A person must be “baptized” to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. The proof is found below. Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)

he's Calvinist. everything is predetermined and so therefore doesn't matter in his mind God creates infants for Hell. Damned from the start with no chance.

I haven’t listened to the whole thing either, but I know how James would answer because I’ve heard him do so before, specifically, in his debate with Greg Strawbridge. His answer would simply be that the Lord of all the Earth will do right. And I think he’s right to answer this way. The text doesn’t speak clearly enough to that question for us to give any clear answer either.

Cant you just press play on the video and let it play while you drive aha.

Open KZfaq in your browser, change to desktop mode, then it will play in the background

@@Controle9165 I could but up here in Canada we pay stupid prices for cell data. I was hoping to download it somewhere on wifi then listen to it.

Can I just give a personal anecdote which I consider to be normative in reformed paedobaptist churches? I was baptised as an infant, and as I grew learned much theology and had mental assent to the truth of the bible. However, my heart was not yet changed, and this was demonstrated, among other ways, by an addiction to the sin of porn. I could not possibly break free because I was enslaved by the sin, and yet it was assumed in my church and family that I was regenerate because I knew my bible pretty well and I had been baptised. I wasn't ever taught that the gospel had the power to give me new life, and freedom from my sin, I was mainly only told that a Christian should live better. I was deprived of the Gospel of grace until I heard it on one fateful evening while watching American Gospel (the movie), and I was convicted of my sin again, and the Spirit showed me the way of salvation through the message preached. This is our problem with assuming people are regenerate, if a person is regenerate and living immorally, we show them how they should live. If a person is unregenerate, we give them the gospel. There are many sins which are, in some ways, ignored in our churches because we assume that the people are regenerate, and that they just need to keep hearing exhortation to live better. It's not the case of necessity, but infant baptism often has the fruit of depriving those baptised of the conviction of sin and the good news of Christ in real gospel application to their sin.

He explains many aspects within this sermon, and also the definition of "holy" being used. But the question you are asking is honestly answered with 0 Christ = 0 Holiness. Christ is was makes marriage Holy.

I would argue that the institution of marriage is inherently holy, because it was ordained by God. The same way that all authority comes from God, (Romans 13:1,) even if the people IN authority are evil people. The marriage itself is holy and the office of authority comes from God, even if the people within the marriage or holding the office are wicked.

​@@PunkEvangelist, thanks for your response. I do not believe Dr. White affirms your convention (0 Christ = 0 Holiness). In the middle of his sermon, he asserts that marriage is "holy." He asserts the Pauline convention that though you are a "new creature." Even though you may see all things anew. This does not erase your previous obligations and responsibilities. He prefaces this stance on the doctrinal interpretation of God settling marriage in the beginning (Genesis 2:24). About your convention, however. Given the world did not come to know "Christ" until Jesus. This despoils your convention. With marriage being holy, universally, this despoils your convention. But what makes Dr. White's sermon disillusioning is his claim that because of a profession alone "the children are holy." Though he grounds himself in the teachings of Paul (1Corinthians 7:14). What Dr. White and Paul fail to appreciate is that when it comes to sin. The LORD cannot, will not, and does not dwell where sin prevails (John 14:23). What Paul commits to us in 1Corinthian 7:14, bears witness that neither Paul nor this church has any understanding or appreciation for sanctification. Paul commits to us: "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" (1Co 7:14 KJV). It is this latter portion of 1Corinthians 7:14 that's most unsettling. What of the child that's conceived and born in sin? For example, what of the child that's conceived and born of adultery? Scripture makes us aware that adultery is a sin. Thus, for any man or woman who trespasses against their wife or husband. They also trespass against the LORD, in that, they break the LORD's Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14). Given trespassing against the LORD's Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14) is a reality today in Christian marriages, even more than it was from the beginning. How does a man or woman's profession in God purge the uncleanliness evident and present in the progeny of adultery? Once a bridge is built, whether to join two bodies of land separated by water. Or to establish a man in sin. Is it possible to return all things to their original pristine state? To argue as Paul (1Corinthians 7:14) and this church. It leads us to infer that sin is no longer, "sin." Now sin is relative. Sin is only sin when it meets a particular context or circumstance. Thus, marriage is only "holy" when the man and or woman claim faith in this church's God. Which is a convention that annuls the reality set forth by this church in its claim that her God sanctifies marriage in the beginning (Genesis 2:24). Since no marriage is "holy" until "Christ." But then what of the man, united in a pagan marriage, who refuses to allow such sin to find sanctuary in his home? What of the man who purges an adulterous pregnant wife from his home? Is his house not "holy?" Does he not prepare and keep his house in a manner that grants the LORD entrance? And does so, even though Jesus had yet to come? So the question remains. What makes a marriage "holy"?

​@@lauracheever, the question is not whether marriage is holy. The question is, what makes "a marriage" holy? What makes marriage "inherently holy"? The answer must go beyond the claim "because God ordained it." Yet, if we consider that broad or global scale. What is peculiar about marriage that makes it "holy"? It is wrong to subject marriage and family to government. Whether a government is stable, or a civilization rises or falls. None of these realities bear any weightiness to either marriage or family. Though governmental instability and civilization collapse wrought substantive pressures on the family. Whether a people, government, or civilization survives does not hang on the people, government, or civilization. Whether the center holds depends on beliefs and teachings that nurture, stabilize, and strengthen marriage and family. Our society and government are testaments to what's transpiring in the family. If our society and government are in chaos or anarchy, it is a testament to the moral and spiritual ruin that plagues the family. And that such a moral and spiritual ruin has plagued the family for many generations.

@@notofthischurch2822 well, very interesting. Thank you for your response as well. I still hold that Christ makes anything Holy, especially marriage. For our righteousness is filthy menstrual rags and we must be covered by his righteousness. Seeing that marriage is an institution established to mirror the marriage of Christ and the Church. So since Marriage is meant to point to Christ, Christ is the one who makes it Holy. Pagans getting married, isn't holy, it's actually an element of common grace. They see the "benefits" and wish to mirror it. Just like every other law and institution established by God, when Pagans do or follow they aren't trying to be holy, if anything it's another act of rebellion. Final, when one within the marriage is saved, by Gods Grace this is a very common means to bring salvation to the other spouse, which is why God desires to stay married, among many other reasons. Since that's the case, I would say the marriage is in "sanctification". Sanctification is a good word, because we all experience different levels and degrees of sanctification in our lives, and this could be said about marriages as a whole.

Please show me where you’re getting this age of accountability from?

Mario, under the Calvinist view, there is no such concept as the age of accountability because it is not in the Bible either. But as the Bible teaches, all mankind since Adam are born in sin with one obvious exception of Jesus which had no earthly father from whom to inherit Adam's sin. But as Romans 5 teaches "sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin... death spread to all people because all sinned" and "just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people." Or elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:21-23 we see that all those who are in Adam (i.e. all mankind except Christ) are condemned through his sin and their sin, but all those who are in Christ (i.e. believers) shall be made alive (i.e. resurrection life, eternal life). Consequently this is why the virgin birth of Jesus is so important, and it is not because sex is icky. It is because He must not have any sin in order to be our spotless lamb. So then, what of the children? Well, a consistent position is to believe that God has just as much freedom to save an infant as He does a grown man or woman. And that He is not obligated to extend grace to anyone. He may extend that saving grace to any and all He chooses to, and it is effective and accomplishes what God intends to accomplish. So does God save every child who dies before a certain age? Well it is clear from the above that everyone is guilty and condemned even from conception because of Adam's sin even before they commit their own sins. And so they need salvation from God... They are not automatically saved or somehow utterly innocent or guiltless before God. He may save them, but we ought not assume it to be so as if God would otherwise be unjustified. The Judge of the Earth will do right... And what is right is not determined by our emotions. If we assume that He always saves children who die before a certain age or level of comprehension, then we are bound to conclude that our children have a much better chance of getting to heaven if we kill them before that certain age, and as a result abortion is one of the most effective Heaven-filling plots ever devised by mankind. It may be so... But there is lacking biblical ground for it. But if God is free to show mercy to whomever He wills (Exodus 33:19), then He is absolutely free to save a child who dies at any age, just as He is free to save any sinner at any age. And since the difference between God and an infant is approximately equal to the difference between God and an adult (infinity) then we certainly cannot doubt his ability to regenerate and grant the gift of faith in His own way to a unborn, newborn, or 3 year old child. To God be the Glory and we trust in Him to do right.

@@lucashuck7465 I copied your response in my Bible study notes 🙂🙏

I guess if God doesn't choose his people, all infants who haven't "Accepted Jesus into their heart" go to hell.

@@Notinmywoods The Bible is very clear about this. God knows the elect and he knows those that are held an accountable which means basically they had no knowledge or no opportunity of ever knowing Christ if any thing ever crosses your path or someone witnesses you to you about cries heart or tells you and you are capable of accepting Christ only God knows that and if you deny him in the next day you die you could be in dangerous waters it’s not for anybody to say but God he’s the only one who knows whether you should be held accountable remember he is a just God. I apologize I can’t even look at my phone right now so I’m not sure if my talk to text is rolling it the way I’m saying it I hope that it could be understood

@@mikeyjr6615 My daughter is one and three months old she doesn’t even know the name jesus yet but she will.

@@mikeyjr6615 what is the age of countability please Iv never came across that in scripture I take it as psalm 51 says we are all Conceived into sin so we are separated as soon as we are born

This might help! 😊 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mp-cY9GT1tCveJs.html

you are both White as snow once you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ

@@elizabethhartley8987 There’s a story in the Bible where a father’s baby dies and he says he will not come to me but I will go to him applying that the Baby is in heaven.

That's not true with James White, he has as high view of the OT as he does the NT. I've been listening to him for some years now and he ties the two a lot. Watch the Dividing Line to see it's true.

@@traceylok675 But it is true. I agree that Reformed Baptists like White do it less than general Baptists due to his Baptist version of Covenant Theology, all Baptists draw a pretty heavy line between the OT and NT. They have to in order to reach the conclusions they do. Let's keep it in just the Reformed world. For the Reformed covenant theology (the non-Baptist sort), the old covenant is the covenant of works that Adam broke that caused us to fall into sin, and the new covenant is the promise of a savior given to Adam, expanded with Abraham and Moses and David and at various other parts in the OT and fulfilled in Jesus. But the Reformed Baptist version of covenant theology would say the old covenant is these promises given to Abraham and Moses, etc, and the new covenant is something fundamentally different. So, when I look at Gen 17 and see that the sign of the covenant is given to the believer, his household including his children even to 8 days old, and to his servants, even those from far off that have no blood relation. That is something God has commanded, and I would presume a continuation of that command until such time as God rescinds it. And we indeed see in Acts 2 that Peter actually repeats the command and applies it to Baptism while keeping the recipients as the household, not just the one who believes. And throughout Acts, what we see isn't individual believers receiving the sign of the covenant, but their whole household just as had always been practiced since Abraham. Indeed, we see it expanded, as the old sign was male only and the new applies to females as well. God is the same God yesterday, today and forevermore. But the Baptist has a hard break between the covenants, and so they just don't see the connection Peter is making, or even if they do see it, it isn't important because whatever sign the old covenant had doesn't matter, it's a whole new covenant. I am thankful for White's Baptist Covenant Theology, because when you start looking over what general Baptists believe, they could toss out 2/3rds of their Bible and not really notice given how low a view of the OT they have. Reference an OT verse to prove a point of theology, and they will respond, "but that's the old covenant!" Some are so extreme that they throw out Jesus and John and Peter and anyone else they deem as being "for the Jews," because "we just follow Paul (or whoever they prefer) as he was the apostle to the gentiles." Obviously, it isn't all Baptists, but there is a line of thought in Baptist theology that leads to that error, and it is visible even in White who has a much higher view of the OT than the average Baptist.

“We must allow the New Covenant scriptures to define the New Covenant ordinances.” 54:22

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 I know right? That is why when Paul wrote this he was referring to the entire Bible, especially the NT. Oh, wait, no, he wasn't, because the only Scriptures they had were the OT. Funny, hmm.

Because there are many things we do according to Scripture despite the fact that they are not, in and of themselves, immediate salvation issues. I mean, even the act of going to church is one. Because we don't take a ludicrously mercenary attitude of 'do the minimum necessary, and only those matters my salvation directly relies on'.

It's called old age, lol. Loving our Bibles and books but can't read the print anymore.

So... How is that out of context? Do you think it has something to do with the KJV?