years later i learnt was a full-on keen Christian, & he'd be fired today allowing the following..) ..arranged for a traveling group of (waay back then) school-visiting Christian evangelists to talk to various classes inc' mine, between our U.K. Junior school kid's age of 7 to 11'yrs, probably it was the last year at 11 who's classed got the talk?) I never did not believe in Jesus, God, despite being non-informed by scripture with no bible in our house. Tho I started attending a church at 19 but I still lived with one foot in the world of "socially acceptable sin" Now decades on, I don't even think I was as scripture-read nor informed enough for a 20'ish year old 'Kid's baptism. I don't feel it's a deal maker or breaker if I bothered getting baptised again now. It's a long learning road, we understand more as we re-read scripture as God opens our mind's to it, we'd all be getting baptised yearly if baptism depended on how much more we realise along the narrow path. But babies being baptised, a baby who's mind has not even developed a basis for a personality in their first 7 or 8 years, (psychologists would agree) nor able to choose like a 17'yr olds mind, we'll it's not only ridiculous but it's typically a R.C. thing, who's argument seems reads exactly as: "It's not forbidden in scripture" nor is how to service a Rolls Royce car, nor is officially changing the sabbath, nor is "The queen of heaven.. ." nor is purgatory, nor is ...I won't go on & on ad-nauseum

[bigtobacco]

The correct framing should be, OIKOS baptisms or PROFESSORS baptism...