I have been going to a Baptist church for 20 years but have been wrestling with a lot of things over the last five years. Lutheranism and baptism are one of those things, that I’ve wrestled with and you’ve addressed those struggles in this video. I’ve been driving myself crazy trying to understand how baptism wasn’t a work. I was so worried if I embraced Lutheran doctrine, I’d be embracing works salvation. This has helped a bunch. I don’t want to trust in anything but the finished work of Christ but I want all of what God wants for me.
I’ve had similar angst about this issue, brother. Go to the Word of God and let scripture dictate what’s right. Baptism isn’t our work, it’s God’s. As you clearly know, we are incapable of attaining salvation on our own. The work is in the Word applied to the water. Its saving grace, which is won by Christ, is delivered to us by the Holy Spirit through baptism. We receive, we don’t do work. It’s the same when you receive the word through scripture. Opening your bible and reading isn’t a saving work, it’s you receiving God’s work. Listening to the pastor read from scripture isn’t work, it’s reception. Find an LCMS or AALC parish near you and receive the gifts God gives us in the divine service. Blessings and grace to you.
You're baptized in no one else's name except the name of the Father , the Son , and of the Holy Spirit. No one takes credit for saving you except God because it's His work delivered through His church the same way the preaching of Christ crucified is delivered through the preaching of your Baptist pastor at his podium. If only your pastor would preach more verses like these: ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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.’” (Acts 2:38-39) 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, (1 Peter 3:21) " Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' " (John 3:3-5) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5) "We Acknowledge One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins" (Nicene Creed)
Luther was partly right, in that baptism is not salvation by our works, nor by our merit, but it is indeed connected to salvation - just as dipping in the pool was required for the blind man in John 9. The blind man was healed by the power and grace of God, not by his work or merit. But it was when he submitted to the Lord's word that he was healed. Likewise, baptism is tied to salvation and remission of sin over and over in the NT: (Titus 3.5; Acts 2.38; Rom. 6; Acts 22.16, etc.). On the other hand, baptists are partly right that baptism is immersion, and is for believers. That it is for believers, who also need to repent see Acts 2.38,40: "repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins...those that received his word were baptized,". and Acts 8.12: "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women"). That it is a burial and immersion, see Romans 6, and also look up the very meaning of the words baptize / baptism (dip, immerse, dipping, immerison). See also Philip and the Eunuch who both get out of the chariot, and both go down into the water, and there the baptism takes place, and they they come up out of the water (Acts 8:36-39). Note also the need of much water for baptism (John 3.23). This should be a reminder that we aren't to follow either Baptist doctrine, nor Lutheran doctrine, but the Word (Acts 17.11). If you would be interested in discussing this further, you can contact me through 3minutebiblestudy.com (or on youtube), or text me at 717 321 3321. thank you, -Scott (3minutebiblestudy channel)
Whenever I have tried to understand the Lutheran idea that baptism is not a work, I would always encounter the Lutheran response that baptism is "all gospel," with no explanation how a sacrament is not a work. Pr. Cooper's willingness to distinguish between works and sacraments, while acknowledging that both involve actions, makes the Lutheran position much easier to understand for someone coming from a broad evangelical and Reformed background. Thank you.
11:30: "Does the faith in standing and status... whether or not the priest is regenerate ... Does the faith in the one administering the sacrament have anything to do with the efficacy of the sacrament?" The answer that Augustine and pretty much the rest of the Church came to was: No, the efficacy of the sacrament depends on its Institution by our Lord, in accordance with God's word. As long as the proper Words of Institution and elements for the sacrament are used by the priest/pastor, God's grace is always available through God's promise, not based on the status of the priest. Thanks for this! I had been looking for the Lutheran view to this question for a while now, and you answered it.
The comparison of baptism to the Israelites deliverance out of Egypt into the wilderness and the Lords Supper as the manna in the wilderness that sustained the Israelites was awesome. Thank you.
Definitly finish the Article, great to hear your thoughts. Btw big thanks for everything you do. I know it must be hard for you as father of (I think 2?), pastor, working at university, doing the weidner Institute, Just and Sinner website, publishings, merch, UA-cam, podcasts, twitter and still keep studying. My deepest respect that you do this much for the Lutheran community and you should know, that we appreciate it. I can't understand how you are not completely destroyed by all of that things already. God bless!
Please continue the article. That article is the best I have read so far disputing the Lutheran view of baptism and your response to it has been great. Thank you for the work you are doing!
Another way to strengthen the "household" argument is to place emphasis on the "Word" being present in the household. Wherever one convert is in the household, the "Word" will be present to create and sustain faith. We baptize household, because the "Word" will continually create faith among all within those living there. I think the same argument can be made I Cor. 7:14 "children made holy" not because one parent is a believer but because the "Word" brought that one parent to faith. This power of the "Word" is present within the family. Enjoy the podcast.
@@Mygoalwogel What I find fascinating is what happens when Jesus comes in contact with infants and children. They believe! This is due to the fact that Jesus Himself is the Word. “And the Word became flesh.” We see this in Mt 21:15-16 where Jesus mere physical presence causes children and nursing infant to sing his praises. Truly remarkable. With the Spirit placed upon Jesus in baptism, the Holy Spirit is with Jesus his entire ministry. Jesus is the Word, and the Spirit works through that Word to bring all to faith including infants. The profound example of how Jesus and the Spirit bring people to faith in His earthly ministry is continued through the written and spoken Word today. We just don’t see infants and children resist the Holy Spirit when coming into contact with the Word of God.
@@nealstafford9063 Considering you believe baptizing infants is extremely important, wouldn’t Jesus or any of the writers of the Bible clearly command parents (or ministers) to do so? At least once? Yet, there is no command in the Bible - at all - to baptize infants. However, Jesus and others clearly commanded “believers” to be baptized and partake in Holy Communion. Infants can’t obey commands. Again, no where in the Bible do we find such a command. No where. It is sad, how simple this is to understand but so incredibly difficult to accept for some people.
Argument starts at 3:08. In summary: (1) The two points at issue is whether we can call "baptism" a work, and if so, whether it along with faith is efficacious for salvation , in which case sola fide is compromised. (2) To the first point, reformed Baptists would argue that baptism is a non-saving work that is the ultimate sign of a saving faith. (3) Reformed Baptists would say that baptism's use in scripture is symbolic, representing an expression of faith. (1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38) (4) In contrast, Lutherans would argue that baptism is a passive yet objective receiving of regeneration (i.e. the creation of saving faith) which is in the action of being immersed in water, and can be rejected. (5) As for infant baptism, the idea that infants have faith is a logical result of believing three points; (i) that infants should be baptized, (ii) baptism saves through regeneration, (iii) salvation is not possible apart from faith, ergo, infants must have faith. (6) As an example, to a Lutheran baptism is not a meritorious work in the same way that choosing to hear the gospel from someone is not a meritorious work but is (7) The Lutheran view of baptism is correct because a more plain reading of scriptural text points in that direction. Some questions and requests for clarification from a Lutheran's perspective: Q1: Around 36:55, Dr. Cooper says: "Baptism is efficacious in that it regenerates. What is regeneration but the giving of spiritual life, which is faith? So baptism is efficacious unto faith. Baptism brings one faith." In this case, must one have saving faith before the event of efficacious baptism? If so, in what way does baptism save if faith apart from baptism already justifies, or does baptism save only in the case of infant baptism? Or does the event of baptism only create saving faith in a faithless but consenting individual? Q2: Lutherans seem to believe that regeneration through the word alone is efficacious for salvation. So why call baptism other than infant baptism salvific? If because scripture claims so, then how can the world alone truly efficacious for salvation? Q3: At 44:30, Dr. Cooper uses the phrase, "submit to the work of believing the gospel." I think reformed theologians would argue that there is a strong distinction between "belief" and a "work." Commanding someone to be baptized is qualitatively different from commanding someone to believe, as in when Jesus said "repent and believe" he was saying two different things. Dr. Cooper later says that the misunderstanding is in how the "relationship between the law and gospel works." But Baptists would likely say that baptism is a good work done under the gospel following salvation as an expression of faith. And thus unrelated to the process of our salvation. Am I misunderstanding the flow of the argument here? Q4: At 56:00, Dr. Cooper starts to say that we should not interpret baptism a particular way because of the conclusions we draw from other texts, in particular regarding Perseverance of the Saints. But isn't that how we are supposed to interpret scripture, letting scripture interpret scripture while being internally logical and coherent? In which case, the problem is not that we are using scripture to interpret scripture but rather that Perseverance of the Saints is falsely being arrived at as a conclusion. Am I understanding him correctly, or is this again my Calvinist background disabling me from understanding Lutheran teaching? Any response, be it an affirmation or correction, would be greatly appreciated! Kindly reply on UA-cam, or I'm also reachable at iamjoechang@gmail.com
I was once a convinced five-point Calvinist (I.e. close follower of John Piper). However, the concept of "Perseverance of the Saints" took me aback as starkly not scriptural, and caused me to view whether my worldview was built upon scripture itself or scripture plus philosophy. I then took a step back from Calvinism, studied church history, and came to hold a more moderate view of reformed theology. And then I studied the reformation in particular and got a shock. Now I'm pretty confused... but let's try to sort things out concerning baptismal regeneration. ... And for your amusement, here's some John Piper: "I was a lone Baptist in a den of Lutheran lions. They were loving lions. They just licked me; they didn’t eat me, but they did not approve of what I believed." www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation
Are you Lutheran or not? Because I am a Slav and study Interslavic, but I am curious about religion of Slavs online and of those whom I watch or follow.
@Christos Kyrios there is no evidence babies do not receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. As Peter says by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "Baptism now saves us." 1 Peter 3:21
@Christos Kyrios The Holy Spirit works faith through the word of God and dwells in the person sanctifing them, creating in them a new heart. The Spirit comes before, during and after faith in Jesus as the One and only Savior. There is no definitive moment, an exact moment in which a person can declare the Holy Spirit begins His sovereign work. The Spirit is at work before a person believes, when they believe and afterwards. Baptism saves, belief saves, we are continually saved daily as we repent and place our faith in Christ. We were SAVED over 2000 years ago when Jesus died, rose and ascended to the right hand of God. We will also BE saved at the Resurrection when we receive our new bodies and be forever sinless. The Word of God does not allow for one moment in time to pinpoint our salvation. The elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. Your question is critically flawed.
Dr. Cooper, would you summarize the Lutheran view as: Baptism is a means by which salvific grace is administered to the individual, but the means is only an effectual means of received by faith? (This also being why Lutherans can hold to a denial of irresistible grace without contradicting their understanding of predestination).
I really appreciate the Lutherans and the revival of the truth in faith alone. Why does this have to be so difficult? It seems as though a person has to do a lot of mental jogging to make the puzzle work. I wish i could sit down and chat with you. It seems to complicated to fit it as a work of God. I personally don't disagree or agree. I have been flip flopping on this issue for a long time due to deductive reasoning....... I have been following you for a long time and have a lot of respect for you and Lutheran teachings. Thank you again.
I don't think a debate with Slick would be very productive. I've heard him talk about baptism many times and he brings up two things: 1) in Acts 2:38 he replaces "for" with "because of" the forgiveness of sins. 2) claims baptismal regeneration is incompatible with salvation by faith alone. However, I would like to see more discussion of this article, it is interesting to see someone make an honest effort to interact with what Lutherans believe instead of the tired surface treatment.
You forgot to put the citation for the article from Themelios in the description. I would prefer to read the article and then listen to the video. I will get far more out of the video this way.
1. re "just look at the baptistic texts", JBC doesn't do that, because: a) he takes non-baptistic texts such as John 3:3-6/Titus 3:4-6, which mention "baptism" NOT once, but he arbitrarily MAKES them, "baptistic", because "all the Fathers said so", thus violating Luthers (accurate) dictum, that a mere "say-so" from the Fathers was NOT intrinsically adequate, to certify any doctrine, as being Biblical and true; b) any serious student of Scripture knows that "face value" interpretations of texts can lead to denials of core doctrine, thus: Scripture nowhere uses "Trinity" to describe God; on the "contrary", such as "face value" texts, as Deut. 6:4 would "appear" to deny the Trinity, saying, "the Lord our God is ONE LORD" (not "three); re, the current discussion (and closer "to home"), 1 Tim. 2:5 says that woman are "SAVED through child-birth"; are women REALLY "regenerated/justified" via child-birth? Did God get "saved", when He was "justified by the people" (Luke 7:29)? and what about this "foolishness" that Paul says God has (1 Cor. 1:25)?, etc. etc. 2. the Reformed objection to BR is not merely "based upon perseverance", there is MUCH more to it, than that, to wit: a) NO external, physical rite ever produced inward, spiritual realities; not so in Old Israel (Rom. 2:28, 29), and certainly not in Christ's Church; thus, in the N.T, you have i] many examples in Acts, of people being saved, BEFORE their water baptism (the Ethiopian eunuch [Acts 8], the Philippian jailer [16:30, 31]); you have ii] a man saved under the "New Covenenant" (John 19: 32-34; Heb. 9:16, 17), yet with NO water baptism (Luke 23:33-43), and iii] you have a man (Simon Magus) water baptized, who received NO salvation, whatsoever (Acts 8:9-24; mind you, with your Lutheran, "loss-of-salvation" doctrine, maybe SM "set the record", for the fastest, to ever "lose" his salvation"?), yet iv] there is NOT ONE clear-cut case of anyone being "saved by water baptism" in the N.T.! 3. re the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance", what is adduced to/against all "loss-of-salvation" schemes remains true, that such schemes (by subtily "subbing" "probation", for "salvation") eviscerate the entirety of Christian theology, in ALL of it's major heads of doctrine; re "baptism", it does so, as follows: according to the Lutherans, water baptism "saves/regenerates/jusitifes/removes sin/gives the Spirit/unites with Christ", and Lord knows what else; yet, due to a totally ironic affirmation of a "free-will" that can "resist God" (and so is NOT "in BONDAGE" after all! LOL!!), ALL of these multitudinous benefits can be "forfeited/surrendered/cast away" at the drop of the "free-will" hat, thus revealing the sub-standard, NON-life-changing "gospel" (?), which is the "hall-mark" of ALL "loss....." religions....thus, Mr. Coopers noble attempts to "prove" BR, ends up as a lost cause, grounding itself out, against a) the "free-will" of Man, and b) the impotency of God, to savingly over-ride "a"....
Anyone who has tried to get free from habitual sin knows that you don't get freedom from your own effort. Consequently, salvation from the power of sin cannot be "of works" - Eph 2:9. If you could get free from sin by your own effort you might be tempted to "boast" as Paul says. So, although we may concede that repentance and baptism involve work, our effort in doing these things is not what saves us. God delivers us from the power of sin through baptism (Rom 6, Col 2:11,12).
Did medieval catholicism really believe that communion is efficacious even without faith? In Orthodoxy there is a very strong emphasis on partaking of the Holy Gifts in a worthy manner. Our pre-communion prayers state multiple times that you will be "burned" (spiritually speaking) if you commune unworthily. It sounds very similar to the Lutheran view. Also, can we get a list of what exactly qualifies as a "work" and what doesn't, and why? I think it would clear up a lot of the confusion. Thank you!
I thought that Calvin's view, (and this is based on my reading of Calvin), is that the sacraments do actually bring the reality of God's grace to us, but it's our faith that receives what God has to give us through the sacrament. So just having faith without the sacrament is not enough, (with some possible exceptions like the thief on the cross). I would compare this need for the sacraments to the Israelites in the wilderness, who as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, received baptism, and spiritual food and drink (manna and water from the rock), and yet many weren't brought to salvation. If the sacraments were effectual by itself, then all the Israelites should have inherited the promised land. This is clarified in the first few chapters of Hebrews, the reason they didn't inherit the promise was their lack of faith. However, just because an Israelite had faith, they still needed the provisions given by God(baptism and spiritual food and drink) to bring them to the promised land. I think similarly, it's our faith that will bring us to receive the promise of heaven, but God will still use those provisions he has given us in the sacraments to bring us there. Our faith is still firmly resting in the promise of God, and the sacraments are part of our reliance on God in our journey to get there.
I do believe that baptism does save and I also believe God's grace that is given in baptism is able to be rejected, but I also since becoming a Lutheran understood baptism to be effectual at all times, to where every single person that is baptized is given faith by God and becomes a Christian, and then later on after the baptism takes place is when the rejection of God's grace takes place. Does baptism not always save?
I tend to agree with that sentiment. I'd even say every time a person (believer or unbeliever) hears the gospel and knows that this good news is for her, Christ stands at the door knocking and the Holy Spirit comes and invites the hearer to open. The mustard seed is planted. At our Lutheran Bible studies for the uninitiated, some teens and adults come regularly for years. They don't reject the gospel and treat it as true, but they also hesitate to get baptized or call themselves Christians. Lots of them do eventually get baptized, but everything happens slowly.
@@Mygoalwogel I gotcha. If the view I explained above is consistent with the Bible and the book of Concord, which I do think it is, I'm going to retain that view. Jordan Cooper in the video just seemed to say (and perhaps I misunderstood him) that baptism does not always regenerate the one being baptized, it only regenerates the one who doesnt reject the regeneration.
The author conflates sanctification with justification at 49:18. Sanctification ends at death, not justification. Justification happens in a moment at baptism.
To me, it makes sense to view the sacrament of water baptism as being likened to the reception of an invisible Bible. This is for the purposes of enlightenment from God. This can cause the baptized recipient to know Christ crucified (as per I Corinthians 2:2). Denying water baptism to an infant is likened to the denial of a manufactured Bible to an infant. Owning a Bible does not prove Christian faith, but by reading a Bible, this often promotes faith for some, but can result in doubt in others. To me, this explains the efficacy of water baptism. It also points out the great benefits and appropriateness of baptism for the mentally disabled.
I think Justification is not so much about declaring you righteous as it is about making you righteous (Eph 4:24) - this is what baptism does in making you a new creation.
"No doubt that infants have faith?" Don't you think that John the Baptist and Jeremiah are kind of exceptional examples? Would we conclude that because God spoke audibly to Samuel as a child, God will speak audibly to all children? The example that you gave of David in Psalm 22:9,10 is definitely not a clear example that all children have faith in the womb, especially seeing that this is a prophecy of Jesus. Furthermore, when someone reads these verses do they conclude that David had faith as a baby or that David's entire life was being governed by God? Finally, since Timothy has known the Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:15), are we supposed to understand that this means he understood them as an infant? If I said to someone, "I have been reading books continually since childhood," would they think he means he has been reading books since he was an infant?
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order. (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
We don’t have evidence from scripture of infants being baptized- one must assume that the families who were baptized had infants. It’s possible, but it’s an argument from silence.
Dr. Cooper, I have been steeping myself in Lutheran beliefs, especially on your channel, and like I said in another comment, baptismal regeneration is a real hard thing to accept based on salvific passages that don't include baptism. Here is a link on a debate between Mike Winger and a guy named Dean. (I forgot his last name) ua-cam.com/video/x2TfBVNuuY8/v-deo.html I just fixed the link! Don't know what happened. They do a thorough covering of scripture on salvation, and it would be great if you could systematically go through each scripture they reference and give your perspective on them as simply, but thoroughly as possible. I've listened to a few of your other videos concerning this topic, but end up getting lost in your philosophical perspective, or dissatisfied because you have left out the scriptures that I'm referring to. Thanks so much!
But when is a person saved according to Lutherans? Say a person comes to faith and repentance and the following Sunday they receive Baptism, at what point was that person saved?
I think the main problem of the interlocutor is that he has a one-dimensional understanding of faith and the means of grace: Baptism is commanded and is therefore a work that cannot save within the Lutheran paradigm of justification by faith and not works. As Dr. Cooper pointed out, faith is also commanded etc. So you couldn't even say that you are justified by faith and not by works because faith is a work. That is why Lutherans have been pointing out the following basic distinctions for the past half millennium. Faith is a work or virtue, commanded by the First Commandment, but it doesn't justify as a work or virtue. It justifies before God only because it receives Christ and his righteousness etc. It is the means by which we receives Christ's saving treasure offered to all by the gospel in word and sacraments, like the hand that receives the golden coin from the king. Hence we are saved by faith in Christ not because of faith. Baptism is certainly also a work the pastor does and that the person being baptized receives or "tolerates" if you will. It fits under the Second Commandment because it is a proper use of the name of the triune God. But it also fits under the third because of God's sanctifying word being the active ingredient in it. Baptism saves because it is the means that objectively conveys what Christ won--salvation, to put it into one term. Not because it is a good work, even though it is also that. We are saved by baptism, not because of baptism. The same is true of the Lord's Supper--it is both sacrament and sacrifice, God's saving gift to us and our sacrifice of praise to God (= a good work we do). We are saved by it, not because of it, because it is viewed in justification as a means that objectively conveys salvation (= a sacrament), to be received by faith, not as our sacrifice. Although it is that, too. Same for reading the bible or listening to a sermon. Saved by these in that they are the means that convey Christ and his saving gifts so we can receive them by alone-saving faith, not because of these as good works. Although reading the Bible and listening to sermons certainly are good works we are told to do by the third commandment, not optional things in some special category by themselves. Once you grasp these basic distinctions and dimensions to faith and the means of grace, you realize the relevant passages of Scripture all fall into place.
I have a real humble honest question that is detailed I don't know any Lutherans around me to ask. There is only Liberal congregations I think around here.
No. That’s kind of what he is saying in the video. Lutherans believe baptism is a promise of God. When someone comes back to faith their baptism is valid because God doesn’t change. We can reject that promise but if we come back to him God doesn’t need to promise again. This is as long as your baptism done according to scripture (in the name of the triune God.) the few times Lutherans would require a ‘rebaptism’ we wouldn’t call the first baptism. For example a friend of mine came to a Lutheran church out of Mormonism. They don’t practice Christian baptism. So he was baptized in church
@@Annkarsik45 thanks for the response, but I have to respectfully disagree, on the basis of a false application, of Mal. 3:6 ("I change not, saith the Lord"): though God, by nature, is immutable, yet He acts "in time", to meet us, on our level; and, as He proved via His dealings with Niniveh (Jonah), His attitude/demeanour DOES "change" depending upon the actions of human beings; Note, that this does NOT "change" God, but rather, reveals His unchanging stances, being acceptance/love/mercy to those who seek/find him, and rejection/wrath/justice, towards all others; re "baptism", if a Lutheran received salvation via baptism, but then walked away/rejected Christ, then their baptism IS, by that act, rendered "null/void", in time; and if/when they should return to the Faith, they would need to be re-baptized, because Lutherans believe that (as in this video) "water baptism saves"; thus, if water baptism saved you, the first time, then water baptism would need to "save you", the second time.....and the 3rd....4th...5th.......thus, the doctrinal confusion one ends up in, when they go "baptismal regeneration/loss of salvation"....
I think by complete justification he means justification from all ones sin one will ever commit. Including the sin of unbelief which caused one's apostasy. So the infant isn't completely justified from all his sins because God will still impute sin on him
Can a person be baptised twice? Image a Roman Catholic, born and raised (being baptised as an infant), who abandons the faith, and years later converts to the Lutheran church- will he be baptised a second time?
@@tiagorenato5328 Wow! A gracious UA-cam commenter. I apologize for my neutrally toned reply. I have to say, if your example is a personal one, I love hearing about it. I really find it encouraging to hear from people to whom Our Heavenly Father has proven Himself faithful even after faith is lost for a time. I got very angry at God during Junior High School. But I couldn't renounce faith altogether because I was afraid of the judgement. It took a while to begin trusting again, but that's when blessed "coincidences" (I'd like to call them miracles) started happening.
@@ajiny.v1798 Both believe that baptism regenerates you and incorporates you into Christ. The Orthodox typically administer baptism, chrismation and holy communion all at once to the infant, whereas the Romans separate the sacraments at different times.
Hello Dr. Cooper, you probably have a lot on your plate, but could you make a video or a response on what majority church fathers agreed on? I’ve heard majority believed in the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, One can loose their salvation, am I incorrect, or are there more doctrines they believe in? And could you give examples? It’s all confusing to me because I’m an evangelical studying church history and I have a strong well studied Roman Catholic friend that claims stuff like Marian dogmas, purgatory, intercession to saints, etc, were all documented in the patristic era. He quotes these church fathers as if their statements are believed by the whole church. So is there a consensus between church fathers on such doctrines or are these just held by a few? There were many heresies going on around during the patristic era, but I don’t see where practices like praying to saints or the belief of the assumption of Mary being condemned, why is that? If this is too much to ask for, my apologies.
You've asked a massive question. I first started to wonder about the Church Fathers during college. I began to see myself as very ungoldy, and my Christian classmates equally so. 20 years of off and on reading later, I'm confident that (1) everything I was taught can be found in the ancient church and (2) the Papists and Palamists don't have a monopoly on patristics. But there's a lot to read.
Was there any development from Luther to orthodox theologians in terms of whether it is the preached word only that creates faith, as opposed to baptism (the word + water)? It seems Luther was less comfortable saying baptism creates faith than some later theologians were.
I think that any form of sacraments is a return under the law. If it's by grace why can it also by by obedience in sacraments ? Water baptism came from the rituals of purifications under the law but only Christ blood now is purifying of all sins. So are we justify by faith + sacraments ? This is not the gospel.
So what happens when the infant is kicking and screaming while being presented for Baptism? OK JUST KIDDING. On a more SERIOUS NOTE, circumcision is the sign and seal of of the righteousness Abraham had by faith. The seal (or mark) of faith in the new covenant is the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Paul, not Baptism.
Um Colossians 2:11-15? We are sealed BY the Spirit at Baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27). The whole point is that the historic view of baptismal regeneration doesn't separate these two things. Baptism is the way the holy spirit seals us cause that's what scripture says
@@Iffmeister I'm not going to start a debate here, but here are my points. 1) The Holy Spirit is the seal -- Eph1:13, 4:30 -- Sealed by the Spirit -- 2Cor1:22 -- Sealed us and gave us the Spirit 2) Seal has the meaning of "mark", a "sign of authenticity" -- Rom4:11 -- Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith -- 1Cor9:2 -- Paul calls the Corinthians the "seal" (or "mark/sign") of his apostleship While I don't deny that water and the Spirit are intimately connected (Spirit hovered over the waters; Born of water and Spirit; Living water flowing from the innermost being), let's be precise, as the Bible calls the Spirit the seal, not Baptism.
@@Iffmeister Upon faith in Christ Eph1:13 -- "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"
Dr. Jordan Cooper How is it you can go through a discussion on regeneration baptism and not mention the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mark 16:16 For those who believe and are baptized will be saved....... referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Matthews 3:11 John the Baptist Baptist prepares the way for salvation... “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.
@Curtis MH I am curious whether or not you think the miracles of the Day of Pentecost was the ONLY instance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and with fire. This makes sense to me, as I do not know of any other place in the New Testament where this terminology is used. There are later cases of individuals receiving the Holy Spirit, and this is often in connection with the laying on of hands, but these events are NOT called baptisms. Was the miracle of Pentecost the Holy Spirit baptism for a Christian meeting of 120 like minded persons, resulting in the birth of the church which then became a Holy Spirit baptized entity that has continued ever since? If so, then does this means that when someone is water baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity today, they are baptized into the body of Christ, which is the same entity that received the baptism of the Holy Spirit about 2000 years ago? Similarly, are all people who are born into the world today baptized into Noah, such that the legacy of Noah's grace continues to this day for all people of all religions?
sacramental union saying "we're saving by Spirit baptism, not water baptism" is like saying "Mary gave birth to the human side of Jesus, she is the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God"
Quick question, since babies can have faith and we are commanded to give an effectual regenerative baptism onto them, does this mean that every baby of believers have faith before baptism? Or does that baptism creates the faith in them
Trying really hard to understand infant baptism since I have always held the belief in believers baptism. Are you saying that all infants and children who die without receiving baptism are lost?
Baptists, such as Gavin Ortlund, teach that all infants are saved without faith. This is contrary to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and create two different ways of salvation. The Bible teaches that Christ accepts the infants who are brought to him, credits them with faith, and grants them the Kingdom of God. Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant with [the disciples]. Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:13-16
Clarifying question. Are you saying that if someone explicitly did not want to be baptized but was physically forced to do so, then, in that case, objective salvation would be theirs and would be rejected at the same time, thus resulting in simultaneous objective salvation + rejection? This is what I'm understanding you to be saying, but I could totally be wrong, and I want to be corrected if I am.
Any Rabbinical blog or encyclopedia will have an article on forced baptisms in history. This certainly takes God's name in vain and causes him to be mocked and hated. So probably the best answer to your question is that forced baptism introduces uncertainty into a sacrament that is supposed to offer a comforting certainty. _(You) Go and make disciples all nations, baptizing..._ The people Jesus commanded to do the baptizing are his Christisn disciples, not violent blasphemers. So it's already not according to his command. _...make disciples of all nations, baptising..._ Baptism is intended to make disciples, not to coerce. More uncertainty.
@@Mygoalwogel thanks! My question isn't meant as a way to toy with serious matters. I think this would be a bad and disrespectful idea as well. I ask it as a way to find out what Jordan thinks it's going on in baptism. I think his answer to my question would be "yes," based on his video.
@@drsuessre14 Here are Luther's own words on when valid Baptism doesn't accompany true faith. christian.net/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html
I was baptized in a non-denominational Calvary Chapel Church. They teach a symbolic view of baptism and when I was baptized I believed that view. They used the proper Trinitarian invocation and use of water, but I now believe that baptism saves. Do I need to be re-baptized?
No. As Dr. Cooper was talking about in the video, the act of Baptism is objective, and that means what God says happened in your baptism happened. You have the ability to reject your baptism, and you have the ability to repent and trust in God that his work in baptism saves. All the promises of God in the scriptures about your baptism were given to you in your baptism, and as long as you put your faith in Christ's saving work, the promises of your baptism hold, even if your understanding of those promises changes over time. Your baptism still holds water.
@@Kaleidophoenix Whilst I agree that the act of baptism is objective and doesn't need to be repeated, I don't agree with your statement that "you have the ability to reject your baptism, and you have the ability to repent and trust in God that his work in baptism saves." What you're saying in effect is that we have free will to respond either negatively or positively to God. However I don't agree that this is Biblical and neither did Luther. For instance in his Small Catechism Luther wrote: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Also he makes it plain in The Bondage of the Will that we also don't have the ability to reject God's Word as everything happens by absolute necessity and is predestined to happen. So if a person has faith or he doesn't have faith he can't change this situation by an effort of his own will, but is simply subject to God's will and His decision as to whether to save or damn a person.
Hi Dr. Cooper. You mention that we have Biblical precedent for infant baptism, but not for pulling someone in off the road. However, you make the jump from household baptism equals or includes infant baptism without proving that point. Please explain. Thank you.
There is are clear examples of Baptizing entire households. Did Children and infants exist in the Roman Empire? If you answer yes then the point is proven.
@@yellowblackbird9000 Thank you for your reply, but I think it's a logical nonsequitor (sp?). For example, if I said, "Children exist in North America, so children exist in every home." You would say, "No. Some homes are childless." Of greater importance, however, is the mention of the householders believing what the Apostles taught and then being baptized. Infants are unable to believe and they can't repent.
@@KD-bn8uq You'll have to prove a negative; that none of the baptized households included infants and children. Now you've shifted the goalposts to belief. Infants can believe as Jesus says and John the Baptist proves. 15 People were bringing even their babies to Jesus, so that he would touch them. When the disciples saw this, they began to rebuke them. 16 But Jesus invited them, saying, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Amen I tell you: Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” - Luke 18:15-17 6 “But, if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe me to sin it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. - Matthew 18:6 41 Just as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. - Luke 1:41
@@yellowblackbird9000 I don't have to prove every household. I have to look at what the Scriptures, in this case, the book of Acts tells the reader about the specific households mentioned in the book of Acts.
Baptism is a sign, no one is saved because they participated in Baptism for 1 hour. The Bible teaches Faith, love and Holiness, their has to be evidence of Salvation, Faith, love and Holiness. You can get Baptized and go to Church on Sundays and the rest of the week be ungodly. Salvation is not 1 hour Baptism or just going to Church. The old testament called it circumcision of the heart, Faith, love and Holiness, love Christ and your neighbor. Mark 12:30-31 this is Salvation.
It seems to me half of the babies baptised in my church are resisting. This gives me second thoughts. What if I resisted when I was a baby? What if, when I baptise my children, they resist? Should I force them? Should one force a toddler? At what point does one stop making the decision for another to be baptised?
@@MortenBendiksen I have three kids. When my oldest was a newborn, hunger made him cry so hard he couldn't latch onto mommy to eat. It took my wife a long time to believe it wasn't harming him to smash his little face onto her so that he would eat. She thought it looked like she was suffocating him. But it worked and he was happy to eat. By the third kid, she was a pro at recognizing what babies want and need, and helped several other timid moms. Crying babies aren't necessarily communicating what we think they're communicating.
@@Mygoalwogel I get it :) I see the baptism of babies the same way as with the feeding you describe. It will nourish even if they cry. My question is more about where that leads though. If it nourishes the baby, even though he outwardly seems to not want it, wouldn't the same reasoning apply to a larger kid, and a youth, and a grown up? Where is the limit? Why do we at one point decide it's up to the person to decide for himself?
@@MortenBendiksen Now that's a good question. I'm not going to try to answer it. It's beyond me. But you're making me recall my own childhood in this regard. My uncle is a Lutheran pastor who always respected his kids' wishes regarding spirituality. If they didn't want to go to church, pray, or do a devotion, he didn't make them. None of them claim to be a Christian today. My parents were more authoritative. We'll see what happens with me and my siblings. That did leave me with uncomfortable questions that I still can't make sense of. I'm blessed that my kids get upset if I dare try sending them to bed without a Bible story, songs, prayers, and Catechism. Little legalistic pharisees always forcing me to bow to their hyperdox piety. Can't I just sit on the sofa and watch Mind Hunters with my wife some nights? (I jest.)
Out of curiosity, would a Lutheran deny that people professing Christ without being baptized are not true Christians? I'm thinking especially about groups like the Quakers, who have historically not done water baptism. I'm sure it is a huge problem, but I have friends from this background, and I'm trying to figure out how intensely I should talk with them about it.
Makes sense. Welp, better to tell them the truth and see change than act like everything is okay. I've never really understood why people would be resistant to baptism in the first place. Thanks for the response!
Hi Dr Cooper, I’m a non-denom Christian. I believe I am saved but I’m not baptised, does this mean I’m going to hell? Im just confused, everyone has always told me baptism means a spiritual baptism
Hi Magdalena. We can't pretend to know what happens to people who don't receive full instruction in the faith. On the one hand, we believe that Jesus' call to make disciples, baptize, and teach is very urgent. On the other hand, we don't tell mourners at funerals that their loved one went to hell. Christ judges the living and the dead. We don't. And he was embarrassingly kind, compassionate and gracious to everyone he met. What is preventing you from being baptized? Thanks for asking and searching your heart in this matter. "He who began this good work in you will carry it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."
Mygoalwogel I don’t belong to any church, which is why I’m non denom, I have huge social anxiety with churches and have always felt like an outcast in them, it would take a while for anyone to baptise me in any church here. Thanks for the answer :)
Magdalena, you are asking the wrong person. This Church of Christ person believes that baptism saves you rather than Jesus Christ saving you through His death and resurrection. If you have trusted Christ that He died for YOUR sins and rose again, you are already saved. But that is no reason not to get baptised. My wife was raised Catholic and later in life received a deeper understanding of Christ crucified at a Baptist church. Then years later she got baptised in the ocean with a group of people. This experience deepened her faith that much more because she identified with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection while she was “getting dunked”. It was very meaningful to her, but it had nothing to do with her initial salvation which had happened years earlier. So you should desire to be baptised, but if you die on the way there, rest assured that you will still go to heaven. But the idea that getting immersed in water adds something to the finished work of Christ is insulting to Him who died for you. God said that He would never leave you nor forsake you. So I recommend highly that you trust your Heavenly Father and not these self proclaimed experts. They take 4 or 5 verses out of context from the Bible and build a whole doctrine around it. But nothing we do can add to what Jesus already did. He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that you can ask, think, or imagine. Anyway, avoid these self righteous Pharisees and you will spare yourself a lot of heart ache, as well as headaches from listening to their confusing doctrines.
What I don't accept is that the Lutheran perspective on resistible grace was also Luther's position. On the subject of infant baptism Luther didn't say that God willed to grant all infants the faith to believe and that the infant could resist being regenerated, but rather that it was up to God to want to grant faith to that infant. He says for instance in his Large Catechism: “That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit. ….. We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith.” (Tappert) The onus is on God to grant faith to a particular individual in order that he may be regenerated not that the recipient in baptism shouldn’t resist being regenerated. This is in conformity with Luther’s position in The Bondage of the Will where he makes a distinction between the outward drawing of the Gospel which doesn’t regenerate anyone and the inner drawing through the Holy Spirit which irresistibly regenerates people: “But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man is rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively, to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself.” (page 286, Vol 33, Luther's Works). Also this selective choosing by God to grant faith to whom He will is the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in article 5. To interpret article 5 to mean that God wills to regenerate everyone through the Word and Holy Spirit is foreign to the text: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.” (Tappert)
You lost me when you said that baptism brings about faith. Maybe you have an answer, but why would someone be baptized if they didn't have faith beforehand? Like for example Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. I'm open to the idea of infant baptism, and I definitely believe baptism is a part of salvation, but to me, I can't see it as a hard line beginning to salvation, because I think faith should lead a person(an adult, at least), to baptism, not the other way around. Also, I do believe baptism saves, at least as a part of salvation, but it's interesting, Jesus said one must be born by water AND spirit. There were several times in Acts these things happened separately. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul speaks of the baptism of the sea AND the baptism of the cloud. They may happen at the same time, or one before the other, the water first, or the spirit first in the case of Cornelius. It's also significant, I think, that the effect of the blood of the lamb came before the baptism of the sea in the Exodus narrative, and that the cloud was present before and after the sea. Salvation is a journey of faith that isn't started by baptism, but includes baptism as a necessary component. And sometimes faith comes after in the application of what baptism brings to us, like in Romans 6, where Paul tells the believers to reckon themselves dead to sin based on their baptism which buries them in Christ's death and raises them in his resurrection. That reality, even though it came from baptism, would not come into effect until they reckoned it to be so by faith. This was my experience when learning so many years later what the reality of my baptism was.
I think the infant baptism debate stems more from augustines debate with Pelagius and not the early church. I think churches that came out of the reformation took the word baptism from a 15th century context and not a 1st century context. And for that matter every time we see the word baptize in the bible we should cross it out and put emerse. Luther and Calvin were highly influenced by Augustine. Augustine unfortunately brought in some of his pegan beliefs (manichism and Gnosticism) to Christianity. The Christian church prior to Augustine never believed that people were so depraived that they would never come to God unless he some how irresistibly drew them. Unfortunately Luther and Calvin and ultimately Augustine introduces the idea of prefaith regeneration which is unbiblical.
Oh please tell me you haven't been listening to Ken Wilson on "Augustinian Calvinism" because his arguments against infant baptism are so wack and false. Jordan Cooper has said as much himself so I hope he refutes it one day.
When it comes to this issue Ken Wilson and Leighton Flowers are not your friends. The church fathers were unanimous on baptismal regeneration and affirmed it for children
Please, you seem (I'm not sure, sorry) to know very little of augustine, as he didn't held pagan or gnostic beliefs after conversion. You are holding some kind of evangelical or pentecostal belief you got somewhere, maybe in the Internet.
If infant baptism was supported by Scripture, there would be at least one example in the Bible, and at least a clear command. No verse commands us to baptize infants. We have examples of both for adults, and such examples is being submerged into water.
If women taking communion was supported by scripture, there would be at least one example in the Bible and at least a clear command. No verse commands us to commune women. We have examples of both for men. I’m not trying to be mean or mock you, but hopefully, even if you continue holding to you’re own position, you can see the faulty logic in your argument and come up with better ones in the future. The peace of our Lord be with you always.
@@kolab5620 Sorry, but I must prove that your theology is wrong again. Acts 2:43-47 says that ALL who believed attended the temple together and broke bread in their homes….” According to your foolish line of reasoning, “ALL who believed” who were in their homes did not include the wives. LOL! If you want to debate the topic using Scripture alone, I am more than willing. Please do. Please. You are seriously deceived.
@@nberrios777"you are seriously deceived" You are going against the proclamation of the church for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Similarly, you probably think communion has no real presence. The first believer of that false doctrine was Zwingli. He himself reports that he came to that conclusion due to a *message from an angel in a dream.* Brother. That is not legitimate, and it is certainly not any 'sola scriptura.' It is literally demonic messaging.
@@nberrios777 "LOL!" First of all, don't be rude or dismissive in your response. That's not appropriate christian behavior especially against a Christian Brother. Second, I would agree that 'ALL' in Acts 2 refers to women as well. But it's not "an example of or command to" commune women. If someone wanted to they could just as easily say to you "We are told that everyone who 'Believed' took communion, but we are never explicitely told that the wives believed. Therefore we still can't commune women." But the obvious response to that (at least what I think would be obvious) is to say "Communion is a sign of the covenant. The new covenant is broader than the old. there is no command to forbid women from receiving communion by virtue of being a woman. Conclusion: Women can receive Communion. I think the same logic Applies to Infant Baptism. Third, sorry for not responding sooner. If you're still listening I'd love to hear your reply back. :)
@@kolab5620 Paul called the Galatians foolish. It is sometimes necessary to rescue people from false doctrines by using direct language. Therefore your argument is indeed foolish. Why? 1) Here is a very clear command from Christ to His followers: “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 2) Infants are obviously unable to acknowledge and remember Christ.
Something I've found interesting about your videos is that you tend to ask what did Luther mean when he said X. I see where Catholics think that if they take down Luther the whole Reformation falls. I would say Sola Scriptura overrides Luther and his catechisms, and overrides Calvinism TULIP, etc, etc.
Anyone who holds to Sola Scriptura should of course agree that the Scriptures take precedence, and that any interpretation of Scripture is only true in so far as it agrees with it. Luther's theology is generally understood by Lutherans to be in conformity to the teaching of Scripture and therefore they don't see any essential divide between asking what did Luther teach on a subject and what does Scripture teach. Where there's disagreement is that not everyone agrees on what exactly Luther did teach on some subjects. I for instance hold that Luther held to double predestination and this is what the Scriptures teach, whereas the great majority of Lutherans think he only believed in single predestination and that the Scriptures teach that.
I think this is an excellent point. I was raised Lutheran and believe Lutherans Rey far too heavily on the catechism and do not rely upon or understand the Word of God, the Holy Bible, nearly enough. This comes in the example of how the Lutheran catechism follows the catholic teaching of changing the Ten Commandments and how they are presented in the Holy Bible. The Catholics remove the second commandment stating we shall not worship any image under heaven…including mother Mary. The Catholics stripped this away, and broke the tenth commandment into two in order to keep the 10 count….strangely enough, many Lutherans are completely unaware of this fact. They carry on trusting in the Lutheran catechism rather than reading the Holy Bible for themselves. It’s a very slippery slope. It’s far to easy to believe false teachings and half truths if you do not research facts from the Bible. Do not rely on Martin Luther or any other, but the Bible alone.
The Holy Spirit is efficacious. He effectually calls the Elect unto salvation. Faith is the instrument granted and wrought unto our justification. Baptism communicates this efficacious work of the Spirit and seals Gods promise that He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved.
You need to distinguish between infant and believer’s baptism when you talk about “baptism”. Believer’s baptism is an exercise of faith, so faith and baptism aren’t in any way dichotomous. Infant baptism is an exercise of someone else’s faith, at best, and if you believe in it as an objective means of grace, now we’re talking sacramentalism (as far as I can tell), and that’s a whole different discussion. The fact that you speak without even making this distinction makes me feel, as a non Lutheran, that I’ve walked into very foreign territory, similar to listening to Catholics talk. I don’t think you want to come across like that, but you’re not helping yourself out.
Yes, I would like to see some discussion on believer’s baptism. I was a Lutheran for the first 46 years of my life. When ELCA went liberal, I joined a Mennonite church who upheld the Bible in areas of non-female ministry, women’s headcovering, and other current social issues. Mennonites baptize only adults who make a profession of faith (born again, if you will). That being said, I have lone seen Lutheran baptism used as a ‘lucky charm’ for their children in the area of salvation. The family is never seen again till another child comes along. Some pastors will baptize anyone coming in off the street, in hopes of the family joining the church. This rarely brings anyone into the church. I see infant baptism working only if the parents keep the the vows THEY make at the child’s baptism. Compare it to a garden: one must prepare the soil before sowing the seed or there will be no growth. Baptism is a very serious thing and promises made are lifelong. Even those baptized as adults fall away and break their vows. I would love see a debate on this with a conservative Mennonite!!!!!
@@ruthgoebel723 when rhe ELCA went liberal you should have switched to a real Lutheran church like the one Pastor Dr. Cooper goes to. Or LCMS or ELS or WELS or Eldona.
@@ruthgoebel723 we don't have a conservative Lutheran church here....for this and other reasons I decided to be a guest in several churche. One is orthodox. Only problem is ...no communion. But I wont have to lie or pretend to subscribe to heresies like calvinism or renouncing my baptism (for baptistic Churches) in order to become a member.
@@ruthgoebel723 I was trying an Anglican, but you never know if it's a conservative or liberal one here unless you visit. They're one denomination. I don't wanna walk into a church then find out there is a woman pastor and then race to find another church before service is over 😄
The name of God it's THE FATHER please do not change is name. Water baptism came by John , came from the law and we are no more under the law. It's was given to the Jews it symbolize the one who is coming after John and who will baptize them WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT .Repentance is not from the flesh but it's from the sanctification work of the holy spirit in the born again man. Merci.
Baptism washes away sin, "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins", Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21). Faith alone is not found in Holy Scripture except to negate it, "it is by WORKS and not by faith alone that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24, Matthew 25:35-42, Romans 2:6-8). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Daniel Willis How are Catholics demonized for the sacramental system when you recognize that there is at least one sacrament (maybe also the Lord’s supper) that is necessary for salvation? -thoughtful Catholic convert
@@danielwillis3508 Lutherans don't demonize the papacy for sacramental theology. It's for the monetary sale of holy things and the use of sword and fire against protestants in the middle ages, as well as for the anathematisation of the Augsburg Confession.
@@danielwillis3508 Suggesting that the Supper can create faith for the first time is uncatholic. Only the baptised absolved believer may partake. The Supper does strengthen the weak faith of those who know their own godliness is unable to save them.
One of the issues I have with infant baptism is a practical one. People who were baptized as infants have no memory of the baptism experience and so the event has no meaning for them. We were planning a baptism service in our church recently and had some young men who were recommitting their lives to the Lord. I asked them if they had ever been baptized and they weren't sure and had to ask their parents if they had been. Their parents told them had indeed been baptized as infants but it was obvious the event had no meaning to them. I believe baptism should be a special day in a person's life and an event they can look back on as when they received Jesus as Savior and Lord.
Through that logic, I have no memory of my birth experience and so the event has no meaning for me. I have no memory of people praying for me while I was unconscious and so the event has no meaning for me. Etc. Why do you have to have a memory of an event for it to have meaning, especially something God gives to you?
@@harryedmon380 In the examples you cited, although the individual has no memory of the event, they see the relationship between the event and their current experience. Although a person does not remember their birth they are currently alive and can relate that back to their birth. In the example of the two young men, they were currently following Christ but could not relate that to their baptism as an infant. To them, it had no effect on their current walk with God one way or another.
@@eastsidefellowship2511 The problem is looking at baptism as an experiential event that you have to feel for it to be effective. I cling to the fact of my baptism and the promises God attaches to it. God is faithful in giving me the benefits of baptism no matter how I feel about it as long as I have faith in His promises. One of my favorite hymns about baptism is Lutheran Service Book #594 - "God's Own Child, I Gladly Say It".
Eastside Fellowship Baptism regenerates whether or not you realize or remember it. Now, if you reject the faith than you’ve resisted the grace of God given *in and through* your baptism - but if you persevere in faith, that is the working of baptism in your life. If you were baptized (any time in your life) and you are a believing Christian - that’s because of your baptism and the Holy Spirit working in your life through it.
@@vngelicath1580 Not necessarily arguing the regenerative power of baptism. Just the practical implications of when a person experiences it. A person can certainly persevere in faith and walk with God even if they don't remember their baptism.
I have been going to a Baptist church for 20 years but have been wrestling with a lot of things over the last five years. Lutheranism and baptism are one of those things, that I’ve wrestled with and you’ve addressed those struggles in this video. I’ve been driving myself crazy trying to understand how baptism wasn’t a work. I was so worried if I embraced Lutheran doctrine, I’d be embracing works salvation. This has helped a bunch. I don’t want to trust in anything but the finished work of Christ but I want all of what God wants for me.
I’ve had similar angst about this issue, brother. Go to the Word of God and let scripture dictate what’s right. Baptism isn’t our work, it’s God’s. As you clearly know, we are incapable of attaining salvation on our own. The work is in the Word applied to the water. Its saving grace, which is won by Christ, is delivered to us by the Holy Spirit through baptism. We receive, we don’t do work. It’s the same when you receive the word through scripture. Opening your bible and reading isn’t a saving work, it’s you receiving God’s work. Listening to the pastor read from scripture isn’t work, it’s reception. Find an LCMS or AALC parish near you and receive the gifts God gives us in the divine service. Blessings and grace to you.
You're baptized in no one else's name except the name of the Father , the Son , and of the Holy Spirit.
No one takes credit for saving you except God because it's His work delivered through His church the same way the preaching of Christ crucified is delivered through the preaching of your Baptist pastor at his podium.
If only your pastor would preach more verses like these:
‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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.’” (Acts 2:38-39)
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, (1 Peter 3:21)
" Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' " (John 3:3-5)
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5)
"We Acknowledge One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins" (Nicene Creed)
Luther was partly right, in that baptism is not salvation by our works, nor by our merit, but it is indeed connected to salvation - just as dipping in the pool was required for the blind man in John 9. The blind man was healed by the power and grace of God, not by his work or merit. But it was when he submitted to the Lord's word that he was healed. Likewise, baptism is tied to salvation and remission of sin over and over in the NT: (Titus 3.5; Acts 2.38; Rom. 6; Acts 22.16, etc.).
On the other hand, baptists are partly right that baptism is immersion, and is for believers. That it is for believers, who also need to repent see Acts 2.38,40: "repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins...those that received his word were baptized,". and Acts 8.12: "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women").
That it is a burial and immersion, see Romans 6, and also look up the very meaning of the words baptize / baptism (dip, immerse, dipping, immerison). See also Philip and the Eunuch who both get out of the chariot, and both go down into the water, and there the baptism takes place, and they they come up out of the water (Acts 8:36-39). Note also the need of much water for baptism (John 3.23).
This should be a reminder that we aren't to follow either Baptist doctrine, nor Lutheran doctrine, but the Word (Acts 17.11).
If you would be interested in discussing this further, you can contact me through 3minutebiblestudy.com (or on youtube), or text me at 717 321 3321. thank you, -Scott (3minutebiblestudy channel)
Whenever I have tried to understand the Lutheran idea that baptism is not a work, I would always encounter the Lutheran response that baptism is "all gospel," with no explanation how a sacrament is not a work. Pr. Cooper's willingness to distinguish between works and sacraments, while acknowledging that both involve actions, makes the Lutheran position much easier to understand for someone coming from a broad evangelical and Reformed background. Thank you.
I’m also struggling with the same issue.
Yes do the debate!! Do continue the article!! I never get tired of hearing about baptism!
11:30: "Does the faith in standing and status... whether or not the priest is regenerate ... Does the faith in the one administering the sacrament have anything to do with the efficacy of the sacrament?"
The answer that Augustine and pretty much the rest of the Church came to was: No, the efficacy of the sacrament depends on its Institution by our Lord, in accordance with God's word. As long as the proper Words of Institution and elements for the sacrament are used by the priest/pastor, God's grace is always available through God's promise, not based on the status of the priest.
Thanks for this! I had been looking for the Lutheran view to this question for a while now, and you answered it.
The comparison of baptism to the Israelites deliverance out of Egypt into the wilderness and the Lords Supper as the manna in the wilderness that sustained the Israelites was awesome. Thank you.
Definitly finish the Article, great to hear your thoughts.
Btw big thanks for everything you do. I know it must be hard for you as father of (I think 2?), pastor, working at university, doing the weidner Institute, Just and Sinner website, publishings, merch, UA-cam, podcasts, twitter and still keep studying. My deepest respect that you do this much for the Lutheran community and you should know, that we appreciate it. I can't understand how you are not completely destroyed by all of that things already. God bless!
Please continue the article. That article is the best I have read so far disputing the Lutheran view of baptism and your response to it has been great. Thank you for the work you are doing!
Thank you for sacrificing your time to make these videos. Very much appreciated.
Another way to strengthen the "household" argument is to place emphasis on the "Word" being present in the household. Wherever one convert is in the household, the "Word" will be present to create and sustain faith. We baptize household, because the "Word" will continually create faith among all within those living there. I think the same argument can be made I Cor. 7:14 "children made holy" not because one parent is a believer but because the "Word" brought that one parent to faith. This power of the "Word" is present within the family. Enjoy the podcast.
That is profound. Could you please tell us where you got that idea? I really like it.
@@Mygoalwogel What I find fascinating is what happens when Jesus comes in contact with infants and children. They believe! This is due to the fact that Jesus Himself is the Word. “And the Word became flesh.” We see this in Mt 21:15-16 where Jesus mere physical presence causes children and nursing infant to sing his praises. Truly remarkable. With the Spirit placed upon Jesus in baptism, the Holy Spirit is with Jesus his entire ministry. Jesus is the Word, and the Spirit works through that Word to bring all to faith including infants. The profound example of how Jesus and the Spirit bring people to faith in His earthly ministry is continued through the written and spoken Word today. We just don’t see infants and children resist the Holy Spirit when coming into contact with the Word of God.
@@nealstafford9063 Love it!
What about unbelieving adults?
@@nealstafford9063 Considering you believe baptizing infants is extremely important, wouldn’t Jesus or any of the writers of the Bible clearly command parents (or ministers) to do so? At least once? Yet, there is no command in the Bible - at all - to baptize infants.
However, Jesus and others clearly commanded “believers” to be baptized and partake in Holy Communion. Infants can’t obey commands. Again, no where in the Bible do we find such a command. No where. It is sad, how simple this is to understand but so incredibly difficult to accept for some people.
Great video! I'm one of those boogeymen Augustinian-Thomists, but I agree with a lot of what you said!
Please do that debate!
Argument starts at 3:08.
In summary:
(1) The two points at issue is whether we can call "baptism" a work, and if so, whether it along with faith is efficacious for salvation
, in which case sola fide is compromised.
(2) To the first point, reformed Baptists would argue that baptism is a non-saving work that is the ultimate sign of a saving faith.
(3) Reformed Baptists would say that baptism's use in scripture is symbolic, representing an expression of faith. (1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38)
(4) In contrast, Lutherans would argue that baptism is a passive yet objective receiving of regeneration (i.e. the creation of saving faith) which is in the action of being immersed in water, and can be rejected.
(5) As for infant baptism, the idea that infants have faith is a logical result of believing three points; (i) that infants should be baptized, (ii) baptism saves through regeneration, (iii) salvation is not possible apart from faith, ergo, infants must have faith.
(6) As an example, to a Lutheran baptism is not a meritorious work in the same way that choosing to hear the gospel from someone is not a meritorious work but is
(7) The Lutheran view of baptism is correct because a more plain reading of scriptural text points in that direction.
Some questions and requests for clarification from a Lutheran's perspective:
Q1: Around 36:55, Dr. Cooper says: "Baptism is efficacious in that it regenerates. What is regeneration but the giving of spiritual life, which is faith? So baptism is efficacious unto faith. Baptism brings one faith." In this case, must one have saving faith before the event of efficacious baptism? If so, in what way does baptism save if faith apart from baptism already justifies, or does baptism save only in the case of infant baptism? Or does the event of baptism only create saving faith in a faithless but consenting individual?
Q2: Lutherans seem to believe that regeneration through the word alone is efficacious for salvation. So why call baptism other than infant baptism salvific? If because scripture claims so, then how can the world alone truly efficacious for salvation?
Q3: At 44:30, Dr. Cooper uses the phrase, "submit to the work of believing the gospel." I think reformed theologians would argue that there is a strong distinction between "belief" and a "work." Commanding someone to be baptized is qualitatively different from commanding someone to believe, as in when Jesus said "repent and believe" he was saying two different things. Dr. Cooper later says that the misunderstanding is in how the "relationship between the law and gospel works." But Baptists would likely say that baptism is a good work done under the gospel following salvation as an expression of faith. And thus unrelated to the process of our salvation. Am I misunderstanding the flow of the argument here?
Q4: At 56:00, Dr. Cooper starts to say that we should not interpret baptism a particular way because of the conclusions we draw from other texts, in particular regarding Perseverance of the Saints. But isn't that how we are supposed to interpret scripture, letting scripture interpret scripture while being internally logical and coherent? In which case, the problem is not that we are using scripture to interpret scripture but rather that Perseverance of the Saints is falsely being arrived at as a conclusion. Am I understanding him correctly, or is this again my Calvinist background disabling me from understanding Lutheran teaching?
Any response, be it an affirmation or correction, would be greatly appreciated! Kindly reply on UA-cam, or I'm also reachable at iamjoechang@gmail.com
I was once a convinced five-point Calvinist (I.e. close follower of John Piper). However, the concept of "Perseverance of the Saints" took me aback as starkly not scriptural, and caused me to view whether my worldview was built upon scripture itself or scripture plus philosophy. I then took a step back from Calvinism, studied church history, and came to hold a more moderate view of reformed theology. And then I studied the reformation in particular and got a shock. Now I'm pretty confused... but let's try to sort things out concerning baptismal regeneration.
... And for your amusement, here's some John Piper: "I was a lone Baptist in a den of Lutheran lions. They were loving lions. They just licked me; they didn’t eat me, but they did not approve of what I believed."
www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation
I am R PRESBYTERIAN and I enjoy your take on infant baptism
Thank God for baptism 🙏🏼
Are you Lutheran or not?
Because I am a Slav and study Interslavic, but I am curious about religion of Slavs online and of those whom I watch or follow.
Thank you for all you do. God's peace be with you.
@Christos Kyrios there is no evidence babies do not receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. As Peter says by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "Baptism now saves us." 1 Peter 3:21
@Christos Kyrios The Holy Spirit works faith through the word of God and dwells in the person sanctifing them, creating in them a new heart. The Spirit comes before, during and after faith in Jesus as the One and only Savior. There is no definitive moment, an exact moment in which a person can declare the Holy Spirit begins His sovereign work. The Spirit is at work before a person believes, when they believe and afterwards. Baptism saves, belief saves, we are continually saved daily as we repent and place our faith in Christ. We were SAVED over 2000 years ago when Jesus died, rose and ascended to the right hand of God. We will also BE saved at the Resurrection when we receive our new bodies and be forever sinless. The Word of God does not allow for one moment in time to pinpoint our salvation. The elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.
Your question is critically flawed.
Dr. Cooper, would you summarize the Lutheran view as: Baptism is a means by which salvific grace is administered to the individual, but the means is only an effectual means of received by faith? (This also being why Lutherans can hold to a denial of irresistible grace without contradicting their understanding of predestination).
It would be MAJORLY helpful to hear a Lutheran theologian engage in a public debate on baptism. I’m sick of talking past evangelicals on this issue.
You probably know by now, but I believe Ortlund and Cooper did a debate on it
I really appreciate the Lutherans and the revival of the truth in faith alone. Why does this have to be so difficult? It seems as though a person has to do a lot of mental jogging to make the puzzle work. I wish i could sit down and chat with you. It seems to complicated to fit it as a work of God. I personally don't disagree or agree. I have been flip flopping on this issue for a long time due to deductive reasoning.......
I have been following you for a long time and have a lot of respect for you and Lutheran teachings. Thank you again.
I don't think a debate with Slick would be very productive. I've heard him talk about baptism many times and he brings up two things: 1) in Acts 2:38 he replaces "for" with "because of" the forgiveness of sins. 2) claims baptismal regeneration is incompatible with salvation by faith alone. However, I would like to see more discussion of this article, it is interesting to see someone make an honest effort to interact with what Lutherans believe instead of the tired surface treatment.
Fantastic treatment of the the topic. I think a debate with Matt slick would be an interesting discussion. Also it's not James white 😁
You forgot to put the citation for the article from Themelios in the description. I would prefer to read the article and then listen to the video. I will get far more out of the video this way.
Sorry about that. Here is the link: www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/sola-fide-compromised-martin-luther-and-the-doctrine-of-baptism/
@@DrJordanBCooper hmmm, thanks for this, I'll read the article first then watch the video
@@DrJordanBCooper What a curious thing! I stumbled upon that very article not too long ago
1. re "just look at the baptistic texts", JBC doesn't do that, because: a) he takes non-baptistic texts such as John 3:3-6/Titus 3:4-6, which mention "baptism" NOT once, but he arbitrarily MAKES them, "baptistic", because "all the Fathers said so", thus violating Luthers (accurate) dictum, that a mere "say-so" from the Fathers was NOT intrinsically adequate, to certify any doctrine, as being Biblical and true; b) any serious student of Scripture knows that "face value" interpretations of texts can lead to denials of core doctrine, thus: Scripture nowhere uses "Trinity" to describe God; on the "contrary", such as "face value" texts, as Deut. 6:4 would "appear" to deny the Trinity, saying, "the Lord our God is ONE LORD" (not "three); re, the current discussion (and closer "to home"), 1 Tim. 2:5 says that woman are "SAVED through child-birth"; are women REALLY "regenerated/justified" via child-birth? Did God get "saved", when He was "justified by the people" (Luke 7:29)? and what about this "foolishness" that Paul says God has (1 Cor. 1:25)?, etc. etc. 2. the Reformed objection to BR is not merely "based upon perseverance", there is MUCH more to it, than that, to wit: a) NO external, physical rite ever produced inward, spiritual realities; not so in Old Israel (Rom. 2:28, 29), and certainly not in Christ's Church; thus, in the N.T, you have i] many examples in Acts, of people being saved, BEFORE their water baptism (the Ethiopian eunuch [Acts 8], the Philippian jailer [16:30, 31]); you have ii] a man saved under the "New Covenenant" (John 19: 32-34; Heb. 9:16, 17), yet with NO water baptism (Luke 23:33-43), and iii] you have a man (Simon Magus) water baptized, who received NO salvation, whatsoever (Acts 8:9-24; mind you, with your Lutheran, "loss-of-salvation" doctrine, maybe SM "set the record", for the fastest, to ever "lose" his salvation"?), yet iv] there is NOT ONE clear-cut case of anyone being "saved by water baptism" in the N.T.! 3. re the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance", what is adduced to/against all "loss-of-salvation" schemes remains true, that such schemes (by subtily "subbing" "probation", for "salvation") eviscerate the entirety of Christian theology, in ALL of it's major heads of doctrine; re "baptism", it does so, as follows: according to the Lutherans, water baptism "saves/regenerates/jusitifes/removes sin/gives the Spirit/unites with Christ", and Lord knows what else; yet, due to a totally ironic affirmation of a "free-will" that can "resist God" (and so is NOT "in BONDAGE" after all! LOL!!), ALL of these multitudinous benefits can be "forfeited/surrendered/cast away" at the drop of the "free-will" hat, thus revealing the sub-standard, NON-life-changing "gospel" (?), which is the "hall-mark" of ALL "loss....." religions....thus, Mr. Coopers noble attempts to "prove" BR, ends up as a lost cause, grounding itself out, against a) the "free-will" of Man, and b) the impotency of God, to savingly over-ride "a"....
Debate slick
Anyone who has tried to get free from habitual sin knows that you don't get freedom from your own effort. Consequently, salvation from the power of sin cannot be "of works" - Eph 2:9. If you could get free from sin by your own effort you might be tempted to "boast" as Paul says. So, although we may concede that repentance and baptism involve work, our effort in doing these things is not what saves us. God delivers us from the power of sin through baptism (Rom 6, Col 2:11,12).
Did medieval catholicism really believe that communion is efficacious even without faith? In Orthodoxy there is a very strong emphasis on partaking of the Holy Gifts in a worthy manner. Our pre-communion prayers state multiple times that you will be "burned" (spiritually speaking) if you commune unworthily. It sounds very similar to the Lutheran view.
Also, can we get a list of what exactly qualifies as a "work" and what doesn't, and why? I think it would clear up a lot of the confusion. Thank you!
Do the debate
I thought that Calvin's view, (and this is based on my reading of Calvin), is that the sacraments do actually bring the reality of God's grace to us, but it's our faith that receives what God has to give us through the sacrament. So just having faith without the sacrament is not enough, (with some possible exceptions like the thief on the cross). I would compare this need for the sacraments to the Israelites in the wilderness, who as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, received baptism, and spiritual food and drink (manna and water from the rock), and yet many weren't brought to salvation. If the sacraments were effectual by itself, then all the Israelites should have inherited the promised land. This is clarified in the first few chapters of Hebrews, the reason they didn't inherit the promise was their lack of faith.
However, just because an Israelite had faith, they still needed the provisions given by God(baptism and spiritual food and drink) to bring them to the promised land. I think similarly, it's our faith that will bring us to receive the promise of heaven, but God will still use those provisions he has given us in the sacraments to bring us there. Our faith is still firmly resting in the promise of God, and the sacraments are part of our reliance on God in our journey to get there.
I do believe that baptism does save and I also believe God's grace that is given in baptism is able to be rejected, but I also since becoming a Lutheran understood baptism to be effectual at all times, to where every single person that is baptized is given faith by God and becomes a Christian, and then later on after the baptism takes place is when the rejection of God's grace takes place. Does baptism not always save?
I tend to agree with that sentiment. I'd even say every time a person (believer or unbeliever) hears the gospel and knows that this good news is for her, Christ stands at the door knocking and the Holy Spirit comes and invites the hearer to open. The mustard seed is planted.
At our Lutheran Bible studies for the uninitiated, some teens and adults come regularly for years. They don't reject the gospel and treat it as true, but they also hesitate to get baptized or call themselves Christians. Lots of them do eventually get baptized, but everything happens slowly.
@@Mygoalwogel I gotcha. If the view I explained above is consistent with the Bible and the book of Concord, which I do think it is, I'm going to retain that view. Jordan Cooper in the video just seemed to say (and perhaps I misunderstood him) that baptism does not always regenerate the one being baptized, it only regenerates the one who doesnt reject the regeneration.
@@BartinButher I didn't get the impression he was saying that, though maybe I was listening through biased earwax.
The author conflates sanctification with justification at 49:18. Sanctification ends at death, not justification. Justification happens in a moment at baptism.
If you want to jump to the actual argument, go to 9:48
Yes
To me, it makes sense to view the sacrament of water baptism as being likened to the reception of an invisible Bible. This is for the purposes of enlightenment from God. This can cause the baptized recipient to know Christ crucified (as per I Corinthians 2:2). Denying water baptism to an infant is likened to the denial of a manufactured Bible to an infant. Owning a Bible does not prove Christian faith, but by reading a Bible, this often promotes faith for some, but can result in doubt in others. To me, this explains the efficacy of water baptism. It also points out the great benefits and appropriateness of baptism for the mentally disabled.
I think Justification is not so much about declaring you righteous as it is about making you righteous (Eph 4:24) - this is what baptism does in making you a new creation.
The Augustine position on what donatist believed is incorrect. Is was not about the nature of the priest but the right standing within the church
"No doubt that infants have faith?" Don't you think that John the Baptist and Jeremiah are kind of exceptional examples? Would we conclude that because God spoke audibly to Samuel as a child, God will speak audibly to all children? The example that you gave of David in Psalm 22:9,10 is definitely not a clear example that all children have faith in the womb, especially seeing that this is a prophecy of Jesus. Furthermore, when someone reads these verses do they conclude that David had faith as a baby or that David's entire life was being governed by God? Finally, since Timothy has known the Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:15), are we supposed to understand that this means he understood them as an infant? If I said to someone, "I have been reading books continually since childhood," would they think he means he has been reading books since he was an infant?
You are correct. This issue is dr Cooper's worst take
I would be interested in the debate with Matt Slick. Peace.
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
(CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order.
(ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation.
(GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things.
(KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357
(NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
(NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
(YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
How do you reconcile baptismal regeneration with imputed righteousness?
We don’t have evidence from scripture of infants being baptized- one must assume that the families who were baptized had infants. It’s possible, but it’s an argument from silence.
Dr. Cooper, I have been steeping myself in Lutheran beliefs, especially on your channel, and like I said in another comment, baptismal regeneration is a real hard thing to accept based on salvific passages that don't include baptism.
Here is a link on a debate between Mike Winger and a guy named Dean. (I forgot his last name)
ua-cam.com/video/x2TfBVNuuY8/v-deo.html
I just fixed the link! Don't know what happened.
They do a thorough covering of scripture on salvation, and it would be great if you could systematically go through each scripture they reference and give your perspective on them as simply, but thoroughly as possible. I've listened to a few of your other videos concerning this topic, but end up getting lost in your philosophical perspective, or dissatisfied because you have left out the scriptures that I'm referring to.
Thanks so much!
I think you posted the wrong link. This one is a 3 minute something or other.
@@Mygoalwogel Thanks so much! I just fixed the link. Please let me know if there are any more issues!
@@wonderingpilgrim Woah! Over 4 hours.
@@wonderingpilgrim You don't happen to have a list of those scriptures you could paste on here, do you?
But when is a person saved according to Lutherans? Say a person comes to faith and repentance and the following Sunday they receive Baptism, at what point was that person saved?
I think the main problem of the interlocutor is that he has a one-dimensional understanding of faith and the means of grace: Baptism is commanded and is therefore a work that cannot save within the Lutheran paradigm of justification by faith and not works. As Dr. Cooper pointed out, faith is also commanded etc. So you couldn't even say that you are justified by faith and not by works because faith is a work.
That is why Lutherans have been pointing out the following basic distinctions for the past half millennium. Faith is a work or virtue, commanded by the First Commandment, but it doesn't justify as a work or virtue. It justifies before God only because it receives Christ and his righteousness etc. It is the means by which we receives Christ's saving treasure offered to all by the gospel in word and sacraments, like the hand that receives the golden coin from the king. Hence we are saved by faith in Christ not because of faith.
Baptism is certainly also a work the pastor does and that the person being baptized receives or "tolerates" if you will. It fits under the Second Commandment because it is a proper use of the name of the triune God. But it also fits under the third because of God's sanctifying word being the active ingredient in it. Baptism saves because it is the means that objectively conveys what Christ won--salvation, to put it into one term. Not because it is a good work, even though it is also that. We are saved by baptism, not because of baptism.
The same is true of the Lord's Supper--it is both sacrament and sacrifice, God's saving gift to us and our sacrifice of praise to God (= a good work we do). We are saved by it, not because of it, because it is viewed in justification as a means that objectively conveys salvation (= a sacrament), to be received by faith, not as our sacrifice. Although it is that, too.
Same for reading the bible or listening to a sermon. Saved by these in that they are the means that convey Christ and his saving gifts so we can receive them by alone-saving faith, not because of these as good works. Although reading the Bible and listening to sermons certainly are good works we are told to do by the third commandment, not optional things in some special category by themselves.
Once you grasp these basic distinctions and dimensions to faith and the means of grace, you realize the relevant passages of Scripture all fall into place.
*"Objectivity of the Sacraments"* Love it. #LutheranismFTW
I have a real humble honest question that is detailed I don't know any Lutherans around me to ask. There is only Liberal congregations I think around here.
I'm a conservative Lutheran, and I'd be happy to take a stab at it!
I need a book. I cant make up my mind on this issue.
Does anyone have a link to the Themelios article he references at the beginning?
baptism is a declaration of saving grace. resurrected with Christ.
hey, when Lutherans "lose their salvation", and then seek restoration, do they need to get re-baptized?
No. That’s kind of what he is saying in the video. Lutherans believe baptism is a promise of God. When someone comes back to faith their baptism is valid because God doesn’t change. We can reject that promise but if we come back to him God doesn’t need to promise again. This is as long as your baptism done according to scripture (in the name of the triune God.) the few times Lutherans would require a ‘rebaptism’ we wouldn’t call the first baptism. For example a friend of mine came to a Lutheran church out of Mormonism. They don’t practice Christian baptism. So he was baptized in church
@@Annkarsik45 thanks for the response, but I have to respectfully disagree, on the basis of a false application, of Mal. 3:6 ("I change not, saith the Lord"): though God, by nature, is immutable, yet He acts "in time", to meet us, on our level; and, as He proved via His dealings with Niniveh (Jonah), His attitude/demeanour DOES "change" depending upon the actions of human beings; Note, that this does NOT "change" God, but rather, reveals His unchanging stances, being acceptance/love/mercy to those who seek/find him, and rejection/wrath/justice, towards all others; re "baptism", if a Lutheran received salvation via baptism, but then walked away/rejected Christ, then their baptism IS, by that act, rendered "null/void", in time; and if/when they should return to the Faith, they would need to be re-baptized, because Lutherans believe that (as in this video) "water baptism saves"; thus, if water baptism saved you, the first time, then water baptism would need to "save you", the second time.....and the 3rd....4th...5th.......thus, the doctrinal confusion one ends up in, when they go "baptismal regeneration/loss of salvation"....
I think by complete justification he means justification from all ones sin one will ever commit. Including the sin of unbelief which caused one's apostasy. So the infant isn't completely justified from all his sins because God will still impute sin on him
Can a person be baptised twice?
Image a Roman Catholic, born and raised (being baptised as an infant), who abandons the faith, and years later converts to the Lutheran church- will he be baptised a second time?
Lutherans never rebaptize anyone who knows that she is already baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
@@Mygoalwogel Thanks
@@tiagorenato5328 Wow! A gracious UA-cam commenter. I apologize for my neutrally toned reply. I have to say, if your example is a personal one, I love hearing about it. I really find it encouraging to hear from people to whom Our Heavenly Father has proven Himself faithful even after faith is lost for a time. I got very angry at God during Junior High School. But I couldn't renounce faith altogether because I was afraid of the judgement. It took a while to begin trusting again, but that's when blessed "coincidences" (I'd like to call them miracles) started happening.
Pls someone clarify about eastern orthodox understanding of water baptism for infants.do they teach baptismal regeneration
Yes, Orthodox believe in Baptismal Regeneration
@@Mkvine ok. What happens in baptism according to eastern baptism. Is it same like roman catholic understanding???
@@ajiny.v1798 Both believe that baptism regenerates you and incorporates you into Christ. The Orthodox typically administer baptism, chrismation and holy communion all at once to the infant, whereas the Romans separate the sacraments at different times.
There are five solas let's appreciate the paradox instead of being simplistic.
Hello Dr. Cooper, you probably have a lot on your plate, but could you make a video or a response on what majority church fathers agreed on? I’ve heard majority believed in the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, One can loose their salvation, am I incorrect, or are there more doctrines they believe in? And could you give examples? It’s all confusing to me because I’m an evangelical studying church history and I have a strong well studied Roman Catholic friend that claims stuff like Marian dogmas, purgatory, intercession to saints, etc, were all documented in the patristic era. He quotes these church fathers as if their statements are believed by the whole church. So is there a consensus between church fathers on such doctrines or are these just held by a few? There were many heresies going on around during the patristic era, but I don’t see where practices like praying to saints or the belief of the assumption of Mary being condemned, why is that? If this is too much to ask for, my apologies.
You've asked a massive question. I first started to wonder about the Church Fathers during college. I began to see myself as very ungoldy, and my Christian classmates equally so. 20 years of off and on reading later, I'm confident that (1) everything I was taught can be found in the ancient church and (2) the Papists and Palamists don't have a monopoly on patristics. But there's a lot to read.
Was there any development from Luther to orthodox theologians in terms of whether it is the preached word only that creates faith, as opposed to baptism (the word + water)? It seems Luther was less comfortable saying baptism creates faith than some later theologians were.
I think that any form of sacraments is a return under the law. If it's by grace why can it also by by obedience in sacraments ? Water baptism came from the rituals of purifications under the law but only Christ blood now is purifying of all sins.
So are we justify by faith + sacraments ? This is not the gospel.
So does faith, which brings forgiveness, come before baptism?
So what happens when the infant is kicking and screaming while being presented for Baptism?
OK JUST KIDDING.
On a more SERIOUS NOTE, circumcision is the sign and seal of of the righteousness Abraham had by faith.
The seal (or mark) of faith in the new covenant is the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Paul, not Baptism.
Um Colossians 2:11-15? We are sealed BY the Spirit at Baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27). The whole point is that the historic view of baptismal regeneration doesn't separate these two things. Baptism is the way the holy spirit seals us cause that's what scripture says
@@Iffmeister I'm not going to start a debate here, but here are my points.
1) The Holy Spirit is the seal
-- Eph1:13, 4:30 -- Sealed by the Spirit
-- 2Cor1:22 -- Sealed us and gave us the Spirit
2) Seal has the meaning of "mark", a "sign of authenticity"
-- Rom4:11 -- Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith
-- 1Cor9:2 -- Paul calls the Corinthians the "seal" (or "mark/sign") of his apostleship
While I don't deny that water and the Spirit are intimately connected (Spirit hovered over the waters; Born of water and Spirit; Living water flowing from the innermost being), let's be precise, as the Bible calls the Spirit the seal, not Baptism.
@@koonhanong2267 yeah but where is the seal given?
@@Iffmeister Upon faith in Christ
Eph1:13 -- "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"
@@koonhanong2267 yes, agreed. I'm not denying that.
Dr. Jordan Cooper
How is it you can go through a discussion on regeneration baptism and not mention the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:16
For those who believe and are baptized will be saved.......
referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Matthews 3:11
John the Baptist Baptist prepares the way for salvation...
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.
He will baptize you with the HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.
@Curtis MH I am curious whether or not you think the miracles of the Day of Pentecost was the ONLY instance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and with fire. This makes sense to me, as I do not know of any other place in the New Testament where this terminology is used. There are later cases of individuals receiving the Holy Spirit, and this is often in connection with the laying on of hands, but these events are NOT called baptisms. Was the miracle of Pentecost the Holy Spirit baptism for a Christian meeting of 120 like minded persons, resulting in the birth of the church which then became a Holy Spirit baptized entity that has continued ever since? If so, then does this means that when someone is water baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity today, they are baptized into the body of Christ, which is the same entity that received the baptism of the Holy Spirit about 2000 years ago? Similarly, are all people who are born into the world today baptized into Noah, such that the legacy of Noah's grace continues to this day for all people of all religions?
sacramental union
saying "we're saving by Spirit baptism, not water baptism" is like saying "Mary gave birth to the human side of Jesus, she is the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God"
Is this the most recent Themelios issue?
Quick question, since babies can have faith and we are commanded to give an effectual regenerative baptism onto them, does this mean that every baby of believers have faith before baptism? Or does that baptism creates the faith in them
The parents have faith
Trying really hard to understand infant baptism since I have always held the belief in believers baptism. Are you saying that all infants and children who die without receiving baptism are lost?
Baptists, such as Gavin Ortlund, teach that all infants are saved without faith. This is contrary to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and create two different ways of salvation.
The Bible teaches that Christ accepts the infants who are brought to him, credits them with faith, and grants them the Kingdom of God.
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant with [the disciples]. Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:13-16
Clarifying question. Are you saying that if someone explicitly did not want to be baptized but was physically forced to do so, then, in that case, objective salvation would be theirs and would be rejected at the same time, thus resulting in simultaneous objective salvation + rejection? This is what I'm understanding you to be saying, but I could totally be wrong, and I want to be corrected if I am.
Any Rabbinical blog or encyclopedia will have an article on forced baptisms in history. This certainly takes God's name in vain and causes him to be mocked and hated. So probably the best answer to your question is that forced baptism introduces uncertainty into a sacrament that is supposed to offer a comforting certainty.
_(You) Go and make disciples all nations, baptizing..._ The people Jesus commanded to do the baptizing are his Christisn disciples, not violent blasphemers. So it's already not according to his command.
_...make disciples of all nations, baptising..._ Baptism is intended to make disciples, not to coerce. More uncertainty.
@@Mygoalwogel thanks! My question isn't meant as a way to toy with serious matters. I think this would be a bad and disrespectful idea as well. I ask it as a way to find out what Jordan thinks it's going on in baptism. I think his answer to my question would be "yes," based on his video.
@@drsuessre14 Here are Luther's own words on when valid Baptism doesn't accompany true faith.
christian.net/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html
Can one have faith, say a fully grown convert, before they have been baptized?
I was baptized in a non-denominational Calvary Chapel Church. They teach a symbolic view of baptism and when I was baptized I believed that view. They used the proper Trinitarian invocation and use of water, but I now believe that baptism saves. Do I need to be re-baptized?
No. As Dr. Cooper was talking about in the video, the act of Baptism is objective, and that means what God says happened in your baptism happened. You have the ability to reject your baptism, and you have the ability to repent and trust in God that his work in baptism saves. All the promises of God in the scriptures about your baptism were given to you in your baptism, and as long as you put your faith in Christ's saving work, the promises of your baptism hold, even if your understanding of those promises changes over time. Your baptism still holds water.
If you were baptised on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and with water there is no need to re-baptise. Because thats still a valid Baptism then.
If you were baptised on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and with water there is no need to re-baptise. Because thats still a valid Baptism then.
@@Kaleidophoenix
Whilst I agree that the act of baptism is objective and doesn't need to be repeated, I don't agree with your statement that "you have the ability to reject your baptism, and you have the ability to repent and trust in God that his work in baptism saves." What you're saying in effect is that we have free will to respond either negatively or positively to God. However I don't agree that this is Biblical and neither did Luther. For instance in his Small Catechism Luther wrote: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Also he makes it plain in The Bondage of the Will that we also don't have the ability to reject God's Word as everything happens by absolute necessity and is predestined to happen. So if a person has faith or he doesn't have faith he can't change this situation by an effort of his own will, but is simply subject to God's will and His decision as to whether to save or damn a person.
@@Edward-ng8oo that's Calvinism. Lutheranism isn't necessarily in that category.
21:48 😂😂😂
Yay!
Hi Dr. Cooper. You mention that we have Biblical precedent for infant baptism, but not for pulling someone in off the road. However, you make the jump from household baptism equals or includes infant baptism without proving that point.
Please explain. Thank you.
There is are clear examples of Baptizing entire households. Did Children and infants exist in the Roman Empire? If you answer yes then the point is proven.
@@yellowblackbird9000 Thank you for your reply, but I think it's a logical nonsequitor (sp?). For example, if I said, "Children exist in North America, so children exist in every home." You would say, "No. Some homes are childless." Of greater importance, however, is the mention of the householders believing what the Apostles taught and then being baptized. Infants are unable to believe and they can't repent.
@@KD-bn8uq You'll have to prove a negative; that none of the baptized households included infants and children.
Now you've shifted the goalposts to belief. Infants can believe as Jesus says and John the Baptist proves.
15 People were bringing even their babies to Jesus, so that he would touch them. When the disciples saw this, they began to rebuke them. 16 But Jesus invited them, saying, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Amen I tell you: Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
- Luke 18:15-17
6 “But, if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe me to sin it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
- Matthew 18:6
41 Just as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
- Luke 1:41
@@yellowblackbird9000 I don't have to prove every household. I have to look at what the Scriptures, in this case, the book of Acts tells the reader about the specific households mentioned in the book of Acts.
@@KD-bn8uq It says they were Baptized.
Baptism is a sign, no one is saved because they participated in Baptism for 1 hour.
The Bible teaches Faith, love and Holiness, their has to be evidence of Salvation, Faith, love and Holiness.
You can get Baptized and go to Church on Sundays and the rest of the week be ungodly. Salvation is not 1 hour Baptism or just going to Church. The old testament called it circumcision of the heart, Faith, love and Holiness, love Christ and your neighbor. Mark 12:30-31 this is Salvation.
2:58
Baptism
A critique of Luther and baptism
5:19
It seems to me half of the babies baptised in my church are resisting. This gives me second thoughts. What if I resisted when I was a baby? What if, when I baptise my children, they resist? Should I force them? Should one force a toddler? At what point does one stop making the decision for another to be baptised?
Do you mean that they cry or something?
@@Mygoalwogel Yes. It makes me think. At what age is it no longer ok to drag ones children to the fount.
@@MortenBendiksen I have three kids. When my oldest was a newborn, hunger made him cry so hard he couldn't latch onto mommy to eat. It took my wife a long time to believe it wasn't harming him to smash his little face onto her so that he would eat. She thought it looked like she was suffocating him. But it worked and he was happy to eat. By the third kid, she was a pro at recognizing what babies want and need, and helped several other timid moms. Crying babies aren't necessarily communicating what we think they're communicating.
@@Mygoalwogel I get it :) I see the baptism of babies the same way as with the feeding you describe. It will nourish even if they cry. My question is more about where that leads though. If it nourishes the baby, even though he outwardly seems to not want it, wouldn't the same reasoning apply to a larger kid, and a youth, and a grown up? Where is the limit? Why do we at one point decide it's up to the person to decide for himself?
@@MortenBendiksen Now that's a good question. I'm not going to try to answer it. It's beyond me. But you're making me recall my own childhood in this regard.
My uncle is a Lutheran pastor who always respected his kids' wishes regarding spirituality. If they didn't want to go to church, pray, or do a devotion, he didn't make them. None of them claim to be a Christian today. My parents were more authoritative. We'll see what happens with me and my siblings. That did leave me with uncomfortable questions that I still can't make sense of.
I'm blessed that my kids get upset if I dare try sending them to bed without a Bible story, songs, prayers, and Catechism. Little legalistic pharisees always forcing me to bow to their hyperdox piety. Can't I just sit on the sofa and watch Mind Hunters with my wife some nights? (I jest.)
Out of curiosity, would a Lutheran deny that people professing Christ without being baptized are not true Christians? I'm thinking especially about groups like the Quakers, who have historically not done water baptism. I'm sure it is a huge problem, but I have friends from this background, and I'm trying to figure out how intensely I should talk with them about it.
I would not consider those who refuse the sacrament to be Christians.
Makes sense. Welp, better to tell them the truth and see change than act like everything is okay. I've never really understood why people would be resistant to baptism in the first place. Thanks for the response!
Hi Dr Cooper, I’m a non-denom Christian. I believe I am saved but I’m not baptised, does this mean I’m going to hell? Im just confused, everyone has always told me baptism means a spiritual baptism
Hi Magdalena. We can't pretend to know what happens to people who don't receive full instruction in the faith. On the one hand, we believe that Jesus' call to make disciples, baptize, and teach is very urgent. On the other hand, we don't tell mourners at funerals that their loved one went to hell. Christ judges the living and the dead. We don't. And he was embarrassingly kind, compassionate and gracious to everyone he met. What is preventing you from being baptized?
Thanks for asking and searching your heart in this matter. "He who began this good work in you will carry it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."
Mygoalwogel I don’t belong to any church, which is why I’m non denom, I have huge social anxiety with churches and have always felt like an outcast in them, it would take a while for anyone to baptise me in any church here. Thanks for the answer :)
Magdalena, you are asking the wrong person. This Church of Christ person believes that baptism saves you rather than Jesus Christ saving you through His death and resurrection. If you have trusted Christ that He died for YOUR sins and rose again, you are already saved. But that is no reason not to get baptised. My wife was raised Catholic and later in life received a deeper understanding of Christ crucified at a Baptist church. Then years later she got baptised in the ocean with a group of people. This experience deepened her faith that much more because she identified with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection while she was “getting dunked”. It was very meaningful to her, but it had nothing to do with her initial salvation which had happened years earlier. So you should desire to be baptised, but if you die on the way there, rest assured that you will still go to heaven. But the idea that getting immersed in water adds something to the finished work of Christ is insulting to Him who died for you. God said that He would never leave you nor forsake you. So I recommend highly that you trust your Heavenly Father and not these self proclaimed experts. They take 4 or 5 verses out of context from the Bible and build a whole doctrine around it. But nothing we do can add to what Jesus already did. He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that you can ask, think, or imagine. Anyway, avoid these self righteous Pharisees and you will spare yourself a lot of heart ache, as well as headaches from listening to their confusing doctrines.
What I don't accept is that the Lutheran perspective on resistible grace was also Luther's position. On the subject of infant baptism Luther didn't say that God willed to grant all infants the faith to believe and that the infant could resist being regenerated, but rather that it was up to God to want to grant faith to that infant. He says for instance in his Large Catechism:
“That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit. ….. We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith.” (Tappert)
The onus is on God to grant faith to a particular individual in order that he may be regenerated not that the recipient in baptism shouldn’t resist being regenerated. This is in conformity with Luther’s position in The Bondage of the Will where he makes a distinction between the outward drawing of the Gospel which doesn’t regenerate anyone and the inner drawing through the Holy Spirit which irresistibly regenerates people:
“But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man is rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively, to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself.” (page 286, Vol 33, Luther's Works).
Also this selective choosing by God to grant faith to whom He will is the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in article 5. To interpret article 5 to mean that God wills to regenerate everyone through the Word and Holy Spirit is foreign to the text:
“To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.” (Tappert)
You lost me when you said that baptism brings about faith. Maybe you have an answer, but why would someone be baptized if they didn't have faith beforehand? Like for example Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. I'm open to the idea of infant baptism, and I definitely believe baptism is a part of salvation, but to me, I can't see it as a hard line beginning to salvation, because I think faith should lead a person(an adult, at least), to baptism, not the other way around.
Also, I do believe baptism saves, at least as a part of salvation, but it's interesting, Jesus said one must be born by water AND spirit. There were several times in Acts these things happened separately. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul speaks of the baptism of the sea AND the baptism of the cloud. They may happen at the same time, or one before the other, the water first, or the spirit first in the case of Cornelius. It's also significant, I think, that the effect of the blood of the lamb came before the baptism of the sea in the Exodus narrative, and that the cloud was present before and after the sea.
Salvation is a journey of faith that isn't started by baptism, but includes baptism as a necessary component. And sometimes faith comes after in the application of what baptism brings to us, like in Romans 6, where Paul tells the believers to reckon themselves dead to sin based on their baptism which buries them in Christ's death and raises them in his resurrection. That reality, even though it came from baptism, would not come into effect until they reckoned it to be so by faith. This was my experience when learning so many years later what the reality of my baptism was.
I think the infant baptism debate stems more from augustines debate with Pelagius and not the early church. I think churches that came out of the reformation took the word baptism from a 15th century context and not a 1st century context. And for that matter every time we see the word baptize in the bible we should cross it out and put emerse. Luther and Calvin were highly influenced by Augustine. Augustine unfortunately brought in some of his pegan beliefs (manichism and Gnosticism) to Christianity. The Christian church prior to Augustine never believed that people were so depraived that they would never come to God unless he some how irresistibly drew them. Unfortunately Luther and Calvin and ultimately Augustine introduces the idea of prefaith regeneration which is unbiblical.
Oh please tell me you haven't been listening to Ken Wilson on "Augustinian Calvinism" because his arguments against infant baptism are so wack and false. Jordan Cooper has said as much himself so I hope he refutes it one day.
When it comes to this issue Ken Wilson and Leighton Flowers are not your friends. The church fathers were unanimous on baptismal regeneration and affirmed it for children
Please, you seem (I'm not sure, sorry) to know very little of augustine, as he didn't held pagan or gnostic beliefs after conversion. You are holding some kind of evangelical or pentecostal belief you got somewhere, maybe in the Internet.
@@eduds6 yeah that's correct. This is just absolutely false.
He Nicholas, if you're interested here's an article with quotes from every single major church father regarding baptism from 70 Ad to the late 400s
False dichotomy vs contradiction.
“Complete justification”? Could that be Calvinist for “both” parts of double predestination? 😉
If infant baptism was supported by Scripture, there would be at least one example in the Bible, and at least a clear command. No verse commands us to baptize infants. We have examples of both for adults, and such examples is being submerged into water.
If women taking communion was supported by scripture, there would be at least one example in the Bible and at least a clear command. No verse commands us to commune women. We have examples of both for men.
I’m not trying to be mean or mock you, but hopefully, even if you continue holding to you’re own position, you can see the faulty logic in your argument and come up with better ones in the future.
The peace of our Lord be with you always.
@@kolab5620 Sorry, but I must prove that your theology is wrong again. Acts 2:43-47 says that ALL who believed attended the temple together and broke bread in their homes….” According to your foolish line of reasoning, “ALL who believed” who were in their homes did not include the wives. LOL!
If you want to debate the topic using Scripture alone, I am more than willing. Please do. Please. You are seriously deceived.
@@nberrios777"you are seriously deceived"
You are going against the proclamation of the church for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
Similarly, you probably think communion has no real presence. The first believer of that false doctrine was Zwingli. He himself reports that he came to that conclusion due to a *message from an angel in a dream.*
Brother. That is not legitimate, and it is certainly not any 'sola scriptura.' It is literally demonic messaging.
@@nberrios777 "LOL!"
First of all, don't be rude or dismissive in your response. That's not appropriate christian behavior especially against a Christian Brother.
Second, I would agree that 'ALL' in Acts 2 refers to women as well. But it's not "an example of or command to" commune women. If someone wanted to they could just as easily say to you "We are told that everyone who 'Believed' took communion, but we are never explicitely told that the wives believed. Therefore we still can't commune women." But the obvious response to that (at least what I think would be obvious) is to say "Communion is a sign of the covenant. The new covenant is broader than the old. there is no command to forbid women from receiving communion by virtue of being a woman. Conclusion: Women can receive Communion. I think the same logic Applies to Infant Baptism.
Third, sorry for not responding sooner. If you're still listening I'd love to hear your reply back. :)
@@kolab5620 Paul called the Galatians foolish. It is sometimes necessary to rescue people from false doctrines by using direct language. Therefore your argument is indeed foolish. Why?
1) Here is a very clear command from Christ to His followers: “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
2) Infants are obviously unable to acknowledge and remember Christ.
Something I've found interesting about your videos is that you tend to ask what did Luther mean when he said X. I see where Catholics think that if they take down Luther the whole Reformation falls. I would say Sola Scriptura overrides Luther and his catechisms, and overrides Calvinism TULIP, etc, etc.
Anyone who holds to Sola Scriptura should of course agree that the Scriptures take precedence, and that any interpretation of Scripture is only true in so far as it agrees with it. Luther's theology is generally understood by Lutherans to be in conformity to the teaching of Scripture and therefore they don't see any essential divide between asking what did Luther teach on a subject and what does Scripture teach. Where there's disagreement is that not everyone agrees on what exactly Luther did teach on some subjects. I for instance hold that Luther held to double predestination and this is what the Scriptures teach, whereas the great majority of Lutherans think he only believed in single predestination and that the Scriptures teach that.
I think this is an excellent point. I was raised Lutheran and believe Lutherans Rey far too heavily on the catechism and do not rely upon or understand the Word of God, the Holy Bible, nearly enough.
This comes in the example of how the Lutheran catechism follows the catholic teaching of changing the Ten Commandments and how they are presented in the Holy Bible. The Catholics remove the second commandment stating we shall not worship any image under heaven…including mother Mary.
The Catholics stripped this away, and broke the tenth commandment into two in order to keep the 10 count….strangely enough, many Lutherans are completely unaware of this fact. They carry on trusting in the Lutheran catechism rather than reading the Holy Bible for themselves.
It’s a very slippery slope. It’s far to easy to believe false teachings and half truths if you do not research facts from the Bible. Do not rely on Martin Luther or any other, but the Bible alone.
The Holy Spirit is efficacious. He effectually calls the Elect unto salvation. Faith is the instrument granted and wrought unto our justification.
Baptism communicates this efficacious work of the Spirit and seals Gods promise that He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved.
You need to distinguish between infant and believer’s baptism when you talk about “baptism”. Believer’s baptism is an exercise of faith, so faith and baptism aren’t in any way dichotomous. Infant baptism is an exercise of someone else’s faith, at best, and if you believe in it as an objective means of grace, now we’re talking sacramentalism (as far as I can tell), and that’s a whole different discussion.
The fact that you speak without even making this distinction makes me feel, as a non Lutheran, that I’ve walked into very foreign territory, similar to listening to Catholics talk. I don’t think you want to come across like that, but you’re not helping yourself out.
Yes, I would like to see some discussion on believer’s baptism. I was a Lutheran for the first 46 years of my life. When ELCA went liberal, I joined a Mennonite church who upheld the Bible in areas of non-female ministry, women’s headcovering, and other current social issues. Mennonites baptize only adults who make a profession of faith (born again, if you will). That being said, I have lone seen Lutheran baptism used as a ‘lucky charm’ for their children in the area of salvation. The family is never seen again till another child comes along. Some pastors will baptize anyone coming in off the street, in hopes of the family joining the church. This rarely brings anyone into the church. I see infant baptism working only if the parents keep the the vows THEY make at the child’s baptism. Compare it to a garden: one must prepare the soil before sowing the seed or there will be no growth. Baptism is a very serious thing and promises made are lifelong. Even those baptized as adults fall away and break their vows. I would love see a debate on this with a conservative Mennonite!!!!!
@@ruthgoebel723 when rhe ELCA went liberal you should have switched to a real Lutheran church like the one Pastor Dr. Cooper goes to. Or LCMS or ELS or WELS or Eldona.
@@Dilley_G45 I know that now, but there are none in my area. It is very much ELCA, sadly.
@@ruthgoebel723 we don't have a conservative Lutheran church here....for this and other reasons I decided to be a guest in several churche. One is orthodox. Only problem is ...no communion. But I wont have to lie or pretend to subscribe to heresies like calvinism or renouncing my baptism (for baptistic Churches) in order to become a member.
@@ruthgoebel723 I was trying an Anglican, but you never know if it's a conservative or liberal one here unless you visit. They're one denomination. I don't wanna walk into a church then find out there is a woman pastor and then race to find another church before service is over 😄
Good grief. Thank you, Protestantism, for completly muddying the waters of Christian belief.
The tapestry you try to weave with your handful of baptism verses does not depict the Christ who died for the sins of the world.
Yes more on this please. More evidence thar baptism does save. I am trying to convince people at work of this
The name of God it's THE FATHER please do not change is name. Water baptism came by John , came from the law and we are no more under the law. It's was given to the Jews it symbolize the one who is coming after John and who will baptize them WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT .Repentance is not from the flesh but it's from the sanctification work of the holy spirit in the born again man. Merci.
Baptism washes away sin, "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins", Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21). Faith alone is not found in Holy Scripture except to negate it, "it is by WORKS and not by faith alone that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24, Matthew 25:35-42, Romans 2:6-8). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Matt Slick recently debated a Church of Christ feller.
Daniel Willis
How are Catholics demonized for the sacramental system when you recognize that there is at least one sacrament (maybe also the Lord’s supper) that is necessary for salvation?
-thoughtful Catholic convert
Also, why can’t the Eucharist create faith, or the sacrament of confession?
@@danielwillis3508 Lutherans don't demonize the papacy for sacramental theology. It's for the monetary sale of holy things and the use of sword and fire against protestants in the middle ages, as well as for the anathematisation of the Augsburg Confession.
@@danielwillis3508 Suggesting that the Supper can create faith for the first time is uncatholic. Only the baptised absolved believer may partake. The Supper does strengthen the weak faith of those who know their own godliness is unable to save them.
One of the issues I have with infant baptism is a practical one. People who were baptized as infants have no memory of the baptism experience and so the event has no meaning for them.
We were planning a baptism service in our church recently and had some young men who were recommitting their lives to the Lord. I asked them if they had ever been baptized and they weren't sure and had to ask their parents if they had been. Their parents told them had indeed been baptized as infants but it was obvious the event had no meaning to them.
I believe baptism should be a special day in a person's life and an event they can look back on as when they received Jesus as Savior and Lord.
Through that logic, I have no memory of my birth experience and so the event has no meaning for me. I have no memory of people praying for me while I was unconscious and so the event has no meaning for me. Etc. Why do you have to have a memory of an event for it to have meaning, especially something God gives to you?
@@harryedmon380 In the examples you cited, although the individual has no memory of the event, they see the relationship between the event and their current experience. Although a person does not remember their birth they are currently alive and can relate that back to their birth.
In the example of the two young men, they were currently following Christ but could not relate that to their baptism as an infant. To them, it had no effect on their current walk with God one way or another.
@@eastsidefellowship2511 The problem is looking at baptism as an experiential event that you have to feel for it to be effective. I cling to the fact of my baptism and the promises God attaches to it. God is faithful in giving me the benefits of baptism no matter how I feel about it as long as I have faith in His promises. One of my favorite hymns about baptism is Lutheran Service Book #594 - "God's Own Child, I Gladly Say It".
Eastside Fellowship Baptism regenerates whether or not you realize or remember it.
Now, if you reject the faith than you’ve resisted the grace of God given *in and through* your baptism - but if you persevere in faith, that is the working of baptism in your life.
If you were baptized (any time in your life) and you are a believing Christian - that’s because of your baptism and the Holy Spirit working in your life through it.
@@vngelicath1580 Not necessarily arguing the regenerative power of baptism. Just the practical implications of when a person experiences it. A person can certainly persevere in faith and walk with God even if they don't remember their baptism.