← Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Ep 1213 | Infant Baptism vs. Believers' Baptism: What’s Biblical?
00:54:59
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
Ali Stuckey
Infant Baptism versus Believers Baptism, the age old debate. We are having it today on today's episode of Relatable. It's brought to you by our friends at Good ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com use code ALI at checkout. That's goodranchers.com code ALI. Hey y' all. Welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. I had to remind myself what day it is because typically the second episode that is out in a week comes out on Tuesday. But with our new schedule with Relatable coming out on Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays, now it is indeed Wednesday and as promised, we are following our format even with so much going on on the news. On Wednesday we are going to do a theological topic now. Now sometimes it might be something that's going on in the news that fits into a broader theological theme that we can dissect, but today we are not talking about anything news related. We are talking about baptism. If you go back to some episodes that I did in 2019, those were strictly topical when I was in my first maternity leave, I think there were like nine weeks of episodes we had pre recorded to come out after I had my first child six years ago. And we covered a lot of political and theological topics. But one topic that I don't believe we have ever covered in depth is baptism. That's pedo baptism, infant baptism versus credo baptism, which is not necessarily adult baptism but believers baptism. So today we are going to get into those two perspectives and as always, I am going to try my very best to steel man both arguments. That is the opposite of a straw man. A straw man is a logical fallacy where you build up your opponent's argument in a fictitious way so you try to articulate something that they're not actually arguing that they're not actually saying. You see this so much on social media. I could say being barefoot on planes is gross and a straw man would be. So you're saying that being barefoot in your own home is disgusting and you think that I am a gross pig. That's a straw man. That that might be true. But I am not arguing that. I am arguing just that being barefoot on airplanes is gross. I'm not also arguing that you should never fly or that you should never take your shoes off in any conte and that is so much of social media. But if you are steel manning someone's argument, which is really the only way to be honest and therefore persuasive, you are trying to actually articulate what they Believe in the most charitable way possible. You are trying to truly understand, if it's there, the logic behind what someone believes. That is way more conducive to productive conversations and again is actually a lot more effective if you are trying to persuade someone. Now, sometimes someone's argument is completely illogical, sometimes it really is stupid, and sometimes they do have ulterior motives and malicious intent behind what they're saying. If you are pointing that out, that's not always fallacious. But if you are doing that dishonestly without trying to articulate what they actually believe and the coherence, if any, behind what they're saying, then that is indeed fallacious. So that said, I am a Credo Baptist. That means I am a believer in believers baptism. That baptism is an outward sign of inward regeneration. And I believe that this is the best and most biblical way to follow the example of Christ and, and the believers in their response to repentance that we see throughout Scripture. So I will not hide that at the end I will articulate why I have the position that I do. But I am going to do my very best at articulating why the infant baptism camp, both in the Catholic world and in the Protestant world, believe the things they do and why they have the position that they have. And for those of you who like me, you grew up maybe Southern Baptist or in a non denominational church, all you know is believers baptism. And you've never really given much thought to why there are Christians that we truly consider brothers and sisters in Christ, why they believe in the sprinkling, why do they believe in infant baptism? And I think it's important to know for us to have discussions and to see why this really matters. And of course the Bible truth always really matters. And so us knowing, understanding everything that is going on in these theological camps is super important. Now, before we get into it, just a reminder that we have new merch. Alimerch.com is where you can find our new merch, y' all. It's really, really beautiful. We took a long time to ideate, to brainstorm, to design this. There was so much communication and back and forth about this. And honestly, the pictures don't do them justice. We did the best that we could to create a graphic that shows you, like the complexity of these designs, the creativity behind it, but you just kind of have to see them in person. We've got the plant seeds that bloom in eternity and all of the colors. There are four different colors for these T shirts also. They're T shirts from Carly Jean, Los Angeles. They have different bouquets on the back. I was very particular about this because some of the bouquets looked good on one color and not another color. So I was like, okay, we got to mix and match the colors there. I love the black. I love the green. Y' all know I'm a green girl. We've got razor respectful ruckus for the things that matter. That is on the back of a very lightweight crew neck sweater. That's the back of it. The front of it is a little embroidered R. Same thing with the front of the T shirt. A little embroidered R with the flower self. Love won't save you, but Jesus will. This is so much cuter in person. It's super cute. It might be my favorite of this merch drop. And then again on the front, that cute embroidered R, we've got a dad hat. That's what that's called. We've got it in blue. We've got it in gray with the embroidered R and heart. And then we've got a little megaphone with relatable in it. I love these. These little trucker hats. And then we've got the totes from Carly Jean, Los Angeles that are super roomy. I use for everything. Like, they're great beach bags. They're great. Like, I don't know, kids sleeping over at grandparents house bags. They are awesome. I use them for everything. Go to alimerch.com and you can see all of our new stuff there. That's ally merch dot com. All right, y' all. So let's get into it. So the word baptism comes from the Greek word that is used in the New Testament, baptizo, which literally means to dip or to immerse. There really is no controversy surrounding that. The controversy is around the interpretation of what that actually means for believers today. Baptism. All denominations, all forms of Christian believe that it is a form of identification as a Christian, that it is a public profession, confession of our faith and identification with Christ. There are several verses that refer to baptism in the New Testament. We've got Romans 6, 3, 4. Do you not know that all of us who have been. Who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were buried, therefore, with him by baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. And actually, at my church and at most Baptist churches, I believe that is what is said when a believer is baptized, is baptized, buried with Christ in his death, and raised to walk in the newness of life. All denominations agree that baptism is an act of obedience to Jesus's instructions. Matthew 28:19. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 41 and Peter said to them, for the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, save yourselves from this crooked generation. So those who received his word were baptized, baptized. And there were added that day about 3,000 souls. 1st Peter 3:21. Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So different parts of Christianity interpret these verses differently to support their view of either believers baptism either as a child or as an adult or or infant baptism. There are three different modes of baptism. There is sprinkling a few drops on someone's head. This is practiced by Methodists, by Roman Catholics, by Presbyterians, by Lutherans. There is pouring, also called effusion, pouring of water over someone's head. It's practiced by Mennonites, by the Amish, and then there's immersion. And this is primarily used by Baptists and by non denominational churches that are basically functionally Baptist, even if they are not officially part of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest denomination in the United States. So the question is, when should we be baptized? And the question is how should we be baptized? When and how should we be baptized? But there's also a debate about what this baptism actually means. So first we're going to look at the paedo Baptist side. Paedobaptism. This comes from the Greek word pais, or child. It's also known as infant baptism. That's probably what you've heard it referred to as in layman's terms. It is the Christian practice of baptizing infants or young children, typically infants. This is those who are born to believing parents. This is within Protestantism as Lee, at least as a means of incorporating them into the faith and the church community. It is also, however, practiced by non Protestants, by Roman Catholic Church, by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox Churches. But there is a difference in what these people believe infant baptism actually means. The Presbyterian Church in America, for example, practices infant baptism. They don't teach that this baptism actually saves the child, but they teach that infant baptism is actually a covenant sign is not salvific, but it is the same as Old Testament circumcision. It's a covenantal sign that shows welcoming this child into the Christian family. And of course, they still believe that a true profession of faith needs to be made at some point in that child's life, in that person's life, for them to actually be saved and go to heaven. This is a difference between covenantal theology, which we talked about a little bit last week on Thursday, and sacramental theology, which is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. And we'll get into more of those details in a second. But let me go ahead and pause and tell you about our first sponsor for the day, and that is We Heart Nutrition. I love We Heart Nutrition. I take their supplements every day. Every day. And you know, when we were in Southern California, we got to see Kristen and Jacob, who own We Heart Nutrition, and they are just awesome people. We felt like we had met really wonderful friends, even though we had never spent time with them before because we are just so on the same page, like, they have the same values that we do. They love the Lord, they love this country, they love their family, and they are putting everything they can into We Heart Nutrition to make sure that it one, glorifies God and two, serves their customers really well. That's why they care about every single ingredient that goes into these supplements to make sure that it is the most bioavailable and can actually be absorbed by your body. I have seen a huge difference in my hair, skin and nails, in my immune system. I hardly ever get sick before I started taking these supplements. I was getting sick all the time. That's because my body is really taking in the nutrients that it needs from We Heart Nutrition. Go to weheartnutrition.com use code ally for 20% off your order. That's we heartnutrition.com code ally. So there are many prominent church fathers, many prominent people in church history who were paedo Baptists, Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley. I mean, many of the people that Baptists hold in high regard for their theology were actually proponents of infant baptism. Of course. RC Sproul, he's a reformed theologian, the founder of Ligonier ministries. You've got N.T. wright, Timothy Keller, you've got all of the Catholic teachers and popes. And so let's break down the difference between the, the pedobaptist Protestant view, what Presbyterians and other denominations believe, and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches when it comes to infant baptism. So this is According to Ligonier, that is the ministry that was started by the Presbyterian Reformed theologian R.C. sproul. They say that the New Testament nowhere commands us to baptize infants, but neither does it anywhere forbid it. Okay, A circumcision and baptism are linked in Colossians 2, 11, 12, for example. And so baptism, like circumcision, need not be tied to the moment of profession. Again, this is from Ligonier. Colossians 2, 11:12 says this in him also, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith and the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. So Presbyterians, those who are on the infant baptism side in the Protestant world, would say, okay, this is a symbol of God's covenant to his people that is similar to or a parallel to the outward sign of God's covenant to his people in the Old Testament, which was circumcision. So this camp would argue that Old Covenant promises were given to adults and their children, and this was depicted through circumcision. It's hard to imagine. Ligonier says that the greater New Covenant promises and signs should not also be given to the infant children of believing adults. The Old Testament taught that those entire households were circumcised, obviously not the females, as were entire households baptized in the New Testament. And so they'd go to the old Testament, Genesis 17:11, 13, for example, and they would look at the Abrahamic covenant. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins. It shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you, God says to Abraham. Then they would look at the New Testament passages like Acts 16:15, say that Lydia's household was baptized, Acts 16:33, the Philippian jailer's household, First Corinthians 1:16, Stephanus's household. So Paedo Baptists argue that these texts imply baptism was not restricted to believers. They would say that one person believed, and therefore their household could be baptized again as a sign of the covenant that at least one person in the household had accepted through the grace of Jesus Christ. Paul says, this camp argues that the children of a Christian parent are set apart to God. And so First Corinthians 7:14, for example, for the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. They would also say that, like circumcision, baptism without personal faith has no effect. However, it does identify the child as part of the visible church community and holds them to a higher standard of judgment if they never come to trust in God. And where they support this claim is Luke 12:48. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given of him much will be required. And from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. This is Jesus speaking in a parable, but they use the principle that he is articulating there to say, okay, a lot is going to be expected and required of this child who is baptized into the faith as an infant. This is from the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, who gives us a detailed historical analysis of this position. If you look back to why Augustine, for example, believed in infant baptism, he didn't believe that it was just a New Testament covenant sign of a child being welcomed into the church, but he truly believed, as Catholics do, that it was cleansing of original sin. Not that the infant had done anything wrong, they hadn't knowingly sinned yet because they don't have the capacity to do that, but that even newborns carry the weight of original sin, which, by the way, reformed people, Baptists also believe that everyone has inherited original sin from Adam. But Augustine believed that this baptism in infancy actually cleansed them of any responsibility, of any guilt that was inherited because of original sin. It would actually just wipe it out. By the third century, baptizing babies became more common, partly because so many infants died young then. And so they saw it. Many Christians then saw it as protection from hell or damnation. Parents and church leaders wanted to make sure that babies were, quote, unquote, sick, safe, spiritually. And this article in. This article says that due to the dual pressures of infant mortality and evolving views of the sinfulness of newborn infants, the novel practice of baptizing infants became widespread. By the third century, this practice was not accepted as universal. Even in the 4th century, as infants need for forgiveness continued to be questioned. Okay, and then we've got the Catholic view, which we kind of already touched on a little bit with what Augustine believes. But we'll get into that in more detail in just a second. Let me pause and remind y' all that you got to sign up for Share the Arrows this year. Share the Arrows is brought to you by our friends at every life, y' all. I am so pumped. I am so excited. This is going to be such an amazing event. The largest gathering of Christian conservative Women outside Dallas, Texas October 11th. We've got me. I'll be speaking Ginger Duggar Volo. Elisa Childers We've got Mama Bear Apologetics author Hillary Morgan Ferreir M is for Mama Abby Halberstadt and she is a homeschooling mom of 10 and an amazing author. Shauna Holman and Taylor Dukes Awesome Christian women that will be bringing us a biblical perspective on how to ensure that our households are truly healthy. Katie Foust her pro child politics message has challenged all all of us to think more biblically about issues that affect children. And then of course we will have Francesca Battistelli and she is the Grammy Award winning artist that led us in worship last year and she will be back. Elisa Childers Did I say her apologist? Y' all follow her and love her. I'm so excited y' all. If you want to make like minded friendships that will last hopefully forever, then you've got to come to Share the Arrows. Do not miss out. Don't have FOMO y' all. It's share the arrows.com share the arrows.com any of the speakers first names plus the number 15 gets you 15% off. When you go to Ticketmaster and you press the unlock button, enter in that code and you'll see the 15% off prices. I'm not really supposed to be saying that on the podcast, only supposed to be posted on social media, but there you go. So go to share the arrows.com While tickets still last. Also while we're here, let me tell you about Good Ranchers. So summertime is the best time to grill out. I love our good Ranchers meat. We just had some wagyu burgers last night. Delicious. We eat the chicken breast multiple nights a week. It is a great way to make sure that your family is hitting their protein goals. That is like one of the healthiest things my kids will eat. Just plain good Ranchers chicken breast that I put in the oven. They will eat that right up. I'll put that on salad, I'll put that on anything. They also have pre marinated chicken breast that's really good. They've got all different cuts of steak, all different kinds of ground beef, seafood and all from American farms and ranches. That's something that just cannot be guaranteed when you are buying your meat from the grocery store. Corlee and Ben have been on the show. Their testimony is awesome. They love the Lord, they love America and they love serving their customers. Make Your life easier to get American meat delivered right to your front door. Use my Code ally. You'll get $40 off your order. That's good. Ranchers.com code ally so in Catholic teaching, baptism is seen as a sacrament that con conveys grace. It spiritually renews a person and serves as the primary way to enter the Christian faith. It is the first of seven sacraments. So it is believed, like Augustine believed, to wash away original sin, unite the person with the Roman Catholic Church. They also believe there is a regenerative effect, a salvific effect there of infant baptism. So this is from a Vatican doctrinal document that was released in 1980. This is according to the Vatican. The Catholic Church teaches that, quote, even babies who are yet unable to commit any sin personally are truly baptized for the forgiveness of sins, for the purpose of cleansing by rebirth what they received by birth. Baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism is never administered without faith. However, the Catholic Church would say, in the case of infants, it is the faith of the Church, so not necessarily their individual faith. Furthermore, in accordance with the teaching of the Council of Trent on the sacraments, baptism is not just a sign of faith, but a cause of faith. So they really see that baptism as necessary for salvation. And they would point to a variety of verses. They would look to John 3:5. They would look to Titus 3:5. They would look To Mark 16:16, Acts 22. Acts 22:16 says, and now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. We've Already read Acts 2:38, 41, where Peter says, the promise is for you and your children who are far off. We've got 1st Peter 3:21 that says again that baptism saves you. And they would also point to the verses that we've already read about baptism occurring in entire households when just one person was saved. So same basic act between those who are Paedo Baptist in the Protestant world and in the Catholic world, but there is a different meaning behind them. But based on covenantal theology, which Protestants believe, those pedo Protestants believe, pedo Baptists believe. And then the sacramental theology that the Catholics believe, where baptism is truly salvific versus the covenantal theology belief that baptism is a sign, a little bit more than just an outward sign, because it is an inward covenant. But again, they don't believe that it's actually salvific. Okay, so what is my camp believe? What is credo? A Credo Baptist believe. Credo Baptist. That word credo comes from the Latin word for Creed or belief. Credo means I believe, so we believe. This is according to desiring God. This is John Piper's ministry. He is a Credo Baptist. Baptism is an appeal to God and a symbol of the decisive act of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is who washes us, regenerates us, renews us in his application of Christ's work in our lives. Christian baptism is the way someone publicly declares their faith and commitment to following Jesus from believers Baptism and the Patristic writings. This is by Stephen A. McKinnon. Believers baptism is the practice of baptizing only those who profess faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation, having repented of their sins. So repented means to turn away from. So we have said, I don't want to live that life anymore. I have accepted by faith in Christ according to the grace that was given to me, that Jesus Christ is who he says he is, that he died for my sins, that I have forgiveness and reconciliation to God through Christ. And because of that grace that is in me, because of the faith that I now have, I want to walk in accordance with his word. I want to turn away from my old self and my old ways and I want to walk in the example of Jesus. That would be a long winded way to define what repentance is. An essential element of the practice is that baptism is subsequent to repentance and faith. That is the distinctive of what Credo Baptists believe. While both Baptists and Pedo Baptists may agree that the function of the ordinance is to outwardly profess faith, Baptists deny that the action professes future faith. And we certainly deny that it is salvific in any way, that it has the power to wash away original sin, or that it is necessary or even right to baptize infants. We would certainly not affirm that Baptist churches of Christ, Pentecostals, non, non denominational churches, reject infant baptism, arguing that personal belief must come before baptism. Several Baptists throughout history, however, definitely later than most of the church fathers, Although that's not to say that credo baptism wasn't believed by the earliest Christians because again we see that the earliest Christians, including Jesus himself, were submerged, which we'll get into in just a second. The prom, the prominent contemporary supporters of believers baptism, John Piper, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, many others. Um, if we look at the some of the earliest writings that were against infant baptism, we do have a church. Father Tertullian, for example, and he wrote a book on baptism called the Baptismo and the first decade of the third Century. He writes, let children come then when they grow up, let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. And in that work, that seems to be the earliest work that we see besides the Bible itself. I would argue that is against infant baptism. Dallas Baptist University religion professor Mark Nickens explains the history of believers baptism. He says that many reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin broke from the Catholic Church, creating new Christian groups with diverse beliefs about what it means to be Christian. He's just explaining very briefly the reformation there. On January 21, 1525, there were a variety of priests who acted on their beliefs about baptism that differed from the Catholic Church, with one of the reformers baptizing another, pouring water, marking the start of the Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptist movement rejected infant baptism for believers. Baptism. The word Anabaptist means re baptize, or it was originally used as kind of like a pejorative by their opponents because Anabaptists believed in adult baptism, rejected the validity of infants infant baptism. And during that time a lot of them had already been baptized into the Catholic Church, but they were being baptized in a different way as adults. And many Baptists throughout history have been persecuted, especially in those earth early years of the Protestant Reformation, because of what they believed about baptism, of course, being called heretics, people being excommunicated from the Catholic Church for questioning baptism. And so this was a very hot topic back in the day and still actually is in some ways. And so here are the verses that we use, the analysis that we use to come up with our belief that baptism really is just for believers. We look at Acts 2:38 through 41, which is actually a verse that we have already read a couple times to try to support pedo baptism. This verse that they use for Peter said to them, for the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off. Everyone whom the Lord our God for calls to Himself, Save yourselves from this cook of generation. So those who received His Word were baptized. When Peter says, for this promise is for you and your children. So those who received His Word were baptized. So yes, this verse does say for you and your children. However, it's very clear there that those who received his word were baptized. There is no implication whatsoever that those who did not receive his word, that those who did not believe were also baptized. Whenever we see in any verse that their household was baptized, it takes a lot of assumption to come to the conclusion that non believing children or infants were baptized. We don't see that explicitly Anywhere throughout Scripture, we do not see that example. And actually, again, Ligonier Ministries, which is Presbyterian and Reformed, believes in infant baptism. They say that outright, that the Bible never commands infant baptism. But I would go further than that. It's not that it never commands infant baptism. We don't see that anywhere. We don't even see an implication of baptizing infants anywhere. And in fact, as we'll get into in a second, the idea of sprinkling baptism is really an oxymoron. That's not what baptism means in the Greek. It actually means to immerse. And so it seems to me that the writers of the New Testament who were watching, the earliest Christians, understood that they weren't talking about a sprinkling, that that's not what Jesus commanded us to do. That's not what Jesus actually partook in when he was baptized. But this was actually an emerge, an immersion and a dunking. We look at Romans 6, 3, 4. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized, baptized into his death. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in the newness of life. So that is what baptism is supposed to signify. Just like Jesus rose from the dead, came out of the tomb, so Christians are rising out of the water into newness of life. Romans 6 makes it very clear what we are supposed to signify when we are being baptized. Colossians 2, 11, 12, in him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism. So the baptism is supposed to be like a burial. This is identification with Christ. His death, his resurrection are identification with Christ comes through baptism. Baptists reject this idea that physical baptism actually saves you. So this first one Peter 3, 21, baptism which corresponds to this now saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so he actually makes clear there. Peter is making clear that we're not talking about physical baptism having salvation power. We are talking about the baptism that is internal, that can only come through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. We are talking about the heart change by grace through faith that Jesus accomplishes in your life, that is Sal, that is salvation. Titus 3, 5. God saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness. That would include baptism, by the way, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. So the renewal and the regeneration and the change comes through the Holy Spirit, not the physical act of being baptized, which again, is an external signifier of an inward reality. An external signifier not only of identity with Christ, but identification of Christ's burial and his resurrection. Okay, we've got a few more points on that, specifically about Jesus and his example that he set for us. But let me pause and. And tell you about our next sponsor, and that is EveryLife. I love EveryLife. They are America's only pro life diaper company. Okay. When I was out of town, when we were out of town as a family in California, we ran out of our every life diapers, which was very tragic. And we had to go to the store and get some other diapers. It's a, you know, one of those competitors that is supposed to have clean materials in it that a lot of people love. And I was like, okay, we used these before. We used Every Life. They'll probably be fine, y' all. They just don't work. Like Every Life, they just don't work. I'm being dead serious. I would like could not wait to get home to get our every life diapers because these just didn't get the job done. And so I'm so thankful that not only do I have a company that I can support because they have pro life values, because they take care of moms and babies who are in need, they take care of their pregnant and adopting employees, but also they make products that really are the best. And not only do they have diapers, they. But they also have a lotion. They also have baby shampoo that is all dermatologist tested. Just amazing. If you go to everylife.com you can use code ALI10. You'll get 10 off your first order today. That's everylife.com code ALI10. Okay. I think the clearest argument for believers, baptism is in the example of Jesus. And it's interesting because Catholics will say, for example, and we'll do an episode on this, the real presence of the Eucharist, whether this is a symbol of Jesus's body and blood or whether it is the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine. They will say, this is literal. This is not symbolic. Jesus is not speaking in metaphors, even though Jesus spoke in symbolism and metaphors a lot in his ministry. But they will say, no, this was literal. But I do think it's interesting that for some reason, when it comes to baptism and what we clearly see happening here, that was not supposed to be an example for believers, at least according to Roman Catholic teaching and according to some Protestant teaching. So we see in Matthew 3:16 and was when Jesus was baptized, baptizo, again that word means immersed. Immediately he went up from the water and behold, the heavens were open to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest upon him. Mark 1:10. And when he came up out of the water immediately, he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove. Okay, so here's what a Presbyterian Pedo Baptist scholar would say. His name is Albert Barnes. He wrote commentary on the Book of Matthew. And so he said it, he came out of the water, literally means he Jesus went up directly from the water. This is what he argues. The original does not imply that they had descended into the river. It cannot be proved therefore from this passage that his baptism was by immersion. And so that view is that actually Jesus wasn't actually immersed. I don't know if it's that he was sprinkled or like what the argument is there, but I think it is kind of like another argument from absence. While we don't see for absolute sure that he was immersed and so we can't say this is the example that he set for believers, the Catholic view on Mark 1:9 through 10. This is according to Catholic Answers. Mark 1:9 through 10 doesn't say Catholic answers says that Christ was baptized by immersion, only that after his baptism, Jesus came up out of the water. The phrase could refer to immersion, but it needn't. Jesus could have stepped into the shallows and had John the Baptist pour water on his head. Even if Jesus had been baptized by immersion, this wouldn't present a problem for Catholics. We accept baptism by immersion as a valid mode of receiving the sacrament. Okay, so I just do want to make that clear because I don't think I've specified that yet, that I don't think Catholics would condemn baptism by immersion. But again, this would be in accordance with sacramental theology that this is a washing away of original sin, which we Protestants do not hold to. So here is an article in the Christian Courier by someone named Wayne Jackson. I thought he explained explained the Credo Baptist position. Well, while he is refuting the Presbyterian scholar Albert Barnes that we cited just a minute ago, he says those who practice ritualistic sprinkling as a substitute for water immersion commonly alleged that baptism from the very commencement of the Christian age was implemented either by immersion, pouring or sprinkling. They claim that ancient literary sources and even a few scriptural references support this diversity. He says it must be noted that the expression baptismal sprinkling is a contradiction. That's what I was just saying. The Greek term baptismo means to dip, submerge, and immerse. The Greek historian Polybius used the word to describe a sinking ship. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the cognate form bapto clearly is distinguished from the term sprinkle, which is rantizo and poor keo. See Leviticus 14. To speak of baptismal speaker sprinkling would constitute a contradiction of terms. The verbs represent entirely different actions. Second, there is not a solitary passage in the New Testament, Wayne Jackson says, that lends any support to the idea that the act called baptism by the New Testament writers was administered by the sprinkling or pouring of water upon a person's head. Albert Barnes, the Presbyterian scholar that we cited earlier, puts a lot of emphasis on that word from trying to argue that it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was immersed. But Wayne Jackson points out the argument is based upon the fact that the term from is the Greek word apo, which generally means away from. But Jackson says apo can also be used in the sense of out of, as in the case of Luke 24:47, the Pharisees wanted Jesus to show them a sign from apo heaven. However, in the parallel passages in both Mark and Luke's accounts, the preposition used is ekt instead of out instead of apo. So those words, when used interchangeably, we see that ek literally means coming up out of. So he argues that the most likely and logical interpretation of that verse is that apo actually means coming out of, since it is also sometimes interchangeably used with actual, which always means coming out of. Mark also wrote that Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan. The preposition rendered in in our common versions is AIs, which means into. Finally, the theological connection between baptism and the burial and resurrection of Christ, Romans 6, 3, 4, which we've read a couple times now, Colossians 2:12, negates the notion that the rite may be performed by sprinkling or pouring. The prospective Christian is buried in the water of baptism with Christ. Just as Jesus was raised out of the tomb, so we also are raised from the liquid grave of baptism. And I think that is exactly right, that that symbol, that that signifier really matters. Now, Founders ministry it's a ministry that we have referred to several times. In fact, if you are looking for a Bible preaching church, I always recommend founders.orgchurch-search I know people who have started going to a Bible preaching church because of because of that link, because they found a church through that resource and through the grace of God. It's been totally life changing for you and I just love that it's a Christian organization focused on promoting Reformed theology, but it's also Baptist just like me. And we are kind of like in a niche camp in the Reformed world. But this is how they Defend Credo Baptism so they argue Paedobaptists look for a profession of faith from parents before baptizing their children, but that requirement is not revealed in either the Old Testament nor in the New Testament. Infant baptism requires parents to profess faith, but this rule isn't clearly found in the Bible, in the Old Testament circumcision rules, or in the New Testament teachings on baptism. Baptism Credo Baptists say that Paedo Baptists exclude unbelieving adult spouses from the covenant of grace. But under the Old Covenant, all those in the Israelite household, including both husbands and wives, were in the covenant, whether they believed or not. There is no reason revealed to do this. And so what they're saying is that if the Paedo Baptists say that sprinkling baptism for infants is a sign of the New Covenant, it is a reflection of what God did through circumcision in the Old Testament, then why don't we also apply that to unbelieving adults in the household of, say, a believing father in the way that God did in the Old Testament with circumcision? The Old Testament included everyone in a household for circumcision. But Pedo Baptists don't always baptize all household members, which seems inconsistent since they use the Old Testament to justify infant baptism. They argue Paedo Baptist see infants as part of the covenant community. But this view doesn't fully match New Testament teachings about Jesus's role, which stress faith, not infant inclusion, as the way to receive God's promises. Galatians 3:7 says this know that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. Colossians 2, 11, 12 in him you were circumcised with the circumcision, a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead. They argue that these passages show the New Testament calls sons of Abraham those who believe, not just physical descendants. Baptism replaces circumcision through a person's faith, not through baptizing babies. Challenging the idea that Old Testament circumcision supports infant baptism. Okay, so that is the Credo Baptist position. That is the position that I hold to, simply because that is the example that we see in the Old Testament. I believe that at best, the Pedo Baptist position is an argument from absence and implication and assumptions. Now, I am not against using deductive reasoning to come to a biblical principle. For example, we have come up with the word Trinity based on what we see in Scripture, except explained about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, even though we don't actually see the word Trinity in Scripture. But when it comes to a practice, especially a practice when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church that you're saying confers some sort of salvation, it's really important that we understand where it's coming from. What is the biblical basis for this? It's not enough to say that the early church did this, because not everyone in the early church did this. The only infallible and inerrant authority we have on what the early church was like is the Bible itself. And it seems to me when we look at the Greek word actually used for baptism, when we look at the context of even the descriptions of households being baptized, that this was immersion baptism for those who confessed faith in Christ. And so the argument that while there were early church fathers who believed this, there were even reformers who believed this, there were early Christians who believed this. Well, we can see in Paul's letters to the early church that Christians get things wrong and they need correction and they need rebuke and they need reformation to remember what was actually taught by Christ, the example that we learned in him. And thankfully, God has divinely inspired the word of God to give us the best and most trustworthy guidebook. Now, do I believe that this is a salvation issue? If you believe in infant baptism, I believe in credo baptism. But we both believe in the true gospel, that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus. No, I think that we're both going to be in heaven. However, it is very clear that baptism for believers, when we are going to making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is a command for believers that that's not optional. And so I remember when I had this back and forth before about what baptism actually means. And I know this is a really big sticking point when I am, when I'm debating and discussing with Catholics that it cheapens baptism. If something is just a symbol, if it's just a symbol, then why doesn't it matter? Well, there are a lot of things that are just a symbol that matter. This wedding ring that I am wearing right now, it is just a symbol, but it carries significance. It is an outward sign of a covenant that my husband and I have made to each other. Now, if I take off this ring, I am still married because the covenant goes beyond this ring. But this is an important signifier, an important symbol of a deeper reality. And that's not even a perfect comparison, because baptism is actually something that is required by Jesus is necessary. However, it is not what saves us, because that would be to say that we could earn our salvation in some way. That is, there is a work of righteousness that we must do to be reconciled to God. And Jesus has done all that work on our behalf. It is a free gift, as we read in Ephesians 2. All right, so that is just. Just kind of skimming the surface of this debate on pedo, baptism versus credo, baptism. I welcome all of your thoughts. Please have respectful dialogue and debate over this. It's an important subject and we should be discussing it and asking our pastors about this and trying to understand it better. But it is no reason for vitriol and for hatred. All right, let me tell you about our last sponsor for the day, and that is Fellowship Home Loans. Mike and Brian are the real deal. They are doing mortgages not just by the book, but by the book, by the Bible, by the word of God. They are Christians. They started this company to glorify God and to help you make these big purchases like a home in a way that honors God. And they work with integrity. They work with diligence. They work with efficiency. I have heard from some of you who have worked with them at Fellowship Home Loans and they have just been a game changer for you. One of my listeners reached out. He had been denied, actually by two different lenders. One told him that his debt to income ratio didn't work. Another said that his home wasn't enough and he was anxious about this. He didn't know what to do. But Fellowship Home Loans, he heard about them on this show, he prayed about it. He decided to call. And within a week, not only what is, was his loan approved, but Fellowship Home Loans helped him pay off his first mortgage, his second mortgage, and all of his debt. I mean, that is life changing right there. They are fully dedicated to doing a great job for you and for the glory of God. Go to Fellowship home loan/ali fellowship homeloans.com Alli get a 500 credit at closing just for my listeners Terms apply C site for details Fellowship Home Loans Nationwide Mortgage Bankers DBA Fellowship Home Loans Equal Housing Lender NMLS Number Not 819382 all right guys, if you've got more suggestions for topics that we should cover on our Theology and topical Wednesday, please send those to me. Y' all have sent some really good ones and we are going to dive into those over the next few weeks. If you've got any spicy topics like I said on Instagram though, if you suggest something that I've talked about a lot, then I'm going to fine you. I don't remember how much I said I said. I think I said like 638 $7.43 I'm gonna find you and you're gonna get a bill in the mail because you did not do your due diligence. If you ever want to know if I've talked about something, you can type in either on YouTube. I think it works a little bit better on Apple Podcasts. You can type in the subject that you're looking for and relatable and it should come up on YouTube. You might have to be more specific and type in Ali Stuckey or a guest that you're looking for. I've probably talked about the thing that you are looking for, but if I have someone say oh, you should talk about Israel and dispensational versus Covenant theology, I'm gonna bop you on the head and I'm gonna fine you $6,000. Okay? But if you've done your due diligence and you still want me to cover something that either I haven't covered in a long time, haven't covered very much, or I have never covered, then please send your suggestions. That'd be great. All right, one more thing. Blazetv.com Alli has an awesome deal going in celebration of the 4th of July. To celebrate true no Kings Day, you can go to blazetv.com ali and you will get a seven day free trial for Blaze TV. You get access to all of our behind the paywall subscriber only stuff blazetv.com Alli for that seven day trial blazetv.com Ally all right guys, that's all we've got time for today. We will not be back here on Friday because it's the 4th of July. We will be back here on Monday.