Dr. Bryan Chapell on Infant Baptism

Pastor Bryan explains why we baptize infants in the Presbyterian church. Includes baptism of Gabriel Larson.

[trailrvs]

Do you remember the huge controversy in early church history that was caused by the change incorporating baptism for infants? Me neither! Because it has always been done.

[lucianaurelius]

Infant baptism has been Recorded since the first centuries AD.

[shalompatole]

Really well done and excellent arguments

[edeancozzens]

Households both in the OT as in at the Exodus, and in the NT as in the Philippian jailer, were baptized. God is interested in saving households.

[AngelDeJesusOrlando]

Wow, I agree with Infant Baptism 100%. It is refreshing to hear non-Catholics following the truth. God Bless you all..

[JusticeMercyHumilityM]

The Covenant of Grace, from Genesis to Revelation, always includes believers and their children. This pattern of a covenant was established in the Old Testament and the New Testament never changes this pattern. Since the New Testament never says children are no longer included in the covenant, they are still included in the covenant. Also, Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 7, and household baptisms indicate the pattern continues. RC Sproul once said that if children were no longer included in the covenant, there would have been an uproar among the Jews. But we never read of any controversy over this issue. Even though this is an argument from silence, it is a silence that speaks very loudly.

[jamessheffield]

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

[Stark_dan]

I was 2 months old when I was baptized. I was baptized Easter Sunday of 1997. 1/17/1997 was when I was born.

[mrmeter]

If I may so respectfully disagree and seek an answer to this question:If God in Genesis 17 makes the covenant to Abraham and his offspring in which the covenant sign is to be given throughout their generations thus following the same model to the children of believers in the New Covenant, does it also follow that those who do not give the sign of baptism to their children are to have them cut off from the family like those who would not give the sign of circumcision to the uncircumcised males in Genesis 17:14?

[solas]

This brother has a lot of good books and a lot of good sermons but I believe we get a clearer view of what the scriptures teach concerning the covenants and baptism if we interpret them from Christ backward, not Abraham forward. Circumcision isn't replaced by baptism but heart circumcision. Baptism is the external sign of internal heart circumcision. It is the outward sign of the New Covenant promise God gave to remove a heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh. Only those who have experienced this change are to be baptized. W

[rtineigrihms]

1 Corimthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."
How could the children of atleast one child of God be holy or set apart? This is covenant language. To reject this would be to not grasp the extent of the good news of the gospel. Now does this mean that we must baptise babies? Well, if you believe baptism is a sign of the covenant, then yes. If you believe baptism is a sign of conversion, then no. But whether or not you baptise babies, you must understand that the baby of a child of God is a covenant baby. Does this mean they are saved by being born to believers? No. But it means God will save the baby in time. So, baptism is an expression of faith that God will be a God to me and to my children. One of the promises of God to Abraham is, "I will be a God to you and to your children." And Paul said all of God's promises are yes and amen in Jesus Christ.

[George]

Protestants who claim that infant baptism is not biblical never bothered to find out if it is historical. If they did, they would have no argument to the death against infant baptism.

[keijukafredrick]

When Men's opinions become doctrines

[mwr]

He appealed to Colossians 2 but didn't read it. The truth is, Colossians 2 destroys the argument of infant baptism. It explicitly connects baptism to the reality of being circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, which is not present in infants. Also, in the cause of the household baptisms, Scripture is clear that hearing the gospel and responding with faith preceded baptism for all those who were baptized.

[byamukama]

I never understand why anyone would assume that baptism is the sign of the new covenant. If anything, holy communion is.

[jessejflores]

And the covenant is Acts 16:31 American King James Version
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

[trayking]

The bible is clear God releases salvation only by faith. how can he release it to a infant when a infant doesn't know what faith is. Nowhere in the bible is infant baptism mention.

[theology]

The circumcision was only for the males while the baptism is for all believers. Then, how do you connect the two under God's Covenant/Covenant Theology? All the NT verses indicate that only those who heard the gospel and received were baptized. Also, the OT says, "If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word (Num 30:2 ESV)." Do all the parents understand the significance of making a vow at their babies' baptism? I don't think we can take this matter lightly. Lastly, the Great Commission says that we should make disciples first and then baptize. I appreciate your explanation but this position doesn't seem to have a sufficient biblical support. Thank you.

[jonathanskeet]

It's very distressing, if you have been baptised as a child, and you fully beleive in the validity of the baptism, to be told that you have to be re-baptised. It's like stamping around on something very precious and a spiritual reality.

[jakemarks]

Complete confusion of covenants. He is applying to the new covenant conditional promises that concerned only the old covenant. The new covenant is not to be seen as another administration of the one covenant of grace. This is because the new covenant is itself the one covenant of grace.