Infant Baptism is Biblical

[liamflecksing]

Glad that all of us magisterial protestants can agree on this, whether we be Reformed, Lutheran, or Anglican.

[tylercoan]

I had a teacher tell me I'm not saved because I wasn't fully dunked as a baby. It's not the water itself that saves us, but God's promise attached to it. Appreciate your video on this, Dr. Cooper.

[BrotherA.C.]

This is one of the more clear explanations of infant baptism and I appreciate hearing this perspective!

[ruthgoebel]

Babies can be have faith. John the Baptist leapt for joy while still in the womb when Mary visited Elizabeth. Babies have faith that mom will feed them when they are hungry. They have faith that mom will come when they cry. God's grace is for everyone, no age limit. There is mighty power in the water and Word together.

[tomis]

I hope credobaptists will find this content helpful and engaging. Studying the early church fathers and reading Joachim Jeremias on this issue was the game changer for me.

[restedassurance]

If you listen close you can already hear the masses of non-Sacramental Protestants charging onto this spiritual battlefield with war cries. The title alone attracts them like flies, nevermind the content of the video. (I'm not judging you out there, you are just as much redeemed Christians as the next)

[IAmTheSlink]

Do Presbyterians point back to circumcision when justifying infant baptism? Yes, of course.

But, it's a strawman to say that their support of the practice hinges on that alone. They would say that baptism is the sign of the final covenant. And, being a covenantal sign, they compare it to other such signs. So in addition to circumcision you'll see comparisons to Noah's Ark, the law of Moses, and so on.

[redeemedreformed]

As a presbyterian, I love this and your channel.

[MapleBoarder]

Just thinking out loud here. 8:50 “Infants are in need of forgiveness, baptism offers forgiveness.” When you said that my mind went, “Infants don’t know what is happening when they are baptized and have no idea why they are being baptized, but they receive forgiveness of sins anyway? So, if we take a 5 year old, 12 year old, 26 year old ect… family member who isn’t a believer, doesn’t know what Christianity is, hasn’t repented of their sins and hasn’t trusted in Christ, but I take them and baptize them while they have no idea what’s even happening (just like the infant doesn’t know) then that family member receives forgiveness of sins and enters into the New Covenant unknowingly?

Again, this is a serious question. No sarcasm at all or hostility. I’m trying to work through this authentically and that’s where my mind went when you said that. I appreciate the various points made in this video and I’ll be chewing on them. 👍🏼

[mmtoss]

We Presbyterians do believe baptism is a means of grace, just not necessarily at the moment it is given. You would also hear a lot of talk about how baptism doesn’t save in of itself.

[anyanyanyanyanyany]

Dr. Cooper, I'll be praying that the Lord may grant you good health and enough rest in these trying times.

[CamGaylor]

This is a very well thought out and concise presentation.

[toddstevens]

This was so disappointing. I had heard so many glowing reviews of Jordan and his brilliance. Instead, I found this guy … twisting scripture and logic to try to prove his faith tradition correct when there’s no biblical evidence that we should baptize little infants.
A few thoughts:
1- Acts 2:38. Great verse, but has nothing to do with infants. Jordan suggested that this verse meant that little infants could have original sin forgiven if they are baptized in Jesus’ name. FIRST, nowhere does it mention original sin here. Peter is specifically addressing the men who demanded that Jesus be crucified. He convinces them from scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. Then they ask, “What shall we (the men who demanded the Messiah be crucified) do?” And Peter tells them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and they will receive the Holy Ghost. He says nothing about original sin or infants. How exactly is an infant supposed to hear a message, understand it, believe it, repent, and THEN get baptized? Just nonsense. SECOND, Luke is not trying to set out a specific order in salvation. Here in Acts 2 we have repentance, then baptism, then forgiveness, then Holy Spirit. But in Acts 8, there is baptism but no Holy Spirit, maybe for months. And in Acts 10, Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before getting baptized. Luke is simply summarizing stories that he’s heard from the Apostles. I don’t think he was concerned with trying to create a doctrine of the saving efficacy of baptism. Acts 2:38 was a specific message to a specific group in a specific situation. Notice that it is never repeated to any other group in the book of Acts or in any of the epistles. THIRD, original sin can never be forgiven. We are all under the curse of original sin. Read Romans 5. What do we inherit from Adam? Death. We will all die because of the condemnation we inherit from Adam. We do not inherit hell or eternal damnation from Adam and his sin. We receive eternal damnation based on our own sin and our own actions. No one will be in hell because they are being punished for Adam’s sin. That’s just basic doctrine, folks.
2 - Acts 2:39. Jordan was convinced that this verse alone proves infant baptism.
“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
The point of this verse can be found in two other passages:
Matthew 27:24-25 KJV
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. [25] Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Luke 23:28-30 KJV
But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. [29] For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. [30] Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Peter is here speaking to the men who demanded that Jesus be crucified and insisted that His blood be upon them and their CHILDREN. And Jesus proclaimed a prophecy against them and their CHILDREN. Peter is specifically offering mercy and forgiveness to these men and THEIR CHILDREN.
3 - Household Baptism - There are 2 accounts of household baptism in the NT. They are both found in Acts. The first is in Acts 16 and the household of the Philippian jailer.
Acts 16:30-34 KJV
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. [34] And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Paul preached to everyone in the house. And they all believed the message. There is nothing there about infants. They were all old enough to hear a message and believe it. No one was baptized that did not first believe. It specifically says so.
The second instance is in Acts 18 in Corinth, which is also referred to in 1 Corinthians.
Acts 18:8 KJV
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Once again, everyone in his house heard a message and believed on the Lord. No one was baptized that did not first believe. There is no mention of infants whatsoever. Household baptism is not a thing. In both instances that it’s mentioned, everyone heard a message and believed before getting baptized.
I won’t continue with a point by point refutation of this nonsense. If anyone is interested I’ll be glad to chat about the types of baptism he mentioned, as well as his understanding of John 3.

[danielhixon]

Fantastic video (I’m coming from a Wesleyan view): I think there are a couple of issues that trip people up on infant baptism. One is how this coheres with repentance and justification by faith, since most people are working (implicitly I think) with a modern idea of “informed consent” that (presumably) one cannot have until one is a bit older. Maybe that is worth addressing. The other, as you discuss here, is the idea that the Bible is supposed to be a doctrinal textbook that lays everything out explicitly like a textbook would. I think maybe Hodges says something like that in the introduction to his systematic theology, that the Bible is a collection of doctrinal data points, which does not seem to fit well with typological reading, or just reading narratives in general

[Godfrey]

I think the topic of baptism is becoming a growing wave amongst the church community. I really hope this doctrine keeps gaining traction!

[liamflecksing]

As Reformed we actually do touch on the other types of baptism seen in the old testament, we just have our primary focus on circumcision being the most direct and important correlation to baptism (both of them being signs of their respective covenants). J.V. Fesko touches on a lot of this in his book Word, Water, and Spirit. I'm surpised you didn't touch more on the fides infantium and fides aliena arguments. I think both the Reformed and Lutheran arguments for this are important and useful and we have more overlap than most give credit for. Within the Reformed tradition we have multiple arguments, some saying baptism causes initial faith in the infant (Cornelius Burgess), others saying we baptize on the presumption of an infant's regeneration (Charles Hodge), and even those who would strictly argue from it being the covenant sign. As an unrelated note, your video appears to cut short at the end, i assume that was unintended.

[forestantemesaris]

One of the better videos I've seen defending this doctrine. However, even from this clip I think it is clear that the real battleground regarding who should be baptized is not a soteriological question but an anthropological and hamartiological question.

[faban]

Hey Dr. Cooper,

I made sure to hear the entirety of your video before commenting. I am a Pentecostal Protestant who has been looking at Lutheranism because I love the high view you have of the sacraments.
My biggest issue in becoming a Lutheran is the theme of this video haha. And it is one I don’t believe can be overcome so easily for me.
My biggest problem is that in the Old covenant circumcision as well as the other types of baptism you showed seem to be attached to ethnical ties due to parent’s faith, rather than the Faith of the individual. In fact God beautifully justifies entire peoples because of the Faith of their parents (pointing forward to what the new covenant will be).
So, clearly the New covenant is all about Faith (we don’t have Sola Fidae for nothing), as well as many passages that led for us to develop this doctrine. In my view, Baptism and Faith cannot be separated by any means. So the question we should ask before “are babies sinful and in need of salvation?” Should be “Can babies have the gift of Faith and through that be saved?”
I don’t think it is correct to separate the type from what it is pointing to. This is why the sacraments pull me so hard towards your tradition in the first place! What is the baptism without the Faith God gave to us that allows us to leave the dead man behind and live a new life? A very cold bath where you might be clothed and everyone is watching😂. What is the Lord’s Supper without the sacrifice of Jesus who poured out his blood for the forgiveness of our sins, a moment where he is really present and available to all believers (yes, I believe in real presence)? Without this, it is a meal of bread and wine that doesn’t fulfill all of your nutritional needs 😂.

I don’t think babies can have faith. Therefore baptizing a baby would be separating the type from what it points to. I think this is VERY dangerous. I think doing this can lead to works based salvation and make the sacraments loose it’s significance all together.

So yeah, this is my cross roads. Most Baptists/Pentecostals see Baptism and the Lord Supper as no more than a “symbol”, something God asked us to do. And I feel that by baptizing infants, Lutherans separate Baptism from what actually saves which is Faith in Jesus.
So yeah, I have been chewing in all of this and kind of been feeling orphaned by all the denominations out there :(

I know you are a very busy man, but I would love to hear from you or other brothers and sisters in Christ that can help explain my issues with it.

[unit]

Thanks for this and all your other videos on the topic. I’m trying to convince my girlfriend that if we marry and have children we need to baptize them for the forgiveness of their sins. Your videos might be employed in trying to do that. It’s tough to do in the Southeastern US where everyone basically holds to a symbolic only adult baptism view.

[boaz]

Thanks for the clear explanation. It sounds like the Lutheran position is the closest of the Protestant churches to Rome’s view of “baptism” - considering it a “means of grace” and something that “forgives sins”, and something that removes “original sin” etc. It is interesting to see the progress of the Reformation throughout history through the lens of “baptism” in this way. 🤔🙏