Paedobaptism is not apostolic.

John Calvin and Martin Luther would have called you a heretic, and Zwingli would have had you drowned in the river for saying that.

History backwards. Delayed baptism was adult thing in late 300s because people thought post-baptism sin worse - that's why Constantine, Augustine baptized late. That's abuse Fathers fought. Infant baptism is earlier: Irenaeus 180 AD (disciple of Polycarp -John): "Christ came to save all who through Him are born again - infants, children..." Against Heresies 2,22,4 Origen 248 AD: "Church received FROM THE APOSTLES tradition to baptize infants" Rom 5:9 Cyprian Council 253 AD - 66 bishops. Question was "baptize infant on day 8 like circumcision or sooner?" Answer: don't wait, baptize now. No one debates WHETHER to baptize infants. Assumed. Augustine didn't invent - he appeals TO infant baptism as proof against Pelagians: "custom of Mother Church baptizing infants is apostolic" De Genesi 10:23 NT: Households baptized Acts 16:15, 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16 - oikos includes infants. Col 2:11-12 baptism = new circumcision - circumcision was for 8-day infants. Show me one Father before 400 who says "don't baptize infants" or "only sick ones." There is none.

I guess moses should have left the children in Egypt and not circumcised them.

All Christianity disagrees with your opinion here And so does objective history and Scripture

love you bro, but many disagree with this one.

I do not form my beliefs based on majority thought.

That’s fine. But I think it can be pretty easily deduced in good conscience.

People that deny baptismal regeneration have no legs to stand on here

Sure it is. Have you not read?

There is no principled reason against it, even if that were the case. Faith was not required on the part of the infant in OT Israel in order to become circumcised and enter into covenant relationship with God.

To believe that whole households didn’t include infants is beyond belief.

Calvin disagrees with this so who's right?

Sorry, but gay affirming effeminate pastors I mark and avoid.

HOUSEHOLDS IN ACTS, ROMANS & CORTINTHIANS infallibly contradict you. So much for the bible' the final authority™️ bellowing

Then why NO controversy among the Fathers????

So the Old Covenant had a sign and was inherited, but the New Covenant isn’t? Don’t continue in your gross ignorance. “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”” Acts 2:39 NKJV

"You AND your household." Why shouldn't the children be baptized if baptism is the new circumcision?

Man with lisp is wrong

I can't believe this gay heretic has any amount of audience at this point.

turds

The problem with 2nd & 3rd century evidence is that it is divorced from its original Jewish context. We should be asking how a 1st c. Jew would have understood baptism, not how a 2nd or 3rd c. Greek would have understood it.

Baptism is being blessed with water in the name of the Triune God, marvelously marked by God Himself.

Why are you listening to this gay man?

ib: the covenant is not for you and your children. Christians: it's for you and your children.

Repent

There was liberty in the early church where you could choose to delay or choose not to delay. Advocating delay assumes a norm of no delay. Also, the widespread practice among varying geographic locations early on (it wasn't prescribed by Rome) supports infant baptism as the early norm.

If one student fails a test, blame the student. If the whole class gets completely different answers, blame the teacher. Protestants read the same Bible, pray to the same Spirit, and get contradictory doctrines. God isn’t a bad teacher; "private interpretation" is a bad system

Love Gavin, but simply mentioning that their baptisms were delayed without mentioning the fact that their delaying of baptism was predicated upon a belief in baptismal regeneration and that infant baptisms were valid, just not always prudent, is a little dishonest.

Kids started working at 4 years old at that time.. Almost sure they were good to be bapized a little before that...

CredoBaptism 💪

It’s important though, maybe baptise babies and then get it confirmed when they’re older?

In the early Church (especially the 3rd–4th centuries), baptism was understood to wash away all prior sins—original sin and actual sins committed before the rite—restoring a person to a pure state. Sins committed after baptism were viewed as more serious and harder to deal with. As infant baptism became the norm—especially after Augustine linked it tightly to the remission of original sin—the old habit of postponing for adults or older children largely faded by the fifth century. The result was a shift from treating baptism as a late-life “clean slate” to seeing it as the ordinary start of Christian life, with ongoing forgiveness available through repentance and the Church’s penitential discipline. Gavin knows this. He likes to ignore certain aspects on purpose. Disingenuous. He knows there was a period of time they treated it as a clean slate, rather than worrying about if someone was old enough to know or not. They believed in baptismal regeneration which if Gavin is a Calvinist he doesn’t believe. It’s purely symbolic for Gavin, so their reasonings aren’t even close to why to wait for Gavin.

Just because you’re historically illiterate doesn’t mean it’s not apostolic. It means you’re nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are.