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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, this was very helpful!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow! This was very well put together with scripture!

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

Confirms my thinking that it's too bad that the Confessional Reformational Churches aren't closer. For all the talk of "Reformed" Baptists, you folks & us in the Confessional Reformed churches are closest together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good explanation!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusion: god drives you to your church and pushes you in the water to baptise you, and god picks what kids he wants to give faith to and which ones he wants to see burn what a beautiful god you believe jordan cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was wonderful - thank so much for your hard work - You are right on!

After my own study of baptism based on scripture and church history I was not convinced of infant baptism as necessary for salvation in that if they died in infancy they would be damned for eternity. Now I won't go so far as to refuse infant baptism if the parents desired. Baptism of the spirit seems to be more important that physical water baptism but in every biblical example it's hard to separate the two. John even said he baptized with water but Jesus will baptize in the spirit and fire assuming its superiority. Later in acts there were Jewish believers who had received the baptism of John but not yet the baptism of the spirit which can be evidence that it is more necessary. Also the " for " in acts 2:38 is essentially read as "because" your sins have been forgiven. Not "in order that" your sins will be forgiven. Otherwise I don't see infant baptism as a reason for schism in the church

I think Lutheranism is the truth yet I am torn between orthodox and Lutheran now.

Thanks for the concise arguments. I disagree on all 5 reasons, but to fully explain why would take way more than a comment or a video because our foundational differences of understanding some of the verses you use to support other premises that you believe support your reason(s) would take way too much time to get into. Shortly put I believe you're reading into many verses things that aren't there... but that's likely due to our presuppositional views of humanity and children especially.

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

Should infants take communion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we have clear biblical proof of infants getting baptism

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

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

Peter said REPENT and be baptized... Babies can't repent... They can't even understand... And anybody knows that baptism with out repentance is just a bath or pool party just getting wet

'Suffer the little children that they should come unto me" settles the argument for me----babies should be baptized. Baptized babies who die as babies go to Heaven. Unbaptized babies who die as babies go to Limbo. Limbo is not a bad place---there is no sin, suffering, or despair there----but it's not as good as Heaven.

Age limit for baptism comes with pastors but in the bible there is no age limit

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

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

Very pure and Scriptural video. Thanks.

So, genuine question, why wouldn’t we go around baptizing everyone? If baptism is God working and it doesn’t matter how old the baptisee is, why not go house to house baptizing?