WeOrthodox
EN UA
Timothy Instagram

Debate on baptism: believer's baptism versus infant baptism

A video presents two speakers debating the theology of baptism. The first speaker argues that Scripture teaches believer's baptism, which requires personal faith before baptism. He describes being baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church and later rebaptized as an adult because an infant cannot understand what is happening.

He also states that anyone has authority to baptize, though many churches disagree. The second speaker responds that Scripture never limits baptism to those who can articulate a mature profession of faith. He cites Acts 2:39, where Peter says the promise is for you and your children, and points to Paul connecting baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2. He also references household baptisms in Acts.

The second speaker argues that believer's baptism is a theological tradition not found in Scripture, while infant baptism reflects early church practice. He questions why a holy sacrament would depend on intellectual comprehension and references Ephesians 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." He concludes by asking whether one's interpretation matches the faith the church received and practiced from the beginning.

Key moments

  1. The first speaker states Scripture is clear that baptism follows personal faith in Christ, calling it believer's baptism, and notes he was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church.
  2. The first speaker explains he was rebaptized as an adult because an infant cannot understand what is happening during baptism.
  3. The first speaker says anyone has authority to baptize, acknowledging many churches disagree with this view.
  4. The second speaker responds that Scripture never says baptism is only valid with a mature profession of faith, citing Peter's words in Acts 2 that the promise is for you and your children.
  5. The second speaker points to Paul connecting baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2 and to entire households being baptized in Acts.
  6. The second speaker argues believer's baptism is a theological tradition nowhere found in Scripture, while infant baptism reflects early church practice.
  7. The second speaker questions why a holy sacrament would depend on intellectual comprehension, referencing "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."
  8. The second speaker says the real question is whether one's interpretation matches the faith the church received and practiced from the beginning.
37 opinions in the discussion 28 participants, 16 replies to each other The opinion with the most support When you're baptized as an infant, your parents take on the duty of raising you in a sacramental way. That's literally spelled out to you before and during the rite. Read the discussion
178 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 37

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#2318

    When you're baptized as an infant, your parents take on the duty of raising you in a sacramental way. That's literally spelled out to you before and during the rite.

  • opinion#2315

    You get baptized to wash your life of your past so that going forward you live a "clean" life for Christ. A baby can't make that decision..

    • opinion#2322

      just because you made up a understanding of it doesn't mean it's the right one

    • opinion#2323

      John 3:5, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:12-13 show that baptism is far more than an outward expression of forgiveness. It forgives all sin, unites the human with Jesus through the Holy Spirit, and is essential for salvation.

    • opinion#2324

      if baptism is God's work of regeneration (Titus 3:5), by what biblical authority do you make its efficacy conditional upon intellectual maturity? And can you point to a single passage where Christ or the Apostles explicitly exclude infants from baptism? If not, on what authority do you deny them the sacrament?

    • opinion#2325

      should people be baptized if they don't know Christ and aren't able to confess their belief and commitment to following him.?

    • opinion#2326

      there are so many things in the bible that do not say exactly XYZ but by studying the bible, it is what it means. Jesus never said the exact words, "I am God", but we know he is because of "the father and I are one"... this is the same circumstance... so let's turn this back on you. Hitler gets baptised at birth. What does that help when he goes on to do all he does? Absolutely nothing....

    • opinion#2327

      For an adult I'd agree. They are obligated to have the faith and have good reason. But an infant carries no such obligation. They didn't choose the fallen nature of the human spirit. Insisting it's just an outward, symbolic gesture ignores that in infant baptism God does all of the work. Not the human.

    • opinion#2328

      bro none of us chose sin. There is no scripture to confirm that claim that they are set to a different standard. I'm not talking about a gesture, I'm talking about actual believing and proclaiming it.

    • opinion#2329

      the bible explicitly says NOTHING we do is good enough and it always has to be God doing everything... no matter if baby or adult, nothing we do is good enough

  • opinion#2319

    acts 8:36-38 in the King James Bible makes it very clear that you must make a profession that you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in order to be baptized. unfortunately the Catholics and their Septuagint that they created have removed that verse to allow for infant baptism.

    • opinion#2330

      LXX is the translation of the church and what Jesus used.

    • opinion#2331

      We have manuscripts from WAY before the KJV Bible… we also have liturgical manuscripts and written teachings that date back to before the Canonization of the Bible and WAY before the KJV. Read a history book.

    • opinion#2332

      Absolutely not. It is a 3rd century fraud made by the same exact individuals in order to prop up their religion. The proof is found within the text itself using the Septuagint. Look at Psalms 14:3. The story goes that this Hebrew was translated to Greek by 70 men who had no contact with one another. My question is what Hebrew manuscript during the third century with Psalms chapter 14 reads the way the Septuagint does. The wording found in that Psalm is only found in Paul's letter in Romans chapter 3. The Hebrew does not contain exactly what Paul's letter states in Romans 3 because Paul is not simply quoting Psalms 14 alone, he's quoting multiple passages throughout the Old Testament to make up Romans 3. But these fraudsters wanting to give validation to their Septuagint took Paul's letter and inserted his quotation into Psalm 14. Literal wolves in sheep's clothing.

    • opinion#2333

      People that use KJV are big goobers

    • opinion#2334

      Yet you can't debunk it! I can show you errors and contradictions in all your modern Bibles, you will never be able to show one in the KJV. People have tried for hundreds of years, that thing is pure as gold! Even your LSB Bible doesn't even get it right, it has Abraham calling God by his name when God makes it very clear in Exodus 6:3 that Abraham never even knew me by that name, I'm going to reveal it now.

    • opinion#2335

      Galatians 3:26-29 says in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. So baptism is for clothing yourself with Christ and to belong to Christ according to the promise that God made to Abraham. And what's that promise? Genesis 17:10-12 says every male among you shall be circumcised, in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant, and he who is EIGHT DAYS old shall be circumcised. So if we are baptized to be clothed in Christ and to become heirs according to God's promise to Abraham, and that promise included circumcising male children at eight days old, why do you claim that children must be conscious of their decision and be believers in order to receive baptism? Was an eight-day-old infant conscious of God's promise to Abraham? Or of receiving circumcision? And to conclude, Saint Paul said in Colossians 2:11-12 that in him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith. Is it clear or do you need more verses?

    • opinion#2336

      Steelman my belief because I don't think you understand what I believe

    • opinion#2337

      That's your answer????

  • opinion#2310

    "Believers baptism" is actually sneakier than it looks. What about people with disabilities? What if children die at birth? What about the mute? The uneducated? Whenever someone brings it up, it tells me how little they actually know.

  • opinion#2321

    The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at His baptism, and that shows us what baptism is. We don't command the Holy Spirit down by our confession or lack of it. Baptism and the gift of the Spirit are something God does *to us*, not something we do for God or other believers. I honestly don't know where people get these wonky views of how the Christian faith works. It's like the scientism mindset makes them strip out every supernatural element, except Christ rising, from their understanding of the faith. Same reason they think the Eucharist is only symbolic, because they can't accept that something supernatural actually happens. It's a shame.

  • opinion#2314

    Bro you just cherry pick lol and grab certain scriptures to back up what you already think is right. You literally said it's because you were a child and didn't know what was happening. So can you have faith when you don't know what's happening or even understand the faith you're supposed to have? Yet we're saved through faith alone? Come on man, do better. Also I don't like any of your videos because of the divide you create among followers of Christ just because they don't do things your way. Again, read 1 Corinthians 3. And let God judge how others show his glory.

  • opinion#2316

    Baptized as a baby, married and crowned in the church, baptized my babies, also a godmother , my prayer to see this for my sons and their family ☦️🙏🏻

  • opinion#2312

    who has the authority to Baptize? ANYONE. "MANY Churches DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU", that's just falling back on "Personalized Interpretation"........ it ALL comes down to PERSONAL Interpretation vs Holy Tradition Interpretation.... one is MAN MADE, one is HOLY SPIRIT lead. choice is yours............ as for me and my house, we will serve The Lord and HIS Holy Tradition from His Apostles. ☦️👑📿

  • opinion#2320

    Babies in the Old Testament didn't get to choose whether they were circumcised or not, and it's the same for New Testament infants. They don't need to know why they're being baptized any more than they needed to know why they were circumcised. It's initiation into a holy family.

  • opinion#2301

    1 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. Nice try though 🤣

  • opinion#2302

    The link between baptism being the new circumcision is one I think a lot of people miss. Do these folks not realize how old boys were when they got circumcised? 8 DAYS OLD. And plenty of Christians today still baptize their babies at eight days old to mirror that old sign of the covenant. Plainly, back in the old days we didn't wait for my kids to "believe" before sealing them into the covenant, and we won't now. Only a madman would withhold a sacrament from their own child. AND I STAND ON THAT. 😤

  • opinion#2303

    I'd respectfully disagree. The biblical pattern consistently shows baptism coming after repentance and faith, not before. The New Testament apostolic pattern is remarkably consistent: * Acts 2:38-41, repentance, receiving the Word, then baptism. * Acts 8:12, men and women believed Philip's preaching and were baptized. * Acts 8:35-38, the Ethiopian eunuch heard the gospel before baptism. * Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius's household received the Holy Spirit before baptism. * Acts 16:30-34, the jailer heard the gospel, believed, and was baptized with his household. * Acts 18:8, the Corinthians heard, believed, and were baptized. * Romans 6:3-4, baptism signifies union with Christ in His death and resurrection. * Colossians 2:12, baptism is tied to being raised with Christ through faith.

  • opinion#2304

    You quote Peter, who says repent and be baptized. Peter is talking about new believers who've accepted Christ, who then should be baptized. When he says it's for you and your children, he means present and future generations. You're pulling scripture out of context to push this Orthodox Church doctrine, and you're actually dividing the body of Christ, which is made up of every believer. That's the true church. We are all one in Christ.

  • opinion#2305

    Where did the Christian Bible actually come from? The tidy "package" of sacred writings we call the Bible didn't just appear in the apostles' time. Lots of Gospels, Epistles, Revelations and other writings were considered part of the New Testament at various times and places. It might surprise you that some of those books aren't in our Bibles anymore. So why were they removed? Suppressed by Constantine or a politicized church? Some secret conspiracy to hide writings from Christians? The long, messy history of the New Testament is a fascinating topic. I found an essay I'm sharing here by Fr. James Bernstein, a Jewish convert to Christianity who helped found Jews for Jesus. He briefly tells how he converted from Judaism as a teenager, then walks through his deep dive into the historical records to trace where our New Testament came from.

  • opinion#2306

    2/ The Septuagint (LXX) clarification: Eastern Orthodoxy takes the Greek Septuagint, the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles, as its primary authoritative text. The Septuagint rendering of this verse clears up the ambiguity in some western translations: * The text: "How will you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? In vain was the false pen made for the scribes." * The meaning: God gave the scribes pens and literacy so they could accurately record and teach the truth. But the scribes became corrupt and the people refused to listen, so their pens and roles became "in vain" (useless). The tools God gave were wasted on an unrepentant generation. 3. Patristic consensus: true text, false teachers. The Church Fathers consistently separated the divine authority of the written Scripture from the wickedness of teachers sitting in positions of authority. * The Lord's own standard: Jesus addressed this in Matthew 23:2-3: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." If the scribes had physically corrupted the Torah text, Jesus couldn't have told people to obey what they read from it. * The Orthodox verdict: the text of the Law stayed intact, which is exactly why the prophets could use it to condemn the people. The…

  • opinion#2307

    The verse you're citing in Acts 2 says those who believed were baptized. A baby can't believe in anything. "Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day, about 3,000 in all." Acts 2:41

  • opinion#2308

    Can an infant repent? And don't catholics treat baptism as a work required for salvation, just like the pharisees treated circumcision as a requirement to belong to Christ's body and be saved?

  • opinion#2309

    When a baby is sick, you don't wait for the kid to grow up and understand the medicine before giving it. Same idea, there's a mystery involved in baptism. As Paul said, baptism is the new covenant just like circumcision in the OT. And just because Moses delayed circumcising his son, God nearly killed him.

  • opinion#2311

    Then why does the Bible everywhere tell us to "Repent and be Baptized"? To repent you have to admit you're an enemy of God, a sinful being who is lost and needs forgiveness. Then you get baptized. How is an infant supposed to repent?

  • opinion#2313

    I READ the Scriptures, it was clear TOO ME...... wow, wish I had infallible Interpretation just from reading translated Scriptures.... I don't, so I go to Divine Liturgy weekly instead. maybe someday I'll be able to Personalize Scripture into whatever I MYSELF WANT, but I hope that day NEVER COMES......

  • opinion#2317

    Before baptism repentance is not needed because its like you have been ignorant. I lived for 30 years before my baptism in Ethiopia and all I did was confess my faith to Kristos and i was baptized. I only confessed my sins after my baptism before receiving holy communion and fasting that I seek repentance yet before I knew anything I knew nothing