For those who object that the damnation of unbaptized infants is only taught in the West, consider the following teaching from Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, from his 1672 Confession: We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.

Coming out of Mormonism I’ve been searching for truth in Christianity. Your videos have been of tremendous value to me. Thank you

From a Roman Catholic, can I just say I’ve been so blessed, so blessed, to come across you. Im devouring your debates and videos.

This is quickly becoming my favorite theology channel on KZfaq! Great work Gavin, glad to see another strong Protestant voice on KZfaq!

Gospel simplicity sent me here. I'm a Catholic but like to listen to what others believe. It makes me a better Catholic. Thanks for the video!

Came here from two recommendations in the space of 2hrs: Mike Winger and Tony Costa. Subscribed now

Anglican here: I look forward to this one! I've always had immense respect for you, but at the same time have been puzzled by your positions on Baptism. This will be incredibly informative.

Following up on your comment on opposition to baptism in China-I am a missionary in Japan, and it is the same situation here. A profession of faith rarely brings persecution, but people are sometimes disowned by their families when they prepare to be baptized. Both Christians and non-Christians view baptism as the mark that one has truly converted. So in the Baptist church I attend, for example, one will not be called a Christian until he or she has been baptized. There is definitely a sense in which that is the time you were “saved.” I do not think it goes quite as far as baptismal regeneration, however (although you will often hear Acts 2:38 quoted). One pastor friend described it like this: the initial profession of faith is the engagement, and the baptism is the wedding ceremony. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that people in both China and Japan attach a greater significance to baptism than many evangelicals in the U.S. Maybe it has something to do with the more ceremonial and/or communal nature of these cultures?

Just doubled back to rewatch this video after listening to your discussions with Jordan Cooper. I wanted to say thank you for all the work you put into these videos Gavin - they’re thought provoking, informative, and they have grounded me in my views as I’ve listened to your videos/discussions. Thanks for all that you do! Blessings.

This was fantastic, Gavin. I’ve been wrestling through this issue for a little while now and this really helped.

Honestly I would watch videos six times longer than this in a heartbeat. No need to apologize for a 30 minutes video Gavin! Keep it up

I appreciate the video! I’m a Lutheran who has been debating on and off with a baptist friend about baptismal regeneration for a while. I find myself ultimately disagreeing, as I am not sure if metonymy works well with the passages about baptism, I’ve heard contradicting accounts of early church history, and I’m just plain not a fan of decisionism. But it was great to hear someone approaching baptismal regeneration from an intellectual perspective who was not in favor of it. You gave me some stuff to think about

Please keep it coming Gavin! I am learning so much through this channel. Thank you so much for the work you put in

I started going into a baptist church after going to a WoF church for 4 months since i became a christian, have been struggling with this topic, thank you for adressing it. Let the grace of Our Lord be with you.

I have been so blessed in finding your Channel. This is one of the many times that I have experienced God helping find what I need. I have been a member of the Church of Christ my entire life. The view of the Church of Christ is that Baptism requires a prior remission of sin. "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin" We see baptism as the conscious acceptance of Grace gifted to man through the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We believe that baptism saves us through the washing away of our sin and some sort of unity through the Holy spirit. . we truly believe we become a new creature after baptism. I have to note that Christ himself did not receive the Holy Spirit until after he came up out of the Water. Since Children can neither commit sin nor repent of it, We don't see it necessary for children (note that we do not hold to the doctrine of original sin). Becoming childlike is the goal right? "For such is the kingdom of Heaven". I love you brother, and I hope God continues to bless you. You have done so much for me.

Thank you for your teaching. My heart aches for those who have been tormented in the past by false teachings, despairing of the salvation of loved ones, particularly infants.

This was tremendously helpful. I feel reaffirmed in my original convictions, but now with a better understanding of what they were. Thank you, Gavin!

I so appreciate your honesty in this. I struggled with this issue when I was graduating from GCTS a lifetime ago. I am now ECO Presbyterian. I believe I know your family from my Calif. days and my years at Westmont.

My favorite Baptist drops a video. God bless you Gavin!

I'm not a Baptist, but I enjoyed this really thoughtful analysis! I'm really happy to have found your channel.

I have been watching your videos for some time now and I have really appreciated your content. Honestly, your entire family has had an impact on my life from afar. So I thank God for you and your family. This topic has been a recent discussion at a bible study I go to. Not so much from the regeneration stand point, but from the “role that baptism plays.” (Specifically: Romans 6:3-4) Your videos on Baptism have been VERY helpful!

Thank you so much for giving of your time and learning to help us all!

I appreciate the way you present your arguments. You begin with information and context and that follows with a clear and concise conclusion and brief summary.

Hey Gavin, I really appreciate your point of view. It’s well thought out and you explained everything clearly. It didn’t change my mind but it’s probably the best explained reasoning. Thank you.

This was an amazing video! Really looking forward to your next video on baptism!!

Thanks Gavin I attend a baptist church and have been looking into catholicism and orthodoxy. For a while I have been thinking that my time as a protestant is coming to an end, I am glad that you are able to bring such scholarship to these issues and thanks for making it so accessible

Great Gavin! Thanks for this. The fact that scripture says “Baptism now saves you *as a pledge/appeal/response/answer/demand*” seems to reinforce your point quite firmly that baptism is spoken of in reference to the whole of the conversion process it represents.

The Bereans would be proud if you! Excellent discussion, thank you!

I’m 40 years old, I’m listening to Gavin Orland talk about early church views of baptism on my iPhone X, while jumping on a 16 foot trampoline in my backyard. Life doesn’t get any better

Your knowledge is so extensive. I wish I had had the time in my life to study all this. It is so useful to hear the account of someone who has and I like the way you lay out the overview of the facts so we can, in a way, make our own minds up. Credo-baptism is, of course, the core of Baptism. Thats what Baptism started as. Believers getting saved and then getting baptized. Like it's all one thing. Imagine a believer in the time of Acts saying "ah... I've made my confession of faith... I don't feel like like getting baptized". That would have been crazy. The thing is, that was the net result of infant baptism. I was brought up in the Anglican church and then ended up in pentecostal settings where people wanted me to get baptized by emersion. And my friends and I would say "but we've already been Baptised". So Credo-baptism was destroyed by the tradition! That's crazy.

The pleasure of your videos is benefit enough. Keep up the good work!

Thanks as always, dude! I have found it difficult occasionally in my church when we have Baptismal ceremonies but the pastors spend more time on disclaimers (saying what Baptism ISNT) to the neglect of what Baptism IS. I like the "means of grace" language and hope it makes a comeback in our Evangelical circles.

This was extremely helpful. Thanks for all the research that you put into this.

You say near the end you wish we could receive some benefit for watching other than your appeal to like and subscribe. The benefit for me is all your wisdom leading up to the end. Thank you for this KZfaq channel!

Thanks for such an insightful, helpful video. Your pace, in particular, in all of these videos is really enjoyable - not so fast that you gloss over points and assume too much knowledge on the part of the viewer, but also not so slow that the momentum of what you're getting across is lost. Fantastic job. My thought here is that the most important aspect of this conversation - which is almost always overlooked by Protestants and Catholics alike - is something you started to touch on around 19:20 where you began asking the question, "What does it actually mean to say 'baptism saves you'?" Baptism was not a new invention made up by followers of Jesus. But the Jewish essence of our Christian faith was so quickly lost in those early centuries that we get overly focused on the Patristic and Church-Historical arguments, as if those are the only enlightening available sources of evidence for making a call here. Baptism was a practice known and engaged in by Jews in the first century and Second Temple Period (Christians come into contact with this via the ministry of John the Baptizer). As such, it already had a constellation of theological and spiritual meanings attached to it, which we need to pay attention to. Not only that, but the conceptual world of baptism in the first century has purposeful and intentional overlaps with practices from the Roman world of the time. None of it is random, and we need to remember that the apostles are writing from within *_a world_* - the Roman world and Palestinian Judaism of the first century - so when they say things about baptism, there's a lot that's assumed about the setting from which they're writing. Baptism was a means of formally transferring your allegiance to King Jesus. Therefore, of course baptism saved you, precisely because baptism *_was_* how one started their life of faith and allegiance to Jesus. There's nothing magical about the action as such, separated from the meaning it conveyed. And to say otherwise seems to me very un-Jewish, basically denying the witness of the Prophets who talk about Israel's religious ceremonies meaning nothing apart from their faithfulness to Yahweh. What I'm trying to say is, we need to give just as much or more attention to sources from the worlds of Biblical Theology and Bible Backgrounds as we do to Patristics and Church History. Lots of things become clear and almost obvious, in my opinion, when we do that with regard to baptism. Below is a link to a very short article from Alan Streett about this, which helps to explain more deeply the historical-cultural issues I'm getting at. He also has a book that I believe is basically an extended version of the article. Would LOVE your thoughts! bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/baptism-politically-subversive-act

This is by far the best video I've seen on baptism that I don't agree with (the part about the sign). I love all your videos I've seen so far, including this one. They are very mature, thorough, and objective. Thank you.

Love the videos Gavin, thank you for carefully researching and articulating your views

Well done!

You are a beast Gavin! thank you for your insight!

Super helpful, sir. Thank you for your research on this! You'll have to give us a list of all the books on your shelf one day! :)

Thanks Gavin. Scottish Baptist here. 1) I agree that the earliest sources match a credobaptist scenario. The Didache commends fasting for both the baptised and the baptiser with no mention of an exception for infants. I suspect that anyone imagining infant baptism in this set up has no experience of parenthood!! 2) Yes: later history eg Basil of Caesarea, 4th century,from a devout family baptised as an adult. 3) For the case that Augustine was instrumental in a great shift in Western theology - in part developing from his views on infant baptism - I strongly recommend 'The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism' by Ken Wilson. Thanks especially Gavin for your cordial tone. May the Lord bless His children, from whichever camp.

I find your channel incredibly useful for understanding what and post importantly why Protestants, especially Baptists believe what you believe. Though I am not convinced to change my beliefs on any issues yet, I have come to understand both the Baptist (and wider Protestant) position a lot better.

Great video!!! Discussions and studies we should have together more often.

Glad I came across this!

Any thoughts on this quote from Origen: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”

As a Protestant inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, I really enjoyed this video. Good food for thought, even if in the end I disagree. Thanks always Gavin!

Thank you again, Dr. Ortlund, for your excellent presentation. Yes, I can now understand why there is angst about when baptism is appropriate. Before this, I'd always been baffled by the "credobaptist" position since throughout the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul we hear consistently that whenever a man accepts faith in Jesus, he is immediately baptized along with his entire household - which semantically includes infants. Clearly the practice of the Apostles was to baptize EVERYONE right away. I'm not an apologist but I do remember reading Augustine's Confessions as a teenager. It seemed to me that Augustine was pretty clear that he believed that the practice of delaying baptism came not from the apostolic teachings but rather from a lack of faith. That his mother Monica believed she couldn't keep her son from becoming sinful like his father so she delayed baptism because she was afraid that if he led a sinful life (sexually) after baptism, he would go to hell. Augustine reflected that if his mother had more faith and allowed him to get baptized in infancy, maybe he would have received the grace and the strength to avoid the sins he committed as a young adult. I just read Tertullian's On Baptism (www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm) and it seems he is recommending delay, not forbidding it and for the same reason as Augustine's mother. He says that young children, unmarried men and women, and widows are likely to turn to a life of sexual sin. Therefore, they should not be baptized "until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence." (On Baptism, Chapter 18). Tertullian does not claim that infant baptism is forbidden or that credobaptism is an apostolic practice. Just that he thinks sexual sin is so inevitable and damnable that it endangers the salvation that baptism ushers in. Walafrid Strabo's statement, "At first the tradition grace of baptism was given only to those already mature in body and mind" does not seem like a theological argument one way or another, but a simple statement of history as he knew it. In the end, I don't feel any draw to the credobaptist position, but I'm really trying. I read your article on "Why Not Grandchildren" and I don't see how the symbolic connection between Jewish circumcision has any determining weight on the practice of baptism. Church Fathers spoke of immersion as symbolic of Jesus's tomb but we don't hold people under water for three days.

This video is super helpful. Its funny you say it is a looong video. I didn't think it was near long enough! haha! I'm actually a baptist and I've been really struggling with this. These points actually haven't fully resolved my internal conflict, but I'm planning on diving more into this beacuse I see you have lots of other videos on this. Thanks for your work brother!

This gives me a lot to think and pray about.

I appreciate Gavin's willingness to engage in dialogue. I've appreciated his conversations with Catholic apologists Joe Heschmeyer and Jimmy Akin on a few of the doctrines that divide the Christian community. Having left non-denominational but essentially a Free Will Baptist / Calvinist (yes, a contradiction for sure--the holding to the Perseverance of the Saints) for Catholicism a couple of years ago, I find these conversations liberating. For those seeking an analysis, "How to be Christian" podcast did a 49 minute video in October of this year titled "What does Born Again mean?" I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation for two reasons: 1. the host included clips of a young protestant pastor that is honest for which I found comfort in his honesty regarding the question of what it means to be "born again"; 2. the ridiculousness of some pastors making contradictory claims in their logic is pointed out by the host. The video is not going to convince anyone of one position or another but it will challenge one's understanding. One's understanding of baptism significantly influences the decision to baptize or not infants and children before the age of reason..at least this has been my observation. What perplexes me though is the lack of discussion regarding the concept of Original Sin within the context of when one is "regenerated." Regarding infant baptism, it's as if the faith of the parents cannot allow God to "save" (incorporate them into the family of God) His/their children. For sure after the age of reason, the children will have to appropriate/individually assent to the faith i.e. "own it." Finally, the division created within the Church regarding baptism is not unlike the division created between Christians and Non-Christians/non-theists. The essence of the division is centered on the question, "what is the truth?" For sure the topic in question changes but not the question. Does Baptism answer the question, "how is one born anew?" for the Community; and, "Did Jesus truly rise from the dead or is was rising from the dead a metaphor?" for those outside the community. Just my thoughts. I do respect Gavin and his work immensely.

Great videos Gavin! You have caused me to go deeper, and I found this: Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho the Jewish man, wrote: (see chapters 13-14) seems to indicate true baptism is repentance and faith in the Messiah: “For Isaiah did not send you to a bath, there to wash away murder and other sins, which not even all the water of the sea were sufficient to purge; but, as might have been expected, this was that saving bath of the olden time which followed those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death, who died for this very reason, as Isaiah himself said, when he spake thus: . . . bolding my emphasis Then Justin quotes from Isaiah 52:10 all the way to 54:6, including all of Isaiah 53. Then he says in chapter 14: “By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure. For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness. . . . Dialogue with Trypho the Jewish man, chapters 13-14

Thank you!

Hi Gavin - just want to say thank you so much for the content you put out, I'm glad the Protestant community on KZfaq is growing in number and academic integrity! I feel as though I'm right on the verge of affirming credobaptism, but there's two issues I've never found a clear answer to - First, what if a person is mentally/physically disabled to the extent that they can't communicate whether they've come to faith? Surely it would be wrong for us to exclude them from baptism purely because they're unable to communicate? Second, (this is one of Luther's criticisms of the Anabaptists), doesn't credobaptism overly intellectualise faith? Rather than being a mystery it becomes a "I can intellectually assent to X,Y,Z doctrines"

I think the most interesting argument presented is the lack of infant Baptism in the Didache and Tertullian discouraging the practice. However, since the Didache argument is an argument from silence and Tertullian merely discourages the practice and does not reject or denounce the practice, I think that although interesting, these are not strong arguments. Tertullian wrote: "According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children (Concerning Baptism, Chapter 18)." Below are quotes from other early Christians and/or early Christian documents from across the ancient world. From Turkey, to Egypt, to Rome and even in France, infant Baptism seemed to be acknowledged and accepted. Although Tertullian discouraged it, I don't see any source that openly refutes this practice, which one would reasonably expect since they were writing to each other arguing whether you had to wait 8 days after birth or could baptize them immediately: The Martyrdom of Polycarp When asked to renounce his faith in order to save his life "Polycarp declared, Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour? (The Martyrdom of Polycarp chapter 9 [155 AD])" IRENAEUS “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). HIPPOLYTUS (23:06) Hippolytus also wrote: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). ORIGEN “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth." (Letters 58:2 [A.D. 253]).

I've enjoyed several of your videos, and I appreciate your irenic approach. Infant baptism is a question I've thought about off and on for several decades, but I haven't been able to come to a firm conclusion. Regarding Tertullian and tradition, I'll have to go back and reread him to see how frequently he justifies or discourages various practices with appeals to tradition rather than reason. It seems clear that he wasn't immune to the allure of novelty; otherwise, he wouldn't have become a Montanist. In Chapter XVIII of "On Baptism" he appears to be deducing the need for a delay prior to baptism based on first principles (e.g., "give not the holy thing to the dogs" and "share not other men's sins"). Similarly, he advises delaying the baptism of infants, not because it was opposed to the tradition of the church, but because infant baptism would expose the sponsors to danger, and because innocent infants have no need for it. Two things that seem clear to me from that passage in Tertullian are (1) infant baptism was practiced already in Tertullian's day and (2) Tertullian opposed it because he favored deferring baptism ("the delay of baptism is preferable"). If he also opposed it because it was a novelty, he chose not to give that as a reason. Based on the New Testament record, it would seem that the delay in baptism Tertullian recommends is itself something of a novelty.

I’ve been harsh in my comments on another video today, let me give compliments that this one is 10/10. Duh I disagree, but I see no syllogistic or rhetorical sleights of hand. Thank you, Dr. O!

Also about the infant thing, what about King David’s son? There’s no known evidence I’m aware of that suggests anything like a baptism there yet he clearly believed he would see him again one day.

I'm Protestant but I was very close to becoming Eastern Orthodox years ago. One reason that held me back among many other reasons is that I learned, contra popular online argumentation, that the early Reformers were actually very steeped in church history, often making their appeals to the church fathers themselves. Some of your videos have helped make that case more clear and I'm thankful for that. As a credobaptist, however, I have often wondered whether any early Baptists also made an appeal to church tradition. I don't know if you will get into it in this video, but I look forward to this either way!

I was pleasantly suprised to hear about the 3rd/4th century tombs with inscriptions of their Birth Date and Baptism Date. What a beautiful case for credobaptism!

I’ve struggled with this a lot as a Lutheran and have had similar prayers asking for better clarity. It’s really helpful to hear the other arguments. I was baptized as an infant.

Thank you for this Gavin. You make a very convincing case for credo baptism. I love the metonymy interpretation of the scripture in 1 Peter. That alone I believe is a strong case for credo. I actually looked up some more examples of a metonymy to better understand what that is. One is the White House, a specific place that is often used to describe the president or his administration. Looking at it in that sense is a faithful way of reading that scripture, I believe.

It blessed me, thanks brother, we Baptist ain't perfect but our first conviction is the Word of God.

Great stuff! So helpful!

Great video! Thank you! The Catholic Church distinguishes between ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation. "Ordinary" means are those clearly stated in Scripture and Tradition. "Extraordinary" are those ways in which we know that God could save someone if He should choose. The Fathers did not speak much on this topic, and so appear much more harsh in their teaching on infant baptism. Of course, their silence neither disproves the Catholic stance today, nor limits God's ability to save as He wills, but rather shows how Christian doctrine can develope overtime with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Keep searching! God is with you!

Amazingly helpful, thank you!

Your argument is very good and has changed my mind

My parents, who were former Roman Catholics, raised in the East, were encouraged to baptize me as early as possible out of the fear of infant damnation. Although there have been recent reforms brought to reconsider the possibility of unbaptized babies being saved, many Roman Catholics still believe and are taught the contrary by Priests (especially in the East)

It is interesting to think though that circumcision is something that happens to you, not something that you necessarily choose or have to understand beforehand. It is just a fact that placed you into the old covenant. Good video on the whole. You are very correct that so much hinges upon little variations in interpretation and it's why conversations are so difficult to have among various denominations. I was raised Church of Christ, the odd man out on this subject; I will most likely be converting to Catholicism.

Thank you for the informative video Dr. Ortlund. It is interesting to note how the church's views on baptism have evolved. There has been the view, mostly among Catholics and Orthodox believers that infants should be baptized as soon as possible to ensure the washing away of original sin. However, I believe there was a time in the early church where baptism was delayed until later in life, even on one's death bed, due to the belief that sins committed after baptism would not be forgiven. Am I correct that even Constantine the Great delayed baptism until just before his death for this very reason?

Here are a couple of things, that the Catholic Church teaches, for people to think about either before or after watching this video. 1) Baptism is the first Sacrament of Initiation followed by both the Eucharist and Confirmation. After these three you are considered In Full Communion. 2) Baptism requires faith, either the faith of the parents and godparents for children or personal faith if older then the age of reason. 3) Baptism removes the stain of Original Sin and the forgiveness of all sins in Adults. It does not however remove concupiscence or the inclination to sin. 4) Indelible Mark. Baptism is the entry into Christ body the Church. This mark can never be removed or added to. That is why the Church teaches only one baptism. 5) Since baptism has been divinely revealed as a necessity for Salvation, no other means can be taught dogmatically. We therefore trust in the mercy of God in situations such as infants dying before baptism. People are bound by the Sacraments...God isn’t. 6) Through it Christ gifts you the Grace necessary to live the Christian life and practice Charity. 7) Baptism does not guarantee a life of eternity in heaven, or what some call “saved”. Thank you Dr Ortlund for your time in putting this video together Peace Bob

Gavin, It sounds like the strongest case that can be made is that “we can only be certain that by the year 300, until the Anabapstists in the 17th century, the universal practice of the church, East, west, and otherwise, was pedobaptism… BUT we can’t be sure this was true before 300.” I have two observations. How much hermeneutic certainty do you think should be required to break from a universal and unbroken tradition, even if it’s genesis is 300? This seems like a HUGE topic to accept universal heresy on but avoid-as you have in our previous discussion-buying into an early, church-wide apostasy. But before 300, I see (1) Polycarp appears to have been baptized as an infant (Martyrdom of Polycarp), (2) Justin Maytyr references those who were disciples “since infancy,” plus his comments in the Dialog with Trypho, (3) Ireneaus, (4) Cyprian, (5) Council of Carthage, (6) Origen…. Back to the hermeneutics. As I understand it, the primarily justifications for the existence of a Baptist denomination are (1) (non)ecclesiology and (2) credo-baptism. How would you criticize the following argument: “whatever else I may say, I cannot find any early church evidence CONDEMNING pedobaptism… I see an admitted unbroken tradition starting in 300… the evidence in the early church that Gavin just read me was focused on converts, so kind of inapposite…. Modern credobaptists do not accept even Ana Baptist teaching, nor do they accept the erroneous theology that led to delayed baptism of adults very early on…. So their claims are even more novel than the dates above. Yo accept your view, I seem to have to insert into the place of absence an assumption, and that assumption means literally every Christian was wrong for at last 1300 years. Maybe more. And even that Polycarp, disciple to John, had the ‘wrong’ baptism…. so framed, I can’t see how that’s the most plausible answer available to me. It seems MORE plausible that it wasn’t that the whole Christian world was wrong for a millennium and a half until the anabaptists finally figured it out… or until the Baptists then corrected THEM on this. Perhaps I should check my ego and accept the wisdom received, whether I ‘like’ it or not.” Could I be forgiven for finding it hard to see how the Baptist hypothesis here is not a conclusion in search of a reason? Or arrogant to think we know better than so much universal and lengthy consistency?

thank you

This was awesome Gavin! Could you do a video on liturgies next?

Hi, great video, Michael Heiser's work on the 1 Peter passage is really good, connecting it to spiritual warfare , I think it's in The Unseen Realm

Very helpful thoughts, sir. I’m a member of the church of Christ. I’m wondering if you’ve read G. R. Beasley-Murray’s Baptism in the New Testament (1962). I highly recommend it.

Interesting. In my own readings of the earliest church fathers, baptism is often discussed within the context of a larger becoming that includes faith, repentance, new life in the Spirit, living a righteous life, etc. I think they were much more open to the mystery of the Spirit's working a new creation, rather than always trying to intellectually analyze it or make rules about the process. This encouraged me to be more open to what the various denominations practice regarding the when and how of baptism.

Are there any secondary sources you are aware of that address baptismal regeneration in the early church and argue against complete uniformity?

Any chance you go on the reason and theology show to discuss?

Hi Gavin! Thank you for posting this. I’ve been looking forward to hearing about your views on baptism more. Do you believe that the earliest Christians viewed baptism as the sign and seal of faith in Christ and repentance? If so, why would they rush to baptize a dying two year old who is yet incapable of understanding the concept of faith in Christ and repentance? Thank you!

As a credo-baptist, it has always concerned me that my paedobaptist friends (usually Presbyterian) would state how common paedobaptism was in the early church...all the while seeming to overlook the fact that the early church did so with a belief in baptismal regeneration (a belief they would reject). Looking forward to seeing if this video will shed some light on these thoughts. Thanks for all the work Gavin -- when I get a full-time job I will certainly be "patronized," as your work here directly enhances my ability to minister to others in the church.

Is there any sort of resource that has collated the from the ante-nicene fathers on Baptism?

This is excellent, Gavin. Good to see a fellow Baptist tackle church history issues and Newman's false dictum ("deep in history") and former Evangelicals, etc. This has also been a burden of mine for the last 25 years, since one of my best friends (Rod Bennett) became Roman Catholic. (and has written books on his conversion to RCC and using church history - "Four Witnesses". ) I just recently discovered your videos and interaction with Church History, historical theology and engagement with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. This one on baptism especially blessed me - the "metonymy principle" to understand baptism in Scripture and early church vs. ex opere operato priestly powers = excellent! Have you read Tim Kauffman's (PCA Reformed Presbyterian) assessment of baptismal regeneration in the early church? What are your thoughts on "causal eis" (for the forgiveness of sins) for Acts 2:38 and how that phrase is also used in the Nicene-Constantinolitan Creed in 381 AD and forward in history? The issue of baptismal regeneration in the early church is my focus here in this article, on Justin Martyr's section on baptism, using Tim Kauffman's series. apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/ If you have time, of course. Ken Temple

Excellent content, a lot to mull over 👍

Greetings! I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of the work by James Moseley that you mentioned.

Well said. Persuasive. Have you engaged with Reformed Baptist theologians like Nehemiah Coxe on some of the Covenantal aspects at play, or John Owen's treatment of the same? I think there's also a recent work by Fowler on early English Reformed(?) Baptist sacramentalism. That study is entitled "More than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism." I'd be curious as to your thoughts there. Blessings.

Very helpful!

Mr. Ortlund, could you give me some information on how do you get these old writings regarding baptism, for example, the citation you gave from Walafrid Strabo

I didn't expect to be able to disagree as peacefully as I do but you did a very thoughtful and cordial presentation on this! I think you are correct about the evidence pointing in favor of the earliest baptisms being credobaptist. I think saying it's not a normal requirement for salvation though (with possible exceptions) would be a wrong framing of this from both the Bible and the early Christian record.

18:00 As a non-denominational Christian, I believe in both credo-baptism and baptismal regeneration. Very thorough and polite of you to mention we exist, as we tend to slip "under the radar" in the whole debate...

Very interesting! As a Presbyterian open to the dialogue and options that the tradition of the Church shows us, I confess that it seems safer to adopt the path of creed-baptism in light of the testimonies of the first centuries of Christianity. However, it must be said that children also have the ability to believe from the womb, if they are chosen by God, if they have their hearts circumcised from the moment they are formless substance. In this sense, it would be good to let the child be baptized in case of illness, since the power of regeneration is not in the water itself, nor in the words spoken over the water. But the work is of God that, if the child is His chosen one, he/she will be saved by the water and the Spirit, leaving the parents only to attend to the ordinance of this blessing, which is for Christians and their generations, in the light of the book of Acts. In this sense, baptism is a substitute for circumcision that will only have real validity if it is later manifested by the circumcision of the heart (mystery of predestination). However, if the child is not one of God's chosen ones, whether or not he is baptized will not matter. Therefore, being sick, it is better to baptize. Not being sick? It is safer to hope that it has as little conscience as possible and be baptized at her 4, 5 years old if possible.

Why did you have to get me all emotional seeing the pictures of baptisms. They always make me cry. Those are my people. My family.

The last argument really made sense to me.

Great video! If circumcision of infants carried with it an understanding of a type of regeneration, a “circumcision of the heart”, then why couldn’t baptism of an infant carry with it a “baptism of the heart” for the believer? As a Catholic, I think of myself as part of God’s covenant, His plan of salvation by virtue of baptism and through the faith that has developed in my life. Much love and thanks for this thoughtful discussion!

Hi Gavin! As always you do a good job presenting your views. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I have been wondering for a while what a baptist would say about this! Would you mind if I made a friendly response video? I had some thoughts during your presentation that I think can further the discussion.

Yet a century and a half before St.Augustine, Origen mentions (although Origen is condemned at the Fifth Ecumenicl Council (553) but for something else that has nothing to do with baptism) that the baptism of babies and infants is an Apostolic tradition:"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) said this at his execution:"Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156). He says that he has served the Lord eighthy-six years, therefore he was baptized as an infant in the time of the Apostles, in the 1st century. The Apology of Aristides of Athens(?-134 CE) says:"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Apology,15(A.D. 140). St.Justin Martyr (110-165 CE) says in his First Apology (155-157 CE), 15.6:"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years...". Here he refers to the sixty and seventy-years old Christians who were are disciples of Christ from childhood, i.e. from the first century. So there are accounts of the infant baptism that show that it was carried out yet in the 1st century, in the apostolic times which corroborates the words of Origen that it is an apostolic tradition. Quote:,,It makes a lot more sense of that association because the baptism associating with saying they went down in the water dead and came up alive, it makes a lot more sense about someone who just became a Christian rather than like what you get with Augustine in the fourth and fifth century where it’s an infant ex-operato. You just put the water on the infant and they are regenerated.“ Although, as far as I know, the term ,,ex opera operato’’ is introduced in the Council of Trent in 1545-1563, it is consistent with the Orthodox understanding of the sacraments. The meaning of ex opera operato is that it is not the personal virtue or lack of virtue of the priest ministering the sacraments that the grace working in the sacraments depends upon but means that God acts independently of the personal virtue of the priest ministering the sacrament. But the meaning of the term is not that God works in the sacraments without the faith of the believers. Of course, I am not saying that it is impossible for God to act that way because there is nothing impossible for God but my point is that during the carrying out of the sacraments there is always faith present when God is acting in them. In the case of the infant baptism this is the faith of the priest baptizing the infant and that of the godparent or godparents. St.Augustine also mentions that moment:,, And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail…“ (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 24, 32). Here it must be mentioned that the Holy Fathers speak about the baptism of blood which refers to the martyrdom of those who came to believe but were baptized of water and the baptism of blood is considered identical to the baptism of water - that refers also to the thief on the cross as St.Cyprian of Carthage says in his leter 72.22:,,But the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when He speaks to the thief believing and confessing in His very passion, and promises that he should be with Himself in paradise.“ Baptism of blood is called also baptism of fire:,,…And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says.“ (Eusebius, Church history, Book VI, Chapter 4). You say in your article ,,Why not grandchildren? An argument against Reformed Paedobaptism“:,,…Third, Peter indicates that the conditions of receiving this promise are repentance (v. 38) and calling (v. 39). He enjoins them in verse 38, “repent … and you will receive,” and in verse 39 further qualifies the recipients of this promise with the phrase, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The overall import of Peter’s claim is that anyone-from those under your very roof to those in distant lands-can receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance, in response to God’s calling. This passage thus falls short of establishing the covenant membership of the children of believers exclusively (but not for those “far off”), apart from and prior to repentance.“ But that infants can be regenerated, is evident from the fact that St.John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb:,,For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.“ (Luke 1:15, KJV). He did not have faith and had not yet repented. But he nevertheless received the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. That was before the sacrament of baptism was established by Jesus (Matthew 28:19) but yet Luke 1:15 is relevant to the point whether the infants can receive the Holy Spirit whose receptance depends on the faith and repentance (Acts 2:38-39). As it was mentioned, the teaching of the Church (that St.Augustine expresses as quoted above) is that the faith (and so the repentance respectively) of the ones ministering the sacrament of baptism supplies the wanting faith and repentance of the infant getting baptized. The sacrament of baptism is for the remission of sins:,,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.“ (Acts 2:38, KJV). The baptism of infants which as the above-mentioned sources indicate is a practice since the apostolic times, is related to the remission of sins of the Christians in baptism ,,Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:“ (Romans 5:12, KJV). All humans inherit mortality from Adam because all sinned in Adam. That includes the infants because if they did not inherit the sin of Adam, they would not inherit mortality, too since mortality is a consequence of Adam’s sin. Although the infants do not have personal sins, they are still baptized for the remission of sins as in their case it is Adam’s sin that is remitted. The original sin spread to all humans and which all humans are held liable for which is why mortality which is a punishment for that sin, is born by all humans. St.Cyprian of Carthage (200-256) says that "does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (Letters, 64:5, c.253 CE). Here St.Cyprian clearly says that it is Adam’s sin that the infants are remitted of and not their personal sins. As the fact that the infants are liable for Adam’s sin is known from Scripture (Romans 5:12), i.e. known yet in the 1st century, and since the baptism of infants existed yet in the 1st century, it was done for the remission of the infants from Adam’s sin since the beginning of the Church.

I would say it's not universal ex opera in the fathers, but it is a form of baptismal regeneration of either that or the Lutheran sense in all the fathers.

I was reading through St Cyprian's letters earlier tonight and came across his letter to Fidus, and something that really struck me was that the context of the letter really implied that they were talking about baptizing infants who were likely to die ... Fidus was saying they had to wait 8 days because of the parallel to Circumcision, whereas St Cyprian replies no, they must try to save as many of them as possible. Anyway, having always heard that St Cyprian taught infant baptism as the normative practice of the church, this really struck me as anything but normative, this seemed to be something that they were wrestling over. So I googled it, and found that I am not the first to notice this, but that St Cyprian is writing his letter in the midst of a severe plague where people are dying, left and right, and in this context they were trying to figure out what to do for these children, many of which would not live to see 8 days of age, let alone survive long enough to make a profession of faith. So I can definitely see how some Scholars believe that Infant Baptism arose out of deathbed baptisms as that definitely seems to be the case here with St Cyprian.

Very helpful historic overview of baptism. Soli Deo gloria

Good video as always. Just don't let the paedobaptists give you your third baptism, Dr. Ortlund (all kidding aside, I love our paedobaptist brethren, but believe in our historic confessions). I would love to see you do a video on the history of Sacralism and how the early Baptists and other non-conformists fought for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Good job Gavin. Irenic and incisive...a tough combo but you provide it.