Here’s one thing you can say about Dr. O: he is definitely not here to shirk from the tough questions on his side of the apologetics debates, and he’s not here to cut down straw men!
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. However, I wanted to get baptized during that time. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
@@bradentutt6642 I believe all believers will be led by the Holy Spirit to be baptized. But it is not water baptism that gives us the Holy Spirit-it is the spiritual baptism we get when saved. You should become a member at a biblical Church and get baptized to proclaim your faith in Christ.
@@ShepherdMinistryThat makes no sense, if all thats you believe you should get baptized in private. Just as you should pray in private and not before men so you may boast like the pharasies.
At 14:00, Acts 9 does not say the Spirit "descends" on Paul when Ananias lays his hands on him. Ananias communicates to Paul his purpose of being there, "that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." This does not mean it was through his hands that Paul was regenerated. Interestingly, scales fell off his eyes (which is how he regained his sight) and was baptized (how he received the Holy Spirit). That to me is the most natural reading.
The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why (at that time), only that I should do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Adult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@mynameis......23 I agree. I received the Holy Spirit the moment I accepted Jesus as my Savior. That is who impelled me to be subsequently water baptized. The water didn't cleanse or save me; repentance from sin and faith in Christ did. Believers are baptized ONCE into the body of Christ, but there are many fillings throughout his/her life.
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. I wanted to get baptized though. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
I have diligently studied baptism, it is amazing how so many have it wrong. Baptism has to do with the conscience. Baptism or submission into the name of Jesus. If one does not even know who Jesus is, that person can not by any biblical standard be considered baptized. The act in and of itself does not possess any kind of power whatsoever.
Agreed!! The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why, only that I should do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Thankful for your work on this. As a baptist from pretty much birth, I really appreciate how you have introduced me to nuance on different positions and the way to properly discuss and advocate for a view. Your method gives great weight to the message you give.
Hey Gavin Thanks for a respectful and honest look at baptism! I'm a Lutheran who's pretty hooked at baptismal regeneration (I think the last Cyril quote pretty much sums up my view). I learned a lot! I admittedly thought the Baptist view was more of a "just a symbol"-view. Glad to have that nuanced.
@@TruthUnites Which baptism is related to salvation? The Word “Baptize”: 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,
Being Ex-Church of Christ, this is what ultimately convinced me. We have Faith to even ask to be Water Baptized, otherwise why would we even get Water Baptized. So we have Faith prior to Water Baptism. Romans 5:1 states that it's Faith that Justifies us. If we are Justified at the moment of Water Baptism then it cannot be Faith that Justifies us, because we already had that Faith prior.
Awesome video. The language of metonymy - I love that. Feels true to the text, in contrast to some well-intentioned “workarounds” that satisfy no one. Well-researched and thought out. Helpful to me. Thanks Gavin!
“A larger spiritual category of language of cleansing water that baptism participates in and fulfills and points to baptism but baptism does not exhaust it.”
Hi Gavin, this was so helpful. It came along at the right time for me. Thanks for the nuanced arguments. There is a lot of confusion in my corner of the world about this.
I do disagree with your conclusions, but I respect so much your candor, respect, and thoughtfulness of complexities. I appreciate you thinking things through and not just repeating the same arguments that get passed around. You gave this our own thoughts, and at least consider and acknowledge how those who don't think as you may come to their conclusions, and you explain their positions well. Of those who don't believe baptism in water in Jesus's name is involved n being saved, yours is by far the best presentation I've seen.
As a baptist minister I find your videos really helpful. I see baptism as a part of theosis (I tend to lean to the East on a few subjects). If you get a chance you should read Mark the Monk’s Counsels on the Spiritual Life from the popular patristics series. In the introduction Tim Vivian writes about the different views that some of the fathers had. They certainly weren’t all in agreement.
@@Momof15plusDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@Momof15plusAdult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
For anyone interested, in his Large Catechism, Luther addresses the Anabaptist objection as it relates to Sola Fide and the Lutheran Confession concerning Holy Baptism. He affirms Sola Fide, but recognizes, quite rightly, that Faith must have an object to which it clings. Ultimately, that object is the Person and Work of Christ, but He is grasped as He is given through the Means of Grace. There is no contradiction between Sola Fide and Baptismal Regeneration. I realize, Dr. Ortlund, that you were charitable on this point, but for any who are interested in how Luther addresses the matter, look into his Large Catechism.
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@marcuswilliams7448 I say it because I used to believe both without question, but when actually reading the Bible and challenged to support it then it became impossible. Neither are taught anywhere in the Bible, which tells us that only the one who does what is righteous is righteous, just as Jesus *is* righteous by doing what is righteous (1 John 3:7). You won’t find a single verse that says a Christian was imputed the righteous acts Jesus performed 2000 years ago as if the Christian performed them. Not a single verse. Also, James is clear we are justified by works (James 2:24). Paul is also clear we are justified by works when the Holy Spirit works through our works (Romans 8:1-4; Galatians 6:7-10). Paul on “faith apart from works” would be interpreted correctly if Luther had simply accepted the rational position that every church writer understood before him including Augustine: the works which Paul says do not save are works done apart from the Holy Spirit.
@@IAmisMaster St. Paul actually asserts that God justifies the ungodly, apart from works (Rom. 4). How is it, then, that you can assert that only those who are righteous are the justward moving people? In addition, it would be tautological for St. Paul to mean "works done apart from the Holy Spirit" when referring to the ungodly being justified apart from works. So, the Apostle is better understood in consideration of Titus 3 when, very clearly, he asserts that God saved us, not because of works done by us *in righteousness*. What are your further thoughts on this?
Thanks for this!! Re your last point, I’m struck by Gregory of Nyssa’s warning: The baptismal water may be applied to the body, but if the soul hasn’t cleansed itself from the filth of its sinful passions, and your life after baptism is no different to your life before baptism, your baptism in water was a mere experience of water and nothing else. A bold thing to say, but I won’t flinch from saying it! If this is the nature of your baptismal birth, the gift of the Holy Spirit in no way appears. How have you been changed, if your life is still distorted by anger or inflamed by greed, and the divine image in you is warped by uncontrolled and tasteless thoughts, by self-importance, resentment, arrogance? What if you still hold onto the fruits of dishonesty, and carry on committing adultery? If such vices still cling to you, I can’t see how you have been changed at all; I see the same person I saw before you were baptised. Someone may have been washed in the bath of baptism, but what good is that, if the people he treated badly, accused wrongly, and stole from, see no difference in him? …A baptised person who is morally unchanged, and yet jabbers nonsensically about the blessing he has received from baptism, needs to hear Paul: “If a man thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Gal.6:3). If you haven’t become a thing, you are not that thing. “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become God’s sons” (Jn.1:12). Thus the Gospel speaks of the new birth. A child through its birth has the same nature as its parent. If, then, you have received God, and become a child of God, show by your attitudes that God dwells in you; exhibit in yourself the One who begot you! The Great Catechism, ch.40
“If a man claims to be converted, and continues to be just as mean, spiteful and snobbish as he was before, we may rightly suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary.” CS Lewis
Your taking that letters out of context, in fact prior to that texts, St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly mentioned that Baptism is a spiritual birth[or regeneration], here's the quote that you did not include: "Baptism is a spiritual birth, but he who is born by spiritual birth must recognize by whom he is born and what kind of creature he must become. In physical birth, those who are born owe their life and existence to the impulse of their parents, but the spiritual birth is in control of the one who is being born. It is the only birth where we can choose and determine what kind of beings we are to become. Now it is evident to everyone that we must receive the saving birth of baptism for the purpose of growth and renewal and changing in our nature …" Take note that he called it[Baptism] as 1.) Spiritual birth. 2.) Saving birth. Don't take the letters out of context.
In addition with, St. Gregory of Nyssa mentioned again on his writings titled "ON THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST" "...Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration..." This is evidently clear that St. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't support the Baptist doctrine of Baptism.
The words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, a Catholic Bishop, are very Catholic. If one is baptized yet continues in mortal sin, the gift of baptism - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace is lost. There is no blessing as the blessing (gift) was lost. The physical act of baptism without the conversion of heart does nothing.
Appreciate your gentle approach to difficult topics. This is a something that has been extremely perplexing for me as the Bible seemingly points in both directions at times. Your analysis and especially the graduation analogy has given me some peace about this. My brothers and I are about to read Finding the Right Hills to Die On together and finding your UA-cam channel has me pumped to read your books!
I believe that one of the reasons why there is much confusion over baptism, is because most people have jumbled together baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit. These are two separate and distinct occasions for the Christian, and only one of these does the Scripture call a "sealing". Namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit.
the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place with the indwelling presence that follows baptism. There is only ONE baptism per scripture, and it is water baptism as seen in the eunuch and Phillip conversion, several things happen in water baptism; sins are forgiven, the indwelling of the HS takes place. regeneration as a new person since the sins are removed and you start over as a child. GOD makes all these changes, the wat er makes none of them. It is just the time and place.
@@timbabb5348 Hello again Tim. Hope you are well. I know we discussed this topic at length previously. Let me ask you: How are we Justified (Made right/ righteous) with God? I think this question relates to the topic at hand
Pastor Ortlund I have on several occasions, because I have e few relatives that are Church of Christ, had discussions on baptismal regeneration and the Biblical truth of Grace alone by Faith alone. I’m a fairly new Christian, 14 years, Praise Jesus, and have been drawn to apologetics,namely the various differences in the way the Bible has been interpreted. Thank you for your Biblical and logic based teaching.
Interesting. I believe in baptismal regeneration, in the sense that it is part of the salvation process, but I do not believe that if someone genuinely repent of their sins, and believes on the Lord Jesus and dies of a heart attack 30 minutes later before they come to the understanding, or have the opportunity for baptism that they would be lost. If someone were to refuse to take on the name of the Lord Jesus and baptism after they are illuminated, I would be very concerned, but some people are just confused. I definitely believe God is working in baptism for sure, but I definitely do not go, so far as the church of Christ does.
Rewatched this - super helpful, thanks again. Had trouble getting my 4 year old to agree to a nap (she’s sick), starting playing this video and she was snoring in minutes! Haha so you helped us both
A heart-felt thanks to you brother Gavin, for being an honest searcher. Your thoughts echo that which has also been written by George R. Beasley-Murray's book "Baptism in The New Testament"
Thanks, Gavin. That's a great quote of Henry Lawrence at 9:47 and your comment on that - "so if we were to take a distinction here between the grace by which god brings us into a state of salvation and the grace by which god nourishes and strengthens and furthers us in our salvation the baptist tradition puts baptism in the latter category"
28:18. Gideon Lazar who is a Roman Catholic who debated Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers on evolution brought up that there were ECFs who did not believe in water baptismal salvation for the causation of salvation. As a former Roman Catholic, I had not heard that before, and I had not read of any examples of this, until I heard it here. It was helpful hearing that you can find examples from Justin Martyr in the second century to Cyril of Jerusalem well into the fourth century. Do you have any other examples like this, or know where to find them? I think where the early church really swayed on this issue, particularly in the west is that when we read the book of Acts, generally when someone came to Faith, they were immediately baptized, nearly always the same day. I can see where this eventually led those in the early church to believe and conflate that water baptism regenerates a person to salvation BECAUSE it was done on the same day. This is a non sequitur though and cannot be deduced from the text. Thanks for this, and Merry Christmas to you and your family, Dr Ortlund!
I really enjoyed this! I attend a Baptist church, although personally, I've never been fully settled on exactly what that it means or who should be baptized. I really enjoy listening what you have to say about it! You're extremely thoughtful and careful, and you don't just ignore history on the subject. I would love to hear some thoughts sometime about the mode of baptism. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling, leaning backwards, leaning forwards, words of institution, etc. That's a lot, but I love to hear your thoughts!
People should be immersed for baptism, as that is what was done in Scripture. The Greek used for believer's baptism in Scripture is always Baptizo (to immerse), and never Rhantizo (to pour/sprinkle). Rhantizo does exist in Scripture, but never in regards to believer's baptism. Thus, the proper way to baptize is by immersion. Those that pour/sprinkle are incorrect. Leaning backwards or forwards, dunking numerous times, and whatever wording is to be used is subjective and not addressed in Scripture.
Hey Dr Ortlund I’ve enjoyed your channel, keep it up. A few suggestions in regards to baptism. 1) faith and baptism in Acts seem to be closely correlated in terms or time. That’s to say no long spans of time between believing and being baptized (Ethiopian Eunuch and Jailer- Acts 8 & 16. Almost an urgency in being baptized upon faith- eunuch on the side of the road and jailer/ family in the middle of the night. 2) I hope this makes sense but Biblically I would correlate faith and baptism with the covenant rather than regeneration. Regeneration being an inner work of the Spirit whereas the language of counted righteous and signs/sealing are I believe clearly covenantal actions. 3) Abraham is justified by faith but circumcision is a necessity to remain in covenant. To refuse circumcision is to be cut off from the covenant people. 4) Paul seems to say in Ro 6, Gal 3 and Phil 2 that baptism unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection particularly. Blessings to you.
The Catholic way to phrase the "baptism as seal" view would be that baptism is an actual grace that ignites and ensures the believer in the sanctifying grace of the regeneration he has already received from the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is the new circumcision Colossians 2:11. This is one of the reasons why we baptize babies at 8 days old. Circumcision was to be performed at 8 days old according to Genesis 17:10-14. Thus we baptize babies at 8 days old being that Baptism is the new circumcision.
@@timothy9360 Yes, that parallel makes sense, and we must also highlight that circumcision is the shadow but baptism is the effectual sign that unites sinners to Jesus.
@@lhinton281 baptism represents a few things really. It comes from the Jewish mikvah. The high priest was to wash in the mikvah before entering the Holy room. Being that we are all spiritual priests under the new covenant. Baptism is also the new mikvah. But it's also a way of washing away sins. Such as God sprinkling with water to wash them of their idolatry. As stated in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Baptism is also the actual birth of being born again without entering the womb. It is the representation of the womb. The physical birth out of the birth canal without going back into the womb as a grown man.
Thank you for this thoughtful, nuanced video. I would like to address some of the points made in the video. 1) Personal experience. The word of God must be the basis for how we perceive reality, not vice versa. So, while it certainly is valuable and shouldn´t be ignored, I´d be careful with stressing personal experience too much. 2) You addressed the instances in the book of Acts. With Cornelius Peter was obviously not willing to baptize him, so God had to reverse the order. Acts 2:38 presents the general order: repent, be baptized and you will receive the Spirit. And Peter adds that this is God´s promise for as many as the Lord will call to himself. So it´s not just for that specific situation in Acts 2. 3) Baptism as the cause (or not) of regeneration. I think Colossians 2:12 answers that question. Paul says we were raised in baptism through faith (which also conclusively excludes the concept of ex opere operato and its application in pedobaptism) So faith is what makes God regenerate us, but he does so in baptism - at least in normal cases. 4) So how do we reconcile that with the personal experience of many of us? Simple, many people today don´t understand that in the NT baptism was similar to the "sinner´s prayer", it was the concrete step of committing your life of Christ. So obviously that is the step where God normally gives new life. But since God cares primarily about the heart he regenerates these insufficiently taught people prior to the normal step usually required for salvation. We are producing Cornelius experiences en masse because like Peter in Acts 10 we work with insufficient understanding. But it shouldn´t be that way if we follow the simple biblical order. In sum, while God has grace with ignorance it shouldn´t be further encouraged and seen as the norm.
Or this from Cyril: "Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John's was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ."
Atleast some folks seem to get wet and yet continue unchanged in carnal lives with no distinct observable difference...in those cases how would one conclude to affirm fool proof baptismal regeneration?
Hello Gavin! I have that book by Stanley Flowers. It is a great book. Thanks early Baptist have a similar view to the church of christ. Especially the British Baptist. Thanks for your channel. I think that baptism is the meeting point of your faith and God uses it to wash away sin and give the Holy Spirit.
I have to say the issue of Baptism is the hardest for me to understand. Like you said in the video there are so many "exceptions" to the rule, in fact, I have only seen "exceptions" to the rule. The issue of the bible stating that faith saves. But then what do we do with "Now, baptism saves you"? It's hard. But during the video i thought of the Eucharist. In a way, the Eucharist is salvific. Through it we are furthered in Sanctification, we are further united to Christ who is our Salvation etc. But some is obviously regenerated and justified before their first Eucharist participation. I don't know what do you think Gavin? Thanks for the work.
It's a great point and yes, I think that understanding baptism as a means of grace but not cause of regeneration leads to greater consistency between the two sacraments, and also greater continuity with their O.T. precursors (circumcision and the Passover).
@@TruthUnites "means of grace but not cause of regeneration." But aren't we regenerated by grace? What if it's both/and: we are both regenerated through initial justification and forgiveness (counted righteous) and continually regenerated through sanctification (made righteous). Since that would mean regeneration is not a one-time-only thing, regeneration apart from baptism would not exclude baptismal regeneration (?)
@@abbyschubert5637 there are some people who define regeneration like that, but I think the more common way of understanding it, and the one I use, is that regeneration is being made alive to God. So it is a one-time act. If someone thinks that baptism is regenerative in the sense of imparting new life to the one receives it in faith and is already spiritually alive, I have no objection to that.
The question is, can a person truly believe/be saved and *_refuse_* to be Baptized? Or will Baptism always accompany true and saving faith, whenever possible?
I would think so, since growth sometimes comes to a halt. It really depends how much understanding there is. Maybe that person hears the gospel on a trip and believes but then goes back to a place where there is no church and other believers and so no more growth...
@@timbabb5348 consider this possibility: By belief (faith), we are baptized with the Spirt (as also seen in Acts 10). What if the baptism of Mark 16:16 is a baptism of the Spirt? And note how this possibility flows with the entire verse (as your quote did not have the entire verse): “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Consider that an unbeliever is not baptized with the Spirit. There is no category here for a believer who has not been baptized (with water) I’m not saying this is any kind of certainty…just a possible way to reconcile these points. God bless
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Are you referring to the speaking in tongues the Gentiles did for the benefit of those with Peter to convince them the gospel was for the gentiles? That "baptism" you are calling was for the benefit of someone else. Like the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost for the benefit of the listeners. That would not be a saving "baptism of the spirit" because it wasn't for the benefit of those the Spirit fell on. It was for the benefit of others. When Ananias told Paul to "be baptized", that was not a spirit baptism, it was water baptism where God removes your sins. Paul had faith, but he was still covered in His sins. Nowhere is a "spirit baptism" mentioned in relation to someone being saved. It was water baptism for the Ethiopian eunuch , for example. and you can't get yourself "spirit baptized", but you can get yourself water baptized. IN acts 10 Peter ordered the gentiles to be baptized so their sins could be removed and receive the Holy Spirit as in acts 2:38.
Thanks, Dr Ortlund, for another great video. As a lifelong Baptist, I have never found the arguments for infant or regenerative baptism compelling, but I confess I have sometimes wondered what the point of the whole thing is. Why be commanded to do something that doesn't actually achieve anything? And yet the thought of it achieving anything goes so strongly against our understanding of sola fide that I can't quite stomach it. I am longing for a more complete and nuanced understanding, and working through your videos is enormously helpful. I'd love some time to hear more about the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance (growing up Baptist, I just never heard the word 'sacrament'), and also Catholic/Protestant understandings of grace. What does it mean for something to be a 'means of grace', as you say in your video? Is grace something that's doled out piecemeal, or applied to us wholesale and you're either in it or you're not? You now, just in case you don't have four or five dozen ideas queued up for your next videos already ;)
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@IAmisMaster The texts you’ve provided do not refute sola fide, you’ve misunderstood them. I would be happy to discuss them all with you on Discord. Let me know!
Enjoy your videos Dr Ortlund I havent done a deep dive, but knew I wanted to be baptised as Jesus was baptised. After Jesus' baptism, He was tempted and then began his ministry. I like the account in Matthew 3, and kind of chuckle when I read the text "John consented" after Jesus tells John it is proper to fulfill righteousness. 😂 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Growing up in Oneness Pentecostalism I was always told salvation is water baptism (in Jesus name) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with evidence of “speaking in tongues”. After struggling with this false doctrine God opened my eyes when reading Romans. I’m thankful but many are falling into this heresy due to lack of knowledge about it.
Hi Gavin-I’d love to dialogue about this! I’m an Anglican seminary student, and I actually started as a Baptist with the exact sacramental-Baptist view you describe (Baptism is a sign, seal, and means of grace associate with but not causative of salvation). But here’s why I’ve come to adopt a Reformed Anglican view called Baptismal Efficacy. First, to understand the view, we need to situate this within continual justification. Contra a lot of evangelicals, it’s not the case Biblically that God justified me and forgave me once and done. God continually justifies (=regards as righteous) and continually gives me the forgiveness of sins. His continual justification (not the Roman Catholic view of making righteous, but of continually regarding me as righteous through faith) involves continually giving me the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is situated within this sort of view. Hence, adult converts can indeed (and even, perhaps, normally) be justified, regenerated, and given the Spirit prior to their baptism. That doesn’t negate the reality that God continually justifies (=forgives sins and regards me as righteous), and even continually regenerates (=sustains me in being as a new creation). In this context, Baptism is God’s visible and public way of justifying and causing the forgiveness of sins. Although he is always doing that, in Baptism God does this visibly in and through the waters by the Spirit and Word. So just because Baptism causes the forgiveness of sins does not mean that Baptism necessarily (or even normally for adult converts) does so for the first time. Rather, it’s part of his economy of continual justification; in Baptism, God visibly and publicly forgives and makes visible his act of continual justification. That makes best sense pastorally (of the cases you describe), and with the language of the New Testament (“as many as are baptized have put on Christ”, United to Christ *by* Baptism, etc).
And that means that Baptism is the objective and visible way we know ourselves to be in Christ. I can always look to my Baptism, and because God objectively and visibly adopts and justifies those Baptized, I can know that he did so for me-even if I had been justified prior to Baptism (or if I hadn’t been!). Because justification is continual, and because Baptism is God’s visible and objective way of justifying and forgiving, many if not most adults might be justified prior to Baptism and yet visibly and objectively receive their adoption in Baptism.
@@anglicanaesthetics Lutheran here. I love the Anglican Luther Scholar Dr. Phillip Cary. His explanation of Lutheran/Anglican baptismal theology vs radical protestants is second to none.
@@anglicanaesthetics isn't this similar to Dr Gavin saying that baptism is the visible seal strengthening and confirmation of being made spiritually alive .
@@aajaifenn It is! But I'd add something more. It's causative of the forgiveness of sins and of justification--the visible cause of those things. As I've argued above, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's the first cause/causative "of the initial obtaining" of justification and forgiveness (though it can be), but it's nevertheless causative of justification and forgiveness.
@@anglicanaesthetics agree totally but as long as it is not the first cause necessarily of the initial obtaining of justification and forgivness , then I think Dr Gavin would also be in agreement . In his debate with Dr Cooper I think he stated that he agreed that baptism conveys forgivness of sins to the recepient who has faith .
I don't know why Protestants have such a hard time arguing about the Sacrament of Baptism and its necessity for salvation. The Scriptures are very clear on this subject. Baptism is God's most beautiful gift. It is not a "work" that some Christians say. Baptism is called the "washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit" for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God ( Titus 3: 5. John 3:5 ) How much clearer do you want ? By Baptism all sins are forgiven, the stain of original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God , neither Adam's sin, not personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is eternal separation from God. Born with a fallen human nature, and tainted by original sin, children also have need of rhe new birth of Baptism to be freed from the power of the darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all of us are called (Col 1: 12-15 ) The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christ said: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you."(*John 15:5); the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (*Titus 3:5) is not synonymous with water Baptism, although full immersion water Baptism IS commanded of ALL believers, AFTER they have believed (*Mark 16:16 & Acts 8:36-37) The Apostle Paul also seems to use a different phrase in Ephesians to describe the same process "washing of regeneration" mentioned in Titus; Ephesians 5:26 refers to that process as: "...the washing of water by the word". Consider the repentant thief next to Christ's cross; he was assured entry into paradise without ever being baptised. Be careful that you aren't teaching that a Baptism WITHOUT authentic faith saves (*real faith that saves is itself a gift of God and does not have a human origin, a faith that saves "is the substance of things hoped for" and is not mere mental agreement with certain doctrines), and Baptism WITHOUT real faith saves no one. "Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved."- Luke 8:11-12 (*note- Christ's words in the above verse clearly indicate that the person would be saved by believing the Word that the Sower has sown in their heart, which is specifically what the devil prevents in this particular context that Christ describes). "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."- Acts 2:41 (*note- that only those who received his word, that is specifically the Word of God, spoken through Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit, were baptised; those who received his word were the same ones who authentically believed it at first, prior to baptism, also see Acts 2:44) "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."- James 1:18 "For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."- 1 Peter 1:23 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast."- Ephesians 2:8-9 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17
Abraham, Issac and Jacob and all the Old Testament Prophets will all be in the Kingdom of God, according to Christ (*Luke 13:28), and they were not water baptised; consider the context of John 3:5; Nicodemus had just asked Christ about if he had to go back into his mother's womb to be born a second time, and then, in that context, Christ answers "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Therefore in this context, Christ may be referring to the waters of natural birth (* first, "born of water") and then a spiritual second birth afterward ("born of the Spirit").
Also, in the Old Testament, David's son who died was not baptised, and he died before being circumcised (*which some people think is an OT type of baptism), but David had the assurance that he would see his son again (*in Heaven and/or in Abraham's bosom, the place of safety that was in Sheol, prior to Christ's death) : "I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”- 2 Samuel 12:23
NEWSFLASH: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about! The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE! The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself! In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present! That said, Jesus declared: "You will know them by their FRUIT"! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" ! Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption! Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence! Here are just some samples for starters-- Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮 Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries! Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city. He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave! Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope! During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions! Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight! Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮 In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III. Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly! Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him! Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent! He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing! Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'! Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484! Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times! But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes! Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them! Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV, known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism! Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮 Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city! Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History! In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on! Indeed, it's undeniably endless! In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮 Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
I definitely do not believe that infants who die go to hell. Neither do I believe that anyone goes to hell who has repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, but the cause of a tragedy, or whatever the case was not able to get to the water. Compare Romans, four versus 11 and following with Colossians two versus 11 and Follow. However, I am definitely a baptismal effectual list. I believe that the Lord can work in someone before baptism into Jesus Christ, but even if regeneration happens through the word, there is a further work done in baptism, and it certainly has to do with remission/forgiveness of sins, act 2:38, 22:16, and I do not believe it is merely symbolic, but if appropriated through repentance and faith, Mark 16:16, act 2:38, 8-37:39, 16-31:33, Brings about change/deliverance/freedom/forgiveness/cleansing of conscience/spiritual, circumcision, etc. Act 2:38 is the whole package and everyone needs it. Certainly the Lord can give the Holy Spirit before baptism, act 10-404:48, but that does not eliminate the necessity of baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus For those who have understanding and opportunity.
I watched all of the videos related to baptism between you and Dr. Cooper. I’m reformedish so I suppose I’m defaulted into not agreeing with baptismal regeneration. But I’ve found the subject so interesting and don’t really have a strong opinion either way yet. I’ve appreciated the depth into which you’ve talked about it.
I think Mr. Coopers argumentation is stronger and more biblical. If you just look at the verses on babtism lutheran view is much more biblical. Regeneration, forgiveness of sins, salvation, putting on Christ. These are few of the biblical images of babtism
Im not interested in debating but more so seeking advice. How would one go about telling their southern baptist pastor that they are going to convert to Catholicism? My wife and kids will still be attending the southern baptist church. Any advice would be appreciated
@@Mygoalwogel im convinced of the papacy purgatory and the differences between mortal and venial sin. I know the orthodox have a very rich history but im not really looking to debate. I was hoping to get some advice on my situation and i figured a baptist pastor would be a good person to ask
I honestly can't see how one goes to Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy. If you are going to accept that much doctrinal development, maybe choose the church whose last 5 leaders aren't manifest heretics.
NEWSFLASH: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about! The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE! The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself! In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present! That said, Jesus declared: "You will know them by their FRUIT"! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" ! Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption! Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence! Here are just some samples for starters-- Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮 Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries! Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city. He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave! Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope! During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions! Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight! Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮 In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III. Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly! Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him! Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent! He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing! Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'! Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484! Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times! But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes! Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them! Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV, known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism! Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮 Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city! Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History! In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on! Indeed, it's undeniably endless! In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮 Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
Hello, Gavin! I Absolutely love your videos. All of your videos are a part of my education as a current college student, I make sure I don't miss one. I really appreciate the ministry you do. I was curious if you could tell me what you take speaking in tongues to be. You mentioned it a couple of times this video. Is it glossolalia or xenolalia? Or is it both at different times? I'm attending a Christian Charismatic college that heavily emphasizes the practice of speaking in tongues in the glossolalic sense, but I'm unsure if that's even Scriptural. Perhaps you would need to devote a later video to this topic to cover it or maybe you have an existing one I don't know of. Regradless, I'd love to know what you think of the matter. Thanks (:
Why does nobody look at the story of Zacchaeus in talks of Baptism? Jesus told him “today, salvation has come to this house.” He didn’t say to hurry up and get in the water. He didn’t say Salvation came when you got baptized. He said “today”.
Good video Gavin - I found it helpful to understand your own view better (and apparently a historical Baptist view). As a touchpoint, let me refer to your discussion around the 21 minute mark regarding norms and exceptions. Before, I plunge into differences, I would hope that all Christians would agree that God is the ultimate or “principal cause” of regeneration with any other cause being secondary in some sense - I hope we can all hold that in common (I know that is the Catholic position via instrumental causes). But to get into the differences, with respect to the Sacrament of Baptism, it seems one way to put it, is that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox position is generally that water Baptism is the “normative cause” (with noted exceptions- baptism of desire, blood ) of regeneration while the your Baptist position is that Faith is the normative cause and that Baptism is normally (with plenty of exceptions) the supreme occasion of manifesting the regeneration caused by Faith. That probably boils both views down a little too quickly but UA-cam comments are no place for an extended analysis(this will be long enough). I do think that Baptist position is a plausible reading of the NT and of the Fathers ( a little bit less so with respect to the latter ). But my defense of the Catholic/Orthodox reading is 1) I just think it better and more coherently holds together the differing uses of “saves” and the other tension points in the NT/Fathers you raise. 2) Since this is the view of all three major and ancient streams of the Church (RC, EO, OO) that itself is a significant argument for me (at the very least a “tiebreaker” ). We can add Lutherans to a large degree- with perhaps some hesitation on their part about the nuances of “cause”. I also think one should not consider this issue in isolation to the other dividing issues. Again, across all these dividing issues, I think Protestant just is not as satisfying in bringing it all together in a coherent whole as RC/EO/OO. For me, there are too many breakpoints with consistent positions (and liturgical “teaching”!!!) held by the East and West from roughly 800-1500 to have remained a Protestant. The Reformation rupture was only “necessary” if a clear heterodoxy was being taught /practiced - but for 700 years? And then taking your view of the nuanced differences between us - with such nuances was it really right to break apart the unity of the Church. Finally, and, here I am speaking as a Catholic, I also find in the Catholic Church the fullness of catholicity across time and space. And of course, all of the above amounts to being convinced the Catholic Church also has the fullness of Truth. Not the perfect truth, but the fullest Truth as we can receive in this world - we will only approach a perfect understanding of all these things in the world to come with the Beatific Vision.
Hi Gavin, I thought this was actually a fascinating video. When I was a protestant, I had no idea that the baptists had that high a view of baptism, so I appreciate those details. I think many modern baptists could benefit from getting in touch with their roots! As an Orthodox Christian, I subscribe to a synergistic view of regeneration, and tend to view salvation more as a process than a "one off deal". Do you think a synergistic view might impact patristic attitudes toward baptism?
Thanks Daniel! I totally agree many modern Baptists need to get in touch with their roots. Groups like the Center for Baptist Renewal are helping with that. Yes, I definitely think the synergistic view of regeneration is relevant, and has explanatory power for the some of the objections. God bless.
@@TruthUnitesDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
Dr. Ortlund, Thanks for this very helpful video. My problem (or at least perplexity) eight he Reformed view is that, though the word “seal” is used profusely, I have yet to feel I understand what it meant by the term. What does it mean to “seal” ones regeneration? What is the practical reality we are referring to here? One problem with this vagueness, in my opinion, is that it allows contemporary Reformed Christians to slide much closer to a sign-only view than their predecessors in the Reformed tradition did without realizing it or being bothered (or at least confronted) by it.
Dr. Ortlund I am a follower of yours and enjoy your work. I have a healthy challenge though. I do see often you defend historic Protestantism. Especially those of the Anglican and Lutheran sides against claims from the orthodox and Roman Catholics. However typically their critiques are geared primarily at historical sacramental , liturgical Protestants. Have you considered using your own tradition - baptist - key points to defend your stances ? As in can we find baptists both modern and post reformation that would share the same view points of the sacramental Protestants you often quote ? Also what does one do with the modern baptist position ? If in practice and often in theology they reject any idea of a sacramental viewpoint on these things? Would you be willing to challenge Baptists specifically on their own historical traditions and go as far to say if they are not in line then they are truly not baptist ? Or does it mean one may have to re evaluate the Baptist tradition of today in lue of church history, Protestant history, and baptist history Again a healthy challenge, not to combative but also a cause to pause for second
Thanks for the great question and forgive me being very brief but I am right in the middle of something at the moment: briefly, I think it is appropriate to defend a "mere Protestantism" despite being a particular kind of Protestant, just as CS Lewis defend "mere Christianity" despite being an Anglican. Of course, we cannot stay in either mere Protestantism or mere Christianity indefinitely.
@@TruthUnites thanks for the response I made a mistake in my original comment. What I meant to say is typically critiques towards Protestantism are not towards the Anglican , Lutheran streams. I do agree with defending Protestantism but I also agree that we have critiques within Protestantism. Most of the sacramental/ liturgical Protestants have a kinship with the catholic , orthodox and church of the east. Rather than say a baptist or Pentecostal. So I guess more if I am wondering can we hear the voices of ancient and modern non Anglican/ Lutheran/ Moravian/ Methodists? Definitely want to know more of the historic baptist views.
According to your understanding, is it possible that Baptism itself can actually remit sin? Clement of Alexandria (among many others) seems to hold this to be the understood teaching of the Apostles. (Ref his catechetical letter on the instructor of children).
Hey Dr. Ortland! Thank you for your considered take on Baptism. To take your analogy of the ceremony a proponent of baptismal regeneration (such as myself) could take the example of engagement and marriage where the latter is more fundamental. The coming to faith could be seen as an engagement. Many times engaged (or dating) person will be referred to as son/daughter-in-law even though the marriage has not taken place. This is because there is an understanding that the marriage ceremony WILL take place. Whereas you could have a queen without coronation you won't have a married couple without the marriage ceremony. In the same way it could be said that becoming a Christian is not complete if baptism is omitted although the process might have begun. Another image might be conception and birth. You need both to have a baby.
Early church Fathers are a secondhand source. Can you really trust it??? What about people who cannot be baptized because of disabilities and medical devices being attached??? Are those people unable to be saved??? I don't think so.
I just wish people like billy graham didn’t comepletely ignore baptism right after belief when the New Testament example shows immediate baptism after belief.
I am a Lutheran but struggle with this concept. Because I also see believers that are clearly regenerated prior to baptism. I have thought about how Christ's life, death, and resurrection saved those prior to the birth of Christ. In the same way, maybe the believer is saved by baptism prior to the occurrence of the baptism. But that seems like it's about the same thing as the seal or ceiling of regeneration.
I was radically saved and it took me five years or so to get baptized. I was also sanctified throughout that time. I will admit I had a desire to get baptized that grew more and more to where I couldn’t resist.
@@TruthUnites My point is that a person can have a conversion experience and be filled with enthusiasm for the faith without salvation necessarily attaching. Buddha had a profound conversion experience which significantly altered his behavior. But a Christian cannot say that Buddha's conversion experience was salvific. I don't believe that your argument that the fathers termed other things as salvific in addition to baptism and so therefore baptism is not the cause of salvation actually works. To use an analogy: Let's say I want to climb Mt. Everest. There is a whole chain of events which has to occur before I get to the summit. The final part of the chain is traversing the Hillary step and then climbing the remaining 300 feet to the summit. Certainly, traversing the Hillary step and climbing to the summit is not the sole cause of summiting the mountain. But if I turn back before the Hillary step, I haven't summited the mountain. So while traversing the Hillary step may not be the sole cause of summiting Everest, it is a cause. And you cannot get to the summit without it.
I am Catholic. I think that we should all be able to understand that the conception of the new birth happens with prevenient grace. This is when Christ through the Spirit grabs us by the hand and pulls us to His bossom. Baptism then is the new life coming to full birth where we then leave the bossom of Christ and enter into Christ. Our initial union with Christ and being brought to his bossom is through prevenient grace, and our new life IN Christ is through baptism. This is why the doorway into Christ was opened in his side, where blood and water flowed out
Hello Gavin, you quote Acts 9:17-18 as if it showed that Paul had received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, however it just says he received his sight then. Any comments to that? Thanks!
Author: Ron Graham Baptism and the Greek Word “eis” -What does the word mean? This lesson is a study of the argument about the Greek word εις (eis). The question we answer is as follows: In Acts 2:38, does the Greek word εις mean (1) “in order to receive”, or does it rather mean (2) “because you have received”? Here's the text: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for [εις] the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' " (Acts 2:38). The little word εις The English word “for” in the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" translates the original Greek word εις. εις -is usually pronounced “ice” or “ees”. εις -is usually translated “into”, “unto”, or “for”. The Argument on εις and Baptism The argument regarding baptism says that, in Acts 2:38, the phrase "for [εις] the forgiveness of sins" means “because of the forgiveness of sins”. So the passage is made to say, "Repent and be baptised because of the forgiveness of sins". This supposedly puts forgiveness before baptism, so that First one is forgiven by God and saved, and because of that, one is then baptised. But why couldn't Peter mean that the forgiveness of sins is on offer and because of that, repent and be baptised to receive it? That would put repentance and baptism back before forgiveness, where they belong. Forgiveness by grace is the prospect; repentance and baptism (among other things) lead a person into that prospect. 1 Repentance and Baptism Notice that Peter does not speak of baptism only, but also of repentance. "Repent and be baptised..." (Acts 2:38). If the argument is correct that forgiveness is granted before baptism, then forgiveness is also granted before repentance. But the scriptures say that one must repent before forgiveness is granted. On another occasion, Peter said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). Peter did not say, “Repent and return because your sins have been be blotted out.” He said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out". Peter put repentance before forgiveness. He made repentance a condition of forgiveness. And if Peter has put repentance before forgiveness, that's where he has also put baptism, because he gave both repentance and baptism the same relationship to forgiveness viz "Repent and be baptised... for [εις] the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38).
He clearly didnt read the entirety of Cyril's lecture... "*If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation;* except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. "
Yet, the RCC does not teach water baptism, nor baptism by blood to be the only method. As from Cyprian, it was very common for the fathers to refer to a second baptism-that of blood (martyrology)-and such the RCC today affirms a baptism of blood (against Feeneyism). In a similar manner, the RCC also affirms baptism of desire (or of breath) in the CCC: “[f]or catechumens who die before their [water] Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.” I’m not sure if it’s quite right to point this as an internal critique, however, I think it can claim that the thing signified (i.e., regeneration) with the sign to come (water baptism) can be and was seen as satisfied by this baptism by desire (in which the fathers can portray it). That would lead to Cyprian’s quote vs water baptism as an issue of equivocation (see how I added “water” in CCC quote for clarity). Lutherans, for example, affirm all 3 forms of baptismal efficacy, following the tradition of the Fathers and scripture. While they also don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, I say only to point that these formulae aren’t only in RCC. Still, this thought can be applied to Reformed Baptist theology or other Protestant theology’s the same way. That is, the thing signified is efficacious with water baptism to follow. God Bless!
@@ckwachsmuth This is an exception not a rule. Hopefully you will not die before being baptized. If you neglected to be baptized by your own volition, you put your own soul in jeopardy because it is a command by God.
@@truthnotlies I actually would agree with what you said there. It doesn’t seem to be logically inconsistent with my argument at all. Happy Thanksgiving!
As usual, this discussion on a complex issue is very insightful. It is disappointing, however, that Acts 8 was not discussed. I would love to hear a response to the following passage. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:14-17 KJV This point is even more clear in modern translations.
You should check out "Signed, Sealed, and Delivered" by Bishop Ray Sutton. I think it will answer a lot of your questions (and I believe, misunderstandings).
Gavin the Catholic tradition and dogma doesn't demand that Baptism is the normative means in the sense of statistics. Plenty of us Catholic theologians believe that adult converts are normally (ie statistically) regenerated at the moment of conversion prior to Baptism. But that doesn't mean that Baptism wasn't ordained for the purpose of conveying (ie causing) regeneration, especially since it's intended (although you disagree) to be given to infants, none of whom can be regenerated prior to Baptism (since they can't experience conversion as infants). And since the majority of Christians through history have been Baptized as infants, there is a sense in which Baptism regenerates "normatively" in the sense of statistically . But yes, the vast vast majority of what you affirm and argue is already part of the Catholic dogma.
Where is there a single example in the Bible of an infant being baptised? (*effectively, it seems you may be implying, that people can be saved without faith and without hearing the Word of God; if you are saying that, then, that is unbiblical). Also, infants of course have a fallen nature, but I believe there is an age of accountability for each person (*only God knows exactly what time that is for each person); in which, a person finally knows enough and is mature enough to be accountable for their own sinful actions (*see Isaiah 7:15-16). Humans are born in the flesh with their inherited sin nature, from Adam, but I believe there may enough evidence to show that a person's spirit is not dead initially (*the Scripture calls infants and children "innocent"; see Psalm 106:37-38) , and therefore, dosent require the new birth (*the reviving of their spirit) until after they have sinned (*when someone's spirit is cut off from God) when or after, they have reached the age of accountability; "The soul who sins is the one who will die..." (*Ezekiel 18:20b) Therefore King David had the assurance that he would be with his son again, who was not baptised, and who had died prior to being circumcised, since the child did not live until the eighth day (*see 2 Samuel 12:23)
@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 There are household baptisms in scripture. And the assured salvation of infants who die apart from baptism is irrelevant - they are saved by the grace of God, given the graces of faith and baptism at death, which if they remained alive, and not baptized, they would grow up without.
I’ll be honest, for years now I thought my view of baptism was in the serious minority because I was baptist yet I had always described baptism as the “seal” or “objectification” of salvation and not the cause. I always was comfortable with baptism saving, yet in all my church contexts they always said baptism does not save. I thought maybe I should be Lutheran at a point since they believed in baptismal regeneration but were Protestant, yet I didn’t believe it regenerated or in baptizing babies. I was confused. It’s good to know that I am not alone and this is the historic view of my denomination.
What if someone believes but is not baptised? I believe that person is still saved, because salvation occurs when you believe, not when you get baptised. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
@@JosefFurg1611 That person is an oxymoron. Do they not believe the words of Jesus and the Holy Ghost when They say to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins? What then do they believe in? The idea of Jesus? What if Abraham believed God but didn't try to sacrifice his son? Would he still be justified? Would he still be called the Friend of God? Mark 16:16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved* ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Acts 2:37-42 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
It just seems contrary to scripture... Romans 4:9-11 NKJV - Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also... Basic understanding of what God tells us in scripture and everything He reveals to us shows us we are saved by faith. Your faith is accounted to you as the righteousness of Christ through His death on the cross. Because we believe we do what He says. We are children of promise as sons of Abraham, saved by faith. All who are justified are being sanctified. Because we are justified, we do what He tells us to do! Paul doesn't go out of his way to tell us we aren't saved by jumping though this physical hoop to now tell us to jump through another physical hoop in order to be saved. Christ gives us LIVING water! The Holy Spirit! 🙏
I think many proponents of baptismal regeneration would be happy to say that for a baptist minister, spiritual regeneration apart from baptism is the norm. They'd say though that is because of the Baptist practice of only administering the sacrament of baptism to those who've heard, understood, and accepted the word of God preached to them. However, since most people both today (at least I think-perhaps I'm wrong) have not become Christians this way, but instead became Christians when their parents had them baptized as infants, we can still say that it's baptism which is the ordinary means of regeneration.
So, I guess Paul in Romans 6 is wrong when he says we died with Christ, were buried with Christ and raised with Christ in baptism, I guess he was wrong. He must have been wrong when in Gal.3:26-27 where he says we were clothed with Christ in baptism. Were the people in Acts 2 forgiven before Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? If baptism is irrelevant, why did Jesus command it in Matt.38:18-20? It’s pretty plain when He says to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and H.S.. All through Acts you have every conversion connected with baptism. Yes, there are some differences in Acts 8 and 10 but we’re talking about Samaritans (half-breeds by Jewish standards) and unclean Gentiles in Acts 10! Those were two exceptions where God made a point so that the Jewish brothers would know God had accepted these two groups. I understand your point but you seem to care more about the church fathers and later thinkers and less about what Scripture says. Btw, Paul says Israel was baptized when they went through the Red Sea being surrounded by water. Baptism is the place where the sinner comes into contact (spiritually) with the blood of Christ. The change of heart begins with faith and repentance and is consummated in the act of baptism as Paul describes in Rom. 6. Baptism is the shared experience of believers and is intended that we remember it. 58 years later, I still remember Feb 14, 1965 like it was yesterday! Was God at work on my heart prior to that date? Absolutely! But the act of faith was consummated on that date! No, baptism is NOT a work! It is an act of humble submission received in faith!
Thanks Dr. Ortlund. Some questions I would ask is, if todays Baptists/Baptist beliefs on this topic are not representative of historical baptist beliefs on it, how/who are we as laity to follow in our understanding? Why have the historical Baptist beliefs on baptism dissolved into todays symbolism that is widely proclaimed? Why does something so basic to the faith such as baptism not have a unified understanding in Baptist denomination when all baptists through time would claim that their beliefs are purely based on the truth in scripture alone? In full disclosure: I say this as someone who grew up very nominally Baptist and my adult/sincere Christian life has been in Baptist and reformed circles but openly say that I have been exploring more orthodox and catholic theology over the past year. Thank you for the sincerity, genuineness and humble heart with which you approach your ministry. It is a phenomenal example to emulate and I have benefited greatly.
@ sort of. But to help discern, you can examine the early church and the history of doctrines through time.. even if find a Baptist church that believes in real presence, then when does he become present? How does he become present? Does he leave if you throw away the elements?..when you look back through the early church you can start to answer all of this..Authority was given to a particular body and that body has passed the authority down over time. It’s the Catholic Church.
@@jambangoni I’m curious, as Catholics can never answer me this question, if your faith is the true faith then why does the OT books you hold to (Apocrypha) have errors? “Judith claims Nebuchadnezzar reigned from Nineveh (Judith asserts Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, ruling from Nineveh). The problem Catholic apologists face is that the historical and Biblical evidence does not bear these claims out. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylon, and did not rule from Nineveh.” -James Swan. Judith 1:1 (RSVCE): In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana-
I wonder if the language of 'causation' may be a little biased or unhelpful. I wouldn't say preaching is the cause of regeneration, but it may be the tool God uses to bring regeneration about. Would this not be analogously the BR view? Viewing regeneration partially as a process (which Baptists tend not to) may also be of some limited use to bridge the gap of understanding.
How about a distinction between justification, the act in which we are acquitted of guilt, and regeneration, the act of the spirit of God, making us new creations? You could also say that it repentance and faith we are justified, declared, or given, imputed, righteousness, credited to us, and regeneration, imparted righteousness?
My personal baptism experience is somewhat unusual. I came to faith when I was 9 & immediately knew I was made right with God by faith. But I wasn't baptized until I was about 15 once I knew & understood its significance. It was an important experience and more than merely symbolic. But at the same time, I know that I was "saved" at 9 and began to follow Jesus at that moment. With that experience, it's hard for me to accept either baptismal regeneration (since I experienced regeneration long before water baptism) or paedobaptism (as understanding is a key part of the act) as the best practices in light of Scripture. Just wanted to share my story.
This is helpful and balanced but I’m still unsure of what to do in my situation. We go to a Church of Christ that believes in baptismal regeneration. We love our church family and we see the fruit in their lives but we also don’t want to go to a church that is preaching a different gospel. Are they? They do teach repentance and belief comes first. We are very close to leaving but really torn because some churches are so lax on baptism. Isn’t that just as bad? Prior to going to the COC we were in a regular bible believing church. It’s through friends we ended up here as new Christians. We’ve been involved for years now. If you have any help I would really appreciate your thoughts.
Question to the author of this video. Is faith not the regeneration of the spirit by which we receive the Spirit and is baptism not the regeneration of the soul, by which we receive the seal and new conscience as in 1 Pet 3?
We know for certain the Protestant traditions of Faith alone and Scripture alone, were not universal in the Church Fathers. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
NEWSFLASH: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about! The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE! The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself! In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present! That said, Jesus declared: "You will know them by their FRUIT"! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" ! Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption! Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence! Here are just some samples for starters-- Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮 Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries! Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city. He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave! Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope! During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions! Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight! Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮 In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III. Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly! Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him! Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent! He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing! Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'! Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484! Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times! But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes! Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them! Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV, known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism! Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮 Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city! Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History! In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on! Indeed, it's undeniably endless! In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮 Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
@Truth Unites, in Ephesians 2, Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, and that we are raised with Christ (συνήγειρεν... ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). God accomplishes this. In the parallel passage in Colossians 2:12, Paul says that we were raised with Christ in baptism through faith (ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως). The "in which" refers to baptism. These passages speak of both faith and baptism, but Paul teaches that "in baptism" we are raised with Christ. Any thoughts on that argumentation?
Ephesians 2 is teaching we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law of Moses. That does not say you don't have to do the works Jesus commanded in the law of Christ.
@@timothy9360 True, Ephesians 2:10. I think when speaking of initial conversion/justification, we must say no works justify us, neither Mosaic nor moral.
@@lhinton281 yes but the law of Christ is necessary for salvation. Because if faith alone was true. There wouldn't be a single Bible verse, where Jesus says. "except you do __ you shall not enter heaven" faith alone should be enough to enter heaven by itself hence the ALONE. However there are about 5 to 6 verses where Jesus himself said "except you do __ you shall not enter heaven" as a protestant for 26 years I used to struggled with those verses. Because if faith alone was true then faith alone should be all that is required to enter heaven. This along with many other issues is what ultimately made me convert to Catholicism.
@@lhinton281 right I had rebuttals for days against Catholics. However they just didn't satisfy me. Sure i beat less educated Catholics in "debates" easy. But at the end of the day I knew something just didn't add up. Then when I started debating educated Catholics. I came to realize that all my arguments lack substance.
I have only recently discovered your work, particularly through your conversation with Dr. Brett Salkeld on Gospel Simplicity, and have been enjoying it. My question for you is this: If infant baptism was primarily promoted by Augustine in the West, at what point and who promoted it among the Eastern Fathers? Thanks.
Glad you are enjoying it! I see Augustine more as settling the question, not just promoting infant baptism; its definitely before him, East and West, though not universal. Lots of delaying baptism till adulthood in the 4th century. To be honest I don't know the history of the East as well after that point, sorry!
@@TruthUnites Thanks Gavin, I was just curious if you had any insight on the question? As with this and so many issues within Christianity, we tend to talk past each other or fail to understand the position of other Christians outside of our circle. As a lover of church history, it saddens me how ignorant we in the evangelical traditions are. Thanks again, Steve Bowman
One more thing. This is my second comment. In Acts, baptism is always immediate. Even with Paul, there is not just Acts 9, but Acts 22, where Paul says that Ananias told him, "What are you waiting for? Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The Didache, very early, mentions the church fasting and praying with a convert for a couple days, but that did not happen in Acts, and it was not always before the church in Acts (e.g., Philippian jailer). Baptismal regeneration may seem more scary to us now that time and tradition have us waiting a long time to be baptized. I know that what you mentioned in the video, six months of catechesis, was normal by no later than the early third century, but there was no such thing in Acts. Today, evangelicals use the "sinner's prayer" in the same way the apostles used baptism. I would say that most Baptists believe in "sinner's prayer regeneration" in exactly the same way the apostles taught baptismal regeneration.
I am so thankful for your work, you are the first person I go to so often. I am a minister at a church of Christ. Thankfully the congregation has generally been moved away from their BR roots; however, there are some of our members that still hold to it and many that visit that question us strongly. I am considering writing on this and am looking for as many good sources as I can find. There is obviously so much well done scholarship on credo v. paedo, I was wondering if you knew of any resources that would be particularly helpful to me and responding to the church of Christ adult BR position. Thanks so much.
Also, it makes no sense why an adult would be baptized unless they first had faith. Am I wrong? And I would argue from scripture that regeneration precedes faith.
I have gone through these baptism videos multiple times, so forgive me if I’m commenting again. I think perhaps a distinction between justification and regeneration may be in order. I also do not necessarily believe that regeneration, or the new birth is instantaneous. Basically, full fledge initiation into Christianity in the new testament times was repentance, faith in the gospel, baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Spirit, acts 2:38, 8-12:16, 19-1:6, Romans, 34, five and six, chapter 8, etc. we can see this pattern in Hebrews six -1: three. It is not that someone could not go to heaven whatsoever. If these four things were not completed, but something was missing in the foundation, and I believe that anyone who knowingly willingly unabatedly, refuses any of these steps with full knowledge Would be in jeopardy even though I believe justification is at the point of repentance and faith, I believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the meeting place of Grace and faith. I like the language of sign and seal, and I also believe that it doesn’t work within. I believe that it gets sin out of the soul so to speak and it cleans us up. Not that we are not forgiven in the justifying sense, but baptism demonstrates this, and it is a bath and the burial. A great book by a man by the name of David Pawson is called “the normal Christian birth. “Everyone should get it I may not totally and completely agree with absolutely everything, but I think he has some marvelous insights into how Christians should be initiated, and how they should be caught up if they have missed any of these things in their foundation. I also believe that water baptism is the act in which we steal the covenant and it is like an under circumcision, though I am not by any means a Pedo Baptist, so that is not where I’m going, but I do believe it is like new covenant official circumcision. If you compare act 2:38 with Romans 6-3:6, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2-11, and following, I think it has some great insights into the remission of sins. Sorry for the typos as I have no vision and I’m dictating this to Siri and don’t want to start over. Lol.
1 Peter 3:21 seems that it may actually be against baptismal regernation if "the removal of dirt from your flesh" can be taken to mean the process of being submerged in water.
Here’s one thing you can say about Dr. O: he is definitely not here to shirk from the tough questions on his side of the apologetics debates, and he’s not here to cut down straw men!
Thank you Matthew. I really do try to be honest.
He’s building steel men and then punching them with a brass knuckle lol
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. However, I wanted to get baptized during that time. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
I am in the same position. What led you to be baptized???
@@bradentutt6642 I believe all believers will be led by the Holy Spirit to be baptized. But it is not water baptism that gives us the Holy Spirit-it is the spiritual baptism we get when saved.
You should become a member at a biblical Church and get baptized to proclaim your faith in Christ.
@getrit3007 And there are many who share our same experience!
@@ShepherdMinistryThat makes no sense, if all thats you believe you should get baptized in private. Just as you should pray in private and not before men so you may boast like the pharasies.
@@KillerofGodsBaptism is a public proclamation.
At 14:00, Acts 9 does not say the Spirit "descends" on Paul when Ananias lays his hands on him. Ananias communicates to Paul his purpose of being there, "that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." This does not mean it was through his hands that Paul was regenerated. Interestingly, scales fell off his eyes (which is how he regained his sight) and was baptized (how he received the Holy Spirit). That to me is the most natural reading.
The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why (at that time), only that I should
do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Adult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism.
- Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise =
Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 18:8
8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Acts 16:31-33
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 2:41
41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those
- Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual)
- second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant)
- third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born,
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife.
And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart.
And also circumcision was not give to girls.
- in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water
Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water)
In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference
Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18.
In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@mynameis......23 I agree. I received the Holy Spirit the moment I accepted Jesus as my Savior. That is who impelled me to be subsequently water baptized.
The water didn't cleanse or save me; repentance from sin and faith in Christ did.
Believers are baptized ONCE into the body of Christ, but there are many fillings throughout his/her life.
Same here! I came to Belief privately, then shortly after I knew I needed to be baptized. The Spirit led me no doubt. I remember it clearly.
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. I wanted to get baptized though. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
I have diligently studied baptism, it is amazing how so many have it wrong. Baptism has to do with the conscience. Baptism or submission into the name of Jesus. If one does not even know who Jesus is, that person can not by any biblical standard be considered baptized. The act in and of itself does not possess any kind of power whatsoever.
Agreed!!
The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why, only that I should
do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Excellent and helpful, Gavin. Very grateful for your ministry.
Thanks JR, I appreciate that!
This makes more sense. I left a Baptist church over the sacraments being ordinances and only symbols. I love the idea of sealing. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful Tammy!
Thankful for your work on this. As a baptist from pretty much birth, I really appreciate how you have introduced me to nuance on different positions and the way to properly discuss and advocate for a view. Your method gives great weight to the message you give.
Glad it was helpful!
Hey Gavin
Thanks for a respectful and honest look at baptism! I'm a Lutheran who's pretty hooked at baptismal regeneration (I think the last Cyril quote pretty much sums up my view). I learned a lot! I admittedly thought the Baptist view was more of a "just a symbol"-view. Glad to have that nuanced.
thanks a lot, and glad it was useful!
@@TruthUnites Which baptism is related to salvation?
The Word “Baptize”:
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,
If you mean by "baptismal regeneration" that at baptism is when GOD regenerates you, I agree. It is the time and place it happens.
Being Ex-Church of Christ, this is what ultimately convinced me. We have Faith to even ask to be Water Baptized, otherwise why would we even get Water Baptized. So we have Faith prior to Water Baptism. Romans 5:1 states that it's Faith that Justifies us. If we are Justified at the moment of Water Baptism then it cannot be Faith that Justifies us, because we already had that Faith prior.
Awesome video. The language of metonymy - I love that. Feels true to the text, in contrast to some well-intentioned “workarounds” that satisfy no one. Well-researched and thought out. Helpful to me. Thanks Gavin!
Glad it was helpful!
Why do you need workarounds to the plain text in the bible?
Glad you got Dr. Fowler’s book! Please be praying for him as he recovers from a major stroke suffered last year.
“A larger spiritual category of language of cleansing water that baptism participates in and fulfills and points to baptism but baptism does not exhaust it.”
Hi Gavin, this was so helpful. It came along at the right time for me. Thanks for the nuanced arguments. There is a lot of confusion in my corner of the world about this.
so glad it was useful! Yeah, this topic really needs more attention, it seems.
I do disagree with your conclusions, but I respect so much your candor, respect, and thoughtfulness of complexities. I appreciate you thinking things through and not just repeating the same arguments that get passed around. You gave this our own thoughts, and at least consider and acknowledge how those who don't think as you may come to their conclusions, and you explain their positions well. Of those who don't believe baptism in water in Jesus's name is involved n being saved, yours is by far the best presentation I've seen.
You should definitely write a book on baptism
As a baptist minister I find your videos really helpful. I see baptism as a part of theosis (I tend to lean to the East on a few subjects). If you get a chance you should read Mark the Monk’s Counsels on the Spiritual Life from the popular patristics series. In the introduction Tim Vivian writes about the different views that some of the fathers had. They certainly weren’t all in agreement.
Watch Trent Horn's rebuttal on this for both sides of the story.
@@Momof15plusDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water
Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water)
In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference
Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18.
In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@Momof15plusAdult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism.
- Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise =
Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 18:8
8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Acts 16:31-33
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 2:41
41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those
- Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual)
- second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant)
- third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born,
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife.
And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart.
And also circumcision was not give to girls.
- in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
@@Momof15plusdude has to rebut everything that is clearly opposed to his position 😂😂😂
For anyone interested, in his Large Catechism, Luther addresses the Anabaptist objection as it relates to Sola Fide and the Lutheran Confession concerning Holy Baptism. He affirms Sola Fide, but recognizes, quite rightly, that Faith must have an object to which it clings. Ultimately, that object is the Person and Work of Christ, but He is grasped as He is given through the Means of Grace. There is no contradiction between Sola Fide and Baptismal Regeneration.
I realize, Dr. Ortlund, that you were charitable on this point, but for any who are interested in how Luther addresses the matter, look into his Large Catechism.
Thanks Marcus! I appreciate you providing a place to look on that point. We are in agreement that there is not necessarily a problem for sola fide.
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@IAmisMaster Do you care to elaborate on your assertion that Sola Fide and Imputation of Righteousness is irrational?
@@marcuswilliams7448
I say it because I used to believe both without question, but when actually reading the Bible and challenged to support it then it became impossible. Neither are taught anywhere in the Bible, which tells us that only the one who does what is righteous is righteous, just as Jesus *is* righteous by doing what is righteous (1 John 3:7). You won’t find a single verse that says a Christian was imputed the righteous acts Jesus performed 2000 years ago as if the Christian performed them. Not a single verse. Also, James is clear we are justified by works (James 2:24). Paul is also clear we are justified by works when the Holy Spirit works through our works (Romans 8:1-4; Galatians 6:7-10). Paul on “faith apart from works” would be interpreted correctly if Luther had simply accepted the rational position that every church writer understood before him including Augustine: the works which Paul says do not save are works done apart from the Holy Spirit.
@@IAmisMaster St. Paul actually asserts that God justifies the ungodly, apart from works (Rom. 4). How is it, then, that you can assert that only those who are righteous are the justward moving people? In addition, it would be tautological for St. Paul to mean "works done apart from the Holy Spirit" when referring to the ungodly being justified apart from works. So, the Apostle is better understood in consideration of Titus 3 when, very clearly, he asserts that God saved us, not because of works done by us *in righteousness*.
What are your further thoughts on this?
This is great Gavin, thanks so much!
Thanks for this!! Re your last point, I’m struck by Gregory of Nyssa’s warning:
The baptismal water may be applied to the body, but if the soul hasn’t cleansed itself from the filth of its sinful passions, and your life after baptism is no different to your life before baptism, your baptism in water was a mere experience of water and nothing else. A bold thing to say, but I won’t flinch from saying it! If this is the nature of your baptismal birth, the gift of the Holy Spirit in no way appears. How have you been changed, if your life is still distorted by anger or inflamed by greed, and the divine image in you is warped by uncontrolled and tasteless thoughts, by self-importance, resentment, arrogance? What if you still hold onto the fruits of dishonesty, and carry on committing adultery? If such vices still cling to you, I can’t see how you have been changed at all; I see the same person I saw before you were baptised.
Someone may have been washed in the bath of baptism, but what good is that, if the people he treated badly, accused wrongly, and stole from, see no difference in him? …A baptised person who is morally unchanged, and yet jabbers nonsensically about the blessing he has received from baptism, needs to hear Paul: “If a man thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Gal.6:3). If you haven’t become a thing, you are not that thing. “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become God’s sons” (Jn.1:12). Thus the Gospel speaks of the new birth. A child through its birth has the same nature as its parent. If, then, you have received God, and become a child of God, show by your attitudes that God dwells in you; exhibit in yourself the One who begot you!
The Great Catechism, ch.40
thanks, awesome quote!
“If a man claims to be converted, and continues to be just as mean, spiteful and snobbish as he was before, we may rightly suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary.”
CS Lewis
Your taking that letters out of context, in fact prior to that texts, St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly mentioned that Baptism is a spiritual birth[or regeneration], here's the quote that you did not include:
"Baptism is a spiritual birth, but he who is born by spiritual birth must recognize by whom he is born and what kind of creature he must become. In physical birth, those who are born owe their life and existence to the impulse of their parents, but the spiritual birth is in control of the one who is being born. It is the only birth where we can choose and determine what kind of beings we are to become.
Now it is evident to everyone that we must receive the saving birth of baptism for the purpose of growth and renewal and changing in our nature …"
Take note that he called it[Baptism] as
1.) Spiritual birth.
2.) Saving birth.
Don't take the letters out of context.
In addition with, St. Gregory of Nyssa mentioned again on his writings titled "ON THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST"
"...Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration..."
This is evidently clear that St. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't support the Baptist doctrine of Baptism.
The words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, a Catholic Bishop, are very Catholic. If one is baptized yet continues in mortal sin, the gift of baptism - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace is lost. There is no blessing as the blessing (gift) was lost. The physical act of baptism without the conversion of heart does nothing.
This is so hype! would love to listen through a podcast, so Imma have to come back to this vid.
putting it up on the podcast now...
@@TruthUnites let's goooooo! Thanks for all you do!!!
@@WilliamFAlmeida its up!
@@TruthUnites got it on Spotify now... thanks so much!
Appreciate your gentle approach to difficult topics. This is a something that has been extremely perplexing for me as the Bible seemingly points in both directions at times. Your analysis and especially the graduation analogy has given me some peace about this. My brothers and I are about to read Finding the Right Hills to Die On together and finding your UA-cam channel has me pumped to read your books!
That’s awesome Sam! Thanks for the kind words and I really hope you enjoy the books
I believe that one of the reasons why there is much confusion over baptism, is because most people have jumbled together baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit. These are two separate and distinct occasions for the Christian, and only one of these does the Scripture call a "sealing". Namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Yes! Thank you for this excellent point!
the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place with the indwelling presence that follows baptism. There is only ONE baptism per scripture, and it is water baptism as seen in the eunuch and Phillip conversion, several things happen in water baptism; sins are forgiven, the indwelling of the HS takes place. regeneration as a new person since the sins are removed and you start over as a child. GOD makes all these changes, the wat
er makes none of them. It is just the time and place.
@@timbabb5348
Hello again Tim. Hope you are well.
I know we discussed this topic at length previously.
Let me ask you:
How are we Justified (Made right/ righteous) with God?
I think this question relates to the topic at hand
No, they're the same thing
@@natanventura4995
What are the same thing? Baptism of the Spirt and water Baptism?
If so, can you please explain Acts 10 ?
Pastor Ortlund I have on several occasions, because I have e few relatives that are Church of Christ, had discussions on baptismal regeneration and the Biblical truth of Grace alone by Faith alone. I’m a fairly new Christian, 14 years, Praise Jesus, and have been drawn to apologetics,namely the various differences in the way the Bible has been interpreted. Thank you for your Biblical and logic based teaching.
Interesting. I believe in baptismal regeneration, in the sense that it is part of the salvation process, but I do not believe that if someone genuinely repent of their sins, and believes on the Lord Jesus and dies of a heart attack 30 minutes later before they come to the understanding, or have the opportunity for baptism that they would be lost. If someone were to refuse to take on the name of the Lord Jesus and baptism after they are illuminated, I would be very concerned, but some people are just confused. I definitely believe God is working in baptism for sure, but I definitely do not go, so far as the church of Christ does.
Rewatched this - super helpful, thanks again.
Had trouble getting my 4 year old to agree to a nap (she’s sick), starting playing this video and she was snoring in minutes! Haha so you helped us both
A heart-felt thanks to you brother Gavin, for being an honest searcher. Your thoughts echo that which has also been written by George R. Beasley-Murray's book "Baptism in The New Testament"
Thanks, Gavin. That's a great quote of Henry Lawrence at 9:47 and your comment on that - "so if we were to take a distinction here between the grace by which god brings us into a state of salvation and the grace by which god nourishes and strengthens and furthers us in our salvation the baptist tradition puts baptism in the latter category"
28:18. Gideon Lazar who is a Roman Catholic who debated Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers on evolution brought up that there were ECFs who did not believe in water baptismal salvation for the causation of salvation.
As a former Roman Catholic, I had not heard that before, and I had not read of any examples of this, until I heard it here. It was helpful hearing that you can find examples from Justin Martyr in the second century to Cyril of Jerusalem well into the fourth century. Do you have any other examples like this, or know where to find them?
I think where the early church really swayed on this issue, particularly in the west is that when we read the book of Acts, generally when someone came to Faith, they were immediately baptized, nearly always the same day. I can see where this eventually led those in the early church to believe and conflate that water baptism regenerates a person to salvation BECAUSE it was done on the same day. This is a non sequitur though and cannot be deduced from the text.
Thanks for this, and Merry Christmas to you and your family, Dr Ortlund!
Thanks Steve, and Merry Christmas!
AYOO CHURCH OF CHRIST MENTIONED🙌🏻🚨‼️🗣️🗣️🗣️
Thank you for this, brother!
I really enjoyed this! I attend a Baptist church, although personally, I've never been fully settled on exactly what that it means or who should be baptized. I really enjoy listening what you have to say about it! You're extremely thoughtful and careful, and you don't just ignore history on the subject. I would love to hear some thoughts sometime about the mode of baptism. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling, leaning backwards, leaning forwards, words of institution, etc. That's a lot, but I love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks! I will consider those subjects for future videos!
People should be immersed for baptism, as that is what was done in Scripture. The Greek used for believer's baptism in Scripture is always Baptizo (to immerse), and never Rhantizo (to pour/sprinkle). Rhantizo does exist in Scripture, but never in regards to believer's baptism. Thus, the proper way to baptize is by immersion. Those that pour/sprinkle are incorrect.
Leaning backwards or forwards, dunking numerous times, and whatever wording is to be used is subjective and not addressed in Scripture.
By the way, I find you videos excellent. Brother, keep up the good work..
Excellent! Very helpful!
Hey Dr Ortlund I’ve enjoyed your channel, keep it up. A few suggestions in regards to baptism. 1) faith and baptism in Acts seem to be closely correlated in terms or time. That’s to say no long spans of time between believing and being baptized (Ethiopian Eunuch and Jailer- Acts 8 & 16. Almost an urgency in being baptized upon faith- eunuch on the side of the road and jailer/ family in the middle of the night. 2) I hope this makes sense but Biblically I would correlate faith and baptism with the covenant rather than regeneration. Regeneration being an inner work of the Spirit whereas the language of counted righteous and signs/sealing are I believe clearly covenantal actions. 3) Abraham is justified by faith but circumcision is a necessity to remain in covenant. To refuse circumcision is to be cut off from the covenant people. 4) Paul seems to say in Ro 6, Gal 3 and Phil 2 that baptism unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection particularly. Blessings to you.
You could coherently say that the water saved Naaman, too.
The Catholic way to phrase the "baptism as seal" view would be that baptism is an actual grace that ignites and ensures the believer in the sanctifying grace of the regeneration he has already received from the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is the new circumcision Colossians 2:11. This is one of the reasons why we baptize babies at 8 days old. Circumcision was to be performed at 8 days old according to Genesis 17:10-14. Thus we baptize babies at 8 days old being that Baptism is the new circumcision.
@@timothy9360 Yes, that parallel makes sense, and we must also highlight that circumcision is the shadow but baptism is the effectual sign that unites sinners to Jesus.
@@lhinton281 baptism represents a few things really. It comes from the Jewish mikvah. The high priest was to wash in the mikvah before entering the Holy room. Being that we are all spiritual priests under the new covenant. Baptism is also the new mikvah. But it's also a way of washing away sins. Such as God sprinkling with water to wash them of their idolatry. As stated in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Baptism is also the actual birth of being born again without entering the womb. It is the representation of the womb. The physical birth out of the birth canal without going back into the womb as a grown man.
Thank you for this thoughtful, nuanced video.
I would like to address some of the points made in the video.
1) Personal experience. The word of God must be the basis for how we perceive reality, not vice versa. So, while it certainly is valuable and shouldn´t be ignored, I´d be careful with stressing personal experience too much.
2) You addressed the instances in the book of Acts. With Cornelius Peter was obviously not willing to baptize him, so God had to reverse the order. Acts 2:38 presents the general order: repent, be baptized and you will receive the Spirit. And Peter adds that this is God´s promise for as many as the Lord will call to himself. So it´s not just for that specific situation in Acts 2.
3) Baptism as the cause (or not) of regeneration. I think Colossians 2:12 answers that question. Paul says we were raised in baptism through faith (which also conclusively excludes the concept of ex opere operato and its application in pedobaptism) So faith is what makes God regenerate us, but he does so in baptism - at least in normal cases.
4) So how do we reconcile that with the personal experience of many of us? Simple, many people today don´t understand that in the NT baptism was similar to the "sinner´s prayer", it was the concrete step of committing your life of Christ. So obviously that is the step where God normally gives new life. But since God cares primarily about the heart he regenerates these insufficiently taught people prior to the normal step usually required for salvation. We are producing Cornelius experiences en masse because like Peter in Acts 10 we work with insufficient understanding. But it shouldn´t be that way if we follow the simple biblical order.
In sum, while God has grace with ignorance it shouldn´t be further encouraged and seen as the norm.
Or this from Cyril: "Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John's was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ."
Atleast some folks seem to get wet and yet continue unchanged in carnal lives with no distinct observable difference...in those cases how would one conclude to affirm fool proof baptismal regeneration?
Hello Gavin! I have that book by Stanley Flowers. It is a great book. Thanks early Baptist have a similar view to the church of christ. Especially the British Baptist. Thanks for your channel. I think that baptism is the meeting point of your faith and God uses it to wash away sin and give the Holy Spirit.
I have to say the issue of Baptism is the hardest for me to understand. Like you said in the video there are so many "exceptions" to the rule, in fact, I have only seen "exceptions" to the rule. The issue of the bible stating that faith saves. But then what do we do with "Now, baptism saves you"?
It's hard. But during the video i thought of the Eucharist. In a way, the Eucharist is salvific. Through it we are furthered in Sanctification, we are further united to Christ who is our Salvation etc. But some is obviously regenerated and justified before their first Eucharist participation.
I don't know what do you think Gavin?
Thanks for the work.
It's a great point and yes, I think that understanding baptism as a means of grace but not cause of regeneration leads to greater consistency between the two sacraments, and also greater continuity with their O.T. precursors (circumcision and the Passover).
@@TruthUnites Right, thank you for the response.
@@TruthUnites "means of grace but not cause of regeneration." But aren't we regenerated by grace? What if it's both/and: we are both regenerated through initial justification and forgiveness (counted righteous) and continually regenerated through sanctification (made righteous). Since that would mean regeneration is not a one-time-only thing, regeneration apart from baptism would not exclude baptismal regeneration (?)
@@abbyschubert5637 there are some people who define regeneration like that, but I think the more common way of understanding it, and the one I use, is that regeneration is being made alive to God. So it is a one-time act. If someone thinks that baptism is regenerative in the sense of imparting new life to the one receives it in faith and is already spiritually alive, I have no objection to that.
@@TruthUnites That helps a lot, thank you for explaining!
The question is, can a person truly believe/be saved and *_refuse_* to be Baptized? Or will Baptism always accompany true and saving faith, whenever possible?
I would think so, since growth sometimes comes to a halt. It really depends how much understanding there is. Maybe that person hears the gospel on a trip and believes but then goes back to a place where there is no church and other believers and so no more growth...
No, they cannot refuse and be saved. But that proves Gavin’s point
Matthew 16:16 JESUS SAID "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."
@@timbabb5348 consider this possibility:
By belief (faith), we are baptized with the Spirt (as also seen in Acts 10).
What if the baptism of Mark 16:16 is a baptism of the Spirt?
And note how this possibility flows with the entire verse (as your quote did not have the entire verse):
“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
Consider that an unbeliever is not baptized with the Spirit.
There is no category here for a believer who has not been baptized (with water)
I’m not saying this is any kind of certainty…just a possible way to reconcile these points.
God bless
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Are you referring to the speaking in tongues the Gentiles did for the benefit of those with Peter to convince them the gospel was for the gentiles? That "baptism" you are calling was for the benefit of someone else. Like the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost for the benefit of the listeners.
That would not be a saving "baptism of the spirit" because it wasn't for the benefit of those the Spirit fell on. It was for the benefit of others. When Ananias told Paul to "be baptized", that was not a spirit baptism, it was water baptism where God removes your sins. Paul had faith, but he was still covered in His sins.
Nowhere is a "spirit baptism" mentioned in relation to someone being saved. It was water baptism for the Ethiopian eunuch , for example. and you can't get yourself "spirit baptized", but you can get yourself water baptized. IN acts 10 Peter ordered the gentiles to be baptized so their sins could be removed and receive the Holy Spirit as in acts 2:38.
Thanks, Dr Ortlund, for another great video. As a lifelong Baptist, I have never found the arguments for infant or regenerative baptism compelling, but I confess I have sometimes wondered what the point of the whole thing is. Why be commanded to do something that doesn't actually achieve anything? And yet the thought of it achieving anything goes so strongly against our understanding of sola fide that I can't quite stomach it. I am longing for a more complete and nuanced understanding, and working through your videos is enormously helpful.
I'd love some time to hear more about the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance (growing up Baptist, I just never heard the word 'sacrament'), and also Catholic/Protestant understandings of grace. What does it mean for something to be a 'means of grace', as you say in your video? Is grace something that's doled out piecemeal, or applied to us wholesale and you're either in it or you're not? You now, just in case you don't have four or five dozen ideas queued up for your next videos already ;)
So glad the videos are helpful! Okay, cool, will consider those questions for future videos.
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@IAmisMaster The texts you’ve provided do not refute sola fide, you’ve misunderstood them. I would be happy to discuss them all with you on Discord. Let me know!
@@iQuiiKKz
What’s your discord?
@@IAmisMaster Harding (hashtag 5343)
Enjoy your videos Dr Ortlund
I havent done a deep dive, but knew I wanted to be baptised as Jesus was baptised. After Jesus' baptism, He was tempted and then began his ministry.
I like the account in Matthew 3, and kind of chuckle when I read the text "John consented" after Jesus tells John it is proper to fulfill righteousness. 😂
14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Growing up in Oneness Pentecostalism I was always told salvation is water baptism (in Jesus name) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with evidence of “speaking in tongues”. After struggling with this false doctrine God opened my eyes when reading Romans. I’m thankful but many are falling into this heresy due to lack of knowledge about it.
Hi Gavin-I’d love to dialogue about this! I’m an Anglican seminary student, and I actually started as a Baptist with the exact sacramental-Baptist view you describe (Baptism is a sign, seal, and means of grace associate with but not causative of salvation).
But here’s why I’ve come to adopt a Reformed Anglican view called Baptismal Efficacy. First, to understand the view, we need to situate this within continual justification. Contra a lot of evangelicals, it’s not the case Biblically that God justified me and forgave me once and done. God continually justifies (=regards as righteous) and continually gives me the forgiveness of sins. His continual justification (not the Roman Catholic view of making righteous, but of continually regarding me as righteous through faith) involves continually giving me the forgiveness of sins.
Baptism is situated within this sort of view. Hence, adult converts can indeed (and even, perhaps, normally) be justified, regenerated, and given the Spirit prior to their baptism. That doesn’t negate the reality that God continually justifies (=forgives sins and regards me as righteous), and even continually regenerates (=sustains me in being as a new creation). In this context, Baptism is God’s visible and public way of justifying and causing the forgiveness of sins. Although he is always doing that, in Baptism God does this visibly in and through the waters by the Spirit and Word. So just because Baptism causes the forgiveness of sins does not mean that Baptism necessarily (or even normally for adult converts) does so for the first time. Rather, it’s part of his economy of continual justification; in Baptism, God visibly and publicly forgives and makes visible his act of continual justification.
That makes best sense pastorally (of the cases you describe), and with the language of the New Testament (“as many as are baptized have put on Christ”, United to Christ *by* Baptism, etc).
And that means that Baptism is the objective and visible way we know ourselves to be in Christ. I can always look to my Baptism, and because God objectively and visibly adopts and justifies those Baptized, I can know that he did so for me-even if I had been justified prior to Baptism (or if I hadn’t been!). Because justification is continual, and because Baptism is God’s visible and objective way of justifying and forgiving, many if not most adults might be justified prior to Baptism and yet visibly and objectively receive their adoption in Baptism.
@@anglicanaesthetics Lutheran here. I love the Anglican Luther Scholar Dr. Phillip Cary. His explanation of Lutheran/Anglican baptismal theology vs radical protestants is second to none.
@@anglicanaesthetics isn't this similar to Dr Gavin saying that baptism is the visible seal strengthening and confirmation of being made spiritually alive .
@@aajaifenn It is! But I'd add something more. It's causative of the forgiveness of sins and of justification--the visible cause of those things. As I've argued above, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's the first cause/causative "of the initial obtaining" of justification and forgiveness (though it can be), but it's nevertheless causative of justification and forgiveness.
@@anglicanaesthetics agree totally but as long as it is not the first cause necessarily of the initial obtaining of justification and forgivness , then I think Dr Gavin would also be in agreement . In his debate with Dr Cooper I think he stated that he agreed that baptism conveys forgivness of sins to the recepient who has faith .
I would love to watch a discussion on this topic with a Church of Christ member. Aaron Gallagher from GBN will happily do a video with you to discuss.
I don't know why Protestants have such a hard time arguing about the Sacrament of Baptism and its necessity for salvation. The Scriptures are very clear on this subject.
Baptism is God's most beautiful gift. It is not a "work" that some Christians say.
Baptism is called the "washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit" for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God ( Titus 3: 5. John 3:5 ) How much clearer do you want ?
By Baptism all sins are forgiven, the stain of original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God , neither Adam's sin, not personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is eternal separation from God.
Born with a fallen human nature, and tainted by original sin, children also have need of rhe new birth of Baptism to be freed from the power of the darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all of us are called (Col 1: 12-15 ) The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christ said: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you."(*John 15:5); the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (*Titus 3:5) is not synonymous with water Baptism, although full immersion water Baptism IS commanded of ALL believers, AFTER they have believed (*Mark 16:16 & Acts 8:36-37) The Apostle Paul also seems to use a different phrase in Ephesians to describe the same process "washing of regeneration" mentioned in Titus; Ephesians 5:26 refers to that process as: "...the washing of water by the word".
Consider the repentant thief next to Christ's cross; he was assured entry into paradise without ever being baptised. Be careful that you aren't teaching that a Baptism WITHOUT authentic faith saves (*real faith that saves is itself a gift of God and does not have a human origin, a faith that saves "is the substance of things hoped for" and is not mere mental agreement with certain doctrines), and Baptism WITHOUT real faith saves no one.
"Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved."- Luke 8:11-12
(*note- Christ's words in the above verse clearly indicate that the person would be saved by believing the Word that the Sower has sown in their heart, which is specifically what the devil prevents in this particular context that Christ describes).
"So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."- Acts 2:41
(*note- that only those who received his word, that is specifically the Word of God, spoken through Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit, were baptised; those who received his word were the same ones who authentically believed it at first, prior to baptism, also see Acts 2:44)
"Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."- James 1:18
"For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."- 1 Peter 1:23
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast."- Ephesians 2:8-9
"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17
Abraham, Issac and Jacob and all the Old Testament Prophets will all be in the Kingdom of God, according to Christ (*Luke 13:28), and they were not water baptised; consider the context of John 3:5; Nicodemus had just asked Christ about if he had to go back into his mother's womb to be born a second time, and then, in that context, Christ answers "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Therefore in this context, Christ may be referring to the waters of natural birth (* first, "born of water") and then a spiritual second birth afterward ("born of the Spirit").
Also, in the Old Testament, David's son who died was not baptised, and he died before being circumcised (*which some people think is an OT type of baptism), but David had the assurance that he would see his son again (*in Heaven and/or in Abraham's bosom, the place of safety that was in Sheol, prior to Christ's death) : "I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”- 2 Samuel 12:23
NEWSFLASH:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about!
The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE!
The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself!
In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present!
That said, Jesus declared:
"You will know them by their FRUIT"!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" !
Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption!
Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence!
Here are just some samples for starters--
Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮
Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries!
Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city.
He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave!
Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope!
During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions!
Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight!
Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮
In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III.
Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly!
Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him!
Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent!
He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing!
Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'!
Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484!
Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times!
But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes!
Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them!
Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV,
known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism!
Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮
Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city!
Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History!
In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on!
Indeed, it's undeniably endless!
In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮
Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
I definitely do not believe that infants who die go to hell. Neither do I believe that anyone goes to hell who has repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, but the cause of a tragedy, or whatever the case was not able to get to the water. Compare Romans, four versus 11 and following with Colossians two versus 11 and Follow. However, I am definitely a baptismal effectual list. I believe that the Lord can work in someone before baptism into Jesus Christ, but even if regeneration happens through the word, there is a further work done in baptism, and it certainly has to do with remission/forgiveness of sins, act 2:38, 22:16, and I do not believe it is merely symbolic, but if appropriated through repentance and faith, Mark 16:16, act 2:38, 8-37:39, 16-31:33, Brings about change/deliverance/freedom/forgiveness/cleansing of conscience/spiritual, circumcision, etc. Act 2:38 is the whole package and everyone needs it. Certainly the Lord can give the Holy Spirit before baptism, act 10-404:48, but that does not eliminate the necessity of baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus For those who have understanding and opportunity.
Gavin, I'm a Baptist Christian, too.
I watched all of the videos related to baptism between you and Dr. Cooper. I’m reformedish so I suppose I’m defaulted into not agreeing with baptismal regeneration. But I’ve found the subject so interesting and don’t really have a strong opinion either way yet. I’ve appreciated the depth into which you’ve talked about it.
Glad the topic is of interest and God bless you as you study!
Ditto.
I think Mr. Coopers argumentation is stronger and more biblical. If you just look at the verses on babtism lutheran view is much more biblical. Regeneration, forgiveness of sins, salvation, putting on Christ. These are few of the biblical images of babtism
Im not interested in debating but more so seeking advice. How would one go about telling their southern baptist pastor that they are going to convert to Catholicism? My wife and kids will still be attending the southern baptist church. Any advice would be appreciated
Why not Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East?
@@Mygoalwogel im convinced of the papacy purgatory and the differences between mortal and venial sin. I know the orthodox have a very rich history but im not really looking to debate. I was hoping to get some advice on my situation and i figured a baptist pastor would be a good person to ask
Whew...Relatable...
I honestly can't see how one goes to Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy. If you are going to accept that much doctrinal development, maybe choose the church whose last 5 leaders aren't manifest heretics.
NEWSFLASH:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about!
The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE!
The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself!
In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present!
That said, Jesus declared:
"You will know them by their FRUIT"!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" !
Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption!
Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence!
Here are just some samples for starters--
Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮
Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries!
Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city.
He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave!
Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope!
During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions!
Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight!
Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮
In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III.
Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly!
Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him!
Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent!
He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing!
Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'!
Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484!
Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times!
But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes!
Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them!
Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV,
known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism!
Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮
Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city!
Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History!
In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on!
Indeed, it's undeniably endless!
In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮
Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
Hello, Gavin! I Absolutely love your videos. All of your videos are a part of my education as a current college student, I make sure I don't miss one. I really appreciate the ministry you do.
I was curious if you could tell me what you take speaking in tongues to be. You mentioned it a couple of times this video. Is it glossolalia or xenolalia? Or is it both at different times? I'm attending a Christian Charismatic college that heavily emphasizes the practice of speaking in tongues in the glossolalic sense, but I'm unsure if that's even Scriptural. Perhaps you would need to devote a later video to this topic to cover it or maybe you have an existing one I don't know of. Regradless, I'd love to know what you think of the matter. Thanks (:
Thanks a lot John! Maybe I could address that in my upcoming triage series. Thanks!
Thank you for this video! I learned a lot by watching it.
Do you have a discussion video with the Church of Christ about baptismal regeneration? Wanna watch it.
Why does nobody look at the story of Zacchaeus in talks of Baptism? Jesus told him “today, salvation has come to this house.”
He didn’t say to hurry up and get in the water. He didn’t say Salvation came when you got baptized. He said “today”.
Good video Gavin - I found it helpful to understand your own view better (and apparently a historical Baptist view). As a touchpoint, let me refer to your discussion around the 21 minute mark regarding norms and exceptions. Before, I plunge into differences, I would hope that all Christians would agree that God is the ultimate or “principal cause” of regeneration with any other cause being secondary in some sense - I hope we can all hold that in common (I know that is the Catholic position via instrumental causes). But to get into the differences, with respect to the Sacrament of Baptism, it seems one way to put it, is that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox position is generally that water Baptism is the “normative cause” (with noted exceptions- baptism of desire, blood ) of regeneration while the your Baptist position is that Faith is the normative cause and that Baptism is normally (with plenty of exceptions) the supreme occasion of manifesting the regeneration caused by Faith. That probably boils both views down a little too quickly but UA-cam comments are no place for an extended analysis(this will be long enough).
I do think that Baptist position is a plausible reading of the NT and of the Fathers ( a little bit less so with respect to the latter ). But my defense of the Catholic/Orthodox reading is 1) I just think it better and more coherently holds together the differing uses of “saves” and the other tension points in the NT/Fathers you raise. 2) Since this is the view of all three major and ancient streams of the Church (RC, EO, OO) that itself is a significant argument for me (at the very least a “tiebreaker” ). We can add Lutherans to a large degree- with perhaps some hesitation on their part about the nuances of “cause”. I also think one should not consider this issue in isolation to the other dividing issues. Again, across all these dividing issues, I think Protestant just is not as satisfying in bringing it all together in a coherent whole as RC/EO/OO. For me, there are too many breakpoints with consistent positions (and liturgical “teaching”!!!) held by the East and West from roughly 800-1500 to have remained a Protestant. The Reformation rupture was only “necessary” if a clear heterodoxy was being taught /practiced - but for 700 years? And then taking your view of the nuanced differences between us - with such nuances was it really right to break apart the unity of the Church. Finally, and, here I am speaking as a Catholic, I also find in the Catholic Church the fullness of catholicity across time and space. And of course, all of the above amounts to being convinced the Catholic Church also has the fullness of Truth. Not the perfect truth, but the fullest Truth as we can receive in this world - we will only approach a perfect understanding of all these things in the world to come with the Beatific Vision.
You left out the Assyrian Church of the East and classical Anglicanism.
thank you for the thoughtful and well stated comment!
@@Mygoalwogel sure . Thanks
Hi Gavin, I thought this was actually a fascinating video. When I was a protestant, I had no idea that the baptists had that high a view of baptism, so I appreciate those details. I think many modern baptists could benefit from getting in touch with their roots!
As an Orthodox Christian, I subscribe to a synergistic view of regeneration, and tend to view salvation more as a process than a "one off deal". Do you think a synergistic view might impact patristic attitudes toward baptism?
Thanks Daniel! I totally agree many modern Baptists need to get in touch with their roots. Groups like the Center for Baptist Renewal are helping with that. Yes, I definitely think the synergistic view of regeneration is relevant, and has explanatory power for the some of the objections. God bless.
@@TruthUnitesDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water
Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water)
In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference
Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18.
In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
Dr. Ortlund,
Thanks for this very helpful video.
My problem (or at least perplexity) eight he Reformed view is that, though the word “seal” is used profusely, I have yet to feel I understand what it meant by the term. What does it mean to “seal” ones regeneration? What is the practical reality we are referring to here?
One problem with this vagueness, in my opinion, is that it allows contemporary Reformed Christians to slide much closer to a sign-only view than their predecessors in the Reformed tradition did without realizing it or being bothered (or at least confronted) by it.
Dr. Ortlund
I am a follower of yours and enjoy your work. I have a healthy challenge though. I do see often you defend historic Protestantism. Especially those of the Anglican and Lutheran sides against claims from the orthodox and Roman Catholics. However typically their critiques are geared primarily at historical sacramental , liturgical Protestants. Have you considered using your own tradition - baptist - key points to defend your stances ? As in can we find baptists both modern and post reformation that would share the same view points of the sacramental Protestants you often quote ?
Also what does one do with the modern baptist position ? If in practice and often in theology they reject any idea of a sacramental viewpoint on these things? Would you be willing to challenge Baptists specifically on their own historical traditions and go as far to say if they are not in line then they are truly not baptist ? Or does it mean one may have to re evaluate the Baptist tradition of today in lue of church history, Protestant history, and baptist history
Again a healthy challenge, not to combative but also a cause to pause for second
Thanks for the great question and forgive me being very brief but I am right in the middle of something at the moment: briefly, I think it is appropriate to defend a "mere Protestantism" despite being a particular kind of Protestant, just as CS Lewis defend "mere Christianity" despite being an Anglican. Of course, we cannot stay in either mere Protestantism or mere Christianity indefinitely.
@@TruthUnites thanks for the response
I made a mistake in my original comment. What I meant to say is typically critiques towards Protestantism are not towards the Anglican , Lutheran streams.
I do agree with defending Protestantism but I also agree that we have critiques within Protestantism. Most of the sacramental/ liturgical Protestants have a kinship with the catholic , orthodox and church of the east. Rather than say a baptist or Pentecostal.
So I guess more if I am wondering can we hear the voices of ancient and modern non Anglican/ Lutheran/ Moravian/ Methodists? Definitely want to know more of the historic baptist views.
According to your understanding, is it possible that Baptism itself can actually remit sin? Clement of Alexandria (among many others) seems to hold this to be the understood teaching of the Apostles. (Ref his catechetical letter on the instructor of children).
Hey Dr. Ortland! Thank you for your considered take on Baptism. To take your analogy of the ceremony a proponent of baptismal regeneration (such as myself) could take the example of engagement and marriage where the latter is more fundamental. The coming to faith could be seen as an engagement. Many times engaged (or dating) person will be referred to as son/daughter-in-law even though the marriage has not taken place. This is because there is an understanding that the marriage ceremony WILL take place. Whereas you could have a queen without coronation you won't have a married couple without the marriage ceremony. In the same way it could be said that becoming a Christian is not complete if baptism is omitted although the process might have begun. Another image might be conception and birth. You need both to have a baby.
Early church Fathers are a secondhand source. Can you really trust it??? What about people who cannot be baptized because of disabilities and medical devices being attached??? Are those people unable to be saved??? I don't think so.
I just wish people like billy graham didn’t comepletely ignore baptism right after belief when the New Testament example shows immediate baptism after belief.
I hold a view kinda like Antony R Cross and George Beassley Murray.
I am a Lutheran but struggle with this concept. Because I also see believers that are clearly regenerated prior to baptism.
I have thought about how Christ's life, death, and resurrection saved those prior to the birth of Christ. In the same way, maybe the believer is saved by baptism prior to the occurrence of the baptism. But that seems like it's about the same thing as the seal or ceiling of regeneration.
I was radically saved and it took me five years or so to get baptized. I was also sanctified throughout that time. I will admit I had a desire to get baptized that grew more and more to where I couldn’t resist.
Great video Gavin 👍
Thanks Tony!
Why is the emotion response to conversion the test of whether a person is regenerate or not?
It's not. Spiritual fruit reveals the tree. Matthew 7:15-20.
@@TruthUnites My point is that a person can have a conversion experience and be filled with enthusiasm for the faith without salvation necessarily attaching. Buddha had a profound conversion experience which significantly altered his behavior. But a Christian cannot say that Buddha's conversion experience was salvific.
I don't believe that your argument that the fathers termed other things as salvific in addition to baptism and so therefore baptism is not the cause of salvation actually works. To use an analogy:
Let's say I want to climb Mt. Everest. There is a whole chain of events which has to occur before I get to the summit. The final part of the chain is traversing the Hillary step and then climbing the remaining 300 feet to the summit. Certainly, traversing the Hillary step and climbing to the summit is not the sole cause of summiting the mountain. But if I turn back before the Hillary step, I haven't summited the mountain. So while traversing the Hillary step may not be the sole cause of summiting Everest, it is a cause. And you cannot get to the summit without it.
I am Catholic. I think that we should all be able to understand that the conception of the new birth happens with prevenient grace. This is when Christ through the Spirit grabs us by the hand and pulls us to His bossom. Baptism then is the new life coming to full birth where we then leave the bossom of Christ and enter into Christ. Our initial union with Christ and being brought to his bossom is through prevenient grace, and our new life IN Christ is through baptism. This is why the doorway into Christ was opened in his side, where blood and water flowed out
Hello Gavin, you quote Acts 9:17-18 as if it showed that Paul had received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, however it just says he received his sight then. Any comments to that? Thanks!
I think you've convinced me to change my mind.
Author: Ron Graham
Baptism and the Greek Word “eis”
-What does the word mean?
This lesson is a study of the argument about the Greek word εις (eis). The question we answer is as follows: In Acts 2:38, does the Greek word εις mean (1) “in order to receive”, or does it rather mean (2) “because you have received”?
Here's the text: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for [εις] the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' " (Acts 2:38).
The little word εις
The English word “for” in the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" translates the original Greek word εις.
εις -is usually pronounced “ice” or “ees”.
εις -is usually translated “into”, “unto”, or “for”.
The Argument on εις and Baptism
The argument regarding baptism says that, in Acts 2:38, the phrase "for [εις] the forgiveness of sins" means “because of the forgiveness of sins”. So the passage is made to say, "Repent and be baptised because of the forgiveness of sins".
This supposedly puts forgiveness before baptism, so that First one is forgiven by God and saved, and because of that, one is then baptised.
But why couldn't Peter mean that the forgiveness of sins is on offer and because of that, repent and be baptised to receive it? That would put repentance and baptism back before forgiveness, where they belong. Forgiveness by grace is the prospect; repentance and baptism (among other things) lead a person into that prospect.
1 Repentance and Baptism
Notice that Peter does not speak of baptism only, but also of repentance. "Repent and be baptised..." (Acts 2:38). If the argument is correct that forgiveness is granted before baptism, then forgiveness is also granted before repentance. But the scriptures say that one must repent before forgiveness is granted.
On another occasion, Peter said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19).
Peter did not say, “Repent and return because your sins have been be blotted out.” He said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out". Peter put repentance before forgiveness. He made repentance a condition of forgiveness.
And if Peter has put repentance before forgiveness, that's where he has also put baptism, because he gave both repentance and baptism the same relationship to forgiveness viz "Repent and be baptised... for [εις] the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38).
He clearly didnt read the entirety of Cyril's lecture... "*If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation;* except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. "
Good point.
Yet, the RCC does not teach water baptism, nor baptism by blood to be the only method. As from Cyprian, it was very common for the fathers to refer to a second baptism-that of blood (martyrology)-and such the RCC today affirms a baptism of blood (against Feeneyism). In a similar manner, the RCC also affirms baptism of desire (or of breath) in the CCC: “[f]or catechumens who die before their [water] Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.” I’m not sure if it’s quite right to point this as an internal critique, however, I think it can claim that the thing signified (i.e., regeneration) with the sign to come (water baptism) can be and was seen as satisfied by this baptism by desire (in which the fathers can portray it). That would lead to Cyprian’s quote vs water baptism as an issue of equivocation (see how I added “water” in CCC quote for clarity). Lutherans, for example, affirm all 3 forms of baptismal efficacy, following the tradition of the Fathers and scripture. While they also don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, I say only to point that these formulae aren’t only in RCC. Still, this thought can be applied to Reformed Baptist theology or other Protestant theology’s the same way. That is, the thing signified is efficacious with water baptism to follow. God Bless!
@@ckwachsmuth This is an exception not a rule. Hopefully you will not die before being baptized. If you neglected to be baptized by your own volition, you put your own soul in jeopardy because it is a command by God.
@@truthnotlies I actually would agree with what you said there. It doesn’t seem to be logically inconsistent with my argument at all. Happy Thanksgiving!
@@ckwachsmuth it cannot be applied in the same way to Baptists or Lutheran because the very key difference would be baptismal regeneration.
As usual, this discussion on a complex issue is very insightful. It is disappointing, however, that Acts 8 was not discussed. I would love to hear a response to the following passage.
“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 8:14-17 KJV
This point is even more clear in modern translations.
You should check out "Signed, Sealed, and Delivered" by Bishop Ray Sutton. I think it will answer a lot of your questions (and I believe, misunderstandings).
Gavin the Catholic tradition and dogma doesn't demand that Baptism is the normative means in the sense of statistics. Plenty of us Catholic theologians believe that adult converts are normally (ie statistically) regenerated at the moment of conversion prior to Baptism. But that doesn't mean that Baptism wasn't ordained for the purpose of conveying (ie causing) regeneration, especially since it's intended (although you disagree) to be given to infants, none of whom can be regenerated prior to Baptism (since they can't experience conversion as infants). And since the majority of Christians through history have been Baptized as infants, there is a sense in which Baptism regenerates "normatively" in the sense of statistically . But yes, the vast vast majority of what you affirm and argue is already part of the Catholic dogma.
Where is there a single example in the Bible of an infant being baptised? (*effectively, it seems you may be implying, that people can be saved without faith and without hearing the Word of God; if you are saying that, then, that is unbiblical).
Also, infants of course have a fallen nature, but I believe there is an age of accountability for each person (*only God knows exactly what time that is for each person); in which, a person finally knows enough and is mature enough to be accountable for their own sinful actions (*see Isaiah 7:15-16). Humans are born in the flesh with their inherited sin nature, from Adam, but I believe there may enough evidence to show that a person's spirit is not dead initially (*the Scripture calls infants and children "innocent"; see Psalm 106:37-38) , and therefore, dosent require the new birth (*the reviving of their spirit) until after they have sinned (*when someone's spirit is cut off from God) when or after, they have reached the age of accountability; "The soul who sins is the one who will die..." (*Ezekiel 18:20b) Therefore King David had the assurance that he would be with his son again, who was not baptised, and who had died prior to being circumcised, since the child did not live until the eighth day (*see 2 Samuel 12:23)
@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 There are household baptisms in scripture. And the assured salvation of infants who die apart from baptism is irrelevant - they are saved by the grace of God, given the graces of faith and baptism at death, which if they remained alive, and not baptized, they would grow up without.
I’ll be honest, for years now I thought my view of baptism was in the serious minority because I was baptist yet I had always described baptism as the “seal” or “objectification” of salvation and not the cause. I always was comfortable with baptism saving, yet in all my church contexts they always said baptism does not save. I thought maybe I should be Lutheran at a point since they believed in baptismal regeneration but were Protestant, yet I didn’t believe it regenerated or in baptizing babies. I was confused. It’s good to know that I am not alone and this is the historic view of my denomination.
What if someone believes but is not baptised?
I believe that person is still saved, because salvation occurs when you believe, not when you get baptised.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
John 5:24
@@JosefFurg1611 That person is an oxymoron. Do they not believe the words of Jesus and the Holy Ghost when They say to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins? What then do they believe in? The idea of Jesus? What if Abraham believed God but didn't try to sacrifice his son? Would he still be justified? Would he still be called the Friend of God?
Mark 16:16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved* ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 2:37-42 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
I’ve found that the best question to ask with those that believe in baptismal water regeneration is,
“does baptism by water cause a renewed mind?”
It just seems contrary to scripture...
Romans 4:9-11 NKJV - Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also...
Basic understanding of what God tells us in scripture and everything He reveals to us shows us we are saved by faith. Your faith is accounted to you as the righteousness of Christ through His death on the cross. Because we believe we do what He says. We are children of promise as sons of Abraham, saved by faith. All who are justified are being sanctified. Because we are justified, we do what He tells us to do!
Paul doesn't go out of his way to tell us we aren't saved by jumping though this physical hoop to now tell us to jump through another physical hoop in order to be saved.
Christ gives us LIVING water! The Holy Spirit! 🙏
I think many proponents of baptismal regeneration would be happy to say that for a baptist minister, spiritual regeneration apart from baptism is the norm.
They'd say though that is because of the Baptist practice of only administering the sacrament of baptism to those who've heard, understood, and accepted the word of God preached to them.
However, since most people both today (at least I think-perhaps I'm wrong) have not become Christians this way, but instead became Christians when their parents had them baptized as infants, we can still say that it's baptism which is the ordinary means of regeneration.
aside from the teaching of the church Fathers, is there anywhere in scripture where baptism is made more than a credo symbol?
So, I guess Paul in Romans 6 is wrong when he says we died with Christ, were buried with Christ and raised with Christ in baptism, I guess he was wrong. He must have been wrong when in Gal.3:26-27 where he says we were clothed with Christ in baptism. Were the people in Acts 2 forgiven before Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? If baptism is irrelevant, why did Jesus command it in Matt.38:18-20? It’s pretty plain when He says to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and H.S.. All through Acts you have every conversion connected with baptism. Yes, there are some differences in Acts 8 and 10 but we’re talking about Samaritans (half-breeds by Jewish standards) and unclean Gentiles in Acts 10! Those were two exceptions where God made a point so that the Jewish brothers would know God had accepted these two groups.
I understand your point but you seem to care more about the church fathers and later thinkers and less about what Scripture says. Btw, Paul says Israel was baptized when they went through the Red Sea being surrounded by water. Baptism is the place where the sinner comes into contact (spiritually) with the blood of Christ. The change of heart begins with faith and repentance and is consummated in the act of baptism as Paul describes in Rom. 6. Baptism is the shared experience of believers and is intended that we remember it. 58 years later, I still remember Feb 14, 1965 like it was yesterday! Was God at work on my heart prior to that date? Absolutely! But the act of faith was consummated on that date! No, baptism is NOT a work! It is an act of humble submission received in faith!
Thanks Dr. Ortlund. Some questions I would ask is, if todays Baptists/Baptist beliefs on this topic are not representative of historical baptist beliefs on it, how/who are we as laity to follow in our understanding? Why have the historical Baptist beliefs on baptism dissolved into todays symbolism that is widely proclaimed? Why does something so basic to the faith such as baptism not have a unified understanding in Baptist denomination when all baptists through time would claim that their beliefs are purely based on the truth in scripture alone?
In full disclosure: I say this as someone who grew up very nominally Baptist and my adult/sincere Christian life has been in Baptist and reformed circles but openly say that I have been exploring more orthodox and catholic theology over the past year.
Thank you for the sincerity, genuineness and humble heart with which you approach your ministry. It is a phenomenal example to emulate and I have benefited greatly.
Find a good Reformed Baptist church, they are more likely to teach spiritual presence and the sign/seal.
@ then I am just the ultimate authority, not scripture, but my interpretation of scripture.
@@jambangoni You could say the same about every denomination.
@ sort of. But to help discern, you can examine the early church and the history of doctrines through time.. even if find a Baptist church that believes in real presence, then when does he become present? How does he become present? Does he leave if you throw away the elements?..when you look back through the early church you can start to answer all of this..Authority was given to a particular body and that body has passed the authority down over time. It’s the Catholic Church.
@@jambangoni I’m curious, as Catholics can never answer me this question, if your faith is the true faith then why does the OT books you hold to (Apocrypha) have errors?
“Judith claims Nebuchadnezzar reigned from Nineveh (Judith asserts Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, ruling from Nineveh). The problem Catholic apologists face is that the historical and Biblical evidence does not bear these claims out. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylon, and did not rule from Nineveh.” -James Swan.
Judith 1:1 (RSVCE): In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana-
Thank you for this!! Very helpful. I have a question though. Would you consider church of Christ as brothers?
I wonder if the language of 'causation' may be a little biased or unhelpful. I wouldn't say preaching is the cause of regeneration, but it may be the tool God uses to bring regeneration about. Would this not be analogously the BR view? Viewing regeneration partially as a process (which Baptists tend not to) may also be of some limited use to bridge the gap of understanding.
How about a distinction between justification, the act in which we are acquitted of guilt, and regeneration, the act of the spirit of God, making us new creations? You could also say that it repentance and faith we are justified, declared, or given, imputed, righteousness, credited to us, and regeneration, imparted righteousness?
My personal baptism experience is somewhat unusual. I came to faith when I was 9 & immediately knew I was made right with God by faith. But I wasn't baptized until I was about 15 once I knew & understood its significance. It was an important experience and more than merely symbolic. But at the same time, I know that I was "saved" at 9 and began to follow Jesus at that moment.
With that experience, it's hard for me to accept either baptismal regeneration (since I experienced regeneration long before water baptism) or paedobaptism (as understanding is a key part of the act) as the best practices in light of Scripture.
Just wanted to share my story.
Where can I find the thing about 1. Peter in the Jordan Cooper dialogue? Does anybody have a time stamp?
This is helpful and balanced but I’m still unsure of what to do in my situation. We go to a Church of Christ that believes in baptismal regeneration. We love our church family and we see the fruit in their lives but we also don’t want to go to a church that is preaching a different gospel. Are they? They do teach repentance and belief comes first. We are very close to leaving but really torn because some churches are so lax on baptism. Isn’t that just as bad? Prior to going to the COC we were in a regular bible believing church. It’s through friends we ended up here as new Christians. We’ve been involved for years now. If you have any help I would really appreciate your thoughts.
If they do not preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone you should leave.
Question to the author of this video. Is faith not the regeneration of the spirit by which we receive the Spirit and is baptism not the regeneration of the soul, by which we receive the seal and new conscience as in 1 Pet 3?
Acts 10 and 11 Cornelius was regenerated before baptism
Active faith precedes experience. "TASTE and SEE that the Lord is good." Peter said , repent and be baptized...etc.
We know for certain the Protestant traditions of Faith alone and Scripture alone, were not universal in the Church Fathers. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
NEWSFLASH:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about!
The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE!
The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself!
In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present!
That said, Jesus declared:
"You will know them by their FRUIT"!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" !
Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption!
Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence!
Here are just some samples for starters--
Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮
Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries!
Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city.
He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave!
Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope!
During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions!
Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight!
Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮
In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III.
Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly!
Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him!
Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent!
He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing!
Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'!
Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484!
Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times!
But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes!
Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them!
Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV,
known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism!
Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮
Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city!
Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History!
In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on!
Indeed, it's undeniably endless!
In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮
Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
@Truth Unites, in Ephesians 2, Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, and that we are raised with Christ (συνήγειρεν... ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). God accomplishes this. In the parallel passage in Colossians 2:12, Paul says that we were raised with Christ in baptism through faith (ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως). The "in which" refers to baptism. These passages speak of both faith and baptism, but Paul teaches that "in baptism" we are raised with Christ. Any thoughts on that argumentation?
Ephesians 2 is teaching we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law of Moses. That does not say you don't have to do the works Jesus commanded in the law of Christ.
@@timothy9360 True, Ephesians 2:10. I think when speaking of initial conversion/justification, we must say no works justify us, neither Mosaic nor moral.
@@lhinton281 yes but the law of Christ is necessary for salvation. Because if faith alone was true. There wouldn't be a single Bible verse, where Jesus says. "except you do __ you shall not enter heaven" faith alone should be enough to enter heaven by itself hence the ALONE. However there are about 5 to 6 verses where Jesus himself said "except you do __ you shall not enter heaven" as a protestant for 26 years I used to struggled with those verses. Because if faith alone was true then faith alone should be all that is required to enter heaven. This along with many other issues is what ultimately made me convert to Catholicism.
@@timothy9360 okay, I see. When I was a Calvinist, we had a framework to “deal” with those requirement, not to mention the warnings, etc
@@lhinton281 right I had rebuttals for days against Catholics. However they just didn't satisfy me. Sure i beat less educated Catholics in "debates" easy. But at the end of the day I knew something just didn't add up. Then when I started debating educated Catholics. I came to realize that all my arguments lack substance.
I have only recently discovered your work, particularly through your conversation with Dr. Brett Salkeld on Gospel Simplicity, and have been enjoying it. My question for you is this: If infant baptism was primarily promoted by Augustine in the West, at what point and who promoted it among the Eastern Fathers? Thanks.
Glad you are enjoying it! I see Augustine more as settling the question, not just promoting infant baptism; its definitely before him, East and West, though not universal. Lots of delaying baptism till adulthood in the 4th century. To be honest I don't know the history of the East as well after that point, sorry!
@@TruthUnites Thanks Gavin, I was just curious if you had any insight on the question? As with this and so many issues within Christianity, we tend to talk past each other or fail to understand the position of other Christians outside of our circle. As a lover of church history, it saddens me how ignorant we in the evangelical traditions are. Thanks again, Steve Bowman
One more thing. This is my second comment. In Acts, baptism is always immediate. Even with Paul, there is not just Acts 9, but Acts 22, where Paul says that Ananias told him, "What are you waiting for? Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The Didache, very early, mentions the church fasting and praying with a convert for a couple days, but that did not happen in Acts, and it was not always before the church in Acts (e.g., Philippian jailer). Baptismal regeneration may seem more scary to us now that time and tradition have us waiting a long time to be baptized. I know that what you mentioned in the video, six months of catechesis, was normal by no later than the early third century, but there was no such thing in Acts. Today, evangelicals use the "sinner's prayer" in the same way the apostles used baptism. I would say that most Baptists believe in "sinner's prayer regeneration" in exactly the same way the apostles taught baptismal regeneration.
I am so thankful for your work, you are the first person I go to so often. I am a minister at a church of Christ. Thankfully the congregation has generally been moved away from their BR roots; however, there are some of our members that still hold to it and many that visit that question us strongly. I am considering writing on this and am looking for as many good sources as I can find. There is obviously so much well done scholarship on credo v. paedo, I was wondering if you knew of any resources that would be particularly helpful to me and responding to the church of Christ adult BR position. Thanks so much.
Also, it makes no sense why an adult would be baptized unless they first had faith. Am I wrong?
And I would argue from scripture that regeneration precedes faith.
I have gone through these baptism videos multiple times, so forgive me if I’m commenting again. I think perhaps a distinction between justification and regeneration may be in order. I also do not necessarily believe that regeneration, or the new birth is instantaneous. Basically, full fledge initiation into Christianity in the new testament times was repentance, faith in the gospel, baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Spirit, acts 2:38, 8-12:16, 19-1:6, Romans, 34, five and six, chapter 8, etc. we can see this pattern in Hebrews six -1: three. It is not that someone could not go to heaven whatsoever. If these four things were not completed, but something was missing in the foundation, and I believe that anyone who knowingly willingly unabatedly, refuses any of these steps with full knowledge Would be in jeopardy even though I believe justification is at the point of repentance and faith, I believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the meeting place of Grace and faith. I like the language of sign and seal, and I also believe that it doesn’t work within. I believe that it gets sin out of the soul so to speak and it cleans us up. Not that we are not forgiven in the justifying sense, but baptism demonstrates this, and it is a bath and the burial. A great book by a man by the name of David Pawson is called “the normal Christian birth. “Everyone should get it I may not totally and completely agree with absolutely everything, but I think he has some marvelous insights into how Christians should be initiated, and how they should be caught up if they have missed any of these things in their foundation. I also believe that water baptism is the act in which we steal the covenant and it is like an under circumcision, though I am not by any means a Pedo Baptist, so that is not where I’m going, but I do believe it is like new covenant official circumcision. If you compare act 2:38 with Romans 6-3:6, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2-11, and following, I think it has some great insights into the remission of sins. Sorry for the typos as I have no vision and I’m dictating this to Siri and don’t want to start over. Lol.
1 Peter 3:21 seems that it may actually be against baptismal regernation if "the removal of dirt from your flesh" can be taken to mean the process of being submerged in water.
what if I consider, faith itself as a metonym?